scholarly journals Heart failure with insulin degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of cardiovascular disease: DEVOTE 14

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard E. Pratley ◽  
◽  
Mansoor Husain ◽  
Ildiko Lingvay ◽  
Thomas R. Pieber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Severe Hypoglycemia ◽  
Insulin Degludec ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
High Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Heart failure (HF) is a common cardiovascular complication of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This secondary analysis investigated baseline factors and treatment differences associated with risk of hospitalization for HF (hHF), and the possible association between severe hypoglycemia and hHF. Methods DEVOTE was a treat-to-target, double-blind cardiovascular outcomes trial in patients (n = 7637) with T2D and high cardiovascular risk randomized to insulin degludec (degludec) or insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100). The main endpoint of this secondary analysis was time to first hHF (standardized MedDRA Query definition). Severe hypoglycemia was adjudicated (American Diabetes Association definition). The main endpoint and the temporal association between severe hypoglycemia and hHF were analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Predictors of time to first hHF were identified using baseline variables. Results Overall, 372 (4.9%) patients experienced hHF (550 events). There was no significant difference in the risk of hHF between treatments (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88 [0.72;1.08]95% CI, p = 0.227). Prior HF (HR 4.89 [3.90;6.14]95% CI, p ≤ 0.0001) was the strongest predictor of future hHF events. The risk of hHF significantly increased after (HR 2.2), and within a week after (HR 11.1), experiencing a severe hypoglycemic episode compared with before an episode. Conclusions In patients with T2D and high cardiovascular risk there were no treatment differences in terms of hHF. Prior HF was the strongest predictor of future hHF events, and there was an association between severe hypoglycemia and subsequent hHF. Further research should evaluate whether the risk of hHF can be modified by treatments aimed at reducing hypoglycemia. Trial Registration NCT01959529

scholarly journals Heart failure outcomes with empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk: results of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME®trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (19) ◽  
pp. 1526-1534 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Fitchett ◽  
Bernard Zinman ◽  
Christoph Wanner ◽  
John M. Lachin ◽  
Stefan Hantel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
High Cardiovascular Risk

scholarly journals Clinical profiles and quality of care of subjects with type 2 diabetes according to their cardiovascular risk: an observational, retrospective study

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Basilio Pintaudi ◽  
Alessia Scatena ◽  
Gabriella Piscitelli ◽  
Vera Frison ◽  
Salvatore Corrao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk Factors ◽  
High Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
Very High

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

scholarly journals Comparison of a soluble co-formulation of insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes: a randomised trial

2012 ◽  
Vol 167 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Niskanen ◽  
Lawrence A Leiter ◽  
Edward Franek ◽  
Jianping Weng ◽  
Taner Damci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Insulin Aspart ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Insulin Degludec ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
Target Trial ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Biphasic Insulin ◽  
Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30

ObjectiveInsulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble co-formulation of insulin degludec (70%) and insulin aspart (IAsp: 30%). Here, we compare the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp, an alternative IDegAsp formulation (AF: containing 45% IAsp), and biphasic IAsp 30 (BIAsp 30).DesignSixteen-week, open-label, randomised, treat-to-target trial.MethodsInsulin-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes (18–75 years) and a HbA1c of 7–11% were randomised to twice-daily IDegAsp (n=61), AF (n=59) or BIAsp 30 (n=62), all in combination with metformin. Insulin was administered pre-breakfast and dinner (main evening meal) and titrated to pre-breakfast and pre-dinner plasma glucose (PG) targets of 4.0–6.0 mmol/l.ResultsMean HbA1c after 16 weeks was comparable for IDegAsp, AF and BIAsp 30 (6.7, 6.6 and 6.7% respectively). With IDegAsp, 67% of subjects achieved HbA1c <7.0% without confirmed hypoglycaemia in the last 4 weeks of treatment compared with 53% (AF) and 40% (BIAsp 30). Mean fasting PG was significantly lower for IDegAsp vs BIAsp 30 (treatment difference (TD): −0.99 mmol/l (95% confidence interval: −1.68; 0.29)) and AF vs BIAsp 30 (TD: −0.88 mmol/l (−1.58; −0.18)). A significant, 58% lower rate of confirmed hypoglycaemia was found for IDegAsp vs BIAsp 30 (rate ratio (RR): 0.42 (0.23; 0.75)); rates were similar for AF vs BIAsp 30 (RR: 0.92 (0.54; 1.57)). IDegAsp and AF had numerically lower rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia vs BIAsp 30 (RR: 0.33 (0.09; 1.14) and 0.66 (0.22; 1.93) respectively).ConclusionsIDegAsp provided comparable overall glycaemic control to BIAsp 30 with a significantly lower rate of hypoglycaemia.

scholarly journals Pharmacological therapy and cardiovascular risk reduction for type 2 diabetes

2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (9) ◽  
pp. 1283-1288
Author(s):  
Eduardo Bello Martins ◽  
Eduardo Gomes Lima ◽  
Fábio Grunspun Pitta ◽  
Leticia Neves Solon Carvalho ◽  
Thiago Dias de Queiroz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
Pharmacological Therapy ◽  
High Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk Reduction ◽  
Drug Classes ◽  
Clinical Benefits

SUMMARY The pharmacological therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus has presented important advances in recent years, which has impacted the treatment of patients with established cardiovascular disease or with high cardiovascular risk. In this scenario, two drug classes have emerged and demonstrated clear clinical benefits: SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists. The present review discusses the pharmacology, adverse effects, and clinical trials that have demonstrated the benefits of these medications in reducing cardiovascular risk.

scholarly journals Obese and Type 2 Diabetic Youth Have Increased Forward and Backward Wave Reflections

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew H. Tran ◽  
Thomas R. Kimball ◽  
Philip R. Khoury ◽  
Lawrence M. Dolan ◽  
Elaine M. Urbina
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk Factors ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Wave Reflections ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Backward Wave

Objective: Pulse wave analysis estimates arterial wave reflections relating to left ventricular dysfunction and cardiovascular event risk in adults. Forward and backward waves (Pf and Pb) may improve risk stratification for cardiovascular events. Data in youth are lacking. We hypothesized that a significant difference in wave reflections would be identified in young subjects with adverse cardiovascular risk factors. Approach and Results: Vital signs and labs were obtained in 551 patients aged 10 to 24 years who were lean (L=199), obese (O=173), or had type 2 diabetes (T=179). Wave separation was performed. Differences in cardiovascular risk factors and wave reflections were assessed using ANOVA. General linear models were constructed to elucidate independent predictors of wave reflections. O and T subjects had an adverse cardiovascular risk profile versus L. O and T subjects had higher Pf and Pb versus L ( P ≤0.05). When adjusted for adiposity and other cardiovascular risk factors, reflection magnitude increased from L to O to T with higher T versus L values ( P ≤0.05) and near-significant O versus L values ( P =0.06). Adiposity and blood pressure were major determinants of wave reflections. Pb influenced log left ventricular mass index, log E/e′, and log composite carotid intima-media thickness. Conclusions: Adolescents and young adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes have altered forward and backward wave reflections versus lean controls related to adiposity, BP, and insulin levels. These parameters may help risk stratify patients with adverse cardiovascular risk factors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document