Objective To develop and evaluate a best practice model of general hospital acute medical care for older people with cognitive impairment.Design Randomised controlled trial, adapted to take account of constraints imposed by a busy acute medical admission system. Setting Large acute general hospital in the United Kingdom.Participants 600 patients aged over 65 admitted for acute medical care, identified as "confused" on admission.Interventions Participants were randomised to a specialist medical and mental health unit, designed to deliver best practice care for people with delirium or dementia, or to standard care (acute geriatric or general medical wards). Features of the specialist unit included joint staffing by medical and mental health professionals; enhanced staff training in delirium, dementia, and person centred dementia care; provision of organised purposeful activity; environmental modification to meet the needs of those with cognitive impairment; delirium prevention; and a proactive and inclusive approach to family carers.

In this cohort of obese people with T2DM, intensification of dual oral therapy by adding GLP-1ar analogue is associated with a lower MACE outcome in routine clinical practice, compared with adding insulin therapy as the third glucose-lowering agent.

No abstract

Based on a large UK cohort in routine clinical practice, adding a GLP-1RA to insulin therapy is associated with a reduction in risk of composite CV events and all-cause mortality but a nonsignificant higher risk of hospitalization for heart failure in overweight patients with T2D.

In routine clinical practice, adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to MET is associated with an increased, earlier requirement for treatment intensification compared to adding an SU or TZD. Adding a TZD to MET resulted in the most durable glycaemic response. Key messages The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has suggested that the durability of glycaemic response after treatment intensification is best investigated using well-designed long-term observational studies. In routine clinical practice, among patients with T2DM receiving a second line glucose lowering treatment as add-on to MET, the addition of a Thiazolidinediones is associated with the most durable glycaemic response, followed by a Sulfonylurea and then a DPP-4 inhibitor. Factors associated with earlier dual therapy failure included concomitant use of statin therapy, being female, a smoker, those with longer diabetes duration and higher baseline HbA1c levels. The addition of a Thiazolidinediones was associated with significant weight gain (1.8 kg, p < 0.001), while add-on DPP-4 inhibitor produced a significant weight reduction (-1.8 kg, p < 0.001). A very small reduction in body weight was observed with the SU (-0.2 kg, p < 0.001).

Biphasic and basal bolus regimens were equally effective in reducing HbA1c in insulin naïve patients with Type 2 diabetes and both regimens are equally effective for initiating insulin in Type 2 diabetes.

These results highlight specific discrepancies in the HbA reduction and weight change in insulin regimen between real world versus RCT populations; with greater reduction in HbA and greater increase in weight observed in the RCT population than in the real-world population. Also, the basal-bolus regimens in both real-world and RCT populations showed greater reduction in HbA compared to the premix regimen (though more marked in RCTs), while the premix regimen showed greater increase in weight in real-world, as against basal-bolus in the RCT population.

To compare time to a composite endpoint of non-fatal acute myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or allcause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had their treatment intensified with a dipeptidylpeptidase-4 inhibitor or insulin following dual-therapy (metformin plus sulfonylurea) failure. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 5238 patients newly treated with either a dipeptidylpeptidase-4 inhibitor or insulin following dual-therapy failure (2007-2014). Data were sourced from UK General Practices. The risk of the composite outcome was compared between two treatment groups: metformin + sulfonylurea + insulin (n = 1584) and metformin + sulfonylurea + dipeptidylpeptidase-4 inhibitor (n = 3654), while adjusting for baseline covariates. Followup was for up to 5 years. Propensity score matching analysis and Cox proportional hazard models were employed. Results: Overall, 123 and 171 composite outcome events occurred among patients who added insulin versus dipeptidylpeptidase-4 inhibitor, respectively (44.5 vs 14.6 events per 1000 person-years). Addition of insulin was associated with a significantly higher hazard ratio versus the addition of a dipeptidylpeptidase-4 inhibitor (adjusted hazard ratio = 2.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.9-3.4; p < 0.01), an effect that was more pronounced in obese (body mass index: 30-34.9 kg/m 2) patients (corresponding adjusted hazard ratio 3.6, 95% confidence interval: 2.3-5.6; p < 0.01). Conclusion: In routine clinical practice, intensification of metformin + sulfonylurea therapy by adding insulin is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events and death compared with adding a dipeptidylpeptidase-4 inhibitor. These findings are in line with suggestions from previous studies regarding the cardiovascular safety of insulin in type 2 diabetes mellitus, but should be interpreted with caution.