Background

A number of non-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lipid abnormalities are associated with type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance, which may lead practitioners to use medications targeting these abnormal lipid fractions despite a lack of evidence or guideline recommendations.

Methods and results

Among 382 921 US patients with type 2 diabetes (69% with cardiovascular disease, 76% on a statin), 95 995 (26%) were on some nonstatin lipid-lowering medication-19 265 (5%) on niacin, 32 919 (9%) on a fibrate and 69 513 (18%) on fish oil. Use of all three medications was stable over time and higher in patients with cardiovascular disease and with higher triglyceride levels, although even among patients with triglyceride levels <2.3 mmol/L, 6% were on a fibrate and 17% were on fish oil.

Conclusion

As clinical trials demonstrate little to no cardiovascular benefit from taking these medications, greater attention is needed to focus the use of lipid-lowering medications to those with proven benefit.

Aim

To investigate multiple risk factor target attainment in adults with diabetes mellitus (DM) for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention and the predictors of such attainment in a contemporary DM registry.

Methods

In the US Diabetes Collaborative Registry we identified patients who were at target for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; < 53 mmol/mol (7%) or < 64 mmol/mol (8%) if with ASCVD), LDL cholesterol (< 2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) or < 1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) 1.8 if with ASCVD) and blood pressure (BP; <140/90 mmHg and < 130/80 mmHg as an alternate), and who had non-smoking status, by sex, race and history of ASCVD. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine predictors of target attainment.

Results

In 74 393 patients with DM who had available data (mean age 69.0 years, 41.0% women), overall target attainment for HbA1c, BP, LDL cholesterol and non-smoking status was 73.6%, 69.0% (40.3% for BP <130/80 mmHg), 48.6% and 85.2%, respectively. Only 21.6% (13.0% with BP <130/80 mmHg) were at target for all four measures, and the proportions were higher in men (23.6%) versus women (18.6%) and in white people (22.5%) versus African-American people (14.7%) and people of other races (20.8%; P < 0.01). A total of 62.4% were on a moderate-/high-intensity statin. Age (≥65 years: odds ratio [OR] 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-2.0; and 55-64 years: OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.4 vs. <55 years), male sex (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.3-1.4), white race (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.3-1.5), middle or high income (ORs 1.1, 95% CI 1.1-1.2 or 1.4, 95% CI 1.4-1.5, respectively) were associated, and depression (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.8-1.0) was inversely associated with meeting all four targets (all P = 0.01 to P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In our US registry of patients with DM, only one in five patients were achieving comprehensive risk factor control. Multifactorial interventions will be necessary to optimize ASCVD risk factor control.

Aims

To compare cardiovascular risk factor control in adults with diabetes participating in a national diabetes registry to those in the general population and to ascertain regional differences in diabetes care.

Methods

Adults with diagnosed diabetes in the Diabetes Collaborative Registry (DCR) were compared with those in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2015 to 2016; standardized mean difference (SMD) > 0.2 defined significance. Regional differences were assessed in the DCR cohort; p < .05 defined significance.

Results

The DCR cohort was older (61 vs. 57 years, SMD = 0.38), more insured (99.7% vs. 91.0%, SMD = 0.42), and less ethnically diverse (83% non-Hispanic white vs. 76%, SMD = 0.30) compared with NHANES. The proportion of overweight/obesity, A1c < 7% (<53 mmol/mol), and BP < 140/90 were similar, but DCR participants had higher proportion with LDL < 2.59 mmol/L (61% vs. 41%, SMD = 0.39) and fewer tobacco users (17% vs. 32%, SMD = 0.35). Regionally, obesity, lack of glycaemic control, and tobacco use were highest in the Midwest, BP control was the lowest in the South, and LDL control was lowest in the Northeast.

Conclusions

Significant regional differences in diabetes care delivery and outcomes were identified using a national diabetes registry. Serial analyses of the DCR may supplement national evaluations to deepen our understanding of diabetes care in the US.

Background

The risk for subsequent major cardiovascular (CV) events among patients with very high-risk (VHR) atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD) remains to be fully elucidated.

Hypothesis

We assessed the characteristics and major CV event rates of patients with VHR versus non-VHR ASCVD in a real-world setting in the United States (US), hypothesizing that patients with VHR ASCVD would have higher CV event rates.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted from January 01, 2011, to June 30, 2018, in the US using the Prognos LDL-C database linked to the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus® database supplemented with the IQVIA prescription claims (Dx/LRx) databases. Patients were ≥18 years old and had  ≥2 non-ancillary medical claims in the linked databases at least 30 days apart. The study was conducted in 2 stages: (1) identification of patients with ASCVD who met the definition of VHR ASCVD and a matched cohort of non-VHR ASCVD patients using the incidence density sampling (IDS) approach; (2) estimation of the occurrence of major CV events.

Results

Among patients with ≥1 major ASCVD event (N=147,679), most qualified as VHR ASCVD (79.5%). There were 115,460 patients each in IDS-matched VHR and non-VHR ASCVD cohorts. The composite myocardial infarction/ischemic stroke event rates in the VHR and non-VHR ASCVD cohorts were 8.04 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 7.87-8.22) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77-0.88) events per 100 patient-years, respectively, during the 1-year post-index period.

Conclusions

Most patients with ≥1 previous major ASCVD event treated in real-world US clinical practice qualified as VHR ASCVD. Patients with VHR ASCVD had much higher rates of major CV events versus non-VHR ASCVD patients.

Background

Hyperkalemia is common and potentially dangerous in hospitalized patients; its contemporary prevalence and prognostic importance after acute myocardial infarction are not well described.

Methods

In 38,689 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction from the Cerner Health Facts database, we evaluated the association between maximum in-hospital potassium levels and in-hospital mortality. Patients were stratified by dialysis status and grouped by maximum potassium as follows: <5 mEq/L, 5 to <5.5 mEq/L, 5.5 to <6.0 mEq/L, 6.0 to <6.5 mEq/L, and ≥6.5 mEq/L. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for multiple patient and site characteristics. The relationship between the number of hyperkalemic values and the in-hospital mortality was evaluated.

Results

Of 38,689 patients with acute myocardial infarction, 886 were on dialysis. The rate of hyperkalemia (maximum potassium ≥5.0 mEq/L) was 22.6% in patients on dialysis and 66.8% in patients not on dialysis. Moderate to severe hyperkalemia (maximum potassium ≥5.5 mEq/L) occurred in 9.8% of patients. There was a steep increase in mortality with higher maximum potassium levels. In-hospital mortality exceeded 15% once maximum potassium was ≥5.5 mEq/L regardless of dialysis status. The relationship between higher maximum potassium and increased mortality risk persisted after multivariable adjustment. In addition, patients with a greater number of hyperkalemic values (vs a single value) experienced higher in-hospital mortality.

Conclusions

Hyperkalemia is common in patients who are hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction. Higher maximum potassium levels and number of hyperkalemic events are associated with a steep mortality increase, with higher risks for adverse outcomes observed even at mild levels of hyperkalemia. Whether more intensive management of hyperkalemia may improve outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction merits further study.

Although guidelines and performance measures exist for patients with diabetes mellitus, achievement of these metrics is not well known. The Diabetes Collaborative Registry® (DCR) was formed to understand the quality of diabetes mellitus care across the primary and specialty care continuum in the United States. We assessed the frequency of achievement of 7 diabetes mellitus-related quality metrics and variability across the Diabetes Collaborative Registry® sites. Among 574 972 patients with diabetes mellitus from 259 US practices, median (interquartile range) achievement of the quality metrics across the practices was the following: (1) glycemic control: 19% (5-47); (2) blood pressure control: 80% (67-88); (3) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with coronary artery disease: 62% (51-69); (4) nephropathy screening: 62% (53-71); (5) eye examination: 0.7% (0.0-79); (6) foot examination: 0.0% (0.0-2.3); and (7) tobacco screening/cessation counseling: 86% (80-94). In hierarchical, modified Poisson regression models, there was substantial variability in meeting these metrics across sites, particularly with documentation of glycemic control and eye and foot examinations. There was also notable variation across specialties, with endocrinology practices performing better on glycemic control and diabetes mellitus foot examinations and cardiology practices succeeding more in blood pressure control and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers. The Diabetes Collaborative Registry® was established to document and improve the quality of outpatient diabetes mellitus care. While target achievement of some metrics of cardiovascular risk modification was high, achievement of others was suboptimal and highly variable. This may be attributable to fragmentation of care, lack of ownership among various specialists concerning certain domains of care, incomplete documentation, true gaps in care, or a combination of these factors.

Background

Although practice guidelines stress individualization of glucose management in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the extent to which providers take patient factors into account when selecting medications is not well known.

Methods

Diabetes Collaborative Registry (DCR) is an outpatient diabetes registry including primary care, cardiology, and endocrinology practices. T2D medications were grouped as those which may be suboptimal for key patient subgroups, and we examined patient factors associated with use of these agents using hierarchical, multivariable Poisson models.

Results

In DCR, 157,551 patients from 374 US practices were prescribed a glucose-lowering medication. Patients with morbid obesity were more likely treated with medications prone to cause weight gain (relative rate [RR] 1.09, 95% CI 1.07-1.11). Older patients were more likely to be treated with medications with increased risk of hypoglycemia (RR 1.04 per 5 years, 95% CI 1.04-1.05). Patients with CKD 4/5 were less likely to be treated with agents with known risk in patients with advanced CKD (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.77). Patients with coronary artery disease were no more or less likely to be treated with medications with potential cardiovascular safety issues (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96-1.01).

Conclusions

We observed some targeted use of glucose-lowering therapies in certain subgroups but also identified potential opportunities for better personalization of treatment. Data sources such as the DCR can highlight potential areas for improving targeted approaches to pharmacologic therapy in order to optimize selection of patients most likely to benefit (and least likely to be harmed) from treatments.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been associated with endothelial injury, resultant microvascular inflammation and thrombosis. Activated endothelial cells release and express P-selectin and von Willebrand factor, both of which are elevated in severe COVID-19 and may be implicated in the disease pathophysiology. We hypothesized that crizanlizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to P-selectin, would reduce morbidity and death in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: An international, adaptive, randomized controlled platform trial, funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, randomly assigned 422 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with moderate or severe illness to receive either a single infusion of the P-selectin inhibitor crizanlizumab (at a dose of 5 mg/kg) plus standard of care or standard of care alone in an open-label 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale consisting of the number of days alive free of organ support through the first 21 days after trial entry. RESULTS: The study was stopped for futility by the data safety monitoring committee. Among 421 randomized patients with known 21-day outcomes, 163 patients (77%) randomized to the crizanlizumab plus standard-of-care arm did not require any respiratory or cardiovascular organ support compared with 169 (80%) in the standard-of-care-alone arm. The adjusted odds ratio for the effect of crizanlizumab on organ support-free days was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.43-1.16), where an odds ratio >1 indicates treatment benefit, yielding a posterior probability of futility (odds ratio <1.2) of 98% and a posterior probability of inferiority (odds ratio <1.0) of 91%. Overall, there were 37 deaths (17.5%) in the crizanlizumab arm and 27 deaths (12.8%) in the standard-of-care arm (hazard ratio, 1.33 [95% CrI, 0.85-2.21]; [probability of hazard ratio>1] = 0.879). CONCLUSIONS: Crizanlizumab, a P-selectin inhibitor, did not result in improvement in organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04505774.

Following regulatory guidance set forth in 2008 by the US Food and Drug Administration for new drugs for type 2 diabetes mellitus, many large randomized, controlled trials have been conducted with the primary goal of assessing the safety of antihyperglycemic medications on the primary end point of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Heart failure (HF) was not specifically mentioned in the US Food and Drug Administration guidance and therefore it was not a focus of these studies when planned. Several trials subsequently showed the impact of antihyperglycemic drugs on HF outcomes, which were not originally specified as the primary end point of the trials. The most impressive finding has been the substantial and consistent risk reduction in HF hospitalization seen across 4 trials of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. However, to date, these results have not led to regulatory approval of any of these drugs for a HF indication or a recommendation for use by US HF guidelines. It is therefore important to explore to what extent persuasive treatment effects on nonprimary end points can be used to support regulatory claims and guideline recommendations. This topic was discussed by researchers, clinicians, industry sponsors, regulators, and representatives from professional societies, who convened on the US Food and Drug Administration campus on March 6, 2019. This report summarizes these discussions and the key takeaway messages from this meeting.