Dataset Information

Randomized clinical trial of quick-release bromocriptine among patients with type 2 diabetes on overall safety and cardiovascular outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Quick-release bromocriptine (bromocriptine-QR), a D2 dopamine receptor agonist, is indicated as a treatment for type 2 diabetes. The Cycloset Safety Trial, a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial, evaluated the overall safety and cardiovascular safety of this novel therapy for type 2 diabetes.

Research design and methods

A total of 3,095 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized 2:1 to bromocriptine-QR or placebo in conjunction with the patient's usual diabetes therapy (diet controlled only or up to two antidiabetes medications, including insulin). The all-cause-safety end point was the occurrence of any serious adverse event (SAE), with a hazard ratio (HR) noninferiority margin of 1.5. In a prespecified analysis, the frequency of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for angina or congestive heart failure was evaluated using modified intent-to-treat analysis (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00377676).

Results

In the bromocriptine-QR group, 176 (8.6%) people reported SAEs compared with 98 (9.6%) in the placebo group (HR 1.02 [96% one-sided CI 1.27]). Fewer people reported a CVD end point in the bromocriptine-QR group versus the placebo group (37 [1.8%] vs. 32 [3.2%], respecively) (HR 0.60 [95% two-sided CI 0.35-0.96]). Nausea was the most commonly reported adverse event in the bromocriptine-QR group.

Conclusions

The frequency of SAEs was comparable between the treatment arms. Compared with patients in the placebo arm, fewer patients taking bromocriptine-QR experienced a cardiovascular end point.

SUBMITTER: Gaziano JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2890350 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective:Sympathetic nervous system (SNS) overactivity is a risk factor for insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease (CVD). We evaluated the impact of bromocriptine-QR, a dopamine-agonist antidiabetes medication, on elevated resting heart rate (RHR) (a marker of SNS overactivity in metabolic syndrome), blood pressure (BP) and the relationship between bromocriptine-QR's effects on RHR and HbA1c in type 2 diabetes subjects. Design and Subjects:RHR and BP changes were evaluated in this post hoc analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial in 1014 type 2 diabetes subjects randomized to bromocriptine-QR vs placebo added to standard therapy (diet ± ?2 oral antidiabetes medications) for 24 weeks without concomitant antihypertensive or antidiabetes medication changes, stratified by baseline RHR (bRHR). Results:In subjects with bRHR ?70 beats/min, bromocriptine-QR vs placebo reduced RHR by -3.4 beats/min and reduced BP (baseline 130/79; systolic, diastolic, mean arterial BP reductions [mm Hg]: -3.6 [P = .02], -1.9 [P = .05], -2.5 [P = .02]). RHR reductions increased with higher baseline HbA1c (bHbA1c) (-2.7 [P = .03], -5 [P = .002], -6.1 [P = .002] with bHbA1c ?7, >7, ?7.5%, respectively] in the bRHR ?70 group and more so with bRHR ?80 (-4.5 [P = .07], -7.8 [P = .015], -9.9 [P = .005]). Subjects with bRHR <70 had no significant change in RHR or BP. With bHbA1c ?7.5%, %HbA1c reductions with bromocriptine-QR vs placebo were -0.50 (P = .04), -0.73 (P = .005) and -1.22 (P = .008) with bRHR <70, ?70 and ?80, respectively. With bRHR ?70, the magnitude of bromocriptine-QR-induced RHR reduction was an independent predictor of bromocriptine-QR's HbA1c lowering effect. Conclusion:Bromocriptine-QR lowers elevated RHR with concurrent decrease in BP and hyperglycaemia. These findings suggest a potential sympatholytic mechanism contributing to bromocriptine-QR's antidiabetes effect and potentially its previously demonstrated effect to reduce CVD events.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The cardiovascular effect of liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue, when added to standard care in patients with type 2 diabetes, remains unknown. METHODS:In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk to receive liraglutide or placebo. The primary composite outcome in the time-to-event analysis was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The primary hypothesis was that liraglutide would be noninferior to placebo with regard to the primary outcome, with a margin of 1.30 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. No adjustments for multiplicity were performed for the prespecified exploratory outcomes. RESULTS:A total of 9340 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 3.8 years. The primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the liraglutide group (608 of 4668 patients [13.0%]) than in the placebo group (694 of 4672 [14.9%]) (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.97; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.01 for superiority). Fewer patients died from cardiovascular causes in the liraglutide group (219 patients [4.7%]) than in the placebo group (278 [6.0%]) (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P=0.007). The rate of death from any cause was lower in the liraglutide group (381 patients [8.2%]) than in the placebo group (447 [9.6%]) (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.97; P=0.02). The rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure were nonsignificantly lower in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group. The most common adverse events leading to the discontinuation of liraglutide were gastrointestinal events. The incidence of pancreatitis was nonsignificantly lower in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS:In the time-to-event analysis, the rate of the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus was lower with liraglutide than with placebo. (Funded by Novo Nordisk and the National Institutes of Health; LEADER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01179048.).

Project description:To compare effects of combinations of standard and intensive treatment of glycemia and either blood pressure (BP) or lipids in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial.ACCORD enrolled 10,251 type 2 diabetes patients aged 40-79 years at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Participants were randomly assigned to hemoglobin A1c goals of <6.0% (<42 mmol/mol; intensive glycemia) or 7.0-7.9% (53-63 mmol/mol; standard glycemia) and then randomized a second time to either 1) systolic BP goals of <120 mmHg (intensive BP) or <140 mmHg (standard BP) or 2) simvastatin plus fenofibrate (intensive lipid) or simvastatin plus placebo (standard lipid). Proportional hazards models were used to assess combinations of treatment assignments on the composite primary (deaths due to CVD, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], and nonfatal stroke) and secondary outcomes.In the BP trial, risk of the primary outcome was lower in the groups intensively treated for glycemia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.91), BP (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.55-1.00), or both (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.52-0.96) compared with combined standard BP and glycemia treatment. For secondary outcomes, MI was significantly reduced by intensive glycemia treatment and stroke by intensive BP treatment; most other HRs were neutral or favored intensive treatment groups. In the lipid trial, the general pattern of results showed no evidence of benefit of intensive regimens (whether single or combined) compared with combined standard lipid and glycemia treatment. The mortality HR was 1.33 (95% CI 1.02-1.74) in the standard lipid/intensive glycemia group compared with the standard lipid/standard glycemia group.In the ACCORD BP trial, compared with combined standard treatment, intensive BP or intensive glycemia treatment alone improved major CVD outcomes, without additional benefit from combining the two. In the ACCORD lipid trial, neither intensive lipid nor glycemia treatment produced an overall benefit, but intensive glycemia treatment increased mortality.

Project description:BackgroundData are lacking on the comparative effectiveness of commonly used glucose-lowering medications, when added to metformin, with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease outcomes in persons with type 2 diabetes.MethodsWe assessed the comparative effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications, added to metformin, in achieving and maintaining a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 7.0% in participants with type 2 diabetes. The randomly assigned therapies were insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin. Prespecified secondary outcomes with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease included hypertension and dyslipidemia, confirmed moderately or severely increased albuminuria or an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area, diabetic peripheral neuropathy assessed with the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, cardiovascular events (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE], hospitalization for heart failure, or an aggregate outcome of any cardiovascular event), and death. Hazard ratios are presented with 95% confidence limits that are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.ResultsDuring a mean 5.0 years of follow-up in 5047 participants, there were no material differences among the interventions with respect to the development of hypertension or dyslipidemia or with respect to microvascular outcomes; the mean overall rate (i.e., events per 100 participant-years) of moderately increased albuminuria levels was 2.6, of severely increased albuminuria levels 1.1, of renal impairment 2.9, and of diabetic peripheral neuropathy 16.7. The treatment groups did not differ with respect to MACE (overall rate, 1.0), hospitalization for heart failure (0.4), death from cardiovascular causes (0.3), or all deaths (0.6). There were small differences with respect to rates of any cardiovascular disease, with 1.9, 1.9, 1.4, and 2.0 in the glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin groups, respectively. When one treatment was compared with the combined results of the other three treatments, the hazard ratios for any cardiovascular disease were 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 1.3) in the glargine group, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4) in the glimepiride group, 0.7 (95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9) in the liraglutide group, and 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5) in the sitagliptin group.ConclusionsIn participants with type 2 diabetes, the incidences of microvascular complications and death were not materially different among the four treatment groups. The findings indicated possible differences among the groups in the incidence of any cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).