AIMS:This study aimed to identify and categorize the determinants influencing the intensification of therapy in Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) patients with suboptimal blood glucose control despite metformin monotherapy. METHODS:Employing the Logic Learning Machine (LLM), an advanced artificial intelligence system, we scrutinized electronic health records of 1.5 million patients treated in 271 diabetes clinics affiliated with the Italian Association of Medical Diabetologists from 2005 to 2019. Inclusion criteria comprised patients on metformin monotherapy with two consecutive mean HbA1c levels exceeding 7.0%. The cohort was divided into "inertia-NO" (20,067 patients with prompt intensification) and "inertia-YES" (13,029 patients without timely intensification). RESULTS:The LLM model demonstrated robust discriminatory ability among the two groups (ROC-AUC = 0.81, accuracy = 0.71, precision = 0.80, recall = 0.71, F1 score = 0.75). The main novelty of our results is indeed the identification of two main distinct subtypes of therapeutic inertia. The first exhibited a gradual but steady HbA1c increase, while the second featured a moderate, non-uniform rise with substantial fluctuations. CONCLUSIONS:Our analysis sheds light on the significant impact of HbA1c levels over time on therapeutic inertia in patients with T2D, emphasizing the importance of early intervention in the presence of specific HbA1c patterns.

Background: International guidelines for diabetes care emphasize the urgency of promptly achieving and sustaining adequate glycemic control to reduce the occurrence of micro/macrovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, data from the Italian Association of Medical Diabetologists (AMD) Annals reveal that only 47% of T2DM patients reach appropriate glycemic targets, with approximately 30% relying on insulin therapy, either solely or in combination. This artificial intelligence analysis seeks to assess the potential impact of timely insulin initiation in all eligible patients via a “what-if” scenario simulation, leveraging real-world data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized the AMD Annals database, comprising 1,186,247 T2DM patients from 2005 to 2019. Employing the Logic Learning Machine (LLM), we simulated timely insulin use for all eligible patients, estimating its effect on glycemic control after 12 months within a cohort of 85,239 patients. Of these, 20,015 were employed for the machine learning phase and 65,224 for simulation. Results: Within the simulated scenario, the introduction of appropriate insulin therapy led to a noteworthy projected 17% increase in patients meeting the metabolic target after 12 months from therapy initiation within the cohort of 65,224 individuals. The LLM’s projection envisages 32,851 potential patients achieving the target (hemoglobin glycated < 7.5%) after 12 months, compared to 21,453 patients observed in real-world cases. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for this model demonstrated modest performance, with an area under the curve (AUC) value of 70.4%. Conclusions: This study reaffirms the significance of combatting therapeutic inertia in managing T2DM patients. Early insulinization, when clinically appropriate, markedly enhances patients’ metabolic goals at the 12-month follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the cornerstone of cardiovascular disease prevention. Collection of epidemiological data is crucial for monitoring healthcare appropriateness. This analysis aimed to evaluate the proportion of high-risk patients who achieved guidelines recommended LDL-C goal, and explore the predictors of therapeutic failure, with a focus on the role of gender. METHODS AND RESULTS:Health administrative and laboratory data from seven Local Health Districts in Tuscany were collected for residents aged ≥45 years with a history of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACCE) and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from January 1, 2019, to January 1, 2021. The study aimed to assess the number of patients with optimal levels of LDL-C (<55 mg/dl for patients with MACCE and <70 mg/dl for patients with T2DM without MACCE). A cohort of 174 200 individuals (55% males) was analyzed and it was found that 11.6% of them achieved the target LDL-C levels. Female gender was identified as an independent predictor of LDL-C target underattainment in patients with MACCE with or without T2DM, after adjusting for age, cardiovascular risk factors, comorbidities, and district area (adjusted-IRR 0.58 ± 0.01; p < 0.001). This result was consistent in subjects without lipid-lowering therapies (adjusted-IRR 0.56 ± 0.01; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION:In an unselected cohort of high-risk individuals, females have a significantly lower probability of reaching LDL-C recommended targets. These results emphasize the need for action to implement education for clinicians and patients and to establish clinical care pathways for high-risk patients, with a special focus on women.

