A randomised trial of the effect and cost-effectiveness of early intensive multifactorial therapy on 5-year cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes:The Anglo–Danish–Dutch Study of Intensive treatment in people with screen-detected diabetes in primary care (ADDITION-Europe) study

Background: Intensive treatment (IT) of cardiovascular risk factors can halve mortality among people with established type 2 diabetes but the effects of treatment earlier in the disease trajectory are uncertain.  Objective: To quantify the cost-effectiveness of intensive multifactorial treatment of screen-detected diabetes.  Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, cluster-randomised, parallel-group trial.  Setting: Three hundred and forty-three general practices in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Cambridge and Leicester, UK.  Participants: Individuals aged 40–69 years with screen-detected diabetes.  Interventions: Screening plus routine care (RC) according to national guidelines or IT comprising screening and promotion of target-driven intensive management (medication and promotion of healthy lifestyles) of hyperglycaemia, blood pressure and cholesterol.  Main outcome measures: The primary end point was a composite of first cardiovascular event (cardiovascular mortality/morbidity, revascularisation and non-traumatic amputation) during a mean [standard deviation (SD)] follow-up of 5.3 (1.6) years. Secondary end points were (1) all-cause mortality; (2) microvascular outcomes (kidney function, retinopathy and peripheral neuropathy); and (3) patient-reported outcomes (health status, well-being, quality of life, treatment satisfaction). Economic analyses estimated mean costs (UK 2009/10 prices) and quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS perspective. We extrapolated data to 30 years using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study outcomes model [version 1.3; © Isis Innovation Ltd 2010; see www.dtu.ox.ac.uk/outcomesmodel (accessed 27 January 2016)].  Results: We included 3055 (RC, n = 1377; IT, n = 1678) of the 3057 recruited patients [mean (SD) age 60.3 (6.9) years] in intention-to-treat analyses. Prescription of glucose-lowering, antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medication increased in both groups, more so in the IT group than in the RC group. There were clinically important improvements in cardiovascular risk factors in both study groups. Modest but statistically significant differences between groups in reduction in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, blood pressure and cholesterol favoured the IT group. The incidence of first cardiovascular event [IT 7.2%, 13.5 per 1000 person-years; RC 8.5%, 15.9 per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.05] and all-cause mortality (IT 6.2%, 11.6 per 1000 person-years; RC 6.7%, 12.5 per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21) did not differ between groups. At 5 years, albuminuria was present in 22.7% and 24.4% of participants in the IT and RC groups, respectively [odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07), retinopathy in 10.2% and 12.1%, respectively (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.10), and neuropathy in 4.9% and 5.9% (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34), respectively. The estimated glomerular filtration rate increased between baseline and follow-up in both groups (IT 4.31 ml/minute; RC 6.44 ml/minute). Health status, well-being, diabetes-specific quality of life and treatment satisfaction did not differ between the groups. The intervention cost £981 per patient and was not cost-effective at costs ≥ £631 per patient.  Conclusions: Compared with RC, IT was associated with modest increases in prescribed treatment, reduced levels of risk factors and non-significant reductions in cardiovascular events, microvascular complications and death over 5 years. IT did not adversely affect patient-reported outcomes. IT was not cost-effective but might be if delivered at a reduced cost. The lower than expected event rate, heterogeneity of intervention delivery between centres and improvements in general practice diabetes care limited the achievable differences in treatment between groups. Further follow-up to assess the legacy effects of early IT is warranted

Impact of UKPDS risk estimation added to a first subjective risk estimation on management of coronary disease risk in type 2 diabetes - An observational study

Aims To investigate the impact of the UKPDS risk engine on management of CHD risk in T2DM patients. Methods Observational study among 139 GPS. Data from 933 consecutive patients treated with a maximum of two oral glucose lowering drugs, collected at baseline and after twelve months. GPS estimated the CHD risk themselves and afterwards they calculated this with the UKPDS risk engine. Under- and overestimation were defined as a difference >5 percentage points difference between both calculations. The impact of the UKPDS risk engine was assessed by measuring differences in medication adjustments between the over-, under- and accurately estimated group. Results In 42.0% the GP accurately estimated the CHD risk, in 32.4% the risk was underestimated and in 25.6% overestimated. Mean difference between the estimated (18.7%) and calculated (19.1%) 10 years CHD risk was -0.36% (95% CI -1.24 to 0.52). Male gender, current smoking and total cholesterol level were associated with underestimation. Patients with an subjectively underestimated CHD risk received significantly more medication adjustments. Their UKPDS 10 year CHD risk did not increase during the follow-up period, contrary to the other two groups of patients. Conclusions The UKPDS risk engine may be of added value for risk management in T2DM

High-sensitivity C-reactive protein to detect metabolic syndrome in a centrally obese population: a cross-sectional analysis

