Time trends in prescribing of type 2 diabetes drugs, glycaemic response and risk factors:a retrospective analysis of primary care data, 2010-2017

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available on open access from Wiley via the DOI in this recordAim: Prescribing in type 2 diabetes has changed markedly in recent years, with increasing use of newer, more expensive glucose-lowering drugs. We aimed to describe population-level time trends in both prescribing patterns and short-term patient outcomes (HbA1c, weight, blood pressure, hypoglycemia and treatment discontinuation) after initiating new therapy. Materials and methods: We studied 81,532 UK patients with type 2 diabetes initiating a first to fourth line drug in primary care between 2010-2017 inclusive (Clinical Practice Research Datalink). Trends in new prescriptions and subsequent six and twelve-month adjusted changes in glycemic response (reduction in HbA1c), weight, blood pressure, and rates of hypoglycemia and treatment discontinuation were examined. Results: DPP4-inhibitor use second-line near doubled (41% of new prescriptions in 2017 vs. 22% 2010), replacing sulfonylureas as the most common second-line drug (29% 2017 vs. 53% 2010). SGLT2-inhibitors, introduced in 2013, comprised 17% of new first-fourth line prescriptions by 2017. First-line use of metformin remained stable (91% of new prescriptions in 2017 vs. 91% 2010). Over the study period there was little change in average glycemic response and treatment discontinuation. There was a modest reduction in weight second and third-line (second line 2017 vs. 2010: -1.5 kg (95%CI -1.9;-1.1), p<0.001), and a slight reduction in systolic blood pressure first to third-line (2017 vs. 2010 difference range -1.7 to -2.1 mmHg, all p<0.001). Hypoglycemia rates decreased second-line (incidence rate ratio 0.94 per-year (95%CI 0.88;1.00, p=0.04)), mirroring the decline in use of sulfonylureas. 4 Conclusions: Recent changes in prescribing of therapy in type 2 diabetes have not led to a change in glycemic response and have resulted in modest improvements in other population-level short-term patient outcomes.Medical Research Council (MRC)National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)Wellcome Trus

Development of a treatment selection algorithm for SGLT2 and DPP-4 inhibitor therapies in people with type 2 diabetes:a retrospective cohort study

Background: Current treatment guidelines do not provide recommendations to support the selection of treatment for most people with type 2 diabetes. We aimed to develop and validate an algorithm to allow selection of optimal treatment based on glycaemic response, weight change, and tolerability outcomes when choosing between SGLT2 inhibitor or DPP-4 inhibitor therapies. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we identified patients initiating SGLT2 and DPP-4 inhibitor therapies after Jan 1, 2013, from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). We excluded those who received SGLT2 or DPP-4 inhibitors as first-line treatment or insulin at the same time, had estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 45 mL/min per 1·73 m2, or did not have a valid baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) measure (&lt;53 or ≥120 mmol/mol). The primary efficacy outcome was the HbA1c value reached 6 months after drug initiation, adjusted for baseline HbA1c. Clinical features associated with differential HbA1c outcome on the two therapies were identified in CPRD (n=26 877), and replicated in reanalysis of 14 clinical trials (n=10 414). An algorithm to predict individual-level differential HbA1c outcome on the two therapies was developed in CPRD (derivation; n=14 069) and validated in head-to-head trials (n=2499) and CPRD (independent validation; n=9376). In CPRD, we further explored heterogeneity in 6-month weight change and treatment discontinuation. Findings: Among 10 253 patients initiating SGLT2 inhibitors and 16 624 patients initiating DPP-4 inhibitors in CPRD, baseline HbA1c, age, BMI, eGFR, and alanine aminotransferase were associated with differential HbA1c outcome with SGLT2 inhibitor and DPP-4 inhibitor therapies. The median age of participants was 62·0 years (IQR 55·0–70·0). 10 016 (37·3%) were women and 16 861 (62·7%) were men. An algorithm based on these five features identified a subgroup, representing around four in ten CPRD patients, with a 5 mmol/mol or greater observed benefit with SGLT2 inhibitors in all validation cohorts (CPRD 8·8 mmol/mol [95% CI 7·8–9·8]; CANTATA-D and CANTATA-D2 trials 5·8 mmol/mol [3·9–7·7]; BI1245.20 trial 6·6 mmol/mol [2·2–11·0]). In CPRD, predicted differential HbA1c response with SGLT2 inhibitor and DPP-4 inhibitor therapies was not associated with weight change. Overall treatment discontinuation within 6 months was similar in patients predicted to have an HbA1c benefit with SGLT2 inhibitors over DPP-4 inhibitors (median 15·2% [13·2–20·3] vs 14·4% [12·9–16·7]). A smaller subgroup predicted to have greater HbA1c reduction with DPP-4 inhibitors were twice as likely to discontinue SGLT2 inhibitors than DPP-4 inhibitors (median 26·8% [23·4–31·0] vs 14·8% [12·9–16·8]). Interpretation: A validated treatment selection algorithm for SGLT2 inhibitor and DPP-4 inhibitor therapies can support decisions on optimal treatment for people with type 2 diabetes. Funding: BHF-Turing Cardiovascular Data Science Award and the UK Medical Research Council

Risk factors for genital infections in people initiating SGLT2 inhibitors and their impact on discontinuation

Introduction: To identify risk factors, absolute risk, and impact on treatment discontinuation of genital infections with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). Research design and methods: We assessed the relationship between baseline characteristics and genital infection in 21 004 people with type 2 diabetes initiating SGLT2i and 55 471 controls initiating dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) in a UK primary care database. We assessed absolute risk of infection in those with key risk factors and the association between early genital infection and treatment discontinuation. Results: Genital infection was substantially more common in those treated with SGLT2i (8.1% within 1 year) than DPP4i (1.8%). Key predictors of infection with SGLT2i were female sex (HR 3.64; 95% CI 3.23 to 4.11) and history of genital infection; &lt;1 year before initiation (HR 4.38; 3.73 to 5.13), 1–5 years (HR 3.04; 2.64 to 3.51), and &gt;5 years (HR 1.79; 1.55 to 2.07). Baseline HbA1c was not associated with infection risk for SGLT2i, in contrast to DPP4i where risk increased with higher HbA1c. One-year absolute risk of genital infection with SGLT2i was highest for those with a history of prior infection (females 23.7%, males 12.1%), compared with those without (females 10.8%, males 2.7%). Early genital infection was associated with a similar discontinuation risk for SGLT2i (HR 1.48; 1.21–1.80) and DPP4i (HR 1.58; 1.21–2.07). Conclusions: Female sex and history of prior infection are simple features that can identify subgroups at greatly increased risk of genital infections with SGLT2i therapy. These data can be used to risk-stratify patients. High HbA1c is not a risk factor for genital infections with SGLT2i

11β-HSD1 inhibition in men mitigates prednisolone-induced adverse effects in a proof-of-concept randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Glucocorticoids prescribed to limit inflammation, have significant adverse effects. As 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 (11β-HSD1) regenerates active glucocorticoid, we investigated whether 11β-HSD1 inhibition with AZD4017 could mitigate adverse glucocorticoid effects without compromising their anti-inflammatory actions. We conducted a proof-of-concept, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study at Research Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK (NCT03111810). 32 healthy male volunteers were randomized to AZD4017 or placebo, alongside prednisolone treatment. Although the primary endpoint of the study (change in glucose disposal during a two-step hyperinsulinemic, normoglycemic clamp) wasn’t met, hepatic insulin sensitivity worsened in the placebo-treated but not in the AZD4017-treated group. Protective effects of AZD4017 on markers of lipid metabolism and bone turnover were observed. Night-time blood pressure was higher in the placebo-treated but not in the AZD4017-treated group. Urinary (5aTHF+THF)/THE ratio was lower in the AZD4017-treated but remained the same in the placebo-treated group. Most anti-inflammatory actions of prednisolone persisted with AZD4017 co-treatment. Four adverse events were reported with AZD4017 and no serious adverse events. Here we show that co-administration of AZD4017 with prednisolone in men is a potential strategy to limit adverse glucocorticoid effects

Phenotype-based targeted treatment of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes.

