Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc ; 27: 100495, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32309533

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), including potent P2Y12 inhibition after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is recommended in clinical guidelines. However, bleeding complications are common, and associated with worse outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess incidence of bleeding events with a clopidogrel-based compared to a ticagrelor-based DAPT strategy, in a real world population. Secondary aims were to assess ischemic complications and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 330 consecutive STEMI patients with a clopidogrel-based and 330 with a ticagrelor-based DAPT strategy. Patients medical records were searched for bleeding and ischemic complications, over 6 months follow-up.The two groups were well balanced in baseline characteristics, age (69 years inboth groups), sex (31% vs 32% females), history of diabetes (19% vs 21%), hypertension (43% in both) and MI (17% vs 15%). There was no difference in CRUSADE bleeding score (28 vs 29). After discharge, there were more than twice as many bleeding events with a ticagrelor-based compared with a clopidogrel-based strategy (13.3% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.005). Bleeding events included significantly more severe bleeding complications (TIMI major/minor [5.8 vs 1.0, p = 0.001]) during the ticagrelor-based period. There was no significant difference in the composite of death, MI or stroke (7.8% vs 7.1%, p = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study, a ticagrelor-based DAPT strategy was associated with significantly more bleeding complications, without any significant change in death, MI or stroke. Larger studies are needed to determine whether bleeding complications off-sets benefits with a more potent DAPT strategy in older and more comorbid real-life patients.

2.
Clin Ther ; 33(11): 1682-93, 2011 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22036246

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Prandial premixed therapy 3 times daily has been proposed recently for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients who fail to achieve glycemic control with commonly used premixed insulin analogs, insulin lispro mix 75/25 (LM75/25) and biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp70/30) BID. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to compare the efficacy and safety of 3-times daily insulin lispro mix 50/50 (TID group) with progressive titration of twice-daily LM75/25 or BIAsp70/30 (BID group) administered along with metformin in T2DM patients. METHODS: This was an open-label, 16-week, multicenter, randomized, parallel trial. End point glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) was the primary efficacy measure; HbA(1c) reduction from baseline to end point, percentage of patients reaching target HbA(1c) (<7.0% and ≤6.5%), postprandial blood glucose (BG), and BG excursions after lunch were secondary measures. Safety was evaluated by collecting adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 302 patients with mean (SD) age 57.7 (9.27) years, diabetes duration 11.2 (6.47) years, HbA(1c) 8.5% (1.23), fasting BG 184.0 (53.04) mg/dL, body weight 86.8 (14.79) kg, body mass index 31.7 (4.23) kg/m(2), and daily insulin dose ∼48 IU were randomized. No significant difference was observed in end point HbA(1c) between the 2 groups. Seven-point BG profiles showed lower fasting and postbreakfast BG in the BID group but lower postlunch BG in the TID group. Daily insulin dose change was similar in both groups, with more weight gain in the TID group (P = 0.0009). Overall hypoglycemic rates were similar in both groups, but nocturnal hypoglycemia was more frequent in the BID group (P = 0.0063). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM who have not achieved adequate glycemic control with LM75/25 and BiAsp70/30 BID plus metformin and who are not candidates for basal bolus therapy, switching either to treatment with LM50/50 TID or to progressive titration of premix insulin analogs BID did not produce sufficient evidence of a difference of overall glycemic control between the 2 treatment groups. Short study duration and less intensive dose adjustments might have contributed to these results.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Insulina Aspart/uso terapêutico , Insulina Lispro/uso terapêutico , Glicemia/análise , Esquema de Medicação , Ingestão de Alimentos , Feminino , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/análise , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Insulina Aspart/administração & dosagem , Insulina Aspart/efeitos adversos , Insulina Lispro/administração & dosagem , Insulina Lispro/efeitos adversos , Masculino
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA