Pramlintide lowered glucose excursions and was well-tolerated in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: results from a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of pramlintide in treating adolescents with type 1 diabetes. STUDY DESIGN: Twelve subjects (9 females, 3 males, age 12 to 17 years; A1C, 8.4%; body mass index, 25 kg/m(2)) were randomized to pramlintide (15 or 30 microg) or placebo administered before a standardized breakfast. Insulin lispro (50% of usual mealtime dose) was injected separately. Acetaminophen (1000 mg) was administered orally to provide an indicator of gastric emptying rate. RESULTS: In 9 evaluable subjects, plasma pramlintide concentrations increased dose-proportionately; mean peak plasma concentration (C(max)) (15-microg dose, 93 +/- 9 pg/mL; 30-microg dose, 202 +/- 21 pg/mL) occurred approximately 0.3 h (median time to peak concentration) after administration. Pramlintide reduced incremental area under the concentration curve (AUC(0-3h)) for glucagon and glucose versus placebo (glucagon: 15-microg dose, 4 +/- 7 pg(*)h/mL; 30-microg dose, 5 +/- 7 pg(*)h/mL; placebo, 35 +/- 9 pg(*)h/mL; glucose: 15-microg dose, 129 +/- 43 mg(*)h/dL; 30-microg dose, 132 +/- 37 mg(*)h/dL; placebo, 217 +/- 56 mg(*)h/dL). Acetaminophen C(max) decreased with pramlintide; median T(max) was delayed by approximately 2.6- to 3.8-fold. Pramlintide was well tolerated, and no treatment-related adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Pramlintide reduced postprandial glucagon and glucose excursions and slowed gastric emptying in adolescents with type 1 diabetes, with no treatment-related adverse events. Long-term studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of pramlintide in adolescents are warranted.

Regionalização da saúde no Rio Grande do Sul: aspectos históricos e organizacionais

O artigo analisa os marcos legais e normativos construídos pelo Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (RS), a partir das legislações federais, bem como destaca as escolhas e os caminhos traçados na gestão estadual para implementação da regionalização da saúde, de 1935 até o ano de 2020. Foi realizada uma pesquisa documental e bibliográfica, utilizando documentos e normativas do Sistema Único de Saúde, disponíveis em sites públicos e nos arquivos internos da Secretaria da Saúde do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. A primeira fase compreendeu o período de estabelecimento da Secretaria de Saúde, de 1935 até 2000. A segunda fase abarca o Plano Diretor de Regionalização no RS, de 2002, passando pela implementação do Pacto pela Saúde, de 2006, e seus desdobramentos até 2009. E, a terceira fase, deu-se a partir da Portaria n.º 4.279/2010 e do Decreto n.º 7.508/2011, com a criação de uma nova configuração territorial para as regiões de saúde no Estado, objetivando a implementação das Redes de Atenção à Saúde. Conclui-se que no Estado do RS, a regionalização da saúde acompanhou as normativas federais, tendo configurações próprias da burocracia estatal.

Pramlintide as an adjunct to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes in a clinical practice setting reduced A1C, postprandial glucose excursions, and weight.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of pramlintide therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes in a clinical practice setting. METHODS: In this open-label study, 166 insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes added pramlintide therapy (120 microg) during an initiation period in which mealtime insulin was reduced by 30-50%. Insulin doses were subsequently adjusted to optimize glycemic control. Endpoints included safety, as well as change in A1C, postprandial glucose, weight, insulin dose, and patient satisfaction following 6 months of pramlintide treatment. RESULTS: At 6 months, the change in A1C from baseline (8.3%) was -0.56% (P < 0.05; n = 59). Pramlintide treatment significantly reduced mean postprandial glucose excursions (P < 0.05) and weight (-2.8 kg; P < 0.05; n = 125). Glycemic benefits were achieved with lower mealtime insulin doses (-10.3%; P < 0.05; n = 104). Nausea, primarily mild to moderate, was reported by 29.5% of patients (severe nausea in 2.4%). Rates of severe hypoglycemia were low (0.04 events/patient-year). CONCLUSIONS: In this uncontrolled, open-label setting, pramlintide initiation while reducing mealtime insulin, followed by insulin dose optimization, resulted in improvements in postprandial glucose excursions and A1C. These improvements in glycemic control were accompanied by weight loss.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing pramlintide treatment in the setting of intensive insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess safety, efficacy, and tolerability of pramlintide dose escalation with proactive mealtime insulin reduction, followed by insulin optimization, in patients with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 29-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized 296 patients to pramlintide or placebo as an adjunct to insulin. During initiation, pramlintide was escalated from 15 to 60 microg/meal (15-microg increments) with recommended reductions (30-50%) in mealtime insulin. Insulin was subsequently adjusted to optimize glycemic control. End points included safety and change in HbA1c (A1C), postprandial glucose, insulin, weight, and tolerability. RESULTS: Baseline A1C was 8.1% for both groups and at week 29 had decreased comparably (pramlintide -0.5% [95% CI -0.61 to -0.33]; placebo -0.5% [-0.63 to -0.35]). Pramlintide treatment significantly reduced postprandial glucose excursions (incremental area under the curve [AUC](0-3h): pramlintide -175 +/- 40, placebo -64 +/- 38 mg x h(-1) x dl(-1); P < 0.0005) and weight (pramlintide -1.3 +/- 0.30, placebo +1.2 +/- 0.30 kg; P < 0.0001). At week 29, insulin dose decreased by 28 and 4% in pramlintide- and placebo-treated groups, respectively. Nausea, reported by 63 and 36% of patients in pramlintide and placebo groups (P < 0.01), respectively, was predominately mild to moderate in intensity. Severe hypoglycemia rates were low in both groups (pramlintide 0.57 +/- 0.09, placebo 0.30 +/- 0.06 event rate/patient-year; P < 0.05), with increased rates observed in patients remaining at 30 microg pramlintide. CONCLUSIONS: Pramlintide dose escalation with reduced mealtime insulin was effective during therapy initiation in patients with type 1 diabetes. While both groups experienced equivalent A1C reductions relative to placebo, pramlintide-treated patients experienced reductions in postprandial glucose excursions and weight, not achievable with insulin therapy alone.

Utilização dos serviços públicos de saúde especializados por pessoas idosas no sul do Brasil / Use of specialized public health services by older people in southern Brazil

Resumo Objetivo Analisar a utilização dos serviços públicos de saúde especializados por idosos de acordo com o sexo e grupo etário no município de Porto Alegre. Métodos Estudo transversal com dados secundários dos sistemas de consulta ambulatorial e de internação do município. Utilizaram-se todos os registros de 2019, sendo aplicado o teste qui-quadrado de Pearson. Resultados No total, 64.888 idosos buscaram serviços especializados, gerando 113.694 atendimentos (82,8% atendimentos ambulatoriais e 17,2% internações). Verificou-se que 74,7% dos idosos foram referenciados pela atenção primária para atendimento especializado, com maiores percentuais de idosos jovens e mulheres (p<0,001). Já homens e idosos com 80 anos ou mais foram encaminhados com maior frequência para atendimento a partir de hospitais e pronto atendimentos (p<0,001). Mulheres e idosos entre 60 e 79 anos utilizaram em maior proporção os centros ambulatoriais, fisioterapia, centros de reabilitação, odontologia e saúde mental (p<0,001). Os principais motivos de utilização dos serviços especializados foram doenças do aparelho circulatório, sendo mais expressivo entre idosos com 80 anos ou mais e homens (p<0,001). As doenças osteomusculares (22,5%) foram os principais motivos de consultas ambulatoriais e, nas internações de urgência, as doenças do aparelho circulatório (37,9%). Idosos com histórico de consultas ambulatoriais tiveram menos internações hospitalares (p<0,001). Conclusão Destaca-se a necessidade de ações articuladas dos serviços de saúde priorizando a população masculina e longeva, enfocando a prevenção/controle de doenças crônicas não transmissíveis e as vulnerabilidades dessa etapa de vida.

Abstract Objective To analyze the use of specialized public health services by older adults, by sex and age group, in the city of Porto Alegre. Methods A cross-sectional study with secondary data from the city's outpatient and inpatient consultation systems. All records from 2019 were used, and Pearson's chi-square test was applied. Results In total, 64,888 older people sought specialized services, generating 113.694 visits (82,8% outpatient visits and 17.2% hospitalizations). It was found that 74.7% of the older adults were referred by primary care for specialized care, with higher percentages of young older people and women (p<0.001). On the other hand, men and older adults aged 80 years or older were referred more frequently for care from hospitals and emergency rooms (p<0.001). Women and older adults between 60 and 79 years old used outpatient centers, physical therapy, rehabilitation centers, dentistry and mental health in greater proportion (p<0.001). The main reasons for using specialized services were diseases of the circulatory system, being more expressive among older adults aged 80 years or older and men (p<0.001). Musculoskeletal diseases (22.5%) were the main reasons for outpatient consultations and, in emergency hospitalizations, diseases of the circulatory system (37.9%). Older adults with a history of outpatient consultations had fewer hospital admissions (p<0.001). Conclusion The need for articulated actions by health services is highlighted, prioritizing the male and long-lived population, focusing on the prevention/control of non-communicable chronic diseases and the vulnerabilities of this stage of life.

Pramlintide reduces postprandial glucose excursions when added to regular insulin or insulin lispro in subjects with type 1 diabetes: a dose-timing study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the postprandial glucose-lowering effect of the human amylin analog pramlintide when given with either regular insulin or insulin lispro in subjects with type 1 diabetes, with an emphasis on the optimal dose timing relative to meals. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, five-way crossover study, 19 subjects with type 1 diabetes using regular insulin and 21 subjects with type 1 diabetes using insulin lispro underwent five consecutive mixed meal tests. In randomized order, subjects received subcutaneous injections of placebo at -15 min or 60 microg pramlintide at -15, 0, +15, or +30 min relative to the meal after an overnight fast. Regular insulin or insulin lispro was injected at -30 and 0 min, respectively, at doses that were adjusted appropriately for both the content of the standardized meal and the anticipated effects of pramlintide. Plasma glucose concentrations were measured before and during the 4-h postmeal period. RESULTS: In both the regular insulin and insulin lispro groups, pramlintide injections at all four time points lowered the postprandial glucose excursion (36 to >100% reduction in incremental area under the concentration time curve from 0 to 4 h (AUC(0-4 h)) compared with placebo. However, only preprandial injections of pramlintide (-15 and 0 min) were able to prevent the initial postprandial surge in glucose. The optimal time for pramlintide injection was 0 min, which reduced the postprandial glucose excursion by >100% compared with regular insulin plus placebo (incremental AUC(0-4 h): -0.6 +/- 2.5 vs. 11.0 +/- 2.9 mmolx h(-1) x l(-1), P < 0.0007) and by 75% compared with insulin lispro plus placebo (incremental AUC(0-4 h): 2.5 +/- 2.1 vs. 10.0 +/- 2.5 mmol x h(-1) x l(-1), P < 0.0098). No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Pramlintide, given at or just before a meal, reduces the postprandial glucose excursion in subjects with type 1 diabetes, regardless of whether added to regular insulin or a rapid-acting insulin analog.

Pramlintide improved measures of glycemic control and body weight in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus undergoing continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of the addition of pramlintide to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of 2 studies: a 29-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (referred to as RCT) (pramlintide, n = 82; placebo, n = 73) and an open-ended, multicenter, open-label, single-arm, observational study (referred to as clinical practice trial) (n = 150), which assessed the addition of pramlintide to CSII therapy in patients with T1DM. Pramlintide was initiated at 15 µg and titrated to 30 or 60 µg with major meals. The mealtime insulin dose was reduced by 30% to 50% at initiation, and then adjusted to optimize glycemic control. Endpoints at 29 weeks (RCT) and 6 months (clinical practice trial) included change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level, insulin dose, body weight, pre- and postprandial blood glucose level, and tolerability and safety. RESULTS: In both studies, mean baseline age was approximately 42 years, duration of diabetes was 20 to 24 years, and HbA1c level was approximately 8%. Pramlintide reduced blood glucose excursions and improved the percentage of recorded postprandial blood glucose levels < 180 mg/dL. Mean (± standard deviation) reduction in HbA1c level in the clinical practice trial was -0.3% ± 0.1% (P < 0.0001), and in the RCT was similar between pramlintide- and placebo-treated patients (-0.4% ± 0.1% and -0.3% ± 0.1%, respectively). Glycemic improvements were accomplished, with reductions in mealtime insulin doses (RCT: pramlintide, -23.8% ± 5.2%; placebo, -3.2% ± 4.1%; P < 0.0005; clinical practice trial: -27.5% ± 2.9%; P < 0.0001) and body weight (RCT: pramlintide, -2.2 kg ± 0.5 kg; placebo, +1.4 kg ± 0.3 kg; P < 0.0001; clinical practice trial: -3.2 kg ± 0.4 kg; P < 0.0001). Short-lived nausea, primarily mild to moderate in intensity, was the most common adverse event associated with pramlintide therapy. Severe hypoglycemic events occurred at a rate of 0.56 and 0.34 events per patient-year in pramlintide- and placebo-treated patients, respectively, in the RCT, and at a rate of 0.12 events per patient-year in the clinical practice trial. CONCLUSION: Addition of pramlintide to CSII therapy was safe and effective in patients with T1DM. Pramlintide should be considered for patients who are not able to optimize glycemic control with CSII therapy alone, particularly those with difficulty controlling postprandial blood glucose levels and/or body weight. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00042458, NCT00108004.

Clinical effects of long-term metreleptin treatment in patients with lipodystrophy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term clinical effect of treatment with metreleptin (an analogue of human leptin) on glycemic and lipid abnormalities and markers of hepatic steatosis in patients with inherited or acquired lipodystrophy. METHODS: Fifty-five patients (36 with generalized lipodystrophy and 19 with partial lipodystrophy) with at least 1 of 3 metabolic abnormalities (diabetes mellitus, fasting triglyceride level ≥200 mg/dL, and insulin resistance) and low leptin levels received subcutaneous injections of metreleptin once or twice daily in an ongoing clinical trial at the National Institutes of Health. RESULTS: At baseline, hemoglobin A1c-8.5% ± 2.1% (mean ± standard deviation [SD])-and triglycerides-479 ± 80 mg/dL (geometric mean ± standard error [SE])-were substantially elevated. Robust and sustained reductions in both variables were evident for the observed patient population during a 3-year metreleptin treatment period (-2.1% ± 0.5% [mean ± SE] and -35.4% ± 13.7% [mean ± SE], respectively). Mean alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels were elevated at baseline (100 ± 120 U/L and 71 ± 77 U/L [mean ± SD], respectively) and decreased by -45 ± 19 U/L and -33 ± 14 U/L (mean ± SE), respectively, during the 3-year metreleptin treatment period. Improvements in hemoglobin A1c, triglycerides, ALT, and AST were more pronounced in the subsets of patients having elevated levels at baseline. The most notable adverse events observed in this patient population were likely attributable to underlying metabolic abnormalities or comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Metreleptin treatment substantially reduced glycemic variables, triglycerides, and liver enzymes (ALT and AST) and demonstrated durability of response throughout a 3-year treatment period. These results support metreleptin as a potential treatment for certain metabolic disorders (for example, diabetes mellitus and hypertriglyceridemia) associated with lipodystrophy.

Randomized comparison of pramlintide or mealtime insulin added to basal insulin treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of adding mealtime pramlintide or rapid-acting insulin analogs (RAIAs) to basal insulin for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a 24-week open-label, multicenter study, 113 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to addition of mealtime pramlintide (120 microg) or a titrated RAIA to basal insulin and prior oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OADs). At screening, patients were insulin naive or had been receiving <50 units/day basal insulin for <6 months. The basal insulin dosage was titrated from day 1, seeking fasting plasma glucose (FPG) > or =70-<100 mg/dl. Pramlintide and an RAIA were initiated on day 1 and week 4, respectively. The proportion of patients achieving A1C < or =7.0% without weight gain or severe hypoglycemia at week 24 was the primary end point. RESULTS: More pramlintide- than RAIA-treated patients achieved the primary end point (30 vs. 11%, P = 0.018) with a similar dose of basal insulin. Pramlintide and an RAIA yielded similar mean +/- SEM values for FPG and A1C at 24 weeks (122 +/- 7 vs. 123 +/- 5 mg/dl and 7.2 +/- 0.2 vs. 7.0 +/- 0.1%, respectively) and similar least squares mean reductions from baseline to end point (-31 +/- 6 vs. -34 +/- 6 mg/dl and -1.1 +/- 0.2 vs. -1.3 +/- 0.2%, respectively). RAIAs but not pramlintide caused weight gain (+4.7 +/- 0.7 vs. +0.0 +/- 0.7 kg, P < 0.0001). Fewer patients reported mild to moderate hypoglycemia with pramlintide than with the RAIA (55 vs. 82%), but more patients reported nausea (21 vs. 0%). No severe hypoglycemia occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients taking basal insulin and OADs, premeal fixed-dose pramlintide improved glycemic control as effectively as titrated RAIAs. The pramlintide regimen sometimes caused nausea but no weight gain and less hypoglycemia.

Pramlintide improved glycemic control and reduced weight in patients with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of pramlintide in patients with type 2 diabetes suboptimally controlled with basal insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a 16-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 212 patients using insulin glargine with or without oral antidiabetes agents (OAs) were randomized to addition of pramlintide (60 or 120 microg b.i.d./t.i.d.) or placebo. Insulin glargine was adjusted to target a fasting plasma glucose concentration of 70-100 mg/dl. One coprimary end point was the change in A1C at week 16. The other coprimary end point was a composite measure of overall diabetes control comprising A1C < or = 7.0% or reduction > or = 0.5%, mean daily postprandial glucose (PPG) increments < or = 40 mg/dl, no increase in body weight, and no severe hypoglycemia. Patients meeting all four conditions at week 16 achieved this end point. RESULTS: More pramlintide- than placebo-treated patients achieved the composite end point (25 vs. 7%; P < 0.001). Reductions (means +/- SE) in A1C (-0.70 +/- 0.11% vs. -0.36 +/- 0.08%; P < 0.05) and PPG increments (-24.4 +/- 3.6 mg/dl vs. -0.4 +/- 3.0 mg/dl; P < 0.0001) were greater in pramlintide- versus placebo-treated patients, respectively. Glycemic improvements were accompanied by progressive weight loss with pramlintide and weight gain with placebo (-1.6 +/- 0.3 kg vs. +0.7 +/- 0.3 kg; P < 0.0001). No treatment-related severe hypoglycemia occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Pramlintide improved multiple glycemic parameters and reduced weight with no increase in hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes who were not achieving glycemic targets with basal insulin with or without OAs.