Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in different age-groups: a1chieve sub-analysis

Current situation analysis of diabetic home care patients

OBJECTIVE

Diabetes is one of the primary diagnoses for admission to home health care units. Although there are many studies about elderly diabetic patients, there are not many studies on home care patients with diabetes. The present study aims to analyze the current status of diabetic home care patients with their biochemical data and medications.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study, including 256 diabetic patients who were following up by the Home Health Unit of Istanbul Provincial Health Directorate Public Hospitals Services-2. In this study, we analyzed the current biochemical data of the patients with their medications.

RESULTS

In this study, 185 female (72.3%) and 71 male (27.7%) patients were recruited with the mean HbA1c of 8.25±1.77. Among these patients, 65% of them were using oral antidiabetic (OAD), and 58% were using insulin. There were 21 (8.2%) patients who were not receiving any treatment. While patients who were using only oral antidiabetic have better A1c levels (A1c: 7.73±1.45), patients who were insülin using had HbA1c levels as high as the patients who were not using any medication. This may be due to the progression of diabetes, fear of hypoglycemia or insufficient insülin use. While metformin was the most commonly used OAD, with a 38% usage rate. When compared to HbA1c levels, there was no difference between the types of insulin used (p=0.167).

CONCLUSION

As a result, it is important to plan regular visits and personalized treatment by keeping in mind the benefits to risk ratios in home-care diabetic patients.

Effects of pramlintide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: an analysis using daily insulin dose tertiles

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the analysis was to investigate if the efficacy and tolerability of 6 months of pramlintide therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) differed with increasing levels of concomitant insulin doses, using data from 3 previously described clinical trials.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis, data from 2 pooled, placebo-controlled pivotal trials and 1 clinical practice trial were evaluated by baseline insulin use tertile in patients with T2DM.

RESULTS

In the pivotal trials, both glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and body weight decreased similarly across tertiles with pramlintide. A1C decreased slightly and body weight remained relatively unchanged across tertiles with placebo. Similarly, in the clinical practice trial, pramlintide was associated with decreases in A1C, body weight, and total daily insulin use across the tertiles. Overall, the most common adverse events were gastrointestinal in nature, and the rate of severe hypoglycemia was low.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that pramlintide therapy was associated with improved A1C and decreased body weight, with a low rate of severe hypoglycemia, among patients with T2DM, regardless of baseline insulin use.

Drug-related risk of severe hypoglycaemia in observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) leads to multiple complications, including severe hypoglycaemia events (SHEs). SHEs can impact a patient's quality of life and compliance and may directly result in additional costs to the health care system. The aim of this review was to evaluate the risk of severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 (T1) and 2 (T2) DM as observed in everyday clinical practice for various drug regimens.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of observational (retrospective or prospective) studies in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases that covered at least 100 children or adults with T1/T2 DM. In T1 DM, basal-bolus/pre-mix insulin (human or analogue) and insulin pump were reviewed, and in T2 DM, basal-bolus/pre-mix insulin (human or analogue), oral antidiabetic drugs supported with basal insulin (human or analogue), sulfonylureas in monotherapy, and combined oral treatment were reviewed. In order to estimate SHE rates, we extracted data on the time horizon of the study, number of patients, number of SHEs, and number of patients experiencing at least one SHE. We used a random effects model to estimate the annual SHE rate. We considered the risk for other antidiabetic medications in T2 DM to be negligible and the results of our main review yielded no observational data for premixes in T1 DM so they were assessed based on relative rates taken from additional systematic reviews. The study, being a desk research, did not involve any human subjects (including human material or human data) and no ethical committee approval was asked for. For the same reason there was no need to collect informed consent for participation in the study.

RESULTS

We identified 76 observational studies encompassing 707,722.30 patient-years. The estimated annual SHE rate varied from 0.168 (95 % CI 0.123-0.237) for insulin pump up to 1.628 for biphasic human insulin in T1 DM patients, and from 0.0035 for oral antidiabetic drugs up to 0.554 (95 % CI 0.157-7.534) for basal-bolus with human insulin in T2 DM patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review indicates that SHE rates differ between patients depending on treatment regimen. However, SHEs are also driven by other factors. Proper modelling techniques are needed to use various types of information in published studies.