Search

To assess cardiovascular, glycaemic, weight and safety outcomes of long-term treatment with dulaglutide 1.5 mg compared with placebo in patients with a baseline HbA1c of less than 7% versus 7% or higher.Intention-to-treat analyses were performed on REWIND participants with a baseline HbA1c measurement, using Cox proportional hazards regression and mixed model for repeated measures. Subgroup analyses with factors for baseline HbA1c categories and their interaction with treatment group, as well as analyses within the HbA1c subgroups, were conducted. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were performed for baseline HbA1c subgroups of 6.5% or less and more than 6.5%.Of the 9876 eligible participants, 3921 and 5955 had a baseline HbA1c of less than 7% and 7% or higher, respectively. Mean baseline HbA1c was 6.3% and 8.0% and the mean duration of diabetes was 9.0 and 11.6 years in the respective subgroups. The less than 7% subgroup was slightly older and less frequently insulin-treated. There was no evidence of a differential dulaglutide treatment effect on body mass index (BMI) reduction, cardiovascular or safety outcomes of interest between the baseline HbA1c subgroups. Treatment-by-baseline HbA1c group interaction was significant for HbA1c change from baseline (P .001), with a greater reduction in the subgroup with higher baseline HbA1c values. Sensitivity analyses by baseline HbA1c subgroups of 6.5% or less and more than 6.5% showed similar results.The reduced incidence of cardiovascular events, and the reduction in BMI in participants treated with once-weekly dulaglutide, were independent of the baseline HbA1c level. Conversely, participants with a higher baseline HbA1c level had greater reductions in HbA1c. Dulaglutide has a positive benefit-risk profile and can be considered in patients with comparatively well-controlled HbA1c levels seeking optimal metabolic control and cardiovascular benefits.

The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) have given us fundamental insights into the natural history and management of diabetes (1,2). These include strong evidence that 1 ) enhanced glycemic management can limit some of the complications of diabetes, 2 ) there is a dose-response relationship between HbA1c levels and the risk of complications, and 3 ) a treatment target of

Improvement of glucose levels into the normal range can occur in some people living with diabetes, either spontaneously or after medical interventions, and in some cases can persist after withdrawal of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy. Such sustained improvement may now be occurring more often due to newer forms of treatment. However, terminology for describing this process and objective measures for defining it are not well established, and the long-term risks versus benefits of its attainment are not well understood. To update prior discussions of this issue, an international expert group was convened by the American Diabetes Association to propose nomenclature and principles for data collection and analysis, with the goal of establishing a base of information to support future clinical guidance. This group proposed “remission” as the most appropriate descriptive term, and HbA1c

Context Dulaglutide reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial. Its efficacy and safety in older vs younger patients have not been explicitly analyzed. Objective This work aimed to assess efficacy and safety of dulaglutide vs placebo in REWIND by age subgroups (≥ 65 and Methods A post hoc subgroup analysis of REWIND was conducted at 371 sites in 24 countries. Participants included type 2 diabetes patients aged 50 years or older with established cardiovascular (CV) disease or multiple CV risk factors, and a wide range of glycemic control. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dulaglutide 1.5 mg or placebo as an add-on to country-specific standard of care. Main outcomes measures included MACE (first occurrence of the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from CV or unknown causes). Results There were 5256 randomly assigned patients who were 65 years or older (mean = 71.0), and 4645 were younger than 65 years (mean = 60.7). Baseline characteristics were similar in randomized treatment groups. Dulaglutide treatment showed a similar reduction in the incidence (11% vs 13%) of MACE in older vs younger patients. The rate of permanent study drug discontinuation, incidence of all-cause mortality, hospitalizations for heart failure, severe hypoglycemia, severe renal or urinary events, and serious gastrointestinal events were similar between randomized treatment groups within each age subgroup. The incidence rate of serious cardiac conduction disorders was numerically higher in the dulaglutide group compared to placebo within each age subgroup but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion Dulaglutide had similar efficacy and safety in REWIND in patients65 years and older and those younger than 65 years.

Digital, Objective Recent European Guidelines for Diabetes, Prediabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases introduced a shift in managing patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for or established cardiovascular (CV) disease by recommending GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial glucose-lowering therapy. This is questioned since outcome trials of these drug classes had metformin as background therapy. In this post hoc analysis, the effect of dulaglutide on CV events was investigated according to the baseline metformin therapy by means of a subgroup analysis of the Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial. Research design and methods Patients in REWIND (n = 9901; women: 46.3%; mean age: 66.2 years) had type 2 diabetes and either a previous CV event (31%) or high CV risk (69%). They were randomized (1:1) to sc. dulaglutide (1.5 mg/weekly) or placebo in addition to standard of care. The primary outcome was the first of a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. Key secondary outcomes included a microvascular composite endpoint, all-cause death, and heart failure. The effect of dulaglutide in patients with and without baseline metformin was evaluated by a Cox regression hazard model with baseline metformin, dulaglutide assignment, and their interaction as independent variables. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by a Cox regression model with adjustments for factors differing at baseline between people with vs. without metformin, identified using the backward selection. Results Compared to patients with metformin at baseline (n = 8037; 81%), those without metformin (n = 1864; 19%) were older and slightly less obese and had higher proportions of women, prior CV events, heart failure, and renal disease. The primary outcome occurred in 976 (12%) participants with baseline metformin and in 281 (15%) without. There was no significant difference in the effect of dulaglutide on the primary outcome in patients with vs. without metformin at baseline [HR 0.92 (CI 0.81–1.05) vs. 0.78 (CI 0.61–0.99); interaction P = 0.18]. Findings for key secondary outcomes were similar in patients with and without baseline metformin. Conclusion This analysis suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dulaglutide is unaffected by the baseline use of metformin therapy., Ciencias Médicas y de la Salud

Individualization of therapy based on a person’s specific type of diabetes is one key element of a “precision medicine” approach to diabetes care. However, applying such an approach remains difficult because of barriers such as disease heterogeneity, difficulties in accurately diagnosing different types of diabetes, multiple genetic influences, incomplete understanding of pathophysiology, limitations of current therapies, and environmental, social, and psychological factors. Monogenic diabetes, for which single gene mutations are causal, is the category most suited to a precision approach. The pathophysiological mechanisms of monogenic diabetes are understood better than those of any other form of diabetes. Thus, this category offers the advantage of accurate diagnosis of nonoverlapping etiological subgroups for which specific interventions can be applied. Although representing a small proportion of all diabetes cases, monogenic forms present an opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility of precision medicine strategies. In June 2019, the editors of Diabetes Care convened a panel of experts to discuss this opportunity. This article summarizes the major themes that arose at that forum. It presents an overview of the common causes of monogenic diabetes, describes some challenges in identifying and treating these disorders, and reports experience with various approaches to screening, diagnosis, and management. This article complements a larger American Diabetes Association effort supporting implementation of precision medicine for monogenic diabetes, which could serve as a platform for a broader initiative to apply more precise tactics to treating the more common forms of diabetes.

