A randomized, multicentre trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in adults with type 1 diabetes (onset 5).

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) vs insulin aspart (IAsp) used in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, treat-to-target, randomized, 16-week trial investigating CSII treatment with faster aspart (n = 236) or IAsp (n = 236). All available information, regardless of treatment discontinuation, was used for the evaluation of effect. RESULTS: Faster aspart was non-inferior to IAsp regarding the change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; primary endpoint). The mean HbA1c changed from 58.4 mmol/mol (7.5%) at baseline to 57.8 mmol/mol (7.4%) with faster aspart and to 56.8 mmol/mol (7.4%) with IAsp after 16 weeks' treatment, with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of 1.0 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14; 1.87) or 0.09% (95% CI 0.01; 0.17; P < 0.001) for non-inferiority (0.4% margin; P < 0.02 for statistical significance in favour of IAsp). Faster aspart was superior to IAsp in change from baseline in 1-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) increment after a meal test (ETD -0.91 mmol/L [95% CI -1.43; -0.39] or -16.4 mg/dL [95% CI -25.7; -7.0]; P = 0.001), with statistically significant reductions also at 30 minutes and 2 hours. The improvement in PPG was reflected in the change from baseline in 1-hour interstitial glucose increment after all meals (ETD -0.21 mmol/L [95% CI -0.31; -0.11] or -3.77 mg/dL [95% CI -5.53; -2.01]). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia (estimated rate ratio 1.00 [95% CI 0.85; 1.16]). A numerical imbalance in severe hypoglycaemic episodes between faster aspart and IAsp was seen in the treatment (21 vs 7) and 4-week run-in periods (4 vs 0). CONCLUSIONS: Faster aspart provides an effective and safe option for CSII treatment in T1D.NovoNordis

Primary and secondary prevention with new oral anticoagulant drugs for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation:indirect comparison analysis

Objective To do an indirect comparison analysis of apixaban against dabigatran etexilate (2 doses) and rivaroxaban (1 dose), as well as of rivaroxaban against dabigatranetexilate (2 doses), for their relative efficacy and safety against each other, with particular focus on the secondary prevention population for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. A secondary objective was to do the same analysis in the primary prevention cohort. Design Indirect treatment comparisons of phase III clinical trials of stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, with a focus on the secondary prevention cohorts. A secondary analysis was done on the primary prevention cohort. Data sources Medline and Central (up to June 2012), clinical trials registers, conference proceedings, and websites of regulatory agencies. Study selection Randomised controlled trials of rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or apixaban compared with warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Results In the secondary prevention (previous stroke) subgroup, when apixaban was compared with dabigatran (110 mg and 150 mg twice daily) for efficacy and safety endpoints, the only significant difference seen was less myocardial infarction (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.95) with apixaban compared with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. No significant differences were seen in efficacy and most safety endpoints between apixaban or dabigatran 150 mg twice daily versus rivaroxaban. Less haemorrhagic stroke (hazard ratio 0.15, 0.03 to 0.66), vascular death (0.64, 0.42 to 0.99), major bleeding (0.68, 0.47 to 0.99), and intracranial bleeding (0.27, 0.10 to 0.73) were seen with dabigatran 110 mg twice daily versus rivaroxaban. In the primary prevention (no previous stroke) subgroup, apixaban was superior to dabigatran 110 mg twice daily for disabling or fatal stroke (hazard ratio 0.59, 0.36 to 0.97). Compared with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily, apixaban was associated with more stroke (hazard ratio 1.45, 1.01 to 2.08) and with less major bleeding (0.75, 0.60 to 0.94), gastrointestinal bleeding (0.61, 0.42 to 0.89), and other location bleeding (0.74, 0.58 to 0.94). Compared with rivaroxaban, dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was associated with more myocardial infarction events. No significant differences were seen for the main efficacy and safety endpoints between dabigatran 150 mg twice daily and rivaroxaban, or in efficacy endpoints between apixaban and rivaroxaban. Apixaban was associated with less major bleeding (hazard ratio 0.61, 0.48 to 0.78) than rivaroxaban. Conclusions For secondary prevention, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran had broadly similar efficacy for the main endpoints, although the endpoints of haemorrhagic stroke, vascular death, major bleeding, and intracranial bleeding were less common with dabigatran 110 mg twice daily than with rivaroxaban. For primary prevention, the three drugs showed some differences in relation to efficacy and bleeding. These results are hypothesis generating and should be confirmed in a head to head randomised trial

Risk of stroke or systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation patients treated with warfarin:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Purpose— Although oral anticoagulants (OACs) are highly effective in reducing stroke risk in atrial fibrillation, some patients still sustain stroke despite being on an OAC. Our aim was to identify the risk factors that contribute to stroke risk in atrial fibrillation, although patients were taking OACs in a clinical trial setting. Methods— We identified contemporary clinical trials that investigated OACs in patients with atrial fibrillation. Event rates per year from each study and pooled event rates and relative risks, all with a 95% confidence interval, were calculated. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 test. Results— Six trials were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 58 883 patients randomized. Characteristics associated with a higher relative risk of stroke while on an OAC included age ≥75 years (relative risk, 1.46 [95% confidence interval, 1.25–1.69]), female sex (1.30 [1.15–1.49]), previous stroke/transient ischemic attack (1.85 [1.32–2.60]), vitamin K-antagonist naive status (for vitamin K antagonist experienced, 0.85 [0.74–0.97]), moderate and severe renal impairment (1.54 [1.30–1.81] and 2.22 [1.85–2.66], respectively, compared with normal renal function), previous aspirin use (1.19 [1.04–1.37]), Asian race (1.70 [1.42–2.03]), and a CHADS 2 score of ≥3 (1.64 [1.18–2.27]). Conclusions— Stroke rates are higher on OACs with some patient clinical characteristics, that is, older age, female sex, previous stroke/transient ischemic attack, vitamin K-antagonist naive status, renal impairment, previous aspirin use, and higher CHADS 2 score. The identified risk factors for stroke while on an OAC could potentially be used to consider a risk assessment tool to flag up high-risk patients while on an OAC (in this case, warfarin). Whether these risk factors apply to novel OACs is uncertain. </jats:sec