1,720,964 research outputs found
Efficacy and safety of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with dual combination of metformin and sulphonylurea
No full textAim
The broadly used combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (SU) often fails to bring patients to glycaemic goal. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin plus glimepiride combination in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had inadequate glycaemic control.
Methods
A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized patients to receive treatment with vildagliptin 50 mg bid (n = 158) or placebo (n = 160) for 24 weeks.
Results
After 24 weeks, the adjusted mean change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was −1.01% with vildagliptin (baseline 8.75%) and −0.25% with placebo (baseline 8.80%), with a between-treatment difference of −0.76% (p < 0.001). Significantly more patients on vildagliptin achieved the HbA1c target <7% (28.3% vs. 5.6%; p < 0.001). The difference in fasting plasma glucose reduction between vildagliptin and placebo was −1.13 mmol/l (p < 0.001). In subgroup of patients with baseline HbA1c ≤8%, vildagliptin reduced HbA1c by 0.74% from baseline 7.82% (between-treatment difference: –0.97%; p < 0.001) with significantly more patients achieving the HbA1c target <7% (38.6% vs. 13.9%; p = 0.014). Vildagliptin was well tolerated with low incidence of hypoglycaemia, slightly higher than with placebo (5.1% vs. 1.9%) and no clinically relevant weight gain.
Conclusions
Vildagliptin significantly improved glycaemic control in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin plus glimepiride combination. The addition of vildagliptin was well tolerated with low risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain. This makes vildagliptin an attractive treatment option for patients failing on metformin plus SU particularly in patients with baseline HbA1c ≤8%
Study to determine the durability of glycaemic control with early treatment with a vildagliptin-metformin combination regimen vs. standard-of-care metformin monotherapy-the VERIFY trial: a randomized double-blind trial.
No full textAIMS:
Durability of good glycaemic control (HbA1c ) is of importance as it can be the foundation for delaying diabetic complications. It has been hypothesized that early initiation of treatment with the combination of oral anti-diabetes agents with complementary mechanisms of action can increase the durability of glycaemic control compared with metformin monotherapy followed by a stepwise addition of oral agents. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are good candidates for early use as they are efficacious in combination with metformin, show weight neutrality and a low risk of hypoglycaemia. We aimed to test the hypothesis that early combined treatment of metformin and vildagliptin slows β-cell deterioration as measured by HbA1c .
METHODS:
Approximately 2000 people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus who were drug-naive or who were treated with metformin for less than 1 month, and who have HbA1c of 48-58 mmol/mol (6.5-7.5%), will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio in VERIFY, a 5-year multinational, double-blind, parallel-group study designed to compare early initiation of a vildagliptin-metformin combination with standard-of-care initiation of metformin monotherapy, followed by the stepwise addition of vildagliptin when glycaemia deteriorates. Further deterioration will be treated with insulin. The primary analysis for treatment failure will be from a Cox proportional hazard regression model and the durability of glycaemic control will be evaluated by assessing treatment failure rate and the rate of loss in glycaemic control over time as co-primary endpoints.
SUMMARY:
VERIFY is the first study to investigate the long-term clinical benefits of early combination treatment vs. the standard-of-care metformin monotherapy with a second agent added by threshold criteria.
© 2014 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes U
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Cardiovascular and heart failure safety profile of vildagliptin: a meta-analysis of 17 000 patients
No full textAims
To report the cardiovascular (CV) safety profile and heart failure (HF) risk of vildagliptin from a large pool of studies, including trials in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), such as those with congestive HF and/or moderate/severe renal impairment.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective meta-analysis of prospectively adjudicated CV events. Patient-level data were pooled from 40 double-blind, randomized controlled phase III and IV vildagliptin studies. The primary endpoint was occurrence of major adverse CV events (MACEs; myocardial infarction, stroke and CV death). Assessments of the individual MACE components and HF events (requiring hospitalization or new onset) were secondary endpoints. The risk ratio (RR) of vildagliptin (50 mg once- and twice-daily combined) versus comparators (placebo and all non-vildagliptin treatments) was calculated using the Mantel–Haenszel (M–H) method.
Results
Of the 17 446 patients, 9599 received vildagliptin (9251.4 subject-years of exposure) and 7847 received comparators (7317.0 subject-years of exposure). The mean age of the patients was 57 years, body mass index 30.5 kg/m2 (nearly 50% obese), glycated haemoglobin concentration 8.1% and T2DM duration 5.5 years. A MACE occurred in 83 (0.86%) vildagliptin-treated patients and 85 (1.20%) comparator-treated patients, with an M-H RR of 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61–1.11]. Similar RRs were observed for the individual events. Confirmed HF events were reported in 41 (0.43%) vildagliptin-treated patients and 32 (0.45%) comparator-treated patients, with an M–H RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.68–1.70).
Conclusions
This large meta-analysis indicates that vildagliptin is not associated with an increased risk of adjudicated MACEs relative to comparators. Moreover, this analysis did not find a significant increased risk of HF in vildagliptin-treated patients
- …
