Continuous Subcutaneous Infusion of Insulin Lispro in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo provide a comprehensive review of insulin lispro administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in children and adolescents.MethodsWe performed PubMed literature searches to identify clinical studies of insulin lispro administered via CSII within pediatric and adolescent populations.ResultsTwenty-six studies involving 2521 pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus met inclusion criteria. Of these, 10 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 6 of which compared insulin lispro CSII with multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy. We identified 7 additional prospective, nonrandomized studies and 9 retrospective studies. Within the RCTs, endpoint hemoglobin A_1c levels ranged from 6.3% to 8.5% for insulin lispro CSII therapy and from 6.2% to 8.7% for those trials with MDI comparator arms. In those trials that compared insulin lispro CSII with MDI, the endpoint hemoglobin A_1c achieved with insulin lispro was similar or improved compared with observations in the MDI treatment arm. In the RCTs, severe hypoglycemia rates of 0.1 to 0.3 episodes/patient per year were reported for insulin lispro CSII therapy; those trials with MDI comparator arms reported relatively similar severe hypoglycemia rates (0.1 to 0.5 episodes/patient per year). Events of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) were rare. Where reported, insulin lispro CSII and MDI therapy demonstrated a similar occurrence of DKA and incidence of severe hypoglycemia. Prospective and retrospective studies demonstrated results similar to the RCT findings.ConclusionsIn 26 studies of more than 2500 pediatric and adolescent patients with type 1 diabetes, with more than 1000 patients specifically receiving insulin lispro CSII, insulin lispro CSII therapy consistently demonstrated similar or improved efficacy and safety vs studied comparators. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:418-424)     

Comparison of pharmacokinetic properties,physicochemical stability,and pump compatibility of 3 rapid-acting insulin analogues— aspart,lispro, and glulisine

ObjectiveTo compare how the rapid-acting insulin analogues (RAIAs) aspart, lispro, and glulisine perform in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy regarding (1) pharmacokinetic properties, (2) chemical and physical stability, and (3) pump compatibility.MethodsPubMed was searched for articles pertaining to the use of RAIAs in CSII, without a restriction on the time period.ResultsThese RAIAs have pharmacokinetic profiles that more closely mimic endogenous insulin in comparison with regular human insulin and tend to produce less hypoglycemia. Among these RAIAs, the rates of absorption and clinical efficacy in terms of glycemic control were similar. Although glulisine showed a faster onset of action in some studies with aspart and lispro, this advantage lasted only for a maximum of 1 hour, after which results were similar for glulisine and aspart or lispro. Each RAIA is created by making minor amino acid substitutions to the regular human insulin molecule and adding a stabilizer to help prevent fibrillation. A series of chemical and covalent changes affecting the primary structure of an insulin preparation, however, may cause decomposition during storage, handling, and use, diminishing the potency of the insulin molecule while contained in an insulin pump. Precipitation, fibrillation, and occlusion may ensue, undermining compatibility for CSII pump use. Aspart has demonstrated the greatest chemical and physical stability in the insulin pump, with the lowest rates of overall occlusion in comparison with lispro and glulisine (aspart 9.2%, lispro 15.7%, and glulisine 40.9%; P < .01).ConclusionAspart is the most compatible of the 3 RAIAs for pump use. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:271-280)     

Basal Insulin Degludec and Glycemic Control Compared to Aspart Via Insulin Pump in Type 1 Diabetes (BIGLEAP): A Single-Center,Open-Label,Randomized, Crossover Trial

ObjectiveWe compared the efficacy of the second-generation basal insulin degludec (IDeg) to that of insulin aspart via pump using continuous glucose monitoring in patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes.MethodsIn this 40-week, single-center, randomized, crossover-controlled trial, adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes (hemoglobin A1C of <7.5% [<58 mmol/mol]) (N = 52) who were using an insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring were randomized to 1 of 2 treatments for a 20-week period: a single daily injection of IDeg with bolus aspart via pump or a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with aspart, followed by crossover to the other treatment. The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during the final 2 weeks of each treatment period.ResultsFifty-two patients were randomized and completed both treatment periods. The time in range for IDeg and CSII was 71.5% and 70.9%, respectively (P = .553). The time in level 1 hypoglycemia for the 24-hour period with IDeg and CSII was 2.19% and 1.75%, respectively (P = .065). The time in level 2 hypoglycemia for the 24-hour period with IDeg and CSII was 0.355% and 0.271%, respectively (P = .212), and the nocturnal period was 0.330% and 0.381%, respectively (P = .639). The mean standard deviation of blood glucose levels for the 24-hour period for IDeg and CSII was 52.4 mg/dL and 51.0 mg/dL, respectively (P = .294). The final hemoglobin A1C level for each treatment was 7.04% (53 mmol/mol) with IDeg, and 6.95% (52 mmol/mol) with CSII (P = .288). Adverse events were similar between treatments.ConclusionWe observed similar glycemic control between IDeg and insulin aspart via CSII for basal insulin coverage in patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes.     

持续皮下输注赖脯胰岛素治疗老年非初诊2 型糖尿病患者临床观察

目的:观察比较持续皮下输注赖脯胰岛素与常规注射预混赖脯胰岛素对老年非初诊2型糖尿病患者的疗效与安全性。方法:将58例老年2型糖尿病患者随机分为观察组(29例)与对照组(29例),观察组用赖脯胰岛素经胰岛素泵持续皮下输注(CSI-I),对照组用精蛋白锌重组赖脯胰岛素25注射液,2次/d,常规皮下注射。两组患者均给予糖尿病教育、饮食控制及适量运动,共治疗2周。比较治疗前后两组患者的血糖、胰岛素用量、血糖达标时间以及低血糖发生率。结果:治疗后两组患者空腹血糖、餐后血糖均较治疗前下降(P<0.05),观察组血糖达标时间、胰岛素用量均明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。两组低血糖发生率无明显差异。结论:持续皮下输注赖脯胰岛素具有较好的疗效与安全性,是控制老年非初诊2型糖尿病患者较佳的方法。     

The Effect of Prestudy Insulin Therapy on Safety and Efficacy of Human Regular U-500 Insulin by Pump or Injection: A Posthoc Analysis

ObjectiveWe conducted a posthoc analysis of the VIVID study (Safety and Efficacy of Human Regular U-500 Insulin Administered by Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Versus Multiple Daily Injections in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel Clinical Trial), comparing 2 delivery methods of human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R), continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) versus multiple daily injection (MDI), in type 2 diabetes requiring high insulin, to determine influence of prestudy insulin on glycemic outcomes.MethodsWe compared A1C, total daily insulin dose (TDD), weight, and hypoglycemia by subgroups of prestudy insulin (prestudy U-500R vs non-U-500R) and treatment (CSII vs MDI).ResultsAt baseline, prestudy U-500R had higher TDD, higher body mass index, lower A1C and fasting plasma glucose, and higher rate of hypoglycemia compared to non-U-500R. Active titration of U-500R reduced A1C in both subgroups, with maximum benefit at 8 weeks. At 26 weeks, CSII provided the greatest reduction in A1C in both subgroups, with a greater reduction in non-U-500R. MDI provided an A1C reduction in both subgroups, with the greater reduction in non-U-500R. At 8 weeks, prestudy U-500R reached its lowest A1C; thereafter, A1C rebounded with MDI and remained stable with CSII. In non-U-500R, A1C continued to decrease to study end. In non-U-500R, hypoglycemia increased during active titration, but then decreased in the posttitration maintenance period. In both subgroups, TDD increased from baseline with MDI but not with CSII. Body weight increased in both subgroups but was greater in prestudy U-500R with CSII compared to MDI.ConclusionRegardless of previous insulin, people on high-dose insulin could lower A1C with U-500R, with additional benefit from CSII. These results may provide guidance for use of U-500R in clinical practice.     

Comparison of the Effect of Insulin Glulisine to Insulin Aspart on Breakfast Postprandial Blood Glucose Levels in Children with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus on Multiple Daily Injections

ObjectiveRapid-acting insulins, including insulin aspart (NovoLog) and lispro (Humalog), do not seem to effectively control postprandial glycemic excursions in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). The objective of this study was to determine if insulin glulisine (Apidra), another rapid-acting insulin analog, would be superior in controlling postprandial hyperglycemia in children with T1DM.MethodsThirteen prepubertal children ages 4 to 11 years completed this study. Inclusion criteria included T1DM ≥6 months, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbAlC) 6.9 to 10%, blood glucose (BG) levels in adequate control for 1 week prior to study start, multiple daily injections (MDI) with insulin glargine or determir once daily and aspart or lispro premeal. If fasting BG was 70 to 180 mg/dL, subjects received insulin glulisine alternating with aspart prior to a prescribed breakfast with a fixed amount of carbohydrate (45, 60, or 75 g) for 20 days. Postprandial BG values were obtained at 2 and 4 hours.ResultsMean baseline BG values for insulin glulisine (136.4 ± 15.7 mg/dL; mean ± SD) and aspart (133.4 ± 14.7 mg/dL) were similar (P = .34). Mean increase in 2-hour postprandial BG was higher in glulisine (+113.5 ± 65.2 mg/dL) than aspart (+98.6 ± 66.9 mg/dL), (P = .01). BG remained higher at 4 hours (glulisine: 141.9 ± 36.5 mg/ dL, aspart: 129.0 ± 37.0 mg/dL) (P = .04). Although statistically insignificant, more hypoglycemic events occurred at 2-and 4-hours postprandial with insulin aspart.ConclusionInsulin aspart appears to be more effective than insulin glulisine in controlling 2-and 4-hour postprandial BG excursions in prepubertal children with T1DM. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19:614-619)     

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)     

持续皮下输注赖脯胰岛素治疗老年非初诊2型糖尿病患者临床观察

目的：观察比较持续皮下输注赖脯胰岛素与常规注射预混赖脯胰岛素对老年非初诊2型糖尿病患者的疗效与安全性。方法：将58例老年2型糖尿病患者随机分为观察组（29例）与对照组（29例）,观察组用赖脯胰岛素经胰岛素泵持续皮下输注（CSI-I）,对照组用精蛋白锌重组赖脯胰岛素25注射液,2次／d,常规皮下注射。两组患者均给予糖尿病教育、饮食控制及适量运动,共治疗2周。比较治疗前后两组患者的血糖、胰岛素用量、血糖达标时间以及低血糖发生率。结果：治疗后两组患者空腹血糖、餐后血糖均较治疗前下降（P〈0．05）,观察组血糖达标时间、胰岛素用量均明显低于对照组（P〈0．05）。两组低血糖发生率无明显差异。结论：持续皮下输注赖脯胰岛素具有较好的疗效与安全性,是控制老年非初诊2型糖尿病患者较佳的方法。     

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Lispro in Obese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m² (obese) compared with patients with BMIs < 30 kg/m² (nonobese).MethodsA retrospective analysis of predefined endpoints from 7 randomized clinical trials of T2DM patients treated with insulin lispro was performed. The primary efficacy measure was to assess the noninferiority of insulin lispro in obese patients versus nonobese patients as measured by the change in hemoglobin A1C (HbA_1c) from baseline to Month 3 (n = 1,518), using a noninferiority margin of 0.4%. The secondary measures included overall hypoglycemia incidence and event rates and relative change in body weight.ResultsMean changes in HbA_1c from baseline (9.06% for obese and 8.92% for nonobese) to Month 3 were similar for obese patients (–1.03%) and nonobese (–1.02%), with a least squares (LS) mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of –0.05% (–0.17%, 0.07%; P = .384). The overall incidence of hypoglycemia (53% vs. 63%; P < .001) and rate of hypoglycemia (0.93 vs. 1.76 events per 30 days; P < .001) was significantly lower in obese patients compared with nonobese patients. The 2 BMI cohorts did not demonstrate a significant difference in mean percent changes in body weights (LS mean difference = 0.4% [–0.2%, 0.9%]; P = .202).ConclusionObese patients with T2DM treated with insulin lispro were able to achieve the same level of glycemic control as their nonobese counterparts, with some evidence supporting a reduced risk of hypoglycemia. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:389-398)     

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.     

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)     

Disparities in Utilization and Outcomes With Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion in Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

ObjectiveTo evaluate which factors determine utilization patterns and outcomes of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in young adults with type 1 diabetes.MethodsUtilizing the Optum deidentified electronic health record data set between 2008 to 2018 to perform a retrospective cohort study, we identified 2104 subjects with type 1 diabetes aged 18 to 30 years. We evaluated the effect of race on determining CSII utilization, HbA1c (%), and hospital admission for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Crude and adjusted estimates were computed using logistic regression and linear mixed models.ResultsThere was low CSII utilization among individuals who were Black, Hispanic, male, and those with governmental insurance. These groups also demonstrated higher HbA1c levels. Subjects who were Black, Hispanic, and those with governmental insurance had higher odds of DKA. Even when commercially insured, Black and Hispanic subjects demonstrated higher HbA1c levels, and Black individuals had higher odds of DKA.ConclusionIn a large electronic health record database in the U.S., there was low CSII utilization overall, particularly in Black and Hispanic minorities, despite CSII showing superior HbA1c control without an increase in DKA events.     

Estudio observacional de infusión subcutánea continua de insulina a lo largo de 7 años en el tratamiento de la diabetes mellitus tipo 1

This work reports the experience with use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in 112 type 1 diabetic patients followed up for 7 years and previously treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDII).Material and methodsA retrospective, observational study in 112 patients with diabetes mellitus treated with CSII from 2005 to 2012, previously treated with MDII and receiving individualized diabetic education with a specific protocol. Variables analyzed included: prevalence of the different indications of pump treatment; mean annual HbA1c and fructosamine values before and after CSII treatment; and hypoglycemia frequency and symptoms.ResultsThe most common reason for pump treatment was brittle diabetes (74.1%), followed by frequent or severe hypoglycemia or hypoglycemia unawareness (44.6%). Other indications were irregular food intake times for professional reasons (20.2%), dawn phenomenon (15.7%), pregnancy (12.3%), requirement of very low insulin doses (8.9%), and gestational diabetes (0.9%). HbA1c decreased by between 0.6% and 0.9%, and fructosamine by between 5.1% and 12.26%. Nine percent of patients experienced hypoglycemia weekly, 24% every two weeks, and 48% monthly. No hypoglycemia occurred in 19% of patients. Only 10% had neuroglycopenic symptoms. Hypoglycemia unawareness was found in 21%. Hypoglycemia was more common at treatment start, and its frequency rapidly decreased thereafter.ConclusionCSII therapy provides a better glycemic control than MDII treatment. Specific patient training and fine adjustment of insulin infusion doses are required to prevent hypoglycemic episodes, which are the most common complications, mainly at the start of treatment.     

Use of Insulin Pump Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes After Failure of Multiple Daily Injections

ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of insulin pump use (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; CSII) in patients with type 2 diabetes (DM2) who have failed multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy.MethodsIn this retrospective study, charts of patients with DM2 who were started on CSII after failure of MDI were reviewed. Patients were categorized as primarily manual (fixed) bolus users or calculated (using pump software) bolus users. The change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), weight, and basal insulin dose from baseline to 6 months was determined.ResultsFifty-seven patients (20 men and 37 women) ranging in age from 13 to 71 were identified in the study. A significant reduction in HbA1c was observed from 8.75 to 7.69% (P<.001). There was an increase in body mass index (BMI) from a mean of 36.53 to a mean of 37.21. A decrease in basal insulin requirement per kilogram of weight (−0.10 U/kg) was noted (P = .03). Seven patients using U-500 insulin in the pump also had a significant decrease in HbA1C of 1.1 % (P<.001), along with a 0.071 U/kg drop in basal insulin requirements (P<.001). When comparing calculated bolus users to manual bolus users, there was no difference in HbA1C improvement (P = .58).ConclusionWe found that CSII improves glucose control in patients with DM2 who have failed MDI despite a decrease in overall insulin requirements. This includes patients with severe insulin resistance using U-500 insulin. Use of frequent bolus adjustment incorporating carbohydrate counting and current glucose level does not appear to be required for this benefit. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19: 9-13)     

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     

甘精胰岛素联合门冬胰岛素对2型糖尿病患者脂糖代谢及生存质量的影响

目的:探讨甘精胰岛素联合门冬胰岛素对2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者脂糖代谢及生存质量的影响。方法:选取T2DM患者97例,根据随机数字表法将患者分为对照组(n=48)与研究组(n=49),对照组给予门冬胰岛素治疗,研究组在对照组基础上联合甘精胰岛素治疗,比较两组治疗前后血糖指标、血脂指标、生存质量情况,记录两组治疗期间不良反应情况。结果:两组患者治疗后空腹血糖(FBG)、餐后2 h血糖(2hPBG)、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)、总胆固醇(TC)、甘油三酯(TG)以及低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)水平均较治疗前下降,研究组低于对照组(P0.05)。两组患者治疗后心理评分、生理评分、社会关系评分、治疗依从性评分均较治疗前升高,且研究组高于对照组(P0.05)。研究组不良反应总发生率低于对照组(P0.05)。结论:甘精胰岛素联合门冬胰岛素可有效改善T2DM患者血糖、血脂水平,安全性较好,可提高患者生存质量。     

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)     

Results of a 24-Week Trial of Technosphere Insulin Versus Insulin Aspart in Type 2 Diabetes

ObjectiveTo compare glycemic efficacy of Technosphere insulin (TI) versus that of insulin aspart (IA), each added to basal insulin, in type 2 diabetes.MethodsThis randomized, 24-week trial included subjects aged from 18 to 80 years who were treated with subcutaneous insulin for 3 months and had glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) levels of 7.0% to 11.5%. After receiving stabilized insulin glargine doses during a 4-week lead in, the subjects were randomized to TI or IA. The primary end point was an HbA1C change from baseline, with the differences analyzed by equivalence analyses.ResultsIn the overall cohort (N = 309; males, 23.3%), mean (SD) age was 58.5 (8.4) years, body mass index was 30.8 (4.7) kg/m², weight was 82.2 (13.6) kg, and duration of diabetes was 12.2 (7.1) years. An intention-to-treat cohort had 150 subjects randomized to TI (mean [SD] HbA1C: 8.9% [1.1%]) and 154 randomized to IA (mean [SD] HbA1C: 9.0% [1.3%]). At 24 weeks, mean (SD) HbA1C value declined to 7.9% (1.3%) and 7.7% (1.1%) in the TI and IA cohorts, respectively. A treatment difference of 0.26% was not statistically significant, but the predefined equivalency margin was not met. Subjects receiving TI lost 0.78 kg compared to baseline; subjects receiving IA gained 0.23 kg (P =.0007). The incidence of mild/moderate hypoglycemia was lower for the TI cohort, though not statistically significant.ConclusionBoth TI and IA resulted in significant and clinically meaningful HbA1C reductions. TI also resulted in significant and clinically meaningful weight reductions. These data support the use of inhaled insulin as a treatment option for individuals with type 2 diabetes.     

Effect of Baseline Glycosylated Hemoglobin A1C on Glycemic Control and Diabetes Management following Initiation of Once-daily Insulin Detemir in Real-Life Clinical Practice

ObjectiveThe SOLVE study investigated the initiation of basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes on oral antidiabetic (OAD) treatment and outcomes in patients with varying levels of glycemic control at baseline.MethodsThis was an observational cohort study conducted in 10 countries using insulin detemir. Data were collected at 3 clinic visits (baseline, 12-week interim, and 24-week final visit).ResultsA total of 13,526 (77.9%) patients were included in the glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) subset analysis. Patients were grouped according to pre-insulin HbA1c values as follows: HbA1c <7.6% (n = 2,797); HbA1c 7.6-9% (n = 5,366), and HbA1c >9% (n = 5,363). A total of 27 patients experienced serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs) and/or severe hypoglycemia (3, 10, and 11 patients with pre-insulin HbA1c <7.6%, 7.6-9.0%, and >9.0%, respectively). All patient subgroups realized improvements in HbA1c, with the pre-insulin HbA1c >9% subgroup having the largest HbA1c reduction (-2.4% versus -0.9% and -0.2% for HbA1c subgroups 7.6-9% and <7.6%, respectively). In the total cohort (n = 17,374), the incidence of severe hypoglycemia decreased from 4 events per 100 person years to <1 event per 100 person years by final visit; the incidence of minor hypoglycemia increased from 1.6 to 1.8 events per person year.ConclusionsIn this study, insulin initiation was delayed until late in disease course, and overall concordance with internationally recognized guidelines was low. The initiation of once-daily insulin detemir was associated with substantial improvements in glycemic control and was not associated with an increase in severe hypoglycemia or weight gain. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19:462-470)     

Comparison of 2 Intensification Regimens with Rapid-Acting Insulin Aspart in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled by Once-Daily Insulin Detemir and Oral Antidiabetes Drugs: The Step-Wise Randomized Study

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of 2 intensification strategies for stepwise addition of prandial insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin detemir.MethodsThis randomized, controlled, parallel-group, open-label, 48-week trial compared the stepwise addition of insulin aspart to either the largest meal (titration based on premeal glucose values [SimpleSTEP]) or to the meal with the largest prandial glucose increment (titration based on postmeal glucose values [ExtraSTEP]) in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin and oral antidiabetes drugs. After 12 weeks of basal insulin detemir dosage optimization, participants with a hemoglobin A₁ level of 7% or greater entered three 12-week treatment periods with stepwise addition of a first insulin aspart bolus, then a second, and then a third, if hemoglobin A_1c remained at 7% or greater after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, respectively. Endpoints included hemoglobin A_1c (primary endpoint), fasting plasma glucose, self-measured plasma glucose, adverse events, and hypoglycemia.ResultsTwo hundred ninety-six patients were randomly assigned to treatment with insulin aspart in the SimpleSTEP (n = 150) and ExtraSTEP (n = 146) groups. Hemoglobin A_1c decreased by approximately 1.2% in both groups, to 7.5 ± 1.1% (SimpleSTEP) and 7.7 ± 1.2% (ExtraSTEP) at end of trial (estimated treatment difference, SimpleSTEP ExtraSTEP: -0.06% [95% confidence interval, -0.29 to 0.17]). Self-measured plasma glucose levels decreased with both regimens. At trial end, approximately 75% of patients in each group were using 3 prandial injections. The frequency of adverse events and hypoglycemia was low and similar between groups.ConclusionThe SimpleSTEP and ExtraSTEP strategies for stepwise addition of insulin aspart to 1 or more meals were equally effective at intensifying therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin and oral antidiabetic drugs. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:727-736)