Ultra-Long Pharmacokinetic Properties of Insulin Degludec are Comparable in Elderly Subjects and Younger Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND: Management of diabetes in elderly subjects is complex and careful management of glucose levels is of particular importance in this population because of an increased risk of diabetes-related complications and hypoglycaemia. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of insulin degludec (IDeg), a basal insulin with an ultra-long duration of action, in elderly subjects with type 1 diabetes compared with younger adults. METHODS: This trial was a randomised, double-blind, two-period, crossover trial conducted in a single centre and included both inpatient and outpatient periods. Subjects were men and women aged 18–35 years inclusive (younger adult group) or ≥65 years (elderly group) with type 1 diabetes who received IDeg (0.4 U/kg) via subcutaneous injection in the thigh once-daily for six days. Following 6-day dosing, a 26-hour euglycaemic glucose clamp procedure was conducted to evaluate the steady-state pharmacodynamic effects of IDeg. Blood samples were taken for pharmacokinetic analysis up to 120 h post-dose. Pharmacokinetic endpoints included the total exposure of IDeg, ie the area under the IDeg serum concentration curve during one dosing interval at steady state (AUC(IDeg,τ,SS)) (τ = 0–24 h, equal to one dosing interval) and the maximum IDeg serum concentration at steady state (C(max,IDeg,SS)). Pharmacodynamic endpoints included the total glucose-lowering effect of IDeg, ie the area under the glucose infusion rate (GIR) curve at steady state (AUC(GIR,τ,SS)), and the maximum GIR at steady state (GIR(max,IDeg,SS)). RESULTS: Total exposure (AUC(IDeg,τ,SS)) and maximum concentration (C(max,IDeg,SS)) of IDeg were comparable between elderly subjects and younger adults. Estimated mean age group ratios (elderly/younger adult) for AUC(IDeg,τ,SS) and C(max,IDeg,SS) and corresponding two-sided 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were 1.04 (95 % CI 0.73–1.47) and 1.02 (95 % CI 0.74–1.39), respectively. Mean AUC(IDeg,0–12h,SS)/AUC(IDeg,τ,SS) was 53 % in both younger adult and elderly subjects, showing that in both age groups IDeg exposure was evenly distributed across the first and second 12 h of the 24-hour dosing interval. No statistically significant differences were observed between younger adult and elderly subjects with regard to AUC(GIR,τ,SS) (the primary endpoint of this study) and GIR(max,IDeg,SS). Estimated mean age group ratios (elderly/younger adult) for AUC(GIR,τ,SS) and GIR(max,IDeg,SS) and corresponding two-sided 95 % CIs were 0.78 (95 % CI 0.47–1.31) and 0.80 (95 % CI 0.54–1.17), respectively. Duration of action was beyond the clamp duration of 26 h in all subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The exposure of IDeg at steady state during once-daily dosing was similar in younger adult and elderly subjects. The glucose-lowering effect of IDeg was numerically lower in elderly subjects compared with younger adults, but no significant differences were observed between age groups. The ultra-long pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of IDeg observed in younger adults were preserved in elderly subjects with type 1 diabetes. Clinical trials.gov number: NCT0096441

Evaluation of educational needs in patients with diabetes mellitus in respect of medication use in Austria

Effective control of diabetes mellitus type 1 (DM1) and type 2 (DM2) can reduce the development and progression of diabetic complications. Therefore, patient education should be considered as an integral part of diabetes management. Objective The aim of the study was to assess DM patients’ perception of knowledge for their medication and attitude towards self management and pharmacist’s role. Setting The study was conducted at the diabetes out-patient clinic at the Vienna General Hospital (AKH), Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine III, Austria. The study was a cross sectional survey using patient data from a validated patient questionnaire and medical records. Medical records were evaluated by applying a medication assessment tool. Main outcome measure To assess the quality of diabetes self management the following outcome measures are considered: HbA1c levels, pre- and post-prandial blood glucose levels, prevention of acute episodes of hypo- and hyperglycaemia, reduction of macrovascular risk factors, short term quality of life, adverse effects and treatment tolerance. Results The present study comprised 225 patients with DM1 and 201 patients with DM2, respectively. In comparison to DM2 patients, cardio- and cerebrovascular diseases were diagnosed very rarely in patients with DM1. The risk for these diseases was higher in patients with other factors of the metabolic syndrome, in addition. Overall, 118 of these patients participated in the questionnaire. The level of positive response on diabetes self-care and knowledge with respect to medication for the prevention of diabetes complications, glycaemic control, and treatment goals in diabetes was 81.8 %. The comparison of patients’ perceptions of diabetes self-care and knowledge showed differences among subgroups. Higher perceived knowledge and selfcare apparently was associated with DM1. Additional findings of this study indicate that patients do not expect community pharmacists to be integrated in a multidisciplinary diabetes care team. Although the level of positive response was found to be high there is still a minority of patients whose level of comprehension appears to be insufficient. Intense pharmaceutical care including patients’ education within a multidisciplinary team could contribute to improvements in those patients

International recommendations for glucose control in adult non diabetic critically ill patients

The purpose of this research is to provide recommendations for the management of glycemic control in critically ill patients.Comparative StudyJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tSCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedPour la Société Française d'Anesthésie-Réanimation (SFAR); Société de Réanimation de langue Française (SRLF) and the Experts grou