Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) Technologies in Clinical Practice

International audienceThe significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past six years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage

Consensus recommendations for the use of automated insulin delivery technologies in clinical practice

The significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers, and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past 6 years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage

Topografo-anatomical features of medial perforating veins of the leg

The article discusses the anatomical features of the most clinically significant perforators which are the medial perforating veins of the leg. Medial perforators are veins that drains blood from network of superficial veins below the medial ankle. In normal state this veins have valves which permit the blood to pass only from superficial to the deep systems. In many cases of varicose veins these valves become incompetent. This condition often is associated with ulcers. To effect a cure it is necessary to interrupt this veins. Focuses on the features of the surgical anatomy of the medial group of perforating vein

Comparison of fondaparinux with low molecular weight heparin for venous thromboembolism prevention in patients requiring rigid or semi-rigid immobilization for isolated non-surgical below-knee injury

Background: In several small studies, anticoagulant therapy reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with isolated lower-limb injuries. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux 2.5 mg (1.5 mg in patients with a creatinine clearance between 30 and 50 mL min-1) over nadroparin 2850 anti-factor Xa IU. Patients and Methods: In this international, multicenter, randomized, open-label study, patients with an isolated non-surgical unilateral below-knee injury having at least one additional major risk factor for VTE and requiring, in the Investigator's opinion, rigid or semi-rigid immobilization for 21-45 days with thromboprophylaxis up to complete mobilization received subcutaneously once-daily either fondaparinux or nadroparin. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of VTE (symptomatic or ultrasonographically detected asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis of the lower limb or symptomatic pulmonary embolism) and death up to complete mobilization. The main safety outcome was major bleeding. Results: We randomized 1349 patients (mean age 46 years): 88.7% had a bone fracture, and 83.8% had a plaster cast fitted (mean duration of immobilization, 34 days). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 15 of 584 patients (2.6%) in the fondaparinux group and 48 of 586 patients (8.2%) in the nadroparin group (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.54; P < 0.001). A single major bleed was experienced by fondaparinux-treated patients and none by nadroparin-treated patients. These results were maintained up to the end of follow-up. Conclusions: Fondaparinux 2.5 mg day-1 may be a valuable therapeutic option over nadroparin 2850 anti-FXa IU day-1 for preventing VTE after below-knee injury requiring prolonged immobilization in patients with additional risk factors

Oral Apixaban for the Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism

BACKGROUND: Apixaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor administered in fixed doses, may simplify the treatment of venous thromboembolism. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, we compared apixaban (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily for 7 days, followed by 5 mg twice daily for 6 months) with conventional therapy (subcutaneous enoxaparin, followed by warfarin) in 5395 patients with acute venous thromboembolism. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent symptomatic venous thromboembolism or death related to venous thromboembolism. The principal safety outcomes were major bleeding alone and major bleeding plus clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 59 of 2609 patients (2.3%) in the apixaban group, as compared with 71 of 2635 (2.7%) in the conventional-therapy group (relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 1.18; difference in risk [apixaban minus conventional therapy], -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.3 to 0.4). Apixaban was noninferior to conventional therapy (P<0.001) for predefined upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals for both relative risk (<1.80) and difference in risk (<3.5 percentage points). Major bleeding occurred in 0.6% of patients who received apixaban and in 1.8% of those who received conventional therapy (relative risk, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.55; P<0.001 for superiority). The composite outcome of major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 4.3% of the patients in the apixaban group, as compared with 9.7% of those in the conventional-therapy group (relative risk, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.55; P<0.001). Rates of other adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: A fixed-dose regimen of apixaban alone was noninferior to conventional therapy for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism and was associated with significantly less bleeding (Funded by Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00643201)

Apixaban for Extended Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism

BACKGROUND: Apixaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor that can be administered in a simple, fixed-dose regimen, may be an option for the extended treatment of venous thromboembolism. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, we compared two doses of apixaban (2.5 mg and 5 mg, twice daily) with placebo in patients with venous thromboembolism who had completed 6 to 12 months of anticoagulation therapy and for whom there was clinical equipoise regarding the continuation or cessation of anticoagulation therapy. The study drugs were administered for 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 2486 patients underwent randomization, of whom 2482 were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. Symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism or death from venous thromboembolism occurred in 73 of the 829 patients (8.8%) who were receiving placebo, as compared with 14 of the 840 patients (1.7%) who were receiving 2.5 mg of apixaban (a difference of 7.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.0 to 9.3) and 14 of the 813 patients (1.7%) who were receiving 5 mg of apixaban (a difference of 7.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.9 to 9.1) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The rates of major bleeding were 0.5% in the placebo group, 0.2% in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 0.1% in the 5-mg apixaban group. The rates of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 2.3% in the placebo group, 3.0% in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 4.2% in the 5-mg apixaban group. The rate of death from any cause was 1.7% in the placebo group, as compared with 0.8% in the 2.5-mg apixaban group and 0.5% in the 5-mg apixaban group. CONCLUSIONS: Extended anticoagulation with apixaban at either a treatment dose (5 mg) or a thromboprophylactic dose (2.5 mg) reduced the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism without increasing the rate of major bleeding. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; AMPLIFY-EXT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00633893.)

Edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Whether the oral factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban can be an alternative to warfarin in patients with venous thromboembolism is unclear. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study, we randomly assigned patients with acute venous thromboembolism, who had initially received heparin, to receive edoxaban at a dose of 60 mg once daily, or 30 mg once daily (e.g., in the case of patients with creatinine clearance of 30 to 50 ml per minute or a body weight below 60 kg), or to receive warfarin. Patients received the study drug for 3 to 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent symptomatic venous thromboembolism. The principal safety outcome was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4921 patients presented with deep-vein thrombosis, and 3319 with a pulmonary embolism. Among patients receiving warfarin, the time in the therapeutic range was 63.5%. Edoxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the primary efficacy outcome, which occurred in 130 patients in the edoxaban group (3.2%) and 146 patients in the warfarin group (3.5%) (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.13; P&lt;0.001 for noninferiority). The safety outcome occurred in 349 patients (8.5%) in the edoxaban group and 423 patients (10.3%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94; P=0.004 for superiority). The rates of other adverse events were similar in the two groups. A total of 938 patients with pulmonary embolism had right ventricular dysfunction, as assessed by measurement of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels; the rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism in this subgroup was 3.3% in the edoxaban group and 6.2% in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Edoxaban administered once daily after initial treatment with heparin was noninferior to high-quality standard therapy and caused significantly less bleeding in a broad spectrum of patients with venous thromboembolism, including those with severe pulmonary embolism. (Funded by Daiichi-Sankyo; Hokusai-VTE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00986154.)

Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery Technologies in Clinical Practice

The significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers, and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past 6 years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage