A cross-sectional survey among patients and prescribers on insulin dosing irregularities and impact of mild (self-treated) hypoglycemia episodes in Spanish patients with type 2 diabetes as compared to other European patients

Background and objectiveIn Spain, data suggest that 13.8% of adults have diabetes. Two important aspects in diabetes management are mild hypoglycemic episodes and poor treatment adherence. This study assesses the impact of missed insulin doses and prevalence of mistimed and reduced insulin doses and mild hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin analogues in Spain, and compares the data collected to pooled data from 8 other European countries (OECs).Materials and methodsGAPP2 was an international, online, cross-sectional study of diabetic patients aged ≥40 years treated with long-acting insulin analogues and their healthcare professionals. Patients and healthcare professionals were recruited from online research panels. Data reported in Spain are compared to pooled data from 8 OECs.ResultsIn Spain, 1–3% of patients reported they had reduced, missed, or mistimed at least one insulin does in the previous month. Significantly more OEC patients reported dosing irregularities (15–23%; all P < 0.01). In Spain, 77% of patients were worried and 59% felt guilty for missing a dose of basal insulin, while 24% reported that they were very worried about nocturnal hypoglycemia. Significantly fewer OEC patients reported worrying (47%; P < 0.01) and feeling guilty (37%; P < 0.01) about missing an insulin dose, or worry about nocturnal hypoglycemia (12%; P < 0.01).ConclusionsIn Spain, patients with type 2 diabetes report fewer dosing irregularities and hypoglycemic episodes as compared to patients from OECs. However, Spanish patients appear to have a reduced quality of life related to hypoglycemia as well as worry and guilt related to insulin dosing irregularities.     

Diabetes Duration and the Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Glargine Versus Comparator Treatment in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of diabetes duration on efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using insulin glargine versus comparator (oral antidiabetic drugs [OADs], dietary changes, or other insulins).MethodsData were pooled from randomized controlled clinical trials conducted in adults with T2DM with at least 24-week treatment with insulin glargine or a comparator, where predefined insulin titration algorithms were utilized to achieve fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations of ≤ 100 mg/dL. Glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C), FPG, and insulin dose and safety (hypoglycemia) outcomes were analyzed.ResultsNine studies were included in the analysis of 2,930 patients. Patients with shorter duration of diabetes were more likely to have greater reductions in A1C compared with those who had longer-duration disease (P < .0001). Disease duration did not affect change in FPG concentrations (P = .9017), but lower weight-adjusted insulin dose was correlated with longer-duration disease (P < .0001). Patients with longer-duration diabetes had increased risks of symptomatic hypoglycemia, confirmed hypoglycemia (self-monitored blood glucose < 50 mg/dL and < 70 mg/dL), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (all P < .001). No significant relationship was found between severe hypoglycemia and duration of diabetes. However, treatment with insulin glargine lowered A1C values more effectively than comparator treatments with fewer hypoglycemic episodes.ConclusionPatients with shorter-duration T2DM better achieved target A1C levels and had less hypoglycemia than those with longer disease duration. Insulin glargine was associated with reduced A1C and fewer hypoglycemic events than comparators, regardless of disease duration. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:120-128)     

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)     

Degludec,una nueva insulina basal de acción ultra-lenta para el tratamiento de la diabetes tipo 1 y 2: avances en investigación clínica

Degludec is the most recent molecule of the ultra-long-acting basal insulin analogues approved for human use. It forms soluble multihexamers which after subcutaneous injection are converted into monomers, and are thus slowly and continuously absorbed into the bloodstream. This absorption mechanism confers degludec an ultra-long and stable action profile, with no concentration peaks. This paper discusses the most recent studies in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus, which showed degludec to be non inferior in decreasing HbA1c, ensuring optimum glycemic control similar to that achieved with insulin glargine or detemir. Degludec also had an improved safety profile, as it was associated to a significantly lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia in both types of diabetes and to a potentially lower overall hypoglycemia rate in type 2 DM. Degludec also opens the possibility to use more flexible regimens.     

Adding Rapid-Acting Insulin or Glp-1 Receptor Agonist to Basal Insulin: Outcomes in A Community Setting

ObjectiveTo evaluate real-world outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving basal insulin who initiate add-on therapy with a rapid-acting insulin (RAI) or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist.MethodsData were extracted retrospectively from a U.S. health claims database. Adults with T2DM on basal insulin who added an RAI (basal + RAI) or GLP-1 receptor agonist (basal + GLP-1) were included. Propensity score matching (with a 1 up to 3 ratio) was used to control for differences in baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and health resource utilization. Endpoints included prevalence of hypoglycemia, pancreatic events, all-cause and diabetes-related resource utilization, and costs at 1-year follow-up.ResultsOverall, 6,718 matched patients were included: 5,013 basal + RAI and 1,705 basal + GLP1. Patients in both groups experienced a similar proportion of any hypoglycemic event (P = .4079). Hypoglycemic events leading to hospitalization were higher in the basal + RAI cohort (2.7% vs. 1.8%; P = .0444). The basal + GLP-1 cohort experienced fewer all-cause (13.55% vs. 18.61%; P < .0001) and diabetes-related hospitalizations (11.79% vs. 15.68%; P < .0001). The basal + GLP-1 cohort had lower total all-cause health care costs ($18,413 vs. $20,821; P = .0002) but similar diabetes-related costs ($9,134 vs. $8,985; P < .0001) compared with the basal + RAI cohort.ConclusionsAdd-on therapy with a GLP-1 receptor agonist in T2DM patients receiving basal insulin was associated with fewer hospitalizations and lower total all-cause costs compared with add-on therapy using an RAI and could be considered as an alternative to an RAI in certain patients with T2DM who do not achieve effective glycemic control with basal insulin. (Endocr Pract. 2015; 21:68-76)     

Insulin Glargine in the intensive care unit: A model-based clinical trial design

IntroductionCurrent successful AGC (Accurate Glycemic Control) protocols require extra clinical effort and are impractical in less acute wards where patients are still susceptible to stress-induced hyperglycemia. Long-acting insulin Glargine has the potential to be used in a low effort controller. However, potential variability in efficacy and length of action prevent direct in-hospital use in an AGC framework for less acute wards.MethodClinically validated virtual trials based on data from stable ICU patients from the SPRINT cohort who would be transferred to such an approach are used to develop a 24-h AGC protocol robust to different Glargine potencies (1.0×, 1.5× and 2.0× regular insulin) and initial dose sizes (dose = total insulin over prior 12, 18 and 24 h). Glycemic control in this period is provided only by varying nutritional inputs. Performance is assessed as %BG in the 4.0–8.0 mmol/L band and safety by %BG < 4.0 mmol/L.ResultsThe final protocol consisted of Glargine bolus size equal to insulin over the previous 18 h. Compared to SPRINT there was a 6.9–9.5% absolute decrease in mild hypoglycemia (%BG < 4.0 mmol/L) and up to a 6.2% increase in %BG between 4.0 and 8.0 mmol/L. When the efficacy is known (1.5× assumed) there were reductions of: 27% BG measurements, 59% insulin boluses, 67% nutrition changes, and 6.3% absolute in mild hypoglycemia.ConclusionBased on current understanding of Glargine behaviour, a robust protocol for a 24–48 clinical trial has been designed to safely investigate possible differences in efficacy and kinetics of Glargine in a critically ill population. This protocol is a first step towards developing a Glargine-based protocol for less acute wards. Ensuring robustness to variability in Glargine efficacy directly affects the performance and safety that can be obtained.     

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)     

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)     

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)     

Identifying Risk Factors for Severe Hypoglycemia in Hospitalized Patients with Diabetes

ObjectiveSome of the deleterious effects of hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients include increased rates of mortality and longer length of stay. Our primary objective was to identify the risk factors associated with severe hypoglycemia to identify those patients at highest risk.MethodsThe medical records of 5,026 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) admitted in 2010 were reviewed to identify those patients that developed severe hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] < 40 mg/dL). We performed c2 tests to assess statistical significance. Adjusted logical regression was used to determine the risk factors for hypoglycemia in the hospital.ResultsOut of 5,026 DM patients included in our review, 81 experienced severe hypoglycemia (1.6%). Statistically higher proportions of chronic kidney disease (CKD; 69.1% vs. 46.9%, P < .001), congestive heart failure (CHF; 48.1% vs. 28.5%, P < .001), sepsis (49.4% vs. 12.5%, P < .001), insulin use (45.7% vs. 26.04%, P = .000), type 1 DM (21% vs. 5.1%, P = .000), and cirrhosis (14.8% vs. 7.2%, P = .009) were seen in the severe hypoglycemic group compared to the nonsevere hypoglycemic group. Overall, 84% of patients who experienced an episode of severe hypoglycemia in the hospital (BG < 40 mg/dL) had a previous episode of hypoglycemia (BG < 70 mg/dL). The odds ratios (ORs) for type 1 DM, sepsis, previous hypoglycemia, and insulin use were 3.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81, 6.49), 2.64 (95% CI 1.6, 4.35), 46.1 (95% CI 24.76, 85.74), and 1.66 (95% CI 1.02, 2.69), respectively.ConclusionPrior episodes of hypoglycemia in the hospital, the presence of type 1 DM, insulin use, and sepsis were identified as independent risk factors for the development of severe hypoglycemia in the hospital. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:1051-1056)     

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)     

Patient-Led Versus Physician-Led Titration of Insulin Glargine in Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Multinational Atlas Study

ObjectiveSelf-adjustment of insulin dose is commonly practiced in Western patients with type 2 diabetes but is usually not performed in Asian patients. This multinational, 24-week, randomized study compared patient-led with physician-led titration of once-daily insulin glargine in Asian patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who were on 2 oral glucose-lowering agents.MethodsPatient-led (n = 275) or physician-led (n = 277) subjects followed the same dose-titration algorithm guided by self-monitored fasting blood glucose (FBG; target, 110 mg/dL [6.1 mmol/L]). The primary endpoint was change in mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) at week 24 in the patient-led versus physician-led titration groups.ResultsPatient-led titration resulted in a significantly higher drop in HbA_1c value at 24 weeks when compared with physician-led titration (− 1.40% vs. − 1.25%; mean difference, − 0.15; 95% confidence interval, − 0.29 to 0.00; P = .043). Mean decrease in FBG was greatest in the patient-led group (− 2.85 mmol/L vs. − 2.48 mmol/L; P = .001). The improvements in HbA_1c and FBG were consistent across countries, with similar improvements in treatment satisfaction in both groups. Mean daily insulin dose was higher in the patient-led group (28.9 units vs. 22.2 units; P < .001). Target HbA_1c of < 7.0% without severe hypoglycemia was achieved in 40.0% and 32.9% in the patient-led and physician-led groups, respectively (P = .086). Severe hypoglycemia was not different in the 2 groups (0.7%), with an increase in nocturnal and symptomatic hypoglycemia in the patient-led arm.ConclusionPatient-led insulin glargine titration achieved near-target blood glucose levels in Asian patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who were on 2 oral glucose-lowering drugs, demonstrating that Asian patients can self-uptitrate insulin dose effectively when guided. (Endocr Pract. 2015;21:143-157)     

Evaluation,Medical Therapy,and Course of Adult Persistent Hyperinsulinemic Hypoglycemia After Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery: A Case Series

ObjectiveTo describe the evaluation and treatment of hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia in adults who had undergone gastric bypass surgery. A small number of patients who undergo Roux-en-Y bypass surgery develop postprandial hypoglycemia in the absence of dumping. In some cases, such patients have been treated with pancreatectomy.MethodsWe report the demographics, diagnostic results, response to medical therapy, and subsequent course of 6 referral patients with post–Roux-en-Y gastric bypass hypoglycemia.ResultsCharacteristic clinical and metabolic parameters consistent with hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia were identified. Parameters were similar for both spontaneous and glucose-challenge-induced hypoglycemia. In the context of exclusively postprandial symptoms, simultaneous glucose ≤ 55 mg/dL, insulin ≥ 17 μU/mL, C peptide ≥ 3.0 ng/mL, and insulin to glucose ratio > 0.3 were associated with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. Five of 6 patients improved on therapy consisting of dietary modification plus either calcium channel blockade, acarbose, or both. Two patients have remained on therapy for 12 to 15 months. The nonresponder was atypical and had had hypoglycemic events for several decades. Three treated patients were subsequently observed to have undergone partial or complete remission from hypoglycemic episodes after 2 to 37 months of therapy. None of the 6 have undergone pancreatectomy, and none have evidence of insulinoma. Invasive diagnostic procedures were of limited utility.ConclusionIn a subset of patients with post–Roux-en-Y gastric bypass hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia, medical management can be efficacious and an alternative to partial pancreatectomy. In some cases, the disorder remits spontaneously. (Endocr Pract. 2015;21:237-246)     

Hypoglycemia in the Elderly with Diabetes: A Growing Problem with Emerging Solutions

Hypoglycemia is the major side effect of insulin therapy. The elderly are especially vulnerable to episodes of hypoglycemia, and with greater risks of complications such as falls. Two new long-acting basal insulins, glargine-300 (Gla-300) and degludec, are associated with lower incidences of hypoglycemia than previously available basal insulins. One of them, Gla-300, was studied in the elderly and has a lower incidence of hypoglycemia in patients over 65 years old. These new data should be incorporated into decision making when treating the elderly patient with insulin, whether they have type 1 or 2 diabetes.Abbreviations:A1c = glycated hemoglobin A1cGla-100 = glargine 100 U/mLGla-300 = glargine 300 U/mLGLP-1 RA = glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor analogue     

Optimizing Hospital Use of Intravenous Insulin Therapy: Improved Management of Hyperglycemia and Error Reduction With a New Nomogram

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) insulin administration with use of our institution’s old protocol (pre-nomogram phase) as compared with our new insulin nomogram (post-nomogram phase), which titrates insulin dose based on the rate of change of plasma glucose values and uses multipliers to determine the new insulin infusion rate.MethodsHospitalized adults receiving an IV insulin infusion in our tertiary care medical center were enrolled in this study after informed consent was obtained. The study was an observational analysis conducted before and after implementation of the new insulin infusion nomo-gram. Measurements included episodes of hypoglycemia and incidence of the following errors in the insulin infusion process: (1) episodes of documented failure to increase insulin infusion rate despite persistent hyper-glycemia and (2) number of times the IV infusion was stopped without subcutaneous administration of insulin.ResultsOverall, 66 patients were analyzed (38 in the pre-nomogram phase and 28 in the post-nomogram phase). The new nomogram reduced by nearly 3-fold (from 0.89 ± 0.68 to 0.36 ± 0.49 occurrence per patient per 24 hours; P < 0.001) the mean incidence of failure to give insulin subcutaneously before discontinuation of IV insulin infusion. Moreover, the nomogram nearly eliminated the error of caregiver nonresponsiveness to persistent hyperglycemia: mean incidence 0.39 ± 0.65 occurrence per patient per 24 hours before implementation of the new nomogram versus 0.02 ± 0.09 afterward (P < 0.002). There was no statistically significant difference in episodes of hypoglycemia between the 2 study groups.ConclusionSafe IV administration of insulin through error prevention is essential. Implementation of a new IV insulin infusion nomogram, which adjusts insulin infusion using multipliers, reduces errors and improves glycemic control without increasing hypoglycemic episodes. (Endocr Pract. 2005;11:240-253)     

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)     

Inpatient Management of Diabets Mellitus Among Noncritically Ill Patients at the University Hospital of Puerto Rico

ObjectiveTo describe the state of glycemic control in noncritically ill diabetic patients admitted to the Puerto Rico University Hospital and adherence to current standard of care guidelines for the treatment of diabetes.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of patients admitted to a general medicine ward with diabetes mellitus as a secondary diagnosis. Clinical data for the first 5 days and the last 24 hours of hospitalization were analyzed.ResultsA total of 147 noncritically ill diabetic patients were evaluated. The rates of hyperglycemia (blood glucose ≥ 180 mg/dL) and hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 70 mg/dL) were 56.7 and 2.8%, respectively. Nearly 60% of patients were hyperglycemic during the first 24 hours of hospitalization (mean random blood glucose, 226.5 mg/dL), and 54.2% were hyperglycemic during the last 24 hours of hospitalization (mean random blood glucose, 196.51 mg/dL). The mean random last glucose value before discharge was 189.6 mg/dL. Most patients were treated with subcutaneous insulin, with basal insulin alone (60%) used as the most common regimen. The proportion of patients classified as uncontrolled receiving basal-bolus therapy increased from 54.3% on day 1 to 60% on day 5, with 40% continuing to receive only basal insulin. Most of the uncontrolled patients had their insulin dose increased (70.1%); however, a substantial proportion had no change (23.7%) or even a decrease (6.2%) in their insulin dose.ConclusionThe management of hospitalized diabetic patients is suboptimal, probably due to clinical inertia, manifested by absence of appropriate modification of insulin regimen and intensification of dose in uncontrolled diabetic patients. A comprehensive educational diabetes management program, along with standardized insulin orders, should be implemented to improve the care of these patients. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:452-460)     

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)     

Omitting Late-Night Eating May Cause Hypoglycemia in “Well Controlled” Basal Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes

ObjectiveTo assess hypoglycemia caused by eating the last meal of the day earlier or its omission in “well controlled” type 2 diabetes mellitus patients treated with once-nightly basal insulin.MethodsPreviously basal insulin-titrated subjects (n = 20) (fasting plasma glucose, FPG, < 110 mg/dL and no self-reported hypoglycemia) underwent continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) during 3 consecutive eating conditions of 3 days each; (1) usual eating, (2) the last meal restricted to 18:00, and (3) 1 sequential meal omitted/day thereby creating a fasting day after transposing the 4-hour period after a meal with that when the meal was omitted. One 24-hour (00:00 to 00:00) period within each eating condition was selected for comparison.ResultsThe mean duration in all hypoglycemic ranges doubled (P = .0584 or greater) when the last meal was omitted or eaten at 18:09 ± 0:39 instead of 19:43 ± 1:01, the usual time for the subjects’ undisturbed eating. The mean duration of hypoglycemia was greatest between 00:00 to 06:00 compared to the 3 other 6-hour periods of the day.ConclusionsIncreased hypoglycemia occurs when the subject’s last meal is eaten earlier or omitted and may not be recognized because it occurs predominately during sleep. When titrating basal insulin from the morning FPG, considerations should be given to the effect of the last meal of the day and possible hypoglycemia between 00:00 and 06:00 to avoid excessive basal insulin treatment. (Endocr Pract. 2015;21:280-285)