Similar Cardiovascular Outcomes Between Insulin Detemir and Insulin Glargine In Type 2 Diabetic Patients With Extremely Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risks

Objective: The cardiovascular outcomes of insulin detemir in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or acute ischemic stroke (AIS) are unclear. The aim of our real-life cohort study was to evaluate the cardiovascular outcomes of insulin detemir (IDet) versus insulin glargine (IGlar) in T2DM patients after ACS or AIS.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted between June 1, 2005, and December 31, 2013, utilizing the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. A total of 3,129 ACS or AIS patients were eligible for the analysis. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by comparing 1,043 subjects receiving IDet with 2,086 propensity score-matched subjects who received IGlar. The primary composite outcome included cardiovascular (CV) death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) and nonfatal stroke.Results: The primary composite outcome occurred in 322 patients (30.9%) in the IDet group and 604 patients (29.0%) in the IGlar group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.32) with a mean follow-up of 2.4 years. No significant differences were observed for CV death (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.38), nonfatal MI (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.19), and nonfatal stroke (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.35). There were similar risks of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure and revascularization between the IDet group and the IGlar group (P = .647, .115, and .390 respectively).Conclusion: Compared with IGlar, in T2DM patients after ACS or AIS, IDet was not associated with increased risks of CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke.Abbreviations: ACS = acute coronary syndrome; AIS = acute ischemic stroke; ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CI = confidence interval; CV = cardiovascular; DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis; HHF = hospitalization for heart failure; HHS = hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state; HR = hazard ratio; IDet = insulin detemir; IGlar = insulin glargine; MI = myocardial infarction; NHIRD = National Health Insurance Research Database; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; PSM = propensity score matching; T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus     

A Bridge to Insulin Pump Therapy: Twice-Daily Regimen with NPH and Detemir Insulins During Initial Treatment of Youth with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo describe clinical outcomes in youth with new-onset type 1 diabetes mellitus (TlDM) treated with a modified, twice-daily regimen of a mixture of NPH insulin and rapid-acting insulin analogue at breakfast and separate injections of rapid-acting insulin analogue and insulin detemir at dinner.MethodsOur clinic database was used to describe changes in insulin doses, hemoglobin A_1c (A1C) levels, and frequency of severe hypoglycemia during the first year of therapy in young patients with T1DM diagnosed between September 2006 and April 2009. Data are presented as median values (25%, 75%).ResultsOverall, 108 patients (62 girls; mean age, 10.0 ± 0.4 years) were eligible for inclusion. Total daily insulin doses at 3, 6, and 12 months were 0.6 (0.4, 0.8), 0.7 (0.4, 0.9), and 0.8 (0.6, 0.9) U/kg, respectively. A1C levels were 9.8% (8.5%, 10.8%) at 2 weeks (baseline). Of the 108 patients, 19 had switched to insulin pump therapy by 3 months and 49 had switched by 12 months after initial diagnosis of T1DM. The 49 pump-treated patients had an A1C of 6.9% (6.6%, 7.3%), whereas the 59 injection- treated patients had an A1C of 7.2% (6.7%, 7.7%) by 12 months. There were only 6 severe hypoglycemic events in 5 patients; none occurred during the first 3 months, none occurred during the night, and all occurred in patients receiving insulin injection treatment.ConclusionA twice-daily insulin regimen that uses insulin detemir for overnight basal replacement and morning NPH insulin to avoid lunch and afternoon snack doses is an effective initial treatment for young patients with new-onset T1DM that can provide a smooth transition to intensive basal/bolus insulin pump therapy. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:862-866)     

Superiority of insulin analogues versus human insulin in the treatment of diabetes mellitus