Background The relationship between blood pressure and mortality in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is controversial, with concern for increased risk associated with excessively lowered blood pressure. Methods We evaluated whether prior cardiovascular disease (CVD) altered the relationship between baseline blood pressure and all-cause mortality in 5852 patients with T2DM and a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who participated in the ELIXA (Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial. Risk of death was assessed in Cox models adjusted for age, sex, race, heart rate, BMI, smoking, diabetes duration, insulin use, HbA1c, eGFR, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), urine albumin/creatinine ratio, treatment allocation and prior coronary revascularization. Results Although overall there was no significant association between systolic blood pressure (SBP) and mortality (hazard ratio per 10 mmHg lower SBP 1.05 (95% CI 0.99–1.12) P = 0.10), lower SBP was significantly associated with higher risk of death (hazard ratio per 10 mmHg lower SBP 1.13 (95% CI 1.04–1.22) P = 0.002) in 2325 patients with additional CVD (index ACS+ at least one of the following prior to randomization: myocardial infarction other than the index ACS, stroke or heart failure). In 3527 patients with only the index ACS no significant association was observed (hazard ratio per 10 mmHg lower SBP 0.95 (0.86–1.04) P = 0.26; P for interaction 0.005). Conclusions The association between blood pressure and mortality was modified by additional CVD history in patients with type 2 diabetes and a recent coronary event. When blood pressures measured after an acute coronary event are used to assess the risk of death in patients with type 2 diabetes, the cardiovascular history needs to be taken into consideration. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01147250, first posted June 22, 2010

Summary Background Cardiovascular outcome trials have suggested that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists might reduce strokes. We analysed the effect of dulaglutide on stroke within the researching cardiovascular events with a weekly incretin in diabetes (REWIND) trial. Methods REWIND was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done at 371 sites in 24 countries. Men and women (aged ≥50 years) with established or newly detected type 2 diabetes whose HbA1c was 9·5% or less (with no lower limit) on stable doses of up to two oral glucose-lowering drugs with or without basal insulin therapy were eligible if their body-mass index was at least 23 kg/m2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to weekly subcutaneous injections of either masked dulaglutide 1·5 mg or the same volume of masked placebo (containing the same excipients but without dulaglutide). Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random code with an interactive web response system with stratification by site. Participants, investigators, the trial leadership, and all other personnel were masked to treatment allocation until the trial was completed and the database was locked. During the treatment period, participants in both groups were instructed to inject study drug on the same day at around the same time, each week. Strokes were categorised as fatal or non-fatal, and as either ischaemic, haemorrhagic, or undetermined. Stroke severity was assessed using the modified Rankin scale. Participants were seen at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and then every 3 months for drug dispensing and every 6 months for detailed assessments, until 1200 confirmed primary outcomes accrued. The primary endpoint was the first occurrence of any component of the composite outcome, which comprised non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. All analyses were done according to an intention-to-treat strategy that included all randomly assigned participants, irrespective of adherence. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01394952 . Findings Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, we screened 12 133 patients, of whom 9901 with type 2 diabetes and additional cardiovascular risk factors were randomly assigned to either dulaglutide (n=4949) or an equal volume of placebo (n=4952). During a median follow-up of 5·4 years, cerebrovascular and other cardiovascular outcomes were ascertained and adjudicated. 158 (3·2%) of 4949 participants assigned to dulaglutide and 205 (4·1%) of 4952 participants assigned to placebo had a stroke during follow-up (hazard ratio [HR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·62–0·94; p=0·010). Dulaglutide reduced ischaemic stroke (0·75, 0·59–0·94, p=0·012) but had no effect on haemorrhagic stroke (1·05, 0·55–1·99; p=0·89). Dulaglutide also reduced the composite of non-fatal stroke or all-cause death (0·88, 0·79–0·98; p=0·017) and disabling stroke (0·74, 0·56–0·99; p=0·042). The degree of disability after stroke did not differ by treatment group. Interpretation Long-term dulaglutide use might reduce clinically relevant ischaemic stroke in people with type 2 diabetes but does not affect stroke severity. Funding Eli Lilly and Company.

Since diabetes was first described over 3,000 years ago, clinicians and scientists alike have sought ever improving treatments en route to a cure. As we approach the 100th anniversary of insulin’s first therapeutic use, this article will recount the glorious history associated with research surrounding insulin’s isolation, purification, cloning, and subsequent modification. The discovery path we will relate tells the story of many relentless and passionate investigators pursuing ground-breaking research. The fruits of their labor include several Nobel Prizes, new technology, and, more importantly, ever improving treatments for one of humankind’s greatest medical scourges.

OBJECTIVE To use protein biomarkers to identify people with type 2 diabetes at high risk of cardiovascular outcomes and death. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Biobanked serum from 4,957 ELIXA (Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial participants was analyzed. Forward-selection Cox models identified independent protein risk factors for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and death that were compared with a previously validated biomarker panel. RESULTS NT-proBNP and osteoprotegerin predicted both outcomes. In addition, trefoil factor 3 predicted MACE, and angiopoietin-2 predicted death (C = 0.70 and 0.79, respectively, compared with 0.63 and 0.66 for clinical variables alone). These proteins had all previously been identified and validated. Notably, C statistics for just NT-proBNP plus clinical risk factors were 0.69 and 0.78 for MACE and death, respectively. CONCLUSIONS NT-proBNP and other proteins independently predict cardiovascular outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes following acute coronary syndrome. Adding other biomarkers only marginally increased NT-proBNP’s prognostic value.

Background The REWIND trial demonstrated cardiovascular (CV) benefits to patients with type 2 diabetes and multiple CV risk factors or established CV disease. This exploratory analysis evaluated the degree to which the effect of dulaglutide on CV risk factors could statistically account for its effects on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the REWIND trial. Methods Potential mediators of established CV risk factors that were significantly reduced by dulaglutide were assessed in a post hoc analysis using repeated measures mixed models and included glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and urine albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR). These factors, for which the change in level during follow-up was significantly associated with incident MACE, were identified using Cox regression modeling. Each identified variable was then included as a covariate in the Cox model assessing the effect of dulaglutide on MACE to estimate the degree to which the hazard ratio of dulaglutide vs placebo was attenuated. The combined effect of the variables associated with attenuation was assessed by including all variables in an additional Cox model. Results Although all evaluated variables were significantly improved by treatment, only changes in HbA1c and UACR were associated with MACE and a reduction in the effect of dulaglutide on this outcome was observed. The observed hazard ratio for MACE for dulaglutide vs placebo reduced by 36.1% by the updated mean HbA1c, and by 28.5% by the updated mean UACR. A similar pattern was observed for change from baseline in HbA1c and UACR and a reduction of 16.7% and 25.4%, respectively in the hazard ratio for MACE with dulaglutide vs placebo was observed. When HbA1c and UACR were both included, the observed hazard ratio reduced by 65.4% for the updated mean and 41.7% for the change from baseline with no HbA1c-UACR interaction (P interaction = 0.75 and 0.15, respectively). Conclusions Treatment-induced improvement in HbA1c and UACR, but not changes in weight, systolic blood pressure, or LDL cholesterol, appear to partly mediate the beneficial effects of dulaglutide on MACE outcomes. These observations suggest that the proven effects of dulaglutide on cardiovascular disease benefit are partially related to changes in glycemic control and albuminuria, with residual unexplained benefit. Clinicaltrials.gov; Trial registration number: NCT01394952. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01394952

Science makes civilization possible. New observations provoke theories as to what they mean. Theories (hypotheses) are tested by systematically gathering and analyzing further information. Support for a theory by these methods (experiments) can lead to a plan of action. Other observations from this process (research) may pose further questions, leading to more experiments. In the past, actionable knowledge accumulated slowly, but digital technology has accelerated everything. Novel observations appear as “news” distributed by electronic, broadcast, and print media. Floods of reports, all apparently equal in significance, compete for attention. The media have insatiable appetites—they demand new material daily. Delivery of news is driven by its power to elicit emotional reactions, and we are all somewhat addicted. But news does not teach us what to do. Some items are valid and reproducible, others confusing, some misleading. Each can be placed in context, verified, and converted into useful knowledge using the scientific method, but this takes time. Experience with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and its implications for people with diabetes illustrates this process. Diabetes Care has welcomed early reports on COVID-19, even when the first data sets were unavoidably limited. Special collections of articles appeared in the July and August issues, but most were available online earlier (1). These and articles published elsewhere confirmed the alarming news that people with diabetes are up to three times more likely than others to become severely ill or die of COVID-19. They showed that older age, obesity, and other medical conditions often associated with diabetes are also associated with increased risk. These reports highlighted the need for people with diabetes to take precautions to avoid infection, but they did not provide much guidance on how to treat these patients if they did fall ill. Articles by expert clinicians, based on the evidence and …

AIM To examine the generalizability of results from glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) in the US type 2 diabetes (T2D) population. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients enrolled or eligible for inclusion in four CVOTs (EXSCEL, LEADER, REWIND, and SUSTAIN-6) were examined in reference to a retrospective clinical database weighted to match the age and sex distribution of the US adult T2D population. We descriptively compared key baseline characteristics of the populations enrolled in each trial to those of the reference population and estimated the proportions of individuals in the reference population represented by those in the trials for each characteristic. We also estimated the proportions of individuals in the reference population that might have been enrolled in each trial based upon meeting the trial inclusion and exclusion (I/E) criteria. RESULTS No trial's enrolled population perfectly matched the reference population in key characteristics. The EXSCEL population most closely matched in mean age (62.7 vs. 60.5 years) and percentage with estimated glomerular filtration rate

Each January, the editors of Diabetes Care look back at the last year and forward to the next. In January 2021 we have much to be thankful and happy about. The journal continues to publish outstanding scientific reports together with illuminating and provocative Commentary, Perspective, and Review articles. We are indebted to the authors who submit their manuscripts, the reviewers who evaluate them, and the editorial and production group that manages the process. They make it all possible. In 2020, Diabetes Care ’s impact factor increased once again, from 15.27 to 16.02. Accumulating scientific evidence presented by our journal and others continues to improve understanding of the pathophysiology of diabetes and add to the array of treatments. And yet . . . it’s been a hell of a year in other ways. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic started a year ago and still has the world in its grip. It has tested all of us and brought many activities nearly to a halt. Countless people have fallen ill, sadly many have died, and the daily routines of most families are disturbed. The lockdown to prevent spread of the virus keeps people at home, limits travel, harms businesses, closes schools, and interferes with diagnosis and treatment of other ailments. Acute medical facilities have been overwhelmed in some regions. Fierce debates about controlling the spread of COVID-19 and mitigating its human and economic costs have ensued. Yet, in this crisis we see much heroism. Medical personnel and those who support …

BACKGROUND: In the SOLOIST-WHF (Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Post Worsening Heart Failure) trial, sotagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-1 and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, reduced total occurrences of cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure relative to placebo by 33%.OBJECTIVE: To determine whether sotagliflozin increased the prespecified efficacy outcome of days alive and out of the hospital (DAOH) in the SOLOIST-WHF trial.DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03521934).SETTING: 306 sites in 32 countries.PARTICIPANTS: 1222 patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced or preserved ejection fraction who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.INTERVENTION: 200 mg of sotagliflozin once daily (with a possible dose increase to 400 mg) or matching placebo.MEASUREMENTS: The primary analysis included hospitalizations for any reason on the basis of investigator-reported incidence and duration of admissions after randomization. Days alive and out of the hospital and its converse (days dead and days in the hospital) were analyzed using prespecified Poisson regression models.RESULTS: Although similar proportions of patients in the sotagliflozin and placebo groups were hospitalized at least once (38.5% vs. 41.4%), fewer patients in the sotagliflozin group were hospitalized more than once (16.3% vs. 22.1%). There were 64 and 76 deaths in the sotagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively. The DAOH rate in the sotagliflozin group was 3% higher than in the placebo group (rate ratio [RR], 1.03 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.06]; P = 0.027). This difference was primarily driven by a reduction in the rate of days dead (RR, 0.71 [CI, 0.52 to 0.99]; P = 0.041) rather than by a reduction in the rate of days hospitalized for any cause. For every 100 days of follow-up, patients in the sotagliflozin group were alive and out of the hospital for 3% or 2.9 more days than those in the placebo group (91.8 vs. 88.9 days); this difference reflected a 2.6-day difference in days dead (6.3 vs. 8.9 days) and a 0.3-day difference in days in the hospital (1.9 vs. 2.2 days).LIMITATION: Other than heart failure, the primary reason for each hospitalization was unspecified.CONCLUSION: Sotagliflozin increased DAOH, a metric that may provide an additional patient-centered outcome to capture the totality of disease burden. Future studies are needed to quantify the consequences of increasing DAOH in terms of health economics and patient quality of life.PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Sanofi at initiation and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals at completion.

Background The Researching cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND) double blind randomized trial demonstrated that weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 1.5 mg, a glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonist, versus matched placebo reduced the first outcome of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke (594 versus 663 events) in 9901 persons with type 2 diabetes and either chronic cardiovascular disease or risk factors, and followed during 5.4 years. These findings were based on a time-to-first-event analysis and preclude relevant information on the burden of total major events occurring during the trial. This analysis reports on the total cardiovascular or fatal events in the REWIND participants Methods We compared the total incidence of MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths, and the total incidence of expanded MACE (MACE, unstable angina, heart failure or revascularization) or non-cardiovascular deaths between participants randomized to dulaglutide and those randomized to placebo. Incidences were expressed as number per 1000 person-years. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using the conditional time gap and proportional means models. Results Participants had a mean age of 66.2 years, 46.3% were women and 31% had previous cardiovascular disease. During the trial there were 1972 MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths and 3673 expanded MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths. The incidence of total MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths in the dulaglutide and placebo groups was 35.8 and 40.3 per 1000 person-years, respectively [absolute reduction = 4.5 per 1000 person-years; conditional time gap HR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82–0.98) p = 0.020, and proportional means HR 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80–0.98) p = 0.022]. The incidence of total expanded MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths in the dulaglutide and placebo groups was 67.1 and 74.7 per 1000 person-years, respectively [absolute reduction = 7.6 per 1000 person-years; conditional time gap HR 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87–0.99) p = 0.023, and proportional means HR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82–0.99) p = 0.028]. Conclusions These findings suggest that weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide reduced total cardiovascular or fatal event burden in people with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk. Clinical Trial Registration:https://www.clinicaltrials.gouv. Unique Identifier NCT01394952).

Background The 2019 ESC/EASD European Guidelines for Diabetes, Prediabetes and Coronary Artery Disease introduced a paradigm shift in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high risk for or already established cardiovascular (CV) disease by recommending a GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) as initial glucose lowering therapy in patients without any previous antihyperglycaemic treatment. This recommendation has been questioned since outcome trials of GLP-1-RA were usually conducted with metformin as background therapy. Purpose The aim of this report is to determine whether the effect of dulaglutide on cardiovascular events varies according to baseline metformin therapy. It was tested by a subgroup analysis of the Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial. Methods REWIND, a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, comprised 9901 participants (women: 46.3%; mean age: 66.2 years) with T2D and either a previous CV event (31%) or a high CV risk (69%). They were randomised (1:1) to either sc. dulaglutide (1.5 mg/week) or placebo in addition to standard of care. The primary outcome was the first of a composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke or CV death. Secondary outcomes were a microvascular composite endpoint, all-cause death and heart failure. The effect of dulaglutide study outcomes in patients with and without baseline metformin was evaluated by means of a Cox regression hazard model with baseline metformin, dulaglutide assignment and the interaction between dulaglutide and metformin as independent variables. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a Cox regression model with additional adjustments for factors that differed at baseline between people on vs. those not on baseline metformin selected by a backward regression model. A p Results Patients without metformin at baseline (n=1864; 19%) were older, leaner, more likely to be women and had a higher proportion of prior CV events, heart failure and renal disease than patients with metformin (n=8037; 81%). During a median follow-up of 5.4 years (IQR 5.1–5.9), the primary outcome occurred in 976 (12%) participants with baseline metformin and in 281 (15%) without metformin. There was no significant difference in the effect of dulaglutide on the primary outcome in the groups with vs. without metformin at baseline (HR 0.93 [CI 0.82–1.06] vs. 0.78 [CI 0.61–0.99]; p for interaction=0.16). The effect of dulaglutide on the secondary outcomes was also not modified by concomitant metformin use (all interaction p>0.1). Conclusion This exploratory analysis suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dulaglutide does not depend on baseline metformin therapy. This supports the recommendation of using agents with proven cardioprotective efficacy without metformin in patients with diabetes and additional cardiac risk factors. Figure 1. Forest plot Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Eli Lilly and Company

Hyperosmotic hyperglycemic nonketotic (HHNK) state (also known as hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state) is a significant acute complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus, especially for those over 65 years of age. It is characterized by extreme hyperglycemia and hyperosmolarity with little ketosis. The main clinical effect of extreme hyperosmolarity is somnolence or confusion. The absence of severe ketonemia is attributed to residual insulin secretion that is sufficient to restrain lipolysis. HHNK state is marked by extreme dehydration, with both a marked deficit of free water and serious compromise of intravascular volume and tissue perfusion. Most patients with HHNK state have hypotension, extremely dry mucous membranes, and gross elevation of urea nitrogen and creatinine. Urinary tract infection, pneumonia, stroke, myocardial infarction, and sepsis may precipitate HHNK state. Elderly patients are particularly vulnerable because their thirst mechanisms are less sensitive to a rising serum osmolality. Fluid replacement is the most important component of therapy for HHNK state. Restoration of circulating volume is an urgent first priority and is accomplished by relatively rapid intravenous infusion of 2 L of 0.9% normal saline followed by 0.45% normal saline. Later, when plasma glucose levels have declined to 250 to 300 mg/dL, 5% dextrose in water is given. Insulin treatment is started soon after administration of isotonic saline. Potassium must be added to intravenous fluids to prevent hypokalemia caused by insulin action but should not be started until hypokalemia is proven, because potassium levels can be high initially. The mortality from the HHNK state is high, ranging from 10 to 20%, and is most often from the precipitating illness. This review contains 6 figures, 7 tables, and 73 references. Key words: dehydration, fluid deficit, hyperglycemia, hyperglycemic nonketotic state, hyperosmolar, hyperosmotic insulin, potassium, type 2 diabetes mellitus

Digital, Background Diabetes is an independent risk factor for cognitive impairment. We aimed to investigate the association between the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist dulaglutide and cognitive impairment as an exploratory analysis within the Researching Cardiovascular Events With a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial. Methods REWIND is a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial at 371 sites in 24 countries. We included men and women (aged ≥50 years) with either established or newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and additional cardiovascular risk factors, glycated haemoglobin of up to 9·5% (80 mmol/mol) on a maximum of two oral glucose-lowering drugs with or without basal insulin, and a body-mass index of at least 23 kg/m2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) subcutaneous injections once a week of either dulaglutide (1·5 mg) or an equal volume of matching placebo. Randomisation was done using a computer-generated code with stratification by site. Participants and all study personnel were masked to treatment allocation until the database was locked. Participants were followed up at least every 6 months for the composite primary outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. Cognitive function was assessed at baseline and during follow-up using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST). We present here the exploratory primary cognitive outcome, which was the first occurrence of a follow-up score on MoCA or DSST that was 1·5 SDs or more below the baseline mean score in the participant's country. All analyses were done using an intention-to-treat approach. The REWIND trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01394952. Findings Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, 9901 participants were randomly assigned to either dulaglutide (n=4949) or placebo (n=4952). During median follow-up of 5·4 (IQR 5·1–5·9) years, 8828 participants provided a baseline and one or more follow-up MoCA or DSST scores, of whom 4456 were assigned dulaglutide and 4372 were assigned placebo. The cognitive outcome occurred in 4·05 per 100 patient-years in participants assigned dulaglutide and 4·35 per 100 patient-years in people assigned placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·93, 95% CI 0·85–1·02; p=0·11). After post-hoc adjustment for individual standardised baseline scores, the hazard of substantive cognitive impairment was reduced by 14% in those assigned dulaglutide (HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·79–0·95; p=0·0018). Interpretation Long-term treatment with dulaglutide might reduce cognitive impairment in people with type 2 diabetes. Further studies of this drug focused on brain health and cognitive function are clearly indicated., Ciencias Médicas y de la Salud

The REWIND trial showed that relative to placebo (PL), once weekly dulaglutide (DU) 1.5 mg reduced the incidence of a major adverse cardiovascular (CV) event (MACE; nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or CV death) in patients with T2D with and without established CV disease (hazard ratio (HR) 0.88, 95% CI [0.79, 0.99]; p=0.026). DU also significantly reduced A1C, body weight (BW), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (Table). In this post-hoc assessment, a mediation analysis was used to estimate the degree to which the effect of DU on these risk factors could statistically account for its effect on MACE. Data were analyzed from 9901 patients who had 1257 first MACE events over 5.4 median yrs of observation. Those risk factors for which the updated mean on follow-up was significantly related to MACE were added to a separate Cox model that included DU allocation, the baseline [BL] value of the measurement and the updated mean of the variable as time dependent covariates. Only A1C satisfied this condition (Table), suggesting that BW and SBP did not mediate the effect of DU on MACE in this study population. The effect size of DU on the MACE outcome was attenuated by 36.1% after accounting for its effect on A1C (Table). In conclusion, the results suggest most of the CV benefit of DU on MACE is not attributable to the A1C, BW, or SBP-lowering effects of DU. Disclosure H.M. Colhoun: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novo Nordisk Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Aventis. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Pfizer Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Aventis. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Bayer AG, Roche Pharma. Other Relationship; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi. C. Hasenour: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. M.C. Riddle: Consultant; Self; ADOCIA, Dance Biopharm Holdings, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc., Sanofi US, Theracos, Inc. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc. K. Branch: Consultant; Self; Bayer AG. Research Support; Self; Bayer AG, Eli Lilly and Company. M. Konig: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. C. Atisso: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. M. Lakshmanan: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Spouse/Partner; Eli Lilly and Company. R. Mody: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. H.C. Gerstein: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Consultant; Self; Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Other Relationship; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi.

The relationship between blood pressure and mortality in T2DM is controversial, with concern for increased risk associated with lower blood pressure. We evaluated whether prior cardiovascular disease (CVD) altered the relationship between baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) and mortality in 5852 patients with T2DM who, as required for entry to the ELIXA (Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial, had a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Risk of death was assessed in a Cox model that adjusted for age, sex, race, heart rate, BMI, smoking, diabetes duration, insulin use, HbA1c, eGFR, natriuretic peptide (BNP) and urine albumin/creatinine at baseline. Overall there was no significant association between SBP and risk of death (P=0.20), but in 2325 patients with additional CVD (index ACS + at least one of the following prior to randomization: myocardial infarction other than the index ACS, stroke or heart failure) there was a significant association between lower SBP and higher risk of death (hazard ratio per 10 mmHg lower SBP 1.13; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.23) whereas in 3527 patients with only the index ACS no association was observed (hazard ratio per 10 mmHg lower SBP 0.95; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.04, P for interaction Disclosure M.O. Wijkman: None. B. Claggett: None. R. Diaz: None. H.C. Gerstein: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Consultant; Self; Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Other Relationship; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi. L. Kober: Speaker’s Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Novartis AG. Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca. E. Lewis: Consultant; Self; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Research Support; Self; Amgen, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Theracos, Inc. A.P. Maggioni: None. E. Wolsk: None. D. Aguilar: None. R. Bentley-Lewis: Consultant; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc. Research Support; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. J.J. McMurray: Other Relationship; Self; AbbVie Inc., Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardurion, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Theracos, Inc. J.L. Probstfield: None. M.C. Riddle: Consultant; Self; ADOCIA, Dance Biopharm Holdings, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc., Sanofi US, Theracos, Inc. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc. J. Tardif: Research Support; Self; Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., REGENXBIO Inc., Sanofi, Servier. Other Relationship; Self; Amarin Corporation, AstraZeneca, DalCor Pharmaceuticals. S. Solomon: Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca, Theracos, Inc. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Theracos, Inc. M.A. Pfeffer: Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca, CinCor, Correvio, Corvidia, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Innovative Science, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MyoKardia, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novo Nordisk Inc., PharmaScience, Sanofi US, Servier, Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. Research Support; Self; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Funding Sanofi (NCT01147250)

Bexagliflozin (bexa) is a potent and selective inhibitor of SGLT2. To demonstrate its effects in patients (pts) at increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events, pts with type 2 diabetes (T2D) ≥40 years old with HbA1c 7.5-11 % and eGFR ≥45 were enrolled in 1 of 3 groups: 1) established atherosclerotic CVD 2) heart failure (HF) or 3) ≥55 years with ≥2 CV risk factors. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c at wk 24. Secondary endpoints included change in SBP at 24 wks in pts with SBP ≥140 mmHg, weight loss at 48 wks in pts with BMI ≥25 kg/m2, and time to hospitalization for HF or CV death. MACE+ (CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unstable angina) was tested in a non-inferiority analysis to demonstrate upper 95% CI Disclosure J.J.V. McMurray: Other Relationship; Self; AbbVie Inc., Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardurion, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Theracos, Inc. M.W. Freeman: Research Support; Self; Theracos, Inc. J. Massaro: Consultant; Self; Theracos, Inc. S. Solomon: Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca, Theracos, Inc. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Theracos, Inc. P. Lock: None. M.C. Riddle: Consultant; Self; ADOCIA, Dance Biopharm Holdings, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc., Sanofi US, Theracos, Inc. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc. E. Lewis: Consultant; Self; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Research Support; Self; Amgen, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Theracos, Inc. Y.C. Halvorsen: Research Support; Self; Theracos, Inc.

Epidemic infections have frightened and harmed people for millennia. Plague (1) and typhus (2), bacterial infections associated with poor sanitation and high mortality, have devastated populations. Both still reappear intermittently, but they are generally contained with better sanitation and control of rodent and insect vectors along with antibiotics. In contrast, viral epidemics persist. A unique strain of influenza caused a global epidemic (pandemic) in 1918 resulting in millions of deaths (3). Among recent outbreaks of viral infections, several have been caused by coronaviruses (4). One of these, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is now causing a pandemic illness termed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that poses unique challenges. This novel coronavirus is readily transmitted from person-to-person, even by those who are infected but without symptoms. In susceptible people it causes severe illness and often death from pulmonary and systemic injuries. At present, we have neither a preventive vaccine nor well-studied pharmacotherapy, although work to develop these is vigorously underway. Certain groups are more vulnerable to COVID-19, notably older people and those with underlying medical conditions. Because diabetes is one of the conditions associated with high risk, the diabetes community urgently needs to know more about COVID-19 and its effects on people with diabetes. Between the first appearance of this illness in December 2019 and the time of writing this commentary, several detailed clinical descriptions have been published. Among 44,672 patients in China with infection confirmed by nucleic acid testing up to mid-February (5), most (87%) were between 30 and 79 years old. A large majority (81%) were considered to have mild illness, but in 14% it was judged to be severe and in 5% critical. Of all confirmed cases, 2.3% of patients died. Higher mortality rates were found among those ≥80 years old (14.8%), in those with preexisting cardiovascular …

