Search

Copyright of Journal of Diabetes is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Diabetes is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Diabetes is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), which are important causes of disabling and death in patients with T2DM. For the prevention and management of ASCVD or CKD, cardiovascular risk factors should be systematically evaluated, and ASCVD and CKD should be screened in patients with T2DM. In this consensus, we recommended that metformin should be used as the first‐line therapy for patients with T2DM and ASCVD or very high cardiovascular risk, heart failure (HF) or CKD, and should be retained in the treatment regimen unless contraindicated or not tolerated. In patients with T2DM and established ASCVD or very high cardiovascular risk, addition of a glucagon‐like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP‐1RA) or sodium–glucose cotransporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor with proven cardiovascular benefits should be considered independent of individualised glycated haemoglobin (HbA1C) targets. In patients with T2DM and HF, an SGLT2 inhibitor should be preferably added regardless of HbA1C levels. In patients with T2DM and CKD, SGLT2 inhibitors should be preferred for the combination therapy independent of individualised HbA1C targets, and GLP‐1RAs with proven renal benefits would be alternative if SGLT2 inhibitors are contraindicated. Moreover, the prevention of hypoglycaemia and management of multiple risk factors by comprehensive regimen, including lifestyle intervention, antihypertensive therapies, lipid‐lowering treatment and antiplatelet therapies, should be kept in mind in treating patients with T2DM and ASCVD, HF or CKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Diabetes is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Diabetes is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background Premixed insulins are recommended starter insulins in Chinese patients after oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM) failure. In the present study, we compared the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro mix 25 (LM25) twice daily (b.i.d.) and insulin lispro mix 50 (LM50) b.i.d. as a starter insulin regimen in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had inadequate glycemic control with OAMs. Methods The primary efficacy outcome in the present open-label parallel randomized clinical trial was change in HbA1c from baseline to 26 weeks. Patients were randomized in a ratio of 1: 1 to LM25 (n = 80) or LM50 (n = 76). A mixed-effects model with repeated measures was used to analyze continuous variables. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification factor was used to analyze categorical variables. Results At the end of the study, LM50 was more efficacious than LM25 in reducing mean HbA1c levels (least-squares [LS] mean difference 0.48; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.22, 0.74; P < 0.001). More subjects in the LM50 than LM25 group achieved HbA1c targets of <7.0 % (72.4 % vs 45.0 %; P = 0.001) or ≤6.5 % (52.6 % vs 20.0 %; P < 0.001). Furthermore, LM50 was more effective than LM25 at reducing HbA1c in patients with baseline HbA1c, blood glucose excursion, and postprandial glucose greater than or equal to median levels ( P ≤ 0.001). The rate and incidence of hypoglycemic episodes and increase in weight at the end of the study were similar between treatment groups. Conclusions In Chinese patients with T2DM, LM50 was more efficacious than LM25 as a starter insulin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]