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

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

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

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

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)     

The role of rapid-acting insulin analogues and inhaled insulin in type 2 diabetes mellitus

sBackground:The availability of rapid-acting insulin analogues and inhaled insulin gives clinicians additional treatmentoptions in the management of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Combining rapid-acting insulin analogues with basal insulin can more closely mimic physiologic insulin release to maximize glycemic control.Objective:The objective of this article was to discuss the role of rapid-acting insulin analogues and inhaled insulin inthe treatment of patients with type 2 DM.Methods:Materials for this article were obtained through an online search of MEDLINE/PubMed and Google(1996-2006) using the search terms bolus insulin, postprandial, rapid-acting insulin analogues, titration, hypoglycemia, glycemic control, inhaled insulin, and insulins lispro, aspart, and glulisine.Results:Glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) levels and number of all hypoglycemic episodes were similar in patients withtype 2 DM taking either mealtime rapid-acting insulin analogues or regular human insulin (RHI). Rapid-acting insulins have been successfully used in basal-bolus regimens with a variety of long- and intermediate-acting insulins, as well as with oral hypoglycemic agents. Injectable rapid-acting insulin analogues markedly decreased postprandial glucose (PPG) levels compared with RHI. Better reduction in PPG levels may be key to achieving target A1C levels in some patients, but long-term outcome studies are needed to assess whether lowering PPG levels decreases cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 DM. Inhaled insulin may be an option for patients who cannot inject insulin, but route of administration and dosing issues limit its use in many patients. The effect of inhaled insulin on PPG is unclear at this time.Conclusions:Although rapid-acting insulin analogues are effective in the management of patients with type 2 DM, the limited numbers of studies have yet to demonstrate that these agents have any significant long-term advantage compared with RHI. In addition, they cost more than RHI. Further studies are needed to compare the efficacy of the rapid-acting insulin analogues, to compare the different dosing regimens used with mealtime insulin administration, and to ascertain if the decrease in PPG levels seen with the use of rapid-acting insulin analogues translates into improved glycemic control and perhaps even a reduction in cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 DM. (Insulin. 2007;2:61-67) Copyright 2007 Excerpta Medica, Inc.     

Effects of Pramlintide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: An Analysis Using Daily Insulin Dose Tertiles

ObjectiveThe purpose of the analysis was to investigate if the efficacy and tolerability of 6 months of pramlintide therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) differed with increasing levels of concomitant insulin doses, using data from 3 previously described clinical trials.MethodsIn this post hoc analysis, data from 2 pooled, placebo-controlled pivotal trials and 1 clinical practice trial were evaluated by baseline insulin use tertile in patients with T2DM.ResultsIn the pivotal trials, both glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and body weight decreased similarly across tertiles with pramlintide. A1C decreased slightly and body weight remained relatively unchanged across tertiles with placebo. Similarly, in the clinical practice trial, pramlintide was associated with decreases in A1C, body weight, and total daily insulin use across the tertiles. Overall, the most common adverse events were gastrointestinal in nature, and the rate of severe hypoglycemia was low.ConclusionThese results suggest that pramlintide therapy was associated with improved A1C and decreased body weight, with a low rate of severe hypoglycemia, among patients with T2DM, regardless of baseline insulin use. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:1070-1075)     

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)     

Effects of Insulin Detemir and NPH Insulin on Body Weight and Appetite-Regulating Brain Regions in Human Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Studies in rodents have demonstrated that insulin in the central nervous system induces satiety. In humans, these effects are less well established. Insulin detemir is a basal insulin analog that causes less weight gain than other basal insulin formulations, including the current standard intermediate-long acting Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. Due to its structural modifications, which render the molecule more lipophilic, it was proposed that insulin detemir enters the brain more readily than other insulins. The aim of this study was to investigate whether insulin detemir treatment differentially modifies brain activation in response to food stimuli as compared to NPH insulin. In addition, cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) insulin levels were measured after both treatments. Brain responses to viewing food and non-food pictures were measured using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 32 type 1 diabetic patients, after each of two 12-week treatment periods with insulin detemir and NPH insulin, respectively, both combined with prandial insulin aspart. CSF insulin levels were determined in a subgroup. Insulin detemir decreased body weight by 0.8 kg and NPH insulin increased weight by 0.5 kg (p = 0.02 for difference), while both treatments resulted in similar glycemic control. After treatment with insulin detemir, as compared to NPH insulin, brain activation was significantly lower in bilateral insula in response to visual food stimuli, compared to NPH (p = 0.02 for right and p = 0.05 for left insula). Also, CSF insulin levels were higher compared to those with NPH insulin treatment (p = 0.003). Our findings support the hypothesis that in type 1 diabetic patients, the weight sparing effect of insulin detemir may be mediated by its enhanced action on the central nervous system, resulting in blunted activation in bilateral insula, an appetite-regulating brain region, in response to food stimuli.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00626080","term_id":"NCT00626080"}}NCT00626080.     

Comparison of 3 Algorithms for Basal Insulin in Transitioning from Intravenous to Subcutaneous Insulin in Stable Patients after Cardiothoracic Surgery

ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of an algorithm containing 1 of 3 initial subcutaneous doses of insulin detemir and flexible prandial and supplemental insulin aspart in stable patients who have undergone cardiac surgery and are being transitioned off intravenous insulin infusion.MethodsPatients were extubated, were not taking vasopressors, and were otherwise stable, requiring at least 1 unit per hour of intravenous insulin at least 48 hours after surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to once-daily insulin detemir at 50%, 65%, or 80% of intravenous basal insulin requirements and received insulin aspart according to carbohydrate intake. The dose of insulin detemir was adjusted daily over 72 hours.ResultsEighty-two patients were included. The percentages of patients with an initial morning glucose concentration of 80 to 130 mg/dL were 36%, 63%, and 56% of patients at the 50%, 65%, and 80% doses, respectively (P = .12). However, the mean overall glucose value at 24 and 72 hours was similar between groups, and 86%, 93%, and 92% of patients in each group, respectively, achieved a mean glucose concentration of 80 to 180 mg/dL at 72 hours (P = .60). Hypoglycemia (glucose < 65 mg/dL) only occurred in the 65% group (21%) and the 80% group (12%) over the first 72 hours (P = .02 in the 50% group compared with the 65% and 80% groups combined) with 1 event of a glucose concentration less than 40 mg/dL in the 80% group. There was no loss of glycemic control by the end of the once-daily dosing interval.ConclusionsGlycemic targets can be achieved without hypoglycemia by 72 hours in most patients who have undergone cardiac surgery and require intravenous insulin with a regimen consisting of an initial insulin detemir dose of 50% of basal intravenous insulin requirements and prandial and supplemental insulin. (Endocr Pract. 2011; 17:753-758)     

Switching to basal-bolus insulin therapy is effective and safe in long-term type 2 diabetes patients inadequately controlled with other insulin regimens

AimTo assess in standard clinical practice the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of switching patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and poor or unstable blood glucose control to basal-bolus insulin therapy.Material and methodsThis was a prospective, single center study including 37 patients with T2DM (age 65 ± 8 years, 62.2% men, body mass index 28.8 ± 6.2 kg/m², diabetes duration 18 ± 8 years) with poor or unstable glycemic control, who were switched to a basal-bolus insulin regimen with glargine and rapid-acting insulin analogue at the discretion of their physicians. After a group-structured outpatient diabetes training program, patients were followed in a clinical practice setting for 6 months. Clinical and biochemical variables were collected before switching and at 3 and 6 months.ResultsAfter switching to basal-bolus therapy, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) decreased from 9 ± 1.2% to 8.1 ± 1.2% (p < 0.001) at 3 months and to 8.0 ± 1.2% at 6 months (p < 0.001) without changing total daily insulin dose. The proportion of patients with HbA1c ≥ 9% decreased from 51% to 13.8% at 3 months and to 18.9% at 6 months respectively. There was a single episode of severe hypoglycemia. No changes were seen in body weight and quality of life. The size of LDL (low density lipoprotein) particles significantly increased at 3 and 6 months, while all other lipid parameters remained unchanged.ConclusionsOur study confirmed that basal-bolus insulin therapy is feasible, effective, and safe in patients with long-standing T2DM, and does not impair their quality of life.     

A randomised,open-labelstudy of insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in Chinese paediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus

Background

We aimed to describe the safety and efficacy of insulin glargine in Chinese paediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin was the reference therapy.

Methods

This open-label, randomised, Phase III study was conducted at 10 sites in China. Children aged ≥6 to <18 years with T1DM were randomised (2:1) to insulin glargine or NPH insulin asbasal insulinfor a 24-week treatment period. For all patients, insulin aspart was given as bolus insulin. The primary endpoint was absolute change in glycated haemoglobin(HbA1c) from baseline to Week 24. Secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients reaching HbA1c <7.5% (<58.5 mmol/mol), and safety. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01223131).

Results

In total,196 patients were screened, and 162 were randomised (107 and 55 patients were randomised to insulin glargine and NPH insulin, respectively). The mean?±?SD of absolute change in HbA1c was–0.25?±?1.68% (–2.69?±?18.32 mmol/mol) in the insulin glargine group and –0.54?±?1.67% (–5.55?±?20.32 mmol/mol) in the NPH insulin group. At Week 24, 18.7 and 21.6% of patients in the insulin glargine and NPH insulin groups achieved HbA1c <7.5% (<58.5 mmol/mol). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. A numerically lower rate of symptomatic hypoglycaemia per patient year was observed for insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (24.3?±?45.8 versus32.3?±?43.2); severe hypoglycaemia was rare (<2%).

Conclusions

Initiation of insulin glargine can aid Chinese paediatric patients with T1DM to safely reduce their HbA1c levels.

     

地特胰岛素与NPH胰岛素治疗口服降糖药控制不佳的2型糖尿病临床比较研究

目的：观察口服降糖药控制不佳的2型糖尿病患者分别加用地特胰岛素和NPH胰岛素治疗24周的有效性和安全性。方法：63例口服降糖药物控制不佳（HbAlc〉7％）的2型糖尿病患者随机加用地特胰岛素或鱼精蛋白锌（NPH）胰岛素作为基础胰岛素,每日1次治疗24周,比较两组治疗前后糖化血红蛋白、体重、血脂的变化及低血糖的发生率。结果：两组的糖化血红蛋白、空腹血糖与基线比较均有显著下降,治疗后组间无差异。与NPH胰岛素组比较地特胰岛素组体重增加明显减少,差异有统计学意义。地特胰岛素组治疗期间全部低血糖次数较NPH胰岛素组减少54．69％（P〈0．01）。结论：地特胰岛素与NPH胰岛素相比,在有效控制血糖的同时可降低低血糖发生风险,而且有减少体重增加的优势。     

Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogues in Basal-Bolus Regimens in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo compare rapid-acting insulin analogues with regular human insulin in terms of hemoglobin A_1c, hypoglycemia, and insulin dose when used in a basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.MethodsMEDLINE and congress proceedings were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing pran- dial insulins in a basal-bolus regimen in adults or children/ adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Studies in pregnancy, ob- servational studies, studies that compared premixed insulin or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion/insulin pumps, and studies where the basal insulin was also changed were excluded. Only studies reporting baseline-endpoint change in insulin dose, or baseline and/or endpoint values, were included.ResultsTwenty-eight studies were identified (insulin glulisine, 4; insulin aspart, 7; insulin lispro, 17). Twenty- five studies compared a rapid-acting insulin analogue with regular human insulin, and 3 trials compared 2 rapid-acting insulin analogues. Overall, rapid-acting insulin analogues in a basal-bolus regimen provided similar or greater im- provements in glycemic control than regular human insulin at similar insulin doses, as well as a lower incidence of hypoglycemia.ConclusionsResults of the studies identified in this literature review indicate that a basal-bolus regimen with prandial rapid-acting insulin analogue provides advan- tages over basal-bolus regimens using prandial regular hu- man insulin, providing improvements in glycemic control comparable to those obtained with regular human insulin, as well as a lower incidence of hypoglycemia. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:486-505)     