Aims/hypothesis: A precision medicine approach in type 2 diabetes could enhance targeting specific glucose-lowering therapies to individual patients most likely to benefit. We aimed to use the recently developed Bayesian causal forest (BCF) method to develop and validate an individualised treatment selection algorithm for two major type 2 diabetes drug classes, sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA). Methods: We designed a predictive algorithm using BCF to estimate individual-level conditional average treatment effects for 12-month glycaemic outcome (HbA1c) between SGLT2i and GLP1-RA, based on routine clinical features of 46,394 people with type 2 diabetes in primary care in England (Clinical Practice Research Datalink; 27,319 for model development, 19,075 for hold-out validation), with additional external validation in 2252 people with type 2 diabetes from Scotland (SCI-Diabetes [Tayside &amp; Fife]). Differences in glycaemic outcome with GLP1-RA by sex seen in clinical data were replicated in clinical trial data (HARMONY programme: liraglutide [n=389] and albiglutide [n=1682]). As secondary outcomes, we evaluated the impacts of targeting therapy based on glycaemic response on weight change, tolerability and longer-term risk of new-onset microvascular complications, macrovascular complications and adverse kidney events. Results: Model development identified marked heterogeneity in glycaemic response, with 4787 (17.5%) of the development cohort having a predicted HbA1c benefit &gt;3 mmol/mol (&gt;0.3%) with SGLT2i over GLP1-RA and 5551 (20.3%) having a predicted HbA1c benefit &gt;3 mmol/mol with GLP1-RA over SGLT2i. Calibration was good in hold-back validation, and external validation in an independent Scottish dataset identified clear differences in glycaemic outcomes between those predicted to benefit from each therapy. Sex, with women markedly more responsive to GLP1-RA, was identified as a major treatment effect modifier in both the UK observational datasets and in clinical trial data: HARMONY-7 liraglutide (GLP1-RA): 4.4 mmol/mol (95% credible interval [95% CrI] 2.2, 6.3) (0.4% [95% CrI 0.2, 0.6]) greater response in women than men. Targeting the two therapies based on predicted glycaemic response was also associated with improvements in short-term tolerability and long-term risk of new-onset microvascular complications. Conclusions/interpretation: Precision medicine approaches can facilitate effective individualised treatment choice between SGLT2i and GLP1-RA therapies, and the use of routinely collected clinical features for treatment selection could support low-cost deployment in many countries

Challenges of maintaining research protocol fidelity in a clinical care setting: A qualitative study of the experiences and views of patients and staff participating in a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Trial research has predominantly focused on patient and staff understandings of trial concepts and/or motivations for taking part, rather than why treatment recommendations may or may not be followed during trial delivery. This study sought to understand why there was limited attainment of the glycaemic target (HbA_1c≤6.5%) among patients who participated in the Treating to Target in Type 2 Diabetes Trial (4-T). The objective was to inform interpretation of trial outcomes and provide recommendations for future trial delivery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In-depth interviews were conducted with 45 patients and 21 health professionals recruited from 11 of 58 trial centres in the UK. Patients were broadly representative of those in the main trial in terms of treatment allocation, demographics and glycaemic control. Both physicians and research nurses were interviewed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most patients were committed to taking insulin as recommended by 4-T staff. To avoid hypoglycaemia, patients occasionally altered or skipped insulin doses, normally in consultation with staff. Patients were usually unaware of the trial's glycaemic target. Positive staff feedback could lead patients to believe they had been 'successful' trial participants even when their HbA_1cexceeded 6.5%. While some staff felt that the 4-T automated insulin dose adjustment algorithm had increased their confidence to prescribe larger insulin doses than in routine clinical practice, all described situations where they had not followed its recommendations. Staff regarded the application of a 'one size fits all' glycaemic target during the trial as contradicting routine clinical practice where they would tailor treatments to individuals. Staff also expressed concerns that 'tight' glycaemic control might impose an unacceptably high risk of hypoglycaemia, thus compromising trust and safety, especially amongst older patients. To address these concerns, staff tended to adapt the trial protocol to align it with their clinical practices and experiences.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>To understand trial findings, foster attainment of endpoints, and promote protocol fidelity, it may be necessary to look beyond individual patient characteristics and experiences. Specifically, the context of trial delivery, the impact of staff involvement, and the difficulties staff may encounter in balancing competing 'clinical' and 'research' roles and responsibilities may need to be considered and addressed.</p

Variation in the Glucose Transporter gene <i>SLC2A2 </i>is associated with glycaemic response to metformin

Metformin is the first-line antidiabetic drug with over 100 million users worldwide, yet its mechanism of action remains unclear1. Here the Metformin Genetics (MetGen) Consortium reports a three-stage genome-wide association study (GWAS), consisting of 13,123 participants of different ancestries. The C allele of rs8192675 in the intron of SLC2A2, which encodes the facilitated glucose transporter GLUT2, was associated with a 0.17% (P = 6.6 × 10−14) greater metformin-induced reduction in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in 10,577 participants of European ancestry. rs8192675 was the top cis expression quantitative trait locus (cis-eQTL) for SLC2A2 in 1,226 human liver samples, suggesting a key role for hepatic GLUT2 in regulation of metformin action. Among obese individuals, C-allele homozygotes at rs8192675 had a 0.33% (3.6 mmol/mol) greater absolute HbA1c reduction than T-allele homozygotes. This was about half the effect seen with the addition of a DPP-4 inhibitor, and equated to a dose difference of 550 mg of metformin, suggesting rs8192675 as a potential biomarker for stratified medicine

Effects of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo. (Funded by Amylin Pharmaceuticals; EXSCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01144338.

Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30–50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. Findings: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p&lt;0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (&lt;1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (&lt;1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline