Comparative efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering drugs as adjunctive therapy for adults with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering drugs used as an adjunct to insulin therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 24 January 2020 for randomized controlled trials. Our primary outcome was change in HbA1c. We additionally assessed eight efficacy and six safety secondary endpoints. We performed random effects frequentist network meta-analysis to estimate mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs), alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias and evaluated confidence in the evidence for the primary outcome. RESULTS: We included 58 trials comprising 13 216 participants. Overall, sodium-glucose co-transporter (SGLT) inhibitors, liraglutide, glibenclamide, acarbose and metformin reduced HbA1c compared with placebo (MDs ranging from -0.46% [95% CI -0.64% to -0.29%] for empagliflozin to -0.20% [-0.35% to -0.06%] for metformin). SGLT inhibitors, exenatide daily, liraglutide and metformin reduced body weight and total daily insulin dose, while liraglutide and SGLT inhibitors reduced blood pressure. Diabetic ketoacidosis and genital infections were more frequent with SGLT inhibitors, while exenatide, liraglutide, pramlintide and metformin increased the incidence of nausea. No drug increased the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia. Confidence in evidence was mainly moderate to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Specific drugs may improve glycaemic control and reduce body weight, blood pressure and total daily insulin dose in patients with type 1 diabetes. However, low quality of evidence and an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis, genital infections or gastrointestinal adverse events should be taken into consideration by healthcare providers and patients. Future long-term trials are needed to clarify their benefit-to-risk profile and elucidate their role in clinical practice.

Patients' and Clinicians' Preferences on Outcomes and Medication Attributes for Type 2 Diabetes: a Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients' views on the relative importance of treatment outcomes and medication attributes for type 2 diabetes may differ from clinicians' perceptions. OBJECTIVE: To assess which treatment outcomes and medication attributes are considered important by patients and clinicians for therapeutic decisions in type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Exploratory, sequential, mixed-methods design comprising a qualitative (focus groups) and a quantitative (survey) phase. PARTICIPANTS: Patients in the focus groups (n = 33) and the survey study (n = 656) were recruited from 4 and 9 diabetes clinics across Greece, respectively. Clinicians in the survey study (n = 363) were identified from Greek registries for healthcare professionals. MEASUREMENTS: We conducted 6 focus groups to obtain patients' views regarding the impact of type 2 diabetes on their lives. Identified themes informed the development of a survey, which aimed to assess which outcomes and medication attributes are considered most important by patients and clinicians. We calculated odds ratios to compare patients' and clinicians' responses. RESULTS: The focus groups identified 6 main themes and 15 subthemes. In the survey study, patients were more likely than clinicians to rate prevention of amputation (odds ratio, 9.32; 95% CI, 6.51 to 13.35), diabetic eye disease (6.16; 4.63 to 8.21), sexual dysfunction, and stroke as important, while clinicians were more likely than patients to choose risk for hypoglycemia, and reduction of all-cause mortality, HbA1c, and body weight. Compared with clinicians, patients were less concerned about drug cost (0.16; 0.11 to 0.23), but more concerned about route of administration and need for less frequent glucose self-monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and clinicians differ in the perception of the relative importance of treatment outcomes and drug characteristics. Individual patient preferences should be explored and implemented in the therapeutic decision-making for type 2 diabetes.

Effect of liraglutide on ambulatory blood pressure in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

AIMS: To assess the effect of liraglutide on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate in patients with hypertension (pre- and stage 1 hypertension) and inadequately controlled Type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin 7%-10% [53-86 mmol/mol]). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients for this investigator-initiated, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind trial were on stable background antihyperglycaemic therapy excluding insulin, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors. Participants were centrally randomized in a 1:1 ratio to daily liraglutide 0.6 mg, titrated to 1.2 mg after the first week, or placebo for 5 weeks. The primary outcome was change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP), and secondary outcomes included change in ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate. We also assessed renal sodium handling. RESULTS: Of 87 patients assessed for eligibility, 62 (66.1% men) with a mean age of 60.2 years were randomized to liraglutide (n = 31) or placebo (n = 31). All participants received background therapy with metformin, whilst 35.5% were treated concomitantly with sulphonylureas and 14.5% with pioglitazone. Compared with placebo, liraglutide reduced 24-hour SBP by -5.73 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] -9.81 to -1.65) and had a neutral effect on 24-hour DBP (mean difference - 1.42 mm Hg; 95% CI -4.25 to 1.40), whilst increasing 24-hour heart rate by 6.16 beats/min (95% CI 3.25 to 9.07). Findings were consistent for daytime and night-time measurements. Liraglutide did not increase urine sodium excretion. CONCLUSION: Based on 24-hour ambulatory measurements, short-term treatment with liraglutide had a favourable effect on SBP whilst increasing heart rate.

Comparative Benefits and Harms of Basal Insulin Analogues for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Background: Basal insulin analogues aim for protracted glycemic control with minimal adverse effects. Purpose: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of basal insulin analogues for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Data Sources: Several databases from inception to April 2018 without language restrictions, ClinicalTrials.gov to April 2018, references of reviews, and meeting abstract books. Study Selection: Randomized trials lasting at least 12 weeks that compared efficacy (change in hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] level from baseline [primary outcome]; percentage of patients with HbA1c level <7% at end of study and change in body weight [secondary outcomes]) and safety (hypoglycemia) of basal insulin analogues. Data Extraction: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each outcome. All authors evaluated overall confidence in the evidence. Data Synthesis: Thirty-nine trials (26 195 patients) assessed 10 basal insulin analogues. Low- to very-low-quality evidence indicated that thrice-weekly degludec (Deg-3TW) was inferior to most other regimens for reducing HbA1c level, with mean differences ranging from 0.21% (vs. degludec, 100 U/mL [Deg-100]) to 0.32% (vs. glargine, 300 U/mL [Glar-300]). High- to moderate-quality evidence suggested that detemir had a favorable weight profile versus all comparators, and Glar-300 was associated with less weight gain than glargine, 100 U/mL (Glar-100); Deg-100; degludec, 200 U/mL (Deg-200); Deg-3TW; and LY2963016. Low- and very-low-quality evidence suggested that Deg-100, Deg-200, and Glar-300 were associated with lower incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia than detemir, Glar-100, LY2963016, and neutral protamine lispro (NPL). Incidence of severe hypoglycemia did not differ among regimens, except NPL, which was associated with increased risk versus Deg-100, detemir, Glar-100, and Glar-300. Limitations: Results are based mostly on indirect comparisons. Confidence in summary estimates is low or very low due to individual-study limitations, imprecision, or inconsistency. Conclusion: Low-quality evidence suggests that basal insulin analogues for T2DM do not substantially differ in their glucose-lowering effect. Low- and very-low-quality evidence suggests some regimens may be associated with lower risk for nocturnal hypoglycemia (Deg-100, Deg-200, and Glar-300) or less weight gain (detemir and Glar-300). Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42016037055).

Artificial pancreas treatment for outpatients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of artificial pancreas treatment in non-pregnant outpatients with type 1 diabetes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and grey literature up to 2 February 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials in non-pregnant outpatients with type 1 diabetes that compared the use of any artificial pancreas system with any type of insulin based treatment. Primary outcome was proportion (%) of time that sensor glucose level was within the near normoglycaemic range (3.9-10 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes included proportion (%) of time that sensor glucose level was above 10 mmol/L or below 3.9 mmol/L, low blood glucose index overnight, mean sensor glucose level, total daily insulin needs, and glycated haemoglobin. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess study quality. RESULTS: 40 studies (1027 participants with data for 44 comparisons) were included in the meta-analysis. 35 comparisons assessed a single hormone artificial pancreas system, whereas nine comparisons assessed a dual hormone system. Only nine studies were at low risk of bias. Proportion of time in the near normoglycaemic range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was significantly higher with artificial pancreas use, both overnight (weighted mean difference 15.15%, 95% confidence interval 12.21% to 18.09%) and over a 24 hour period (9.62%, 7.54% to 11.7%). Artificial pancreas systems had a favourable effect on the proportion of time with sensor glucose level above 10 mmol/L (-8.52%, -11.14% to -5.9%) or below 3.9 mmol/L (-1.49%, -1.86% to -1.11%) over 24 hours, compared with control treatment. Robustness of findings for the primary outcome was verified in sensitivity analyses, by including only trials at low risk of bias (11.64%, 9.1% to 14.18%) or trials under unsupervised, normal living conditions (10.42%, 8.63% to 12.2%). Results were consistent in a subgroup analysis both for single hormone and dual hormone artificial pancreas systems. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial pancreas systems are an efficacious and safe approach for treating outpatients with type 1 diabetes. The main limitations of current research evidence on artificial pancreas systems are related to inconsistency in outcome reporting, small sample size, and short follow-up duration of individual trials.

A Rare Case of Disseminated Pyogenic Gonococcal Infection in an Immunocompetent Woman.

We present a case of previously healthy, immunocompetent, 41-year-old woman who developed systemic inflammatory response syndrome secondary to Neisseria gonorrhoeae bacteremia. Clinical course was complicated by the simultaneous formation of multiple muscular abscesses, epidural abscess, and septic spondylodiscitis. The patient responded well to prolonged ceftriaxone treatment and was released 10 weeks after initial admission. Spinal lesions and/or pyomyositis individually constitute rare complications of disseminated gonococcal infection. This case, combining both manifestations, is to our knowledge unique. Apropos, diversity of the clinical presentation, and therapeutic challenges for this historical disease are discussed for the practicing physician.

High-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and metabolic disorders in obese and overweight children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: To compare high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels in obese and overweight children and adolescents to normal-weight individuals as well as to compare hsCRP levels in overweight children/adolescents with and without additional metabolic disorders such as metabolic syndrome (MS), non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and prediabetes. METHODS: 54 consecutive obese children and adolescents with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 95th centile and 50 overweight children and adolescents with BMI values between 85th and 95th centiles were screened for MS, prediabetes and NAFLD. Serum hsCRP levels were measured in all the participants and in 40 age-matched normal-weight individuals (controls). RESULTS: HsCRP levels were significantly increased in obese and overweight subjects as compared to the control group, (0.61 ± 1.08 vs. 0.05 ± 0.18 mg/dL,p<0.001 and 0.33 ± 0.25 vs. 0.05 ± 0.18 mg/dL, p<0.001, respectively). HsCRP levels were similar between obese and overweight subjects (p=0.109). Obese and overweight children with NAFLD had significantly higher levels of hsCRP compared to their counterparts without NAFLD (0.78 ± 1.4 vs. 0.34 ± 0.31 mg/dL, p=0.016). The levels of hsCRP were comparable in the obese and overweight children/adolescents with and without MS and with or without prediabetes(0.95 ± 1.66 vs. 0.35 ± 0.27 mg/dL, p = 0.096 and 0.43 ± 0.34 vs. 0.53 ± 1.0mg/dL, p=0.589, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: HsCRP is significantly elevated in children and adolescents with excess weight as compared to normal-weight individuals. In addition,children and adolescents with excessive weight and NAFLD show increased levels of hsCRP compared to their counterparts with normal liver.