RESUMO
Introduction: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of illness and death among adults. In 2019, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy incorporated blood eosinophils as a biomarker to identify patients at increased risk of exacerbations which, with the history of exacerbations during the previous year, allows identification of patients who would benefit from anti-inflammatory treatment to reduce the risk of future exacerbations. The aim of this study was to describe demographic and clinical characteristics, eosinophil counts, and exacerbations in a cohort of COPD patients stratified by clinical phenotypes (non-exacerbator, frequent exacerbator, asthma-COPD overlap) in a Colombian cohort at 2600 meters above sea level. Methods: A descriptive analysis of a historical cohort of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COPD (FEV1/FVC < 0.7 and at least one risk factor for COPD) from two specialized centers with comprehensive disease management programs was performed from January 2015 to March 2019. Data were extracted from medical records 1 year before and after the index date. Results: 200 patients were included (GOLD B: 156, GOLD E: 44; 2023 GOLD classification); mean age was 77.9 (SD 7.9) years; 48% were women, and 52% had biomass exposure as a COPD risk factor. The mean FEV1/FVC was 53.4% (SD 9.8), with an FEV1 of 52.7% (20.7). No differences were observed between clinical phenotypes in terms of airflow limitation. The geometric mean of absolute blood eosinophils was 197.58 (SD 2.09) cells/µL (range 0 to 3,020). Mean blood eosinophil count was higher in patients with smoking history and frequent exacerbators. At least one moderate and one severe exacerbation occurred in the previous year in 44 and 8% of patients, respectively; during the follow-up year 152 exacerbations were registered, 122 (80%) moderate and 30 (20%) severe. The highest rate of exacerbations in the follow-up year occurred in the subgroup of patients with the frequent exacerbator phenotype and eosinophils ≥300 cells/µL. Discussion: In this cohort, the frequency of biomass exposure as a risk factor is considerable. High blood eosinophil count was related to smoking, and to the frequent exacerbator phenotype.
RESUMO
Abstract Introduction: in Colombia, the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the treatment of patients with type 1 (DM1) and type 2 (DM2) diabetes do not mention the use of flash glucose monitoring, as this system was not available. The objective of this study was to establish a set of recommendations for the use of intermittent flash monitoring in Colombia. Methods: the group of experts consisted of eight Colombian physicians from different cities within Colombia, with expertise in the management of patients with DM1 and DM2; a certified diabetes nurse educator; a patient with DM1; and a methodological expert. Using the Zoom Enterprise video conferencing application (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, California), the group generated questions through the Metaplan method, then carried out a systematic literature search and evidence review. The recommendations were made according to the degree of evidence and strength of the recommendation, following the GRADE method. Results: clinical recommendations were made for: a) patients with DM1 and hypoglycemia; b) patients with DM1 and poor metabolic control; c) patients with insulin-treated DM2; d) pregestational diabetes; e) quality of life; and f) inpatient use. Conclusions: this consensus's clinical recommendations guide clinical decision making with regard to the use of intermittent flash monitoring in patients with diabetes in various clinical settings. (Acta Med Colomb 2022; 47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2022.2239).
Resumen Introducción: en Colombia las Guías de Práctica Clínica para el manejo del paciente con diabetes tipo 1 (DM1) y tipo 2 (DM2) no mencionan el uso del monitoreo de glucosa flash dado que dicho sistema no estaba disponible. El objetivo del presente trabajo fue establecer un grupo de recomendaciones sobre el uso del monitoreo intermitente flash en Colombia. Métodos: el grupo de expertos estuvo conformado por ocho médicos colombianos expertos en el manejo de pacientes con DM1 y DM2 de diversas ciudades de Colombia, una enfermera licenciada educadora en diabetes, una paciente con diagnóstico de DM1 y un experto metodológico. A través de Zoom Enterprise versión de la aplicación de videoconferencia Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, California) el grupo generó las preguntas con metodología Metaplan. Posteriormente, se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de la literatura y análisis de la evidencia. Las recomendaciones se generaron mediante grupo nominal según el grado de evidencia y la formaleza de la recomendación siguiendo la metodología GRADE. Resultados: se generaron recomendaciones clínicas enfocadas a: a) paciente con diagnóstico de DM1 e hipoglucemia; b) paciente con diagnóstico de DM1 y mal control metabólico, c) paciente con diagnóstico de DM tipo 2 tratado con insulina, d) diabetes pregestacional, e) calidad de vida y f) uso intrahospitalario. Conclusiones: las recomendaciones clínicas del presente consenso orientan la toma de decisiones clínicas con respecto al uso de monitoreo intermitente flash en el paciente con diagnóstico de diabetes en diferentes escenarios clínicos. (Acta Med Colomb 2022; 47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2022.2239).
RESUMO
Introducción: Existen diferentes opciones de manejo para pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DMT2) que ya iniciaron tratamiento farmacológico con metformina y no han alcanzado metas de control glucémico. Resulta prioritario definir pautas para escoger la mejor opción en estos pacientes, así como en aquellos que no han tenido un control óptimo con la combinación de dos medicamentos. Objetivo: Definir cuál es antidiabético de elección, entre sulfonilureas, tiazolidinedionas, inhibidores de DPP-4, agonista del receptor de GLP-1 o insulina basal, como segunda y tercera líneas de manejo en pacientes con DMT2. Métodos: Se elaboró la guía de práctica clínica, siguiendo los lineamientos de la guía metodológica del Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social colombiano. Se revisó la evidencia disponible de forma sistemática y se formularon las recomendaciones utilizando la metodología GRADE. Conclusiones: En pacientes con DMT2 y falla terapéutica al manejo con metformina como monoterapia (HbA1C > 7 %) se recomienda como primera opción adicionar un inhibidor DPP-4, como segunda opción adicionar inhibidor SGLT2 o sulfonilureas con bajo riesgo de hipoglucemia y como tercera opción agregar insulina basal a los pacientes que con la combinación de dos fármacos fallen en alcanzar su meta de HbA1C. Si la falla terapéutica se asocia con un IMC persistentemente ≥ 30, se sugiere la adición de un agonista de GLP-1 por el potencial beneficio sobre la reducción de peso.
Introduction: There are different options to treat type 2 diabetes (DMT2) patients who began treatment with metformin and have not reached therapeutic golds. It is imperative to define rules to choose the best option, in these patients, as in those who have not achieved an optimal control under combined therapy. Aim: To define the best option between sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, DPP4 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonist or basal insulin, as second or third line treatment, in patients with DMT2 who have not reached therapeutic golds with metformin or combined therapy. Methods: A clinical practice guide has been developed following the broad outline of the methodological guide from the Colombian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, with the aim of systematically gathering scientific evidence and formulating recommendations using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. Conclusions: In patients with DMT2 who did not reach their therapeutic goal with metformin as a monotherapy (Hb1Ac <7%), addition of a second oral antidiabetic medication is recommended. it is recommended as a first step to add a DPP-4 inhibitor. It is suggested to add a SGLT2 inhibitor or a sulfonylurea having low risk of hypoglycemia as acceptable options. It is suggested to add basal insulin as a third antidiabetic medication if the combination of two pharmacological treatments does not enable the patient to reach and maintain the HbA1c goal. It is suggested to add a GLP-1 agonist if therapeutic failure appears in patients who remain obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²), considering its potential to reduce weight.
