Comparison of Hypoglycemia and Safety Outcomes With Long-Acting Insulins Versus Insulin NPH in Pregestational and Gestational Diabetes.

Background: Current guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend insulin as the standard therapy for treatment of pregestational and gestational diabetes (PGDM and GDM). However, the guidelines do not specify which type(s) of insulin to utilize. Additionally, there are limited published data regarding safety parameters of insulin in this population. Objective: To evaluate if insulin glargine or detemir (long-acting insulin) results in less hypoglycemia, hospitalizations, or delivery complications compared with intermediate-acting insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in PGDM and GDM. Methods: This single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study included pregnant women who were 18 years or older with PGDM or GDM and received insulin therapy during pregnancy at an outpatient obstetric clinic. The primary outcome was the frequency of hypoglycemia (BG < 60 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits and hospitalizations, delivery complications, and the duration of time at glycemic targets during pregnancy. Results: A total of 63 patients were included for evaluation. There was no significant difference in the frequency of hypoglycemia between the long-acting and NPH groups (4.4 vs 6.2 events per patient, respectively; P = 0.361). Patients receiving long-acting insulin had significantly more encounters with diabetes education (10.6 vs 5.1 visits per patient, P = 0.002) and more consistently provided glucose readings at their appointments (8.3 vs 4.8, P = 0.043). There was no difference in hospitalizations or maternal and neonatal complications. Conclusion and Relevance: Long-acting insulins did not reduce the frequency of hypoglycemia compared with NPH. The results of this study confirm the need for additional investigations with larger populations.

Abaloparatide: A new pharmacological option for osteoporosis.

PURPOSE: The efficacy and safety of abaloparatide, a parathyroid hormone-related protein analog for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women at high fracture risk, is reviewed. SUMMARY: A MEDLINE search was conducted for full text English-language articles, using the terms abaloparatide, parathyroid hormone, and osteoporosis. Published articles pertinent to the short- and long-term efficacy and safety of abaloparatide among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were reviewed and summarized. Based on randomized, placebo-controlled and active-comparator studies, abaloparatide can reduce the risk of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Abaloparatide can also significantly increase bone mineral density (BMD) at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine. Patients receiving abaloparatide experience faster and more robust changes in BMD compared to those receiving teriparatide. Overall, abaloparatide is well tolerated with a mild adverse effect profile, including dizziness, headache, nausea, and palpitations. Additionally, there is a lower incidence of hypercalcemia with abaloparatide than with teriparatide. At this time, the differences demonstrated between abaloparatide and teriparatide would not be considered clinically significant. Larger and more robust studies are needed to determine future clinical significance of abaloparatide compared with other agents for use in the postmenopausal osteoporotic population. CONCLUSION: Abaloparatide is an effective anabolic agent to improve bone formation and resorption amongst postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Based on its clinical evidence, abaloparatide can result in greater BMD increases and less hypercalcemia compared with the only current marketed anabolic agent, teriparatide. Adverse events associated with abaloparatide are generally mild in nature and include nausea, dizziness, headache, and palpitations.