Search

Importance: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to be beneficial for adults with type 2 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy, but its use in type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin has not been well studied., Objective: To determine the effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin in primary care practices., Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 15 centers in the US (enrollment from July 30, 2018, to October 30, 2019; follow-up completed July 7, 2020) and included adults with type 2 diabetes receiving their diabetes care from a primary care clinician and treated with 1 or 2 daily injections of long- or intermediate-acting basal insulin without prandial insulin, with or without noninsulin glucose-lowering medications., Interventions: Random assignment 2:1 to CGM (n = 116) or traditional blood glucose meter (BGM) monitoring (n = 59)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level at 8 months. Key secondary outcomes were CGM-measured time in target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, time with glucose level at greater than 250 mg/dL, and mean glucose level at 8 months., Results: Among 175 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [9] years; 88 women [50%]; 92 racial/ethnic minority individuals [53%]; mean [SD] baseline HbA1c level, 9.1% [0.9%]), 165 (94%) completed the trial. Mean HbA1c level decreased from 9.1% at baseline to 8.0% at 8 months in the CGM group and from 9.0% to 8.4% in the BGM group (adjusted difference, -0.4% [95% CI, -0.8% to -0.1%]; P = .02). In the CGM group, compared with the BGM group, the mean percentage of CGM-measured time in the target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL was 59% vs 43% (adjusted difference, 15% [95% CI, 8% to 23%]; P < .001), the mean percentage of time at greater than 250 mg/dL was 11% vs 27% (adjusted difference, -16% [95% CI, -21% to -11%]; P < .001), and the means of the mean glucose values were 179 mg/dL vs 206 mg/dL (adjusted difference, -26 mg/dL [95% CI, -41 to -12]; P < .001). Severe hypoglycemic events occurred in 1 participant (1%) in the CGM group and in 1 (2%) in the BGM group., Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin, continuous glucose monitoring, as compared with blood glucose meter monitoring, resulted in significantly lower HbA1c levels at 8 months., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03566693.

Importance: After the occurrence of nonfatal cardiovascular events, recurrent events are highly likely. Most cardiovascular outcomes trials analyze first events only; extending analyses to first and recurrent (total) events can provide clinically meaningful information., Objective: To investigate whether liraglutide is associated with reduced first and recurrent total major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared with placebo among patients with type 2 diabetes and high risk of cardiovascular events., Design, Setting, and Participants: This post hoc analysis of the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) randomized, double-blind, clinical trial included data from patients with type 2 diabetes who had established or were at high risk for cardiovascular disease at 410 sites in 32 countries from August 2010, to December 2015. Data analysis was performed from August 15, 2016, to July 5, 2019., Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive liraglutide (up to 1.8 mg per day) or placebo, both with standard care, for 3.5 to 5.0 years., Main Outcomes and Measures: Assessed outcomes were MACE (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke), expanded MACE (primary MACE plus coronary revascularization and hospitalization for heart failure or unstable angina pectoris), and the individual end points., Results: The 9340 LEADER trial participants (6003 [64.3%] male; mean [SD] age, 64.3 [7.2] years) experienced 1605 total MACE (1302 first and 303 recurrent events; median follow-up, 3.8 years [range, 0-5.2 years]). Patients who experienced any MACE were older (1 MACE: mean [SD] age, 65.6 [8.0] years; >1 MACE: 65.7 [7.9] years) and had diabetes for longer duration (1 MACE: mean [SD] duration, 13.4 [8.3] years; >1 MACE: 14.4 [8.7] years) compared with patients without MACE (mean [SD] age, 64.1 [7.1] years; mean [SD] duration, 12.7 [7.9] years). Fewer first and recurrent MACE occurred in the liraglutide group (n = 4668; 608 first and 127 recurrent events) than in the placebo group (n = 4672; 694 first and 176 recurrent events). Liraglutide was associated with a 15.7% relative risk reduction in total MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76-0.93) and a 13.4% reduction in total expanded MACE (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.93) compared with placebo. For most individual cardiovascular end points, liraglutide was associated with lower risk vs placebo., Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that liraglutide treatment is associated with reduced total MACE compared with placebo among patients with type 2 diabetes and high risk of cardiovascular events. This analysis supports the findings of an absolute benefit of liraglutide treatment with respect to the overall burden of cardiovascular events in this high-risk patient population., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01179048.

Importance: The value of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) levels in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes has been debated., Objective: To compare 3 approaches of SMBG for effects on hemoglobin A1c levels and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among people with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes in primary care practice., Design, Setting, and Participants: The Monitor Trial study was a pragmatic, open-label randomized trial conducted in 15 primary care practices in central North Carolina. Participants were randomized between January 2014 and July 2015. Eligible patients with type 2 non-insulin-treated diabetes were: older than 30 years, established with a primary care physician at a participating practice, had glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c) levels higher than 6.5% but lower than 9.5% within the 6 months preceding screening, as obtained from the electronic medical record, and willing to comply with the results of random assignment into a study group. Of the 1032 assessed for eligibility, 450 were randomized., Interventions: No SMBG, once-daily SMBG, and once-daily SMBG with enhanced patient feedback including automatic tailored messages delivered via the meter., Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes included hemoglobin A1c levels and HRQOL at 52 weeks., Results: A total of 450 patients were randomized and 418 (92.9%) completed the final visit. There were no significant differences in hemoglobin A1c levels across all 3 groups (P = .74; estimated adjusted mean hemoglobin A1c difference, SMBG with messaging vs no SMBG, -0.09%; 95% CI, -0.31% to 0.14%; SMBG vs no SMBG, -0.05%; 95% CI, -0.27% to 0.17%). There were also no significant differences found in HRQOL. There were no notable differences in key adverse events including hypoglycemia frequency, health care utilization, or insulin initiation., Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, we observed no clinically or statistically significant differences at 1 year in glycemic control or HRQOL between patients who performed SMBG compared with those who did not perform SMBG. The addition of this type of tailored feedback provided through messaging via a meter did not provide any advantage in glycemic control., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02033499.

Importance: Patients with type 2 diabetes are at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in part owing to hypertriglyceridemia and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. It is unknown whether adding triglyceride-lowering treatment to statin reduces this risk., Objective: To determine whether fenofibrate reduces CVD risk in statin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes., Design, Setting, and Participants: Posttrial follow-up of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Lipid Study between July 2009 and October 2014; 5 years of follow-up were completed for a total of 9.7 years at general community and academic outpatient research clinics in the United States and Canada. Of the original 5518 ACCORD Lipid Trial participants, 4644 surviving participants were selected based on the presence of type 2 diabetes and either prevalent CVD or CVD risk factors and high-density lipoprotein levels less than 50 mg/dL (<55 mg/dL for women and African American individuals)., Interventions: Passive follow-up of study participants previously treated with fenofibrate or masked placebo., Main Outcomes and Measures: Occurrence of cardiovascular outcomes including primary composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke in all participants and in prespecified subgroups., Results: The 4644 follow-on study participants were broadly representative of the original ACCORD study population and included significant numbers of women (n = 1445; 31%), nonwhite individuals (n = 1094; 21%), and those with preexisting cardiovascular events (n = 1620; 35%). Only 4.3% of study participants continued treatment with fenofibrate following completion of ACCORD. High-density lipoprotein and triglyceride values rapidly equalized among participants originally randomized to fenofibrate or placebo. Over a median total postrandomization follow-up of 9.7 years, the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary study outcome among participants originally randomized to fenofibrate vs placebo (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.05; P = .25) was comparable with that originally observed in ACCORD (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79-1,08; P = .32). Despite these overall neutral results, we continued to find evidence that fenofibrate therapy effectively reduced CVD in study participants with dyslipidemia, defined as triglyceride levels greater than 204 mg/dL and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels less than 34 mg/dL (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.95)., Conclusions and Relevance: Extended follow-up of ACCORD-lipid trial participants confirms the original neutral effect of fenofibrate in the overall study cohort. The continued observation of heterogeneity of treatment response by baseline lipids suggests that fenofibrate therapy may reduce CVD in patients with diabetes with hypertriglyceridemia and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. A definitive trial of fibrate therapy in this patient population is needed to confirm these findings., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000620.

Importance: Previous trial results have suggested that dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP4i) use might increase heart failure (HF) risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The DPP4i sitagliptin has been shown to be noninferior to placebo with regard to primary and secondary composite atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sitagliptin (TECOS)., Objective: To assess the association of sitagliptin use with hospitalization for HF (hHF) and related outcomes., Design, Setting, and Participants: TECOS was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating the CV safety of sitagliptin vs placebo, each added to usual antihyperglycemic therapy and CV care among patients with T2DM and prevalent atherosclerotic vascular disease. The median follow-up was 2.9 years. The setting was 673 sites in 38 countries. Participants included 14 671 patients with T2DM and atherosclerotic vascular disease. The study dates were December 2008 through March 2015., Interventions: Patients were randomized to sitagliptin vs placebo added to standard care., Main Outcomes and Measures: Prespecified secondary analyses compared the effect on hHF, hHF or CV death, and hHF or all-cause death composite outcomes overall and in prespecified subgroups. Supportive analyses included total hHF events (first plus recurrent) and post-hHF death. Meta-analyses evaluated DPP4i effects on hHF and on hHF or CV death., Results: Of 14 671 patients, 7332 were randomized to sitagliptin and 7339 to placebo. Hospitalization for HF occurred in 3.1% (n = 228) and 3.1% (n = 229) of the sitagliptin and placebo groups, respectively (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83-1.19). There was also no difference in total hHF events between the sitagliptin (n = 345) and placebo (n = 347) groups (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80-1.25). Post-hHF all-cause death was similar in the sitagliptin and placebo groups (29.8% vs 28.8%, respectively), as was CV death (22.4% vs 23.1%, respectively). No heterogeneity for the effect of sitagliptin on hHF was observed in subgroup analyses across 21 factors (P > .10 for all interactions). Meta-analysis of the hHF results from the 3 reported DPP4i CV outcomes trials revealed moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 44.9, P = .16)., Conclusions and Relevance: Sitagliptin use does not affect the risk for hHF in T2DM, both overall and among high-risk patient subgroups., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00790205.

Importance: Few cardiovascular outcomes trials have been conducted for obesity treatments. Withdrawal of 2 marketed drugs has resulted in controversy about the cardiovascular safety of obesity agents., Objective: To determine whether the combination of naltrexone and bupropion increases major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal stroke, or nonfatal myocardial infarction) compared with placebo in overweight and obese patients., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind noninferiority trial enrolling 8910 overweight or obese patients at increased cardiovascular risk from June 13, 2012, to January 21, 2013, at 266 US centers. After public release of confidential interim data by the sponsor, the academic leadership of the study recommended termination of the trial and the sponsor agreed., Interventions: An Internet-based weight management program was provided to all participants. Participants were randomized to receive placebo (n=4454) or naltrexone, 32 mg/d, and bupropion, 360 mg/d (n=4456)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Time from randomization to first confirmed occurrence of a MACE. The primary analysis planned to assess a noninferiority hazard ratio (HR) of 1.4 after 378 expected events, with a confidential interim analysis after approximately 87 events (25% interim analysis) to assess a noninferiority HR of 2.0 for consideration of regulatory approval., Results: Among the 8910 participants randomized, mean age was 61.0 years (SD, 7.3 years), 54.5% were female, 32.1% had a history of cardiovascular disease, and 85.2% had diabetes, with a median body mass index of 36.6 (interquartile range, 33.1-40.9). For the 25% interim analysis, MACE occurred in 59 placebo-treated patients (1.3%) and 35 naltrexone-bupropion-treated patients (0.8%; HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.90). After 50% of planned events, MACE occurred in 102 patients (2.3%) in the placebo group and 90 patients (2.0%) in the naltrexone-bupropion group (HR, 0.88; adjusted 99.7% CI, 0.57-1.34). Adverse effects were more common in the naltrexone-bupropion group, including gastrointestinal events in 14.2% vs 1.9% (P < .001) and central nervous system symptoms in 5.1% vs 1.2% (P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among overweight or obese patients at increased cardiovascular risk, based on the interim analyses performed after 25% and 50% of planned events, the upper limit of the 95% CI of the HR for MACE for naltrexone-bupropion treatment, compared with placebo, did not exceed 2.0. However, because of the unanticipated early termination of the trial, it is not possible to assess noninferiority for the prespecified upper limit of 1.4. Accordingly, the cardiovascular safety of this treatment remains uncertain and will require evaluation in a new adequately powered outcome trial., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01601704.

