Update and Next Steps for Real-World Translation of Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes Prevention: Reflections From a Diabetes Care Editors’ Expert Forum

The International Diabetes Federation estimates that 415 million adults worldwide now have diabetes and 318 million have impaired glucose tolerance. These numbers are expected to increase to 642 million and 482 million, respectively, by 2040. This burgeoning pandemic places an enormous burden on countries worldwide, particularly resource-poor regions. Numerous landmark trials evaluating both intensive lifestyle modification and pharmacological interventions have persuasively demonstrated that type 2 diabetes can be prevented or its onset can be delayed in high-risk individuals with impaired glucose tolerance. However, key challenges remain, including how to scale up such approaches for widespread translation and implementation, how to select appropriately from various interventions and tailor them for different populations and settings, and how to ensure that preventive interventions yield clinically meaningful, cost-effective outcomes. In June 2015, a Diabetes Care Editors’ Expert Forum convened to discuss these issues. This article, an outgrowth of the forum, begins with a summary of seminal prevention trials, followed by a discussion of considerations for selecting appropriate populations for intervention and the clinical implications of the various diagnostic criteria for prediabetes. The authors outline knowledge gaps in need of elucidation and explore a possible new avenue for securing regulatory approval of a prevention-related indication for metformin, as well as specific considerations for future pharmacological interventions to delay the onset of type 2 diabetes. They conclude with descriptions of some innovative, pragmatic translational initiatives already under way around the world

Effects of intensive glycaemic control on ischaemic heart disease: analysis of data from the randomised, controlled ACCORD trial

The possibility that hyperglycemia accounts for the 2–3 fold higher risk of ischemic heart disease (IHD) in type 2 diabetes was explored by assessing the effect of intensive glucose lowering on IHD in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial

Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials in Type 2 Diabetes: Where Do We Go From Here? Reflections From a Diabetes Care Editors’ Expert Forum

In December 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry setting new expectations for the development of antidiabetes drugs for type 2 diabetes. This guidance expanded the scope and cost of research necessary for approval of such drugs by mandating long-term cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) for safety. Since 2008, 9 CVOTs have been reported, 13 are under way, and 4 have been terminated. Reassuringly, each of the completed trials demonstrated the noninferiority of their respective drugs to placebo for their primary cardiovascular (CV) composite end point. Notably, four additionally provided evidence of CV benefit in the form of significant decreases in the primary CV composite end point, two suggested reductions in CV death, and three suggested reductions in all-cause mortality. Although these trials have yielded much valuable information, whether that information justifies the investment of time and resources is controversial. In June 2016, a Diabetes Care Editors' Expert Forum convened to review the processes and challenges of CVOTs, discuss the benefits and limitations of their current designs, and weigh the merits of modifications that might improve the efficiency and clinical value of future trials. Discussion and analysis continued with the CVOT trial results released in June 2017 at the American Diabetes Association's Scientific Sessions and in September 2017 at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes scientific meeting. This article summarizes the discussion and findings to date

Nine-Year Effects of 3.7 Years of Intensive Glycemic Control on Cardiovascular Outcomes

In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, ∼4 years of intensive versus standard glycemic control in participants with type 2 diabetes and other cardiovascular risk factors had a neutral effect on the composite cardiovascular outcome, increased cardiovascular and total mortality, and reduced nonfatal myocardial infarction. Effects of the intervention during prolonged follow-up were analyzed

The effects of baseline characteristics, glycaemia treatment approach, and glycated haemoglobin concentration on the risk of severe hypoglycaemia: post hoc epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study

Objectives To investigate potential determinants of severe hypoglycaemia, including baseline characteristics, in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial and the association of severe hypoglycaemia with levels of glycated haemoglobin (haemoglobin A1C) achieved during therapy

Total cardiovascular or fatal events in people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors treated with dulaglutide in the REWIND trail:a post hoc analysis

Abstract Background The Researching cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND) double blind randomized trial demonstrated that weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 1.5 mg, a glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonist, versus matched placebo reduced the first outcome of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke (594 versus 663 events) in 9901 persons with type 2 diabetes and either chronic cardiovascular disease or risk factors, and followed during 5.4 years. These findings were based on a time-to-first-event analysis and preclude relevant information on the burden of total major events occurring during the trial. This analysis reports on the total cardiovascular or fatal events in the REWIND participants Methods We compared the total incidence of MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths, and the total incidence of expanded MACE (MACE, unstable angina, heart failure or revascularization) or non-cardiovascular deaths between participants randomized to dulaglutide and those randomized to placebo. Incidences were expressed as number per 1000 person-years. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using the conditional time gap and proportional means models. Results Participants had a mean age of 66.2 years, 46.3% were women and 31% had previous cardiovascular disease. During the trial there were 1972 MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths and 3673 expanded MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths. The incidence of total MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths in the dulaglutide and placebo groups was 35.8 and 40.3 per 1000 person-years, respectively [absolute reduction = 4.5 per 1000 person-years; conditional time gap HR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82–0.98) p = 0.020, and proportional means HR 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80–0.98) p = 0.022]. The incidence of total expanded MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths in the dulaglutide and placebo groups was 67.1 and 74.7 per 1000 person-years, respectively [absolute reduction = 7.6 per 1000 person-years; conditional time gap HR 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87–0.99) p = 0.023, and proportional means HR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82–0.99) p = 0.028]. Conclusions These findings suggest that weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide reduced total cardiovascular or fatal event burden in people with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gouv . Unique Identifier NCT01394952)

Outcomes of Combined Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes: The ACCORD Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVETo compare effects of combinations of standard and intensive treatment of glycemia and either blood pressure (BP) or lipids in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSACCORD enrolled 10,251 type 2 diabetes patients aged 40–79 years at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Participants were randomly assigned to hemoglobin A1c goals of <6.0% (<42 mmol/mol; intensive glycemia) or 7.0–7.9% (53–63 mmol/mol; standard glycemia) and then randomized a second time to either 1) systolic BP goals of <120 mmHg (intensive BP) or <140 mmHg (standard BP) or 2) simvastatin plus fenofibrate (intensive lipid) or simvastatin plus placebo (standard lipid). Proportional hazards models were used to assess combinations of treatment assignments on the composite primary (deaths due to CVD, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], and nonfatal stroke) and secondary outcomes.RESULTSIn the BP trial, risk of the primary outcome was lower in the groups intensively treated for glycemia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.50–0.91), BP (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.55–1.00), or both (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.52–0.96) compared with combined standard BP and glycemia treatment. For secondary outcomes, MI was significantly reduced by intensive glycemia treatment and stroke by intensive BP treatment; most other HRs were neutral or favored intensive treatment groups. In the lipid trial, the general pattern of results showed no evidence of benefit of intensive regimens (whether single or combined) compared with combined standard lipid and glycemia treatment. The mortality HR was 1.33 (95% CI 1.02–1.74) in the standard lipid/intensive glycemia group compared with the standard lipid/standard glycemia group.CONCLUSIONSIn the ACCORD BP trial, compared with combined standard treatment, intensive BP or intensive glycemia treatment alone improved major CVD outcomes, without additional benefit from combining the two. In the ACCORD lipid trial, neither intensive lipid nor glycemia treatment produced an overall benefit, but intensive glycemia treatment increased mortality