Hypoglycaemia manifestations and recurrent events: Lessons from the SAVOR-TIMI 53 outcome study

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for people with cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were approved for treating people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although metformin remains the first-line pharmacotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a body of evidence has recently emerged indicating that DPP4i, GLP-1RA and SGLT2i may exert positive effects on patients with known CVD.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the available evidence on the benefits and harms of DPP4i, GLP-1RA, and SGLT2i in people with established CVD, using network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 16 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials registers on 22 August 2020. We did not restrict by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DPP4i, GLP-1RA, or SGLT2i that included participants with established CVD. Outcome measures of interest were CVD mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF), and safety outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently screened the results of searches to identify eligible studies and extracted study data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted standard pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by pooling studies that we assessed to be of substantial homogeneity; subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also pursued to explore how study characteristics and potential effect modifiers could affect the robustness of our review findings. We analysed study data using the odds ratios (ORs) and log odds ratios (LORs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and credible intervals (Crls), where appropriate. We also performed narrative synthesis for included studies that were of substantial heterogeneity and that did not report quantitative data in a usable format, in order to discuss their individual findings and relevance to our review scope.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 studies (287 records), of which we pooled data from 20 studies (129,465 participants) for our meta-analysis. The majority of the included studies were at low risk of bias, using Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. Among the 20 pooled studies, six investigated DPP4i, seven studied GLP-1RA, and the remaining seven trials evaluated SGLT2i. All outcome data described below were reported at the longest follow-up duration. 1. DPP4i versus placebo Our review suggests that DPP4i do not reduce any risk of efficacy outcomes: CVD mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence), myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; high-certainty evidence), stroke (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). DPP4i probably do not reduce hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). DPP4i may not increase the likelihood of worsening renal function (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not increase the risk of bone fracture (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; moderate-certainty evidence) or hypoglycaemia (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). They are likely to increase the risk of pancreatitis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37; moderate-certainty evidence). 2. GLP-1RA versus placebo Our findings indicate that GLP-1RA reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), and stroke (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA probably do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA may reduce the risk of worsening renal function (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence), but may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of GLP-1RA on hypoglycaemia and bone fractures. 3. SGLT2i versus placebo This review shows that SGLT2i probably reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), and reduce the risk of HF hospitalisation (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71; high-certainty evidence); they do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce the risk of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of treatment safety, SGLT2i probably reduce the incidence of worsening renal function (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably have no effect on hypoglycaemia (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence) or bone fracture (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence), and may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.86; low-certainty evidence). 4. Network meta-analysis Because we failed to identify direct comparisons between each class of the agents, findings from our network meta-analysis provided limited novel insights. Almost all findings from our network meta-analysis agree with those from the standard meta-analysis. GLP-1RA may not reduce the risk of stroke compared with placebo (OR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.0; moderate-certainty evidence), which showed similar odds estimates and wider 95% Crl compared with standard pairwise meta-analysis. Indirect estimates also supported comparison across all three classes. SGLT2i was ranked the best for CVD and all-cause mortality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings from both standard and network meta-analyses of moderate- to high-certainty evidence suggest that GLP-1RA and SGLT2i are likely to reduce the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality in people with established CVD; high-certainty evidence demonstrates that treatment with SGLT2i reduce the risk of hospitalisation for HF, while moderate-certainty evidence likely supports the use of GLP-1RA to reduce fatal and non-fatal stroke. Future studies conducted in the non-diabetic CVD population will reveal the mechanisms behind how these agents improve clinical outcomes irrespective of their glucose-lowering effects.

Hypoglycaemia and its management in primary care setting

Hypoglycaemia is common in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes and constitutes a major limiting factor in achieving glycaemic control among people with diabetes. While hypoglycaemia is defined as a blood glucose level under 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L), symptoms may occur at higher blood glucose levels in individuals with poor glycaemic control. Severe hypoglycaemia is defined as an episode requiring the assistance of another person to actively administer carbohydrate, glucagon, or take other corrective actions to assure neurologic recovery. Hypoglycaemia is the most important safety outcome in clinical studies of glucose lowering agents. The American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care recommends that a management protocol for hypoglycaemia should be designed and implemented by every hospital, along with a clear prevention and treatment plan. A tailored approach, using clinical and pathophysiologic disease stratification, can help individualize glycaemic goals and promote new therapies to improve quality of life of patients. Data from recent large clinical trials reported low risk of hypoglycaemic events with the use of newer anti-diabetic drugs. Increased hypoglycaemia risk is observed with the use of insulin and/or sulphonylureas. Vulnerable patients with T2D at dual risk of severe hypoglycaemia and cardiovascular outcomes show features of "frailty." Many of such patients may be better treated by the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors rather than insulin. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) should be considered for all individuals with increased risk for hypoglycaemia, impaired hypoglycaemia awareness, frequent nocturnal hypoglycaemia and with history of severe hypoglycaemia. Patients with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia benefit from real-time CGM. The diabetes educator is an invaluable resource and can devote the time needed to thoroughly educate the individual to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia and integrate the information within the entire construct of diabetes self-management. Conversations about hypoglycaemia facilitated by a healthcare professional may reduce the burden and fear of hypoglycaemia among patients with diabetes and their family members. Optimizing insulin doses and carbohydrate intake, in addition to a short warm up before or after the physical activity sessions may help avoiding hypoglycaemia. Several therapeutic considerations are important to reduce hypoglycaemia risk during pregnancy including administration of rapid-acting insulin analogues rather than human insulin, pre-conception initiation of insulin analogues, and immediate postpartum insulin dose reduction.

Treatment paradigm shifting implications of recent cardiovascular outcome trials: Core insights on the brink of the 2020ies

Based on cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials (CVOTs) being available on the brink of the 2020ies, CV safety assessed by major adverse CV event outcomes has been established for the classes of glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1 RAs), sodium-glucose-co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2-is), and dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) in patients at very high CV risk. This should be relevant to the whole population with diabetes in general as well as the fact that no new serious and unexpected side effects have emerged within these trials. At the same time, treatment paradigm shifting CV benefit has been confirmed for two classes of diabetes medications (SGLT2is & GLP1 RAs), with important additional benefit of SGLT2is reducing heart failure and hard renal endpoints, both in patients with such diseases, but also in patients being in primary prevention. Moreover, the "soft" renal outcome of albuminurea progression seems to be attenuated by all three classes of drugs discussed in this overview. Still ongoing CVOTs are not expected to essentially change the current notions, with the potential of some differentiation regarding subgroups of primary heart failure populations in relation to treatment with SGLT2is.

Hypoglycemia Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Prevention Strategies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hypoglycemia is the most common and often treatment-limiting serious adverse effect of diabetes therapy. Despite being potentially preventable, hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes incurs substantial personal and societal burden. We review the epidemiology of hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes, discuss key risk factors, and introduce potential prevention strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Reported rates of hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes vary widely as there is marked heterogeneity in how hypoglycemia is defined, measured, and reported. In randomized controlled trials, rates of severe hypoglycemia ranged from 0.7 to 12 per 100 person-years. In observational studies, hospitalizations or emergency department visits for hypoglycemia were experienced by 0.2 (patients treated without insulin or sulfonylurea) to 2.0 (insulin or sulfonylurea users) per 100 person-years. Patient-reported hypoglycemia is much more common. Over the course of 6 months, 1-4% non-insulin users reported need for medical attention for hypoglycemia; 1-17%, need for any assistance; and 46-58%, any hypoglycemia symptoms. Similarly, over a 12-month period, 4-17% of insulin-treated patients reported needing assistance and 37-64% experienced any hypoglycemic symptoms. Hypoglycemia is most common among older patients with multiple or advanced comorbidities, patients with long diabetes duration, or patients with a prior history of hypoglycemia. Insulin and sulfonylurea use, food insecurity, and fasting also increase hypoglycemia risk. Clinical decision support tools may help identify at-risk patients. Prospective trials of efforts to reduce hypoglycemia risk are needed, and there is emerging evidence supporting multidisciplinary interventions including treatment de-intensification, use of diabetes technologies, diabetes self-management, and social support. Hypoglycemia among patients with type 2 diabetes is common. Patient-centered multidisciplinary care may help proactively identify at-risk patients and address the multiplicity of factors contributing to hypoglycemia occurrence.