Vaccination adherence to influenza, pneumococcal and hepatitis B virus in adult type 1 diabetes mellitus patients.

AIM: To document adherence to influenza, pneumococcal and hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination programme in adult type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational retrospective study using data obtained from computerized clinical records. We contacted all adult T1DM registered in our database from a tertiary diabetes care hospital. Primary efficacy outcome was to describe influenza, pneumococcal and HBV vaccination status. RESULTS: Three hundred patients were analyzed (male 53%). Mean age was 40.0±14.4years and T1DM duration was 19.7±11.8years. Thirty-five percent of the patients had complementary indications for studied vaccines. Adherence to vaccination program for influenza, pneumococcal and HBV was achieved by 55%, 18% and 17% of the patients, respectively. Only 3% of the subjects were vaccinated against the three microorganisms. Predictor of correct vaccination were: age, shorter diabetes duration, insulin pump treatment, better diabetes control and being a health professional. We detected 17 sick leaves, 127 lost working days and 3 hospitalizations due to flue during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The uptake of recommended vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal and HBV in adult T1DM patients was below desirable levels. A special effort is required to all health professionals to implement immunization among adult people with T1DM. Clinical Trials NCT03478254.

Liraglutide vs. lixisenatide in obese type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: What effect should we expect in routine clinical practice?

AIM: Liraglutide and lixisenatide improved glycemic control, weight and cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. Our objective was to analyze clinical efficacy and safety differences in routine clinical practice. METHODS: A 24-week prospective observational study to compare the effect of liraglutide versus lixisenatide in obese T2DM patients in routine clinical practice. The main objective was to analyze between-group glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) differences at the end of the study. Secondary objectives included differences in body weight, other CVRF, changes in medication, side effects, satisfaction and safety. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (50 liraglutide, 50 lixisenatide) were included. Both groups experienced a decrease in HbA1c values (liraglutide, -1.4%, CI 95% -2, -0.8, P < 0.001 vs. lixisenatide, -0.8%, 95% CI -1.2, -0.5, P < 0.001). No differences were found in final HbA1c values between both groups (liraglutide 7.3 ±â€¯0.9% vs. lixisenatide 7.2 ±â€¯1.5%, P = 0.7). We did not detect between groups differences in anthropometric variables or CVRF at the study end. A lower proportion of patients received treatment with a maximum dose of liraglutide compared with lixisenatide (27% vs. 95%, P < 0.001). In contrast, a greater percentage of patients in the lixisenatide group than in liraglutide group (29% vs. 9%, P = 0.026) intensified treatment by the addition of sodium-glucose transporter type 2 inhibitors. Adverse events were less frequently reported in liraglutide treated patients compared with lixisentatide (80% vs. 96%, P = 0.014). No serious adverse events were detected. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the efficacy and safety of liraglutide and lixisenatide in routine clinical practice. Moreover, a different therapeutic effect between liraglutide and lixisenatide was detected.

[Satisfaction and quality of life evaluation in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus treated using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion compared with multiple daily injections]. / Valoración de la satisfación y calidad de vida en pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 1 en tratamiento con infusión subcutánea continua de insulina comparado con multidosis de insulina.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of life (QOL) and satisfaction (SF) in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) compared with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI). METHOD: A descriptive study was conducted to assess the QOL and SF of 68 patients on CSII or MDI treatment (1:2). The instruments used were, the Spanish version of the Diabetes Quality of Life (EsDQOL) specific for diabetes related QOL, SF-36 for general QOL, and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) for SF evaluation. RESULTS: The EsDQOL scores for patients on CSII therapy were similar to those treated with MDI (87.20±21.11 vs 86.83±20.7, P=.86), with lower scores in the SF-36 questionnaire (66.91±15.76 vs 75.90±14.56, P=.03) except in Health Transition section, where patients treated with CSII showed higher scores (68.75±19.66 vs 57.93±17.18, p=.02). The values obtained in the DTSQ questionnaire were higher in CSII patients compared with the MDI group in last weeks (31.50±4.66 vs 27.83±6.06, p=.01) and last three months periods (13.2±6.73 vs 8.77±7.40, p=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T1DM on CSII therapy showed a poorer global QOL, although they felt more satisfied with their treatment than those treated with MDI. No differences in diabetes related QOL were detected between groups.

Valoración de la satisfación y calidad de vida en pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 1 en tratamiento con infusión subcutánea continua de insulina comparado con multidosis de insulina / Satisfaction and quality of life evaluation in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus treated using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion compared with multiple daily injections

Valorar la calidad de vida ( CV ) y satisfacción (SF) de los pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 1 (DM1) en terapia con infusión subcutánea continua de insulina (ISCI) comparado con los pacientes tratados con multidosis diarias de insulina (MDI). Método Estudio descriptivo valorando la CV y SF de 68 pacientes en tratamiento con ISCI o MDI (1:2). Los instrumentos utilizados fueron la versión española del cuestionario de CV relacionado con diabetes (Diabetes Quality of Life [EsDQOL]) y el cuestionario general de CV SF-36, junto con el test de SF con el tratamiento recibido (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire [DTSQ]). Resultado sLos pacientes en terapia ISCI obtuvieron una puntuación similar a los tratados con MDI en el cuestionario EsDQOL (87,20 ± 21,11 y 86,83 ± 20,78, p = 0,86, respectivamente), aunque mostraron resultados menores en el test SF-36 (66,91 ± 15,76 y 75,90 ± 14,56 p = 0,03, respectivamente) salvo en el apartado transición de salud de este último, que resultó mayor (68,75 ± 19,66 y 57,93 ± 17,18 p = 0,02, respectivamente). Los valores conseguidos en el cuestionario DTSQ fueron mayores en el grupo ISCI frente a MDI en las últimas semanas (31,50 ± 4,66 y 27,83 ± 6,06, p = 0,01, respectivamente) y en los últimos 3 meses (13,20 ± 6,73 y 8,77 ± 7,40, p = 0,01, respectivamente). Conclusiones Los pacientes con DM1 en terapia ISCI mostraron peor CV general aunque se sienten más satisfechos con su tratamiento que los tratados con MDI. No detectamos diferencias en la CV relacionada con diabetes entre ambos grupos de tratamiento (AU)

Objective To assess the quality of life (QOL) and satisfaction (SF) in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) compared with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI).MethodA descriptive study was conducted to assess the QOL and SF of 68 patients on CSII or MDI treatment (1:2). The instruments used were, the Spanish version of the Diabetes Quality of Life (EsDQOL) specific for diabetes related QOL, SF-36 for general QOL, and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) for SF evaluation. Results The Es DQOL scores for patients on CSII therapy were similar to those treated with MDI (87.20 ± 21.11 vs 86.83 ± 20.7, P = .86), with lower scores in the SF-36 questionnaire (66.91 ± 15.76 vs 75.90 ± 14.56, P = .03) except in Health Transition section, where patients treated with CSII showed higher scores (68.75 ± 19.66 vs 57.93 ± 17.18, p = .02). The values obtained in the DTSQ questionnaire were higher in CSII patients compared with the MDI group in last weeks (31.50 ± 4.66 vs 27.83 ± 6.06, p = .01) and last three months periods (13.2 ± 6.73 vs 8.77 ± 7.40, p = .01). Conclusions Patients with T1DM on CSII therapy showed a poorer global QOL, although they felt more satisfied with their treatment than those treated with MDI. No differences in diabetes related QOL were detected between groups (AU)