Heart failure and type 2 diabetes: From cardiovascular outcome trials,with hope

An excess risk of heart failure (HF) persists in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) despite optimal control of an array of conventional risk factors, including hyperglycaemia. Twelve cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have been published to date, although none, with the exception of the DECLARE trial with dapagliflozin, has included HF as a primary endpoint. The four trials with dipeptidyl-peptidase inhibitors (DPP-4i) (SAVOR-TIMI 53 with saxagliptin, EXAMINE with alogliptin, TECOS with sitagliptin and CARMELINA with linagliptin) failed to show any significant effect on HF risk in patients with T2D, with the notable exception of saxagliptin which was associated with a 27% increased risk. Five completed CVOTs with the GLP-1 RAs lixisenatide (ELIXA), liraglutide (LEADER), semaglutide (SUSTAIN-6), exenatide once weekly (EXSCEL) and albiglutide (HARMONY) also failed to reveal any significant effect on HF risk. The three trials with sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) (EMPA-REG OUTCOME with empagliflozin, CANVAS with canagliflozin and DECLARE with dapagliflozin) all revealed a robust and significant reduction in the hazard ratios of hospitalization for HF, from 27% to 35%, which remained consistent, significant and of similar magnitude regardless of the presence of a history of HF or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. There is no association between reductions in HF risk and haemoglobin A1c (A1C) levels, while there is a significant association between reductions in HR for MACE and A1C levels (Spearman's correlation, r = 0.695; P = 0.013). All of the 12 CVOTs completed to date have provided reassurance of the overall cardiovascular safety of the newer anti-hyperglycaemic drugs. At present, the robust, consistent and reproducible reduction of approximately 30% in the risk of HF with SGLT-2i may be considered a class effect. The beneficial effect on MACE outcome observed with the use of some GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2i must be interpreted within the frame of the single trial.     

Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes treatment: are they all the same?

Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists (RAs) are an important class of drugs with a well‐established efficacy and safety profile in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Agents in this class are derived from either exendin‐4 (a compound present in Gila monster venom) or modifications of human GLP‐1 active fragment. Differences among these drugs in duration of action (ie, short‐acting vs long‐acting), effects on glycaemic control and weight loss, immunogenicity, tolerability profiles, and administration routes offer physicians several options when selecting the most appropriate agent for individual patients. Patient preference is also an important consideration. The aim of this review is to discuss the differences between and similarities of GLP‐1 RAs currently approved for clinical use, focusing particularly on the properties characterising the single short‐acting and long‐acting GLP‐1 RAs rather than on their individual efficacy and safety profiles. The primary pharmacodynamic difference between short‐acting (ie, exenatide twice daily and lixisenatide) and long‐acting (ie, albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide once weekly, liraglutide, and semaglutide) GLP‐1 RAs is that short‐acting agents primarily delay gastric emptying (lowering postprandial glucose) and long‐acting agents affect both fasting glucose (via enhanced glucose‐dependent insulin secretion and reduced glucagon secretion in the fasting state) and postprandial glucose (via enhanced postprandial insulin secretion and inhibition of glucagon secretion). Other advantages of long‐acting GLP‐1 RAs include smaller fluctuations in plasma drug concentrations, improved gastrointestinal tolerability profiles, and simpler, more convenient administration schedules (once daily for liraglutide and once weekly for albiglutide, dulaglutide, the long‐acting exenatide formulation, and semaglutide), which might improve treatment adherence and persistence.     

Effect of liraglutide on physical performance in type 2 diabetes: Results of a randomized,double-blind,controlled trial (LIPER2)

AimsTo assess the effect of the GLP-1 analogue liraglutide on measures of cardiac function and physical performance in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).MethodsIn this phase-IV randomized double-blind placebo-controlled parallel-group clinical trial at a tertiary hospital, T2D patients with HbA_1c levels of 7–10% with oral agents and/or intermediate-/long-acting insulin were allocated (computer-generated randomization, ratio 1:1) to either liraglutide 1.8 mg/day or a placebo for 6 months. The primary endpoint was maximum oxygen consumption (VO_2max) during cycle ergometry, while other procedures included a 6-min walk test, echocardiography, anthropometry and blood tests. Safety endpoints were also monitored, and an intention-to-treat analysis was performed.ResultsA total of 24 patients (15 women) aged 52 (11.7) years, with diabetes duration of 8.7 (5.8) years, BMI 34.98 (6.2) kg/m² and HbA_1c 8.2% (0.68%), were randomized to liraglutide 1.8 mg daily or placebo. There were no differences in VO_2max [17.98 (4.8) vs. 15.90 (4.96) mL/kg/min; P > 0.10], VE/VCO₂ slope [30.18 (4.8) vs. 32 (4.49)], left ventricular ejection fraction or 6-min walk test [530.7 (86) vs. 503.9 (84) m] at 6 months. HbA_1c was lower (6.7% vs. 7.7%; P = 0.005), with a trend towards lower maximum systolic blood pressure during ergometry [171.7 (24.4) vs. 192.5 (25.6); P = 0.052] in the liraglutide group at the end of the study. There were no severe adverse events.ConclusionIn this trial, liraglutide improved glycaemic control in T2D, but had no significant effects on either physical performance or myocardial function.     

胰高血糖素样肽-1的心血管益处及机制

心血管疾病是2型糖尿病患者的主要死亡原因之一。新近研究发现胰高血糖素样肽-1(GLP-1)不仅通过葡萄糖依赖的方式刺激胰岛素分泌和抑制糖原的不适当分泌,延缓胃排空,增加饱食感等方式调节血糖;还能通过GLP-1R和受体以外的方式发挥心血管保护作用,包括心肌、内皮细胞和血管等。越来越多的动物和临床研究显示,GLP-1和GLP-1R激动剂都能改善内皮细胞功能、促进钠的排泄、改善缺血损伤的心肌和心功能的恢复,减少心血管风险的危险因素和标志物。文中综述有关动物和人类研究中GLP-1对心血管系统的作用以及可能机制。     

Differentiating among incretin therapies: a multiple-target approach to type 2 diabetes

What is known and Objective: Incretin-based glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor therapies provide glycaemic control with reduced risks associated with weight gain or hypoglycaemia. Incretin therapies are compared with their mechanisms of action, effects on haemoglobin A(1C) (HbA(1C) ), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), post-prandial glucose (PPG), body weight, β-cell function, cardiovascular biomarkers and in their safety profiles to aid clinicians in the selection of individualized pharmacotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: Relevant articles for a systematic review were identified through PubMed. Randomized, head-to-head comparison studies among incretin therapies were identified and included in the review. Additionally, randomized, controlled monotherapy and combination therapy studies examining glycaemic and extraglycaemic effects of individual incretin therapies from 2007 to 2011 were reviewed. Results and Discussion: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are generally preferred over DPP-4 inhibitors because of their greater effectiveness in reducing HbA(1C) , FPG and PPG excursions, and greater weight loss potentiation. As a monotherapy option, longer-acting GLP-1 RAs, including liraglutide and exenatide once-weekly, may be preferred at higher HbA(1C) because of their more pronounced effects on FPG. At lower/near normal HbA(1C) , a short-acting GLP-1 RA, such as exenatide twice-daily, may be a better choice as its effects are more pronounced with PPG. Ideal patients or patient situations for DPP-4 inhibitors include patients who need minimal reduction in HbA(1C,) elderly patients, patients who are unwilling or unable to take an injectable agent, when GLP-1 RAs are contraindicated or when the patient will not benefit from weight loss. Treatment benefits common to all incretin-based therapies include minimal hypoglycaemia risk, potential preservation of β-cell function and effective targeting of multiple organs underlying type 2 diabetes and of comorbidities commonly associated with type 2 diabetes, such as obesity and hypertension. What is new and Conclusion: Key differences in mechanisms of action and in glycaemic and extra-glycaemic treatment outcomes exist among incretin therapies, both within the GLP-1 RA class, and between GLP-1 RAs and DPP-4 inhibitors. Clinical judgment acknowledging important differences among incretin therapies and treatment-related patient characteristics will aid in the selection of the appropriate incretin agent for individualized pharmacotherapy.     

Fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) improves cardiovascular risk markers in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin

In this post hoc analysis we investigated the effects of insulin degludec/liraglutide fixed-ratio combination (IDegLira) versus comparators on cardiovascular (CV) risk markers in participants in the DUAL II (vs. insulin degludec), DUAL V (vs. insulin glargine 100 units/mL) and DUAL VII (vs. basal–bolus therapy) trials, grouped by sex, age (<65 years, ≥65 years) and diabetes duration (<10 years, ≥10 years). Treatment contrasts were in favour of IDegLira in many subgroups for changes from baseline in glycated haemoblogin (DUAL II, DUAL V), body weight (all three trials), systolic blood pressure (BP; all three trials), HDL cholesterol (DUAL VII) and LDL cholesterol (DUAL II, DUAL V). Higher heart rates were seen with IDegLira versus comparators (all three trials) plus significantly higher diastolic BP in men (DUAL V). Differences in treatment effect were seen between sexes in waist circumference (DUAL II), systolic BP (DUAL II, DUAL V) and triglycerides (DUAL VII), and between diabetes durations in LDL cholesterol (DUAL V). In conclusion, IDegLira is associated with a general improvement in CV risk markers compared with basal insulin or basal–bolus therapy after 26 weeks of treatment.