Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin on postprandial glucose and hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes mellitus : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Strict glucose control using multiple doses of insulin is the standard treatment for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), but increased risk of hypoglycemia is a frequent drawback. Regular insulin in multiple doses is important for achieving strict glycemic control for T1DM, but short-acting insulin analogues may be better in reducing hypoglycemia and postprandial glucose levels. Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues vs regular human insulin on hypoglycemia and postprandial glucose in patients with T1DM. Methods: Searches were run on the electronic databases MEDLINE, Cochrane-CENTRAL, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, LILACS, and DARE for RCTs published until August 2017. To be included in the study, the RCTs had to cover a minimum period of 4 weeks and had to assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues vs regular human insulin on hypoglycemia and postprandial glucose levels in patients with T1DM. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the quality of the selected studies. The primary outcomes analyzed were hypoglycemia (total episodes, nocturnal hypoglycemia, and severe hypoglycemia) and postprandial glucose (at all times, after breakfast, after lunch, and after dinner). Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and quality of life were considered secondary outcomes. The risk of bias of each RCT was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias table, while the quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADEpro software. The pooled mean difference in the number of hypoglycemic episodes and postprandial glucose between short-acting insulin analogues vs. regular human insulin was calculated using the random-effects model. Results: Of the 2897 articles retrieved, 22 (6235 patients) were included. Short-acting insulin analogues were associated with a decrease in total hypoglycemic episodes (risk rate 0.93, 95% CI 0.87–0.99; 6235 patients; I2 = 81%), nocturnal hypoglycemia (risk rate 0.55, 95% CI 0.40–0.76, 1995 patients, I2 = 84%), and severe hypoglycemia (risk rate 0.68, 95% CI 0.60–0.77; 5945 patients, I2 = 0%); and with lower postprandial glucose levels (mean difference/MD − 19.44 mg/dL; 95% CI − 21.49 to − 17.39; 5031 patients, I2 = 69%) and lower HbA1c (MD − 0,13%; IC 95% − 0.16 to − 0.10; 5204 patients; I2 = 73%) levels. Conclusions: Short-acting insulin analogues are superior to regular human insulin in T1DM patients for the following outcomes: total hypoglycemic episodes, nocturnal hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, postprandial glucose, and HbA1c

Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy

BACKGROUND Type 2 diabetes mellitus is the leading cause of kidney failure worldwide, but few effective long-term treatments are available. In cardiovascular trials of inhibitors of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2), exploratory results have suggested that such drugs may improve renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS In this double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease to receive canagliflozin, an oral SGLT2 inhibitor, at a dose of 100 mg daily or placebo. All the patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 30 to <90 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area and albuminuria (ratio of albumin [mg] to creatinine [g], >300 to 5000) and were treated with renin–angiotensin system blockade. The primary outcome was a composite of end-stage kidney disease (dialysis, transplantation, or a sustained estimated GFR of <15 ml per minute per 1.73 m2), a doubling of the serum creatinine level, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Prespecified secondary outcomes were tested hierarchically. RESULTS The trial was stopped early after a planned interim analysis on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring committee. At that time, 4401 patients had undergone randomization, with a median follow-up of 2.62 years. The relative risk of the primary outcome was 30% lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group, with event rates of 43.2 and 61.2 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.82; P=0.00001). The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P<0.001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.86; P=0.002). The canagliflozin group also had a lower risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P=0.01) and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of amputation or fracture. CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease, the risk of kidney failure and cardiovascular events was lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group at a median follow-up of 2.62 years

-

Com o objetivo de verificar se as proteínas do sistema GH-IGF-IGFBP e o receptor do fator de crescimento insulina símile tipo I (IGF-IR) estão envolvidos na etiopatogenia do Diabetes Melito tipo 1 (DM1) , foram estudados 23 pacientes prépúberes portadores de DM1 em diferentes fases do diagnóstico (Grupo A: tempo de diagnóstico 6 meses) e 10 indivíduos pré-púberes sadios como grupo controle (Grupo C). A expressão do mRNA do IGFIR realizada através do ensaio molecular de RT-PCR nos linfócitos periféricos T e B não demonstrou diferenças estatisticamente significantes nos linfócitos T quando comparados indivíduos diabéticos e controles, sugerindo que a ativação imunológica destas células seja independente da ação do IGF-IR. Observou-se uma maior expressão do mRNA do IGF-IR dos linfócitos B de pacientes diabéticos em relação ao grupo controle (p 6 months) and 10 prepubertal healthy subjects as control group (Group C). The RT-PCR molecular assay for IGF-IR mRNA on peripheral T and B lymphocytes didn\'t show statistical differences between the groups when T cells were analyzed. We found an increase of IGF-IR mRNA expression on B cells from diabetic patients when compared to healthy subjects (p< 0,05). There were no differences in the GH-IGF-IGFBP proteins system levels between the groups. Our study suggest that IGF-IR in association with diabetes-related autoantibodies (ICA, anti-GAD and anti-IA2) presence could activate B cells involved on pathofisiology of DM

-

Com o objetivo de verificar se as proteínas do sistema GH-IGF-IGFBP e o receptor do fator de crescimento insulina símile tipo I (IGF-IR) estão envolvidos na etiopatogenia do Diabetes Melito tipo 1 (DM1) , foram estudados 23 pacientes prépúberes portadores de DM1 em diferentes fases do diagnóstico (Grupo A: tempo de diagnóstico 6 meses) e 10 indivíduos pré-púberes sadios como grupo controle (Grupo C). A expressão do mRNA do IGFIR realizada através do ensaio molecular de RT-PCR nos linfócitos periféricos T e B não demonstrou diferenças estatisticamente significantes nos linfócitos T quando comparados indivíduos diabéticos e controles, sugerindo que a ativação imunológica destas células seja independente da ação do IGF-IR. Observou-se uma maior expressão do mRNA do IGF-IR dos linfócitos B de pacientes diabéticos em relação ao grupo controle (p 6 months) and 10 prepubertal healthy subjects as control group (Group C). The RT-PCR molecular assay for IGF-IR mRNA on peripheral T and B lymphocytes didn\'t show statistical differences between the groups when T cells were analyzed. We found an increase of IGF-IR mRNA expression on B cells from diabetic patients when compared to healthy subjects (p< 0,05). There were no differences in the GH-IGF-IGFBP proteins system levels between the groups. Our study suggest that IGF-IR in association with diabetes-related autoantibodies (ICA, anti-GAD and anti-IA2) presence could activate B cells involved on pathofisiology of DM

Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin on postprandial glucose and hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes mellitus : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Strict glucose control using multiple doses of insulin is the standard treatment for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), but increased risk of hypoglycemia is a frequent drawback. Regular insulin in multiple doses is important for achieving strict glycemic control for T1DM, but short-acting insulin analogues may be better in reducing hypoglycemia and postprandial glucose levels. Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues vs regular human insulin on hypoglycemia and postprandial glucose in patients with T1DM. Methods: Searches were run on the electronic databases MEDLINE, Cochrane-CENTRAL, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, LILACS, and DARE for RCTs published until August 2017. To be included in the study, the RCTs had to cover a minimum period of 4 weeks and had to assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues vs regular human insulin on hypoglycemia and postprandial glucose levels in patients with T1DM. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the quality of the selected studies. The primary outcomes analyzed were hypoglycemia (total episodes, nocturnal hypoglycemia, and severe hypoglycemia) and postprandial glucose (at all times, after breakfast, after lunch, and after dinner). Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and quality of life were considered secondary outcomes. The risk of bias of each RCT was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias table, while the quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADEpro software. The pooled mean difference in the number of hypoglycemic episodes and postprandial glucose between short-acting insulin analogues vs. regular human insulin was calculated using the random-effects model. Results: Of the 2897 articles retrieved, 22 (6235 patients) were included. Short-acting insulin analogues were associated with a decrease in total hypoglycemic episodes (risk rate 0.93, 95% CI 0.87–0.99; 6235 patients; I2 = 81%), nocturnal hypoglycemia (risk rate 0.55, 95% CI 0.40–0.76, 1995 patients, I2 = 84%), and severe hypoglycemia (risk rate 0.68, 95% CI 0.60–0.77; 5945 patients, I2 = 0%); and with lower postprandial glucose levels (mean difference/MD − 19.44 mg/dL; 95% CI − 21.49 to − 17.39; 5031 patients, I2 = 69%) and lower HbA1c (MD − 0,13%; IC 95% − 0.16 to − 0.10; 5204 patients; I2 = 73%) levels. Conclusions: Short-acting insulin analogues are superior to regular human insulin in T1DM patients for the following outcomes: total hypoglycemic episodes, nocturnal hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, postprandial glucose, and HbA1c

Brazilian guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes : a position statement from the Brazilian Diabetes Society (SBD), the Brazilian Cardiology Society (SBC) and the Brazilian Endocrinology and Metabolism Society (SBEM)

Background: Since the first position statement on diabetes and cardiovascular prevention published in 2014 by the Brazilian Diabetes Society, the current view on primary and secondary prevention in diabetes has evolved as a result of new approaches on cardiovascular risk stratification, new cholesterol lowering drugs, and new anti-hyperglycemic drugs. Importantly, a pattern of risk heterogeneity has emerged, showing that not all diabetic patients are at high or very high risk. In fact, most younger patients who have no overt cardiovascular risk factors may be more adequately classified as being at intermediate or even low cardiovascular risk. Thus, there is a need for cardiovascular risk stratification in patients with diabetes. The present panel reviews the best current evidence and proposes a practical riskbased approach on treatment for patients with diabetes. Main body: The Brazilian Diabetes Society, the Brazilian Society of Cardiology, and the Brazilian Endocrinology and Metabolism Society gathered to form an expert panel including 28 cardiologists and endocrinologists to review the best available evidence and to draft up-to-date an evidence-based guideline with practical recommendations for risk stratification and prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes. The guideline includes 59 recommendations covering: (1) the impact of new anti-hyperglycemic drugs and new lipid lowering drugs on cardiovascular risk; (2) a guide to statin use, including new definitions of LDL-cholesterol and in non-HDL-cholesterol targets; (3) evaluation of silent myocardial ischemia and subclinical atherosclerosis in patients with diabetes; (4) hypertension treatment; and (5) the use of antiplatelet therapy Conclusions: Diabetes is a heterogeneous disease. Although cardiovascular risk is increased in most patients, those without risk factors or evidence of sub-clinical atherosclerosis are at a lower risk. Optimal management must rely on an approach that will cover both cardiovascular disease prevention in individuals in the highest risk as well as protection from overtreatment in those at lower risk. Thus, cardiovascular prevention strategies should be individualized according to cardiovascular risk while intensification of treatment should focus on those at higher risk

Brazilian guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes : a position statement from the Brazilian Diabetes Society (SBD), the Brazilian Cardiology Society (SBC) and the Brazilian Endocrinology and Metabolism Society (SBEM)

Background: Since the first position statement on diabetes and cardiovascular prevention published in 2014 by the Brazilian Diabetes Society, the current view on primary and secondary prevention in diabetes has evolved as a result of new approaches on cardiovascular risk stratification, new cholesterol lowering drugs, and new anti-hyperglycemic drugs. Importantly, a pattern of risk heterogeneity has emerged, showing that not all diabetic patients are at high or very high risk. In fact, most younger patients who have no overt cardiovascular risk factors may be more adequately classified as being at intermediate or even low cardiovascular risk. Thus, there is a need for cardiovascular risk stratification in patients with diabetes. The present panel reviews the best current evidence and proposes a practical riskbased approach on treatment for patients with diabetes. Main body: The Brazilian Diabetes Society, the Brazilian Society of Cardiology, and the Brazilian Endocrinology and Metabolism Society gathered to form an expert panel including 28 cardiologists and endocrinologists to review the best available evidence and to draft up-to-date an evidence-based guideline with practical recommendations for risk stratification and prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes. The guideline includes 59 recommendations covering: (1) the impact of new anti-hyperglycemic drugs and new lipid lowering drugs on cardiovascular risk; (2) a guide to statin use, including new definitions of LDL-cholesterol and in non-HDL-cholesterol targets; (3) evaluation of silent myocardial ischemia and subclinical atherosclerosis in patients with diabetes; (4) hypertension treatment; and (5) the use of antiplatelet therapy Conclusions: Diabetes is a heterogeneous disease. Although cardiovascular risk is increased in most patients, those without risk factors or evidence of sub-clinical atherosclerosis are at a lower risk. Optimal management must rely on an approach that will cover both cardiovascular disease prevention in individuals in the highest risk as well as protection from overtreatment in those at lower risk. Thus, cardiovascular prevention strategies should be individualized according to cardiovascular risk while intensification of treatment should focus on those at higher risk

Diretriz brasileira baseada em evidências sobre prevenção de doenças cardiovasculares em pacientes com diabetes : posicionamento da Sociedade Brasileira de Diabetes (SBD), da Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia (SBC) e da Sociedade Brasileira de Endocrinologia e Metabologia (SBEM)

Fundamentação: desde o primeiro posicionamento da Sociedade Brasileira de Diabetes (SBD) sobre diabetes e prevenção cardiovascular, em 2014,1 importantes estudos têm sido publicados na área de prevenção cardiovascular e tratamento do diabetes,2 os quais contribuíram para a evolução na prevenção primária e secundária nos pacientes com diabetes. Ferramentas de estratificação de risco mais precisas, novos fármacos hipolipemiantes e novos antidiabéticos com efeitos cardiovasculares e redução da mortalidade, são parte desta nova abordagem para os pacientes com diabetes. O reconhecimento de que o diabetes é uma doença heterogênea foi fundamental, sendo claramente demonstrado que nem todos os pacientes diabéticos pertencem a categorias de risco alto ou muito alto. Um porcentual elevado é composto por pacientes jovens, sem os fatores de risco clássicos, os quais podem ser classificados adequadamente em categorias de risco intermediário ou mesmo em baixo risco cardiovascular. O presente posicionamento revisa as melhores evidências atualmente disponíveis e propõe uma abordagem prática, baseada em risco, para o tratamento de pacientes com diabetes. Estruturação: perante este desafio e reconhecendo a natureza multifacetada da doença, a SBD uniu-se à Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia (SBC) e à Sociedade Brasileira de Endocrinologia e Metabolismo (SBEM), e formou um painel de especialistas, constituído por 28 cardiologistas e endocrinologistas, para revisar as melhores evidências disponíveis e elaborar uma diretriz contendo recomendações práticas para a estratificação de risco e prevenção da Doença Cardiovascular (DVC) no Diabetes Melito (DM). As principais inovações incluem: (1) considerações do impacto de novos hipolipemiantes e das novas medicações antidiabéticas no risco cardiovascular; (2) uma abordagem prática, baseada em fator de risco, para orientar o uso das estatinas, incluindo novas definições das metas da Lipoproteína de Baixa Densidade‑colesterol (LDL-colesterol) e colesterol não Lipoproteína de Alta Densidade HDL; (3) uma abordagem baseada em evidências, para avaliar a isquemia miocárdica silenciosa (IMS) e a aterosclerose subclínica em pacientes com diabetes; (4) as abordagens mais atuais para o tratamento da hipertensão; e (5) recomendação de atualizações para o uso de terapia antiplaquetária. Esperamos que esta diretriz auxilie os médicos no cuidado dedicado aos pacientes com diabetes. Métodos: inicialmente, os membros do painel foram divididos em sete subcomitês para definirem os tópicos principais que necessitavam de uma posição atualizada das sociedades. Os membros do painel pesquisaram e buscaram no PubMed estudos clínicos randomizados e metanálises de estudos clínicos e estudos observacionais de boa qualidade, publicados entre 1997 e 2017, usando termos MeSH: [diabetes], [diabetes tipo 2], [doença cardiovascular], [estratificação de risco cardiovascular] [doença arterial coronária], [rastreamento], [isquemia silenciosa], [estatinas], [hipertensão], [ácido acetilsalicílico]. Estudos observacionais de baixa qualidade, metanálises com alta heterogeneidade e estudos transversais não foram incluídos, embora talvez tenham impactado no Nível de Evidência indicado. A opinião de especialistas foi usada quando os resultados das buscas não eram satisfatórios para um item específico. É importante salientar que este posicionamento não teve a intenção de incluir uma revisão sistemática rigorosa. Um manuscrito preliminar, destacando recomendações de graus e níveis de evidência (Quadro 1), foi esboçado. Este passo levou a várias discussões entre os membros dos subcomitês, que revisaram os achados e fizeram novas sugestões. O manuscrito foi, então, revisto pelo autor líder, encarregado da padronização do texto e da inclusão de pequenas alterações, sendo submetido à apreciação mais detalhada pelos membros dos comitês, buscando uma posição de consenso. Depois desta fase, o manuscrito foi enviado para a banca editorial e edição final, sendo encaminhado para publicação