Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Diabetes Care ; 42(9): 1716-1723, 2019 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31177179

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: While sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor (SGLTi) therapy has been evaluated in type 1 diabetes (T1D) trials, patient reactions to benefits and risks are unknown. Using established methodology, we evaluated patient preferences for different adjunct-to-insulin therapy options in T1D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: An online survey, completed by 701 respondents with T1D (231 U.S., 242 Canada, and 228 Germany), used conjoint analysis to present six hypothetical, masked, pairwise drug profile choices composed of different benefit-risk attributes and effect ranges. Data used in analyses were derived from actual phase 3 trials of a low-dose SGLTi (comparable to oral empagliflozin 2.5 mg q.d.), a high-dose SGLTi (comparable to oral sotagliflozin 400 mg q.d.), and an available adjunct-to-insulin therapy (comparable to subcutaneous pramlintide 60 µg t.i.d.). RESULTS: Conjoint analysis identified diabetic ketoacidosis risk as most important to patients (23% relative score; z test, P < 0.05); ranked second were HbA1c reduction (14%), risk of severe hypoglycemia (13%), oral versus injectable treatment (12%), and risk of genital infection (12%). Next was risk of nausea (11%), followed by weight reduction (8%) and the risk of diarrhea (7%). A low-dose SGLTi drug profile was identified by conjoint analysis as the top patient preference (83% of participants; z test, P < 0.05) versus high-dose SGLTi (8%) or pramlintide (9%). Separate from conjoint analysis, when respondents were asked to choose their preferred adjunct-to-insulin therapy (masked to drug name/dose), 69%, 17%, 6%, and 9% of respondents chose low-dose SGLTi, high-dose SGLTi, pramlintide, and insulin therapy alone, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose SGLTi profile was the favored adjunct-to-insulin therapy by persons with T1D.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Insulina/administração & dosagem , Preferência do Paciente , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Ensaios Clínicos Fase III como Assunto , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/psicologia , Cetoacidose Diabética/etiologia , Cetoacidose Diabética/psicologia , Quimioterapia Combinada , Feminino , Humanos , Hipoglicemia/etiologia , Hipoglicemia/psicologia , Masculino , Redução de Peso/efeitos dos fármacos
2.
Pediatr Diabetes ; 19(7): 1263-1270, 2018 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30014589

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed soluble co-formulation of basal and bolus insulin. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of IDegAsp in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). SUBJECTS: Children and adolescents (aged 1 to <18 years) with T1D. METHODS: A 16-week, phase 3b, treat-to-target, parallel-group, open-label, non-inferiority trial was conducted at 63 sites in 14 countries from October 2013 to November 2014. Patients were randomized 1:1 (age stratified: 1-<6 years; 6-<12 years; 12-<18 years) to IDegAsp once daily (OD) plus insulin aspart (IAsp) for remaining meals (IDegAsp + IAsp), or IDet OD or twice daily plus mealtime IAsp (IDet + IAsp). The primary end-point was HbA1c change from baseline at week 16. RESULTS: A total of 362 participants were randomized to IDegAsp + IAsp (n = 182) or IDet + IAsp (n = 180). HbA1c decreased from baseline to week 16 by 0.3% in both groups (estimated treatment difference: -0.04%-points [-0.23; 0.15]95%CI (-0.45 mmol/mol [-2.51; 1.60]95%CI ), confirming non-inferiority. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in fasting or self-measured plasma glucose. Confirmed hypoglycemia rates did not significantly differ between groups. There was a significant reduction in basal and total insulin dose with IDegAsp + IAsp vs IDet + IAsp (post hoc analysis). Mean number of injections/day was 3.6 and 4.9 with IDegAsp + IAsp and IDet + IAsp, respectively (post hoc analysis). A non-significant higher rate of severe hypoglycemia was observed with IDegAsp + IAsp vs IDet + IAsp. The most frequent adverse events in both groups were hypoglycemia, headache, and nasopharyngitis. CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp + IAsp was non-inferior to IDet + IAsp regarding HbA1c, had similar hypoglycemia rates and required fewer injections.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Insulina de Ação Prolongada/administração & dosagem , Adolescente , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Combinação de Medicamentos , Feminino , Humanos , Hipoglicemia/induzido quimicamente , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Lactente , Insulina de Ação Prolongada/efeitos adversos , Cetose , Masculino
3.
Pediatr Diabetes ; 16(3): 164-76, 2015 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25683037

RESUMO

Insulin degludec (IDeg) once-daily was compared with insulin detemir (IDet) once- or twice-daily, with prandial insulin aspart in a treat-to-target, randomized controlled trial in children 1-17 yr with type 1 diabetes, for 26 wk (n = 350), followed by a 26-wk extension (n = 280). Participants were randomized to receive either IDeg once daily at the same time each day or IDet given once or twice daily according to local labeling. Aspart was titrated according to a sliding scale or in accordance with an insulin:carbohydrate ratio and a plasma glucose correction factor. Randomization was age-stratified: 85 subjects 1-5 yr. (IDeg: 43), 138 6-11 yr (IDeg: 70) and 127 12-17 yr (IDeg: 61) were included. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between groups overall and within each stratification. Non-inferiority of IDeg vs. IDet was confirmed for HbA1c at 26 wk; estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.15% [-0.03; 0.32]95% CI . At 52 wk, HbA1c was 7.9% (IDeg) vs. 7.8% (IDet), NS; change in mean FPG was -1.29 mmol/L (IDeg) vs. +1.10 mmol/L (IDet) (ETD -1.62 mmol/L [-2.84; -0.41]95% CI , p = 0.0090) and mean basal insulin dose was 0.38 U/kg (IDeg) vs. 0.55 U/kg (IDet). The majority of IDet treated patients (64%) required twice-daily administration to achieve glycemic targets. Hypoglycemia rates did not differ significantly between IDeg and IDet, but confirmed and severe hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher with IDeg (57.7 vs. 54.1 patient-years of exposure (PYE) [NS] and 0.51 vs. 0.33, PYE [NS], respectively) although nocturnal hypoglycemia rates were numerically lower (6.0 vs. 7.6 PYE, NS). Rates of hyperglycemia with ketosis were significantly lower for IDeg vs. IDet [0.7 vs. 1.1 PYE, treatment ratio 0.41 (0.22; 0.78)95% CI , p = 0.0066]. Both treatments were well tolerated with comparable rates of adverse events. IDeg achieved equivalent long-term glycemic control, as measured by HbA1c with a significant FPG reduction at a 30% lower basal insulin dose when compared with IDet. Rates of hypoglycemia did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups; however, hyperglycemia with ketosis was significantly reduced in those treated with IDeg.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Insulina Detemir/administração & dosagem , Insulina de Ação Prolongada/administração & dosagem , Adolescente , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/sangue , Cetoacidose Diabética , Quimioterapia Combinada , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/metabolismo , Humanos , Hipoglicemia/induzido quimicamente , Lactente , Insulina Aspart/administração & dosagem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA