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     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

Examination of Implementation of Intravenous and Subcutaneous Insulin Protocols and Glycemic Control in Heart Transplant Patients

ObjectivePerioperative glycemic management is particularly challenging in heart transplant (HT) patients who are on high-dose steroids and subject to surgical stress. The objective of the study was to examine the efficacy and safety of perioperative insulin administration in HT patients with and without diabetes.MethodsMedical records of 71 HT patients from June 1, 2005 to July 31, 2009 whose hyperglycemia was managed by our Glucose Management Service (GMS) were analyzed for up to 1 year after HT. Their daily blood glucose (BG) averages on intravenous (IV) insulin drips and subcutaneous (SQ) insulin, hypoglycemia rates, reasons for hypoglycemia, and deviations from insulin protocols were analyzed.ResultsDaily BG averages between diabetic (DM) and nondiabetic (nonDM) patients were not significantly different while on the drip but were significantly different for first 5 days on SQ (P < .05). The daily insulin glargine doses were similar. No patients developed severe hypoglycemia (BG ≤ 40 mg/dL) while on drip, and only 2.8% experienced hypoglycemia on SQ. Among 40 episodes of moderate hypoglycemia while on drip, 15 had nurse deviations from protocol prior to the episode. Posttransition day fasting glucose was at goal (mean 124.7 ± 35.4 mg/dL); however 39.4% (28/71) of patients received a transition insulin glargine dose that was different from the amount indicated by protocol. The likelihood of developing moderate hypoglycemia on SQ was associated with the glargine dose used at the time of transition (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, P = .034).ConclusionInpatient insulin protocols implemented by a GMS are successful in obtaining glycemic control with minimal side effects in patients with and without diabetes, even when they are on a high-dose steroid regimen. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:527-535)     

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)     

Comparison of pharmacokinetic properties,physicochemical stability,and pump compatibility of 3 rapid-acting insulin analogues— aspart,lispro, and glulisine

ObjectiveTo compare how the rapid-acting insulin analogues (RAIAs) aspart, lispro, and glulisine perform in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy regarding (1) pharmacokinetic properties, (2) chemical and physical stability, and (3) pump compatibility.MethodsPubMed was searched for articles pertaining to the use of RAIAs in CSII, without a restriction on the time period.ResultsThese RAIAs have pharmacokinetic profiles that more closely mimic endogenous insulin in comparison with regular human insulin and tend to produce less hypoglycemia. Among these RAIAs, the rates of absorption and clinical efficacy in terms of glycemic control were similar. Although glulisine showed a faster onset of action in some studies with aspart and lispro, this advantage lasted only for a maximum of 1 hour, after which results were similar for glulisine and aspart or lispro. Each RAIA is created by making minor amino acid substitutions to the regular human insulin molecule and adding a stabilizer to help prevent fibrillation. A series of chemical and covalent changes affecting the primary structure of an insulin preparation, however, may cause decomposition during storage, handling, and use, diminishing the potency of the insulin molecule while contained in an insulin pump. Precipitation, fibrillation, and occlusion may ensue, undermining compatibility for CSII pump use. Aspart has demonstrated the greatest chemical and physical stability in the insulin pump, with the lowest rates of overall occlusion in comparison with lispro and glulisine (aspart 9.2%, lispro 15.7%, and glulisine 40.9%; P < .01).ConclusionAspart is the most compatible of the 3 RAIAs for pump use. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:271-280)     

Once-Daily Insulin Glargine Versus 6-Hour Sliding Scale Regular Insulin for Control of Hyperglycemia after a Bariatric Surgical Procedure: A Randomized Clinical Trial

ObjectiveTo determine whether once-daily insulin glargine could provide better glycemic control after an abdominal surgical procedure than the traditional use of sliding scale regular insulin (SSRI).MethodsBecause 20% to 30% of patients undergoing gastric bypass have a history of overt diabetes and another 5% to 10% are estimated to have impaired glucose tolerance, we chose to study these patients. We treated 81 patients with postoperative blood glucose levels of more than 144 mg/dL after a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgical procedure. They were randomized to receive either SSRI or insulin glargine either directly or after initial intravenous insulin infusion in the intensive care unit (ICU).ResultsOverall, the mean blood glucose level after SSRI therapy was 154 ± 33 mg/dL, and the mean blood glucose value after insulin glargine treatment was 134 ± 30 mg/dL (P < 0.01). The mean blood glucose level for patients first treated with intravenous insulin infusion in the ICU was 125 mg/dL, in comparison with 145 mg/dL in the non-ICU patients whose treatment began directly with 0.3 U/kg of insulin glargine. Of 926 blood glucose measurements, only 3 were less than 60 mg/dL.ConclusionIn this study, control of postoperative hyperglycemia was significantly better with use of insulin glargine in comparison with SSRI therapy, and hypo-glycemia was very infrequent. (Endocr Pract. 2007;13: 225-231)     

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)     

Efficacy of antihyperglycemic therapies and the influence of baseline hemoglobin A(1C): a meta-analysis of the liraglutide development program

ObjectiveTo compare Iiraglutide versus common antihyperglycemic treatments in reducing hemoglobin A_1c (A1C) values across multiple levels of baseline glycemic control and in reaching glycemic targets.MethodsPooled patient data from 7 phase 3, multinational, randomized controlled trials in patients with type 2 diabetes were stratified by baseline A1C values into 5 categories: ≤ 7.5%, > 7.5% to 8.0%, > 8.0% to 8.5%, > 8.5% to 9.0%, and > 9.0%. The changes in A1C from baseline to week 26 of treatment and patient proportions reaching A1C targets of < 7.0% and ≤ 6.5% were compared between liraglutide (1.8 mg daily) and sitagliptin, glimepiride, rosiglitazone, exenatide, and insulin glargine across all baseline A1C categories.ResultsIrrespective of treatment, reductions in A1C levels were generally greater in groups with higher baseline A1C values. After 26 weeks of treatment, liraglutide produced the greatest reductions in A1C values across all baseline categories, ranging from 0.7% to 1.8% (baseline A1C categories ≤ 7.5% to > 9.0%, respectively), followed by insulin glargine (0.3% to 1.5%) and then by glimepiride (0.4% to 1.3%). Generally, larger percentages of patients achieved the A1C target of ≤ 6.5% with liraglutide therapy across all baseline categories (from 62% of patients with A1C values ≤ 7.5% to 10% of patients with A1C values > 9.0%) in comparison with other treatments (ranging from 49% to 0% of patients, respectively). Similarly, greater proportions of patients also reached the A1C target of < 7.0% with liraglutide therapy across all baseline categories (from 83% of patients with A1C values ≤ 7.5% to 25% of patients with A1C values > 9.0%) versus comparators (from 74% to 5% of patients, respectively).ConclusionAcross a wide spectrum of baseline A1C categories, liraglutide is an efficacious treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17: 906-913)     

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)