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     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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.     

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)     

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)     

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec 200 U/mL and Insulin Degludec 100 U/mL in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes (Begin: Compare)

ObjectiveThe purpose of the present study was to provide clinical data on the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec (IDeg) 200 U/mL compared with IDeg 100 U/mL in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) currently treated with basal insulin in combination with oral antidiabetic drugs.MethodsIn this 22-week, treat-to-target trial, eligible adult patients with T2DM were randomized 1:1 to IDeg 200 or IDeg 100 U/mL once daily (OD) (n = 186 and 187, respectively). The starting insulin dose was based on a 1:1 transfer of the total prerandomization basal insulin dose. The primary endpoint was change (%) from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin A1C (A1C) after 22 weeks of treatment.ResultsA total of 373 subjects (mean age 59.8 years, A1C 8.2%, fasting plasma glucose 149.6 mg/dL [8.3 mmol/L], body mass index 33.3 kg/m²) were randomized. A1C reduction with IDeg 200 U/mL was noninferior to that of IDeg 100 U/mL (IDeg 200 U/mL – IDeg 100 U/mL estimated treatment difference: -0.11%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.28 to 0.05). Rates of overall confirmed hypoglycemia were low and similar between both formulations (5.17 and 5.66 events/patient-year of exposure [PYE] for IDeg 200 and 100 U/mL, respectively). Similarly, the rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia were low (1.27 and 1.70 events/PYE for 200 and 100 U/mL). In general, both IDeg formulations were well tolerated (respective rates of adverse events: 4.16 and 3.00 events/PYE for 200 and 100 U/mL).ConclusionThe 200 and 100 U/mL formulations of IDeg provide comparable and effective levels of glycemic control with similar, low rates of overall confirmed and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia. (Endocr Pract. 2014; 20:785-791)     

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)     

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)     

Effect of Glargine Insulin Delivery Method (Pen Device Versus Vial/Syringe) on Glycemic Control and Patient Preferences in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of two different glargine insulin delivery methods (pen device vs. vial/ syringe) on glycemic control and patient preferences in a randomized, open-label, crossover, comparative effectiveness study.MethodsThirty-one patients discharged from the hospital were recruited for this study. In the hospital, all patients were treated with a basal-bolus insulin regimen. Upon discharge, 21 patients received glargine by pen device for 3 months and were then switched to vial/syringe for the next 3 months (group 1). Group 2 consisted of 10 patients discharged on vial/syringe and converted to pen device after 3 months. Hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) was measured at enrollment and at 3 and 6 months. A questionnaire assessing patient preference was administered at 3 and 6 months.ResultsGroups 1 and 2 had similar baseline HbA_1c (10.7 ± 2.2% and 11.2 ± 2.5%, respectively) and similar reduction in HbA_1c at 3 months (7.8 ± 1.7% and 7.3 ± 1.4%, respectively; P < .001 vs. baseline). However, after crossover, the changes in HbA_1c from 3 to 6 months were significantly different between groups. HbA_1c increased to 8.5 ± 2.0% at 6 months in group 1 after switching to the vial/syringe but remained unchanged (7.1 ± 1.6%) in group 2 after switching to a pen device (P < .01, group 1 vs. group 2). Patient questionnaires after each phase of the trial revealed that patients found the pen device more convenient and were more likely to recommend this insulin delivery method to someone else.ConclusionPatients switching to a glargine pen device achieved lower HbA_1c at the 6-month follow-up. Patients in both groups overwhelmingly preferred glargine pens over vials/syringes. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:536-539)     

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)     

Efficacy and Safety of Linagliptin in Black/African American Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A 6-Month,Randomized, Double-Blind,Placebo-Controlled Study

ObjectiveAlthough black/African American individuals are disproportionately affected by type 2 diabetes, there is scant clinical trial information available on antidiabetes therapies in this group. We compared linagliptin with placebo in black/African American adults who were treatment-naïve or receiving one oral antidiabetes drug.MethodsOf 226 patients randomized to 24 weeks’ linagliptin 5 mg/day or placebo, 208 had baseline and at least one on-treatment glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) measurement. Mean baseline HbA_1c was 8.6% in the linagliptin group (n = 98) and 8.68% in the placebo group (n = 110). The primary outcome was change in HbA_1c from baseline to week 24.ResultsBy week 24, mean HbA_1c changes were − 0.84% with linagliptin and − 0.25% with placebo (treatment difference, − 0.58%; P < .001), and more patients in the linagliptin group achieved HbA_1c < 7.0% (26.8% vs. 8.3%; P = .001) or an HbA_1c reduction ≥ 0.5% (54.1% vs. 30.0%; P < .001). Mean weight loss was − 1.1 kg in both groups. During the treatment period, 8 of 98 linagliptingroup patients and 17 of 110 placebo-group patients required rescue therapy (odds ratio, 0.5; P = .14). For postprandial glucose, values were available for few patients (11 placebo, 10 linagliptin), and thus the between-group difference was associated with wide confidence intervals (CIs) (difference, − 1.97 mg/dL; 95% CI, − 53.80 to 49.86; P = .94). In the overall study population, a similar proportion of patients in both groups had adverse events (58.5% vs. 61.7%); most events were mild or moderate and considered unrelated to study drug. Investigator-defined hypoglycemia was rare (3 linagliptin-group patients and 1 placebogroup patient), with no severe events (requiring external assistance).ConclusionThis study confirms that linagliptin is efficacious and well tolerated in black/African American patients with type 2 diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20: 412-420)     

Basal-Bolus Regimen With Insulin Analogues Versus Human Insulin in Medical Patients with type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Latin America

Objective: Few randomized studies have focused on the optimal management of non–intensive care unit patients with type 2 diabetes in Latin America. We compared the safety and efficacy of a basal-bolus regimen with analogues and human insulins in general medicine patients admitted to a University Hospital in Asunción, Paraguay.Methods: In a prospective, open-label trial, we randomized 134 nonsurgical patients with blood glucose (BG) between 140 and 400 mg/dL to a basal-bolus regimen with glargine once daily and glulisine before meals (n = 66) or Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) twice daily and regular insulin before meals (n = 68). Major outcomes included differences in daily BG levels and frequency of hypoglycemic events between treatment groups.Results: There were no differences in the mean daily BG (157 ± 37 mg/dL versus 158 ± 44 mg/dL; P = .90) or in the number of BG readings within target <140 mg/dL before meals (76% versus 74%) between the glargine/glulisine and NPH/regular regimens. The mean insulin dose in the glargine/glulisine group was 0.76 ± 0.3 units/kg/day (glargine, 22 ± 9 units/day; glulisine, 31 ± 12 units/day) and was not different compared with NPH/regular group (0.75 ± 0.3 units/kg/day [NPH, 28 ± 12 units/day; regular, 23 ± 9 units/day]). The overall prevalence of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) was similar between patients treated with NPH/regular and glargine/glulisine (38% versus 35%; P = .68), but more patients treated with human insulin had severe (<40 mg/dL) hypoglycemia (7.6% versus 25%; P = .08). There were no differences in length of hospital stay or mortality between groups.Conclusion: The basal-bolus regimen with insulin analogues resulted in equivalent glycemic control and frequency of hypoglycemia compared to treatment with human insulin in hospitalized patients with diabetes.Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose BMI = body mass index HbA_1c = glycated hemoglobin NPH = Neutral Protamine Hagedorn T2D = type 2 diabetes     

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

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

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)     

Insulin Stacking Versus Therapeutic Accumulation: Understanding the Differences

ObjectiveThe build-up in insulin levels following repeated injection of prandial insulin at close intervals— referred to as insulin stacking—can increase the risk of hypoglycemia. With the development of basal insulins with a half-life > 24 hours and a duration of action > 40 hours, clinicians may be concerned about stacking when these long-acting formulations are administered once daily. The objective of this review is to clarify the difference between inappropriate insulin stacking when shorter-acting insulin formulations are repeatedly used to correct hyperglycemia and the appropriate accumulation of long-acting insulin formulations dosed to steady-state pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles.MethodsRelevant literature on insulin stacking, glucose-clamp studies, and clinical studies of insulin, in conjunction with the clinical experience of the authors, were used to present an overview of insulin PK properties and the effects of appropriate and inappropriate dosing intervals on steady-state conditions and likely clinical outcomes.ResultsClinical studies confirm theoretical PK principles showing that unwanted insulin stacking (excessive concentrations) for basal insulin can be avoided by following recommended dosing and titration algorithms. Long-acting basal insulins need more time to reach steady state than shorter-acting basal insulins but then show reduced peak-trough fluctuations, translating into more consistent biologic action over a 24-hour period.ConclusionThe unwanted stacking and consequent hypoglycemia that can occur when correctional doses of rapid-acting insulin are administered at close intervals does not occur when long-acting basal insulins are dosed in appropriate amounts and adjusted at appropriate time intervals (e.g., insulin stacking, insulin administration, diabetes, ultralong duration of action, hypoglycemia every three or more days), allowing for pharmacologic steady-state accumulation. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:75-83)     

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)