Discrimination of Panax ginseng from counterfeits using single nucleotide polymorphism: A focused review

Discrimination of plant species, cultivars, and landraces is challenging because plants have high phenotypic and genotypic resemblance. Panax ginseng is commonly referred to as Korean ginseng, which contains saponins with high efficacy on cells, and has been reported to be worth billions in agroeconomic value. Korean ginseng's increasing global agroeconomic value includes additional species and cultivars that are not Korean ginseng but have physical characteristics close to it. This almost unidentifiable physical characteristic of Korean ginseng-like species is discriminated via molecular markers. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), found across the plant species in abundance, is a valuable tool in the molecular mapping of genes and distinguishing a plant species from adulterants. Differentiating the composition of genes in species is quite evident, but the varieties and landraces have fewer differences in addition to single nucleotide mismatch. Especially in the exon region, there exist both favorable and adverse effects on species. With the aforementioned ideas in discriminating ginseng based on molecular markers, SNP has proven reliable and convenient, with advanced markers available. This article provides the simplest cost-effective guidelines for experiments in a traditional laboratory setting to get hands-on SNP marker analysis. Hence, the current review provides detailed up-to-date information about the discrimination of Panax ginseng exclusively based on SNP adding with a straightforward method explained which can be followed to perform the analysis.

Intensification to biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30, NovoMix 30) can improve glycaemic control in patients treated with basal insulins: a subgroup analysis of the IMPROVE observational study

AIMS

The international IMPROVE observational study investigated the safety profile and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in the routine treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. We present analyses for the subgroup of patients who switched from basal insulin to BIAsp 30.

METHODS

Patients in routine care who started insulin therapy with or switched to BIAsp 30 from existing insulin regimens were eligible for this 26-week study. This analysis includes only patients previously treated with basal insulin. Outcomes including adverse events, hypoglycaemic events and glycaemic profile were recorded from patients' notes, recall and diaries.

RESULTS

Of the 748 patients included (age 59.7+/-11.8 years, diabetes duration 11.4+/-7.3 years, baseline HbA1c 9.1+/-1.6%), 497 were previously using human neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin and 245 analogue basal insulin. Overall, major and minor hypoglycaemia rates decreased from baseline to final visit (major: 0.171 to 0.011; minor: 9.70 to 5.89 events/patient-year) and were similar between the subgroups. HbA1c and fasting blood glucose were significantly reduced from baseline (NPH prestudy: -1.6%, -2.4 mmol/l; analogue basal prestudy: -1.8%, -2.4 mmol/l), as was postprandial blood glucose, with 33.8% of patients achieving the HbA1c target < 7% without hypoglycaemia. Insulin dose increased slightly from prestudy (0.33+/-0.21 U/kg), baseline (0.40+/-0.20 U/kg) to final visit (0.52+/-0.26 U/kg); most patients (76%) followed a twice-daily regimen at final visit. Body weight did not change significantly and treatment satisfaction increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulins may improve their glycaemic control by intensification to BIAsp 30 therapy.

Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (NovoMix 30) when switching from human premix insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes: subgroup analysis from the 6-month IMPROVE observational study

AIMS

IMPROVE is an open-label, multinational, non-randomised, 26-week observational study designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in routine clinical practice. Here, we report data for patients switching to BIAsp 30 from human premixed insulin.

METHODS

Patients (n = 3856) with type 2 diabetes previously receiving human premixed insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs were eligible for inclusion. Demographic data, efficacy end-points (HbA(1c), fasting blood glucose and postprandial blood glucose) and safety end-points (serious adverse drug reactions, hypoglycaemia and adverse events) were collected at baseline and final visit. A subgroup analysis of mean dose change was also undertaken.

RESULTS

Switching patients to BIAsp 30 resulted in significant improvements in glycaemic control combined with a reduced risk of hypoglycaemia. Patients who reached the HbA(1c) target (< 7%) had shorter diabetes duration, lower HbA(1c) at baseline and needed less insulin. Over 30% of patients were able to reach this target without experiencing hypoglycaemia over the 26-week period. Compared with asymmetric dose switching, unit-for-unit switching resulted in the highest proportion of patients reaching HbA(1c) target and incurred the least amount of dose titration.

CONCLUSIONS

A unit-for-unit switch is the most effective as well as the simplest approach when transferring patients from biphasic human insulin 30 to BIAsp 30.

Initiating insulin therapy with, or switching existing insulin therapy to, biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (NovoMix 30) in routine care: safety and effectiveness in patients with type 2 diabetes in the IMPROVE observational study

AIMS

The IMPROVE observational study evaluated the safety profile and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine practice in 11 countries.

METHODS

Patients who initiated insulin therapy with, or switched existing insulin therapy to, BIAsp 30 in routine care were eligible for this 26-week, non-interventional observational study. Data on adverse events, hypoglycaemia and glycaemic parameters were obtained from patients' diaries and medical notes. Questionnaire-based patient treatment satisfaction was also measured. We report global results and, uniquely for a diabetes observational study, country-specific data.

RESULTS

A total of 52,419 patients were enrolled from three prestudy treatment groups: no pharmaceutical therapy (n = 8966, diabetes duration 2.0 years, baseline HbA1c 9.9%), oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) only (n = 33,797, diabetes duration 7.4 years, baseline HbA1c 9.2%) and insulin +/- OADs (n = 9568, diabetes duration 10.4 years, baseline HbA1c 9.3%). At final visit, HbA1c, fasting and postprandial blood glucose were significantly reduced from baseline in all subgroups (no pharmaceutical therapy: -3.1%, -5.9 and -9.0 mmol/l, respectively; OADs-only: -2.1%, -4.1 and -6.1 mmol/l; insulin +/- OADs: -2.0%, -3.3 and -5.1 mmol/l). Major hypoglycaemia rates decreased in all subgroups; minor hypoglycaemia increased in the insulin-naïve groups. There was no mean weight gain across subgroups. Across all countries, glycaemic parameters and major hypoglycaemia were reduced; weight increases were seen in some countries. Treatment satisfaction increased in all subgroups and countries following BIAsp 30 therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating insulin with, or switching insulin therapy to, BIAsp 30 in routine care resulted in improved glycaemic control, reduced major hypoglycaemia and greater treatment satisfaction.

The IMPROVE study--a multinational, observational study in type 2 diabetes: baseline characteristics from eight national cohorts

AIMS

The IMPROVE study is a multinational, open-label, non-randomised, 26-week observational study assessing the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) treatment in type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice. The principal aims of this report were to characterise the baseline population and physicians' treatment decisions.

METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes who required insulin and whose physician had decided to initiate BIAsp 30 were eligible. At baseline, demographic data and detailed medical histories were collected and physicians recorded their reasons for starting BIAsp 30, the glycaemic targets set and the regimens chosen.

RESULTS

Data from 51,286 patients were included in analyses. Baseline glycaemic control was poor in all eight countries in the present analysis and in all prestudy treatment groups [no therapy, oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) only, insulin with or without OADs], and the rates of vascular complications were high. Although the management of each of the three main measures of glycaemic control were key reasons for starting BIAsp 30, target-setting for postprandial glucose levels was variable. A twice-daily regimen was used to start BIAsp 30 therapy for 80% or more of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The IMPROVE baseline data reaffirm the global nature of poor glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes and echo the concerns that initiation of therapy, particularly insulin, is commonly delayed in clinical practice. Although postprandial glucose control was a key driver for physicians' choice of BIAsp 30, this was not consistently reflected in the targets set.