22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparative effectiveness and safety of glargine 300 U/mL versus degludec 100 U/mL in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. A multicenter retrospective real-world study (RESTORE-2 NAIVE STUDY)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aims

          This study assessed comparative effectiveness of glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus degludec 100 U/mL (Deg-100) in insulin-naïve patients with T2D.

          Methods

          This is a retrospective, multicenter, non-inferiority study based on electronic medical records. All patients initiating Gla-300 or Deg-100 were 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM). Linear mixed models were used to assess the changes in continuous endpoints. Incidence rates (IR) of hypoglycemia were compared using Poisson’s regression models.

          Results

          Nineteen centers provided data on 357 patients in each PSM cohort. HbA1c after 6 months (primary endpoint) decreased by − 1.70% (95%CI − 1.90; − 1.50) in Gla-300 group and − 169% (95%CI − 1.89; − 1.49) in Deg-100 group, confirming non-inferiority of Gla-300 versus Deg-100. Fasting blood glucose (BG) decreased by ~60 mg/dl in both groups; body weight remained unchanged. In both groups, the mean starting dose was 12U (0.15U/kg) and it was slightly titrated to 16U (0.20U/kg). IR (episodes per patient-months) of BG ≤70 mg/dl was 0.13 in Gla-300 group and 0.14 in Deg-100 group ( p=0.87). IR of BG <54 mg/dL was 0.02 in both groups ( p=0.49). No severe hypoglycemia occurred.

          Conclusion

          Initiating Gla-300 or Deg-100 was associated with similar improvements in glycemic control, no weight gain and low hypoglycemia rates, without severe episodes during 6 months of treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples

          The propensity score is a subject's probability of treatment, conditional on observed baseline covariates. Conditional on the true propensity score, treated and untreated subjects have similar distributions of observed baseline covariates. Propensity-score matching is a popular method of using the propensity score in the medical literature. Using this approach, matched sets of treated and untreated subjects with similar values of the propensity score are formed. Inferences about treatment effect made using propensity-score matching are valid only if, in the matched sample, treated and untreated subjects have similar distributions of measured baseline covariates. In this paper we discuss the following methods for assessing whether the propensity score model has been correctly specified: comparing means and prevalences of baseline characteristics using standardized differences; ratios comparing the variance of continuous covariates between treated and untreated subjects; comparison of higher order moments and interactions; five-number summaries; and graphical methods such as quantile–quantile plots, side-by-side boxplots, and non-parametric density plots for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups. We describe methods to determine the sampling distribution of the standardized difference when the true standardized difference is equal to zero, thereby allowing one to determine the range of standardized differences that are plausible with the propensity score model having been correctly specified. We highlight the limitations of some previously used methods for assessing the adequacy of the specification of the propensity-score model. In particular, methods based on comparing the distribution of the estimated propensity score between treated and untreated subjects are uninformative. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            2019 update to: Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

            The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes have briefly updated their 2018 recommendations on management of hyperglycaemia, based on important research findings from large cardiovascular outcomes trials published in 2019. Important changes include: (1) the decision to treat high-risk individuals with a glucagon-like-peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), hospitalisation for heart failure (hHF), cardiovascular death or chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression should be considered independently of baseline HbA1c or individualised HbA1c target; (2) GLP-1 receptor agonists can also be considered in patients with type 2 diabetes without established cardiovascular disease (CVD) but with the presence of specific indicators of high risk; and (3) SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure, particularly those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, to reduce hHF, MACE and CVD death, as well as in patients with type 2 diabetes with CKD (eGFR 30 to ≤60 ml min-1 [1.73 m]-2 or urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio >30 mg/g, particularly >300 mg/g) to prevent the progression of CKD, hHF, MACE and cardiovascular death.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Therapeutic inertia in the treatment of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review

              Aims Therapeutic inertia, defined as the failure to initiate or intensify therapy in a timely manner according to evidence‐based clinical guidelines, is a key reason for uncontrolled hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. The aims of this systematic review were to identify how therapeutic inertia in the management of hyperglycaemia was measured and to assess its extent over the past decade. Materials and Methods Systematic searches for articles published from January 1, 2004 to August 1, 2016 were conducted in MEDLINE and Embase. Two researchers independently screened all of the titles and abstracts, and the full texts of publications deemed relevant. Data were extracted by a single researcher using a standardized data extraction form. Results The final selection for the review included 53 articles. Measurements used to assess therapeutic inertia varied across studies, making comparisons difficult. Data from low‐ to middle‐income countries were scarce. In most studies, the median time to treatment intensification after a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) measurement above target was more than 1 year (range 0.3 to >7.2 years). Therapeutic inertia increased as the number of antidiabetic drugs rose and decreased with increasing HbA1c levels. Data were mainly available from Western countries. Diversity of inertia measures precluded meta‐analysis. Conclusions Therapeutic inertia in the management of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes is a major concern. This is well documented in Western countries, but corresponding data are urgently needed in low‐ and middle‐income countries, in view of their high prevalence of type 2 diabetes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                nicolucci@coresearch.it
                Journal
                Acta Diabetol
                Acta Diabetol
                Acta Diabetologica
                Springer Milan (Milan )
                0940-5429
                1432-5233
                21 July 2022
                21 July 2022
                2022
                : 59
                : 10
                : 1317-1330
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.5608.b, ISNI 0000 0004 1757 3470, Department of Medicine, , University of Padova, ; Padua, Italy
                [2 ]GRID grid.7841.a, Department of Experimental Medicine, , Sapienza University, ; Rome, Italy
                [3 ]GRID grid.512242.2, CORESEARCH – Center for Outcomes Research and Clinical Epidemiology, ; Pescara, Italy
                [4 ]GRID grid.476719.a, Medical Affairs, ; Sanofi, Milan Italy
                [5 ]GRID grid.10438.3e, ISNI 0000 0001 2178 8421, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, , University of Messina, ; Messina, Italy
                Author notes

                Communicated by Giovanni Sartore .

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5939-6850
                Article
                1925
                10.1007/s00592-022-01925-9
                9402723
                35864262
                930a53b1-e185-4b4e-9ca9-c19d696ea568
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 22 March 2022
                : 15 June 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: The study was funded by Sanofi S.r.l., Milan, Italy.
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature 2022

                Endocrinology & Diabetes
                type 2 diabetes,basal insulin,naïve,glargine 300,degludec 100,effectiveness,safety

                Comments

                Comment on this article