Comparison of the subcutaneous absorption of insulin glargine (Lantus) and NPH insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes.

The aim of this study was to compare the subcutaneous absorption characteristics of insulin glargine with NPH insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes. In this single-dose, double-blind, randomized, two-way crossover study, 14 patients with Type 2 diabetes (aged 40-70 years) previously untreated with insulin were randomized to receive in a fasting state either a single subcutaneous injection of 0.3 U/kg 125I-insulin glargine or 0.3 U/kg 125I-NPH insulin. The disappearance of radioactivity was monitored for forty-eight hours. The median time for 25%, 50% and 75% of the radioactivity to disappear from the injection site was significantly longer for insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin (T75% 15.0 and 6.5 h, p=0.009; T50% 26.3 and 13.4 h, p=0.009; T25% 42.4 and 26.6 h, p=0.019, respectively). The mean residual radioactivity remaining at 24, 36 and 48 h after injection remained significantly higher than NPH insulin (54.4 and 27.9%, p=0.0001; 35.0 and 17.0%, p=0.003; 19.2 and 9.2%, p=0.01, respectively). Mean plasma glucose levels reached a minimum after 14.6 and 9 h in response to insulin glargine and NPH insulin, respectively. The subcutaneous absorption of insulin glargine in fasting Type 2 diabetes patients was significantly (2-3 times) slower compared with NPH insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes. The slower absorption of insulin glargine correlated with the fall in plasma glucose levels over a 24 h period compared with the faster insulin absorption and more rapid decrease in plasma glucose levels observed in response to NPH insulin. Both insulin glargine and NPH insulin were well tolerated.     

Insulin glargine maintains equivalent glycemic control and better lipometabolic control than NPH insulin in type 1 diabetes patients who missed a meal.

Our goal was to investigate blood glucose and lipometabolism control in type 1 diabetes patients who missed breakfast and the accompanying insulin injection of NPH insulin (NPH) or insulin glargine (glargine) as part of a basal-bolus regimen. This was a multi-center, open-label, controlled study in adults (> or =18 years) with HbA (1c)< or =11.5% on insulin therapy with NPH as basal insulin. Patients were randomized to receive prandial insulin plus either bedtime glargine (n=28) or NPH (n=32). Insulin was titrated to target fasting blood glucose levels 80-130 mg/dl at 06:00-07:00. Patients had no intake of insulin or food between 22:00 and 12:00 the next day. The change in blood glucose levels (07:00-11:00) was similar (27.5 mg/dl vs. 35.4 mg/dl), but the mean blood glucose level was higher with glargine vs. NPH at 22:00 (158.2 mg/dl vs. 130.2 mg/dl). During the period without insulin or food intake, blood glucose decreased with glargine (-25.8 mg/dl) and increased with NPH (+9.1 mg/dl; p=0.0284). Nonesterified fatty acid (07:00 and 09:00-12:00) and beta-hydroxybutyrate (07:00 and 10:00-12:00) levels were lower with glargine vs. NPH (both p<0.05). For patients who miss a morning meal, glargine is associated with maintained glycemic and lipometabolic control compared with NPH insulin.     

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

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

     

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.     

Efficacy and safety of insulin glulisine in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Insulin glulisine (glulisine), a human insulin analogue with a rapid-acting time-action profile, has been developed to fulfil the mealtime (bolus) insulin requirement in patients with diabetes. The aim of this multinational, multi-centre, controlled, open-label, randomized, parallel-group study was to compare the efficacy and safety of insulin glulisine (glulisine) to that of insulin lispro (lispro) in adults diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. Of the 683 patients randomized, 672 received treatment (339 patients received glulisine, 333 patients received lispro). Over the 26-week study, a similar reduction in mean HbA1c occurred in both groups (adjusted mean change from baseline -0.14% in both groups). The basal insulin dose was relatively unchanged from baseline in the glulisine group but increased in the lispro group (glulisine: 0.12 IU vs. lispro: 1.82 IU; p = 0.0001). As a consequence, total daily insulin dose decreased in the glulisine group but increased in the lispro group (glulisine: -0.86 IU vs. lispro: 1.01 IU; p = 0.0123). There was no relevant difference between the two groups in the reporting of symptomatic hypoglycaemia (overall, nocturnal and severe). This study demonstrates that glulisine provides equivalent glycaemic control to lispro. The clinical relevance of any difference in total daily insulin dose remains to be established.     

Nocturnal hypoglycaemia in patients receiving conventional treatment with insulin.

The prevalence of nocturnal biochemical hypoglycaemia--that is, blood glucose concentrations below 3 mmol/l (55 mg/100 ml)--was evaluated in a random sample of 58 insulin dependent diabetics receiving twice daily insulin. Seventeen patients had at least one blood glucose value below 3 mmol/l (55 mg/100 ml) and five a value below 2 mmol/l (36 mg/100 ml) during the night. Both bedtime (2300) and fasting morning (0700) blood glucose concentrations were significantly lower in the group with nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared with the group without (p less than 0.00001). If the bedtime blood glucose concentration was below 6 mmol/l (108 mg/100 ml) the risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was 80% (95% confidence limits 51-96%). If the bedtime blood glucose concentration was above 6 mmol/l the likelihood of hypoglycaemia not occurring during the night was 88% (74-96%). The mean glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) concentration in the group with nocturnal biochemical hypoglycaemia (8.2 (range 5.0-12.4)%) was significantly lower than that in the group without (9.4(7.0-14.2)%) (p less than 0.02). The prevalence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia in the patients receiving twice daily insulin (29%) was compared with that in 15 patients receiving thrice daily insulin (47%) and was not found to be significantly different. The likelihood of this risk being greater with thrice daily insulin was, however, 88%. No patient with nocturnal biochemical hypoglycaemia woke up during the night with symptomatic hypoglycaemia. Nocturnal biochemical hypoglycaemia is common during twice daily treatment with insulin, and low values of HbA1c might be associated with a higher risk of such hypoglycaemia. The blood glucose concentration at bedtime is a significant predictor of nocturnal biochemical hypoglycaemia, and HbA1c values might be of help in identifying patients at risk.     

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     

Effectiveness of intensive insulin therapy by multiple daily injections and continuous subcutaneous infusion: a comparison study in type 2 diabetes with conventional insulin regimen failure.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of two intensified insulin regimens, i.e., pump delivery versus multiple daily injections in patients with type 2 diabetes not optimally controlled with conventional insulin therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Seventeen type 2 diabetes patients uncontrolled by two daily injections of regular plus NPH were randomly assigned in a cross-over fashion to either three daily injections of lispro plus NPH or pump device delivering lispro. HbA1c, 6 points capillary blood glucose, 24-hour continuous glucose monitoring system tracings and global satisfaction score were evaluated at the end of each 12-week treatment period. RESULTS: HbA1c decreased from 9.0+/-1.6% to 8.6+/-1.6% with multiple injections and 7.7+/-0.8% with pump device (p<0.03). Capillary blood glucose was lowered at all time-points with pump, but only at morning with multiple injections (p<0.01). Compared to conventional therapy, pump reduced hyperglycemic area under curve by 73% (p<0.01), but multiple injections by only 32% (p=0.08). Rate of hypoglycemia was not increased and patient's satisfaction was comparable with both intensive treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Pump therapy provides a better metabolic control than injection regimens, and seems to be safe and convenient in patients with type 2 diabetes who fail to respond to conventional insulin therapy.     

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   

Double blind clinical and laboratory study of hypoglycaemia with human and porcine insulin in diabetic patients reporting hypoglycaemia unawareness after transferring to human insulin.

