THE INFLUENCE OF GLYCEMIA ON SHORT-TERM PROGNOSIS IN MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION WITHOUT ANAMNESIS OF 2ND TYPE DIABETES

Aim. To estimate the impact of glycemia recorded during myocardial infarction (MI) in-patient care on short-term prognosis of patients without 2nd type diabetes mellitus (2DM).Material and methods. Totally 296 patients were prospectively investigated. According to glucose levels patients were divided into three groups: 1st with ≤4,0 mM/l (7,4%); 2nd with 4,01–7,79 mM/l (69,9%); 3rd with ≥7,8 mM/l (22,6%). The rate of glucose metabolism disorders and complications during in-hospital care were studied.Results. In 2/3 of patients with glycemia ≥7,8 mM/l at hospitalization, later the changes of glucose metabolism were found by glucosetolerance test: prediabetes (36,9%), 2DM (32,3%). In the patients of 3rd group significantly higher was the rate of 3-vessel disease (41,8%) anf MI complications: congestive left-ventricular failure — 52,2% vs 27,3% in the 1st group and 34,1% in the second (p=0,017), cardiogenic shock — 26,9% vs 4,5% and 6,8% (p<0,001), conduction disorders — 27,3% vs 9,1% and 11,7% (p=0,006), in-hospital mortality — 13,8% vs 4,5% and 4,4% (p=0,025). The risk of death in subjects with glycemia ≥7,8 mM/l was 3,48 (95% CI: 1,41–8,60) times higher than in normoglycemic (p=0,007). The glycemia was independently linked with complications of MI during in-hospital period: OR = 1,128; 95% CI: 1,005–1,266 (p=0,042), — as also with the age, severity of myocardial damage and systolic pressure at admittance.Conclusion. There was higher prevalence of MI complications and 3 times higher risk of death in patients without 2DM, but having ≥7,8 mM/l glucose (22,6% of patients) at admittance. The glycemia parameter was an independent predictor for unfavorable prognosis of MI without previous 2DM diagnosis and should be used as part of secondary prevention care

FOCUS 1: a randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, Phase III trial of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in community-acquired pneumonia

International audienc

Anti-interleukin-21 antibody and liraglutide for the preservation of β-cell function in adults with recent-onset type 1 diabetes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

Background: Type 1 diabetes is characterised by progressive loss of functional β-cell mass, necessitating insulin treatment. We aimed to investigate the hypothesis that combining anti-interleukin (IL)-21 antibody (for low-grade and transient immunomodulation) with liraglutide (to improve β-cell function) could enable β-cell survival with a reduced risk of complications compared with traditional immunomodulation. Methods: This randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-dummy, double-blind, phase 2 trial was done at 94 sites (university hospitals and medical centres) in 17 countries. Eligible participants were adults aged 18–45 years with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes and residual β-cell function. Individuals with unstable type 1 diabetes (defined by an episode of severe diabetic ketoacidosis within 2 weeks of enrolment) or active or latent chronic infections were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1), with stratification by baseline stimulated peak C-peptide concentration (mixed-meal tolerance test [MMTT]), to the combination of anti-IL-21 and liraglutide, anti-IL-21 alone, liraglutide alone, or placebo, all as an adjunct to insulin. Investigators, participants, and funder personnel were masked throughout the treatment period. The primary outcome was the change in MMTT-stimulated C-peptide concentration at week 54 (end of treatment) relative to baseline, measured via the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) over a 4 h period for the full analysis set (intention-to-treat population consisting of all participants who were randomly assigned). After treatment cessation, participants were followed up for an additional 26-week off-treatment observation period. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02443155. Findings: Between Nov 10, 2015, and Feb 27, 2019, 553 adults were assessed for eligibility, of whom 308 were randomly assigned to receive either anti-IL-21 plus liraglutide, anti-IL-21, liraglutide, or placebo (77 assigned to each group). Compared with placebo (ratio to baseline 0·61, 39% decrease), the decrease in MMTT-stimulated C-peptide concentration from baseline to week 54 was significantly smaller with combination treatment (0·90, 10% decrease; estimated treatment ratio 1·48, 95% CI 1·16–1·89; p=0·0017), but not with anti-IL-21 alone (1·23, 0·97–1·57; p=0·093) or liraglutide alone (1·12, 0·87–1·42; p=0·38). Despite greater insulin use in the placebo group, the decrease in HbA1c (a key secondary outcome) at week 54 was greater with all active treatments (−0·50 percentage points) than with placebo (−0·10 percentage points), although the differences versus placebo were not significant. The effects diminished upon treatment cessation. Changes in immune cell subsets across groups were transient and mild (<10% change over time). The most frequently reported adverse events included gastrointestinal disorders, in keeping with the known side-effect profile of liraglutide. The rate of hypoglycaemic events did not differ significantly between active treatment groups and placebo, with an exception of a lower rate in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group during the treatment period. No events of diabetic ketoacidosis were observed. One participant died while on liraglutide (considered unlikely to be related to trial treatment) in connection with three reported adverse events (hypoglycaemic coma, pneumonia, and brain oedema). Interpretation: The combination of anti-IL-21 and liraglutide could preserve β-cell function in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes. The efficacy of this combination appears to be similar to that seen in trials of other disease-modifying interventions in type 1 diabetes, but with a seemingly better safety profile. Efficacy and safety should be further evaluated in a phase 3 trial programme. Funding: Novo Nordisk

Tirzepatide versus insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes and increased cardiovascular risk (SURPASS-4): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 trial

Background: We aimed to assess efficacy and safety, with a special focus on cardiovascular safety, of the novel dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide versus insulin glargine in adults with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering medications. Methods: This open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 study was done in 187 sites in 14 countries on five continents. Eligible participants, aged 18 years or older, had type 2 diabetes treated with any combination of metformin, sulfonylurea, or sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, a baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7·5–10·5% (58–91 mmol/mol), body-mass index of 25 kg/m2 or greater, and established cardiovascular disease or a high risk of cardiovascular events. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:3) via an interactive web-response system to subcutaneous injection of either once-per-week tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or glargine (100 U/mL), titrated to reach fasting blood glucose of less than 100 mg/dL. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority (0·3% non-inferiority boundary) of tirzepatide 10 mg or 15 mg, or both, versus glargine in HbA1c change from baseline to 52 weeks. All participants were treated for at least 52 weeks, with treatment continued for a maximum of 104 weeks or until study completion to collect and adjudicate major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Safety measures were assessed over the full study period. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03730662. Findings: Patients were recruited between Nov 20, 2018, and Dec 30, 2019. 3045 participants were screened, with 2002 participants randomly assigned to tirzepatide or glargine. 1995 received at least one dose of tirzepatide 5 mg (n=329, 17%), 10 mg (n=328, 16%), or 15 mg (n=338, 17%), or glargine (n=1000, 50%), and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. At 52 weeks, mean HbA1c changes with tirzepatide were −2·43% (SD 0·05) with 10 mg and −2·58% (0·05) with 15 mg, versus −1·44% (0·03) with glargine. The estimated treatment difference versus glargine was −0·99% (multiplicity adjusted 97·5% CI −1·13 to −0·86) for tirzepatide 10 mg and −1·14% (−1·28 to −1·00) for 15 mg, and the non-inferiority margin of 0·3% was met for both doses. Nausea (12–23%), diarrhoea (13–22%), decreased appetite (9–11%), and vomiting (5–9%) were more frequent with tirzepatide than glargine (nausea 2%, diarrhoea 4%, decreased appetite &lt;1%, and vomiting 2%, respectively); most cases were mild to moderate and occurred during the dose-escalation phase. The percentage of participants with hypoglycaemia (glucose &lt;54 mg/dL or severe) was lower with tirzepatide (6–9%) versus glargine (19%), particularly in participants not on sulfonylureas (tirzepatide 1–3% vs glargine 16%). Adjudicated MACE-4 events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalisation for unstable angina) occurred in 109 participants and were not increased on tirzepatide compared with glargine (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·51–1·08). 60 deaths (n=25 [3%] tirzepatide; n=35 [4%] glargine) occurred during the study. Interpretation: In people with type 2 diabetes and elevated cardiovascular risk, tirzepatide, compared with glargine, demonstrated greater and clinically meaningful HbA1c reduction with a lower incidence of hypoglycaemia at week 52. Tirzepatide treatment was not associated with excess cardiovascular risk. Funding: Eli Lilly and Company