A unified approach to molecular epidemiology investigations: tools and patterns in California as a case study for endemic shigellosis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Shigellosis causes diarrheal disease in humans from both developed and developing countries, and multi-drug resistance is an emerging problem. The objective of this study is to present a unified approach that can be used to characterize endemic and outbreak patterns of shigellosis using use a suite of epidemiologic and molecular techniques. The approach is applied to a California case study example of endemic shigellosis at the population level.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Epidemiologic patterns were evaluated with respect to demographics, multi-drug resistance, antimicrobial resistance genes, plasmid profiles, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) fingerprints for the 43 <it>Shigella </it>isolates obtained by the Monterey region health departments over the two year period from 2004-2005.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The traditional epidemiologic as well as molecular epidemiologic findings were consistent with endemic as compared to outbreak shigellosis in this population. A steady low level of cases was observed throughout the study period and high diversity was observed among strains. In contrast to most studies in developed countries, the predominant species was <it>Shigella flexneri </it>(51%) followed closely by <it>S. sonnei </it>(49%). Over 95% of <it>Shigella </it>isolates were fully resistant to three or more antimicrobial drug subclasses, and 38% of isolates were resistant to five or more subclasses. More than half of <it>Shigella </it>strains tested carried the <it>tetB</it>, <it>catA</it>, or <it>bla</it>_TEMgenes for antimicrobial resistance to tetracycline, chloramphenicol, and ampicillin, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study shows how epidemiologic patterns at the host and bacterial population levels can be used to investigate endemic as compared to outbreak patterns of shigellosis in a community. Information gathered as part of such investigations will be instrumental in identifying emerging antimicrobial resistance, for developing treatment guidelines appropriate for that community, and to provide baseline data with which to compare outbreak strains in the future.</p

Efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with its components given alone: Results of a phase 3, open-label, randomised, 26-week, treat-to-target trial in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: A fixed-ratio combination of the basal insulin analogue insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue liraglutide has been developed as a once-daily injection for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to compare combined insulin degludec-liraglutide (IDegLira) with its components given alone in insulin-naive patients. METHODS: In this phase 3, 26-week, open-label, randomised trial, adults with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c of 7-10% (inclusive), a BMI of 40 kg/m(2) or less, and treated with metformin with or without pioglitazone were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to daily injections of IDegLira, insulin degludec, or liraglutide (1\ub78 mg per day). IDegLira and insulin degludec were titrated to achieve a self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose concentration of 4-5 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment, and the main objective was to assess the non-inferiority of IDegLira to insulin degludec (with an upper 95% CI margin of 0\ub73%), and the superiority of IDegLira to liraglutide (with a lower 95% CI margin of 0%). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336023. FINDINGS: 1663 adults (mean age 55 years [SD 10], HbA1c 8\ub73% [0\ub79], and BMI 31\ub72 kg/m(2) [4\ub78]) were randomly assigned, 834 to IDegLira, 414 to insulin degludec, and 415 to liraglutide. After 26 weeks, mean HbA1c had decreased by 1\ub79% (SD 1\ub71) to 6\ub74% (1\ub70) with IDegLira, by 1\ub74% (1\ub70) to 6\ub79% (1\ub71) with insulin degludec, and by 1\ub73% (1\ub71) to 7\ub70% (1\ub72) with liraglutide. IDegLira was non-inferior to insulin degludec (estimated treatment difference -0\ub747%, 95% CI -0\ub758 to -0\ub736, p<0\ub70001) and superior to liraglutide (-0\ub764%, -0\ub775 to -0\ub753, p<0\ub70001). IDegLira was generally well tolerated; fewer participants in the IDegLira group than in the liraglutide group reported gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 8\ub78 vs 19\ub77%), although the insulin degludec group had the fewest participants with gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 3\ub76%). We noted no clinically relevant differences between treatments with respect to standard safety assessments, and the safety profile of IDegLira reflected those of its component parts. The number of confirmed hypoglycaemic events per patient year was 1\ub78 for IDegLira, 0\ub72 for liraglutide, and 2\ub76 for insulin degludec. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (2%) of 825 patients in the IDegLira group, eight (2%) of 412 in the insulin degludec group, and 14 (3%) of 412 in the liraglutide group. INTERPRETATION: IDegLira combines the clinical advantages of basal insulin and GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment, resulting in improved glycaemic control compared with its components given alone

Efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with its components given alone: results of a phase 3, open-label, randomised, 26-week, treat-to-target trial in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: A fixed-ratio combination of the basal insulin analogue insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue liraglutide has been developed as a once-daily injection for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to compare combined insulin degludec-liraglutide (IDegLira) with its components given alone in insulin-naive patients. METHODS: In this phase 3, 26-week, open-label, randomised trial, adults with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c of 7-10% (inclusive), a BMI of 40 kg/m(2) or less, and treated with metformin with or without pioglitazone were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to daily injections of IDegLira, insulin degludec, or liraglutide (1·8 mg per day). IDegLira and insulin degludec were titrated to achieve a self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose concentration of 4-5 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment, and the main objective was to assess the non-inferiority of IDegLira to insulin degludec (with an upper 95% CI margin of 0·3%), and the superiority of IDegLira to liraglutide (with a lower 95% CI margin of 0%). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336023. FINDINGS: 1663 adults (mean age 55 years [SD 10], HbA1c 8·3% [0·9], and BMI 31·2 kg/m(2) [4·8]) were randomly assigned, 834 to IDegLira, 414 to insulin degludec, and 415 to liraglutide. After 26 weeks, mean HbA1c had decreased by 1·9% (SD 1·1) to 6·4% (1·0) with IDegLira, by 1·4% (1·0) to 6·9% (1·1) with insulin degludec, and by 1·3% (1·1) to 7·0% (1·2) with liraglutide. IDegLira was non-inferior to insulin degludec (estimated treatment difference -0·47%, 95% CI -0·58 to -0·36, p<0·0001) and superior to liraglutide (-0·64%, -0·75 to -0·53, p<0·0001). IDegLira was generally well tolerated; fewer participants in the IDegLira group than in the liraglutide group reported gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 8·8 vs 19·7%), although the insulin degludec group had the fewest participants with gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 3·6%). We noted no clinically relevant differences between treatments with respect to standard safety assessments, and the safety profile of IDegLira reflected those of its component parts. The number of confirmed hypoglycaemic events per patient year was 1·8 for IDegLira, 0·2 for liraglutide, and 2·6 for insulin degludec. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (2%) of 825 patients in the IDegLira group, eight (2%) of 412 in the insulin degludec group, and 14 (3%) of 412 in the liraglutide group. INTERPRETATION: IDegLira combines the clinical advantages of basal insulin and GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment, resulting in improved glycaemic control compared with its components given alone