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)     

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

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

Reduced Hypoglycemia and Comparable Efficacy with Insulin Glargine 300 U/ML Versus Insulin Glargine 100 U/ML in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Achieving Different Levels of Prebreakfast Self-Monitored Plasma Glucose

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who reached prebreakfast self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) levels <100 and <130 mg/dL.Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of insulin-naïve (EDITION 3, NCT01676220) and experienced (EDITION 2, NCT01499095) patients with uncontrolled T2D, randomized to 6 months of Gla-300 versus Gla-100 treatment. Endpoints included glycated hemoglobin A1c change, hypoglycemia incidence, and event rates. Separate comparisons were done for patients achieving prebreak-fast fasting glucose of <100 versus ≥100 mg/dL and <130 versus ≥130 mg/dL.Results: Efficacy did not differ significantly between treatments in either study. Overall, basal insulin doses were ~10% higher with Gla-300 versus Gla-100. EDITION 2: overall and documented (≤70 mg/dL) hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 in all SMPG groups except <100 mg/dL; nocturnal hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower with Gla-300 in all SMPG groups. EDITION 3: overall hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower with Gla-300 in patients with SMPG ≥100 mg/dL and those with SMPG <130 mg/dL; documented hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower in all SMPG groups except ≥130 mg/dL. Nocturnal and nocturnal documented hypoglycemia rates did not differ by treatment group. Hypoglycemia incidence did not differ by treatment in any SMPG group.Conclusion: In patients with T2D initiating basal insulin or previously treated for ≥6 months with basal insulin, Gla-300 provides similar efficacy to Gla-100 and reduces risk of hypoglycemia for many patients, despite a ~10% higher insulin dose.Abbreviations: A1C = glycated hemoglobin A1c; ADA = American Diabetes Association; Gla-100 = insulin glargine 100 U/mL; Gla-300 = insulin glargine 100 U/mL; OAD = oral antidiabetes drug; SMPG = self-monitored plasma glucose; T2D = type 2 diabetes     

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)     

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)     

De-Intensification of Diabetes Treatment in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Objective: De-intensification of diabetes treatment is recommended in elderly patients with tight glycemic control at high risk of hypoglycemia. However, rates of de-intensification in endocrine practice are unknown. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the rate of de-intensification of antidiabetic treatment in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and tight glycemic control.Methods: All patients with ≥2 clinic visits over a 1-year period at a major academic diabetes center were included. De-intensification of diabetes treatment was defined as a decrease or discontinuation of any antidiabetic drug without adding another drug, or a reduction in the total daily dose of insulin or a sulfonylurea drug with or without adding a drug without risk of hypoglycemia.Results: Out of 3,186 unique patients, 492 were ≥65 years old with T2DM and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) <7.5% (<58 mmol/mol). We found 308 patients treated with a sulfonylurea drug or insulin, 102 of whom had hypoglycemia as per physician note. Among these 102 patients, 38 (37%) were advised to de-intensify therapy. In a subgroup analysis of patients ≥75 years old with HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol), we found that out of 23 patients treated with a sulfonylurea drug or insulin and reporting hypoglycemia, 11 (43%) were advised de-intensification of therapy. There were no significant predictors of de-intensification of treatment.Conclusion: Our study suggests that de-intensification of antidiabetic medications is uncommon in elderly patients with T2DM. Strategies may need to be developed to prevent the potential harm of overtreatment in this population.Abbreviations: ADA = American Diabetes Association; CGM = continuous glucose monitoring; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus; UKPDS = United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study     

Insulin resistance and decreased spexin in Indian Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Spexin is novel biomarker, which plays a potential role in glucose and lipid metabolisms. However, there was paucity of serum spexin levels in obesity and diabetes mellitus subjects. Hence the current study was aimed to find the relationship between the serum spexin levels in type 2 Diabetes mellitus (type 2 DM) with extrapolation of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. A cross-sectional study included 330 participants, subdivided as control (n=110), type 2 DM (n=110) and type 2 DM with CVD groups (n=110). HbA1c, insulin, lipid profile, spexin & leptin including blood pressure and body mass index were analyzed from all the participants. The serum spexin levels (ng/ml) were significantly decreased in type 2 DM (mean ± sd: 0.65 ± 0.03) and type 2 DM with CVD (0.48 ± 0.02) groups compared to the control (0.79 ± 0.03) group (p<0.001). The decreased spexin levels were observed in type 2 DM, and further more decreased in type 2 DM with CVD patients compared to controls indicating that spexin levels could be served as an early prediction of obesity-induced T2DM with CVD risk.     

