Incorporating postprandial and fasting plasma glucose into clinical management strategies

Background: Targeting plasma glucose is a widely accepted practice in the treatment of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Although clinicians have traditionally relied on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels for diagnosis and as a target for therapy, the focus has expanded to include the contribution of postprandial glucose (PPG) to glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) levels.Objective: This article examines the contributions of FPG and PPG to A1C levels in patients with diabetes and discusses the impact of these findings on insulin treatment strategies for patients who fail to achieve recommended A1C goals.Methods: Relevant articles were identified through a PubMed search of the literature (1975–2007) using the following search terms: fasting plasma glucose, postprandial glucose, postprandial hyperglycemia, and glycemic control.Results: Changes in PPG levels are typically the first signs of abnormal glucose metabolism associated with type 2 DM, and they are a useful measure of glycemic control in patients with near-normal FPG and high A1C levels. A substantial proportion of patients considered to have good glycemic control (A1C <7.0%) may continue to experience elevated PPG levels, which have been linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. FPG levels may predict the degree of postprandial hyperglycemia and the extent of PPG excursion. Conversely, correction of PPG levels may reduce FPG levels by suppressing hepatic glucose production. Evidence indicates that therapy targeting both FPG and PPG is associated with optimal reductions in A1C levels. At very high A1C levels (>9%-10%), FPG may play a greater role in overall glucose control than does PPG, but PPG becomes a more important contributor as A1C levels decrease. Increasing evidence supports the long-term benefits of early initiation of intensive insulin therapy. In particular, prandial insulin therapy may address the issue of postprandial hyperglycemia, which may be insufficiently controlled with oral agents and/or basal insulin alone.Conclusions: Both FPG and PPG affect A1C levels and are important contributors to determining overall glycemic control. Alternative insulin therapies (eg, inhaled insulin) that minimize barriers to insulin therapy and the appropriate targeting of FPG and PPG levels may improve long-term outcomes in patients with diabetes.     

The Use of Premixed Insulin Analogues in the Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Advantages and Limitations

Background:Intensive, target-oriented therapy is the standard of care in the management of patients with type 2 diabetesmellitus (DM). Early and aggressive use of insulin that is as close as possible to the physiologic pattern of insulin secretion from healthy pancreatic β-cells is advocated to achieve glycemic goals and reduce complications of DM.Objective:The objective of this article was to review the characteristics, advantages, and drawbacks of premixedinsulin analogues and to evaluate their role in the treatment of patients with type 2 DM.Methods:A PubMed search of articles from 1990 to 2006 was undertaken using the search terms type 2 diabetes, basalbolus therapy, premixed insulins, biphasic insulins, and insulin analogues. Pertinent content from relevant articles was extracted and combined with the authors' knowledge, experience, and clinical expertise.Results:The advent of insulin analogues has streamlined the treatment of patients with DM. When to initiate insulin during the course of treatment is the subject of much debate. Insulin therapy targeting both fasting and postprandial hyperglycemia is important in achieving optimal blood glucose (BG) control in patients with type 2 DM. A practical and feasible option is the use of >1 injection of premixed insulin analogues. Premixed insulin preparations provide both basal and prandial coverage because of their biphasic pharmacokinetic properties. Clinical trials have shown that these agents improve glycemic control, are associated with an acceptably low rate of severe hypoglycemia, and have a high degree of patient acceptance. Limitations include the inability to adjust the long- and short-acting components separately, to use a flexible regimen of self-titration and premeal bolus-insulin calculations, and to adequately treat postlunch and earlymorning BG elevations.Conclusion:Clinicians should be aware of premixed insulin analogues' advantages and limitations so that these agentscan be used appropriately in the treatment of patients with type 2 DM.     

Weight Gain and Management Concerns in Patients on Insulin Therapy

Background: The benefits of tight glycemic control in preventing the onset and progression of microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) are unarguable. The majority of patients with type 2 DM will eventually require insulin to achieve adequate glycemic control. Using insulin earlier rather than later in the course of type 2 DM may diminish the deleterious effects of hyperglycemia on β-cell function and therefore help prolong good glycemic control and prevent the occurrence of microvascular complications. However, weight gain is a potential adverse effect of insulin therapy.Objective: The goal of this article was to describe the benefit of insulin therapy early in the course of type 2 DM, review the association of weight gain with insulin therapy, and examine potential detrimental effects that insulin-associated weight gain could have in patients with type 2 DM.Methods: Materials used for this article were identified through a search of MEDLINE (1966–2006). English-language articles were chosen using the search terms diabetes mellitus type 2, insulin, and obesity.Results: Intensive insulin therapy is often associated with weight gain. Although there is concern that weight gain in patients with type 2 DM may have adverse effects on risk factors for cardiovascular disease, unfavorable changes in blood pressure and lipid levels have not been consistently observed in clinical trials. Furthermore, clinical evidence, including data from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, supports the view that intensive insulin therapy does not increase the risk for cardiovascular disease.Conclusions: Early insulin therapy in patients with type 2 DM may be a strategy that will help patients achieve and maintain good glycemic control, thereby reducing the risk of developing microvascular complications. Although weight gain is commonly associated with insulin therapy, it does not appear to put these patients at greater risk for cardiovascular disease.     

Fasting Versus Postprandial Hyperglycemia as a Treatment Target to Lower Elevated Hemoglobin A1C

Objective: Postprandial hyperglycemia (PPHG) may need addressing when glycemic control cannot be maintained in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We investigated whether glycated hemoglobin A_1c (A_1c) levels ≥7.0% can indicate postprandial defects warranting prandial therapy after optimized basal insulin therapy.Methods: From 6 clinical trials of insulin glargine treatment, data were pooled from 496 patients with A_1c ≥7.0% after 24 weeks. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were summarized according to fasting plasma glucose (FPG) target achievement (<130 mg/dL), postprandial blood glucose (PPBG) levels, and PPBG increments (ΔPPBG). Basal and postprandial contributions to hyperglycemia were determined.Results: After 24 weeks of insulin glargine titration, A_1c change from baseline was greater in patients with FPG <130 mg/dL versus ≥130 mg/dL (-1.35% versus -1.11%, respectively; P = .0275), but with increased confirmed hypoglycemia rates (blood glucose <70 mg/dL; 4.06 events/patient-year versus 3.31 events/patient-year; P = .0170). However, increased severe hypoglycemia rates were observed in patients with FPG ≥130 mg/dL. At week 24, postprandial contributions to hyperglycemia increased (>60% regardless of PPBG). Patients with high FPG had lower, but substantial, relative postprandial contributions versus patients achieving FPG target. A similar pattern was observed according to whether patients had a ΔPPBG ≥50 mg/dL after any meal.Conclusion: After optimized basal insulin therapy, elevated A_1c is the most effective indicator of residual PPHG, regardless of existent FPG or PPBG. When confronted with an uncontrolled A_1c after reasonable titration of basal insulin, clinicians should be aware of probable postprandial contributions to hyperglycemia and consider prandial therapy.Abbreviations:A_1c = glycated hemoglobin A_1cAUC = area under the curveAUC_B = area under the curve (basal hyperglycemia)AUC_G = total area under the curve (total glucose)AUC_N = area under the curve (normal glycemic exposure)AUC_P = area under the curve (postprandial hyperglycemia)BHG = basal hyperglycemiaFBG = fasting blood glucoseFPG = fasting plasma glucoseGLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide 1HE = hyperglycemic exposureOADs = oral antidiabetes drugsPPBG = postprandial blood glucoseΔPPBG = change in postprandial blood glucosePPHG = postprandial hyperglycemiaSMBG = self-monitored blood glucoseT2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus     

The Rationale for Prandial Glycemic Control in Diabetes Mellitus

Background:Diabetes mellitus (DM) is of epidemic proportions worldwide, and its microvascular and macrovascular complications have been well described. Achieving glycemic control has been demonstrated to reduce patients' risk of developing these complications.Objective:The objective of this article was to examine how prandial hyperglycemia-especially postprandial hyperglycemia (PPHG)-affects overall glycemic control and the complications of DM and to discuss the pharmacologic agents available to reduce PPHG.Methods:Materials used for this article were identified through a MEDLINE search of the literature (1975–2006). English-language randomized, controlled, prospective, cohort, and observational studies were chosen using the search terms postprandial hyperglycemia, oxidative stress, cardiovascular disease, macrovascular disease, microvascular disease, lipidemia, and coagulation.Results:Data show that controlling prandial hyperglycemia reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) andmicrovascular complications, lowers glycosylated hemoglobin levels, causes less oxidative stress, and leads to a more favorable coagulation and postprandial lipidemia profile. Guidelines for targeting PPHG are becoming standard, and various pharmacologic agents (eg, a-glucosidase inhibitors, amylin analogues, incretin mimetics, rapid-acting insulins and insulin analogues, meglitinide analogues) that target PPHG may also improve overall glycemic control and reduce CVD risk.Conclusions:Although the level of hyperglycemia that leads to microvascular and macrovascular complications inpatients with DM remains to be elucidated, it appears prudent to address prandial hyperglycemia, especially PPHG, rather than focus solely on fasting glucose levels. Clinicians should consider incorporating agents that lower PPHG in their treatment of patients with DM.     

