Current medical research and opinion
-
To study patient preferences for diabetes-treatment related attributes among people with type 2 diabetes. ⋯ Patients with type 2 diabetes in Denmark were willing to pay for the health benefits associated with improved diabetes treatment, the most important of these being weight loss or avoidance of weight gain, and reduction of HbA(1c) and of hypoglycaemic events.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Alogliptin plus voglibose in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with an open-label, long-term extension.
To compare the efficacy and safety of alogliptin and placebo as add-on therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes who experienced inadequate glycemic control on voglibose plus diet/exercise therapy. ⋯ Addition of once daily alogliptin to voglibose monotherapy in Japanese patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes produced clinically significant improvements in glycemic control, and was well tolerated.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Oral corticosteroid sparing with omalizumab in severe allergic (IgE-mediated) asthma patients.
Long-term oral corticosteroid (OCS) therapy and related adverse events are associated with a significant burden on patients and healthcare resources. ⋯ In this open-label study of patients with severe allergic asthma, OMA/OAT therapy reduced maintenance OCS use, compared with OAT alone. Improvements in efficacy measures were observed in the OMA/OAT group, irrespective of OCS change. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00264849.
-
Abstract In January 2011 the American Diabetes Association (ADA) published the latest guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes mellitus (DM)(1,2). Despite some controversies, glycated hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), an established marker of long-term glycemia traditionally used to assess the quality of DM management, remained an independent criterion for the diagnosis of DM, and indeed now appears to be well established in the USA. This has far-reaching implications for clinical practice worldwide.
-
Understanding of the damaging effects of significance testing has steadily grown. Reporting p values without dichotomizing the result to be significant or not, is not the solution. Confidence intervals are better, but are troubled by a non-intuitive interpretation, and are often misused just to see whether the null value lies within the interval. ⋯ The reluctance to abandon this practice might be both preference of clinging to old habits as well as the unfamiliarity with better methods. Authors might question if using less commonly exercised, though superior, techniques will be well received by the editors, reviewers and the readership. A joint effort will be needed to abandon significance testing in clinical research in the future.