BackgroundSevere sepsis is a challenge for healthcare systems, and epidemiological studies are essential to assess its burden and trends. However, there is no consensus on which coding strategy should be used to reliably identify severe sepsis. This study assesses the use of explicit codes to define severe sepsis and the impacts of this on the incidence and in-hospital mortality rates.MethodsWe examined episodes of severe sepsis in adults aged ≥18 years registered in the 2006–2011 national hospital discharge database, identified in an exclusive manner by two ICD-9-CM coding strategies: (1) those assigned explicit ICD-9-CM codes (995.92, 785.52); and (2) those assigned combined ICD-9-CM infection and organ dysfunction codes according to modified Martin criteria. The coding strategies were compared in terms of the populations they defined and their relative implementation. Trends were assessed using Joinpoint regression models and expressed as annual percentage change (APC).ResultsOf 222 846 episodes of severe sepsis identified, 138 517 (62.2 %) were assigned explicit codes and 84 329 (37.8 %) combination codes; incidence rates were 60.6 and 36.9 cases per 100 000 inhabitants, respectively. Despite similar demographic characteristics, cases identified by explicit codes involved fewer comorbidities, fewer registered pathogens, greater extent of organ dysfunction (two or more organs affected in 60 % versus 26 % of cases) and higher in-hospital mortality (54.5 % versus 29 %; risk ratio 1.86, 95 % CI 1.83, 1.88). Between 2006 and 2011, explicit codes were increasingly implemented. Standardised incidence rates in this cohort increased over time with an APC of 12.3 % (95 % CI 4.4, 20.8); in the combination code cohort, rates increased by 3.8 % (95 % CI 1.3, 6.3). A decreasing trend in mortality was observed in both cohorts though the APC was −8.1 % (95 % CI −10.4, −5.7) in the combination code cohort and −3.5 % (95 % CI −3.9, −3.2) in the explicit code cohort.ConclusionsOur findings suggest greater and increasing use of explicit codes for adult severe sepsis in Spain. This trend will have substantial impacts on epidemiological estimates, because these codes capture cases featuring greater organ dysfunction and in-hospital mortality.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1497-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

SummaryObjectiveOur review analyses the studies that have specifically compared the association iDPP4/metformin with glimepiride/metformin, both in second line pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2).MethodsSystematic literature review with a meta‐analysis of clinical trials comparing glimepiride with any iDPP4, both used together with metformin as a second line treatment of DM2. The effectiveness variables used were as follows: %HbA1c variation, fasting plasma glucose variation, patients achieving the therapeutic objective of HbA1c <7%, treatment dropouts due to lack of effectiveness and rescue treatments needed. The safety variables included were as follows: weight variation at the end of treatment; presentation of any type of adverse event; presentation of serious adverse events; patients who experienced any type of hypoglycaemia; patients who experienced severe hypoglycaemia; treatments suspended due to adverse effects; and deaths for any reason.ResultsFour studies met the inclusion criteria. The group treated with glimepiride showed better results in all effectiveness variables. Regarding safety variables, the main differences observed were in the greater number of cases with hypoglycaemia in the group treated with glimepiride, and the serious adverse events or treatment discontinuations due to these which occurred in slightly over 2% more cases in this group compared to the iDPP4 group. The remaining adverse events, including mortality, did not show any differences between both groups. The variation in the weight difference between groups (2.1 kg) is not considered clinically relevant.ConclusionsA greater effectiveness is seen in the glimepiride/metformin association, which should not be diminished by slight differences in adverse effects, with absence of severe hypoglycaemia in over 98% of patients under treatment. The association of glimepiride/metformin, both due to cost as well as effectiveness and safety, may be the preferential treatment for most DM2 patients, and it offers a potential advantage in refractory hyperglycemic populations, tolerant to treatment.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract