Efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with its components given alone: Results of a phase 3, open-label, randomised, 26-week, treat-to-target trial in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: A fixed-ratio combination of the basal insulin analogue insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue liraglutide has been developed as a once-daily injection for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to compare combined insulin degludec-liraglutide (IDegLira) with its components given alone in insulin-naive patients. METHODS: In this phase 3, 26-week, open-label, randomised trial, adults with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c of 7-10% (inclusive), a BMI of 40 kg/m(2) or less, and treated with metformin with or without pioglitazone were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to daily injections of IDegLira, insulin degludec, or liraglutide (1\ub78 mg per day). IDegLira and insulin degludec were titrated to achieve a self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose concentration of 4-5 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment, and the main objective was to assess the non-inferiority of IDegLira to insulin degludec (with an upper 95% CI margin of 0\ub73%), and the superiority of IDegLira to liraglutide (with a lower 95% CI margin of 0%). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336023. FINDINGS: 1663 adults (mean age 55 years [SD 10], HbA1c 8\ub73% [0\ub79], and BMI 31\ub72 kg/m(2) [4\ub78]) were randomly assigned, 834 to IDegLira, 414 to insulin degludec, and 415 to liraglutide. After 26 weeks, mean HbA1c had decreased by 1\ub79% (SD 1\ub71) to 6\ub74% (1\ub70) with IDegLira, by 1\ub74% (1\ub70) to 6\ub79% (1\ub71) with insulin degludec, and by 1\ub73% (1\ub71) to 7\ub70% (1\ub72) with liraglutide. IDegLira was non-inferior to insulin degludec (estimated treatment difference -0\ub747%, 95% CI -0\ub758 to -0\ub736, p<0\ub70001) and superior to liraglutide (-0\ub764%, -0\ub775 to -0\ub753, p<0\ub70001). IDegLira was generally well tolerated; fewer participants in the IDegLira group than in the liraglutide group reported gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 8\ub78 vs 19\ub77%), although the insulin degludec group had the fewest participants with gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 3\ub76%). We noted no clinically relevant differences between treatments with respect to standard safety assessments, and the safety profile of IDegLira reflected those of its component parts. The number of confirmed hypoglycaemic events per patient year was 1\ub78 for IDegLira, 0\ub72 for liraglutide, and 2\ub76 for insulin degludec. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (2%) of 825 patients in the IDegLira group, eight (2%) of 412 in the insulin degludec group, and 14 (3%) of 412 in the liraglutide group. INTERPRETATION: IDegLira combines the clinical advantages of basal insulin and GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment, resulting in improved glycaemic control compared with its components given alone

Body mass index and complications following major gastrointestinal surgery: a prospective, international cohort study and meta-analysis.

AIM: Previous studies reported conflicting evidence on the effects of obesity on outcomes after gastrointestinal surgery. The aims of this study were to explore the relationship of obesity with major postoperative complications in an international cohort and to present a meta-analysis of all available prospective data. METHODS: This prospective, multicentre study included adults undergoing both elective and emergency gastrointestinal resection, reversal of stoma or formation of stoma. The primary end-point was 30-day major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grades III-V). A systematic search was undertaken for studies assessing the relationship between obesity and major complications after gastrointestinal surgery. Individual patient meta-analysis was used to analyse pooled results. RESULTS: This study included 2519 patients across 127 centres, of whom 560 (22.2%) were obese. Unadjusted major complication rates were lower in obese vs normal weight patients (13.0% vs 16.2%, respectively), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.863) on multivariate analysis for patients having surgery for either malignant or benign conditions. Individual patient meta-analysis demonstrated that obese patients undergoing surgery for malignancy were at increased risk of major complications (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.49-2.96, P < 0.001), whereas obese patients undergoing surgery for benign indications were at decreased risk (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.75, P < 0.001) compared to normal weight patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our international data, obesity was not found to be associated with major complications following gastrointestinal surgery. Meta-analysis of available prospective data made a novel finding of obesity being associated with different outcomes depending on whether patients were undergoing surgery for benign or malignant disease

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic

Aim This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Method This was an international cohort study of patients undergoing elective resection of colon or rectal cancer without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Centres entered data from their first recorded case of COVID-19 until 19 April 2020. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, postoperative SARS-CoV-2 and a comparison with prepandemic European Society of Coloproctology cohort data. Results From 2073 patients in 40 countries, 1.3% (27/2073) had a defunctioning stoma and 3.0% (63/2073) had an end stoma instead of an anastomosis only. Thirty-day mortality was 1.8% (38/2073), the incidence of postoperative SARS-CoV-2 was 3.8% (78/2073) and the anastomotic leak rate was 4.9% (86/1738). Mortality was lowest in patients without a leak or SARS-CoV-2 (14/1601, 0.9%) and highest in patients with both a leak and SARS-CoV-2 (5/13, 38.5%). Mortality was independently associated with anastomotic leak (adjusted odds ratio 6.01, 95% confidence interval 2.58–14.06), postoperative SARS-CoV-2 (16.90, 7.86–36.38), male sex (2.46, 1.01–5.93), age >70 years (2.87, 1.32–6.20) and advanced cancer stage (3.43, 1.16–10.21). Compared with prepandemic data, there were fewer anastomotic leaks (4.9% versus 7.7%) and an overall shorter length of stay (6 versus 7 days) but higher mortality (1.7% versus 1.1%). Conclusion Surgeons need to further mitigate against both SARS-CoV-2 and anastomotic leak when offering surgery during current and future COVID-19 waves based on patient, operative and organizational risks

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field