Concomitant Oral Antihyperglycemic Agent Use and Associated Treatment Outcomes After Initiation of Insulin Therapy

ObjectiveTo compare outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin lispro mix 75/25 (75% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 25% lispro) or insulin glargine therapy, stratified by baseline oral antihyperglycemic agent (OHA) use.MethodsWe performed a post hoc analysis of 6-month data from the DURABLE clinical trial, which enrolled patients with hemoglobin A_1c (A1C) levels > 7.0% treated with 2 or more OHAs (metformin, sulfonylurea, and thiazolidinedione), and randomly assigned them to treatment with twice-daily insulin lispro 75/25 or oncedaily glargine.ResultsIn both insulin treatment groups, metformin/ thiazolidinedione-treated patients had significantly greater improvement in A1C levels (-2.19% to -2.36%), lower end point A1C values, and lower rates of occurrence of hypoglycemia in comparison with metformin/sulfonylurea-treated patients (all P < .05). Patients treated with sulfonylurea/thiazolidinedione or metformin/sulfonylurea/thiazolidinedione did not differ significantly from metformin/sulfonylurea-treated patients in A1C change (-1.56% to -1.84%) or rates of occurrence of hypoglycemia.ConclusionIn these post hoc analyses, patients with type 2 diabetes initiating premixed or basal insulin therapy and treated concomitantly with the OHA combination of metformin/thiazolidinedione at baseline demonstrated significantly greater A1C improvement with less hypoglycemia in comparison with patients treated with metformin/ sulfonylurea. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:563-567)     

Glycemic Variation and Hypoglycemia in Patients with well-Controlled Type 1 Diabetes on a Multiple Daily Insulin Injection Program with use of Glargine and Ultralente as Basal Insulin

ObjectiveTo evaluate glycemic variation and hypo-glycemia in patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injections during glargine and Ultralente use as basal insulin in a clinical trial.MethodsTwenty-two patients (12 men and 10 women, median age, 43 years), with a hemoglobin A1c level < 7.8%, were randomized in a crossover design to receive either insulin glargine or Ultralente insulin as basal insulin for 4 months each, with insulin aspart as prandial insulin. Continuous glucose monitoring and the Fear of Hypoglycemia questionnaire were used at baseline and at the end of each treatment period.ResultsWhereas the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions showed a correlation with the area under the curve of blood glucose < 3.89 mmol/L per day, the number of periods during the day with hypoglycemia was significantly correlated with the M value. Measures of glycemic variation did not differ significantly between glargine and Ultralente treatment. With use of glargine therapy, the SD of blood glucose levels showed a tendency to be lower and the SD of nocturnal blood glucose concentrations was significantly lower. Glucose concentrations were significantly lower during the 1 hour before and the 3 hours after lunch with use of Ultralente. The “Worry” scale on the Fear of Hypoglycemia questionnaire was less during Ultralente therapy and correlated with the number of times blood glucose concentrations were < 3.89 mmol/L daily.ConclusionMeasures of glycemic variability and hypoglycemia need to be studied more in clinical trials of glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes. Glycemic variability is less, particularly at night, with glargine as basal insulin. (Endocr Pract. 2007;13:244-250)     

Impact of Race/Ethnicity on the Efficacy and Safety of Commonly used Insulin Regimens: A Post HOC Analysis of Clinical Trials in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo explore the impact of race/ethnicity on the efficacy and safety of commonly used insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.MethodsIn this post hoc analysis, pooled data from 11 multinational clinical trials involving 1455 patients with type 2 diabetes were used to compare specific insulin treatments in Latino/Hispanic, Asian, African-descent, and Caucasian patients. Insulin treatments included once daily insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn (BASAL), insulin lispro mix 75/25 twice daily (LMBID), or insulin lispro mix 50/50 three times daily (LMTID).ResultsRace/ethnicity was associated with significant outcome differences for each of the insulin regimens. BASAL therapy was associated with greater improvement in several measures of glycemic control among Latino/Hispanic patients compared with Caucasian patients (lower end point hemoglobin A1c, greater reduction in hemoglobin A1c from baseline, and a larger proportion of patients achieving hemoglobin A1c level < 7%). In contrast, LMBID therapy was associated with higher end point hemoglobin A_1c and a smaller decrease in hemoglobin A_1c from baseline in Latino/Hispanic and Asian patients than in Caucasian patients. Furthermore, fewer Asian patients attained a hemoglobin A_1c level < 7% than did Caucasians patients. For LMTID therapy, hemoglobin A_1c outcomes were comparable across patient groups. Fasting blood glucose and glycemic excursions varied among racial/ethnic groups for the 3 insulin regimens. Weight change was comparable among racial/ethnic groups in each insulin regimen. During treatment with LMTID, Asian patients experienced higher incidence and rate of severe hypoglycemia than Caucasian patients.ConclusionsLatino/Hispanic, Asian, and African-descent patients with type 2 diabetes show different metabolic responses to insulin therapy, dependent in part on insulin type and regimen intensity. (Endocr Pract. 2010: 818-828:pp)     

Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogues in Basal-Bolus Regimens in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo compare rapid-acting insulin analogues with regular human insulin in terms of hemoglobin A_1c, hypoglycemia, and insulin dose when used in a basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.MethodsMEDLINE and congress proceedings were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing pran- dial insulins in a basal-bolus regimen in adults or children/ adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Studies in pregnancy, ob- servational studies, studies that compared premixed insulin or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion/insulin pumps, and studies where the basal insulin was also changed were excluded. Only studies reporting baseline-endpoint change in insulin dose, or baseline and/or endpoint values, were included.ResultsTwenty-eight studies were identified (insulin glulisine, 4; insulin aspart, 7; insulin lispro, 17). Twenty- five studies compared a rapid-acting insulin analogue with regular human insulin, and 3 trials compared 2 rapid-acting insulin analogues. Overall, rapid-acting insulin analogues in a basal-bolus regimen provided similar or greater im- provements in glycemic control than regular human insulin at similar insulin doses, as well as a lower incidence of hypoglycemia.ConclusionsResults of the studies identified in this literature review indicate that a basal-bolus regimen with prandial rapid-acting insulin analogue provides advan- tages over basal-bolus regimens using prandial regular hu- man insulin, providing improvements in glycemic control comparable to those obtained with regular human insulin, as well as a lower incidence of hypoglycemia. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:486-505)     

A Comparison of Twice-Daily Biphasic Insulin Aspart 70/30 and Once-Daily Insulin Glargine in Persons With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled on Basal Insulin and Oral Therapy: A Randomized,Open-Label Study

ObjectiveTo compare efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 30) with insulin (glargine) in type 2 diabetic patients who were not maintaining glycemic control on basal insulin and oral antidiabetic drugs.MethodsIn a 24-week, open-label, parallel-group trial, type 2 diabetic patients who were not maintaining glycemic control on basal insulin (glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn) + oral antidiabetic drugs were randomly assigned to twice-daily BIAsp 30 + metformin or oncedaily glargine + metformin + secretagogues (secretagogues were discontinued in the BIAsp 30 arm).ResultsOne hundred thirty-seven patients were randomly assigned to the BIAsp 30 group and 143 patients were randomly assigned to the glargine group. Of 280 patients randomized, 229 (81.8%) completed the study. End-of-trial hemoglobin A_1c reductions were − 1.3% (BIAsp 30) vs − 1.2% (glargine) (treatment difference: 95% confidence interval, − 0.06 [− 0.32 to 0.20]; P = .657). Of patients taking BIAsp 30, 27.3% reached a hemoglobin A_1c level < 7.0% compared with 22.0% of patients taking glargine (treatment difference: P = .388). Glucose increment averaged over 3 meals was lower in the BIAsp 30 arm (treatment difference: − 17.8 mg/dL, P = .001). Fasting plasma glucose reductions from baseline were − 13.8 mg/ dL (BIAsp 30) vs − 42.5 mg/dL (glargine) (P = .0002). Final minor hypoglycemia rate, insulin dose, and weight change were higher in the BIAsp 30 arm (6.5 vs 3.4 events/patient per year, P <.05; 1.19 vs 0.63 U/kg; and 3.1 vs 1.4 kg, P = .0004, respectively).ConclusionsDespite not receiving secretagogues, patients taking BIAsp 30 + metformin achieved similar hemoglobin A_1c levels and lower postprandial plasma glucose compared with those receiving glargine + metformin + secretagogues. The large improvement in the glargine group suggests the patients were not true basal failures at randomization. While switching to BIAsp 30 improves glycemic control in this patient population, remaining on basal insulin and optimizing the dose may be equally effective in the short term. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:41-50)     

Insulin Glargine or Neutral Protamine Hagedorn in Patients with Severe Insulin Resistance: is There A Benefit?

ObjectiveTo determine the benefit of neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin compared with insulin glargine in a patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus and severe insulin resistance.MethodsWe describe the patient’s clinical findings and treatment course.ResultsA 52-year-old man with a 3-year history of type 2 diabetes mellitus did not achieve adequate glucose control despite escalation of his treatment regimen to insulin glargine, 80 units twice daily; insulin lispro, 60 units before each meal; and metformin. Dietary and lifestyle changes were emphasized and implemented while medication adherence with appropriate insulin technique was reviewed at each visit. Insulin glargine was replaced with the same dosage of NPH insulin. After 3 months, a significant drop in hemoglobin A_1c was noted, from 9.5% to 6.1%, consistent with the improved capillary glucose measurements. The effect was maintained over the following year, without any major hypoglycemic events.ConclusionNPH insulin might be superior to the long-acting analogue insulin glargine in cases of severe insulin resistance, but randomized studies are needed to confirm our finding and clarify the involved mechanisms. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:e49-e51)     

A Retrospective Study Comparing Neutral Protamine Hagedorn Insulin With Glargine As Basal Therapy In Prednisone-Associated Diabetes Mellitus In Hospitalized Patients

ObjectiveTo compare glycemic outcomes in hospitalized patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin (NPH) vs glargine as basal insulin for management of glucocorticoid-associated hyperglycemia.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of electronic medical records in prednisone-treated adult patients with hyperglycemia in a university hospital. Consecutive patients were selected in both the NPH and glargine cohorts using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics were assessed in each cohort. Glycemic outcomes were analyzed by comparing fasting blood glucose, mean daily blood glucose concentration, median daily blood glucose concentration, and the number of hypoglycemic episodes on a prespecified index day.ResultsOne hundred twenty patients were included: 60 patients in the NPH cohort and 60 patients in the glargine cohort. The weight-based insulin requirement was lower in the NPH cohort than in the glargine cohort (0.27 ± 0.2 units/kg vs 0.34 ± 0.2 units/kg [P = .04] for basal insulin and 0.26 ± 0.2 units/kg vs 0.36 ± 0.2 units/kg [P = .03] for bolus insulin). NPH and glargine cohorts were similar regarding age, sex, race, body mass index, hemoglobin A_1c, serum creatinine, and prednisone dosage. Glycemic outcomes in the NPH cohort compared with outcomes in the glargine cohort were similar regarding mean fasting blood glucose concentration (134 ± 49 mg/dL vs 139 ± 54 mg/dL [P = .63]), mean daily blood glucose (167 ± 46 mg/dL vs 165 ± 52 mg/dL [P = .79]), median blood glucose (160 ± 49 mg/dL vs 159 ± 57 mg/dL [P = .90]), and number of hypoglycemic episodes per day (0.12 ± 0.3 vs 0.10 ± 0.3 [P = .77]).ConclusionsNPH and glargine appear to be equally effective as basal insulin in the management of hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients receiving prednisone. However, the total daily insulin doses used were lower in the NPH cohort. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:712-719)     

Insulin glargine maintains equivalent glycemic control and better lipometabolic control than NPH insulin in type 1 diabetes patients who missed a meal.

Our goal was to investigate blood glucose and lipometabolism control in type 1 diabetes patients who missed breakfast and the accompanying insulin injection of NPH insulin (NPH) or insulin glargine (glargine) as part of a basal-bolus regimen. This was a multi-center, open-label, controlled study in adults (> or =18 years) with HbA (1c)< or =11.5% on insulin therapy with NPH as basal insulin. Patients were randomized to receive prandial insulin plus either bedtime glargine (n=28) or NPH (n=32). Insulin was titrated to target fasting blood glucose levels 80-130 mg/dl at 06:00-07:00. Patients had no intake of insulin or food between 22:00 and 12:00 the next day. The change in blood glucose levels (07:00-11:00) was similar (27.5 mg/dl vs. 35.4 mg/dl), but the mean blood glucose level was higher with glargine vs. NPH at 22:00 (158.2 mg/dl vs. 130.2 mg/dl). During the period without insulin or food intake, blood glucose decreased with glargine (-25.8 mg/dl) and increased with NPH (+9.1 mg/dl; p=0.0284). Nonesterified fatty acid (07:00 and 09:00-12:00) and beta-hydroxybutyrate (07:00 and 10:00-12:00) levels were lower with glargine vs. NPH (both p<0.05). For patients who miss a morning meal, glargine is associated with maintained glycemic and lipometabolic control compared with NPH insulin.     

Exenatide Twice Daily Plus Glargine Versus Aspart 70/30 Twice Daily in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes With Inadequate Glycemic Control on Premixed Human Insulin and Metformin

ObjectiveMany patients with type 2 diabetes treated with premixed insulin gradually have inadequate glycemic control and switch to a basal-bolus regimen, which raises some concerns for weight gain and increased hypoglycemic risk. Switching to combination use of glp-1 agonist and basal insulin may be an alternative option.MethodsAfter a 12-week premixed human insulin 70/30 dosage optimization period, 200 patients with HbA1c of 7.0% to 10.0% were randomized into 24-week treatment groups with exenatide twice a day plus glargine or with aspart 70/30 twice a day.ResultsAfter 24 weeks, the patients receiving exenatide plus glargine (n = 90) had improved HbA1c control compared with those receiving aspart 70/30 (n = 90) (least squares mean change: ‒0.59 vs ‒0.13%; difference [95% CI]: ‒0.45 [‒0.74 to ‒0.17]) in the full analysis set population. Weight decreased 3.5 kg with exenatide and decreased 0.4 kg with aspart 70/30 (P < .001). The insulin dose was reduced 10.7 units/day (95% CI, ‒12.2 to ‒9.2 units; P < .001) with exenatide, and increased 9.7 units/day (95% CI, 8.2 to 11.2 units; P < .001) with aspart 70/30. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal adverse effects in the exenatide group (nausea [21%], vomiting [16%], diarrhea [13%]). The incidence of hypoglycemia was similar in 2 groups (27% for exenatide and 38% for aspart 70/30; P = .1).ConclusionIn premixed human insulin‒treated patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control, switching to exenatide twice a day plus glargine was superior to aspart 70/30 twice a day for glycemic and weight control.     

A study comparing insulin lispro mix 25 with glargine plus lispro therapy in patients with Type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic control on oral anti-hyperglycaemic medication: results of the PARADIGM study

Diabet. Med. 29, e263-e272 (2012) ABSTRACT: Aims To test the hypothesis that initiation and intensification with 25% insulin lispro, 75% insulin lispro protamine suspension (LM25), is non-inferior to initiation and intensification with glargine?+?insulin lispro therapy on change from baseline in HbA(1c) . Methods In this randomized, non-inferiority (margin of 0.4%), parallel, prospective, multi-country, 48-week, open-label study, patients (n?=?426) with Type?2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral anti-hyperglycaemic medications were assigned to either initiating therapy with one daily LM25 injection, progressing up to three daily injections (full analysis set n?=?211; per protocol set n?=?177) or initiating therapy with one daily glargine injection and progressing up to three daily insulin lispro injections (full analysis set n?=?212; per protocol set n?=?184). Results LM25 therapy was found to be non-inferior to glargine?+?insulin lispro therapy by study end (upper limit of 95%?CI 相似文献   

Metformin versus Insulin in the Management of Pre-Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Pregnancy and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital: A Randomized Clinical Trial

ObjectiveTo determine if metformin monotherapy or metformin in combination with insulin is equally effective as insulin monotherapy at glycemic control in diabetes mellitus in pregnancy among Ghanaians.MethodsThis was a study involving 104 pregnant women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) at 20-30 weeks gestation. Participants were randomized into metformin and insulin treatment groups. Starting dose of metformin was 500 mg once a day and increased gradually over two (2) weeks, to meet glycemic targets. Insulin was added if targets could not be reached on metformin alone at maximum doses. Total daily dose of premixed insulin at initiation was calculated as 0.3 IU/kg body weight and titrated upwards to achieve glycemic control. Glycemic profile monitoring was done every two weeks.ResultsThe two hour post prandial blood glucose (2HPG) levels were significantly lower in the metformin group than the insulin group (p= 0.004).ConclusionThe findings of this study suggest that metformin monotherapy is effective in achieving glycemic targets in the management of diabetes in pregnancy. It is more effective than insulin in lowering the 2HPG level.

Trial Registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12614000942651     

A Stepwise Approach to Insulin Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Basal Insulin Treatment Failure

ObjectiveTo determine whether 1 or 2 preprandial injections before the meals of greatest glycemic impact can be as effective as 3 preprandial injections in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and basal insulin treatment failure.MethodsThis was an open-label, parallel-group, 1:1:1 randomized study of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus on oral antidiabetic drugs with glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels of 8.0% or greater. After a 14week run-in with insulin glargine, patients with an A1C level greater than 7.0% were randomly assigned to 1, 2, or 3 time(s) daily insulin glulisine for 24 weeks. Changes in A1C from randomization to study end; percentage of patients achieving an A1C level less than 7.0%; changes in A1C, fasting glucose concentrations, and weight at individual study points; and safety (adverse events and hypoglycemia) were assessed throughout the study.ResultsThree hundred forty-three of 631 patients (54%) completing the run-in phase with insulin glargine were randomly assigned to treatment arms. During the randomization phase, A1C reductions with insulin glulisine once or twice daily were noninferior to insulin glulisine 3 times daily (confidence intervals: -0.39 to 0.36 and -0.30 to 0.43; P > .5 for both). However, more patients met the target A1C with 3 preprandial injections (46 [46%]) than with 2 injections (34 [33%]) or 1 injection (30 [30%]). Severe hypoglycemia occurred in twice as many patients receiving 3 preprandial injections (16%) compared with those receiving 2 injections (8%) and 1 injection (7%), but these differences did not reach significance.ConclusionThis study provides evidence that initiation of prandial insulin in a simplified stepwise approach is an effective alternative to the current routine 3 preprandial injection basal-bolus approach. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:395-403)     

Insulin Injections in Relation to Meals in the Hospital Medicine Ward: Comparison of 2 Protocols

ObjectiveTo investigate whether changing the prandial regular insulin to rapid-acting insulin analogue in hospital medicine wards improves the timing of insulin delivery in relation to meals and improves patient safety and glucose control.MethodsThis open-label randomized controlled trial in type 2 diabetic patients compared insulin lispro with meals and basal insulin glargine (intervention) vs regular insulin before meals and basal neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin twice daily (control). The primary endpoint was the rate of targeted timing of insulin to meals (target time). In the intervention group, target time was defined as insulin administered from 15 minutes before to 15 minutes after the patient started a meal. For the control group, target time was defined as insulin administered from 30 minutes before to 30 minutes after the patient started a meal. Hypoglycemic, hyperglycemic, and severe hyperglycemic patient-days were compared between groups.ResultsTwenty-seven patients in the intervention group and thirty-three patients in the control group were studied. The percentage of times that the insulin was given within target time was significantly higher in the intervention group as a whole (88.9% vs 70.1%, P < .001) and was higher for lunch and the evening meal (90% vs 66.7% and 94.7% vs 70.1%, P < .001). The rate of hypoglycemia was lower in the intervention group (1.85% vs 15%, P < .001). The rate of hyperglycemia was similar in both groups (68.2% vs 59.8%, P = .224), but the intervention group had a higher rate of severe hyperglycemia (28.9% vs 12.9%, P = .003).ConclusionsThe use of prandial insulin analogues in medicine wards allows better timing with meals than regular insulin and results in better hypoglycemic outcomes. Higher rates of hyperglycemia with prandial analogues may need adjustment in insulin doses. (Endocr Pract. 2011:17:737-746)     

Comparison of Basal Insulin Regimens on Glycemic Variability in Noncritically Ill Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: To evaluate the impact of different subcutaneous basal insulin regimens on glycemic variability (GV) and hospital complications in non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).Methods: This study is a post hoc analysis of 279 general medicine and surgery patients treated with either a “Basal Bolus” insulin regimen using glargine once daily and glulisine before meals or a “Basal Plus” regimen using glargine once daily plus correction doses of glulisine before meals for glucose >140 mg/dL. GV was calculated as mean delta (Δ) daily glucose, mean SD, and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE).Results: Treatment with Basal Bolus and Basal Plus regimens resulted in similar mean daily glucose, hypoglycemia, length of stay (LOS), and hospital complications (all P>.05). There were no differences in GV between treatment groups by Δ change (72.5 ± 36 vs. 69.3 ± 34 mg/dL), SD (38.5 ± 18 vs. 37.1 ± 16 mg/dL) and MAGE (67.5 ± 34 vs. 66.1 ± 39 mg/dL) (all P>.05). Surgery patients treated with Basal Bolus had higher GV compared to those treated with Basal Plus (Δ daily glucose and SD: P = .02, MAGE: P = .009), but no difference in GV was found between treatment groups for the general medicine patients (P>.05). Patients with hypoglycemia events had higher GV compared to subjects without hypoglycemia (P<.05), but no association was found between GV and hospital complications (P>.05).Conclusion: Treating hospitalized, non-ICU, diabetic patients with Basal Plus insulin regimen resulted in similar glucose control and GV compared to the standard Basal Bolus insulin regimen. Higher GV was not associated with hospital complications.Abbreviations:BG = blood glucoseCV= coefficient of variationGV= glycemic variabilityICU = intensive care unitLOS = length of stayMAGE = mean amplitude of glycemic excursionsSSI = sliding scale insulinT2D = type 2 diabetesTDD =total daily dose     

Comparison of 3 Algorithms for Basal Insulin in Transitioning from Intravenous to Subcutaneous Insulin in Stable Patients after Cardiothoracic Surgery

ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of an algorithm containing 1 of 3 initial subcutaneous doses of insulin detemir and flexible prandial and supplemental insulin aspart in stable patients who have undergone cardiac surgery and are being transitioned off intravenous insulin infusion.MethodsPatients were extubated, were not taking vasopressors, and were otherwise stable, requiring at least 1 unit per hour of intravenous insulin at least 48 hours after surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to once-daily insulin detemir at 50%, 65%, or 80% of intravenous basal insulin requirements and received insulin aspart according to carbohydrate intake. The dose of insulin detemir was adjusted daily over 72 hours.ResultsEighty-two patients were included. The percentages of patients with an initial morning glucose concentration of 80 to 130 mg/dL were 36%, 63%, and 56% of patients at the 50%, 65%, and 80% doses, respectively (P = .12). However, the mean overall glucose value at 24 and 72 hours was similar between groups, and 86%, 93%, and 92% of patients in each group, respectively, achieved a mean glucose concentration of 80 to 180 mg/dL at 72 hours (P = .60). Hypoglycemia (glucose < 65 mg/dL) only occurred in the 65% group (21%) and the 80% group (12%) over the first 72 hours (P = .02 in the 50% group compared with the 65% and 80% groups combined) with 1 event of a glucose concentration less than 40 mg/dL in the 80% group. There was no loss of glycemic control by the end of the once-daily dosing interval.ConclusionsGlycemic targets can be achieved without hypoglycemia by 72 hours in most patients who have undergone cardiac surgery and require intravenous insulin with a regimen consisting of an initial insulin detemir dose of 50% of basal intravenous insulin requirements and prandial and supplemental insulin. (Endocr Pract. 2011; 17:753-758)     

Improved Glycemic Control with Insulin Glargine Versus Pioglitazone as Add-On Therapy to Sulfonylurea or Metformin in Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo compare glycemic control with add-on insulin glargine versus pioglitazone treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes.MethodsThis 48-week, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label study randomized 389 adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin A1c [A1C], 8.0% to 12.0%), despite ≥ 3 months of sulfonylurea or metformin monotherapy, to receive add-on therapy with insulin glargine or pioglitazone. Outcomes included A1C change from baseline to end point (primary), percentage of patients achieving A1C levels ≤ 7.0%, and changes from baseline in fasting plasma glucose, body mass index, weight, and serum lipids. The safety analysis included incidence of adverse events and rates of hypoglycemia.ResultsAt end point, insulin glargine yielded a significantly greater reduction in A1C in comparison with pioglitazone (-2.48% versus -1.86%, respectively; 95% confidence interval, -0.93 to -0.31; P = .0001, 48-week modified intent-to-treat population). Insulin glargine also yielded significantly greater reductions in fasting plasma glucose at all time points (end point difference, -34.9 mg/ dL; 95% confidence interval, -47.6 to -22.2; P < .0001). In comparison with pioglitazone, insulin glargine resulted in a lower overall incidence of possibly related treatmentemergent adverse events (12.0% versus 20.7%) and fewer study discontinuations (2.2% versus 9.1%), but a higher rate (per patient-year) of confirmed clinically relevant hypoglycemic episodes (blood glucose < 70 mg/dL and all severe hypoglycemia) (4.97 versus 1.04; P <.0001) and severe hypoglycemia (0.07 versus 0.01; P = .0309). Weight and body mass index changes were similar between the 2 treatment groups.ConclusionThe addition of insulin glargine early in the diabetes treatment paradigm in patients for whom sulfonylurea or metformin monotherapy had failed resulted in significantly greater improvements in glycemic control in comparison with the addition of pioglitazone. Although severe hypoglycemia was more frequent in patients with insulin glargine therapy, hypoglycemic events occurred in < 5% of patients in the insulin glargine treatment group. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:588-599)     

Ideglira is Associated With Improved Short-Term Clinical Outcomes and Cost Savings Compared With Insulin Glargine U100 Plus Insulin Aspart in the U.S.

Objective: In the DUAL (Dual Action of Liraglutide and Insulin Degludec in Type 2 Diabetes) VII trial, IDegLira (a combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) was compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. Both treatment approaches achieved similar glycemic control, but there were differences in hypoglycemia, changes in body weight, and injection frequency. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the short-term cost effectiveness of IDegLira versus insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus not meeting glycemic targets on basal insulin in the U.S. setting.Methods: A cost-utility model was developed to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes associated with the 2 treatments over a 1-year time horizon, capturing the impact on quality of life of hypoglycemic events, body mass index, and injection frequency. Costs were captured from a healthcare payer perspective in 2017 U.S. dollars ($).Results: IDegLira was associated with improved quality of life by 0.12 quality-adjusted life years compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. The key drivers of this difference were reduced injection frequency and hypoglycemic events avoided. IDegLira was associated with increased annual drug costs, but this was entirely offset by reduced needle costs and reduced costs of self-monitoring of blood glucose testing. IDegLira was associated with total annual cost savings of $743 per patient.Conclusion: IDegLira was found to improve quality-adjusted life expectancy and reduce costs when compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin in the U.S. setting.Abbreviations: ADA = American Diabetes Association; BMI = body mass index; CI = confidence interval; DUAL = Dual Action of Liraglutide and Insulin Degludec in Type 2 Diabetes; GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide-1; HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin; ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; IU = international units; QALY = quality-adjusted life year; SMBG = self-monitoring of blood glucose     

Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Basal-Prandial Insulin Therapy: A Case-Based Review

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a growing epidemic in the United States—20.8 million people are affected and 90% to 95% of all diagnosed cases are type 2 DM. Nevertheless, implementation of insulin therapy is often delayed in patients with type 2 DM. This delay can increase the risk of DM-related complications, including microvascular neuropathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, and cardiovascular disease.Objective: This article provides a case-based review outlining a novel strategy for advancing therapy with a modified basal and prandial insulin regimen to achieve recommended glycemic targets in type 2 DM as quickly as possible. Evidence-based treatment strategies are also discussed.Methods: Materials used for this article were identified through an English-language literature search of MEDLINE (1967-2007) using the following terms: insulin, postprandial glucose control, and type 2 diabetes.Results: As shown with this male 46-year-old case study patient, type 2 DM is treated initially with diet and exercise, followed by oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). However, oral therapy typically reduces glycosylated hemoglobin values only by -1.5% to 2.0%. Intensive therapy with once-daily basal insulin in combination with a previously prescribed OAD regimen can achieve normoglycemia and reduce the long-term complications of DM. In patients with postprandial glucose excursions, prandial insulin can be added using a rapid-acting insulin analogue (aspart, lispro, or glulisine).Conclusions: A key factor in this case patient's ability to reach glycemic targets within I year of diagnosis of type 2 DM was the accelerated implementation of insulin therapy. Such a therapeutic approach obviates the risk for uncontrolled hyperglycemia, which is associated with the standard practice of beginning treatment with diet and exercise alone and slowly advancing by i OAD at a time, ending with insulin therapy as a last resort. (Insulin. 2007;2:118-126)     

Managing Diabetes During Pregnancy with Insulin Lispro: A Safe Alternative to Human Insulin

ObjectiveTo assess the safety of the use of insulin lispro during pregnancy on the basis of published literature and to report on any related efficacy findings.MethodsThe National Center for Biotechnology Information Entrez Database PubMed (http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) was used to search for citations from MEDLINE in the November 2009 time frame that contained safety data and efficacy results on the use of insulin lispro during pregnancy.ResultsFrom the MEDLINE search, we identified a total of 27 publications (with 1, 265 pregnancies) with relevant information, which were included in this report. No statistically significant differences in the rates of occurrence of congenital anomalies or spontaneous abortions associated with the use of insulin lispro during pregnancy, in comparison with the use of human insulin, were reported. Moreover, in comparison with human insulin, insulin lispro was reported to result in improved glycemic control, as demonstrated by lower postprandial glucose concentrations and hemoglobin A1c levels.ConclusionThe current review of the published literature indicates that insulin lispro is a safe alternative to human insulin with similar perinatal outcomes and potentially improved glycemic control in the management of diabetes during pregnancy. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16: 1020-1027)     

Contribution of the Dawn Phenomenon to the Fasting and Postbreakfast Hyperglycemia In Type 1 Diabetes Treated With Once-Nightly Insulin Glargine

ObjectiveTo observe the effect of the dawn phenomenon on basal glucose and postbreakfast hyperglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes treated with once-nightly insulin glargine and premeal insulin lispro.MethodsIn 49 study subjects consuming a fixed isocaloric (50% carbohydrate) diet of usual food, the insulin glargine dose was titrated from daily continuous glucose monitoring downloads to achieve a basal glucose goal of < 130 mg/dL 4 hours after meals and during serial meal omissions but with fewer than 10% of readings at < 70 mg/ dL during 24 hours. Patients also performed self-monitoring of plasma glucose 7 times a day (before and 2 hours after each meal or omitted meal and at bedtime).ResultsThe target mean basal glucose level was achieved only during the non-dawn phenomenon period (1400 hours to 0400 hours). During the dawn phenomenon, the mean (standard deviation) basal glucose level increased from 118 (57) mg/dL at 0400 hours to 156 (67) mg/dL before the breakfast meal, a 32% increase (P = .00149). The mean self-monitored plasma glucose level with meal omission was 63.8% of that increase with a breakfast meal.ConclusionThe fasting morning glucose concentration is considerably elevated because of the dawn phenomenon. Targeting insulin titration to this glucose level may result in excessive basal insulin dosing for the non-dawn phenomenon periods of the day. The dawn phenomenon is a large component of the postbreakfast hyperglycemia. Rather than increasing the morning premeal insulin bolus, consideration should be given to pretreating the earlier dawn phenomenon with an insulin pump with use of a variable basal insulin rate. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:558-562)