The TyG index has high sensitivity and specificity, suggesting that it could be useful for identification of subjects with decreased insulin sensitivity.

SummaryBackgroundThe vascular and gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs), are not well characterised, particularly in patients at increased risk of vascular disease. We aimed to provide such information through meta-analyses of randomised trials.MethodsWe undertook meta-analyses of 280 trials of NSAIDs versus placebo (124 513 participants, 68 342 person-years) and 474 trials of one NSAID versus another NSAID (229 296 participants, 165 456 person-years). The main outcomes were major vascular events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or vascular death); major coronary events (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death); stroke; mortality; heart failure; and upper gastrointestinal complications (perforation, obstruction, or bleed).FindingsMajor vascular events were increased by about a third by a coxib (rate ratio [RR] 1·37, 95% CI 1·14–1·66; p=0·0009) or diclofenac (1·41, 1·12–1·78; p=0·0036), chiefly due to an increase in major coronary events (coxibs 1·76, 1·31–2·37; p=0·0001; diclofenac 1·70, 1·19–2·41; p=0·0032). Ibuprofen also significantly increased major coronary events (2·22, 1·10–4·48; p=0·0253), but not major vascular events (1·44, 0·89–2·33). Compared with placebo, of 1000 patients allocated to a coxib or diclofenac for a year, three more had major vascular events, one of which was fatal. Naproxen did not significantly increase major vascular events (0·93, 0·69–1·27). Vascular death was increased significantly by coxibs (1·58, 99% CI 1·00–2·49; p=0·0103) and diclofenac (1·65, 0·95–2·85, p=0·0187), non-significantly by ibuprofen (1·90, 0·56–6·41; p=0·17), but not by naproxen (1·08, 0·48–2·47, p=0·80). The proportional effects on major vascular events were independent of baseline characteristics, including vascular risk. Heart failure risk was roughly doubled by all NSAIDs. All NSAID regimens increased upper gastrointestinal complications (coxibs 1·81, 1·17–2·81, p=0·0070; diclofenac 1·89, 1·16–3·09, p=0·0106; ibuprofen 3·97, 2·22–7·10, p<0·0001; and naproxen 4·22, 2·71–6·56, p<0·0001).InterpretationThe vascular risks of high-dose diclofenac, and possibly ibuprofen, are comparable to coxibs, whereas high-dose naproxen is associated with less vascular risk than other NSAIDs. Although NSAIDs increase vascular and gastrointestinal risks, the size of these risks can be predicted, which could help guide clinical decision making.FundingUK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation.

OBJECTIVE This study assessed the efficacy/safety of canagliflozin (CANA), a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, plus metformin extended-release (MET) initial therapy in drug-naïve type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This 26-week, double-blind, phase 3 study randomized 1,186 patients to CANA 100 mg (CANA100)/MET, CANA 300 mg (CANA300)/MET, CANA100, CANA300, or MET. Primary end point was change in HbA1c at week 26 for combinations versus monotherapies. Secondary end points included noninferiority in HbA1c lowering with CANA monotherapy versus MET; changes in fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and blood pressure; and proportion of patients achieving HbA1c &lt;7.0% (&lt;53 mmol/mol). RESULTS From mean baseline HbA1c of 8.8% (73 mmol/mol), CANA100/MET and CANA300/MET significantly lowered HbA1c versus MET (median dose, 2,000 mg/day) by –1.77%, –1.78%, and –1.30% (–19.3, –19.5, and –14.2 mmol/mol; differences of −0.46% and –0.48% [–5.0 and –5.2 mmol/mol]; P = 0.001) and versus CANA100 and CANA300 by –1.37% and –1.42% (–15.0 and –15.5 mmol/mol; differences of –0.40% and –0.36% [–4.4 and –3.9 mmol/mol]; P = 0.001). CANA100 and CANA300 monotherapy met noninferiority for HbA1c lowering and had significantly more weight loss versus MET (–2.8, –3.7, and –1.9 kg [–3.0%, –3.9%, and –2.1%]; P = 0.016 and P = 0.002). Greater attainment of HbA1c &lt;7.0% (50%, 57%, and 43%) and significantly more weight loss (–3.2, –3.9, and –1.9 kg [–3.5%, –4.2%, and –2.1%]; P = 0.001) occurred with CANA100/MET and CANA300/MET versus MET. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) related to SGLT2 inhibition (genital mycotic infections, osmotic diuresis– and volume depletion–related AEs) was higher in the CANA arms (0.4–4.4%) versus MET (0–0.8%). AE-related discontinuation rates were 1.3–3.0% across groups. The incidence of hypoglycemia was 3.0–5.5% in the CANA arms and 4.6% with MET. CONCLUSIONS Initial therapy with CANA plus MET was more effective and generally well tolerated versus each monotherapy in drug-naïve type 2 diabetes. CANA monotherapy demonstrated noninferior HbA1c lowering versus MET.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate serum leptin levels in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Forty-one women with SLE were compared with 23 healthy women of similar age and body mass index (BMI). Clinical characteristics and Mexican systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index (Mex-SLEDAI) score were assessed. Serum leptin levels (ng/dl) were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Comparisons of leptin levels were made with the Mann-Whitney U-test. In a multiple regression analysis, those factors that could influence the leptin levels were adjusted. Patients with SLE had higher leptin levels than the control group (SLE median 31 vs control median 15, P=0.023). After adjusting by other variables, the serum leptin levels remained higher in SLE than in controls (P=0.02). Patients with SLE had no association between leptin levels and Mex-SLEDAI score, age, duration of disease, or prednisone doses. Those with SLE had higher leptin levels than controls. Further longitudinal studies are required to evaluate the role of this hormone in the exacerbations of SLE.