Dataset Information

Treatment satisfaction and quality-of-life between type 2 diabetes patients initiating long- vs. intermediate-acting basal insulin therapy in combination with oral hypoglycemic agents--a randomized, prospective, crossover, open clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: Pharmacological and clinical differences between insulin glargine and NPH insulin may translate into differences in patient reported outcomes, but existing data are equivocal.In this 48-week, open-label, randomized, multi-center, crossover phase IV trial, insulin naïve type 2 diabetes patients with blood glucose not at target on oral hypoglycemic agents had basal insulin added to their treatment regimen. A total of 343 patients were randomized to either receive insulin glargine (n?=?176; sequence A) or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin (n?=?167; sequence B) in period 1 (weeks 1-24) and vice versa in period 2 (weeks 25-48). The primary objective was to assess patient reported outcomes using a composite Diabetes Related Quality of Life (DRQoL) score based on an unweighted Insulin Treatment Experience Questionnaire (ITEQ) score, a Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) questionnaire score, and the mental health score in the Short Form (SF)-12® Health Survey, analyzed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).Patients (mean age 62.3?±?9.0; 39.5 % female) had a mean diabetes duration of 9.6?±?5.9 years, a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.15?±?0.72 %, and a mean fasting blood glucose (FBG) level of 9.37?±?2.19 mmol/L. A total of 229 patients were available for primary endpoint evaluation (modified intention to treat population). Combining all data from both periods for each insulin treatment, on a 0-100 scale, the mean DRQoL score was 69.6 (±9.04) with insulin glargine and 70.0 (±9.40) with NPH insulin. Neither an effect of treatment with insulin glargine vs NPH insulin (p?=?0.31) nor a period effect (p?=?0.96), nor a sequence effect (p?=?0.76) was observed using ANCOVA.The results show that in a patient population with sub-optimal glycemic control at baseline, and a low target achievement rate together with a low rate of hypoglycemia, differences in the patient reported outcomes evaluated in this study were negligible between insulin glargine and NPH insulin.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00941369.

SUBMITTER: Hermanns N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4459660 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Treatment satisfaction and quality-of-life between type 2 diabetes patients initiating long- vs. intermediate-acting basal insulin therapy in combination with oral hypoglycemic agents--a randomized, prospective, crossover, open clinical trial.

Hermanns Norbert N Kulzer Bernd B Kohlmann Thomas T Jacob Stephan S Landgraf Wolfgang W Theobald Karlheinz K Haak Thomas T

Health and quality of life outcomes 20150609

<h4>Background</h4>Pharmacological and clinical differences between insulin glargine and NPH insulin may translate into differences in patient reported outcomes, but existing data are equivocal.<h4>Methods</h4>In this 48-week, open-label, randomized, multi-center, crossover phase IV trial, insulin naïve type 2 diabetes patients with blood glucose not at target on oral hypoglycemic agents had basal insulin added to their treatment regimen. A total of 343 patients were randomized to either receive ...[more]

PMID: 26055391

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEarly hospital discharge planning can help to reduce the length of stay and unplanned readmission in high-risk patients. Therefore, it is important to select patients who can benefit from a personalized discharge planning based on validated tools. The modified Blaylock Risk Assessment Screening Score (BRASS) is routinely used in the Molinette Hospital (Turin, Italy) to screen patients at high risk for discharge, but the effectiveness of the discharge planning is uncertain in intermediate-risk patients.ObjectiveTo evaluate the best strategy for discharge planning by the Continuity of Care Hospital Unit (CCHU) in intermediate-risk patients according to modified BRASS.DesignCluster-randomized, multiple crossover trial.ParticipantsAdult patients admitted in the Medicine and Neurology departments of the Molinette Hospital in Turin, Italy, between June 2018 and May 2019 with a BRASS intermediate risk.InterventionsA routine discharge planning strategy (RDP, Routine Discharge Plan), which involved the management of all intermediate-risk patients, was compared to an on-demand discharge planning strategy (DDP, on-Demand Discharge Planning), which involved only selected patients referred to the CCHU by ward staff.Main measuresThe primary outcome was the 90-day hospital readmission for any cause (HR90). Secondary outcomes included the prolonged length of stay (pLOS).Key resultsEight hundred two patients (median age 79 years) were included (414 RDP and 388 DDP). Comparing RDP vs. DDP periods, HR90 was 27.6% and 27.3% (OR 1.01, 90%CI 0.76-1.33, p = 0.485); and pLOS was 47 (11.4%) and 40 (10.3%) (OR 1.24, 95%CI 0.72-2.13, p = 0.447), respectively.ConclusionsThis is one of the largest randomized study conducted to compare the effectiveness of two different hospital discharge planning strategies. In patients with intermediate risk of hospital discharge, a RDP offers no advantage over a DDP and results in an unnecessary increase in staff workload.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT03436940.

Project description:BackgroundNew hypoglycemic agents include sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is). The association between each class of these new hypoglycemic drugs and the risks of various digestive system diseases is unknown. We aimed to explore this relationship by performing a meta-analysis.MethodsWe included large randomized trials of SGLT2is, GLP1RAs, and DPP4is. Outcomes of interest were 91 kinds of digestive diseases including 75 kinds of gastrointestinal disorders and 16 kinds of hepatobiliary disorders. Meta-analysis was done to generate pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analysis was conducted according to 3 different drug classes.ResultsWe included 21 large trials in this meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, GLP1RAs were associated with the higher risks of gastric ulcer hemorrhage (RR 2.68, 95% CI 1.07-6.68; Pdrug = .035; I2 = 0), pancreatitis (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.02-2.15; Pdrug = .041; I2 = 0), cholangitis acute (RR 5.96, 95% CI 1.04-34.08; Pdrug = .045; I2 = 0), and cholecystitis acute (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.08-2.15; Pdrug = .017; I2 = 1.5%), but were not significantly associated with the occurrences of the other 87 kinds of digestive diseases (Pdrug ranged from .064 to .999). SGLT2is versus placebo were not significantly associated with the occurrences of 91 kinds of digestive diseases (Pdrug ranged from .077 to .995). DPP4is versus placebo were not significantly associated with the occurrences of 91 kinds of digestive diseases (Pdrug ranged from .085 to .999).ConclusionsNeither SGLT2is nor DPP4is are associated with the occurrences of various kinds of digestive diseases, whereas GLP1RAs are associated with the higher risks of 4 kinds of digestive diseases, namely, gastric ulcer hemorrhage, pancreatitis, cholangitis acute, and cholecystitis acute. These findings seem to suggest that GLP1RAs are not applicable for patients at high risk of 4 specific digestive diseases, whereas SGLT2is and DPP4is are safe for patients susceptible to digestive diseases. However, our findings require to be further verified by future studies with sufficient statistical power.

Project description:Background: Anti-tumor necrosis factor biological agents had been proved to have a dramatic effect in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of crossover effects of adalimumab vs. etanercept in AS patients. Methods: A randomized, open-label crossover study was done in patients with active AS. Patients were randomized into two sequence groups, etanercept first (treatment arm) vs. adalimumab first (control arm) 8 weeks and then switched over for another 8 weeks. The primary endpoints were the difference of the Bath AS activity index and AS disease activity score (ASDAS)crp at week 16. Secondary endpoints were ASDASesr, ASAS20, and ASAS40 response rates and the proportion of patients achieving ASDAS inactive disease and low disease activity at weeks 8 and 16. Patient global assessment and preference was grading on a numerical scale. Results: A total of 21 patients were screened, and 19 of them were randomly allocated into the treatment arm (n = 9) and control arm (n = 9). At baseline, age, sex, Bath AS activity index, and ASDAS of both arms were comparable (p > 0.05). Both arms showed dramatic improvement, whereas no significance was observed between the changes of ASDAScrp (0.90 ± 1.39 vs. 1.24 ± 1.40 at week 8, p = 0.612; 1.02 ± 1.22 vs. 1.26 ± 1.44 at week 16, p = 0.707, respectively). ASAS20 and ASAS40 response rates were also comparable at week 8 (33 vs. 44%, p = 1.000; 22 vs. 22%, p = 1.000) and week 16 (22 vs. 22%, p = 1.000; 22 vs. 22%, p = 1.000), respectively. Both arms were well-tolerated without a serious adverse event. Adalimumab was relatively more favorable by patients in both arms, with a total mean grading score of 0.4 (-5-5, p = 0.218). Conclusion: Etanercept and adalimumab can both dramatically improve disease activity in 16 weeks. Crossover administration of etanercept and adalimumab revealed comparable efficacy and safety. Trial Registration: The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board with the register CS08019 from Chung Shan Medical University Hospital (CSMUH), Taichung, Taiwan and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System: NCT02489760.

Dataset Information

Treatment satisfaction and quality-of-life between type 2 diabetes patients initiating long- vs. intermediate-acting basal insulin therapy in combination with oral hypoglycemic agents--a randomized, prospective, crossover, open clinical trial.

Publications

Treatment satisfaction and quality-of-life between type 2 diabetes patients initiating long- vs. intermediate-acting basal insulin therapy in combination with oral hypoglycemic agents--a randomized, prospective, crossover, open clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets