| 1. |
- Home, Philip, et al.
(författare)
-
Insulin Detemir Offers Improved Glycemic Control Compared With NPH Insulin in People With Type 1 Diabetes: A randomized clinical trial.
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Diabetes Care. - : American Diabetes Association. - 1935-5548 .- 0149-5992. ; 27:5, s. 1081-1087
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE—Insulin detemir is a soluble long-acting basal insulin analog designed to overcome the limitations of conventional basal insulin formulations. Accordingly, insulin detemir has been compared with NPH insulin with respect to glycemic control (HbA1c, prebreakfast glucose levels and variability, and hypoglycemia) and timing of administration. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—People with type 1 diabetes (n = 408) were randomized in an open-label, parallel-group trial of 16-week treatment duration using either insulin detemir or NPH insulin. Insulin detemir was administered twice daily using two different regimens, either before breakfast and at bedtime (IDetmorn+bed) or at a 12-h interval (IDet12h). NPH insulin was administered before breakfast and at bedtime. Mealtime insulin was given as the rapid-acting insulin analog insulin aspart. RESULTS—With both insulin detemir groups, clinic fasting plasma glucose was lower than with NPH insulin (IDet12h vs. NPH, −1.5 mmol/l [95% CI −2.51 to −0.48], P = 0.004; IDetmorn+bed vs. NPH, −2.3 mmol/l (−3.32 to −1.29), P < 0.001), as was self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose (P = 0.006 and P = 0.004, respectively). The risk of minor hypoglycemia was lower in both insulin detemir groups (25%, P = 0.046; 32%, P = 0.002; respectively) compared with NPH insulin in the last 12 weeks of treatment, this being mainly attributable to a 53% reduction in nocturnal hypoglycemia in the IDetmorn+bed group (P < 0.001). Although HbA1c for each insulin detemir group was not different from the NPH group, HbA1c for the pooled insulin detemir groups was significantly lower than for the NPH group (mean difference −0.18% [−0.34 to −0.02], P = 0.027). Within-person between-day variation in self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose was lower for both detemir groups (both P < 0.001). The NPH group gained weight during the study, but there was no change in weight in either of the insulin detemir groups (IDet12h vs. NPH, −0.8 kg [−1.44 to −0.24], P = 0.006; IDetmorn+bed vs. NPH, −0.6 kg [−1.23 to −0.03], P = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS—Overall glycemic control with insulin detemir was improved compared with NPH insulin. The data provide a basis for tailoring the timing of administration of insulin detemir to the individual person’s needs.
|
|
| 2. |
- Schafer, Werner, et al.
(författare)
-
Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies
- 2002
-
Ingår i: Neurourology and Urodynamics. - : Wiley. - 0733-2467. ; 21:3, s. 261-274
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This is the first report of the International Continence Society (ICS) on the development of comprehensive guidelines for Good Urodynamic Practice for the measurement, quality control, and documentation of urodynamic investigations in both clinical and research environments. This report focuses on the most common urodynamics examinations; uroflowmetry, pressure recording during filling cystometry, and combined pressure-flow studies. The basic aspects of good urodynamic practice are discussed and a strategy for urodynamic measurement, equipment set-up and configuration, signal testing, plausibility controls, pattern recognition, and artifact correction are proposed. The problems of data analysis are mentioned only when they are relevant in the judgment of data quality. In general, recommendations are made for one specific technique. This does not imply that this technique is the only one possible. Rather, it means that this technique is well-established, and gives good results when used with the suggested standards of good urodynamic practice.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
