7 research outputs found
Identification of the Inappropriate Clinical Actions (DON'T) to Improve the Management of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Failing Basal Insulin Supported Oral Treatment: Results of Survey for a Panel of Diabetes Specialists in Italy
No full textIntroduction Despite the development of several recommendations, glycemic control in a large proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes, including those treated with insulin, remains suboptimal. This study is aimed to identify a set of actions to promote the reduction of inappropriate clinical practices in type 2 diabetes failing basal insulin supported oral therapy (BOT). Methods A panel of diabetes specialists was assembled to identify a list of ten corrective actions, "things not to do," for the management of type 2 diabetes: five concerning treatments, procedures and diagnostic tests and five about relationship, communication and information. The Choosing Wisely methodology and approach were the inspiration. Results A total of 73/73 (100%) panelists responded to the survey. Twenty-four actions were proposed. The final list of inappropriate actions deemed most important to improve the management of patients with type 2 diabetes failing BOT were: (1) do not use secretagogues-do not neglect the use of innovative glucose-lowering agents; (2) do not underestimate the risk of lack of hypoglycemia awareness; (3) do not underestimate the benefit of personalization of therapy; (4) do not delay insulin intensification; (5) do not delay modification of the therapeutic regimen. In the area of patient communication, the following actions were identified: (1) do not fail to train in the management of hypoglycemia; (2) do not underestimate whether the patient has understood the modification of therapy; (3) do not prescribe injection therapy without adequately instructing the patient to titrate it; (4) do not ignore the patient's adherence; (5) do not stop listening to the patient and verify learning. Conclusion A set of corrective experience-based actions to enact in a timely manner, which can assist physicians in improving clinical outcomes and patients' needs in terms of communications and interaction, is proposed. The list is intended to promote discussions among diabetes specialists to provide high-value diabetes care
Blood pressure and cholesterol levels in an Italian outpatient cohort of type 2 diabetic patients: Comparison with the general population
No full textThe remission clinic approach to halt the progression of kidney disease
No full textRandomized multicenter studies in diabetic and nondiabetic patients with chronic proteinuric nephropathies have clearly demonstrated that renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) used alone or in combination, effectively retard renal disease progression. Proteinuria reduction, in addition to arterial blood pressure control, largely mediates the nephroprotective effect of RAS inhibitor therapy. Despite RAS inhibition, however, most patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) progress to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). This highlights the importance of innovative therapies to halt or revert CKD progression in those at risk. Along this line, a multimodal strategy (Remission Clinic) targeting urinary proteins by dual RAS inhibition with ACE inhibitors and ARBs up-titrated to maximum tolerated doses, by intensified blood pressure control, amelioration of dyslipidemia by statins, smoking cessation and healthy lifestyle implementation was safely and effectively applied at our outpatient clinic to normalize urinary proteins and prevent renal function loss in patients otherwise predicted to rapidly progress to ESRD because of nephrotic-range proteinuria refractory to standard antihypertensive dosages of an ACE inhibitor. This approach achieved remission or regression of proteinuria and stabilized kidney function in most cases, and almost fully prevented progression to ESRD. Provided patients are closely monitored and treatment is cautiously up-titrated according to tolerability, this approach might be safely applied in day-by-day hospital practice. Effective prevention of ESRD would reduce costs of renal replacement therapy by dialysis or transplantation and would be life-saving where these are not available for all patients in need
Sitagliptin Treatment at the Time of Hospitalization Was Associated With Reduced Mortality in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and COVID-19: A Multicenter, Case-Control, Retrospective, Observational Study
No full textOBJECTIVE
Poor outcomes have been reported in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); thus, it is mandatory to explore novel therapeutic approaches
for this population.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In a multicenter,case-control,retrospective,observational study,sitagliptin,an oral and highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, was added to standard of care (e.g., insulin administration) at the time of hospitalization in patients with type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized with COVID-19. Every center also recruited at a 1:1 ratio untreated control subjects matched for age and sex.All patients had pneumonia and exhibited oxygen saturation < 95% when breathing ambient air or when receivingoxygen support. The primary end points were discharge from the hospital/death and improvement of clinical outcomes, defined as an increase in at least two points on a seven-category modified ordinal scale. Data were collected retrospectively from patients receiving sitagliptin from 1 March through 30 April 2020.
RESULTSOf the 338 consecutive patients with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19 admitted in Northern Italy hospitals included in this study, 169 were on sitagliptin, while169 were on standard of care. Treatment with sitagliptin at the time of hospitalization was associated with reduced mortality (18%vs. 37%of deceased patient);hazard ratio 0.44 [95% CI 0.29–0.66];P<0.0001), with an improvement in clinical outcomes (60% vs. 38% of improved patients;P<0.0001) and with a greater number of hospital discharges (120 vs. 89 of discharged patients;P<0.0008)
compared with patients receiving standard of care, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS In this multicenter, case-control,retrospective,observational study of patients withtype 2 diabetes admitted to the hospital for COVID-19, sitagliptin treatment at the
time of hospitalization was associated with reduced mortality and improved clinicaloutcomesascomparedwithstandard-of-caretreatment.Theeffects of sitagliptinin patients with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19 should be confirmed in an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trial
Correction to: Screening of postpartum diabetes in women with gestational diabetes: high‐risk subgroups and areas for improvements—the STRONG observational study (Acta Diabetologica, (2021), 58, 9, (1187-1197), 10.1007/s00592-021-01707-9)
No full textAuthors would like to correct the error in their publication. Figure 3 contains a part in Italian language which is now removed. The collaborator author names were tagged only in the author group but missed to process in Acknowledgements section. The collaborator author names now updated as Study group in the Acknowledgements section. The original article has been corrected
Effects of manidipine and delapril in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: The delapril and manidipine for nephroprotection in diabetes (DEMAND) randomized clinical trial
No full textTo assess whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and third-generation dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers ameliorate diabetic complications, we compared glomerular filtration rate (GFR; primary outcome), cardiovascular events, retinopathy, and neuropathy in 380 hypertensive type 2 diabetics with albuminuria >200 mg/min included in a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (DEMAND [Delapril and Manidipine for Nephroprotection in Diabetes]) and randomized to 3-year treatment with manidipine/delapril combination (10/30 mg/d; n=126), delapril (30 mg/d; n=127), or placebo (n=127). GFR was centrally measured by iohexol plasma clearance. Median monthly GFR decline (interquartile range [IQR]) was 0.32 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 (IQR: 0.16-0.50 mL/min per 1.73 m 2) on combined therapy, 0.36 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 (IQR: 0.18-0.53 mL/min per 1.73 m 2) on delapril, and 0.30 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 (IQR: 0.12- 0.50 mL/min per 1.73 m 2) on placebo (P=0.87 and P=0.53 versus combined therapy or delapril, respectively). Similar findings were observed when baseline GFR values were not considered for slope analyses. Albuminuria was stable in the 3 treatment groups. The hazard ratio (95% CI) for major cardiovascular events between combined therapy and placebo was 0.17 (0.04-0.78; P=0.023). Among 192 subjects without retinopathy at inclusion, the hazard ratio for developing retinopathy between combined therapy and placebo was 0.27 (0.07-0.99; P=0.048). Among 200 subjects with centralized neurological evaluation, the odds ratios for peripheral neuropathy at 3 years between combined therapy or delapril and placebo were 0.45 (0.24-0.87; P=0.017) and 0.52 (0.27-0.99; P=0.048), respectively. Glucose disposal rate decreased from 5.8±2.4 to 5.3±1.9 mg/kg per min on placebo (P=0.03) but did not change on combined or delapril therapy. Treatment was well tolerated. In hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients, combined manidipine and delapril therapy failed to slow GFR decline but safely ameliorated cardiovascular disease, retinopathy, and neuropathy and stabilized insulin sensitivity
Effects on the incidence of cardiovascular events of the addition of pioglitazone versus sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin (TOSCA.IT): a randomised, multicentre trial
No full textBACKGROUND:
The best treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes in whom treatment with metformin alone fails to achieve adequate glycaemic control is debated. We aimed to compare the long-term effects of pioglitazone versus sulfonylureas, given in addition to metformin, on cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes.
METHODS:
TOSCA.IT was a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic clinical trial, in which patients aged 50-75 years with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy (2-3 g per day) were recruited from 57 diabetes clinics in Italy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by permuted blocks randomisation (block size 10), stratified by site and previous cardiovascular events, to add-on pioglitazone (15-45 mg) or a sulfonylurea (5-15 mg glibenclamide, 2-6 mg glimepiride, or 30-120 mg gliclazide, in accordance with local practice). The trial was unblinded, but event adjudicators were unaware of treatment assignment. The primary outcome, assessed with a Cox proportional-hazards model, was a composite of first occurrence of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or urgent coronary revascularisation, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned participants with baseline data available and without any protocol violations in relation to inclusion or exclusion criteria). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00700856.
FINDINGS:
Between Sept 18, 2008, and Jan 15, 2014, 3028 patients were randomly assigned and included in the analyses. 1535 were assigned to pioglitazone and 1493 to sulfonylureas (glibenclamide 24 [2%], glimepiride 723 [48%], gliclazide 745 [50%]). At baseline, 335 (11%) participants had a previous cardiovascular event. The study was stopped early on the basis of a futility analysis after a median follow-up of 57·3 months. The primary outcome occurred in 105 patients (1·5 per 100 person-years) who were given pioglitazone and 108 (1·5 per 100 person-years) who were given sulfonylureas (hazard ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·74-1·26, p=0·79). Fewer patients had hypoglycaemias in the pioglitazone group than in the sulfonylureas group (148 [10%] vs 508 [34%], p<0·0001). Moderate weight gain (less than 2 kg, on average) occurred in both groups. Rates of heart failure, bladder cancer, and fractures were not significantly different between treatment groups.
INTERPRETATION:
In this long-term, pragmatic trial, incidence of cardiovascular events was similar with sulfonylureas (mostly glimepiride and gliclazide) and pioglitazone as add-on treatments to metformin. Both of these widely available and affordable treatments are suitable options with respect to efficacy and adverse events, although pioglitazone was associated with fewer hypoglycaemia events
