暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to justify less restrictive use of metformin in stable chronic renal failure, because a literature review reveals metformin is associated with a significantly lower incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality compared with other hypoglycaemic agents, and metformin-associated lactic acidosis is rare and causation uncertain. Studies on intentional metformin overdose and metformin bioavailability, renal clearance and plasma metformin in renal impairment provide evidence in support of a less restrictive use of metformin.
METHODS: In metformin overdose (n = 22), lactic acidosis was not inevitable with a plasma metformin > 40 mg/l (therapeutic level c. 1 mg/l): Severe lactic acidosis (pH ≤ 7.21, plasma lactate ≥ 11 mmol/l, n = 8) did not occur unless plasma metformin was > 40 mg/l. Plasma lactate was a more consistent predictor of pH than plasma metformin, with plasma lactate ≤ 4.7 being associated with a pH ≥ 7.34. A likely \'safe\' plasma lactate is < 3.5 mmol/l and plasma metformin < 10 mg/l.
RESULTS: Plasma metformin can be predicted from estimated glomerular filtration rate and metformin dose. Reported plasma metformin in renal failure was always less than predicted plasma metformin. Predicted plasma metformin (mg/l), with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30 ml/min and metformin 2000 mg/day was 6.8; an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 20 ml/min and metformin 1500 mg/day was 5.1; an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 10 ml/min and metformin 500 mg/day was 4.4.
CONCLUSIONS: Metformin accumulates in renal failure and, although accumulation does not always lead to lactic acidosis, dose modification to achieve a predicted plasma metformin < 10 mg/l is suggested. As plasma metformin is not routinely available, plasma lactate should be useful in monitoring the use of metformin in renal failure.

In this paper we analyse the discrepancies that exist in the widespread prescription of metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes and the lack of guidelines concerning its prescription in the different stages of renal failure. This cross-sectional study includes 304 patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antidiabetic drugs (ADOs) and a glomerular filtration rate (estimated GFR) <60ml/min/1.73m2. Patients were attended in consecutive visits to primary health centres or in hospital departments of endocrinology or nephrology during 2010. We studied the frequency of metformin and other ADO prescriptions according to renal function and the department in which the patient was treated. The ADO most frequently prescribed was metformin (54.9%), followed by repaglinide (47.7%), DPP4 inhibitors (28.6%), and sulfonylureas (18.4%). However, in nephrology departments, repaglinide was more frequently prescribed than metformin (P<.001), whereas in primary health centres, the prescription of DPP4 inhibitors increased. In patients with an estimated GFR of 15-29ml/min/1.73m2, metformin (13.3%) and sulfonylureas were the least prescribed, whereas metformin was much more frequently prescribed (70.0%) when estimated GFR was 45-59ml/min/1.73m2 (P<.001). In contrast, patients with an estimated GFR of 15-29ml/min/1.73m2 were mainly prescribed repaglinide (76.7%), as opposed to patients with an estimated GFR of 45-59ml/min/1.73m2 (38.9%) (P<.001). Substantial evidence suggests that the recommendations for the use of ADO should be modified. This would lead to safely prescribing ADO in patients with an estimated GFR<60ml/min/1.73m2, and more importantly in medical practice, according to the law.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence about the relationship between metformin administration and the use of iodinated contrast medium and risk of lactic acidosis (LA) and to assess the quality of five current guidelines for use of contrast medium in patients who are taking metformin.
METHODS: A search strategy was developed by using search termsrelated to metformin, contrast media, and LA. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), all Evidence-based Medicine Reviews (Ovid), EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases and were augmented with searches for evidence-based guidelines on radiology and evidence-based medicine Web sites by using the Google Internet search engine. Guidelines were appraised by two independent reviewers by using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation Collaboration Instrument. Other studies were appraised by using structured appraisal checklists.
RESULTS: Five guidelines were identified and five empirical studies met inclusion criteria. All guidelines had poor scores on some Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Collaboration criteria; poorer scores tended to occur in relation to objective assessment of rigor of guideline development, editorial independence, and applicability of the guideline to clinical practice. Lack of agreement was observed among guidelines about the need to stop taking metformin after contrast medium is administered, risk of LA in patients with normal renal function before contrast medium injection, recommended method of measuring renal function, and values used to define abnormal function. The evidence that was used as a basis for determining the guidelines for metformin administration, use of contrast medium, and risk of LA consisted of a limited number of observational studies, including case reports, summaries of case reports, and case series (National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia level IV-V evidence). More important, it was not apparent that a systematic search strategy had been used to identify the studies referenced by the guidelines nor that the referenced studies had been appraised. Individual guideline recommendations were not clearly connected to cited references.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial inconsistencies exist between the recommendations of the five international guidelines about contrast medium administration in patients who are taking metformin. These are, in part, caused by the low level of evidence underpinning guideline recommendations.

暂无摘要。

The recommendations made in this review are based on the current clinical knowledge with regard to the origin and therapy of lipodystrophy. They should be regarded as provisional and will change with expanding knowledge. The recommendations for treating dyslipidaemia in particular are oriented closely on the American recommendations of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP III), and may be regarded both by HIV practitioners and patients as excessive and too rigid. The therapeutic goals of the NCEP in the first intervention studies in HIV-positive individuals were only achieved for a small proportion of the HIV patients. In addition, preliminary results suggest a potentially higher risk of adverse events in HIV-patients under statins or fibrates. The clinical efficacy of interventions with lipid lowering drugs has not been validated in HIV-seropositive patients. However, therapeutic decisions so far have been based on data obtained in non-HIV cardiovascular intervention studies. With more and more results becoming available from the HIV patient population a revision of these recommendations will be required.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。