Expert consensus on the use of liraglutide in the treatment of diabetes in internal medicine.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) is a disease of epidemic proportions. In the adult Spanish population, prevalence of DM2 is nearly 14%, which makes its monitoring and treatment imperative. Liraglutide has achieved relevance due to its efficacy and safety in DM treatment. The aim of this study is to gather expert opinion on diabetes to assess the current role of liraglutide in DM2. MATERIALS/METHODS: The survey was performed by 57 internal medicine specialists using the Delphi method. The questionnaire had 56 items regarding liraglutide in DM treatment. RESULTS: Consensus was reached in 71.4% of items. Panelists stated agreement regarding liraglutide suitability in the treatment of patients with DM2, high cardiovascular risk, and with pathologies related to obesity, highlighting its role in weight loss, low risk of hypoglycemia, and improvement of vascular risks. Moreover, consensus was not reached regarding the suitability of liraglutide in patients with special situations, mainly due to minimal experience caused by the small number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Due to its safety and hypoglycemic efficacy, liraglutide is an excellent choice for DM treatment in combination with other drugs. Its effects on the reduction of weight and other cardiovascular risk factors, make it an optimal treatment, especially in overweight or obese patients.

Grado de control de la anticoagulación en pacientes con fibrilación auricular en España: necesidad de minimizar sesgos y contextualizar resultados. Respuesta de Cinza Sanjurjo et al / Degree of anticoagulation control in patients with atrial fibrillation in Spain: need to minimize biases and contextualize results. Response by Cinza Sanjurjo et al

No disponible

Evaluación del grado de anticoagulación de pacientes con fibrilación auricular en el ámbito de atención primaria de Galicia. Estudio ANFAGAL / Assessment of degree of anticoagulation control in patients with atrial fibrillation in primary health care in Galicia, Spain: ANFAGAL study

Introducción y objetivos: Conocer cuál es el grado de control de los pacientes anticoagulados en seguimiento por atención primaria en Galicia y si la determinación por número de controles es comparable al Rosendaal para estimar el tiempo en rango terapéutico. Métodos: Estudio transversal que incluyó a pacientes > 65 años, diagnosticados de fibrilación auricular no valvular, anticoagulados durante al menos 1 año. Se consideró buen control cuando el tiempo en rango terapéutico era > 65% calculado por Rosendaal o 60% estimado por el número de controles. Resultados: Se incluyó a 511 pacientes (el 53,0% mujeres; media de edad, 77,8 ± 0,6 años). El 41,5% de los pacientes tenían en rango terapéutico menos del 60% de los controles realizados y el 42,7% mostró un tiempo en rango terapéutico calculado por la fórmula de Rosendaal < 65%. En el grupo de pacientes con mal control, se observó mayor número de fármacos (6,8 ± 0,4 frente a 5,7 ± 0,3; p < 0,0001), mayor prevalencia de enfermedad renal (el 24,3 frente al 17,0%; p = 0,05) y mayor puntuación en la escala HAS-BLED (3,8 ± 0,1 frente a 2,5 ± 0,1; p < 0,0001). El punto de corte del 60% para el número de controles mostró sensibilidad y especificidad del 79,4 y el 86,7%, respectivamente, con un área bajo la curva de 0,92 (intervalo de confianza del 95%, 0,87-0,97).Conclusiones: Más del 40% de los pacientes anticoagulados no alcanzan el mínimo tiempo en rango terapéutico para beneficiarse de este tratamiento. Las variables que influyen en el peor control son la enfermedad renal y el alto riesgo de hemorragia cerebral. Ambos métodos de estimación son comparables (AU)

Introduction and objectives: To determine the degree of control of patients on anticoagulants in follow-up in primary care in Galicia and investigate whether time in therapeutic range as estimated using the number of acceptable controls is comparable with the estimation using the Rosendaal method. Methods: Transversal study that included patients older than 65 years, diagnosed with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, on anticoagulants for at least 1 year. Control was considered good when the time in therapeutic range was greater than 65%, estimated by the Rosendaal method, or 60% estimated by the number of acceptable controls. Results: We enrolled 511 patients (53.0% women; mean [standard deviation] age, 77.8 [0.6] years). Overall, 41.5% of the patients were in therapeutic range at fewer than 60% of the controls and 42.7% spent less than 65% of follow-up in therapeutic range, as estimated with the Rosendaal method. In the group of patients with poor control, we observed more drugs (6.8 [0.4] vs 5.7 [0.3]; P < .0001), greater presence of kidney disease (24.3% vs 17.0%; P = .05), and higher HAS-BLED scores (3.8 [0.1] vs 2.5 [0.1]; P < .0001). The cutoff of 60% for number of acceptable controls had a sensitivity and specificity of 79.4% and 86.7%, respectively, with an area under the curve of 0.92 (95%CI, 0.87-0.97). Conclusions: More than 40% of patients on anticoagulants do not reach the minimum time in therapeutic range to benefit from anticoagulation. The factors associated with worse control were kidney disease and high risk of cerebral hemorrhage. The 2 methods of estimation are comparable (AU)

Assessment of Degree of Anticoagulation Control in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation in Primary Health Care in Galicia, Spain: ANFAGAL Study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the degree of control of patients on anticoagulants in follow-up in primary care in Galicia and investigate whether time in therapeutic range as estimated using the number of acceptable controls is comparable with the estimation using the Rosendaal method. METHODS: Transversal study that included patients older than 65 years, diagnosed with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, on anticoagulants for at least 1 year. Control was considered good when the time in therapeutic range was greater than 65%, estimated by the Rosendaal method, or 60% estimated by the number of acceptable controls. RESULTS: We enrolled 511 patients (53.0% women; mean [standard deviation] age, 77.8 [0.6] years). Overall, 41.5% of the patients were in therapeutic range at fewer than 60% of the controls and 42.7% spent less than 65% of follow-up in therapeutic range, as estimated with the Rosendaal method. In the group of patients with poor control, we observed more drugs (6.8 [0.4] vs 5.7 [0.3]; P<.0001), greater presence of kidney disease (24.3% vs 17.0%; P=.05), and higher HAS-BLED scores (3.8 [0.1] vs 2.5 [0.1]; P<.0001). The cutoff of 60% for number of acceptable controls had a sensitivity and specificity of 79.4% and 86.7%, respectively, with an area under the curve of 0.92 (95%CI, 0.87-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: More than 40% of patients on anticoagulants do not reach the minimum time in therapeutic range to benefit from anticoagulation. The factors associated with worse control were kidney disease and high risk of cerebral hemorrhage. The 2 methods of estimation are comparable.

Clinical effects of torasemide prolonged release in mild-to-moderate hypertension: a randomized noninferiority trial versus torasemide immediate release.

The efficacy of a new torasemide prolonged release (PR) formulation to torasemide immediate release (IR) was compared in a randomized noninferiority double-blind trial. Patients with newly diagnosed mild-to-moderate hypertension or unresponsive or poor tolerability to previous antihypertensive monotherapy received 5 mg/day of torasemide-PR (n = 219) or torasemide-IR (n = 223) for 12 weeks (uptitration to 10 mg/day if no response at 4 or 8 weeks). Mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) reduction in the torasemide-PR group (11.6 +/- 7.1 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.6-12.5) versus torasemide-IR (11.3 +/- 7.5 mmHg, 95% CI 10.2-12.3) met the noninferiority criterion of a nonsided 97.5% CI lower than the preestablished margin of 2 mmHg. A significantly higher percentage of patients in the torasemide-PR group achieved adequate BP control after 8 and 12 weeks. Ambulatory 24-h BP monitoring (ABPM) measurements in a subset of 100 patients showed greater daytime SBP reductions in the torasemide-PR group (128.4 +/- 9.9 mmHg vs. 133.5 +/- 10.4 mmHg, P < 0.05). Safety and tolerability of both formulations were similar.

Evaluation of long-term efficacy and acceptability of indapamide SR in elderly hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term antihypertensive efficacy and acceptability of indapamide SR 1.5 mg in elderly hypertensive patients (> or = 65 years). STUDY DESIGN: Open, 12-month, follow-up study of 444 patients, treated with indapamide SR, who were responders and/or achieved target BP levels following a 3-month, randomised, controlled, double-blind short-term comparison of indapamide SR versus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg and amlodipine 5 mg. RESULTS: The long-term decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after 12 months follow-up with indapamide SR was -24.0/-13.1 mmHg from baseline (M0). The percentage of patients that achieved target BP levels (DBP < 95 mmHg, SBP < or = 160 mmHg) was 80.1% [84.3% for isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) subgroup], and the response rate (BP < 140/90 mmHg or decrease in supine diastolic BP > or = 10 mmHg or in supine systolic BP > or = 20 mmHg) 81.5%. Blood pressure (BP) remained stable throughout the 12 months follow-up period (M3-M15), whatever the previous treatment received during the 3-month, doubleblind period (M0-M3). Clinical and biological acceptability was good. A low occurrence of withdrawals (7.2%), was reported. CONCLUSION: Over the course of the long-term, 12-month follow-up study, indapamide SR was shown to be an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive therapy, even after a switch from amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide, in patients aged 65 years-80 years with systolo-diastolic hypertension (SDH) or ISH.