RESUMEN
Las guías terapéuticas actuales difieren en las recomendaciones para la triple terapia cuando no se consiguen los objetivos con el tratamiento combinado dedos agentes orales. También difieren en el tipo de asociación y en la denominación de triple terapia. En el presente trabajo se realiza una revisión de la evidencia científica existente para determinar si la triple terapia es eficaz y segura, así como la asociación más favorable en el paciente con diabetes tipo 2. Revisando los estudios disponibles, se observa que la triple terapia mejora el control glucémico. Sin embargo, los ensayos clínicos aleatorizados disponibles en general no exceden el año de seguimiento, y no ofrecen datos sobre variables finales como morbilidad y mortalidad. En consecuencia, hasta el momento el beneficio a largo plazo y la seguridad de una triple terapia no están demostrados. En conclusión, con los datos disponibles actualmente no hay razón para retrasar la introducción de la insulina en el tratamiento de los pacientes con diabetes tipo 2 tras el fracaso de una terapia combinada doble, excepto en los casos de resistencia de los pacientes al inicio de la insulinización(AU)
Current guidelines differ in their recommendations for triple therapy when targets are not achieved with a combined treatment of two oral agents. In addition, they diverge also in the type of association and the name given for the triple therapy. In the present manuscript we review the available scientific evidence to determine whether triple therapy is effective and safe, as well as themore favorable association in patients with type 2 diabetes. Reviewing available literature, we have noticed that triple therapy improves glycemic control. However, available randomized control trials do not extend more than one year of follow-up and they dont have data over endpoint variables as morbidity and mortality. Therefore, the long-term safety of triple therapy has not been demonstrated until now. In conclusion, with the currently available data there is no reason to delay introduction of insulin in the treatment of patients with type 2diabetes after failure of dual combination therapy, except in cases of patients resistance to initiate insulin therapy(AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Combinación de MedicamentosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Spanish Family Medicine National Commission is proposing a new portfolio-type Specialist Training Book (STB). OBJECTIVE: To pilot its contents, structure, and implementation strategies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, descriptive study. SETTING: A Provincial Family Medicine Teaching Unit. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight tutors and 36 residents. METHODS: For 9 months the participants conducted a training assessment on diverse areas of competence by means of tasks at work. Tutors recorded information on the quality of reflection achieved by residents and the tasks they performed by means of the card model proposed in the STB. Residents filled in an ad hoc survey. A univariate analysis of quantitative data was conducted. RESULTS: Thirty-three surveys were received from residents; 21 tutors handed in 67 evaluation reports (average: 3 per tutor). They dealt with all the areas of competence, particularly those of communication, teaching, and ethics. Tasks most used were clinical sessions, critical incidents and video-recording. Both tutors and residents thought that the new method could be useful for reflecting on clinical practice, understanding their own areas of competence better and for strengthening the tutor-trainee relationship, especially if some suggestions to improve its practical use and reduce time and effort involved were taken into account. CONCLUSIONS: The new STB in its current version or with some modifications is a useful tool for residents' training assessment and is probably accepted well in our ambit.