-
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 -
The Journal of Urology Apr 2017We systematically reviewed preclinical and clinical studies on bladder chemodenervation with onabotulinumtoxin A to highlight current limitations and future drug...
PURPOSE
We systematically reviewed preclinical and clinical studies on bladder chemodenervation with onabotulinumtoxin A to highlight current limitations and future drug delivery approaches.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We identified peer reviewed basic and clinical research studies of onabotulinumtoxin A in the treatment of neurogenic bladder and refractory idiopathic overactive bladder published between March 2000 and March 2016. Paired investigators independently screened 125 English language articles to identify controlled studies on onabotulinumtoxin A administration in the MEDLINE® database and abstracts presented at annual American Urological Association meetings. The review yielded an evidence base of more than 50 articles relevant to the approach of injection-free onabotulinumtoxin A chemodenervation.
RESULTS
The efficacy and safety of intradetrusor injection of onabotulinumtoxin A for the treatment of overactive bladder are sensitive to injection volume and depth, and this issue has motivated researchers to study injection-free modes of drug delivery into the bladder. Urothelial denudation with protamine sulfate or dimethyl sulfoxide, liposome encapsulated onabotulinumtoxin A and other physical approaches are being studied to increase toxin permeability and avoid intradetrusor injections. Liposome encapsulated onabotulinumtoxin A enhances toxin activity while reducing its toxin degradation. The safety and efficacy of liposome encapsulated onabotulinumtoxin A were tested in a multicenter, placebo controlled study. Although this treatment successfully reduced urinary frequency and urgency, it did not significantly reduce urgency urinary incontinence episodes.
CONCLUSIONS
Intradetrusor injection of onabotulinumtoxin A is a safe and effective treatment as reported in several large multicenter, randomized controlled trials. Injection of the toxin into the bladder wall impairs afferent and efferent nerves, but injection-free drug delivery approaches only impair the bladder afferent nerves. Further studies are needed to develop better drug delivery platforms that overcome the drawbacks of intradetrusor injection, increase patient acceptance and reduce treatment costs.
Topics: Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Drug Delivery Systems; Forecasting; Humans; Injections; Liposomes; Nerve Block; Urinary Bladder, Overactive
PubMed: 27871929
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.11.092 -
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 -
Current Medical Research and Opinion Jun 2010To review the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) compared to other insulin regimens in the treatment of type 2 diabetes based on published... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
OBJECTIVES
To review the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) compared to other insulin regimens in the treatment of type 2 diabetes based on published literature.
METHODS
The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and EconLit and a selection of congress/meeting databases were systematically searched using combinations of search terms designed to identify publications describing cost-effectiveness analyses of BIAsp 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes. Searches were limited to studies in humans, and published in the English language between January 1999 and July 2009. All records were screened for inclusion in the review.
RESULTS
Seven published cost-effectiveness analyses and ten abstracts were identified. One was a health technology assessment from the UK, which evaluated cost-effectiveness using the UKPDS Outcomes Model and meta-analysis of published clinical trials and concluded that premixed insulin analogs were unlikely to be cost-effective versus insulin glargine or biphasic human insulin. In all other studies the cost-effectiveness of BIAsp 30 versus other insulin regimens was assessed using the validated CORE Diabetes Model and outcomes from either the INITIATE randomized controlled trial, or the PRESENT or IMPROVE observational studies. However, notable limitations include the fact that all cost-effectiveness analyses to date have been performed using a single model and that a number of these are based on data from observational studies rather than randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, long-term clinical and economic outcomes were reported for several countries: UK, US, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Poland, South Africa, South Korea and China. BIAsp 30 was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy in all countries. Estimates of direct costs varied according to country and comparator, but incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the US and UK were USD 46 533 and GBP 6951 per quality-adjusted life year gained for BIAsp 30 versus insulin glargine.
CONCLUSIONS
Although cost-effectiveness data on BIAsp 30 are scarce the majority of the analyses identified in this review suggest that BIAsp 30 is likely to be cost-effective compared to insulin glargine and biphasic human insulin across a wide range of settings, and under certain circumstances would be a dominant treatment option.
Topics: Biphasic Insulins; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Insulin Aspart; Insulin, Isophane; Middle Aged
PubMed: 20387997
DOI: 10.1185/03007991003689381 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research May 2018Adverse events in health care entail substantial burdens to health care systems, institutions, and patients. Retrospective trigger tools are often manually applied to...
BACKGROUND
Adverse events in health care entail substantial burdens to health care systems, institutions, and patients. Retrospective trigger tools are often manually applied to detect AEs, although automated approaches using electronic health records may offer real-time adverse event detection, allowing timely corrective interventions.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to describe current study methods and challenges regarding the use of automatic trigger tool-based adverse event detection methods in electronic health records. In addition, we aimed to appraise the applied studies' designs and to synthesize estimates of adverse event prevalence and diagnostic test accuracy of automatic detection methods using manual trigger tool as a reference standard.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were queried. We included observational studies, applying trigger tools in acute care settings, and excluded studies using nonhospital and outpatient settings. Eligible articles were divided into diagnostic test accuracy studies and prevalence studies. We derived the study prevalence and estimates for the positive predictive value. We assessed bias risks and applicability concerns using Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic test accuracy studies and an in-house developed tool for prevalence studies.
RESULTS
A total of 11 studies met all criteria: 2 concerned diagnostic test accuracy and 9 prevalence. We judged several studies to be at high bias risks for their automated detection method, definition of outcomes, and type of statistical analyses. Across all the 11 studies, adverse event prevalence ranged from 0% to 17.9%, with a median of 0.8%. The positive predictive value of all triggers to detect adverse events ranged from 0% to 100% across studies, with a median of 40%. Some triggers had wide ranging positive predictive value values: (1) in 6 studies, hypoglycemia had a positive predictive value ranging from 15.8% to 60%; (2) in 5 studies, naloxone had a positive predictive value ranging from 20% to 91%; (3) in 4 studies, flumazenil had a positive predictive value ranging from 38.9% to 83.3%; and (4) in 4 studies, protamine had a positive predictive value ranging from 0% to 60%. We were unable to determine the adverse event prevalence, positive predictive value, preventability, and severity in 40.4%, 10.5%, 71.1%, and 68.4% of the studies, respectively. These studies did not report the overall number of records analyzed, triggers, or adverse events; or the studies did not conduct the analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
We observed broad interstudy variation in reported adverse event prevalence and positive predictive value. The lack of sufficiently described methods led to difficulties regarding interpretation. To improve quality, we see the need for a set of recommendations to endorse optimal use of research designs and adequate reporting of future adverse event detection studies.
Topics: Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Electronic Health Records; Humans; Patient Safety; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 29848467
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.9901 -
Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular... Oct 2019Administering intravenous IV tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) is the recommended standard of care in acute ischemic stroke (AIS), although it is not recommended to...
INTRODUCTION
Administering intravenous IV tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) is the recommended standard of care in acute ischemic stroke (AIS), although it is not recommended to administer intravenous thrombolysis with tPA following heparin reversal with protamine sulfate in patients with AIS.
METHODS
We describe a case series of three patients and the most comprehensive literature review published to date in this specific subset of AIS patients undergoing thrombolysis following heparin reversal with protamine sulfate. The literature review was based on a scoping review methodology performed on four databases; PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. All sources were searched from the inauguration of the database until February 2019. A total of six articles involving eight patients were identified.
RESULTS
The primary safety outcome of no symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) was met in all eleven patients, although only seven cases had a good functional outcome at 3 months.
CONCLUSIONS
In appropriately selected AIS patients, coagulopathy correction appears to be safe from an sICH standpoint and may be beneficial. However, given the potential for bias with observational databases, case reports and case series, extreme caution is warranted in applying these results to routine clinical practice.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anticoagulants; Blood Coagulation; Brain Ischemia; Female; Fibrinolytic Agents; Heparin; Heparin Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Protamines; Stroke; Thrombolytic Therapy; Tissue Plasminogen Activator; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31324409
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.06.041 -
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 -
BMJ Open Jun 2019What is the most effective pharmacological intervention for glycaemic control in known type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) without prior insulin treatment and newly started on...
OBJECTIVES
What is the most effective pharmacological intervention for glycaemic control in known type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) without prior insulin treatment and newly started on systemic glucocorticoid therapy?
DESIGN
We conducted a systematic literature review.
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases and Google for articles from 2002 to July 2018.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We combined search terms relating to DM (patients, >16 years of age), systemic glucocorticoids, glycaemic control, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
We screened and evaluated articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and quality of evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines.
RESULTS
Eight of 2365 articles met full eligibility criteria. Basal-bolus insulin (BBI) strategy for patients under systemic glucocorticoid therapy was comparatively effective but provided insufficient glucose control, depending on time of day. BBI strategy with long-acting insulin and neutral protamin Hagedorn as basal insulin provided similar overall glycaemic control. Addition of various insulin strategies to standard BBI delivered mixed results. Intermediate-acting insulin (IMI) as additional insulin conferred no clear benefits, and glycaemic control with sliding scale insulin was inferior to BBI or IMI. No studies addressed whether anticipatory or compensatory insulin adjustments are better for glycaemic control.
CONCLUSION
The lack of suitably designed RCTs and observational studies, heterogeneity of interventions, target glucose levels and glucose monitoring, poor control of DM subgroups and low to moderate quality of evidence render identification of optimal pharmacological interventions for glycaemic control and insulin management difficult. Even findings on the widely recommended BBI regimen as intensive insulin therapy for patients with DM on glucocorticoids are inconclusive. High-quality evidence from studies with well-defined DM phenotypes, settings and treatment approaches is needed to determine optimal pharmacological intervention for glycaemic control.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42015024739.
Topics: Aged; Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin, Long-Acting; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31154314
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-028914 -
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 -
Journal of Vascular and Interventional... May 2014We provide an assessment of clinical, angiographic, and procedure related risk factors associated with stroke and/or death in patients undergoing carotid artery stent...
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
We provide an assessment of clinical, angiographic, and procedure related risk factors associated with stroke and/or death in patients undergoing carotid artery stent placement which will assist in patient stratification and identification of high-stent risk patients.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of Medline from January 1st 1996 to December 31st 2011 was performed with key words "carotid artery stenosis", " carotid artery stenting", "carotid artery stent placement", "death" , " mortality", "stroke", "outcome", "clinical predictors", "angiographic predictors", was performed in various combinations. We independently abstracted data and assessed the quality of the studies. This analysis led to the selection of 71 articles for review.
RESULTS
Clinical factors including age≥80 years, symptomatic status, procedure within 2 weeks of symptoms, chronic renal failure, diabetes mellitus, and hemispheric TIA were associated with stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) and death within 1 month after carotid artery stent placement. Angiographic factors including left carotid artery intervention, stenosis > 90%, ulcerated and calcified plaques, lesion length > 10mm, thrombus at the site, ostial involvement, predilation without EPD, ICA-CCA angulation > 60%, aortic arch type III, and aortic arch calcification were also associated with 1 month stroke and/or death. Intra-procedural platelet GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, protamine use, multiple stents, predilatation prior to stent placement were associated with stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) and death after carotid artery stent placement. Intraprocedural use of embolic protection devices and stent design (open versus closed cell design) did not demonstrate a consistent relationship with 1 month stroke and/or death. Procedural statin use, and operator and center experience of more than 50 procedures per year were protective for 1 month stroke and/or death.
CONCLUSIONS
Our review identified risk factors for stroke, death, and MI within 1 month in patients undergoing carotid artery stent placement. Such information will result in better patient selection for carotid artery stent placement particularly in those who are also candidates for carotid endarterectomy.
PubMed: 24920983
DOI: No ID Found