The modern goals of insulin replacement in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1, T2DM) are A1C <6.5% long-term, and prevention of hypoglycaemia (blood glucose, BG <70 mg/dl). In addition to appropriate education and motivation of diabetic subjects, the use of rapid- and long-acting insulin analogues, is critical to achieve these goals. The benefits of rapid-acting analogues (lispro, aspart and glulisine have similar pharmacodynamic effects) compared with non-modified human regular insulin, are: (a) lower 1- and 2-h post-prandial blood glucose; (b) lower risk of late post-prandial hypoglycaemia (and therefore lower BG variability); (c) better quality of life (greater flexibility in timing and dosing of insulin). In T1DM, rapid-acting analogues improve A1C only by the extent to which replacement of basal insulin is optimized at the same time, either by multiple daily NPH administrations, or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), or use of the long-acting insulin analogues glargine or detemir. In T2DM, rapid-acting analogues reduce post-prandial hyperglycaemia more than human regular insulin, but systematic studies are needed to examine the effects on A1C. The benefits of long-acting insulin analogues glargine and detemir vs. NPH, are: (1) lower fasting BG combined with lower risk of hypoglycaemia in the interprandial state (night); (2) lower variability of BG. Glargine and detemir differ in terms of potency and duration of action. Detemir should be given twice daily in the large majority of people with T1DM, and in a large percentage of subjects with T2DM as well, usually at doses greater vs those of the once daily glargine. However, when used appropriately for individual pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, glargine and detemir result into similar effects on BG, risk of hypoglycaemia and A1C. Rapid- and long-acting insulin analogues should always be combined in the treatment of T1 and T2DM.     

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)     

When a unit of insulin is not a unit: Detemir dosing and insulin cost in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background: Increasing acceptance of basal-bolus insulin therapy for the control of diabetes mellitus (DM) has led to newer formulations of basal insulin analogues. The newest one is detemir.Objectives: Clinical evidence suggests that patients with type 2 DM require higher doses of detemir than other basal insulins to achieve equivalent glycemic control. This study examines evidence for greater dosing requirements and the implications of higher doses on the cost of insulin treatment.Methods: We performed a MEDLINE search for randomized, prospective studies comparing detemir with other basal insulins in patients with type 2 DM that were published in English between January 2000 and November 2008. The mean daily doses of basal and bolus insulin and the mean total daily insulin doses were determined. Overall weighted mean doses of the insulins were used to estimate the mean total daily insulin doses required for a 100-kg patient, and published 2008 US retail prices were used to estimate the retail costs of basal-bolus and basal-only insulin regimens.Results: Seven trials involving 3311 patients were identified in the literature search. The mean total daily insulin dose was 0.80 unit/kg for detemir-based regimens and 0.58 unit/kg for comparison regimens. For basal-bolus regimens, the estimated retail cost of the mean total daily insulin dose was $11.24 for detemir-based regimens compared with $8.99 for glargine-based regimens and $6.41 for neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH)-based insulins. For basal-only regimens, the estimated retail cost of the mean total daily insulin dose was $8.23 for detemir compared with $5.19 for glargine and $2.35 for NPH.Conclusions: It is important for health care providers and patients to know that patients with type 2 DM may require substantially higher doses of detemir than other basal insulins. This should be considered when titrating the dose as well as in cost-benefit analyses of detemir versus other insulins.     

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)     

Right thyroid hemiagenesis with adenoma and hyperplasia of parathyroid glands -case report

The uncertainties regarding dose similarities between basal long-acting insulin analogues remain. Recent real-world studies indicate dose similarities between insulin detemir and insulin glargine, but further studies are still warranted. The aim of this study was to compare real-life daily doses of insulin detemir and insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes patients when administered once daily. We analysed 536 patient cases from general practice (63%) and endocrinological outpatient clinics (37%). A self-administered questionnaire completed by the treating physician was used to obtain data on patient characteristics (gender, age, weight, height, latest HbA1c-value), daily doses, administration of and number of years treated with insulin detemir and insulin glargine, concomitant insulin use and use of non-insulin anti-diabetic medication. Both bivariate analyses and multivariate regression analyses were applied to examine whether there were differences in the daily doses of insulin detemir and insulin glargine. There was no significant difference in the mean daily doses of insulin detemir (0.414 U/kg) and insulin glargine (0.416 U/kg) (p = 0.4341). In multivariate regression analyses, age and BMI had a significant influence on daily insulin dose with the dose increasing 0.003 U/kg (p = 0.0375) and 0.008 U/kg (p = 0.0003) with every 1 increment in age and BMI, respectively. Dose similarities between insulin detemir and insulin glargine were seen in type 2 diabetes patients when administered once daily. Thus, the use of insulin detemir and insulin glargine is not associated with different medical costs if the price and treating algorithm are similar.     

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)     

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)     

Risk Factors for Hypoglycemia in Inpatients with Total Parenteral Nutrition and Type 2 Diabetes: A Post HOC Analysis of the Insupar Study

Objective: Treatment of hyperglycemia with insulin is associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients receiving total parenteral nutrition (TPN). The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of hypoglycemia in hospitalized T2DM patients receiving TPN.Methods: Post hoc analysis of the INSUPAR study, which is a prospective, open-label, multicenter clinical trial of adult inpatients with T2DM in a noncritical setting with indication for TPN.Results: The study included 161 patients; 31 patients (19.3%) had hypoglycemic events, but none of them was severe. In univariate analysis, hypoglycemia was significantly associated with the presence of diabetes with end-organ damage, duration of diabetes, use of insulin prior to admission, glycemic variability (GV), belonging to the glargine insulin group in the INSUPAR trial, mean daily grams of lipids in TPN, mean insulin per 10 grams of carbohydrates, duration of TPN, and increase in urea during TPN. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the presence of diabetes with end-organ damage, GV, use of glargine insulin, and TPN duration were risk factors for hypoglycemia.Conclusion: The presence of T2DM with end-organ damage complications, longer TPN duration, belonging to the glargine insulin group, and greater GV are factors associated with the risk of hypoglycemia in diabetic noncritically ill inpatients with parenteral nutrition.Abbreviations: ADA = American Diabetes Association; BMI = body mass index; CV% = coefficient of variation; DM = diabetes mellitus; GI = glargine insulin; GV = glycemic variability; ICU = intensive care unit; RI = regular insulin; T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus; TPN = total parenteral nutrition     

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     

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)     

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

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

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     

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)     

甘精胰岛素联合门冬胰岛素对2型糖尿病患者脂糖代谢及生存质量的影响

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

Pilot Study to Evaluate the Effect of Short-Term Improvement in Vitamin D Status on Glucose Tolerance in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo study the effect of improvement in vitamin D status on glucose tolerance in Asian Indian patients with moderately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsThis randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled pilot study was conducted in 28 Asian Indian patients with T2DM. Study participants were randomly assigned to a vitamin D-treated group (group D) or a placebo group (group P). Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, hemoglobin A1c, and serum fructosamine levels were measured, and an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed in all patients at baseline and 4 weeks after intervention. During the OGTT, plasma glucose and serum insulin levels were measured at 0, 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes. The unpaired t test was used to compare the groups at baseline and to compare the differences in changes from baseline to 4 weeks between the 2 study groups.ResultsGroup D and group P were similar with respect to their fasting plasma glucose and serum insulin concentrations, post-OGTT plasma glucose and serum insulin levels, and hemoglobin A1c and fructosamine values at baseline. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels increased significantly in group D at 4 weeks. No significant differences were found between the groups at baseline and 4 weeks with respect to serum fructosamine, fasting plasma glucose and serum insulin, post-OGTT plasma glucose and serum insulin levels, and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance.ConclusionIn this study, short-term improvement in vitamin D status was not associated with improvement in glucose tolerance, insulin secretion, or insulin sensitivity in Asian Indian patients with moderately controlled T2DM.(Endocr Pract. 2010;16:600-608)     

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 24-Week,Prospective, Randomized,Open-Label,Treat-To-Target Pilot Study of Obese Type 2 Diabetes Patients with Severe Insulin Resistance to Assess the Addition of Exenatide on the Efficacy of U-500 Regular Insulin Plus Metformin

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of 500 U/mL (U-500) regular insulin + metformin with U-500 regular insulin + metformin + exenatide in improving glycemic control in patients with severely insulin-resistant type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsThirty patients with T2DM and severe insulin resistance were screened, and 28 were randomized to regular insulin U-500 + metformin or the GLP-1 analog exenatide, U-500, and metformin. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels, body weight, and insulin doses were documented at baseline and at 3 and 6 months. The number and severity hypoglycemic episodes were noted.ResultsThere were 7 males and 7 females in each group (U-500 + metformin and U-500 + metformin + exenatide). Overall, U-500 insulin + metformin, either alone or with the addition of exenatide, resulted in a significant improvement in HbA_1c in both groups, with no significant difference between the 2 groups. There was no meaningful weight change in those utilizing exenatide. Those on U-500 insulin and metformin alone had a tendency toward some weight gain. No severe hypoglycemia occurred during the study period. Symptomatic hypoglycemia was more common in the group on exenatide, but this occurred in only 5 patients, and the clinical significance of this is uncertain. Insulin dosage changes on U-500 regular insulin were variable but tended to be lower in those subjects on exenatide.ConclusionsU-500 regular insulin + metformin is effective for the treatment of T2DM patients with severe insulin resistance. The addition of exenatide may ameliorate potential weight gain but provides no additional improvement in glycemia. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:1143-1150)