Tennis elbow, study protocol for a randomized clinical trial: needling with and without platelet-rich plasma after failure of up-to-date rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: The conservative management of lateral epicondylitis is known to be a difficult-to-treat annoying condition. A treatment with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is often performed, but its efficacy remains controversial. METHODS: This study is a single-center, randomized double-blind controlled trial, preceded by a case series. All the 232 planned patients of the case series will undergo an up-to-date comprehensive rehabilitation program, including focused extracorporeal shock waves therapy. This rehabilitation program is expected to have a maximum success rate 75%. It is therefore aimed to allocate a minimum of 58 patients with rehabilitation failure into the 1:1 randomized trial. Stratification is planned on age and lesion pattern. The masking will be quadruple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator & Outcome Assessor). The patients will undergo an ultrasound (US)-guided needling combined with either PRP (intervention group) or saline (control group). The primary endpoint will be the pain improvement from baseline (month 0) at 3 months on a 0-10 visual analog scale (VAS) during a maximal strength isometric contraction of the extensor carpialis brevis muscle. The main secondary endpoints will include the rehabilitation success rate and improvements from baseline at 3, 6, and 12 months of the following outcomes: (i) Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, (ii) Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) score, (iii) maximal grip strength on Jamar test, and (iv) the ultrasonographic evaluation of the US of the epicondylar tendons. DISCUSSION: The study results will provide insight into the effect of PRP as adjuvant therapy to tendon fenestration, and may contribute to identify the best preceding and concomitant rehabilitation protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03987256. Registered on 20 August 2019.

Long-term efficacy and safety of insulin detemir compared to Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes using a treat-to-target basal-bolus regimen with insulin aspart at meals: a 2-year, randomized, controlled trial.

AIMS: This 24-month, multi-national, open-label, parallel group trial investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of insulin detemir and Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin in combination with mealtime insulin aspart in patients with Type 1 diabetes using a treat-to-target concept. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to detemir (n = 331) or NPH (n = 166) groups. Basal insulin was initiated once daily (evening) and titrated individually based on self-measured plasma glucose (PG) levels, aiming for pre-breakfast and pre-dinner targets < or = 6.0 mmol/l. A second basal morning dose could be added according to pre-defined criteria. RESULTS: After 24 months, superiority of glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) was achieved with detemir compared to NPH (detemir 7.36%, NPH 7.58%, mean difference -0.22% points) [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.41 to -0.03%], with reductions of 0.94% and 0.72% points, respectively. Fasting PG (FPG(lab)) was also lower with detemir (detemir 8.35 mmol/l, NPH 9.43 mmol/l; P = 0.019). Twenty-two per cent of patients treated with detemir reached an HbA(1c) < or = 7.0% in the absence of confirmed hypoglycaemia during the last month of treatment vs. 13% on NPH (P = 0.019). Risk of major and nocturnal hypoglycaemia was 69% and 46% lower with detemir than with NPH (P < 0.001), respectively; patients treated with detemir gained less weight (detemir 1.7 kg, NPH 2.7 kg; P = 0.024). The overall safety profile was similar in the two groups and treatment with detemir did not result in any unexpected findings. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with the insulin analogues detemir + aspart was superior to NPH + aspart in reducing HbA(1c), with added benefits of less major and nocturnal hypoglycaemia and less weight gain.

Insulin detemir and insulin aspart: a promising basal-bolus regimen for type 2 diabetes.

