Post hoc subgroup analysis of the HEART2D trial demonstrates lower cardiovascular risk in older patients targeting postprandial versus fasting/premeal glycemia.
ABSTRACT To identify the Hyperglycemia and Its Effect After Acute Myocardial Infarction on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (HEART2D) trial subgroups with treatment difference.
In 1,115 type 2 diabetic patients who had suffered from an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the HEART2D trial compared two insulin strategies targeting postprandial or fasting/premeal glycemia on time until first cardiovascular event (cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome). The HEART2D trial ended prematurely for futility. We used the classification and regression tree (CART) to identify baseline subgroups with potential treatment differences.
CART estimated the age of >65.7 years to best predict the difference in time to first event. In the subgroup aged>65.7 years (prandial, n=189; basal, n=210), prandial patients had a significantly longer time to first event and a lower proportion experienced a first event (n=56 [29.6%] vs. n=85 [40.5%]; hazard ratio 0.69 [95% CI 0.49-0.96]; P=0.029), despite similar A1C levels.
Older type 2 diabetic AMI survivors may have a lower risk for a subsequent cardiovascular event with insulin targeting postprandial versus fasting/premeal glycemia.
- SourceAvailable from: Klaus-Dieter Kohnert[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The benchmark for assessing quality of long-term glycemic control and adjustment of therapy is currently glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Despite its importance as an indicator for the development of diabetic complications, recent studies have revealed that this metric has some limitations; it conveys a rather complex message, which has to be taken into consideration for diabetes screening and treatment. On the basis of recent clinical trials, the relationship between HbA1c and cardiovascular outcomes in long-standing diabetes has been called into question. It becomes obvious that other surrogate and biomarkers are needed to better predict cardiovascular diabetes complications and assess efficiency of therapy. Glycated albumin, fructosamin, and 1,5-anhydroglucitol have received growing interest as alternative markers of glycemic control. In addition to measures of hyperglycemia, advanced glucose monitoring methods became available. An indispensible adjunct to HbA1c in routine diabetes care is self-monitoring of blood glucose. This monitoring method is now widely used, as it provides immediate feedback to patients on short-term changes, involving fasting, preprandial, and postprandial glucose levels. Beyond the traditional metrics, glycemic variability has been identified as a predictor of hypoglycemia, and it might also be implicated in the pathogenesis of vascular diabetes complications. Assessment of glycemic variability is thus important, but exact quantification requires frequently sampled glucose measurements. In order to optimize diabetes treatment, there is a need for both key metrics of glycemic control on a day-to-day basis and for more advanced, user-friendly monitoring methods. In addition to traditional discontinuous glucose testing, continuous glucose sensing has become a useful tool to reveal insufficient glycemic management. This new technology is particularly effective in patients with complicated diabetes and provides the opportunity to characterize glucose dynamics. Several continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, which have shown usefulness in clinical practice, are presently on the market. They can broadly be divided into systems providing retrospective or real-time information on glucose patterns. The widespread clinical application of CGM is still hampered by the lack of generally accepted measures for assessment of glucose profiles and standardized reporting of glucose data. In this article, we will discuss advantages and limitations of various metrics for glycemic control as well as possibilities for evaluation of glucose data with the special focus on glycemic variability and application of CGM to improve individual diabetes management.World journal of diabetes. 02/2015; 6(1):17-29.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Diabetes is associated with a two to three-fold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease. However, intensive glucose-lowering therapy aiming at reducing HbA1c to a near-normal level failed to suppress cardiovascular events in recent randomized controlled trials. HbA1c reflects average glucose level rather than glycemic variability. In in vivo and in vitro studies, glycemic variability has been shown to be associated with greater reactive oxygen species production and vascular damage, compared to chronic hyperglycemia. These findings suggest that management of glycemic variability may reduce cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes; however, clinical studies have shown conflicting results. This review summarizes the current knowledge on glycemic variability and oxidative stress, and discusses the clinical implications.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 10/2014; 15(10):18381-406. · 2.34 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In recent years glycaemic variability (GV) has emerged as a determinant of vascular complications of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. In type 1 diabetes analysis of data of GV show conflicting results on both micro‐ and macro‐vascular complications. In non‐diabetic subjects blood glucose after loading is a stronger predictor of cardiovascular complications than fasting glucose. In type 2 diabetes both coefficient of variation of fasting blood glucose and postprandial blood glucose predict cardiovascular events. Also, long term variability of HbA1c has been associated predominantly with diabetic nephropathy, less frequently with retinopathy. Intervention trials to evaluate the effect of postprandial glucose have been conducted only in prediabetes or in type 2 diabetes and the data are not conclusive. In vitro and in vivo data have shown the mechanisms that are at the basis of the adverse cardiovascular effects of GV, mainly associated with oxidative stress; the atherogenic action of postprandial glucose also involves insulin sensitivity, postprandial increase in serum lipids and glycaemic index of food. Thus, correction of GV emerges as a target to be pursued in clinical practice in order to safely reduce mean blood glucose (and thus glycated haemoglobin) and for its direct effects on vascular complications of diabetes.Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism 09/2013; 15. · 5.46 Impact Factor
Post Hoc Subgroup Analysis of the
HEART2D Trial Demonstrates Lower
Cardiovascular Risk in Older Patients
Targeting Postprandial Versus
ITAMAR RAZ, MD1
ANTONIO CERIELLO, MD2
PETER W. WILSON, MD3
CHAKIB BATTIOUI, PHD4
ERIC W. SU, PHD4
LISA KERR, MSPH4
CATE A. JONES, PHD4
ZVONKO MILICEVIC, MD5
SCOTT J. JACOBER, DO4
OBJECTIVE—To identify the Hyperglycemia and Its Effect After Acute Myocardial Infarction
on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (HEART2D) trial sub-
groups with treatment difference.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—In 1,115 type 2 diabetic patients who had
suffered from an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the HEART2D trial compared two insulin
strategies targeting postprandial or fasting/premeal glycemia on time until first cardiovascular
event (cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospi-
talization for acute coronary syndrome). The HEART2D trial ended prematurely for futility. We
used the classification and regression tree (CART) to identify baseline subgroups with potential
event. In the subgroup aged .65.7 years (prandial, n = 189; basal, n = 210), prandial patients
had a significantly longer time to first event and a lower proportion experienced a first event (n =
56[29.6%]vs. n=85 [40.5%]; hazard ratio0.69 [95%CI 0.49–0.96];P=0.029),despitesimilar
CONCLUSIONS—Older type 2 diabetic AMI survivors may have a lower risk for a subse-
quent cardiovascular event with insulin targeting postprandial versus fasting/premeal glycemia.
Diabetes Care 34:1511–1513, 2011
cular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2
Diabetes Mellitus (HEART2D) trial wasto
assess the time to first cardiovascular
event for two glucose-lowering strategies
in type 2 diabetic patients who had
survived an acute myocardial infarction
(AMI) (1). The trial was stopped early for
he primary objective of the Hyper-
glycemia and Its Effect After Acute
Myocardial Infarction on Cardiovas-
futility, partly because of fewer than ex-
pected cardiovascular events.
We conducted post hoc analyses us-
ing the classification and regression tree
(CART) technique (2) to determine pa-
tient subgroups for which the two strate-
event. CART sifts through numerous co-
variates to determine which covariate,
and at what cut point, best splits the data.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND
METHODS—Details of the HEART2D
trial have been previously published (1).
bined adjudicated cardiovascular event
(cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, non-
fatal stroke, coronary revascularization,
or hospitalization for acute coronary syn-
drome) was compared in 1,115 type 2 di-
abetic patients after an AMI hospital
admission. Patients were randomly as-
signed to prandial glycemia control
meal glycemia control (twice-daily NPH
or once-daily insulin glargine) (1) and
participated a mean of 2.7 years post–
CART estimated the best subgroup
with respect to difference in primary out-
come. Decision trees in each arm used a
“time to cardiovascular event” target and
45 covariate predictors based on baseline
A 10-fold crossvalidation technique de-
termined the right-sized tree and built a
model with good generalization prior to
testing the subgroups. Previously pub-
lished statistical analyses (1) were per-
formed to determine treatment differences
for the intent-to-treat population. Baseline
HDL interactions were tested using a gen-
eralized linear model.
RESULTS—CART produced a one-
level decision tree and identified age at
the cut point of .65.7 years as the best
predictor of time to first cardiovascular
event. Among the patients screened (1),
451 comprised the subgroup aged .65.7
years and 52 patients did not continue,
resulting in 399 intent-to-treat popula-
tion patients (prandial, n = 189; basal,
n = 210). Ninety-four (49.7%) of the
prandial and 91 (43.3%) of the basal pa-
tients did not continue, and 214 patients
completed the trial (prandial, n = 95
[50.3%]; basal, n = 119 [56.7%]).
There were no significant differences
in baseline characteristics between arms,
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
From the1Department of Internal Medicine, Hadassah Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel; the2Institut d’Investiga-
cions Biomèdiques August Pi Sunyer and Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Diabetes y Enfer-
medades Metabólicas Asociadas, Barcelona, Spain; the3Department of Medicine, Cardiology Division,
Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia;4Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Com-
pany, Indianapolis, Indiana; and5Lilly Regional GMBH, Eli Lilly and Company, Vienna, Austria.
Corresponding author: Scott J. Jacober, email@example.com.
Received 17 December 2010 and accepted 6 April 2011.
DOI: 10.2337/dc10-2375. Clinical trial reg. no. NCT00191282, clinicaltrials.gov.
L.K. is currently affiliated with Pharmaceutical Product Development, Morrisville, North Carolina.
© 2011 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly
licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.
care.diabetesjournals.orgDIABETES CARE, VOLUME 34, JULY 2011
C l i n i c a l C a r e / E d u c a t i o n / N u t r i t i o n / P s y c h o s o c i a l R e s e a r c h
B R I E F R E P O R T
including A1C, diabetes therapies, prior
ically relevant measures, but HDL choles-
prandial control (means 1.0 6 0.3 vs.
1.0 6 0.2 mmol/L; medians 1.0 6 0.3 vs.
0.9 6 0.2 mmol/L; P = 0.013).
In the subgroup aged .65.7 years,
prandial arm patients experienced a sig-
nificantly lower time to first cardiovascu-
proportion experienced a first cardiovas-
cular event (n = 56 [29.6%] vs. n = 85
[40.5%]; hazard ratio 0.69 [95% CI
0.49–0.96]; P = 0.029). Risk for individ-
ual cardiovascular events comprising the
primary outcome did not differ signifi-
cantly between arms (Fig. 1). The effect
of baseline HDL prior to the index event
was not statistically significant for the pri-
mary outcome. The hazard ratio for all-
cause death, cardiovascular death, or
nificance. In the subgroup aged #65.7
years, arms did not differ significantly
for the primary outcome (n = 118
[32.1%] vs. n = 96 [27.6%]; 1.24 [0.95–
1.63]; P = 0.11).
There were no differences in overall
glycemia or in combined measures of
premeal or postprandial glycemia. Mean
significantly lower with the basal arm
(7.87 6 0.32 vs. 6.71 6 0.22 mmol/L;
P = 0.001), and 2-h postprandial blood
glucose excursion was significantly lower
with prandial control (0.17 6 0.24 vs.
1.21 6 0.15 mmol/L; P , 0.0001) be-
cause of significantly lower morning and
noon excursions. Nocturnal hypoglyce-
mia rates were significantly higher in the
basal arm ([means 6 SEM] 0.15 6 0.04
vs. 0.61 6 0.10 per patient per episode
per year; P , 0.001), whereas overall
and severe hypoglycemia rates and total
insulin dose did not differ significantly.
BMI was significantly higher in the pran-
dial arm (30.08 6 0.29 vs. 29.21 6 0.27
kg/m2; P = 0.015), but lipid profiles,
blood pressure levels, left ventricular
ejection fraction, and QTc interval were
CONCLUSIONS—The premise of the
HEART2D trial was that the two major
A1C components, prandial and fasting/
premeal glycemia, may affect cardiovas-
cular risk differently (3). Recent trials
(4–6) demonstrated that intensive glu-
cose therapy lowered A1C but with no
significant difference in major cardiovas-
reported a modest effect of total glycemic
exposure on cardiovascular risk, older-
patient-subgroup reports demonstrated
with type 2 diabetes may have a lower risk
for subsequent cardiovascular events with
insulin therapy targeting prandial versus
fasting/premeal glycemia, despite similar
Older patients may be susceptible to
glycemic and nonglycemic mechanisms
Figure 1—Kaplan-Meier survival curve of the percentage of HEART2D patients in the subgroup aged .65.7 years who did not experience a first
for acute coronary syndrome) vs. days in the trial by insulin strategy. Solid black line, prandial insulin arm (targeted prandial glycemia control);
dashed black line, basal insulin arm (targeted fasting/premeal glycemia).
DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 34, JULY 2011care.diabetesjournals.org
Cardiovascular risk in older patients: HEART2D
associated with the postprandial period,
which may increase cardiovascular risk.
The more pronounced postprandial ex-
cursions in the older-subgroup basal
arm may indicate increased exposure to
postprandial-state abnormalities of oxida-
tive stress, inflammation, endothelial dys-
function (8,9), a prothrombotic state
characterized by elevated platelet and co-
agulation activation and inhibited fibrino-
lysis (10,11), and less vasodilation caused
by lower insulinemia (12). Abnormalities
of sympathetic function, vasoactive pep-
tide action, and meal carbohydrate con-
tent may predispose older patients to
postprandial hypotension and cardiovas-
cular events (13,14).
On the other hand, the significantly
lower fasting blood glucose and signifi-
cantly greater nocturnal hypoglycemia in
the basal versus prandial arm may have
contributed to the difference in cardio-
vascular outcomes. Lower fasting blood
glucose and greater nocturnal hypoglyce-
mia in the older subgroup compared with
the total HEART2D trial population (1)
may explain the disparity between the
that its post hoc nature with multiple
testing on many variables renders it only
hypothesis generating. Additional limita-
tions include the fact that the follow-up
period may be inadequate to evaluate
cardiovascular outcomes, the primary
outcome included two subjective out-
comes, patients had advanced cardiovas-
cular disease, and dropout was high.
Most people with diabetes in devel-
oped countries are aged $65 years, and
prevalence in that age-group worldwide
dial glycemia control was associated with
lower cardiovascular risk than fasting/
premeal glycemia control for older AMI
survivors with type 2 diabetes warrants
Acknowledgments—The HEART2D study
E.W.S., Z.M., C.A.J., and S.J.J. are employees
was an employee and shareholder during the
trial. I.R. serves on speaker bureaus for Eli Lilly
and Novo Nordisk; advisory boards for Roche,
Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers
Squibb; and as a consultant for AstraZeneca/
Bristol-Myers Squibb and Andromeda. A.C.
serves on speaker bureaus and advisory boards
potential conflicts of interest relevant to this
article were reported.
I.R. contributed to discussion and wrote,
reviewed, and edited the manuscript. A.C.
contributed to discussion and reviewed and
edited the manuscript. P.W.W. reviewed and
edited the manuscript. C.B. and E.W.S. re-
searched data, contributed to discussion, and
reviewedand editedthe manuscript. C.A.J. con-
tributed to discussion and wrote, reviewed, and
edited the manuscript. L.K., Z.M., and S.J.J.
wrote, reviewed, and edited the manuscript.
The authors thank Byron Hoogwerf, MD (Eli
Lilly and Company) for his criticalreview of the
manuscript, and Jinghui Hu, PhD (Eli Lilly and
Company) and Helen You, MS (inVentiv Clini-
cal Solutions, LLC) for statistical programming.
of prandial versus fasting glycemia on
cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 di-
abetes: the HEART2D trial. Diabetes Care
2. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA,
Belmont, CA, Wadsworth International
4. Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, et al.;
ADVANCE Collaborative Group. Intensive
blood glucose control and vascular out-
comes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N
Engl J Med 2008;358:2560–2572
Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in
Diabetes Study Group. Effects of intensive
glucose lowering intype 2 diabetes. N Engl
J Med 2008;358:2545–2559
6. Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, et al.;
VADT Investigators. Glucose control and
vascular complications in veterans with
type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2009;360:
7. Turnbull FM, Abraira C, Anderson RJ,
et al.; Control Group. Intensive glucose
control and macrovascular outcomes in
type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2009;52:
8. Ceriello A, Assaloni R, Da Ros R, et al.
Effect of atorvastatin and irbesartan, alone
and in combination, on postprandial en-
dothelial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and
inflammation in type 2 diabetic patients.
9. Esposito K, Ciotola M, Carleo D, et al.
Post-meal glucose peaks at home associ-
ate with carotid intima-media thickness
in type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab
10. Ceriello A, Taboga C, Tonutti L, et al.
Post-meal coagulation activation in di-
abetes mellitus: the effect of acarbose.
11. Santilli F, Formoso G, Sbraccia P, et al.
of platelet activation in early type 2 diabetes
mellitus. J Thromb Haemost 2010;8:828–
12. Baron AD. Vascular reactivity. Am J Car-
13. Aronow WS, Ahn C. Association of post-
prandial hypotension with incidence of
falls, syncope, coronary events, stroke, and
total mortality at 29-month follow-up in
499 older nursing home residents. J Am
Geriatr Soc 1997;45:1051–1053
MW, Kooner JS. Effects of components of
meals (carbohydrate, fat, protein) in caus-
Am J Cardiol 1997;79:1397–1400
Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for
the year 2000 and projections for 2030.
Diabetes Care 2004;27:1047–1053
care.diabetesjournals.orgDIABETES CARE, VOLUME 34, JULY 2011
Raz and Associates