Once-Daily Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide as Add-on to Metformin in Type 2 Diabetes: A 26-Week Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of liraglutide versus lixisenatide as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving adequate glycemic control on metformin alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this 26-week, randomized, parallel-group, open-label trial, 404 patients were randomized 1:1 to liraglutide 1.8 mg or lixisenatide 20 µg as add-on to metformin. Liraglutide was administered once daily at any time of the day. Lixisenatide was administered once daily within 1 h prior to the morning or evening meal. RESULTS At week 26, liraglutide reduced HbA1c (primary end point) more than lixisenatide (estimated treatment difference −0.62% [95% CI −0.8; −0.4]; P < 0.0001), with more patients reaching HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) and ≤6.5% (48 mmol/mol) versus lixisenatide (74.2% and 54.6% for liraglutide vs. 45.5% and 26.2% for lixisenatide; P < 0.0001 for both). Liraglutide reduced fasting plasma glucose more than lixisenatide (estimated treatment difference −1.15 mmol/L [95% CI −1.5; −0.8]; P < 0.0001). Liraglutide provided greater reduction in mean 9-point self-measured plasma glucose (P < 0.0001). However, postprandial glucose increments were smaller with lixisenatide for the meal directly after injection compared with liraglutide (P < 0.05), with no differences between treatments across all meals. Both drugs promoted similar body weight decrease (−4.3 kg for liraglutide, −3.7 kg for lixisenatide; P = 0.23). The most common adverse events in both groups were gastrointestinal disorders. Greater increases in pulse, lipase, and amylase were observed with liraglutide. Hypoglycemic episodes were rare and similar between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS At the dose levels studied, liraglutide was more effective than lixisenatide as add-on to metformin in improving glycemic control. Body weight reductions were similar. Both treatments were well tolerated, with low risk of hypoglycemia and similar gastrointestinal adverse event profiles

Predicting Instability in Complex Oscillator Networks: Limitations and Potentials of Network Measures and Machine Learning

A central question of network science is how functional properties of systems arise from their structure. For networked dynamical systems, structure is typically quantified with network measures. A functional property that is of theoretical and practical interest for oscillatory systems is the stability of synchrony to localized perturbations. Recently, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have been shown to predict this stability successfully; at the same time, network measures have struggled to paint a clear picture. Here we collect 46 relevant network measures and find that no small subset can reliably predict stability. The performance of GNNs can only be matched by combining all network measures and nodewise machine learning. However, unlike GNNs, this approach fails to extrapolate from network ensembles to several real power grid topologies. This suggests that correlations of network measures and function may be misleading, and that GNNs capture the causal relationship between structure and stability substantially better.Comment: 30 pages (16 pages main section), 15 figures, 4 table

Report from the 5th cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) summit

The 5th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial (CVOT) Summit was held in Munich on October 24th-25th, 2019. As in previous years, this summit served as a reference meeting for in-depth discussions on the topic of recently completed and presented CVOTs. This year, focus was placed on the CVOTs CAROLINA, CREDENCE, DAPA-HF, REWIND, and PIONEER-6. Trial implications for diabetes management and the impact on new treatment algorithms were highlighted for diabetologists, cardiologists, endocrinologists, nephrologists, and general practitioners. Discussions evolved from CVOTs to additional therapy options for heart failure (ARNI), knowledge gained for the treatment and prevention of heart failure and diabetic kidney disease in populations with and without diabetes, particularly using SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. Furthermore, the ever increasing impact of CVOTs and substances tested for primary prevention and primary care was discussed. The 6th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial Summit will be held in Munich on October 29th-30th, 2020 (https://www.cvot.org)

Characteristics predicting the efficacy of SGLT-2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 receptor agonists on major adverse cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis study

Background Recent large clinical trials have demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of similar overall magnitude for sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) therapy in subjects with type 2 diabetes. We sought to identify subgroups based on baseline characteristics with a differential response to either SGLT-2i or GLP-1RA. Methods PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and EMBASE were searched from 2008 to 2022 for SGLT-2i or GLP-1RA randomized trials that reported 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (3P-MACE). Baseline clinical and biochemical characteristics included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), HbA1c, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), albuminuria, preexisting cardiovascular disease (CVD), and heart failure (HF). Absolute and relative risk reductions (ARR and RRR) regarding incidence rates for 3P-MACE with a 95% confidence interval were calculated. The association of average baseline characteristics in each study with the ARR and RRR for 3P-MACE was investigated by meta-regression analyses (random-effects model, assuming inter-study heterogeneity). Meta-analysis was also conducted to investigate whether the efficacy of SGLT-2i or GLP-1RA on 3P-MACE reduction could differ according to the patients characteristics (e.g., HbA1c above/below cutoff). Results After a critical assessment of 1,172 articles, 13 cardiovascular outcome trials with a total of 111,565 participants were selected. In meta-regression analysis, the more patients with reduced eGFR in the studies, the greater ARR by SGLT-2i or GLP-1RA therapy. Similarly, in the meta-analysis, SGLT-2i therapy tended to be more effective in reducing 3P-MACE in people with eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 than in those with normal renal function (ARR − 0.90 [–1.44 to − 0.37] vs. − 0.17 [–0.34 to − 0.01] events/100 person-years). Furthermore, people with albuminuria tended to respond better to SGLT-2i therapy than those with normoalbuminuria. However, this was not the case for the GLP-1RA treatment. Other factors including age, sex, BMI, HbA1c, and preexisting CVD or HF did not affect the efficacy of either SGLT-2i or GLP-1RA treatment on the ARR or RRR of 3P-MACE. Conclusions Because decreased eGFR [significant] and albuminuria [trend] were found to predict a better efficacy for SGLT-2i in 3P-MACE reduction, this class of drug should be preferred in such patients. However, GLP-1RA may be considered for patients with normal eGFR because it showed better efficacy than SGLT-2i in this subgroup [trend]

Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

Glycemic management in type 2 diabetes mellitus has become increasingly complex and, to some extent, controversial, with a widening array of pharmacological agents now available (1–5), mounting concerns about their potential adverse effects and new uncertainties regarding the benefits of intensive glycemic control on macrovascular complications (6–9). Many clinicians are therefore perplexed as to the optimal strategies for their patients. As a consequence, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) convened a joint task force to examine the evidence and develop recommendations for antihyperglycemic therapy in nonpregnant adults with type 2 diabetes. Several guideline documents have been developed by members of these two organizations (10) and by other societies and federations (2,11–15). However, an update was deemed necessary because of contemporary information on the benefits/risks of glycemic control, recent evidence concerning efficacy and safety of several new drug classes (16,17), the withdrawal/restriction of others, and increasing calls for a move toward more patient-centered care (18,19). This statement has been written incorporating the best available evidence and, where solid support does not exist, using the experience and insight of the writing group, incorporating an extensive review by additional experts (acknowledged below). The document refers to glycemic control; yet this clearly needs to be pursued within a multifactorial risk reduction framework. This stems from the fact that patients with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality; the aggressive management of cardiovascular

Regional differences of macrovascular disease in Northeast and South Germany: the population-based SHIP-TREND and KORA-F4 studies

Abstract Background Previous studies found regional differences in the prevalence and incidence of type 2 diabetes between Northeast and South of Germany. The aim of this study was to investigate if regional variations are also present for macrovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes and in the general population. A further aim was to investigate if traditional risk factors of macrovascular complications can explain these regional variations. Methods Data of persons aged 30–79 from two regional population-based studies, SHIP-TREND (Northeast Germany, 2008–2012, n = 2539) and KORA-F4 (South Germany, 2006–2008, n = 2932), were analysed. Macrovascular disease was defined by self-reported previous myocardial infarction, stroke or coronary angiography. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for prevalence of macrovascular disease in persons with type 2 diabetes and in the general population. Results The prevalence of macrovascular disease in persons with type 2 diabetes and in the general population was considerably higher in the Northeast (SHIP-TREND: 32.8 and 12.0%) than in the South of Germany (KORA-F4: 24.9 and 8.8%), respectively. The odds of macrovascular disease in persons with type 2 diabetes was 1.66 (95% CI: 1.11–2.49) in the Northeast in comparison to the South after adjustment for sex, age, body mass index, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and smoking. In the general population, SHIP-TREND participants also had a significantly increased odds of macrovascular disease compared to KORA-F4 participants (OR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.33–2.00). After excluding coronary angiography (myocardial infarction or stroke only), the ORs for region decreased in all models, but the difference between SHIP-TREND and KORA-F4 participants was still significant in the age- and sex-adjusted model for the general population (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.01–1.78). Conclusions This study provides an indication for regional differences in macrovascular disease, which is not explained by traditional risk factors. Further examinations of other risk factors, such as regional deprivation or geographical variations in medical care services are needed

Neoplasms reported with liraglutide or placebo in people with type 2 diabetes: Results from the LEADER randomized trial

OBJECTIVE: This study explored neoplasm risk with liraglutide versus placebo in the LEADER (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results) cohort. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: LEADER (NCT01179048) was an international, phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Participants aged ≥50 years with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk were assigned 1:1 to receive liraglutide (≤1.8 mg daily; n = 4, 668) or placebo (n = 4, 672) in addition to standard care and monitored for 3.5-5 years (median follow-up 3.8 years). The occurrence of neoplasms was a prespecified, exploratory secondary end point. Post hocanalyses of the time to the first confirmed neoplasms were conducted using a Cox regression model. RESULTS: Neoplasm was confirmed in 10.1% of patients with liraglutide versus 9.0% with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 1.12 [95% CI 0.99; 1.28]). The HR (95% CI) for liraglutide versus placebo was 1.06 (0.90; 1.25) for malignant neoplasms and 1.16 (0.93; 1.44) for benign neoplasms. Sensitivity analyses excluding neoplasms occurring <1 year or <2 years after randomization and analyses by sex provided similar results. In our main analyses, the 95% CI for the HR included one for all malignant neoplasms evaluated (including pancreatic and thyroid neoplasms) except for prostate neoplasms, which occurred in fewer liraglutide-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: LEADER was not primarily designed to assess neoplasm risk. Firm conclusions cannot be made regarding numeric imbalances observed for individual neoplasm types (e.g., pancreatic cancer) that occurred infrequently. LEADER data do, however, exclude a major increase in the risk of total malignant neoplasms with liraglutide versus placebo. Additional studies are needed to assess longer-term exposure

LEADER 3—Lipase and Amylase Activity in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes: Baseline Data From Over 9000 Subjects in the LEADER Trial

Objectives: This report from the LEADER (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results) trial describes baseline lipase and amylase activity in type 2 diabetic subjects without acute pancreatitis symptoms before randomization to the glucagonlike peptide analog liraglutide or placebo. Methods: The LEADER is an international randomized placebo-controlled trial evaluating the cardiovascular safety of liraglutide in 9340 type 2 diabetic patients at high cardiovascular risk. Fasting lipase and amylase activity was assessed at baseline, before receiving liraglutide or placebo, using a commercial assay (Roche) with upper limit of normal values of 63 U/L for lipase and 100 U/L for amylase. Results: Either or both enzymes were above the upper limit of normal in 22.7% of subjects; 16.6% (n = 1540) had an elevated lipase level (including 1.2% >3-fold elevated), and 11.8% (n = 1094) had an elevated amylase level (including 0.2% >3-fold elevated). In multivariable regression models, severely reduced kidney function was associated with the largest effect on increasing activity of both. However, even among subjects with normal kidney function, 12.2% and 7.7% had elevated lipase and amylase levels. Conclusions: In this large study of type 2 diabetic patients, nearly 25% had elevated lipase or amylase levels without symptoms of acute pancreatitis. The clinician must take these data into account when evaluating abdominal symptoms in type 2 diabetic patients

LEADER 3: Lipase and amylase activity in subjects with type 2 diabetes

Objectives: This report from the LEADER (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results) trial describes baseline lipase and amylase activity in type 2 diabetic subjects without acute pancreatitis symptoms before randomization to the glucagonlike peptide analog liraglutide or placebo. Methods: The LEADER is an international randomized placebo-controlled trial evaluating the cardiovascular safety of liraglutide in 9340 type 2 diabetic patients at high cardiovascular risk. Fasting lipase and amylase activity was assessed at baseline, before receiving liraglutide or placebo, using a commercial assay (Roche) with upper limit of normal values of 63 U/L for lipase and 100 U/L for amylase. Results: Either or both enzymes were above the upper limit of normal in 22.7% of subjects; 16.6% (n = 1540) had an elevated lipase level (including 1.2% \u3e3-fold elevated), and 11.8% (n = 1094) had an elevated amylase level (including 0.2% \u3e3-fold elevated). In multivariable regression models, severely reduced kidney function was associated with the largest effect on increasing activity of both. However, even among subjects with normal kidney function, 12.2% and 7.7% had elevated lipase and amylase levels. Conclusions: In this large study of type 2 diabetic patients, nearly 25% had elevated lipase or amylase levels without symptoms of acute pancreatitis. The clinician must take these data into account when evaluating abdominal symptoms in type 2 diabetic patients