The rationale for combining GLP-1 receptor agonists with basal insulin.

• Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is progressive; the more intensively it is treated, the greater is the risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain. Achieving treatment intensification while mitigating these risks presents a challenge to patient management. • Basal insulins provide control of fasting glucose; however, their utility in the control of postprandial glucose excursions is limited. • Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists stimulate glucose-medicated insulin secretion, suppress glucagon secretion, delay gastric emptying and decrease appetite. Use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in combination therapy with basal insulin offers an alternative approach to intensification of insulin therapy. • Prospective interventional trials demonstrate that GLP-1 receptor agonists added to basal insulin decrease postprandial glucose levels, lower HbA1c levels, decrease weight and lower basal insulin requirements without increasing the risk of major hypoglycaemic events. • The current clinical data are limited by the lack of any data on the long-term effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists over additional prandial regimens; they may be beneficial or deleterious. • Although cost, gastrointestinal side effects and long-term safety should be taken into account when considering this combination, it appears to be growing in popularity and is likely to be an important therapeutic option for T2DM in the future.

Capturing the social determinants of health at the individual level: a pilot study.

Objective and importance of study: Considerable evidence suggests that adverse social determinants of health (SDH), such as poor education, unemployment, food and housing insecurity, interpersonal violence, inadequate social support and poverty, are key determinants of health and wellbeing. This prospective cohort study piloted a screening tool to collect individual SDH data in a South Australian hospital inpatient population. We explored participants' attitudes to SDH screening in brief follow-up interviews. METHODS: This mixed-methods study used an SDH screening tool to collect individual-level SDH data from inpatients living in a highly disadvantaged socio-economic area. Participants had a primary diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure (HF) or diabetes mellitus. Follow-up interviews were completed post discharge via telephone. Descriptive statistics were employed to examine the prevalence and type of adverse SDH reported by the sample. Thematic analysis was applied to explore participants' attitudes to the screening. RESULTS: The sample population (N = 37) reported a substantial burden of a range of adverse SDH (mean 4.7 adverse SDH experienced per participant, standard deviation 2.8). Participants involved in follow-up interviews (n = 8) believed screening might enhance communication between healthcare providers and patients and assist in identifying underlying social problems. CONCLUSION: A screening tool for SDH was successfully used to collect individual-level data in a hospital setting. An array of adverse SDH was common in the sample population. Participants believed screening for SDH may potentially benefit doctors and patients. A larger study is required to more robustly characterise the adverse SDH affecting individuals in this population and to explore how the healthcare system might effectively intervene.