Search

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of different basal insulins (BI) prescribed as an add‐on to or switch from glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist (GLP‐1 RA) therapy. Materials and Methods: Retrospective, real‐world data from electronic medical records of 32 Italian diabetes clinics were used, after propensity score adjustment, to compare effectiveness after 6 months of treatment with second‐ versus first‐generation BI (2BI vs. 1BI) or glargine 300 U/ml versus degludec 100 U/ml (Gla‐300 vs. Deg‐100), when added to (ADD‐ON) or in substitution of (SWITCH) GLP‐1 RA. Only comparisons, including a minimum of 100 patients per group, were performed to ensure adequate robustness of the analyses. Results: In the ADD‐ON cohort (N = 700), greater benefits of 2BI versus 1BI were found in glycated haemoglobin {HbA1c; estimated mean difference: −0.32% [95% confidence interval (CI) −0.62; −0.02]; p =.04} and fasting blood glucose [FBG; −20.73 mg/dl (95% CI −35.62; −5.84); p =.007]. In the SWITCH cohort (N = 2097), greater benefits of 2BI versus 1BI were found in HbA1c [−0.22% (95% CI −0.42; −0.02); p =.03], FBG [−10.15 mg/dl (95% CI −19.04; −1.26); p =.03], and body weight [−0.67 kg (95% CI −1.30; −0.04); p =.04]. In the SWITCH cohort starting 2BI (N = 688), marked differences in favour of Gla‐300 versus Deg‐100 were documented in HbA1c [−0.89% (95% CI −1.26; −0.52); p <.001] and FBG [−17.89 mg/dl (95% CI −32.45; −3.33); p =.02]. Using propensity score matching as a sensitivity analysis, the benefit on HbA1c was confirmed [−0.55% (95% CI –1.02; −0.08); p =.02]. BI titration was suboptimal in all examined cohorts. Conclusions: 2BI are a valuable option to intensify GLP‐1 RA therapy. Switching to Gla‐300 versus Deg‐100 was associated with greater HbA1c improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Poor outcomes have been reported in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); thus, it is mandatory to explore novel therapeutic approaches for this population.Research Design and Methods: In a multicenter, case-control, retrospective, observational study, sitagliptin, an oral and highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, was added to standard of care (e.g., insulin administration) at the time of hospitalization in patients with type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized with COVID-19. Every center also recruited at a 1:1 ratio untreated control subjects matched for age and sex. All patients had pneumonia and exhibited oxygen saturation <95% when breathing ambient air or when receiving oxygen support. The primary end points were discharge from the hospital/death and improvement of clinical outcomes, defined as an increase in at least two points on a seven-category modified ordinal scale. Data were collected retrospectively from patients receiving sitagliptin from 1 March through 30 April 2020.Results: Of the 338 consecutive patients with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19 admitted in Northern Italy hospitals included in this study, 169 were on sitagliptin, while 169 were on standard of care. Treatment with sitagliptin at the time of hospitalization was associated with reduced mortality (18% vs. 37% of deceased patients; hazard ratio 0.44 [95% CI 0.29-0.66]; P = 0.0001), with an improvement in clinical outcomes (60% vs. 38% of improved patients; P = 0.0001) and with a greater number of hospital discharges (120 vs. 89 of discharged patients; P = 0.0008) compared with patients receiving standard of care, respectively.Conclusions: In this multicenter, case-control, retrospective, observational study of patients with type 2 diabetes admitted to the hospital for COVID-19, sitagliptin treatment at the time of hospitalization was associated with reduced mortality and improved clinical outcomes as compared with standard-of-care treatment. The effects of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19 should be confirmed in an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Introduction: The analysis of the production related to health care activities in the Medicine ward of dell’Angelo Hospital (Mestre-Venezia, Italy) in the year 2010 reveals that the short-term hospitalization, less than 3 days, corresponds to 18% of all inpatient admissions. Objectives: The short-term hospitalization approach need to be “governed”, both in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. In our department we have identified an area called “Admission and Short Stay Area”, where the discharge follows a comprehensive diagnostic and therapeutic pathway. Accordingly, we plan to extend the number of beds dedicated to the short stay in hospital, in order to decrease the average duration of stay avoiding the risk of increasing the readmissions, to share new pathways between health care workers. Materials and methods: Within the department we have identified 8 beds for patients admitted from the emergency room. In the same beds triage is performed. In these beds the maximum duration of stay is 3 days. To achieve this goal we used clinical pathways shared between health workers, and bedside diagnostic procedures such as ultrasounds. Results: In 2011 than to year 2010 there was an increased rate of short-term hospitalization (22–18%). Despite that the mean hospital stay was unchanged (10.3–10.6 days). The number of readmission within 90 days was also unchanged when we considered the most common diseases. More than 90% of health care workers followed the pre-established clinical care pathways. Conclusions: The presence of a small number of beds within the medicine ward was dedicated to perform triage that allows to identify clinical care the needs of the patient. Among these some can be resolved in 3 days, rewarding patients and saving human and financial resources. To achieve this goal it is necessary that health care providers share clinical pathways, and that the bedside ultrasound is accessible. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]