Basal plus basal-bolus approach in type 2 diabetes

This is a copy of an article published in the Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics © 2011 [copyright Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.]; Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics is available online at: http://online.liebertpub.com.[EN] Type 2 diabetes is characterized by insulin resistance and progressive b-cell deterioration. As b-cell function declines, most patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral agents, in monotherapy or combination, will require insulin therapy. Addition of basal insulin (glargine, detemir, or NPH/neutral protamine lispro insulin) to previous treatment is accepted as the simplest way to start insulin therapy in those patients. But even when basal insulin is adequately titrated, some patients will also need prandial insulin to achieve or maintain individual glycemic targets over time. Starting with premixed insulin is an effective option, but it is frequently associated with increased hypoglycemia risk, ¿xed meal schedules, and weight gain. As an alternative, a novel approached known as ``basal plus strategy¿¿ has been developed. This approach considers the addition of increasing injections of prandial insulin, beginning with the meal that has the major impact on postprandial glucose values. Finally, if this is not enough intensi¿cation to basal¿bolus will be necessary. In reducing hyperglycemia, this modality still remains the most effective option, even in people with type 2 diabetes. This article will review the currently evidence on the basal plus strategy and also its progression to basal¿bolus therapy. In addition, practical recommendations to start and adjust basal plus therapy will be provided.F.J.A.-B. has received honoraria as speaker and/or consultant from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Glaxo-SmithKline, LifeScan, Lilly, Madaus, MannKind Corp., Medtronic, Menarini, Merch Farma y Quimica, SA, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, sanofi-aventis, Schering-Plough, and Solvay. In addition, F.J.A.-B. has participated in clinical trials supported totally or partially by AstraZeneca, Glaxo-SmithKline, LifeScan, Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, and Servier. P. R. has no potential conflicts of interest to declare. J.F.A. has received honoraria as speaker and/or consultant form AstraZeneca, Ferrer, Glaxo-SmithKline, Laboratorios Dr. Esteve, Lilly, MSD, and Solvay.Ampudia-Blasco, J.; Rossetti ., P.; Ascaso, JF. (2011). Basal plus basal-bolus approach in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. 13:75-83. doi:10.1089/dia.2011.0001S75831

Tikhonov adaptively regularized gamma variate fitting to assess plasma clearance of inert renal markers

The Tk-GV model fits Gamma Variates (GV) to data by Tikhonov regularization (Tk) with shrinkage constant, λ, chosen to minimize the relative error in plasma clearance, CL (ml/min). Using 169Yb-DTPA and 99mTc-DTPA (n = 46, 8–9 samples, 5–240 min) bolus-dilution curves, results were obtained for fit methods: (1) Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) one and two exponential term (E1 and E2), (2) OLS-GV and (3) Tk-GV. Four tests examined the fit results for: (1) physicality of ranges of model parameters, (2) effects on parameter values when different data subsets are fit, (3) characterization of residuals, and (4) extrapolative error and agreement with published correction factors. Test 1 showed physical Tk-GV results, where OLS-GV fits sometimes-produced nonphysical CL. Test 2 showed the Tk-GV model produced good results with 4 or more samples drawn between 10 and 240 min. Test 3 showed that E1 and E2 failed goodness-of-fit testing whereas GV fits for t > 20 min were acceptably good. Test 4 showed CLTk-GV clearance values agreed with published CL corrections with the general result that CLE1 > CLE2 > CLTk-GV and finally that CLTk-GV were considerably more robust, precise and accurate than CLE2, and should replace the use of CLE2 for these renal markers

A new oscillometric method for pulse wave analysis: comparison with a common tonometric method

In the European Society of Cardiology–European Society of Hypertension guidelines of the year 2007, the consequences of arterial stiffness and wave reflection on cardiovascular mortality have a major role. But the investigators claimed the poor availability of devices/methods providing easy and widely suitable measuring of arterial wall stiffness or their surrogates like augmentation index (AIx) or aortic systolic blood pressure (aSBP). The aim of this study was the validation of a novel method determining AIx and aSBP based on an oscillometric method using a common cuff (ARCSolver) against a validated tonometric system (SphygmoCor). aSBP and AIx measured with the SphygmoCor and ARCSolver method were compared for 302 subjects. The mean age was 56 years with an s.d. of 20 years. At least two iterations were performed in each session. This resulted in 749 measurements. For aSBP the mean difference was −0.1 mm Hg with an s.d. of 3.1 mm Hg. The mean difference for AIx was 1.2% with an s.d. of 7.9%. There was no significant difference in reproducibility of AIx for both methods. The variation estimate of inter- and intraobserver measurements was 6.3% for ARCSolver and 7.5% for SphygmoCor. The ARCSolver method is a novel method determining AIx and aSBP based on an oscillometric system with a cuff. The results agree with common accepted tonometric measurements. Its application is easy and for widespread use

Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: Uptake of self-testing and self-management of oral anticoagulation has remained inconsistent, despite good evidence of their effectiveness. To clarify the value of self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation, we did a meta-analysis of individual patient data addressing several important gaps in the evidence, including an estimate of the effect on time to death, first major haemorrhage, and thromboembolism. / Methods: We searched Ovid versions of Embase (1980–2009) and Medline (1966–2009), limiting searches to randomised trials with a maximally sensitive strategy. We approached all authors of included trials and requested individual patient data: primary outcomes were time to death, first major haemorrhage, and first thromboembolic event. We did prespecified subgroup analyses according to age, type of control-group care (anticoagulation-clinic care vs primary care), self-testing alone versus self-management, and sex. We analysed patients with mechanical heart valves or atrial fibrillation separately. We used a random-effect model method to calculate pooled hazard ratios and did tests for interaction and heterogeneity, and calculated a time-specific number needed to treat. / Findings: Of 1357 abstracts, we included 11 trials with data for 6417 participants and 12 800 person-years of follow-up. We reported a significant reduction in thromboembolic events in the self-monitoring group (hazard ratio 0·51; 95% CI 0·31–0·85) but not for major haemorrhagic events (0·88, 0·74–1·06) or death (0·82, 0·62–1·09). Participants younger than 55 years showed a striking reduction in thrombotic events (hazard ratio 0·33, 95% CI 0·17–0·66), as did participants with mechanical heart valve (0·52, 0·35–0·77). Analysis of major outcomes in the very elderly (age ≥85 years, n=99) showed no significant adverse effects of the intervention for all outcomes. Interpretation: Our analysis showed that self-monitoring and self-management of oral anticoagulation is a safe option for suitable patients of all ages. Patients should also be offered the option to self-manage their disease with suitable health-care support as back-up. / Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Technology Assessment Programme, UK NIHR National School for Primary Care Research