Risk Factors for Fracture in Patients with Coexisting Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes: An Observational Analysis from the CREDENCE Trial.

Background: The fracture pathophysiology associated with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) is incompletely understood. We examined individual fracture predictors and prediction sets based on different pathophysiological hypotheses, testing whether any of the sets improved prediction beyond that based on traditional osteoporotic risk factors. Methods: Within the CREDENCE cohort with adjudicated fracture outcomes, we assessed the association of individual factors with fracture using Cox regression models. We used the Akaike information criteria (AIC) and Schwartz Bayes Criterion (SBC) to assess six separate variable sets based on hypothesized associations with fracture, namely, traditional osteoporosis, exploratory general population findings, cardiovascular risk, CKD-mineral and bone disorder, diabetic osteodystrophy, and an all-inclusive set containing all variables. Results: Fracture occurred in 135 (3.1%) participants over a median 2.35 [1.88-2.93] years. Independent fracture predictors were older age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.06), female sex (HR 2.49, CI 1.70-3.65), previous fracture (HR 2.30, CI 1.58-3.34), Asian race (HR 1.74, CI 1.09-2.78), vitamin D therapy requirement (HR 2.05, CI 1.31-3.21), HbA1c (HR 1.14, CI 1.00-1.32), prior cardiovascular event (HR 1.60, CI 1.10-2.33), and serum albumin (HR 0.41, CI 0.23-0.74) (lower albumin associated with greater risk). The goodness of fit of the various hypothesis sets was similar (AIC range 1870.92-1849.51, SBC range 1875.60-1948.04). Conclusion: Independent predictors of fracture were identified in the CREDENCE participants with type 2 diabetes and CKD. Fracture prediction was not improved by models built on alternative pathophysiology hypotheses compared with traditional osteoporosis predictors.

Effects of canagliflozin compared with placebo on major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events in patient groups with different baseline levels of HbA1c, disease duration and treatment intensity: results from the CANVAS Program.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Type 2 diabetes mellitus can manifest over a broad clinical range, although there is no clear consensus on the categorisation of disease complexity. We assessed the effects of canagliflozin, compared with placebo, on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in the CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program over a range of type 2 diabetes mellitus complexity, defined separately by baseline intensity of treatment, duration of diabetes and glycaemic control. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the effects of canagliflozin on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) according to baseline glucose-lowering treatments (0 or 1, 2 or 3+ non-insulin glucose-lowering treatments, or insulin-based treatment), duration of diabetes (<10, 10 to 16, >16 years) and HbA1c (≤53.0 mmol/mol [<7.0%], >53.0 to 58.5 mmol/mol [>7.0% to 7.5%], >58.5 to 63.9 mmol/mol [>7.5 to 8.0%], >63.9 to 69.4 mmol/mol [8.0% to 8.5%], >69.4 to 74.9 mmol/mol [>8.5 to 9.0%] or >74.9 mmol/mol [>9.0%]). We analysed additional secondary endpoints for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, including a combined kidney outcome of sustained 40% decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease or death due to kidney disease. We used Cox regression analyses and compared the constancy of HRs across subgroups by fitting an interaction term (p value for significance <0.05). RESULTS: At study initiation, 5095 (50%) CANVAS Program participants were treated with insulin, 2100 (21%) had an HbA1c > 74.9 mmol/mol (9.0%) and the median duration of diabetes was 12.6 years (interquartile interval 8.0-18 years). Canagliflozin reduced MACE (HR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75, 0.97]) with no evidence that the benefit differed between subgroups defined by the number of glucose-lowering treatments, the duration of diabetes or baseline HbA1c (all p-heterogeneity >0.17). Canagliflozin reduced MACE in participants receiving insulin with no evidence that the benefit differed from other participants in the trial (HR 0.85 [95% CI 0.72, 1.00]). Similar results were observed for other cardiovascular outcomes and for the combined kidney outcome (HR for combined kidney outcome 0.60 [95% CI 0.47, 0.77]), with all p-heterogeneity >0.37. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In people with type 2 diabetes mellitus at high cardiovascular risk, there was no evidence that cardiovascular and renal protection with canagliflozin differed across subgroups defined by baseline treatment intensity, duration of diabetes or HbA1c.