Search

This study quantified how people with diabetes value the unique features of connected insulin pens and related mobile apps, and the underlying reasons for preferring connected versus non-connected insulin pens.A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in the USA and UK to elicit preferences of adults (≥ 18 years) with type 1 or 2 diabetes for attributes of insulin pens. Attributes included device type, dosing support, glucose monitoring, additional app features, and data sharing. Relative attribute importance (RAI) scores were calculated to capture the relative importance of an attribute. Predicted choice probabilities were obtained to compare different profiles for connected and non-connected insulin pens.The DCE was completed by 540 participants (58.9% male; 90.7% Caucasian; mean age, 58.3 years; 69.4% type 2 diabetes). Participants most valued the possibility of using a connected insulin pen with dosing support and automated dose logging (RAI = 39.9%), followed by automatic transfer of glucose levels (RAI = 29.0%), additional features of tracking diet and physical activity (RAI = 14.6%), data sharing (RAI = 13.6%), and device type (RAI = 2.9%). All profiles of connected insulin pens were preferred over a non-connected pen (p0.001), and pen profiles with advanced features were preferred over those without (p0.001). Preferences differed by age but not diabetes type, country of residence, or insulin regimen.People with diabetes in the USA and UK prefer connected over non-connected insulin pens due largely to the availability of automated logging of dose and glucose levels.

To evaluate ease of use, user preference, and effort required to use nasal glucagon (NG) versus injectable glucagon needing reconstitution (IG) in simulations of severe hypoglycemia (SH)-a challenge for caregivers of a person with diabetes (PWD) in real-life.In this randomized, crossover study, high-fidelity manikins placed in mock representative high-stress environments were used to simulate an SH rescue. Thirty-two trained (by PWDs) and 33 untrained participants attempted NG and IG administrations and then completed questionnaires regarding ease of use, preference, and workload for each device.More trained users agreed that NG was easy to use (87.1% vs 54.8%) and prepare (80.6% vs 51.6%) and had confidence to use NG correctly (93.5% vs 54.8%) than those who agreed the same for IG (P.05). Untrained users reported similar differences, favoring NG in all parameters. In direct device comparison across all simulations, 80.6% of trained users and 93.5% of untrained users preferred NG over IG-a preference largely sustained regardless of the success or failure of administration. Among PWDs, 90.3% considered NG device as safer than IG during an SH event. In the assessment of workload required to administer glucagon, the weighted mean National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index scores were 37.8 for NG and 48.4 for IG (P = .0020).Participants in this study considered NG easier, more preferred, required less effort for administration, and more intuitive to use than reconstitutable IG, irrespective of whether there was prior training. NG improves the potential for successful administration of glucagon, better preparedness, and increased adoption of glucagon for SH rescue.

Severe hypoglycemic events (SHE) represent a clinical and economic burden in patients with diabetes. Nasal glucagon (NG) is a novel treatment for SHEs with similar efficacy, but with a usability advantage over injectable glucagon (IG) that may translate to improved economic outcomes. The economic implications of this usability advantage on SHE-related spending in Spain were explored in this analysis.A cost-offset and budget impact analysis (BIA) was conducted using a decision tree model, adapted for the Spanish setting. The model calculated average costs per SHE over the SHE treatment pathway following a treatment attempt with IG or NG. Analyses were performed separately in three populations with insulin-treated diabetes: children and adolescents (4-17 years) with type 1 diabetes (T1D), adults with T1D and adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), with respective population estimates applied in BIA. Treatment probabilities were assumed to be equal for IG and NG, except for treatment success following glucagon administration. Epidemiologic and cost data were obtained from Spanish-specific sources. BIA results were presented at a 3-year time horizon.On a per SHE level, NG was associated with lower costs compared to IG (children and adolescents with T1D, EUR 820; adults with T1D, EUR 804; adults with T2D, EUR 725). Lower costs were attributed to reduced costs of professional medical assistance in patients treated with NG. After 3 years, BIA showed that relative to IG, the introduction of NG was projected to reduce SHE-related spending by EUR 1,158,969, EUR 142,162,371, and EUR 6,542,585 in children and adolescents with T1D, adults with T1D, and adults with insulin-treated T2D, respectively.In Spain, the usability advantage of NG over IG translates to potential cost savings per SHE in three populations with insulin-treated diabetes, and the introduction of NG was associated with a lower budget impact versus IG in each group.

