Prospective study evaluating the use of nasal glucagon for the treatment of moderate to severe hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes in a real-world setting.

In the present multicentre, open-label, prospective, phase III study, we evaluated the real-world effectiveness and ease of use of nasal glucagon (NG) in the treatment of moderate/severe hypoglycaemic events (HEs) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Patients and caregivers were taught how to use NG (3 mg) to treat moderate/severe HEs, record the time taken to awaken or return to normal status, and measure blood glucose (BG) levels over time. Questionnaires were used to collect information about adverse events and ease of use of NG. In the efficacy analysis population, 69 patients experienced 157 HEs. In 95.7% patients, HEs resolved within 30 minutes of NG administration. In all the 12 severe HEs, patients awakened or returned to normal status within 15 minutes of NG administration without additional external medical help. Most caregivers reported that NG was easy to use. Most adverse events were local and of low to moderate severity. In this study, a single, 3-mg dose of NG demonstrated real-life effectiveness in treating moderate and severe HEs in adults with T1D. NG was well tolerated and easy to use.

Dose-dependent antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of perindopril in a large, observational, 12-week, general practice-based study.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend the use of full therapeutic dosages of antihypertensive agents, or combination therapy, to improve BP control of hypertensive patients in primary healthcare. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the dose-dependent antihypertensive efficacy and safety of perindopril 4 and 8 mg/day in the clinical setting. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The CONFIDENCE study was a prospective, observational, multicenter trial. This was a real-world, clinic-based, outpatient study involving 880 general practitioners/primary-care clinics and 113 specialists in Canada. PATIENTS: The study included untreated or inadequately managed patients with hypertension (i.e. seated BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg, or ≥ 130/80 mmHg in the presence of diabetes mellitus, renal disease, or proteinuria) without coronary artery disease (CAD). INTERVENTION: Treatment consisted of perindopril 4 mg/day, uptitrated to 8 mg/day as required for BP control at visit 2, for 12 weeks. Among the patients already being treated at baseline, perindopril either directly replaced all previous ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]), or was added to antihypertensive treatment with calcium channel blockers (CCBs), diuretics, or ß-adrenoceptor antagonists (ß-blockers). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the mean changes in BP from baseline following treatment with perindopril 4 and 8 mg/day as well as the proportion of patients achieving BP control (BP <140/90 mmHg, or <130/80 mmHg in diabetic patients) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary analyses included the incidence of adverse events and compliance. RESULTS: A total of 8298 hypertensive patients entered the study: 56% with newly diagnosed hypertension and 44% with uncontrolled hypertension. Mean SBP/DBP decreased significantly from baseline (152.5 ± 10.8/89.5 ± 9 mmHg) over 12 weeks (-18.5/-9.7 mmHg; p < 0.001). At visit 2, 23% of patients were uptitrated to perindopril 8 mg/day, which resulted in an additional mean 10.1/5.3 mmHg BP reduction; this reduction was even greater (15.1/5.7 mmHg) among a separate group of severely hypertensive patients (i.e. SBP >170 mmHg or DBP >109 mmHg at baseline). Target BP was achieved in 54% of the ITT population. Both perindopril 4 mg/day and perindopril 8 mg/day were well tolerated and compliance was high throughout the study. CONCLUSION: In the clinical outpatient setting, perindopril was found to be an effective dose-dependent and well tolerated antihypertensive treatment, with good compliance. Uptitration to the full therapeutic dosage of perindopril is an efficient approach for the management of a broad range of hypertensive patients without CAD.

Anti-interleukin-21 antibody and liraglutide for the preservation of ß-cell function in adults with recent-onset type 1 diabetes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Type 1 diabetes is characterised by progressive loss of functional ß-cell mass, necessitating insulin treatment. We aimed to investigate the hypothesis that combining anti-interleukin (IL)-21 antibody (for low-grade and transient immunomodulation) with liraglutide (to improve ß-cell function) could enable ß-cell survival with a reduced risk of complications compared with traditional immunomodulation. METHODS: This randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-dummy, double-blind, phase 2 trial was done at 94 sites (university hospitals and medical centres) in 17 countries. Eligible participants were adults aged 18-45 years with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes and residual ß-cell function. Individuals with unstable type 1 diabetes (defined by an episode of severe diabetic ketoacidosis within 2 weeks of enrolment) or active or latent chronic infections were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1), with stratification by baseline stimulated peak C-peptide concentration (mixed-meal tolerance test [MMTT]), to the combination of anti-IL-21 and liraglutide, anti-IL-21 alone, liraglutide alone, or placebo, all as an adjunct to insulin. Investigators, participants, and funder personnel were masked throughout the treatment period. The primary outcome was the change in MMTT-stimulated C-peptide concentration at week 54 (end of treatment) relative to baseline, measured via the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) over a 4 h period for the full analysis set (intention-to-treat population consisting of all participants who were randomly assigned). After treatment cessation, participants were followed up for an additional 26-week off-treatment observation period. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02443155. FINDINGS: Between Nov 10, 2015, and Feb 27, 2019, 553 adults were assessed for eligibility, of whom 308 were randomly assigned to receive either anti-IL-21 plus liraglutide, anti-IL-21, liraglutide, or placebo (77 assigned to each group). Compared with placebo (ratio to baseline 0·61, 39% decrease), the decrease in MMTT-stimulated C-peptide concentration from baseline to week 54 was significantly smaller with combination treatment (0·90, 10% decrease; estimated treatment ratio 1·48, 95% CI 1·16-1·89; p=0·0017), but not with anti-IL-21 alone (1·23, 0·97-1·57; p=0·093) or liraglutide alone (1·12, 0·87-1·42; p=0·38). Despite greater insulin use in the placebo group, the decrease in HbA1c (a key secondary outcome) at week 54 was greater with all active treatments (-0·50 percentage points) than with placebo (-0·10 percentage points), although the differences versus placebo were not significant. The effects diminished upon treatment cessation. Changes in immune cell subsets across groups were transient and mild (<10% change over time). The most frequently reported adverse events included gastrointestinal disorders, in keeping with the known side-effect profile of liraglutide. The rate of hypoglycaemic events did not differ significantly between active treatment groups and placebo, with an exception of a lower rate in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group during the treatment period. No events of diabetic ketoacidosis were observed. One participant died while on liraglutide (considered unlikely to be related to trial treatment) in connection with three reported adverse events (hypoglycaemic coma, pneumonia, and brain oedema). INTERPRETATION: The combination of anti-IL-21 and liraglutide could preserve ß-cell function in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes. The efficacy of this combination appears to be similar to that seen in trials of other disease-modifying interventions in type 1 diabetes, but with a seemingly better safety profile. Efficacy and safety should be further evaluated in a phase 3 trial programme. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide monotherapy versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 1): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multinational, multicentre phase 3a trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite a broad range of pharmacological options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, optimum glycaemic control remains challenging for many patients and new therapies are necessary. Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue in phase 3 development for type 2 diabetes. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of semaglutide monotherapy, compared with placebo, in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes who had insufficient glycaemic control with diet and exercise alone. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, international, placebo-controlled phase 3a trial (SUSTAIN 1) at 72 sites in Canada, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, UK, and USA (including hospitals, clinical research units, and private offices). Eligible participants were treatment-naive individuals aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes treated with only diet and exercise alone for at least 30 days before screening, with a baseline HbA1c of 7·0%-10·0% (53-86 mmol/mol). We randomly assigned participants (2:2:1:1) to either once-weekly subcutaneously injected semaglutide (0·5 mg or 1·0 mg), or volume-matched placebo (0·5 mg or 1·0 mg), for 30 weeks via prefilled PDS290 pen-injectors. Participants did their own injections and were encouraged to administer them on the same day of each week in the same area of their body; the time of day and proximity of meal times was not specified. We did the randomisation with an interactive voice or web response system. Investigators, participants, and the funder of the study remained masked throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was the change in mean HbA1c from baseline to week 30, and the confirmatory secondary endpoint was the change in mean bodyweight from baseline to week 30. We assessed efficacy and safety in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants who were exposed to at least one dose of study drug); both placebo groups were pooled for assessment. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02054897. FINDINGS: Between February 3, 2014, and August 21, 2014, we randomly assigned 388 participants to treatment; 387 received at least one dose of study medication (128 0·5 mg semaglutide, 130 1·0 mg semaglutide, 129 placebo). 17 (13%) of those assigned to 0·5 mg semaglutide, 16 (12%) assigned to 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 14 (11%) assigned to placebo discontinued treatment; the main reason for discontinuation was gastrointestinal adverse events such as nausea. Mean baseline HbA1c was 8·05% (SD 0·85); at week 30, HbA1c significantly decreased by 1·45% (95% CI -1·65 to -1·26) with 0·5 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -1·43%, 95% CI -1·71 to -1·15; p<0·0001), significantly decreased by 1·55% (-1·74 to -1·36) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -1·53%, -1·81 to -1·25; p<0·0001), and non-significantly decreased by 0·02% (-0·23 to 0·18) with placebo. Mean baseline bodyweight was 91·93 kg (SD 23·83); at week 30, bodyweight significantly decreased by 3·73 kg (95% CI -4·54 to -2·91) with 0·5 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -2·75 kg, 95% CI -3·92 to -1·58; p<0·0001), significantly decreased by 4·53 kg (-5·34 to -3·72) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -3·56 kg, -4·74 to -2·38; p<0·0001), and non-significantly decreased by 0·98 kg (-1·82 to -0·13) with placebo. No deaths were reported in any of the study groups and most reported adverse events were of mild or moderate severity. The most frequently reported adverse events in both semaglutide groups were gastrointestinal in nature: nausea was reported in 26 (20%) who received 0·5 mg semaglutide, 31 (24%) who received 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 10 (8%) who received placebo, and diarrhoea was reported in 16 (13%) who received 0·5 mg semaglutide, 14 (11%) who received 1·0 mg semaglutide, and three (2%) who received placebo. INTERPRETATION: Semaglutide significantly improved HbA1c and bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with placebo, and showed a similar safety profile to currently available GLP-1 receptor agonists, representing a potential treatment option for such patients. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark.