OBJECTIVES--To compare awareness of hypoglycaemia and physiological responses to hypoglycaemia with human and porcine insulin in diabetic patients who reported loss of hypoglycaemia awareness after transferring to human insulin. DESIGN--Double blind randomised crossover study of clinical experience and physiological responses during slow fall hypoglycaemic clamping with porcine and human insulin. SETTING--Clinical investigation unit of teaching hospital recruiting from diabetes clinics of five teaching hospitals and one district general hospital. SUBJECTS--17 patients with insulin dependent diabetes mellitus of more than five years'' duration who had reported altered hypoglycaemia awareness within three months of transferring to human insulin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Glycaemic control and frequency of hypoglycaemic episodes during two months'' treatment with each insulin. Glucose thresholds for physiological and symptomatic responses during clamping. RESULTS--Glycaemic control did not change with either insulin. 136 hypoglycaemic episodes (eight severe) were reported with human insulin and 149 (nine severe) with porcine insulin (95% confidence interval -4 to 2.5, p = 0.63). 20 episodes of biochemical hypoglycaemia occurred with human insulin versus 18 with porcine insulin (-0.8 to 1, p = 0.78). During controlled hypoglycaemia the mean adrenaline response was 138 nmol/l/240 min for both insulins; neurohormonal responses were triggered at 3.0 (SE 0.2) versus 3.1 (0.2) mmol/l of glucose for adrenaline and 2.5 (0.1) versus 2.5 (0.1) mmol/l for subjective awareness. CONCLUSIONS--These data suggest that human insulin per se does not affect the presentation of hypoglycaemia or the neurohumoral, symptomatic, and cognitive function responses to hypoglycaemia in insulin dependent diabetic patients with a history of hypoglycaemia unawareness.     

A Retrospective Study Comparing Neutral Protamine Hagedorn Insulin With Glargine As Basal Therapy In Prednisone-Associated Diabetes Mellitus In Hospitalized Patients

ObjectiveTo compare glycemic outcomes in hospitalized patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin (NPH) vs glargine as basal insulin for management of glucocorticoid-associated hyperglycemia.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of electronic medical records in prednisone-treated adult patients with hyperglycemia in a university hospital. Consecutive patients were selected in both the NPH and glargine cohorts using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics were assessed in each cohort. Glycemic outcomes were analyzed by comparing fasting blood glucose, mean daily blood glucose concentration, median daily blood glucose concentration, and the number of hypoglycemic episodes on a prespecified index day.ResultsOne hundred twenty patients were included: 60 patients in the NPH cohort and 60 patients in the glargine cohort. The weight-based insulin requirement was lower in the NPH cohort than in the glargine cohort (0.27 ± 0.2 units/kg vs 0.34 ± 0.2 units/kg [P = .04] for basal insulin and 0.26 ± 0.2 units/kg vs 0.36 ± 0.2 units/kg [P = .03] for bolus insulin). NPH and glargine cohorts were similar regarding age, sex, race, body mass index, hemoglobin A_1c, serum creatinine, and prednisone dosage. Glycemic outcomes in the NPH cohort compared with outcomes in the glargine cohort were similar regarding mean fasting blood glucose concentration (134 ± 49 mg/dL vs 139 ± 54 mg/dL [P = .63]), mean daily blood glucose (167 ± 46 mg/dL vs 165 ± 52 mg/dL [P = .79]), median blood glucose (160 ± 49 mg/dL vs 159 ± 57 mg/dL [P = .90]), and number of hypoglycemic episodes per day (0.12 ± 0.3 vs 0.10 ± 0.3 [P = .77]).ConclusionsNPH and glargine appear to be equally effective as basal insulin in the management of hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients receiving prednisone. However, the total daily insulin doses used were lower in the NPH cohort. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:712-719)     

Electronic Medical Record Cancer Incidence over Six Years Comparing New Users of Glargine with New Users of NPH Insulin

Background

Recent studies suggested that insulin glargine use could be associated with increased risk of cancer. We compared the incidence of cancer in new users of glargine versus new users of NPH in a longitudinal clinical cohort with diabetes for up to 6 years.

Methods and Findings

From all patients who had been regularly followed at Massachusetts General Hospital from 1/01/2005 to 12/31/2010, 3,680 patients who had a medication record for glargine or NPH usage were obtained from the electronic medical record (EMR). From those we selected 539 new glargine users (age: 60.1±13.6 years, BMI: 32.7±7.5 kg/m²) and 343 new NPH users (61.5±14.1 years, 32.7±8.3 kg/m²) who had no prevalent cancer during 19 months prior to glargine or NPH initiation. All incident cancer cases were ascertained from the EMR requiring at least 2 ICD-9 codes within a 2 month period. Insulin exposure time and cumulative dose were validated. The statistical analysis compared the rates of cancer in new glargine vs. new NPH users while on treatment, adjusted for the propensity to receive one or the other insulin. There were 26 and 28 new cancer cases in new glargine and new NPH users for 1559 and 1126 person-years follow-up, respectively. There were no differences in the propensity-adjusted clinical characteristics between groups. The adjusted hazard ratio for the cancer incidence comparing glargine vs. NPH use was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.36–1.19).

Conclusions

Insulin glargine is not associated with development of cancers when compared with NPH in this longitudinal and carefully retrieved EMR data.     

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     

Risk of severe hypoglycaemia in insulin treated diabetic patients transferred to human insulin: a case control study.

OBJECTIVE--To examine whether transfer from animal insulin to human insulin is associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia. DESIGN--Matched case-control study of insulin treated diabetic patients admitted to hospital because of hypoglycaemia during 1984-7, the period when human insulin was introduced into treatment. SETTING--Case admissions and control admissions were obtained from eight public hospitals within the Swiss canton of Berne and a second control group comprised members of the Bernese section of the Swiss Diabetes Association. SUBJECTS--94 patients with insulin treated diabetes with a total of 112 admissions for hypoglycaemia during 1984-7 (case admissions), 182 patients with insulin treated diabetes seen in the same hospitals for reasons other than hypoglycaemia with a total of 225 admissions (control admissions), and 86 insulin treated diabetic patients who were members of the Bernese section of the Swiss Diabetes Association. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Type of insulin used at time of admission, glycaemic control as measured by amount of glycated haemoglobin or glucose concentration; severity of hypoglycaemia. RESULTS--Treatment with human insulin at admission was more common in cases than controls (52/112 (46%) admissions v 77/225 (34%); p = 0.003). 116 out of 129 (90%) of admissions taking human insulin had been transferred from animal insulin, mainly because of non-availability of porcine insulins. The ratio of rate of hypoglycaemia in those taking human insulin to the rate in those taking animal insulin was 2.4 (95% confidence interval 1.3 to 4.4). Other risk factors for hypoglycaemia were a history of hypoglycaemic coma (rate ratio of history to no history 3.8, 2.3 to 6.4) and good glycaemic control (rate ratio of good to poor control 3.9, 1.4 to 7.5). With multivariate analysis the increase in rate ratio associated with use of human insulin rose to 3.0 (1.4 to 6.4). Comparison with the diabetes association controls also showed an increased risk associated with use of human insulin (2.2; 1.1 to 4.8). CONCLUSIONS--Transfer of treatment from animal insulin to human insulin was associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia. Caution should be exercised when transferring diabetic patients to human insulin. Further studies are required to elucidate why this effect occurs.     

Insulin Glargine or Neutral Protamine Hagedorn in Patients with Severe Insulin Resistance: is There A Benefit?