Introduction Information on experience/management of severe hypoglycaemic events (SHEs) among people with insulin-treated diabetes (PWD) and caregivers (CGs) providing care to PWD was sought. Materials and methods An online cross-sectional survey was conducted in eight countries. Inclusion criteria: PWD (aged ≥ 18 years; self-reported type 1 [T1D] or insulin-treated type 2 [T2D] diabetes; experienced ≥1 SHE [hypoglycaemia requiring external assistance] in past 3 years); CGs (layperson aged ≥18 years; caring for PWD meeting all criteria above except age [≥4 years]). This descriptive analysis provides data from Spain. SHE-associated data relate to the most recent SHE. Results Across all groups (T1D PWD, n = 106; T2D PWD, n = 88, T1D CG, n = 87; T2D CG, n = 96), 76–89% reported that the SHE occurred at home; most common cause was eating less than planned (38–53%). Most usual action during the SHE was to intake carbohydrates (67–84%); glucagon use was low (9–36%). Discussion of the SHE with their healthcare provider (HCP) was reported by 70–75% of PWD. During the SHE, 35–69% of PWD/CGs reported feeling scared, unprepared and/or helpless. Conclusions Most SHEs occurred outside the healthcare setting; treatment therefore depends greatly on CGs. SHEs have a negative emotional impact on PWD/CGs, underscoring the need for HCPs to discuss SHEs with PWD/CGs, and to provide tools and strategies to prevent and effectively manage SHEs.

A survey was conducted in eight countries to examine conversations around, and experiences and treatments during, severe hypoglycemia among people with diabetes and caregivers of people with diabetes. This article reports a subgroup analysis from the United States involving 219 people with diabetes and 210 caregivers. Most respondents (79.7%) did not use professional health care services during their most recent severe hypoglycemic event, and 40.3% did not report the event to their health care providers at a subsequent follow-up visit. Hypoglycemic events left respondents feeling scared (70.9%), unprepared (42.7%), and helpless (46.9%). These clinically important psychosocial impacts on people with diabetes and caregivers underscore the need for conversations about hypoglycemia prevention and management.

Insulin lispro 200 U/ml (IL200) is a rapid-acting concentrated insulin used for the treatment of adults with diabetes requiring daily doses of20 units of rapid-acting insulin. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical/demographic and treatment characteristics of patients who initiated insulin IL200 therapy in Spain in a real-world setting (PROFILE-IL200).This retrospective observational study based on the IQVIA database included adult (≥ 18 years) patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 (T2D) diabetes who initiated IL200 between June 2015 and December 2019. Demographic and clinical characteristics were analyzed descriptively.Main characteristics for the T1D/T2D groups (N = 65/167) were as follows: male, 63.1/55.7%; mean (standard deviation [SD]) age, 46.5 (15.5)/62.6 (12.8) years; time since first diabetes record, 6.6 (4.2)/7.9 (2.9) years; body mass index (BMI), 30.9 (5.8)/33.1 (5.5) kg/mPROFILE-IL200 described the profile of patients treated with IL200 in clinical practice in Spain. Patients were middle-aged, with poor glycemic control, high BMI and associated comorbidities, and received high doses of insulin at IL200 initiation.Insulin is one of the main treatments for people with diabetes. More concentrated versions of a fast-acting insulin such as insulin lispro 200 U/ml (IL200) can be better for people with diabetes who need large daily amounts of a fast-acting insulin to keep their blood glucose at appropriate levels, because the injection volume is smaller, and so one IL200 insulin pen lasts longer than other pens. However, there is limited information on the types of patients who start treatment with this type of insulin in the real world. By using a database of medical records, we studied the profile of patients who started treatment with IL200 between 2015 and 2019 in Spain. The study found that patients starting treatment with IL200 were middle-aged, overweight or obese, and with a poor control of blood glucose levels. The patients also had other conditions common in patients with diabetes, such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, and heart disease, and were receiving high doses of insulin before starting treatment with IL200. Patients were generally prescribed IL200 by their diabetes specialist or general practitioner. The findings of this study could help identify the patients who may benefit the most from the characteristics of IL200, such as a smaller injection volume and longer duration of use for each insulin pen, which may result in patients using IL200 as directed for longer.

Aims: The CRASH study examined severe hypoglycemia (SH) experiences among people with diabetes (PWD) and caregivers across eight countries. Here we report findings from the Japan cohort, with references to data from the United Kingdom (UK) cohort. Materials and Methods: Adults with type 1 (T1DM) or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and caregivers (not necessarily related) were recruited from online patient panels. Participants who had experienced at least one SH event in the past 3 years were eligible for study inclusion. Participants completed an online survey regarding their experience with SH, its treatment, and actions during and after an event. Results: Of the 9367 PWD and caregivers from the online patient panels, 8475 participants were ineligible and a total of 53 Japanese participants (35 T1DM, 9 T2DM, 9 caregivers) completed the survey. Most SH incidents occurred at home and were unattended by a healthcare provider. For T1DM, 29% of Japan PWD and 13% of the UK PWD called an ambulance during an SH event; of these, 90% (Japan) and 50% (UK) were transported to hospital. Glucagon use was low (3% Japan and 10% UK for T1DM). Japanese respondents reported emotional impacts of SH, including feeling scared (86% T1DM, 56% T2DM), unprepared (63% T1DM, 78% T2DM), and helpless (60% T1DM, 33% T2DM). Despite the emotional burden, most PWD did not immediately discuss their SH event with a healthcare provider, with the majority (75% T1DM, 71% T2DM) waiting until their next doctor’s appointment. Conclusion: Conversations around SH between healthcare providers and PWD appear to be insufficient in Japan. An emotional burden of SH was reported by PWD and caregivers. Education regarding the prevention of SH and available treatment options may reduce SH events and improve treatment preparation, while alleviating PWD concerns.

The objective of the CRASH (Conversations and Reactions Around Severe Hypoglycemia) survey was to further our understanding of the characteristics, experience, behavior and conversations with healthcare professionals (HCPs) of people with diabetes (PWD) receiving insulin, and of caregivers (CGs) caring for such people, concerning hypoglycemia requiring external assistance (severe hypoglycemic events [SHEs]).CRASH was an online cross-sectional survey conducted across eight countries. PWD with self-reported type 1 (T1D) or insulin-treated type 2 (T2D) diabetes were aged≥18 years and had experienced one or more SHEs in the past 3 years; CGs were non-medical professionals aged ≥18 years, caring for PWD meeting all the above criteria except for PWD age (≥4 rather than ≥18 years). The present report is a descriptive analysis of data from France.Among PWD who had ever discussed SHEs with an HCP, 38.9% of T1D PWD and 50.0% of T2D PWD reported that SHEs were discussed at every consultation; 26.3% and 8.8%, respectively, had not discussed the most recent SHE with an HCP. In total, 35.7% of T1D PWD and 53.8% of T2D PWD reported that glucagon was not available to them at the time of their most recent SHE. Only 16.9% of T1D PWD and 6.5% of T2D PWD who had discussed their most recent SHE with an HCP reported that the HCP recommended obtaining a glucagon kit or asked them to confirm that they already had one. High proportions of PWD and CGs reported that the most recent SHE had made them feel unprepared, scared and helpless and had affected mood, emotional state and activities.CRASH survey data from France identify a need for greater discussion about SHEs between HCPs and PWD and the CGs of such people, and reveal gaps in the diabetes education of PWDs and CGs.

Introduction The study was designed to assess patient satisfaction, preferences and injection habits for patients using insulin lispro 200 units/ml pen (IL200) compared to their previously used disposable 100 units/ml mealtime insulin pen (“MTI-100 pen”) in Germany. Methods A site-based, cross-sectional study involving a self-reported survey and medical record extraction in patients with diabetes currently using IL200 for between 3 and 12 months and had previously used any disposable MTI-100 pen. Results Of 114 patients included, 83.3% were satisfied with IL200 and 3.5% were dissatisfied; 70.2% preferred IL200 over their previous MTI-100 pen and 4.4% preferred their previous MTI-100 pen. The main reasons for IL200 preference were the amount of insulin the pen carries, longer use before discarding, number of non-empty pens discarded, injection volume and frequency replacing pens. Patients discarded (median) 4 IL200 pens per month with 5.3% discarding more than 10 units in their last pen. When insufficient insulin remained to complete a dose, 74.6% injected the remainder and completed with a new pen, 19.3% discarded the pen with remaining insulin, 7.0% saved it for future use and 1.8% left the dose incomplete. Conclusions Satisfaction and preference for IL200 was high in this sample of patients using IL200 for 3–12 months. Reasons were consistent with IL200 features, explaining the better patient experience and potential resource saving transitioning from a disposable MTI-100 pen. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13300-021-01150-7.

