-
BMJ Open Nov 2022To examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes: an individual patient data network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).
DESIGN
Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2015.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with T1DM assessing glycosylated haemoglobin (A1c) and severe hypoglycaemia in long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
We requested IPD from authors and funders. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We conducted a random-effects model, and specifically a one-stage IPD-NMA for those studies providing IPD and a two-stage IPD-NMA to incorporate those studies not providing IPD.
RESULTS
We included 28 RCTs plus one companion report, after screening 6680 titles/abstracts and 205 full-text articles. Of the 28 RCTs, 27 studies provided data for the NMA with 7394 participants, of which 12 RCTs had IPD on 4943 participants. The IPD-NMA for A1c suggested that glargine once daily (mean difference [MD]=-0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.48 to -0.14) and detemir once daily (MD=-0.25, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.09) were superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) once daily. NPH once/two times per day improved A1c compared with NPH once daily (MD=-0.30, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.11). Results regarding complications in severe hypoglycaemia should be considered with great caution due to inconsistency in the evidence network. Accounting for missing data, there was no evidence of inconsistency and long-acting insulin regimens ranked higher regarding reducing severe hypoglycaemia compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens (two-stage NMA: glargine two times per day SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve)=89%, detemir once daily SUCRA=77%; one-stage NMA: detemir once daily/two times per day SUCRA=85%). Using multiple imputations and IPD only, complications in severe hypoglycaemia increased with diabetes-related comorbidities (regression coefficient: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.03).
CONCLUSIONS
Long-acting insulin regimens reduced A1c compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens and were associated with lower severe hypoglycaemia. Of the observed differences, only glargine once daily achieved a clinically significant reduction of 0.30%. Results should be interpreted with caution due to very low quality of evidence.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42015023511.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Insulin Glargine; Glycated Hemoglobin; Hypoglycemic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Insulin, Long-Acting; Insulin; Hypoglycemia; Insulin, Isophane
PubMed: 36332950
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058034 -
Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome Oct 2022To assess the impact of long-acting insulin analogues, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron (NPH), on maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes. (Review)
Review
Maternal and neonatal outcomes with the use of long acting, compared to intermediate acting basal insulin (NPH) for managing diabetes during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
To assess the impact of long-acting insulin analogues, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron (NPH), on maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes.
METHODS
Studies for inclusion in the review were identified using a structured search strategy in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database. Studies that were randomized controlled trials or observational in design were considered for inclusion. Eligible studies should have compared the maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes between pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) managed by intermediate acting (NPH) and by long-acting insulin analogues. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA software.
RESULTS
We found 17 studies to be eligible for inclusion. The mean gestational weight gain and risk of maternal hypoglycaemia, hypertensive disorder, caesarean delivery, spontaneous abortion, endometritis and wound infection or dehiscence were similar among pregnant women with GDM managed using long-acting insulin analogues and NPH. Those receiving long-acting insulin analogues had significantly lower HbA1c values in the second (WMD - .09, 95% CI 0.12, - 0.06; N = 4) and third trimester (WMD - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.14, - 0.02; N = 12). The mean gestational age and birth weight and risk of perinatal mortality, prematurity, large for gestational age, small for gestational age, shoulder dystocia and congenital abnormalities was similar among babies in both groups. No statistically significant differences in risk of admission to neonatal intensive care unit, respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycaemia, 5 min APGAR score of < 7, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia and sepsis was observed. The quality of pooled evidence, as per GRADE criteria, was judged to be "very low" for all the maternal and neonatal outcomes considered.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings suggest no significant differences in the maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes between intermediate and long-acting insulin analogues. The results provide support for use of long-acting insulin analogues in women with GDM. However, evidence is still needed from high quality randomized controlled trials to arrive at a recommendation for inclusion in routine clinical care.
PubMed: 36271431
DOI: 10.1186/s13098-022-00925-7 -
Endocrine Practice : Official Journal... Nov 2022Optimal glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia (GCIH) management is unclear. The COVID-19 pandemic has made this issue more prominent because dexamethasone became the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Optimal glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia (GCIH) management is unclear. The COVID-19 pandemic has made this issue more prominent because dexamethasone became the standard of care in patients needing respiratory support. This systematic review aimed to describe the management of GCIH and summarize available management strategies for dexamethasone-associated hyperglycemia in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases with results from 2011 through January 2022. Keywords included synonyms for "steroid-induced diabetes" or "steroid-induced hyperglycemia." Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for review of GCIH management. All studies focusing on dexamethasone-associated hyperglycemia in COVID-19 were included regardless of study quality.
RESULTS
Initial search for non-COVID GCIH identified 1230 references. After screening and review, 33 articles were included in the non-COVID section of this systematic review. Initial search for COVID-19-related management of dexamethasone-associated hyperglycemia in COVID-19 identified 63 references, whereas 7 of these were included in the COVID-19 section. RCTs of management strategies were scarce, did not use standard definitions for hyperglycemia, evaluated a variety of treatment strategies with varying primary end points, and were generally not found to be effective except for Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin added to basal-bolus regimens.
CONCLUSION
Few RCTs are available evaluating GCIH management. Further studies are needed to support the formulation of clinical guidelines for GCIH especially given the widespread use of dexamethasone during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Topics: Humans; Glucocorticoids; Hyperglycemia; Dexamethasone; Steroids; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35940469
DOI: 10.1016/j.eprac.2022.07.014 -
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice Aug 2022To compare the safety and efficacy of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in pregnant women with diabetes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
To compare the safety and efficacy of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in pregnant women with diabetes.
METHODS
MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Google Scholar databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched from inception to December 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning adult women with singleton pregnancies, gestational or pregestational diabetes, and the need for insulin therapy. A systematic review and a meta-analysis (weighted data, random-effects model) were performed. Continuous outcomes were expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) (inverse variance method); dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI (Mantel-Haenszel method). Heterogeneity was quantified using the I index.
RESULTS
Five RCTs involving 1450 participants met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes that showed significant results in favor of insulin detemir over NPH were maternal hypoglycemic events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48-0.86, p = 0.003; I = 0%) and gestational age at delivery (MD 0.48, 95% CI 0.16-0.81, p = 0.003; I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
Insulin detemir was associated with less maternal hypoglycemic events and decreased risk for prematurity compared with NPH insulin. More research should be conducted to reach a safe conclusion about the optimal insulin regimen for women with diabetes in pregnancy.
Topics: Adult; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Female; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Insulin Detemir; Insulin, Isophane; Insulin, Long-Acting; Pregnancy; Protamines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35878788
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2022.110020 -
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology... Jul 2022Individuals with diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia account for over 30% of noncritically ill hospitalized patients. Management of hyperglycemia in these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Hyperglycemia in Adults Hospitalized for Noncritical Illness or Undergoing Elective Surgical Procedures.
CONTEXT
Individuals with diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia account for over 30% of noncritically ill hospitalized patients. Management of hyperglycemia in these patients is challenging.
OBJECTIVE
To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of hyperglycemia in adults hospitalized for noncritical illness or undergoing elective surgical procedures.
METHODS
We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
We included 94 studies reporting on 135 553 patients. Compared with capillary blood glucose, continuous glucose monitoring increased the number of patients identified with hypoglycemia and decreased mean daily blood glucose (BG) (very low certainty). Data on continuation of insulin pump therapy in hospitalized adults were sparse. In hospitalized patients receiving glucocorticoids, combination neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) and basal-bolus insulin was associated with lower mean BG compared to basal-bolus insulin alone (very low certainty). Data on NPH insulin vs basal-bolus insulin in hospitalized adults receiving enteral nutrition were inconclusive. Inpatient diabetes education was associated with lower HbA1c at 3 and 6 months after discharge (moderate certainty) and reduced hospital readmissions (very low certainty). Preoperative HbA1c level < 7% was associated with shorter length of stay, lower postoperative BG and a lower number of neurological complications and infections, but a higher number of reoperations (very low certainty). Treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes and mild hyperglycemia was associated with lower frequency of hypoglycemic events than insulin therapy (low certainty). Caloric oral fluids before surgery in adults with diabetes undergoing surgical procedures did not affect outcomes (very low certainty). Counting carbohydrates for prandial insulin dosing did not affect outcomes (very low certainty). Compared with scheduled insulin (basal-bolus or basal insulin + correctional insulin), correctional insulin was associated with higher mean daily BG and fewer hypoglycemic events (low certainty).
CONCLUSION
The certainty of evidence supporting many hyperglycemia management decisions is low, emphasizing importance of shared decision-making and consideration of other decisional factors.
Topics: Adult; Blood Glucose; Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Elective Surgical Procedures; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin
PubMed: 35690929
DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgac277 -
Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine Jan 2022Perioperative anticoagulation management with uninterrupted or minimally interrupted anticoagulation during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is thought to be critical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Perioperative anticoagulation management with uninterrupted or minimally interrupted anticoagulation during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is thought to be critical to minimize thromboembolic complications. Protamine is often administered to neutralize the effects of heparin and expedite vascular hemostasis post-procedure.
OBJECTIVE
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of protamine to expedite vascular hemostasis and ambulation in patients undergoing AF ablation.
METHODS
Electronic searches on PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from the inception through August 7, 2021, were performed. The primary outcomes included-time to hemostasis (minutes) and time to ambulation (minutes). The secondary outcomes included - any vascular complications (excluding minor hematoma), minor hematoma, or cerebrovascular accidents (CVA).
RESULTS
A total of 5 eligible studies (3 retrospective cohort studies and two randomized trials) consisting of 1012 patients (515 patients received protamine group and 497 patients did not receive protamine group) were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significant reduction in time to ambulation [weighted mean difference (WMD) -176.6 minutes, 95% Confidence interval (CI) -266.9 to -86.3; < 0.01] and time to hemostasis (WMD -13.72 minutes, 95% CI -22 to -5.4, < 0.01) in the protamine group compared to the contrary. At a follow-up up to 3 months, there was no statistical difference between the two groups with regards to vascular complications (2.9% vs. 7.4%; Risk ratio (RR) 0.46 95% CI 0.17 to 1.24; = 0.12), minor hematoma (2.1% vs. 5.8%; RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.2; = 0.11) or CVA (0 vs. 0.3%; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.08 to 4.98; = 0.65).
CONCLUSION
Protamine administration was associated with reduced time to ambulation (176 minutes reduction) and time to hemostasis (13 minutes reduction) without an increase in any adverse events.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Catheter Ablation; Humans; Protamines; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35092226
DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2301034 -
Human Fertility (Cambridge, England) Jul 2023Genetic association studies (GAS) may have the capability to probe the genetic susceptibility alleles in many disorders. This systemic review aimed to assess whether an... (Review)
Review
Genetic association studies (GAS) may have the capability to probe the genetic susceptibility alleles in many disorders. This systemic review aimed to assess whether an association exists between gene(s)/allelic variant(s), and varicocele-related male infertility (VRMI). This review included 19 GAS that investigated 26 genes in 1,826 men with varicocele compared to 2,070 healthy men, and 263 infertile men without varicocele. These studies focussed on candidate genes and relevant variants, with glutathione S-transferase gene being the most frequently studied ( = 5) followed by the nitric oxide synthase 3 (NOS3) gene ( = 3) and the phosphoprotein tyrosine phosphatase 1 gene ( = 2). In one study the genes for NAD(P)H quinone oxidoreductase 1, sperm protamine, human 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase 1, methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase, polymerase gamma, heat shock protein 90, mitochondrial DNA, superoxide dismutase 2, transition nuclear protein 1, and transition nuclear protein 2, were assessed. There is no clear indication that any of these polymorphisms are sturdily associated with VRMI. However, three studies established that the polymorphic genotype (GT + TT) for polymorphism of the gene is more frequent in varicocele patients. Further endeavours such as standardising reporting, exploring complementary designs, and the use of GWAS technology are justified to help replicate these early findings.
PubMed: 34587863
DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2021.1983214 -
Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of... Oct 2021We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of second-generation basal insulins (glargine U300 and degludec U100) vs. neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of second-generation basal insulins (glargine U300 and degludec U100) vs. neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) and first-generation basal insulins (glargine U100 and detemir) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) adults.PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar (until January 2021) were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with ≥ 12 weeks of follow-up comparing efficacy (HbA) or safety (hypoglycemia and weight gain) between second-generation basal insulins vs. other basal insulins in T1D adults were included. Bayesian network meta-analyses were used to estimate risk ratio, hazard ratio, and mean difference. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to appraise evidence certainty.Eighteen RCTs (≥ 24 weeks of follow-up) involving 7283 randomized participants were included for main analysis. Moderate to high certainty evidence suggested that second-generation basal insulins showed equivalent HbA reduction compared with NPH and first-generation basal insulins. Compared with second-generation basal insulins, low to high certainty evidence suggested that NPH was associated with a higher risk of patients experiencing severe hypoglycemia; NPH and first-generation basal insulins were associated with a higher rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemic events. For the weight gain, glargine U300 was comparable to detemir (low certainty), but degludec U100 was greater than detemir (moderate certainty).In conclusion, second-generation basal insulins maintained equivalent efficacy of glycemic control (moderate to high certainty), with differences in safety (low to high certainty) compared with NPH and first-generation basal insulins during ≥ 24 weeks of follow-up in T1D adults.
Topics: Adult; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Humans; Hypoglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin Glargine; Insulin, Long-Acting; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Weight Gain
PubMed: 34319421
DOI: 10.1007/s00210-021-02128-9 -
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 -
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