Search

11 p., BACKGROUND Previous trials have shown that the use of statins to lower cholesterol reduces the risk of cardiovascular events among persons without cardiovascular disease. Those trials have involved persons with elevated lipid levels or inflammatory markers and involved mainly white persons. It is unclear whether the benefits of statins can be extended to an intermediate-risk, ethnically diverse population without cardiovascular disease. METHODS In one comparison from a 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants in 21 countries who did not have cardiovascular disease and were at intermediate risk to receive rosuvastatin at a dose of 10 mg per day or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, and the second coprimary outcome additionally included revascularization, heart failure, and resuscitated cardiac arrest. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS The overall mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was 26.5% lower in the rosuvastatin group than in the placebo group. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 235 participants (3.7%) in the rosuvastatin group and in 304 participants (4.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.91; P=0.002). The results for the second coprimary outcome were consistent with the results for the first (occurring in 277 participants [4.4%] in the rosuvastatin group and in 363 participants [5.7%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.88; P

12 p., BACKGROUND Antihypertensive therapy reduces the risk of cardiovascular events among high-risk persons and among those with a systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher, but its role in persons at intermediate risk and with lower blood pressure is unclear. METHODS In one comparison from a 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease to receive either candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; the second coprimary outcome additionally included resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, and revascularization. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS The mean blood pressure of the participants at baseline was 138.1/81.9 mm Hg; the decrease in blood pressure was 6.0/3.0 mm Hg greater in the active-treatment group than in the placebo group. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 260 participants (4.1%) in the active-treatment group and in 279 (4.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P=0.40); the second coprimary outcome occurred in 312 participants (4.9%) and 328 participants (5.2%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.11; P=0.51). In one of the three prespecified hypothesis-based subgroups, participants in the subgroup for the upper third of systolic blood pressure (>143.5 mm Hg) who were in the active-treatment group had significantly lower rates of the first and second coprimary outcomes than those in the placebo group; effects were neutral in the middle and lower thirds (P=0.02 and P=0.009, respectively, for trend in the two outcomes). CONCLUSIONS Therapy with candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day was not associated with a lower rate of major cardiovascular events than placebo among persons at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.)

IMPORTANCE: Additional lipid-lowering therapy options are needed for patients who cannot achieve sufficient decreases in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels using statins alone or for those who are statin intolerant. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a pooled analysis of phase 3 randomized clinical trials of bempedoic acid vs placebo. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This analysis pooled data from 4 double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials conducted from 2016 to 2018. Patients were enrolled in North America and Europe. Eligibility criteria included hypercholesterolemia while receiving stable lipid-lowering therapy and high cardiovascular risk or hypercholesterolemia and statin intolerance. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to bempedoic acid, 180 mg (n = 2425), or placebo (n = 1198) once daily for 12 to 52 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary efficacy end point was percentage change from baseline in LDL-C level at week 12 in the intention-to-treat population. Patients were parsed into 2 groups according to enrollment criteria: (1) patients with hypercholesterolemia and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or with both and receiving statins and (2) patients with hypercholesterolemia who were statin intolerant receiving maximally tolerated statins. RESULTS: In this analysis of 3623 patients, the overall mean (SD) patient age was 65.5 (9.2) years (similar in both pools). Among patients with ASCVD or HeFH or both, the mean (SD) baseline LDL-C level was 107.6 (32.7) mg/dL. At week 12, the LDL-C level percentage change from baseline was −16.0% with bempedoic acid vs 1.8% with placebo (difference, −17.8%; 95% CI, −19.5% to −16.0%; P

Context We examined if empagliflozin was associated with modulation of cardiac autonomic tone among subjects with type 2 diabetes and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) relative to placebo. Methods Using ambulatory 24-h Holter electrocardiographic data prospectively collected from a randomized trial, we compared changes in heart rate variability (HRV) parameters between empagliflozin- and placebo-assigned subjects over a follow-up period of 6 months. Measured HRV domains included: standard deviation (SD) of NN intervals (SDNN), SD of average NN intervals per 5-min (SDANN), root mean square of successive RR interval differences (RMSSD), % successive NN intervals differing >50 ms (ms) (pNN50), low frequency (LF), high frequency (HF) and the LF/HF ratio (LF:HF). Differences in HRV parameters between the 2 groups were compared with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Statistical measures of significance were reported as adjusted differences between the 2 groups and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Results Sixty-six subjects completed 24-h Holter monitoring at baseline and 6-months. Over 6 months, the change in HRV was similar between subjects treated with empagliflozin vs. placebo for the following parameters: RMSSD -1.2 ms (-6.0 to 3.6 ms); pNN50 0.5% (-2.6 to 3.6%); VLF -907.8 ms2 (-2388.8 to 573.1 ms2); LF -341 ms2 (-878.7 to 196.7 ms2); HF -33.8 ms2 (-111.1 to 43.5 ms2); LF:HF -0.1 (-0.4 to 0.2). Subjects who received placebo experienced an increase in SDNN 18.6 ms (2.8–34.3 ms) and SDANN 20.2 ms (3.2–37.3 ms) relative to those treated with empagliflozin. Conclusion Compared to placebo, empagliflozin did not result in changes in autonomic tone among individuals with type 2 diabetes and stable coronary artery disease., Highlights • Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors’ mechanism of cardiovascular benefit is unknown. • Impaired autonomic tone is associated with adverse cardiac events. • Cardiac autonomic tone was assessed with Holter studies from a randomized trial. • Similar autonomic tone noted between subjects treated with empagliflozin and placebo.

Combination therapy is often required to achieve sufficient low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering and therapeutic goals in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Bempedoic acid (BA) is an investigational, ATP-citrate lyase inhibitor that has demonstrated efficacy when added to background

The glucagon-like peptide-1 analog liraglutide reduced cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the LEADER trial (Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes). In a post hoc analysis, we evaluated the efficacy of liraglutide in those with and without a history of myocardial infarction (MI) and/or stroke.LEADER was a randomized trial of liraglutide (1.8 mg or maximum tolerated dose) versus placebo in 9340 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk, with a median follow-up of 3.8 years. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events). Risk groups in this post hoc analysis were defined by history of MI/stroke, established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without MI/stroke, or cardiovascular risk factors alone.Of the 9340 patients, 3692 (39.5%) had a history of MI/stroke, 3083 (33.0%) had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without MI/stroke, and 2565 (27.5%) had risk factors alone. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 18.8% of patients with a history of MI/stroke (incidence rate, 5.0 per 100 patient-years), 11.6% of patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without MI/stroke (incidence rate, 3.0 per 100 patient-years), and 9.8% of patients with cardiovascular risk factors alone (incidence rate, 2.6 per 100 patient-years). Liraglutide reduced major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with a history of MI/stroke (322 of 1865 [17.3%] versus 372 of 1827 patients [20.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.99) and in those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without MI/stroke (158 of 1538 [10.3%] versus 199 of 1545 patients [12.9%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94) compared with placebo. In patients with risk factors alone, the hazard ratio for liraglutide versus placebo was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.84-1.38, PIn this post hoc analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk, liraglutide reduced cardiovascular outcomes both in patients with a history of MI/stroke and in those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without MI/stroke. The cardiovascular effect appeared neutral in patients with cardiovascular risk factors alone.URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01179048.

Background To examine the impact on glycemic control of achieving postprandial glucose (PPG) target with lixisenatide, a once-daily glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist approved in the US, in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin, an agent that primarily targets fasting plasma glucose. Methods A post hoc pooled analysis was conducted using clinical trial data extracted from the intent-to-treat subpopulation of patients with T2D who participated in the 24-week, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-arm parallel-group, multicenter GetGoal-L (NCT00715624), GetGoal-Duo 1 (NCT00975286) and GetGoal-L Asia trials (NCT00866658). Results Data from 587 lixisenatide-treated patients and 484 placebo-treated patients were included. Patients on lixisenatide were more likely to achieve a PPG target of Conclusion Compared with placebo, addition of lixisenatide to basal insulin improved HbA1c and reduced PPG, without increasing hypoglycemia risk. These findings highlight the importance of PPG control in the management of T2D, and provide evidence that adding an agent to basal insulin therapy that also impacts PPG has therapeutic value for patients who are not meeting glycemic targets. Trial registration NCT00715624. Registered 15 July 2008, NCT00975286. Registered 11 September 2009, NCT00866658. Registered 20 March 2009.

To determine the association of total and added fructose-containing sugars on cardiovascular (CVD) incidence and mortality.MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 1980, to July 31, 2018. Prospective cohort studies assessing the association of reported intakes of total, sucrose, fructose and added sugars with CVD incidence and mortality in individuals free from disease at baseline were included. Risk estimates were pooled using the inverse variance method, and dose-response analysis was modeled.Eligibility criteria were met by 24 prospective cohort comparisons (624,128 unique individuals; 11,856 CVD incidence cases and 12,224 CVD mortality cases). Total sugars, sucrose, and fructose were not associated with CVD incidence. Total sugars (risk ratio, 1.09 [95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.17]) and fructose (1.08 [1.01 to 1.15]) showed a harmful association for CVD mortality, there was no association for added sugars and a beneficial association for sucrose (0.94 [0.89 to 0.99]). Dose-response analyses showed a beneficial linear dose-response gradient for sucrose and nonlinear dose-response thresholds for harm for total sugars (133 grams, 26% energy), fructose (58 grams, 11% energy) and added sugars (65 grams, 13% energy) in relation to CVD mortality (P.05). The certainty of the evidence using GRADE was very low for CVD incidence and low for CVD mortality for all sugar types.Current evidence supports a threshold of harm for intakes of total sugars, added sugars, and fructose at higher exposures and lack of harm for sucrose independent of food form for CVD mortality. Further research of different food sources of sugars is needed to define better the relationship between sugars and CVD. REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01608620.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a growing health concern across both developed and developing countries. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the major cause of increased mortality in this patient population. In recent years, effective low density lipoprotein lowering treatments and other risk reduction strategies have substantially reduced the risk of atherosclerotic CVD, yet patients with T2D continue to remain at increased risk for atherosclerotic CVD. Here, we will briefly review various proposed underlying mechanisms for this residual risk with a more in-depth focus on the potential role of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins in residual risk and potential avenues to target this pharmacologically.

Objective: Contrary to the concerns that fructose may have adverse metabolic effects, an emerging literature has shown that small doses (&le, 10 g/meal) of fructose and its low-caloric epimers (allulose, tagatose, and sorbose) decrease the glycemic response to high glycemic index meals. Whether these acute reductions manifest as sustainable improvements in glycemic control is unclear. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence from controlled feeding trials that assessed the effect of small doses of fructose and its low-caloric epimers on glycemic control. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library through April 18, 2018. We included controlled feeding trials of &ge, 1 week that investigated the effect of small doses (&le, 50 g/day or &le, 10% of total energy intake/day) of fructose and its low-caloric epimers on HbA1c, fasting glucose, and fasting insulin. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q statistic and quantified using the I2 statistic. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessed the certainty of the evidence. Results: We identified 14 trial comparisons (N = 337) of the effect of fructose in individuals with and without diabetes, 3 trial comparisons (N = 138) of the effect of allulose in individuals without diabetes, 3 trial comparisons (N = 376) of the effect of tagatose mainly in individuals with type 2 diabetes, and 0 trial comparisons of the effect of sorbose. Small doses of fructose and tagatose significantly reduced HbA1c (MD = &minus, 0.38% (95% CI: &minus, 0.64%, &minus, 0.13%), MD = &minus, 0.20% (95% CI: &minus, 0.34%, &minus, 0.06%)) and fasting glucose (MD = &minus, 0.13 mmol/L (95% CI: &minus, 0.24 mmol/L, &minus, 0.03 mmol/L)), 0.30 mmol/L (95% CI: &minus, 0.57 mmol/L, &minus, 0.04 mmol/L)) without affecting fasting insulin (p &gt, 0.05). Small doses of allulose did not have a significant effect on HbA1c and fasting insulin (p &gt, 0.05), while the reduction in fasting glucose was of borderline significance (p = 0.05). The certainty of the evidence of the effect of small doses of fructose and allulose on HbA1c, fasting glucose, and fasting insulin was graded as low. The certainty of the evidence of the effect of tagatose on HbA1c, fasting glucose, and fasting insulin was graded as moderate. Conclusions: Our results indicate that small doses of fructose and tagatose may improve glycemic control over the long term. There is a need for long-term randomized controlled trials for all four sugars to improve our certainty in the estimates.

KEY POINTS The Canadian Cardiovascular Harmonized National Guideline Endeavour (C-CHANGE) is a nationally endorsed guideline process, targeting primary care health care practitioners. The C-CHANGE guideline is a composite of nine of Canada’s cardiovascular-focused clinical practice guidelines ([

Aim To evaluate the safety of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor alirocumab according to diabetes mellitus status. Methods Safety data from 14 trials (8–104‐week durations) were analysed by treatment (alirocumab or placebo/ezetimibe control) and diabetes status (yes/no, defined by medical history). Adverse event data were assessed using descriptive statistics and Cox models. Results Of the 5234 trial participants, 1554 (29.7%) had diabetes. Overall, treatment‐emergent adverse events were similar in the alirocumab and control groups, except for more frequent local injection site reactions with alirocumab. Fewer people with diabetes experienced local injection site reactions [alirocumab, 3.5%, control, 2.9%; hazard ratio 1.24 (95% CI 0.68–2.25)] than those without diabetes [alirocumab, 7.5%; control, 4.9%; hazard ratio 1.51 (95% CI 1.13–2.01)]. Those with diabetes reported a greater number of serious adverse events (alirocumab, 19.4%; control, 19.7%) than those without diabetes (alirocumab, 14.5%; control, 13.5%). In people with diabetes, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 2.7% of alirocumab‐treated people [control, 3.3%; hazard ratio 0.74 (95% CI 0.41–1.35)]; in those without diabetes, 1.8% of alirocumab‐treated people had major adverse cardiac events [control, 1.7%; hazard ratio 0.95 (95% CI 0.56–1.62)]. Overall, no increase in HbA1c or fasting plasma glucose vs control treatment groups was observed, regardless of diabetes status. Conclusion This pooled analysis across 14 trials demonstrated similar safety for alirocumab vs control treatment, irrespective of diabetes status, except for more frequent local injection site reactions with alirocumab. People with diabetes reported fewer local injection site reactions than those without diabetes., What's new? People with diabetes are at high cardiovascular risk and may require additional lipid‐lowering beyond statins. PCSK9 inhibitors provide additional LDL cholesterol reductions, but their safety has not been fully evaluated by diabetes status.Our pooled analysis of 14 phase 2/3 trials is the largest safety assessment of the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab in terms of study participant numbers (n = 5234), comparing those with vs without diabetes at baseline over 8–104 weeks of treatment.Our findings show comparable safety for alirocumab vs control, irrespective of diabetes status, except for more frequent local injection site reactions with alirocumab; people with diabetes reported fewer local injection site reactions than those without. No clinically significant changes in glycaemic variables (fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c) were observed in people with or without diabetes, regardless of treatment with alirocumab or control.

Lorcaserin, a selective serotonin 2C receptor agonist that modulates appetite, has proven efficacy for weight management in overweight or obese patients. The cardiovascular safety and efficacy of lorcaserin are undefined.We randomly assigned 12,000 overweight or obese patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors to receive either lorcaserin (10 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary safety outcome of major cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) was assessed at an interim analysis to exclude a noninferiority boundary of 1.4. If noninferiority was met, the primary cardiovascular efficacy outcome (a composite of major cardiovascular events, heart failure, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization [extended major cardiovascular events]) was assessed for superiority at the end of the trial.At 1 year, weight loss of at least 5% had occurred in 1986 of 5135 patients (38.7%) in the lorcaserin group and in 883 of 5083 (17.4%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 3.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.74 to 3.30; P0.001). Patients in the lorcaserin group had slightly better values with respect to cardiac risk factors (including blood pressure, heart rate, glycemic control, and lipids) than those in the placebo group. During a median follow-up of 3.3 years, the rate of the primary safety outcome was 2.0% per year in the lorcaserin group and 2.1% per year in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.14; P0.001 for noninferiority); the rate of extended major cardiovascular events was 4.1% per year and 4.2% per year, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.07; P=0.55). Adverse events of special interest were uncommon, and the rates were generally similar in the two groups, except for a higher number of patients with serious hypoglycemia in the lorcaserin group (13 vs. 4, P=0.04).In a high-risk population of overweight or obese patients, lorcaserin facilitated sustained weight loss without a higher rate of major cardiovascular events than that with placebo. (Funded by Eisai; CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02019264 .).

BACKGROUND: There is a direct relationship between bodyweight and risk of diabetes. Lorcaserin, a selective serotonin 2C receptor agonist that suppresses appetite, has been shown to facilitate sustained weight loss in obese or overweight patients. We aimed to evaluate the long-term effects of lorcaserin on diabetes prevention and remission. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in eight countries, we recruited overweight or obese patients (body-mass index ≥27 kg/m2) with or at high risk for atherosclerotic vascular disease. Eligible patients were aged 40 years or older; patients at high risk for atherosclerotic vascular disease had to be aged 50 years or older with diabetes and at least one other risk factor. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either lorcaserin (10 mg twice daily) or matching placebo. Additionally, all patients had access to a standardised weight management programme based on lifestyle modification. The prespecified primary metabolic efficacy endpoint of time to incident diabetes was assessed in patients with prediabetes at baseline. The prespecified secondary outcomes for efficacy were incident diabetes in all patients without diabetes, achievement of normoglycaemia in patients with prediabetes, and change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with diabetes. Hypoglycaemia was a prespecified safety outcome. Analysis was by intention to treat, using Cox proportional hazard models for time-to-event analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02019264. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2014, and Nov 20, 2015, 12 000 patients were randomly assigned to lorcaserin or placebo (6000 patients in each group) and followed up for a median of 3·3 years (IQR 3·0-3·5). At baseline, 6816 patients (56·8%) had diabetes, 3991 (33·3%) prediabetes, and 1193 (9·9%) normoglycaemia. At 1 year, patients treated with lorcaserin had a net weight loss beyond placebo of 2·6 kg (95% CI 2·3-2·9) for those with diabetes, 2·8 kg (2·5-3·2) for those with prediabetes, and 3·3 kg (2·6-4·0) for those with normoglycaemia (p

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of inclisiran by diabetes status. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ORION-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02597127) randomized 501 subjects with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or ASCVD risk equivalents and high LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), despite maximally tolerated LDL-C–lowering therapies, to one or two doses of placebo or inclisiran. Levels of lipids and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) at baseline and day 180 were compared. RESULTS Inclisiran was associated with marked declines in LDL-C (median −28% to −52%, P < 0.0001 and −28% to −55%, P < 0.005 for all doses in the without- and with-diabetes groups, respectively) and PCSK9. The inclisiran-treated groups also had lower apolipoprotein B, non-HDL cholesterol, and lipoprotein(a) but higher HDL cholesterol. Inclisiran had an adverse profile similar to that of placebo, and adverse events were proportionally balanced in the baseline with- and without-diabetes groups. CONCLUSIONS PCSK9-targeted siRNA-driven strategies may provide a novel therapeutic option for managing dyslipidemia in the presence and absence of diabetes.

