The multinational Conversations and Reactions Around Severe Hypoglycemia (CRASH) study: Impact of health care provider communications and recommendations on people with diabetes.

The multinational CRASH study found that substantive recommendations from health care providers were predictive of actions taken by people with diabetes during and after a severe hypoglycemic event, which highlights the importance of equipping people with actionable strategies to prevent and treat severe hypoglycemia should a severe hypoglycemic event arise.

Conversations and Reactions Around Severe Hypoglycaemia (CRASH): Results from the German Cohort of a Global Survey of People with Type 1 Diabetes or Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes and Caregivers.

BACKGROUND: A global cross-sectional survey (CRASH) was designed to provide information about the experiences of people with diabetes (PWD) and their caregivers in relation to severe hypoglycaemic events. METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes who had experienced one or more severe hypoglycaemic events within the past 3 years, and adult caregivers for such people, were recruited from medical research panels using purposive sampling. We present here results from Germany. RESULTS: Approximately 100 individuals in each of the four participant groups completed a 30-minute online survey. Survey results indicated that the most recent severe hypoglycaemic event made many participants feel scared (80.4%), unprepared (70.4%), and/or helpless (66.5%). Severe hypoglycaemia was discussed by healthcare professionals at every visit with only 20.2% of participants who had ever had this conversation, and 53.5% of participants indicated that their insulin regimen had not changed following their most recent event. 37.1% of PWD/people with diabetes cared for by caregivers owned a glucagon kit at the time of survey completion. CONCLUSIONS: The survey identified areas for improvement in the prevention and management of severe hypoglycaemic events. For healthcare professionals, these include enquiring more frequently about severe hypoglycaemia and adjusting blood glucose-lowering medication after a severe hypoglycaemic event. For individuals with diabetes and their caregivers, potential improvements include ensuring availability of glucagon at all times. Changes in these areas could lead not only to improved patient wellbeing but also to reduced use of emergency services/hospitalisation and, consequently, lower healthcare costs.

[Comparison of two insulin glargine formulations: biosimilar vs. reference product]. / Zwei Insulin-glargin-Formulierungen im Vergleich : Biosimilar versus Originalpräparat.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilar medicinal products have been in use in the European Union since 2006. In September 2014, insulin glargine (LY IGlar) was approved as a long-acting insulin analogue. In accordance with EMA (European Medicines Agency) and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) guidelines, analytical, preclinical and clinical studies were submitted demonstrating drug safety and biosimilarity of LY IGlar with the reference insulin glargine (IGlar). METHOD: In a review article, study data collected in the clinical development of LY IGlar are summarized. RESULTS: A program of Phase 1 studies investigated whether the criteria for bioequivalence were met. Based on these standards, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the two insulins were shown to be similar. The clinical comparability of LY IGlar versus IGlar was demonstrated in two Phase 3 studies in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The tolerability profiles of LY IGlar and IGlar were similar in these studies; no significant differences were observed in the rate of adverse events, hypoglycemic events or immunogenicity. CONCLUSION: The results of these studies show that LY IGlar represents an alternative treatment option for basal insulin therapy in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes because its efficacy and tolerability is similar to that of IGlar.

Raloxifene is not associated with biologically relevant changes in hot flushes in postmenopausal women for whom therapy is appropriate.

OBJECTIVES: Raloxifene is approved for the treatment and prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Previous studies have described a raloxifene-associated increase in hot flushes, reported as adverse events. This study was undertaken to provide a detailed evaluation of the potential of raloxifene to induce or exacerbate hot flushes in postmenopausal women. STUDY DESIGN: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group multicenter study, 487 postmenopausal women were randomized to receive 8 months of treatment with either raloxifene (RLX) at the recommended dose of 60 mg/day, or by slow-dose escalation for the first 2 months, followed by the standard dose for the rest of the study (SDE), or placebo (PL). The frequency, duration, intensity, severity, and impact of hot flushes were measured. RESULTS: With 3-5 hot flushes per week, the mean number at baseline was low. During treatment, it increased by <1 hot flush/week in both active treatment groups and decreased by <1 hot flush/week with PL. The high proportion ( approximately 60%) of asymptomatic patients at baseline had increased further by the end of treatment in all groups. The proportion of women whose pre-existing hot flushes abated during treatment was significantly greater with SDE (P=.005) and PL (P=.050), but not with RLX, when compared with the proportion with treatment-emergent flushes. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in the distribution of the number of hot flushes after 2 months of treatment. At end point, there were no significant differences between SDE and either RLX or PL, but the difference between RLX and PL was statistically significant (P=.035). There were no significant between-group differences in the hot flush impact scores, in treatment satisfaction, and in the proportion of patients requesting symptomatic treatment to alleviate hot flushes. CONCLUSION: In a postmenopausal population meeting the criteria for the prescription of RLX, the overall effect of the drug on hot flushes is low. Previous studies using adverse event reports have overestimated the importance of hot flushes in postmenopausal women during treatment with RLX. Slow-dose escalation seems to decrease the number of symptomatic patients further and may be a useful strategy in women reporting flushes when starting RLX.