ObjectiveTo determine the benefit of neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin compared with insulin glargine in a patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus and severe insulin resistance.MethodsWe describe the patient’s clinical findings and treatment course.ResultsA 52-year-old man with a 3-year history of type 2 diabetes mellitus did not achieve adequate glucose control despite escalation of his treatment regimen to insulin glargine, 80 units twice daily; insulin lispro, 60 units before each meal; and metformin. Dietary and lifestyle changes were emphasized and implemented while medication adherence with appropriate insulin technique was reviewed at each visit. Insulin glargine was replaced with the same dosage of NPH insulin. After 3 months, a significant drop in hemoglobin A_1c was noted, from 9.5% to 6.1%, consistent with the improved capillary glucose measurements. The effect was maintained over the following year, without any major hypoglycemic events.ConclusionNPH insulin might be superior to the long-acting analogue insulin glargine in cases of severe insulin resistance, but randomized studies are needed to confirm our finding and clarify the involved mechanisms. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:e49-e51)     

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

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

Association of obesity,diabetes, serum lipids and blood pressure regulates insulin action

Insulin resistance is present in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus as well as in obese patients without diabetes. The aim of our study was to compare insulin action in diabetic and control persons with or without obesity and to evaluate the influence of serum cholesterol, serum triglyceride and blood pressure on metabolic variables of insulin action. We examined 42 Type 2 diabetic patients and 41 control persons with body mass index (BMI) from 21.1 to 64.5 kg x m(-2), and 33 to 71 years old. The isoglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp technique was performed at an insulin infusion rate of 1 mU x kg(-1) x min(-1) during 120 min. We evaluated the metabolic clearance rate of glucose (MCR(G), ml x kg(-1) x min(-1)) as the most important indicator of insulin action by isoglycemic clamp. The Pearson's correlation and multiple regression models were used to compare studied factors with the insulin action. We found following predictors of insulin resistance expressed in the relationship with MCR(G): BMI (r = -0.68, p<0.001), plasma glucose concentration (r = -0.66, p<0.001), cholesterol (r=-0.55, p<0.001), triglycerides (r = -0.54, p<0.001) and mean blood pressure (r = -0.38, p<0.01). From the multiple regression analysis we conclude that obesity may have even greater influence on the insulin action than diabetes mellitus itself.     

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Acute effects of valsartan on insulin sensitivity in obese, non-hypertensive subjects with and without type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Two studies were designed to determine whether a single dose (80 mg) of the angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), valsartan, alters insulin sensitivity in obese, non-hypertensive subjects with and without Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Insulin sensitivity (S(I)), glucose effectiveness (S(G)), and acute insulin response (AIR(0-10 min)) were measured by means of a 3-hour insulin-modified frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test (FSIVGTT) before and after a single dose of valsartan. Study 1: obese, normotensive non-diabetic male subjects (n = 12), mean (SD) age 37.2 +/- 11.2 years, BMI 32.8 +/- 6.8 kg/m (2); Study 2: obese, normotensive Type 2 diabetic patients (n = 12), mean age 55.7 +/- 6.9 years, BMI 35.0 +/- 6.8 kg/m (2)/l. Both studies were randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose crossover group studies involving subjects in two study days, two weeks apart. After fasting samples were taken, a 300 mg/kg iv glucose bolus was injected at 0 min, and 0.05 U/kg iv insulin was given 20 min later. Blood samples for analysis of glucose and insulin were taken throughout the 3-hour study period. RESULTS: Study 1 (non-diabetic subjects) S(I) 2.81 vs. 2.63 x 10 (-4) min (-1) per microU/ml (p = 0.54), S(G) 0.020 vs. 0.020 min (-1) (p = 0.90), AIR(0-10) min 3305 vs. 3450 microU/min/ml (p = 0.71); Study 2 (patients with type 2 diabetes) S(I) 0.59 vs. 0.85 x 10 (-4) min (-1) per microU/ml (p = 0.15), S(G) 0.013 vs. 0.014 min (-1) (p = 0.71), AIR(0-10) min 65 vs. 119 microU/min/ml (p = 0.14), placebo vs. valsartan, respectively. CONCLUSION: In obese, non-hypertensive non-diabetic and Type 2 diabetic subjects a single dose of valsartan does not alter insulin sensitivity.