Semaglutide is a new GLP-1 analog for the once-weekly treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Across the SUSTAIN clinical trial program, subjects with T2D achieved significantly greater reductions in three cardiovascular (CV) risk factors with semaglutide vs. placebo or comparators (dulaglutide, exenatide extended release, insulin glargine, or sitagliptin): HbA1c, body weight and systolic blood pressure (SBP). Six SUSTAIN trials (SUSTAIN 1-5 and 7) were assessed post-hoc to determine to what extent subjects achieved clinically meaningful reductions in all of these risk factors (composite endpoint: ≥1% decrease in HbA1c, ≥5% body weight loss, and ≥5 mmHg SBP reduction). Across trials, mean baseline HbA1c, body weight and SBP ranges were 8.1-8.4%, 89.5-95.8 kg and 128.8-134.8 mmHg, respectively. Significantly more subjects achieved the composite endpoint with semaglutide (0.5 mg: 14-20%; 1.0 mg: 15-37%) vs. comparators (1-12%; p Disclosure K.M. Dungan: Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi-Aventis. Research Support; Self; Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline plc.. Consultant; Self; GlaxoSmithKline plc.. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca. Other Relationship; Self; DKBmed, Horizon, Projects in knowledge, Rockpointe. V. Aroda: Consultant; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc., AstraZeneca, Calibra Medical, Eisai Inc., Sanofi. Consultant; Self; Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Theracos, Inc.. Employee; Spouse/Partner; Merck & Co., Inc.. Other Relationship; Self; American Diabetes Association. Consultant; Self; ADOCIA. F.K. Knop: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca. Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca. Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Advisory Panel; Self; Amgen Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.. Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Consultant; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Consultant; Self; Amgen Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; MedImmune, Sanofi. Consultant; Self; Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Sanofi. L.A. Leiter: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca. Advisory Panel; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Research Support; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Research Support; Self; GlaxoSmithKline plc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Research Support; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. Research Support; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Sanofi. Advisory Panel; Self; Servier. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Servier. Research Support; Self; Servier. Advisory Panel; Self; Amgen Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Amgen Inc.. Research Support; Self; Amgen Inc., Esperion Therapeutics, Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., The Medicines Company. Advisory Panel; Self; Akcea Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. N.L. Lausvig: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. S. Lindberg: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Employee; Spouse/Partner; Novo Nordisk A/S. J.J. Meier: Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, Servier.

This study assessed the relationship between FPG, PPG and glycated hemoglobin (A1C) target attainment using ADA glycemic targets in patients (pts) with T2D. A post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 LixiLan-O (NCT02058147) trial assessed the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi (n=468) vs. insulin glargine U100 (iGlar) (n=466) and lixisenatide (Lixi) (n=233) in pts uncontrolled on metformin ± a second OAD, continuing only on metformin, over a 30-week period. The proportion of pts reaching both FPG and PPG target was highest for iGlarLixi, while the proportions of those reaching FPG or PPG targets only were highest for iGlar (targeting FPG) and Lixi (targeting PPG), respectively (Figure 1A). There was a stepwise trend in A1C change, end-of-study A1C, and proportion of pts reaching A1C goals in favor of iGlarLixi, followed by iGlar and Lixi (Figure 1B-D). Pts reaching both FPG and PPG targets had the greatest A1C drop and lowest A1C values, and represented the largest proportion of pts acheiving A1C target. No differences were observed in hypoglycemia rates in all treatment arms, and a greater proportion of pts experienced weight loss with iGlarLixi vs. iGlar (55.3% vs. 39.9%). By simultaneously targeting fasting and postprandial hyperglycemia, iGlarLixi treatment results in greater A1C reduction and better A1C target attainment than iGlar or Lixi alone. Disclosure C. Desouza: Consultant; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Medscape. V. Fonseca: Consultant; Self; Abbott. Board Member; Self; American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Consultant; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Amgen Inc.. Consultant; Self; Asahi Kasei Corporation, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk Inc., ADOCIA, Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. J.P. Frias: Research Support; Self; AbbVie Inc., Allergan, Amgen Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. Consultant; Self; CeQur Corporation. Research Support; Self; Cirius Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Calibra Medical, Elcelyx Therapeutics, Inc.. Consultant; Self; Elcelyx Therapeutics, Inc.. Research Support; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Inc., Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ICON plc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Consultant; Self; Johnson & Johnson Diabetes Institute, LLC.. Research Support; Self; Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Consultant; Self; Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Research Support; Self; Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novo Nordisk Inc., Pfizer Inc., Sanofi. Consultant; Self; Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Theracos, Inc. L. Van Gaal: Advisory Panel; Self; Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen J & J, Merck MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Servier/Intarcia. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen J & J, Merck MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Servier/Intarcia. Research Support; Self; EU (Hepadip & Resolve consortium) and National Research Funds. F. Giorgino: Consultant; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH. Research Support; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc.. Consultant; Self; MedImmune, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Roche Diabetes Care Health and Digital Solutions, Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Takeda Development Centre Europe Ltd.. J. Chao: None. T.A. Dex: Employee; Self; Sanofi US. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Pfizer Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.. M. Roberts: None. A. Saremi: Employee; Self; Sanofi US. L.A. Leiter: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca. Advisory Panel; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Research Support; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Research Support; Self; GlaxoSmithKline plc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Research Support; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. Research Support; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Sanofi. Advisory Panel; Self; Servier. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Servier. Research Support; Self; Servier. Advisory Panel; Self; Amgen Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Amgen Inc.. Research Support; Self; Amgen Inc., Esperion Therapeutics, Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., The Medicines Company. Advisory Panel; Self; Akcea Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Treatments that reduce A1C levels often do not reflect improvements in both fasting and postprandial hyperglycemia. Data from 731 patients (pts) with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin ± OADs in the LixiLan-L trial (NCT02058160) were used to investigate the association between achieving FPG/PPG targets and A1C target attainment after 30 weeks of treatment with iGlarLixi (n=366) or iGlar (n=365). Outcomes were A1C target attainment, A1C change from baseline, and mean A1C at Week 30 in pts achieving both FPG and PPG target, FPG target only, PPG target only, or neither, using ADA glycemic targets. The proportion of pts reaching PPG only, or both FPG and PPG target, was numerically higher for iGlarLixi, while the proportion reaching FPG target only was numerically higher for iGlar (Figure. 1A). iGlarLixi-treated pts reaching both FPG and PPG targets, or FPG target only, showed statistically significant greater A1C changes from baseline, lower end-of-trial A1C, and a higher proportion reaching A1C target than iGlar-treated pts (Figure. 1B-D). Despite a numerically higher proportion of pts reaching FPG target only in the iGlar arm, A1C outcomes were in favor of pts receiving iGlarLixi. In conclusion, the complementary actions of iGlarLixi on both fasting and postprandial hyperglycemia were associated with better A1C target attainment compared with iGlar alone, which mainly targets fasting hyperglycemia. Disclosure L.A. Leiter: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca. Advisory Panel; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Research Support; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Research Support; Self; GlaxoSmithKline plc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Research Support; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. Research Support; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Sanofi. Advisory Panel; Self; Servier. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Servier. Research Support; Self; Servier. Advisory Panel; Self; Amgen Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Amgen Inc.. Research Support; Self; Amgen Inc., Esperion Therapeutics, Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., The Medicines Company. Advisory Panel; Self; Akcea Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. J. Chao: None. A. Saremi: Employee; Self; Sanofi US. T.A. Dex: Employee; Self; Sanofi US. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Pfizer Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. J.A. Davidson: Other Relationship; Self; American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Consultant; Self; Aspire Bariatrics. Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca. Consultant; Self; Boston Therapeutics, Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; GlaxoSmithKline plc., Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi.

The efficacy and safety of IDegLira has been established in the DUAL clinical development program. This post-hoc analysis evaluated glycemic control in the subgroup of patients titrated to the maximum approved IDegLira dose of 50 units (U) (50 U insulin degludec + 1.8 mg liraglutide), from trials that evaluated IDegLira vs. other comparators (DUAL I-V and VII). In all DUAL trials, baseline A1C was similar between IDegLira and comparator arms. In DUAL I-V, regardless of end-of-trial (EOT) doses (50 or For patients at 50 U and In conclusion, a high proportion of patients receiving the maximum approved dose of IDegLira are able to achieve good glycemic control. Disclosure L. Meneghini: Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US. Consultant; Self; Sanofi US, Novo Nordisk Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc.. Other Relationship; Self; American Diabetes Association. S. Linjawi: Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S, Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S, Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi. P. Serusclat: Board Member; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S, Medtronic, Abbott. Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S, Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi. T. Vilsbøll: Advisory Panel; Self; Amgen Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, MSD K.K., Sanofi, Novo Nordisk A/S. Consultant; Self; Amgen Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, MSD K.K., Sanofi, Novo Nordisk A/S. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Amgen Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, MSD K.K., Sanofi, Novo Nordisk A/S. Research Support; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk A/S. B.F. Agner: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. T. Hansen: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. L.A. Leiter: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca. Advisory Panel; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Research Support; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Research Support; Self; GlaxoSmithKline plc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Research Support; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. Research Support; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Sanofi. Advisory Panel; Self; Servier. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Servier. Research Support; Self; Servier. Advisory Panel; Self; Amgen Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Amgen Inc.. Research Support; Self; Amgen Inc., Esperion Therapeutics, Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., The Medicines Company. Advisory Panel; Self; Akcea Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Summary Hypoglycaemia has long been recognised as a dangerous side-effect of treatment of diabetes with insulin or insulin secretagogues. With its potential to disrupt cerebral function, hypoglycaemia can have a major effect on peoples' lives. Study findings have suggested that hypoglycaemia is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. Different mechanisms by which hypoglycaemia might provoke cardiovascular events have been identified in experimental studies, and in clinical studies cardiac arrhythmias have been reported to be induced by hypoglycaemia, with one report describing sudden death during a severe episode. Emerging evidence suggests that the association between hypoglycaemia and cardiovascular events and mortality is likely to be multifactorial. The association is probably partly caused by confounding, with hypoglycaemia occurring more frequently in people with comorbidities who are also more likely to die than those without. However, people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes also seem at risk of hypoglycaemia-induced cardiovascular effects. This risk should be recognised by clinicians when agreeing glycaemic goals with patients and choosing appropriate glucose-lowering therapies.

Objectives To describe the clinical histories and management of adults with type 2 diabetes who were not reaching their target glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels and to identify barriers to achieving therapeutic goals. Methods Practice assessment surveys and practice audits were completed by 88 primary care physicians (PCPs) in the Diabetes Mellitus Assessment of Clinical managemenT In ONtario (DM-ACTION) program and by 56 diabetes specialists in the Diabetes Mellitus IMproving PAtient Care in our communiTies (DM-IMPACT) program. The DM-ACTION audit analyzed data from 1,173 adults with A1C levels ≥7.3% who were not prescribed insulin; the DM-IMPACT audit included 135 individuals with similar characteristics. Results Most PCPs (92%) and specialists (88%) stated that they typically recommend A1C levels of ≤7.0%; more than 90% indicated that they adjusted antihyperglycemic therapy within 3 months if suboptimal A1C targets endured. Among the DM-ACTION patients, the median A1C level was 7.8%; the median time between the last 2 A1C tests was 5 months; 58% were taking ≤2 noninsulin antihyperglycemic agents; and adjustment of glucose-lowering therapy was noted for only 56%. The corresponding values for the DM-IMPACT patients were 8.0%, 4 months, 43% and 68%, respectively. PCPs and specialists attributed patients' factors and patients' adherence as primary causes of poor achievement of guideline-recommended targets. PCPs perceived patients' factors as the predominant barrier to optimizing care, but the specialists believed that therapeutic inertia stems from a wide range and a varied combination of patient-centric factors. Conclusions Type 2 diabetes remains a health-care challenge in Canada and globally. Primary care physicians and specialists attributed patients' factors as principal obstacles to optimal diabetes management. However, physician-associated therapeutic inertia may also be an important barrier to unmet therapeutic goals.

Although many cardiologists have not routinely prescribed antihyperglycemic agents, the results of cardiovascular outcome trials with sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), demonstrating significant reductions in cardiovascular events and mortality, make it imperative that cardiologists become more familiar with these agents. As part of a comprehensive cardiovascular risk reduction strategy, cardiologists can prescribe these agents or provide the recommendation to the healthcare team. In either case, involving the entire healthcare team, including the primary care provider and diabetologist/endocrinologist, ensures a team approach to manage potential patient concerns, side effects, and concomitant glucose-lowering medications. This article provides practical facts and tips to aid in the appropriate prescription of liraglutide, the first GLP-1 RA with a cardiovascular indication. Four cardiovascular outcomes studies evaluating GLP-1 RAs have been reported to date,1 of which only one2 showed unequivocally a superior cardiovascular outcome. The LEADER trial2 randomized 9340 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk to liraglutide 1.8 mg or placebo in addition to standard of care. After a median follow-up of 3.8 years, participants in the liraglutide group experienced a significantly reduced risk (13.0% versus 14.9%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P =0.01) versus placebo for the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke).2 All individual components of the composite primary …

ObjectiveCarbohydrate staples such as pasta have been implicated in the obesity epidemic. It is unclear whether pasta contributes to weight gain or like other low-glycaemic index (GI) foods contributes to weight loss. We synthesised the evidence of the effect of pasta on measures of adiposity.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched through 7 February 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included randomised controlled trials ≥3 weeks assessing the effect of pasta alone or in the context of low-GI dietary patterns on measures of global (body weight, body mass index (BMI), body fat) and regional (waist circumference (WC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), sagittal abdominal diameter (SAD)) adiposity in adults.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled using the generic inverse-variance method and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I2statistic). GRADE assessed the certainty of the evidence.ResultsWe identified no trial comparisons of the effect of pasta alone and 32 trial comparisons (n=2448 participants) of the effect of pasta in the context of low-GI dietary patterns. Pasta in the context of low-GI dietary patterns significantly reduced body weight (MD=−0.63 kg; 95% CI −0.84 to –0.42 kg) and BMI (MD=−0.26 kg/m2; 95% CI −0.36 to –0.16 kg/m2) compared with higher-GI dietary patterns. There was no effect on other measures of adiposity. The certainty of the evidence was graded as moderate for body weight, BMI, WHR and SAD and low for WC and body fat.ConclusionsPasta in the context of low-GI dietary patterns does not adversely affect adiposity and even reduces body weight and BMI compared with higher-GI dietary patterns. Future trials should assess the effect of pasta in the context of other ‘healthy’ dietary patterns.Trial registration numberNCT02961088; Results.

Background Although the number of antihyperglycemic agents has expanded significantly, sulfonylureas (in particular gliclazide) remain an important option because of a variety of patient and health system factors. The large, real world, observational, and international EASYDia trial evaluated the effectiveness of gliclazide modified release (MR) 60 mg in individuals with type 2 diabetes with a broad range of diabetes history, body mass index (BMI) and background antihyperglycemic treatment. Methods A total of 7170 participants from eight countries, age ≥ 35 years with HbA1c ≥ 7.5% and not treated with insulin, were prescribed 30–120 mg of gliclazide MR 60 mg once daily. HbA1c goals were individualized and dosing uptitrated, as required, over the 6-month long study. In this post hoc subanalysis, efficacy endpoints were analyzed according to stratified baseline HbA1c levels, weight and glucose-lowering regimens. Episodes of hypoglycemia requiring assistance were documented. Results At baseline, mean age was 58.9 years, HbA1c 8.8%, BMI 30.1 kg/m2, and diabetes duration 5.1 years. At study end, clinically significant HbA1c improvements (mean change − 1.78%) were noted across all baseline HbA1c strata (> 7.0 to ≤ 8.0%, > 8.0 to ≤ 9.0%, > 9.0 to ≤ 10.0%, and > 10.0%), BMI classifications (18.5 to 2), and regardless of the original diabetes treatment regimen (P 2 that registered weight losses of 0.9 and 2.2 kg, respectively (P 2 subgroup gained a mean 0.5 kg (P Conclusions Progressive gliclazide MR 60 mg uptitration was well tolerated and lowered HbA1c across a broad range of HbA1c, BMI and background glucose-lowering therapy. Weight loss was noted when BMI was ≥ 25.0 kg/m2. Individuals with the highest baseline HbA1c and BMI experienced the greatest HbA1c and weight improvements. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN00943368 on 1st July 2011

Background: In the FOURIER trial (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Patients With Elevated Risk), the PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor evolocumab reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and cardiovascular risk. It is not known whether the efficacy of evolocumab is modified by baseline inflammatory risk. We explored the efficacy of evolocumab stratified by baseline high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP). We also assessed the importance of inflammatory and residual cholesterol risk across the range of on-treatment LDL-C concentrations. Methods: Patients (n=27 564) with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and LDL-C ≥70 mg/dL on a statin were randomly assigned to evolocumab versus placebo and followed for a median of 2.2 years (1.8–2.5). The effects of evolocumab on the primary end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina or coronary revascularization, and the key secondary end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were compared across strata of baseline hsCRP (3 mg/dL). Outcomes were also assessed across values for baseline hsCRP and 1-month LDL-C in the entire trial population. Multivariable models adjusted for variables associated with hsCRP and 1-month LDL-C were evaluated. Results: A total of 7981 (29%) patients had a baseline hsCRP3 mg/L. Median (interquartile range) baseline hsCRP was 1.8 (0.9–3.6) mg/L and levels were not altered by evolocumab (change at 48 weeks of –0.2 mg/dL [–1.0 to 0.4] in both treatment arms). In the placebo arm, patients in higher baseline hsCRP categories experienced significantly higher 3-year Kaplan-Meier rates of the primary and key secondary end points: 12.0%, 13.7%, and 18.1% for the primary end point ( P trend P trend 3 mg/dL, respectively. The relative risk reductions for the primary end point and key secondary end point with evolocumab were consistent across hsCRP strata ( P -interactions>0.15 for both). In contrast, the absolute risk reductions with evolocumab tended to be greater in patients with higher hsCRP: 1.6%, 1.8%, and 2.6% and 0.8%, 2.0%, and 3.0%, respectively, for the primary and key secondary end points across hsCRP strata. In adjusted analyses of the association between LDL-C and hsCRP levels and cardiovascular risk, both LDL-C and hsCRP were independently associated with the primary outcome ( P Conclusions: LDL-C reduction with evolocumab reduces cardiovascular events across hsCRP strata with greater absolute risk reductions in patients with higher-baseline hsCRP. Event rates were lowest in patients with the lowest hsCRP and LDL-C. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01764633.

Aims: To objectively appraise evidence for possible adverse effects of long-term statin therapy on glucose homeostasis, cognitive, renal and hepatic function, and risk for haemorrhagic stroke or cataract.Methods and results: A literature search covering 2000-2017 was performed. The Panel critically appraised the data and agreed by consensus on the categorization of reported adverse effects. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and genetic studies show that statin therapy is associated with a modest increase in the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (about one per thousand patient-years), generally defined by laboratory findings (glycated haemoglobin ≥6.5); this risk is significantly higher in the metabolic syndrome or prediabetes. Statin treatment does not adversely affect cognitive function, even at very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and is not associated with clinically significant deterioration of renal function, or development of cataract. Transient increases in liver enzymes occur in 0.5-2% of patients taking statins but are not clinically relevant; idiosyncratic liver injury due to statins is very rare and causality difficult to prove. The evidence base does not support an increased risk of haemorrhagic stroke in individuals without cerebrovascular disease; a small increase in risk was suggested by the Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction of Cholesterol Levels study in subjects with prior stroke but has not been confirmed in the substantive evidence base of RCTs, cohort studies and case-control studies.Conclusion: Long-term statin treatment is remarkably safe with a low risk of clinically relevant adverse effects as defined above; statin-associated muscle symptoms were discussed in a previous Consensus Statement. Importantly, the established cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy far outweigh the risk of adverse effects.

Background Albiglutide is a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist that improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Harmony Outcomes is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the effect of albiglutide on major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with T2DM and established CV disease. Methods The trial was designed to recruit 9,400 patients aged ≥40 years with T2DM, prior atherosclerotic CV disease, and suboptimal glycemic control. Participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to albiglutide 30 mg (potentially increasing to 50 mg) or matching placebo administered once weekly by subcutaneous injection. The trial will continue until ≥611 confirmed primary outcome events (CV death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) occur over a median follow-up of at least 1.5 years. Results A total of 9,463 patients were enrolled at 611 sites in 28 countries between July 2015 and December 2016. The mean age was 64.1 years; duration of T2DM, 13.8 years; and glycated hemoglobin, 8.7%. The percentage of patients with prior coronary artery disease was 70.5%; peripheral arterial disease, 25.0%; stroke, 17.7%; heart failure, 20.2%; and chronic kidney disease, 22.6%. Conclusions Harmony Outcomes will assess the CV safety of albiglutide in patients with T2DM and CV disease. Trials of other agents in the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist class have shown CV benefit for only some of these medications, possibly due to differences in trial design or instead due to differences in drug structure or metabolism. Harmony Outcomes will provide information critical to our understanding of this heterogenous class of glucose-lowering agents.

11 p., Background-—It is not clear whether the effects of lipid-lowering or antihypertensive medications are influenced by adherence to healthy lifestyle factors. We assessed the effects of both drug interventions in subgroups by the number of healthy lifestyle factors in participants in the HOPE-3 (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) trial. Methods and Results-—In this primary prevention trial, 4 healthy lifestyle factors (nonsmoking status, physical activity, optimal body weight, and healthy diet) were recorded in 12 521 participants who were at intermediate risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and were randomized to rosuvastatin, candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide, their combination, or matched placebos. Median follow-up was 5.6 years. The outcome was a composite of CVD events. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox regression models. Participants with ≥2 healthy lifestyle factors had a lower rate of CVD compared with those with fewer factors (HR: 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73–1.00). Rosuvastatin reduced CVD events in participants with ≥2 healthy lifestyle factors (HR: 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62–0.90) and in participants with

The sulfonylureas are effective oral glucose-lowering agents with a long history of clinical use. While all have the same general mechanism of action, their pharmacokinetic properties are influenced by factors such as dosage, rate of absorption, duration of action, route of elimination, tissue specificity, and binding affinity for pancreatic β-cell receptor. The result is a class of agents with similar HbA1c-lowering efficacy, but well-documented differences in terms of effects on hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular and renal safety. This review examines the differences between currently available sulfonylureas with a focus on how gliclazide modified release (MR) differs from other members of this class and from newer oral antihyperglycemic agents in the form of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) and sodium- glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The first part focuses on major outcome trials that have been conducted with the sulfonylureas and new oral agents. Consideration is then given to factors important for day-to-day prescribing including efficacy and durability, weight changes, hypoglycemia, renal effects and cost. Based on current evidence, third-generation sulfonylureas such as gliclazide MR possess many of the properties desired of a type 2 diabetes drug including high glucose-lowering efficacy, once-daily oral administration, few side effects other than mild hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular safety.

The causal relationship between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular events has been well established. In people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, LDL-C lowering with statins is strongly endorsed by clinical practice guidelines, with suggested LDL-C target levels including

Objective Despite their importance in achieving good glycemic control, few real-world data on insulin dosing irregularities and hypoglycemia are available. The multinational, online Global Attitude of Patients and Physicians (GAPP2) survey was conducted to address this situation. Methods Insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes and healthcare professionals (HCPs) who treat such patients were surveyed in an online cross-sectional study. This article summarizes findings from a sample of the online population in a Canadian cohort of 156 patients and 202 HCPs. Results A total of 156 patients completed the questionnaires; 26% reported experiencing a dosing irregularity (missed, mistimed or reduced a basal insulin dose) in the previous 30 days. Up to 60% reported risk for hypoglycemia as the reason for intentional dosing irregularities. Of all patients, 80% reported experiencing a self-treated hypoglycemic event, and 33% recalled having at least 1 event in the previous month. HCPs recorded similar levels of patient-reported dosing irregularities. Over 90% indicated they recommended patients to temporarily reduce their insulin doses to deal with hypoglycemia. Conclusions A sizeable minority of patients experienced dosing irregularities and self-treated hypoglycemia in this Canadian cohort. The data suggest that HCPs who completed the survey are aware of this and of the need to provide education and support for patients who regularly miss, mistime or reduce insulin doses. Although the desire to prevent hypoglycemic events is understandable and important, HCPs need to ensure fear of hypoglycemia does not compromise optimal diabetes management.

Despite the availability of a growing range of interventions to assist control of body weight for people with excess weight or obesity, only a small proportion of people achieve their weight loss goals and are able to maintain body weight reductions in the long term. Negative attitudes and beliefs are often found among physicians and others involved in treating obesity and may adversely impact the effectiveness of management. In this international study, healthcare professionals were invited to complete an online survey of their attitudes and practice in the management of excess body weight. A total of 335 clinicians completed the survey of whom approximately half were based in Europe. A key finding from the survey is that, while participants are generally confident in their ability to manage overweight and obesity effectively, they also report that most of their patients are not successful in achieving their weight loss goals. At the same time, participants tended to overestimate the effectiveness of current medical management in maintaining reductions in body weight. Educational initiatives addressing the real-life effectiveness of different weight control interventions may help to close the gap between clinicians' perceptions and reality in the management of excess body weight.

OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin, a selective sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), documented pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD), and a history of hypertension. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Patients (N = 922) were randomized to receive 10 mg dapagliflozin or placebo in a double-blind trial for 24 weeks, followed by a 28-week extension period. In patients receiving insulin, the insulin dose was reduced by 25% at randomization. Patients were stratified by age, insulin use, and time from the most recent qualifying cardiovascular (CV) event. Co-primary end points were a change from baseline in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and the proportion of patients achieving a combined reduction in HbA1c of ≥0.5% (5.5 mmol/mol), body weight (BW) of ≥3%, and systolic blood pressure (SBP) of ≥3 mmHg. RESULTS At 24 weeks, dapagliflozin significantly reduced HbA1c (−0.38% [−4.2 mmol/mol]) from baseline (8.18%) compared with a slight increase with placebo from baseline (8.08%) (0.08% [0.9 mmol/mol]). Significantly more patients met the three-item end point with treatment with dapagliflozin than with placebo (11.7% vs. 0.9%, respectively). Changes were maintained over 52 weeks. Although ∼42% of patients were ≥65 years old, similar results were observed in both age-stratified groups. Serious adverse events, hypoglycemia, urinary tract infections, and cardiac disorders were similar between groups. Adverse events of hypotension, dehydration, hypovolemia, genital infection, and renal failure or impairment occurred more often with dapagliflozin treatment. CONCLUSIONS In this study that evaluated T2D patients who were at high risk for future CVD events, dapagliflozin administration had significantly greater effects in reducing HbA1c, BW, and SBP, without adversely impacting CV safety when compared with placebo treatment.

Canagliflozin, a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, reduces HbA1c, body weight and systolic BP (SBP) in patients with type 2 diabetes. As weight loss is known to reduce both HbA1c and SBP, these analyses were performed to evaluate the contribution of weight loss resulting from treatment with canagliflozin to HbA1c and SBP reductions in patients with type 2 diabetes.Pooled data from four placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies (N = 2,250) in patients with type 2 diabetes were used in the analyses. In each study, patients were treated with placebo, canagliflozin 100 mg or canagliflozin 300 mg, once daily for 26 weeks. Changes from baseline in body weight, HbA1c and SBP were measured at week 26, and the contribution of weight loss to the lowering of HbA1c and SBP was obtained using ANCOVA.Canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg reduced mean body weight, HbA1c and SBP compared with placebo (p 0.001 for each), and more patients had body-weight reductions0%, ≥5% and ≥10% with canagliflozin treatment than with placebo. Weight-loss-independent and weight-loss-associated mechanisms contributed to HbA1c and SBP lowering with canagliflozin: ~85% of HbA1c lowering and ~60% of SBP lowering was independent of weight loss.In patients with type 2 diabetes, canagliflozin provided clinically meaningful body-weight reductions, and the weight loss contributed to reductions in HbA1c and SBP.

Hypoglycemia caused by treatment with a sulfonylurea, a glinide, or insulin coupled with compromised defenses against the resulting falling plasma glucose concentrations is a problem for many people with diabetes. It is often recurrent, causes significant morbidity and occasional mortality, limits maintenance of euglycemia, and impairs physiological and behavioral defenses against subsequent hypoglycemia. Minimizing hypoglycemia includes acknowledging the problem; considering each risk factor; and applying the principles of intensive glycemic therapy, including drug selection and selective application of diabetes treatment technologies. For diabetes health-care providers treating most people with diabetes who are at risk for or are suffering from iatrogenic hypoglycemia, these principles include selecting appropriate individualized glycemic goals and providing structured patient education to reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia. This is typically combined with short-term scrupulous avoidance of hypoglycemia, which often will reverse impaired awareness of hypoglycemia. Clearly, the risk of hypoglycemia is modifiable.

Epidemiological data associate higher concentrations of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) with lower cardiovascular risk. HDL-C isolated from healthy subjects exhibits potentially protective properties, including anti-inflammatory effects [(1)][1]. However, some evidence suggests that

Background There is a heightened interest in plant‐based diets for cardiovascular disease prevention. Although plant protein is thought to mediate such prevention through modifying blood lipids, the effect of plant protein in specific substitution for animal protein on blood lipids remains unclear. To assess the effect of this substitution on established lipid targets for cardiovascular risk reduction, we conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Methods and Results MEDLINE , EMBASE , and the Cochrane Registry were searched through September 9, 2017. We included randomized controlled trials of ≥3 weeks comparing the effect of plant protein in substitution for animal protein on low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, non–high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled by the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I 2 statistic). The overall quality (certainty) of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. One‐hundred twelve randomized controlled trials met the eligibility criteria. Plant protein in substitution for animal protein decreased low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol by 0.16 mmol/L (95% confidence interval, −0.20 to −0.12 mmol/L; P 2 =55%; moderate‐quality evidence), non–high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol by 0.18 mmol/L (95% confidence interval, −0.22 to −0.14 mmol/L; P 2 =52%; moderate‐quality evidence), and apolipoprotein B by 0.05 g/L (95% confidence interval, −0.06 to −0.03 g/L; P 2 =30%; moderate‐quality evidence). Conclusions Substitution of plant protein for animal protein decreases the established lipid targets low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, non–high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B. More high‐quality randomized trials are needed to improve our estimates. Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 02037321.

The alarming rise in the worldwide prevalence of obesity is paralleled by an increasing burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metabolic surgery is the most effective means of obtaining substantial and durable weight loss in individuals with obesity. Randomized trials have recently shown the superiority of surgery over medical treatment alone in achieving improved glycemic control, as well as a reduction in cardiovascular risk factors. The mechanisms seem to extend beyond the magnitude of weight loss alone and include improvements in incretin profiles, insulin secretion, and insulin sensitivity. Moreover, observational data suggest that the reduction in cardiovascular risk factors translates to better patient outcomes. This review describes commonly used metabolic surgical procedures and their current indications and summarizes the evidence related to weight loss and glycemic outcomes. It further examines their potential effects on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality and discusses future perspectives.