Search

OBJECTIVE The combination of basal insulin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) has been proposed as a treatment option to intensify insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing this combination strategy to other injectable antidiabetes treatments on metabolic control in adult patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted an electronic search until November 2016 on many electronic databases to identify RCTs assessing changes in HbA1c, proportion of patients at HbA1c target ≤7% (53 mmol/mol), hypoglycemia, and weight change. We used a random-effect model to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) or relative risk (RR) with the 95% CI. RESULTS We identified 26 RCTs, lasting 12–52 weeks, and involving 11,425 patients. When the combination strategy was compared with other injectable treatments (overall data), there were reductions in HbA1c (WMD = −0.47%, 95% CI −0.59 to −0.35), more patients at HbA1c target (RR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.44–1.88), similar hypoglycemic events (RR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.93–1.39) and a reduction in weight (WMD = −2.5 kg, 95% CI −3.3 to −1.7), with high heterogeneity (I2 > 89%, P < 0.001) and a significant publication bias for three outcomes. In preplanned subgroup analyses, the combination treatment was similar to basal-bolus insulin regimens for glycemic control, with less hypoglycemia (RR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.46–0.93) and reduced weight (WMD = −4.7 kg, 95% CI −6.9 to −2.4). Fixed-ratio combinations yielded results similar to the overall analysis (HbA1c WMD = −0.56%, 95% CI −0.72 to −0.40). CONCLUSIONS GLP-1RAs alone or as titratable fixed-ratio combinations with basal insulin may represent a promising option to advance basal insulin therapy or to initiate injectable therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral agents. Longer studies are needed to assess durability and tolerability.

As a consequence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, profound changes in daily lives have occurred. In Italy, the exponential spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection required extraordinary measures to limit viral transmission, leading to an almost complete lockdown of the country (1). The mandatory lockdown significantly affected patients with chronic diseases, including people with diabetes and diabetic foot ulceration (DFU), which represents a heavy burden for health care systems in terms of mortality and reduced quality of life (1,2). The interruption of preventive education, early treatment, and diagnosis may have led to increased hospitalization of patients with severe DFU at high amputation risk (3). The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical features and amputation risk of individuals with diabetes and DFU admitted to a tertiary care center during the COVID-19 lockdown compared with a population admitted in the first 5 months of 2019. Patients with diabetes and DFU admitted to the Division of Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases at the Teaching Hospital of University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” (Naples, Italy) from 9 March 2020 to 18 May 2020 were included in this study. This cohort was compared with a population of patients admitted …

OBJECTIVE We compared the effect of insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) with that of insulin glargine and insulin detemir, all given as basal supplementation, in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted an electronic search until February 2012, including online registries of ongoing trials and abstract books. All randomized controlled trials comparing ILPS with insulin glargine or detemir with a duration of ≥12 weeks were included. RESULTS We found four trials lasting 24–36 weeks involving 1,336 persons: three studies compared ILPS with glargine, and one trial compared ILPS with detemir. There was no significant difference in change in HbA1c level between ILPS and comparators, in the proportion of patients achieving the HbA1c goals of ≤6.5 or CONCLUSIONS There is no difference between ILPS and insulin glargine or detemir for targeting hyperglycemia, but nocturnal hypoglycemia occurred more frequently with ILPS than with comparator insulins. Nocturnal hypoglycemia was not significantly different in people who injected insulin once daily.

OBJECTIVE Available evidence supports the emerging hypothesis that metabolic syndrome may be associated with the risk of some common cancers. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between metabolic syndrome and risk of cancer at different sites. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted an electronic search for articles published through October 2011 without restrictions and by reviewing reference lists from retrieved articles. Every included study was to report risk estimates with 95% CIs for the association between metabolic syndrome and cancer. RESULTS We analyzed 116 datasets from 43 articles, including 38,940 cases of cancer. In cohort studies in men, the presence of metabolic syndrome was associated with liver (relative risk 1.43, P < 0.0001), colorectal (1.25, P < 0.001), and bladder cancer (1.10, P = 0.013). In cohort studies in women, the presence of metabolic syndrome was associated with endometrial (1.61, P = 0.001), pancreatic (1.58, P < 0.0001), breast postmenopausal (1.56, P = 0.017), rectal (1.52, P = 0.005), and colorectal (1.34, P = 0.006) cancers. Associations with metabolic syndrome were stronger in women than in men for pancreatic (P = 0.01) and rectal (P = 0.01) cancers. Associations were different between ethnic groups: we recorded stronger associations in Asia populations for liver cancer (P = 0.002), in European populations for colorectal cancer in women (P = 0.004), and in U.S. populations (whites) for prostate cancer (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Metabolic syndrome is associated with increased risk of common cancers; for some cancers, the risk differs betweens sexes, populations, and definitions of metabolic syndrome.

OBJECTIVE Insulin analogs are increasingly used in patients with type 2 diabetes. We compared the effect of basal, biphasic, prandial, and basal-bolus insulin regimens with insulin analogs to reach the hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target of RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted an electronic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving insulin analogs. RCTs were included if they lasted at least 12 weeks, reported the proportion of diabetic patients reaching the HbA1c target of 30. RESULTS We found 16 RCTs, with 20 comparisons and 7,759 patients. A greater proportion of patients achieved the HbA1c goal of CONCLUSIONS A greater proportion of type 2 diabetic patients can achieve the HbA1c goal