Search

Aim: Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors are approved drugs for treating type 2 diabetes (T2DM); however, their effects on mortality and cardiovascular safety are unclear. This meta-analysis was aimed at evaluating the effects of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors on all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular events (MACE)., Data Synthesis: A Medline, Embase, Cochrane database searching for alpha-glucosidase inhibitors was performed up to July 1st, 2021. All randomized controlled trials (RCT) with a duration ≥52 weeks and comparing the effects of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors with placebo or active drugs were collected. Further inclusion criteria were: RCT reporting MACE within their primary outcome, or as pre-defined secondary outcome; and RCT enrolling at least 100 patients with T2DM. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the aforementioned outcomes. A total of eight RCTs, enrolling 1124 and 908 patients on alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and comparators, respectively, were identified. No trials reported information on MACE. Treatment with alpha-glucosidase inhibitors was not associated with a significant increase of all-cause mortality compared with other therapies or no therapy/placebo (MH-OR 0.76 [0.28; 2.05])., Conclusions: The evidence of beneficial or detrimental effects of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events is not sufficient to draw any conclusions., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest MM has received speaking fees from Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli-Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Novartis and research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb; EM has received consultancy fees from Merck and Novartis speaking fees from Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli-Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Novartis and research grants from Merck, Novartis, and Takeda. All the other authors have no conflict of interests to declare. All the authors approved the final version of the manuscript. Dr. Edoardo Mannucci is the person who takes full responsibility for the work as a whole, including the study design, access to data, and the decision to submit and publish the manuscript., (Copyright © 2021 The Italian Diabetes Society, the Italian Society for the Study of Atherosclerosis, the Italian Society of Human Nutrition and the Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recently defined cardiovascular risk classes for subjects with diabetes. Aim of this study was to explore the distribution of subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) by cardiovascular risk groups according to the ESC classification and to describe the quality indicators of care, with particular regard to cardiovascular risk factors., Methods: The study is based on data extracted from electronic medical records of patients treated at the 258 Italian diabetes centers participating in the AMD Annals initiative. Patients with T2D were stratified by cardiovascular risk. General descriptive indicators, measures of intermediate outcomes, intensity/appropriateness of pharmacological treatment for diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, presence of other complications and overall quality of care were evaluated., Results: Overall, 473,740 subjects with type 2 diabetes (78.5% at very high cardiovascular risk, 20.9% at high risk and 0.6% at moderate risk) were evaluated. Among people with T2D at very high risk: 26.4% had retinopathy, 39.5% had albuminuria, 18.7% had a previous major cardiovascular event, 39.0% had organ damage, 89.1% had three or more risk factors. The use of DPP4-i markedly increased as cardiovascular risk increased. The prescription of secretagogues also increased and that of GLP1-RAs tended to increase. The use of SGLT2-i was still limited, and only slightly higher in subjects with very high cardiovascular risk. The overall quality of care, as summarized by the Q score, tended to be lower as the level of cardiovascular risk increased., Conclusions: A large proportion of subjects with T2D is at high or very high risk. Glucose-lowering drug therapies seem not to be adequately used with respect to their potential advantages in terms of cardiovascular risk reduction. Several actions are necessary to improve the quality of care.

The panoply of treatment algorithms, periodically released to improve guidance, is one mean to face therapeutic uncertainty in pharmacological management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, especially after metformin failure. Failure of recent guidelines to give advice on the use of specific antidiabetic drugs in patients with co-morbidity may generate further uncertainty, given the frequent association of type 2 diabetes with common comorbidity, including, although not limited to obesity, cardiovascular disease, impaired renal function, and frailty. The Italian Association of Diabetologists (Associazione Medici Diabetologi, AMD) recognized the need to develop personalized treatment plans for people with type 2 diabetes, taking into account the patients' individual profile (phenotype), with the objective of the safest possible glycemic control. As not every subject with type 2 diabetes benefits from intensive glycemic control, flexible regimens of treatment with diabetes drugs (including insulin) are needed for reaching individualized glycemic goals. Whether personalized diabetology will improve the quality healthcare practice of diabetes management is unknown, but specific research has been launched.

Simple Summary: The aim of this population-based study was to assess the impact of insulin treatment on cancer incidence in subjects with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Italy. We found that insulin use was associated with a 20% excess for all sites cancer incidence among people with type 2 diabetes, while people with type 1 diabetes did not show any excess. Liver, pancreatic, bladder, and neuroendocrine cancers seem to be the sites with strongest association. Objective: To assess the effect of insulin on cancer incidence in type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Methods: The cohort included all 401,172 resident population aged 20–84 in December 2009 and still alive on December 2011, classified for DM status. Drug exposure was assessed for 2009–2011 and follow up was conducted from 2012 to 2016 through the cancer registry. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were computed for all sites and for the most frequent cancer sites. Results: among residents, 21,190 people had diabetes, 2282 of whom were taking insulin; 1689 cancers occurred, 180 among insulin users. The risk for all site was slightly higher in people with T2DM compared to people without DM (IRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.14–1.27), with no excess for T1DM (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45–1.19). The excess in T2DM remained when comparing with diet-only treatment. In T2DM, excess incidence was observed for liver and pancreas and for NETs: 1.76 (95% CI 1.44–2.17) and 1.37 (95% CI 0.99–1.73), respectively. For bladder, there was an excess both in T1DM (IRR 3.00, 95% CI 1.12, 8.02) and in T2DM (IRR1.27, 95% CI 1.07–1.50). Conclusions: Insulin was associated with a 20% increase in cancer incidence. The risk was higher for liver, pancreatic, bladder and neuroendocrine tumours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Diabetes and cancer frequently coexist in the same subject, often having relevant effects on the management and prognosis of the oncologic patient. However, existing guidelines do not deal with many clinical issues in this setting appropriately. In evaluating the opinions of Diabetologists and Oncologists dealing with diabetes care in people with cancer, the Italian Association of Diabetologists (AMD) promoted a dedicated exploratory survey.Methods: The survey was carried out through the web or handily delivered printed copies between October 2014 and April 2015, in Italy. It was composed of 27 questions intended to gather information on the characteristics of participants and to examine their clinical habits in this context, and participation was totally free and anonymous.Results: A total of 252 physicians participated in the survey. Diabetologists accounted for 51.1% of respondents. According to survey results, in spite of the presence of diabetes (or diabetic complications) worsening the outcome of cancer treatments, the counseling or intervention of a Diabetologist was only required for less than two-thirds of hospitalized patients. For subjects with a life expectancy of months, 80% of specialists considered a glycemic target of 120-250 mg/dL optimal whereas Oncologists were more likely to consider a range of 180-360 mg/dL for patients with a shorter life expectancy. Furthermore, 1 participant out of 3 indicated 1-4 measurements/day as the most appropriate frequency for blood glucose monitoring including in the palliative setting. Insulin was the therapy of choice for the majority of respondents albeit with different routes of administration.Conclusions: This survey provides interesting preliminary data that could help facilitate and optimize the management of patients with cancer and diabetes, promoting the delivery of an organic answer to fragmented assistance, to potentially inappropriate behaviors, and to a tailored therapy in a context of particular clinical fragility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]