| 1. |
- Ruilope, LM, et al.
(författare)
-
Design and Baseline Characteristics of the Finerenone in Reducing Cardiovascular Mortality and Morbidity in Diabetic Kidney Disease Trial
- 2019
-
Ingår i: American journal of nephrology. - : S. Karger AG. - 1421-9670 .- 0250-8095. ; 50:5, s. 345-356
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- <b><i>Background:</i></b> Among people with diabetes, those with kidney disease have exceptionally high rates of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality and progression of their underlying kidney disease. Finerenone is a novel, nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist that has shown to reduce albuminuria in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) while revealing only a low risk of hyperkalemia. However, the effect of finerenone on CV and renal outcomes has not yet been investigated in long-term trials. <b><i>Patients and</i></b> <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The Finerenone in Reducing CV Mortality and Morbidity in Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIGARO-DKD) trial aims to assess the efficacy and safety of finerenone compared to placebo at reducing clinically important CV and renal outcomes in T2D patients with CKD. FIGARO-DKD is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, event-driven trial running in 47 countries with an expected duration of approximately 6 years. FIGARO-DKD randomized 7,437 patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥25 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> and albuminuria (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥30 to ≤5,000 mg/g). The study has at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in the risk of the primary outcome (overall two-sided significance level α = 0.05), the composite of time to first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> FIGARO-DKD will determine whether an optimally treated cohort of T2D patients with CKD at high risk of CV and renal events will experience cardiorenal benefits with the addition of finerenone to their treatment regimen. Trial Registration: EudraCT number: 2015-000950-39; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02545049.
|
|
| 2. |
- Gerotziafas, GT, et al.
(författare)
-
Guidance for the Management of Patients with Vascular Disease or Cardiovascular Risk Factors and COVID-19: Position Paper from VAS-European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Thrombosis and haemostasis. - : Georg Thieme Verlag KG. - 2567-689X .- 0340-6245. ; 120:12, s. 1597-1628
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- COVID-19 is also manifested with hypercoagulability, pulmonary intravascular coagulation, microangiopathy, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) or arterial thrombosis. Predisposing risk factors to severe COVID-19 are male sex, underlying cardiovascular disease, or cardiovascular risk factors including noncontrolled diabetes mellitus or arterial hypertension, obesity, and advanced age. The VAS-European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine draws attention to patients with vascular disease (VD) and presents an integral strategy for the management of patients with VD or cardiovascular risk factors (VD-CVR) and COVID-19. VAS recommends (1) a COVID-19-oriented primary health care network for patients with VD-CVR for identification of patients with VD-CVR in the community and patients' education for disease symptoms, use of eHealth technology, adherence to the antithrombotic and vascular regulating treatments, and (2) close medical follow-up for efficacious control of VD progression and prompt application of physical and social distancing measures in case of new epidemic waves. For patients with VD-CVR who receive home treatment for COVID-19, VAS recommends assessment for (1) disease worsening risk and prioritized hospitalization of those at high risk and (2) VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban, betrixaban, or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for those at high risk. For hospitalized patients with VD-CVR and COVID-19, VAS recommends (1) routine thromboprophylaxis with weight-adjusted intermediate doses of LMWH (unless contraindication); (2) LMWH as the drug of choice over unfractionated heparin or direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of VTE or hypercoagulability; (3) careful evaluation of the risk for disease worsening and prompt application of targeted antiviral or convalescence treatments; (4) monitoring of D-dimer for optimization of the antithrombotic treatment; and (5) evaluation of the risk of VTE before hospital discharge using the IMPROVE-D-dimer score and prolonged post-discharge thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban, betrixaban, or LMWH.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Dormandy, J. A., et al.
(författare)
-
Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Lancet. - 1474-547X. ; 366:9493, s. 1279-89
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes are at high risk of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke. There is indirect evidence that agonists of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR gamma) could reduce macrovascular complications. Our aim, therefore, was to ascertain whether pioglitazone reduces macrovascular morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We did a prospective, randomised controlled trial in 5238 patients with type 2 diabetes who had evidence of macrovascular disease. We recruited patients from primary-care practices and hospitals. We assigned patients to oral pioglitazone titrated from 15 mg to 45 mg (n=2605) or matching placebo (n=2633), to be taken in addition to their glucose-lowering drugs and other medications. Our primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, non fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infarction), stroke, acute coronary syndrome, endovascular or surgical intervention in the coronary or leg arteries, and amputation above the ankle. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN NCT00174993. FINDINGS: Two patients were lost to follow-up, but were included in analyses. The average time of observation was 34.5 months. 514 of 2605 patients in the pioglitazone group and 572 of 2633 patients in the placebo group had at least one event in the primary composite endpoint (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.02, p=0.095). The main secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. 301 patients in the pioglitazone group and 358 in the placebo group reached this endpoint (0.84, 0.72-0.98, p=0.027). Overall safety and tolerability was good with no change in the safety profile of pioglitazone identified. 6% (149 of 2065) and 4% (108 of 2633) of those in the pioglitazone and placebo groups, respectively, were admitted to hospital with heart failure; mortality rates from heart failure did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: Pioglitazone reduces the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes who have a high risk of macrovascular events.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Schernthaner, G., et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy and tolerability of saxagliptin compared with glimepiride in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled study (GENERATION)
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Diabetes, obesity and metabolism. - : Wiley. - 1462-8902 .- 1463-1326. ; 17:7, s. 630-638
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims: To assess the efficacy and safety of adjunctive saxagliptin vs glimepiride in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and inadequate glycaemic control. Methods: In this multinational, randomized, double-blind, phase IIIb/IV study (GENERATION; NCT01006603), patients aged greater than= 65 years were randomized (1:1) to receive saxagliptin 5 mg/day or glimepiride less than= 6 mg/day, added to metformin, during a 52-week treatment period. The primary endpoint was achievement of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) less than7.0% at week 52 without confirmed/severe hypoglycaemia. The key secondary endpoint was incidence of confirmed/severe hypoglycaemia. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. Results: Of 720 patients randomized (360 in each treatment group; mean age 72.6 years; mean T2D duration 7.6 years), 574 (79.8%) completed the study (saxagliptin 80.3%; glimepiride 79.2%). Similar proportions of patients achieved the primary endpoint with saxagliptin and glimepiride (37.9 vs 38.2%; odds ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.73, 1.34; p=0.9415); however, a significant treatment-by-age interaction effect was detected (p=0.0389): saxagliptin was numerically (but not significantly) superior to glimepiride for patients aged less than75 years (39.2 vs 33.3%) and numerically inferior for patients aged greater than= 75 years (35.9 vs 45.5%). The incidence of confirmed/severe hypoglycaemia was lower with saxagliptin vs glimepiride (1.1 vs 15.3%; nominal pless than0.0001). Saxagliptin was generally well tolerated, with similar incidences of adverse events compared with glimepiride. Conclusion: As avoiding hypoglycaemia is a key clinical objective in elderly patients, saxagliptin is a suitable alternative to glimepiride in patients with T2D aged greater than= 65 years.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
