Search

Purpose: The aim of this study was to establish a valid national cohort of patients diagnosed with acromegaly by combining data from the general National Patient Register (NPR) and the disease-specific Swedish Pituitary Register (SPR). Methods: Patients ≥ 18 years of age at diagnosis of acromegaly reported from 1991 to 2018 who were registered in the NPR and/or SPR were included. The diagnosis of acromegaly was considered correct for patients identified in both registers or confirmed through chart review. Medical records were reviewed in two of Sweden´s six health care regions if the patient was reported only in the NPR. An algorithm for the NPR, with criteria requiring multiple diagnosis registrations and tumour and/or surgery codes, was constructed to reduce the number of patients to review in the remaining four regions. Results: A total of 1866 patients were identified. Among these, 938 were reported in both registers. After application of the algorithm and chart review, the diagnosis was confirmed for 83 of the 906 patients found only in the NPR. Among 22 patients only registered in the SPR, a review of medical records confirmed acromegaly in 13. This resulted in a total of 1034 cases with acromegaly during the study period. The incidence rate of acromegaly in Sweden 1991–2018 was calculated to 4.0/million/year in the entire population and 5.1/million/year among subjects ≥ 18 years of age. Conclusion: The combination of the SPR and NPR established a valid cohort of patients diagnosed with acromegaly and increased the estimated incidence in Sweden.

Background: The growing use of digital primary care consultations has led to concerns about resource use, equity and quality. One of these is how it affects antibiotic prescription. Differences in ease of access for patients and available diagnostic information for the prescribing physicians are reasons to believe prescription rates may be affected. Objectives: We estimated differences in antibiotic prescription between traditional office-based and digital contacts, if these differences varied between groups of diagnoses depending on the availability of information for the prescribing physician, and if differences were associated with socio-demographic patient characteristics. Methods: Using individual level register data for a sample of patients diagnosed with an infection over a two-year period, we estimated differences in prescription between the two types of contacts and applied propensity score techniques to mitigate possible problems with treatment selection bias. Results: The share of antibiotic prescription was 28 (95% CI 27–30, p < 0.001) to 33 (95% CI 29–36, p < 0.001) percentage points lower among digital contacts as compared to office-based contacts. For urinary tract infections, the differences in prescription rates between the two contact types were smaller (34 to 41 percentage points difference) than for throat and skin infections (50 to 60 percentage points difference). For women, rural, older, and people born outside Sweden, digital contacts were associated with higher prescription rates. Conclusions: Antibiotic prescription rates were significantly lower for digital contacts compared with office-based contacts. The findings suggest that digital primary care may be an effective alternative to in-person visits without undue consequences for antibiotic prescription levels, although to varying degree depending on diagnosis.

Objectives: The Europe-based, prospective, observational ReFLeCT study recently showed that switching to the ultralong-acting basal insulin analogue degludec (IDeg) was associated with improved glycemic control and reductions in hypoglycemic events versus previous basal insulin therapies in patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). The present analysis aimed to assess the impact of thesefindings on long-term cost-effectiveness outcomes in the Swedish setting. Methods: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated separately in patients with T1D and T2D over a 50-year time horizon using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0). Patients were assumed to receive IDeg or continue previous insulin therapy (with or without bolus insulin) for 5 years, before all patients intensified to insulin degludec plus bolus insulin for the remainder of their lifetimes. Baseline cohort characteristics were sourced from ReFLeCT where possible. Treatment effects on initiation of IDeg were based on data from ReFLeCT. Costs were estimated from a Swedish societal perspective and expressed in 2018 Swedish krona (SEK). Results: IDeg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.14 and 0.07 quality-adjusted life years versus continuation of previous insulin therapy in patients with T1D and T2D, respectively, resulting from improved glycemic control and fewer hypoglycemic events. Combined direct and indirect costs were estimated to be SEK 137,020 and SEK 2,009 lower for insulin degludec versus previous insulin therapy in patients with T1D and T2D, respectively, with higher treatment costs offset by cos tsavings from avoidance of diabetes-related complications. IDeg was therefore considered dominant versus continuation of previous insulin therapies for the treatment of both T1D and T2D. Conclusions: Based on real-world evidence, IDeg represents an effective and cost-saving treatment option versus other basal insulin therapies for patients with T1D and T2D in Sweden.

Background and aims: Randomised controlled trials and observational studies have shown lower risk of hypoglycemia in patients with type 1-diabetes (T1D) and type 2-diabetes (T2D) on treatment with insulinde gludec (IDeg) vs insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar). This study assessed cost-effectiveness (C/E) of IDeg vs insulin treatment before switch to IDeg in a Swedish real-world setting in people with T1D and T2D. Materials and methods: ReFLeCT is a prospective, observational study in T1D (n=566) and T2D (n=611) in seven European countries and comprised a four-week baseline period (pre-switch basal insulin) and a 12-month follow-up period (IDeg). Data from ReFLeCT was used to assess C/E of IDeg compared with basal insulin treatment prior to switching to IDeg. Basal insulin unit costs were weighted to represent the basal insulin present at baseline (T1D: IGlar 63.8%, Insulin detemir (IDet) 22.7%, other/missing 13.5%. T2D: IGlar 59.1%, IDet 20.8%, other/missing 20.1%). The Swedish original IGlar price was used as base case. IGlar biosimilar price was used in a sensitivity analysis. Where information on basal insulin at baseline was missing, the lowest basal insulin price (insulin NPH) was used as a conservative approach. C/E was analysed over a 1-year time horizon from a Swedish societal perspective (price level 2019). Only differences with p<0.05 were included in the analysis. Results: Basal and bolus insulin doses at baseline were 25.0 IU and 27.3 IU (T1D) and 37.5 IU and 24.4 IU (T2D). At 12 months estimated basal and bolus insulin dose ratios were 0.91 (95% C.I. 0.83-0.91) and 0.87 (0.83-0.91) for T1D and 0.98 (0.95-1.01) and 0.96 (0.94-1.01) for T2D. For T1D riskratios (RR) for non-severe daytime hypoglycaemia was 0.85 (0.78-0.93), non-severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia 0.63 (0.52-0.76) and severe hypoglycaemia 0.28 (0.14-0.56). Corresponding RR for T2D were 0.56 (0.46-0.69), 0.38 (0.22-0.64) and 2.87 (0.33-24.65). In T1D IDeg was cost-saving compared to previous

Objective: The objective was to assess the long-term safety profile of dual-release hydrocortisone (DR-HC) in patients with adrenal insufficiency (AI). Design: Randomised, open-label, crossover trial of DR-HC or thrice-daily hydrocortisone for 3 months each (stage 1) followed by two consecutive, prospective, open-label studies of DR-HC for 6 months (stage 2) and 18 months (stage 3) at five university clinics in Sweden. Methods: Sixty-four adults with primary AI started stage 1, and an additional 16 entered stage 3. Patients received DR-HC 20-40 mg once daily and hydrocortisone 20-40 mg divided into three daily doses (stage 1 only). Main outcome measures were adverse events (AEs) and intercurrent illness (self-reported hydrocortisone use during illness). Results: In stage 1, patients had a median 1.5 (range, 1-9) intercurrent illness events with DR-HC and 1.0 (1-8) with thrice-daily hydrocortisone. AEs during stage 1 were not related to the cortisol exposure-time profile. The percentage of patients with one or more AEs during stage 1 (73.4% with DR-HC; 65.6% with thrice-daily hydrocortisone) decreased during stage 2, when all patients received DR-HC (51% in the first 3 months; 54% in the second 3 months). In stages 1-3 combined, 19 patients experienced 27 serious AEs, equating to 18.6 serious AEs/100 patient-years of DR-HC exposure. Conclusions: This long-term prospective trial is the first to document the safety of DR-HC in patients with primary AI and demonstrates that such treatment is well tolerated during 24 consecutive months of therapy. European Journal of Endocrinology

Context: Patients with treated adrenal insufficiency (AI) have increased morbidity and mortality rate. Our goal was to improve outcome by developing a once-daily (OD) oral hydrocortisone dual-release tablet with a more physiological exposure-time cortisol profile. Objective: The aim was to compare pharmacokinetics and metabolic outcome between OD and the same daily dose of thrice-daily (TID) dose of conventional hydrocortisone tablets.Design and Setting:We conducted an open, randomized, two-period, 12-wk crossover multicenter trial with a 24-wk extension at five university hospital centers. Patients: The trial enrolled 64 adults with primary AI; 11 had concomitant diabetes mellitus (DM). Intervention: The same daily dose of hydrocortisone was administered as OD dual-release or TID. Main Outcome Measure: We evaluated cortisol pharmacokinetics. Results: Compared with conventional TID, OD provided a sustained serum cortisol profile 0-4 h after the morning intake and reduced the late afternoon and the 24-h cortisol exposure. The mean weight (difference = -0.7 kg, P = 0.005), systolic blood pressure (difference = -5.5 mm Hg, P = 0.0001) and diastolic blood pressure (difference: -2.3 mm Hg; P = 0.03), and glycated hemoglobin (absolute difference = -0.1%, P = 0.0006) were all reduced after OD compared with TID at 12 wk. Compared with TID, a reduction in glycated hemoglobin by 0.6% was observed in patients with concomitant DM during OD (P = 0.004). Conclusion: The OD dual-release tablet provided a more circadian-based serum cortisol profile. Reduced body weight, reduced blood pressure, and improved glucose metabolism were observed during OD treatment. In particular, glucose metabolism improved in patients with concomitant DM.

Context:Patients with treated adrenal insufficiency (AI) have increased morbidity and mortality rate. Our goal was to improve outcome by developing a once-daily (OD) oral hydrocortisone dual-release tablet with a more physiological exposure-time cortisol profile.Objective:The aim was to compare pharmacokinetics and metabolic outcome between OD and the same daily dose of thrice-daily (TID) dose of conventional hydrocortisone tablets.Design and Setting:We conducted an open, randomized, two-period, 12-wk crossover multicenter trial with a 24-wk extension at five university hospital centers.Patients:The trial enrolled 64 adults with primary AI; 11 had concomitant diabetes mellitus (DM).Intervention:The same daily dose of hydrocortisone was administered as OD dual-release or TID.Main Outcome Measure:We evaluated cortisol pharmacokinetics.Results:Compared with conventional TID, OD provided a sustained serum cortisol profile 0-4 h after the morning intake and reduced the late afternoon and the 24-h cortisol exposure. The mean weight (difference = -0.7 kg, P = 0.005), systolic blood pressure (difference = -5.5 mm Hg, P = 0.0001) and diastolic blood pressure (difference: -2.3 mm Hg; P = 0.03), and glycated hemoglobin (absolute difference = -0.1%, P = 0.0006) were all reduced after OD compared with TID at 12 wk. Compared with TID, a reduction in glycated hemoglobin by 0.6% was observed in patients with concomitant DM during OD (P = 0.004).Conclusion:The OD dual-release tablet provided a more circadian-based serum cortisol profile. Reduced body weight, reduced blood pressure, and improved glucose metabolism were observed during OD treatment. In particular, glucose metabolism improved in patients with concomitant DM.