Understanding velocity of sound in trabecular bone via computer simulations.

Osteoporosis is a condition characterized by low bone mass and micro-architectural deterioration leading to non-traumatic fractures of the skeleton. It is a potentially debilitating condition especially for senior citizens. There is growing interest for quantitative ultrasound to measure bone mineral density. However, understanding of ultrasound-bone interaction is limited. Simulating ultrasound propagation of bone can help us better understand ultrasound-bone interaction and provide insight into bone architecture. In this study a mathematical model for the propagation of sound in bone is presented. Results demonstrate the suitability of the proposed modeling approach and the model's capability to reproduce conditions in the lab.

Principles of management of osteometabolic disorders affecting the aging spine.

Osteoporosis is the most common contributing factor of spinal fractures, which characteristically are not generally known to produce spinal cord compression symptoms. Recently, an increasing number of medical reports have implicated osteoporotic fractures as a cause of serious neurological deficit and painful disabling spinal deformities. This has been corroborated by the present authors as well. These complications are only amenable to surgical management, requiring instrumentation. Instrumenting an osteoporotic spine, although a challenging task, can be accomplished if certain guidelines for surgical techniques are respected. Neurological deficits respond equally well to an anterior or posterior decompression, provided this is coupled with multisegmental fixation of the construct. With the steady increase in the elderly population, it is anticipated that the spine surgeon will face serious complications of osteoporotic spines more frequently. With regard to surgery, however, excellent correction of deformities can be achieved, by combining anterior and posterior approaches. Paget's disease of bone (PD) is a non-hormonal osteometabolic disorder and the spine is the second most commonly affected site. About one-third of patients with spinal involvement exhibit symptoms of clinical stenosis. In only 12-24% of patients with PD of the spine is back pain attributed solely to PD, while in the majority of patients, back pain is either arthritic in nature or a combination of a pagetic process and coexisting arthritis. In this context, one must be certain before attributing low back pain to PD exclusively, and antipagetic medical treatment alone may be ineffective. Neural element dysfunction may be attributed to compressive myelopathy by pagetic bone overgrowth, pagetic intraspinal soft tissue overgrowth, ossification of epidural fat, platybasia, spontaneous bleeding, sarcomatous degeneration and vertebral fracture or subluxation. Neural dysfunction can also result from spinal ischemia when blood is diverted by the so-called "arterial steal syndrome". Because the effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment for pagetic spinal stenosis has been clearly demonstrated, surgical decompression should only be instituted after failure of antipagetic medical treatment. Surgery is indicated as a primary treatment when neural compression is secondary to pathologic fractures, dislocations, spontaneous epidural hematoma, syringomyelia, platybasia, or sarcomatous transformation. Five classes of drugs are available for the treatment of PD. Bisphosphonates are the most popular antipagetic drug and several forms have been investigated.