Two Treatment Approaches for Human Regular U-500 Insulin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes not Achieving Adequate Glycemic Control on High-Dose U-100 Insulin Therapy With or Without Oral Agents: A Randomized,Titration-To-Target Clinical Trial

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of 2 dosing regimens for human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R, 500 units/mL) replacing high-dose U-100 insulins with or without oral antihyperglycemic drugs in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D).Methods: We conducted a 24-week, open-label, parallel trial in 325 patients (demographics [means]: age, 55.4 years; diabetes duration, 15.2 years; body mass index, 41.9 kg/m²; glycated hemoglobin [HbA_1c], 8.7%; U-100 insulin dose, 287.5 units administered in 5 injections/day [median; range, 2 to 10]). Patients were randomized to thrice-daily (TID, n = 162) or twice-daily (BID, n = 163) U-500R after a 4-week lead-in period. The primary outcome was HbA_1c change from baseline.Results: After 24 weeks, both treatments demonstrated significant HbA_1c reductions (TID, -1.12%; BID, -1.22%; both, P<.001) and clinical equivalence (difference, -0.10%; 95% confidence interval, -0.33 to 0.12%; noninferiority margin, 0.4%). Comparable increases in total daily U-500R dose (TID, 242.7 to 343.1 units; BID, 249.0 to 335.0 units) were observed. Incidence and rate of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (≤70 mg/dL) were lower for TID versus BID (P = .003 and P = .02, respectively); severe hypoglycemia was similar between treatments. Weight gain was similar in both groups (TID, 5.4 kg; BID, 4.9 kg).Conclusion: Initiation and titration of U-500R using either algorithm (TID or BID) improves glycemic control effectively and safely with fewer injections in patients with T2D treated with high-dose/high-volume U-100 insulin. These results provide clinicians with a practical framework for using U-500R in severely insulin-resistant patients with suboptimally controlled T2D.Abbreviations: BID = twice daily FAS = full analysis set HbA_1c = glycated hemoglobin PG = plasma glucose SMPG = self-monitored plasma glucose T2D = type 2 diabetes TDD = total daily dose TID = thrice daily U-500R = human regular U-500 insulin     

Patients Achieving Good Glycemic Control (HBA1c <7%) Experience A Lower Rate of Hypoglycemia With Insulin Degludec Than with Insulin Glargine: A Meta-Analysis of Phase 3A Trials

Objective: Meta-analysis to compare hypoglycemia rates of basal insulin degludec (IDeg) with insulin glargine (IGlar) in patients with diabetes achieving good glycemic control (hemoglobin A_1c [HbA_1c] <7% at end of trial).Methods: In a preplanned meta-analysis, patient data from 7 randomized, treat-to-target, 26- or 52-week trials in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who administered IDeg (n = 2,899) or IGlar (n = 1,431) once daily were analyzed. Using a negative binomial regression model, this meta-analysis compared hypoglycemia rates in patients achieving HbA_1c <7% at end of trial with IDeg (n = 1,347) and IGlar (n = 697).Results: In all trials, IDeg was noninferior to IGlar in HbA_1c reduction from baseline. At end of trial, 2,044 patients (T2DM, n = 1,661; T1DM, n = 383) achieved HbA_1c <7%. The overall confirmed hypoglycemia rate, defined as plasma glucose <56 mg/dL or severe hypoglycemia if requiring assistance, was significantly lower with IDeg versus IGlar (estimated rate ratio [ERR] IDeg:IGlar, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 0.98). The nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate, defined as occurring between midnight and 6:00 am, was significantly lower with IDeg (ERR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.77). In the maintenance period (16 weeks onward when average insulin dose and glycemic levels stabilized), the overall confirmed hypoglycemia rate was significantly lower (ERR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.92) and the nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate was significantly lower (ERR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.72) with IDeg versus IGlar.Conclusion: Patients with T1DM and T2DM achieved HbA_1c <7% with significantly lower rates of overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia with IDeg versus IGlar. The lower hypoglycemia rate with IDeg was more pronounced in the maintenance period.Abbreviations: ERR = estimated rate ratio; HbA_1c = hemoglobin A_1c; IDeg = insulin degludec; IGlar = insulin glargine; NPH = Neutral Protamine Hagedorn; PG = plasma glucose; T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus; T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus     

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.     