All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality among Users of Basal Insulins NPH,Detemir, and Glargine

Background

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes may increase mortality and cancer incidence, but the impact of different types of basal insulins on these endpoints is unclear. Compared to the traditional NPH insulin, the newer, longer-acting insulin analogues detemir and glargine have shown benefits in randomized controlled trials. Whether these advantages translate into lower mortality among users in real life is unknown.

Objective

To estimate the differences in all-cause and cause-specific mortality rates between new users of basal insulins in a population-based study in Finland.

Methods

23 751 individuals aged ≥40 with type 2 diabetes, who initiated basal insulin therapy in 2006–2009 were identified from national registers, with comprehensive data for mortality, causes of death, and background variables. Propensity score matching was performed on characteristics. Follow-up time was up to 4 years (median 1.7 years).

Results

2078 deaths incurred. With NPH as reference, the adjusted HRs for all-cause mortality were 0.39 (95% CI, 0.30–0.50) for detemir, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.44–0.69) for glargine. As compared to glargine, the HR was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.54–0.93) among detemir users. Compared to NPH, the mortality risk for both cardiovascular causes as well as cancer were also significantly lower for glargine, and especially for detemir in adjusted analysis. Furthermore, the results were robust in various sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

In real clinical practice, mortality was substantially higher among users of NPH insulin as compared to insulins detemir or glargine. Considering the large number of patients who require insulin therapy, this difference in risk may have major clinical and public health implications. Due to limitations of the observational study design, further investigation using an interventional study design is warranted.     

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

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

地特胰岛素与NPH胰岛素治疗口服降糖药控制不佳的2型糖尿病 临床比较研究

目的:观察口服降糖药控制不佳的2型糖尿病患者分别加用地特胰岛素和NPH胰岛素治疗24周的有效性和安全性。方法:63例口服降糖药物控制不佳(HbA1c>7%)的2型糖尿病患者随机加用地特胰岛素或鱼精蛋白锌(NPH)胰岛素作为基础胰岛素,每日1次治疗24周,比较两组治疗前后糖化血红蛋白、体重、血脂的变化及低血糖的发生率。结果:两组的糖化血红蛋白、空腹血糖与基线比较均有显著下降,治疗后组间无差异。与NPH胰岛素组比较地特胰岛素组体重增加明显减少,差异有统计学意义。地特胰岛素组治疗期间全部低血糖次数较NPH胰岛素组减少54.69%(P<0.01)。结论:地特胰岛素与NPH胰岛素相比,在有效控制血糖的同时可降低低血糖发生风险,而且有减少体重增加的优势。     

Use of Insulin Pump Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes After Failure of Multiple Daily Injections

ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of insulin pump use (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; CSII) in patients with type 2 diabetes (DM2) who have failed multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy.MethodsIn this retrospective study, charts of patients with DM2 who were started on CSII after failure of MDI were reviewed. Patients were categorized as primarily manual (fixed) bolus users or calculated (using pump software) bolus users. The change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), weight, and basal insulin dose from baseline to 6 months was determined.ResultsFifty-seven patients (20 men and 37 women) ranging in age from 13 to 71 were identified in the study. A significant reduction in HbA1c was observed from 8.75 to 7.69% (P<.001). There was an increase in body mass index (BMI) from a mean of 36.53 to a mean of 37.21. A decrease in basal insulin requirement per kilogram of weight (−0.10 U/kg) was noted (P = .03). Seven patients using U-500 insulin in the pump also had a significant decrease in HbA1C of 1.1 % (P<.001), along with a 0.071 U/kg drop in basal insulin requirements (P<.001). When comparing calculated bolus users to manual bolus users, there was no difference in HbA1C improvement (P = .58).ConclusionWe found that CSII improves glucose control in patients with DM2 who have failed MDI despite a decrease in overall insulin requirements. This includes patients with severe insulin resistance using U-500 insulin. Use of frequent bolus adjustment incorporating carbohydrate counting and current glucose level does not appear to be required for this benefit. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19: 9-13)     

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)     

Association between Gastroenterological Malignancy and Diabetes Mellitus and Anti-Diabetic Therapy: A Nationwide,Population-Based Cohort Study

BackgroundThe relationship between diabetes mellitus (DM) and cancer incidence has been evaluated in limited kinds of cancer. The effect of anti-diabetic therapy (ADT) on carcinogenesis among diabetic patients is also unclear.ResultsIncidence of cancer at any site was significantly higher in patients with DM than in those without (p<0.001). The risk of carcinogenesis imparted by DM was greatest in gastroenterological malignancies (liver, pancreas, and colorectal cancer) as well as lung, breast and oral cancer (p<0.001). Among the oral types of ADT, metformin decreased the risk of lung and liver cancer, but had less effect on reducing the risk of colorectal cancer. α-glucosidase inhibitor decreased the risk of developing liver, colorectal, and breast cancer. Apart from intermediate-acting insulin, rapid-acting, long-acting, and combination insulin treatment significantly reduced the overall cancer risk among all DM patients. In subgroup analysis, long-acting insulin treatment significantly decreased the risk of lung, liver, and colorectal cancer.ConclusionOur results supported the notion that pre-existing DM increases the incidence of gastroenterological cancer. ADT, especially metformin, α-glucosidase inhibitor, and long-acting insulin treatment, may protect patients with DM against these malignancies. It is crucial that oncologists should closely collaborate with endocrinologists to provide an optimal cancer-specific therapy and diabetic treatment to patients simultaneously with cancer and DM.     

Comparison of the Effect of Insulin Glulisine to Insulin Aspart on Breakfast Postprandial Blood Glucose Levels in Children with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus on Multiple Daily Injections

ObjectiveRapid-acting insulins, including insulin aspart (NovoLog) and lispro (Humalog), do not seem to effectively control postprandial glycemic excursions in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). The objective of this study was to determine if insulin glulisine (Apidra), another rapid-acting insulin analog, would be superior in controlling postprandial hyperglycemia in children with T1DM.MethodsThirteen prepubertal children ages 4 to 11 years completed this study. Inclusion criteria included T1DM ≥6 months, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbAlC) 6.9 to 10%, blood glucose (BG) levels in adequate control for 1 week prior to study start, multiple daily injections (MDI) with insulin glargine or determir once daily and aspart or lispro premeal. If fasting BG was 70 to 180 mg/dL, subjects received insulin glulisine alternating with aspart prior to a prescribed breakfast with a fixed amount of carbohydrate (45, 60, or 75 g) for 20 days. Postprandial BG values were obtained at 2 and 4 hours.ResultsMean baseline BG values for insulin glulisine (136.4 ± 15.7 mg/dL; mean ± SD) and aspart (133.4 ± 14.7 mg/dL) were similar (P = .34). Mean increase in 2-hour postprandial BG was higher in glulisine (+113.5 ± 65.2 mg/dL) than aspart (+98.6 ± 66.9 mg/dL), (P = .01). BG remained higher at 4 hours (glulisine: 141.9 ± 36.5 mg/ dL, aspart: 129.0 ± 37.0 mg/dL) (P = .04). Although statistically insignificant, more hypoglycemic events occurred at 2-and 4-hours postprandial with insulin aspart.ConclusionInsulin aspart appears to be more effective than insulin glulisine in controlling 2-and 4-hour postprandial BG excursions in prepubertal children with T1DM. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19:614-619)     

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)