Glycaemic variability in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with dulaglutide, with and without concomitant insulin: Post hoc analyses of randomized clinical trials.

AIM: To investigate the association between treatment with dulaglutide and glycaemic variability (GV) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post hoc analyses of six randomized, phase 3 studies were conducted to investigate the association between treatment with dulaglutide 1.5 mg once weekly and GV in adult patients with T2D. Using data from seven- and eight-point self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) profiles over up to 28 weeks of treatment, GV in within- and between-day SMPG, and between-day fasting glucose from SMPG (FSMPG) was assessed according to standard deviation and coefficient of variation. RESULTS: Pooled data from five studies with dulaglutide as monotherapy or added to oral glucose-lowering medication, without concomitant insulin treatment, revealed clinically meaningful reductions in within- and between-day SMPG, and between-day FSMPG variability from baseline in the dulaglutide group. Comparisons between treatment groups in two studies demonstrated that reductions from baseline in within-day and between-day SMPG, and between-day FSMPG variability were greater for treatment with dulaglutide compared with insulin glargine, as well as for treatment with dulaglutide when added to insulin glargine compared with insulin glargine alone. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2D, treatment with dulaglutide as monotherapy or added to oral glucose-lowering medication, without concomitant insulin treatment, was potentially associated with a reduction in GV. Treatment with dulaglutide was associated with a reduction in GV to a greater degree than insulin glargine. When added to insulin glargine, treatment with dulaglutide was associated with greater decreases in GV compared with insulin glargine alone. As reduced GV may be associated with better outcomes, these findings may have clinical relevance.

Prevalence Rates of Primary Headache Disorders and Evaluation and Treatment Patterns Among Korean Neurologists.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Several studies have found that the prevalence of migraine is higher among healthcare professionals than in the general population. Furthermore, several investigations have suggested that the personal experiences of neurologists with migraine can influence their perception and treatment of the disease. This study assessed these relationships in Korea. METHODS: A survey was used to investigate the following characteristics among neurologists: 1) the prevalence rates of migraine, primary stabbing headache, and cluster headache, and 2) their perceptions of migraine and the pain severity experienced by patients, diagnosing migraine, evaluation and treatment patterns, and satisfaction and difficulties with treatment. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 442 actively practicing board-certified Korean neurologists. The self-reported lifetime prevalence rates of migraine, migraine with aura, primary stabbing headache, and cluster headache were 49.8%, 12.7%, 26.7%, and 1.4%, respectively. Few of the neurologists used a headache diary or validated scales with their patients, and approximately half were satisfied with the effectiveness of preventive medications. Significant differences were observed between neurologists who had and had not experienced migraine, regarding certain perceptions of migraine, but no differences were found between these groups in the evaluation and preventive treatment of migraine. CONCLUSIONS: The high self-reported lifetime prevalence rates of migraine and other primary headache disorders among Korean neurologists may indicate that these rates are underreported in the general population, although potential population biases must be considered. From the perspective of neurologists, there is an unmet need for the proper application of headache diaries, validated scales, and effective preventive treatments for patients. While the past experiences of neurologists with migraine might not influence how they evaluate or apply preventive treatments to migraine, they may influence certain perceptions of the disease.