5 research outputs found

    Insulin detemir offers improved glycemic control compared with NPH insulin in people with type 1 diabetes - A randomized clinical trial

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE—Insulin detemir is a soluble long-acting basal insulin analog designed to overcome the limitations of conventional basal insulin formulations. Accordingly, insulin detemir has been compared with NPH insulin with respect to glycemic control (HbA1c, prebreakfast glucose levels and variability, and hypoglycemia) and timing of administration. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—People with type 1 diabetes (n = 408) were randomized in an open-label, parallel-group trial of 16-week treatment duration using either insulin detemir or NPH insulin. Insulin detemir was administered twice daily using two different regimens, either before breakfast and at bedtime (IDetmorn+bed) or at a 12-h interval (IDet12h). NPH insulin was administered before breakfast and at bedtime. Mealtime insulin was given as the rapid-acting insulin analog insulin aspart. RESULTS—With both insulin detemir groups, clinic fasting plasma glucose was lower than with NPH insulin (IDet12h vs. NPH, −1.5 mmol/l [95% CI −2.51 to −0.48], P = 0.004; IDetmorn+bed vs. NPH, −2.3 mmol/l (−3.32 to −1.29), P < 0.001), as was self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose (P = 0.006 and P = 0.004, respectively). The risk of minor hypoglycemia was lower in both insulin detemir groups (25%, P = 0.046; 32%, P = 0.002; respectively) compared with NPH insulin in the last 12 weeks of treatment, this being mainly attributable to a 53% reduction in nocturnal hypoglycemia in the IDetmorn+bed group (P < 0.001). Although HbA1c for each insulin detemir group was not different from the NPH group, HbA1c for the pooled insulin detemir groups was significantly lower than for the NPH group (mean difference −0.18% [−0.34 to −0.02], P = 0.027). Within-person between-day variation in self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose was lower for both detemir groups (both P < 0.001). The NPH group gained weight during the study, but there was no change in weight in either of the insulin detemir groups (IDet12h vs. NPH, −0.8 kg [−1.44 to −0.24], P = 0.006; IDetmorn+bed vs. NPH, −0.6 kg [−1.23 to −0.03], P = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS—Overall glycemic control with insulin detemir was improved compared with NPH insulin. The data provide a basis for tailoring the timing of administration of insulin detemir to the individual person’s needs

    Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections: the impact of baseline A1c

    No full text
    Rapid-acting insulin analogs (insulin lispro and insulin aspart) have emerged as the meal insulin of choice in both multiple daily insulin injection (MDII) therapy and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) for type 1 diabetes. Thus, a comparison of efficacy between CSII and MDII should be undertaken only in studies that used rapid-acting analogs for both intensive regimens. We performed a pooled analysis of the randomized controlled trials that compared CSII and optimized MDII therapy using rapid-acting analogs in adults with type 1 diabetes. The three studies that met inclusion criteria provided data on 139 patients, representing 596 patient-months for CSII and 529 patient-months for MDII. Mean age was 38.5 years, with duration of diabetes of 18.0 years. The studies differed significantly in mean baseline A1c (7.95, 8.20, and 9.27%). The pooled estimate of treatment effect comparing the percentage reduction in A1c by CSII with that by MDII (CSII - MDII) was 0.35% (95% CI -0.10 to 0.80, P = 0.08) using a random effect to account for heterogeneity between studies. Importantly, the interaction between baseline A1c and treatment modality emerged as an independent predictor of treatment effect (CSII - MDII) (P = 0.002). The relative benefit of CSII over MDII was found to increase with higher baseline A1c. A model derived from these data predicts that in a patient with a baseline A1c of 10%, CSII would reduce the A1c by an additional 0.65% compared with MDII. Conversely, there would be no A1c benefit of CSII compared with MDII if baseline A1c were 6.5%. There was no significant difference between CSII and MDII in the rate of hypoglycemic events. When using rapid-acting insulin analogs in CSII and MDII regimens in adult patients with type 1 diabetes, insulin pump therapy is associated with better glycemic control, particularly in those individuals with higher baseline A1c. Thus, CSII emerges as an important modality for implementing intensive therapy and may be uniquely advantageous in patients with poor glycemic contro

    Multicentric evaluation of BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel for rapid bacteriological documentation of pneumonia

    No full text
    International audienceOBJECTIVES: To evaluate performances of the rapid multiplex PCR assay BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel (FA-PP) for detection of bacterial pathogens and antibiotic resistance genes in sputum, endotracheal aspirate (ETA) and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in 11 French university hospitals (July to December 2018) and assessed performance of FA-PP by comparison with routine conventional methods. RESULTS: A total of 515 respiratory specimens were studied, including 58 sputa, 217 ETA and 240 BAL. The FA-PP detected at least one pathogen in 384 specimens, yielding an overall positivity rate of 74.6% (384/515). Of them, 353 (68.5%) specimens were positive for typical bacteria while eight atypical bacteria and 42 resistance genes were found. While identifying most bacterial pathogens isolated by culture (374/396, 94.4%), the FA-PP detected 294 additional species in 37.7% (194/515) of specimens. The FA-PP demonstrated positive percentage agreement and negative percentage agreement values of 94.4% (95% CI 91.7%-96.5%) and 96.0% (95% CI 95.5%-96.4%), respectively, when compared with culture. Of FA-PP false-negative results, 67.6% (46/68) corresponded to bacterial species not included in the panel. At the same semi-quantification level (in DNA copies/mL for FA-PP versus in CFU/mL for culture), the concordance rate was 43.4% (142/327) for culture-positive specimens with FA-PP reporting higher semi-quantification of ≥1 log(10) in 48.6% (159/327) of cases. Interestingly, 90.1% of detected bacteria with ≥10(6) DNA copies/mL grew significantly in culture. CONCLUSIONS: FA-PP is a simple and rapid molecular test that could complement routine conventional methods for improvement of diagnosis accuracy of pneumonia
    corecore