Search

Aims: To investigate the glycemic efficacy, effects on cardiovascular risk factors, and safety of exenatide once weekly (QW) in patients with type 2 diabetes over 7 years in the DURATION-1 study.Methods: Patients were initially randomized to exenatide QW 2 mg or exenatide twice daily for 30 weeks, after which they received open-label, open-ended treatment with exenatide QW 2 mg for up to 7 years. Efficacy analyses included changes from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) and cardiovascular risk factors.Results: Of 295 patients in the intention-to-treat population, 122 (41%) completed 7 years of treatment. Patients in the 7-year completer population showed sustained glycemic improvements from baseline (7-year least-squares mean [LSM] change in HbA1C, -1.53%) and significant improvements in several cardiovascular risk factors, including body weight, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Seven-year completers who received no additional glucose-lowering therapies (n = 65 [53%]) had similar improvements in HbA1C, and numerically greater reductions in body weight (7-year LSM change, -6.46 kg vs -3.87 kg), compared with the overall cohort. There were no unexpected safety findings.Conclusions: Treatment with exenatide QW for 7 years was associated with sustained improvements in glycemic control and several cardiovascular risk factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Many patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) receive, as initial insulin treatment, the addition of a basal formulation to an existing regimen of oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) therapy. Used this way, the insulin analogue detemir has been associated with improved glycemic control of a magnitude similar to neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), with lower rates of hypoglycemia and weight gain. Initial studies investigated detemir administered BID, but pharmacologic data suggest that detemir might be effective with QD administration. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of detemir versus NPH administered QD together with > or =1 OAD in poorly controlled type 2 DM, and to compare different administration times of detemir. METHODS: This 20-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, 3-arm, parallel-group trial was conducted at 91 centers across Europe and the United States. Men and women were eligible for participation if they were aged > or =18 years, had a body mass index (BMI) < or =40 kg/m(2), had a diagnosis of type 2 DM of at least 12 months' duration, and were insulin naive. Eligible patients also had a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) concentration value not outside the range of 7.5% to 11.0% following at least 3 months' treatment with > or =10 AD. Patients were randomly assigned to receive an evening SC injection of detemir, a prebreakfast injection of detemir, or an evening injection of NPH insulin (1:1:1), administered at initial doses of 10 IU (U). RESULTS: A total of 504 patients were enrolled 5 men, 219 women; mean [SD] age, 59 [11] years; mean [SD] BMI, 30 [5] kg/m2; insulin detemir before breakfast, 168; insulin detemir evening, 170; NPH insulin evening, 166). The intent-to-treat population comprised 498 patients. Morning and evening detemir were associated with reductions in HbA(1c) similar to those with evening NPH (raw mean decreases, -1.58%, -1.48%, and -1.74%, respectively). Nine-point profile and fasting and predinner plasma glucose data found morning detemir to be associated with a different diurnal glycemic profile compared with the evening regimens. Compared with evening NPH, 24-hour and nocturnal hypoglycemia were reduced by 53% (P = 0.019) and 65% (P = 0.031), respectively, with evening detemir. Incidences of hypoglycemia did not differ significantly between groups that received morning and evening detemir, but nocturnal hypoglycemia was reduced further, by 87%, with morning detemir compared with evening NPH (P < 0.001). Weight gain was 1.2, 0.7, and 1.6 kg with morning detemir, evening detemir, and NPH, respectively (P = 0.005 for evening detemir vs NPH). No between-treatment differences were seen in other tolerability end points. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study in patients whose type 2 DM was poorly controlled with > or =1 OAD suggest that insulin detemir QD in the morning or evening can be used to improve glycemic control. Compared with NPH, insulin detemir may offer some tolerability advantages in this role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the US, nearly 11% of adults were living with diagnosed diabetes in 2017, and significant type 2 diabetes (T2D) disparities are experienced by socioeconomically disadvantaged, racial/ethnic minority populations, including Hispanics. The standard 15-min primary care visit does not allow for the ongoing self-management support that is needed to meet the complex needs of individuals with diabetes. "Team-based" chronic care delivery is an alternative approach that supplements physician care with contact from allied health personnel in the primary care setting (e.g., medical assistants; MAs) who are specially trained to provide ongoing self-management support or "health coaching." While rigorous trials have shown MA health coaching to improve diabetes outcomes, less is known about if and how such a model can be integrated within real world , primary care clinic workflows. Medical Assistant Health Coaching for Type 2 Diabetes in Diverse Primary Care Settings – A Pragmatic, Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial will address this gap. Specifically, this study compares MA health coaching versus usual care in improving diabetes clinical control among N = 600 at-risk adults with T2D, and is being conducted at four primary care clinics that are part of two health systems that serve large, ethnically/racially, and socioeconomically diverse populations in Southern California. Electronic medical records are used to identify eligible patients at both health systems, and to examine change in clinical control over one year in the overall sample. Changes in behavioral and psychosocial outcomes are being evaluated by telephone assessment in a subset (n = 300) of participants, and rigorous process and cost evaluations will assess potential for sustainability and scalability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]