Abstract Background People with central obesity have an increased risk for developing the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. However, a substantial part of obese individuals have no other cardiovascular risk factors, besides their obesity. High sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), a marker of systemic inflammation and a predictor of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, is associated with the metabolic syndrome and its separate components. We evaluated the use of hs-CRP to discriminate between centrally obese people with and without the metabolic syndrome. Methods 1165 people with central obesity but without any previous diagnosis of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes or cardiovascular disease, aged 20-70 years, underwent a physical examination and laboratory assays to determine the presence of the metabolic syndrome (NCEP ATP III criteria). Multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to assess which metabolic syndrome components were independently associated with hs-CRP. A ROC curve was drawn and the area under the curve was calculated to evaluate whether hs-CRP was capable to predict the presence of the metabolic syndrome. Results Median hs-CRP levels were significantly higher in individuals with central obesity with the metabolic syndrome (n = 417; 35.8%) compared to individuals with central obesity without the metabolic syndrome (2.2 mg/L (IQR 1.2-4.0) versus 1.7 mg/L (IQR 1.0-3.4); p Conclusions Hs-CRP has limited capacity to predict the presence of the metabolic syndrome in a population with central obesity.</p

Insulin monotherapy compared with the addition of oral glucose-lowering agents to insulin for people with type 2 diabetes already on insulin therapy and inadequate glycaemic control

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on insulin monotherapy who do not achieve adequate glycaemic control should continue insulin as monotherapy or can benefit from adding oral glucose-lowering agents to the insulin therapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of insulin monotherapy compared with the addition of oral glucose-lowering agents to insulin monotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes already on insulin therapy and inadequate glycaemic control. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and reference lists of articles. The date of the last search was November 2015 for all databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials of at least two months' duration comparing insulin monotherapy with combinations of insulin with one or more oral glucose-lowering agent in people with type 2 diabetes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated overall quality of the evidence using GRADE. We summarised data statistically if they were available, sufficiently similar and of sufficient quality. We performed statistical analyses according to the statistical guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 37 trials with 40 treatment comparisons involving 3227 participants. The duration of the interventions ranged from 2 to 12 months for parallel trials and two to four months for cross-over trials.The majority of trials had an unclear risk of bias in several risk of bias domains. Fourteen trials showed a high risk of bias, mainly for performance and detection bias. Insulin monotherapy, including once-daily long-acting, once-daily intermediate-acting, twice-daily premixed insulin, and basal-bolus regimens (multiple injections), was compared to insulin in combination with sulphonylureas (17 comparisons: glibenclamide = 11, glipizide = 2, tolazamide = 2, gliclazide = 1, glimepiride = 1), metformin (11 comparisons), pioglitazone (four comparisons), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (four comparisons: acarbose = 3, miglitol = 1), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) (three comparisons: vildagliptin = 1, sitagliptin = 1, saxagliptin = 1) and the combination of metformin and glimepiride (one comparison). No trials assessed all-cause mortality, diabetes-related morbidity or health-related quality of life. Only one trial assessed patients' treatment satisfaction and showed no substantial differences between the addition of either glimepiride or metformin and glimepiride to insulin compared with insulin monotherapy.Insulin-sulphonylurea combination therapy (CT) compared with insulin monotherapy (IM) showed a MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of -1% (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 316 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. Insulin-metformin CT compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.9% (95% CI -1.2 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 698 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. We could not pool the results of adding pioglitazone to insulin. Insulin combined with alpha-glucosidase inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.2); P < 0.01; 448 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). Insulin combined with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.4); P < 0.01; 265 participants; 2 trials; low quality evidence. In most trials the participants with CT needed less insulin, whereas insulin requirements increased or remained stable in participants with IM.We did not perform a meta-analysis for hypoglycaemic events because the included studies used different definitions.. In most trials the insulin-sulphonylurea combination resulted in a higher number of mild episodes of hypoglycaemia, compared to the IM group (range: 2.2 to 6.1 episodes per participant in CT versus 2.0 to 2.6 episodes per participant in IM; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT also resulted in more mild to moderate hypoglycaemic episodes compared with IM (range 15 to 90 episodes versus 9 to 75 episodes, respectively; low-quality evidence. The trials that reported hypoglycaemic episodes in the other combinations found comparable numbers of mild to moderate hypoglycaemic events (low-quality evidence).The addition of sulphonylureas resulted in an additional weight gain of 0.4 kg to 1.9 kg versus -0.8 kg to 2.1 kg in the IM group (220 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT caused more weight gain compared to IM: MD 3.8 kg (95% CI 3.0 to 4.6); P < 0.01; 288 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence. Metformin CT was associated with weight loss: MD -2.1 kg (95% CI -3.2 to -1.1), P < 0.01; 615 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). DPP-4 inhibitors CT showed weight gain of -0.7 to 1.3 kg versus 0.6 to 1.1 kg in the IM group (362 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence). Alpha-glucosidase CT compared to IM showed a MD of -0.5 kg (95% CI -1.2 to 0.3); P = 0.26; 241 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence.Users of metformin CT (range 7% to 67% versus 5% to 16%), and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors CT (14% to 75% versus 4% to 35%) experienced more gastro-intestinal adverse effects compared to participants on IM. Two trials reported a higher frequency of oedema with the use of pioglitazone CT (range: 16% to 18% versus 4% to 7% IM). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The addition of all oral glucose-lowering agents in people with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control who are on insulin therapy has positive effects on glycaemic control and insulin requirements. The addition of sulphonylureas results in more hypoglycaemic events. Additional weight gain can only be avoided by adding metformin to insulin. Other well-known adverse effects of oral glucose-lowering agents have to be taken into account when prescribing oral glucose-lowering agents in addition to insulin therapy