Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a tool that allows constant evaluation of glycemic control, providing data such as the trend and fluctuation of interstitial glucose levels over time. In clinical practice, there are two modalities: the professional or retrospective and the personal or real-time CGM (RT-CGM). The latest-generation sensors are more accurate and sensitive for hypoglycemia, improving adherence to self-monitoring, which has allowed optimizing glycemic control. The development of algorithms that allow the suspension of the infusion of insulin during hypoglycemia gave rise to the integrated therapy or sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy with low glucose suspend, which has proven to be an effective and safe alternative in the treatment of diabetic patients with high risk of hypoglycemia. The objective of this review is to present the evidence of the advantages of RT-CGM, the clinical impact of integrated therapy, and cost-effectiveness of its implementation in the treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus.
ObjectivesTo examine the evidence derived from randomized controlled clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of omalizumab compared to placebo in controlling symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria/chronic spontaneous urticaria (CIU/CSU).Data sourceThe electronic databases PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Biomed Central, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Wiley, OVID, and HighwirePress were reviewed. The date limit was set to May 31th, but it was extended to September 30th of 2014 due to a new publication. No language restriction was used. The articles included were randomized trials controlled with placebo in individuals older than 12 years diagnosed with CIU/CSU refractory to conventional treatment, the intervention being, omalizumab at different doses, and the comparison, placebo. The primary outcome was symptom improvement according to the weekly score of urticaria severity (UAS7), the itch severity score (ISS), the weekly score of number of urticarial lesions, the dermatology life quality index, and the chronic urticaria quality of life questionnaire (CU-QoL). Databases were searched using the following Mesh or EMTREE key words including as intervention “omalizumab” or “humanized monoclonal antibody,” compared to placebo and the disease of interest “urticaria” or “angioedema”. The title, abstract and article were reviewed by two independent investigators, according to the selection criteria in each of the databases. An assessment of the quality of the articles was performed according to the bias tool from the studies of the Cochrane Collaboration. Information such as author data, date of study, number of participants, interventions, dose and frequency of administration, comparison, time of follow-up, measurements of weekly score of urticaria activity, pruritus severity score, weekly urticarial lesions, percentage of angioedema and post-treatment change were extracted. Frequency of adverse events and the ones suspected to be caused by the intervention drug were included.Results770 records were identified in all databases described. 720 were eliminated for failing to meet the inclusion criteria in the first review or for duplicate records. 24 articles were reviewed by abstract, 18 additional articles were further removed, leaving 6 records for inclusion. An experimental study was excluded because it wasn’t randomized. Five studies were finally included, with 1117 patients, of these 831 received a dose of omalizumab of 75 mg (183 patients, 16.38%), 150 mg (163 patients, 14.59%), 300 mg (437 patients, 39.12%) or 600 mg (21 patients, 1.8%), as a single dose, or every 4 weeks until 24 weeks maximum. The average age was 42.07 years, predominantly female gender and white ethnicity. It was observed that the use of omalizumab 300 mg lowered the weekly scores of urticarial activity in 19.9 vs. 6.9 on placebo (p <0.01), 19 vs 8.5 and 20.7 vs 8.01 in three studies, the weekly ISS (−9.2 vs. - 3.5, p <0.001, −9.8 vs −5.1 p < 0.01, −8.6 vs −4.0 and −9.4 vs −3.63 p <0.001 in four studies), and the perc...
Objectives: The traditional cardiovascular risk factors associated with coronary artery disease in individuals younger than 55 years old was determined in this study. Methods: A retrospective, paired case–control study comprised of patients younger than 55 years old who were admitted to the hospital due to acute coronary syndrome with coronary artery disease from 2011 to 2016. There were two controls per case, paired by age, gender, admission date, and health insurance. Data from patients were collected, such as sociodemographic information, cardiovascular risk factors, and drug therapy information. A conditional logistic regression model was created to evaluate the association between traditional cardiovascular risk factors and coronary artery disease. Results: There were 171 cases and 342 controls included in the study. The median age was 49 years, with a predominance of male gender (80.12%). Nearly 66% of cases had at least one traditional cardiovascular risk factor. The most common risk factors were obesity (57.31%), arterial hypertension (45.62%), and smoking (28.97%). Independent risk factors of coronary artery disease in patients younger than 55 years were arterial hypertension (odds ratio, 2.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.48–4.20; p = 0.001) and smoking (odds ratio, 7.15; 95% confidence interval, 3.19–15.99; p = 0.00). No significant association between diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease in the global group (odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence innterval, 0.91–4.58; p = 0.083) was found. Conclusion: For patients younger than 55 years, with a theoretically lower risk of coronary artery disease due to their age, having one or several traditional risk factors (smoking, arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes mellitus) confers an increased risk of coronary artery disease regardless of age.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.