Current Advances in Diabetes Management John B. Buse, MD, PhD Associate Professor of Medicine Chief, Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology Director, Diabetes Care Center University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC jbuse@med.unc.edu Change in Age-Adjusted Mortality Rates 50 40 % Change in AgeAdjusted Mortality Rate Since 1979 Diabetes Mortality 30 20 Cancer Mortality 10 0 -10 -20 -30 All-Cause Mortality Major CVD Mortality -40 -50 Year B Sobel et al., Circ 2003; 107:636 (CDC, PMD) ABC’s of Diabetes Management Glycemic control A1C <7.0% Preprandial plasma glucose 90-130 mg/dL (5.0-7.2 mmol/L) Postprandial plasma glucose <180 mg/dL (<10.0 mmol/L) Blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg Lipids LDL-cholesterol <100 mg/dL (<2.6 mmol/L) Triglycerides <150 mg/dL (<1.7 mmol/L) HDL-cholesterol >40 mg/dL (>1.1 mmol/L) Antiplatelet therapy Everyone over 40 or with risk factors Smoking cessation Everyone American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:s19. 63% of Patients With Diabetes are Not At ADA A1C Goal <7% Adults aged 20-74 years with previously diagnosed diabetes who participated in the interview and examination components of the National Health Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2000. 100 80 % of Subjects n = 404 60 12.4% 7.8% 63% 7% 17.0% 25.8% >10% >9% >8% 7-8% 40 20 37.2% >8% A1C 37.0% <7% 0 Only 7% of adults with diabetes in NHANES 1999-2000 attained: • A1C level <7% • Blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg • Total cholesterol <200 mg/dL Saydah SH et al. JAMA. 2004;291:335-342. Difficulties in Achieving Target A1C Values What is the appropriate A1C target Challenges – Late diagnosis and initiation of therapy – Therapeutic inertia – Lack of effective lifestyle intervention – Secondary failure – Adverse events associated with antihyperglycemic therapies – Complexity of care – Role of postprandial glucose in failure Glycemic Goals of Therapy Goal ADA Premeal plasma glucose (mg/dl) 90-130 2-h postprandial plasma glucose <180* HbA1c <7%** ACE <110 <140 <6.5% Verbal Target ~100 <<200 As low as possible w/o unacceptable AE * Evaluation and treatment of postprandial glucose may be useful in the setting of suspected postprandial hyperglycemia, with the use of agents targeting postprandial hyperglycemia and for suspected hypoglycemia. ** More stringent glycemic goals (i.e. a normal A1C, <6%) may further reduce complications at the cost of increased risk of hypoglycemia Diabetes Care 28:s4-36, 2005 http://www.aace.com/pub/press/releases/diabetesconsensuswhitepaper.php Effect of Early TZD Use on A1C 6.8 - Rosiglitazone (n=39) 6.6 - Pioglitazone (n=62) 6.4 - Control (n=71) † * † 6.2 - A1C (%) 6.0 - * 5.8 - * 5.6 - * 5.4 5.2 - * * * * P<0.001 vs. baseline; † P<0.001 vs. rosiglitazone and pioglitazone 5.0 - Baseline Switch Durbin RJ Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism 6:280-285, 2004 2-yr check 3-yr final Patients Remain on Monotherapy >1 Year After First A1c >8.0%* Length of time that the patient’s A1c remained above 8.0% before a switch/addition in therapy* 25 20 months 20 Months 15 14 months 10 5 0 Metformin Only (n=354) Sulfonylurea Only (n=2517) *May include up-titration. Length of time between first A1c >8.0% and switch/addition in therapy could include periods where patients had subsequent A1c test values below 8%. Based on nonrandomized retrospective database analysis. Data from Kaiser Permanente Northwest 1994-2002. Patients had to be continuously enrolled for 12 months with A1c lab values. Brown et al. Diabetes. 