Insulin Pen Injection Devices for Management of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Considerations Based on an Endocrinologist’s Practical Experience in the United States

ObjectiveTo review the features of several insulin pens currently available in the United States, discuss the validity of concerns about certain pen devices, and provide specific training information for clinicians to increase the accuracy of insulin administration and patient satisfaction with the use of insulin pens.MethodsThe published literature on insulin pens and Internet-available, product-specific information are reviewed. In addition, special practical considerations regarding insulin pen selection based on personal experience in a high-volume endocrinology practice are highlighted by presentation of case vignettes.ResultsFor some patients with diabetes, the need for performance of self-injection can be a barrier to acceptance of insulin therapy. Insulin pen devices provide a delivery option that may be more acceptable and more convenient to use in comparison with traditional vials and syringes and thus may promote patient compliance, which can enhance the ability to achieve and maintain glycemic control. When choosing a specific insulin pen for an individual patient, the clinician should consider the patient’s insulin regimen, lifestyle, and factors that may affect the ability to use a particular device, such as motor dexterity and visual acuity.ConclusionInsulin pens offer convenience and can potentially increase patient satisfaction and compliance with therapy. Because certain characteristics of a given insulin pen may make it preferable for specific patients, it is important for clinicians to be aware of individual needs. Provision of thorough training for patients in the correct use of insulin pens is important because user error can affect pen performance and accuracy of the dose administered. Manufacturers should be notified of any recurring problems. (Endocr Pract. 2007;13:672-678)     

Effect of Glargine Insulin Delivery Method (Pen Device Versus Vial/Syringe) on Glycemic Control and Patient Preferences in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of two different glargine insulin delivery methods (pen device vs. vial/ syringe) on glycemic control and patient preferences in a randomized, open-label, crossover, comparative effectiveness study.MethodsThirty-one patients discharged from the hospital were recruited for this study. In the hospital, all patients were treated with a basal-bolus insulin regimen. Upon discharge, 21 patients received glargine by pen device for 3 months and were then switched to vial/syringe for the next 3 months (group 1). Group 2 consisted of 10 patients discharged on vial/syringe and converted to pen device after 3 months. Hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) was measured at enrollment and at 3 and 6 months. A questionnaire assessing patient preference was administered at 3 and 6 months.ResultsGroups 1 and 2 had similar baseline HbA_1c (10.7 ± 2.2% and 11.2 ± 2.5%, respectively) and similar reduction in HbA_1c at 3 months (7.8 ± 1.7% and 7.3 ± 1.4%, respectively; P < .001 vs. baseline). However, after crossover, the changes in HbA_1c from 3 to 6 months were significantly different between groups. HbA_1c increased to 8.5 ± 2.0% at 6 months in group 1 after switching to the vial/syringe but remained unchanged (7.1 ± 1.6%) in group 2 after switching to a pen device (P < .01, group 1 vs. group 2). Patient questionnaires after each phase of the trial revealed that patients found the pen device more convenient and were more likely to recommend this insulin delivery method to someone else.ConclusionPatients switching to a glargine pen device achieved lower HbA_1c at the 6-month follow-up. Patients in both groups overwhelmingly preferred glargine pens over vials/syringes. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:536-539)     

Quality of Life and Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Background: A frequently cited barrier to insulin use in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is concern about the adverse effects on quality of life. Results of studies in this area have been mixed, with insulin use showing decreased, enhanced, or no impact on quality of life.Objective: The purpose of this paper is to discuss the state of the science regarding the effects of insulin on quality of life and to present strategies providers can implement in their clinical practices to decrease barriers to insulin use among patients with type 2 DM.Methods: An English-language MEDLINE search of the current literature using the terms insulin and quality of life was conducted for this article.Results: Although patient-identified concerns regarding insulin use represent some aspects of quality of life, study results have been mixed. However, 2 large studies examining the use of insulin glargine and its effects on quality of life found that glargine was associated with significantly greater improvements in quality of life when added to oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) than was the use of OADs alone. Another study examined the effects of intensive multi- therapy (monthly visits, self-management diabetes education, and medication adjustments) on quality of life among patients with type 2 DM and found that quality-of-life scores improved among patients who initiated insulin therapy during the trial. The effects of insulin delivery systems on quality of life have also been assessed. In these studies, patients preferred insulin pens over vials and syringes and inhaled over injected insulin. Health care providers can facilitate acceptance of insulin by employing strategies to help patients overcome psychological barriers to insulin therapy.Conclusions: Although patient concerns about the effects of insulin use are legitimate, insulin therapy is often needed to achieve treatment targets. Providers can reduce the impact on quality of life by addressing barriers, helping patients improve metabolic control, and providing ongoing information and support.     

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     

Usage Patterns of Devices Designed to Support Diabetes Management: an Educational Needs Assessment

ObjectiveTo determine knowledge, competence, and attitudinal issues among diabetes specialists and primary care providers (PCPs) regarding the use of insulin delivery devices such as insulin pens and insulin pumps and the role of glucose monitoring devices and systems in the care of patients with diabetes.MethodsA quantitative survey tool was developed that contained 51 questions directed to diabetes specialists and 49 questions directed to PCPs. A 5-point, Likert-type scale or multiple-choice format was used. Data were collected from attendees at live symposia across the United States. Results were analyzed for frequency of response and significant relationships among the variables.ResultsThe survey was completed by 136 specialists and 418 PCPs. There were higher usage rates for insulin pens among specialists than PCPs, although there were higher usage rates among more experienced PCPs. Regarding glucose monitoring, most specialists and PCPs did not recommend “block checking,” which has been commonly thought of as a reasonable compromise checking schedule for patients with type 2 diabetes not using insulin. PCPs who were more experienced and used outside educational resources, such as a certified diabetes educator, and specialists who saw more patients on a weekly basis were more likely to prescribe the use of continuous glucose monitoring. There was a general underuse of continuous glucose monitoring in eligible patients.ConclusionsThese findings underscore the discordance between PCPs and specialists with regard to advanced knowledge and confidence required for the use of newer technologies for glucose monitoring and insulin replacement. We have identified important remedial opportunities for qualityand performance-based educational interventions. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:51-57)     

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.     

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.     

Insulin for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Separating the Myths from the Facts

Background: Reluctance to use insulin is a well-established problem among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Many of the concerns that prompt patients to resist insulin are rooted in myths that arose because of the medical profession's difficult history with this medication.Objectives: The goals of this article were to articulate those myths, describe their impact on patient and clinician reasoning, and explain how clinicians can reassure patients and help them make a more informed choice about insulin therapy.Methods: Materials used for this article were identified through a search of PubMed for the years 1993 to 2007. English-language articles were selected using the search terms diabetes mellitus, psychological insulin barriers, and clinical inertia.Results: There are patient- and physician-specific barriers to insulin initiation that providers must be aware of to successfully counsel patients. Physician issues include worries regarding the effect insulin initiation in patients will have on practice resources (eg, impact patient crises have during initial stages of insulin therapy, concern there is inadequate time or personnel to teach insulin therapy); fear that patients will become angry, alienated, or leave the practice; and concern about the potential for patient hypoglycemia and weight gain. Patient-centered issues focus on the fear of weight gain, social embarrassment/stigma, hypoglycemia, lifestyle changes/restrictions, painful injections, and feelings of failure and guilt that treatment has progressed to needing insulin. Clinicians can alleviate many patient concerns by becoming aware of the personal and social dimensions of insulin therapy. Numerous strategies are available for the clinician to use for successful implementation of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 DM.Conclusion: By investigating the new, simpler, more straightforward algorithms for initiating insulin and using them in patient care, it will be possible to help patients make an informed decision when the time comes to start insulin therapy.     

The Management of Hyperglycemia in Noncritically ill Hospitalized Patients Treated with Continuous Enteral or Parenteral Nutrition

