Lower rates of cardiovascular events and mortality associated with liraglutide use in patients treated with basal insulin: A DEVOTE subanalysis (DEVOTE 10)

Effectiveness of adding glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist on diabetes complications and mortality among basal insulin-treated people with type 2 diabetes: A real-world Korean study

AIMS

To compare the effectiveness of adding a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) on composite of diabetes-related complications and mortality with that of adding short-acting insulin (SAI) or shifting to premixed insulin among basal insulin (BI)-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in South Korea.

METHODS

From the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, individuals with T2DM who initiated BI treatment and had advanced their treatment regimen from July 1, 2012, to December 31, 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 38,634 individuals with T2DM were included in this study. Compared to adding SAI to BI, adding GLP-1RA was associated with decreased risks of cardiovascular complications (hazard ratio 0.56; 95 % confidence interval 0.43-0.72), severe microvascular complications (0.30; 0.19-0.48), diabetes-related hospitalization (0.62; 0.53-0.73), and all-cause mortality (0.27; 0.13-0.57). Compared to switching to premixed insulin, adding GLP-1RA was also associated with lower risk of cardiovascular complications (0.65; 0.51-0.84), severe microvascular complications (0.36; 0.22-0.58), diabetes-related hospitalization (0.62; 0.53-0.73), and all-cause mortality (0.32; 0.15-0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world Korean study, adding GLP-1RA to BI reduced risks of diabetes complications and all-cause mortality than adding SAI or shifting to premixed insulin.

Intensified glycemic control by HbA1c for patients with coronary heart disease and Type 2 diabetes: a review of findings and conclusions

The occurrence and development of coronary heart disease (CHD) are closely linked to fluctuations in blood glucose levels. While the efficacy of intensified treatment guided by HbA1c levels remains uncertain for individuals with diabetes and CHD, this review summarizes the findings and conclusions regarding HbA1c in the context of CHD. Our review showed a curvilinear correlation between regulated level of HbA1c and therapeutic effectiveness of intensified glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease. It is necessary to optimize the dynamic monitoring indicators of HbA1c, combine genetic profiles, haptoglobin phenotypes for example and select more suitable hypoglycemic drugs to establish more appropriate glucose-controlling guideline for patients with CHD at different stage of diabetes.

The vascular function effects of adding exenatide or meal insulin to basal insulin therapy in early type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Basal insulin glargine has a neutral effect on cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). In practice, basal insulin is often paired with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1-RA) or meal insulin; however, the cardiovascular implications of these combinations have not been fully elucidated. In this context, we sought to evaluate the vascular function effects of adding the GLP1-RA exenatide or meal insulin lispro to basal glargine therapy in early T2DM.

METHODS

In this 20-week trial, adults with T2DM of < 7-years duration were randomized to 8-weeks treatment with (i) insulin glargine (Glar), (ii) glargine + thrice-daily lispro (Glar/Lispro), or (iii) glargine + twice-daily exenatide (Glar/Exenatide), followed by 12-weeks washout. At baseline, 8-weeks, and washout, fasting endothelial function was assessed with reactive hyperemia index (RHI) measurement by peripheral arterial tonometry.

RESULTS

At baseline, there were no differences in blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR) or RHI between participants randomized to Glar (n = 24), Glar/Lispro (n = 24), and Glar/Exenatide (n = 25). At 8-weeks, Glar/Exenatide decreased systolic BP (mean - 8.1 mmHg [95%CI - 13.9 to - 2.4], p = 0.008) and diastolic BP (mean - 5.1 mmHg [- 9.0 to - 1.3], p = 0.012) compared to baseline, with no significant changes in HR or RHI. Notably, baseline-adjusted RHI (mean ± SE) did not differ between the groups at 8-weeks (Glar 2.07 ± 0.10; Glar/Lispro 2.00 ± 0.10; Glar/Exenatide 1.81 ± 0.10; p = 0.19), nor did baseline-adjusted BP or HR. There were no differences between the groups in baseline-adjusted RHI, BP or HR after 12-weeks washout.

CONCLUSION

Adding either exenatide or lispro to basal insulin therapy does not appear to affect fasting endothelial function in early T2DM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT02194595.

Trends in basal insulin prescribing in older adults with chronic kidney disease in Ontario, Canada: A population-based analysis from 2010 to 2020

AIM

To examine trends in basal insulin prescribing in older adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a population-based study of adults aged 66 years or older with treated diabetes from 1 January 2010 to 30 September 2020 in Ontario, Canada. We examined prevalent and incident prescriptions for human NPH, Levemir, glargine-100, Basaglar, glargine-300, and degludec insulin over 43 study intervals. We present trends in those with CKD, and in a subgroup, by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). To provide context for prescribing, we provide demographics, co-morbidities, and the healthcare utilization of included patients.

RESULTS

In CKD, use of basal insulin was about 2-fold higher than in the general treated diabetes cohort. Prescriptions for NPH declined over time, while prescriptions for Levemir and glargine-100 increased until 2018 then decreased. Following drug formulary approval (September 2018), prescriptions for glargine-300 and degludec increased substantially. Incident prescriptions for basal insulin in CKD declined over time; however, in those with an eGFR of less than 30 ml/min/1.73m² , rates remained stable. In recent years, rates of degludec and glargine-300 have rivalled glargine-100.

CONCLUSIONS

In an era of new oral and injectable diabetes medications, the use of basal insulin has declined in older adults with CKD. However, in those with more advanced CKD, basal insulin, particularly newer analogues, remain a mainstay treatment.

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.

How Effective Is the Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Degludec and Liraglutide (IDegLira) in Different Patient Populations, and When Should It Be Used in Clinical Practice?

The efficacy and safety of the fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec (degludec) and liraglutide (IDegLira) were confirmed in the DUAL clinical trial program, in which IDegLira demonstrated superior or noninferior glycemic control over comparators in addition to its low risks of hypoglycemia and weight gain. This article identifies the patient types for whom IDegLira is most appropriate by reviewing the DUAL results and subsequent post hoc analyses and presenting real-world cases in which IDegLira has been used effectively in U.S. clinical practice. In the clinic, IDegLira has been used effectively when patients wanted to avoid more complex injectable regimens, particularly those with renal insufficiency for whom treatment options are limited.

Clinical Considerations When Initiating and Titrating Insulin Degludec/Liraglutide (IDegLira) in People with Type 2 Diabetes

Therapeutic inertia is a substantial obstacle to the initiation of insulin therapy in people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D). This effect has in part been perpetuated by concerns over the impact of a burdensome regimen and the increased risk of hypoglycemia and body weight gain often associated with insulin use. An effective, yet simple, less burdensome regimen with a lower risk of body weight gain and hypoglycemia compared with an insulin-only regimen, may help to address these concerns more effectively. We review the available clinical and real-world data on IDegLira, a once-daily, injectable, fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec (degludec) and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide, in people with T2D. Evidence from the comprehensive DUAL clinical trial program suggests an advantage of IDegLira over traditional insulin therapies in a number of clinical outcomes, including maintenance of glycemic control, achievement of glycemic targets, reducing the risk of hypoglycemia, and body weight loss. These findings were demonstrated in participants with T2D irrespective of prior GLP-1RA and insulin use. Furthermore, the individual components of IDegLira have confirmed safety (degludec) or significant benefit in terms of improvement of cardiovascular risk (liraglutide). As an injectable therapy that is simple to titrate, IDegLira has the potential to optimize the ability to achieve relevant glycemic targets, and offers a suitable treatment option for people with T2D requiring insulin therapy who are at risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain.

Co-Formulations as the First Injectable in Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of Efficacy, Safety, and Implications in Clinical Practice

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Progression of type 2 diabetes will necessitate the use of injectable therapies in a significant number of people. Co-formulations of degludec with liraglutide (IDeg­Lira) and glargine with lixisenatide (IGlarLixi) are currently recommended for intensification in people with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin or glucagon-like peptide receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) alone or in people with type 2 diabetes who are naïve to insulin with very high glycated haemoglobin. Co-formulation of aspart with degludec (IDegAsp) is recommended as a substitute for premixed insulin. The aim of this article is to review the evidence in the use of co-formulations as the first injectable in type 2 diabetes and its clinical implications. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> In people with type 2 diabetes who are naïve to insulin or GLP-1RA, IDegLira and IGlarLixi achieved stable and durable glycaemic control over a wide range of baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. People on IDegLira and IGlarLixi had lesser risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain in studies compared to basal insulin and lesser gastrointestinal adverse effects in comparison to GLP-1RA. IDegAsp achieved similar glycaemic control to basal and premixed insulin with lesser risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. <b><i>Key Messages:</i></b> IDegLira, IGlarLixi, and IDegAsp can be used as the first injectable in people with type 2 diabetes with very high glycated haemoglobin on oral antidiabetic drugs. These co-formulations combine efficacy and durability with lesser injection burden. The components of these agents have proven cardiovascular and renal safety. Their limitations in flexibility of dosing, renal and cardiovascular considerations, and adverse effects are discussed.

Clinical Use of IDegLira: Initiation to Titration After Basal Insulin

Delayed treatment intensification is common in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin. Concerns about weight gain, hypoglycemia, increased regimen complexity, and additional copayments may lead to reluctance to initiate prandial insulin. IDegLira is a titratable, fixed-ratio coformulation that combines the advantages of insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist liraglutide in a single once-daily injection and mitigates the side effects associated with each component. Clinical trials have demonstrated that IDegLira improves glycemic control without the increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain observed with basal insulin up-titration and the addition of prandial insulin, and this is achieved using twice-weekly titration. Clinical trials and real-world studies have also shown that IDegLira has the potential to reduce therapeutic and titration inertia. However, better outcomes could be achieved with IDegLira initiation in suitable patients with timely titration and by providers sharing their experience with this combination product. This review describes considerations for initiation, titration, and intensification of IDegLira in patients previously receiving basal insulin.

Targeting the DPP-4-GLP-1 pathway improves exercise tolerance in heart failure patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The most significant manifestation of heart failure is exercise intolerance. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate whether dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), widely used anti-diabetic drugs, could improve exercise tolerance in heart failure patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

An electronic search of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library was carried out through March 8th, 2019, for eligible trials. Only randomized controlled studies were included. The primary outcome was exercise tolerance [6-min walk test (6MWT) and peak O2 consumption], and the secondary outcomes included quality of life (QoL), adverse events (AEs) and all-cause death.

RESULT

After the literature was screened by two reviewers independently, four trials (659 patients) conducted with heart failure patients with or without type 2 diabetes met the eligibility criteria. The results suggested that targeting the DPP-4-GLP-1 pathway can improve exercise tolerance in heart failure patients [MD 24.88 (95% CI 5.45, 44.31), P = 0.01] without decreasing QoL [SMD -0.51 (95% CI -1.13, 0.10), P = 0.10]; additionally, targeting the DPP-4-GLP-1 pathway did not show signs of increasing the incidence of serious AEs or mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 RAs improve exercise tolerance in heart failure patients. Although the use of these drugs for heart failure has not been approved by any organization, they may be a better choice for type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with heart failure. Furthermore, as this pathway contributes to the improvement of exercise tolerance, it may be worth further investigation in exercise-intolerant patients with other diseases.

IDegLira improves patient-reported outcomes while using a simple regimen with fewer injections and dose adjustments compared with basal-bolus therapy

AIMS

Basal-bolus therapy is associated with greater treatment burden and lower adherence compared with more simplified regimens. This post hoc analysis studied the difference between insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) and basal-bolus therapy on number of injections, dose adjustments and patient outcomes in the DUAL VII trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DUAL VII was a 26-week, open-label trial in which patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who were using metformin and insulin glargine 100 units/mL (20-50 U) were randomized 1:1 to IDegLira (N = 252) or basal-bolus (insulin glargine U100 + insulin aspart ≤4 times/day) (N = 254). This post hoc analysis reports the observed mean number of injections and cumulative dose adjustments during 26 weeks of treatment. Patient-reported outcomes (Treatment-Related Impact Measure - Diabetes [TRIM-D] and Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 [SF-36v2]) were collected at scheduled visits and change from baseline scores calculated.

RESULTS

The clinical benefits (non-inferior HbA1c reductions, weight benefit, less hypoglycaemia) of IDegLira vs basal-bolus therapy were achieved with fewer cumulative dose adjustments (16.6 vs 217.2, respectively) and fewer injections (1 vs ≥3 per day, respectively). Patients treated with IDegLira experienced significant improvements across all TRIM-D domains compared with those undergoing basal-bolus therapy. The SF-36v2 showed improvements in both treatment arms with no significant difference between arms in the physical component summary, but there was a significant improvement in patients treated with IDegLira in the mental component summary (P = .0228).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings, combined with the DUAL VII results, suggest that IDegLira, through a more simplified regimen versus basal-bolus therapy, may help improve patient adherence and improve patient outcomes related to diabetes management, treatment burden and mental health, which in turn may assist in the timely achievement of glycaemic control in clinical practice.

Long-term efficacy and safety of combined insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 therapy: Evidence from the LEADER trial

AIM

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) and insulin combination therapy is an effective treatment option for type 2 diabetes, but long-term data are lacking. The aim was to assess the long-term efficacy of the GLP-1RA liraglutide in subgroups by insulin use in the LEADER trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

LEADER assessed cardiovascular (CV) safety and efficacy of liraglutide (1.8 mg) versus placebo (plus standard of care therapy) in 9340 patients with type 2 diabetes and high risk of CV disease, for up to 5 years. We analyzed CV events, metabolic parameters and hypoglycaemia post hoc in three subgroups by baseline insulin use (basal-only insulin, other insulin or no insulin). Insulin was a non-random treatment allocation as part of standard of care therapy.

RESULTS

At baseline, 5171 (55%) patients were not receiving insulin, 3159 (34%) were receiving basal-only insulin and 1010 (11%) other insulins. Insulin users had a longer diabetes duration and slightly worse glycaemic control (HbA1c) than the no-insulin subgroup. Liraglutide reduced HbA1c and weight versus placebo in all three subgroups (P < .001), and severe hypoglycaemia rate in the basal-only insulin subgroup. The need for insulin was less with liraglutide. CV risk reduction with liraglutide was similar to the main trial results in the basal-only and no-insulin subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients on insulin, liraglutide improved glycaemic control, weight and need for insulin versus placebo, for at least 36 months with no increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia, while maintaining CV safety/efficacy, supporting the combination of liraglutide and insulin for management of type 2 diabetes.

Lower rates of cardiovascular events and mortality associated with liraglutide use in patients treated with basal insulin: A DEVOTE subanalysis (DEVOTE 10)

AIM

To compare the associations between concomitant liraglutide use versus no liraglutide use and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality among patients receiving basal insulin (either insulin degludec [degludec] or insulin glargine 100 units/mL [glargine U100]) in the Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Insulin Degludec versus Insulin Glargine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes at High Risk of Cardiovascular Events (DEVOTE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk were randomized 1:1 to degludec or glargine U100. Hazard ratios for MACE/mortality were calculated using a Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and time-varying liraglutide use at any time during the trial, without interaction. Sensitivity analyses were adjusted for baseline covariates including, but not limited to, age, sex, smoking and prior cardiovascular disease.

RESULTS

At baseline, 436/7637 (5.7%) patients were treated with liraglutide; after baseline, 187/7637 (2.4%) started and 210/7637 (2.7%) stopped liraglutide. Mean liraglutide exposure from randomization was 530.2 days. Liraglutide use versus no liraglutide use was associated with significantly lower hazard rates for MACE [0.62 (0.41; 0.92)95%CI ] and all-cause mortality [0.50 (0.29; 0.88)95%CI ]. There was no significant difference in the rate of severe hypoglycaemia with versus without liraglutide use. Multiple sensitivity analyses yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of liraglutide was associated with significantly lower risk of MACE and death in patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk using basal insulin.