Purpose: Recently, the 2022 American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes (ADA-EASD) consensus report stressed the importance of weight control in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes; weight control should be a primary target of therapy. This retrospective analysis evaluated, through an artificial-intelligence (AI) projection of data from the AMD Annals database -a huge collection of most Italian diabetology medical records covering 15 years (2005-2019) -the potential effects of the extended use of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and of glucose-like peptide 1 receptor antagonists (GLP-1-RAs) on HbA(1c) and weight.Methods: Data from 4,927,548 visits in 558,097 patients were retrospectively extracted using these exclusion criteria: type 1 diabetes, pregnancy, age > 75 years, dialysis, and lack of data on HbA(1c) or weight. The analysis revealed late prescribing of SGLT-2is and GLP-1-RAs (innovative drugs), and considering a time frame of 4 years (2014-2017), a paradoxic greater percentage of combined-goal (HbA(1c) < 7% and weight gain < 2%) achievement was found with older drugs than with innovative drugs, demonstrating aspects of therapeutic inertia. Through a machine-learning AI technique, a "what-if " analysis was performed, using query models of two outcomes: (1) achievement of the combined goal at the visit subsequent to a hypothetical initial prescribing of an SGLT-2i or a GLP-1-RA, with and without insulin, selected according to the 2018 ADA-EASD diabetes recommendations; and (2) persistence of the combined goal for 18 months. The precision values of the two models were, respectively, sensitivity, 71.1 % and 69.8%, and specificity, 67% and 76%.Findings: The first query of the AI analysis showed a great improvement in achievement of the combined goal: 38.8% with prescribing in clinical practice versus 66.5% with prescribing in the "what-if " simulation. Addressing persistence at 18 months after the initial achievement of the combined goal, the simulation showed a potential better performance of SGLT-2is and GLP-1-RAs with respect to each antidiabetic pharmacologic class or combination considered.Implications: AI appears potentially useful in the analysis of a great amount of data, such as that derived from the AMD Annals. In the present study, an LLM analysis revealed a great potential improvement in achieving metabolic targets with SGLT-2i and GLP-1-RA utilization. These results underscore the importance of early, timely, and extended use of these new drugs.

Aim: In 2019, the Italian Society of Diabetology and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists nominated an expert panel to develop guidelines for drug treatment of type 2 diabetes. This expert panel, after identifying the effects of glucose-lowering agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) as critical outcomes, decided to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of insulin with this respect.Data synthesis: A MEDLINE database search was performed to identify all RCTs, up to June 1st, 2021, with duration>52 weeks, in which insulin was compared with either placebo or active comparators. The principal endpoints were MACE and HHF (restricted for RCT reporting MACEs within their outcomes), all-cause mortality (irrespective of the inclusion of MACEs among the pre-specified outcomes). Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for all the endpoints considered.Six RCTs (enrolling 8091 patients and 10,139 in the insulin and control group, respectively) were included in the analysis for MACEs and HF, and 18 in that for all-cause mortality (9760 and 11,694 patients in the insulin and control group, respectively). Treatment with insulin neither significantly increased nor reduced the risk of MACE, all-cause mortality, and HHF in comparison with placebo/active comparators (MH-OR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23; 0.99, 95% CI 0.91, 1.08; and 0.90, 95% CI 0.78, 1.04, respectively). Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed no significant effects of insulin on incident MACE, all (c) 2022 The Italian Diabetes Society, the Italian Society for the Study of Atherosclerosis, the Italian Society of Human Nutrition and the Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:The COVID-19 pandemic affected the processes of routine care for chronic patients due to disrupted delivery care. The aim of the present study is to verify the COVID-19 pandemic effects on diabetes control and management. METHODS AND RESULTS:The study was designed as a retrospective observational study, performed on two cohorts of patients with diabetes in 2019 and 2020. Data used for the analyses were gathered from administrative and laboratory databases, which do not include any sensible information on COVID-19. The Tuscany Regional Health Agency is data controller for current administrative databases and has been working to produce available information for policy decision-making. In 2020, in comparison with 2019, a relevant reduction of the number of patients measuring HbA1c was observed during the March-April lockdown, and again during the second pandemic wave in Autumn. A similar pattern was observed for specialist visits for diabetes, for which the introduction of televisits only partly compensated for the reduction of traditional office visits. The number of patients receiving drugs for diabetes each week in 2020 was very similar to 2019. The mean HbA1c values and the proportion of HbA1c values > 8% for each week, were higher during the 2020 Spring and Autumn lockdown. CONCLUSION:COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacts diabetes management, reducing specialist visits and HbA1c determinations during the first and second pandemic wave. Despite a satisfactory continuity in pharmacological treatment, short-term impairment of average glycemic control was detected, particularly in Autumn.

Background:The COVID-19 vaccination campaign began in Italy at the end of December 2020, with the primary aim of immunizing healthcare professionals, using the EMA approved mRNA vaccines (Comirnaty® by Pfizer/BioNTech; mRNA-1273 by Moderna) and recombinant adenoviral vaccine (Vaxzevria® by AstraZeneca). The study aimed at evaluating the prevalence and motivations underlying Vaccine Hesitancy, as well as the incidence and type of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccination.Methods:Cross-sectional study. Data were collected January 1st to 28th 2021 using a purposely created online self-administered questionnaire from a selected cohort of Italian physicians.Results:Overall, 7,881 questionnaires were analyzed: 6,612 physicians had received one dose, and 1,670 two doses of Comirnaty®; 30 had received one dose of mRNA-1273. Vaccine Hesitancy rate was 3.6%; it correlated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, diabetes, Adverse Eventss at previous vaccinations and refusal of 2020 flu vaccine, and was mainly motivated by concerns about vaccine Adverse Events. Typical Adverse Events were pain/itching/paresthesia at the inoculation site, followed by headache, fever, fatigue and myalgia/arthralgia occurring more frequently after the second dose (77.8 vs 66.9%; p<0.001), and in subjects with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.Conclusion:Adherence to COVID-19 vaccination is high among physicians. Adverse Events are typically mild and more frequent in people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background: Foot ulcers have a relevant economic impact on Health Care Systems and the cost-effectivenesseffectiveness of options is not clear. The aim of this study was the assessment of costs for ulcers treatment after 6, 12, and 18 months of follow-up, compared to those for major amputation. Methods: A retrospective study was carried out on 196 types 2 diabetic patients with foot ulcers. The principal endpoints were 1) the proportion of recovered patients among those with ulcers not healed after 6 and 12 months; 2) the assessment of direct costs for treatment of ulcers 6, 12, and 18 months of follow-up, as compared to the cost of major amputation. The economic evaluation was performed considering the perspective of the local health system. Results: Out of 196 patients, 85(46.2%), 131(71.6%), and 140(85.9%) healed within 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively. The average health cost during the 18-month follow-up was 5402€ per patient. We calculated hypothetical costs for three different scenarios, in which patients who did not heal within 6 months underwent a major amputation at 6, 1,2, or 18 months. Costs for the standard of care for all these scenarios (6,094, 7,256, and 7649€ for 6, 12, or 18 months, respectively) were significantly lower than that for major amputations (21,065€). Conclusions: A conservative approach appears more convenient than major amputations in ulcers not healing after 6 months, irrespective of the estimated risk of individual patients.

AimsMeta-analyses of randomized trials on Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) reported discordant results on major cardiovascular events (MACE), mortality, and heart failure. Aim of this meta-analysis of randomized trials is the assessment of the cardiovascular safety of DPP4i.Data synthesisA Medline, Embase, Cochrane database search for sitagliptin, vildagliptin, omarigliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, trelagliptin, anagliptin, linagliptin, gemigliptin, evogliptin, and teneligliptin was performed up to up January 1st, 2020. All trials with a duration ≥24 weeks and comparing the effects of DPP4i with placebo or active drugs were collected. Mantel–Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for all outcomes defined above. A total of 182 eligible trials were identified. DPP-4i were not associated with an increased risk of MACE (MH-OR 0.99 [0.93, 1.04]), all-cause mortality (MH-OR 0.99 [0.93, 1.06]), and heart failure (MH-OR 1.05 [0.96, 1.15]) with no significant differences across individual molecules, except for saxagliptin, which was associated with an increased risk of heart failure.ConclusionsAs a class, DPP4i are not associated with any increase or reduction of MACE, all-cause mortality, and heart failure. Saxagliptin seems to be associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure.

Vaccine hesitancy (VH) has been identified as one of the major health concerns of our time by the World Health Organization. It may prove especially detrimental in the light of the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, as vaccination campaigns still represent the primary strategy against the detrimental consequences of the pandemic. Among patients suffering from type 2 diabetes mellitus (DB), who are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, VH might represent an even more serious threat. Therefore, our study focuses on identifying potential determinants of VH among patients with type 2 diabetes. Study participants (n = 1176) filled in a two-section online self-administered questionnaire, answering questions regarding demographic and anamnestic data, as well as their intention to accept any vaccination against COVID-19. Some possible reasons underlying VH were investigated as well. An overall hesitancy rate of 14.2% was registered. Data showed how older age, male gender, higher education level, and having been vaccinated for seasonal influenza in 2020–2021 were associated with a significantly higher propensity to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. On the contrary, having experienced adverse effects following past vaccinations was a negative predictor. In addition to confirming an array of predictors of VH, we found a worryingly high prevalence of VH among diabetics, who have been shown to be particularly exposed to severe COVID-19 and death. These findings may be useful in planning targeted action toward acceptance improvement and enhancing the efficacy of vaccination campaigns.

ABSTRACT:Background. Vaccination is one of the most effective tools available to Public Health. Its potential usefulness is threatened by the rise of vaccine hesitancy among the general population, which has grown as much as to prompt the World Health Organization to express its concerns on the matter. The risk posed by vaccine hesitancy is even more concerning in the light of the efforts to curb the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which focus mainly on mass vaccination campaigns. This holds especially true when applied to healthcare professionals, among whom vaccine hesitancy can be particularly detrimental. For these reasons, our study focuses on potential determinants of vaccine hesitancy among healthcare professionals. Study design. The study is a cross-sectional study. Methods. Data were collected from January 1st to February 16th, by means of a self-administered online questionnaire in a cohort of Italian healthcare professionals. Results. Overall, 10,898 questionnaires were collected. Among the respondents, 1.1% expressed vaccine hesitancy. Hesitancy was less frequent in professionals involved in Primary Care and in the Clinical Scien-ces/Public Health group. Among clinicians, paediatricians, oncologists, and geriatrists showed especially accepting attitudes towards vaccination. Lower hesitancy rates were also registered among the respondents who already had received influenza vaccination and who never had any adverse effects following vaccination. Higher hesitancy rates were observed among individuals who had family members aged >65 years and with a history of severe adverse reactions to vaccination. Conclusion. Vaccine hesitancy rates were extremely low among participants in our study. Some medical specialties shown were particularly accepting towards vaccination. The potential predictors and protective factors pointed out by our analysis might allow more refined targets.

Background: The number of excess deaths during February–March 2020 in Italy, in comparison with previous years, was considerably higher than the recorded COVID19-related deaths. The present study aimed to explore the association of excess mortality with some indices related to the COVID-19 pandemic and its management. Methods: Data on all-cause mortality from 20 February–31 March in the years 2015–2020, and demographic, socioeconomic and healthcare organisation data of each Italian region were obtained from the Italian Institute of Statistics. Non-COVID-19-Imputed Excess Mortality (NCIEM) was calculated as the difference between the excess 2020 mortality and reported COVID-19 mortality. The association of NCIEM with the rate of COVID-19 cases, COVID-19 mortality and other potential moderators was assessed using linear regression models. Results: The nationwide number of excess deaths and COVID-19 deaths was 26,701 and 13,710, respectively, with a difference of 12,991. The NCIEM in different regions showed a direct correlation with COVID-19 mortality (r2 = 0.61, p < 0.001) and total cases (r2 = 0.30, p = 0.012), and an inverse correlation with cases/total tests ratio (r2 = 0.49, p = 0.001). Direct correlations were also found with the proportion of institutionalised elderly, whereas inverse correlations were observed with prevalence of diabetes, cardiovascular mortality and density of general practitioners. Conclusions: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on all-cause mortality was considerably greater than that indicated by official counts of victims. Limited testing capacity and causes of death other than COVID-19 could have contributed to the increase in overall mortality rates.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) exert their therapeutic effect by modulating the immune system and potentiating antitumor immunity. ICI have been associated with several immune-related adverse events, such as diabetes. However, no formal meta-analysis with this respect has been conducted so far. Aim of the present metaanalysis of randomized trials is to assess the effects of ICI on incident diabetes and hyperglycemia. Methods: A MEDLINE, Scopus, ISI-WOS, and Cochrane database search was performed to identify trials, enrolling patients with any form of cancer, up to April 23rd, 2019 in which ICI have been compared either with placebo or active comparators. Data were extracted from published reports or, if not available, from clinicaltrials.gov. The principal endpoints were the incidence of diabetes and cases of hyperglycemia, reported as adverse events. Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio with 95% Confidence Interval (MH-OR) was calculated for all outcomes. The study has been registered on PROSPERO website (CDR133927). Findings: Out of 42 trials retrieved, 40 reported information on incident diabetes or hyperglycemia. No association of ICI with incident diabetes (MH-OR 1.27 [0.66, 2.43], p = 0.47) was observed; whereas there was a trend toward an increased risk of hyperglycemia (MH-OR 1.45 [0.99, 2.13], p = 0.060), which reached statistical significance in sensitivity analyses and when analyzing separately placebo-controlled trials (MH-OR 1.95 [1.10, 3.49], p = 0.020). I-2 statistics did not suggest any relevant heterogeneity for all the principal analyses performed. Interpretation: ICI treatment is associated with an increased risk of hyperglycemia, and an increase in the risk of diabetes cannot be excluded. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP1-RA) has been associated with cholelithiasis in a previous meta-analysis. The publication of new trials suggests the need for an update. We collected trials with GLP1-RA vs. other therapies, calculating Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR, 95%CI). GLP1-RA significantly increased the risk of cholelithiasis (MH-OR 1.28 [1.11, 1.48]).

