End-of-life decision making by Austrian physicians - a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Austria has recently been embroiled in the complex debate on the legalization of measures to end life prematurely. Empirical data on end-of-life decisions made by Austrian physicians barely exists. This study is the first in Austria aimed at finding out how physicians generally approach and make end-of-life therapy decisions. METHODS: The European end-of-life decisions (EURELD) questionnaire, translated and adapted by Schildmann et al., was used to conduct this cross-sectional postal survey. Questions on palliative care training, legal issues, and use of and satisfaction with palliative care were added. All Austrian specialists in hematology and oncology, a representative sample of doctors specialized in internal medicine, and a sample of general practitioners, were invited to participate in this anonymous postal survey. RESULTS: Five hundred forty-eight questionnaires (response rate: 10.4%) were evaluated. 88.3% of participants had treated a patient who had died in the previous 12 months. 23% of respondents had an additional qualification in palliative medicine. The cause of death in 53.1% of patients was cancer, and 44.8% died at home. In 86.3% of cases, pain relief and / or symptom relief had been intensified. Further treatment had been withheld by 60.0%, and an existing treatment discontinued by 49.1% of respondents. In 5 cases, the respondents had prescribed, provided or administered a drug which had resulted in death. 51.3% of physicians said they would never carry out physician-assisted suicide (PAS), while 30.3% could imagine doing so under certain conditions. 38.5% of respondents supported the current prohibition of PAS, 23.9% opposed it, and 33.2% were undecided. 52.4% of physicians felt the legal situation with respect to measures to end life prematurely was ambiguous. An additional qualification in palliative medicine had no influence on measures taken, or attitudes towards PAS. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of doctors perform symptom control in terminally ill patients. PAS is frequently requested but rarely carried out. Attending physicians felt the legal situation was ambiguous. Physicians should therefore receive training in current legislation relating to end-of-life choices and medical decisions. The data collected in this survey will help political decision-makers provide the necessary legal framework for end-of-life medical care.

Diuretics and diabetes incidence--an appeal against the reluctance to prescribe a medication that is safe and proven.

The publication of the scientific report of the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) in Germany on the 'Comparative evaluation of the benefits and harms of different antihypertensive drug classes [diuretics, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers and angiotensin II (AT-II) blockers] as first-choice therapy for patients with essential hypertension' raised an enormous public debate, particularly as diabetes incidence was not judged to be a patient-relevant outcome. In this assessment, the overall view of the patient-relevant results was that diuretics can be used as first-line antihypertensive treatment. Diabetes incidence is highest with diuretics, but minimal differences in fasting plasma glucose of approximately 0.28 mmol/l are magnified by the transformation of continuous blood glucose values into categorical data: with the establishment of thresholds, the diagnosis of diabetes depends on being above a certain blood glucose value. The protective cardiovascular effects of diuretics do not seem to be reduced in hypertensive patients who develop new-onset diabetes during treatment. Since blood pressure control is often worse, detection, treatment and control should be urgently improved. The debate on antihypertensive agents is mainly of scientific interest and has only minor clinical relevance for everyday patient care.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily insulin injections in patients with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: We compared the effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with those of multiple daily insulin (MDI) injections on glycaemic control, risk of hypoglycaemic episodes, insulin requirements and adverse events in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials up to March 2007. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 22 studies were included (17 on type 1 diabetes mellitus, two on type 2 diabetes mellitus, three on children). With regard to adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus, our meta-analysis found a between-treatment difference of -0.4% HbA(1c) (six studies) in favour of CSII therapy. Available median rates of mild or overall hypoglycaemic events were comparable between the different interventions (1.9 [0.9-3.1] [CSII] vs 1.7 [1.1-3.3] [MDI] events per patient per week). Total daily insulin requirements were lower with CSII than with MDI therapy. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, CSII and MDI treatment showed no statistically significant difference for HbA(1c). The incidence of mild hypoglycaemic events was comparable between the treatment groups. In adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus, glycated haemoglobin and insulin requirements were significantly lower in the CSII groups; no data were available on hypoglycaemic events. The only study performed in younger children did not provide enough data for conclusive inferences. No overall conclusions were possible for severe hypoglycaemia and adverse events for any of the different patient groups due to rareness of such events, different definitions and insufficient reporting. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: CSII therapy in adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus resulted in a greater reduction of glycated haemoglobin, in adult patients without a higher rate of hypoglycaemia. No beneficial effect of CSII therapy could be detected for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Despite indications from epidemiological trials that higher blood glucose concentrations are associated with a higher risk for developing micro- and macrovascular complications, evidence for a beneficial effect of antihyperglycaemic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. Two large studies, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and the University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP), did not find a reduction of cardiovascular endpoints through improvement of metabolic control. The theoretical benefits of newer insulin analogues might result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of long-term treatment with long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) compared to NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were obtained from computerised searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and communication with experts in the field as well as insulin producing companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials in adults with diabetes mellitus type 2 and had a trial duration of at least 24 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pooling of studies by means of random-effects meta-analyses was performed. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies comparing insulin glargine to NPH (Neutral Protamine Hagedorn) insulin and two studies comparing insulin detemir to NPH insulin were identified. In these trials, 1715 patients were randomised to insulin glargine and 578 patients to insulin detemir. Duration of the included trials ranged from 24 to 52 weeks. Metabolic control, measured by glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as a surrogate endpoint, and adverse effects did not differ in a clinical relevant way between treatment groups. While no statistically significant difference for severe hypoglycaemia rates was shown in any of the trials, the rate of symptomatic, overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia was statistically significantly lower in patients treated with either insulin glargine or detemir. No evidence for a beneficial effect of long-acting analogues on patient-oriented outcomes like mortality, morbidity, quality of life or costs could be obtained. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests, if at all only a minor clinical benefit of treatment with long-acting insulin analogues for patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 treated with "basal" insulin regarding symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemic events. Until long-term efficacy and safety data are available, we suggest a cautious approach to therapy with insulin glargine or detemir.

Short acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin in patients with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Short acting insulin analogue use for diabetic patients is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of short acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE, EMBASE until September 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 4 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial selection and evaluation of study quality was done independently by two reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Altogether 8274 participants took part in 49 randomised controlled studies. Most studies were of poor methodological quality. In patients with type 1 diabetes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) of HbA1c was -0.1% (95% CI: -0.2 to -0.1) in favour of insulin analogue, whereas in patients with type 2 diabetes the WMD was 0.0% (95% CI: -0.1 to 0.0). In subgroup analyses of different types of interventions in type 1 diabetic patients, the WMD in HbA1c was -0.2% (95% CI: -0.3 to -0.1) in favour of insulin analogue in studies using continuous subcutaneous insulin injections (CSII), whereas for conventional intensified insulin therapy (IIT) studies the WMD in HbA1c was -0.1% (95% CI: -0.1 to 0.0). The WMD of the overall mean hypoglycaemic episodes per patient per month was -0.2 (95% CI: -1.1 to 0.7) and -0.2 (95% CI: -0.5 to 0.1) for analogues in comparison to regular insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, respectively. For studies in type 1 diabetes patients the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia ranged from 0 to 247.3 (median 21.8) episodes per 100 person-years for insulin analogues and from 0 to 544 (median 46.1) for regular insulin, in type 2 the incidence ranged from 0 to 30.3 (median 0.3) episodes per 100 person-years for insulin analogues and from 0 to 50.4 (median 1.4) for regular insulin. No study was designed to investigate possible long term effects (e.g. mortality, diabetic complications), in particular in patients with diabetes related complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.