Objective: Hyperglycemia is a common problem in hospitalized patients receiving artificial nutrition, and this development of hyperglycemia during parenteral nutrition therapy (PNT) and enteral nutrition therapy (ENT) increases the risks of hospital-related complications and mortality. This review aims to discuss the pathogenesis of hyperglycemia from artificial nutrition in the hospital, summarize current evidence on the treatment of hyperglycemia with insulin in these patients, and review current guidelines.Methods: A systematic literature review using PubMed and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms “hyperglycemia,” “enteral nutrition,” and “parenteral nutrition” were used to evaluate the current evidence available for treating noncritically ill patients with hyperglycemia who were receiving artificial nutrition.Results: The literature review showed that few randomized control trials exist regarding treatment of hyperglycemia in this cohort of patients, and the multiple retrospective evaluations that have addressed this topic provided varied results. In general, intravenous (IV) continuous insulin infusion offers the best glycemic control; however, this route of insulin administration is often burdensome for floor patients and their care teams. Administration of scheduled subcutaneous (SQ) insulin in patients on ENT or PNT is a safe and effective way to manage hyperglycemia, however limited data exist on an appropriate insulin regimen.Conclusion: Further prospective, randomized control trials are necessary to determine the optimal treatment of hyperglycemia for patients receiving ENT or PNT.Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose; CG = conventional glycemic control; ENT = enteral nutrition therapy; GIP = glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide; GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide 1; IG = intensive glycemic control; IV = intravenous; NPH = neutral protamine Hagedorn; PNT = parenteral nutrition therapy; SQ = subcutaneous; T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus; TDD = total daily dose; TPN = total parenteral nutrition     

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     

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.     

Glycemic Effects Of Sglt-2 Inhibitor Canagliflozin In Type 1 Diabetes Patients Using The Dexcom G4 Platinum Cgm

Objective: Limited information is available on chronic use of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in type 1 diabetes (T1D). We conducted a retrospective review of T1D patients on Dexcom G4Platinum continuous glucose monitors (DCGMs) >1 year (mean, 4.6 years) who were prescribed canagliflozin (CANA) 100 mg daily and had a baseline DCGM 30-day download prior to and a second download after at least 1 month (mean, 3.7 months) taking CANA 100 mg daily. The glycemic, weight, and systolic blood pressure (SBP) effects are reported.Methods: We identified 27 patients meeting the selection criteria: 14 men; 25 white; 22 on pump; average T1D duration, 34 years (range, 12 to 48 years); average hemoglobin A1C (A1C), 7.6% (range, 6.1 to 9.8%); 22 with baseline A1C 7.0% or higher. All patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at baseline of 60 mL/min/1.73 m² or higher and were normotensive or on stable therapy. On average, 29 days of CGM data was reviewed. Total daily insulin dose (TDD) was available in 21 patients. We identified 27 patients who were judged to be candidates for CANA but did not have any change in glycemic therapy other than insulin adjustment as controls.Results: CANA resulted in significant reductions in mean blood glucose, CGM standard deviation, time in hyperglycemia, A1C, weight, SBP, and TDD, with increased time in target, with minimal increase in hypoglycemia and no significant change in eGFR. Three females developed genital mycotic infections but continued therapy, 2 developed ketoacidosis from insulin interruption.Conclusion: CANA offers promise as adjunct therapy in T1D, though caution is advised.Abbreviations:A1C = hemoglobin A1CCANA = canagliflozinCGM = continuous glucose monitorCSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusionDCGM = Dexcom G4Platinum CGMDKA = diabetic ketoacidosisGMI = genital mycotic infectionMG = mean glucosePCGM = personal continuous glucose monitoringSBP = systolic blood pressureSGLT-2i = sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitorSH = severe hypoglycemiaT2D = type 2 diabetesT1D = type 1 diabetes     

Risk of needlestick injuries among nurses using novofine® autocover® safety needles and nurses' satisfaction with the needles: The NOVAC Study

Background: Needlestick injuries among health care professionals are a costly problem, both economically and in terms of anxiety and stress. NovoFine® Autocover® (NFA) 30G safety needles (Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) were designed to minimize the risk of such injuries when used with insulin pens, which are increasingly preferred over syringes for injecting insulin.Objective: This prospective study compared the risk of needlestick injury with NFA needles and regular needles on insulin pens among nurses who administered insulin to patients.Methods: Nurses with ≥3 months' experience in diabetes care were eligible for participation. Nurses were trained in the use of NFA needles and then instructed to use them in their daily practice for 4 weeks, recording details of the injections administered and any injuries that occurred in a logbook.Results: A total of 143 nurses at 52 hospitals located throughout France received training. Demographic data were available for 139 nurses (mean age 38.4 years, 96.4% female, with a mean of 8 years' diabetes experience): 123 of the nurses used NFA needles (7854 injections administered), 122 of whom also used regular needles (4491 injections). No needlestick injuries occurred with NFA needles, whereas 1 needlestick injury occurred with a regular needle. Nurses were very satisfied with the NFA needles, giving them a score of 8.1 on a scale of 0 to 10, rating personal safety as a particularly important benefit (score 9.5). Nurses preferred NFA needles to both regular needles on insulin pens and needles on syringes, citing personal safety and the saving of time as the main reasons.Conclusions: These results suggest that NFA needles could reduce the risk of needlestick injuries and that nurses would welcome their other advantages, such as ease of use and saving of time.     

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)     

Evolution of a pulmonary insulin delivery system (Exubera) for patients with diabetes

Many patients with diabetes fail to meet recommended glycemic goals regardless of the recognition of optimal glycemic control as a key component for improving clinical outcomes and quality of life in patients with diabetes. Patient- and physician-related barriers to the adoption of insulin therapy include fear and anxiety about injecting insulin, concerns about side effects, and personal health beliefs in regard to the use of insulin. There is an unmet need for an alternative insulin therapy that provides optimal glycemic control, is well tolerated, and improves patient adherence. Of the several inhaled insulin devices that are in various stages of development, the Exubera (INH) formulation is the first to be approved for use in the United States and in Europe. Exubera is a novel, rapid-acting inhaled human insulin formulation that has been developed for prandial insulin use. Clinical studies have shown that INH consistently improves glycemic control, in combination with longer-acting subcutaneous (SC) insulin regimens in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, or is used to supplement or replace oral antidiabetic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. INH has demonstrated long-term safety and tolerability, with a risk for hypoglycemia similar to that of SC insulin, and no clinically meaningful changes in pulmonary function have been noted with its use. Patients treated with INH in clinical studies reported high levels of satisfaction with treatment, and many patients with diabetes choose inhaled insulin when it is offered as a treatment option. Taken together, these findings suggest that INH represents an important new development in the treatment of diabetes that may improve glycemic control in many patients with diabetes.     

Analysis of Effectiveness of Human U-500 Insulin in Patients Unresponsive to Conventional Insulin Therapy

ObjectiveTo present a retrospective analysis of the effects of human U-500 insulin in 20 patients with type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance.MethodsMedical records of 20 patients with type 2 diabetes who had received U-500 insulin for at least 6 months were reviewed to determine glycemic control before and after this therapy. Human regular U-500 insulin therapy was initiated at a unit dosage equivalent to the previous standard insulin dosage. Comparisons of hemoglobin A1c levels, insulin doses, and body mass index at baseline and 6 months after changing to U-500 insulin therapy were analyzed.ResultsIn the 10 female and 10 male study subjects, the mean (± SD) hemoglobin A1c level was 9.59 ± 1.37% initially, and it decreased to 8.53 ± 1.11% at 3 months and to 7.83 ± 1.26% at 6 months after initiation of U-500 insulin therapy. In comparison with baseline, these decreases were statistically significant. The amount of insulin used and the body mass index did not change significantly from baseline to 6 months after initiation of U-500 insulin treatment.ConclusionAnalysis of data suggests that U-500 insulin therapy yields improved glycemic control in insulin-resistant patients who have poor control of blood glucose with use of standard insulin regimens. There is no proof, however, that improved glycemic control by this method decreases diabetes-related complications or improves survival. Further studies must be performed before U-500 insulin can be recommended as a standard therapy for patients with insulin resistance. (Endocr Pract. 2005;11:305-307)     

Safety and Efficacy of a Peri-Operative Protocol for Patients with Diabetes Treated with Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion who are Admitted for Same-Day Surgery

Objective: The number of people with diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions (CSII) with an insulin pump has risen dramatically, creating new challenges when these patients are admitted to the hospital for surgical or other procedures. There is limited literature guiding CSII use during surgical procedures.Methods: The study was carried out in a large, urban, tertiary care hospital. We enrolled 49 patients using insulin pump therapy presenting for 57 elective surgeries. We developed a CSII peri-operative glycemic management protocol (PGMP) to standardize insulin pump management in patients admitted to a same-day surgery unit (SDSU). The purpose was evaluate the safety (% capillary blood glucose (CBG) <70 mg/dL and/or pump incidents) and efficacy (first postoperative CBG ≤200 mg/dL) of the CSII PGMP. We determine the contribution of admission CBG, type of anesthesia, surgery length, and peri-operative steroid use on postoperative glycemic control.Results: Overall, 63% of patients treated according to the CSII PGMP had a first postoperative CBG ≤200 mg/dL. There were no episodes of intra- or postoperative hypoglycemia. For patients treated with the CSII PGMP, the mean postoperative CBG was lower in patients with anticipated or actual surgical length ≤120 minutes (158.1 ± 53.9 vs. 216 ± 77.7 mg/dL, P<.01). No differences were observed with admission CBG, type of anesthesia, or steroid use.Conclusions: This study demonstrates that a CSII PGMP is both safe and effective for patients admitted for elective surgical procedures and provides an example of a standardized protocol for use in clinical practice.Abbreviations: A1C = glycated hemoglobin BG = blood glucose CBG = capillary blood glucose CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion DM = diabetes mellitus EMR = electronic medical record IV = intravenous PGMP = peri-operative glycemic management protocol SDS = same-day surgery SDSU = same-day surgery unit SQ = subcutaneous UC = usual care     

Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Basal-Prandial Insulin Therapy: A Case-Based Review

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a growing epidemic in the United States—20.8 million people are affected and 90% to 95% of all diagnosed cases are type 2 DM. Nevertheless, implementation of insulin therapy is often delayed in patients with type 2 DM. This delay can increase the risk of DM-related complications, including microvascular neuropathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, and cardiovascular disease.Objective: This article provides a case-based review outlining a novel strategy for advancing therapy with a modified basal and prandial insulin regimen to achieve recommended glycemic targets in type 2 DM as quickly as possible. Evidence-based treatment strategies are also discussed.Methods: Materials used for this article were identified through an English-language literature search of MEDLINE (1967-2007) using the following terms: insulin, postprandial glucose control, and type 2 diabetes.Results: As shown with this male 46-year-old case study patient, type 2 DM is treated initially with diet and exercise, followed by oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). However, oral therapy typically reduces glycosylated hemoglobin values only by -1.5% to 2.0%. Intensive therapy with once-daily basal insulin in combination with a previously prescribed OAD regimen can achieve normoglycemia and reduce the long-term complications of DM. In patients with postprandial glucose excursions, prandial insulin can be added using a rapid-acting insulin analogue (aspart, lispro, or glulisine).Conclusions: A key factor in this case patient's ability to reach glycemic targets within I year of diagnosis of type 2 DM was the accelerated implementation of insulin therapy. Such a therapeutic approach obviates the risk for uncontrolled hyperglycemia, which is associated with the standard practice of beginning treatment with diet and exercise alone and slowly advancing by i OAD at a time, ending with insulin therapy as a last resort. (Insulin. 2007;2:118-126)     

Barriers to Hyperglycemia Control in Hospitalized Patients: a Descriptive Epidemiologic Study

ObjectiveTo identify barriers that prevent appropriate control of hyperglycemia in a university teaching hospital and to document their frequency in patients hospitalized for cardiothoracic surgery.MethodsIn this observational study, our inpatient diabetes team identified barriers to adequate glycemic control for diabetic patients in the cardiothoracic surgical intensive care unit between September 1, 2006, and January 3, 2007. Data were collected through chart review and patient and staff interviews. Blood glucose concentrations greater than 160 mg/dL prompted intervention, which involved speaking to the prescribing practitioner and making a treatment recommendation. Each intervention was reviewed by the diabetes nurses using the critical incident technique. The nurses determined which underlying barriers were responsible for the lack of glycemic control and had necessitated the intervention.ResultsOf 105 patients, 6 (5.7%) demonstrated good glucose control (75% of their blood glucose measurements were 80-160 mg/dL) and did not require intervention, and 99 (94.3%) required intervention. Diabetes nurses intervened 202 times; each patient averaged 2.04 interventions during their hospital stay. Nurses coded 398 barriers to the 202 interventions; each intervention had between 1 and 5 barriers coded as the underlying reason(s) for the intervention. Thirty barriers to adequate glycemic control were identified. Eight barriers represented 74% of the barriers encountered. Therapeutic reluctance was the most common followed by inappropriate titration of medication, lack of basal insulin, lack of weekend staff trained in diabetes management, use of a sliding scale, inappropriate medications being prescribed, knowledge deficit of the weekend staff, and outpatient diabetes medications not being restarted.ConclusionsWe identified the most frequent barriers to adequate glycemic control in this group of patients and suggest how limited resources should be focused to improve glycemic control. Barrier incidence should be determined in other populations of diabetic patients. (Endocr Pract. 2008;14:813-819)