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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

Impact of Prandial Plus Basal vs Basal Insulin on Glycemic Variability in Type 2 Diabetic Patients

ObjectiveTo determine whether metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes given an analogue mixture of basal and rapid-acting insulins (insulin lispro protamine suspension plus insulin lispro) would have less glycemic variability than patients given basal insulin glargine.MethodsTwo post hoc analyses were used to compare 7-point blood glucose profiles from 3 published studies comparing basal plus prandial premixed insulin lispro mixtures with insulin glargine in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Glycemic variability indices used included standard deviation of mean daily blood glucose, coefficient of variation, M-value, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion, and J-index.ResultsPatients on the twice-daily insulin lispro mix 75/25 (75% insulin lispro protamine suspension/25% insulin lispro) plus metformin regimen had significantly lower standard deviation, M-value, and J-index than patients on the insulin glargine plus metformin regimen, but not lower coefficient of variation or mean amplitude of glycemic excursion. Patients on the 3 times daily insulin lispro mix 50/50 (50% insulin lispro protamine suspension/50% insulin lispro) plus metformin regimen had significantly lower values for all 5 indices than patients on the insulin glargine plus metformin regimen.ConclusionUse of basal plus prandial insulin lispro mixtures at 2 or 3 meals was associated with lower glycemic variability in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2009;15:343-348)     

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)     

Impact of Race/Ethnicity on the Efficacy and Safety of Commonly used Insulin Regimens: A Post HOC Analysis of Clinical Trials in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo explore the impact of race/ethnicity on the efficacy and safety of commonly used insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.MethodsIn this post hoc analysis, pooled data from 11 multinational clinical trials involving 1455 patients with type 2 diabetes were used to compare specific insulin treatments in Latino/Hispanic, Asian, African-descent, and Caucasian patients. Insulin treatments included once daily insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn (BASAL), insulin lispro mix 75/25 twice daily (LMBID), or insulin lispro mix 50/50 three times daily (LMTID).ResultsRace/ethnicity was associated with significant outcome differences for each of the insulin regimens. BASAL therapy was associated with greater improvement in several measures of glycemic control among Latino/Hispanic patients compared with Caucasian patients (lower end point hemoglobin A1c, greater reduction in hemoglobin A1c from baseline, and a larger proportion of patients achieving hemoglobin A1c level < 7%). In contrast, LMBID therapy was associated with higher end point hemoglobin A_1c and a smaller decrease in hemoglobin A_1c from baseline in Latino/Hispanic and Asian patients than in Caucasian patients. Furthermore, fewer Asian patients attained a hemoglobin A_1c level < 7% than did Caucasians patients. For LMTID therapy, hemoglobin A_1c outcomes were comparable across patient groups. Fasting blood glucose and glycemic excursions varied among racial/ethnic groups for the 3 insulin regimens. Weight change was comparable among racial/ethnic groups in each insulin regimen. During treatment with LMTID, Asian patients experienced higher incidence and rate of severe hypoglycemia than Caucasian patients.ConclusionsLatino/Hispanic, Asian, and African-descent patients with type 2 diabetes show different metabolic responses to insulin therapy, dependent in part on insulin type and regimen intensity. (Endocr Pract. 2010: 818-828:pp)     

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)     

Colesevelam Hydrochloride Added to Background Metformin Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Pooled Analysis from 3 Clinical Studies

ObjectiveTo evaluate the glucose- and lipid-altering efficacy of colesevelam hydrochloride (HCl) when added to background metformin therapy in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsThis post hoc analysis included patients with T2DM from 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo- controlled pivotal studies who received metformin as part of their background antidiabetes therapy. In the pivotal studies, patients with T2DM were randomly assigned to receive colesevelam HCl (3.75 g/d) or placebo added to existing metformin (26 weeks), sulfonylurea (26 weeks), or insulin (16 weeks) monotherapy or combination therapy, wherein the combination therapies may have included metformin.ResultsIn this pooled analysis of 696 patients with T2DM who were receiving metformin monotherapy or metformin combined with other antidiabetes therapies, 355 were randomly assigned to receive colesevelam HCl and 341 to receive placebo. In comparison with placebo, colesevelam HCl significantly reduced hemoglobin A_1c (A1C) and fasting plasma glucose (mean treatment difference: -0.50% and -15.7 mg/dL, respectively; P < .001 for both), as well as significantly reduced levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; mean treatment difference: -16.5%), total cholesterol (TC; -5.8%), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C; -8.2%), and apolipoprotein (apo) B (-7.6%) (P < .0001 for all). Median triglyceride levels were increased with colesevelam HCl (median treatment difference: + 12.8%; P < .0001). In comparison with placebo, colesevelam HCl significantly increased apo A-I (mean treatment difference: + 3.3%; P < .0001), whereas the mean increase in HDL-C with colesevelam HCl was not significant. Colesevelam HCl therapy was generally well tolerated.ConclusionWhen added to metformin-including therapy, colesevelam HCl significantly reduced A1C and fasting glucose, as well as levels of LDL-C, TC, non- HDL-C, and apo B in patients with inadequately controlled T2DM. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:933-938)     

A Stepwise Approach to Insulin Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Basal Insulin Treatment Failure

ObjectiveTo determine whether 1 or 2 preprandial injections before the meals of greatest glycemic impact can be as effective as 3 preprandial injections in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and basal insulin treatment failure.MethodsThis was an open-label, parallel-group, 1:1:1 randomized study of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus on oral antidiabetic drugs with glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels of 8.0% or greater. After a 14week run-in with insulin glargine, patients with an A1C level greater than 7.0% were randomly assigned to 1, 2, or 3 time(s) daily insulin glulisine for 24 weeks. Changes in A1C from randomization to study end; percentage of patients achieving an A1C level less than 7.0%; changes in A1C, fasting glucose concentrations, and weight at individual study points; and safety (adverse events and hypoglycemia) were assessed throughout the study.ResultsThree hundred forty-three of 631 patients (54%) completing the run-in phase with insulin glargine were randomly assigned to treatment arms. During the randomization phase, A1C reductions with insulin glulisine once or twice daily were noninferior to insulin glulisine 3 times daily (confidence intervals: -0.39 to 0.36 and -0.30 to 0.43; P > .5 for both). However, more patients met the target A1C with 3 preprandial injections (46 [46%]) than with 2 injections (34 [33%]) or 1 injection (30 [30%]). Severe hypoglycemia occurred in twice as many patients receiving 3 preprandial injections (16%) compared with those receiving 2 injections (8%) and 1 injection (7%), but these differences did not reach significance.ConclusionThis study provides evidence that initiation of prandial insulin in a simplified stepwise approach is an effective alternative to the current routine 3 preprandial injection basal-bolus approach. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:395-403)     

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)     

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)     

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     

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)     

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)     

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.     

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)     

Contribution of the Dawn Phenomenon to the Fasting and Postbreakfast Hyperglycemia In Type 1 Diabetes Treated With Once-Nightly Insulin Glargine

ObjectiveTo observe the effect of the dawn phenomenon on basal glucose and postbreakfast hyperglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes treated with once-nightly insulin glargine and premeal insulin lispro.MethodsIn 49 study subjects consuming a fixed isocaloric (50% carbohydrate) diet of usual food, the insulin glargine dose was titrated from daily continuous glucose monitoring downloads to achieve a basal glucose goal of < 130 mg/dL 4 hours after meals and during serial meal omissions but with fewer than 10% of readings at < 70 mg/ dL during 24 hours. Patients also performed self-monitoring of plasma glucose 7 times a day (before and 2 hours after each meal or omitted meal and at bedtime).ResultsThe target mean basal glucose level was achieved only during the non-dawn phenomenon period (1400 hours to 0400 hours). During the dawn phenomenon, the mean (standard deviation) basal glucose level increased from 118 (57) mg/dL at 0400 hours to 156 (67) mg/dL before the breakfast meal, a 32% increase (P = .00149). The mean self-monitored plasma glucose level with meal omission was 63.8% of that increase with a breakfast meal.ConclusionThe fasting morning glucose concentration is considerably elevated because of the dawn phenomenon. Targeting insulin titration to this glucose level may result in excessive basal insulin dosing for the non-dawn phenomenon periods of the day. The dawn phenomenon is a large component of the postbreakfast hyperglycemia. Rather than increasing the morning premeal insulin bolus, consideration should be given to pretreating the earlier dawn phenomenon with an insulin pump with use of a variable basal insulin rate. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:558-562)