Efficacy and Safety of Evogliptin Add-on Therapy to Dapagliflozin/Metformin Combinations in Patients with Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A 24-Week Multicenter Randomized Placebo-Controlled Parallel-Design Phase-3 Trial with a 28-Week Extension

Background@#This study investigates the long-term efficacy and safety of evogliptin add-on therapy in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) previously received dapagliflozin and metformin (DAPA/MET) combination. @*Methods@#In this multicenter randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels 7.0% to 10.5% (n=283) previously used DAPA 10 mg plus MET (≥1,000 mg) were randomly assigned to the evogliptin 5 mg once daily or placebo group (1:1). The primary endpoint was the difference in the HbA1c level from baseline at week 24, and exploratory endpoints included the efficacy and safety of evogliptin over 52 weeks (trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04170998). @*Results@#Evogliptin add-on to DAPA/MET therapy was superior in HbA1c reduction compared to placebo at weeks 24 and 52 (least square [LS] mean difference, –0.65% and –0.55%; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.79 to –0.51 and –0.71 to –0.39; P<0.0001). The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% was higher in the triple combination group at week 52 (32.14% vs. 8.51% in placebo; odds ratio, 5.62; P<0.0001). Evogliptin significantly reduced the fasting glucose levels and mean daily glucose levels with improvement in homeostatic model assessment of β-cell function (LS mean difference, 9.04; 95% CI, 1.86 to 16.21; P=0.0138). Adverse events were similar between the groups, and no serious adverse drug reactions were reported in the evogliptin group. @*Conclusion@#Long-term triple combination with evogliptin added to DAPA/MET showed superior HbA1c reduction and glycemic control compared to placebo at 52 weeks and was well tolerated.

The Efficacy and Safety of Moderate-Intensity Rosuvastatin with Ezetimibe versus High-Intensity Rosuvastatin in High Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized, Multicenter, Open, Parallel, Phase 4 Study

Background@#To investigate the efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity rosuvastatin/ezetimibe combination compared to highintensity rosuvastatin in high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). @*Methods@#This study was a randomized, multicenter, open, parallel phase 4 study, and enrolled T2DM subjects with an estimated 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5%. The primary endpoint was the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) change rate after 24-week rosuvastatin 10 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg treatment was non-inferior to that of rosuvastatin 20 mg. The achievement proportion of 10-year ASCVD risk <7.5% or comprehensive lipid target (LDL-C <70 mg/dL, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL, and apolipoprotein B <80 mg/dL) without discontinuation, and several metabolic parameters were explored as secondary endpoints. @*Results@#A hundred and six participants were assigned to each group. Both groups showed significant reduction in % change of LDL-C from baseline at week 24 (–63.90±6.89 vs. –55.44±6.85, combination vs. monotherapy, p=0.0378; respectively), but the combination treatment was superior to high-intensity monotherapy in LDL-C change (%) from baseline (least square [LS] mean difference, –8.47; 95% confidence interval, –16.44 to –0.49; p=0.0378). The combination treatment showed a higher proportion of achieved comprehensive lipid targets rather than monotherapy (85.36% vs. 62.22% in monotherapy, p=0.015). The ezetimibe combination significantly improved homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function even without A1c changes (LS mean difference, 17.13; p=0.0185). @*Conclusion@#In high ASCVD risk patients with T2DM, the combination of moderate-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe was not only non-inferior but also superior to improving dyslipidemia with additional benefits compared to high-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy.

Medial Arterial Calcification and the Risk of Amputation of Diabetic Foot Ulcer in Patients With Diabetic Kidney Disease

We assessed the risk factors for major amputation of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) in patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) stages 3b–5. For DFU assessment, in addition to DFU location and presence of infection, ischemia, and neuropathy, vascular calcification was assessed using the medial arterial calcification (MAC) score. Of 210 patients, 26 (12.4%) underwent major amputations. Only the location and extension of DFU, represented by Texas grade differed between the minor and major amputation groups. However, after adjusting for covariates, ulcer location of mid- or hindfoot (vs. forefoot, odds ratio [OR] = 3.27), Texas grades 2 or 3 (vs. grade 0, OR = 5.78), and severe MAC (vs. no MAC, OR = 4.46) was an independent risk factor for major amputation (all P < 0.05). The current use of antiplatelets was a possible protective factor for major amputations (OR = 0.37, P = 0.055). In conclusion, DFU with severe MAC is associated with major amputation in patients with DKD.

A Novel Index Using Soluble CD36 Is Associated with the Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Comparison Study with Triglyceride-Glucose Index

BACKGROUND: Plasma soluble cluster determinant 36 (sCD36) level is closely related with insulin resistance and atherosclerosis, but little is known whether it could be a surrogate for estimating risk of developing diabetes or not. To address this, we evaluated association between sCD36 index, the product of sCD36 and fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and then compared with triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index which has been suggested simple index for insulin resistance. METHODS: This was cross-sectional study, and participants were classified as normal glucose tolerance (NGT), prediabetes, and T2DM according to glucose tolerance. The formula of TyG index was ‘ln [FPG (mg/dL)×triglyceride (mg/dL)/2],’ and the sCD36 index was ‘ln [sCD36 (pg/mL)×FPG (mg/dL)/2].’ RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-five subjects (mean age, 55.2 years) were enrolled, and patients with T2DM were 75. Both indexes were significantly increased in prediabetes and T2DM rather than NGT, and sCD36 index was positively correlated with both glycosylated hemoglobin and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (r=0.767 and r=0.453, respectively; P<0.05) and negatively with homeostasis model assessment estimate of β-cell function (r=−0.317). The odds ratio (OR) of sCD36 index for T2DM was 4.39 (95% confidential interval, 1.51 to 12.77) after adjusting age, gender, blood pressure, smoking, alcohol, non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. However, OR of TyG index did not remained significance after adjustment. CONCLUSION: sCD36 index has an independent association with the risk of T2DM, and showed better correlation than TyG index. These results suggest sCD36 index might be useful surrogate marker for the risk of diabetes.

Poor glycemic control is associated with the risk of subclinical hypothyroidism in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Overt hypothyroidism is frequently found in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but it remains unknown the relationship between subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) and T2DM. We attempt to evaluate the difference in prevalence of SCH between patients with T2DM and general population, and the association between SCH and glycemic control status ofdiabetic patients. METHODS: This was cross-sectional study. Total 8,528 subjects who visited for health check-up were recruited. SCH was defined as an elevated level of serum thyroid stimulating hormone (> 4.0 mIU/L) with a normal level of free thyroxine. T2DM group was categorized into three groups by glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c): < 7% (reference), ≥ 7% and < 9%, ≥ 9%. RESULTS: Finally, 7,966 subjects were included. The prevalence of SCH was not different between healthy controls and subjects with T2DM (8.1% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.533; in men, 5.7% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.573; in women, 10.9% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.712), but it was increased with highest HbA1c group more than well controlled group, especially in women. The risk of SCH was increased by group with poorer glycemic control; the odds ratio for HbA1c ≥ 9% compared to < 7% was 2.52 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 5.86; p = 0.031), and 4.58 (95% CI, 1.41 to 14.87; p = 0.011) in women, but not significant in men. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of SCH was similar between T2DM and healthy group. Poor glycemic control in T2DM was obviously associated with the risk of SCH, especially in elderly women. These results suggest SCH as comorbidity may be considered in elderly women with poor glycemic control.