الجمعة، 27 ديسمبر 2024

What Are the Best Drugs to Treat Diabetes?

Diabetes is a serious condition that is brought on by decreased insulin secretion from the pancreas and diminished insulin sensitivity in the muscle cells. It is characterized by excessive urination, extreme thirst, high blood sugar, and increased appetite.1

There are a number of medications on the market to help manage this condition, but the following are the top 10 in terms of showing efficacy in lowering A1C and blood sugar levels.

1. Insulin (long- and rapid-acting)

Patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) must be treated with insulin, as the beta cells in their pancreas no longer produce it. Insulin plays a vital role in glucose uptake and is required by the muscle and adipose tissue.2 However, insulin is not solely for patients with T1D; those with type 2 diabetes (T2D) may also be placed on insulin but generally only after failing to reach glycemic targets upon being placed on multiple oral agents for some time. Patients with diabetes typically receive multiple injections per day, including bolus insulin administered before meals and the long-acting basal insulin that lowers blood sugar levels over time. Insulin is classified as a high-risk drug because it can cause patients to experience hypoglycemia, but the benefits of this treatment surely outweigh the risks.2

The most common insulins I see prescribed in my daily practice are Basaglar (long-acting) and NovoLog (rapid-acting).

2. Metformin (biguanide class)

Metformin is considered the first-line oral agent for patients with diabetes and can be used to treat pre-diabetes. It works by decreasing glucose production in the liver, increasing insulin sensitivity, and lowering intestinal sugar absorption. Metformin has been shown to decrease A1 levels by 1% to 2%, fasting glucose levels by an average of 25%, and postprandial glucose levels by 44%.3 Depending on the severity of the condition, prescribers may try metformin combined with lifestyle modifications as monotherapy before adding more oral agents to their patients’ medication regimens. The drug itself is well tolerated, though in the beginning patients may experience gastrointestinal upset, such as abdominal cramping, diarrhea, and flatulence.

3. Glipizide (sulfonylurea class)

If the A1C level is not at target after 3 months of using metformin, a prescriber may then choose to add glipizide to a patient’s regimen. This medication works by stimulating insulin secretion from the beta cells in the pancreas, which then causes a decrease in postprandial blood glucose. Glipizide is used for the treatment of T2D; it is contraindicated in T1D because it cannot be combined with insulin, which, as previously noted, is a required treatment for all T1D. When combined with insulin, glipizide causes severe hypoglycemia, which should be avoided. The drug has been shown to reduce A1C levels by 1% to 2% and works best when taken 30 minutes before a meal.4 When on glipizide, a patient may experience nausea and weight gain. The agent is very effective, especially at increasing insulin secretion, but its efficacy decreases after long-term use, as the beta cell function may start to decline.

4. Glimepiride (sulfonylurea class)

Glimepiride works in the same manner as glipizide, but is not typically combined with metformin as there is an increased risk of hypoglycemia when they are used together. Glimepiride is a once-daily medication and should be taken with the first main meal of the day. The drug works best when combined with a proper diet and exercise. Of all the sulfonylureas, glimepiride is associated with the least amount of weight gain and is preferred for patients with cardiovascular disease, as it lacks any damaging effects on ischemic preconditioning.

5. Invokana (sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class)

If a patient has a sulfa allergy the previous 2 options are not suit- able, but this one may be. Invokana works by inhibiting the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2), which causes a reduction in the reabsorption of filtered glucose. The drug also causes the patient to excrete excess glucose through their urine, lowering plasma glucose concentrations overall. This medication has been shown to lower A1C levels by 0.7% to 1% but is particularly favored by most patients because of the significant weight loss it can bring about.

There are a few downsides to Invokana, however, as it increases thirst and urination. Patients may also experience more frequent infections, such as urinary tract infections (UTIs), because of the amount of sugar being excreted in their urine; as we know, bacteria love sugar. This medication is also frequently paired with metformin and has its own combination drug on the market called Invokamet, which can be costly. Patients can find coupons for Invokana on the manufacturer’s website, which may make treatment more affordable if they qualify.

6. Jardiance (SGLT2 class)​​​​​​​

Jardiance works in the same way as Invokana but may be the preferred option in patients with renal impairment as it reduces the risk for new or worsening kidney disease by 39%.3 In clinical trials, Jardiance also demonstrated decreased hospitalization rates from heart failure in at least 40% of patients, which is something to keep in mind when selecting which SGLT2 is best for each patient.

7. Januvia (dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor)​​​​​​​

Januvia works by regulating blood glucose levels by increasing the release of insulin from the beta cells and decreasing the secretion of glucagon. Januvia ultimately enhances the body’s own incretins. This drug has been shown to reduce A1C levels by 0.5% to 0.8% and significantly decrease postprandial blood glucose levels.4 It also is weight-neutral, which is a plus. Patients on Januvia may experience edema, rash, and UTIs. Although the medication can be costly, coupons are widely available.

8. Pioglitazone (thiazolidinediones)​​​​​​​

Pioglitazone works by increasing peripheral insulin sensitivity. It also has been shown to decrease A1C levels by 0.5% to 1.4%.3 Although pioglitazone has very good efficacy in terms of getting patients to target, it is not the best option for some because it can cause or exacerbate heart failure. Patients may experience nausea and stomach upset when taking this medication.

9. Victoza (glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist)​​​​​​​

Victoza works by decreasing glucagon secretion, increasing glucose insulin secretion, and slowing gastric emptying. It is a daily injection given without regard to meals. This option has demonstrated significant weight loss in patients. Victoza has been shown to decrease A1C levels by 0.5% to 1.1% and reduce post- prandial blood glucose.3 Patients may experience nausea, which is the primary adverse effect that has been reported, but this is a well-tolerated injection.

10. Trulicity (glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist)

This option is relatively new and soon may be preferred over Victoza as it only needs to be injected once a week. It can be costly, however. The drug works in the same way as Victoza but requires fewer injections. Patients also will see weight loss with this medication, although it can cause pain and inflammation in the pancreas.

​​​​​​​

REFERENCES

  • Fourlanos S, Perry C, Stein MS, Stankovich J, Harrison LC, Colman PG. A clinical screening tool identifies autoimmune diabetes in adults. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(5):970-975. doi:10.2337/diacare.295970
  • National diabetes statistics report. CDC. Updated February 14, 2020. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics/statistics-report.html#:~:text=Total%3A%2034.2%20million%20people%20have,people%20(21.4%25%20 are%20undiagnosed
  • Introduction: standards of medical care in diabetes—–2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42 (suppl 1):S1-S2. doi:10.2337/dc19-Sint01
  • ​​​​​​​Handelsman Y, Bloomgarden ZT, Grunberger G, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology—–clinical practice guidelines for developing a diabetes mellitus comprehensive care plan––2015. Endocr Pract. 2015;21(suppl 1):1-87. doi:10.4158/EP15672.GL

 

الاثنين، 23 سبتمبر 2024

Comment on Stone et al. Atypical Diabetes: What Have We Learned and What Does the Future Hold? Diabetes Care 2024;47:770–781

We thank Stone et al. (1) for their comprehensive review of atypical diabetes, across both pediatric and adult populations.


http://dlvr.it/TDb6tm

About the Artist: Saul Krotki




http://dlvr.it/TDb6dV

About the Editor: Stephanie L. Fitzpatrick, PhD: Behavioral and Social Care Interventions for Chronic Disease Prevention and Management

Stephanie Fitzpatrick knew she wanted to help people. Her mother was a phlebotomist, and as a girl growing up in Louisville, Kentucky, Fitzpatrick used to shadow her during her hospital shift. “I saw how gentle she was with her patients,” she says. “Explaining what she was doing before she drew blood, checking in on them after—my mom had an ability to make people feel at ease during a stressful time.” Fitzpatrick wanted to help people, and as a kid, a career in medicine seemed like the best way to do that. She decided to become a medical doctor.


http://dlvr.it/TDb6D2

Effect of SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Incident Diabetes by Viral Variant: Findings From the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)

OBJECTIVEThe coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has evolved over time by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant, disease severity, treatment, and prevention. There is evidence of an elevated risk of incident diabetes after COVID-19; our objective was to evaluate whether this association is consistent across time and with contemporary viral variants.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) data to evaluate incident diabetes risk among COVID-positive adults compared with COVID-negative patients or control patients with acute respiratory illness (ARI). Cohorts were weighted on demographics, data site, and Charlson comorbidity index score. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence ratio (CIR) of incident diabetes for each viral variant era.RESULTSRisk of incident diabetes 1 year after COVID-19 was increased for patients with any viral variant compared with COVID-negative control patients (ancestral CIR 1.16 [95% CI 1.12–1.21]; Alpha CIR 1.14 [95% CI 1.11–1.17]; Delta CIR 1.17 [95% CI 1.13–1.21]; Omicron CIR 1.13 [95% CI 1.10–1.17]) and control patients with ARI (ancestral CIR 1.17 [95% CI 1.11–1.22]; Alpha CIR 1.14 [95% CI 1.09–1.19]; Delta CIR 1.18 [95% CI 1.11–1.26]; Omicron CIR 1.20 [95% CI 1.13–1.27]). There was latency in the timing of incident diabetes risk with the Omicron variant; in contrast with other variants, the risk presented after 180 days.CONCLUSIONSIncident diabetes risk after COVID-19 was similar across different SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, there was greater latency in diabetes onset in the Omicron variant era.


http://dlvr.it/TDb5zq

Relationship Between Sensor-Detected Hypoglycemia and Patient-Reported Hypoglycemia in People With Type 1 and Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: The Hypo-METRICS Study

OBJECTIVEUse of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has led to greater detection of hypoglycemia; the clinical significance of this is not fully understood. The Hypoglycaemia–Measurement, Thresholds and Impacts (Hypo-METRICS) study was designed to investigate the rates and duration of sensor-detected hypoglycemia (SDH) and their relationship with person-reported hypoglycemia (PRH) in people living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D) with prior experience of hypoglycemia.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe recruited 276 participants with T1D and 321 with T2D who wore a blinded CGM and recorded PRH in the Hypo-METRICS app over 10 weeks. Rates of SDH


http://dlvr.it/TDb5mb

الخميس، 25 يوليو 2024

The Association Between Depressive Symptoms, Access to Diabetes Care, and Glycemic Control in Five Middle-Income Countries

OBJECTIVEThe relationship between depression, diabetes, and access to diabetes care is established in high-income countries (HICs) but not in middle-income countries (MICs), where contexts and health systems differ and may impact this relationship. In this study, we investigate access to diabetes care for individuals with and without depressive symptoms in MICs.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe analyzed pooled data from nationally representative household surveys across Brazil, Chile, China, Indonesia, and Mexico. Validated survey tools Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Revised, Composite International Diagnostic Interview, Short Form, and Patient Health Questionnaire identified participants with depressive symptoms. Diabetes, defined per World Health Organization Package of Essential Noncommunicable Disease Interventions guidelines, included self-reported medication use and biochemical data. The primary focus was on tracking diabetes care progression through the stages of diagnosis, treatment, and glycemic control. Descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analyses, accounting for gender, age, education, and BMI, examined diabetes prevalence and care continuum progression.RESULTSThe pooled sample included 18,301 individuals aged 50 years and above; 3,309 (18.1%) had diabetes, and 3,934 (21.5%) exhibited depressive symptoms. Diabetes prevalence was insignificantly higher among those with depressive symptoms (28.9%) compared with those without (23.8%, P = 0.071). Co-occurrence of diabetes and depression was associated with increased odds of diabetes detection (odds ratio [OR] 1.398, P < 0.001) and treatment (OR 1.344, P < 0.001), but not with higher odds of glycemic control (OR 0.913, P = 0.377).CONCLUSIONSIn MICs, individuals aged 50 years and older with diabetes and depression showed heightened diabetes identification and treatment probabilities, unlike patterns seen in HICs. This underscores the unique interplay of these conditions in different income settings.


http://dlvr.it/TB4vNM

Excess Risk of Injury in Individuals With Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes Compared With the General Population

OBJECTIVETo estimate the relative risk (RR) and excess hospitalization rate for injury in individuals with diabetes compared with the general population.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSData were obtained from the Australian National Diabetes Services Scheme, hospitalization data sets, the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the National Death Index, and the census spanning from 2011 to 2017. Hospitalizations for injury were coded as head and neck, lower-extremity, upper-extremity, or abdominal and thoracic injury; burns; or other injury. Poisson regression was used to estimate the age- and sex-adjusted RR of hospitalization for injury.RESULTSThe total number of hospitalizations for any injury was 117,705 in people with diabetes and 3,463,173 in the general population. Compared with that in the general population, an elevated adjusted risk of admission was observed for any injury (RR 1.22; 95% CI 1.21, 1.22), head and neck (1.28; 1.26, 1.30), lower extremity (1.24; 1.23, 1.26), abdominal and thoracic (1.29; 1.27, 1.30), upper extremity (1.03; 1.02, 1.05), burns (1.52; 1.44, 1.61), and other injury (1.37; 1.33, 1.40). The adjusted RR of any injury was 1.62 (1.58, 1.66) in individuals with type 1 diabetes, 1.65 (1.63, 1.66) in those with type 2 diabetes who were taking insulin, and 1.07 (1.06, 1.08) in individuals with type 2 diabetes not using insulin. Falls were the primary cause of injury in individuals with diabetes.CONCLUSIONSIndividuals with diabetes, especially those using insulin, had a higher risk of hospitalization for injury compared with the general population.


http://dlvr.it/TB4vG9

الخميس، 20 يونيو 2024

Receipt of Diabetes Specialty Care and Management Services by Older Adults With Diabetes in the U.S., 2015–2019: An Analysis of Medicare Fee-for-Service Claims

OBJECTIVEWe characterized the receipt of diabetes specialty care and management services among older adults with diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSUsing a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years, we analyzed cohorts of type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) with history of severe hypoglycemia (HoH), and all other T2D annually from 2015 to 2019. Outcomes were receipt of office-based endocrinology care, diabetes education, outpatient diabetes health services, excluding those provided in primary care, and any of the aforementioned services.RESULTSIn the T1D cohort, receipt of endocrinology care and any service increased from 25.9% and 29.2% in 2015 to 32.7% and 37.4% in 2019, respectively. In the T2D with HoH cohort, receipt of endocrinology care and any service was 13.9% and 16.4% in 2015, with minimal increases. Age, race/ethnicity, residential setting, and income were associated with receiving care.CONCLUSIONSThese findings suggest that many older adults may not receive specialty diabetes care and underscore health disparities.


http://dlvr.it/T8Z4ZQ

Hemoglobin A 1c Trajectories During Pregnancy and Adverse Outcomes in Women With Type 2 Diabetes: A Danish National Population-Based Cohort Study

OBJECTIVETo identify and characterize groups of pregnant women with type 2 diabetes with distinct hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) trajectories across gestation and to examine the association with adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThis was a retrospective Danish national cohort study including all singleton pregnancies in women with type 2 diabetes, giving birth to a liveborn infant, between 2004 and 2019. HbA1c trajectories were identified using latent class linear mixed-model analysis. Associations with adverse outcomes were examined with logistic regression models.RESULTSA total of 1,129 pregnancies were included. Three HbA1c trajectory groups were identified and named according to the glycemic control in early pregnancy (good, 59%; moderate, 32%; and poor, 9%). According to the model, all groups attained an estimated HbA1c


http://dlvr.it/T8Z4R8

الاثنين، 20 مايو 2024

Enhancing Perioperative Diabetes Care: Strategies and Challenges

People with diabetes are more likely to have surgical interventions than the general population and account for as many as 25% of surgical cases (1). They face increased risks of postoperative surgical and dysglycemic complications, prolonged lengths of stay, increased readmissions, and elevated mortality rates (2–4). To mitigate these challenges and reduce the financial burden on health care systems, it is crucial for specialist diabetes teams and perioperative/surgical teams to implement effective systems for safer perioperative diabetes care.


http://dlvr.it/T79KCF