Glucagon-like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists (GLP1-RA) has been associated with a reduction of major cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality on the basis of the results of cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOT). Several meta-analyses on this issue have been recently published; however, they were all restricted to CVOT, with the exclusion of all studies designed for other endpoints; moreover, other cardiovascular endpoints, such as atrial fibrillation and heart failure have not been fully explored.A Medline search for GLP-1 receptor agonists (exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, albiglutide, dulaglutide, or semaglutide) was performed, collecting all randomized clinical trials with a duration ≥52 weeks, enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes, and comparing a GLP-1 receptor agonist with placebo or any other non-GLP-1 receptor agonist drug. We included 43 trials, enrolling 63,134 patients. A significant reduction of MACE (MH-OR 0.87 [0.83, 0.92]), all-cause mortality (MH-OR 0.89 [0.83, 0.96]), and a nonstatistical trend toward reduction of heart failure (MH-OR 0.93 [0.85, 1.01]) was observed - GLP1-RA did not increase the risk of atrial fibrillation (MH-OR 0.94 [0.84, 1.04]).The present meta-analysis confirms the favorable effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, stroke, and possibly myocardial infarction. Conversely, the effects on heart failure remain uncertain. Available data on atrial fibrillation seems to exclude any major safety issues in this respect.CRD42018115577.

Observational studies and meta-analyses of randomized trials on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) reported discordant results on the risk of malignancies with this class of drugs. Aim of the present meta-analysis is the assessment of the effect of DPP4i treatment on the incidence of different types of cancer, collecting all available evidence from randomized controlled trials. An extensive MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database search for sitagliptin or vildagliptin or omarigliptin or saxagliptin or alogliptin or trelagliptin or anagliptin or linagliptin or gemigliptin or evogliptin or teneligliptin was performed up to September 30th, 2019. All trials performed on type 2 diabetes, with duration ≥ 24 weeks, and comparing of DPP4i with placebo or active drugs were collected. The study has been registered on PROSPERO (#153344). Mantel–Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated for all outcomes. A total of 157 eligible trials were identified. DPP-4i were not associated with an increased risk of overall cancer (MH-OR 0.93 [0.86, 1.00]; p = 0.07), with no significant differences across individual molecules of the class. When compared with placebo/none, a lower risk of cancer with DPP-4i was observed in placebo-controlled trials (MH-OR 0.90 [0.82, 0.99], p = 0.030), whereas no significant differences have been detected with any other comparators. DPP-4i was associated with a significant reduction in colorectal cancer (MH-OR 0.70 [0.53, 0.94], p = 0.020). Available data do not support the hypothesis of an association of DPP4i treatment with malignancies, with a possible beneficial effect for colon-rectal cancer.

•GLP1RA has been associated with a reduction of MACE and mortality in CVOTs.•Other cardiovascular endpoints, such as atrial fibrillation, major amputations, and heart failure have not been fully explored.•This meta-analysis confirms the favorable effects of GLP1RA on MACE and mortality, even in patients at lower cardiovascular risk.•The effects on heart failure remain uncertain with a reduction which did not reach the statistical significance.•GLP1RA seems to be safe with respect of atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: An association between glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) and risk of pancreati-tis and pancreatic cancer has been suggested. Since its first description, several new trials (including three cardiovascular outcome trials) have been published, substantially increasing the available data set. This suggests the need for an update of the previous meta-analysis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A Medline search for GLP-1 receptor agonists (exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, albig-lutide, dulaglutide, or semaglutide) was performed, collecting all randomized clinical trials, with duration >52 weeks, enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes, and comparing a GLP-1 receptor agonist with placebo or any other non-GLP-1 receptor agonist drug. The endpoints were pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer reported as serious adverse events. Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio (MH-OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated for all outcomes defined above, on an intention-to-treat basis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 43 trials fulfilling inclusion criteria (all reporting data on pancreatitis and pancre-atic cancer) was identified. GLP-1 RA showed no association with pancreatitis (MH-OR 1.24 [0.94, 1.64]; P=0.13) and pancreatic cancer (MH-OR 1.28 [0.87, 1.89]; P=0.20). CONCLUSIONS: No clear evidence of risk for pancreatitis was observed, whereas data on pancreatic cancer are too scarce to draw any conclusion.