Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.

Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes have briefly updated their 2018 recommendations on management of hyperglycemia, based on important research findings from large cardiovascular outcomes trials published in 2019. Important changes include: 1) the decision to treat high-risk individuals with a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), hospitalization for heart failure (hHF), cardiovascular death, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression should be considered independently of baseline HbA1c or individualized HbA1c target; 2) GLP-1 receptor agonists can also be considered in patients with type 2 diabetes without established cardiovascular disease (CVD) but with the presence of specific indicators of high risk; and 3) SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure, particularly those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, to reduce hHF, MACE, and CVD death, as well as in patients with type 2 diabetes with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate 30 to ≤60 mL min-1 [1.73 m]-2 or urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio >30 mg/g, particularly >300 mg/g) to prevent the progression of CKD, hHF, MACE, and cardiovascular death.

/pdf/management-of-hyperglycemia-in-type-2-diabetes-2018-a-1u146pkf24.pdf

Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2018. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the prior position statements, published in 2012 and 2015, on the management of type 2 diabetes in adults. A systematic evaluation of the literature since 2014 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on lifestyle management and diabetes self-management education and support. For those with obesity, efforts targeting weight loss, including lifestyle, medication and surgical interventions, are recommended. With regards to medication management, for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease, a sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit is recommended. For patients with chronic kidney disease or clinical heart failure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven benefit is recommended. GLP-1 receptor agonists are generally recommended as the first injectable medication.

/pdf/management-of-hyperglycaemia-in-type-2-diabetes-2018-a-zfh8ormgys.pdf

Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a progressive and complex disorder that is difficult to treat effectively in the long term. The majority of patients are overweight or obese at diagnosis and will be unable to achieve or sustain near normoglycaemia without oral antidiabetic agents; a sizeable proportion of patients will eventually require insulin therapy to maintain long-term glycaemic control, either as monotherapy or in conjunction with oral antidiabetic therapy. The frequent need for escalating therapy is held to reflect progressive loss of islet β-cell function, usually in the presence of obesity-related insulin resistance.

http://www.luzimarteixeira.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/oral-antidiabetic-agents.pdf

Oral antidiabetic agents: current role in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Metformin is widely used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. It is a biguanide developed from galegine, a guanidine derivative found in Galega officinalis (French lilac). Chemically, it is a hydrophilic base which exists at physiological pH as the cationic species (>99.9%). Consequently, its passive diffusion through cell membranes should be very limited. The mean ± SD fractional oral bioavailability (F) of metformin is 55 ± 16%. It is absorbed predominately from the small intestine. Metformin is excreted unchanged in urine. The elimination half-life (t1/2) of metformin during multiple dosages in patients with good renal function is approximately 5 hours. From published data on the pharmacokinetics of metformin, the population mean of its clearances were calculated. The population mean renal clearance (CLR) and apparent total clearance after oral administration (CL/F) of metformin were estimated to be 510 ± 130 mL/min and 1140 ± 330 mL/min, respectively, in healthy subjects and diabetic patients with good renal function. Over a range of renal function, the population mean values of CLR and CL/F of metformin are 4.3 ± 1.5 and 10.7 ± 3.5 times as great, respectively, as the clearance of creatinine (CLCR). AS the CLR and CL/F decrease approximately in proportion to CLCR, the dosage of metformin should be reduced in patients with renal impairment in proportion to the reduced CLCR. The oral absorption, hepatic uptake and renal excretion of metformin are mediated very largely by organic cation transporters (OCTs). An intron variant of OCT1 (single nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] rs622342) has been associated with a decreased effect on blood glucose in heterozygotes and a lack of effect of metformin on plasma glucose in homozygotes. An intron variant of multidrug and toxin extrusion transporter [MATE1] (G>A, SNP rs2289669) has also been associated with a small increase in antihyperglycaemic effect of metformin. Overall, the effect of structural variants of OCTs and other cation transporters on the pharmacokinetics of metformin appears small and the subsequent effects on clinical response are also limited. However, intersubject differences in the levels of expression of OCT1 and OCT3 in the liver are very large and may contribute more to the variations in the hepatic uptake and clinical effect of metformin. Lactic acidosis is the feared adverse effect of the biguanide drugs but its incidence is very low in patients treated with metformin. We suggest that the mean plasma concentrations of metformin over a dosage interval be maintained below 2.5 mg/L in order to minimize the development of this adverse effect.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of metformin

Metformin and other antidiabetic agents in renal failure patients

Metformin has been available since 1957. Over 50 years later, one can legitimately question whether a clear definition
 of its “therapeutic concentrations” is available. The objective of this systematic review was to establish whether or not there is a literature consensus on the “therapeutic concentrations” of metformin. We systematically searched the scientific literature with the keywords “metformin”, “therapeutic concentration”, “therapeutic level”, and “therapeutic range”. When the suggested values were defined by citing a literature reference, the types of studies in cited references and the concordance of data between the citations and theirs sources were studied. We identified 120 documents that reported or cited 65 different “therapeutic” plasma metformin concentrations or ranges. The values ranged from 0.129 to 90 mg/L, and the lowest and highest boundaries were 0 and 1800 mg/L. Only four original research studies determined a “therapeutic concentration”. Fifty-four publications cited previous studies as defining the therapeutic concentrations, whereas 62 publications mentioned “therapeutic concentrations” but did not even cite a supporting reference. The supporting references were mostly reviews, pharmacokinetic studies and in vitro studies. In the 54 publications that cited references, concordance between the wording of the citation and the true nature of the source data was observed in only 23 cases (42.6 %). Given the nature of a systematic literature search, the only possible limitation would be incomplete identification and retrieval of publications on therapeutic concentrations. An extensive study of the literature has, however, been performed by examining nearly 1000 potentially relevant publications. The only valid way of defining the therapeutic concentration window for metformin would be to relate dose efficacy (in terms of blood glucose control) to the corresponding plasma concentration in long-term treated patients. Although metformin has been available for over 50 years and it is the key medication in first-line treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, major methodological and/or conceptual errors have confounded the literature on its therapeutic concentrations.

Therapeutic Concentrations of Metformin: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE This study was conducted to define a safe, effective dose regimen for metformin in moderate and severe chronic kidney disease (CKD; stages 3A/3B and 4, respectively), after the lifting of restrictions on metformin use in patients with diabetes with moderate-to-severe CKD in the absence of prospective safety and efficacy studies. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Three complementary studies were performed: 1 ) a dose-finding study in CKD stages 1–5, in which blood metformin concentrations were evaluated during a 1-week period after each dose increase; 2 ) a 4-month metformin treatment study for validating the optimal metformin dose as a function of the CKD stage (3A, 3B, and 4), with blood metformin, lactate, and HbA 1c concentrations monitored monthly; and 3 ) an assessment of pharmacokinetic parameters after the administration of a single dose of metformin in steady-state CKD stages 3A, 3B, and 4. RESULTS First, in the dose-finding study, the appropriate daily dosing schedules were 1,500 mg (0.5 g in the morning [qam] +1 g in the evening [qpm]) in CKD stage 3A, 1,000 mg (0.5 g qam + 0.5 g qpm) in CKD stage 3B, and 500 mg (qam) in CKD stage 4. Second, after 4 months on these regimens, patients displayed stable metformin concentrations that never exceeded the generally accepted safe upper limit of 5.0 mg/L. Hyperlactatemia (>5 mmol/L) was absent (except in a patient with myocardial infarction), and HbA 1c levels did not change. Third, there were no significant differences in pharmacokinetic parameters among the CKD stage groups. CONCLUSIONS Provided that the dose is adjusted for renal function, metformin treatment appears to be safe and still pharmacologically efficacious in moderate-to-severe CKD.

/pdf/metformin-treatment-in-patients-with-type-2-diabetes-and-2lsjrrkkzd.pdf

Metformin Treatment in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease Stages 3A, 3B, or 4

Analysis of the prognostic values of blood pH and lactate and plasma metformin concentrations in severe metformin-associated lactic acidosis may help to resolve the following paradox: metformin provides impressive, beneficial effects but is also associated with life-threatening adverse effects. On the basis of 869 pharmacovigilance reports on MALA with available data on arterial pH and lactate concentration, plasma metformin concentration and outcome, we selected cases with a pH  10 mmol/L. Outcomes were compared with those described for severe metformin-independent lactic acidosis. Fifty-six patients met the above-mentioned criteria. The mean arterial pH and lactate values were 6.75 ± 0.17 and 23.07 ± 6.94 mmol/L, respectively. The survival rate was 53%, even with pH values as low as 6.5 and lactate and metformin concentrations as high as 35.3 mmol/L and 160 mg/L (normal < 1 mg/L), respectively. Survivors and non-survivors did not differ significantly in terms of the mean arterial pH and lactate concentration. The mean metformin concentration was higher in patients who subsequently died but this difference was due to a very high value (188 mg/L) in one patient in this group, in whom several triggering factors were combined. Sepsis, multidrug overdoses and the presence of at least two triggering factors for lactic acidosis were observed significantly more frequently in non-survivors (p = 0.007, 0.04, and 0.005, respectively). This contrasts with a study of metformin-independent lactic acidosis in which there were no survivors, despite less severe acidosis on average (mean pH: 6.86). In 56 cases of severe metformin-associated lactic acidosis, blood pH and lactate did not have prognostic value. One can reasonably rule out the extent of metformin accumulation as a prognostic factor. Ultimately, the determinants of metformin-associated lactic acidosis appear to be the nature and number of triggering factors. Strikingly, most patients survived - despite a mean pH that is incompatible with a favorable outcome under other circumstances.

/pdf/the-prognostic-value-of-blood-ph-and-lactate-and-metformin-ye1dot8teo.pdf

Jean-Daniel Lalau

Papers

Metformin and other antidiabetic agents in renal failure patients

Therapeutic Concentrations of Metformin: A Systematic Review

Metformin Treatment in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease Stages 3A, 3B, or 4

The prognostic value of blood pH and lactate and metformin concentrations in severe metformin-associated lactic acidosis

Kinetics of plasma and erythrocyte metformin after acute administration in healthy subjects.