Importance: Achieving glycemic control remains a challenge for patients with type 2 diabetes, even with insulin therapy., Objective: To assess whether a fixed ratio of insulin degludec/liraglutide was noninferior to continued titration of insulin glargine in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes treated with insulin glargine and metformin., Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 3, multinational, multicenter, 26-week, randomized, open-label, 2-group, treat-to-target trial conducted at 75 centers in 10 countries from September 2013 to November 2014 among 557 patients with uncontrolled diabetes treated with glargine (20-50 U) and metformin (≥1500 mg/d) with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of 7% to 10% and a body mass index of 40 or lower., Interventions: 1:1 randomization to degludec/liraglutide (n = 278; maximum dose, 50 U of degludec/1.8 mg of liraglutide) or glargine (n = 279; no maximum dose), with twice-weekly titration to a glucose target of 72 to 90 mg/dL., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome measure was change in HbA1c level after 26 weeks, with a noninferiority margin of 0.3% (upper bound of 95% CI, <0.3%). If noninferiority of degludec/liraglutide was achieved, secondary end points were tested for statistical superiority and included change in HbA1c level, change in body weight, and rate of confirmed hypoglycemic episodes., Results: Among 557 randomized patients (mean: age, 58.8 years; women, 49.7%), 92.5% of patients completed the trial and provided data at 26 weeks. Baseline HbA1c level was 8.4% for the degludec/liraglutide group and 8.2% for the glargine group. HbA1c level reduction was greater with degludec/liraglutide vs glargine (-1.81% for the degludec/liraglutide group vs -1.13% for the glargine group; estimated treatment difference [ETD], -0.59% [95% CI, -0.74% to -0.45%]), meeting criteria for noninferiority (P < .001), and also meeting criteria for statistical superiority (P < .001). Treatment with degludec/liraglutide was also associated with weight loss compared with weight gain with glargine (-1.4 kg for degludec/liraglutide vs 1.8 kg for glargine; ETD, -3.20 kg [95% CI, -3.77 to -2.64],P < .001) and fewer confirmed hypoglycemic episodes (episodes/patient-year exposure, 2.23 for degludec/liraglutide vs 5.05 for glargine; estimated rate ratio, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.61],P < .001). Overall and serious adverse event rates were similar in the 2 groups, except for more nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events reported with degludec/liraglutide (adverse events, 79 for degludec/liraglutide vs 18 for glargine)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes taking glargine and metformin, treatment with degludec/liraglutide compared with up-titration of glargine resulted in noninferior HbA1c levels, with secondary analyses indicating greater HbA1c level reduction after 26 weeks of treatment. Further studies are needed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01952145.

Importance: No therapy directed against diabetes has been shown to unequivocally reduce the excess risk of cardiovascular complications. Aleglitazar is a dual agonist of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors with insulin-sensitizing and glucose-lowering actions and favorable effects on lipid profiles., Objective: To determine whether the addition of aleglitazar to standard medical therapy reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS)., Design, Setting, and Participants: AleCardio was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 720 hospitals in 26 countries throughout North America, Latin America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific regions. The enrollment of 7226 patients hospitalized for ACS (myocardial infarction or unstable angina) with type 2 diabetes occurred between February 2010 and May 2012; treatment was planned to continue until patients were followed-up for at least 2.5 years and 950 primary end point events were positively adjudicated., Interventions: Randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aleglitazar 150 µg or placebo daily., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point was time to cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Principal safety end points were hospitalization due to heart failure and changes in renal function., Results: The trial was terminated on July 2, 2013, after a median follow-up of 104 weeks, upon recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board due to futility for efficacy at an unplanned interim analysis and increased rates of safety end points. A total of 3.1% of patients were lost to follow-up and 3.2% of patients withdrew consent. The primary end point occurred in 344 patients (9.5%) in the aleglitazar group and 360 patients (10.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.83-1.11]; P = .57). Rates of serious adverse events, including heart failure (3.4% for aleglitazar vs 2.8% for placebo, P = .14), gastrointestinal hemorrhages (2.4% for aleglitazar vs 1.7% for placebo, P = .03), and renal dysfunction (7.4% for aleglitazar vs 2.7% for placebo, P < .001) were increased., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with type 2 diabetes and recent ACS, use of aleglitazar did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular outcomes. These findings do not support the use of aleglitazar in this setting with a goal of reducing cardiovascular risk., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01042769.

Objective: To assess the cross-sectional association of thiazolidinediones with diabetic macular edema (DME)., Methods: The cross-sectional association of DME and visual acuity with thiazolidinediones was examined by means of baseline fundus photographs and visual acuity measurements from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. Visual acuity was assessed in 9690 participants in the ACCORD trial, and 3473 of these participants had fundus photographs that were centrally read in a standardized fashion by masked graders to assess DME and retinopathy from October 23, 2003, to March 10, 2006., Results: Among the subsample, 695 (20.0%) people had used thiazolidinediones, whereas 217 (6.2%) people had DME. Thiazolidinedione use was not associated with DME in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.44; P = .95) and adjusted (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67-1.40; P = .86) analyses. Significant associations with DME were found for retinopathy severity (P < .001) and age (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.952-0.997; P = .03) but not for hemoglobin A(1c) (P = .06), duration of diabetes (P = .65), sex (P = .72), and ethnicity (P = .20). Thiazolidinedione use was associated with slightly greater visual acuity (0.79 letter; 95% CI, 0.20-1.38; P = .009) of uncertain clinical significance., Conclusions: In a cross-sectional analysis of data from the largest study to date, no association was observed between thiazolidinedione exposure and DME in patients with type 2 diabetes; however, we cannot exclude a modest protective or harmful association. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00542178.