RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Despite expert consensus guidelines, data is scarce on how to switch patients with type 2 diabetes when treatment with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists is not effective and whether a switch to semaglutide brings any benefit on glucose and weight control for patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes who were switched from any GLP-1 agonist in a stable dose to subcutaneously administered semaglutide. Primary endpoint was change of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at 6 months. Secondary endpoints were weight, body mass index (BMI), heart rate, blood pressure and adverse events. RESULTS: In total, 77 patients (median age 65 years) with long-standing type 2 diabetes (median 15 years, median HbA1c 8.4%/68 mmol/l, median BMI 33 kg/m2) were included. HbA1c was significantly lower 6 months after switching to semaglutide (7.3%; 56 mmol/l). Median body weight was significantly lower at 3 months (94 kg) and 6 months (93 kg) compared to baseline (98 kg). An equipotential dose switch of semaglutide was used in 61 patients (79%) and a stepwise initiation approach was used in 16 patients (21%). Both treatment regimens improved glucose control and weight. Side effects occurred in 28 patients (36%). CONCLUSION: Switching to semaglutide from established GLP-1 analogue therapy improved HbA1c and body weight. Both equipotential and stepwise dosing initiation appear to be effective and well tolerated.
RESUMO
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170251.].
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The recent crisis of refugees seeking asylum in European countries challenges public health on many levels. Most refugees currently arrive from Syria, Afghanistan, or Eritrea. Data about multidrug resistant bacteria (MDR) prevalence are not present for these countries. However, when entering the European heath care systems, data about colonisation rates regarding highly resistant bacterial pathogens are important. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional screening in four Swiss refugee centres to determine the colonization rates for MRSA and ESBL- and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. We used pharyngeal, nasal, and inguinal swabs for MRSA and rectal swabs and urine for ESBL and carbapenemase screening using standard microbiological procedures. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was used to determine the relatedness of MRSA isolates with high resolution due to a suspected outbreak. RESULTS: 41/261(15.7%) refugees were colonized with MRSA. No differences regarding the country of origin were observed. However, in a single centre significantly more were colonized, which was confirmed to be a recent local outbreak. 57/241 (23.7%) refugees were colonized with ESBL with significantly higher colonisation in persons originating from the Middle East (35.1%, p<0.001). No carbapenemase producers were detected. CONCLUSION: The colonisation rate of the refugees was about 10 times higher for MRSA and 2-5 times higher for ESBL compared to the Swiss population. Contact precaution is warranted for these persons if they enter medical care. In cases of infections, MRSA and ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae should be considered regarding antibiotic treatment choices.
