Translating recent results from the Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials into clinical practice: recommendations from the Central and Eastern European Diabetes Expert Group (CEEDEG)

Physical performance and glycemic control under SGLT-2-inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases or high cardiovascular risk (PUSH): Design of a 4-week prospective observational study

Background

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with limitation in physical performance. Results from animal studies report enhancement of physical performance in T2D rodents treated with sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is). However, in human patients with T2D and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or high cardiovascular risk, the impact of guideline directed SGLT2i medication on physical performance has not been sufficiently examined.

Objectives

The main objectives of this study are thus firstly, to assess the changes in physical performance after 4 weeks of exercise therapy in patients with established ASCVD or high cardiovascular risk categorized into three groups according to their glycemic control at baseline. Secondly, to investigate the association of glycemic control at baseline and new guideline directed antidiabetic treatment (inadequate glycemic control and diabetes + new SGLT2i vs. adequate glycemic control and diabetes vs. no diabetes) with change in physical performance.

Methods and design

This is a 4-week prospective observational study of 450 participants with established ASCVD or high cardiovascular risk with or without T2D and without previous SGLT2i medication undergoing exercise therapy during inpatient rehabilitation in a single center in Switzerland. Upon admission, participants are categorized into 3 groups of 150 participants each according to their glycemic control. Group I consisting of participants with inadequately controlled T2D defined as mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of ≥7 mmol/L, who are consequently administered new treatment with an SGLT2i. Group II comprises of participants with adequately controlled T2D with mean FPG of <7 mmol/L requiring no antidiabetic medication change. Group III consists of participants with no diabetes and mean FPG of ≤ 5.5 mmol/L. Primary outcomes are 6-min walk distance and rate of perceived exertion. Secondary outcomes are echocardiographic parameters (left ventricular mass index; global longitudinal strain average; end-diastolic volume), fatigue, muscle, metabolic, and anthropometric measures.

Ethics and dissemination

This study is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki with ethical approval from the Cantonal Ethical Commission of Bern, Switzerland. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The implementation and reporting will be according to the SPIRIT guidelines.

Study protocol registration

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier: NCT03422263.

Innovative highlights of clinical drug trial design

Clinical trials serve as the gold standard to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tested drugs prior to marketing authorization. Nevertheless, there have been a few challenging issues well noted in traditional clinical trials such as tedious processing duration and escalating high costs among others. To improve the efficiency of clinical studies, a spectrum of expedited clinical trial modes has been designed, and selectively implemented in contemporary drug developing landscape. Herein this article presents an update on the innovated human trial designs that are corroborated through coming up with approval of notable therapeutic compounds for clinical utilization including delivery of several blockbuster products. It is intended to inspire clinical investigators and pharmaceutical development not only timely communicating with the regulatory agencies, but also insightful translating from cutting-edge scientific discoveries.

Scientific independence and objectivity: many questions linger about treatment of type 2 diabetes, such as scientific study design, optimal glucose control and the safety of injecting exogenous insulin

Whilst clinical guidelines exist for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes, many underlying assumptions are still not qualified by convincing evidence. In this commentary, it is argued that fundamental issues still cloud clinical practice, such as biases in the design of clinical studies, the association between glucose control & clinical outcomes, and the safety of exposure to exogenous insulin and other glucose-lowering drugs. Relevant scientific evidence and alternative opinions about important issues continue to be largely ignored, and no effort has been made to resolve these questions. This may have had serious consequences, such as stifling innovation because there are no further benefits to be achieved in relation to glucose control.

CARMELINA: An important piece of the DPP-4 inhibitor CVOT puzzle

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a class of glucose-lowering agent for type 2 diabetes (T2D) that are commonly used in clinical practice. With the recent disclosure of data from the CARMELINA cardiovascular outcomes trial (CVOT), which investigated linagliptin, CV and renal outcomes data are now available for four agents in the DPP-4 inhibitor class that are approved in most markets. To consider how the CARMELINA study may be interpreted, and the relevance for our clinical practice, we convened as an expert group of diabetes specialists from the Central and Eastern Europe region to discuss the new disclosures. Our discussions revealed a general confidence in safety across the class that is further supported by CARMELINA. However, we also concluded that there are important differences in the available evidence level between agents in the setting of heart failure and data on renal outcomes. Here, we noted the clinical relevance to our practice of the study population in CARMELINA, which is unique among CVOTs in including a majority of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Given the risk for future development of renal impairment that is associated with T2D even in patients without current overt CKD, we believe that the CARMELINA study provides important new insights that are clinically relevant for a broad range of patients. Finally, we discuss how these insights can be integrated into the approach to the pharmacotherapeutic management of hyperglycaemia that is recommended in newly updated guidelines.

Cardiologist and Diabetologist crosstalk in the era of cardiovascular outcome trials of novel glucose-lowering drugs

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes continues to increase and cardiovascular (CV) diseases remain the leading cause of death in diabetic patients. Diabetologists and Cardiologists have to work together in order to provide the best management to these patients. After years of disappointing studies showing no reduction of CV events with strict glycaemic control, some of the novel glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) seem to offer a new approach to tackle the problem, since the CV outcome trials (CVOTs-D) of liraglutide, semaglutide, empagliflozin and canagliflozin have demonstrated not only their CV safety but also their efficacy in the reduction of CV morbidity and mortality. Along with the initial enthusiasm, concerns have been raised about the economical sustainability of long-term therapies considering higher costs of new molecules relative to the traditional ones. As expenses in the medical field are on the rise, healthcare systems need to balance the positive impact of an intervention and its overall cost. This review is meant to offer the Cardiologists a different point of view on the positive influence of GLDs, in the light of the main trials in the CV fields they are familiar with. The purpose of this article is to critically review the magnitude of the CVOTs-D results by the analysis of their statistical determinants, to establish the extent of the GLDs positive impact on patients with both diabetes and CV disease. The analysis has been performed taking into account models and statistical determinants used in the main landmark cardiology trials. It is fundamental to translate the result of CVOTs-D in clinical practice: the interdisciplinary crosstalk between the Cardiologist and Diabetologist is of paramount importance in order to fully exploit the power of the new available pharmacological strategies.

Cardiovascular outcome studies in type 2 diabetes: Comparison between SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists

Sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are two pharmacological classes that have proven their efficacy to reduce major cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established cardiovascular disease in large prospective cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs): EMPA-REG OUTCOME (empagliflozin), CANVAS (canagliflozin), LEADER (liraglutide) and SUSTAIN 6 (semaglutide). Some heterogeneity appears to exist between the various agents within the two pharmacological classes. Whether these positive results could be extrapolated to patients without cardiovascular disease is still unknown. The underlying mechanisms remain a matter of debate but appear to differ between SGLT2is and GLP-1RAs. One crucial question is which patient's characteristics should be taken into account to guide the choice between a SGLT2i or a GLP-1RA according to a personalized approach. Heart failure should encourage the use of a SGLT2i whereas moderate to severe chronic kidney disease should favour the prescription of a GLP-1RA. Despite the results of recent CVOTs, numerous patients who are good candidates for benefiting of these agents do not receive them in clinical practice. Currently, there is a paradigm shift in T2DM management, moving from a primary objective of glucose control to a cardiovascular and renal protection.

Comparative cardiovascular outcomes in the era of novel anti-diabetic agents: a comprehensive network meta-analysis of 166,371 participants from 170 randomized controlled trials

Background

Cardiovascular (CV) safety of one anti-diabetic medication over another remains partially delineated. We sought to assess the comparative effect on CV outcomes among novel anti-diabetic agents.

Methods

This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD 42016042063). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched between Jan 1, 1980, and June 30, 2016. Randomized controlled trials comparing anti-diabetic drugs with other comparators in adults with type 2 diabetes were included. We used network meta-analysis to obtain estimates for the outcomes of interests. In addition, post hoc correlation analysis of severe hypoglycemia and primary outcome as per ranking order was conducted. Outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality.

Results

A total of 170 trials (166,371 participants) were included. By class and by individual, sulfonylureas (SU) ranked last. Therefore, with SU as reference, categorically sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), insulin (INS), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor were significantly superior in term of MACE; as were SGLT2i and INS in term of all-cause mortality. Moreover, ranking orders of MACE and all-cause mortality were both positively correlated with that of severe hypoglycemia risk (by individual: R² = 0.3178, P = 0.018; by class: R² = 0.2574, P = 0.038).

Conclusions

Novel anti-diabetic agents possess favorable CV safety profile, despite small but robust differences between individuals. In addition, increase in CV risk was again shown to be partly attributable to a concomitant increase in the risk of severe hypoglycemia, for which SU performed the worst.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12933-018-0722-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.