Background/Aims: Long-term use of acid suppressants such as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine 2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) has been associated with the risk of osteoporotic fracture. Acid suppressants and muco-protective agents (MPAs) are often used together as anti-ulcer agents. We evaluated the association between the risk of osteoporotic fracture and the combined use of these anti-peptic agents. Methods: A population-based case-control study was conducted by analyzing the Korean National Health Insurance Data from 2014 to 2020. Patients who had been prescribed anti-peptic agents, such as PPI, H2RA, or MPA, were included. Considering the incidence of osteoporotic fractures, the case group (n = 14,704) and control group (n = 58,816) were classified by 1:4 matching based on age and sex. Results: The use of all types of anti-peptic agents was associated with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures (PPI: hazard osteoratio [HR], 1.31; H2RA: HR, 1.44; and MPA: HR, 1.33; all p < 0.001). Compared to PPI alone, the combined use of “PPI and H2RA” (HR, 1.58; p = 0.010) as well as “PPI, H2RA, and MPA” (HR, 1.71; p = 0.001) was associated with an increased risk of osteoporotic fracture. However, compared with PPI alone, “MPA and PPI or H2RA” was not associated with an increased risk of osteoporotic fracture. Conclusions This study found that the combined use of “PPI and H2RA” was associated with a higher risk of osteoporotic fractures. In cases where deemed necessary, the physicians may initially consider prescribing the combination use of MPA.

Background/Aims: Mucoprotective agents, such as eupatilin, are often prescribed to prevent gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in addition to an acid suppressant despite the absence of a large-scale study. We evaluated the additional effect of eupatilin on the prevention of GI bleeding in both the upper and lower GI tract in concomitant aspirin and acid suppressant users using the nationwide database of national claims data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service (NHIS). Methods: An aspirin cohort was constructed using the NHIS claims data from 2013 to 2020. Patients who manifested with hematemesis, melena, or hematochezia were considered to have GI bleeding. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine the risk factors for GI bleeding associated with the concomitant use of GI drugs and other covariates among aspirin users. Results: Overall, a total of 432,208 aspirin users were included. The concurrent use of an acid suppressant and eupatilin (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85, p = 0.016, vs. acid suppressant only) was a statistically significant preventive factor for GI bleeding. Moreover, a more than 3-month duration (HR = 0.88, p = 0.030) of acid suppressant and eupatilin prescription (vs. acid suppressant only) was a statistically significant preventive factor for GI bleeding. Conclusions Eupatilin administration for ≥ 3 months showed additional preventive effect on GI bleeding in concomitant aspirin and acid suppressant users. Thus, cotreatment with eupatilin with a duration of 3 months or longer is recommended for reducing GI bleeding among aspirin plus acid suppressant users.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes self-management education and reinforcement are important for effective management of the disease. We investigated the effectiveness of interactive small-group education on glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid levels. METHODS: For this study, 207 type 2 diabetes patients with suboptimal glycemic control (HbA1c levels >6.5%) were enrolled. The conventional education group received an existing education program from April to November in 2006, and the interactive education group received a new small-group education program from December 2006 to July 2007. The two groups were comparatively analyzed for changes in blood sugar, glycated hemoglobin, lipid, and blood pressure at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months and the proportion of patients achieving target goals at 12 months. RESULTS: After 12 months of follow-up, HbA1c levels in the interactive education group were significantly lower than in the conventional education group (6.7% vs. 6.4%, P<0.001). Fasting and 2 hour postprandial glucose concentrations, total cholesterol, and low density lipoprotein cholesterol were significantly lower in the interactive education group than in the conventional education group. The proportion of patients that achieved target goals was significantly higher in the interactive education group. CONCLUSION: The small-group educational method improved and re-established the existing group educational method. This finding suggests that the importance of education appears to be related to the method by which it is received rather than the education itself. Thus, the use of small-group educational methods to supplement existing educational methods established for diverse age levels should be considered in the future.
Achievement ; Blood Glucose ; Blood Pressure ; Cholesterol ; Cholesterol, LDL ; Diabetes Mellitus ; Fasting ; Follow-Up Studies ; Glucose ; Hemoglobins ; Humans ; Lipoproteins ; Reinforcement (Psychology) ; Self Care

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.