-
Jaime A Davidson
Mayo Clinic Proceedings 12/2010; 85(12 Suppl):S3-4. · 5.70 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective: To determine the effect of mild renal impairment (RI) on the efficacy and safety of liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes.Methods: The six LEAD (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes) studies were examined in this meta-analysis. Data from type 2 diabetes patients with normal renal function, mild RI, and moderate or severe RI were pooled for analysis. Renal function was measured by creatinine clearance as determined by the Cockcroft-Gault equation: normal renal function (CrCl > 89 mL/min), mild RI (60 mL/min ≤ CrCl ≤ 89 mL/min), and moderate or severe RI (CrCl < 60 mL/min). The meta-analysis contained patients administered once-daily liraglutide (1.2 or 1.8 mg) or placebo as either monotherapy or in combination with oral antidiabetes drugs for 26 weeks. In addition, a pooled analysis of all phase 2 and 3 liraglutide trials was done to examine rates of altered renal function.Results: Mild RI did not affect the estimated treatment differences in HbA1c. Patients with normal renal function demonstrated decreases in body weight and systolic blood pressure (SBP) with either dose of liraglutide, whereas patients in either RI group also demonstrated a decrease in body weight and SBP but these differences were not statistically significant compared to placebo. Liraglutide treatment was safe and well tolerated in patients with mild RI, as there were no significant differences in changes in rates of renal injury, minor hypoglycemia, or nausea versus placebo. A trend towards increased nausea was observed in patients with moderate or severe RI receiving liraglutide although the number of patients in this treatment group was too low to determine statistical significance.Conclusion: Mild RI, as determined by the Cockcroft-Gault equation, had no effect on the efficacy and safety of liraglutide in this meta-analysis.
Endocrine Practice 12/2010; · 2.49 Impact Factor
-
Jaime A Davidson
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is a prevalent disorder that affects children, adolescents, and adults worldwide. In addition to risks of microvascular disease, patients with type 2 DM often have multiple risk factors of macrovascular disease; for example, approximately 90% of patients with type 2 DM are overweight/obese. Type 2 DM is a complex disease that involves a variety of pathophysiologic abnormalities, including insulin resistance, increased hepatic glucose production, and abnormalities in the secretion of hormones, such as insulin, glucagon, amylin, and incretins. Incretins are gut-derived peptides with a variety of glucoregulatory functions. Incretin dysfunction can be treated with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (eg, exenatide and liraglutide) or inhibitors of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) (eg, sitagliptin and saxagliptin), the enzyme that degrades GLP-1. The GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors both elevate GLP-1 activity and substantially improve glycemic control. The GLP-1 receptor agonists are more effective in lowering blood glucose and result in substantial weight loss, whereas therapy with DPP-4 inhibitors lowers blood glucose levels to a lesser degree, and they are weight neutral. Treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists has demonstrated durable glycemic control and improvement in multiple cardiovascular disease risk factors. In addition, unlike insulin or sulfonylureas, treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist or a DPP-4 inhibitor has not been associated with substantial hypoglycemia. These factors should be considered when selecting monotherapy or elements of combination therapy for patients with type 2 DM who are overweight/obese, for patients who have experienced hypoglycemia with other agents, and when achieving glycemic targets is difficult.
Mayo Clinic Proceedings 12/2010; 85(12 Suppl):S27-37. · 5.70 Impact Factor
-
Jaime A Davidson
Diabetes & Metabolism 09/2010; 36 Suppl 2:S2. · 2.41 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To explore the impact of race/ethnicity on the efficacy and safety of commonly used insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
In this post hoc analysis, pooled data from 11 multinational clinical trials involving 1455 patients with type 2 diabetes were used to compare specific insulin treatments in Latino/Hispanic, Asian, African-descent, and Caucasian patients. Insulin treatments included once daily insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn (BASAL), insulin lispro mix 75/25 twice daily (LMBID), or insulin lispro mix 50/50 three times daily (LMTID).
Race/ethnicity was associated with significant outcome differences for each of the insulin regimens. BASAL therapy was associated with greater improvement in several measures of glycemic control among Latino/Hispanic patients compared with Caucasian patients (lower end point hemoglobin A1c, greater reduction in hemoglobin A1c from baseline, and a larger proportion of patients achieving hemoglobin A1c level <7%). In contrast, LMBID therapy was associated with higher end point hemoglobin A1c and a smaller decrease in hemoglobin A1c from baseline in Latino/Hispanic and Asian patients than in Caucasian patients. Furthermore, fewer Asian patients attained a hemoglobin A1c level <7% than did Caucasians patients. For LMTID therapy, hemoglobin A1c outcomes were comparable across patient groups. Fasting blood glucose and glycemic excursions varied among racial/ethnic groups for the 3 insulin regimens. Weight change was comparable among racial/ethnic groups in each insulin regimen. During treatment with LMTID, Asian patients experienced higher incidence and rate of severe hypoglycemia than Caucasian patients.
Latino/Hispanic, Asian, and African-descent patients with type 2 diabetes show different metabolic responses to insulin therapy, dependent in part on insulin type and regimen intensity.
Endocrine Practice 05/2010; 16(5):818-28. · 2.49 Impact Factor
-
Jaime A Davidson
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is intrinsically connected to overweight and obesity. It is a complex metabolic disorder that predisposes patients to, and is associated with, cardiovascular disease. In addition to the triumvirate of core defects associated with T2DM (involvement of the pancreatic beta cell, the muscle, and the liver), other mechanisms including hyperglucagonemia, accelerated gastric emptying, and incretin deficiency/resistance are also involved. This has led to the development of incretinbased therapies, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. These newer therapies have beneficial effects on glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, weight, and pancreatic beta-cell function.
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 12/2009; 76 Suppl 5:S28-38. · 3.77 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare total costs and risk of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiated on NPH insulin versus glargine in a real-world setting.
This study used claims data (10/2001 to 06/2005) from a privately insured U.S. population of adult T2D patients who were initiated on NPH or glargine following a 6-month insulin-free period. A sample of 1698 glargine-treated and 400 NPH-treated patients met the inclusion criteria. Total and diabetes-related costs (inflation-adjusted to 2006) were calculated for 6-month pre- and post-index periods and compared between 400 patient pairs matched by a propensity score method.
In the post-index 6-month period, glargine patients incurred higher diabetes-related drug costs than NPH patients ($785 versus $632, p<0.0001) but there were no significant differences in diabetes-related medical or total costs, or all other total cost categories. Compared to the pre-index period, glargine patient costs declined by $2420 (p=0.058) whereas NPH patient costs declined by $4200 (p=0.046), with no statistically significant group differences (p=0.469). Among patients with hypoglycemia-related claims (0.75% in both groups), mean hypoglycemia-related costs were $85 and $202 for NPH and glargine patients, respectively (p=0.564).
Initiation of either NPH or glargine was associated with major cost reductions and infrequent hypoglycemia-related claims.
Diabetes research and clinical practice 11/2009; 87(1):108-16. · 2.16 Impact Factor
-
Diabetes care 11/2009; 32 Suppl 2:S331-3. · 8.09 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Insulin is recommended as a second-line treatment after diet and metformin fail to reach and/or maintain glycemic targets considered to minimize the risk for long-term diabetic complications. Hypoglycemia and the fear of developing hypoglyce-mia, however, remain substantial barriers to the initiation and optimal use of insulin.
The aim of this study was to compare biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30) with respect to glycemic control and the risk for hypoglycemia using a meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing these insulins in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
We included all published and unpublished, randomized, controlled trials in adult patients with T2DM (treatment duration > or = 12 weeks) for which individual patient data were available. All clinical databases and local trial registries of Novo Nordisk A/S (Soeborg, Denmark) were searched to identify clinical trials comparing the 2 products. The predefined primary end point of the study was the overall rate of nocturnal hypoglyce-mia (major, minor, and symptoms-only hypoglycemia occurring from 12:00-6:00 AM). Hypoglycemia was analyzed using a negative binomial distribution model, accounting for exposure time. Glycemic end points were analyzed at 12 to 16 weeks of treatment using ANCOVA, adjusting for baseline. Secondary safety end points were the rates of major hypoglycemia (hypoglycemia requiring third-party assistance), minor hypoglycemia (symptoms confirmed by plasma glucose [PG] <3.1 mmol/L), daytime hypoglycemia (major, minor, and symptoms-only hypoglycemia occurring from 6:01 AM-11:59 PM), overall hypoglycemia (the sum of all major, minor, and symptoms-only episodes), and change in weight from baseline to 12 to 16 weeks of treatment. Secondary efficacy end points were changes in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting PG (FPG), postprandial PG increment (averaged over breakfast, lunch, and dinner), and insulin dose.
Nine randomized, parallel or crossover trials were included (N = 1674; male sex, 57%; mean [SD] age, 61.0 [10.6] years; body mass index, 26.7 [4.6] kg/m(2); HbA(1c), 8.1% [1.4%]; duration of diabetes, 10.9 [7.9] years). Rates of overall hypoglycemia were not significantly different (rate ratio [RR] = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.94-1.24; P = NS) between treatments. BIAsp 30 had a 50% lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia than BHI 30 (RR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.67; P < 0.01), whereas the rate of daytime hypoglycemia was 24% lower for BHI 30 (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.43; P < 0.01). The likelihood of major hypo-glycemia was significantly lower with BIAsp 30 compared with BHI 30 (odds ratio = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.93; P < 0.05). BIAsp 30 was associated with reduced PPG increment (averaged over breakfast, lunch and dinner) compared with BHI 30 (treatment difference, -0.31; 95% CI, -0.49 to -0.07; P < 0.01). There was a significantly larger reduction in FPG associated with BHI 30 (treatment difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.31-0.95; P < 0.01). However, no significant treatment difference was found for HbA(1c) (treatment difference, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.10; P = NS).
This meta-analysis found BIAsp 30 to be associated with a significantly lower rate of nocturnal and major hypoglycemia, but a significantly increased risk for daytime hypoglycemia, compared with BHI 30 at a similar level of HbA(1c) in patients with T2DM.
Clinical Therapeutics 08/2009; 31(8):1641-51. · 2.32 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is an important adjunct to hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing. This action can distinguish between fasting, preprandial, and postprandial hyperglycemia; detect glycemic excursions; identify and monitor resolution of hypoglycemia; and provide immediate feedback to patients about the effect of food choices, activity, and medication on glycemic control. Pattern analysis is a systematic approach to identifying glycemic patterns within SMBG data and then taking appropriate action based upon those results. The use of pattern analysis involves: (1) establishing pre- and postprandial glucose targets; (2) obtaining data on glucose levels, carbohydrate intake, medication administration (type, dosages, timing), activity levels and physical/emotional stress; (3) analyzing data to identify patterns of glycemic excursions, assessing any influential factors, and implementing appropriate action(s); and (4) performing ongoing SMBG to assess the impact of any therapeutic changes made. Computer-based and paper-based data collection and management tools can be developed to perform pattern analysis for identifying patterns in SMBG data. This approach to interpreting SMBG data facilitates rational therapeutic adjustments in response to this information. Pattern analysis of SMBG data can be of equal or greater value than measurement of HbA1c levels.
Journal of diabetes science and technology 01/2009; 3(3):500-8.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The prevalence of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance is predicted to dramatically increase over the next two decades. Clinical therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have traditionally included lifestyle modification, oral anti-diabetic agents, and ultimately insulin initiation. In this report, we review the clinical trial results of two innovative T2DM treatment therapies that are based on the glucoregulatory effects of incretin hormones. Incretin mimetics are peptide drugs that mimic several of the actions of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and have been shown to lower glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels in patients with T2DM. Additionally, incretin mimetics lower postprandial and fasting glucose, suppress elevated glucagon release, and are associated with progressive weight reduction. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors increase endogenous GLP-1 levels by inhibiting the enzymatic degradation of GLP-1. Clinical studies in patients with T2DM have shown that DPP-4 inhibitors reduce elevated A1C, lower postprandial and fasting glucose, suppress glucagon release, and are weight neutral. Collectively, these new drugs, given in combination with other antidiabetic agents, such as metformin, sulfonylureas, and/or thiazolidinediones, can help restore glucose homeostasis in poorly controlled patients with T2DM.
Arquivos brasileiros de endocrinologia e metabologia 09/2008; 52(6):1039-49. · 0.68 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is twice as prevalent in African Americans and Hispanic Americans as in non-Hispanic whites. However, the effectiveness and safety profile of rosiglitazone maleate used as combination therapy with sulfonylureas in the management of diabetes and its effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) biomarkers/parameters have not been studied in these populations.
The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and tolerability of the addition of rosiglitazone to a regimen of glyburide once daily in African American and Hispanic American patients with type 2 diabetes previously inadequately controlled with sulfonylurea monotherapy.
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted at 38 centers in the United States. Eligible patients were aged < or =21 years, had type 2 diabetes, a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level > or =140 mg/dL, and a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) value > or =7.5%, and had been treated with sulfonylurea monotherapy for at least 2 months before screening. Patients were assigned to receive treatment with glyburide 10 or 20 mg/d plus rosiglitazone 8 mg (GLY+RSG) or placebo (GLY+PBO) PO (tablets) QD for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline in HbA(1c) after 24 weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included change in FPG; proportion of patients achieving HbA(1c) targets (<7.0% and <6.5%); and changes in biomarkers for CVD risk, including C-reactive protein (CRP), plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI)-I activity, fibrinogen, tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) antigen, von Willebrand factor (vWF), soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule (sVCAM), lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A 2 activity, and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR). Tolerability was assessed using physical examination, including vital-sign measurement, clinical laboratory tests, and adverse event (AE) reports collected at each study visit.
A total of 245 patients (101 African American and 144 Hispanic American) were enrolled. Demographic characteristics were comparable between the GLY+RSG and GLY+PBO groups: mean (SD) age (52 [11.9] vs 53 [10.4] years), HbA(1c) (9.2% [1.3%] vs 9.4% [1.4%]), sex (men/women, 45.3%/54.7% vs 48.3%/51.7%), race (African American/Hispanic American, 43.6%/56.4% vs 37.9%/62.1%), and mean (SD) weight (86.3 [18.8] vs 88.3 [19.4] kg). In the overall study population, treatment with GLY+RSG was associated with a significantly greater mean (95% CI) reduction from baseline in HbA(1c) compared with GLY+PBO (between-group Delta, -1.4% [-1.7% to -1.1%]; P < 0.001). When assessed by ethnicity, HbA(1c) values were significantly reduced with GLY+RSG compared with GLY+PBO in African American patients (between-group Delta, -1.4%) and in Hispanic American patients (between-group Delta, -1.5%) (both, P < 0.001), as were FPG levels (between-group Deltas, -3.1 mmol/L [57 mg/dL] and -3.8 mmol/L [-69 mg/dL], respectively; both, P < 0.001). With GLY+RSG, 9151 (17.6%) African American patients and 17/66 (25.8%) Hispanic American patients achieved HbA(1c) <7%, compared with 2/44 (4.5%) and 1/72 (1.4%) patients, respectively, who achieved this goal with GLY+PBO. Homeostasis model assessment estimates of insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function were significantly improved with GLY+RSG compared with GIX+PBO (between-group Deltas, 29.3% and 78.4%, respectively; both, P < 0.001). With regard to CVD biomarkers, there were potentially deleterious changes compared with baseline in the GLY+PBO group for CRP (+29.4%; P = 0.042), PAI-1 activity (+27.0%; P = 0.006), fibrinogen (+15.7%; P = 0.007), and sVCAM (+7.0%; P = 0.035), whereas there were no significant increases in these factors in the GLY+RSG group. In the GLY+RSG group, there were significant improvements in tPA (-17.8%; P < 0.001), vWF (-11.3%; P = 0.019), and UACR (-17.2%; P = 0.028) over 24 weeks' treatment, whereas there were no significant changes in any of these factors in the GLY+PBO group. As a result, significant treatment effects were observed for CRP (-29.2%; P = 0.019), tPA (-18.4%; P < 0.001), vWF (-12.9%; P < 0.015), and UACR (-26.7%; P = 0.006) with GLY+RSG compared with GLY+PBO. The most frequently reported AEs with GLY+RSG were edema and weight increase (both 121121 [9.9%] patients) and with GLY+PBO were upper respiratory tract infection (18/124 [14.5%] patients). AEs were reported in 83/121 (68.6%) patients in the GLY+RSG group, of which 6/121 (5.0%) were assessed as severe, compared with 70/124 ( 56.5 % ) patients who received GLY+PBO, of which 31124 (2.4%) were assessed as severe.
Add-on rosiglitazone administered for 24 weeks was effective and well tolerated in these African American and Hispanic American patients with type 2 diabetes previously inadequately controlled on sulfonylurea monotherapy.
Clinical Therapeutics 09/2007; 29(9):1900-14. · 2.32 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The objective is to review the most common causes of vision loss in patients with diabetes with the goal of better managing patients with diabetic eye disease. In this review, the causes of vision loss, and the clinical evaluation and management of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME) are outlined. Patients with diabetes mellitus have an increased risk of vision loss and blindness. In patients with diabetes, the primary mechanism responsible for vision loss is centrally involved DME or clinically significant macular edema (CSME), defined as vascular leakage resulting in fluid accumulation that affects the center of the macula. DR and DME are thought to result from the effects of excessive blood glucose on the vessels that produces microvascular damage. The progression of DR can be slowed by intensive glycemic and blood pressure control. Severe visual loss from proliferative DR and moderate visual loss from DME can be reduced by laser photocoagulation. DR and DME are diagnosed on dilated retinal examination and confirmed with diagnostic testing. Many experts and associations recommend that patients with diabetes have an yearly, thorough, dilated eye exam. This manuscript describes the case history of a patient with diabetes and vision loss.
Endocrine 09/2007; 32(1):107-16. · 1.42 Impact Factor
-
Diabetes care 05/2007; 30(4):e16-7; author reply e18-20, e21-2. · 8.09 Impact Factor
-
Diabetes Care 02/2007; 30(1):192-3; author reply 194-6. · 8.09 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death among the largest and fastest growing ethnic minority in the United States, Latinos/Hispanics. To review recent findings on the prevalence of CVD, CVD risk factors, and related illnesses in the US Latino/Hispanic population, an extensive PubMed and Internet literature search for studies published from January 1995 to July 2005 was conducted, using a combination of search terms. Data validity was assessed based on the quality of the source and a consensus of the authors on perceived validity. The review found limitations in current research as well as treatment methods and options for Latino/Hispanic persons at risk for developing CVD and related illnesses. Because of these limitations and the large public health concern, additional research is required to fully determine the best predictors of CVD and diabetes in Latino/Hispanic patients. A combined effort of health-influencing and health-governing bodies is needed on all levels to address the CVD problem in the Latino/Hispanic population.
Journal of the CardioMetabolic Syndrome 02/2007; 2(4):238-43.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) present a therapeutic target, and simultaneous activation of PPAR-alpha and PPAR-gamma may provide improvements in glycemic control and dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.
The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of muraglitazar, a dual (alpha/gamma) PPAR activator, in adult patients with type 2 diabetes whose disease was inadequately controlled by diet and exercise.
This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, 24-week monotherapy study in drug-naive, type 2 diabetes patients with inadequate glycemic control. Men and women aged 18 to 70 years with a body mass index < or =41 kg/m(2) and serum triglyceride levels < or =600 mg/dL were eligible for study participation. The study included double-blind and open-label treatment phases. Patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels > or =7.0% and < or =10.0% at screening were enrolled in the double-blind treatment phase. These patients received treatment with muraglitazar 2.5 mg, muraglitazar 5 mg, or placebo. Patients with HbA(1c) levels >10.0% and < or =12.0% who met all other study criteria were eligible for enrollment in a 24-week, open-label evaluation of muraglitazar 5 mg. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in HbA(1c) levels after 24 weeks of treatment.
