Real-World Insulin Treatment Persistence among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

ObjectiveTo evaluate real-world treatment persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating treatment with insulin.MethodsPatient-level data were pooled from 3 previously published observational retrospective studies evaluating patients with T2DM who were previously on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) and initiated with a basal analog insulin (insulin glargine or insulin detemir). Treatment persistence was defined as remaining on the study drug during the 1-year follow-up period without discontinuation or switching after study drug initiation. Analyses were conducted to identify baseline factors associated with persistence with insulin therapy and to estimate the association between insulin treatment persistence and patients’ clinical and economic outcomes during the follow-up period.ResultsA total of 4,804 patients with T2DM (insulin glargine: n = 4,172, insulin detemir: n = 632) were included. The average insulin persistence rate over the 1-year follow-up period was 65.0%. A significantly higher persistence rate was associated with older age, initiation with insulin glargine using either disposable pens or vial-and-syringe, and with baseline exenatide or sitagliptin use. Higher insulin treatment persistence was also associated with lower hemoglobin A_1c (A1C) at follow-up, a greater reduction in A1C from baseline, and lower health care utilization.ConclusionIn real-world settings, treatment persistence among patients with T2DM initiating basal insulin is influenced by the type of insulin and patient factors. Greater insulin treatment persistence is linked to improved clinical outcomes and reduced health care utilization. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:52-61)     

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)     

Exercise training enhanced myocardial endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) function in diabetic Goto-Kakizaki (GK) rats

Objective

Exenatide belongs to a new therapeutic class in the treatment of diabetes (incretin mimetics), allowing glucose-dependent glycaemic control in Type 2 diabetes. Randomised controlled trial data suggest that exenatide is as effective as insulin glargine at reducing HbA_1c in combination therapy with metformin and sulphonylureas; with reduced weight but higher incidence of adverse gastrointestinal events. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of exenatide versus insulin glargine using RCT data and a previously published model of Type 2 diabetes disease progression that is based on the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study; the perspective of the health-payer of the United Kingdom National Health Service.

Methods

The study used a discrete event simulation model designed to forecast the costs and health outcome of a cohort of 1,000 subjects aged over 40 years with sub-optimally-controlled Type 2 diabetes, following initiation of either exenatide, or insulin glargine, in addition to oral hypoglycaemic agents. Sensitivity analysis for a higher treatment discontinuation rate in exenatide patients was applied to the cohort in three different scenarios; (1) either ignored or (2) exenatide-failures excluded or (3) exenatide-failures switched to insulin glargine. Analyses were undertaken to evaluate the price sensitivity of exenatide in terms of relative cost effectiveness. Baseline cohort profiles and effectiveness data were taken from a published randomised controlled trial.

Results

The relative cost-effectiveness of exenatide and insulin glargine was tested under a variety of conditions, in which insulin glargine was dominant in all cases. Using the most conservative of assumptions, the cost-effectiveness ratio of exenatide vs. insulin glargine at the current UK NHS price was -£29,149/QALY (insulin glargine dominant) and thus exenatide is not cost-effective when compared with insulin glargine, at the current UK NHS price.

Conclusion

This study evaluated the relative cost effectiveness of insulin glargine versus exenatide in the management of Type 2 diabetes using a published model. Given no significant difference in glycaemic control and applying the additional effectiveness of exenatide over insulin glargine, with respect to weight loss, and using the current UK NHS prices, insulin glargine was found to be dominant over exenatide in all modelled scenarios. With current clinical evidence, exenatide does not appear to represent a cost-effective treatment option for patients with Type 2 diabetes when compared to insulin glargine.     

Initiation of insulin therapy in elderly patients taking oral antidiabetes drugs

Background

We sought to estimate the rate of initiation of insulin therapy among elderly patients using oral anti-diabetes drugs and to identify the factors associated with this initiation.

Methods

We conducted a population-based cohort study involving people aged 66 or more years who were newly dispensed an oral antidiabetes drug. Individuals who had received acarbose or a thiazolidinedione were excluded. The rate of insulin initiation was calculated by use of the Kaplan–Meier method. Factors associated with insulin initiation were identified by multivariable Cox regression analyses.

Results

In this cohort of 69 674 new users of oral antidiabetes drugs, insulin was initiated at rate of 9.7 cases per 1000 patient-years. Patients who had initially received an insulin secretagogue (rather than metformin), who were prescribed an oral antidiabetes drug by an endocrinologist or an internist, who received higher initial doses of an oral antidiabetes drug, who received oral corticosteroids, used glucometer strips, or were admitted to hospital in the year before initiation of oral antidiabetes therapy, or who received 16 or more medications were more likely than those without these characteristics to have insulin therapy initiated. In contrast, patients who received thiazides or who used up to 12 medications (v. none) were less likely to have insulin therapy initiated.

Interpretation

Several factors related to drugs and health services are associated with the initiation of insulin therapy in elderly patients receiving oral antidiabetes drugs. It is unclear whether these factors predict secondary failure of oral antidiabetes drugs or instead reflect better management of type 2 diabetes.Type 2 diabetes is a progressive disease that requires ongoing increases in doses and complexity of hypo-glycemic pharmacotherapy.¹ Although insulin may be the first agent prescribed to patients with type 2 diabetes who have marked hyperglycemia, oral antidiabetes drugs are usually the first pharmacologic treatment. In general, these drugs are first prescribed as monotherapy; however, combination therapy with 2 oral antidiabetes drugs with different mechanisms may also be a first-line option.^2–4 Unfortunately, oral antidiabetes drugs have limited efficacy for long-term glucose lowering^1,5 and, therefore, many patients may require insulin to achieve better metabolic control.⁶There are several factors that may account for the need to initiate insulin therapy in patients taking oral antidiabetes drugs, including progressive β-cell failure,⁷ deterioration of insulin sensitivity because of glucose toxicity or the development of resistance to the oral antidiabetes drug.^8,9 Disease severity, a younger age at diagnosis^1,10 and poor adherence to treatment may also lead to poor metabolic control in patients with diabetes.¹¹Our study included an outpatient population of elderly patients, all of whom were new users of an oral antidiabetes drug. We sought to estimate the rate of initiation of insulin therapy and to identify factors associated with initiation of insulin therapy.     

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)     

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)     

Use of Concomitant Glucose-Lowering Therapies and Associated Treatment Results Observed in Clinical Trials of Twice-Daily Exenatide

ObjectiveTo explore, by post hoc analyses of pooled data, the efficacy and safety of the use of exenatide twice daily (BID) in patients stratified by baseline glucose-low ering therapies.MethodsPatients with type 2 diabetes from long term randomized controlled trials who were treated with exenatide BID were classified into concomitant medica tion groups on the basis of background treatment (diet and exercise only, metformin only, sulfonylurea only, thia zolidinedione only, metformin + sulfonylurea, metformin + thiazolidinedione, or insulin with or without other oral antihyperglycemic medications). Seventeen studies were included in the analyses (N = 2,096).ResultsIn these analyses of patients treated with exenatide BID for 12 to 30 weeks, there were significant decreases from baseline in hemoglobin A_1c (A1C) and fast ing glucose levels in all groups and significant decreases from baseline in body weight in all groups except the thi azolidinedione-only group. The decrease in A1C appeared to be greater in the insulin group than in the other groups, likely because the insulin dose was titrated whereas doses of concomitant antihyperglycemic medications were gen erally not titrated. Overall, changes in blood pressure and lipids were small. Across all groups, the most common adverse effects were gastrointestinal events. Hypoglycemia was more common in the sulfonylurea-only, metformin + sulfonylurea, and insulin groups than it was in the other concomitant medication groups.ConclusionThe use of exenatide BID across a wide range of background therapies was associated with reductions in A1C, fasting glucose, and body weight. Gastrointestinal adverse events were common. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:227-237)     

Comparison of 2 Intensification Regimens with Rapid-Acting Insulin Aspart in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled by Once-Daily Insulin Detemir and Oral Antidiabetes Drugs: The Step-Wise Randomized Study

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of 2 intensification strategies for stepwise addition of prandial insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin detemir.MethodsThis randomized, controlled, parallel-group, open-label, 48-week trial compared the stepwise addition of insulin aspart to either the largest meal (titration based on premeal glucose values [SimpleSTEP]) or to the meal with the largest prandial glucose increment (titration based on postmeal glucose values [ExtraSTEP]) in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin and oral antidiabetes drugs. After 12 weeks of basal insulin detemir dosage optimization, participants with a hemoglobin A₁ level of 7% or greater entered three 12-week treatment periods with stepwise addition of a first insulin aspart bolus, then a second, and then a third, if hemoglobin A_1c remained at 7% or greater after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, respectively. Endpoints included hemoglobin A_1c (primary endpoint), fasting plasma glucose, self-measured plasma glucose, adverse events, and hypoglycemia.ResultsTwo hundred ninety-six patients were randomly assigned to treatment with insulin aspart in the SimpleSTEP (n = 150) and ExtraSTEP (n = 146) groups. Hemoglobin A_1c decreased by approximately 1.2% in both groups, to 7.5 ± 1.1% (SimpleSTEP) and 7.7 ± 1.2% (ExtraSTEP) at end of trial (estimated treatment difference, SimpleSTEP ExtraSTEP: -0.06% [95% confidence interval, -0.29 to 0.17]). Self-measured plasma glucose levels decreased with both regimens. At trial end, approximately 75% of patients in each group were using 3 prandial injections. The frequency of adverse events and hypoglycemia was low and similar between groups.ConclusionThe SimpleSTEP and ExtraSTEP strategies for stepwise addition of insulin aspart to 1 or more meals were equally effective at intensifying therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin and oral antidiabetic drugs. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:727-736)     

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

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

Exenatide Twice Daily Plus Glargine Versus Aspart 70/30 Twice Daily in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes With Inadequate Glycemic Control on Premixed Human Insulin and Metformin

ObjectiveMany patients with type 2 diabetes treated with premixed insulin gradually have inadequate glycemic control and switch to a basal-bolus regimen, which raises some concerns for weight gain and increased hypoglycemic risk. Switching to combination use of glp-1 agonist and basal insulin may be an alternative option.MethodsAfter a 12-week premixed human insulin 70/30 dosage optimization period, 200 patients with HbA1c of 7.0% to 10.0% were randomized into 24-week treatment groups with exenatide twice a day plus glargine or with aspart 70/30 twice a day.ResultsAfter 24 weeks, the patients receiving exenatide plus glargine (n = 90) had improved HbA1c control compared with those receiving aspart 70/30 (n = 90) (least squares mean change: ‒0.59 vs ‒0.13%; difference [95% CI]: ‒0.45 [‒0.74 to ‒0.17]) in the full analysis set population. Weight decreased 3.5 kg with exenatide and decreased 0.4 kg with aspart 70/30 (P < .001). The insulin dose was reduced 10.7 units/day (95% CI, ‒12.2 to ‒9.2 units; P < .001) with exenatide, and increased 9.7 units/day (95% CI, 8.2 to 11.2 units; P < .001) with aspart 70/30. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal adverse effects in the exenatide group (nausea [21%], vomiting [16%], diarrhea [13%]). The incidence of hypoglycemia was similar in 2 groups (27% for exenatide and 38% for aspart 70/30; P = .1).ConclusionIn premixed human insulin‒treated patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control, switching to exenatide twice a day plus glargine was superior to aspart 70/30 twice a day for glycemic and weight control.     

Parámetros de control glucémico en pacientes con diabetes tipo 2 no insulinizados derivados a consulta de Endocrinología,y grado de implementación del consenso nacional sobre el tratamiento de la hiperglucemia

ObjectiveTo assess blood glucose in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with oral antidiabetic drugs in primary care at the time of referral to specialized endocrinologists, and the degree of implementation of the national consensus guidelines of the Spanish Society of Diabetes by evaluating steps one (S1), two (S2), and three (S3) of the escalating therapy.Material and methodsRetrospective, observational study where 81 endocrinologists evaluated patients ≥40 years of age referred from primary care between July 2012 and July 2013, treated with 1 to 2 oral antidiabetic drugs but no insulin therapy, and with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels ≥6.5%. Patients also had to have HbA_1c levels and both fasting and postprandial plasma glucose measurements from the previous three months.ResultsA total of 285 patients (57.6% males) were assessed. Mean (SD) age was 63.1 (9.7) years, mean HbA_1c was 8.5 (1.2) %, mean FPG was 171.7 (43) mg/dL, and mean postprandial plasma glucose was 206.8 (50) mg/dL. In primary care, 26.0% of patients were at S1 and 74.0% were at S2. After referral to the endocrinologist, 9.8% of patients moved onto S1, 42.8% onto S2, and 47.4% onto S3. Oral antidiabetic drugs most commonly prescribed in primary care were metformin (90.2%), DPP-4 inhibitors (34.4%), and sulfonylureas (30.5%), while drugs most commonly used in the specialized endocrinology setting were metformin (86%), insulin (56.8%), and DPP-4 inhibitors (49.8%). The most commonly followed guidelines were those of the American Diabetes Association and the consensus guidelines of the Spanish Society of Diabetes, in 77% and 45% of cases respectively.ConclusionsApproximately half the patients treated with oral antidiabetic drugs in primary care are prescribed insulin after referral to an endocrinology specialist. The most commonly followed guidelines in specialized care are the American Diabetes Association guidelines.     

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)     

Guideline-Concordant Insulin Infusion Initiation Among Critically Ill Patients With Sepsis

ObjectiveOur objective was to benchmark rates of guideline-concordant insulin infusion initiation, identify factors associated with guideline-concordant insulin practices, and examine the association between hospital-level guideline concordance and mortality among critically ill patients with sepsis.MethodsWe performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of intensive care patients with sepsis who were eligible for insulin infusion initiation according to American Diabetes Association and Surviving Sepsis guidelines (persistent blood sugar ≥180 mg/dL). We then identified patients who were initiated on insulin infusions within 24 hours of eligibility. We examined patient- and hospital-level factors associated with guideline-concordant insulin infusion initiation and explored the association between the hospital-level proportion of patients who received guideline-concordant insulin infusions and hospital mortality.ResultsAmong 5453 guideline-eligible patients with sepsis, 13.4% were initiated on insulin infusions. Factors most strongly associated with guideline-concordant insulin infusion initiation were mechanical ventilation and hospital of admission. The hospital-level proportion of patients who received guideline-concordant insulin infusions were not associated with mortality. Among 1501 intensive care unit patients with sepsis who were started on insulin infusions, 37.0% were initiated at a blood glucose level below 180 mg/dL, the guideline-recommended starting threshold.ConclusionGuideline-concordant insulin infusion initiation was uncommon among patients with sepsis admitted to U.S. intensive care units and was determined in large part by hospital of admission. The degree to which hospitals were guideline-concordant were not associated with mortality.     

Concurrent use of prescription gabapentinoids with opioids and risk for fall-related injury among older US Medicare beneficiaries with chronic noncancer pain: A population-based cohort study

BackgroundGabapentinoids are increasingly prescribed to manage chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) in older adults. When used concurrently with opioids, gabapentinoids may potentiate central nervous system (CNS) depression and increase the risks for fall. We aimed to investigate whether concurrent use of gabapentinoids with opioids compared with use of opioids alone is associated with an increased risk of fall-related injury among older adults with CNCP.Methods and findingsWe conducted a population-based cohort study using a 5% national sample of Medicare beneficiaries in the United States between 2011 and 2018. Study sample consisted of fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with CNCP diagnosis who initiated opioids. We identified concurrent users with gabapentinoids and opioids days’ supply overlapping for ≥1 day and designated first day of concurrency as the index date. We created 2 cohorts based on whether concurrent users initiated gabapentinoids on the day of opioid initiation (Cohort 1) or after opioid initiation (Cohort 2). Each concurrent user was matched to up to 4 opioid-only users on opioid initiation date and index date using risk set sampling. We followed patients from index date to first fall-related injury event ascertained using a validated claims-based algorithm, treatment discontinuation or switching, death, Medicare disenrollment, hospitalization or nursing home admission, or end of study, whichever occurred first. In each cohort, we used propensity score (PS) weighted Cox models to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of fall-related injury, adjusting for year of the index date, sociodemographics, types of chronic pain, comorbidities, frailty, polypharmacy, healthcare utilization, use of nonopioid medications, and opioid use on and before the index date. We identified 6,733 concurrent users and 27,092 matched opioid-only users in Cohort 1 and 5,709 concurrent users and 22,388 matched opioid-only users in Cohort 2. The incidence rate of fall-related injury was 24.5 per 100 person-years during follow-up (median, 9 days; interquartile range [IQR], 5 to 18 days) in Cohort 1 and was 18.0 per 100 person-years during follow-up (median, 9 days; IQR, 4 to 22 days) in Cohort 2. Concurrent users had similar risk of fall-related injury as opioid-only users in Cohort 1(aHR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.34, p = 0.874), but had higher risk for fall-related injury than opioid-only users in Cohort 2 (aHR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.44, p = 0.005). Limitations of this study included confounding due to unmeasured factors, unavailable information on gabapentinoids’ indication, potential misclassification, and limited generalizability beyond older adults insured by Medicare FFS program.ConclusionsIn this sample of older Medicare beneficiaries with CNCP, initiating gabapentinoids and opioids simultaneously compared with initiating opioids only was not significantly associated with risk for fall-related injury. However, addition of gabapentinoids to an existing opioid regimen was associated with increased risks for fall. Mechanisms for the observed excess risk, whether pharmacological or because of channeling of combination therapy to high-risk patients, require further investigation. Clinicians should consider the risk–benefit of combination therapy when prescribing gabapentinoids concurrently with opioids.

In a cohort study, Cheng Chen and colleagues investigate associations between concurrent use of gabapentinoids and opioids and risk of fall-related injury, compared with use of opioids alone, among adults aged 65 years or older with chronic noncancer pain in the United States.     

Relative risk of acute pancreatitis in initiators of exenatide twice daily compared with other anti-diabetic medication: a follow-up study

Aims Previously, a retrospective cohort study found no increased risk of acute pancreatitis with current or recent use of exenatide twice daily compared with use of other anti-diabetic drugs. This follow-up study investigated incident acute pancreatitis, with the use of a different data source and analytic method, in patients exposed to exenatide twice daily compared with patients exposed to other anti-diabetic medications. Methods A large US health insurance claims database was used. Eligible patients had ≥?9?months continuous enrollment without a claim for pancreatitis and a claim for a new anti-diabetic medication on or after 1 June 2005 to 31 March 2009. Cases of acute pancreatitis were defined as hospitalized patients with an Internation Classification of Disease?9 code of 577.0 in the primary position. A discrete time survival model was used to evaluate the relationship between exenatide twice daily and acute pancreatitis. Results Of 482?034 eligible patients, 24?237 initiated exenatide twice daily and 457?797 initiated another anti-diabetic medication. Initiators of exenatide twice daily had more severe diabetes compared with initiators of other anti-diabetic medications. After adjustments for propensity score, insulin and use of medication potentially associated with acute pancreatitis, the odds ratio with exenatide twice daily exposure was 0.95 (95%?CI 0.65-1.38). A secondary analysis that examined current, recent and past medication exposure found no increased risk of acute pancreatitis with exenatide twice daily, regardless of exposure category. Conclusion This study indicates that exposure to exenatide twice daily was not associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis compared with exposure to other anti-diabetic medications. These results should be interpreted in light of potential residual confounding and unknown biases.     

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

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

Assessment of Insulin Infusion Requirements in COVID-19-Infected Patients With Diabetic Ketoacidosis

Background/ObjectiveCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is thought to contribute to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and worse outcomes in patients with diabetes. This study compared the cumulative insulin dose required to achieve DKA resolution in the intensive care unit among patients with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19 infection versus without COVID-19 infection.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study evaluated 100 patients—50 patients with COVID-19 in cohort 1 and 50 patients without COVID-19 in cohort 2—treated with insulin infusions for DKA at a tertiary care teaching hospital. The primary outcome was to compare the cumulative insulin dose required to achieve DKA resolution in each cohort. The secondary outcomes included time to DKA resolution, mean insulin infusion rate, and mean weight-based cumulative insulin infusion dose required to achieve DKA resolution. All endpoints were adjusted for confounders.ResultsThe mean cumulative insulin dose was 190.3 units in cohort 1 versus 116.4 units in cohort 2 (P = .0038). Patients receiving steroids had a mean time to DKA resolution of 35.9 hours in cohort 1 versus 15.6 hours in cohort 2 (P = .0014). In cohort 1 versus cohort 2, the mean insulin infusion rate was 7.1 units/hour versus 5.3 units/hour (P = .0025), whereas the mean weight-based cumulative insulin infusion dose was 2.1 units/kg versus 1.5 units/kg (P = .0437), respectively.ConclusionCOVID-19-infected patients required a significantly larger cumulative insulin dose, longer time to DKA resolution, higher insulin infusion rate, and higher weight-based insulin infusion dose to achieve DKA resolution versus non–COVID-19-infected patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Day-long subcutaneous infusion of exenatide lowers glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Exenatide (exendin-4) is an incretin mimetic with potential antidiabetic activity. This study examined the effects of a continuous subcutaneous (SC) infusion of exenatide (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, or 0.8 microg/kg/day) or placebo (PBO) on glycemic control over 23 h intervals. Twelve subjects with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin and/or diet received 10 infusions (4 exenatide, 6 PBO) on consecutive days. Exenatide was given in a dose-increasing design with at least one placebo infusion between each exenatide infusion, and with meals and a snack provided during the first 14 h of infusion. Plasma exenatide concentrations were dose-proportional. Plasma glucose (4-23 h) was lower in all exenatide arms compared to placebo (p<0.0001). The change in insulin/glucagon ratio and amylin concentrations from pre-infusion to post-infusion was increased (p<0.005, p<0.05, respectively) in the combined exenatide arms, but remained unchanged in the placebo groups. Nausea and vomiting were the most common treatment emergent adverse events. Exenatide infusion also appeared to have positive effects on beta-cell and alpha-cell function as measured by proinsulin/insulin ratios and mean glucagon concentrations. In summary, exenatide lowered plasma glucose during both prandial and fasting states when delivered as a continuous SC infusion over twenty-three hours, suggesting that exenatide can provide day-long glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Successful treatment of prediabetes in clinical practice: targeting insulin resistance and β-cell dysfunction

ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of targeted pharmacologic interventions to reverse documented pathophysiologic abnormalities in prediabetes.MethodsPatients with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and/or impaired fasting glucose (IFG) were treated with insulin sensitizers (pioglitazone + metformin) or insulin sensitizers + exenatide on the basis of oral glucose tolerance testing-derived indices of insulin resistance and impaired b-cell function. Patients who declined pharmacologic therapy received lifestyle modification only.ResultsOne hundred five patients with IGT and/or IFG were treated with insulin sensitizers (pioglitazone + metformin) (n = 40), insulin sensitizers + exenatide (n = 47), or lifestyle modification only (n = 18). After a mean follow-up period of 8.9 months, the lifestyle modification group demonstrated no significant changes in fasting plasma glucose, plasma glucose area under the curve during oral glucose tolerance testing, insulin sensitivity, or b-cell function. In the pioglitazone + metformin group (24 hours off medication), fasting plasma glucose fell from 109 to 102 mg/dL; plasma glucose area under the curve decreased by 12.0%; insulin sensitivity and b-cell function improved by 42% and 50%, respectively (all P < .001); 14.3% converted to normal glucose tolerance; and no patient developed diabetes. In the pioglitazone + metformin + exenatide group (24 hours off medication), fasting plasma glucose fell from 109 to 98 mg/dL; plasma glucose area under the curve decreased by 21.2%; insulin sensitivity and b-cell function improved by 52% and 109%, respectively (all P < .001); 59.1% of patients with IGT reverted to normal glucose tolerance; and no patient developed diabetes.ConclusionsTargeted pathophysiologic therapy based on oral glucose tolerance test-derived measures of insulin sensitivity and b-cell function can be implemented in general internal medicine and endocrine practice and is associated with marked improvement in glucose tolerance and reversion of prediabetes to normal glucose tolerance in more than 50% of patients. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18: 342-350)