-
Therapeutic Advances in Neurological... 2023Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is standard of care for disabling acute ischemic stroke (AIS) within a time window of ⩽ 4.5 h. Some AIS patients cannot be treated...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is standard of care for disabling acute ischemic stroke (AIS) within a time window of ⩽ 4.5 h. Some AIS patients cannot be treated with IVT due to limiting contraindications, including heparin usage in an anticoagulating dose within the past 24 h or an elevated activated prothrombin time (aPTT) > 15 s. Protamine is a potent antidote to unfractionated heparin.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of IVT in AIS patients after antagonization of unfractionated heparin with protamine.
METHODS
Patients from our stroke center (between January 2015 and September 2021) treated with IVT after heparin antagonization with protamine were analyzed. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) was used for stroke severity and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) for outcome assessment. Substantial neurological improvement was defined as the difference between admission and discharge NIHSS of ⩾8 or discharge NIHSS of ⩽1. Good outcome at follow-up after 3 months was defined as mRS 0-2. Safety data were obtained for mortality, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), and for adverse events due to protamine. Second, a systematic review was performed searching PubMed and Scopus for studies and case reviews presenting AIS patients treated with IVT after heparin antagonization with protamine. The search was limited from January 1, 2011 to September 29, 2021. Furthermore, we conducted a propensity score matching comparing protamine-treated patients to a control IVT group without protamine (ratio 2:1, match tolerance 0.2).
RESULTS
A total of 16 patients, 5 treated in our hospital and 11 from literature, [65.2 ± 13.1 years, 37.5% female, median premorbid mRS (pmRS) 1 (IQR 1, 4)] treated with IVT after heparin antagonization using protamine were included and compared to 31 IVT patients [76.2 ± 10.9 years, 45% female, median pmRS 1 (IQR 0, 2)]. Substantial neurological improvement was evident in 68.8% of protamine-treated patients 38.7% of control patients ( = 0.028). Good clinical outcome at follow-up was observed in 56.3% 58.1% of patients ( = 0.576). No adverse events due to protamine were reported, one patient suffered sICH after secondary endovascular thrombectomy of large vessel occlusion. Mortality was 6.3% 22.6% ( = 0.236).
CONCLUSION
IVT after heparin antagonization with protamine seems to be safe and, prospectively, may extend the number of AIS patients who can benefit from reperfusion treatment using IVT. Further prospective registry trials would be helpful to further investigate the clinical applicability of heparin antagonization.
PubMed: 36710724
DOI: 10.1177/17562864221149249 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2023(1) Background: Systemic mastocytosis is a rare, non-curable disease with potential life-threatening complications in patients receiving cardiac surgery. (2) Methods:... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Systemic mastocytosis is a rare, non-curable disease with potential life-threatening complications in patients receiving cardiac surgery. (2) Methods: This systematic review of the literature was prompted by the case of a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction during cardiac surgery related to systemic mastocytosis. The search of all types of studies, using several databases (Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science), was conducted through September 2022 to identify the relevant studies. (3) Results: Twelve studies were included describing cases of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were diagnosed with systemic mastocytosis. An adverse effect, namely anaphylaxis, has happened in three cases. Different strategies of premedication, intraoperative and postoperative management were used. In our case, the patient was admitted for elective biological aortic valve replacement due to severe aortic stenosis. Intraoperatively, the patient developed an anaphylactic shock during the administration of protamine after separation from the cardiopulmonary bypass. This anaphylaxis reaction was a complication of the pre-existing systemic mastocytosis and could be successfully managed by the administration of epinephrine, antihistamines and corticosteroids. (4) Conclusions: This systematic literature search and case report highlight the importance of careful preoperative planning, as well as coordination between cardiac surgeons, anesthesiologists and hemato-oncological specialists, in patients with rare but complication-prone diseases such as systemic mastocytosis.
PubMed: 36769805
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12031156 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation recommends both short-term and long-acting insulin therapy when cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD) has been diagnosed. Diagnosis is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation recommends both short-term and long-acting insulin therapy when cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD) has been diagnosed. Diagnosis is based on: an elevated fasting blood glucose level greater than 6.94 mmol/L (125 mg/dL); or oral glucose tolerance tests greater than 11.11 mmol/L (200 mg/dL) at two hours; or symptomatic diabetes for random glucose levels greater than 11.11 mmol/L (200 mg/dL); or glycated hemoglobin levels of at least 6.5%. This is an update of a previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To establish the effectiveness of insulin and oral agents for managing diabetes in people with cystic fibrosis in relation to blood sugar levels, lung function and weight management.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also handsearched abstracts from pulmonary symposia and the North American Cystic Fibrosis Conferences. Date of most recent register search: 10 September 2020. We searched online trials registries; date of most recent searches: 21 March 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing all methods of pharmacological diabetes therapy in people with diagnosed CFRD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. Authors also used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
The searches identified 29 trials (45 references). Four included trials provide results: one short-term single-center cross-over trial (seven adults) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and no medication in adults with CFRD and normal fasting glucose; one long-term multicenter trial (61 adults with CFRD) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and placebo; one long-term multicenter trial (67 adults) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide; and one 12-week single-center cross-over trial (20 adults) comparing the long-acting insulin glargine to short-term neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Two ongoing trials of newly approved incretin mimics have been noted for possible future inclusion. Downgrading of the quality of the evidence was mainly due to risks of bias across all domains, but particularly due to concerns surrounding allocation concealment and selective reporting. There were also some concerns due to imprecision from small sample sizes and low event rates. Finally, there may be some bias due to the amounts of insulin and repaglinide given not being comparable. Data from one trial comparing insulin to placebo (39 participants) did not show any difference between groups for the primary outcomes of blood glucose levels (very low-quality evidence), lung function (low-quality evidence) or nutritional status (low-quality evidence). Similarly, no differences between groups were seen for the secondary outcomes of number of hypoglycemic episodes (low-quality evidence), secondary infection complications or quality of life (QoL). These results were mirrored in the narrative reports for the second trial in this comparison (seven participants). Data from the one-year trial comparing repaglinide to placebo (38 participants), showed no differences between groups for the primary outcomes of blood glucose levels (very low-quality evidence), lung function (low-quality evidence) and nutritional status (low-quality evidence). Also, no differences were seen between groups for the secondary outcomes of number of hypoglycemic episodes (low-quality evidence), secondary infection complications or QoL. These findings were mirrored in the narrative reports for the second trial (n = 7) in this comparison. Three trials compared insulin to repaglinide (119 participants). Data from one trial (n = 67) showed no difference in blood glucose levels at either 12 months (high-quality evidence) or 24 months; narrative reports from one trial (45 participants) reported no difference between groups, but the second trial (7 participants) reported a beneficial effect of insulin over repaglinide. Two trials (112 participants) found no difference between insulin and repaglinide in lung function or nutritional status (moderate-quality evidence). Two trials (56 participants) reported no difference in the number of hypoglycemic episodes (low-quality evidence). One trial (45 participants) reported no difference between groups in secondary infections and cystic fibrosis QoL. The single trial comparing glargine to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin did not report directly on the review's primary outcomes, but did report no differences between groups in post-prandial glucose values and weight; neither group reported infectious complications. There was no difference in episodes of hypoglycemia (very low-quality evidence) and while there was no difference reported in QoL, all participants opted to continue treatment with glargine after the trial was completed. Mortality was not reported by any trial in any comparison, but death was not given as a reason for withdrawal in any trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review has not found any conclusive evidence that any agent has a distinct advantage over another in controlling hyperglycemia or the clinical outcomes associated with CFRD. Given the treatment burden already experienced by people with cystic fibrosis, oral therapy may be a viable treatment option. While some cystic fibrosis centers use oral medications to help control diabetes, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (USA) clinical practice guidelines support the use of insulin therapy and this remains the most widely-used treatment method. Randomized controlled trials specifically related to controlling diabetes and its impact on the course of pulmonary disease process in cystic fibrosis continue to be a high priority. Specifically, investigators should evaluate adherence to different therapies and also whether there is benefit in using additional hypoglycemic agents as well as the newly approved incretin mimics. Agents that potentiate insulin action, especially agents with additional anti-inflammatory potential should also be further investigated as adjuvant therapy to insulin.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Bias; Blood Glucose; Carbamates; Cystic Fibrosis; Diabetes Mellitus; Fasting; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Insulin Glargine; Insulin, Isophane; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33075159
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004730.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021People with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) need treatment with insulin for survival. Whether any particular type of (ultra-)long-acting insulin provides benefit... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
People with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) need treatment with insulin for survival. Whether any particular type of (ultra-)long-acting insulin provides benefit especially regarding risk of diabetes complications and hypoglycaemia is unknown.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn) or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogue in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We explored the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Agency (EMA) web pages. We asked pharmaceutical companies, EMA and investigators for additional data and clinical study reports (CSRs). The date of the last search of all databases was 24 August 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 24 weeks or more comparing one (ultra-)long-acting insulin to NPH insulin or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin in people with T1DM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 (RoB 2) tool and extracted data. Our main outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (QoL), severe hypoglycaemia, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke (NFMI/NFS), severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events (SAEs) and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE instrument.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 26 RCTs. Two studies were unpublished. We obtained CSRs, clinical study synopses or both as well as medical reviews from regulatory agencies on 23 studies which contributed to better analysis of risk of bias and improved data extraction. A total of 8784 participants were randomised: 2428 participants were allocated to NPH insulin, 2889 participants to insulin detemir, 2095 participants to insulin glargine and 1372 participants to insulin degludec. Eight studies contributing 21% of all participants comprised children. The duration of the intervention varied from 24 weeks to 104 weeks. Insulin degludec versus NPH insulin: we identified no studies comparing insulin degludec with NPH insulin. Insulin detemir versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): five deaths reported in two studies including adults occurred in the insulin detemir group (Peto OR 4.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.38; 9 studies, 3334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies with 870 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). There was a reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir: 171/2019 participants (8.5%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 138/1200 participants (11.5%) in the NPH insulin group experienced severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 8 studies, 3219 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.34 and 1.39. Only 1/331 participants in the insulin detemir group compared with 0/164 participants in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFMI (1 study, 495 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported NFS. A total of 165/2094 participants (7.9%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 102/1238 participants (8.2%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21; 9 studies, 3332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 70/1823 participants (3.8%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 60/1102 participants (5.4%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17; 7 studies, 2925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin was 0.01%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 8 studies, 3122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): one adult died in the NPH insulin group (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.98; 8 studies, 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 1013 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial effect or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was observed in 122/1191 participants (10.2%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 145/1159 participants (12.5%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.04; 9 studies, 2350 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a NFMI and one participant in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFS in the single study reporting this outcome (585 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 109/1131 participants (9.6%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 110/1098 participants (10.0%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.84; 8 studies, 2229 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 69/938 participants (7.4%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 83/955 participants (8.7%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; 6 studies, 1893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin was 0.02%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 9 studies, 2285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine (2 RCTs),insulin degludec versus insulin detemir (2 RCTs), insulin degludec versus insulin glargine (4 RCTs): there was no evidence of a clinically relevant difference for all main outcomes comparing (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues with each other. For all outcomes none of the comparisons indicated differences in tests of interaction for children versus adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin for T1DM showed lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir (moderate-certainty evidence). However, the 95% prediction interval indicated inconsistency in this finding. Both insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin did not show benefits or harms for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. For all other main outcomes with overall low risk of bias and comparing insulin analogues with each other, there was no true beneficial or harmful effect for any intervention. Data on patient-important outcomes such as QoL, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications were sparse or missing. No clinically relevant differences were found between children and adults.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Bias; Child; Child, Preschool; Confidence Intervals; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Female; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin Detemir; Insulin Glargine; Insulin, Isophane; Insulin, Long-Acting; Male; Myocardial Infarction; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke; Young Adult
PubMed: 33662147
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013498.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Dec 2020Activated clotting time (ACT) is a non-specific test to evaluate the adequacy of systemic heparinization whose value could be influenced by many factors. Tranexamic acid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Activated clotting time (ACT) is a non-specific test to evaluate the adequacy of systemic heparinization whose value could be influenced by many factors. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is a widely used antifibrinolytic agent worldwide and whether TXA influences ACT value in cardiac surgical patients remains unknown. Current study was performed to address this question.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis. PUBMED, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, OVID and Chinese BioMedical Literature & Retrieval System were searched using search terms "tranexamic acid", "activated clotting time", "cardiac surgery", "randomized controlled trial" till May 7th, 2020, to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
SETTING
Operating room.
PATIENTS
Cardiac surgical patients.
INTERVENTIONS
TXA or placebo.
MEASUREMENTS
Primary outcomes of interest included peri-operative ACT values. Secondary outcomes of interest include heparin dosage, protamine dosage, postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion.
MAIN RESULTS
Search yielded 13 studies including 1168 patients, and 619 patients were allocated into Group TXA and 549 into Group Control (placebo). Meta-analysis suggested that, ACT values after heparinization [(WMD = -1.45; 95%CI: -12.52 to 15.43; P = 0.84)] and after protamine [(WMD = -1.18; 95%CI: -2.81 to 0.46; P = 0.16)] were comparable between Group TXA and Group Control, and that TXA did not influence heparin dose in adult patients [(WMD = 0.38; 95%CI: 0.30 to 0.46; P<0.00001) with no heterogeneity (I = 4%, P = 0.35)] and protamine dose for heparin reversal [(WMD = 5.23; 95%CI: -0.33 to 10.80; P = 0.07) with no heterogeneity (I = 0, P = 0.58)]. Meta-analysis also demonstrated that, TXA administration significantly reduced post-operative bleeding volume [(WMD = -126.33; 95%CI: -177.46 to -75.19; P < 0.0001), post-operative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion volume [(WMD = -71.86; 95% CI: -88.22 to -55.50; P < 0.00001), fresh frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion volume [(WMD = -13.83; 95% CI: -23.67 to -4.00; P = 0.006) and platelet concentrate (PC) transfusion volume [(WMD = -0.20; 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.10; P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggested that, TXA administration did not influence ACT value, heparin and protamine doses, but significantly reduced post-operative blood loss and transfusion requirement in cardiac surgical patients.
Topics: Antifibrinolytic Agents; Blood Loss, Surgical; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Humans; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Tranexamic Acid
PubMed: 32889412
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.110020 -
Annals of Internal Medicine May 2024In the United States, costs of antidiabetes medications exceed $327 billion. (Review)
Review
Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies for the American College of Physicians.
BACKGROUND
In the United States, costs of antidiabetes medications exceed $327 billion.
PURPOSE
To systematically review cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of newer antidiabetes medications for type 2 diabetes.
DATA SOURCES
Bibliographic databases from 1 January 2010 through 13 July 2023, limited to English.
STUDY SELECTION
Nonindustry-funded CEAs, done from a U.S. perspective that estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for newer antidiabetic medications. Two reviewers screened the literature; disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer.
DATA EXTRACTION
Cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed for treatment comparisons, model inputs, and outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) of the CEAs was assessed using Drummond criteria and certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). Certainty of evidence was determined using cost per QALY thresholds predetermined by the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee; low (>$150 000), intermediate ($50 to $150 000), or high (<$50 000) value per QALY compared with the alternative.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Nine CEAs were eligible (2 low, 1 high, and 6 some concerns RoB), evaluating glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP1a), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide agonist (GIP/GLP1a), and insulin. Comparators were metformin, sulfonylureas, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, and others. Compared with metformin, GLP1a and SGLT2i are low value as first-line therapy (high CoE) but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or background therapy compared with adding nothing (low CoE). Insulin analogues may be similarly effective but more expensive than NPH insulin (low CoE). The GIP/GLP1a value is uncertain (insufficient CoE).
LIMITATIONS
Cost-effectiveness analyses varied in methodological approach, assumptions, and drug comparisons. Risk of bias and GRADE method for CEAs are not well established.
CONCLUSION
Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and SGLT2i are of low value as first-line therapy but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or other background therapy compared with adding nothing. Other drugs and comparisons are of low or uncertain value. Results are sensitive to drug effectiveness and cost assumptions.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022382315).
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Hypoglycemic Agents; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; United States; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors
PubMed: 38639547
DOI: 10.7326/M23-1492 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Evidence that antihyperglycaemic therapy is beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. While the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Evidence that antihyperglycaemic therapy is beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. While the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) found tighter glycaemic control to be positive, other studies, such as the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, found the effects of an intensive therapy to lower blood glucose to near normal levels to be more harmful than beneficial. Study results also showed different effects for different antihyperglycaemic drugs, regardless of the achieved blood glucose levels. In consequence, firm conclusions on the effect of interventions on patient-relevant outcomes cannot be drawn from the effect of these interventions on blood glucose concentration alone. In theory, the use of newer insulin analogues may result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine U100 and U300, insulin detemir and insulin degludec) with NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin (human isophane insulin) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH METHODS
For this Cochrane Review update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 5 November 2019, except Embase which was last searched 26 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 24 RCTs. Of these, 16 trials compared insulin glargine to NPH insulin and eight trials compared insulin detemir to NPH insulin. In these trials, 3419 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomised to insulin glargine and 1321 people to insulin detemir. The duration of the included trials ranged from 24 weeks to five years. For studies, comparing insulin glargine to NPH insulin, target values ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.8 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 140 mg/dL) for fasting blood glucose (FBG), from 4.4 mmol/L to 6.6 mmol/L (80 mg/dL to 120 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, when applicable. Blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target values for studies comparing insulin detemir to NPH insulin ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for FBG, less than 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) to less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and 5.8% to less than 6.4% HbA1c, when applicable. All trials had an unclear or high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Overall, insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Changes in HbA1c were comparable for long-acting insulin analogues and NPH insulin. Insulin glargine compared to NPH insulin had a risk ratio (RR) for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.06; absolute risk reduction (ARR) -1.2%, 95% CI -2.0 to 0; 14 trials, 6164 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The RR for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.09; P = 0.13; ARR -0.7%, 95% CI -1.3 to 0.2; 10 trials, 4685 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with insulin glargine reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treatment with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin found an RR for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.45 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.20; P = 0.11; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.4 to 0.4; 5 trials, 1804 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Peto odds ratio for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; P = 0.007; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.4; 5 trials, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with detemir also reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Information on patient-relevant outcomes such as death from any cause, diabetes-related complications, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects was insufficient or lacking in almost all included trials. For those outcomes for which some data were available, there were no meaningful differences between treatment with glargine or detemir and treatment with NPH. There was no clear difference between insulin-analogues and NPH insulin in terms of weight gain. The incidence of adverse events was comparable for people treated with glargine or detemir, and people treated with NPH. We found no trials comparing ultra-long-acting insulin glargine U300 or insulin degludec with NPH insulin.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
While the effects on HbA1c were comparable, treatment with insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Treatment with insulin detemir also reduced the incidence of serious hypoglycaemia. However, serious hypoglycaemic events were rare and the absolute risk reducing effect was low. Approximately one in 100 people treated with insulin detemir instead of NPH insulin benefited. In the studies, low blood glucose and HbA1c targets, corresponding to near normal or even non-diabetic blood glucose levels, were set. Therefore, results from the studies are only applicable to people in whom such low blood glucose concentrations are targeted. However, current guidelines recommend less-intensive blood glucose lowering for most people with type 2 diabetes in daily practice (e.g. people with cardiovascular diseases, a long history of type 2 diabetes, who are susceptible to hypoglycaemia or older people). Additionally, low-certainty evidence and trial designs that did not conform with current clinical practice meant it remains unclear if the same effects will be observed in daily clinical practice. Most trials did not report patient-relevant outcomes.
Topics: Bias; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Hemoglobin A; Humans; Hypoglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin Detemir; Insulin Glargine; Insulin, Isophane; Insulin, Long-Acting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33166419
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005613.pub4 -
World Neurosurgery May 2020Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is a rare type of stroke whose pathophysiology differs from arterial stroke. CVT is treated with systemic anticoagulant therapy even in...
OBJECTIVE
Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is a rare type of stroke whose pathophysiology differs from arterial stroke. CVT is treated with systemic anticoagulant therapy even in the setting of intracerebral hemorrhage. Patients who do not respond adequately may require decompressive surgery. The study objective was to examine the timing of anticoagulation in patients with CVT who require decompressive surgery through systematic literature review and consecutive case series.
METHODS
A review of the literature was performed through PubMed using key word search to identify case series and cohort studies examining timing of anticoagulation following decompressive surgery. Our case series included 4 patients who had decompressive surgery for hemorrhagic CVT between 1 January, 2015 and 31 December, 2016 at our comprehensive stroke center.
RESULTS
The literature review summarizes 243 patients from 15 studies whose timing of anticoagulation varied. The review suggests anticoagulation can be safely resumed at 48 hours postoperatively based on larger series and as early as 12 hours in smaller series, especially when delivered as a half or prophylactic dose. In our case series, timing of anticoagulation varied slightly but was started or resumed within 38-44 hours postoperatively in 3 patients and was started at the time of decompressive surgery without interruption in 1 patient. No patient had worsening hemorrhage or new hemorrhage while 2 patients rethrombosed.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the lack of high-quality studies, this systematic review of patients with CVT requiring decompressive surgery indicates that anticoagulation can be safely initiated or resumed around 24-48 hours postoperatively; our series supports the existing literature.
Topics: Adult; Anticoagulants; Cerebral Angiography; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Decompressive Craniectomy; Endovascular Procedures; Female; Heparin; Heparin Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Postoperative Period; Protamines; Sinus Thrombosis, Intracranial; Thrombectomy; Thrombolytic Therapy; Time Factors
PubMed: 32105874
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.02.084 -
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery Jan 2021Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) with alteplase is effective in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). However, its use rate remains low due to the many exclusion criteria. Recent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) with alteplase is effective in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). However, its use rate remains low due to the many exclusion criteria. Recent guidelines recommend excluding patients suffering AIS with an elevated aPTT secondary to heparin exposure from receiving IVT. The purpose of this review is to explore the safety and efficacy of IVT in patients therapeutically anticoagulated with heparin. We also propose a treatment algorithm for IVT in patients with AIS that are therapeutically anticoagulated with heparin.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of PubMed and Embase through March 2020 to identify the literature regarding AIS in patients exposed to heparin, followed by IVT treatment, emphasizing safety, efficacy, and clinical outcome using PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
We included thirteen articles in the final analysis, including three retrospective studies, two observational studies, one randomized trial, five case reports, and two case series.
CONCLUSION
There is limited information about the off-label use of IVT in patients with elevated aPTT. Patients with AIS are excluded from IVT if they have recent exposure to heparin. Our review indicates that this population of patients may benefit from IVT as the cases of active bleeding after IVT are few, and functional outcomes are favorable in the long term suggesting that IVT in therapeutically anticoagulated patients may be safe and efficacious.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Anticoagulants; Brain Ischemia; Disease Management; Heparin; Humans; Ischemic Stroke; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Thrombolytic Therapy
PubMed: 33276218
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.106382 -
The International Journal of Artificial... Sep 2020Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is essential for the treatment of refractory cardiopulmonary failure. Its use may be complicated by worse haemorrhagic complications...
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is essential for the treatment of refractory cardiopulmonary failure. Its use may be complicated by worse haemorrhagic complications exacerbated by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-related therapeutic anticoagulation. Progressive technological advancements have made extracorporeal membrane oxygenation components less thrombogenic, potentially allowing its application with temporary avoidance of systemic anticoagulants. A systematic review of all the available experiences, reporting the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation without systemic anticoagulation in the published literature was performed. Only patient series were included, irrespective of the clinical indication. The survival, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation system-related dysfunction and complications rates, as well as in-hospital outcome, were analysed. Six studies were selected for the analysis. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was used in 84% of patients, while veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was applied in the remaining cases. Anticoagulation was avoided because of the high risk of bleeding after cardiac surgery (64%), active major bleeding (23%) or presence of severe traumatic injury (9%). Duration of support ranged from 0.3 to 1128 h. Heparin was antagonized by protamine in all the post-cardiotomy cases. Successfully extracorporeal membrane oxygenation weaning was achieved in 74% of the treated cases, with a hospital discharge of 58% of patients. Rates of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation malfunctioning due to clot formation and blood transfusion requirement varied remarkably in the published series. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation without systemic anticoagulation appears feasible in selected circumstances. Further investigations are warranted to elucidate actual aspects regarding extracorporeal membrane oxygenation system performance, related adverse events and benefits associated with this management.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anticoagulants; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Female; Heart Failure; Humans; Male; Middle Aged
PubMed: 32037946
DOI: 10.1177/0391398820904372