AimTo evaluate if VSL#3® [a high-concentration multi-strain probiotic mix containing one strain of Streptococcus thermophilus BT01, three strains of Bifidobacteria (B. breve BB02; B. animalis subspecies [subsp.] lactis BL03, previously identified as B. longum BL03; and B. animalis subsp. lactis BI04, previously identified as B. infantis BI04), and four strains of Lactobacilli (L. acidophilus BA05, L. plantarum BP06, L. paracasei BP07, and L. helveticus BD08, previously identified as L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus BD08)] therapy could improve hepatic parameters.MethodsWe enrolled 60 Caucasian patients aged ≥ 18 years of either sex with the diagnosis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to practice guidance, in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomized to take placebo or VSL#3®, 2 sachets/day in the morning for 3 months. VSL#3® and placebo were self-administered.ResultsWe did not observe any change in body mass index (BMI), circumferences, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), and adiponectin (ADN) with neither treatment. A statistically significant triglycerides (Tg) decrease (p < 0.05 vs. baseline, and p < 0.05 vs. placebo, respectively) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP) decrease (p < 0.05 vs. baseline) was observed in the group of patients being treated with VSL#3® compared with placebo. Transaminases and gamma-glutamyltransferase (γ-GT) were significantly reduced in VSL#3® group (p < 0.05 vs. baseline and placebo, respectively) compared with the placebo group. Aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ratio and hepatic steatosis index (HSI) were significantly lower than the VSL#3® group (p < 0.05 vs. baseline and placebo, respectively) compared with the placebo group. All patients reported an improvement or the disappearance of hepatic steatosis.ConclusionProbiotic therapy with VSL#3® ameliorates hepatic parameters and echography grading, while reducing Tg and the inflammatory status, without any difference between men and women.

Background: Asthma is a highly prevalent chronic inflammatory airways disease, with a considerable impact on quality of life (QoL). To express the effects of asthma on patients’ subjective experience, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) represent an important instrument. The asthma QoL questionnaire (AQLQ) is one of the main PROs among these. Materials and methods: To identify long-term asthma-related QoL outcomes associated with omalizumab therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, we developed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. Published real-world effectiveness studies of adults or adolescents (12 years or older) with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma treated with omalizumab for at least 48 weeks were reviewed. Sources used were Medline ( PubMed ), the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar up to February 2018. In addition, a cross-referencing search was conducted to complete the revision. Results: A total of 255 potential papers were identified in the first search through the database. After full-text viewing, eight articles were finally included in the review. We summarized the results according to the study design, patient baseline characteristics and effectiveness outcomes assessed by AQLQ score results: variation from baseline to the end of study. Results confirmed the long-term benefits of omalizumab as an add-on therapy in patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. Since there is a lot of evidence on omalizumab effectiveness, we aimed to focus on how a therapy can change patient’s QoL in a long time period. Data showed long-term effects of omalizumab treatment on subjective (PROs) and objective (lung function, corticosteroid use, hospitalizations, asthma exacerbation) effectiveness measures. Conclusion: Studies included in our review were observational trials that, due to their design, present a potential risk of selection bias in the patients included. Beyond this limit, the evaluation of QoL using the AQLQ showed a clear increase over time, following both 48 weeks and 9 years of observation, where QoL improvements still were significant over baseline values.

BackgroundDiabetes represents a relevant public health problem worldwide due to its increasing prevalence and socioeconomic burden. There is no doubt that tight glycemic control reduces the development of diabetic complications such as the long-term costs related to the disease. The aim of our model was to calculate total direct costs associated with the two treatments considered in DUAL VII study, and hence evaluate the potential economic benefits for the National Health System (NHS) deriving from the use of insulin degludec plus liraglutide (IDegLira) in a once-daily fixed combination.Materials and methodsWe applied the cost-minimization technique adopting the NHS point of view to the DUAL VII trial outcomes. In the model, developed in Microsoft Excel®, we calculated and compared annual costs per patient of the two therapeutic options for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin and metformin described in the trial, including costs of therapy management and side effects, both negative and positive. Annual treatment costs were calculated based on IDegLira and basal bolus end-of-trial doses resulting in a 1:2 ratio (40.4 U vs 84.1 U). Therefore, maintaining the IDegLira/basal bolus at 1:2 dose ratio, we calculated the correlation between the dose reduction and costs compared to DUAL VII doses base case scenario.ResultsTotal treatment costs were obtained by adding annual cost of drug, needles, glycemic self-monitoring, hypoglycemic events, and effect on consumption of other drugs. Total annual costs of IDegLira combination resulted in €434 higher than basal bolus in DUAL VII base case (40.4 U); the two treatments reported equal costs at 34% dose reduction (26.7 U), while below this value IDegLira treatment became less expensive, with about €215 gain at 50% dose reduction (20.2 U). It is also important to notice that above the break-even point, until an IDegLira dose of 30 U, the cost difference is negligible in view of the clinical benefit provided by the fixed combination highlighted in DUAL VII trial.ConclusionAdding the significant clinical findings derived from DUAL VII trial to our economic evaluation, IDegLira seems to offer an important alternative to basal-bolus therapy.

Background: Diabetes represents a relevant public health problem worldwide due to its growing prevalence and socioeconomic burden, principally due to the development of macrovascular and microvascular complications as well as to the continuous launch of new and even more expensive drugs. The aim of our study is to evaluate the economic impact of dulaglutide, a weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist, on the treatment of diabetic patients as an alternative to both high dose sulphonylureas and insulin basalization at the failure of oral therapies alone. We carried out a cost-effectiveness analysis developed considering the economic implications of recent clinical studies regarding cardiovascular risk drug effects and especially of REWIND studies outcomes, focusing on the impact of weight changes on HRQoL. Material and Method: In our analysis, we have applied the cost-utility technique to the above reported clinical outcomes and compared the global costs of dulaglutide versus sulfonylurea or basal insulin, all in add-on with metformin. We have chosen gliclazide, as a sulfonylurea and Abasaglar ® , the less expensive among basal insulin analogues. Abasaglar was titrated to 20 IU, corresponding to the mean dosage used in the treatment of type II diabetic patients. The model aims to estimate total direct costs related to the above-reported treatments and find out the real gap in costs between dulaglutide, the apparently cheaper gliclazide and basal insulin glargine (IGlargine) based on the Italian National Healthcare System (INHS). Results: The total cost of dulaglutide has resulted in €859.66 higher than gliclazide (€1,579.73 vs €720.07) and basal insulin, although less significantly, reporting a difference of €396.54 (€1,579.73 vs 1,183.19). Except for the purchase cost, dulaglutide has reported reduced costs compared to insulin IGlargine and gliclazide. Dulaglutide showed lower selfmonitoring blood glucose and hypoglycaemia costs, a significant reduction in costs related to cardiovascular complications, as well as savings in costs in other drugs. Dulaglutide can be considered a cost-effective antidiabetic therapy, due to the positive impact on the quality of life induced by weight reduction, despite the higher annual cost per patient, mainly influenced by drug purchase cost. Discussion and Conclusion: In this cost-utility analysis, dulaglutide has shown to be a cost-effective treatment option from the Italian healthcare system perspective as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus. Study findings can provide stakeholders valuable evidence to support the adoption of this costeffective second-or third-line therapy compared to gliclazide or basal insulin glargine. Dulaglutide cost-effectiveness has been particularly evident in the comparison with basal insulin glargine, indicating that, in patients who have treatment indication, this therapy may be preferred to basalization avoiding related complications and costs.

Abstract. Background: to evaluate the effects of Vitamin D3 on glyco-metabolic control in type 2 diabetic patients with Vitamin D deficiency. Methods: one hundred and seventeen patients were randomized to placebo and 122 patients to Vitamin D3. We evaluated anthropometric parameters, glyco-metabolic control, and parathormone (PTH) value at baseline, after 3, and 6 months. Results: a significant reduction of fasting, and post-prandial glucose was recorded in Vitamin D3 group after 6 months. A significant HbA1c decrease was observed in Vitamin D3 (from 7.6% or 60 mmol/mol to 7.1% or 54 mmol) at 6 months compared to baseline, and to placebo (p < 0.05 for both). At the end of the study period, we noticed a change in the amount in doses of oral or subcutaneous hypoglycemic agents and insulin, respectively. The use of metformin, acarbose, and pioglitazone was significantly lower (p = 0.037, p = 0.048, and p = 0.042, respectively) than at the beginning of the study in the Vitamin D3 therapy group. The units of Lispro, Aspart, and Glargine insulin were lower in the Vitamin D3 group at the end of the study (p = 0.031, p = 0.037, and p = 0.035, respectively) than in the placebo group. Conclusions: in type 2 diabetic patients with Vitamin D deficiency, the restoration of value in the Vitamin D standard has led not only to an improvement in the glyco-metabolic compensation, but also to a reduced posology of some oral hypoglycemic agents and some types of insulin used.