Aims: To evaluate diabetic retinopathy (DR) data from across the SUSTAIN clinical trial programme. Materials and methods: The SUSTAIN clinical trial programme evaluated the efficacy and safety of semaglutide, a glucagon‐like peptide‐1 analogue, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). In SUSTAIN 6, a 2‐year, pre‐approval cardiovascular outcomes trial, semaglutide was associated with a significant increase in the risk of DR complications (DRC) vs placebo. DR data from across the SUSTAIN trials were evaluated, and post hoc analyses of the SUSTAIN 6 data were conducted. These included subgroup analyses to identify at‐risk patients and a mediation analysis with initial change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; percentage‐points at week 16) as a covariate, to examine the role of the magnitude of reduction in HbA1c as an intermediate factor affecting risk of DRC. Results: There was no imbalance in DR adverse events across the SUSTAIN 1 to 5 and Japanese trials. The majority of the effect with semaglutide vs placebo in SUSTAIN 6 may be attributed to the magnitude and rapidity of HbA1c reduction during the first 16 weeks of treatment in patients who had pre‐existing DR and poor glycaemic control at baseline, and who were treated with insulin. Conclusions: Early worsening of DR is a known phenomenon associated with the rapidity and magnitude of improvement in glycaemic control with insulin; the DRC findings in SUSTAIN 6 are consistent with this. Guidance regarding the early worsening of DR is recommended with insulin. Similar recommendations may be appropriate for semaglutide.

Background: A composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data. Methods: We assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low–glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high–glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation. Results: The analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals. Conclusion: The GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments.

Type 2 diabetes and obesity are pro-inflammatory states associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Canagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, demonstrated superiority in lowering HbA1c versus glimepiride with less hypoglycemia and greater weight reduction via loss of fat mass in a 52-week trial of type 2 diabetes patients. This post hoc, exploratory analysis assessed the effects of canagliflozin versus glimepiride on select adipokines, inflammatory biomarkers, and chemokines. Changes from baseline to Week 52 in serum leptin, adiponectin, IL-6, TNFα, CRP, PAI-1, VCAM-1, and MCP-1 were measured in a randomly selected subset of type 2 diabetes patients on metformin receiving canagliflozin 300 mg (n = 100) or glimepiride (n = 100) in the overall study. Correlations between change in biomarkers and change in select metabolic and anthropometric variables were assessed. At Week 52, canagliflozin decreased median serum leptin by 25% (95% CI: -34%, -15%) and increased median serum adiponectin by 17% (95% CI: 11%, 23%) compared with glimepiride. There was a 22% reduction in median serum IL-6 (95% CI: -34%, -10%) and a 7% increase in median serum TNFα (95% CI: 1%, 12%) with canagliflozin versus glimepiride. No between-group differences were observed with the other biomarkers. The decrease in serum leptin with canagliflozin was correlated with change in weight (r ≥ 0.3) only; the increase in adiponectin and decrease in IL-6 with canagliflozin occurred independently of changes in HbA1c, weight, or lipids. These results indicate that canagliflozin may improve adipose tissue function and induce changes in serum leptin, adiponectin, and IL-6 that favorably impact insulin sensitivity and cardiovascular disease risk.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy/safety of canagliflozin, a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, compared with glimepiride over 104 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, patients (N = 1,450) received canagliflozin 100 or 300 mg or glimepiride (titrated up to 6 or 8 mg/day) during a 52-week core period followed by a 52-week extension. RESULTS: At week 104, reductions from baseline in A1C were −0.65%, −0.74%, and −0.55% (−7.1, −8.1, and −6.0 mmol/mol) with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg and glimepiride, respectively. Durability analyses showed sustained A1C lowering with both canagliflozin doses versus glimepiride. Reductions in body weight (−4.1%, −4.2%, and 0.9%, respectively) and systolic blood pressure (−2.0, −3.1, and 1.7 mmHg, respectively) were seen with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg compared with glimepiride at week 104. The overall adverse event (AE) incidence was 73.3%, 77.9%, and 78.4% with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg and glimepiride; the incidence of AE-related discontinuations was low across groups (6.2%, 9.5%, and 7.3%, respectively). Incidences of genital mycotic infections, urinary tract infections, and osmotic diuresis–related AEs were higher with canagliflozin than glimepiride; these were generally mild to moderate in intensity and led to few discontinuations. Fewer patients had hypoglycemia episodes with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg than glimepiride (6.8%, 8.2%, and 40.9%). Mild decreases in estimated glomerular filtration rate occurred initially with canagliflozin; these attenuated over 104 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Canagliflozin provided durable glycemic improvements compared with glimepiride and was generally well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving background treatment with metformin over 104 weeks.