Kate Johnson

MONTREAL — Four different injection therapies appear to be effective for refractory lateral epicondylosis (tennis elbow) and offer additional treatment options for patients who have failed conservative care, suggest results of a systematic review.

“We know that 80% of these injuries get better on their own, but for the ones that don't, these injection therapies make sense,” Dr. David Rabago said at the annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group.

Dr. Rabago of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, reviewed the evidence for prolotherapy, polidocanol injection, autologous whole-blood injection, and platelet-rich plasma injection therapies (Br. J. Sports Med. 2009;43:471–81).

Out of 21 possible studies, 9 studies met inclusion criteria: 5 prospective case series and 4 controlled trials. Three studies focused on prolotherapy, two on polidocanol injection, three on autologous whole-blood injection, and one on platelet-rich plasma injection.

The total number of patients in all studies combined was 201, and they ranged in age from 19 to 66 years old. Refractory elbow pain ranged anywhere from 3 to 25 months, and the follow-up periods ranged from 9 to 108 weeks.

Reduced pain was the primary outcome of each study, rated according to a visual analog scale or pain questionnaire. Improvement from baseline or compared with controls ranged from 51% to 94%, said Dr. Rabago. Secondary outcomes, which included elbow function and a decrease in abnormalities or vascularity on ultrasound, also showed improvement in all studies.

These moderate to large effect sizes were sustained over 12–25 months, and “far exceed minimal clinically relevant effect sizes for chronic pain,” said Dr. Rabago.

There were no adverse events reported.

Polidocanol is a vascular sclerosant that is injected into areas of high intratendinous blood flow in the elbow, using high-resolution ultrasound and color Doppler visualization. Its mechanism of action is believed to be the interruption of neovascular pathology, which is associated with pain and degeneration. Polidocanol is the most commonly used therapy worldwide, but is not available in the United States.

Prolotherapy also involves the injection of vascular sclerosants (most often hyperosmolar dextrose or morrhuate sodium), but does not require ultrasound guidance.

Autologous whole blood involves drawing blood from the patient and injecting it into the painful area to trigger a healing response.

Platelet-rich plasma is centrifuged from autologous whole blood and injected into the painful area to trigger healing with platelet-derived growth factors.

While prolotherapy is the easiest of the four therapies to implement, the reviewed studies showed that it required three treatment sessions, compared with the one or two sessions needed for the other therapies, Dr. Rabago noted.

With some basic training and equipment, all four therapies can be performed in a family medicine office on an outpatient basis, Dr. Rabago said in an interview.

“Each of the studies reviewed is small, and their methodological limitations prevent a consensus recommendation on the use of any of the three therapies, compared with another, at this time. However, the large effect sizes reported by all studies are compelling and suggest several areas of clinical, theoretical, and research interest,” wrote Dr. Rabago and his coauthors in their paper.

One of Dr. Rabago's coauthors is a consultant and lecturer for Harvest Technologies, a manufacturer of centrifuge and ancillary equipment for platelet-rich plasma injection therapy. Harvest had no direct or indirect role in the study. No other coauthor reported any conflict of interest.

MONTREAL — Four different injection therapies appear to be effective for refractory lateral epicondylosis (tennis elbow) and offer additional treatment options for patients who have failed conservative care, suggest results of a systematic review.

“We know that 80% of these injuries get better on their own, but for the ones that don't, these injection therapies make sense,” Dr. David Rabago said at the annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group.

Dr. Rabago of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, reviewed the evidence for prolotherapy, polidocanol injection, autologous whole-blood injection, and platelet-rich plasma injection therapies (Br. J. Sports Med. 2009;43:471–81).

Out of 21 possible studies, 9 studies met inclusion criteria: 5 prospective case series and 4 controlled trials. Three studies focused on prolotherapy, two on polidocanol injection, three on autologous whole-blood injection, and one on platelet-rich plasma injection.

The total number of patients in all studies combined was 201, and they ranged in age from 19 to 66 years old. Refractory elbow pain ranged anywhere from 3 to 25 months, and the follow-up periods ranged from 9 to 108 weeks.

Reduced pain was the primary outcome of each study, rated according to a visual analog scale or pain questionnaire. Improvement from baseline or compared with controls ranged from 51% to 94%, said Dr. Rabago. Secondary outcomes, which included elbow function and a decrease in abnormalities or vascularity on ultrasound, also showed improvement in all studies.

These moderate to large effect sizes were sustained over 12–25 months, and “far exceed minimal clinically relevant effect sizes for chronic pain,” said Dr. Rabago.

There were no adverse events reported.

Polidocanol is a vascular sclerosant that is injected into areas of high intratendinous blood flow in the elbow, using high-resolution ultrasound and color Doppler visualization. Its mechanism of action is believed to be the interruption of neovascular pathology, which is associated with pain and degeneration. Polidocanol is the most commonly used therapy worldwide, but is not available in the United States.

Prolotherapy also involves the injection of vascular sclerosants (most often hyperosmolar dextrose or morrhuate sodium), but does not require ultrasound guidance.

Autologous whole blood involves drawing blood from the patient and injecting it into the painful area to trigger a healing response.

Platelet-rich plasma is centrifuged from autologous whole blood and injected into the painful area to trigger healing with platelet-derived growth factors.

While prolotherapy is the easiest of the four therapies to implement, the reviewed studies showed that it required three treatment sessions, compared with the one or two sessions needed for the other therapies, Dr. Rabago noted.

With some basic training and equipment, all four therapies can be performed in a family medicine office on an outpatient basis, Dr. Rabago said in an interview.

“Each of the studies reviewed is small, and their methodological limitations prevent a consensus recommendation on the use of any of the three therapies, compared with another, at this time. However, the large effect sizes reported by all studies are compelling and suggest several areas of clinical, theoretical, and research interest,” wrote Dr. Rabago and his coauthors in their paper.

One of Dr. Rabago's coauthors is a consultant and lecturer for Harvest Technologies, a manufacturer of centrifuge and ancillary equipment for platelet-rich plasma injection therapy. Harvest had no direct or indirect role in the study. No other coauthor reported any conflict of interest.

MONTREAL — Four different injection therapies appear to be effective for refractory lateral epicondylosis (tennis elbow) and offer additional treatment options for patients who have failed conservative care, suggest results of a systematic review.

“We know that 80% of these injuries get better on their own, but for the ones that don't, these injection therapies make sense,” Dr. David Rabago said at the annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group.

Dr. Rabago of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, reviewed the evidence for prolotherapy, polidocanol injection, autologous whole-blood injection, and platelet-rich plasma injection therapies (Br. J. Sports Med. 2009;43:471–81).

Out of 21 possible studies, 9 studies met inclusion criteria: 5 prospective case series and 4 controlled trials. Three studies focused on prolotherapy, two on polidocanol injection, three on autologous whole-blood injection, and one on platelet-rich plasma injection.

The total number of patients in all studies combined was 201, and they ranged in age from 19 to 66 years old. Refractory elbow pain ranged anywhere from 3 to 25 months, and the follow-up periods ranged from 9 to 108 weeks.

Reduced pain was the primary outcome of each study, rated according to a visual analog scale or pain questionnaire. Improvement from baseline or compared with controls ranged from 51% to 94%, said Dr. Rabago. Secondary outcomes, which included elbow function and a decrease in abnormalities or vascularity on ultrasound, also showed improvement in all studies.

These moderate to large effect sizes were sustained over 12–25 months, and “far exceed minimal clinically relevant effect sizes for chronic pain,” said Dr. Rabago.

There were no adverse events reported.

Polidocanol is a vascular sclerosant that is injected into areas of high intratendinous blood flow in the elbow, using high-resolution ultrasound and color Doppler visualization. Its mechanism of action is believed to be the interruption of neovascular pathology, which is associated with pain and degeneration. Polidocanol is the most commonly used therapy worldwide, but is not available in the United States.

Prolotherapy also involves the injection of vascular sclerosants (most often hyperosmolar dextrose or morrhuate sodium), but does not require ultrasound guidance.

Autologous whole blood involves drawing blood from the patient and injecting it into the painful area to trigger a healing response.

Platelet-rich plasma is centrifuged from autologous whole blood and injected into the painful area to trigger healing with platelet-derived growth factors.

While prolotherapy is the easiest of the four therapies to implement, the reviewed studies showed that it required three treatment sessions, compared with the one or two sessions needed for the other therapies, Dr. Rabago noted.

With some basic training and equipment, all four therapies can be performed in a family medicine office on an outpatient basis, Dr. Rabago said in an interview.

“Each of the studies reviewed is small, and their methodological limitations prevent a consensus recommendation on the use of any of the three therapies, compared with another, at this time. However, the large effect sizes reported by all studies are compelling and suggest several areas of clinical, theoretical, and research interest,” wrote Dr. Rabago and his coauthors in their paper.

One of Dr. Rabago's coauthors is a consultant and lecturer for Harvest Technologies, a manufacturer of centrifuge and ancillary equipment for platelet-rich plasma injection therapy. Harvest had no direct or indirect role in the study. No other coauthor reported any conflict of interest.

MONTREAL – In women with documented cardiovascular risk factors, those with comorbid depression have a greater risk of clinical events, compared with their nondepressed counterparts, according to findings from the Women's Ischemic Syndrome Evaluation (WISE), trial sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

“Many studies have associated depression with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease incidence,” reported Thomas Rutledge, Ph.D., of the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. “We wanted to know whether the added presence of depression would statistically worsen the relationship between cardiac risk factors and outcome,” he said at the annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

Dr. Rutledge examined the association of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors with actual CVD events in 153 depressed and 718 nondepressed women who were enrolled in the WISE trial. The women were a mean age of 60 years and all of them had been referred for coronary angiography.

CVD risk factors were assessed, including smoking, dyslipidemia, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and level of physical activity. Depression was defined as self-reported current use of antidepressants to treat depression.

Over a mean follow-up period of 5.9 years, the CVD mortality rate was higher in depressed women with CVD risk factors than it was in nondepressed women with the same risk factors (11.5% vs. 9.2%, respectively). Similarly, depressed women experienced more cardiovascular events such as stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure (23.9% vs. 13.3%).

MONTREAL – In women with documented cardiovascular risk factors, those with comorbid depression have a greater risk of clinical events, compared with their nondepressed counterparts, according to findings from the Women's Ischemic Syndrome Evaluation (WISE), trial sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

“Many studies have associated depression with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease incidence,” reported Thomas Rutledge, Ph.D., of the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. “We wanted to know whether the added presence of depression would statistically worsen the relationship between cardiac risk factors and outcome,” he said at the annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

Dr. Rutledge examined the association of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors with actual CVD events in 153 depressed and 718 nondepressed women who were enrolled in the WISE trial. The women were a mean age of 60 years and all of them had been referred for coronary angiography.

CVD risk factors were assessed, including smoking, dyslipidemia, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and level of physical activity. Depression was defined as self-reported current use of antidepressants to treat depression.

Over a mean follow-up period of 5.9 years, the CVD mortality rate was higher in depressed women with CVD risk factors than it was in nondepressed women with the same risk factors (11.5% vs. 9.2%, respectively). Similarly, depressed women experienced more cardiovascular events such as stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure (23.9% vs. 13.3%).

MONTREAL – In women with documented cardiovascular risk factors, those with comorbid depression have a greater risk of clinical events, compared with their nondepressed counterparts, according to findings from the Women's Ischemic Syndrome Evaluation (WISE), trial sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

“Many studies have associated depression with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease incidence,” reported Thomas Rutledge, Ph.D., of the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. “We wanted to know whether the added presence of depression would statistically worsen the relationship between cardiac risk factors and outcome,” he said at the annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

Dr. Rutledge examined the association of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors with actual CVD events in 153 depressed and 718 nondepressed women who were enrolled in the WISE trial. The women were a mean age of 60 years and all of them had been referred for coronary angiography.

CVD risk factors were assessed, including smoking, dyslipidemia, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and level of physical activity. Depression was defined as self-reported current use of antidepressants to treat depression.

Over a mean follow-up period of 5.9 years, the CVD mortality rate was higher in depressed women with CVD risk factors than it was in nondepressed women with the same risk factors (11.5% vs. 9.2%, respectively). Similarly, depressed women experienced more cardiovascular events such as stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure (23.9% vs. 13.3%).

MONTREAL — Primary care patients with asthma face a significantly increased risk of developing depression, compared with the nonasthmatic population, according to a longitudinal study.

Furthermore, the combination of asthma and depression carries significantly increased mortality, reported Dr. Paul Walters of the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London.

Taken together, the findings suggest that it may be useful for family physicians to consider screening their asthmatic patients for depression, he said at the annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group.

In a previous study, Dr. Walters and his colleagues found that asthma was the third-largest predictor of antidepressant prescriptions in the United Kingdom (Br. J. Psychiatry 2008;193:235–9).

The current longitudinal cohort study, designed to explore the association between asthma and depression, identified 11,275 asthmatic patients with no history of depression and an equal number of control subjects, matched for age and sex from the United Kingdom's General Practice Research Database.

During a 10-year follow-up period, the incidence of depression was significantly higher in the group with asthma, compared with controls (22.4 versus 13.8 per 1,000 person-years); after adjustment for age, sex, chronic illness, and smoking, the odds ratio for depression among asthmatic patients remained elevated (1.5).

Looking next at the asthmatic patients only, the researchers noted those with comorbid depression had an elevated mortality ratio (1.87), compared with those with asthma alone.

“We don't have any information on cause of death, so we're not able to say if it was due to asthma-related reasons or depression-related reasons or a combination of both,” he said.

The biggest difference between the groups was in their frequency of primary care visits (8.3 visits a year for depressed patients versus 5.3 for nondepressed patients).

Dr. Walters had no conflicts of interest to report.

MONTREAL — Primary care patients with asthma face a significantly increased risk of developing depression, compared with the nonasthmatic population, according to a longitudinal study.

Furthermore, the combination of asthma and depression carries significantly increased mortality, reported Dr. Paul Walters of the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London.

Taken together, the findings suggest that it may be useful for family physicians to consider screening their asthmatic patients for depression, he said at the annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group.

In a previous study, Dr. Walters and his colleagues found that asthma was the third-largest predictor of antidepressant prescriptions in the United Kingdom (Br. J. Psychiatry 2008;193:235–9).

The current longitudinal cohort study, designed to explore the association between asthma and depression, identified 11,275 asthmatic patients with no history of depression and an equal number of control subjects, matched for age and sex from the United Kingdom's General Practice Research Database.

During a 10-year follow-up period, the incidence of depression was significantly higher in the group with asthma, compared with controls (22.4 versus 13.8 per 1,000 person-years); after adjustment for age, sex, chronic illness, and smoking, the odds ratio for depression among asthmatic patients remained elevated (1.5).

Looking next at the asthmatic patients only, the researchers noted those with comorbid depression had an elevated mortality ratio (1.87), compared with those with asthma alone.

“We don't have any information on cause of death, so we're not able to say if it was due to asthma-related reasons or depression-related reasons or a combination of both,” he said.

The biggest difference between the groups was in their frequency of primary care visits (8.3 visits a year for depressed patients versus 5.3 for nondepressed patients).

Dr. Walters had no conflicts of interest to report.

MONTREAL — Primary care patients with asthma face a significantly increased risk of developing depression, compared with the nonasthmatic population, according to a longitudinal study.

Furthermore, the combination of asthma and depression carries significantly increased mortality, reported Dr. Paul Walters of the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London.

Taken together, the findings suggest that it may be useful for family physicians to consider screening their asthmatic patients for depression, he said at the annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group.

In a previous study, Dr. Walters and his colleagues found that asthma was the third-largest predictor of antidepressant prescriptions in the United Kingdom (Br. J. Psychiatry 2008;193:235–9).

The current longitudinal cohort study, designed to explore the association between asthma and depression, identified 11,275 asthmatic patients with no history of depression and an equal number of control subjects, matched for age and sex from the United Kingdom's General Practice Research Database.

During a 10-year follow-up period, the incidence of depression was significantly higher in the group with asthma, compared with controls (22.4 versus 13.8 per 1,000 person-years); after adjustment for age, sex, chronic illness, and smoking, the odds ratio for depression among asthmatic patients remained elevated (1.5).

Looking next at the asthmatic patients only, the researchers noted those with comorbid depression had an elevated mortality ratio (1.87), compared with those with asthma alone.

“We don't have any information on cause of death, so we're not able to say if it was due to asthma-related reasons or depression-related reasons or a combination of both,” he said.

The biggest difference between the groups was in their frequency of primary care visits (8.3 visits a year for depressed patients versus 5.3 for nondepressed patients).

Dr. Walters had no conflicts of interest to report.

MONTREAL – The first real-world effectiveness trial of varenicline for smoking cessation showed that combining the medication with behavioral counseling results in fairly substantial quit rates at 6 months.

Gary Swan, Ph.D., of SRI International, an independent, nonprofit, research and development organization in Menlo Park, Calif., reported on the findings of a trial in which 1,202 smokers, all taking varenicline 2 mg/day, were randomized to one of three behavioral counseling arms: phone only, Internet only, or a combination of both. The counseling programs were available for up to 12 months. The medication was provided by Pfizer Inc., which manufactures varenicline, and the study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The trial also included researchers from Group Health Center for Health Studies and Free & Clear Inc., both of Seattle.

All of the subjects received a 5–10 minute orientation phone call at the start of the study and were given access to a toll-free phone line. Behavioral counseling based on Free & Clear's Quit for Life Program was then provided via interactive Web tools or through one-on-one phone counseling, or both, Dr. Swan reported at the annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

The average age of the subjects was 47.3 years; two-thirds were female; and they smoked an average of about 20 cigarettes a day.

At the end of the 12-week treatment period, the subjects in the phone counseling group had the highest abstinence rate (48.5%), followed by the phone/Web group (43%), and then the Web-only group (39%). At the 6-month mark, abstinence rates had fallen overall, and there was no longer any statistical difference between groups (34%, 34%, and 31% respectively).

“For those of us who have been working in the field for many years, these are really quite exciting results when compared with other medications, and our results are consistent with those seen in the pre-approval efficacy trials of varenicline,” said Dr. Swan, noting that moderate to severe side effects, including flatulence, altered dreams, altered taste perception, sleep difficulties and changes in appetite, were reported.

He suggested the drop in abstinence after treatment cessation might indicate the need to extend the duration of medication or increase the intensity (frequency of calls) of the behavioral counseling. Phone counseling might improve tolerance to the medication and thus reduce discontinuation because of side effects, he said.

In fact, after 21 days of treatment, a significantly higher percentage of patients in the phone counseling group (87.5%) reported that they were still taking their medication, compared with those in the Web-only group (79%), but not the phone/Web group (83%).

Roughly half of the subjects (48%) reported having made a quit attempt within the preceding year, and the duration of this attempt was a predictor of subsequent success, Dr. Swan noted.

Dr. Swan disclosed that he served as a consultant to Pfizer's National Advisory Board in 2008.

MONTREAL – The first real-world effectiveness trial of varenicline for smoking cessation showed that combining the medication with behavioral counseling results in fairly substantial quit rates at 6 months.

Gary Swan, Ph.D., of SRI International, an independent, nonprofit, research and development organization in Menlo Park, Calif., reported on the findings of a trial in which 1,202 smokers, all taking varenicline 2 mg/day, were randomized to one of three behavioral counseling arms: phone only, Internet only, or a combination of both. The counseling programs were available for up to 12 months. The medication was provided by Pfizer Inc., which manufactures varenicline, and the study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The trial also included researchers from Group Health Center for Health Studies and Free & Clear Inc., both of Seattle.

All of the subjects received a 5–10 minute orientation phone call at the start of the study and were given access to a toll-free phone line. Behavioral counseling based on Free & Clear's Quit for Life Program was then provided via interactive Web tools or through one-on-one phone counseling, or both, Dr. Swan reported at the annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

The average age of the subjects was 47.3 years; two-thirds were female; and they smoked an average of about 20 cigarettes a day.

At the end of the 12-week treatment period, the subjects in the phone counseling group had the highest abstinence rate (48.5%), followed by the phone/Web group (43%), and then the Web-only group (39%). At the 6-month mark, abstinence rates had fallen overall, and there was no longer any statistical difference between groups (34%, 34%, and 31% respectively).

“For those of us who have been working in the field for many years, these are really quite exciting results when compared with other medications, and our results are consistent with those seen in the pre-approval efficacy trials of varenicline,” said Dr. Swan, noting that moderate to severe side effects, including flatulence, altered dreams, altered taste perception, sleep difficulties and changes in appetite, were reported.

He suggested the drop in abstinence after treatment cessation might indicate the need to extend the duration of medication or increase the intensity (frequency of calls) of the behavioral counseling. Phone counseling might improve tolerance to the medication and thus reduce discontinuation because of side effects, he said.

In fact, after 21 days of treatment, a significantly higher percentage of patients in the phone counseling group (87.5%) reported that they were still taking their medication, compared with those in the Web-only group (79%), but not the phone/Web group (83%).

Roughly half of the subjects (48%) reported having made a quit attempt within the preceding year, and the duration of this attempt was a predictor of subsequent success, Dr. Swan noted.

Dr. Swan disclosed that he served as a consultant to Pfizer's National Advisory Board in 2008.

MONTREAL – The first real-world effectiveness trial of varenicline for smoking cessation showed that combining the medication with behavioral counseling results in fairly substantial quit rates at 6 months.

Gary Swan, Ph.D., of SRI International, an independent, nonprofit, research and development organization in Menlo Park, Calif., reported on the findings of a trial in which 1,202 smokers, all taking varenicline 2 mg/day, were randomized to one of three behavioral counseling arms: phone only, Internet only, or a combination of both. The counseling programs were available for up to 12 months. The medication was provided by Pfizer Inc., which manufactures varenicline, and the study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The trial also included researchers from Group Health Center for Health Studies and Free & Clear Inc., both of Seattle.

All of the subjects received a 5–10 minute orientation phone call at the start of the study and were given access to a toll-free phone line. Behavioral counseling based on Free & Clear's Quit for Life Program was then provided via interactive Web tools or through one-on-one phone counseling, or both, Dr. Swan reported at the annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

The average age of the subjects was 47.3 years; two-thirds were female; and they smoked an average of about 20 cigarettes a day.

At the end of the 12-week treatment period, the subjects in the phone counseling group had the highest abstinence rate (48.5%), followed by the phone/Web group (43%), and then the Web-only group (39%). At the 6-month mark, abstinence rates had fallen overall, and there was no longer any statistical difference between groups (34%, 34%, and 31% respectively).

“For those of us who have been working in the field for many years, these are really quite exciting results when compared with other medications, and our results are consistent with those seen in the pre-approval efficacy trials of varenicline,” said Dr. Swan, noting that moderate to severe side effects, including flatulence, altered dreams, altered taste perception, sleep difficulties and changes in appetite, were reported.

He suggested the drop in abstinence after treatment cessation might indicate the need to extend the duration of medication or increase the intensity (frequency of calls) of the behavioral counseling. Phone counseling might improve tolerance to the medication and thus reduce discontinuation because of side effects, he said.

In fact, after 21 days of treatment, a significantly higher percentage of patients in the phone counseling group (87.5%) reported that they were still taking their medication, compared with those in the Web-only group (79%), but not the phone/Web group (83%).

Roughly half of the subjects (48%) reported having made a quit attempt within the preceding year, and the duration of this attempt was a predictor of subsequent success, Dr. Swan noted.

Dr. Swan disclosed that he served as a consultant to Pfizer's National Advisory Board in 2008.

MONTREAL — Pregnant women with group B streptococcal infection and allergy to penicillin frequently receive inappropriate antibiotic therapy despite established guidelines, said Dr. Jennifer Verani, a medical epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

New guidelines will clarify the wording in current CDC guidelines on group B streptococci (GBS) prevention, she said.

Most penicillin-allergic mothers are receiving clindamycin for the treatment of GBS, and very few are getting susceptibility testing done. “However, we and others have found increasing levels of resistance to clindamycin and macrolides in general among GBS isolates,” she said at the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology.

In a separate study presented at the meeting, one hospital significantly improved appropriate antibiotic therapy for penicillin-allergic GBS-positive pregnant women through the implementation of several hospital-based interventions.

Before the interventions, the hospital's 2004–2006 data showed that although 95% of GBS-positive penicillin-allergic mothers received antibiotics, only 16% received the appropriate antibiotic, and only 11% had sensitivity tests performed.

The situation was “clearly far from ideal,” said Dr. Agatha Critchfield of the Women and Infants Hospital and Brown University, both in Providence, R.I.

The hospital interventions aimed at improving adherence to the guidelines included provider education through a resident research day, staff meetings, and grand rounds, as well as a change in lab requisition forms that required providers to mark a patient as penicillin allergic, thus prompting the lab to perform sensitivity testing.

A retrospective cohort study following the intervention revealed that the level of appropriate antibiotic therapy increased from 16% to 76%, and sensitivity testing increased from 11% to 79%, Dr. Critchfield reported.

Among the 24% of women who did not receive appropriate antibiotic therapy, 80% received clindamycin and 10% received erythromycin, even though antimicrobial resistance has been increasing in the United States, with up to 15% of GBS isolates being resistant to clindamycin and 25% being resistant to erythromycin, she said.

Overall, however, there was a significant decrease in the use of clindamycin, from 83% before the intervention to 49% after, and an increase in the use of vancomycin, from 6.6% to 29%.

In the upcoming CDC guideline revision, some consideration was given to dropping clindamycin altogether as a recommended antibiotic, Dr. Verani commented. “But people ended up arguing against that because places that do susceptibility testing shouldn't have to lose this as an option,” she said. “So we have decided to stick with clindamycin but to have really explicit language with regard to who should get cefazolin, clindamycin, or vancomycin.”

The new guidelines are expected to recommend that patients with a high risk or a history of penicillin anaphylaxis, including angioedema, respiratory distress, or urticaria, receive clindamycin if susceptibility tests are available and are positive. If the tests are not performed or results are not yet available, patients should receive vancomycin. Patients at low risk for anaphylaxis, meaning “any other reaction including rashes or simply reporting a history of penicillin allergy,” should be getting cefazolin, she said.

“This has been in the guidelines all along, but clearly this is not what people have been doing, so the hope is that by more explicitly putting this wording into the guidelines, we can improve the implementation for [penicillin]-allergic women.”

MONTREAL — Pregnant women with group B streptococcal infection and allergy to penicillin frequently receive inappropriate antibiotic therapy despite established guidelines, said Dr. Jennifer Verani, a medical epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

New guidelines will clarify the wording in current CDC guidelines on group B streptococci (GBS) prevention, she said.

Most penicillin-allergic mothers are receiving clindamycin for the treatment of GBS, and very few are getting susceptibility testing done. “However, we and others have found increasing levels of resistance to clindamycin and macrolides in general among GBS isolates,” she said at the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology.

In a separate study presented at the meeting, one hospital significantly improved appropriate antibiotic therapy for penicillin-allergic GBS-positive pregnant women through the implementation of several hospital-based interventions.

Before the interventions, the hospital's 2004–2006 data showed that although 95% of GBS-positive penicillin-allergic mothers received antibiotics, only 16% received the appropriate antibiotic, and only 11% had sensitivity tests performed.

The situation was “clearly far from ideal,” said Dr. Agatha Critchfield of the Women and Infants Hospital and Brown University, both in Providence, R.I.

The hospital interventions aimed at improving adherence to the guidelines included provider education through a resident research day, staff meetings, and grand rounds, as well as a change in lab requisition forms that required providers to mark a patient as penicillin allergic, thus prompting the lab to perform sensitivity testing.

A retrospective cohort study following the intervention revealed that the level of appropriate antibiotic therapy increased from 16% to 76%, and sensitivity testing increased from 11% to 79%, Dr. Critchfield reported.

Among the 24% of women who did not receive appropriate antibiotic therapy, 80% received clindamycin and 10% received erythromycin, even though antimicrobial resistance has been increasing in the United States, with up to 15% of GBS isolates being resistant to clindamycin and 25% being resistant to erythromycin, she said.

Overall, however, there was a significant decrease in the use of clindamycin, from 83% before the intervention to 49% after, and an increase in the use of vancomycin, from 6.6% to 29%.

In the upcoming CDC guideline revision, some consideration was given to dropping clindamycin altogether as a recommended antibiotic, Dr. Verani commented. “But people ended up arguing against that because places that do susceptibility testing shouldn't have to lose this as an option,” she said. “So we have decided to stick with clindamycin but to have really explicit language with regard to who should get cefazolin, clindamycin, or vancomycin.”

The new guidelines are expected to recommend that patients with a high risk or a history of penicillin anaphylaxis, including angioedema, respiratory distress, or urticaria, receive clindamycin if susceptibility tests are available and are positive. If the tests are not performed or results are not yet available, patients should receive vancomycin. Patients at low risk for anaphylaxis, meaning “any other reaction including rashes or simply reporting a history of penicillin allergy,” should be getting cefazolin, she said.

“This has been in the guidelines all along, but clearly this is not what people have been doing, so the hope is that by more explicitly putting this wording into the guidelines, we can improve the implementation for [penicillin]-allergic women.”

MONTREAL — Pregnant women with group B streptococcal infection and allergy to penicillin frequently receive inappropriate antibiotic therapy despite established guidelines, said Dr. Jennifer Verani, a medical epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

New guidelines will clarify the wording in current CDC guidelines on group B streptococci (GBS) prevention, she said.

Most penicillin-allergic mothers are receiving clindamycin for the treatment of GBS, and very few are getting susceptibility testing done. “However, we and others have found increasing levels of resistance to clindamycin and macrolides in general among GBS isolates,” she said at the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology.

In a separate study presented at the meeting, one hospital significantly improved appropriate antibiotic therapy for penicillin-allergic GBS-positive pregnant women through the implementation of several hospital-based interventions.

Before the interventions, the hospital's 2004–2006 data showed that although 95% of GBS-positive penicillin-allergic mothers received antibiotics, only 16% received the appropriate antibiotic, and only 11% had sensitivity tests performed.

The situation was “clearly far from ideal,” said Dr. Agatha Critchfield of the Women and Infants Hospital and Brown University, both in Providence, R.I.

The hospital interventions aimed at improving adherence to the guidelines included provider education through a resident research day, staff meetings, and grand rounds, as well as a change in lab requisition forms that required providers to mark a patient as penicillin allergic, thus prompting the lab to perform sensitivity testing.

A retrospective cohort study following the intervention revealed that the level of appropriate antibiotic therapy increased from 16% to 76%, and sensitivity testing increased from 11% to 79%, Dr. Critchfield reported.

Among the 24% of women who did not receive appropriate antibiotic therapy, 80% received clindamycin and 10% received erythromycin, even though antimicrobial resistance has been increasing in the United States, with up to 15% of GBS isolates being resistant to clindamycin and 25% being resistant to erythromycin, she said.

Overall, however, there was a significant decrease in the use of clindamycin, from 83% before the intervention to 49% after, and an increase in the use of vancomycin, from 6.6% to 29%.

In the upcoming CDC guideline revision, some consideration was given to dropping clindamycin altogether as a recommended antibiotic, Dr. Verani commented. “But people ended up arguing against that because places that do susceptibility testing shouldn't have to lose this as an option,” she said. “So we have decided to stick with clindamycin but to have really explicit language with regard to who should get cefazolin, clindamycin, or vancomycin.”

The new guidelines are expected to recommend that patients with a high risk or a history of penicillin anaphylaxis, including angioedema, respiratory distress, or urticaria, receive clindamycin if susceptibility tests are available and are positive. If the tests are not performed or results are not yet available, patients should receive vancomycin. Patients at low risk for anaphylaxis, meaning “any other reaction including rashes or simply reporting a history of penicillin allergy,” should be getting cefazolin, she said.

“This has been in the guidelines all along, but clearly this is not what people have been doing, so the hope is that by more explicitly putting this wording into the guidelines, we can improve the implementation for [penicillin]-allergic women.”

MONTREAL — Uncomplicated urinary tract infections can be diagnosed and treated by a medical assistant over the telephone with no increased risk to the patient and at a substantial cost savings, according to the findings of a randomized, controlled trial.

Patients had similar outcomes and levels of satisfaction regardless of whether they were randomly assigned to be treated in house or over the telephone, according to the findings that were presented as a poster at the annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group.

“There was no statistically significant difference between the groups,” said co-investigator Dr. Chandrika Iyer from St. John Hospital and Medical Center in Detroit.

The literature shows that women have a 50% likelihood of having a urinary tract infection (UTI) if they present with at least one of the following symptoms: dysuria, urgency, frequency, or abdominal pain, Dr. Iyer said in an interview.

With the specific combination of dysuria and frequency, and in the absence of vaginal discharge or itching, there is a 90% likelihood of UTI (JAMA 2002; 287:2701–10). “Physical examination and lab testing don't add much more,” she continued.

To test this observation, the study was conducted at two primary care centers: the Masonic Medical Center, in St. Clair Shores, Mich., a private practice; and the Family Medical Center in Detroit, a family medicine residency clinic.

A total of 122 women, aged 18–65 years, who called the clinic with symptoms of uncomplicated UTI, were invited to participate and screened for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, diabetes, kidney disease, UTI in the past month, bladder catheterization in the past 6 months, chemotherapy, vaginal discharge, flank pain, fever, chills, vomiting, or nausea. A total of 36 patients were excluded and 5 declined to participate, leaving 81 patients (mean age 39 years) to be randomized to either office or telephone treatment.

Participants in the telephone treatment arm were managed by a medical assistant who called or faxed a prescription to the patients' pharmacy. Treatment included 3 days of trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim DS), one tablet twice daily, or, in the case of sulfa allergy, ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily. Questionable cases were reviewed with the patient's assigned physician or the principal investigator.

Patients randomized to office treatment had a regular visit with a primary care physician, where urine analyses and cultures were performed and treatment was prescribed.

In the case of persistent symptoms, women in both groups were instructed to call the clinic and be seen by their physician.

All women were called 1 week after treatment for a survey about their symptoms and satisfaction with treatment.

Ten patients did not follow up after treatment, and one patient was later diagnosed with vaginitis. Of the remaining participants, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in the rate of symptom resolution (80% with the telephone treatment versus 70% with office treatment), or complete satisfaction (86% with telephone treatment versus 79% with office treatment). Eighty percent of the telephone treatment group and 85% of the office treatment group said they would like the same treatment next time.

A cost comparison of both strategies revealed a saving of between $49 and $133 per patient in the telephone treatment group, Dr. Iyer said. This was calculated based on an office visit code of 99212 or 99213, at a cost of $34 or $68, respectively (excluding patient copayment). The average patient copayment ranges from $10 to $20. In addition, urine analysis costs up to $5 and urine cultures cost up to $40.

With an estimated 8.5 million women seeking care for bladder infections each year, at a cost of about $2.5 million, telephone treatment is an appealing alternative to office-based management, Dr. Iyer said.

MONTREAL — Uncomplicated urinary tract infections can be diagnosed and treated by a medical assistant over the telephone with no increased risk to the patient and at a substantial cost savings, according to the findings of a randomized, controlled trial.

Patients had similar outcomes and levels of satisfaction regardless of whether they were randomly assigned to be treated in house or over the telephone, according to the findings that were presented as a poster at the annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group.

“There was no statistically significant difference between the groups,” said co-investigator Dr. Chandrika Iyer from St. John Hospital and Medical Center in Detroit.

The literature shows that women have a 50% likelihood of having a urinary tract infection (UTI) if they present with at least one of the following symptoms: dysuria, urgency, frequency, or abdominal pain, Dr. Iyer said in an interview.

With the specific combination of dysuria and frequency, and in the absence of vaginal discharge or itching, there is a 90% likelihood of UTI (JAMA 2002; 287:2701–10). “Physical examination and lab testing don't add much more,” she continued.

To test this observation, the study was conducted at two primary care centers: the Masonic Medical Center, in St. Clair Shores, Mich., a private practice; and the Family Medical Center in Detroit, a family medicine residency clinic.

A total of 122 women, aged 18–65 years, who called the clinic with symptoms of uncomplicated UTI, were invited to participate and screened for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, diabetes, kidney disease, UTI in the past month, bladder catheterization in the past 6 months, chemotherapy, vaginal discharge, flank pain, fever, chills, vomiting, or nausea. A total of 36 patients were excluded and 5 declined to participate, leaving 81 patients (mean age 39 years) to be randomized to either office or telephone treatment.

Participants in the telephone treatment arm were managed by a medical assistant who called or faxed a prescription to the patients' pharmacy. Treatment included 3 days of trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim DS), one tablet twice daily, or, in the case of sulfa allergy, ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily. Questionable cases were reviewed with the patient's assigned physician or the principal investigator.

Patients randomized to office treatment had a regular visit with a primary care physician, where urine analyses and cultures were performed and treatment was prescribed.

In the case of persistent symptoms, women in both groups were instructed to call the clinic and be seen by their physician.

All women were called 1 week after treatment for a survey about their symptoms and satisfaction with treatment.

Ten patients did not follow up after treatment, and one patient was later diagnosed with vaginitis. Of the remaining participants, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in the rate of symptom resolution (80% with the telephone treatment versus 70% with office treatment), or complete satisfaction (86% with telephone treatment versus 79% with office treatment). Eighty percent of the telephone treatment group and 85% of the office treatment group said they would like the same treatment next time.

A cost comparison of both strategies revealed a saving of between $49 and $133 per patient in the telephone treatment group, Dr. Iyer said. This was calculated based on an office visit code of 99212 or 99213, at a cost of $34 or $68, respectively (excluding patient copayment). The average patient copayment ranges from $10 to $20. In addition, urine analysis costs up to $5 and urine cultures cost up to $40.

With an estimated 8.5 million women seeking care for bladder infections each year, at a cost of about $2.5 million, telephone treatment is an appealing alternative to office-based management, Dr. Iyer said.

MONTREAL — Uncomplicated urinary tract infections can be diagnosed and treated by a medical assistant over the telephone with no increased risk to the patient and at a substantial cost savings, according to the findings of a randomized, controlled trial.

Patients had similar outcomes and levels of satisfaction regardless of whether they were randomly assigned to be treated in house or over the telephone, according to the findings that were presented as a poster at the annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group.

“There was no statistically significant difference between the groups,” said co-investigator Dr. Chandrika Iyer from St. John Hospital and Medical Center in Detroit.

The literature shows that women have a 50% likelihood of having a urinary tract infection (UTI) if they present with at least one of the following symptoms: dysuria, urgency, frequency, or abdominal pain, Dr. Iyer said in an interview.

With the specific combination of dysuria and frequency, and in the absence of vaginal discharge or itching, there is a 90% likelihood of UTI (JAMA 2002; 287:2701–10). “Physical examination and lab testing don't add much more,” she continued.

To test this observation, the study was conducted at two primary care centers: the Masonic Medical Center, in St. Clair Shores, Mich., a private practice; and the Family Medical Center in Detroit, a family medicine residency clinic.

A total of 122 women, aged 18–65 years, who called the clinic with symptoms of uncomplicated UTI, were invited to participate and screened for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, diabetes, kidney disease, UTI in the past month, bladder catheterization in the past 6 months, chemotherapy, vaginal discharge, flank pain, fever, chills, vomiting, or nausea. A total of 36 patients were excluded and 5 declined to participate, leaving 81 patients (mean age 39 years) to be randomized to either office or telephone treatment.

Participants in the telephone treatment arm were managed by a medical assistant who called or faxed a prescription to the patients' pharmacy. Treatment included 3 days of trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim DS), one tablet twice daily, or, in the case of sulfa allergy, ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily. Questionable cases were reviewed with the patient's assigned physician or the principal investigator.

Patients randomized to office treatment had a regular visit with a primary care physician, where urine analyses and cultures were performed and treatment was prescribed.

In the case of persistent symptoms, women in both groups were instructed to call the clinic and be seen by their physician.

All women were called 1 week after treatment for a survey about their symptoms and satisfaction with treatment.

Ten patients did not follow up after treatment, and one patient was later diagnosed with vaginitis. Of the remaining participants, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in the rate of symptom resolution (80% with the telephone treatment versus 70% with office treatment), or complete satisfaction (86% with telephone treatment versus 79% with office treatment). Eighty percent of the telephone treatment group and 85% of the office treatment group said they would like the same treatment next time.

A cost comparison of both strategies revealed a saving of between $49 and $133 per patient in the telephone treatment group, Dr. Iyer said. This was calculated based on an office visit code of 99212 or 99213, at a cost of $34 or $68, respectively (excluding patient copayment). The average patient copayment ranges from $10 to $20. In addition, urine analysis costs up to $5 and urine cultures cost up to $40.

With an estimated 8.5 million women seeking care for bladder infections each year, at a cost of about $2.5 million, telephone treatment is an appealing alternative to office-based management, Dr. Iyer said.

MONTREAL — Primary care patients with asthma face a significantly increased risk of developing depression, compared with the nonasthmatic population, according to the findings of a large, longitudinal study.

Furthermore, the combination of asthma and depression carries significantly increased mortality, reported Dr. Paul Walters of the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London.

Taken together, the findings suggest that it may be useful for family physicians to consider screening their asthmatic patients for depression, he said at the annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group.

