1.
Treatment paradigm shifting implications of recent cardiovascular outcome trials: Core insights on the brink of the 2020ies.
Standl, E, Schnell, O
Diabetes research and clinical practice. 2020;:108054
Abstract
Based on cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials (CVOTs) being available on the brink of the 2020ies, CV safety assessed by major adverse CV event outcomes has been established for the classes of glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1 RAs), sodium-glucose-co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2-is), and dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) in patients at very high CV risk. This should be relevant to the whole population with diabetes in general as well as the fact that no new serious and unexpected side effects have emerged within these trials. At the same time, treatment paradigm shifting CV benefit has been confirmed for two classes of diabetes medications (SGLT2is & GLP1 RAs), with important additional benefit of SGLT2is reducing heart failure and hard renal endpoints, both in patients with such diseases, but also in patients being in primary prevention. Moreover, the "soft" renal outcome of albuminurea progression seems to be attenuated by all three classes of drugs discussed in this overview. Still ongoing CVOTs are not expected to essentially change the current notions, with the potential of some differentiation regarding subgroups of primary heart failure populations in relation to treatment with SGLT2is.
2.
Reflections on the sulphonylurea story: A drug class at risk of extinction or a drug class worth reviving?
Cordiner, RLM, Pearson, ER
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2019;(4):761-771
Abstract
The role of sulphonylureas (SUs) in modern clinical practice poses ongoing clinical debate. With the advent of newer agents in diabetes management, there is an increasing shift away from the prescribing of SUs, but not necessarily to more effective agents. This review provides a different perspective on the debate, reflecting in depth upon the physiology of SUs, drawing on insights gained from monogenic diabetes to highlight the potential benefit of lower doses of SUs, and the probable benefit of gliclazide over most other, if not all SUs, in terms of sulphonylurea failure and cardiovascular outcomes.
3.
Experimenting with styles of living: Bernard, Canguilhem and type 2 diabetes education.
Ljungdalh, AK
The Journal of medical humanities. 2013;(3):369-83
Abstract
The paper links a debate in the history of medical science between statistics and the experimental method with contemporary diabetes educational practices. An empirical example of a tension between neglect and concern in diabetes self-regulation frames the subsequent theoretical discussion between first, Claude Bernard and statistics and afterwards, Georges Canguilhem as a correlative to Bernard. Through these philosophers of medical science a connection between the experimental method and education is demonstrated. Finally, a case description of an experimental approach to alcohol and experimentation frames and highlights the educational aspect of the methodological discussion.
4.
[Pancreatic transplant].
Montiel, MC, Pardo, F, Rotellar, F, ValentÃ, V, Pastor, C, Alvarez Cienfuegos, J
Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra. 2006;:113-24
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus is a health concern of the first order, given the high level of associated morbidity and mortality. The objective, in order to slow down the advance of its complications before they become irreversible, is based on correct metabolic control. The high rate of morbidity associated with the surgery of the vascularized pancreas transplant and the high index of rejection have for three decades formed an obstacle to this being considered a valid alternative in the treatment of these patients. Nowadays the pancreas transplant has come to occupy a key position, thanks to the new regimes of immunosuppression and to the perfection of surgical techniques. In this article we review the evolution of the pancreas transplant from its beginnings to its present state.
5.
Effects of two different glibenclamide dose-strengths in the fixed combination with metformin in patients with poorly controlled T2DM: a double blind, prospective, randomised, cross-over clinical trial.
Brunetti, P, Pagano, G, Turco, C, Gori, M, Perriello, G, ,
Diabetes, nutrition & metabolism. 2004;(6):350-7
Abstract
A double-blind, prospective, randomised, cross-over clinical trial was performed comparing a glibenclamide (G) 5.0 mg/metformin (M) 400 mg combination with a G 2.5 mg/M 400 mg formulation to evaluate whether a higher dose of glibenclamide was able to improve glycaemia in poorly controlled Type 2 diabetic patients. One hundred and ninety-eight patients with poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomised to receive one of the two trial drugs for a first 3-month period, and were then assigned to the alternative combination for further 3 months. The starting dose (2 tablets/day, 30 min before breakfast and dinner) was to be up-titrated to 3 tablets/day when required. A standard dietary regimen was kept constant for the total trial duration. Fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c, C-peptide, insulin and lactate levels, haematology and blood chemistry were measured at the start/end of each cycle. Patients' self-assessment of the glycaemic profile (at fasting and 2 hr after the main meals) was performed weekly. Patients were constantly monitored for adverse events and episodes of hypoglycaemia, and all events were recorded. Decrease of mean fasting glucose levels measured in the first cycle was more pronounced in the group treated with G 5.0 mg/M 400 (p<0.01) compared to baseline, although the difference was not significant--no changes were observed in the second 3-month period. Results of patients' self-assessment of the glycaemic profile in the overall 6-month period show that the two trial drugs produced similar effects on fasting glucose, but the decrease of post-prandial glycaemic levels was markedly higher with G 5 mg/M 400 mg than with G 2.5 mg/M 400 mg at both main meals. A similar significant decrease (p<0.01) of HbA1c was observed in both sequence groups at the end of the first 3-month treatment period, and mean levels remained unchanged at 6 months. Drug-related adverse events were observed in 2 patients during treatment with G 2.5 mg/M 400 mg and in 5 with G 5 mg/M 400 mg, while 14 and 22 episodes of hypoglycaemia occurred with the two trial drugs, respectively (p=NS between treatments). Metformin-induced increases of lactate levels were similar in the two sequence groups. No differences between groups were found either in the number of up-titrated patients or in all the other laboratory parameters. In conclusion, the new combination containing 5-mg glibenclamide produced a greater improvement in post-prandial glycaemic control compared with the standard fixed doses, and resulted equally safe and well tolerated.