Risk stratification by endocrinologists of patients with type 2 diabetes in a Danish specialised outpatient clinic:a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: To target optimised medical care the Danish guidelines for diabetes recommend stratification of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) into three levels according to risk and complexity of treatment. The aim was to describe the T2D population in an outpatient clinic, measure the compliance of the endocrinologists’ to perform risk stratification, and investigate the level of concordance between stratification performed by the endocrinologists and objective assessments. METHODS: A cross-sectional study with data collected from medical records and laboratory databases. The Danish risk stratification model contained the following criteria: HbA(1c), blood pressure, metabolic complications, microvascular and macrovascular complications. Stratification levels encompassed: level 1 (uncomplicated), level 2 (intermediate risk) and level 3 (high risk). Objective assessments were conducted independently by two health professionals, and compared with the endocrinologists’ assessments. In order to test the degree of concordance, we conducted Cohen's kappa, McNemar’s test for marginal homogeneity, and Bowker’s test for symmetry. RESULTS: Of 245 newly referred patients, 209 (85 %) were stratified by the endocrinologists to level 1 (16 %), level 2 (55 %) and level 3 (29 %). By objective assessments, 4 % were stratified to level 1, 51 % to level 2 and 45 % to level 3. Of 419 long-term follow-up patients, 380 (91 %) were stratified by the endocrinologists to level 1 (5 %), level 2 (57 %), level 3 (38 %). By objective assessments, 3 % were stratified to level 1, 58 % to level 2 and 39 % to level 3. The concordance rate between endocrinologists’ and objective assessments was 63 % among newly referred (kappa 0.39; fair agreement) and 67 % for long-term follow-up (kappa 0.45; moderate agreement). Among newly referred patients, the endocrinologists stratified less patients at level 3 compared to objective assessments (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in marginal distribution within long-term follow-up patients. CONCLUSION: Type 2 diabetes patients, newly referred to or allocated for long-term follow-up in the out-patient clinic, were mainly intermediate and high-risk, complicated patients (96 % and 95 %, respectively). Compliance of stratification by endocrinologists was high. The concordance between endocrinologists’ and objective assessments was not strong. Our data suggest that clinician-support for stratification level categorisation might be needed

Benefits of combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide are independent of baseline glycated haemoglobin level and duration of type 2 diabetes

AIM: To evaluate, using post hoc analyses, whether the novel combination of a basal insulin, insulin degludec, and a glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist, liraglutide (IDegLira), was consistently effective in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), regardless of the stage of T2D progression. METHODS: Using data from the DUAL I extension [insulin‐naïve patients uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), n = 1660, 52 weeks] and DUAL II (patients uncontrolled on basal insulin plus OADs, n = 398, 26 weeks) randomized trials, the efficacy of IDegLira was investigated with regard to measures of disease progression stage including baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), disease duration and previous insulin dose. RESULTS: Across four categories of baseline HbA1c (≤7.5–9.0%), HbA1c reductions were significantly greater with IDegLira (1.1–2.5%) compared with IDeg or liraglutide alone in DUAL I. In DUAL II, HbA1c reductions were significantly greater with IDegLira (0.9–2.5%) than with IDeg in all but the lowest HbA1c category. In DUAL I, insulin dose and hypoglycaemia rate were lower across all baseline HbA1c categories for IDegLira versus IDeg, while hypoglycaemia was higher with IDegLira than liraglutide, irrespective of baseline HbA1c. In DUAL II, insulin dose and hypoglycaemia rate were similar with IDegLira and IDeg (maximum dose limited to 50 U) independent of baseline HbA1c. The reduction in HbA1c with IDegLira was independent of disease duration and previous insulin dose but varied depending on pre‐trial OAD treatment. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira effectively lowered HbA1c across a range of measures, implying suitability for patients with either early or advanced T2D

Inability of Some Commercial Assays to Measure Suppression of Glucagon Secretion

Glucagon levels are increasingly being included as endpoints in clinical study design and more than 400 current diabetes-related clinical trials have glucagon as an outcome measure. The reliability of immune-based technologies used to measure endogenous glucagon concentrations is, therefore, important. We studied the ability of immunoassays based on four different technologies to detect changes in levels of glucagon under conditions where glucagon levels are strongly suppressed. To our surprise, the most advanced technological methods, employing electrochemiluminescence or homogeneous time resolved fluorescence (HTRF) detection, were not capable of detecting the suppression induced by a glucose clamp (6 mmol/L) with or without atropine in five healthy male participants, whereas a radioimmunoassay and a spectrophotometry-based ELISA were. In summary, measurement of glucagon is challenging even when state-of-the-art immune-based technologies are used. Clinical researchers using glucagon as outcome measures may need to reconsider the validity of their chosen glucagon assay. The current study demonstrates that the most advanced approach is not necessarily the best when measuring a low-abundant peptide such as glucagon in humans

Near-normalization of glycaemic control with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatment combined with exercise in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS: To investigate the effects of exercise in combination with a glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist (GLP‐1RA), liraglutide, or placebo for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Thirty‐three overweight, dysregulated and sedentary patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly allocated to 16 weeks of either exercise and liraglutide or exercise and placebo. Both groups had three supervised 60‐minute training sessions per week including spinning and resistance training. RESULTS: Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels dropped by a mean ± standard deviation of 2.0% ± 1.2% (from 8.2% ± 1.4%) in the exercise plus liraglutide group vs 0.3% ± 0.9% (from 8.0% ± 1.2%) in the exercise plus placebo group ( P < .001), and body weight was reduced more with liraglutide (−3.4 ± 2.9 kg vs −1.6 ± 2.3 kg; P < .001). Compared with baseline, similar reductions were seen in body fat (exercise plus liraglutide: −2.5% ± 1.4% [ P < .001]; exercise plus placebo: −2.2% ± 1.9% [ P < .001]) and similar increases were observed in maximum oxygen uptake (exercise plus liraglutide: 0.5 ± 0.5 L O(2)/min [ P < .001]; exercise plus placebo: 0.4 ± 0.4 L O(2)/min [ P = .002]). Greater reductions in fasting plasma glucose (−3.4 ± 2.3 mM vs −0.3 ± 2.6 mM, P < .001) and systolic blood pressure (−5.4 ± 7.4 mm Hg vs −0.6 ± 11.1 mm Hg, P < .01) were seen with exercise plus liraglutide vs exercise plus placebo. The two groups experienced similar increases in quality of life during the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In obese patients with type 2 diabetes, exercise combined with GLP‐1RA treatment near‐normalized HbA1c levels and caused a robust weight loss when compared with placebo. These results suggest that a combination of exercise and GLP‐1RA treatment is effective in type 2 diabetes

Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Background: Regulatory guidance specifies the need to establish cardiovascular safety of new diabetes therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes in order to rule out excess cardiovascular risk. The cardiovascular effects of semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue with an extended half-life of approximately 1 week, in type 2 diabetes are unknown. Methods: We randomly assigned 3297 patients with type 2 diabetes who were on a standard-care regimen to receive once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 mg or 1.0 mg) or placebo for 104 weeks. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. We hypothesized that semaglutide would be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome. The noninferiority margin was 1.8 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. Results: At baseline, 2735 of the patients (83.0%) had established cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or both. The primary outcome occurred in 108 of 1648 patients (6.6%) in the semaglutide group and in 146 of 1649 patients (8.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.95; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 2.9% of the patients receiving semaglutide and in 3.9% of those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; P=0.12); nonfatal stroke occurred in 1.6% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.99; P=0.04). Rates of death from cardiovascular causes were similar in the two groups. Rates of new or worsening nephropathy were lower in the semaglutide group, but rates of retinopathy complications (vitreous hemorrhage, blindness, or conditions requiring treatment with an intravitreal agent or photocoagulation) were significantly higher (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.78; P=0.02). Fewer serious adverse events occurred in the semaglutide group, although more patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal. Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes who were at high cardiovascular risk, the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was significantly lower among patients receiving semaglutide than among those receiving placebo, an outcome that confirmed the noninferiority of semaglutide. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; SUSTAIN-6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01720446.)Sin financiación72.406 JCR (2016) Q1, 1/155 Medicine, General & InternalUE

Type 2 Diabetes Patients Reach Target Glycemic Control Faster Using IDegLira than Either Insulin Degludec or Liraglutide Given Alone

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The time-course when changes in glycemic control and body weight were first manifest in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with a combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) was assessed, comparing IDegLira to its individual components. METHODS: Data from weeks 0–12 from two studies were analyzed, one comparing IDegLira to each component (DUAL I), and one comparing IDegLira to insulin degludec titrated to a maximum 50 units (DUAL II). Efficacy endpoints included glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) reduction, proportion of patients achieving HbA(1c) [<7.0 % (<53.0 mmol/mol)] and FPG (≤7.2 mmol/L) targets, and proportion achieving HbA(1c) target without hypoglycemia and without hypoglycemia and weight gain. RESULTS: Mean HbA(1c) was lower, and the proportion of patients reaching target HbA(1c) greater, with IDegLira versus comparators (both studies) at weeks 8 and 12. Proportions of patients reaching target HbA(1c) without hypoglycemia and without hypoglycemia and weight gain were higher for IDegLira versus insulin degludec, though not versus liraglutide. Mean FPG was lower with IDegLira, and the proportion achieving target FPG higher, versus components (both studies) from weeks 4–12. IDegLira was associated with mean weight reduction from weeks 4–12, although less than with liraglutide alone. Hypoglycemia occurred infrequently in weeks 0–12, with no difference in incidence between IDegLira and insulin degludec in either study. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira reduces plasma glucose to a greater extent than its components, measurable within the first 12 weeks of therapy, and without weight gain or an increased hypoglycemia risk versus insulin degludec. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40261-016-0376-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users