2003;52(suppl 1):A61-A62. Abstract 264-OR. Effectiveness of Medical Nutrition Therapy in Management of Type 2 Diabetes A1C (%) Emphasize blood glucose control, 8.4 8.2 8.0 Focus on carbohydrate foods, 7.8 7.6 number of servings per meal. 7.4 7.2 7.0 Encourage physical activity. 6.8 6.6 Initial 6 week 3 month No nutrition education 1 visit with dietitian with dietitian not3 visits weight loss. * † portions, and † 6 month Use food records with blood glucose monitoring for 3-visit and 1-visit groups vs no nutrition education No significant data. difference between 3-visit and 1-visit groups: *P<0.05 † P<0.001 significantly less than at entry Franz MJ et al. J Am Diet Assoc. 1995;95:1009-1017. Progressive Hyperglycemia Despite Insulin, Sulfonylurea, or Metformin Median HbA1c (%) 9 Conventional Glibenclamide Metformin Chlorpropamide Insulin 8 7 6 0 UKPDS 34, Lancet 1998. 2 4 6 8 Years from randomization 10 As Patients Get Closer to A1c Goal, the Need to Manage PPG Increases 100 30% 80 % 60 Contribution 40 20 70% 55% 60% 50% FPG PPG 70% 30% 40% 45% 50% 9.2-8.5 8.4-7.3 0 >10.2 10.2-9.3 A1C Range (%) Monnier L, et al. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:881-885. <7.3 Anti-Hyperglycemic Agents in Type 2 Diabetes Class Insulin Sulfonylureas, particularly glimepiride and glipizide GITS Fast acting secretagogue ("glinides"): Biguanides (metformin) Thiazolidinediones ("glitazones") Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors Amylin-mimetics (pramlintide) Incretins (exenatide) Advantages Efficacy Titratability Inexpensive Titratability Flexibility Fast on - Fast off No weight gain ?CVD reduction ?CVD reduction Preserve β-cell No hypoglycemia No weight gain Weight loss No hypoglycemia Weight loss No hypoglycemia ?preserve β-cell Disadvatages Weight gain Hypoglycemia Min. hypoglycemia Minimal wt gain TID Expense BID - GI complaints Contraindications Expensive - Slow onset Weight gain - Fluid retention GI complaints Expensive Injected Expensive Injected Expensive Glycemic Control Treatment Algorithm - Glucose Diagnosis by screening or with symptoms Lifestyle Intervention nutrition, exercise, education Quarterly to semi-annual follow-up Are A1c/FPG Targets Achieved? Yes Monthly to quarterly follow-up No FPG > 200 mg/dL Target Insulin Deficiency * Target Insulin Resistance FPG < 130 mg/dL Target PPG *Keep adding agents until target is reached. Self-titration at home when possible. Metformin, glitazone Exenatide, nateglinide, α-glucosidase inhibitors, rapid-acting insulin, pramlintide SFUs/glinide, insulin, exenatide Diabetes-related Deaths: UKPDS Overweight Subgroup 40% 30% Proportion of Patients With Events 20% Conventional (n=411) MvC P=.017 Insulin or SFU (n=951) Metformin (n=342) 10% MvI P=0.11 0% 0 Lancet. 1998;352:837. 3 6 9 Years from randomization 12 15 Insulin Resistance: Cardiovascular Correlates Glitazone Effects Accelerated Atherosclerosis Improves Type 2 diabetes glycemic control Modulates Inflammation adipocytokines and inflammatory markers Reverses of Coagulation/Fibrinolytic coagulation and defects fibrinolytic defects X Insulin Resistance TZD Improves Endothelial endothelial dysfunction dysfunction Adapted from Diabetes Care 21:310-314, 1998. Reduces blood Hypertension pressure Decreases TG (P) DyslipidemiaHDL Increases Improves LDL size Reduces central(central) Obesity obesity Ongoing Clinical Trials Charbonnel B, et al. Diabetes Care 27:1647–1653, 2004 RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for CVD Outcomes & Regulation of Glucose in Diabetes) 6,000 patients (add Rosi to exisiting Rx) – 6 year follow-up 1° Endpoint = combined cardiovascular events BARI 2D (Bypass Angioplasy Revascularization Inverstigation – Type 2 Diabetes) Medical management vs. revascularization – of early CAD Comparison of insulin sensitizing vs. insulin providing therapies Pioglitazone Comparator Studies – Europe Durability R. Urquhart. IDF 2003. Glitazones: Minimizing Adverse Effects Warn patients about the possible (liver) and expected adverse effects (edema and weight gain); develop prospectively a plan for home evaluation & management ALT measurements prior to initiating therapy and intermittently thereafter; avoid use in active liver disease. Start with a low dose in high risk patients (pre-existing edema, insulin treated or known heart disease) – Pioglitazone 15 mg po qd or rosiglitazone 2-4 mg po qd – At 1-2 month follow-up visit, increase dose as needed – If edema develops, salt restriction ± low-dose thiazide diuretic ± loop diuretic ± dose reduction – Consider role of ACE inhibition, CCB’s, NSAID’s Buse JB. Circulation. 108(8):e57, 2003. Nesto RW. Circulation. 108(23):2941-8, 2003. Intensive Management Strategy: Step 1 Insulin Effect Met + Glitazone Brfst Lunch Supper Bed Insulin sensitization – Diet/exercise + glitazone + metformin (if FPG > 110 mg/dl) – Minimal risk of hypoglycemia – Minimize weight gain Multiple Sites of Action of Exenatide CNS: Promotes satiety and reduction of appetite Liver: Reduces hepatic glucose output by inhibiting glucagon release Alpha cell: Inhibits glucagon secretion in a glucose dependent fashion Beta cell: Stimulates glucosedependent insulin secretion Increases beta cell mass Stomach: Slows gastric emptying A1C and Body Weight Reductions: Preliminary Analysis for Subjects Treated for 2 Years 2 yr data for 82-wk cohort (N = 146) Mean ± SE Δ A1C (%) Placebo Controlled Δ Body Weight (kg) Open-Label Extensions 0.0 1.2±0.1% -1.5 0.0 Open-Label Extensions -2 -0.5 -1.0 Placebo 0 Controlled 5.5±0.5 kg -4 -6 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Duration of Treatment (Years) Baseline A1C 8.2% 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Duration of Treatment (Years) Baseline weight: 100 kg 2.0 General Prescribing Considerations: Dosing Stable Dose 10 mcg BID Stable Dose 5 mcg BID Initiation 1 Mo • Evaluate need for SFU dose reduction to minimize risk of hypoglycemia • No dosage adjustments based on meal size or exercise • No additional glucose monitoring required Exenatide Prescribing Information, 2005. General Prescribing Considerations: Administration and Storage SC injection – Administer BID within 60 minutes before morning and evening meals (do not give after meal) – Abdomen, thighs, and arms Missed dose – Wait until the next scheduled dose Refrigeration – Refrigerate (36°-46° F) between injections – Do not freeze – Discard 30 days after first use Exenatide Prescribing Information, 2005. Intensive Management Strategy: Step 2 Insulin Effect Metformin + Glitazone + Secretagogue Brfst Lunch Supper Bed Insulin sensitizers + secretagogue – Glitazone +/- metformin – + exenatide (or sulfonylurea or “glinide”) Glargine vs. Exenatide Exenatide Insulin Glargine 1.5 1.0 HbA1c8.5 (%) 8.0 8.0 6 7.5 7.5 2 0.5 Body Weight (lbs) 4 7.0 7.0 6.5 6.5 0.0 -0.5 0 -2 -4 -1.0 0.0 0.0 -1.5 0 12 Weeks ** * * * -6 0 26 0 Heine RJ, et al. ADA Scientific Sessions, June 2005 12 12 Weeks Weeks 8 12 0 2 4 26 18 26 Weeks * 26 ITT patient sample Mean ± SE shown * p<0.0001, exenatide vs insulin glargine at same time point Options to Individualize Therapy in Patients Failing Oral Anti-Hyperglycemic Therapy 1 shot basal OAH’s Ready for injected therapy MDI lite 2-3 shots MDI 4 shots Coverage: Only FPG Coverage: FPG PPG x 1-2 Premix QD Premix BID Analog premix TID Coverage: FPG PPG x 1 Coverage: FPG PPG x 2 Coverage: FPG PPG x 3 Exenatide BID Coverage: FPG PPG x 3 ??? Coverage: FPG PPG x 3 Insulin Pens Lilly Novo Others Intensive Management Strategy Monomeric Insulin Analog Insulin Effect Glargine Met + Glitazone (+ Secretagogue) Brfst Lunch Dinner Bed Insulin sensitizer(s) + secretagogue (SFU or “glinide”) Add glargine or NPH QHS; titrate to normalize fasting glucose Add monomeric insulin analog QAC; titrate to normalize postprandial glucose (generally discontinue secretagogue) Amylin: The Second -Cell Hormone • First reported in 1987 • Important regulator of glucose influx into bloodstream • 37–amino acid neuroendocrine hormone • Co-located and co-secreted with insulin from pancreatic -cells • Not synonymous with “amyloid deposits” Amylin Insulin Unger. Williams Textbook of Endocrinology. 1992. Amylin Is Deficient in Diabetes Sustacal® 20 No diabetes 15 Plasma Amylin (pM) 10 Insulin-treated type 2 diabetes 5 Type 1 diabetes 0 -30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Minutes After Sustacal® Fineman. Diabetologia. 1996;39(suppl 1):A149. Kruger. Diabetes Educ. 1999;25:389. Multiple Sites of Action of Pramlintide CNS: Promotes satiety and reduction of appetite Liver: Reduces hepatic glucose output by inhibiting glucagon release Beta cell: None Alpha cell: Inhibits glucagon secretion Stomach: Slows gastric emptying Pramlintide Clinical Effects TYPE 2 DIABETES COMBINED PIVOTALS Placebo + Insulin 120 g Pramlintide BID + Insulin Insulin Use (%) A1C (%) Week 4 Week 13 Week 26 Week 4 Week 13 Weight (kg) Week 26 Week 13 Week 26 1 8 0 Week 4 6 -0.2 4 -0.4 0 2 ** 0 -1 -0.6 ** -0.8 ** -2 * -4 Placebo + insulin (n=284), Baseline A1C = 9.3% Pramlintide + insulin (n=292), Baseline A1C = 9.1% *P <0.01, **P <0.0001; ITT population; Mean (SE) change from baseline Pramlintide Prescribing Information, 2005. Data on file, Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Hollander P, et al. Diabetes Care 2003; 26:784-790 Ratner RE, et al. Diabetes Technol Ther 2002; 4:51-61 ** ** ** -2 ** Pramlintide + Insulin: General Considerations Administration SC injection into abdomen or thigh Do not mix with insulin Pramlintide and insulin should always be given as separate injections and at separate sites at least 2 inches apart Administer using U-100 insulin syringe Inject before each major meal (and snack 250 kcal or 30 g CHO) Pramlintide Prescribing Information, 2005 Dose Units 15 µg 2.5 U 