MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, retrospective study design. All patients who received vildagliptin in the Pharmacy Integrated Health System (PHIS) registry database from 2016 to 2021 were included as study samples. The exclusion criteria were being less than 18 years old and having type 1 diabetes mellitus. Patients' medical records were retrieved after sampling, and data were collected. One medical record was missing, thus SPSS analysis were performed on 144 vildagliptin users.
RESULTS: In total, 84 females (58.3%) and 60 males (41.7%) with a mean age of 62.1 (±10.1) years were analysed in this study. Mean HbA1c pre-therapy was 8.5 ± 2.1%; while posttherapy 6 months demonstrated a mean HbA1c of 7.9 ± 1.8%. Use of vildagliptin alone or as an adjunct was associated with a mean reduction of 0.6% in HbA1c (p = 0.01). Factors influencing this HbA1c reduction were advancing age, specifically individuals aged 62 years and older (p = 0.02), patients who are already receiving insulin therapy (p=0.00) and those who express a willingness to commence insulin treatment during the counselling session prior to initiating the treatment plan (p = 0.00). Reasons for vildagliptin initiation documented by prescribers were non-insulin acceptance (n = 59, 40.97%), frequent hypoglycaemia (n = 6, 4.1%) and non-compliance with medications (n = 23, 15.9%). There was no association between demographic, medical background and reason for starting vildagliptin variables and HbA1c reduction (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: This study showed that initiating vildagliptin alone or as an adjunct therapy significantly reduced HbA1c and is beneficial for uncontrolled diabetes patients. While advancing age, concurrent administration of insulin and the patients' willingness to accept insulin treatment prior to the commencement of therapy were the factors that influenced HbA1c reduction among patients receiving vildagliptin therapy, we recommend primary care providers prioritise all of the significant variables discovered before initiating vildagliptin for their patients.
Methods: 53 women with GDM (30 managed with diet only (GDM-diet) and 23 treated with insulin (GDM-insulin)) and 43 pregnant women with normal glucose tolerance (NGDM) were studied, with GIP and GLP-1 levels measured at 24-28 weeks (E1), prior (E2) and after (E3) delivery, and postpuerperium (E4).
Results: Basal GIP was shown to be low in GDM groups compared to NGDM in E1, and in E4 for GDM-diet. GLP-1 was low in GDM groups during pregnancy and afterwards. At E1, serum GIP and GLP-1 were inversely associated with GDM and participants with lower levels of GIP (<0.23 ng/mL) and GLP-1 (<0.38 ng/mL) had a 6 (95% CI 2.5-14.5)- and 7.6 (95% CI 3.0-19.1)-fold higher risk of developing GDM compared with the higher level, respectively. In the postpuerperium, when there is a drop in β-cell function, participants with previous GDM (pGDM) presented lower GLP-1 (in both GDM subgroups) and lower GIP in GDM-diet subgroup compared to controls.
Conclusion: There is an independent, inverse association between fasting incretins and higher risk of GDM. Furthermore, lowered levels of these peptides may play an important role in the abnormality of glucose regulation following pregnancy.
METHODS: The present study included 812 patients in the ABSORB EXTEND study in which a total of 215 diabetic patients were treated with Absorb BVS. In addition, 882 diabetic patients treated with EES in pooled data from the SPIRIT clinical program (SPIRIT II, SPIRIT III and SPIRIT IV trials) were used for comparison by applying propensity score matching using 29 different variables. The primary endpoint was ischemia driven major adverse cardiac events (ID-MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR).
RESULTS: After 2 years, the ID-MACE rate was 6.5% in the Absorb BVS vs. 8.9% in the Xience group (P = 0.40). There was no difference for MACE components or definite/probable device thrombosis (HR: 1.43 [0.24,8.58]; P = 0.69). The occurrence of MACE was not different for both diabetic status (insulin- and non-insulin-requiring diabetes) in all time points up to the 2-year follow-up for the Absorb and Xience groups.
CONCLUSION: In this largest ever patient-level pooled comparison on the treatment of diabetic patients with BRS out to two years, individuals with diabetes treated with the Absorb BVS had a similar rate of MACE as compared with diabetics treated with the Xience EES. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
AIMS: To examine the trends in prescribed antidiabetic treatments, including variations across age, gender, socioeconomic status and regions in the Irish population over the last 10 years.
METHODS: The Irish national pharmacy claims database was used to identify patients ≥ 16 years dispensed antidiabetic agents (oral or insulin) from January 2003 to December 2012 through the two main community drug schemes for diabetes. The rate of prescribing per 1,000 population was calculated. Logistic regression was used to examine variations in prescribing in patients with diabetes.
RESULTS: There was a significant increase in the prescribing of fast and long-acting insulin analogues with a rapid decline in the prescribing of human insulin (p < 0.0001). Increased prescribing of metformin, incretin modulators and fixed oral combination agents was observed (p < 0.0001). Females and older aged patients were more likely to be prescribed human insulin than other insulins. Metformin was less likely while sulphonylureas were more likely to be prescribed in older than younger aged patients. Socioeconomic differences were observed in increased prescribing of the newer and more expensive antidiabetic agents in the non-means tested scheme. Regional variations were observed in the prescribing of both insulin and oral antidiabetic agents.
CONCLUSION: There has been an increase over time in the prescribing of both insulin and oral antidiabetic agents in the Irish population with increasing uptake of newer antidiabetic agents. This has implications for projecting future uptake and expenditure of these agents given the rising level of diabetes in the population.
AREAS COVERED: We discussed various aspects of pharmacotherapeutic management in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: (i) susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 among individuals with diabetes, (ii) glycemic goals for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and concurrent diabetes, (iii) pharmacological treatment considerations for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and concurrent diabetes.
EXPERT OPINION: The glycemic goals in patients with COVID-19 and concurrent type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are to avoid disruption of stable metabolic state, maintain optimal glycemic control, and prevent adverse glycemic events. Patients with T1DM require insulin therapy at all times to prevent ketosis. The management strategies for patients with T2DM include temporary discontinuation of certain oral antidiabetic agents and consideration for insulin therapy. Patients with T2DM who are relatively stable and able to eat regularly may continue with oral antidiabetic agents if glycemic control is satisfactory. Hyperglycemia may develop in patients with systemic corticosteroid treatment and should be managed upon accordingly.
METHODS: A total of 1065 patients aged ≥18 years with T2DM initiating insulin therapy in normal clinical course were enrolled from Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand. Participants' data was recorded by the treating physicians. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using questionnaires completed by participants.
RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 57.2 years with mean glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 10.0%. About 66% of patients had an HbA1c ≥9.0% at insulin initiation despite 74% of them being on two or more oral antidiabetic agents at the time of insulin initiation. Basal insulin was initiated in 72% and premixed insulin in 27% of patients. Changes in insulin therapy was observed in 63% of patients and, by the end of study, 28% achieved HbA1c levels of <7.5%. The proportion of patients completely satisfied with their insulin treatment increased over the study course and the quality of life (QoL) score increased from baseline to the study end.
CONCLUSION: As high HbA1C levels indicate a delayed start of insulin therapy, timely initiation and early intensification of insulin therapy is necessary in the region to achieve adequate glycemic control in time and prevent diabetes complications. Data from PROs suggests that the insulin treatment improves QoL in most patients.