The Effect of Long-Term Use of U-500 Insulin Via Continuous Subcutaneous Infusion on Durability of Glycemic Control and Weight in Obese,Insulin-Resistant Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of U-500 insulin administered via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in patients with insulin-resistant type 2 diabetes and high insulin requirements.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the effects of U-500 insulin administered via CSII on durability of gly-cemic control (HbAlc), body weight, total daily insulin dose, and incidence of hypoglycemia in 59 patients with insulin-resistant type 2 diabetes (duration of treatment 1 to 9.5 years; mean treatment duration 49 months). All variables were analyzed by 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) from pre-U-500 baseline to time points from 3 to 114 months.ResultsAfter 3 months of U-500 insulin use, hemoglobin A1c dropped significantly from a mean baseline of 8.3% to a mean value of 7.3% (P = .003), and this improvement was sustained for over 66 months of use. There was no significant overall change in body weight or total daily insulin dose over time with the use of U-500 insulin. For those subjects who did gain weight, there was a parallel increase in insulin dose that correlated with weight gain.The overall incidence of severe hypoglycemia was low over the study period, with a mean occurrence of 0.1 episodes per patient per year.ConclusionsU-500 insulin is safe and effective for extended use (up to 9.5 years) in patients with insulin-resistant type 2 diabetes who require high insulin doses, and provides sustained glycemic control without causing excessive weight gain. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19:196-201)     

Clinical Efficacy and Patient Satisfaction with U-500 Insulin Pump Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

ObjectiveTo determine the safety and efficacy of U-500 regular insulin in pump therapy and to assess satisfaction with U-500 insulin pump therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe insulin resistance.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of medical records of 6 patients with type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance who had been using U-500 insulin pump therapy for at least 6 months. In addition, we conducted a telephone follow-up patient satisfaction survey.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 57 ± 6 years. Of the 6 patients (3 men and 3 women), 4 were white, 1 was black, and 1 was Asian. The mean hemoglobin A1c value before continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy with U-500 regular insulin was 9.1% ± 1.8%, and the mean U-100 insulin dose required was 391 ± 91 U/day. In comparison, the mean U-500 insulin dose required at 6 months was 59.2 ± 13.6 U/day, which is equivalent to 296 ± 68 U/day of U-100 insulin (P = 0.04), and the mean hemoglobin A1c value at 6 months after treatment with the insulin pump using U-500 regular insulin was 6.9% ± 0.9% (P = 0.03). In addition, our study patients lost a mean of 6.1 lb during the 6-month period, and no patient had clinically significant episodes of hypoglycemia. The majority of the patients reported a higher satisfaction with the U-500 insulin pump therapy in comparison with conventional insulin treatment.ConclusionU-500 insulin pump therapy is a novel alternative for patients with type 2 diabetes and severe insulin resistance who have not met glycemic control goals with use of standard intensive insulin regimens. (Endocr Pract. 2007;13:721-725)     

Efficacy of different antidiabetic drugs based on metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A network meta-analysis involving eight eligible randomized-controlled trials

Diabetes mellitus is one of the most prevalent metabolic diseases globally and it is increasing in prevalence. It is one of the most expensive diseases with respect to total health care costs per patient as a result of its chronic nature and its severe complications. To provide a more effective treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), this study aims to compare different efficacies of six kinds of hypoglycemic drugs based on metformin, including glimepiride, pioglitazone, exenatide, glibenclamide, rosiglitazone, and vildagliptin, in T2DM by a network meta-analysis that were verified by randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). Eight eligible RCT in consistency with the aforementioned six hypoglycemic drugs for T2DM were included. The results of network meta-analysis demonstrated that the exenatide + metformin and vildagliptin + metformin regimens presented with better efficacy. Patients with T2DM with unsatisfactory blood glucose control based on diet control, proper exercise, and metformin treatment were included. The original regimen and dose of medication were unchanged, followed by the addition of glimepiride, pioglitazone, exenatide, glibenclamide, rosiglitazone, and vildagliptin. The results of RCTs showed that all these six kinds of drugs reduced the HbA1c level. Compared with other regimens, exenatide + metformin reduced fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), total cholesterol (TC), and homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) levels, but increased the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) level; vildagliptin + metformin decreased FPI and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels; glibenclamide + metformin decreased the FPG level, but promoted HDL; and glimepiride + metformin decreased the TC level and rosiglitazone + metformin reduced the LDL level. Our findings indicated that exenatide + metformin and vildagliptin + metformin have better efficacy in T2DM since they can improve insulin sensitivity.     

Effects of Pramlintide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: An Analysis Using Daily Insulin Dose Tertiles

ObjectiveThe purpose of the analysis was to investigate if the efficacy and tolerability of 6 months of pramlintide therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) differed with increasing levels of concomitant insulin doses, using data from 3 previously described clinical trials.MethodsIn this post hoc analysis, data from 2 pooled, placebo-controlled pivotal trials and 1 clinical practice trial were evaluated by baseline insulin use tertile in patients with T2DM.ResultsIn the pivotal trials, both glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and body weight decreased similarly across tertiles with pramlintide. A1C decreased slightly and body weight remained relatively unchanged across tertiles with placebo. Similarly, in the clinical practice trial, pramlintide was associated with decreases in A1C, body weight, and total daily insulin use across the tertiles. Overall, the most common adverse events were gastrointestinal in nature, and the rate of severe hypoglycemia was low.ConclusionThese results suggest that pramlintide therapy was associated with improved A1C and decreased body weight, with a low rate of severe hypoglycemia, among patients with T2DM, regardless of baseline insulin use. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:1070-1075)     

U-500 Regular Insulin Use in Hospitalized Patients

ObjectiveU-500 is a potent insulin used in patients with severe insulin resistance. This study aimed to describe the inpatient insulin requirements, insulin regimens, and glycemic control of hospitalized patients using U-500.MethodsA retrospective chart review of adult patients using U-500 insulin at home who were admitted to Cleveland Clinic hospitals between 2001 and 2011 was performed. Two groups were compared: those who were given U-500 while hospitalized (Group A) and those who were switched to a different insulin regimen (Group B). The percentages of hypoglycemia days and hyperglycemia days were calculated as the number of days with the respective event divided by the length of stay (LOS) in days for each patient.ResultsThere were 61 patients, 59% of which were male, with a median body mass index (BMI) 38.4, age 60.8 years, hemoglobin A1c 8.9% or 74 mmol/mol, and LOS 5.0 days. The majority (66%) remained on a U-500-based insulin regimen, while the rest were switched to a combination of long-, intermediate-, short- and/or fast-acting insulin. The endocrinology service was consulted for 61% of patients. Glucose levels were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Group B was given less insulin in the hospital compared to their home regimen. Group A had more frequent hypoglycemia days (mean ± SD: 15.3 ± 21.3 vs. 2.8 ± 6.4%) and more frequent severe hyperglycemia days (16.8 ± 21.8 % vs. 6.3 ± 9.8%) than Group B.ConclusionThis study suggests that there is a subset of patients on U-500 at home who might be managed on conventional insulin in the hospital. Patients who remain on U-500 in the hospital tend to continue with a high insulin dose requirement, which might predispose them to more frequent hypoglycemia. (Endocr Pract. 2015;21:54-58)     

Safety and Efficacy of Exenatide in Combination with Insulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo evaluate the 1-year efficacy and safety of treatment with exenatide in combination with insulin (a use not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration).MethodsElectronic medical records of 3 private-practice endocrinologists were reviewed to identify patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving insulin who subsequently began exenatide therapy. Patients’ baseline hemoglobin A1c (A1C) levels, weights, lipid profiles, blood pressures, and medication utilization were compared with corresponding data obtained after a minimal duration of 12 months.ResultsWe identified 134 patients with T2DM initiating exenatide therapy in combination with insulin between April 2005 and April 2006. One-year follow-up information was available for 124 patients. Exenatide use resulted in a significant 0.87% reduction in A1C (P < .001), despite a 45% discontinuation of premeal insulin use (P < .001), a 9-U reduction in mean premeal insulin doses (P = .0066), a reduction in the median number of daily insulin injections from 2 to 1 (P = .0053), and a 59% discontinuation rate of sulfonylurea use (P = .0088). Exenatide use was associated with a mean weight loss of 5.2 kg (P < .001), with 72% of evaluable patients losing weight. Forty-eight patients (36%) discontinued exenatide therapy during the first year, primarily attributable to gastrointestinal intolerance. Fourteen patients (10%) experienced hypoglycemia, most of which was mild.ConclusionExenatide in combination with insulin in patients with T2DM was associated with significant reductions in A1C and weight after 1 year of therapy. This was offset, however, by an exenatide discontinuation rate of 36%, primarily due to adverse gastrointestinal effects. (Endocr Pract. 2008;14:285-292)     

Clinical Outcomes Using Long-Term Combination Therapy with Insulin Glargine and Exenatide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo examine the long-term effects of combination insulin glargine/exenatide treatment on glycemic control.MethodsWe conducted a 24-month retrospective US chart review of patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and hemoglobin A_1c (A1C) levels > 7.0% for whom glargine and exenatide were coprescribed in differing order (glargine added after exenatide [exenatide/glargine]; exenatide added after glargine [glargine/exenatide]). Treatment order groups were combined to form a pooled treatment group. Changes from baseline in A1C, patients with A1C ≤ 7.0%, body weight, glargine/exenatide daily dose, oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) use, and hypoglycemia were evaluated.ResultsTreatment groups were similar at baseline; however, patients in the glargine/exenatide group (n = 121) (vs exenatide/glargine group [n = 44]) had longer disease duration (11.8 vs 8.0 years) and took fewer OADs (1.7 vs 2.3). Overall, baseline A1C was 8.8 ± 1.3% and weight was 109.5 ± 25.3 kg. Significant A1C reductions emerged at month 6 and persisted throughout 24 months (vs baseline) in both treatment groups (pooled: –0.7 ± 1.6; P < .001), and 33.0% of patients achieved an A1C level ≤ 7.0%. After 24 months of exenatide/glargine, body weight remained unchanged (0.7 ± 8.3 kg; P = .640). With glargine/exenatide, body weight decreased (–2.5 ± 6.7 kg; P = .001). At month 24, daily glargine dose was 0.40 ± 0.23 units/kg for the exenatide/glargine group and 0.47 ± 0.30 units/kg for the glargine/exenatide group. Hypoglycemia frequency was similar in both treatment groups.ConclusionsRegardless of treatment order, long-term combined therapy with glargine and exenatide for up to 24 months in patients with inadequately controlled T2DM suggests reduction of A1C without significant weight gain or increased hypoglycemia risk. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:17-25)     

Effect of Total Daily Dose on Efficacy,Dosing, and Safety of 2 Dose Titration Regimens of Human Regular U-500 Insulin in Severely Insulin-Resistant Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: To examine the influence of baseline U-100 insulin total daily dose (TDD) on clinical outcomes in severely insulin-resistant patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes treated with human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) from the perspective of current dosing recommendations.Methods: Data from a recent prospective, randomized trial comparing thrice-daily (TID) and twice-daily (BID) U-500R in 325 patients transitioned from highdose/high-volume U-100 insulin were analyzed across baseline U-100 TDD units and units/kg subgroups (≤300 units [n = 224, 68.9%] and >300 units [n = 101, 31.1%]; ≤2 units/kg [n = 96, 29.5%] and >2 units/kg [n = 229, 70.5%]). Subgroup effects on treatment differences were evaluated, and outcomes between treatment-pooled subgroups were compared.Results: At 24 weeks, significant reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were observed for all subgroups (range: -1.01% to -1.38%, P<.05). Within-subgroup treatment effects were similar with no treatment-by-subgroup interactions; however, a greater reduction was noted in the >300-units subgroup (P = .04). No TID/BID differences within subgroups or treatment-by-subgroup interactions were observed for TDD or weight increase from baseline. Overall hypoglycemia rates were similar between treatments (within subgroups) and showed no interactions. However, rates were higher in the >300-units subgroup for severe hypoglycemia (P = .04) and in both higher-dose subgroups for documented symptomatic hypoglycemia ≤70 mg/dL (P<.001, units; P = .001, units/kg).Conclusion: Both TID and BID U-500R were efficacious and safe across TDD subgroups, though higher hypoglycemia rates were observed in higher-dose, treatment-pooled subgroups. U-500R dosing recommendations have been updated accordingly.Abbreviations:AE = adverse eventBID = twice dailyHbA1c = glycated hemoglobinQID = 4 times dailyRCT = randomized clinical trialT2D = type 2 diabetesTDD = total daily doseTID = thrice dailyU-500R = human regular U-500 insulin     

Reduced Risk of Hypoglycemia with Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Requiring High Doses of Basal Insulin: A Meta-Analysis of 5 Randomized Begin Trials

ObjectiveThis meta-analysis of 5 trials from the Phase 3a insulin degludec (IDeg) clinical trial program evaluated the risk of hypoglycemia in a subset of subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who required high basal insulin doses at the end of the trials.MethodsThis meta-analysis compared glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), basal insulin dose, body weight, and rates of overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia in a pooled population of T2D subjects using > 60 U basal insulin at trial completion. Five Phase 3a, open-label, randomized, treat-to-target, confirmatory 26-or 52-week trials with IDeg (n = 2,262) versus insulin glargine (IGlar) (n = 1,110) administered once daily were included. Overall confirmed hypoglycemia was defined as self-measured blood glucose < 56 mg/dL or any episode requiring assistance; nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia had an onset between 00:01 and 05:59 am.ResultsMore than one-third of IDeg-(35%) and IGlar-(34%) treated T2D subjects required > 60 U of basal insulin daily at the ends of the trial. Patients achieved similar mean HbA_1c values (estimated treatment difference [ETD] IDeg - IGlar: 0.05%, P = .44) while mean FPG values were lower with IDeg than IGlar (ETD: - 5.9 mg/ dL, P = .04) at end-of-trial. There was a 21% lower rate of overall confirmed hypoglycemic episodes for IDeg (estimated rate ratio [RR] IDeg/IGlar: 0.79, P = .02) and a 52% lower rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemic episodes for IDeg (RR: 0.48, P < .01).ConclusionIn this post hoc meta-analysis, more than 30% of subjects with T2D required > 60 U/day of basal insulin at the end of the trials. In these individuals, IDeg achieves similar HbA_1c reduction with significantly less overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia compared with IGlar. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:285-292)     

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)     

Use of Concomitant Glucose-Lowering Therapies and Associated Treatment Results Observed in Clinical Trials of Twice-Daily Exenatide

ObjectiveTo explore, by post hoc analyses of pooled data, the efficacy and safety of the use of exenatide twice daily (BID) in patients stratified by baseline glucose-low ering therapies.MethodsPatients with type 2 diabetes from long term randomized controlled trials who were treated with exenatide BID were classified into concomitant medica tion groups on the basis of background treatment (diet and exercise only, metformin only, sulfonylurea only, thia zolidinedione only, metformin + sulfonylurea, metformin + thiazolidinedione, or insulin with or without other oral antihyperglycemic medications). Seventeen studies were included in the analyses (N = 2,096).ResultsIn these analyses of patients treated with exenatide BID for 12 to 30 weeks, there were significant decreases from baseline in hemoglobin A_1c (A1C) and fast ing glucose levels in all groups and significant decreases from baseline in body weight in all groups except the thi azolidinedione-only group. The decrease in A1C appeared to be greater in the insulin group than in the other groups, likely because the insulin dose was titrated whereas doses of concomitant antihyperglycemic medications were gen erally not titrated. Overall, changes in blood pressure and lipids were small. Across all groups, the most common adverse effects were gastrointestinal events. Hypoglycemia was more common in the sulfonylurea-only, metformin + sulfonylurea, and insulin groups than it was in the other concomitant medication groups.ConclusionThe use of exenatide BID across a wide range of background therapies was associated with reductions in A1C, fasting glucose, and body weight. Gastrointestinal adverse events were common. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:227-237)     

Optimized Human Regular U-500 Insulin Treatment Improves β-Cell Function in Severely Insulin-Resistant Patients with Long-Standing Type 2 Diabetes and High Insulin Requirements

Objective: To assess β-cell function and insulin sensitivity following improvement in glycemic control in severely insulin-resistant patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D).Methods: A subset of patients in a 24-week, open-label, randomized trial comparing thrice-daily (n = 14/162) versus twice-daily (n = 11/163) human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) underwent mixed meal tolerance testing at baseline and endpoint. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups (combined means: age, 54.0 years; diabetes duration, 13.6 years; body mass index, 38.8 kg/m²; glycated hemoglobin &lsqb;HbA_1c], 8.3%; U-100 insulin dose, 287.6 units/day, 2.6 units/kg/day). Primary outcome measure was ratio of area under the curve (AUC) for C-peptide to glucose (AUC_C-peptide/AUC_glucose) at 24-week endpoint.Results: Change from baseline HbA_1c, daily U-500R dose, and weight were -1.17% (P = .0002), +80.8 units (P = .0003), and +5.9 kg (P = .33), respectively. β-Cell function significantly improved after 24 weeks of U-500R therapy in combined treatment groups. The AUC_C-peptide/AUC_glucose increased 34.0% (ratio of least-squares geometric mean, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.18 to 1.52; P = .0001). Integral of total insulin secretion rate increased from 27.0 to 33.7 nmol/m², and glucose sensitivity improved from 18.3 to 24.0 pmol/min/m²/mM (both, P = .02). Matsuda index improved from 0.8 to 1.3 (P = .008).Conclusion: Despite long-standing diabetes and poor glycemic control at baseline, functional recovery of β-cells was observed with improved glycemic control in these severely insulin-resistant patients with T2D, possibly due to alleviation of glucotoxicity.Abbreviations:AUC = area under the curveBID = twice dailyHbA_1c = glycated hemoglobinISR = insulin secretion rateLSM = least-squares meanMMTT = mixed meal tolerance testPG = plasma glucoseT2D = type 2 diabetesTDD = total daily doseTID = thrice dailyU-500R = human regular U-500 insulin     

Real-World Insulin Treatment Persistence among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

ObjectiveTo evaluate real-world treatment persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating treatment with insulin.MethodsPatient-level data were pooled from 3 previously published observational retrospective studies evaluating patients with T2DM who were previously on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) and initiated with a basal analog insulin (insulin glargine or insulin detemir). Treatment persistence was defined as remaining on the study drug during the 1-year follow-up period without discontinuation or switching after study drug initiation. Analyses were conducted to identify baseline factors associated with persistence with insulin therapy and to estimate the association between insulin treatment persistence and patients’ clinical and economic outcomes during the follow-up period.ResultsA total of 4,804 patients with T2DM (insulin glargine: n = 4,172, insulin detemir: n = 632) were included. The average insulin persistence rate over the 1-year follow-up period was 65.0%. A significantly higher persistence rate was associated with older age, initiation with insulin glargine using either disposable pens or vial-and-syringe, and with baseline exenatide or sitagliptin use. Higher insulin treatment persistence was also associated with lower hemoglobin A_1c (A1C) at follow-up, a greater reduction in A1C from baseline, and lower health care utilization.ConclusionIn real-world settings, treatment persistence among patients with T2DM initiating basal insulin is influenced by the type of insulin and patient factors. Greater insulin treatment persistence is linked to improved clinical outcomes and reduced health care utilization. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:52-61)     

Evaluation of Insulin Glargine and Exenatide Alone and in Combination: a Randomized Clinical Trial with Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Ambulatory Glucose Profile Analysis

Objective: Characterize the effectiveness of insulin glargine alone, exenatide alone, or combined in subjects taking stable doses of metformin and evaluate their impact on hemoglobin A1C, hypoglycemia, weight, and glucose variability.Methods: Open-label, randomized, parallel-arm study of adults with type 2 diabetes naïve to both insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist who were not at A1C goal despite treatment with metformin. This prospective interventional study employed blinded continuous glucose monitoring ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) reports over 32 weeks. Subjects were randomized to treatment with glargine (Iglar), exenatide (GLP-1), or combination of glargine and exenatide (Iglar + GLP-1). At midpoint, those not at A1C target had the second medication added; those on Iglar + GLP-1 continued therapy optimization.Results: Decreases in A1C were: 7.6 to 6.2% for Iglar + GLP-1, 7.5 to 6.6% for Iglar, and 7.5 to 6.4% for GLP-1. Iglar + GLP-1 achieved A1C targets faster (14 to 16 weeks) but had more hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia rates increased slightly for all arms. Weight loss was achieved in all regimens including GLP-1. Glucose variability was not reduced to the same extent in the Iglar arm as the GLP-1 arm.Conclusion: Addition of Iglar and/or GLP-1 to metformin for patients not at treatment goal was safe and effective. The order of medication addition needs to consider individualized AGP patterns and goals. Iglar + GLP-1 resulted in rapid A1C lowering, whereas GLP-1 was noted to have less hypoglycemia. Weight loss was most pronounced in GLP-1 monotherapy, suggesting that GLP-1 may mitigate the weight gain of Iglar. Any treatment with GLP-1 showed significant decreases in glucose variability.Abbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1c; AGP = ambulatory glucose profile; CGM = continuous glucose monitoring; GLM = general linear model; GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide 1 (exenatide); Iglar = insulin glargine; SGLT2 = sodium-glucose cotransporter 2; SMBG = self-monitoring blood glucose; SU = sulfonylurea; T2D = type 2 diabetes mellitus     

Analysis of Effectiveness of Human U-500 Insulin in Patients Unresponsive to Conventional Insulin Therapy

ObjectiveTo present a retrospective analysis of the effects of human U-500 insulin in 20 patients with type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance.MethodsMedical records of 20 patients with type 2 diabetes who had received U-500 insulin for at least 6 months were reviewed to determine glycemic control before and after this therapy. Human regular U-500 insulin therapy was initiated at a unit dosage equivalent to the previous standard insulin dosage. Comparisons of hemoglobin A1c levels, insulin doses, and body mass index at baseline and 6 months after changing to U-500 insulin therapy were analyzed.ResultsIn the 10 female and 10 male study subjects, the mean (± SD) hemoglobin A1c level was 9.59 ± 1.37% initially, and it decreased to 8.53 ± 1.11% at 3 months and to 7.83 ± 1.26% at 6 months after initiation of U-500 insulin therapy. In comparison with baseline, these decreases were statistically significant. The amount of insulin used and the body mass index did not change significantly from baseline to 6 months after initiation of U-500 insulin treatment.ConclusionAnalysis of data suggests that U-500 insulin therapy yields improved glycemic control in insulin-resistant patients who have poor control of blood glucose with use of standard insulin regimens. There is no proof, however, that improved glycemic control by this method decreases diabetes-related complications or improves survival. Further studies must be performed before U-500 insulin can be recommended as a standard therapy for patients with insulin resistance. (Endocr Pract. 2005;11:305-307)     

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)