Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: In patients with type 2 diabetes, intensive blood-glucose control with insulin or sulphonylurea therapy decreases progression of microvascular disease and may also reduce the risk of heart attacks. This study investigated whether intensive glucose control with metformin has any specific advantage or disadvantage.
METHODS: Of 4075 patients recruited to UKPDS in 15 centres, 1704 overweight (>120% ideal bodyweight) patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, mean age 53 years, had raised fasting plasma glucose (FPG; 6.1-15.0 mmol/L) without hyperglycaemic symptoms after 3 months' initial diet. 753 were included in a randomised controlled trial, median duration 10.7 years, of conventional policy, primarily with diet alone (n=411) versus intensive blood-glucose control policy with metformin, aiming for FPG below 6 mmol/L (n=342). A secondary analysis compared the 342 patients allocated metformin with 951 overweight patients allocated intensive blood-glucose control with chlorpropamide (n=265), glibenclamide (n=277), or insulin (n=409). The primary outcome measures were aggregates of any diabetes-related clinical endpoint, diabetes-related death, and all-cause mortality. In a supplementary randomised controlled trial, 537 non-overweight and overweight patients, mean age 59 years, who were already on maximum sulphonylurea therapy but had raised FPG (6.1-15.0 mmol/L) were allocated continuing sulphonylurea therapy alone (n=269) or addition of metformin (n=268).
FINDINGS: Median glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was 7.4% in the metformin group compared with 8.0% in the conventional group. Patients allocated metformin, compared with the conventional group, had risk reductions of 32% (95% CI 13-47, p=0.002) for any diabetes-related endpoint, 42% for diabetes-related death (9-63, p=0.017), and 36% for all-cause mortality (9-55, p=0.011). Among patients allocated intensive blood-glucose control, metformin showed a greater effect than chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or insulin for any diabetes-related endpoint (p=0.0034), all-cause mortality (p=0.021), and stroke (p=0.032). Early addition of metformin in sulphonylurea-treated patients was associated with an increased risk of diabetes-related death (96% increased risk [95% CI 2-275], p=0.039) compared with continued sulphonylurea alone. A combined analysis of the main and supplementary studies showed fewer metformin-allocated patients having diabetes-related endpoints (risk reduction 19% [2-33], p=0.033). Epidemiological assessment of the possible association of death from diabetes-related causes with the concurrent therapy of diabetes in 4416 patients did not show an increased risk in diabetes-related death in patients treated with a combination of sulphonylurea and metformin (risk reduction 5% [-33 to 32], p=0.78).
INTERPRETATION: Since intensive glucose control with metformin appears to decrease the risk of diabetes-related endpoints in overweight diabetic patients, and is associated with less weight gain and fewer hypoglycaemic attacks than are insulin and sulphonylureas, it may be the first-line pharmacological therapy of choice in these patients.

Abstract/Text: AIMS: The impact of insulin secretagogues (ISs) on long-term major clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes remains unclear. We examined mortality and cardiovascular risk associated with all available ISs compared with metformin in a nationwide study.
METHODS AND RESULTS: All Danish residents >20 years, initiating single-agent ISs or metformin between 1997 and 2006 were followed for up to 9 years (median 3.3 years) by individual-level linkage of nationwide registers. All-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and the composite of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and cardiovascular mortality associated with individual ISs were investigated in patients with or without previous MI by multivariable Cox proportional-hazard analyses including propensity analyses. A total of 107 806 subjects were included, of whom 9607 had previous MI. Compared with metformin, glimepiride (hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals): 1.32 (1.24-1.40), glibenclamide: 1.19 (1.11-1.28), glipizide: 1.27 (1.17-1.38), and tolbutamide: 1.28 (1.17-1.39) were associated with increased all-cause mortality in patients without previous MI. The corresponding results for patients with previous MI were as follows: glimepiride: 1.30 (1.11-1.44), glibenclamide: 1.47 (1.22-1.76), glipizide: 1.53 (1.23-1.89), and tolbutamide: 1.47 (1.17-1.84). Results for gliclazide [1.05 (0.94-1.16) and 0.90 (0.68-1.20)] and repaglinide and [0.97 (0.81-1.15) and 1.29 (0.86-1.94)] were not statistically different from metformin in both patients without and with previous MI, respectively. Results were similar for cardiovascular mortality and for the composite endpoint.
CONCLUSION: Monotherapy with the most used ISs, including glimepiride, glibenclamide, glipizide, and tolbutamide, seems to be associated with increased mortality and cardiovascular risk compared with metformin. Gliclazide and repaglinide appear to be associated with a lower risk than other ISs.

Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes are at high risk of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke. There is indirect evidence that agonists of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR gamma) could reduce macrovascular complications. Our aim, therefore, was to ascertain whether pioglitazone reduces macrovascular morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes.
METHODS: We did a prospective, randomised controlled trial in 5238 patients with type 2 diabetes who had evidence of macrovascular disease. We recruited patients from primary-care practices and hospitals. We assigned patients to oral pioglitazone titrated from 15 mg to 45 mg (n=2605) or matching placebo (n=2633), to be taken in addition to their glucose-lowering drugs and other medications. Our primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, non fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infarction), stroke, acute coronary syndrome, endovascular or surgical intervention in the coronary or leg arteries, and amputation above the ankle. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN NCT00174993.
FINDINGS: Two patients were lost to follow-up, but were included in analyses. The average time of observation was 34.5 months. 514 of 2605 patients in the pioglitazone group and 572 of 2633 patients in the placebo group had at least one event in the primary composite endpoint (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.02, p=0.095). The main secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. 301 patients in the pioglitazone group and 358 in the placebo group reached this endpoint (0.84, 0.72-0.98, p=0.027). Overall safety and tolerability was good with no change in the safety profile of pioglitazone identified. 6% (149 of 2065) and 4% (108 of 2633) of those in the pioglitazone and placebo groups, respectively, were admitted to hospital with heart failure; mortality rates from heart failure did not differ between groups.
INTERPRETATION: Pioglitazone reduces the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes who have a high risk of macrovascular events.

Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of pioglitazone for the prevention of macrovascular outcomes in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes, without a recent history of macrovascular morbidity.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 2.5-4 year, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint study was conducted in 20 Japanese centers. Patients received pioglitazone +/- other oral glucose-lowering drugs (excluding another thiazolidinedione) [n = 293] or oral glucose-lowering drugs excluding thiazolidinediones (n = 294). Treatment was adjusted to achieve HbA(1c) < 6.5%. The primary endpoint was the time to onset of a macrovascular event.
RESULTS: Pioglitazone delayed the time to onset of macrovascular events and was associated with a lower cumulative incidence of such events (3.56% vs. 4.49% for controls). Neither finding achieved statistical significance. This was likely because of the type of patient included in the study (i.e. no recent history of cardiovascular events) and the high use of concomitant anti-diabetic agents. Reductions in HbA(1c), fasting blood glucose and fasting blood insulin levels, and an increase in HDL-C were significantly greater with pioglitazone throughout most of the study (p < 0.05). Fewer patients in the pioglitazone group commenced permanent treatment with insulin (3.3% vs. 13.7% in the control group). Adverse events were reported by 97.6% of the pioglitazone group and 96.9% of the control group (serious adverse events, including deaths, were 20.1 vs. 22.2%, respectively). The only notable difference between the two groups was a higher incidence of edema in the pioglitazone group. The main limitation of this study was that too few patients were included to identify statistically significant differences in the primary endpoint.
CONCLUSIONS: Pioglitazone produced good glycemic control in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes, and significantly fewer patients treated with pioglitazone needed long-term insulin therapy. These changes were associated with a trend towards delayed onset of macrovascular events.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000001363.

Abstract/Text: AIMS: To assess if treatment with the alpha-glucosidase inhibitor acarbose can reduce cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetic patients.
METHODS AND RESULTS: This meta-analysis included seven randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled acarbose studies with a minimum treatment duration of 52 weeks. Type 2 diabetic patients valid for safety were randomized to either acarbose (n=1248) or placebo (n=932). The primary outcome measure was the time to develop a cardiovascular event. Primary analysis was conducted using Cox regression analysis. The effect of acarbose on metabolic parameters was also investigated. Acarbose therapy showed favourable trends towards risk reduction for all selected cardiovascular event categories. The treatment significantly reduced the risk for "myocardial infarction" (hazards ratio=0.36 [95% Cl 0.16-0.80], P=0.0120) and "any cardiovascular event" (0.65 [95% Cl 0.48-0.88], P=0.0061). Glycaemic control, triglyceride levels, body weight and systolic blood pressure also improved significantly during acarbose treatment.
CONCLUSION: Intervention with acarbose can prevent myocardial infarction and cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetic patients while most of them are already on intensive concomitant cardiovascular medication.

Abstract/Text: AIMS: The impact of insulin secretagogues (ISs) on long-term major clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes remains unclear. We examined mortality and cardiovascular risk associated with all available ISs compared with metformin in a nationwide study.
METHODS AND RESULTS: All Danish residents >20 years, initiating single-agent ISs or metformin between 1997 and 2006 were followed for up to 9 years (median 3.3 years) by individual-level linkage of nationwide registers. All-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and the composite of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and cardiovascular mortality associated with individual ISs were investigated in patients with or without previous MI by multivariable Cox proportional-hazard analyses including propensity analyses. A total of 107 806 subjects were included, of whom 9607 had previous MI. Compared with metformin, glimepiride (hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals): 1.32 (1.24-1.40), glibenclamide: 1.19 (1.11-1.28), glipizide: 1.27 (1.17-1.38), and tolbutamide: 1.28 (1.17-1.39) were associated with increased all-cause mortality in patients without previous MI. The corresponding results for patients with previous MI were as follows: glimepiride: 1.30 (1.11-1.44), glibenclamide: 1.47 (1.22-1.76), glipizide: 1.53 (1.23-1.89), and tolbutamide: 1.47 (1.17-1.84). Results for gliclazide [1.05 (0.94-1.16) and 0.90 (0.68-1.20)] and repaglinide and [0.97 (0.81-1.15) and 1.29 (0.86-1.94)] were not statistically different from metformin in both patients without and with previous MI, respectively. Results were similar for cardiovascular mortality and for the composite endpoint.
CONCLUSION: Monotherapy with the most used ISs, including glimepiride, glibenclamide, glipizide, and tolbutamide, seems to be associated with increased mortality and cardiovascular risk compared with metformin. Gliclazide and repaglinide appear to be associated with a lower risk than other ISs.

Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVE: Asia is predicted to have the largest population of patients with diabetes who are at high risk for renal disease. In the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study, approximately 17% of patients were Asians. In this subgroup analysis, we examined the characteristics, response, and adherence to treatment of the Asian population, as well as their baseline predictors of risk of renal end points.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 252 Asian patients were enrolled in the RENAAL study, which compared losartan (50 mg titrated to 100 mg) to placebo in addition to conventional antihypertensive medications in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy. Mean follow-up was 3.2 years. The effect of losartan therapy on renal and cardiovascular outcomes was examined, and baseline predictors of risk were determined using a Cox proportional hazards model with prespecified baseline covariates.
RESULTS: Losartan reduced the risk of the primary composite end point composed of a doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease, or all-cause mortality in Asian patients by 35% (P = 0.02). No difference between losartan and placebo was observed for the cardiovascular composite outcomes. Losartan reduced the level of proteinuria by 47% (P < 0.001) and rate of decrease in renal function by 31% (0.0074). Discontinuations were lower in the losartan-treated patients. The strongest baseline predictors of risk of renal end points were proteinuria (hazard ratio 1.42, P < 0.0001) and low Hb (0.81, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: In this subgroup analysis of the RENAAL study, losartan conferred significant renal benefits and was well tolerated in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes and clinical nephropathy. Baseline proteinuria and low Hb were strong predictors of risk of renal outcomes.

Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pregabalin across the effective dosing range, to determine differences in the efficacy of three times daily (TID) versus twice daily (BID) dosage schedules, and to use time-to-event analysis to determine the time to onset of a sustained therapeutic effect using data from seven trials of pregabalin in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN).
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were pooled across seven double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials using pregabalin to treat painful DPN with dosages of 150, 300, and 600 mg/day administered TID or BID. Only one trial included all three of these dosages, and TID dosing was used in four. All studies shared fundamental selection criteria, and treatment durations ranged from 5 to 13 weeks.
RESULTS: Pooled analysis showed that pregabalin significantly reduced pain and pain-related sleep interference associated with DPN (150, 300, and 600 mg/day administered TID vs. placebo, all P < or = 0.007). Only the 600 mg/day dosage showed efficacy when administered BID (P < or = 0.001). Pain and sleep interference reductions associated with pregabalin appear to be positively correlated with dosage; the greatest effect was observed in patients treated with 600 mg/day. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the median time to onset of a sustained (> or =30% at end point) 1-point improvement was 4 days in patients treated with pregabalin at 600 mg/day, 5 days in patients treated with pregabalin at 300 mg/day, 13 days in patients treated with pregabalin at 150 mg/day, and 60 days in patients receiving placebo. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were dizziness, somnolence, and peripheral edema.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with pregabalin across its effective dosing range is associated with significant, dose-related improvement in pain in patients with DPN.

Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVE: To determine all cause mortality and deaths from cardiovascular events related to intensive glucose lowering treatment in people with type 2 diabetes.
DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of intensive glucose lowering treatment on cardiovascular events and microvascular complications in adults (≥ 18 years) with type 2 diabetes.
DATA EXTRACTION: Primary end points were all cause mortality and death from cardiovascular causes. Secondary end points were severe hypoglycaemia and macrovascular and microvascular events. Synthesis of results Results are reported as risk ratios with 99% confidence intervals. Statistical heterogeneity between trials was assessed with χ(2), τ(2), and I(2) statistics. A fixed effect model was used to assess the effect on the outcomes of intensive glucose lowering versus standard treatment. The quality of clinical trials was assessed by the Jadad score.
RESULTS: 13 studies were included. Of 34,533 patients, 18,315 received intensive glucose lowering treatment and 16,218 standard treatment. Intensive treatment did not significantly affect all cause mortality (risk ratio 1.04, 99% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.19) or cardiovascular death (1.11, 0.86 to 1.43). Intensive therapy was, however, associated with reductions in the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.85, 0.74 to 0.96, P<0.001), and microalbuminuria (0.90, 0.85 to 0.96, P<0.001) but a more than twofold increase in the risk of severe hypoglycaemia (2.33, 21.62 to 3.36, P<0.001). Over a treatment period of five years, 117 to 150 patients would need to be treated to avoid one myocardial infarction and 32 to 142 patients to avoid one episode of microalbuminuria, whereas one severe episode of hypoglycaemia would occur for every 15 to 52 patients. In analysis restricted to high quality studies (Jadad score >3), intensive treatment was not associated with any significant risk of reductions but resulted in a 47% increase in risk of congestive heart failure (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The overall results of this meta-analysis show limited benefits of intensive glucose lowering treatment on all cause mortality and deaths from cardiovascular causes. We cannot exclude a 9% reduction or a 19% increase in all cause mortality and a 14% reduction or a 43% increase in cardiovascular death. The benefit:risk ratio of intensive glucose lowering treatment in the prevention of macrovascular and microvascular events remains uncertain. The harm associated with severe hypoglycaemia might counterbalance the potential benefit of intensive glucose lowering treatment. More double blind randomised controlled trials are needed to establish the best therapeutic approach in people with type 2 diabetes.

Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: Although statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events in people with diabetes mellitus, there is uncertainty about the effects on particular outcomes and whether such effects depend on the type of diabetes, lipid profile, or other factors. We undertook a prospective meta-analysis to help resolve these uncertainties.
METHODS: We analysed data from 18 686 individuals with diabetes (1466 with type 1 and 17,220 with type 2) in the context of a further 71,370 without diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statin therapy. Weighted estimates were obtained of effects on clinical outcomes per 1.0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol.
FINDINGS: During a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, there were 3247 major vascular events in people with diabetes. There was a 9% proportional reduction in all-cause mortality per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in participants with diabetes (rate ratio [RR] 0.91, 99% CI 0.82-1.01; p=0.02), which was similar to the 13% reduction in those without diabetes (0.87, 0.82-0.92; p<0.0001). This finding reflected a significant reduction in vascular mortality (0.87, 0.76-1.00; p=0.008) and no effect on non-vascular mortality (0.97, 0.82-1.16; p=0.7) in participants with diabetes. There was a significant 21% proportional reduction in major vascular events per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in people with diabetes (0.79, 0.72-0.86; p<0.0001), which was similar to the effect observed in those without diabetes (0.79, 0.76-0.82; p<0.0001). In diabetic participants there were reductions in myocardial infarction or coronary death (0.78, 0.69-0.87; p<0.0001), coronary revascularisation (0.75, 0.64-0.88; p<0.0001), and stroke (0.79, 0.67-0.93; p=0.0002). Among people with diabetes the proportional effects of statin therapy were similar irrespective of whether there was a prior history of vascular disease and irrespective of other baseline characteristics. After 5 years, 42 (95% CI 30-55) fewer people with diabetes had major vascular events per 1000 allocated statin therapy.
INTERPRETATION: Statin therapy should be considered for all diabetic individuals who are at sufficiently high risk of vascular events.

Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: There is no evidence from randomized trials to support a strategy of lowering systolic blood pressure below 135 to 140 mm Hg in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We investigated whether therapy targeting normal systolic pressure (i.e., <120 mm Hg) reduces major cardiovascular events in participants with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events.
METHODS: A total of 4733 participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to intensive therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, or standard therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 140 mm Hg. The primary composite outcome was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The mean follow-up was 4.7 years.
RESULTS: After 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 119.3 mm Hg in the intensive-therapy group and 133.5 mm Hg in the standard-therapy group. The annual rate of the primary outcome was 1.87% in the intensive-therapy group and 2.09% in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio with intensive therapy, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.06; P=0.20). The annual rates of death from any cause were 1.28% and 1.19% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.35; P=0.55). The annual rates of stroke, a prespecified secondary outcome, were 0.32% and 0.53% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.89; P=0.01). Serious adverse events attributed to antihypertensive treatment occurred in 77 of the 2362 participants in the intensive-therapy group (3.3%) and 30 of the 2371 participants in the standard-therapy group (1.3%) (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.)

2010 Massachusetts Medical Society

Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVE: The two major classes of antidiabetic drugs, sulfonylureas and metformin, may differentially affect macrovascular complications and mortality in diabetic patients. We compared the long-term effects of glipizide and metformin on the major cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetic patients who had a history of coronary artery disease (CAD).
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. A total of 304 type 2 diabetic patients with CAD, mean age = 63.3 years (range, 36-80 years), were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either glipizide (30 mg daily) or metformin (1.5 g daily) for 3 years. The primary end points were times to the composite of recurrent cardiovascular events, including death from a cardiovascular cause, death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or arterial revascularization.
RESULTS: At the end of study drug administration, both groups achieved a significant decrease in the level of glycated hemoglobin (7.1% in the glipizide group and 7.0% in the metformin group). At a median follow-up of 5.0 years, 91 participants had developed 103 primary end points. Intention-to-treat analysis showed an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.54 (95% CI 0.30-0.90; P = 0.026) for the composites of cardiovascular events among the patients that received metformin, compared with glipizide. The secondary end points and adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with metformin for 3 years substantially reduced major cardiovascular events in a median follow-up of 5.0 years compared with glipizide. Our results indicated a potential benefit of metformin therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients.