RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Oral semaglutide improves cardiovascular risk factors in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in clinical trials, though real-world evidence is limited. We aimed to determine the real-world impact of oral semaglutide on routinely collected clinical data in our practice. METHODS: People with T2D initiated on oral semaglutide in secondary care diabetes clinics at two hospital sites in Wales (United Kingdom) were included. Data were collected on reasons for oral semaglutide initiation and changes in bodyweight, blood pressure, glycemic control, and lipid profiles over follow-up at 3-6 months, and at 6-12 months. Data were collected to determine the safety of oral semaglutide. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were included, with a median age 59.3 [51.4-67.6] years, and 38 (50.0%) patients were female. The most common reasons for oral semaglutide were need for weight loss and improved glycemia (69.8%), and improved glycemia alone (25.0%). Oral semaglutide associated with significantly reduced bodyweight (- 3.3 kg), body mass index (BMI) (- 0.9 kg/m2), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (- 11 mmol/mol), and total cholesterol (- 0.4 mmol/l) by 3-6 months follow-up. At 6-12 months, there was a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (- 7.0 mmHg), in addition to sustained reductions in other metabolic parameters. By 12 months, 18 (23.6%) patients had discontinued the drug, largely resulting from gastrointestinal disturbance, but there were no serious events in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide was effective in improving cardiovascular risk factors in this real-world population living with T2D, and no serious events were identified related to oral semaglutide in this patient group.
RESUMO
Identifying opportunities to safely reduce antibiotic prescribing is necessary for prescribers and antibiotic stewardship teams to minimise unwarranted antibiotic use. We aimed to quantify excess antibiotic use in General Surgery. We retrospectively audited the antibiotic prescribing for patients discharged from the General Surgery specialty in an acute hospital in the south-west of England for one month using an audit tool developed by Public Health England. The appropriateness of prescribing was determined for each patient at three antibiotic decision time-points: at initiation, the pre-72-hour antibiotic review, and treatment duration. Two infection specialists and a general surgeon reviewed each patient. Indication and excess days of therapy (DOTs) were calculated at each decision time-point and expressed as a proportion of total DOTs. Eighty-six patients were prescribed 1162 DOTs; 192 (16.5%) excess DOTs were prescribed in 38 patients (44%), with zero excess days identified in the remaining 48 patients (56%). Seventy-five of 192 (39%) excess DOTs occurred at initiation; 55/192 (29%) after the pre-72-hour antibiotic review; and 62/192 (32%) due to protracted antibiotic courses. There was concordance between the general surgeon and infection specialist for most apportioned excess DOTs. However, the surgeon apportioned fewer excess DOTs 160/1162 (13.8%). Overall IV antibiotics accounted for 53.4% of total DOTs. Seventy-two of 86 (83.7%) patients received 620 intravenous DOTs; of these, 79 (12.7%) IV DOTS were unnecessary. We have identified excess antibiotic prescribing in General surgery with comparable excess DOTs at all three time-points.
