OBJECTIVEPremixed insulin is a commonly prescribed formulation for the outpatient management of patients with type 2 diabetes. The safety and efficacy of premixed insulin formulations in the hospital setting is not known.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSIn a prospective, open-label trial, we randomized general medicine and surgery patients to receive a basal-bolus regimen with glargine once daily and glulisine before meals (n = 33) or premixed human insulin (30% regular insulin and 70% NPH insulin) twice daily (n = 39). Major outcomes included differences in daily blood glucose (BG) levels and frequency of hypoglycemic events (<70 mg/dL) between treatment groups.RESULTSAt the first prespecified interim analysis, the study was stopped early because of an increased frequency of hypoglycemia >50% in patients treated with premixed human insulin. A total of 64% of patients treated with premixed insulin experienced one or more episodes of hypoglycemia compared with 24% in the basal-bolus group (P < 0.001). There were no differences in mean daily BG level after the first day of insulin treatment (175 ± 32 vs. 179 ± 43 mg/dL, P = 0.64) between groups. A BG target between 80 and 180 mg/dL before meals was achieved in 55.9% of BG readings in the basal-bolus group and 54.3% of BG readings in the premixed insulin group (P = 0.23). There was no difference in the length of hospital stay or mortality between treatment groups.CONCLUSIONSInpatient treatment with premixed human insulin resulted in similar glycemic control but in significantly higher frequency of hypoglycemia compared with treatment with basal-bolus insulin regimen in hospitalized patients with diabetes.

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Maximal doses of potent statins are the basement of treatment of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). Little is known about the use of different statin regimens in FH. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to describe the treatment changes and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement with atorvastatin (ATV) and rosuvastatin (RV) in the SAFEHEART cohort, as well as to analyze the incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events (ACVEs) and changes in the cardiovascular risk. METHODS: SAFEHEART is a prospective follow-up nationwide cohort study in a molecularly defined FH population. The patients were contacted on a yearly basis to obtain relevant changes in life habits, medication, and ACVEs. RESULTS: A total of 1939 patients were analyzed. Median follow-up was 6.6 years (5-10). The estimated 10-year risk according the SAFEHEART risk equation was 1.61 (0.67-3.39) and 1.22 (0.54-2.93) at enrollment for ATV and RV, respectively (P , .001). There were no significant differences at the follow-up: 1.29 (0.54-2.82) and 1.22 (0.54-2.76) in the ATV and RV groups, respectively (P 5 .51). Sixteen percent of patients in primary prevention with ATV and 18% with RV achieved an LDL-C ,100 mg/dL and 4% in secondary prevention with ATV and 5% with RV achieved an LDL-C ,70 mg/dL. The use of ezetimibe was marginally greater in the RV group. One hundred sixty ACVEs occurred during follow-up, being its incidence rate 1.1 events/100 patient-years in the ATV group and 1.2 in the RV group (P 5 .58). CONCLUSION: ATV and RV are 2 high-potency statins widely used in FH. Although the reduction in LDL-C levels was greater with RV than with ATV, the superiority of RV for reducing ACVEs was not demonstrated.