Different persistence on initial basal supported oral therapy in Type 2 diabetics is associated with unequal distributions of insulin treatment regimens under real-life conditions in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: Results from a representative German database and from two German health services research studies revealed an unequal distribution between basal supported oral therapy (BOT) and basal-bolus therapy (ICT) regimens in Type 2 diabetics treated with either insulin glargine (GLA) or human insulin (Neutral Protamine Hagedorn; NPH). This study assesses whether this unequal distribution could be caused by a different persistence on the initial BOT regimen. METHODS: A Markov model was developed simulating the transition from BOT to ICT during a treatment course of 10 years. Data on persistence with BOT were obtained from the IMS® Disease Analyzer database. The model cohort consisted of German statutorily insured Type 2 diabetics starting a BOT either with insulin glargine or NPH insulin at a ratio of 1 : 1. RESULTS: The number of Type 2 diabetics who switched from BOT to ICT differed between the two groups: After 2 years, 53% of glargine-treated patients and 31% of NPH-treated patients continued the BOT. After 6.5 years, all NPH-treated patients had switched to ICT. However, complete transition to ICT of glargine-treated patients occurred 1.75 years later. In the first quarter of Year 3, the model simulation resulted in BOT : ICT ratios comparable to those found in the real-world settings for GLA- and NPH-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: The simulation indicates that the persistence on the initial basal supported oral therapy is associated with the resulting BOT : ICT ratio. Therefore, the unequal distribution between BOT and ICT of Type 2 diabetics treated with either insulin glargine or NPH insulin might be caused by different persistence on the initial BOT regimen.

Prophylaxis of port system-associated thromboses in advanced oncology patients using heparin flushing.

PURPOSE: Thromboses occur in connection with the use of venous port systems. Valid data on the instillation of heparin-based solutions in the lumen of the port system are lacking. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-three patients with malignancy from 19 centres who had participated in an observation study of subcutaneous thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin-Na (Fragmin P/-Forte) were analysed with a view to flushing the port systems and investigating any related influence on the occurrence of catheter-associated thromboses. RESULTS: All catheter-associated thromboses were seen in centres which used either no UFH, or UFH concentrations of up to 250 IU/ml (8/108; 7.4%). The rate of thrombosis rose to 10% (6/60) if no high-risk dose of dalteparin was applied subcutaneously. On the other hand, the rate of catheter-associated thromboses under the high-risk dose of dalteparin and/or a more highly concentrated instillation fluid, at 0.9% (1/113), was much lower. One haemorrhage from gastric ulcer occurred under the highest UFH concentration in the instillation fluid (2,500 IU UFH/ml). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that a concentration between 500 IU UFH/ml and 1,000 IU UFH/ml in the instillation solution, at the same time as high-risk prophylaxis with subcutaneous dalteparin for prevention of catheter-associated thromboses, is effective in patients with manifest tumour disease. The instillation of LMWH-based solutions at a concentration of approx 500 anti-Xa units/ml should be discussed as a pending issue.