Design and baseline characteristics of the finerenone in reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in diabetic kidney disease trial

Background: Among people with diabetes, those with kidney disease have exceptionally high rates of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality and progression of their underlying kidney disease. Finerenone is a novel, nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist that has shown to reduce albuminuria in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) while revealing only a low risk of hyperkalemia. However, the effect of finerenone on CV and renal outcomes has not yet been investigated in long-term trials. Patients and Methods: The Finerenone in Reducing CV Mortality and Morbidity in Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIGARO-DKD) trial aims to assess the efficacy and safety of finerenone compared to placebo at reducing clinically important CV and renal outcomes in T2D patients with CKD. FIGARO-DKD is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, event-driven trial running in 47 countries with an expected duration of approximately 6 years. FIGARO-DKD randomized 7,437 patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate >= 25 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and albuminuria (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio >= 30 to <= 5,000 mg/g). The study has at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in the risk of the primary outcome (overall two-sided significance level alpha = 0.05), the composite of time to first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. Conclusions: FIGARO-DKD will determine whether an optimally treated cohort of T2D patients with CKD at high risk of CV and renal events will experience cardiorenal benefits with the addition of finerenone to their treatment regimen. Trial Registration: EudraCT number: 2015-000950-39; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02545049

Initiation and Gradual Intensification of Premixed Insulin Lispro Therapy Versus Basal Mealtime Insulin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Eating Light Breakfasts

OBJECTIVE We compared two strategies initiating and intensifying insulin treatment and tested for noninferiority of premixed insulin to basal ± mealtime insulin analog in patients eating light breakfasts. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This randomized, open-label, 48-week study compared two algorithms. Up to three injections of insulin lispro mix 25 and/or insulin lispro mix 50 (premix; premixed insulin lispro) or basal insulin glargine plus up to three injections of insulin lispro (basal+; glargine + insulin lispro) were used in type 2 diabetic patients uncontrolled with oral antihyperglycemic medication and consuming &lt;15% daily calories at breakfast. The hypothesis was to test noninferiority of premix to basal+ for glycemic control measured by HbA1c after 48 weeks, assessed using ANCOVA with a 0.4% margin. RESULTS Patients (n = 344; 176 [51%] females; mean [SD] age 54.3 [8.8] years; BMI 29.4 [4.6] kg/m2; baseline HbA1c 9.02 [0.97]%) were randomized to premix (n = 171) or basal+ (n = 173). In the per-protocol analysis (n = 230), least squares means (95% CI) end point HbA1c were 7.40% (7.15–7.65) and 7.55% (7.27–7.82) in respective arms. Between-treatment difference was −0.14% (−0.42 to 0.13), with noninferiority met. Significantly more patients in premix achieved HbA1c targets of &lt;7.0% compared with basal+ (48.2 vs. 36.2%; P = 0.024). Self-monitored blood glucose profiles, body weight changes, total insulin doses, and overall hypoglycemia (65 vs. 60%) were similar in premix and basal+ (P = 0.494), except nocturnal episodes (34.3 vs. 23.7%; P = 0.018) were more common in premix. CONCLUSIONS Both intensive insulin strategies improved glycemic control; however, final HbA1c levels were seen above those achieved in previous treat-to-target trials, likely due to the inadequate insulin titrations and probably due to the complexity of tested insulin regimens. A higher percentage of patients achieved target HbA1c &lt;7% with multiple premixed insulins, but this treatment resulted in more nocturnal hypoglycemia than a basal–bolus regimen

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

Cardiovascular Efficacy and Safety of Bococizumab in High-Risk Patients

BACKGROUN

Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes (DEPICT-1):24 week results from a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial

Background Dapagliflozin is a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin as an add-on to adjustable insulin in patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes. Methods DEPICT-1 was a double-blind, randomised, parallel-controlled, three-arm, phase 3, multicentre study done at 143 sites in 17 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18–75 years and had inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes (HbA1cbetween ≥7·7% and ≤11·0% [≥61·0 mmol/mol and ≤97·0 mmol/mol]) and had been prescribed insulin for at least 12 months before enrolment. After an 8 week lead-in period to optimise diabetes management, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using an interactive voice response system to dapagliflozin 5 mg or 10 mg once daily, given orally, or matched placebo. Randomisation was stratified by current use of continuous glucose monitoring, method of insulin administration, and baseline HbA1c. The primary efficacy outcome was the change from baseline in HbA1cafter 24 weeks of treatment in the full analysis set, which consisted of all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. An additional 55 patients who were incorrectly and non-randomly allocated to only dapagliflozin treatment groups were included in the safety analysis set. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02268214; data collection for the present analysis was completed on Jan 4, 2017, and a 28 week extension phase is ongoing. Findings Between Nov 11, 2014, and April 16, 2016, 833 patients were assigned to treatment groups and included in safety analyses (dapagliflozin 5 mg [n=277] vs dapagliflozin 10 mg [n=296] vs placebo [n=260]; 778 of these patients were randomly assigned and included in the full analysis set for efficacy analyses (259 vs 259 vs 260; difference due to randomisation error affecting 55 patients). Mean baseline HbA1cwas 8·53% (70 mmol/mol; SD 0·67% [7·3 mmol/mol]). At week 24, both doses of dapagliflozin significantly reduced HbA1ccompared with placebo (mean difference from baseline to week 24 for dapagliflozin 5 mg vs placebo was −0·42% [95% CI −0·56 to −0·28; p&lt;0·0001] and for dapagliflozin 10 mg vs placebo was −0·45% [−0·58 to −0·31; p&lt;0·0001]). Among patients in the dapagliflozin 5 mg (n=277), dapagliflozin 10 mg (n=296), and placebo (n=260) groups, the most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (38 [14%] vs 36 [12%] vs 39 [15%]), urinary tract infection (19 [7%] vs 11 [4%] vs 13 [5%]), upper respiratory tract infection (15 [5%] vs 15 [5%] vs 11 [4%]), and headache (12 [4%] vs 17 [6%] vs 11 [4%]). Hypoglycaemia occurred in 220 (79%), 235 (79%), and 207 (80%) patients in the dapagliflozin 5 mg, dapagliflozin 10 mg, and placebo groups, respectively; severe hypoglycaemia occurred in 21 (8%), 19 (6%), and 19 (7%) patients, respectively. Adjudicated definite diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in four (1%) patients in the dapagliflozin 5 mg group, five (2%) in the dapagliflozin 10 mg group, and three (1%) in the placebo group. Interpretation Our results suggest that dapagliflozin is a promising adjunct treatment to insulin to improve glycaemic control in patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes. Funding AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb

Cardiovascular Efficacy and Safety of Bococizumab in High-Risk Patients

Bococizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits proprotein convertase subtilisin- kexin type 9 (PCSK9) and reduces levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of bococizumab in patients at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS In two parallel, multinational trials with different entry criteria for LDL cholesterol levels, we randomly assigned the 27,438 patients in the combined trials to receive bococizumab (at a dose of 150 mg) subcutaneously every 2 weeks or placebo. The primary end point was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina requiring urgent revascularization, or cardiovascular death; 93% of the patients were receiving statin therapy at baseline. The trials were stopped early after the sponsor elected to discontinue the development of bococizumab owing in part to the development of high rates of antidrug antibodies, as seen in data from other studies in the program. The median follow-up was 10 months. RESULTS At 14 weeks, patients in the combined trials had a mean change from baseline in LDL cholesterol levels of -56.0% in the bococizumab group and +2.9% in the placebo group, for a between-group difference of -59.0 percentage points (P<0.001) and a median reduction from baseline of 64.2% (P<0.001). In the lower-risk, shorter-duration trial (in which the patients had a baseline LDL cholesterol level of ≥70 mg per deciliter [1.8 mmol per liter] and the median follow-up was 7 months), major cardiovascular events occurred in 173 patients each in the bococizumab group and the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.22; P = 0.94). In the higher-risk, longer-duration trial (in which the patients had a baseline LDL cholesterol level of ≥100 mg per deciliter [2.6 mmol per liter] and the median follow-up was 12 months), major cardiovascular events occurred in 179 and 224 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.97; P = 0.02). The hazard ratio for the primary end point in the combined trials was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.02; P = 0.08). Injection-site reactions were more common in the bococizumab group than in the placebo group (10.4% vs. 1.3%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In two randomized trials comparing the PCSK9 inhibitor bococizumab with placebo, bococizumab had no benefit with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events in the trial involving lower-risk patients but did have a significant benefit in the trial involving higher-risk patients