| 1. |
- Koychev, Ivan, et al.
(författare)
-
Protocol for a double-blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of oral semaglutide in amyloid positivity (ISAP) in community dwelling UK adults
- 2024
-
Ingår i: BMJ OPEN. - 2044-6055. ; 14:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), currently marketed for type 2 diabetes and obesity, may offer novel mechanisms to delay or prevent neurotoxicity associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). The impact of semaglutide in amyloid positivity (ISAP) trial is investigating whether the GLP-1 RA semaglutide reduces accumulation in the brain of cortical tau protein and neuroinflammation in individuals with preclinical/prodromal AD. Methods and analysis ISAP is an investigator-led, randomised, double-blind, superiority trial of oral semaglutide compared with placebo. Up to 88 individuals aged >= 55 years with brain amyloid positivity as assessed by positron emission tomography (PET) or cerebrospinal fluid, and no or mild cognitive impairment, will be randomised. People with the low-affinity binding variant of the rs6971 allele of the Translocator Protein 18 kDa (TSPO) gene, which can interfere with interpreting TSPO PET scans (a measure of neuroinflammation), will be excluded. At baseline, participants undergo tau, TSPO PET and MRI scanning, and provide data on physical activity and cognition. Eligible individuals are randomised in a 1:1 ratio to once-daily oral semaglutide or placebo, starting at 3 mg and up-titrating to 14 mg over 8 weeks. They will attend safety visits and provide blood samples to measure AD biomarkers at weeks 4, 8, 26 and 39. All cognitive assessments are repeated at week 26. The last study visit will be at week 52, when all baseline measurements will be repeated. The primary end point is the 1-year change in tau PET signal. Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the West Midlands-Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee (22/WM/0013). The results of the study will be disseminated through scientific presentations and peer-reviewed publications.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Lim, Lee Ling, et al.
(författare)
-
Aspects of Multicomponent Integrated Care Promote Sustained Improvement in Surrogate Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Diabetes care. - : American Diabetes Association. - 1935-5548 .- 0149-5992. ; 41:6, s. 1312-1320
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The implementation of the Chronic Care Model (CCM) improves health care quality. We examined the sustained effectiveness of multicomponent integrated care in type 2 diabetes.We searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE (January 2000-August 2016) and identified randomized controlled trials comprising two or more quality improvement strategies from two or more domains (health system, health care providers, or patients) lasting ≥12 months with one or more clinical outcomes. Two reviewers extracted data and appraised the reporting quality.In a meta-analysis of 181 trials (N = 135,112), random-effects modeling revealed pooled mean differences in HbA1c of -0.28% (95% CI -0.35 to -0.21) (-3.1 mmol/mol [-3.9 to -2.3]), in systolic blood pressure (SBP) of -2.3 mmHg (-3.1 to -1.4), in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of -1.1 mmHg (-1.5 to -0.6), and in LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) of -0.14 mmol/L (-0.21 to -0.07), with greater effects in patients with LDL-C ≥3.4 mmol/L (-0.31 vs. -0.10 mmol/L for <3.4 mmol/L; Pdifference = 0.013), studies from Asia (HbA1c -0.51% vs. -0.23% for North America [-5.5 vs. -2.5 mmol/mol]; Pdifference = 0.046), and studies lasting >12 months (SBP -3.4 vs. -1.4 mmHg, Pdifference = 0.034; DBP -1.7 vs. -0.7 mmHg, Pdifference = 0.047; LDL-C -0.21 vs. -0.07 mmol/L for 12-month studies, Pdifference = 0.049). Patients with median age <60 years had greater HbA1c reduction (-0.35% vs. -0.18% for ≥60 years [-3.8 vs. -2.0 mmol/mol]; Pdifference = 0.029). Team change, patient education/self-management, and improved patient-provider communication had the largest effect sizes (0.28-0.36% [3.0-3.9 mmol/mol]).Despite the small effect size of multicomponent integrated care (in part attenuated by good background care), team-based care with better information flow may improve patient-provider communication and self-management in patients who are young, with suboptimal control, and in low-resource settings.
|
|
| 4. |
- Lind, Marcus, 1976, et al.
(författare)
-
Historical hba1c values may explain the type 2 diabetes legacy effect: Ukpds 88
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Diabetes Care. - : American Diabetes Association. - 1935-5548 .- 0149-5992. ; 44:10, s. 2231-2237
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: Type 2 diabetes all-cause mortality (ACM) and myocardial infarction (MI) glycemic legacy effects have not been explained. We examined their relationships with prior individual HbA1c values and explored the potential impact of instituting earlier, compared with delayed, glucose-lowering therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty-year ACM and MI hazard functions were estimated from diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in 3,802 UK Prospective Diabetes Study participants. Impact of HbA1c values over time was analyzed by weighting them according to their influence on downstream ACM and MI risks. RESULTS: Hazard ratios for a one percentage unit higher HbA1c for ACM were 1.08 (95% CI 1.07–1.09), 1.18 (1.15–1.21), and 1.36 (1.30–1.42) at 5, 10, and 20 years, respectively, and for MI was 1.13 (1.11–1.15) at 5 years, increasing to 1.31 (1.25–1.36) at 20 years. Imposing a one percentage unit lower HbA1c from diagnosis generated an 18.8% (95% CI 21.1–16.0) ACM risk reduction 10–15 years later, whereas delaying this reduction until 10 years after diagnosis showed a sevenfold lower 2.7% (3.1–2.3) risk reduction. Corresponding MI risk reductions were 19.7% (22.4–16.5) when lowering HbA1c at diagnosis, and threefold lower 6.5% (7.4–5.3%) when imposed 10 years later. CONCLUSIONS: The glycemic legacy effects seen in type 2 diabetes are explained largely by historical HbA1c values having a greater impact than recent values on clinical outcomes. Early detection of diabetes and intensive glucose control from the time of diagnosis is essential to maximize reduction of the long-term risk of glycemic complications.
|
|
| 5. |
- Teo, Koon K., et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of telmisartan, irbesartan, valsartan, candesartan, and losartan on cancers in 15 trials enrolling 138 769 individuals The ARB Trialists Collaboration
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 29:4, s. 623-635
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, but a recent meta-analysis of selected studies suggested that ARBs may increase cancer risks.Objective Candesartan, irbesartan, telmisartan, valsartan, and losartan were assessed for incident cancers in 15 large parallel long-term multicenter double-blind clinical trials of these agents involving 138 769 participants.Patients and methods Individuals at high CVD risk were randomized to telmisartan (three trials, n=51 878), irbesartan (three trials, n=14 859), valsartan (four trials, n=44 264), candesartan (four trials, n=18 566), and losartan (one trial, n=9193) and followed for 23-60 months. Incident cancer cases were compared in patients randomized to ARBs versus controls. In five trials (n=42 403), the ARBs were compared to ACEi and in 11 trials (n=63 313) to controls without ACEi. In addition, in seven trials (n=47 020), the effect of ARBs with ACEi was compared to ACEi alone and in two trials ARBs with ACEi versus ARB alone (n=25 712).Results Overall, there was no excess of cancer incidence with ARB therapy compared to controls in the 15 trials [ 4549 (6.16%) cases of 73 808 allocated to ARB versus 3856 (6.31%) of 61 106 assigned to non-ARB controls; odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-1.04] overall or when individual ARBs were examined. ORs comparing combination therapy with ARB along with ACEi versus ACEi was 1.01 (95% CI 0.94-1.10), combination versus ARB alone 1.02 (95% CI 0.91-1.13), ARB alone versus ACEi alone 1.06 (95% CI 0.97-1.16) and ARB versus placebo/control without ACEi 0.97 (95% CI 0.91-1.04). There was no excess of lung, prostate or breast cancer, or overall cancer deaths associated with ARB treatment.Conclusion There was no significant increase in the overall or site-specific cancer risk from ARBs compared to controls.
|
|
