SA JOURNAL OF DIABETES & VASCULAR DISEASE RESEARCH ARTICLE VOLUME 21 NUMBER 1 • November 2024 15 4. Su SF, Chang MY, Wu MS, et al. Safety and efficacy of using vascular closure devices for hemostasis on sheath removal after a transfemoral artery percutaneous coronary intervention. Japan J Nurs Sci 2019; 16(2): 172–183. 5. Prouse A, Gunzburger E, Yang F, et al. Contemporary use and outcomes of arterial closure devices after percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program. J Am Heart Assoc 2020; 9(4): e015223. 6. Walter J, Vogl M, Holderried M, et al. Manual compression versus vascular closing device for closing access puncture site in femoral leftheart catheterization and percutaneous coronary interventions: a retrospective crosssectional comparison of costs and effects in inpatient care. Value Health 2017; 20(6): 769–776. 7. Schulz-Schupke S, Helde S, Gewalt S, et al. Comparison of vascular closure devices vs manual compression after femoral artery puncture: the ISAR-CLOSURE randomized clinical trial. J AM Med Assoc 2014; 312(19): 1981–1987. 8. Stegemann E, Hoffmann R, Marso S, et al. The frequency of vascular complications associated with the use of vascular closure devices varies by indication for cardiac catheterization. Clin Res Cardiol 2011; 100(9): 789–795. 9. Lee SW, Tam CC, Wong KL, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes after deployment of femoral vascular closure devices in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: an observational singlecentre registry follow-up. Br Med J Open 2014; 4(6): e005126. 10. Lee SW, Ho HH, Kong SL, et al. Long term clinical outcomes after deployment of femoral vascular closure devices in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interven 2010; 75(3): 345–348. 11. Gurm HS, Hosman C, Share D, et al. Comparative safety of vascular closure devices and manual closure among patients having percutaneous coronary intervention. Ann Intern Med 2013; 159(10): 660–666. 12. Kirchhof C, Schickel S, Schmidt-Lucke C, et al. Local vascular complications after use of the hemostatic puncture closure device Angio-Seal. Vasa 2002; 31(2): 101–106. 13. Sartorius B, Behnes M, Unsal M, et al. Arterial access-site complications after use of a vascular closure device related to puncture height. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2017; 17(1): 64. 14. Holm NR, Sindberg B, Schou M, et al. Randomised comparison of manual compression and FemoSeal vascular closure device for closure after femoral artery access coronary angiography: the CLOSure dEvices Used in everyday Practice (CLOSE-UP) study. EuroIntervention 2014; 10(2): 183–190. 15. Jiang J, Zou J, Ma H, et al. Network meta-analysis of randomized trials on the safety of vascular closure devices for femoral arterial puncture site haemostasis. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 13761. 16. Iannaccone M, Saint-Hilary G, Menardi D, et al. Network meta-analysis of studies comparing closure devices for femoral access after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Cardiovasc Med 2018; 19(10): 586–596. 17. Mayer K, Gewalt S, Morath T, et al. Comparison of vascular closure devices vs manual compression after femoral artery puncture in patients on oral anticoagulation – post hoc analysis of the ISAR-CLOSURE trial. J Invas Cardiol 2021; 33(9): E709–E715. 18. Choo HJ, Jeong HW, Park JY, et al. Ultrasonographic features of vascular closure devices: initial and 6-month follow-up results. Ultrasonography 2014; 33(4): 283–290. 19. Sanghi P, Virmani R, Do D, et al. A comparative evaluation of arterial blood flow and the healing response after femoral artery closure using angio-seal STS Plus and StarClose in a porcine model. J Interven Cardiol 2008; 21(4): 329–336. 20. Gargiulo NJ, 3rd, Veith FJ, Ohki T, et al. Histologic and duplex comparison of the perclose and angio-seal percutaneous closure devices. Vascular 2007; 15(1): 24–29. 21. Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2022; 145(3): e4–e17. 22. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019; 40(2): 87–165. 23. Vidi VD, Matheny ME, Govindarajulu US, et al. Vascular closure device failure in contemporary practice. J Am Coll Cardiol Cardiovasc Interven 2012; 5(8): 837– 844. 24. Heo YJ, Jeong HW, Baek JW, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of puncture sites after deployment of two different types of vascular closure devices: a prospective comparative study. Cardiovasc Interven Radiol 2018; 41(11): 1654–1663. Weekly insulin jabs show good results A once-weekly insulin injection, efsitora, has showed blood sugar reduction consistent with commonly used daily insulins across two studies in patients with type 2 diabetes, while the weekly insulin injection, icodec, has been recommended for approval in Europe and is under regulatory review in the USA. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisers are meeting next week to discuss the application from Novo, reports Reuters. Both Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, market leaders for obesity drugs (GLP-1 agonists) are developing weekly injections for long-acting insulins that could reduce the treatment burden for diabetics. In one of the two studies, Lilly evaluated efsitora in patients using and not using GLP-1 therapies, and said efsitora was noninferior to insulin degludec, sold as Tresiba by Novo, in reducing blood sugar levels in both sets of patients. At the end of 52 weeks, patients on efsitora saw a reduction of 1.34% in their A1c levels – a marker of blood glucose levels over three months – compared with a 1.26% reduction for insulin degludec. The trial included patients who were using insulin for the first time. Lilly plans to present detailed data from this study at a medical conference later this year. In the second study, conducted for 26 weeks, both efsitora and insulin glargine reduced A1c levels in patients by 1.07%. Insulin glargine is sold as Basaglar by Lilly and as Lantus by French drugmaker Sanofi. Combined, Eli Lilly, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk comprise 90% of the US market for insulin and have faced political pressure to make these life-sustaining treatments more affordable. Source: MedicalBrief 2024 TELMISARTAN/ AMLODIPINE FDC* INTRODUCING OUR TELMISARTAN/ AMLODIPINE FDC* OFFERS 24 HOUR BLOOD PRESSURE CONTROL2 TELMISARTAN / AMLODIPINE 40/5 mg 40/10 mg 80/5 mg 80/10 mg CONVENIENTLY PACKED IN 30’s TESDYN 40/5 mg, 40/10 mg, 80/5 mg, 80/10 mg. Each tablet contains 40, 80 mg telmisartan respectively and 5, 10 mg amlodipine (as amlodipine besylate) respectively. S3 A55/7.1.3/0668, 0669, 0670, 0671. For full prescribing information, refer to the professional information approved by SAHPRA, November 2023. 1) Source: Based on internal analysis by Pharmadynamics (Pty) Ltd using data from the following source: IQVIA TPM MAT April 2024 ATC1 A1A- Brands measured in Units, reflecting estimates of real-world activity. Copyright IQVIA. All rights reserved 2) Approved professional information. * Fixed-dose combination. TNB1169/10/2024. CUSTOMER CARE LINE +27 21 707 7000 www.pharmadynamics.co.za ALWAYS ON GUARD
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDIzNzc=