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.

No abstract

This study evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin as an adjunct to adjustable insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS DEPICT-1 (Dapagliflozin Evaluation in Patients With Inadequately Controlled Type 1 Diabetes) was a randomized (1:1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study of dapagliflozin 5 mg and 10 mg in patients with type 1 diabetes (HbA 1c 7.5-10.5% [58-91 mmol/mol]) (NCT02268214). The results of the 52-week study, consisting of the 24-week short-term and 28-week extension period, are reported here. RESULTS Of the 833 patients randomized into the study, 708 (85%) completed the 52-week study. Over 52 weeks, dapagliflozin 5 mg and 10 mg led to clinically significant reductions in HbA 1c (difference vs. placebo [95% CI] 20.

No abstract

This study in 8 countries across Europe found that about 75% of elderly women seen in primary care who were at high risk of osteoporosis-related fractures were not receiving appropriate medication. Lack of osteoporosis diagnosis appeared to be an important contributing factor. Introduction Treatment rates in osteoporosis are documented to be low. We wished to assess the osteoporosis treatment gap in women ≥ 70 years in routine primary care across Europe. Methods This cross-sectional observational study in 8 European countries collected data from women 70 years or older visiting their general practitioner. The primary outcome was treatment gap: the proportion who were not receiving any osteoporosis medication among those at increased risk of fragility fracture (using history of fracture, 10-year probability of fracture above country-specific Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX] thresholds, T-score ≤ − 2.5). Results Median 10-year probability of fracture (without bone mineral density [BMD]) for the 3798 enrolled patients was 7.2% (hip) and 16.6% (major osteoporotic). Overall, 2077 women (55%) met one or more definitions for increased risk of fragility fracture: 1200 had a prior fracture, 1814 exceeded the FRAX threshold, and 318 had a T-score ≤ − 2.5 (only 944 received a dualenergy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA] scan). In those at increased fracture risk, the median 10-year probability of hip and major osteoporotic fracture was 11.2% and 22.8%, vs 4.1% and 11.5% in those deemed not at risk. An osteoporosis diagnosis was recorded in 804 patients (21.2%); most (79.7%) of these were at increased fracture risk. The treatment gap was 74.6%, varying from 53% in Ireland to 91% in Germany. Patients with an osteoporosis diagnosis were found to have a lower treatment gap than those without a diagnosis, with an absolute reduction of 63%. Conclusions There is a large treatment gap in women aged ≥ 70 years at increased risk of fragility fracture in routine primary care across Europe. The gap appears to be related to a low rate of osteoporosis diagnosis.

BackgroundTwo randomised 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter studies comparing oxycodone PR/naloxone PR and oxycodone PR alone on symptoms of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction in patients with moderate/severe non-malignant pain have been conducted.MethodsThese studies were prospectively designed to be pooled and the primary outcome measure of the pooled data analysis was to demonstrate non-inferiority in 12-week analgesic efficacy of oxycodone PR/naloxone PR versus oxycodone PR alone. Patients with opioid-induced constipation were switched to oxycodone PR and then randomised to fixed doses of oxycodone PR/naloxone PR (n = 292) or oxycodone PR (n = 295) for 12 weeks (20-80 mg/day).ResultsNo statistically significant differences in analgesic efficacy were observed for the two treatments (p = 0.3197; non-inferiority p < 0.0001; 95% CI -0.07, 0.23) and there was no statistically significant difference in frequency of analgesic rescue medication use. Improvements in Bowel Function Index score were observed for oxycodone PR/naloxone PR by Week 1 and at every subsequent time point (-15.1; p < 0.0001; 95% CI -17.3, -13.0). AE incidence was similar for both groups (61.0% and 57.3% of patients with oxycodone PR/naloxone PR and oxycodone PR alone, respectively).ConclusionsResults of this pooled analysis confirm that oxycodone PR/naloxone PR provides effective analgesia and suggest that oxycodone PR/naloxone PR improves bowel function without compromising analgesic efficacy.Trial registration numbersClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00412100 and NCT00412152

BackgroundWhile opioids provide effective analgesia, opioid-induced constipation (OIC) can severely impact quality of life and treatment compliance. This pooled analysis evaluated the maintenance of efficacy and safety during long-term treatment with combined oxycodone/naloxone prolonged-release tablets (OXN PR) in adults with moderate-to-severe chronic pain.MethodsPatients (N = 474) received open-label OXN PR during 52-week extension phases of two studies, having completed 12-week, double-blind, randomized treatment with oxycodone prolonged-release tablets (Oxy PR) or OXN PR. Analgesia and bowel function were assessed at each study visit using ‘Average pain over last 24 h scale and Bowel Function Index (BFI), respectively. Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication was assessed at study end only.Key ResultsImprovement in bowel function was particularly marked in patients who switched from Oxy PR in the double-blind phase to OXN PR during the extension phase, resulting in a clinically meaningful reduction (≥12 points) in BFI score: at the start of the extension phases, mean (SD) BFI score was 44.3 (28.13), and was 29.8 (26.36) for patients who had received OXN PR in the double-blind phase. One week later, BFI scores were similar for the two groups (26.5 [24.40] and 27.5 [25.60], respectively), as was observed throughout the following months. Fewer than 10% of patients received laxatives regularly. Mean 24-h pain scores were low and stable throughout the extension phases. No unexpected adverse events were observed.Conclusions & InferencesPooled data demonstrate OXN PR is an effective long-term therapy for patients with chronic non-cancer pain, and can address symptoms of OIC. No new safety issues were observed which were attributable to the long-term administration of OXN PR.

SummaryBackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in Europe and increased low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) is a major contributor to CVD risk. Extensive evidence from clinical studies of statins has demonstrated a linear relationship between LDL‐C levels and CVD risk. It has been proposed that lower LDL‐C levels than those currently recommended may provide additional clinical benefit to patients.AimThis review summarises the genetic and clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of achieving very low LDL‐C levels.MethodsRelevant epidemiological and clinical studies were identified using PubMed and by searching abstracts published at major congresses.ResultsGenetic evidence demonstrates that individuals with naturally very low LDL‐C levels are healthy and have a low risk of CVD. Clinical evidence has shown that those patients who achieve very low LDL‐C levels through using lipid‐lowering therapies (LLTs), such as statins, have reduced CVD risk compared with patients who only just achieve recommended target LDL‐C levels. These data show that the incidence of adverse events in patients achieving very low LDL‐C levels using LLT is comparable to those reaching the recommended LDL‐C targets.ConclusionsGenetic and clinical evidence supports the concept that reduction in LDL‐C levels below current recommended targets may provide additional clinical benefit to patients without adversely impacting patient safety. Statin add‐on therapies, such as ezetimibe and the recently approved proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors alirocumab and evolocumab, allow patients to achieve very low LDL‐C levels and are likely to impact on future treatment paradigms.