A Practical Guide for Cardiologists to the Pharmacological Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease

Patients with type 2 diabetes are at increased cardiovascular risk. Until recently, reductions in HbA1c and the use of specific glucose-lowering agents have not had a clear, reproducible benefit in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease. However, over the past 5 years, members of two categories of diabetes medications, sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, have been associated with improved rates of major adverse cardiovascular events when used in high-risk type 2 diabetes patients. Importantly, these effects are not necessarily linked to these agents’ effects on HbA1c. Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have also been associated with reductions in heart failure hospitalization, a benefit that appears to extend to individuals without diabetes with established heart failure. Cardiovascular specialists should become familiar with these emerging data and be prepared to implement corresponding strategies in their practice to improve the cardiovascular outcomes of their patients. Recent clinical trial data and the changing landscape of corresponding professional guidelines are reviewed. Practical recommendations for safe prescribing of these anti-diabetes drugs are provided

Trends in Drug Utilization, Glycemic Control, and Rates of Severe Hypoglycemia, 2006-2013.

ObjectiveTo examine temporal trends in utilization of glucose-lowering medications, glycemic control, and rate of severe hypoglycemia among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).Research design and methodsUsing claims data from 1.66 million privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients with T2DM from 2006 to 2013, we estimated the annual 1) age- and sex-standardized proportion of patients who filled each class of agents; 2) age-, sex-, race-, and region-standardized proportion with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) <6%, 6 to <7%, 7 to <8%, 8 to <9%, ≥9%; and 3) age- and sex-standardized rate of severe hypoglycemia among those using medications. Proportions were calculated overall and stratified by age-group (18-44, 45-64, 65-74, and ≥75 years) and number of chronic comorbidities (zero, one, and two or more).ResultsFrom 2006 to 2013, use increased for metformin (from 47.6 to 53.5%), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (0.5 to 14.9%), and insulin (17.1 to 23.0%) but declined for sulfonylureas (38.8 to 30.8%) and thiazolidinediones (28.5 to 5.6%; all P < 0.001). The proportion of patients with HbA1c <7% declined (from 56.4 to 54.2%; P < 0.001) and with HbA1c ≥9% increased (9.9 to 12.2%; P < 0.001). Glycemic control varied by age and was poor among 23.3% of the youngest and 6.3% of the oldest patients in 2013. The overall rate of severe hypoglycemia remained the same (1.3 per 100 person-years; P = 0.72), declined modestly among the oldest patients (from 2.9 to 2.3; P < 0.001), and remained high among those with two or more comorbidities (3.2 to 3.5; P = 0.36).ConclusionsDuring the recent 8-year period, the use of glucose-lowering drugs has changed dramatically among patients with T2DM. Overall glycemic control has not improved and remains poor among nearly a quarter of the youngest patients. The overall rate of severe hypoglycemia remains largely unchanged

The efficacy and safety of imeglimin as add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with sitagliptin monotherapy

OBJECTIVE: This 12-week study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of imeglimin as add-on therapy to the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with sitagliptin monotherapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, imeglimin (1,500 mg b.i.d.) or placebo was added to sitagliptin (100 mg q.d.) over 12weeks in 170 patientswith type 2 diabetes (mean age 56.8 years; BMI 32.2 kg/m2) that was inadequately controlled with sitagliptin alone (A1C ≥7.5%) during a 12-week run-in period. The primary ef ficacy end point was the change in A1C from baseline versus placebo; secondary end points included corresponding changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels, strati fication by baseline A1C, and percentage of A1C responders. RESULTS: Imeglimin reduced A1C levels (least-squares mean difference) from baseline (8.5%) by 0.60% compared with an increase of 0.12% with placebo (between-group difference 0.72%, P < 0.001). The corresponding changes in FPG were -0.93 mmol/L with imeglimin vs. -0.11 mmol/L with placebo (P = 0.014). With imeglimin, the A1C level decreased by ≥0.5% in 54.3% of subjects vs. 21.6% with placebo (P < 0.001), and 19.8%of subjects receiving imeglimin achieved a decrease in A1C level of ≤7% compared with subjects receiving placebo (1.1%) (P = 0.004). Imeglimin was generally well tolerated, with a safety pro file comparable to placebo and no related treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Imeglimin demonstrated incremental efficacy benefits as add-on therapy to sitagliptin, with comparable tolerability to placebo, highlighting the potential for imeglimin to complement other oral antihyperglycemic therapies

The efficacy and safety of imeglimin as add-on therapy in patientswith type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy

OBJECTIVE A 12-week study assessed the efficacy and safety of a new oral antidiabetic agent, imeglimin, as add-on therapy in type 2 diabetes patients inadequately controlled with metformin alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total of 156 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive imeglimin (1,500 mg twice a day) or placebo added to a stable dose of metformin (1,500–2,000 mg/day). Change in A1C from baseline was the primary efficacy outcome; secondary outcomes included fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and proinsulin/insulin ratio. RESULTS After 12 weeks, the placebo-subtracted decrease in A1C with metformin-imeglimin was −0.44% (P < 0.001). Metformin-imeglimin also significantly improved FPG and the proinsulin/insulin ratio from baseline (−0.91 mg/dL and −7.5, respectively) compared with metformin-placebo (0.36 mg/dL and 11.81). Metformin-imeglimin therapy was generally well-tolerated with a comparable safety profile to metformin-placebo. CONCLUSIONS Addition of imeglimin to metformin improved glycemic control and offers potential as a new treatment for type 2 diabetes. Imeglimin is the first in a new tetrahydrotriazine-containing class of oral antidiabetic agents, the glimins. Imeglimin decreases hepatic glucose production, increases muscle glucose uptake, and improves pancreatic glucose-dependent insulin secretion (1). Previous studies have demonstrated imeglimin to be as effective as metformin in improving glycemia (2). Since metformin is the preferred first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes, the current study examined the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of imeglimin in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin alone

Temporal trends in the management of severe hyperglycemia among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction [abstract]

Poster sesssionBackground: Elevated blood glucose (BG) is associated with an adverse prognosis in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. While guidelines recommend insulin therapy to lower markedly elevated BG in AMI patients, it is unknown whether these recommendations have impacted BG management over time. Methods: We studied 39,775 AMI patients hospitalized from 2000 to 2008 in 55 US medical centers contributing to Health Facts, a national database with extensive data on in-hospital BG and insulin use. Using all available BG measures during the hospital stay, we restricted our analysis to patients with a mean BG ≥200mg/dl and examined temporal trends in insulin use with hierarchical logistic regression models. Results: Overall, 4330 patients (11% of the entire cohort) had mean hospitalization BG ≥ 200 mg/dL and this proportion decreased from 2000 to 2008 (12% to 8%, p for trend<0.001); 75% of these patients had diabetes. In total, 61% of AMI patients with mean BG ≥ 200 received any insulin and only 16% received intravenous (IV) insulin during hospitalization. Hierarchical multivariable models showed an increased likelihood of insulin use over time (Figure). However, about one in three patients continued to receive no treatment for markedly elevated BG. Conclusions: Despite some improvement over time, insulin treatment rates among hospitalized AMI patients with severe, sustained hyperglycemia remain low. These findings likely reflect continuing uncertainty regarding optimal BG management during AMI

Subcutaneous insulin order sets and protocols: Effective design and implementation strategies

No abstract.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/61216/1/354_ftp.pd

Reduction in albuminuria with dapagliflozin cannot be predicted by baseline clinical characteristics or changes in most other risk markers

The sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin has been shown to decrease urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This effect, however, varies among individual patients. In this study, we assessed the baseline characteristics and concurrent changes in other cardiovascular risk markers that might be associated with UACR response to dapagliflozin. A pooled analysis of 11 phase 3 randomized, controlled clinical trials was performed. UACR change from baseline after 24 weeks treatment with dapagliflozin 10 mg/d in 531 patients with type 2 diabetes and UACR ≥30 mg/g at baseline was determined. UACR response was defined as >30% reduction from baseline at 24 weeks, whereas UACR non-response was defined as ≤30% reduction at 24 weeks. A total of 288 (54%) patients were classified as responders and 243 (46%) as non-responders. At 24 weeks, the UACR-adjusted mean change from baseline was -71.2% and 25.9% in responders and non-responders, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between both groups. Changes in HbA1c and body weight were comparable across groups. Responders showed a numerically larger reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate and systolic blood pressure versus non-responders. UACR reduction to dapagliflozin is an individual characteristic that cannot be predicted by baseline clinical features or changes in metabolic variables. Whether UACR response would improve long-term renal and cardiovascular outcomes remains to be determined

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