No abstract

No abstract

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor canagliflozin in patients of different ethnicities.Design, Setting, and Patients: Post hoc analysis of data pooled from four randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies of adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Interventions: Once daily oral canagliflozin 100 mg or 300 mg, or placebo. Main Outcome Measures:Efficacy endpoints included change from baseline in HbA1c, body weight (BW), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and lipids at week 26; safety and tolerability were assessed by adverse event reports.Results: Of the 2,313 patients included in this pooled analysis, 609 self-identified as Hispanic/Latino. Hispanic/Latino patients had a mean age of 54 years, mean duration of T2DM of 7 years, mean HbA1c of 8.1%, mean body mass index of 31.2 kg/m 2 , and mean SBP of 126.1 mm Hg. There were more women in the non-Hispanic/Latino cohort (63%) compared with the Hispanic/ Latino cohort. Placebo-subtracted changes in HbA1c were −.82% with canagliflozin 100 mg and −.94% with canagliflozin 300 mg in the Hispanic/Latino cohort, which were similar to reductions observed in the non-Hispanic/Latino cohort. Significantly greater dose-related reductions in HbA1c, BW, and SBP were observed with both canagliflozin doses compared with placebo. Canagliflozin was generally well-tolerated. Genital mycotic infections were less frequent in Hispanic/Latino women than in non-Hispanic/Latino women. Conclusions:The SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin was generally well-tolerated and

Background: Insulin management with the basal bolus method is indicated in the diabetic patient admitted to the hospital ward. Few studies exist to suggest the best regimen to manage hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients. Material and metohds: It is a controlled, randomized, single-blind clinical trial. Forty-two participants were randomized into two groups, the first with a basal-bolus regimen with insulin glargine once a day and insulin lispro before each meal, the second with insulin three times a day with regular insulin before each meal. Results: No statistically significant difference was found in the daily glucose control goal. To assess safety, hypoglycemia events were analyzed by group, which did not show a statistically significant difference in both groups (p= 0.428). Conclusion: In safety, NPH insulin was similar in the presence of hypoglycemic events when compared to insulin glargine without presenting a significant difference between both groups, in terms of efficacy, no differences were found in achieving the conclusion that they can be used safely and safely. a lower cost.