Heparin Surface-modified IOLs Compared with Regular PMMA IOLs in Patients with Diabetes and/or Glaucoma — 1 year Results of a Double-Blind Randomized Multi-independent Trial

Objective To review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of high-dose once-weekly semaglutide for chronic weight management. Data Sources PubMed/MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched (inception to September 8, 2021) using keywords “semaglutide” and “obesity,” “weight,” “high dose,” “high-dose,” or “2.4.” Study Selection and Data Extraction Clinical trials with published results were included. Publications studying the oral or <2.4 mg formulation of semaglutide were excluded. Data Synthesis Four phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials demonstrated efficacy of high-dose once-weekly semaglutide compared with placebo for weight loss. Study populations included patients with overweight or obesity (STEP 1, STEP 3, and STEP 4) or patients with diabetes and with overweight or obesity (STEP 2). Lifestyle interventions for diet and exercise were included for all participants. Weight loss from baseline was significant for all studies, and secondary outcomes demonstrated cardiometabolic improvements including waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, and lipid profiles. Gastrointestinal adverse effects were common, but the medication was otherwise well tolerated. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice High-dose semaglutide offers significant weight-lowering potential and favorable effects on cardiometabolic risk factors and glycemic indices. Clinicians and patients should consider the route and frequency of administration, adverse effect profile, and cost when choosing an antiobesity medication. The importance of concomitant lifestyle interventions should be emphasized. Conclusions High-dose once-weekly semaglutide can significantly reduce weight, and although gastrointestinal adverse effects were common, it is generally well tolerated.

Download Full-text

Use of antidepressants in patients with depression and comorbid diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

Acta Neuropsychiatrica ◽

10.1017/neu.2016.54 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 29 (3) ◽

pp. 127-139 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Subethini Roopan ◽

Erik Roj Larsen

Keyword(s):

Diabetes Mellitus ◽

Maintenance Phase ◽

Tricyclic Antidepressant ◽

Favourable Effect ◽

Strong Impact ◽

Double Blind ◽

Patients With Diabetes ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Almost All ◽

Design And Methods

ObjectiveDepression may be difficult to treat and with comorbid diabetes mellitus (DM) it is an even bigger challenge. This article aims to evaluate antidepressants most suitable for patients with depression and comorbid DM.Design and methodsInitially we searched for randomised, controlled double-blind trials of treatment with antidepressants in depressed with DM but there were only a few studies and many of them were small trials. Thus, we decided to include studies that were not only randomised-controlled trials. In total, we ended up with 18 articles for our purposes.ResultsThe combination of depression and DM may be harmful as depression has a strong impact on psychosocial and medical outcomes in patients with DM. Almost all of the trials in this review showed a reduction in depressive symptoms after treatment with an antidepressant in the acute as well as during maintenance phase. It showed that depression improvement had a favourable effect on glycaemic control that was weight independent. Some studies included only subjects with minor depression or with suboptimal-controlled diabetes making it difficult to show an effect.ConclusionFrom these data, we will recommend choosing an selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) if possible to treat a depression among patients with diabetes. If treatment with a tricyclic antidepressant is needed, closer glycaemic monitoring is recommended. Bear in mind that there is a possible risk of hypoglycemia when using SSRIs. Agomelatine and bupropion have shown promising results, but need to be investigated in more trials.

Download Full-text

A Traditional Mouthwash (Punica granatum var pleniflora) for Controlling Gingivitis of Diabetic Patients

Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1177/2156587216633370 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

pp. 59-67 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Massih Sedigh-Rahimabadi ◽

Mohammadmehdi Fani ◽

Mahsa Rostami-chijan ◽

Mohammad M. Zarshenas ◽

Mesbah Shams

Keyword(s):

Outcome Measures ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Punica Granatum ◽

Diabetic Patients ◽

Gingival Index ◽

Pocket Depth ◽

Double Blind ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Gingival Bleeding ◽

Patients With Diabetes

This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of Punica granatum var pleniflora mouthwash in treatment of diabetic gingivitis. In a double-blind randomized clinical trial 80 patients with diabetes mellitus and gingivitis were assigned to Golnaar and chlorhexidine 0.2% groups. After using mouthwashes for 2 weeks; participants underwent tooth scaling and the last visit was 2 weeks after scaling. The primary outcome measures were plaque, modified gingival and gingival bleeding indices, and pocket depth. Both interventions had significant improvement on all of the gingival and plaque indices ( P < .001 for all indices). There were no significant differences between Golnaar and chlorhexidine in primary outcome measures except for modified gingival index for which Golnaar mouthwash had a superiority after 2 weeks when comparing with chlorhexidine ( P = .039). Meanwhile, Golnaar mouthwash had no staining effect. Golnaar mouthwash is safe and effective in treatment of gingivitis in diabetic patients although further studies are recommended.

Download Full-text

Aqueous flare induced by heparin-surface-modified poly(methyl methacrylate) and acrylic lenses implanted through the same-size incision in patients with diabetes

Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery ◽

10.1016/s0886-3350(00)00814-2 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 27 (6) ◽

pp. 855-860 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Damien Gatinel ◽

Thierry Lebrun ◽

Philippe Le Toumelin ◽

Gilles Chaine

Keyword(s):

Methyl Methacrylate ◽

Poly Methyl Methacrylate ◽

Aqueous Flare ◽

Patients With Diabetes ◽

Surface Modified

Download Full-text

1112. The Treatment with Intra Muscular (IM) Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Gene Compared with Placebo for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Critical Limb Ischemia (CLI), a Double Blind Phase III Study

Molecular Therapy ◽

10.1016/j.ymthe.2005.07.660 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 11 ◽

pp. S428

Keyword(s):

Diabetes Mellitus ◽

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor ◽

Limb Ischemia ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Vascular Endothelial ◽

Vegf Gene ◽

Double Blind ◽

Patients With Diabetes ◽

Phase Iii Study ◽

Endothelial Growth Factor

Download Full-text

Use of low-dose acetylsalicylic acid for cardiovascular disease prevention: A practical, stepwise approach for pharmacists

Canadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada ◽

10.1177/1715163520909137 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 153 (3) ◽

pp. 153-160

Author(s):

Arden R. Barry ◽

William M. Semchuk ◽

Ann Thompson ◽

Marlys H. LeBras ◽

Sheri L. Koshman

Keyword(s):

Cardiovascular Disease ◽

Acetylsalicylic Acid ◽

Major Bleeding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Cardiovascular Prevention ◽

Active Role ◽

Sequential Algorithm ◽

Number Needed To Treat ◽

Double Blind ◽

Patients With Diabetes

Low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is recommended in patients with established cardiovascular disease. However, the role of ASA in those without cardiovascular disease (i.e., primary prevention) is less clear, which has led to discordance among Canadian guidelines. In 2018, 3 double-blind, randomized controlled trials were published that evaluated ASA 100 mg daily versus placebo in patients without established cardiovascular disease. In the ASPREE trial, ASA did not reduce the risk of all-cause death, dementia, or persistent physical disability in patients ≥70 years of age but increased the risk of major bleeding. In the ARRIVE trial, ASA failed to lower the risk of a composite of cardiovascular events but increased any gastrointestinal bleeding in patients at intermediate risk of cardiovascular disease. In the ASCEND trial, ASA significantly reduced the primary composite cardiovascular outcome in patients with diabetes for a number needed to treat of 91 over approximately 7.4 years. Yet major bleeding was increased with ASA for a number needed to harm of 112. Therefore, in most situations, ASA should not be recommended for primary cardiovascular prevention. However, there are additional indications for ASA beyond cardiovascular disease. Thus, a sequential algorithm was developed based on contemporary evidence to help pharmacists determine the suitability of ASA in their patients and play an active role in educating their patients about the potential benefits (or lack thereof) and risks of ASA. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2020;153:xx-xx.

Download Full-text