Dataset Information

A Propensity Score Matched Comparison of Brand and Biosimilar Basal Insulin in Non-Critical Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Comparisons between brand and biosimilar basal insulin in hospitalized patients are lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of brand insulin glargine vs. biosimilar insulin glargine in non-critical hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS:This retrospective study was conducted using the electronic medical records of 194,006 patients at the Qingdao Endocrine and Diabetes Hospital between January 2006 and December 2017. A total of 476 patients diagnosed with T2DM, hospitalized, and treated with subcutaneous insulin glargine were included. After propensity score matching (1:3), patients who received biosimilar insulin glargine (Basalin) (n = 34) were compared to a matched group of patients who received brand insulin glargine (Lantus) (n = 101). Outcome measures were changes in fasting blood glucose (FBG), the incidence of hypoglycemia, and insulin dose. RESULTS:Compared to patients who received Basalin, patients who received Lantus achieved more reduction in FBG during insulin treatment (- 1.24 mmol/L vs. - 2.20 mmol/L; p = 0.04) and had a lower mean FBG at the end of treatment (8.20 mmol/L vs. 7.26 mmol/L; p = 0.12). Patients in Basalin and Lantus groups had a comparable mean daily dose of basal insulin at initiation (0.19 vs. 0.18 IU/kg; p = 0.30) and end of treatment (0.21 vs. 0.21 IU/kg; p = 0.99), and a similar duration of basal insulin treatment (16.4 vs. 15.3 days; p = 0.74). Hypoglycemia was infrequent in both Basalin and Lantus treatment (one vs. four patients, respectively; p = 1.00) and no severe hypoglycemic events were reported. CONCLUSION:In a non-critical hospital setting, subcutaneous treatment with Lantus brought significant FBG improvement without increased hypoglycemic risk.

SUBMITTER: Hu X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6824369 | biostudies-other | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Propensity Score Matched Comparison of Brand and Biosimilar Basal Insulin in Non-Critical Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Hu Xia X Zhang Lei L Dong Chao C Dong Yanhu Y Jiang Jikang J Gao Weiguo W

Advances in therapy 20190321 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>Comparisons between brand and biosimilar basal insulin in hospitalized patients are lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of brand insulin glargine vs. biosimilar insulin glargine in non-critical hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).<h4>Methods</h4>This retrospective study was conducted using the electronic medical records of 194,006 patients at the Qingdao Endocrine and Diabetes Hospital between January 2006 and December 2017. A total of ...[more]

PMID: 30900200

Similar Datasets

Project description:Corticosteroids use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial, especially in mild to severe patients who do not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation. Moreover, many factors remain unclear regarding the appropriate use of corticosteroids for COVID-19. In this context, this multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-matched study was launched to evaluate the efficacy of systemic corticosteroid administration for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 ranging in the degree of severity from mild to critically-ill disease. This multicenter, retrospective study enrolled consecutive hospitalized COVID-19 patients diagnosed January-April 2020 across 30 institutions in Japan. Clinical outcomes were compared for COVID-19 patients who received or did not receive corticosteroids, after adjusting for propensity scores. The primary endpoint was the odds ratio (OR) for improvement on a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15. Of 1092 COVID-19 patients analyzed, 118 patients were assigned to either the corticosteroid and non-corticosteroid group, after propensity score matching. At baseline, most patients did not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation (85.6% corticosteroid group vs. 89.8% non-corticosteroid group). The odds of improvement in a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15 was significantly lower for the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (OR, 0.611; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.388-0.962; p = 0.034). The time to improvement in radiological findings was significantly shorter in the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.758; 95% CI, 1.323-2.337; p < 0.001), regardless of baseline clinical status. The duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was shorter in corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (HR, 1.466; 95% CI, 0.841-2.554; p = 0.177). Of the 106 patients who received methylprednisolone, the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter in the pulse/semi-pulse versus standard dose group (HR, 2.831; 95% CI, 1.347-5.950; p = 0.006). In conclusion, corticosteroids for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 did not improve clinical status on Day 15, but reduced the time to improvement in radiological findings for all patients regardless of disease severity and also reduced the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients who required intubation.Trial registration: This study was registered in the University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry on April 21, 2020 (ID: UMIN000040211).

Project description:BackgroundAlthough research on the effects of comorbidities on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients is increasing, the risk of cancer history has not been evaluated for the mortality of patients with COVID-19.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we included 3232 patients with pathogen-confirmed COVID-19 who were hospitalized between January 18th and March 27th, 2020, at Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias.ResultsIn total, 2665 patients with complete clinical outcomes were analyzed. The impacts of age, sex, and comorbidities were evaluated separately using binary logistic regression analysis. The results showed that age, sex, and cancer history are independent risk factors for mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients with cancer exhibited a significant increase in mortality rate (29.4% vs. 10.2%, P < 0.0001). Furthermore, the clinical outcomes of patients with hematological malignancies were worse, with a mortality rate twice that of patients with solid tumors (50% vs. 26.1%). Importantly, cancer patients with complications had a significantly higher risk of poor outcomes. One hundred nine cancer patients were matched to noncancer controls in a 1:3 ratio by propensity score matching. After propensity score matching, the cancer patients still had a higher risk of mortality than the matched noncancer patients (odds ratio (OR) 2.98, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.76-5.06). Additionally, elevations in ferritin, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, procalcitonin, prothrombin time, interleukin-2 (IL-2) receptor, and interleukin-6 (IL-6) were observed in cancer patients.ConclusionsWe evaluated prognostic factors with epidemiological analysis and highlighted a higher risk of mortality for cancer patients with COVID-19. Importantly, cancer history was the only independent risk factor for COVID-19 among common comorbidities, while other comorbidities may act through other factors. Moreover, several laboratory parameters were significantly different between cancer patients and matched noncancer patients, which may indicate specific immune and inflammatory reactions in COVID-19 patients with cancer.

Dataset Information

A Propensity Score Matched Comparison of Brand and Biosimilar Basal Insulin in Non-Critical Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Publications

A Propensity Score Matched Comparison of Brand and Biosimilar Basal Insulin in Non-Critical Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets