A study comparing insulin lispro mix 25 with glargine plus lispro therapy in patients with Type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic control on oral anti-hyperglycaemic medication: results of the PARADIGM study

Diabet. Med. 29, e263-e272 (2012) ABSTRACT: Aims To test the hypothesis that initiation and intensification with 25% insulin lispro, 75% insulin lispro protamine suspension (LM25), is non-inferior to initiation and intensification with glargine?+?insulin lispro therapy on change from baseline in HbA(1c) . Methods In this randomized, non-inferiority (margin of 0.4%), parallel, prospective, multi-country, 48-week, open-label study, patients (n?=?426) with Type?2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral anti-hyperglycaemic medications were assigned to either initiating therapy with one daily LM25 injection, progressing up to three daily injections (full analysis set n?=?211; per protocol set n?=?177) or initiating therapy with one daily glargine injection and progressing up to three daily insulin lispro injections (full analysis set n?=?212; per protocol set n?=?184). Results LM25 therapy was found to be non-inferior to glargine?+?insulin lispro therapy by study end (upper limit of 95%?CI 相似文献   

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)     

Safety of insulin glulisine when given by continuous subcutaneous infusion using an external pump in patients with type 1 diabetes.

This twelve-week, European, multicenter, controlled, open-label, randomized (1 : 1), parallel-group trial compared the safety of insulin glulisine with insulin as part used in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Patients with type 1 diabetes (n=59) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion experience (mean values: HbA1c 6.9 % [insulin glulisine: 6.8 % VS. insulin as part: 7.1 %]; age 45.8 years; body mass index 26.0 kg/m2) were enrolled. HbA1c levels at endpoint (insulin glulisine: 7.0 % VS. insulin as part: 7.2 %), daily insulin doses, blood glucose profiles and adverse event rates were similar in both groups. The median (minimum-maximum) catheter occlusion rate was low for insulin glulisine and insulin as part (0 [0 - 0.7] VS. 0 [0 - 1.1] occlusions/month. Unexplained hyperglycemia occurred in six insulin glulisine-treated patients and twelve insulin as part-treated patients. Patients were expected to change their catheters every 2 days (15 changes/month); the catheter change rate was similar for insulin glulisine and insulin as part (14.1 VS. 14.8 changes/month). The frequency of infusion site reactions and hypoglycemia, and the time between catheter changes were similar for both insulin forms. Diabetic ketoacidosis was not reported. This study supports the safety of insulin glulisine in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion administered via an external pump in type 1 diabetes.     

Effect of glycine on insulin secretion and action in healthy first-degree relatives of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

The aim of this study was to identify the effect of glycine on insulin secretion and action in healthy first-degree relatives of Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was performed in 12 healthy, non-obese volunteers who were first-degree relatives of Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Six volunteers received a morning dose of glycine 5 g orally and the other six received placebo. At baseline without drugs and after pharmacological intervention, a metabolic profile and, to assess insulin secretion and action, a hyperglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp study were performed. There were no significant differences in baseline metabolic profile, insulin secretion or action between groups. Changes from baseline of early (p < 0.05), late (p < 0.05), and total insulin (p < 0.02) responses were higher in the glycine group than in controls. There were no significant differences in the changes from baseline of insulin action between groups. In conclusion, a morning dose of glycine 5 g orally increased early, late and total insulin responses without changes in insulin action in healthy first-degree relatives of Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.     

Basal-Bolus Regimen With Insulin Analogues Versus Human Insulin in Medical Patients with type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Latin America

Objective: Few randomized studies have focused on the optimal management of non–intensive care unit patients with type 2 diabetes in Latin America. We compared the safety and efficacy of a basal-bolus regimen with analogues and human insulins in general medicine patients admitted to a University Hospital in Asunción, Paraguay.Methods: In a prospective, open-label trial, we randomized 134 nonsurgical patients with blood glucose (BG) between 140 and 400 mg/dL to a basal-bolus regimen with glargine once daily and glulisine before meals (n = 66) or Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) twice daily and regular insulin before meals (n = 68). Major outcomes included differences in daily BG levels and frequency of hypoglycemic events between treatment groups.Results: There were no differences in the mean daily BG (157 ± 37 mg/dL versus 158 ± 44 mg/dL; P = .90) or in the number of BG readings within target <140 mg/dL before meals (76% versus 74%) between the glargine/glulisine and NPH/regular regimens. The mean insulin dose in the glargine/glulisine group was 0.76 ± 0.3 units/kg/day (glargine, 22 ± 9 units/day; glulisine, 31 ± 12 units/day) and was not different compared with NPH/regular group (0.75 ± 0.3 units/kg/day [NPH, 28 ± 12 units/day; regular, 23 ± 9 units/day]). The overall prevalence of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) was similar between patients treated with NPH/regular and glargine/glulisine (38% versus 35%; P = .68), but more patients treated with human insulin had severe (<40 mg/dL) hypoglycemia (7.6% versus 25%; P = .08). There were no differences in length of hospital stay or mortality between groups.Conclusion: The basal-bolus regimen with insulin analogues resulted in equivalent glycemic control and frequency of hypoglycemia compared to treatment with human insulin in hospitalized patients with diabetes.Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose BMI = body mass index HbA_1c = glycated hemoglobin NPH = Neutral Protamine Hagedorn T2D = type 2 diabetes     

持续皮下输注赖脯胰岛素治疗老年非初诊2 型糖尿病患者临床观察

目的:观察比较持续皮下输注赖脯胰岛素与常规注射预混赖脯胰岛素对老年非初诊2型糖尿病患者的疗效与安全性。方法:将58例老年2型糖尿病患者随机分为观察组(29例)与对照组(29例),观察组用赖脯胰岛素经胰岛素泵持续皮下输注(CSI-I),对照组用精蛋白锌重组赖脯胰岛素25注射液,2次/d,常规皮下注射。两组患者均给予糖尿病教育、饮食控制及适量运动,共治疗2周。比较治疗前后两组患者的血糖、胰岛素用量、血糖达标时间以及低血糖发生率。结果:治疗后两组患者空腹血糖、餐后血糖均较治疗前下降(P<0.05),观察组血糖达标时间、胰岛素用量均明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。两组低血糖发生率无明显差异。结论:持续皮下输注赖脯胰岛素具有较好的疗效与安全性,是控制老年非初诊2型糖尿病患者较佳的方法。     

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)     

Insulin Lispro with Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion is Safe and Effective in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Trial of Insulin Lispro Versus Insulin Aspart

ObjectiveThis study provides clinical information regarding the use of insulin lispro versus insulin aspart in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D).MethodsAfter a 2-week lead-in period, 122 subjects treated with CSII therapy were randomized to 32 weeks of treatment during 2 separate 16-week treatment periods (TPs) with crossover beginning with insulin lispro (n = 60) or insulin aspart (n = 62). Glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), total daily insulin dose, and weight were recorded at the end of TP1 and TP2. Adverse events (AEs) and hypoglycemic events (overall, documented symptomatic, nocturnal, or severe) were recorded throughout the TPs. Data were analyzed using statistical methods that accounted for repeated measurements.ResultsA total of 107 subjects completed the study; 7 discontinued in TP1 and 8 discontinued in TP2. Insulin lispro was noninferior to insulin aspart in endpoint (weeks 16 and 32) HbA1c over TP1 and TP2 combined. Total daily insulin dose, weight change, and incidence and rates of hypoglycemia were not statistically significantly different between treatments. One case of severe hypoglycemia and 1 of diabetic ketoacidosis was observed with insulin aspart. One case of severe infusion site abscess was noted with insulin lispro. Overall, both insulin lispro and insulin aspart were well tolerated with similar AEs reported.ConclusionInsulin lispro and insulin aspart performed similarly after 16 weeks of treatment, with non-inferiority for HbA1c and no significant difference in parameters measured. These findings indicate that insulin lispro and insulin aspart can both be used safely and effectively in patients with T2D using CSII. (Endocr Pract. 2015;21:247-257)     

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 adjustment by a diabetes nurse educator improves glucose control in insulin-requiring diabetic patients: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Diabetic patients taking insulin often have suboptimal glucose control, and standard methods of health care delivery are ineffective in improving such control. This study was undertaken to determine if insulin adjustment according to advice provided by telephone by a diabetes nurse educator could lead to better glucose control, as indicated by level of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective randomized trial involving 46 insulin-requiring diabetic patients who had poor glucose control (HbA1c of 0.085 or more). Eligible patients were those already taking insulin and receiving endocrinologist-directed care through a diabetes centre and whose most recent HbA1c level was 0.085 or higher. The patients were randomly assigned to receive standard care or to have regular telephone contact with a diabetes nurse educator for advice about adjustment of insulin therapy. RESULTS: At baseline there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of HbA1c level (mean [and standard deviation] for standard-care group 0.094 [0.008] and for intervention group 0.096 [0.010]), age, sex, type or duration of diabetes, duration of insulin therapy or complications. After 6 months, the mean HbA1c level in the standard-care group was 0.089 (0.010), which was not significantly different from the mean level at baseline. However, the mean HbA1c level in the intervention group had fallen to 0.078 (0.008), which was significantly lower than both the level at baseline for that group (p < 0.001) and the level for the standard-care group at 6 months (p < 0.01). INTERPRETATION: Insulin adjustment according to advice from a diabetes nurse educator is an effective method of improving glucose control in insulin-requiring diabetic patients.     

Oral administration of RAC-alpha-lipoic acid modulates insulin sensitivity in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus: a placebo-controlled pilot trial.

Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA), a naturally occuring compound and a radical scavenger was shown to enhance glucose transport and utilization in different experimental and animal models. Clinical studies described an increase of insulin sensitivity after acute and short-term (10 d) parenteral administration of ALA. The effects of a 4-week oral treatment with alpha-lipoic acid were evaluated in a placebo-controlled, multicenter pilot study to determine see whether oral treatment also improves insulin sensitivity. Seventy-four patients with type-2 diabetes were randomized to either placebo (n = 19); or active treatment in various doses of 600 mg once daily (n = 19), twice daily (1200 mg; n = 18), or thrice daily (1800 mg; n = 18) alpha-lipoic acid. An isoglycemic glucose-clamp was done on days 0 (pre) and 29 (post). In this explorative study, analysis was done according to the number of subjects showing an improvement of insulin sensitivity after treatment. Furthermore, the effects of active vs. placebo treatment on insulin sensitivity was compared. All four groups were comparable and had a similar degree of hyperglycemia and insulin sensitivity at baseline. When compared to placebo, significantly more subjects had an increase in insulin-stimulated glucose disposal (MCR) after ALA treatment in each group. As there was no dose effect seen in the three different alpha-lipoic acid groups, all subjects receiving ALA were combined in the "active" group and then compared to placebo. This revealed significantly different changes in MCR after treatment (+27% vs. placebo; p < .01). This placebo-controlled explorative study confirms previous observations of an increase of insulin sensitivity in type-2 diabetes after acute and chronic intravenous administration of ALA. The results suggest that oral administration of alpha-lipoic acid can improve insulin sensitivity in patients with type-2 diabetes. The encouraging findings of this pilot trial need to be substantiated by further investigations.     

Comparison of Basal Insulin Regimens on Glycemic Variability in Noncritically Ill Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: To evaluate the impact of different subcutaneous basal insulin regimens on glycemic variability (GV) and hospital complications in non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).Methods: This study is a post hoc analysis of 279 general medicine and surgery patients treated with either a “Basal Bolus” insulin regimen using glargine once daily and glulisine before meals or a “Basal Plus” regimen using glargine once daily plus correction doses of glulisine before meals for glucose >140 mg/dL. GV was calculated as mean delta (Δ) daily glucose, mean SD, and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE).Results: Treatment with Basal Bolus and Basal Plus regimens resulted in similar mean daily glucose, hypoglycemia, length of stay (LOS), and hospital complications (all P>.05). There were no differences in GV between treatment groups by Δ change (72.5 ± 36 vs. 69.3 ± 34 mg/dL), SD (38.5 ± 18 vs. 37.1 ± 16 mg/dL) and MAGE (67.5 ± 34 vs. 66.1 ± 39 mg/dL) (all P>.05). Surgery patients treated with Basal Bolus had higher GV compared to those treated with Basal Plus (Δ daily glucose and SD: P = .02, MAGE: P = .009), but no difference in GV was found between treatment groups for the general medicine patients (P>.05). Patients with hypoglycemia events had higher GV compared to subjects without hypoglycemia (P<.05), but no association was found between GV and hospital complications (P>.05).Conclusion: Treating hospitalized, non-ICU, diabetic patients with Basal Plus insulin regimen resulted in similar glucose control and GV compared to the standard Basal Bolus insulin regimen. Higher GV was not associated with hospital complications.Abbreviations:BG = blood glucoseCV= coefficient of variationGV= glycemic variabilityICU = intensive care unitLOS = length of stayMAGE = mean amplitude of glycemic excursionsSSI = sliding scale insulinT2D = type 2 diabetesTDD =total daily dose     

Effects of a combination of recombinant human growth hormone with metformin on glucose metabolism and body composition in patients with metabolic syndrome.

Abdominal obesity and insulin resistance are central findings in metabolic syndrome. Since treatment with recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) can reduce body fat mass in patients with organic GH deficiency, rhGH therapy may also have favourable effects on patients with metabolic syndrome. However, due to the highly increased risk for type 2 diabetes in these patients, strategies are needed to reduce the antagonistic effect of rhGH against insulin. We conducted a 18-month randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess the effect of rhGH in combination with metformin (Met) in patients with metabolic syndrome. 25 obese men (55 +/- 6 years, BMI 33.4 +/- 2.9 kg/m (2)) with mildly elevated fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels at screening (6.1-8.0 mmol/l) were included. All patients received metformin (850 mg twice daily) either alone or in combination with rhGH (daily dose 9.5 microg/kg body weight). An oGTT was performed at baseline, after 6 weeks, and after 3, 6, 12, and 18 months of therapy. Glucose disposal rate (GDR) was measured by euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp at 0 and 18 months and body composition was measured by DEXA every 6 months. In the Met + GH group, IGF-I increased from 146 +/- 56 microg/l to 373 +/- 111 microg/l (mean +/- SD) after 3 months and remained stable after that. BMI did not change significantly in either group during the study. Total body fat decreased by -4.3 +/- 5.4 kg in the Met + GH group and by -2.7 +/- 2.9 kg in the Met + Placebo group (differences between the two groups: p = n. s.). Waist circumference decreased in both groups (Met + GH: 118 +/- 8 cm at baseline, 112 +/- 10 cm after 18 months; Met + Placebo: 114 +/- 7 cm vs. 109 +/- 8 cm; differences between the two groups: p = 0.096). In the Met + GH group, FPG increased significantly after 6 months (5.9 +/- 0.7 vs. 6.7 +/- 0.4 mmol/l; p = 0.005), but subsequently decreased to baseline levels (18 months: 5.8 +/- 0.2 mmol/l). FPG remained stable in the Met + Placebo group until 12 months had elapsed, and then slightly decreased (baseline: 6.2 +/- 0.3, 18 months: 5.5 +/- 0.6 mmol/l, p = 0.02). No significant changes were seen in either group regarding glucose and insulin AUC during oGTT or HbA (1c) levels. GDR at 18 months increased by 20 +/- 39% in Met + GH-group and decreased by -11 +/- 25% in the Met + Placebo group (differences between the two groups: p = 0.07). In conclusion, treatment of patients with metabolic syndrome and elevated FPG levels did not cause sustained negative effects on glucose metabolism or insulin sensitivity if given in combination with metformin. However, since our data did not show significant differences between the two treatment groups with respect to body composition or lipid metabolism, future studies including larger numbers of patients will have to clarify whether the positive effects of rhGH on cardiovascular risk factors that have been shown in patients with GH deficiency are also present in patients with metabolic syndrome, and are additive to the effects of metformin.     

Continuous Subcutaneous Infusion of Insulin Lispro in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo provide a comprehensive review of insulin lispro administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in children and adolescents.MethodsWe performed PubMed literature searches to identify clinical studies of insulin lispro administered via CSII within pediatric and adolescent populations.ResultsTwenty-six studies involving 2521 pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus met inclusion criteria. Of these, 10 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 6 of which compared insulin lispro CSII with multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy. We identified 7 additional prospective, nonrandomized studies and 9 retrospective studies. Within the RCTs, endpoint hemoglobin A_1c levels ranged from 6.3% to 8.5% for insulin lispro CSII therapy and from 6.2% to 8.7% for those trials with MDI comparator arms. In those trials that compared insulin lispro CSII with MDI, the endpoint hemoglobin A_1c achieved with insulin lispro was similar or improved compared with observations in the MDI treatment arm. In the RCTs, severe hypoglycemia rates of 0.1 to 0.3 episodes/patient per year were reported for insulin lispro CSII therapy; those trials with MDI comparator arms reported relatively similar severe hypoglycemia rates (0.1 to 0.5 episodes/patient per year). Events of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) were rare. Where reported, insulin lispro CSII and MDI therapy demonstrated a similar occurrence of DKA and incidence of severe hypoglycemia. Prospective and retrospective studies demonstrated results similar to the RCT findings.ConclusionsIn 26 studies of more than 2500 pediatric and adolescent patients with type 1 diabetes, with more than 1000 patients specifically receiving insulin lispro CSII, insulin lispro CSII therapy consistently demonstrated similar or improved efficacy and safety vs studied comparators. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:418-424)     

Lispro insulin and metformin versus other combination in the diabetes mellitus type 2 management after secondary oral antidiabetic drug failure

The purpose of the study was to find out differences between treatments of diabetes type 2 after secondary oral antidiabetic drug failure. Three different methods of treatment were compared: lispro insulin in combination with metformin, glimepiride and metformin combination or two daily doses of biphasic insulin 30/70 together with bed-time NPH insulin. The study included 87 patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 randomly distributed into 3 different treatment groups. Fasting and postprandial glucose were analyzed by enzymatic colorimetric method and HbA1c was measured by ion exchange chromatography. HbA1c significantly decreased in all three study groups. The decrease was mostly expressed among patients treated with lispro and metformin. When focused on postprandial glucose control, antihyperglycemic metformin and insulin lispro therapy has greater impact on the overall metabolic control (decrease in level of HbA1c) in comparison with the above mentioned more traditional approaches.     

Once-daily insulin glargine administration in the morning compared to bedtime in combination with morning glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes: an assessment of treatment flexibility.

AIMS: To compare the incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia and glycemic control following bedtime or morning insulin glargine (LANTUS; glargine) plus glimepiride. METHODS: In this 24-week, multinational, open, randomized study, 624 patients with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on oral therapy received morning or bedtime glargine plus morning glimepiride (2, 3 or 4 mg) titrated to a target fasting blood glucose level < or = 5.5 mmol/l. RESULTS: The incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia was equivalent between the two groups, with morning glargine non-inferior to bedtime (13.0 VS. 14.9 % of patients; between-treatment difference -1.9 %; one-sided 95 % confidence interval -100 %; 2.84 %). At endpoint, similar improvements in glycemic control were observed with morning compared to bedtime glargine: HbA1c: -1.65 +/- 1.21 VS. -1.57 +/- 1.16 %; p = 0.42; fasting blood glucose: -4.25 +/- 2.82 VS. -4.48 +/- 2.75 mmol/l; p = 0.08. The endpoint mean daily glargine dose was comparable (34.7 +/- 17.4 VS. 32.4 +/- 17.0 IU; p = 0.15), and there was no significant between-treatment difference in the change in body weight (2.1 VS. 1.8 kg; p = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily glargine can be administered in a flexible morning or bedtime regimen (plus morning glimepiride) to achieve good glycemic control without any difference in hypoglycemia.     

持续皮下输注赖脯胰岛素治疗老年非初诊2型糖尿病患者临床观察

目的：观察比较持续皮下输注赖脯胰岛素与常规注射预混赖脯胰岛素对老年非初诊2型糖尿病患者的疗效与安全性。方法：将58例老年2型糖尿病患者随机分为观察组（29例）与对照组（29例）,观察组用赖脯胰岛素经胰岛素泵持续皮下输注（CSI-I）,对照组用精蛋白锌重组赖脯胰岛素25注射液,2次／d,常规皮下注射。两组患者均给予糖尿病教育、饮食控制及适量运动,共治疗2周。比较治疗前后两组患者的血糖、胰岛素用量、血糖达标时间以及低血糖发生率。结果：治疗后两组患者空腹血糖、餐后血糖均较治疗前下降（P〈0．05）,观察组血糖达标时间、胰岛素用量均明显低于对照组（P〈0．05）。两组低血糖发生率无明显差异。结论：持续皮下输注赖脯胰岛素具有较好的疗效与安全性,是控制老年非初诊2型糖尿病患者较佳的方法。     

Comparison of pharmacokinetic properties,physicochemical stability,and pump compatibility of 3 rapid-acting insulin analogues— aspart,lispro, and glulisine

ObjectiveTo compare how the rapid-acting insulin analogues (RAIAs) aspart, lispro, and glulisine perform in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy regarding (1) pharmacokinetic properties, (2) chemical and physical stability, and (3) pump compatibility.MethodsPubMed was searched for articles pertaining to the use of RAIAs in CSII, without a restriction on the time period.ResultsThese RAIAs have pharmacokinetic profiles that more closely mimic endogenous insulin in comparison with regular human insulin and tend to produce less hypoglycemia. Among these RAIAs, the rates of absorption and clinical efficacy in terms of glycemic control were similar. Although glulisine showed a faster onset of action in some studies with aspart and lispro, this advantage lasted only for a maximum of 1 hour, after which results were similar for glulisine and aspart or lispro. Each RAIA is created by making minor amino acid substitutions to the regular human insulin molecule and adding a stabilizer to help prevent fibrillation. A series of chemical and covalent changes affecting the primary structure of an insulin preparation, however, may cause decomposition during storage, handling, and use, diminishing the potency of the insulin molecule while contained in an insulin pump. Precipitation, fibrillation, and occlusion may ensue, undermining compatibility for CSII pump use. Aspart has demonstrated the greatest chemical and physical stability in the insulin pump, with the lowest rates of overall occlusion in comparison with lispro and glulisine (aspart 9.2%, lispro 15.7%, and glulisine 40.9%; P < .01).ConclusionAspart is the most compatible of the 3 RAIAs for pump use. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:271-280)     

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

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

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

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