PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Melanie Davies

Publications and source records attributed to Melanie Davies.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

A 26-week, randomized, parallel, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin as add-on therapy to oral glucose-lowering drugs in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy and tolerability of insulin detemir or NPH insulin added to oral therapy for type 2 diabetes in a treat-to-target titration protocol. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Individuals (n = 476) with HbA(1c) (A1C) 7.5-10.0% were randomized to addition of twice-daily insulin detemir or NPH insulin in a parallel-group, multicenter trial. Over 24 weeks, insulin doses were titrated toward prebreakfast and predinner plasma glucose targets of < or =6.0 mmol/l (< or =108 mg/dl). Outcomes assessed included A1C, percentage achieving A1C < or =7.0%, risk of hypoglycemia, and body weight. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, A1C had decreased by 1.8 and 1.9% (from 8.6 to 6.8 and from 8.5 to 6.6%) for detemir and NPH, respectively (NS). In both groups, 70% of participants achieved an A1C </= 7.0%; [corrected] there was a trend towards [corrected] the proportion achieving this without hypoglycemia being [corrected] higher with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin (34% [corrected] vs. 25[corrected]%, P = 0.052[corrected]). Compared with NPH insulin, the risk for all hypoglycemia with insulin detemir was reduced by 47% (P < 0.001) and nocturnal hypoglycemia by 55% (P < 0.001). Mean weight gain was 1.2 kg with insulin detemir and 2.8 kg with NPH insulin (P < 0.001), and the difference in baseline-adjusted final weight was -1.58 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of basal insulin to oral drug therapy in people with suboptimal control of type 2 diabetes achieves guideline-recommended A1C values in most people with aggressive titration. Insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin achieves this with reduced hypoglycemia and less weight gain.

Administration, Oral↗

Metabolic syndrome.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Cardiovascular Diseases↗

Improvement of glycemic control in subjects with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: comparison of two treatment algorithms using insulin glargine.

OBJECTIVE: Large prospective studies have demonstrated that optimum glycemic control is not routinely achieved in clinical practice. Barriers to optimal insulin therapy include hypoglycemia, weight gain, and suboptimal initiation and dose titration. This study compared two treatment algorithms for insulin glargine initiation and titration: algorithm 1 (investigator led) versus algorithm 2 (performed by study subjects). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective, multicenter (n = 611), multinational (n = 59), open-label, 24-week randomized trial in 4,961 (algorithm 1, n = 2,493; algorithm 2, n = 2,468) suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetic subjects. RESULTS: At baseline, mean diabetes duration was 12.3 +/- 7.2 years, and 72% of subjects were pretreated with insulin. At end point, there was no significant difference in the incidence of severe hypoglycemia between algorithms 1 and 2 (0.9 vs. 1.1%). There was a significant reduction in HbA(1c) from 8.9 +/- 1.3 to 7.8 +/- 1.2%, with a greater decrease (P < 0.001) with algorithm 2 (-1.22%) versus algorithm 1 (-1.08%). Fasting blood glucose decreased from 170 to 110 mg/dl, with a greater decrease (P < 0.001) with algorithm 2 (-62 mg/dl) versus algorithm 1 (-57 mg/dl). Mean basal insulin dose increased from 22.9 +/- 15.5 to 43.0 +/- 25.5 IU, with a significant difference (P < 0.003) between algorithm 2 (21.6 IU) and algorithm 1 (18.7 IU). CONCLUSIONS: Glargine is safe and effective in improving glycemic control in a large, diverse population with longstanding type 2 diabetes. A simple subject-administered titration algorithm conferred significantly improved glycemic control with a low incidence of severe hypoglycemia compared with physician-managed titration.

Algorithms↗

Fertility in female cancer survivors: pathophysiology, preservation and the role of ovarian reserve testing.

The improved long-term survival of adolescents and young women treated for cancer has resulted in an increased focus on the effects of chemotherapy on ovarian function and its preservation. These women may seek advice and treatment regarding their reproductive status, including ways of preserving their fertility and preventing a premature menopause--factors that can have a profound impact on their quality of life. This article comprehensively reviews ovarian reserve testing (ORT) in general. Special emphasis is placed on patients with cancer, including the pathophysiology of gonadal damage following chemotherapy, fertility preservation and the potential role of ORT. Baseline parameters of ovarian reserve [FSH LH, estradiol, inhibin B and anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH)] have not yet performed sufficiently well in predicting poor outcome in assisted reproduction, but biochemical markers of ovarian reserve appear to be better than chronological age. Inhibin B and AMH show potential for future use. Dynamic testing appears to show much promise, especially stimulated levels of inhibin B and estradiol. The most promising tests of ovarian reserve are the biophysical markers, where total antral follicle count was found to be most discriminatory followed by ovarian volume. Combination of biochemical, biophysical and clinical markers of ovarian reserve may also improve predictive capacity. However, there is a lack of data pertinent to ORT in cancer. As yet there is no single clinically useful test to predict ovarian reserve accurately. Patients with cancer represent a distinct cohort who have particular concerns about their future fertility and the possibility of a premature menopause, they can benefit greatly from knowledge of their functional ovarian reserve. Large, prospective, randomized, adequately controlled studies specific to different geographical areas are required in a control population of comparable reproductive age to determine the potential role of ORT in clinical practice.

Biomarkers↗