This trial compared the efficacy and safety of basal-bolus therapy using either the soluble basal insulin analogue insulin detemir (IDet) in combination with meal-time rapid-acting analogue insulin aspart (IAsp), or NPH insulin (NPH) in combination with meal-time regular human insulin (HSI). This was a 22-week, multinational, open-labelled, symmetrically randomised, parallel group trial including 395 people with type 2 diabetes (IDet + IAsp: 195, NPH + HSI: 200). At 22 weeks, HbA1c was comparable between treatments (IDet + IAsp: 7.46%, NPH + HSI: 7.52%, P = 0.515) with decreases from baseline of 0.65% and 0.58%, respectively. Treatment with IDet + IAsp was associated with a significantly lower within-person variation in self-measured fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (SD:1.20 versus 1.54 mmol/L, p < 0.001), as well as a lower body weight gain (0.51 versus 1.13 kg, p = 0.038) than with NPH + HSI. The risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was 38% lower with IDet + IAsp than with NPH + HSI, but statistical significance was not attained (P = 0.14). The overall safety profile was similar between the two treatments. Basal-bolus treatment with IDet + IAsp is an effective and well tolerated insulin regimen in people with type 2 diabetes, resulting in glycaemic control comparable to that of NPH + HSI, but with the advantages of less weight gain and a lower day-to-day within-person variation in FPG.

[Hypertension and diabetes mellitus]. / Hipertensija i dijabetes melitus.

AIM: To evaluate hypertension in patients with Diabetes Mellitus (DM) and its correlation with age, duration of DM, Body Mass Index (BMI) and HbA1C). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was made on 1211 patients with DM (male 554 and female 657), hospitalized at Clinic of Endocrinology between January 2001 and December 2002. Patients were divided in two groups: Control group (CG)-subdivided into 3 groups patients with DM type 1 (CG-1), DM type 2 on oral anti-hyper-glycemic agents (CG-2)and DM type 2 on insulin therapy (CG-3) and Examined Group (EG), the same groups for diabetes, including hypertension. RESULTS: We found hypertension in 12.6% patients with DM type 1, 30.5% in DM type 2 on oral anti-hyper-glycemic agents and 33.4% in DM type 2 on insulin therapy. CONCLUSION: Hypertension is mostly presented in DM type 2 patients (33,4%), instead of 12.6% in DM type 1. There is statistical significance (p<0.05) between duration of DM in patients with and without hypertension.

Twice daily biphasic insulin aspart improves postprandial glycaemic control more effectively than twice daily NPH insulin, with low risk of hypoglycaemia, in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp30) is a dual release formulation, containing 30% soluble and 70% protamine-crystallized insulin aspart. This study compared the glycaemic control and safety profiles achieved with either twice daily BIAsp30 or NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes not optimally controlled by oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHAs), NPH insulin or a combination of both. METHODS: In this 16-week multinational, parallel-group, double-blind trial, 403 such patients were randomized to receive either BIAsp30 or NPH insulin immediately before breakfast and evening meals. OHAs were discontinued at randomization. Efficacy was assessed by glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and self-recorded daily 8-point blood glucose (BG) profiles. Hypoglycaemic and other adverse events were the chosen safety parameters. RESULTS: HbA1c concentration decreased by >0.6% (p < 0.0001 vs. baseline) in both groups, with metabolic control continuing to improve throughout the trial without reaching a stable level. Patients who switched from once or twice daily NPH monotherapy to twice daily BIAsp30 achieved a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c (0.78%) than those randomized to twice daily NPH insulin (0.58%; p = 0.03). BIAsp30 decreased mean daily postprandial glycaemic exposure to a greater extent than NPH insulin (mean difference = 0.69 mmol/l; p < 0.0001), reflecting greater decreases in the postbreakfast and postdinner increments (of 1.26 and 1.33 mmol/l, respectively), although postlunch increment was relatively increased (by 0.56 mmol/l). Despite the greater reduction in overall postprandial glycaemic exposure in the BIAsp30 group, the overall safety profile of BIAsp30 was equivalent to that of NPH insulin with <2% of patients experiencing major hypoglycaemia, and approximately 33% reporting minor hypoglycaemic episodes, in both groups. CONCLUSION: Twice daily BIAsp30 reduced postprandial glucose exposure to a significantly greater extent than NPH insulin and was at least as effective at reducing HbA1c in patients with type 2 diabetes. Both insulins were well tolerated. In patients poorly controlled on OHAs or NPH alone, glycaemic control can be improved by switching to twice daily BIAsp30, without increasing hypoglycaemic risk.