Insulin is always deficient relative to need in diabetes. Injected insulin is essential to replace the complete lack of insulin in type 1 diabetes and to supplement endogenous insulin for many people with type 2 diabetes. Unfortunately, despite advances in insulin formulation and delivery and the effects of other glucose-lowering therapies instead of or in combination with insulin, the goals of therapy are seldom completely met. People using insulin (especially prandial insulin) are at risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain, and their postprandial glucose levels are rarely well controlled. Surprisingly, an obvious contributor to this dilemma has received little attention—a concurrent deficiency of the hormone amylin in all people with diabetes. Amylin was isolated and characterized three decades ago (1,2), about 70 years after insulin therapy became available, and “co-replacement therapy” with insulin and amylin was soon proposed for type 1 diabetes (3). Delay in characterization of amylin was partly due to its tendency to self-aggregate and cling to glass or plastic surfaces. In some species, notably cats and humans, amylin aggregates as “amyloid” in the endocrine pancreas and may contribute to injury of β-cells (4). Studies have been further hampered by difficulties in assaying amylin levels in blood, where significant proportions are modified and likely inactive (5). Even so, much has been learned about amylin’s distribution, regulation, and physiologic functions in animal and human studies (6). It is a 37–amino acid peptide that is produced in the pancreatic β-cell and secreted in parallel with insulin, and thus it is lacking in type 1 diabetes (6,7). Although present in other parts of the body, amylin is released into the blood only by β-cells. The actions of secreted amylin are mediated through parts of the brain that are outside the blood-brain barrier, and effects elsewhere depend on …

Prevailing dietary guidelines have widely recommended diets relatively low in red and processed meats and high in minimally processed plant foods for the prevention of chronic diseases. However, an ad hoc research group called the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) consortium recently issued “new dietary guidelines” encouraging individuals to continue their current meat consumption habits due to “low certainty” of the evidence, difficulty of altering meat eaters’ habits and preferences, and the lack of need to consider environmental impacts of red meat consumption. These recommendations are not justified, in large part because of the flawed methodologies used to review and grade nutritional evidence. The evidence evaluation was largely based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, which are primarily designed to grade the strength of evidence for clinical interventions especially pharmacotherapy. However, the infeasibility for conducting large, long-term randomized clinical trials on most dietary, lifestyle, and environmental exposures makes the criteria inappropriate in these areas. A separate research group proposed a modified and validated system for rating the meta-evidence on nutritional studies (NutriGRADE) to address several limitations of the GRADE criteria. Applying NutriGRADE, the evidence on the positive association between red and processed meats and type 2 diabetes was rated to be of “high quality,” while the evidence on the association between red and processed meats and mortality was rated to be of “moderate quality.” Another important limitation is that inadequate attention was paid to what might be replacing red meat, be it plant-based proteins, refined carbohydrates, or other foods. In summary, the red/processed meat recommendations by NutriRECS suffer from important methodological limitations and involve misinterpretations of nutritional evidence. To improve human and planetary health, dietary guidelines should continue to emphasize dietary patterns low in red and processed meats and high in minimally processed plant foods such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes.

In the recent past we have been fortunate to find new treatments based on entirely new mechanisms . . . or is that really so? The sodium–glucose cotransporter inhibitors (SGLTi) offer an instructive case in point. These apparently “ new” agents were preceded by phlorizin, a naturally occurring compound that has been used for physiologic studies for over 100 years (1). Given orally it interferes with intestinal absorption of carbohydrates and causes glucosuria. Studies in animal models of diabetes have provided useful insights, such as evidence that reduction of hyperglycemia can restore insulin sensitivity toward normal (2). However, phlorizin was considered unsuited for use by humans due to undesirable side effects. Recently its mechanism of action has been traced to effects on sodium–glucose cotransporters (SGLT) in the intestinal mucosa and the renal proximal tubule (3), and drugs with more nuanced effects on these transporters have been developed (4,5). These newer agents have greater affinity for SGLT2, which is expressed mainly in the kidney, and less for SGLT1, which facilitates intestinal absorption of glucose. Clinical effects of the newer SGLTi drugs in type 2 diabetes (T2D) include modest reductions of plasma glucose and A1C, weight, and blood pressure and are mediated in large part by glucosuria and sodium diuresis. These agents are taken once daily by mouth and do not require dose titration. Symptomatic side effects—mostly urinary or genital irritation or infections—are common but tolerated by most patients. Importantly, the new SGLTi drugs have highly desirable—and somewhat unexpected—cardiac and renal protective effects, as least in selected cohorts. Large trials of empagliflozin and canagliflozin, aiming to demonstrate safety in patients with T2D and high cardiovascular risk, have shown favorable effects on heart failure, cardiovascular death, and progression of albuminuria (6–9). Unwanted effects have been reported as well, including …

The EDITION trials in type 2 diabetes demonstrated comparable glycaemic control with less nocturnal and anytime (24-hour) hypoglycaemia for insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100). However, the predefined nocturnal window (0:00-5:59 AM) may not be the most relevant for clinical practice. This post-hoc analysis compared expansions of the predefined nocturnal interval during basal insulin treatment without prandial insulin. Patient-level, 6-month data, pooled from the EDITION 2 and 3 trials and the EDITION JP 2 trial (N = 1922, basal insulin only) were analysed. Accompanying hypoglycaemia during treatment with Gla-300 was compared to that during treatment with Gla-100, using predefined (0:00-5:59 AM) and expanded (10:00 PM-5:59 AM, 0:00-7:59 AM, 10:00 PM to pre-breakfast SMPG) windows. Confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemic events were reported most frequently between 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM. Windows expanded beyond 6:00 AM included more events than other windows. The percentage of participants with at least one event was lower with Gla-300 than Gla-100 in all windows examined. Expanding the nocturnal interval allows better assessment of the risk of hypoglycaemia associated with basal insulin. The risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was consistently lower with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 using all four windows.

The recent development of reliable systems for continuously monitoring interstitial glucose levels has set the stage for a revolution in diabetes research and care. The ability to obtain real-time and summary displays of glycemic patterns of individuals with diabetes, together with rapidly obtained agreement on various definitions and ways of handling the resulting data (1,2), has led to both rapid acceptance of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices and incorporation of CGM into clinical research studies. At the clinical level, some practical and quality-of-life–related benefits of CGM are well documented (3,4). Newer systems offer improved accuracy, fewer (or no) fingersticks, and remote monitoring of potentially dangerous glycemic events. While access to and use of CGM are increasing, some important questions remain. Which groups of people with diabetes will benefit the most from CGM use? When is the best time to introduce CGM systems to diabetes care? How should use of CGM systems be taught and adjusted? What specific outcomes are most critical to improve and document? How can this technology be used most cost-effectively? All members of the diabetes community—people with diabetes themselves, caregivers of persons with diabetes, diabetes care providers, payers, and health system managers—will benefit from objective data addressing all these questions. The collection of articles presented in this issue of Diabetes Care offers information on some of these questions for people with type 1 diabetes. Three reports describe CGM experiences in diverse populations. Miller et al. (5) display the recent dramatic increases in CGM use by both youth and adults with type 1 diabetes in the T1D Exchange in the U.S. (6) and the DPV (Diabetes Patienten Verlaufdocumentation) registry in Germany and Austria (7). CGM use among those

Aim To explore if clinical effects and hypoglycaemia risks associated with insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla‐300) and 100 U/mL (Gla‐100) differed by sulphonylurea and/or glinide (SU/G) treatment. Methods A post hoc subgroup analysis of 12‐month treatment data from the EDITION Japan 2 trial, a randomized, open‐label, phase 3 study of Japanese people with type 2 diabetes receiving once‐daily Gla‐300/Gla‐100 + oral antihyperglycaemic drugs. Participants previously receiving SU/G (+SU/G) were compared with those not taking SU/G (‐SU/G). Endpoints included HbA1c, hypoglycaemia and body weight. Results For +SU/G (n = 152, 63%), HbA1c was reduced from baseline to month 12 for Gla‐300 (8.1% to 7.6%) and Gla‐100 (8.2% to 7.8%). For ‐SU/G (n = 89, 37%), reductions were 7.8% to 7.4%, and 7.9% to 7.5% for Gla‐300 and Gla‐100, respectively. A lower annualized rate of hypoglycaemia with Gla‐300 versus Gla‐100 was observed at night (00:00–05:59 hours; p = 0.0001) and any time of day (24 hour; p = 0.0015). Irrespective of the insulin used, the incidence and rate of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia appeared higher in +SU/G versus ‐SU/G; overall, a reduced incidence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia, and rate of hypoglycaemia at any time, was observed in ‐SU/G versus +SU/G. In the ‐SU/G subgroup, body weight gain differences were observed between Gla‐300 and Gla‐100 (p

Diabetes is defined by hyperglycemia, but whether optimizing glycemic control can reduce its complications was long in doubt. In 1968 Siperstein et al. proposed the hypothesis that microvascular injury accompanying diabetes could be genetically determined (1), and there was concern that, even if the “glucose hypothesis” (2,3) were valid, seeking good control of hyperglycemia was overly risky. Nevertheless, epidemiologic evidence linking hyperglycemia with both microvascular and cardiovascular complications prompted assessment of the effects of intensive glycemic control in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) for type 1 diabetes (T1D) and the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) for type 2 diabetes (T2D). When the results of the DCCT were reported in Las Vegas on a hot (>110°F) day in June 1993, many people were surprised by the approximately 50% reduction of microvascular changes that was associated with 6.5 years of maintaining hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) close to 7% (53 mmol/mol) compared with 9% (75 mmol/mol) in the control arm (4). Because the DCCT participants were young, cardiovascular events were too few to analyze and long-term effects on cardiovascular risk remained unknown. Results in T2D from the UKPDS reinforced the message of the DCCT. More intensive glycemic control attaining about a 1% difference in HbA1c in T2D for 10 years led to 25% lower rates of microvascular outcomes (5) and a nonsignificant 16% lower rate of myocardial infarction (5). For more than two decades after these reports the dominant view has been that improving glycemic control reduces eye, nerve, and kidney complications but not cardiovascular risk. Four large randomized clinical trials testing whether seeking HbA1c levels at or below 7% could reduce cardiovascular events showed limited benefits during their periods of active treatment (5–8). Although analysis of data pooled from these four trials …

OBJECTIVE We examined the effects of metformin on diabetes prevention and the subgroups that benefited most over 15 years in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) and its follow-up, the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS During the DPP (1996–2001), adults at high risk of developing diabetes were randomly assigned to masked placebo (n = 1,082) or metformin 850 mg twice daily (n = 1,073). Participants originally assigned to metformin continued to receive metformin, unmasked, in the DPPOS (2002–present). Ascertainment of diabetes development was based on fasting or 2-h glucose levels after an oral glucose tolerance test or on HbA1c. Reduction in diabetes incidence with metformin was compared with placebo in subgroups by hazard ratio (HR) and rate differences (RDs). RESULTS During 15 years of postrandomization follow-up, metformin reduced the incidence (by HR) of diabetes compared to placebo by 17% or 36% based on glucose or HbA1c levels, respectively. Metformin’s effect on the development of glucose-defined diabetes was greater for women with a history of prior gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (HR 0.59, RD −4.57 cases/100 person-years) compared with parous women without GDM (HR 0.94, RD −0.38 cases/100 person-years [interaction P = 0.03 for HR, P = 0.01 for RD]). Metformin also had greater effects, by HR and RD, at higher baseline fasting glucose levels. With diabetes development based on HbA1c, metformin was more effective in subjects with higher baseline HbA1c by RD, with metformin RD −1.03 cases/100 person-years with baseline HbA1c

In December 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry setting new expectations for the development of antidiabetes drugs for type 2 diabetes. This guidance expanded the scope and cost of research necessary for approval of such drugs by mandating long-term cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) for safety. Since 2008, 9 CVOTs have been reported, 13 are under way, and 4 have been terminated. Reassuringly, each of the completed trials demonstrated the noninferiority of their respective drugs to placebo for their primary cardiovascular (CV) composite end point. Notably, four additionally provided evidence of CV benefit in the form of significant decreases in the primary CV composite end point, two suggested reductions in CV death, and three suggested reductions in all-cause mortality. Although these trials have yielded much valuable information, whether that information justifies the investment of time and resources is controversial. In June 2016, a Diabetes Care Editors’ Expert Forum convened to review the processes and challenges of CVOTs, discuss the benefits and limitations of their current designs, and weigh the merits of modifications that might improve the efficiency and clinical value of future trials. Discussion and analysis continued with the CVOT trial results released in June 2017 at the American Diabetes Association’s Scientific Sessions and in September 2017 at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes scientific meeting. This article summarizes the discussion and findings to date.

Aims In the Outcome Reduction with an Initial Glargine Intervention (ORIGIN) trial (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT000069784), titrated doses of basal insulin glargine targeting fasting normoglycaemia had a neutral effect on cardiovascular outcomes. The dose of insulin required to achieve normoglycaemia provides a unique measurement of each individual's resistance to insulin's action, and was therefore used to examine the link between insulin resistance and cardiovascular outcomes. Materials and Methods Self-titration of insulin doses targeting a fasting plasma glucose ≤5.3 mmoL/L (95 mg/dL) was promoted at every visit and cardiovascular and other serious health outcomes were ascertained. All analyses were restricted to participants allocated to insulin glargine, who added it to lifestyle or 1 glucose-lowering oral agent at randomization. Normoglycaemia was defined as a fasting plasma glucose

As has been well established, the Diabetes Care journal’s most visible signature event is the Diabetes Care Symposium held each year during the American Diabetes Association’s Scientific Sessions. Held this past year on 10 June 2017 in San Diego, California, at the 77th Scientific Sessions, this event has become one of the most attended sessions during the Scientific Sessions. Each year, in order to continue to have the symposium generate interest, we revise the format and content of this event. For this past year, our 6th annual symposium, I felt it was time to provide a comprehensive overview of our efforts in diabetes care to determine, first and foremost, how we arrived at our current state of management. I also felt the narrative needed to include the current status of management, especially with a focus toward cardiovascular disease, and finally, we wanted to ask what the future holds. Toward this goal, I asked four of the most noted experts in the world to provide their opinion on this topic. The symposium started with a very thoughtful presentation by Dr. Jay Skyler entitled “A Look Back as to How We Got Here.” That was followed by two lectures on current concepts by Dr. Bernard Zinman entitled “Current Treatment Paradigms Today—How Well Are We Doing?” and by Dr. Matthew Riddle entitled “Evolving Concepts and Future Directions for Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials.” The final lecture for the symposium was delivered by Dr. Ele Ferrannini and was entitled “What Does the Future Hold?” As always, a well-attended and well-received symposium is now the norm for our signature event and our efforts were rewarded by the enthusiasm of the attendees. This narrative summarizes the lectures held at the symposium. —William T. Cefalu Chief Scientific, Medical & Mission Officer, American Diabetes Association

Aim To explore if efficacy and safety findings for insulin glargine 300U/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin glargine 100U/mL (Gla-100), observed over 6 months in insulin- naive people with type 2 diabetes, are maintained after 12 months. Methods EDITION 3 was a phase 3a, randomized, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target study of once-daily Gla-300 versus Gla-100 (target fasting self-monitored plasma glucose, 4.4–5.6mmol/L [80–100mg/dL]). Participants completing the initial 6-month treatment phase continued their previously allocated basal insulin. Results Of 878 participants randomized, 337/439 (77%) and 314/439 (72%) assigned to Gla-300 and Gla-100, respectively, completed 12 months of treatment. Improved glycaemic control was sustained until 12 months in both treatment groups, with similar reductions in HbA 1c from baseline to month 12 (difference: −0.08 [95% confidence interval (CI): −0.23 to 0.07] % or −0.9 [−2.5 to 0.8] mmol/mol). Relative risk of experiencing≥1 confirmed (≤3.9mmol/L [≤70mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemic event with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.69 to 1.07) at night and 0.92 (0.82 to 1.03) at any time of day. For events with a glycaemic threshold of Conclusion Over 12 months, Gla-300 treatment was as effective as Gla-100 in reducing HbA 1c in insulin- naive people with type 2 diabetes, with lower overall risk of hypoglycaemia at the

The aim was to determine the effects of dulaglutide, a synthetic once-weekly, injectable human glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue that lowers blood glucose, body weight, appetite and blood pressure, on cardiovascular outcomes. People with type 2 diabetes, aged ≥50 years, with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤9.5%, and either a previous cardiovascular event, evidence of cardiovascular disease or ≥2 cardiovascular risk factors were randomly allocated to a weekly subcutaneous injection of either dulaglutide (1.5 mg) or placebo and followed within the ongoing Researching cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial every 3 to 6 months. The primary cardiovascular outcome is the first occurrence of the composite of cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke. Secondary outcomes include each component of the primary composite cardiovascular outcome, a composite clinical microvascular outcome comprising retinal or renal disease, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure requiring hospitalization or an urgent heart failure visit, and all-cause mortality. Follow-up will continue until the accrual of 1200 confirmed primary outcomes. Recruitment of 9901 participants (mean age 66 years, 46% women) occurred in 370 sites located in 24 countries over a period of 2 years. The mean duration of diabetes was 10 years, mean baseline HbA1c was 7.3%, and 31% had prior cardiovascular disease. The REWIND trial's international scope, high proportion of women, high proportion of people without prior cardiovascular disease and inclusion of participants whose mean baseline HbA1c was 7.3% suggests that its cardiovascular and safety findings will be directly relevant to the typical middle-aged patient seen in general practice throughout the world.

With this January 2017 issue, our editorial team celebrates its 5-year anniversary at the helm of Diabetes Care . In 2012, when we accepted the assignment to oversee the scientific aspects of the journal, we envisioned that the editorial for this January 2017 issue would be our opportunity to thank the American Diabetes Association (ADA) for allowing us to lead this effort, to thank our reviewers and associate editors for their tireless efforts, and to thank the readers for their valuable suggestions and ideas. However, we are now writing to inform you that those plans have been put on hold. Our editorial team has been given the opportunity to continue to guide Diabetes Care for another 2-year period. We have accepted the invitation primarily because our “team” (including the editorial committee, editorial office, and publications staff) feels we still have creative ideas to make the journal better and considerable energy to bring these ideas to fruition. Therefore, suffice it to say, we remain honored to continue to lead Diabetes Care for this extended period. It has been our custom to summarize our productivity and achievements in both the January and June issues of each year. This year we believe the trajectory of quality continues to rise. We hope you will also agree when reading the summary presented in this narrative. We feel each year’s monthly issues have surpassed the prior year’s work, and year 2016 is no exception! As we described in July of 2016, we aim to provide the readers with lagniappe—“a little something extra”! (1). This past year the editorial team took our initiative to another level devoting several monthly issues to specific clinical or research topics. A current summary of all thematic monthly issues can be found in our Diabetes Care Online Collections (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diabetes-care-online-collections). In the …

With the simple turning of a calendar page, 2020 is upon us, as is the time for the annual New Year message from the editorial committee of Diabetes Care . Each year we highlight the past year’s activities and offer a preview of what lies ahead. An important event in 2019 was the announcement of impact factors for scientific journals. The yearly statement of current impact factors revealed another clear increase for Diabetes Care , from 13.4 to 15.3, placing us among the elite journals in any specialty. We are proud of this ranking and hope for a further increase next year. Last year’s editorial outlined some goals, policies, and procedures that contribute to the journal’s character (1). Today we offer a wider perspective. Diabetes Care is the translational journal of the American Diabetes Association (ADA), linking basic science to clinical science and care. Providing a broad range of expertise, the editorial committee is composed of scientists, clinicians, epidemiologists, and experts in writing, editing, and medical publication. While we all started with deep experience in one or more of these fields, together we are called upon to extend our roles to become journalists. This means more than picking the best scientific studies as they are submitted. It involves actively soliciting, improving, and discussing articles that, collectively, form the stories that matter most to our community. …