Explore the vast range of titles available.

The comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering medications for use with metformin to maintain target glycated hemoglobin levels in persons with type 2 diabetes is uncertain. In this trial involving participants with type 2 diabetes of less than 10 years' duration who were receiving metformin and had glycated hemoglobin levels of 6.8 to 8.5%, we compared the effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications. We randomly assigned participants to receive insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), the sulfonylurea glimepiride, the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, or sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. The primary metabolic outcome was a glycated hemoglobin level, measured quarterly, of 7.0% or higher that was subsequently confirmed, and the secondary metabolic outcome was a confirmed glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5%. A total of 5047 participants (19.8% Black and 18.6% Hispanic or Latinx) who had received metformin for type 2 diabetes were followed for a mean of 5.0 years. The cumulative incidence of a glycated hemoglobin level of 7.0% or higher (the primary metabolic outcome) differed significantly among the four groups (P<0.001 for a global test of differences across groups); the rates with glargine (26.5 per 100 participant-years) and liraglutide (26.1) were similar and lower than those with glimepiride (30.4) and sitagliptin (38.1). The differences among the groups with respect to a glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5% (the secondary outcome) paralleled those of the primary outcome. There were no material differences with respect to the primary outcome across prespecified subgroups defined according to sex, age, or race or ethnic group; however, among participants with higher baseline glycated hemoglobin levels there appeared to be an even greater benefit with glargine, liraglutide, and glimepiride than with sitagliptin. Severe hypoglycemia was rare but significantly more frequent with glimepiride (in 2.2% of the participants) than with glargine (1.3%), liraglutide (1.0%), or sitagliptin (0.7%). Participants who received liraglutide reported more frequent gastrointestinal side effects and lost more weight than those in the other treatment groups. All four medications, when added to metformin, decreased glycated hemoglobin levels. However, glargine and liraglutide were significantly, albeit modestly, more effective in achieving and maintaining target glycated hemoglobin levels. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).

Aims/hypothesisType 2 diabetes, particularly with concomitant CVD, is associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment. We assessed the effect on accelerated cognitive decline (ACD) of the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin vs the sulfonylurea glimepiride in individuals with type 2 diabetes.MethodsThe CAROLINA-COGNITION study was part of the randomised, double-blind, active-controlled CAROLINA trial that evaluated the cardiovascular safety of linagliptin vs glimepiride in individuals with age ≥40 and ≤85 years and HbA1c 48–69 mmol/mol (6.5–8.5%) receiving standard care, excluding insulin therapy. Participants were randomised 1:1 using an interactive telephone- and web-based system and treatment assignment was determined by a computer-generated random sequence with stratification by center. The primary cognitive outcome was occurrence of ACD at end of follow-up, defined as a regression-based index score ≤16th percentile on either the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) or a composite measure of attention and executive functioning, in participants with a baseline MMSE score ≥24. Prespecified additional analyses included effects on ACD at week 160, in subgroups (sex, age, race, ethnicity, depressive symptoms, cardiovascular risk, duration of type 2 diabetes, albuminuria), and absolute changes in cognitive performance. Participants, caregivers, and people involved in measurements, examinations or adjudication, were all masked to treatment assignment.ResultsOf 6033 participants recruited from hospital and primary care sites, 3163 (38.0% female, mean age/diabetes duration 64/7.6 years, MMSE score 28.5, HbA1c 54 mmol/mol [7.1%]) represent the CAROLINA-COGNITION cohort. Over median 6.1 years, ACD occurred in 27.8% (449/1618, linagliptin) vs 27.6% (426/1545, glimepiride), OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.86, 1.18). Also, no differences in ACD were observed at week 160 (OR 1.07 [0.91, 1.25]), between treatments across subgroups, or for absolute cognitive changes.Conclusions/interpretationIn a large, international outcome trial in people with relatively early type 2 diabetes at elevated cardiovascular risk, no difference in risk for ACD was observed between linagliptin and glimepiride over 6.1 years.FundingThis study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01243424.

Addition of a sulphonylurea to metformin improves glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes, but is associated with hypoglycaemia and weight gain. We aimed to compare a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (linagliptin) against a commonly used sulphonylurea (glimepiride). In this 2-year, parallel-group, non-inferiority double-blind trial, outpatients with type 2 diabetes and glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 6·5–10·0% on stable metformin alone or with one additional oral antidiabetic drug (washed out during screening) were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer-generated random sequence via a voice or web response system to linagliptin (5 mg) or glimepiride (1–4 mg) orally once daily. Study investigators and participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 104. Analyses included all patients randomly assigned to treatment groups who received at least one dose of treatment, had a baseline HbA1c measurement, and had at least one on-treatment HbA1c measurement. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00622284. 777 patients were randomly assigned to linagliptin and 775 to glimepiride; 764 and 755 were included in analysis of the primary endpoint. Reductions in adjusted mean HbA1c (baseline 7·69% [SE 0·03] in both groups) were similar in the linagliptin (–0·16% [SE 0·03]) and glimepiride groups (–0·36% [0·03]; difference 0·20%, 97·5% CI 0·09–0·30), meeting the predefined non-inferiority criterion of 0·35%. Fewer participants had hypoglycaemia (58 [7%] of 776 vs 280 [36%] of 775 patients, p<0·0001) or severe hypoglycaemia (1 [<1%] vs 12 [2%]) with linagliptin compared with glimepiride. Linagliptin was associated with significantly fewer cardiovascular events (12 vs 26 patients; relative risk 0·46, 95% CI 0·23–0·91, p=0·0213). The results of this long-term randomised active-controlled trial advance the clinical evidence and comparative effectiveness bases for treatment options available to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The findings could improve decision making for clinical treatment when metformin alone is insufficient. Boehringer Ingelheim.

New treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus are needed to retain insulin–glucose coupling and lower the risk of weight gain and hypoglycaemia. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of liraglutide as monotherapy for this disorder. In a double-blind, double-dummy, active-control, parallel-group study, 746 patients with early type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to once daily liraglutide (1·2 mg [n=251] or 1·8 mg [n=247]) or glimepiride 8 mg (n=248) for 52 weeks. The primary outcome was change in proportion of glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA 1c). Analysis was done by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NTC00294723. At 52 weeks, HbA 1c decreased by 0·51% (SD 1·20%) with glimepiride, compared with 0·84% (1·23%) with liraglutide 1·2 mg (difference −0·33%; 95% CI −0·53 to −0·13, p=0·0014) and 1·14% (1·24%) with liraglutide 1·8 mg (−0·62; −0·83 to −0·42, p<0·0001). Five patients in the liraglutide 1·2 mg, and one in 1·8 mg groups discontinued treatment because of vomiting, whereas none in the glimepiride group did so. Liraglutide is safe and effective as initial pharmacological therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus and leads to greater reductions in HbA 1c, weight, hypoglycaemia, and blood pressure than does glimepiride. Novo Nordisk A/S.

In a secondary analysis comparing the effect of insulin glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin, added to metformin, on the incidences of microvascular complications and death, no material between-group differences were seen.

Abstract Context Low-dose sulfonylureas (SUs) have been found to augment the classical incretin effect, increase glucose sensitivity and late phase incretin potentiation. Objective To evaluate potential synergy between low-dose SU plus a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor. Methods Unblinded randomized crossover study at the Clinical Research Centre, University of Dundee. Thirty participants with T2DM (HbA1c < 64 mmol/mol) were treated with diet or metformin. Participants completed 4, 14-day blocks in a random order: control, gliclazide 20 mg (SU), sitagliptin 100 mg (DPP4 inhibitor [DPP4i]), or combination (SUDPP4i). A mixed meal test was conducted after each intervention. The primary outcome was the effect of treatment on beta-cell glucose sensitivity. Secondary outcomes included frequency of glucose <3 mmol/L on continuous glucose monitoring, subanalyses by genotype (KNCJ11 E23K), gender, and body mass index. Results SU combination with DPP4i showed additive effect on glucose lowering: mean glucose area under the curve (mean 95% CI) (mmol/L) was control 11.5 (10.7-12.3), DPP4i 10.2 (9.4-11.1), SU 9.7 (8.9-10.5), SUDPP4i 8.7 (7.9-9.5) (P < .001). Glucose sensitivity mirrored the additive effect (pmol min−1 m−2 mM−1): control 71.5 (51.1-91.9), DPP4i 75.9 (55.7-96.0), SU 86.3 (66.1-106.4), SUDPP4i 94.1 (73.9-114.3) (P = .04). The additive effect was seen in men but not women. Glucose time in range <3 mmol/L on continuous glucose monitoring (%) was unaffected: control 1 (2-4), DPP4i 2 (3-6), SU 1 (0-4), SUDPP4i 3 (2-7) (P = .65). Conclusion Low-dose sulfonylurea plus DPP4i has a potent glucose-lowering effect through augmentation of beta-cell function. A double-blind randomized controlled trial would formalize efficacy and safety of this combination, which may avoid negative aspects of SU.

The 20-year UK Prospective Diabetes Study showed major clinical benefits for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes randomly allocated to intensive glycaemic control with sulfonylurea or insulin therapy or metformin therapy, compared with conventional glycaemic control. 10-year post-trial follow-up identified enduring and emerging glycaemic and metformin legacy treatment effects. We aimed to determine whether these effects would wane by extending follow-up for another 14 years. 5102 patients enrolled between 1977 and 1991, of whom 4209 (82·5%) participants were originally randomly allocated to receive either intensive glycaemic control (sulfonylurea or insulin, or if overweight, metformin) or conventional glycaemic control (primarily diet). At the end of the 20-year interventional trial, 3277 surviving participants entered a 10-year post-trial monitoring period, which ran until Sept 30, 2007. Eligible participants for this study were all surviving participants at the end of the 10-year post-trial monitoring period. An extended follow-up of these participants was done by linking them to their routinely collected National Health Service (NHS) data for another 14 years. Clinical outcomes were derived from records of deaths, hospital admissions, outpatient visits, and accident and emergency unit attendances. We examined seven prespecified aggregate clinical outcomes (ie, any diabetes-related endpoint, diabetes-related death, death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, and microvascular disease) by the randomised glycaemic control strategy on an intention-to-treat basis using Kaplan–Meier time-to-event and log-rank analyses. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN75451837. Between Oct 1, 2007, and Sept 30, 2021, 1489 (97·6%) of 1525 participants could be linked to routinely collected NHS administrative data. Their mean age at baseline was 50·2 years (SD 8·0), and 41·3% were female. The mean age of those still alive as of Sept 30, 2021, was 79·9 years (SD 8·0). Individual follow-up from baseline ranged from 0 to 42 years, median 17·5 years (IQR 12·3–26·8). Overall follow-up increased by 21%, from 66 972 to 80 724 person-years. For up to 24 years after trial end, the glycaemic and metformin legacy effects showed no sign of waning. Early intensive glycaemic control with sulfonylurea or insulin therapy, compared with conventional glycaemic control, showed overall relative risk reductions of 10% (95% CI 2–17; p=0·015) for death from any cause, 17% (6–26; p=0·002) for myocardial infarction, and 26% (14–36; p<0·0001) for microvascular disease. Corresponding absolute risk reductions were 2·7%, 3·3%, and 3·5%, respectively. Early intensive glycaemic control with metformin therapy, compared with conventional glycaemic control, showed overall relative risk reductions of 20% (95% CI 5–32; p=0·010) for death from any cause and 31% (12–46; p=0·003) for myocardial infarction. Corresponding absolute risk reductions were 4·9% and 6·2%, respectively. No significant risk reductions during or after the trial for stroke or peripheral vascular disease were observed for both intensive glycaemic control groups, and no significant risk reduction for microvascular disease was observed for metformin therapy. Early intensive glycaemic control with sulfonylurea or insulin, or with metformin, compared with conventional glycaemic control, appears to confer a near-lifelong reduced risk of death and myocardial infarction. Achieving near normoglycaemia immediately following diagnosis might be essential to minimise the lifetime risk of diabetes-related complications to the greatest extent possible. University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Population Health Pump Priming.

Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors improve glycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes by enhancing urinary glucose excretion. We compared the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, with glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. We undertook this 52 week, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 non-inferiority trial at 157 centres in 19 countries between Aug 28, 2009, and Dec 21, 2011. Patients aged 18–80 years with type 2 diabetes and glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7·0–9·5% on stable metformin were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by computer-generated random sequence via an interactive voice or web response system to receive canagliflozin 100 mg or 300 mg, or glimepiride (up-titrated to 6 mg or 8 mg per day) orally once daily. Patients, study investigators, and local sponsor personnel were masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 52, with a non-inferiority margin of 0·3% for the comparison of each canagliflozin dose with glimepiride. If non-inferiority was shown, we assessed superiority on the basis of an upper bound of the 95% CI for the difference of each canagliflozin dose versus glimepiride of less than 0·0%. Analysis was done in a modified intention-to-treat population, including all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00968812. 1450 of 1452 randomised patients received at least one dose of glimepiride (n=482), canagliflozin 100 mg (n=483), or canagliflozin 300 mg (n=485). For lowering of HbA1c at 52 weeks, canagliflozin 100 mg was non-inferior to glimepiride (least-squares mean difference −0·01% [95% CI −0·11 to 0·09]), and canagliflozin 300 mg was superior to glimepiride (–0·12% [–0·22 to −0·02]). 39 (8%) patients had serious adverse events in the glimepiride group versus 24 (5%) in the canagliflozin 100 mg group and 26 (5%) in the 300 mg group. In the canagliflozin 100 mg and 300 mg groups versus the glimepiride group, we recorded a greater number of genital mycotic infections (women: 26 [11%] and 34 [14%] vs five [2%]; men: 17 [7%] and 20 [8%] vs three [1%]), urinary tract infections (31 [6%] for both canagliflozin doses vs 22 [5%]), and osmotic diuresis-related events (pollakiuria: 12 [3%] for both doses vs one [<1%]; polyuria: four [<1%] for both doses vs two [<1%]). Canagliflozin provides greater HbA1c reduction than does glimepiride, and is well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving metformin. These findings support the use of canagliflozin as a viable treatment option for patients who do not achieve sufficient glycaemic control with metformin therapy. Janssen Research & Development, LLC.

Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce cardiovascular events in humans with type 2 diabetes (T2D); however, the underlying mechanism remains unclear. Activation of the NLR family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome and subsequent interleukin (IL)-1β release induces atherosclerosis and heart failure. Here we show the effect of SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin on NLRP3 inflammasome activity. Patients with T2D and high cardiovascular risk receive SGLT2 inhibitor or sulfonylurea for 30 days, with NLRP3 inflammasome activation analyzed in macrophages. While the SGLT2 inhibitor’s glucose-lowering capacity is similar to sulfonylurea, it shows a greater reduction in IL-1β secretion compared to sulfonylurea accompanied by increased serum β-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) and decreased serum insulin. Ex vivo experiments with macrophages verify the inhibitory effects of high BHB and low insulin levels on NLRP3 inflammasome activation. In conclusion, SGLT2 inhibitor attenuates NLRP3 inflammasome activation, which might help to explain its cardioprotective effects. SGLT2 inhibitors, a class of type 2 diabetes medication, reduce cardiovascular events in patients beyond expectation from blood sugar control. Here the authors report a randomized controlled trial showing that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce inflammasome activation in peripheral macrophages, which may contribute to the cardiovascular protection.

TBI heterogeneity is recognized as a major impediment to successful translation of therapies that could improve morbidity and mortality after injury. This heterogeneity exists on multiple levels including primary injury, secondary injury/host-response, and recovery. One widely accepted type of primary-injury related heterogeneity is pathoanatomic—the intracranial compartment that is predominantly affected, which can include any combination of subdural, subarachnoid, intraparenchymal, diffuse axonal, intraventricular and epidural hemorrhages. Intraparenchymal contusions carry the highest risk for progression. Contusion expansion is one of the most important drivers of death and disability after TBI. Over the past decade, there has been increasing evidence of the role of the sulfonylurea-receptor 1–transient receptor potential melastatin 4 (SUR1-TRPM4) channel in secondary injury after TBI, including progression of both cerebral edema and intraparenchymal hemorrhage. Inhibition of SUR1-TRPM4 with glibenclamide has shown promising results in preclinical models of contusional TBI with benefits against cerebral edema, secondary hemorrhage progression of the contusion, and improved functional outcome. Early-stage human research supports the key role of this pathway in contusion expansion and suggests a benefit with glibenclamide inhibition. ASTRAL is an ongoing international multi-center double blind multidose placebo-controlled phase-II clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of an intravenous formulation of glibenclamide (BIIB093). ASTRAL is a unique and innovative study that addresses TBI heterogeneity by limiting enrollment to patients with the TBI pathoanatomic endotype of brain contusion and using contusion-expansion (a mechanistically linked secondary injury) as its primary outcome. Both criteria are consistent with the strong supporting preclinical and molecular data. In this narrative review, we contextualize the development and design of ASTRAL, including the need to address TBI heterogeneity, the scientific rationale underlying the focus on brain contusions and contusion-expansion, and the preclinical and clinical data supporting benefit of SUR1-TRPM4 inhibition in this specific endotype. Within this framework, we summarize the current study design of ASTRAL which is sponsored by Biogen and actively enrolling with a goal of 160 participants.