Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Glycaemic Targets (glycaemic + target)
Selected AbstractsAddition of insulin lispro protamine suspension or insulin glargine to oral type 2 diabetes regimens: a randomized trialDIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM, Issue 10 2010K. Strojek Aims: The addition of basal insulin to existing oral therapy can help patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) achieve glycaemic targets. This study compares the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) and insulin glargine in insulin-naive patients with T2D and inadequate control on oral antihyperglycaemic medication (OAM). Materials and Methods: An open-label, randomized, multicentre, multinational 24-week study of 471 patients receiving ,2 OAMs for ,3 months with a body mass index between 25 and 45 kg/m2 and HbA1c 7.5,10.0% was conducted. ILPS was injected once or twice daily vs. glargine injected once daily plus prestudy OAMs. Primary objective compared the HbA1c change from baseline. Results: HbA1c change from baseline to endpoint was similar in both groups [,1.46% (ILPS) and ,1.41% (glargine)]. Least-squares mean difference (95% CI) for HbA1c (,0.05 [,0.21, 0.11]%), glycaemic variability (0.06 [,0.06, 0.19] mmol/l) and weight change (,0.01 [,0.61, 0.59] kg) showed non-inferiority (margins of 0.4%, 0.8 mmol/l and 1.5 kg, respectively). Percentages of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% were 43.8% ILPS and 41.2% glargine. Mean daily insulin dose was 0.39 vs. 0.35 U/kg (p = 0.02) and weight gain was 1.04 vs. 1.07 kg for ILPS vs. glargine (p = 0.98). Overall hypoglycaemia (episodes/patient/year) was similar for ILPS and glargine (24.2 ± 28.8 vs. 23.0 ± 30.9); nocturnal (6.1 ± 10.6 vs. 4.1 ± 9.4, p < 0.001) rates were higher for ILPS. Severe hypoglycaemia was higher for ILPS vs. glargine (n = 9 vs. n = 2; p = 0.04). Conclusions: At endpoint, ILPS was non-inferior to glargine in HbA1c change from baseline, but associated with increased risk of hypoglycaemia. [source] Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes patients failing oral agents: cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 vs. insulin glargine in the US,DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM, Issue 1 2007J. A. Ray Objectives:, To project the long-term clinical and economic outcomes of treatment with biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 70/30, 30% soluble and 70% protaminated insulin aspart) vs. insulin glargine in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes patients failing to achieve glycemic control with oral antidiabetic agents alone (OADs). Methods:, Baseline patient characteristics and treatment effect data from the recent ,INITIATE' clinical trial served as input to a peer-reviewed, validated Markov/Monte-Carlo simulation model. INITIATE demonstrated improvements in HbA1c favouring BIAsp 70/30 vs. glargine (,0.43%; p < 0.005) and greater efficacy in reaching glycaemic targets among patients poorly controlled on OAD therapy. Effects on life expectancy (LE), quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), cumulative incidence of diabetes-related complications and direct medical costs (2004 USD) were projected over 35 years. Clinical outcomes and costs were discounted at a rate of 3.0% per annum. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results:, Improvements in glycaemic control were projected to lead to gains in LE (0.19 ± 0.24 years) and QALE (0.19 ± 0.17 years) favouring BIAsp 70/30 vs. glargine. Treatment with BIAsp 70/30 was also associated with reductions in the cumulative incidences of diabetes-related complications, notably in renal and retinal conditions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $46 533 per quality-adjusted life year gained with BIAsp 70/30 vs. glargine (for patients with baseline HbA1c , 8.5%, it was $34 916). Total lifetime costs were compared to efficacy rates in both arms as a ratio, which revealed that the lifetime cost per patient treated successfully to target HbA1c levels of <7.0% and , 6.5% were $80 523 and $93 242 lower with BIAsp 70/30 than with glargine, respectively. Conclusions:, Long-term treatment with BIAsp 70/30 was projected to be cost-effective for patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled on OADs alone compared to glargine. Treatment with BIAsp 70/30 was estimated to represent an appropriate investment of healthcare dollars in the management of type 2 diabetes. [source] Improved glycaemic control with metformin,glibenclamide combined tablet therapy (Glucovance®) in Type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled on metforminDIABETIC MEDICINE, Issue 8 2002M. Marre Abstract Aims To evaluate the efficacy and safety of two dosage strengths of a single-tablet metformin,glibenclamide (glyburide) combination, compared with the respective monotherapies, in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) inadequately controlled by metformin monotherapy. Methods In this 16-week, double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group trial, 411 patients were randomized to receive metformin 500 mg, glibenclamide 5 mg, metformin,glibenclamide 500 mg/2.5 mg or metformin,glibenclamide 500 mg/5 mg, titrated with the intention to achieve fasting plasma glucose (FPG) , 7 mmol/l. Results Decreases in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and FPG were greater (P < 0.05) for metformin,glibenclamide 500 mg/2.5 mg (,1.20% and ,2.62 mmol/l) and 500 mg/5 mg (,0.91% and ,2.34 mmol/l), compared with metformin (,0.19% and ,0.57 mmol/l) or glibenclamide (,0.33% and ,0.73 mmol/l). HbA1c < 7% was achieved by 75% and 64% of patients receiving metformin,glibenclamide 500 mg/2.5 mg and 500 mg/5 mg, respectively, compared with 42% for glibenclamide and 38% for metformin (P = 0.001). These benefits were achieved at lower mean doses of metformin or glibenclamide with metformin,glibenclamide 500 mg/2.5 mg and 500 mg/5 mg (1225 mg/6.1 mg and 1170 mg/11.7 mg) than with glibenclamide (13.4 mg) or metformin (1660 mg). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in two patients receiving glibenclamide. Plasma lipid profiles were unaffected and mean changes in body weight were , 1.0 kg. Conclusions Intensive management of Type 2 DM with a new metformin,glibenclamide combination tablet improved glycaemic control and facilitated the attainment of glycaemic targets at lower doses of metformin or glibenclamide compared with the respective monotherapies, without compromising tolerability. Diabet. Med. 19, 673,680 (2002) [source] Target setting in intensive insulin management is associated with metabolic control: the Hvidoere Childhood Diabetes Study Group Centre Differences Study 2005PEDIATRIC DIABETES, Issue 4 2010PGF Swift Swift PGF, Skinner TC, de Beaufort CE, Cameron FJ, Åman J, Aanstoot H-J, Castaño L, Chiarelli F, Daneman D, Danne T, Dorchy H, Hoey H, Kaprio EA, Kaufman F, Kocova M, Mortensen HB, Njølstad PR, Phillip M, Robertson KJ, Schoenle EJ, Urakami T, Vanelli M, Ackermann RW, Skovlund SE for the Hvidoere Study Group on Childhood Diabetes. Target setting in intensive insulin management is associated with metabolic control: the Hvidoere Childhood Diabetes Study Group Centre Differences Study 2005. Objective: To evaluate glycaemic targets set by diabetes teams, their perception by adolescents and parents, and their influence on metabolic control. Methods: Clinical data and questionnaires were completed by adolescents, parents/carers and diabetes teams in 21 international centres. HbA1c was measured centrally. Results: A total of 2062 adolescents completed questionnaires (age 14.4 ± 2.3 yr; diabetes duration 6.1 ± 3.5 yr). Mean HbA 1c = 8.2 ± 1.4% with significant differences between centres (F = 12.3; p < 0.001) range from 7.4 to 9.1%. There was a significant correlation between parent (r = 0.20) and adolescent (r = 0.21) reports of their perceived ideal HbA1c and their actual HbA1c result (p < 0.001), and a stronger association between parents' (r = 0.39) and adolescents' (r = 0.4) reports of the HbA1c they would be happy with and their actual HbA1c result. There were significant differences between centres on parent and adolescent reports of ideal and happy with HbA1c (8.1 < F > 17.4;p < 0.001). A lower target HbA1c and greater consistency between members of teams within centres were associated with lower centre HbA1c (F = 16.0; df = 15; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Clear and consistent setting of glycaemic targets by diabetes teams is strongly associated with HbA1c outcome in adolescents. Target setting appears to play a significant role in explaining the differences in metabolic outcomes between centres. [source] | ||||||||||