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)     

Insulin Therapy and Hypoglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Background: Iatrogenic hypoglycemia, the limiting factor in the glycemic management of diabetes mellitus (DM), is the result of therapeutic insulin excess and compromised physiological and behavioral defenses against falling plasma glucose concentrations.Objective: The goal of this article was to review the available evidence on insulin therapy and hypoglycemia, with a focus on type 2 DM.Methods: This review was based on the author's clinical experience, his >3 decades of translational research in the area of hypoglycemia, and his knowledge of the relevant preclinical and clinical literature.Results: Glycemic defenses become compromised rapidly in type 1 DM but slowly in type 2 DM. As a result, the frequency of hypoglycemia increases progressively as patients approach the insulin-deficient end of the spectrum of type 2 DM. Indeed, it appears that most episodes of hypoglycemia, including those of severe hypoglycemia, occur in individuals with type 2 DM. The conventional risk factors for hypoglycemia are based on relative or absolute insulin excess. It is clear that the pathogenesis of hypoglycemia-associated autonomic failure, and thus an increased risk for iatrogenic hypoglycemia, stems fundamentally from insulin deficiency. Relevant additional risk factors include the degree of insulin deficiency, a history of severe hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia unawareness, or both, as well as recent antecedent hypoglycemia, prior exercise and sleep, and aggressive glycemic therapy per se in advanced type 2 DM, just as in type 1 DM. The prevention of hypoglycemia involves the practice of hypoglycemia risk reductionȔdiscussion of the issue, application of the principles of aggressive therapy, and consideration of both the conventional risk factors and those relevant to compromised glycemic defensesȔin advanced type 2 DM, just as in type 1 DM. With this approach, it is possible to improve glycemic control and reduce the frequency of hypoglycemia in many people with DM.Conclusions: Pending the prevention and cure of DM, people with this disease need safe and effective therapies. Ultimately, that will require glucose-regulated insulin replacement or secretion. In the meantime, insight into the mechanisms of hypoglycemia-associated autonomic failure may lead to interventions that will further improve the lives of people affected by DM by reducing the frequency of hypoglycemia without compromising glycemic control.(Insulin. 2007;2:127-133)     

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.     

Hypoglycemia in childhood type 1 diabetes mellitus: Understanding and managing the dark side of intensive insulin therapy

Background: Despite the availability of advanced insulin delivery systems, blood glucose-monitoring equipment, and insulin analogue formulations, hypoglycemia remains a significant concern in the treatment of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM). Furthermore, patients who manage their blood glucose levels most effectively may also be the ones at greatest risk for hypoglycemia.Objective: The aim of this article was to review current issues surrounding the pathophysiology and frequency of hypoglycemia in children and adolescents with type 1 DM.Methods: Relevant articles for this review were identified through a search of MEDLINE (1992–2007; English-language articles only). The search terms used were children, adolescents, hypoglycemia, diabetes, insulin, and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion.Results: The threat of severe hypoglycemia remains a major obstacle to the effective treatment of type 1 DM. Basalbolus therapy, using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion or multiple daily injections, is the most effective and flexible method available for maintaining good glycemic control in children as well as in adults. Insulin analogues can be used effectively in these regimens and may be helpful toward addressing risks for hypoglycemia. Patient education should also be given a high priority in addressing the risk of hypoglycemia in children and adolescents with type 1 DM. The development of continuous glucose-monitoring systems offers the potential for an even brighter future for this group of patients.Conclusions: Recent advances in DM technology reduce but do not eliminate the risk of hypoglycemia in youth with type 1 DM. These observations underscore the need for a closed-loop insulin delivery system in which the rate of insulin infusion is regulated by real-time changes in glucose concentrations. (Insulin. 2007;2:157–165)Key words: type 1 diabetes mellitus; hypoglycemia; children; adolescents; insulin analogue; continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; multiple daily injections; basal-bolus therapy.Accepted for publication 09052007     

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)     

A pilot study to stabilize normoglycemia during an educational camp for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus

Background: Children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) who participate in diabetes camps do not often achieve stable, normoglycemic control, largely because changes in the campers' activity levels and food options necessitate adjustments to their insulin use and nutritional therapies. It would seem logical, with the abundance of diabetes education and professional consultation freely available at these camps, that the glycemic levels of these young campers could approach normal values.Objective: This informal study was designed to explore the feasibility of safely achieving stable, short-term normo-glycemic control in children and adolescents with recent-onset type 1 DM attending a diabetes camp.Methods: A multidisciplinary team worked with children and adolescents 6 to 18 years of age during a residential 3-day/2-night diabetes camp. Demographic data were compiled from the application forms completed by the campers and signed by the campers and their parents. The staff functioned in 2 distinct roles: as managers (securing time, task, technique, and territory boundaries) and as consultants (addressing participants' educational, social, and emotional needs). The staff supported the campers in their attempts to quickly and safely achieve tight normoglycemic control (ie, 71–99 mg/dL) and stability (ie, an estimated mean amplitude of glycemic excursion [eMAGE] score ≤95) through their firsthand experience with self-directed learning methods, basal-bolus insulin analogue therapy, and a diet low in concentrated carbohydrates (CHOs). Campers chose foods from meal buffets, calculated preprandial and complementary doses of ultra-rapid insulin, and participated in physical exercise and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) at will. SMBG values retained in each camper's combined glucose/ketone monitor furnished statistical data. Initial and final glycosylated hemoglobin values were not measured because 3 days of glycemic control—at any BG level—would not be expected and have not been reported to produce significant changes. No follow-up of the campers was planned or possible.Results: Six boys and 3 girls (aged 8–17 years; mean [SD] age, 11.8 [2.6] years; mean duration of diabetes, 1.62 [0.88] years) agreed to participate in the study. All but 1 of the campers were preadolescents. Mean BG levels on arrival and departure were 209 (101.5) and 81 (12.8) mg/dL, respectively (P < 0.003). The mean 3-day BG level was 95 (21.2) mg/dL. The 3-day mean eMAGE score (66.5 [28.1]) indicated stable glycemic control. Seven of the 9 campers (78%) returned to the camp the following year (2007).Conclusions: Combining self-directed educational methods for learning diabetes self-management with insulin analogues in a basal-bolus therapy regimen, ad libitum physical activity and SMBG, and a diet low in concentrated CHOs, campers rapidly established routinely normal daily mean BG levels and glycemic stability.     

De-Intensification of Diabetes Treatment in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Objective: De-intensification of diabetes treatment is recommended in elderly patients with tight glycemic control at high risk of hypoglycemia. However, rates of de-intensification in endocrine practice are unknown. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the rate of de-intensification of antidiabetic treatment in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and tight glycemic control.Methods: All patients with ≥2 clinic visits over a 1-year period at a major academic diabetes center were included. De-intensification of diabetes treatment was defined as a decrease or discontinuation of any antidiabetic drug without adding another drug, or a reduction in the total daily dose of insulin or a sulfonylurea drug with or without adding a drug without risk of hypoglycemia.Results: Out of 3,186 unique patients, 492 were ≥65 years old with T2DM and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) <7.5% (<58 mmol/mol). We found 308 patients treated with a sulfonylurea drug or insulin, 102 of whom had hypoglycemia as per physician note. Among these 102 patients, 38 (37%) were advised to de-intensify therapy. In a subgroup analysis of patients ≥75 years old with HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol), we found that out of 23 patients treated with a sulfonylurea drug or insulin and reporting hypoglycemia, 11 (43%) were advised de-intensification of therapy. There were no significant predictors of de-intensification of treatment.Conclusion: Our study suggests that de-intensification of antidiabetic medications is uncommon in elderly patients with T2DM. Strategies may need to be developed to prevent the potential harm of overtreatment in this population.Abbreviations: ADA = American Diabetes Association; CGM = continuous glucose monitoring; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus; UKPDS = United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study     

Advanced Insulin Management program reduces A1C levels and regimen-related distress without weight gain in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus

Background: Despite the availability of effective treatments, many patients with diabetes have suboptimal glycemic control.Objective: This study was designed to determine whether the Advanced Insulin Management (AIM) program could help patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) reduce their A1C levels to ≤7.5% without weight gain, increased incidence of hypoglycemia, or increased diabetes-related distress.Methods: The AIM program, developed to intensify glycemic control in patients with type 1 DM, consisted of a screening visit and 3 to 6 interactive group sessions, depending on whether the patient elects multiple daily injections (MDIs) or an insulin pump. Patients who wanted to learn additional diabetes management skills were referred by their endocrinologist, and those with competent carbohydrate-counting skills and record-keeping practices were eligible to enroll. A nurse, dietitian, psychologist, and physician provided group instruction and supported individual goal setting. The program included depression screening, regimen adjustments, and problem-solving activities. Outcome measures, including blood glucose, A1C, weight, and diabetes-related distress, were tracked for 12 months.Results: The study included 113 adult patients with type 1 DM (59% female; mean age, 39 years). Twenty patients already had insulin pumps, 46 patients initiated pump therapy during the study, and 47 patients elected MDIs. Mean A1C declined by 0.5% (to 7.3%) after 12 months, without weight gain or increased hypoglycemia. A significant decrease in diabetes-related distress was observed.Conclusion: The AIM program was associated with important improvements in glycemic control in patients with type 1 DM, without weight gain or increased hypoglycemic episodes.     

Risk Factors for Hypoglycemia in Inpatients with Total Parenteral Nutrition and Type 2 Diabetes: A Post HOC Analysis of the Insupar Study

Objective: Treatment of hyperglycemia with insulin is associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients receiving total parenteral nutrition (TPN). The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of hypoglycemia in hospitalized T2DM patients receiving TPN.Methods: Post hoc analysis of the INSUPAR study, which is a prospective, open-label, multicenter clinical trial of adult inpatients with T2DM in a noncritical setting with indication for TPN.Results: The study included 161 patients; 31 patients (19.3%) had hypoglycemic events, but none of them was severe. In univariate analysis, hypoglycemia was significantly associated with the presence of diabetes with end-organ damage, duration of diabetes, use of insulin prior to admission, glycemic variability (GV), belonging to the glargine insulin group in the INSUPAR trial, mean daily grams of lipids in TPN, mean insulin per 10 grams of carbohydrates, duration of TPN, and increase in urea during TPN. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the presence of diabetes with end-organ damage, GV, use of glargine insulin, and TPN duration were risk factors for hypoglycemia.Conclusion: The presence of T2DM with end-organ damage complications, longer TPN duration, belonging to the glargine insulin group, and greater GV are factors associated with the risk of hypoglycemia in diabetic noncritically ill inpatients with parenteral nutrition.Abbreviations: ADA = American Diabetes Association; BMI = body mass index; CV% = coefficient of variation; DM = diabetes mellitus; GI = glargine insulin; GV = glycemic variability; ICU = intensive care unit; RI = regular insulin; T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus; TPN = total parenteral nutrition     

Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Delivery with V-GO® Disposable Insulin Delivery Device Versus Multiple Daily Injections in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled on Basal Insulin

Objective: To compare two methods of delivering intensified insulin therapy (IIT) in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin ± concomitant antihyperglycemic agents in a real-world clinical setting.Methods: Data for this retrospective study were obtained using electronic medical records from a large multicenter diabetes system. Records were queried to identify patients transitioned to V-Go® disposable insulin delivery device (V-Go) or multiple daily injections (MDI) using an insulin pen to add prandial insulin when A1C was >7% on basal insulin therapy. The primary endpoint was the difference in A1C change using follow-up A1C results.Results: A total of 116 patients were evaluated (56 V-Go, 60 MDI). Both groups experienced significant glycemic improvement from similar mean baselines. By 27 weeks, A1C least squares mean change from baseline was -1.98% (-21.6 mmol/mol) with V-Go and -1.34% (-14.6 mmol/mol) with MDI, for a treatment difference of -0.64% (-7.0 mmol/mol; P = .020). Patients using V-Go administered less mean ± SD insulin compared to patients using MDI, 56 ± 17 units/day versus 78 ± 40 units/day (P<.001), respectively. Diabetes-related direct pharmacy costs were lower with V-Go, and the cost inferential from baseline per 1% reduction in A1C was significantly less with V-Go ($118.84 ± $158.55 per patient/month compared to $217.16 ± $251.66 per patient/month with MDI; P = .013).Conclusion: Progression to IIT resulted in significant glycemic improvement. Insulin delivery with V-Go was associated with a greater reduction in A1C, required less insulin, and proved more cost-effective than administering IIT with MDI.Abbreviations:A1C = glycated hemoglobinANCOVA = analysis of covarianceCI = confidence intervalCSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusionFPG = fasting plasma glucoseIIT = intensified insulin therapyLSM = least squares meanMDI = multiple daily injectionsT2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitusTDD = total daily dose     

Ultra Rapid-Acting Inhaled Insulin Improves Glucose Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo determine whether the use of an inhaled insulin would improve HbA1c.MethodsThis study was performed in 20 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) participants with HbA1c values ≥7.5 (58) to ≤11.5% (102 mmol/mol) on a variety of glucose-lowering regimens. Prandial Technosphere insulin (TI) was rapidly titrated based on a treatment algorithm using postprandial blood glucose to calculate premeal doses. A 2-week baseline period was followed by 12 weeks of active treatment with TI. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes included glucose time in range (time in range: 70-180 mg/dL) obtained by a blinded continuous glucose monitoring during the baseline period and at the end of 12 weeks. Goals were to assess how to rapidly and safely initiate TI intensification, determine dosing requirements, and establish an effective dose range in uncontrolled T2DM.ResultsMean HbA1c decreased by −1.6% (−17 mmol/mol) from 9.0% (75 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7.4% (57 mmol/mol) at 12 weeks (P < .0001). Mean time in range increased from 42.2% to 65.7% (P < .0002). Mean prandial doses of TI were 18 or 19 units for all meals. Time below range was 1.1% baseline and 2.6% post treatment (P = .01).ConclusionTreatment with inhaled TI dosed using a simple algorithm improved glycemic control measured by both HbA1c and time in range, with low rates of hypoglycemia. These data add significantly to understanding TI in the management of T2DM patients for whom prandial insulin is a consideration.     

Patients Achieving Good Glycemic Control (HBA1c <7%) Experience A Lower Rate of Hypoglycemia With Insulin Degludec Than with Insulin Glargine: A Meta-Analysis of Phase 3A Trials

Objective: Meta-analysis to compare hypoglycemia rates of basal insulin degludec (IDeg) with insulin glargine (IGlar) in patients with diabetes achieving good glycemic control (hemoglobin A_1c [HbA_1c] <7% at end of trial).Methods: In a preplanned meta-analysis, patient data from 7 randomized, treat-to-target, 26- or 52-week trials in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who administered IDeg (n = 2,899) or IGlar (n = 1,431) once daily were analyzed. Using a negative binomial regression model, this meta-analysis compared hypoglycemia rates in patients achieving HbA_1c <7% at end of trial with IDeg (n = 1,347) and IGlar (n = 697).Results: In all trials, IDeg was noninferior to IGlar in HbA_1c reduction from baseline. At end of trial, 2,044 patients (T2DM, n = 1,661; T1DM, n = 383) achieved HbA_1c <7%. The overall confirmed hypoglycemia rate, defined as plasma glucose <56 mg/dL or severe hypoglycemia if requiring assistance, was significantly lower with IDeg versus IGlar (estimated rate ratio [ERR] IDeg:IGlar, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 0.98). The nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate, defined as occurring between midnight and 6:00 am, was significantly lower with IDeg (ERR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.77). In the maintenance period (16 weeks onward when average insulin dose and glycemic levels stabilized), the overall confirmed hypoglycemia rate was significantly lower (ERR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.92) and the nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate was significantly lower (ERR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.72) with IDeg versus IGlar.Conclusion: Patients with T1DM and T2DM achieved HbA_1c <7% with significantly lower rates of overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia with IDeg versus IGlar. The lower hypoglycemia rate with IDeg was more pronounced in the maintenance period.Abbreviations: ERR = estimated rate ratio; HbA_1c = hemoglobin A_1c; IDeg = insulin degludec; IGlar = insulin glargine; NPH = Neutral Protamine Hagedorn; PG = plasma glucose; T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus; T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus     

Reducing oxidative stress in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A primary care call to action

Background: Oxidative stress is believed to be the primary cause of the microvascular and macrovascular complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).Objective: This paper examines the evidence linking oxidative stress with long-term complications of type 2 DM and explores methods to minimize its effect.Methods: A literature search was performed to identify relevant studies for this review. Articles published in English from 2000 to 2008 were identified through searches of PubMed, Diabetes Care, and Google using the search terms oxidative stress, postprandial hyperglycemia, ACCORD Trial, and endothelial cell dysfunction.Results: The literature search identified 423 articles. Although chronic hyperglycemia can be effectively monitored and targeted using glycosylated hemoglobin concentrations, postprandial glucose levels are also important. Postprandial glucose excursions are exhibited by almost all patients with type 2 DM and are independent risk factors for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, glucose fluctuations during the postprandial period elicit more oxidative stress than chronic, sustained hyperglycemia and can lead to endothelial dysfunction, vascular inflammation, and microvascular complications. In turn, endothelial dysfunction has been implicated in the development of vascular pathologies such as atherosclerosis. Pharmacologic interventions (eg, rapid-acting insulin analogues that target post-prandial glucose excursions) reduce oxidative stress and vascular inflammation and improve endothelial dysfunction.Conclusions: Given the important role of oxidative stress in the development of complications of type 2 DM, physi-cians should consider methods to reduce oxidative stress that may occur during both acute (postprandial) and chronic hyperglycemia. One critical aspect is to reduce postprandial glucose levels to <180 mg/dL while lowering fasting glucose levels to <110 mg/dL. By coaching patients to reach these goals, physicians and other health care professionals can minimize the risk of long-term complications of type 2 DM.     

Pramlintide as an Adjunct to Basal Insulin: Effects on Glycemic Control and Weight in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Background: Pramlintide is a synthetic analogue of the β-cell hormone amylin. When used as an adjunct to mealtime insulin, it reduces postprandial glucose concentrations, glycosylated hemoglobin (AIC) values, and weight. Due to its effects on postprandial glucose, pramlintide may also provide similar benefits when used as an adjunct to basal insulin in the absence of mealtime insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).Objective: The current post hoc analyses examined the efficacy and tolerability of pramlintide as an adjunct to basal insulin in a subset of patients with type 2 DM in 2 clinical trials.Methods: Post hoc analyses of 2 subgroups of patients with type 2 DM treated with pramlintide and basal insulin (with or without oral agents) with no mealtime insulin are reported. One subgroup of patents was from a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study; a second subgroup of patients was from an uncontrolled, open-label study. Mean (SE) changes from baseline in A1C, postprandial glucose, weight, and insulin dose are reported. Tolerability was also assessed.Results: Baseline characteristics (mean [SD]) of the placebo-controlled study were as follows: pramlintide—n = 18; age, 59 (11) years; A1C, 9.4% (1.3%); weight, 88.4 (16.5) kg; body mass index (BMI), 31.8 (6.1) kg/m²; placebo—n = 11; age, 56 (9) years; A1C, 9.4% (1.6%); weight, 92.0 (13.4) kg; and BMI, 31.2 (5.1) kg/m². Baseline characteristics (mean [SD]) of the patients from the open-label study were as follows: N = 10; age, 60 (12) years; A1C, 8.1% (1.3%); weight, 109.2 (26.6) kg; and BMI, 35.7 (8.1) kg/m². In the placebo-controlled study, pramlintide treatment (120 μg BID) as an adjunct to basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn, lente, or ultralente) resulted in mean (SE) reductions in A1C (pramlintide, -1.16% [0.22%]; placebo, -0.48% [0.18%]; P < 0.05) and weight (pramlintide, -2.3 [1.0] kg; placebo, -0.9 [1.0] kg) compared with placebo. Similarly, in the open-label study, pramlintide treatment (120 μg before major meals) as an adjunct to insulin glargine resulted in mean (SE) reductions from baseline in AIC (-0.81% [0.26%]; 95% CI, -1.40 to -0.22) and weight (-2.8 [1.0] kg; 95% CI, -5.12 to -0.47). In addition, mean postprandial glucose excursions, ascertained by self-monitoring of blood glucose readings, were reduced after each meal. In both subgroups, pramlintide was generally well tolerated, and there were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia.Conclusion: The improvements in glycemic control and weight in these post hoc analyses warrant further clinical investigation into the use of pramlintide as a potential next therapeutic step in patients with type 2 DM treated with basal insulin.