Introduction Standard concentration (100 units/mL) mealtime insulin is frequently used to treat patients with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). A more concentrated version of the medication (200 units/mL) has been available in Italy since 2016. This concentrated version is bioequivalent to the standard version and delivers the same amount of medication but in half the volume of liquid. The purpose of this study was to examine patient preferences and estimate health state utilities associated with standard and concentrated rapid-acting mealtime analog insulin. Methods Participants with T1D and T2D in Italy valued two health states in time trade-off interviews. The descriptions of diabetes and treatment in the two health states were identical, differing only in terms of insulin concentration (e.g., half as much liquid for the same dose, less effort needed to press the injection button, and fewer injection pens required with concentrated insulin). To ensure participants understood the health states, they were shown a short video illustrating the differences between concentrations. Results A total of 217 participants completed the interviews (49.8% male; mean age 56.1 years; 109 from Milan; 108 from Rome; 12.0% T1D; 88.0% T2D). When asked which health state they preferred, 98.2% responded the concentrated version, 0.9% said the standard version, and 0.9% had no preference. Mean [standard deviation (SD)] utilities rounded to three decimals were 0.892 (0.099) for the concentrated version and 0.884 (0.101) for the standard version. The mean (SD; p value) utility difference between the standard and concentrated rapid-acting insulin was 0.007 (0.019; p

Background and Objectives Lilly insulin glargine (LY IGlar; Basaglar®) and the reference insulin glargine product (IGlar; Lantus®) are basal insulin glargine analogs with identical amino acid sequence and similar pharmacological profiles. ELEMENT 5, a Phase 3, prospective, randomized, multinational, two-arm, active-controlled, open-label, parallel-design study in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients (N = 493) showed similar efficacy and safety profiles with LY IGlar and IGlar. This study reports results from India (N = 100) and East Asia (N = 134) subpopulations. Methods Patients from India and East Asia (Korea and Taiwan) with T2DM who were insulin naïve (glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 7.0% and ≤ 11.0%) or on basal insulin (HbA1c ≤ 11.0%) were randomized to receive LY IGlar or IGlar along with oral antihyperglycemic medications (OAMs) for 24 weeks. Patients were instructed to self-titrate from the starting dose by 1 unit/day until fasting blood glucose (FBG) ≤ 5.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) was achieved. The key outcome was HbA1c change from baseline to Week 24. Results Within-group least-squares mean (LSM) decrease (baseline to Week 24) in HbA1c was similar between treatments. The upper limit of confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference was below the defined 0.4% noninferiority margin in India (LY IGlar: − 0.83%; IGlar: − 0.62%; difference [95% CI] − 0.21 [− 0.70, 0.28]) and East Asia (LY IGlar: − 1.28%; IGlar: − 1.26%; difference [95% CI] − 0.02 [− 0.34, 0.30]) subpopulations. Results of other efficacy and safety endpoints at Week 24 were similar between treatments in both subpopulations. LSM self-monitored FBG levels were similar between treatments at all visits in both subpopulations except at Week 24 in the India subpopulation (LY IGlar: 5.65 [0.10] mmol/L or 101.8 [1.86] mg/dL; IGlar: 5.18 [0.10] mmol/L or 93.3 [1.75] mg/dL; p = 0.002). Conclusion Efficacy and safety profiles of LY IGlar and IGlar, in combination with OAMs, were similar in India and East Asia subpopulations. This was consistent with the ELEMENT 5 total population. Clinical Trial Registration NCT02302716. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40261-019-00798-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives: The Conversations and Reactions Around Severe Hypoglycemia cross-sectional study was conducted to better understand the severe hypoglycemia experiences in persons with diabetes (PWD) and their caregivers (CGs). Methods: Adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and CGs were recruited in 8 countries; Canadian cohort data are reported in this study. Insulin-treated PWD who reported a severe hypoglycemic event within the past 3 years and CGs who care for PWD ≥4 years old and who met the criteria were eligible for the study. Participants completed an online survey about their experience with severe hypoglycemia, its treatment and actions during and after severe hypoglycemia. Results: Of the 324 respondents, 139 (43%) reported discussions about severe hypoglycemia with a health-care provider (HCP) at every visit. During the most recent severe hypoglycemic event, the most common actions taken included ingestion of oral carbohydrates and calling emergency medical services; glucagon was rarely used. Despite many respondents (67%) feeling scared because of the most recent severe hypoglycemic event, only 55% (51% with type 1 and 61% with type 2) discussed this event with an HCP. The event affected the mood/emotional status, physical activities and sleep of PWD and CGs. Conclusions: Severe hypoglycemia impacts the emotional and physical status of PWD and CGs. Despite this, many respondents did not report discussions about the most recent severe hypoglycemic event with HCPs. Furthermore

The CRASH online survey examined the experience and treatment of a severe hypoglycemic event (SHE) in people with T1DM or insulin-treated T2DM (PWD) or caregivers (CG). Eligible participants experienced ≥1 SHE in the last 3 years with insulin treatment at the time of event. Reported here are results from PWD aged ≥65 (T1DM 74, T2DM 104) and CG (T1DM 95, T2DM 231) from Canada, Germany, Spain, UK, and USA. During the last SHE, reported glucagon use was low for T1DM (9.5%) and T2DM (7.5%); primary reason reported was no prescription available or filled (T1DM 24.3%, T2DM 29.3%). Of those who ever discussed SHE at their healthcare provider (HCP) visit (T1DM 138, T2DM 243), less than half (T1DM 41.3%, T2DM 34.2%) reported discussion of SHE at every HCP visit. No discussion of the most recent SHE occurred for 34.3% (T1DM) and 31.0% (T2DM). During the most recent SHE many felt unprepared (T1DM 35.5%, T2DM 47.2%), scared (T1DM 60.9%, T2DM 64.2%), and helpless (T1DM 39.1%, T2DM 51.3%). After the last SHE, changes were reported to insulin regimens, meal plans, carrying sugar/sweets, checking blood glucose more often or using continuous glucose monitors, and increasing access to glucagon. Clinical guidelines recommending discussion of hypoglycemia at each HCP visit for PWD at risk for SHE are not being met and should occur, and CGs should be included in preparedness strategies. Disclosure F.J. Snoek: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, Lilly Diabetes, Novo Nordisk A/S, Roche Diabetes Care. Research Support; Self; Sanofi. E. Spaepen: None. D.M. Bushnell: None. C.J. Child: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Z. Balantac: Other Relationship; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. B. Mitchell: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. M. Peyrot: Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Consultant; Self; CeQur Corporation, Eli Lilly and Company. Research Support; Spouse/Partner; Eli Lilly and Company. Funding Eli Lilly and Company

To understand physicians’ reasons for prescribing Insulin Lispro 200 units/ml (IL200) and their experience with IL200 treatment in Germany. The survey consisted of 28 questions on physician’s profile, average IL200 patients’ characteristics and rationales for prescribing IL200. Questions were rated on a scale of 0 (‘not at all important’/‘strongly disagree’) to 4 (‘absolutely important’/‘strongly agree’). The surveyed physicians had a mean (SD) experience of 18.1 (7.0) years managing diabetes, consulted an average of 226.8 patients with diabetes/month and prescribed IL200 to 56.1% of their patients on mealtime insulin (MTI). About 80.0% of IL200 patients had type 2 diabetes mellitus, were overweight/obese, and received >20 units/day of MTI. More than 70.0% of physicians rated patient’s insulin dose, pattern of self-measured glucose levels, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (clinical); adherence, hypoglycemia knowledge, motivation to improve lifestyle, desire to reduce injection volume and emotional struggle with controlling HbA1c (behavioral) as ‘very important’/‘absolutely important’ factors when prescribing IL200. Physicians considered IL200 a promising treatment option that reduces the injection burden for patients on MTI. Physicians adopted a patient-centered perspective by aligning IL200 prescribing decisions with each patient’s medical needs and non-clinical preferences, with an aim to encourage treatment adherence through resorting to IL200’s advantageous attributes.

Injectable glucagon (IG) is challenging to use for caregivers of a person with diabetes (PWD) in stressful severe hypoglycemia (SH) rescue. We evaluated user preference for nasal glucagon (NG) and IG devices after treating simulated SH. The PWD trained arm was adult PWDs trained to use NG or IG, then PWDs trained their caregivers how to use it; 1 week later, caregivers administered the device to a life-like manikin exhibiting SH in a simulated real life setting with distractions creating urgency. The untrained arm was adults not associated with a PWD, but willing to assist - not trained, but shown the device just presimulation. After 1 week, the process was repeated with the other device. We assessed perceptions of simulation participants and PWDs via comparative device questionnaires, completed after videos of both simulations were viewed after the 2nd simulation (no confirmation of success provided). NG was rated more preferred by those with successful doses of NG or IG. PWDs indicated that they felt safer with NG even with successful IG dosing (Table). Untrained users were as successful as PWD-trained in dosing NG, while there were no IG successes without training. None of the few who preferred IG gave a successful IG dose, whereas the few successful IG-users preferred NG or stated no preference. Being PWD-trained was not critical for success with NG, and ease of preparation and use likely contributed to overall preference. Disclosure J. Settles: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. C.J. Child: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. S.K. Bajpai: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. E. Spaepen: Consultant; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. J.G. Suico: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Funding Eli Lilly and Company

The CRASH study examines the experience and treatment of a severe hypoglycemia event (SHE) among people with T1DM (ppl w/T1DM) or insulin-treated ppl w/T2DM and caregivers. The online survey was conducted in 8 countries. To be eligible in the global study, ppl had experienced or cared for a person who had ≥1 SHE in the last 3 years. SHE was defined as low blood glucose requiring assistance for recovery. Here, we report U.S. data for 220 ppl with diabetes (n=110 T1DM; n=110 T2DM). Sixty-five (59.1%) ppl w/T2DM used insulin for >5 years, while mean (SD) duration of diabetes was 30.6 (16.6) years for ppl w/T1DM and 16.0 (8.7) years for ppl w/T2DM. Forty (36.4%) ppl w/T1DM and 22 (20.0%) ppl w/T2DM reported impaired awareness (Gold score ≥4). During the last SHE, glucagon use was low (T1DM [8.2%]; T2DM [3.6%]); reasons for not using glucagon were not having a prescription (T1DM [40.0%]; T2DM [59%]) or it was unavailable (T1DM [20.0%]; T2DM [17.1%]). Also, ppl w/T1DM (75.5%) and ppl w/T2DM (83.6%) reported using oral glucose only for treatment; use of healthcare provider assistance was low. The main causes reported for a SHE were eating less than planned (T1DM [27.3%]; T2DM [47.3%]) or exercising more than planned (T1DM [21.8%]; T2DM [20.0%]). Results indicate that treatment of a SHE mainly occurred outside the healthcare system with fewer ppl having glucagon as an option for recovery. Disclosure F.J. Snoek: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Lilly Diabetes, Novo Nordisk A/S, Roche Diabetes Care. Research Support; Self; Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Lilly Diabetes. A. Jiletcovici: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. D.M. Bushnell: None. C.J. Child: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. S.K. Bajpai: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. E. Spaepen: Consultant; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. J. Thomas: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Z. Balantac: Other Relationship; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. M. Peyrot: Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Consultant; Self; Calibra Medical. Research Support; Spouse/Partner; Eli Lilly and Company. B. Mitchell: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Eli Lilly and Company.

Aims We evaluated risk factors for clinically relevant hypoglycaemia (blood glucose 8.5%) at Week 12 (titration period) and at Week 24 (overall study), and by subgroups of age (

Current and future estimates of the burden of diabetes in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region are among the highest in the world. VISION, an 18-month observational study, explored patterns of insulin initiation and intensification in T2DM patients in the MENA region.1192 patients aged ≥18 years were enrolled from Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Treating physicians recorded participants' data. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using questionnaires completed by participants.67.6% patients had HbA1c ≥9% at insulin initiation, with a mean HbA1c of 9.9%, despite 68.3% patients being on ≥2 oral anti-diabetics, indicating a significant delay in insulin initiation. Basal insulin was initiated in 50.6% and premixed insulin in 46.3% patients. After 18 months, changes in insulin therapy were observed in 33.7% patients, while 39.6% patients achieved HbA1c levels of7.5%. The proportion of patients completely satisfied with their insulin treatment, and the QoL increased over the study course.Results support that timely initiation and early intensification of insulin therapy are necessary in the region to achieve adequate and timely glycemic control and to prevent diabetic complications.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization with polyethylene glycol (PEG) drug-eluting embolic agents in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Materials and methods: A single-center retrospective study of 302 patients (258 men; 85.4%) with HCC treated during a 20-month period was conducted. The mean patient age was 66 years ± 10; 142 (47%) had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A disease and 134 had (44.4%) stage B disease; 174 (57.6%) had a single HCC tumor, 65 (21.5%) had 2, and 62 (20.9%) had 3 or more. Mean index tumor size was 36.6 mm ± 24.8. One-month follow-up computed tomography (CT) response per modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors and clinical and biochemical safety were analyzed. Progression-free and overall survival were calculated by Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Median follow-up time was 11.9 months (95% confidence interval, 11.0-13.0 mo). One-month follow-up CT revealed complete response in 179 patients (63.2%), partial response in 63 (22.3%), stable disease in 16 (5.7%), and progressive disease in 25 (8.8%). The most frequent complications were postembolization syndrome in 18 patients (6%), liver abscess in 5 (1.7%), and puncture-site hematoma in 3 (1%). Biochemical toxicities occurred in 57 patients (11.6%). Survival analysis at 12 months showed a progression-free survival rate of 65.9% and overall survival rate of 93.5%. Patients who received transplants showed a 57.7% rate of complete pathologic response. Conclusions: Chemoembolization with PEG embolic agents for HCC is safe and effective, achieving an objective response rate of 85.5%. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Co-morbidities have typically been considered as prevalent cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular diseases rather than systematic measures of general co-morbidity burden in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Charlson co-morbidity index (CCI) is a measure of co-morbidity burden providing a means of quantifying the prognostic impact of 22 co-morbid conditions on the basis of their number and prognostic impact. The study evaluated the impact of the CCI on cardiac mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after PCI through analysis of the Nobori-2 study. The prognostic impact of CCI was studied in 3,067 patients who underwent PCI in 4,479 lesions across 125 centers worldwide on 30-day and 1- and 5-year cardiac mortality and MACE. Data were adjusted for potential confounders using stepwise logistic regression; 2,280 of 3,067 patients (74.4%) had ≥1 co-morbid conditions. CCI (per unit increase) was independently associated with an increase in both cardiac death (odds ratio [OR] 1.47 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20 to 1.80, p = 0.0002) and MACE (OR 1.29 95% CI 1.14 to 1.47, p ≤0.0011) at 30 days, with similar observations recorded at 1 and 5 years. CCI score ≥2 was independently associated with increased 30-day cardiac death (OR 4.25, 95% CI 1.24 to 14.56, p = 0.02) at 1 month, and this increased risk was also observed at 1 and 5 years. In conclusion, co-morbid burden, as measured using CCI, is an independent predictor of adverse outcomes in the short, medium, and long term. Co-morbidity should be considered in the decision-making process when counseling patients regarding the periprocedural risks associated with PCI, in conjunction with traditional risk factors.

Platelets are thought to play a causal role during atherogenesis. Platelet-endothelial interactions in vivo and their molecular mechanisms under shear are, however, incompletely characterized. Here, an in vivo platelet homing assay was used in hypercholesterolemic rabbits to track platelet adhesion to plaque predilection sites. The role of platelet versus aortic endothelial cell (EC) activation was studied in an ex vivo flow chamber. Pathways of human platelet immobilization were detailed during in vitro perfusion studies. In rabbits, a 0.125% cholesterol diet induced no lesions within 3 months, but fatty streaks were found after 12 months. ECs at segmental arteries of 3- month rabbits expressed more von Willebrand factor (VWF) and recruited 5-fold more platelets than controls (P

Background: Contemporary data remains limited regarding mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) outcomes in patients undergoing PCI for different manifestations of coronary artery disease. Objectives: We evaluated mortality and MACE outcomes in patients treated with PCI for STEMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction), NSTEMI (non ST-elevation myocardial infarction) and stable angina through analysis of data derived from the Nobori-2 study. Methods: Clinical endpoints were cardiac mortality and MACE (a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization). Results: 1909 patients who underwent PCI were studied; 1332 with stable angina, 248 with STEMI and 329 with NSTEMI. Age-adjusted Charlson co-morbidity index was greatest in the NSTEMI cohort (3.78±1.91) and lowest in the stable angina cohort (3.00±1.69); P