In a previous study, Dr. Walters and his colleagues found that asthma was the third-largest predictor of antidepressant prescriptions in the United Kingdom (Br. J. Psychiatry 2008; 193:235–9).

“We expected there to be a higher rate of antidepressant use with chronic illnesses, but we didn't expect to see this with asthma,” he said.

The current longitudinal cohort study, designed to explore the association between asthma and depression, identified 11,275 asthmatic patients with no history of depression and an equal number of control subjects, matched for age and sex from the United Kingdom's General Practice Research Database.

During a 10-year follow-up period, the incidence of depression was significantly higher in the group with asthma, compared with controls (22.4 versus 13.8 per 1,000 person-years); after adjustment for age, sex, chronic illness, and smoking, the odds ratio for depression among asthmatic patients remained elevated (1.5).

Looking next at the asthmatic patients only, the researchers noted those with comorbid depression had an elevated mortality ratio (1.87), compared with those with asthma alone. “So, if you've got asthma and you're depressed, then you're almost twice as likely to die than if you've just got asthma,” explained Dr. Walters.

He acknowledged that “we don't have any information on cause of death, so we're not able to say if it was due to asthma-related reasons or depression-related reasons or a combination of both.”

For clues as to why asthmatic patients face a higher risk for depression, the researchers explored the issue of disease severity, using medication use as a marker. Comparison of asthmatic patients who were depressed to those who were not depressed showed no significant differences in the use of medication overall, suggesting that disease severity was similar in both groups, he said.

The biggest difference between the groups was in their frequency of primary care visits (8.3 visits a year for depressed patients versus 5.3 for nondepressed patients). One possible explanation for this association may be that “if a patient goes to their [general practitioner] more often, they're more likely to get their depression diagnosed,” Dr. Walters said in an interview.

Another explanation, however, is that a patient's subjective experience of asthma symptoms might be quite different from objective medical assessments. “It could be that the objective measure of asthma, the peak flow rate, doesn't actually relate to how the person with asthma feels, so the depression comes because their asthma doesn't feel like it's getting better.”

Dr. Walters had no conflicts of interest to report.

MONTREAL — Primary care patients with asthma face a significantly increased risk of developing depression, compared with the nonasthmatic population, according to the findings of a large, longitudinal study.

Furthermore, the combination of asthma and depression carries significantly increased mortality, reported Dr. Paul Walters of the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London.

Taken together, the findings suggest that it may be useful for family physicians to consider screening their asthmatic patients for depression, he said at the annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group.

In a previous study, Dr. Walters and his colleagues found that asthma was the third-largest predictor of antidepressant prescriptions in the United Kingdom (Br. J. Psychiatry 2008; 193:235–9).

“We expected there to be a higher rate of antidepressant use with chronic illnesses, but we didn't expect to see this with asthma,” he said.

The current longitudinal cohort study, designed to explore the association between asthma and depression, identified 11,275 asthmatic patients with no history of depression and an equal number of control subjects, matched for age and sex from the United Kingdom's General Practice Research Database.

During a 10-year follow-up period, the incidence of depression was significantly higher in the group with asthma, compared with controls (22.4 versus 13.8 per 1,000 person-years); after adjustment for age, sex, chronic illness, and smoking, the odds ratio for depression among asthmatic patients remained elevated (1.5).

Looking next at the asthmatic patients only, the researchers noted those with comorbid depression had an elevated mortality ratio (1.87), compared with those with asthma alone. “So, if you've got asthma and you're depressed, then you're almost twice as likely to die than if you've just got asthma,” explained Dr. Walters.

He acknowledged that “we don't have any information on cause of death, so we're not able to say if it was due to asthma-related reasons or depression-related reasons or a combination of both.”

For clues as to why asthmatic patients face a higher risk for depression, the researchers explored the issue of disease severity, using medication use as a marker. Comparison of asthmatic patients who were depressed to those who were not depressed showed no significant differences in the use of medication overall, suggesting that disease severity was similar in both groups, he said.

The biggest difference between the groups was in their frequency of primary care visits (8.3 visits a year for depressed patients versus 5.3 for nondepressed patients). One possible explanation for this association may be that “if a patient goes to their [general practitioner] more often, they're more likely to get their depression diagnosed,” Dr. Walters said in an interview.

Another explanation, however, is that a patient's subjective experience of asthma symptoms might be quite different from objective medical assessments. “It could be that the objective measure of asthma, the peak flow rate, doesn't actually relate to how the person with asthma feels, so the depression comes because their asthma doesn't feel like it's getting better.”

Dr. Walters had no conflicts of interest to report.

MONTREAL — Primary care patients with asthma face a significantly increased risk of developing depression, compared with the nonasthmatic population, according to the findings of a large, longitudinal study.

Furthermore, the combination of asthma and depression carries significantly increased mortality, reported Dr. Paul Walters of the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London.

Taken together, the findings suggest that it may be useful for family physicians to consider screening their asthmatic patients for depression, he said at the annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group.

In a previous study, Dr. Walters and his colleagues found that asthma was the third-largest predictor of antidepressant prescriptions in the United Kingdom (Br. J. Psychiatry 2008; 193:235–9).

“We expected there to be a higher rate of antidepressant use with chronic illnesses, but we didn't expect to see this with asthma,” he said.

The current longitudinal cohort study, designed to explore the association between asthma and depression, identified 11,275 asthmatic patients with no history of depression and an equal number of control subjects, matched for age and sex from the United Kingdom's General Practice Research Database.

During a 10-year follow-up period, the incidence of depression was significantly higher in the group with asthma, compared with controls (22.4 versus 13.8 per 1,000 person-years); after adjustment for age, sex, chronic illness, and smoking, the odds ratio for depression among asthmatic patients remained elevated (1.5).

Looking next at the asthmatic patients only, the researchers noted those with comorbid depression had an elevated mortality ratio (1.87), compared with those with asthma alone. “So, if you've got asthma and you're depressed, then you're almost twice as likely to die than if you've just got asthma,” explained Dr. Walters.

He acknowledged that “we don't have any information on cause of death, so we're not able to say if it was due to asthma-related reasons or depression-related reasons or a combination of both.”

For clues as to why asthmatic patients face a higher risk for depression, the researchers explored the issue of disease severity, using medication use as a marker. Comparison of asthmatic patients who were depressed to those who were not depressed showed no significant differences in the use of medication overall, suggesting that disease severity was similar in both groups, he said.

The biggest difference between the groups was in their frequency of primary care visits (8.3 visits a year for depressed patients versus 5.3 for nondepressed patients). One possible explanation for this association may be that “if a patient goes to their [general practitioner] more often, they're more likely to get their depression diagnosed,” Dr. Walters said in an interview.

Another explanation, however, is that a patient's subjective experience of asthma symptoms might be quite different from objective medical assessments. “It could be that the objective measure of asthma, the peak flow rate, doesn't actually relate to how the person with asthma feels, so the depression comes because their asthma doesn't feel like it's getting better.”

Dr. Walters had no conflicts of interest to report.

MONTREAL — Insulin added to oral therapy in patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes is best initiated as a basal formulation and then intensified with prandial doses, according to the 3-year results of the Treat to Target in Type 2 Diabetes (4-T) trial.

“The results of our trial support current guidelines, which suggest that basal and prandial insulin regimens should be considered if adequate glycemic control is not achieved with initial regimens,” reported lead author Dr. Rury Holman of the diabetes trials unit at Oxford (England) University.

The findings were announced at the World Diabetes Congress, with simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine (2009;361:1736-47).

“We now have very clear evidence that the sequence of basal with added prandial gives you less weight gain and less hypoglycemia,” Dr. Holman said in an interview immediately following his presentation.

“The 4-T study supports the initiation of treatment with basal insulin, which is consistent with the concept that fasting hyperglycemia contributes more than postprandial hyperglycemia to glycated hemoglobin levels during periods of poor glycemic control,” Dr. Michael Roden of the German Diabetes Center and the Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Germany, said in an editorial in the same issue.

However, “it seems premature to recommend specific insulin regimens for patients with newly diagnosed disease.,” he said.

The 4-T multicenter, open-label trial included 708 patients who had inadequate glycemic control on dual oral metformin and sulfonylurea therapy. Mean patient age oas 61.7 years, wid mean disease duration ofwas 9 years.

They were randomized to one of three regimens in the first year: prandial insulin aspart (NovoRapid) three times daily, biphasic insulin aspart (NovoMix 30) twice daily, or basal detemir (Levemir) once or twice daily.

In the second year, sulfonylureas were replaced by a second insulin if hyperglycemia became unacceptable, which was the case in almost 90% of the patient population, Dr. Holman said.

For patients who had started on biphasic insulin, a midday prandial dose was added. Treatments converged for those who had started on either basal or prandial regimens, so that the basal group added prandial doses (10% of the daily basal dose with a minimum and maximum limit) and the prandial group added a basal dose (10 units at bedtime).

“The importance here is the temporal sequence—they are not identical,” Dr. Holman said. “So basal plus prandial was not the same as prandial plus basal …. Those who started with prandial had substantially more prandial than basal at the end, and those who started with the basal and then added prandial ended up with about 50/50.”

Preliminary results published after the first year of the study did not favor the basal insulin regimen, which was the least successful at bringing hemoglobin A_1c levels to 6.5% or less (N. Engl. J. Med. 2007;357:1716-30).

However, “the difference in outcomes from the first to the third year is startling,” Dr. Roden said in his editorial.

Final results showed that fewer than 45% of all patients achieved the HbA_1c target of 6.5% or less. In addition, significantly fewer patients on the biphasic regimen (31.9%), compared with the prandial (44.7%) and basal (43.2%) groups, reached the target.

The basal group gained significantly less weight (3.6 kg) than did the biphasic and prandial groups (5.7 and 6.4 kg, respectively), and the median number of hypoglycemic events per patient per year was lowest in the basal group (1.7), compared with the biphasic (3.0) and prandial groups (5.5).

“Median glycated hemoglobin levels converged after 1 year and remained stable in all groups, for an overall value at 3 years of 6.9%,” wrote the authors (7.1% for biphasic, 6.8% for prandial, and 6.9% for basal, with no significant differences).

The final mean reduction from baseline was 1.3% in the biphasic group, 1.4% in the prandial group, and 1.2% in the basal group.

“The overall message of the [final 4-T results] is that you need complex insulin regimens to obtain adequate glycemic control, Dr. Roden said in an interview.

The 4-T study was supported by Novo Nordisk A/S and Diabetes UK. Dr. Holman reported receiving grants, consulting fees, and lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies including Novartis and Novo Nordisk, and royalties from sale of the Unistik single-use safety lancet. Dr. Roden reported receiving consulting and lecture fees from several drug makers, including Novo Nordisk.

MONTREAL — Insulin added to oral therapy in patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes is best initiated as a basal formulation and then intensified with prandial doses, according to the 3-year results of the Treat to Target in Type 2 Diabetes (4-T) trial.

“The results of our trial support current guidelines, which suggest that basal and prandial insulin regimens should be considered if adequate glycemic control is not achieved with initial regimens,” reported lead author Dr. Rury Holman of the diabetes trials unit at Oxford (England) University.

The findings were announced at the World Diabetes Congress, with simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine (2009;361:1736-47).

“We now have very clear evidence that the sequence of basal with added prandial gives you less weight gain and less hypoglycemia,” Dr. Holman said in an interview immediately following his presentation.

“The 4-T study supports the initiation of treatment with basal insulin, which is consistent with the concept that fasting hyperglycemia contributes more than postprandial hyperglycemia to glycated hemoglobin levels during periods of poor glycemic control,” Dr. Michael Roden of the German Diabetes Center and the Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Germany, said in an editorial in the same issue.

However, “it seems premature to recommend specific insulin regimens for patients with newly diagnosed disease.,” he said.

The 4-T multicenter, open-label trial included 708 patients who had inadequate glycemic control on dual oral metformin and sulfonylurea therapy. Mean patient age oas 61.7 years, wid mean disease duration ofwas 9 years.

They were randomized to one of three regimens in the first year: prandial insulin aspart (NovoRapid) three times daily, biphasic insulin aspart (NovoMix 30) twice daily, or basal detemir (Levemir) once or twice daily.

In the second year, sulfonylureas were replaced by a second insulin if hyperglycemia became unacceptable, which was the case in almost 90% of the patient population, Dr. Holman said.

For patients who had started on biphasic insulin, a midday prandial dose was added. Treatments converged for those who had started on either basal or prandial regimens, so that the basal group added prandial doses (10% of the daily basal dose with a minimum and maximum limit) and the prandial group added a basal dose (10 units at bedtime).

“The importance here is the temporal sequence—they are not identical,” Dr. Holman said. “So basal plus prandial was not the same as prandial plus basal …. Those who started with prandial had substantially more prandial than basal at the end, and those who started with the basal and then added prandial ended up with about 50/50.”

Preliminary results published after the first year of the study did not favor the basal insulin regimen, which was the least successful at bringing hemoglobin A_1c levels to 6.5% or less (N. Engl. J. Med. 2007;357:1716-30).

However, “the difference in outcomes from the first to the third year is startling,” Dr. Roden said in his editorial.

Final results showed that fewer than 45% of all patients achieved the HbA_1c target of 6.5% or less. In addition, significantly fewer patients on the biphasic regimen (31.9%), compared with the prandial (44.7%) and basal (43.2%) groups, reached the target.

The basal group gained significantly less weight (3.6 kg) than did the biphasic and prandial groups (5.7 and 6.4 kg, respectively), and the median number of hypoglycemic events per patient per year was lowest in the basal group (1.7), compared with the biphasic (3.0) and prandial groups (5.5).

“Median glycated hemoglobin levels converged after 1 year and remained stable in all groups, for an overall value at 3 years of 6.9%,” wrote the authors (7.1% for biphasic, 6.8% for prandial, and 6.9% for basal, with no significant differences).

The final mean reduction from baseline was 1.3% in the biphasic group, 1.4% in the prandial group, and 1.2% in the basal group.

“The overall message of the [final 4-T results] is that you need complex insulin regimens to obtain adequate glycemic control, Dr. Roden said in an interview.

The 4-T study was supported by Novo Nordisk A/S and Diabetes UK. Dr. Holman reported receiving grants, consulting fees, and lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies including Novartis and Novo Nordisk, and royalties from sale of the Unistik single-use safety lancet. Dr. Roden reported receiving consulting and lecture fees from several drug makers, including Novo Nordisk.

MONTREAL — Insulin added to oral therapy in patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes is best initiated as a basal formulation and then intensified with prandial doses, according to the 3-year results of the Treat to Target in Type 2 Diabetes (4-T) trial.

“The results of our trial support current guidelines, which suggest that basal and prandial insulin regimens should be considered if adequate glycemic control is not achieved with initial regimens,” reported lead author Dr. Rury Holman of the diabetes trials unit at Oxford (England) University.

The findings were announced at the World Diabetes Congress, with simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine (2009;361:1736-47).

“We now have very clear evidence that the sequence of basal with added prandial gives you less weight gain and less hypoglycemia,” Dr. Holman said in an interview immediately following his presentation.

“The 4-T study supports the initiation of treatment with basal insulin, which is consistent with the concept that fasting hyperglycemia contributes more than postprandial hyperglycemia to glycated hemoglobin levels during periods of poor glycemic control,” Dr. Michael Roden of the German Diabetes Center and the Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Germany, said in an editorial in the same issue.

However, “it seems premature to recommend specific insulin regimens for patients with newly diagnosed disease.,” he said.

The 4-T multicenter, open-label trial included 708 patients who had inadequate glycemic control on dual oral metformin and sulfonylurea therapy. Mean patient age oas 61.7 years, wid mean disease duration ofwas 9 years.

They were randomized to one of three regimens in the first year: prandial insulin aspart (NovoRapid) three times daily, biphasic insulin aspart (NovoMix 30) twice daily, or basal detemir (Levemir) once or twice daily.

In the second year, sulfonylureas were replaced by a second insulin if hyperglycemia became unacceptable, which was the case in almost 90% of the patient population, Dr. Holman said.

For patients who had started on biphasic insulin, a midday prandial dose was added. Treatments converged for those who had started on either basal or prandial regimens, so that the basal group added prandial doses (10% of the daily basal dose with a minimum and maximum limit) and the prandial group added a basal dose (10 units at bedtime).

“The importance here is the temporal sequence—they are not identical,” Dr. Holman said. “So basal plus prandial was not the same as prandial plus basal …. Those who started with prandial had substantially more prandial than basal at the end, and those who started with the basal and then added prandial ended up with about 50/50.”

Preliminary results published after the first year of the study did not favor the basal insulin regimen, which was the least successful at bringing hemoglobin A_1c levels to 6.5% or less (N. Engl. J. Med. 2007;357:1716-30).

However, “the difference in outcomes from the first to the third year is startling,” Dr. Roden said in his editorial.

Final results showed that fewer than 45% of all patients achieved the HbA_1c target of 6.5% or less. In addition, significantly fewer patients on the biphasic regimen (31.9%), compared with the prandial (44.7%) and basal (43.2%) groups, reached the target.

The basal group gained significantly less weight (3.6 kg) than did the biphasic and prandial groups (5.7 and 6.4 kg, respectively), and the median number of hypoglycemic events per patient per year was lowest in the basal group (1.7), compared with the biphasic (3.0) and prandial groups (5.5).

“Median glycated hemoglobin levels converged after 1 year and remained stable in all groups, for an overall value at 3 years of 6.9%,” wrote the authors (7.1% for biphasic, 6.8% for prandial, and 6.9% for basal, with no significant differences).

The final mean reduction from baseline was 1.3% in the biphasic group, 1.4% in the prandial group, and 1.2% in the basal group.

“The overall message of the [final 4-T results] is that you need complex insulin regimens to obtain adequate glycemic control, Dr. Roden said in an interview.

The 4-T study was supported by Novo Nordisk A/S and Diabetes UK. Dr. Holman reported receiving grants, consulting fees, and lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies including Novartis and Novo Nordisk, and royalties from sale of the Unistik single-use safety lancet. Dr. Roden reported receiving consulting and lecture fees from several drug makers, including Novo Nordisk.

MONTREAL — Insulin added to oral therapy in patients with longstanding type 2 diabetes is best initiated as a basal formulation and then intensified with prandial doses, according to the 3-year results of the Treat to Target in Type 2 Diabetes (4-T) trial.

“The results of our trial support current guidelines, which suggest that basal and prandial insulin regimens should be considered if adequate glycemic control is not achieved with initial regimens,” reported lead author Rury Holman, MB, ChB, of the diabetes trials unit at Oxford (England) University.

The findings were announced at the World Diabetes Congress, with simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine (2009;361:1736-47).

“I think we now have very clear evidence that the sequence of basal with added prandial gives you less weight gain and less hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Holman in an interview immediately following his presentation. “It's a no-brainer that that is the way we should now initiate treatment for these patients.”

“The 4-T study supports the initiation of treatment with basal insulin, which is consistent with the concept that fasting hyperglycemia contributes more than postprandial hyperglycemia to glycated hemoglobin levels during periods of poor glycemic control,” commented Dr. Michael Roden from the German Diabetes Center and the Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Germany, in an editorial published in the same issue.

However, he suggested “it seems premature to recommend specific insulin regimens for patients with newly diagnosed disease.”

The 4-T multicenter, open-label trial included 708 patients who had inadequate glycemic control on dual oral metformin and sulfonylurea therapy. The patients were a mean age of 61.7 years, with a mean disease duration of 9 years.

They were randomized to one of three supplemental insulin regimens in the first year: prandial insulin aspart (NovoRapid) three times daily, biphasic insulin aspart (NovoMix 30) twice daily, or basal detemir (Levemir) once daily, or twice if needed.

In the second year, sulfonylureas were replaced by a second insulin if hyperglycemia became unacceptable, which was the case in almost 90% of the patient population, said Dr. Holman.

For such patients who had started on biphasic insulin, a midday prandial dose was added. For those who had started on either basal or prandial regimens, their treatments converged, so that the basal group added prandial doses (10% of the daily basal dose with a minimum and maximum limit) and the prandial group added a basal dose (10 units at bedtime).

“The importance here is the temporal sequence—they are not identical,” said Dr. Holman. “So basal plus prandial was not the same as prandial plus basal. They started at a different place and so the percentages were different. So those who started with prandial had substantially more prandial than basal at the end, and those who started with the basal and then added prandial ended up with about 50/50.”

Preliminary results published after the first year of the study did not favor the basal insulin regimen, which was the least successful at bringing hemoglobin A_1c levels to 6.5% or less (N. Engl. J. Med. 2007;357:1716-30). “The addition of biphasic or prandial insulin aspart reduced levels more than the addition of basal insulin detemir but was associated with greater risks of hypoglycemia and weight gain,” the authors concluded at that time.

However, “the difference in outcomes from the first to the third year is startling,” Dr. Roden remarked in his editorial.

Final results showed that fewer than 45% of all patients achieved the HbA_1c target of 6.5% or less. In addition, significantly fewer patients on the biphasic regimen (31.9%) compared to the prandial (44.7%) and basal (43.2%) groups, reached the target.

Furthermore, the basal group gained significantly less weight (3.6 kg) than did the biphasic and prandial groups (5.7 and 6.4 kg, respectively), and the median number of hypoglycemic events per patient per year was lowest in the basal group (1.7), compared to the biphasic (3.0) and prandial groups (5.5).

“Median glycated hemoglobin levels converged after 1 year and remained stable in all groups, for an overall value at 3 years of 6.9%,” wrote the authors (7.1% for biphasic, 6.8% for prandial, and 6.9% for basal, with no significant differences). The final mean reduction from baseline was 1.3% in the biphasic group, 1.4% in the prandial group, and 1.2% in the basal group.

In an interview, Dr. Matthew Riddell commented that the 4-T results confirm the current guidelines from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. “It shows that if you use insulin systematically it doesn't really matter which way you start. You can get to the same glucose level, but there are other important differences in treatments. The 4-T gives us a clue that maybe the mealtime insulin treatments shouldn't be the mainstay,” said the professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland.

“The overall message of the [final 4-T results] is that you need complex insulin regimens to obtain adequate glycemic control, which is still not reached in a substantial number of subjects,” Dr. Roden said in an interview.

The 4-T study was supported by Novo Nordisk A/S and Diabetes UK.

Dr. Holman reported receiving grants and consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies that included Novartis and Novo Nordisk, lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies, and royalties from sale of the Unistik single-use safety lancet. Dr. Roden reported receiving consulting and lecture fees from several drug makers, including Novo Nordisk. Dr. Riddle reported paid lecturing from and advisory board work with several drug companies.

MONTREAL — Insulin added to oral therapy in patients with longstanding type 2 diabetes is best initiated as a basal formulation and then intensified with prandial doses, according to the 3-year results of the Treat to Target in Type 2 Diabetes (4-T) trial.

“The results of our trial support current guidelines, which suggest that basal and prandial insulin regimens should be considered if adequate glycemic control is not achieved with initial regimens,” reported lead author Rury Holman, MB, ChB, of the diabetes trials unit at Oxford (England) University.

The findings were announced at the World Diabetes Congress, with simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine (2009;361:1736-47).

“I think we now have very clear evidence that the sequence of basal with added prandial gives you less weight gain and less hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Holman in an interview immediately following his presentation. “It's a no-brainer that that is the way we should now initiate treatment for these patients.”

“The 4-T study supports the initiation of treatment with basal insulin, which is consistent with the concept that fasting hyperglycemia contributes more than postprandial hyperglycemia to glycated hemoglobin levels during periods of poor glycemic control,” commented Dr. Michael Roden from the German Diabetes Center and the Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Germany, in an editorial published in the same issue.

However, he suggested “it seems premature to recommend specific insulin regimens for patients with newly diagnosed disease.”

The 4-T multicenter, open-label trial included 708 patients who had inadequate glycemic control on dual oral metformin and sulfonylurea therapy. The patients were a mean age of 61.7 years, with a mean disease duration of 9 years.

They were randomized to one of three supplemental insulin regimens in the first year: prandial insulin aspart (NovoRapid) three times daily, biphasic insulin aspart (NovoMix 30) twice daily, or basal detemir (Levemir) once daily, or twice if needed.

In the second year, sulfonylureas were replaced by a second insulin if hyperglycemia became unacceptable, which was the case in almost 90% of the patient population, said Dr. Holman.

For such patients who had started on biphasic insulin, a midday prandial dose was added. For those who had started on either basal or prandial regimens, their treatments converged, so that the basal group added prandial doses (10% of the daily basal dose with a minimum and maximum limit) and the prandial group added a basal dose (10 units at bedtime).

“The importance here is the temporal sequence—they are not identical,” said Dr. Holman. “So basal plus prandial was not the same as prandial plus basal. They started at a different place and so the percentages were different. So those who started with prandial had substantially more prandial than basal at the end, and those who started with the basal and then added prandial ended up with about 50/50.”

Preliminary results published after the first year of the study did not favor the basal insulin regimen, which was the least successful at bringing hemoglobin A_1c levels to 6.5% or less (N. Engl. J. Med. 2007;357:1716-30). “The addition of biphasic or prandial insulin aspart reduced levels more than the addition of basal insulin detemir but was associated with greater risks of hypoglycemia and weight gain,” the authors concluded at that time.

However, “the difference in outcomes from the first to the third year is startling,” Dr. Roden remarked in his editorial.

Final results showed that fewer than 45% of all patients achieved the HbA_1c target of 6.5% or less. In addition, significantly fewer patients on the biphasic regimen (31.9%) compared to the prandial (44.7%) and basal (43.2%) groups, reached the target.

Furthermore, the basal group gained significantly less weight (3.6 kg) than did the biphasic and prandial groups (5.7 and 6.4 kg, respectively), and the median number of hypoglycemic events per patient per year was lowest in the basal group (1.7), compared to the biphasic (3.0) and prandial groups (5.5).

“Median glycated hemoglobin levels converged after 1 year and remained stable in all groups, for an overall value at 3 years of 6.9%,” wrote the authors (7.1% for biphasic, 6.8% for prandial, and 6.9% for basal, with no significant differences). The final mean reduction from baseline was 1.3% in the biphasic group, 1.4% in the prandial group, and 1.2% in the basal group.

In an interview, Dr. Matthew Riddell commented that the 4-T results confirm the current guidelines from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. “It shows that if you use insulin systematically it doesn't really matter which way you start. You can get to the same glucose level, but there are other important differences in treatments. The 4-T gives us a clue that maybe the mealtime insulin treatments shouldn't be the mainstay,” said the professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland.

“The overall message of the [final 4-T results] is that you need complex insulin regimens to obtain adequate glycemic control, which is still not reached in a substantial number of subjects,” Dr. Roden said in an interview.

The 4-T study was supported by Novo Nordisk A/S and Diabetes UK.

Dr. Holman reported receiving grants and consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies that included Novartis and Novo Nordisk, lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies, and royalties from sale of the Unistik single-use safety lancet. Dr. Roden reported receiving consulting and lecture fees from several drug makers, including Novo Nordisk. Dr. Riddle reported paid lecturing from and advisory board work with several drug companies.

MONTREAL — Insulin added to oral therapy in patients with longstanding type 2 diabetes is best initiated as a basal formulation and then intensified with prandial doses, according to the 3-year results of the Treat to Target in Type 2 Diabetes (4-T) trial.

“The results of our trial support current guidelines, which suggest that basal and prandial insulin regimens should be considered if adequate glycemic control is not achieved with initial regimens,” reported lead author Rury Holman, MB, ChB, of the diabetes trials unit at Oxford (England) University.

The findings were announced at the World Diabetes Congress, with simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine (2009;361:1736-47).

“I think we now have very clear evidence that the sequence of basal with added prandial gives you less weight gain and less hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Holman in an interview immediately following his presentation. “It's a no-brainer that that is the way we should now initiate treatment for these patients.”

“The 4-T study supports the initiation of treatment with basal insulin, which is consistent with the concept that fasting hyperglycemia contributes more than postprandial hyperglycemia to glycated hemoglobin levels during periods of poor glycemic control,” commented Dr. Michael Roden from the German Diabetes Center and the Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Germany, in an editorial published in the same issue.

However, he suggested “it seems premature to recommend specific insulin regimens for patients with newly diagnosed disease.”

The 4-T multicenter, open-label trial included 708 patients who had inadequate glycemic control on dual oral metformin and sulfonylurea therapy. The patients were a mean age of 61.7 years, with a mean disease duration of 9 years.

They were randomized to one of three supplemental insulin regimens in the first year: prandial insulin aspart (NovoRapid) three times daily, biphasic insulin aspart (NovoMix 30) twice daily, or basal detemir (Levemir) once daily, or twice if needed.

In the second year, sulfonylureas were replaced by a second insulin if hyperglycemia became unacceptable, which was the case in almost 90% of the patient population, said Dr. Holman.

For such patients who had started on biphasic insulin, a midday prandial dose was added. For those who had started on either basal or prandial regimens, their treatments converged, so that the basal group added prandial doses (10% of the daily basal dose with a minimum and maximum limit) and the prandial group added a basal dose (10 units at bedtime).

“The importance here is the temporal sequence—they are not identical,” said Dr. Holman. “So basal plus prandial was not the same as prandial plus basal. They started at a different place and so the percentages were different. So those who started with prandial had substantially more prandial than basal at the end, and those who started with the basal and then added prandial ended up with about 50/50.”

Preliminary results published after the first year of the study did not favor the basal insulin regimen, which was the least successful at bringing hemoglobin A_1c levels to 6.5% or less (N. Engl. J. Med. 2007;357:1716-30). “The addition of biphasic or prandial insulin aspart reduced levels more than the addition of basal insulin detemir but was associated with greater risks of hypoglycemia and weight gain,” the authors concluded at that time.

However, “the difference in outcomes from the first to the third year is startling,” Dr. Roden remarked in his editorial.

Final results showed that fewer than 45% of all patients achieved the HbA_1c target of 6.5% or less. In addition, significantly fewer patients on the biphasic regimen (31.9%) compared to the prandial (44.7%) and basal (43.2%) groups, reached the target.

Furthermore, the basal group gained significantly less weight (3.6 kg) than did the biphasic and prandial groups (5.7 and 6.4 kg, respectively), and the median number of hypoglycemic events per patient per year was lowest in the basal group (1.7), compared to the biphasic (3.0) and prandial groups (5.5).

“Median glycated hemoglobin levels converged after 1 year and remained stable in all groups, for an overall value at 3 years of 6.9%,” wrote the authors (7.1% for biphasic, 6.8% for prandial, and 6.9% for basal, with no significant differences). The final mean reduction from baseline was 1.3% in the biphasic group, 1.4% in the prandial group, and 1.2% in the basal group.

In an interview, Dr. Matthew Riddell commented that the 4-T results confirm the current guidelines from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. “It shows that if you use insulin systematically it doesn't really matter which way you start. You can get to the same glucose level, but there are other important differences in treatments. The 4-T gives us a clue that maybe the mealtime insulin treatments shouldn't be the mainstay,” said the professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland.

“The overall message of the [final 4-T results] is that you need complex insulin regimens to obtain adequate glycemic control, which is still not reached in a substantial number of subjects,” Dr. Roden said in an interview.

The 4-T study was supported by Novo Nordisk A/S and Diabetes UK.

Dr. Holman reported receiving grants and consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies that included Novartis and Novo Nordisk, lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies, and royalties from sale of the Unistik single-use safety lancet. Dr. Roden reported receiving consulting and lecture fees from several drug makers, including Novo Nordisk. Dr. Riddle reported paid lecturing from and advisory board work with several drug companies.

MONTREAL — The focus of lifestyle interventions for type 2 diabetes should be on combining weight loss diets with exercise, according to new research.

Weight loss is similar for either high-carbohydrate (HC) or a high-protein (HP) diets—with the addition of exercise fueling the benefits of either diet, reported Thomas Wycherley at the World Diabetes Congress.

The study, which was partially funded by the Pork Cooperative Research Centre in Australia, showed a nonsignificant trend toward better outcomes in patients on an HP rather than HC diet—an observation that makes sense for certain patients, remarked Dr. Jim Mann, an endocrinologist who was not connected to the study.

“I think there is a reasonable body of evidence that a high-protein diet may have some benefits [over a high-carbohydrate diet] for some people with the metabolic syndrome because these people tend towards a lot of high-glycemic carbohydrates, which is not good,” Dr. Mann, a professor of human nutrition and medicine at Edgar National Centre for Diabetes Research in Dunedin, New Zealand, said in an interview.

Previous research has indicated that there is some evidence that during weight loss, consumption of a high-protein diet may potentiate the impact of resistance exercise, compared with a high-carbohydrate diet, Mr. Wycherley said.

His study compared HC and HP weight-loss diets, with and without a resistance training program, over 12 weeks in 83 men and women with type 2 diabetes, 59 of whom completed the study. The groups had similar dropout rates.

The subjects were a mean age of 56 years, with a mean baseline body mass index of 35. The diets were equally energy restrictive (6 MJ/day for women and 7 MJ/day for men) and equal in fat content (about 25%), said Mr. Wycherley, a research assistant at the University of Adelaide (Australia). The HC diet had 55% carbohydrate and 20% protein, with the goal of providing 0.8 g/kg per day of protein. The HP diet contained 40% carbohydrate and 35% protein with the goal of providing 1.2 g/kg per day of protein. Both diets consisted mainly of whole foods, with dairy, animal, and vegetable sources of protein, and whole grains rather than processed carbohydrates.

Overall, there was a mean weight loss of about 10 kg (10%) across all four groups. Subjects in the HC and HP groups lost a mean of 8.6 and 9.0 kg, respectively. However, for those who also attended exercise sessions three times a week, the weight loss was greater (10.5 kg for HC and exercise, and 13.8 kg for HP and exercise).

All treatment groups had similar improvements in traditional cardiovascular disease risk markers, with a 10% drop in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and drops of 0.47 mmol/L in triglycerides, 0.67 mmol/L in total cholesterol, and 0.37 mmol/L in LDL cholesterol.

Glycemic control also showed similar improvements in all groups, with a mean drop of 2.1 mmol/L in fasting glucose, 4.7 mU/L in serum insulin, and 1.25% in hemoglobin A_1c.

“This really does reiterate the importance of achieving dietary weight loss in this patient group,” Mr. Wycherley said.

Recent research has shown similar results of exercise and high-protein versus high-carbohydrate diets in nondiabetic subjects, he said, but until now this has not been studied in patients with diabetes.

“In response to the diabetes and obesity epidemic, we're seeing an increase in the prevalence of alternative diets such as high-protein diets. This has raised some conjecture in the literature regarding the optimal dietary composition to deliver the most therapeutic benefits to this patient group—in particular surrounding the carbohydrate to protein ratio,” he said.

Mr. Wycherley did not declare any relevant conflicts of interest.

MONTREAL — The focus of lifestyle interventions for type 2 diabetes should be on combining weight loss diets with exercise, according to new research.

Weight loss is similar for either high-carbohydrate (HC) or a high-protein (HP) diets—with the addition of exercise fueling the benefits of either diet, reported Thomas Wycherley at the World Diabetes Congress.

The study, which was partially funded by the Pork Cooperative Research Centre in Australia, showed a nonsignificant trend toward better outcomes in patients on an HP rather than HC diet—an observation that makes sense for certain patients, remarked Dr. Jim Mann, an endocrinologist who was not connected to the study.

“I think there is a reasonable body of evidence that a high-protein diet may have some benefits [over a high-carbohydrate diet] for some people with the metabolic syndrome because these people tend towards a lot of high-glycemic carbohydrates, which is not good,” Dr. Mann, a professor of human nutrition and medicine at Edgar National Centre for Diabetes Research in Dunedin, New Zealand, said in an interview.

Previous research has indicated that there is some evidence that during weight loss, consumption of a high-protein diet may potentiate the impact of resistance exercise, compared with a high-carbohydrate diet, Mr. Wycherley said.

His study compared HC and HP weight-loss diets, with and without a resistance training program, over 12 weeks in 83 men and women with type 2 diabetes, 59 of whom completed the study. The groups had similar dropout rates.

The subjects were a mean age of 56 years, with a mean baseline body mass index of 35. The diets were equally energy restrictive (6 MJ/day for women and 7 MJ/day for men) and equal in fat content (about 25%), said Mr. Wycherley, a research assistant at the University of Adelaide (Australia). The HC diet had 55% carbohydrate and 20% protein, with the goal of providing 0.8 g/kg per day of protein. The HP diet contained 40% carbohydrate and 35% protein with the goal of providing 1.2 g/kg per day of protein. Both diets consisted mainly of whole foods, with dairy, animal, and vegetable sources of protein, and whole grains rather than processed carbohydrates.

Overall, there was a mean weight loss of about 10 kg (10%) across all four groups. Subjects in the HC and HP groups lost a mean of 8.6 and 9.0 kg, respectively. However, for those who also attended exercise sessions three times a week, the weight loss was greater (10.5 kg for HC and exercise, and 13.8 kg for HP and exercise).

All treatment groups had similar improvements in traditional cardiovascular disease risk markers, with a 10% drop in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and drops of 0.47 mmol/L in triglycerides, 0.67 mmol/L in total cholesterol, and 0.37 mmol/L in LDL cholesterol.

Glycemic control also showed similar improvements in all groups, with a mean drop of 2.1 mmol/L in fasting glucose, 4.7 mU/L in serum insulin, and 1.25% in hemoglobin A_1c.

“This really does reiterate the importance of achieving dietary weight loss in this patient group,” Mr. Wycherley said.

Recent research has shown similar results of exercise and high-protein versus high-carbohydrate diets in nondiabetic subjects, he said, but until now this has not been studied in patients with diabetes.

“In response to the diabetes and obesity epidemic, we're seeing an increase in the prevalence of alternative diets such as high-protein diets. This has raised some conjecture in the literature regarding the optimal dietary composition to deliver the most therapeutic benefits to this patient group—in particular surrounding the carbohydrate to protein ratio,” he said.

Mr. Wycherley did not declare any relevant conflicts of interest.

MONTREAL — The focus of lifestyle interventions for type 2 diabetes should be on combining weight loss diets with exercise, according to new research.

Weight loss is similar for either high-carbohydrate (HC) or a high-protein (HP) diets—with the addition of exercise fueling the benefits of either diet, reported Thomas Wycherley at the World Diabetes Congress.

The study, which was partially funded by the Pork Cooperative Research Centre in Australia, showed a nonsignificant trend toward better outcomes in patients on an HP rather than HC diet—an observation that makes sense for certain patients, remarked Dr. Jim Mann, an endocrinologist who was not connected to the study.

“I think there is a reasonable body of evidence that a high-protein diet may have some benefits [over a high-carbohydrate diet] for some people with the metabolic syndrome because these people tend towards a lot of high-glycemic carbohydrates, which is not good,” Dr. Mann, a professor of human nutrition and medicine at Edgar National Centre for Diabetes Research in Dunedin, New Zealand, said in an interview.

Previous research has indicated that there is some evidence that during weight loss, consumption of a high-protein diet may potentiate the impact of resistance exercise, compared with a high-carbohydrate diet, Mr. Wycherley said.

His study compared HC and HP weight-loss diets, with and without a resistance training program, over 12 weeks in 83 men and women with type 2 diabetes, 59 of whom completed the study. The groups had similar dropout rates.

The subjects were a mean age of 56 years, with a mean baseline body mass index of 35. The diets were equally energy restrictive (6 MJ/day for women and 7 MJ/day for men) and equal in fat content (about 25%), said Mr. Wycherley, a research assistant at the University of Adelaide (Australia). The HC diet had 55% carbohydrate and 20% protein, with the goal of providing 0.8 g/kg per day of protein. The HP diet contained 40% carbohydrate and 35% protein with the goal of providing 1.2 g/kg per day of protein. Both diets consisted mainly of whole foods, with dairy, animal, and vegetable sources of protein, and whole grains rather than processed carbohydrates.

Overall, there was a mean weight loss of about 10 kg (10%) across all four groups. Subjects in the HC and HP groups lost a mean of 8.6 and 9.0 kg, respectively. However, for those who also attended exercise sessions three times a week, the weight loss was greater (10.5 kg for HC and exercise, and 13.8 kg for HP and exercise).

All treatment groups had similar improvements in traditional cardiovascular disease risk markers, with a 10% drop in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and drops of 0.47 mmol/L in triglycerides, 0.67 mmol/L in total cholesterol, and 0.37 mmol/L in LDL cholesterol.

Glycemic control also showed similar improvements in all groups, with a mean drop of 2.1 mmol/L in fasting glucose, 4.7 mU/L in serum insulin, and 1.25% in hemoglobin A_1c.

“This really does reiterate the importance of achieving dietary weight loss in this patient group,” Mr. Wycherley said.

Recent research has shown similar results of exercise and high-protein versus high-carbohydrate diets in nondiabetic subjects, he said, but until now this has not been studied in patients with diabetes.

“In response to the diabetes and obesity epidemic, we're seeing an increase in the prevalence of alternative diets such as high-protein diets. This has raised some conjecture in the literature regarding the optimal dietary composition to deliver the most therapeutic benefits to this patient group—in particular surrounding the carbohydrate to protein ratio,” he said.

Mr. Wycherley did not declare any relevant conflicts of interest.