RESUMO
AIM: To investigate, through post hoc analysis of nine studies from the SemaglUtide Real-world Evidence (SURE) programme, the safety of once-weekly (OW) semaglutide in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and in subpopulations in routine clinical practice, complementing findings from the phase 3 randomized clinical trial (RCT) SUSTAIN programme. METHODS: The SURE studies had a duration of ~30 weeks and included adults with diagnosed T2D treated with OW semaglutide. Safety information, including hypoglycaemic events, were collected and analysed for the total study population and for patient subgroups based on baseline patient characteristics, baseline co-medication and prescriber specialty. RESULTS: Of the total 3505 patients, 24.3% reported adverse events (AEs), with most patients reporting non-serious (22.3%) and mild (17.1%) AEs. AEs mainly belonged to the gastrointestinal disorders system organ class (16.3% of patients). In total, 5.1% of patients reported AEs that led to treatment discontinuation, 0.5% reported serious adverse drug reactions and 0.2% had an AE with a fatal outcome, reported as unrelated to treatment. Overall, 1.1% and 0.1% of patients reported level 2 and 3 hypoglycaemic events, respectively. A higher rate of level 2 hypoglycaemia was observed in patients with baseline microvascular complications treated with insulin versus those on insulin without these complications. CONCLUSIONS: Safety data reported in the real-world SURE studies were generally consistent with observations in phase 3 OW semaglutide RCTs. No new safety concerns were identified, highlighting that OW semaglutide is well tolerated by adults with T2D and in subpopulations in routine clinical practice.
RESUMO
AIM: PIONEER REAL Canada examined real-world clinical outcomes associated with the use of once-daily oral semaglutide in adults with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 34- to 44-week, multicentre, prospective, open-label, non-interventional study in adults who were treatment-naive to injectable glucose-lowering medication and initiated oral semaglutide in routine clinical practice. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to the end of the study (EoS). Secondary endpoints assessed at EoS were change from baseline in body weight (BW); the proportion of participants reaching HbA1c levels <7% and the composite endpoints, HbA1c reduction ≥1% point with BW reduction ≥3% and ≥5%; and treatment satisfaction measured using Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaires (DTSQ) status and change. Primary analyses were based on the in-study observation period. RESULTS: In total, 182 participants initiated oral semaglutide (mean age, 58.6 years; HbA1c, 8.0%; BW, 93.7 kg). The estimated changes (95% confidence interval) from baseline to EoS in HbA1c and BW were -1.09% points (-1.24, -0.94; p < .0001) and -7.17% (-8.24, -6.11; p < .0001), respectively. At EoS, 53.7% of participants had HbA1c levels <7%; 39.3% and 31.6% reached HbA1c reduction ≥1% point plus BW reduction ≥3% and ≥5%, respectively. Treatment satisfaction significantly increased (DTSQ status, +4.47 points; DTSQ change, 11.83 points; both p < .0001). At EoS, 75.3% of participants remained on oral semaglutide (55.5% received oral semaglutide 14 mg). No new safety signals were identified for oral semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: In PIONEER REAL Canada, participants treated with oral semaglutide in routine clinical practice experienced clinically relevant reductions in HbA1c and BW and increased treatment satisfaction.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Adulto , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Hemoglobinas Glicadas , Estudos Prospectivos , Peptídeos Semelhantes ao Glucagon/efeitos adversos , Peso Corporal , Canadá/epidemiologiaRESUMO
AIM: Non-surgical options for inducing type 2 diabetes remission are limited. We examined whether remission can be achieved by combining lifestyle approaches and short-term intensive glucose-lowering therapy. METHODS: In this trial, 160 patients with type 2 diabetes on none to two diabetes medications other than insulin were randomised to (a) an intervention comprising lifestyle approaches, insulin glargine/lixisenatide and metformin, or (b) standard care. Participants with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.3% (56 mmol/mol) at 12 weeks were asked to stop diabetes medications and were followed for an additional 52 weeks. The primary outcome was diabetes relapse defined as HbA1c ≥6.5% (48 mmol/mol) at 24 weeks or thereafter, capillary glucose ≥10 mmol/L on ≥50% of readings, or use of diabetes medications, analysed as time-to-event. Main secondary outcomes included complete or partial diabetes remission at 24, 36, 48 and 64 weeks defined as HbA1c <6.5% (48 mmol/mol) off diabetes medications since 12 weeks after randomisation. A hierarchical testing strategy was applied. RESULTS: The intervention significantly reduced the hazard of diabetes relapse by 43% (adjusted hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.81; p = .002). Complete or partial diabetes remission was achieved in 30 (38.0%) intervention group participants versus 16 (19.8%) controls at 24 weeks and 25 (31.6%) versus 14 (17.3%) at 36 weeks [relative risk 1.92 (95% confidence interval 1.14-3.24) and 1.83 (1.03-3.26), respectively]. The relative risk of diabetes remission in the intervention versus control group was 1.88 (1.00-3.53) at 48 weeks and 2.05 (0.98-4.29) at 64 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: A 12-week intensive intervention comprising insulin glargine/lixisenatide, metformin and lifestyle approaches can induce remission of diabetes.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Metformina , Humanos , Metformina/uso terapêutico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Insulina Glargina/efeitos adversos , Hemoglobinas Glicadas , Glicemia/metabolismo , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Estilo de Vida , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of a simple daily titration algorithm compared with a weekly dose adjustment of iGlarLixi in people with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LixiLan ONE CAN (NCT03767543), a randomized, 26-week, open-label, multicentre phase 3 trial conducted in Canada, involved 265 people with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1c of ≥7.5% to ≤ 10.5% or less (≥58 to ≤91 mmol/mol) on basal insulin for 6 months or longer. Participants were randomized 1:1 with instructions to self-titrate iGlarLixi daily (1 unit/day) or once weekly (2 or 4 units/week) to a common target fasting plasma glucose of 4.4 to 5.6 mmol/L (79 to 101 mg/dl). The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of the daily versus weekly titration algorithm. RESULTS: At 26 weeks, daily titration of iGlarLixi was not inferior to a weekly titration for both the prespecified primary endpoint of change in HbA1c from baseline (least square [LS] mean change: -1.24% vs. -0.92%, respectively; LS mean difference: 0.32%; 95% CI [0.07, 0.57]; P < .0001) and for the secondary endpoint of change in weight from baseline (LS mean change: -0.22 vs. +0.81 kg, respectively; LS mean difference: 1.03 kg; 95% CI [0.01, 2.06]; P < .0001). Indeed, for both the primary and secondary outcome, the daily titration of iGlarLixi was superior. There were no statistically significant differences in hypoglycaemia incidence between the two titration strategies during the 26-week study. CONCLUSION: A daily titration algorithm for switching basal insulin to iGlarLixi was shown to be non-inferior and superior for glycaemic control and weight compared with weekly titration.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Algoritmos , Glicemia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Combinação de Medicamentos , Hemoglobinas Glicadas , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Insulina Glargina , PeptídeosRESUMO
AIM: To investigate once-weekly (OW) semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in routine clinical practice. METHODS: The SURE Canada study was a multicenter, prospective, observational study. Adults with T2D and one or more documented HbA1c values 12 weeks or less before semaglutide initiation were enrolled. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to end of study (EOS; ~30 weeks). Secondary endpoints included change in body weight (BW), waist circumference and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c of less than 7.0%, weight loss (WL) of 5% or higher, and a composite of HbA1c reduction of 1% or higher and WL of 3% or higher at EOS. Data were analysed and presented for patients on semaglutide at EOS overall and for the following baseline medication subgroups: oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) only; GLP-1RA experienced; insulin ± OADs without GLP-1RA. RESULTS: In total, 452 patients initiated semaglutide and 356 completed the study on treatment. For the 452 patients, mean baseline HbA1c was 8.1%; 86 (19.0%) patients had HbA1c of less than 7.0%. Mean dose of semaglutide at EOS was 0.76 ± 0.31 mg. Mean HbA1c was reduced by 0.9%-point (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.97; 0.78). Mean BW was reduced by 4.3 kg (95% CI: 4.79; 3.76). At EOS, 46.9% of patients achieved HbA1c of less than 7.0%, 40.9% achieved WL of 5% or higher and 24.1% achieved the composite endpoint. PROs improved from baseline to EOS. No new safety concerns were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In SURE Canada, patients treated with OW semaglutide in routine clinical practice experienced clinically significant improvements in HbA1c, BW and other outcomes, supporting semaglutide use in routine clinical practice.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Adulto , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Peptídeos Semelhantes ao Glucagon , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/análise , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes , Estudos ProspectivosRESUMO
AIM: To assess whether a FiASP-and-pramlintide closed-loop system has the potential to replace carbohydrate counting with a simple meal announcement (SMA) strategy (meal priming bolus without carbohydrate counting) without degrading glycaemic control compared with a FiASP closed-loop system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a 24-hour feasibility study comparing a FiASP system with full carbohydrate counting (FCC) with a FiASP-and-pramlintide system with SMA. We conducted a subsequent 12-day outpatient pilot study comparing a FiASP-and-placebo system with FCC, a FiASP-and-pramlintide system with SMA, and a FiASP-and-placebo system with SMA. Basal-bolus FiASP-and-pramlintide were delivered at a fixed ratio (1 U:10 µg). Glycaemic outcomes were measured, surveys evaluated gastrointestinal symptoms and diabetes distress, and participant interviews helped establish a preliminary coding framework to assess user experience. RESULTS: Seven participants were included in the feasibility analysis. Time spent in 3.9-10 mmol/L was similar between both interventions (81%-84%). Four participants were included in the pilot analysis. Time spent in 3.9-10 mmol/L was similar between the FiASP-and-placebo with FCC and FiASP-and-pramlintide with SMA interventions (70%), but was lower in the FiASP-and-placebo with SMA intervention (60%). Time less than 3.9 mmol/L and gastrointestinal symptoms were similar across all interventions. Emotional distress was moderate at baseline, after the FiASP-and-placebo with FCC and SMA interventions, and fell after the FiASP-and-pramlintide with SMA intervention. SMA reportedly afforded participants flexibility and reduced mealtime concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The FiASP-and-pramlintide system has the potential to substitute carbohydrate counting with SMA without degrading glucose control.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Pâncreas Artificial , Glicemia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Estudos de Viabilidade , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina , Polipeptídeo Amiloide das Ilhotas Pancreáticas/uso terapêutico , Projetos PilotoRESUMO
AIM: To assess whether adding empagliflozin to closed-loop automated insulin delivery could reduce the need for carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes (T1D) without worsening glucose control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an open-label, crossover, non-inferiority trial, 30 adult participants with T1D underwent outpatient automated insulin delivery interventions with three random sequences of prandial insulin strategy days: carbohydrate counting, simple meal announcement (no carbohydrate counting) and no meal announcement. During each sequence of prandial insulin strategies, participants were randomly assigned empagliflozin (25 mg/day) or not, and crossed over to the comparator. Mean glucose for carbohydrate counting without empagliflozin (control) was compared with no meal announcement with empagliflozin (in the primary non-inferiority comparison) and simple meal announcement with empagliflozin (in the conditional primary non-inferiority comparison). RESULTS: Participants were aged 40 ± 15 years, had 27 ± 15 years diabetes duration and HbA1c of 7.6% ± 0.7% (59 ± 8 mmol/mol). The system with no meal announcement and empagliflozin was not non-inferior (and thus reasonably considered inferior) to the control arm (mean glucose 10.0 ± 1.6 vs. 8.5 ± 1.5 mmol/L; non-inferiority p = .94), while simple meal announcement and empagliflozin was non-inferior (8.5 ± 1.4 mmol/L; non-inferiority p = .003). Use of empagliflozin on the background of automated insulin delivery with carbohydrate counting was associated with lower mean glucose, corresponding to a 14% greater time in the target range. While no ketoacidosis was observed, mean fasting ketones levels were higher on empagliflozin (0.22 ± 0.18 vs. 0.13 ± 0.11 mmol/L; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin added to automated insulin delivery has the potential to eliminate the need for carbohydrate counting and improves glycaemic control in conjunction with carbohydrate counting, but does not allow for the elimination of meal announcement.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Pâncreas Artificial , Adulto , Compostos Benzidrílicos , Glicemia , Estudos Cross-Over , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Glucosídeos , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina , Projetos Piloto , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Basal insulin therapy often involves a compromise between achievement of glycaemic targets and avoidance of hypoglycaemia, dependent on how intensively insulin is titrated. In the Phase 3a EDITION 1, 2 and 3 studies, insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) provided glycaemic control equivalent to that of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100), with less hypoglycaemia in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The current study evaluated the rates of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia over six months of treatment with Gla-300 or Gla-100 in the EDITION studies, as a function of HbA1c. Analysis was performed on patient-level data pooled from the three EDITION studies, and annualized hypoglycaemia rate as a function of HbA1c at Month 6 was fitted using a negative binomial regression model. Participants treated with Gla-300 experienced a consistently lower rate of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia as compared with those treated with Gla-100, regardless of HbA1c at Month 6. Results suggest that treatment with Gla-300 vs Gla-100 could allow individuals with T2DM to achieve equivalent glycaemic control with less hypoglycaemia.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/sangue , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/metabolismo , Hipoglicemia/sangue , Insulina Glargina/administração & dosagem , Insulina Glargina/efeitos adversos , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Quimioterapia Combinada , Feminino , Seguimentos , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/análise , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/efeitos dos fármacos , Humanos , Hipoglicemia/induzido quimicamente , Hipoglicemia/diagnóstico , Análise de Intenção de Tratamento , Masculino , Metformina/administração & dosagem , Metformina/efeitos adversos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto JovemRESUMO
Despite the availability of long-term data demonstrating the benefits of timely and aggressive intensification of antihyperglycaemic regimens among individuals with type 2 diabetes, intensification beyond basal insulin continues to be suboptimal and a global challenge. This review summarizes the evidence surrounding the various options of advancing glucose-lowering management beyond basal insulin and provides a practical algorithm to assist in optimizing patient care and enhancing glycaemic target achievements.
Assuntos
Algoritmos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Insulina de Ação Prolongada/administração & dosagem , Glicemia/efeitos dos fármacos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/sangue , Esquema de Medicação , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/efeitos dos fármacos , HumanosRESUMO
Results of the main Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial indicate that intensive glucose lowering increases cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. As the contribution of mild-to-moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD) to these risks is not known, we assessed the impact on cardiovascular outcomes in this population. Renal function data were available on 10,136 patients of the original ACCORD cohort. Of those, 6,506 were free of CKD at baseline and 3,636 met the criteria for CKD. Participants were randomly assigned to a treatment strategy of either intensive or standard glycemic goal. The primary outcome, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and prespecified secondary outcomes were evaluated. Risk for the primary outcome was 87% higher in patients with than in those without CKD (hazard ratio of 1.866; 95% CI: 1.651-2.110). All prespecified secondary outcomes were 1.5 to 3 times more frequent in patients with than in those without CKD. In patients with CKD, compared with standard therapy, intensive glucose lowering was significantly associated with both 31% higher all-cause mortality (1.306: 1.065-1.600) and 41% higher cardiovascular mortality (1.412: 1.052-1.892). No significant effects were found in patients without CKD. Thus, in high-risk patients with type II diabetes, mild and moderate CKD is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Intensive glycemic control significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in this population.
Assuntos
Doenças Cardiovasculares/mortalidade , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiologia , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/epidemiologia , Idoso , Glicemia/metabolismo , Causas de Morte , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Feminino , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/metabolismo , Humanos , Hipoglicemia/epidemiologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/complicações , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/fisiopatologia , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In type 1 diabetes, carbohydrate counting is the standard of care to determine prandial insulin needs, but it can negatively affect quality of life. We developed a novel insulin-and-pramlintide closed-loop system that replaces carbohydrate counting with simple meal announcements. METHODS: We performed a randomised crossover trial assessing 14 days of (1) insulin-and-pramlintide closed-loop system with simple meal announcements, (2) insulin-and-placebo closed-loop system with carbohydrate counting, and (3) insulin-and-placebo closed-loop system with simple meal announcements. Participants were recruited at McGill University Health Centre (Montreal, QC, Canada). Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) and adolescents (aged 12-17 years) with type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio to a sequence of the three interventions, with faster insulin aspart used in all interventions. Each intervention was separated by a 14-45-day wash-out period, during which participants reverted to their usual insulin. During simple meal announcement interventions, participants triggered a prandial bolus at mealtimes based on a programmed fixed meal size, whereas during carbohydrate counting interventions, participants manually entered the carbohydrate content of the meal and an algorithm calculated the prandial bolus based on insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio. Two primary comparisons were predefined: the percentage of time in range (glucose 3·9-10·0 mmol/L) with a non-inferiority margin of 6·25% (non-inferiority comparison); and the mean Emotional Burden subscale score of the Diabetes Distress Scale (superiority comparison), comparing the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting minus the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements. Analyses were performed on a modified intention-to-treat basis, excluding participants who did not complete all interventions. Serious adverse events were assessed in all participants. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04163874. FINDINGS: 32 participants were enrolled between Feb 14, 2020, and Oct 5, 2021; two participants withdrew before study completion. 30 participants were analysed, including 15 adults (nine female, mean age 39·4 years [SD 13·8]) and 15 adolescents (eight female, mean age 15·7 years [1·3]). Non-inferiority of the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements relative to the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting was reached (difference -5% [95% CI -9·0 to -0·7], non-inferiority p<0·0001). No statistically significant difference was found in the mean Emotional Burden score between the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements and the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting (difference 0·01 [SD 0·82], p=0·93). With the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements, 14 (47%) participants reported mild gastrointestinal symptoms and two (7%) reported moderate symptoms, compared with two (7%) participants reporting mild gastrointestinal symptoms on the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting. No serious adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION: The insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements alleviated carbohydrate counting without degrading glucose control, although quality of life as measured by the Emotional Burden score was not improved. Longer and larger studies with this novel approach are warranted. FUNDING: Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.
Assuntos
Estudos Cross-Over , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Hipoglicemiantes , Insulina Aspart , Polipeptídeo Amiloide das Ilhotas Pancreáticas , Refeições , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Feminino , Masculino , Adolescente , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Polipeptídeo Amiloide das Ilhotas Pancreáticas/administração & dosagem , Polipeptídeo Amiloide das Ilhotas Pancreáticas/uso terapêutico , Criança , Adulto , Insulina Aspart/uso terapêutico , Insulina Aspart/administração & dosagem , Glicemia/análise , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina , Canadá , Adulto Jovem , Insulina/análogos & derivados , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Insulina/administração & dosagem , Carboidratos da Dieta/administração & dosagem , Quebeque , Pessoa de Meia-IdadeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of external diabetes support provided by diabetes specialists and community retail pharmacists to facilitate insulin-prescribing in family practice. METHODS: A stratified, parallel group, randomized control study was conducted in 15 sites across Canada. Family physicians received insulin initiation/titration education, a physician-specific 'report card' on the characteristics of their type 2 diabetes (T2DM) population, and a registry of insulin-eligible patients at a workshop. Intervention physicians in addition received: (1) diabetes specialist/educator consultation support (active diabetes specialist/educator consultation support for 2 months [the educator initiated contact every 2 weeks] and passive consultation support for 10 months [family physician initiated as needed]); and (2) community retail pharmacist support (option to refer patients to the pharmacist(s) for a 1-hour insulin-initiation session). The primary outcome was the insulin prescribing rate (IPR) per physician defined as the number of insulin starts of insulin-eligible patients during the 12-month strategy. RESULTS: Consenting, eligible physicians (n = 151) participated with 15 specialist sites and 107 community pharmacists providing the intervention. Most physicians were male (74%), and had an average of 81 patients with T2DM. Few (9%) routinely initiated patients on insulin. Physicians were randomly allocated to usual care (n = 78) or the intervention (n = 73). Intervention physicians had a mean (SE) IPR of 2.28 (0.27) compared to 2.29 (0.25) for control physicians, with an estimated adjusted RR (95% CI) of 0.99 (0.80 to 1.24), p = 0.96. CONCLUSIONS: An insulin support program utilizing diabetes experts and community retail pharmacists to enhance insulin prescribing in family practice was not successful. Too few physicians are appropriately intensifying diabetes management through insulin initiation, and aggressive therapeutic treatment is lacking.
Assuntos
Serviços Comunitários de Farmácia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Médicos de Família , Padrões de Prática Médica , Especialização , Adulto , Canadá , Feminino , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Médicos de Família/educação , AutoeficáciaRESUMO
Background: Fear of hypoglycaemia (FOH) significantly disrupts the daily management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and increases the risk of complications. Recent technological advances can improve glucose metrics and reduce hypoglycaemia frequency, yet their impact on FOH is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aimed to synthesize the current literature to understand the impact of diabetes technologies on FOH in T1D. Methods: In this SRMA, we searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception up to May 21st, 2023 for studies assessing the effect of using real-time or intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitors (rtCGM or isCGM); insulin pumps (CSII); and their combinations on FOH as the primary outcome, measured using the Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey (HFS; including total, worries [HFS-W], and behaviours [HFS-B] scores), in non-pregnant adults with T1D. Data was extracted by the first and second authors. Results were pooled using a random-effects model based on study design (RCT and non-RCT), with subgroup analysis based on the type of technology, reported change in hypoglycaemia frequency, and duration of use. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute tools. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021253618. Findings: A total of 51 studies (n = 8966) were included, 22 of which were RCTs. Studies on rtCGM and CSII reported lower FOH levels with ≥8 weeks of use. Studies on CSII and rtCGM combinations reported lower FOH levels after ≥13 weeks of automated insulin delivery (AID) use or 26 weeks of sensor-augmented pump (SAP) use. The meta-analysis showed an overall lower FOH with technologies, specifically for the HFS-W subscale. The RCT meta-analysis showed lower HFS-W scores with rtCGM use (standard mean difference [95%CI]: -0.14 [-0.23, -0.05], I2 = 0%) and AID (-0.17 [-0.33, -0.01], I2 = 0%). Results from non-RCT studies show that SAP users (-0.33 [-0.38, -0.27], I2 = 0%) and rtCGM users (-0.38 [-0.61, -0.14], I2 = 0%) had lower HFS-W. Interpretation: We found consistent, yet small to moderate, effects supporting that diabetes technologies (specifically rtCGM, SAP, and AID) may reduce hypoglycaemia-related worries in adults with T1D. Current literature, however, has limitations including discrepancies in baseline characteristics and limited, mainly descriptive, statistical analysis. Thus, future studies should assess FOH as a primary outcome, use validated surveys, and appropriate statistical analysis to evaluate the clinical impacts of technology use beyond just glucose metrics. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Ltd.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: For people with type 2 diabetes mellitus who do not achieve glycated hemoglobin A1C targets after treatment with basal insulin therapies, additional therapy with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) may be required. One option is to use a once-daily fixed-ratio combination (FRC) of basal insulin and a GLP-1 RA such as iGlarLixi (which is composed of insulin glargine 100 U/ml and lixisenatide). However, the ease of transitioning from basal insulin to an FRC has not been studied. METHODS: This sub-study of the LixiLan ONE CAN trial (NCT03767543) was conducted to assess the ease of transitioning from insulin glargine 100 U/ml to the FRC, iGlarLixi, using the iGlarLixi SoloStar® pen. Patients completed a validated, ten-item questionnaire, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) completed a five-item questionnaire. Both questionnaires used either five-point Likert scales or yes/no answers as appropriate, and both were completed after 4 weeks of using the iGlarLixi SoloStar pen. RESULTS: Overall, 95.1% of patients reported that the iGlarLixi Solostar pen was "easy" or "very easy" to use. Similarly, 100% of HCPs reported that it was "easy" or "very easy" to train people to use the pen. Nearly all participants (97.5% of patients and 94% of HCPs) responded that they would recommend the iGlarLixi Solostar pen to others. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that during the transition from insulin glargine 100 U/ml to iGlarLixi, there were no difficulties associated with using the iGlarLixi SoloStar pen injector regarding instruction for use by HCPs or actual use by the majority of patients. The results indicate a broad consensus between patients and HCPs on the relative simplicity of transitioning from self-administration of insulin glargine 100 U/ml to iGlarLixi. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03767543; Date of registration: December 6, 2018; Retrospectively registered.
Many people take basal insulin to control their blood sugar, but for those in whom basal insulin injections do not work well enough to achieve their target blood glucose, treatment needs to be advanced. One option to do this is with a fixed-ratio combination therapy that combines basal insulin with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, such as iGlarLixi. Both basal insulin and fixed-ratio combination therapies are administered using injection pens, but the ease of transitioning from a basal insulin pen to a fixed-ratio combination pen has not been assessed. In this study, people with type 2 diabetes who had previously received the basal insulin insulin glargine 100 U/ml using a SoloStar® pen, and who transitioned to the iGlarLixi SoloStar pen, were asked to complete a questionnaire to rate their experience of using the new pen injector after 4 weeks of use. Their doctors also completed a questionnaire at the same time. Over 95% of patients reported that the iGlarLixi SoloStar® pen was "easy" or "very easy" to use, and all of the doctors reported that it was "easy" or "very easy" to train people to use it. Nearly all of those who completed questionnaires (97.5% of patients and 94% of doctors) said that they would recommend use of the iGlarLixi Solostar pen to others. These results suggest that both patients and their doctors thought that it was relatively easy to transition from self-administration of insulin glargine 100 U/ml to iGlarLixi using the SoloStar pen injector.
RESUMO
AIM: To assess the association of nocturnal hypoglycemia prevention strategies (NH-PS) and diabetes technology usage (insulin pump and/or continuous glucose monitors [CGM]) in people with type 1 diabetes (PWT1D). METHODS: Logistic regression models were used to describe associations between self-reported NH-PS and diabetes technology (pump with intermittently-scanned or real-time CGM (isCGM or rtCGM), or automated insulin delivery (AID)), hypoglycemia history, and fear of hypoglycemia (FOH). RESULTS: Among 831 adults (65 % female, aged 44 ± 15 years, T1D duration 26 ± 15 years), 32 % reported HbA1c ≤ 7.0 %, 88 % used ≥ 1 diabetes technology, 66 % reported ≥ 1 symptomatic NH in the past month, and 64 % used ≥ 2 NH-PS. Compared to multiple daily injections (MDI) + capillary blood glucose (CBG), bedtime snack consumption was less likely among pump + isCGM (OR [95 %CI]: 0.55 [0.31, 0.98]), pump + rtCGM (0.40 [0.20, 0.81]), and AID (0.34 [0.17, 0.66]) users, while evening insulin basal reduction was associated with CSII + CBG (3.15 [1.25, 7.99]), pump + isCGM 4.00 [1.99, 8.01]), and pump + rtCGM 2.89 [1.28, 6.50] use. Elevated FOH was associated with snack consumption (1.37 [1.00, 1.89]), evening bolus insulin avoidance (1.77 [1.11, 2.83]), limiting exercise (2.50 [1.30, 4.82]), and limiting alcohol consumption (2.33 [1.15, 4.70]) as NH-PS. CONCLUSION: Technology use and elevated FOH might influence PWT1D' choice of NH-PS.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Hipoglicemia , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Glicemia , Automonitorização da Glicemia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/análise , Hipoglicemia/prevenção & controle , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina , Insulina Regular Humana/uso terapêutico , Sistema de Registros , TecnologiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Treatments for severe hypoglycemia aim to restore blood glucose through successful administration of rescue therapy, and choosing the most effective and cost-effective option will improve outcomes for patients and may reduce costs for healthcare payers. The present analysis aimed to compare costs and use of medical services with nasal glucagon and injectable glucagon in people with type 1 and 2 diabetes in Canada when used to treat severe hypoglycemic events when impaired consciousness precludes treatment with oral carbohydrates using an economic model, based on differences in the frequency of successful administration of the two interventions. METHODS: A decision tree model was prepared in Microsoft Excel to project outcomes with nasal glucagon and injectable glucagon. The model structure reflected real-world decision-making and treatment outcomes, based on Canada-specific sources. The model captured the use of glucagon, emergency medical services (EMS), emergency room, inpatient stay, and follow-up care. Costs were accounted for in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD). RESULTS: Nasal glucagon was associated with reduced use of all medical services compared with injectable glucagon. EMS call outs were projected to be reduced by 45%, emergency room treatments by 52%, and inpatient stays by 13%. Use of nasal glucagon was associated with reduced direct, indirect, and combined costs of CAD 1,249, CAD 460, and CAD 1,709 per severe hypoglycemic event, respectively, due to avoided EMS call outs and hospital costs, resulting from a higher proportion of successful administrations. CONCLUSIONS: When a patient with type 1 or type 2 diabetes is being treated for a severe hypoglycemic event when impaired consciousness precludes treatment with oral carbohydrate, use of nasal glucagon was projected to be dominant versus injectable glucagon in Canada reducing costs and use of medical services.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Glucagon/administração & dosagem , Hipoglicemia , Canadá , Análise Custo-Benefício , Glucagon/economia , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Humanos , Hipoglicemia/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemia/economia , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Hipoglicemiantes/economiaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: This post hoc pooled analysis of four real-world studies (SURE Canada, Denmark/Sweden, Switzerland and UK) aimed to characterize the use of once-weekly (OW) semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Semaglutide Real-world Evidence (SURE) studies had a duration of ~30 weeks. Changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight (BW) were analyzed for the overall population and the following baseline subgroups: GLP-1RA-naïve/GLP-1RA switchers; body mass index <25/≥25-<30/≥30-<35/≥35 kg/m2; age <65/≥65 years; HbA1c <7%/≥7-≤8%/>8-≤9%/>9%; T2D duration <5/≥5-<10/≥10 years. Data for patients achieving treatment targets were analyzed in the overall population and the baseline HbA1c ≥7% subgroup. RESULTS: Of 1212 patients, 960 were GLP-1RA-naïve and 252 had switched to semaglutide from another GLP-1RA. In the overall population, HbA1c was reduced from baseline to end of study (EOS) by -1.1% point and BW by -4.7 kg; changes were significant for all subgroups. There were significantly larger reductions of HbA1c and BW in GLP-1RA-naïve versus GLP-1RA switchers and larger reductions in HbA1c for patients with higher versus lower baseline HbA1c. At EOS, 52.6% of patients in the overall population achieved HbA1c <7%. No new safety concerns were identified in any of the completed SURE studies. CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled analysis, patients with T2D initiating OW semaglutide showed significant improvements from baseline to EOS in HbA1c and BW across various baseline subgroups, including patients previously treated with a GLP-1RA other than semaglutide, supporting OW semaglutide use in clinical practice. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03457012; NCT03631186; NCT03648281; NCT03876015.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Idoso , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiologia , Peptídeos Semelhantes ao Glucagon/uso terapêutico , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/análise , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
There is a need to optimize closed-loop automated insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes. We assessed the glycemic efficacy and safety of empagliflozin 25 mg d-1 as add-on therapy to insulin delivery with a closed-loop system. We performed a 2 × 2 factorial randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover two-center trial in adults, assessing 4 weeks of closed-loop delivery versus sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy and empagliflozin versus placebo. The primary outcome was time spent in the glucose target range (3.9-10.0 mmol l-1). Primary comparisons were empagliflozin versus placebo in each of closed-loop or SAP therapy; the remaining comparisons were conditional on its significance. Twenty-four of 27 randomized participants were included in the final analysis. Compared to placebo, empagliflozin improved time in target range with closed-loop therapy by 7.2% and in SAP therapy by 11.4%. Closed-loop therapy plus empagliflozin improved time in target range compared to SAP therapy plus empagliflozin by 6.1% but by 17.5% for the combination of closed-loop therapy and empagliflozin compared to SAP therapy plus placebo. While no diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred during any intervention, uncomplicated ketosis events were more common on empagliflozin. Empagliflozin 25 mg d-1 added to automated insulin delivery improves glycemic control but increases ketone concentration and ketosis compared to placebo.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Cetose , Adulto , Compostos Benzidrílicos , Glicemia , Estudos Cross-Over , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Glucosídeos , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
This guideline synthesizes clinical trial data supporting the role of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) for treatment of heart failure (HF), chronic kidney disease, and for optimizing prevention of cardiorenal morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. It is on the basis of a companion systematic review and meta-analysis guided by a focused set of population, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO) questions that address priority cardiorenal end points. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and a modified Delphi process were used. We encourage comprehensive assessment of cardiovascular (CV) patients with routine measurement of estimated glomerular filtration rate, urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c), and documentation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) when evaluating symptoms of HF. For patients with HF, we recommend integration of SGLT2i with other guideline-directed pharmacotherapy for the reduction of hospitalization for HF when LVEF is > 40% and for the reduction of all-cause and CV mortality, hospitalization for HF, and renal protection when LVEF is ≤ 40%. In patients with albuminuric chronic kidney disease, we recommend integration of SGLT2i with other guideline-directed pharmacotherapy to reduce all-cause and CV mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for HF. We provide recommendations and algorithms for the selection of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2i for patients with type 2 diabetes and either established atherosclerotic CV disease or risk factors for atherosclerotic CV disease to reduce all-cause and CV mortality, nonfatal stroke, and for the prevention of hospitalization for HF and decline in renal function. We offer practical advice for safe use of these diabetes-associated agents with profound cardiorenal benefits.
Assuntos
Doenças Cardiovasculares , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Insuficiência Renal Crônica , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose , Humanos , Canadá/epidemiologia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Receptor do Peptídeo Semelhante ao Glucagon 1/agonistas , Insuficiência Cardíaca/complicações , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/complicações , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Comportamento de Redução do Risco , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/farmacologia , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/uso terapêutico , Volume Sistólico , Função Ventricular Esquerda , Metanálise como Assunto , Revisões Sistemáticas como AssuntoRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: A fully automated insulin-pramlintide-glucagon artificial pancreas that alleviates the burden of carbohydrate counting without degrading glycemic control was iteratively enhanced until convergence through pilot experiments on adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Nine participants (age, 37±13 years; glycated hemoglobin, 7.7±0.7%) completed two 27-hour interventions: a fully automated multihormone artificial pancreas and a comparator insulin-alone artificial pancreas with carbohydrate counting. The baseline algorithm was a model-predictive controller that administered insulin and pramlintide in a fixed ratio, with boluses triggered by a glucose threshold, and administered glucagon in response to low glucose levels. RESULTS: The baseline multihormone dosing algorithm resulted in noninferior time in target range (3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L) (71%) compared with the insulin-alone arm (70%) in 2 participants, with minimal glucagon delivery. The algorithm was modified to deliver insulin and pramlintide more aggressively to increase time in range and maximize the benefits of glucagon. The modified algorithm displayed a similar time in range for the multihormone arm (79%) compared with the insulin-alone arm (83%) in 2 participants, but with undesired glycemic fluctuations. Subsequently, we reduced the glucose threshold that triggers glucagon boluses. This resulted in inferior glycemic control for the multihormone arm (81% vs 91%) in 2 participants. Thereafter, a model-based meal-detection algorithm to deliver insulin and pramlintide boluses closer to mealtimes was added and glucagon was removed. The final dual-hormone system had comparable time in range (81% vs 83%) in the last 3 participants. CONCLUSION: The final version of the fully automated system that delivered insulin and pramlintide warrants a randomized controlled trial.