Liraglutide as Additional Treatment to Insulin in Obese Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveBecause approximately 40% of patients with type 1 diabetes have the metabolic syndrome, we tested the hypothesis that addition of liraglutide to insulin in obese patients with type 1 diabetes will result in an improvement in plasma glucose concentrations, a reduction in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), a fall in systolic blood pressure, and weight loss.MethodsThis is a retrospective analysis of data obtained from 27 obese patients with type 1 diabetes treated with liraglutide in addition to insulin. Patients were also treated for hypertension. Paired t tests were used to compare the changes in HbA1c, insulin doses, body weight, body mass index, 4-week mean blood glucose concentrations (28-day insulin pump mean blood glucose), blood pressure, and lipid parameters prior to and 180 ± 14 days after liraglutide therapy.ResultsMean glucose concentrations fell from 191 ± 6 to 170 ± 6 mg/dL (P = .002). HbA1c fell from 7.89 ± 0.13% to 7.46 ± 0.13% (P = .001), without an increase in frequency of hypoglycemia. Mean body weight fell from 96.20 ± 3.68 kg to 91.56 ± 3.78 kg (P<.0001). Daily total and bolus doses of insulin fell from 73 ± 6 to 60 ± 4 (P = .008) units and from 40 ± 5 to 29 ± 3 units (P = .011), respectively. Mean systolic blood pressure fell from 130 ± 3 to 120 ± 4 mm Hg (P = .020).ConclusionAddition of liraglutide to insulin in obese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus leads to improvements in glycemic control and HbA1c and to reductions in insulin dose, systolic blood pressure, and body weight. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19:963-967)     

Optimized Basal-Bolus Insulin Regimens in Type 1 Diabetes: Insulin Glulisine Versus Regular Human Insulin in Combination with Basal Insulin Glargine

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of insulin glulisine (GLU), a new rapid-acting insulin analogue, injected 0 to 15 minutes before or immediately after meals, with regular human insulin (RHI), injected 30 to 45 minutes before meals.MethodsPatients with type 1 diabetes (N = 860) received once-daily insulin glargine and subcutaneous injections of either GLU (premeal or postmeal) or premeal RHI in this open-label, randomized, controlled, multicenter, parallel-group, 12-week study.ResultsBaseline to endpoint changes in mean glycated hemoglobin (as A1c equivalents) (A1c) occurred in the premeal GLU, postmeal GLU, and premeal RHI groups (-0.26%, -0.11%, and -0.13%, respectively). The reduction in A1c was greater for the premeal GLU group in comparison with the RHI group (P = 0.02) and the post-meal GLU group (P = 0.006); no significant between-treatment difference was found for postmeal GLU versus RHI. Overall, blood glucose profiles were similar in all 3 treatment groups but were significantly lower for premeal GLU 2-hour postbreakfast measurements (premeal versus postmeal GLU, P = 0.0017; premeal GLU versus RHI, P = 0.0001) and 2-hour postdinner measurements (premeal GLU versus RHI, P = 0.0001; premeal versus postmeal GLU, P = 0.0137). Severe hypoglycemic episodes were comparable for premeal GLU, postmeal GLU, and pre-meal RHI groups (8.4%, 8.4%, and 10.1%, respectively). Body weight increased (+ 0.3 kg) in the RHI and premeal GLU groups; however, weight decreased in the postmeal GLU group (-0.3 kg; between-treatment difference, P = 0.03).ConclusionBetter A1c reductions were obtained with premeal GLU, but postmeal administration of GLU was as safe and effective as premeal GLU or RHI in combination with insulin glargine and was not associated with weight gain. (Endocr Pract. 2005;11:11-17)     

Exenatide Therapy in Obese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Treated with Insulin

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of exenatide on clinical parameters in obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus whose hyperglycemia is not adequately controlled despite treatment with oral hypoglycemic agents and insulin.MethodsIn this retrospective analysis, clinical progress of 52 obese patients with type 2 diabetes treated with exenatide, 5 mcg twice daily, in an outpatient setting was reviewed. Treatment initiation was between September and December 2005. Mean follow-up period was 26 weeks. Thirty-eight patients took exenatide regularly (Group A); 14 patients discontinued exenatide because of insurance, personal, or economic reasons (Group B). Measurements at baseline and at follow-up included body weight; blood pressure; and levels of hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), and plasma lipids. Insulin dosage requirements were assessed.ResultsMean body weight (± standard error of the mean) decreased by 6.46 ± 0.8 kg (P < .001) in Group A and increased by 2.4 ± 0.6 kg in Group B (P < .001). In Group A, mean HbA_1c decreased by 0.6 ± 0.21% (P = .007), and the insulin dosage requirement decreased for rapid-acting and mixed insulins (P < .02). In Group A, means of the following parameters decreased: serum total cholesterol by 8.5 ± 3.3% (P = .03), triglycerides by 26 ± 7.6% (P = .01), systolic blood pressure by 9.2 ± 3.3 mm Hg (P = .02), and high-sensitivity CRP by 34 ± 14.3% (P = .05). These indices did not change in Group B.ConclusionExenatide effectively treats obese patients with type 2 diabetes on insulin, leading to weight loss and reduction in levels of HbA_lc, systolic blood pressure, triglycerides, and high-sensitivity CRP. (Endocr Pract 2007;13:444-450)     

Treatment of Hypogonadism with Testosterone in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of testosterone treatment on insulin resistance, glycemic control, and dyslipidemia in Asian Indian men with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypogonadism.MethodsWe conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in 22 men, 25 to 50 years old, with T2DM and hypogonadism. Patients were treated with intramuscularly administered testosterone (200 mg every 15 days) or placebo for 3 months in random order, followed by a washout period of 1 month before the alternative treatment phase. The primary outcomes were changes in fasting insulin sensitivity (as measured by homeostasis model assessment [HOMA] in those patients not receiving insulin), fasting blood glucose, and hemoglobin A1c. The secondary outcomes were changes in fasting lipids, blood pressure, body mass index, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and androgen deficiency symptoms. Statistical analysis was performed on the delta values, with the treatment effect of placebo compared with the effect of testosterone.ResultsTreatment with testosterone did not significantly influence insulin resistance measured by the HOMA index (mean treatment effect, 1.67 ± 4.29; confidence interval, -6.91 to 10.25; P > .05). Mean change in hemoglobin A1c (%) (-1.75 ± 5.35; -12.46 to 8.95) and fasting blood glucose (mg/dL) (20.20 ± 67.87; -115.54 to 155.94) also did not reach statistical significance. Testosterone treatment did not affect fasting lipids, blood pressure, and anthropometric determinations significantly.ConclusionIn this study, testosterone treatment showed a neutral effect on insulin resistance and glycemic control and failed to improve dyslipidemia, control blood pressure, or reduce visceral fat significantly in Asian Indian men with T2DM and hypogonadism. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:570-576)     

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)     

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 Ideglira in Older Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: The efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) in older patients has not yet been reported. This analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IDegLira in patients aged ≥65 years.Methods: A post hoc analysis compared results of patients aged ≥65 versus <65 years from DUAL II, III, and V. These were 26-week, phase 3, randomized, twoarm parallel, treat-to-target trials in patients already taking injectable glucose-lowering agents. We evaluated 311 patients aged <65 and 87 patients aged ≥65 years from DUAL II, 326 patients <65 years and 112 patients ≥65 years from DUAL III, and 412 patients <65 years and 145 patients ≥65 years from DUAL V. Patients were randomized to IDegLira or insulin degludec (DUAL II), IDegLira or unchanged glucagon-like peptide 1–receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) (DUAL III), or IDegLira or IGlar U100 (DUAL V).Results: In patients ≥65 years, hemoglobin A1C decreased to a greater extent with IDegLira than with comparators (estimated treatment differences, -1.0% &lsqb;-1.5; -0.6]_{95% confidence interval &lsqb;CI]}, -0.8% &lsqb;-1.0; -0.5]_{95% CI}, and -0.9% &lsqb;-1.3; -0.6]95%CI) for DUAL II, V, and III, respectively; all P<.001). These mirrored results of patients <65 years of age. Hypoglycemia rates were lower with IDegLira versus basal insulin and higher versus unchanged GLP-1RA (estimated rate ratios, 0.5 &lsqb;0.2; 1.6]_{95% CI} &lsqb;P = .242]; 0.3 &lsqb;0.1; 0.5]_{95% CI} &lsqb;P<.001], and 11.8 &lsqb;3.3; 42.8]_{95% CI} &lsqb;P<.001] for DUAL II, V, and III, respectively).Conclusion: Patients aged ≥65 years on basal insulin or GLP-1RA can improve glycemic control with IDegLira, and it is well tolerated overall.Abbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1C; AE = adverse event; CI = confidence interval; Degludec = insulin degludec; EOT = end of trial; ETD = estimated treatment difference; FPG = fasting plasma glucose; GLP-1RA = glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist; IDegLira = insulin degludec/liraglutide; IGlar U100 = insulin glargine 100 U/mL; SU = sulfonylurea; T2D = type 2 diabetes     

胰岛素联合阿仑膦酸钠对2型糖尿病骨质疏松症患者骨代谢的影响

目的:研究胰岛素联合阿仑膦酸钠对2型糖尿病(T2DM)骨质疏松症患者骨代谢的影响。方法:选择从2010年1月到2015年7月在医院治疗的T2DM合并骨质疏松症患者208例纳入本次研究。依照随机数字表法将患者划分成单用胰岛素组(对照1组)、单用二甲双胍组(对照2组)、二甲双胍及阿仑膦酸钠组(对照3组)以及胰岛素及阿仑膦酸钠组(联合组)各52例,各组在常规补钙治疗的基础上分别给予对应治疗措施,比较各组治疗前后骨代谢相关指标,以及各组治疗过程中的不良反应。结果:组内相比,治疗后联合组的骨密度(BMD)、血清骨特异型碱性磷酸酶(BAP)及骨钙素(BGP)明显高于治疗前,人抗酒石酸酸性磷酸酶5b(TRAP-5b)明显低于治疗前,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);而其他三组治疗前后的BMD、BAP、TRAP-5b和BGP相比,差异均不显著(P0.05)。组间相比,治疗后联合组的BMD、BAP及BGP明显高于其他三组,TRAP-5b明显低于其他三组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。各组的不良反应总发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P0.05)。结论:利用胰岛素以及阿仑膦酸钠联合治疗T2DM合并骨质疏松症患者,具有较好的疗效,同时还可有效改善其骨代谢指标水平,值得在临床上予以推广。     

The Use of Premixed Insulin Analogues in the Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Advantages and Limitations

Background:Intensive, target-oriented therapy is the standard of care in the management of patients with type 2 diabetesmellitus (DM). Early and aggressive use of insulin that is as close as possible to the physiologic pattern of insulin secretion from healthy pancreatic β-cells is advocated to achieve glycemic goals and reduce complications of DM.Objective:The objective of this article was to review the characteristics, advantages, and drawbacks of premixedinsulin analogues and to evaluate their role in the treatment of patients with type 2 DM.Methods:A PubMed search of articles from 1990 to 2006 was undertaken using the search terms type 2 diabetes, basalbolus therapy, premixed insulins, biphasic insulins, and insulin analogues. Pertinent content from relevant articles was extracted and combined with the authors' knowledge, experience, and clinical expertise.Results:The advent of insulin analogues has streamlined the treatment of patients with DM. When to initiate insulin during the course of treatment is the subject of much debate. Insulin therapy targeting both fasting and postprandial hyperglycemia is important in achieving optimal blood glucose (BG) control in patients with type 2 DM. A practical and feasible option is the use of >1 injection of premixed insulin analogues. Premixed insulin preparations provide both basal and prandial coverage because of their biphasic pharmacokinetic properties. Clinical trials have shown that these agents improve glycemic control, are associated with an acceptably low rate of severe hypoglycemia, and have a high degree of patient acceptance. Limitations include the inability to adjust the long- and short-acting components separately, to use a flexible regimen of self-titration and premeal bolus-insulin calculations, and to adequately treat postlunch and earlymorning BG elevations.Conclusion:Clinicians should be aware of premixed insulin analogues' advantages and limitations so that these agentscan be used appropriately in the treatment of patients with type 2 DM.     

Insulin Therapy and Hypoglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Background: Iatrogenic hypoglycemia, the limiting factor in the glycemic management of diabetes mellitus (DM), is the result of therapeutic insulin excess and compromised physiological and behavioral defenses against falling plasma glucose concentrations.Objective: The goal of this article was to review the available evidence on insulin therapy and hypoglycemia, with a focus on type 2 DM.Methods: This review was based on the author's clinical experience, his >3 decades of translational research in the area of hypoglycemia, and his knowledge of the relevant preclinical and clinical literature.Results: Glycemic defenses become compromised rapidly in type 1 DM but slowly in type 2 DM. As a result, the frequency of hypoglycemia increases progressively as patients approach the insulin-deficient end of the spectrum of type 2 DM. Indeed, it appears that most episodes of hypoglycemia, including those of severe hypoglycemia, occur in individuals with type 2 DM. The conventional risk factors for hypoglycemia are based on relative or absolute insulin excess. It is clear that the pathogenesis of hypoglycemia-associated autonomic failure, and thus an increased risk for iatrogenic hypoglycemia, stems fundamentally from insulin deficiency. Relevant additional risk factors include the degree of insulin deficiency, a history of severe hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia unawareness, or both, as well as recent antecedent hypoglycemia, prior exercise and sleep, and aggressive glycemic therapy per se in advanced type 2 DM, just as in type 1 DM. The prevention of hypoglycemia involves the practice of hypoglycemia risk reductionȔdiscussion of the issue, application of the principles of aggressive therapy, and consideration of both the conventional risk factors and those relevant to compromised glycemic defensesȔin advanced type 2 DM, just as in type 1 DM. With this approach, it is possible to improve glycemic control and reduce the frequency of hypoglycemia in many people with DM.Conclusions: Pending the prevention and cure of DM, people with this disease need safe and effective therapies. Ultimately, that will require glucose-regulated insulin replacement or secretion. In the meantime, insight into the mechanisms of hypoglycemia-associated autonomic failure may lead to interventions that will further improve the lives of people affected by DM by reducing the frequency of hypoglycemia without compromising glycemic control.(Insulin. 2007;2:127-133)