Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), yet a significant proportion of the disease burden cannot be accounted for by conventional cardiovascular risk factors. Hypertension occurs in majority of people with T2DM, which is substantially more frequent than would be anticipated based on general population samples. The impact of hypertension is considerably higher in people with diabetes than it is in the general population, suggesting either an increased sensitivity to its effect or a confounding underlying aetiopathogenic mechanism of hypertension associated with CVD within diabetes. In this contribution, we aim to review the changes observed in the vascular tree in people with T2DM compared to the general population, the effects of established anti-diabetes drugs on microvascular outcomes, and explore the hypotheses to account for common causalities of the increased prevalence of CVD and hypertension in people with T2DM.

No abstract

No abstract

The principal findings of this survey suggest that impairments in communication are at the heart of clinical inertia. This manuscript lays out four key principles that we believe are achievable in all environments and can improve the lives of people with diabetes.

Clinical inertia is defined as the failure to establish appropriate targets and escalate treatment to achieve treatment goals. It accounts for a significant proportion of failure to achieve targets in the management of diabetes and contributes to up to 200,000 adverse diabetes- related outcomes per year. Despite a growing awareness of the phenomenon, and newer, better-tolerated agents for the control of diabetes, there has been little improvement over the last decade in the prevalence of clinical inertia. Although common-place in clinical practice, clinical inertia does not appear to affect clinical trials. There are lessons that may be translated from these randomised controlled trials to clinical practice, which that may improve the care for those with diabetes. Key amongst these interventions are good education, clear treatment strategy and more time for interaction between physician and patients, all of which appears to reduce clinical inertia as evidenced by the “placebo effect” of clinical trials. We plan to review here, the lessons that can be learnt from clinical trials and how these may translate to better care for people with diabetes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13300-014-0077-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Bone turnover markers were substantially lower in obese subjects compared with controls. Total OC and cOC showed less pronounced decrease during the OGTT in obese subjects compared with controls, whereas other BTMs responded similarly in the two groups. The role of OC, if anything, in glucose homeostasis is indirect and may be mediated via other factors than glucose or insulin.

AimsDurability of good glycaemic control (HbA1c) is of importance as it can be the foundation for delaying diabetic complications. It has been hypothesized that early initiation of treatment with the combination of oral anti-diabetes agents with complementary mechanisms of action can increase the durability of glycaemic control compared with metformin monotherapy followed by a stepwise addition of oral agents. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are good candidates for early use as they are efficacious in combination with metformin, show weight neutrality and a low risk of hypoglycaemia. We aimed to test the hypothesis that early combined treatment of metformin and vildagliptin slows β-cell deterioration as measured by HbA1c.MethodsApproximately 2000 people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus who were drug-naive or who were treated with metformin for less than 1 month, and who have HbA1c of 48–58 mmol/mol (6.5–7.5%), will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio in VERIFY, a 5-year multinational, double-blind, parallel-group study designed to compare early initiation of a vildagliptin–metformin combination with standard-of-care initiation of metformin monotherapy, followed by the stepwise addition of vildagliptin when glycaemia deteriorates. Further deterioration will be treated with insulin. The primary analysis for treatment failure will be from a Cox proportional hazard regression model and the durability of glycaemic control will be evaluated by assessing treatment failure rate and the rate of loss in glycaemic control over time as co-primary endpoints.SummaryVERIFY is the first study to investigate the long-term clinical benefits of early combination treatment vs. the standard-of-care metformin monotherapy with a second agent added by threshold criteria.

BackgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a complex disease, particularly in a continental country like Brazil. We attempted to understand and evaluate the perceptions and routines of Brazilians with T2DM and physicians, compared with other countries.MethodsWe compared the results from a 20-min online survey in Brazil with simultaneously collated data from India, Japan, Spain, UK and USA.ResultsIn total, 652 adults with T2DM and 337 treating physicians were enrolled, of whom 100 patients and 55 physicians were from Brazil. The numbers of primary care physicians from the five countries were 221 versus 43 in Brazil, diabetes specialists were 61 versus 12. There was disconnect between the opinions of physicians and people with diabetes globally. Further, there were differences between clinical practices in Brazil versus the rest of the world, in many areas Brazilians were performing better.ConclusionsCommunication between patients and physicians should be clearer. There is an urgent need to identify the deficits in education, in order to address the clinical inertia within the diabetes management team. There is a necessity to understand the specific requirements of the Brazilian population in order to contextualise international guidelines and implement local changes in practice.