30 µg 5U 45 µg 7.5 U 60 µg 10 U 120 µg 20 U Lipids Statins: Effective Agents to Reduce CVD 4S 25 % With CAD Event 20 LIPID CARE 15 HPS PROVE-IT 10 WOSCOPS TNT 5 TNT HPS (estimated) AFCAPS 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 LDL-C (mg/dL) Adapted from Illingworth. Med Clin North Am. 2000;84:23. Available at: http://www.hpsinfo.org. VA-HIT: Effects of Gemfibrozil on CVD Events in CHD Patients With Low HDL-C 10 6.0* 5 % Change From Baseline Subjects: 2531 men Age: ≤74 (avg 64) yr Mean baseline LDL-C: 111 mg/dL Mean baseline HDL-C: 32 mg/dL Mean baseline TG: 161 mg/dL Duration of Type 2 DM: 7 yr Intervention: Gemfibrozil 600 mg BID 4 TG 0 -5 Nonfatal MI/CHD Death CHD Death All-Cause Stroke Mortality LDL-C HDL-C -10 -11 -15 -20 -25 -22† -22‡ -25 -30 -31* *P<0.001; †P=0.006; ‡P=0.07. Rubins HB, et al. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:410-418. Comprehensive Management of Dyslipidemia Increased Triglycerides VLDL Small dense LDL LDL Apo B Decreased DM Rx Fibrates Niacin Fish oil HDL Apo A-I Statins Bile acid sequestrants Chol. absorption inhibitors Stanol esters Blood Pressure HOT Trial Effect of Diastolic Target on CVD Events - 4 Years 30 20 48% 24.4 Events/ 1000 Pt-Yrs 18.6 Risk Reduction 10 11.9 9.9 10.0 <90 <85 9.3 0 <90 <85 Diabetic Patients n=1,501, P=0.016 Lancet 351: 1755-1762, 1998 <80 <80 Non-Diabetic Patients n=18,790, P=NS Number of Medications to Achieve Goal BP in 5 Trials of DM &/or Renal Disease UKPDS (<150/85 MM Hg) 2.7 ABCD (< 75 mm Hg DBP) 2.8 MDRD (<92 mm Hg MAP) 3.6 HOT (<80 mm Hg DBP) 3.3 AASK (<92 mm Hg MAP) 3.8 0 1 2 3 Number of BP Meds Bakris. J Clin Hypertens 1999;1:141-7 4 Treatment Algorithm—Hypertension BP > 130/80 mm Hg Lifestyle Intervention Diet (FFV, low-fat dairy, low Na, modest E to H) Weight loss Exercise (30 minutes most days of the week) Smoking cessation Quarterly to semi-annual follow-up SBP <130 and DBP <80? Yes No Albuminuria/CVD Risk Factors Coronary Disease -blocker • • • • Monthly to quarterly follow-up Thiazide ACE/ARB Virtually all two-drug combinations should include a thiazide diuretic The third drug could (should) be a calcium channel blocker In the setting of kidney or heart disease, consider adding a furosemide BID or torsemide In the setting of kidney disease and significant proteinuria, consider combined ACE/ARB therapy Multifactorial Intervention for Type 2 DM: Steno-2 Study 160 Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Albuminuria Mean baseline characteristics Age: 55 yr BMI: 30 Duration of DM: ~5.8 yr A1c: 8.6% Randomized to conventional or intensive therapy Mean follow-up: 7.8 yr Gaede P, et al. Lancet. 1999;353:617-622. Gaede P, et al. N Eng J Med. 2003;348:383-393. Multifactorial Intervention for Type 2 DM: Steno-2 Study (cont) Physiologic Measures at End of Study A1c, % Systolic BP mm Hg LDL chol mg/dL TG mg/dL Gaede P, et al. Lancet. 1999;353:617-622. Gaede P, et al. N Eng J Med. 2003;348:383-393. Conventional Intensive ~9.0 ~7.8 ~148 ~132 ~130 ~75 ~260 ~150 Multifactorial Intervention for Type 2 DM: Steno-2 Study (cont) 60 P=0.007 Conventional Therapy 50 Hazard Ratio=0.47 (95% CI, 0.24-0.73; P=0.008) 40 Primary Composite End Point (%) 53% 30 20 Intensive Therapy 10 0 0 12 24 36 48 60 Months of Follow-up Gaede P, et al. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:383-393. 72 84 96