A total of 340 patients (179 men, 161 women) participated in the double-blind treatment phase of the study. Patients had mean baseline HbA(1c) levels of 7.9% to 8.0%. Monotherapy with muraglitazar 2.5 and 5 mg significantly reduced HbA(1c) levels (-1.05% and -1.23%, respectively) compared with placebo (-0.32%; P < 0.001). At week 24, 58%, 72%, and 30% of the patients receiving muraglitazar 2.5 mg, muraglitazar 5 mg, and placebo, respectively, achieved the American Diabetes Association-recommended HbA(1c) goal of <7.0%. Fasting plasma glucose, free fatty acids, and fasting plasma insulin levels significantly decreased during muraglitazar treatment (P < 0.001), suggesting an increase in insulin sensitivity. Muraglitazar 2.5 and 5 mg provided improvements from baseline in triglyceride (-18% and -27%), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (10% and 16%), apolipoprotein B (-7% and -12%), and non-HDL cholesterol levels (-3% and -5%) (P < 0.05 vs placebo for each). In a parallel, open-label cohort of 109 drug-naive patients (56 men, 53 women; mean baseline HbA(1c) level, 10.6%), muraglitazar 5 mg decreased the overall mean HbA(1c) level from baseline by 2.62% (last observation carried forward) and by 3.49% in the 62 patients completing 24 weeks of study. Changes in lipid parameters during open-label treatment were similar to those observed during double-blind treatment. Muraglitazar was generally well tolerated. Edema-related adverse events of mild to moderate severity occurred in 8% to 11% of patients in all groups. Mean changes from baseline weight in the double-blind treatment groups were 1.1 kg for muraglitazar 2.5 mg, 2.1 kg for muraglitazar 5 mg, and -0.8 kg for placebo (P < 0.001); there was a mean 2.9-kg increase in the open-label muraglitazar 5-mg group.
In this study, 24 weeks of treatment with muraglitazar 2.5 or 5 mg was an effective treatment option for these patients with type 2 diabetes whose disease was inadequately controlled with diet and exercise.
Clinical Therapeutics 08/2005; 27(8):1181-95. · 2.32 Impact Factor
-
Jaime A Davidson
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Control of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) has deteriorated rather than improved during the last decade in the United States, despite a greater understanding of the disease and the availability of various therapeutic options. Achieving recommended glycemic targets in patients with type 2 DM requires overcoming several barriers, including the fear of hypoglycemia and its associated consequences. Insulin analogues offer new options in diabetes management and may help patients achieve better glycemic control while limiting the incidence of hypoglycemic episodes. Greater awareness of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, intensified blood glucose self-monitoring, and new diabetes treatment options allow for achievement of glycemic targets without increased risk of hypoglycemic episodes. A case study of a 63-year-old woman with type 2 DM offers important lessons learned in diabetes management.
Clinical Cornerstone 02/2005; 7 Suppl 3:S18-24.
-
Jaime A Davidson
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To review clinical trial evidence supporting treatment of patients to a near-normal HbA(1c) target level and outline therapeutic strategies that optimize glycemic control.
The current MEDLINE database and bibliographies were searched for literature relevant to diabetic complications, glycemic control, and the intensive management of diabetes mellitus.
Two randomized trials, the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial and the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), provided evidence that intensive glycemic control obtained with either intensive insulin or oral therapy effectively slowed the onset and progression of diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. An epidemiologic analysis of the UKPDS results showed a significant correlation between glycemic control and microvascular and cardiovascular disease risk and mortality rates.
The results of clinical trials confirm that stringent levels of glycemic control can be attained through the use of intensive multiple-injection insulin regimens (administration of insulin 3 or more times daily by injection or an external pump with dosage adjustments as needed), oral monotherapy or combination therapy, or a combination of insulin and oral therapy. The expanded choices for oral agents and the availability of insulin analogs now provide physicians with the tools to tailor therapy to prevent or delay the devastating complications of diabetes. Indeed, newer insulin analogs, both short-acting (insulin lispro, insulin aspart) and long-acting (insulin glargine), are an important part of a treatment strategy to circumvent diabetes complications and overcome the shortcomings of conventional insulin preparations.
Current Medical Research and Opinion 01/2005; 20(12):1919-27. · 2.38 Impact Factor
-
Diabetes Care 04/2004; 27(3):805-12. · 8.09 Impact Factor
