Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. Methods: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease to the addition of once-weekly subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30 mg to 50 mg) or matching placebo to standard care. We hypothesized that albiglutide would be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. If noninferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of less than 1.30, closed-testing for superiority was prespecified. Findings: Overall, 9463 participants were followed for a median of 1.6 years. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 of 4731 patients (7.1%; 4.6 events per 100 person-years) in the albiglutide group and in 428 of 4732 patients (9.0%; 5.9 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI ], 0.68 to 0.90), indicating that albiglutide, was superior to placebo (P<0.0001 for noninferiority, P=0.0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (albiglutide 10 patients and placebo 7 patients), pancreatic cancer (6 and 5), medullary thyroid carcinoma (0 and 0), and other serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; Harmony Outcomes ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02465515.) noninferiority; P = 0.06 for superiority). There seems to be variation in the results of existing trials with GLP-1 receptor agonists, which if correct, might reflect drug structure or duration of action, patients studied, duration of follow-up or other factors.

In this study, no statistically significant difference in therapeutic effect was observed between oxcarbazepine (1200 mg/day) and placebo. However, further studies are necessary to assess the effective dose range of oxcarbazepine in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.

Aims: This 12-week, open-label, primary care study (NCT02195817) evaluated the efficacy and safety of nalmefene, taken as needed, to reduce alcohol consumption in adults with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence and drinking at least at high drinking risk levels (DRL, > 60 g/day for men, > 40 g/day for women). Methods: Following the Screening Visit, patients recorded their daily alcohol consumption for 2 weeks. Patients were then categorised by their self-reported drinking levels; those who maintained at least a high DRL in the 2-week period were included in Cohort-A, and those who reduced their alcohol consumption below high DRL were included in Cohort-B. Cohort-A received simple psychosocial interventions and were supplied with nalmefene 18 mg to be taken on days when they perceived a risk of drinking alcohol. Patients in Cohort-B received a simple psychosocial intervention and were treated per normal practice. Results: Of the 378 enrolled patients, 330 were included in Cohort-A and 48 in Cohort-B. For patients in Cohort-A, the mean change from screening to Week-12 in the number of heavy drinking days/month was –13.1 days/month (95% CI –14.4 to –11.9, p < 0.0001). Overall, 55% of patients reduced their DRL by ≥2 risk levels and 44% of patients reduced to a low DRL. The most common adverse events were nausea (18.3%) and dizziness (17.7%). Patients in Cohort-B maintained their lower level alcohol consumption at the 12-week follow-up. Conclusions: Patients with alcohol dependence treated in primary care with nalmefene, taken as needed, in conjunction with simple psychosocial support, significantly reduced their alcohol consumption. Treatment was well tolerated.