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     

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)     

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)     

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)     

Management of Hyperglycemia in Diabetic Patients with Hematologic Malignancies During Dexamethasone Therapy

ObjectiveTo compare the response to different insulin regimens for management of hyperglycemia in diabetic patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving dexamethasone.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted to determine whether a basal bolus insulin (BBI) regimen with detemir and aspart is superior to a sliding scale regular insulin (SSI) regimen for management of hyperglycemia in hospitalized diabetic patients receiving dexamethasone.ResultsForty patients with hematologic malignancies were treated with intravenous (8 to 12 mg/day) or oral (40 mg/day) dexamethasone for 3 days. The average blood glucose (BG) level was 301 ± 57 mg/dL in the SSI group (n = 28) and 219 ± 51 mg/dL in the BBI group (n = 12) (P <.001). The BBI regimen resulted in an average BG reduction of 52 ± 82 mg/dL throughout the course of dexa-methasone therapy, while the SSI regimen produced an increase in the mean daily BG level of 128 ± 77 mg/dL (P <.001). On the last day of dexamethasone administration, the insulin requirement was 49 ± 29 units/day in the SSI group and 122 ± 39 units/day in the BBI group (P <.001). Three patients in the SSI group developed diabetic ketoacidosis or hyperosmolar hyperglycemia during steroid therapy. No hypoglycemia was observed in either group. The length of stay and infection rates were similar between groups.ConclusionBasal and bolus insulin regimen is an effective and safe approach for managing dexamethasone-induced hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancies. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19:231-235)     

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     

Glycemic Control with use of Insulin Glargine after Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Retrospective Study

ObjectivePerioperative glycemic control in critically ill cardiothoracic surgery patients may improve postsurgical outcomes. The objective of the study was to compare outcomes before and after the implementation of a protocol using subcutaneous (SC) glargine at transition from intravenous insulin infusion (IVII).MethodsIn August 2006, the Cleveland Clinic began using glargine and supplemental rapid-acting sliding scale insulin (SSI) at transition from IVII (glargine-SSI group). Before August 2006, only supplemental insulin was used (SSI-only group). The primary outcome was first blood glucose (BG1) after discontinuation of IVII. Secondary outcomes included the absolute difference between the last glucose before discontinuation of IVII (BG0) and BG1, mean glucose in the first 24 hours after discontinuation of IVII (BG24), need for SSI, and hypoglycemia.ResultsMean BG0, BG1, and BG24, and the difference between BG1 and BG0 and between BG24 and BG0 were not significantly different between groups. Diabetes mellitus (DM) patients who had received glargine had a lower mean difference between BG1 and BG0 and a lower mean BG24 than those who had not received glargine (14.6 mg/dL vs. 33.1 mg/dL; P = .20, and 163.8 mg/dL vs. 177.9 mg/dL; P = .29, respectively). A higher proportion of DM patients needed SSI than did non-DM patients (82% vs. 36%; P<.001).ConclusionGlargine administered at the cessation of IVII enabled less SSI coverage in diabetic patients subsequent to transition from IVII. However, there was no significant difference in BG control between the glargine-SSI and SSI-only groups. Prospective studies involving more patients are needed to show possible clinically significant benefits of this intervention. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19:485-493)     

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.     

Glycemic Control and Diabetic Dyslipidemia in Adolescents with Type 2 Diabetes

ObjectiveThe incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing at an alarming rate, especially in ethnic minorities, and T2DM is associated with significant comorbidities. The primary objective of this study was to assess glycemic control and cardiovascular risk outcomes in children with T2DM at 1 year after diagnosis. We also assessed whether insulin treatment at onset of diabetes is beneficial for overall outcome in those with elevated glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C).MethodsA retrospective electronic chart review of non-Hispanic white (NHW) and African American (AA) children with T2DM.ResultsA total of 86 patients (66.3% females, 79.1% AA, mean age, 13.8 ± 2.4 years) with T2DM were included. Analyses of therapeutic outcome measures at the 1-year follow-up showed HbA1C <8% in 27.7% of patients, low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >130 mg/dL in 12.5%, non-high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) >160 mg/dL in 15.6%, HDL-C <35 mg/dL in 25%, systolic hypertension (HTN) in 35.6%, and diastolic HTN in 6.8% of subjects. Among those started on insulin at initial diagnosis, there was significant improvement in glycemic outcomes (P<.0001 on insulin vs. P = .02 not on insulin) and dyslipidemia (total cholesterol [TC] [P = .001], LDL-C [P = .02], HDL-C [P = .01], non-HDL-C [P = .0002], and TC/HDL-C [P = .005]) compared with no significant change among those who did not receive insulin at diagnosis.ConclusionSubstantial numbers of children with T2DM do not achieve glycemic and cardiovascular therapeutic goals 1 year after diagnosis. Insulin therapy at diagnosis has significant beneficial effects on diabetic dyslipidemia in those with higher HbA1C. (Endocr Pract. 2013; 19:972-979)     

Basal and Bolus Insulin Requirements in Children,Adolescents, and Young Adults with type 1 Diabetes Mellitus on Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (csii): Effects of age and Puberty

ObjectiveGuidelines for insulin dosing, including the insulin to carbohydrate ratio (I/C), insulin sensitivity factor (ISF), and basal/bolus ratio guidelines, have been well established for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). However, clinical experience suggests that these guidelines are not appropriate for children. The purpose of this study was to determine the continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) settings in children with T1DM at different ages and stages of puberty.MethodsA total of 154 patients data between the ages of 3 and 21 years with well-controlled T1DM according to American Diabetes Association guidelines were reviewed. Only patients on CSII who were not in the honeymoon period were included.ResultsPatients were divided into 8 groups according to age, gender, and/or pubertal stage. Insulin requirements increased with puberty in both sexes (0.69, 0.97, and 0.90 U/kg/day in children <7 years of age, midpubertal girls, and late-pubertal boys, respectively). Basal insulin requirement was lowest in the youngest group (34%; P<.01). The youngest group had the lowest I/C prediction factor (PF) (mean, 315.7 ± 79.4; P<.01 with all groups), and the ISF-PF was higher than that of the oldest group (mean, 2,588.3 ± 1,101.8; P<.01).ConclusionCSII dose calculations vary with age and pubertal status in children with T1DM. These differences must be considered when calculating CSII dosing, especially for younger children. (Endocr Pract. 2013; 19:805-811)     

Examination of Implementation of Intravenous and Subcutaneous Insulin Protocols and Glycemic Control in Heart Transplant Patients

ObjectivePerioperative glycemic management is particularly challenging in heart transplant (HT) patients who are on high-dose steroids and subject to surgical stress. The objective of the study was to examine the efficacy and safety of perioperative insulin administration in HT patients with and without diabetes.MethodsMedical records of 71 HT patients from June 1, 2005 to July 31, 2009 whose hyperglycemia was managed by our Glucose Management Service (GMS) were analyzed for up to 1 year after HT. Their daily blood glucose (BG) averages on intravenous (IV) insulin drips and subcutaneous (SQ) insulin, hypoglycemia rates, reasons for hypoglycemia, and deviations from insulin protocols were analyzed.ResultsDaily BG averages between diabetic (DM) and nondiabetic (nonDM) patients were not significantly different while on the drip but were significantly different for first 5 days on SQ (P < .05). The daily insulin glargine doses were similar. No patients developed severe hypoglycemia (BG ≤ 40 mg/dL) while on drip, and only 2.8% experienced hypoglycemia on SQ. Among 40 episodes of moderate hypoglycemia while on drip, 15 had nurse deviations from protocol prior to the episode. Posttransition day fasting glucose was at goal (mean 124.7 ± 35.4 mg/dL); however 39.4% (28/71) of patients received a transition insulin glargine dose that was different from the amount indicated by protocol. The likelihood of developing moderate hypoglycemia on SQ was associated with the glargine dose used at the time of transition (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, P = .034).ConclusionInpatient insulin protocols implemented by a GMS are successful in obtaining glycemic control with minimal side effects in patients with and without diabetes, even when they are on a high-dose steroid regimen. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:527-535)     

Hospital Insulin Protocol Aims For Glucose Control In Glucocorticoid-Induced Hyperglycemia

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of 2 insulin protocols to treat glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia in the nonintensive care hospital setting.Methods: A randomized, open-label, parallel-arm study was conducted comparing standard recommended care of complete insulin orders (CIO) (i.e., 3-part insulin regimen of long-acting basal [background], rapid-acting bolus [mealtime], and rapid-acting correction factor) to an experimental group following a regimen of Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) plus CIO (NPH-CIO). The primary outcome was mean blood glucose (BG), and the secondary outcome was percent of BG in target range of 70 to 180 mg/dL. Hypoglycemia was also evaluated.Results: Sixty-one patients completed 2 to 5 consecutive inpatient days (31 CIO; 30 NPH-CIO). Baseline mean BG results were 237.2 ± 50.2 and 221.9 ± 35.8 mg/dL (P = .30) in the CIO and NPH-CIO groups, respectively. No significant difference in overall mean BG between the 2 groups was detected; however, a significant difference arose on day 3: mean BG 181.8 ± 32.6 mg/dL (CIO) versus 157.2 ± 6.1 mg/dL (NPH-CIO) (P = .03). Moreover, the total daily doses (TDDs) of insulin did not differ: 34.8 ± 43.0 units (CIO) versus 35.8 ± 25.0 units (NPH-CIO) (P = .13). Percent of BG in target was 54.6% (CIO) and 62% (NPH-CIO) (P = .24). Incidence of severe hypoglycemia (<50 mg/dL) was the same in both groups (0.1%).Conclusion: NPH added to 3-part insulin regimen (CIO) may be an effective way to a combat glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia, though further research is needed in a larger population.Abbreviations:A1C = hemoglobin A1CBG = blood glucoseCIO = complete insulin ordersDM = diabetes mellitusNPH = neutral protamine HagedornNPH-CIO = neutral protamine Hagedorn plus CIOTDD = total daily dose     

Insulin Requirements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Undergoing Bariatric Surgery in the Inpatient Setting and Upon Discharge: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis of Insulin Management Strategies

ObjectiveRapid improvement in blood glucose (BG) after weight-loss surgery (WLS) can make postoperative glucose management challenging in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Our study examined the safety and efficacy of insulin management strategies during hospitalization and after discharge following WLS.MethodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study included 160 adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing WLS. Patients with glycated hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) level <7% (53 mmol/mol) and not on antihyperglycemic medications or metformin monotherapy were excluded. BG and insulin dosing during hospitalization and at 2-week follow-up, and impact of preoperative HbA1C level were analyzed.ResultsMean age was 46.3 years. Median preoperative HbA1C level was 8% (64 mmol/mol). Postoperatively, most patients received basal insulin plus sliding-scale insulin (SSI; 79/160, 49%) or SSI alone (77/160, 48%). The initial postoperative basal dose was 0.23 units/kg/day. The median basal insulin dose at discharge was 61% lower than preoperative dose. At 2-week follow-up, 34 of 44 patients (77%) had BG levels between 70-200 mg/dL and 1 of 44 (2.2%) had BG levels >200 mg/dL, with no hypoglycemia. Patients with HbA1C level >9% (75 mmol/mol) had higher BG on admission and during hospitalization, required higher insulin doses while hospitalized, and were more frequently discharged on insulin.ConclusionSSI is effective in managing BG in some patients immediately after WLS. However, about half of the patients may require basal insulin at doses similar to those required by other inpatients. Preoperative hyperglycemia may affect inpatient insulin needs and BG. Low-dose basal insulin appears safe and effective upon discharge for select patients.     

Safety And Efficacy Of Dpp-4 Inhibitors For The Management Of Hospitalized General Medicine And Surgery Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) have been shown to be effective for the management of inpatient diabetes. We report pooled data from 3 prospective studies using DPP-4i in general medicine and surgery patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).Methods: We combined data from 3 randomized studies comparing DPP-4i alone or in combination with basal insulin or a basal-bolus insulin regimen. Medicine (n = 266) and surgery (n = 319) patients admitted with a blood glucose (BG) between 140 and 400 mg/dL, treated with diet, oral agents, or low-dose insulin therapy were included. Patients received DPP-4i alone (n = 144), DPP-4i plus basal insulin (n = 158) or basal-bolus regimen (n = 283). All groups received correctional doses with rapid-acting insulin for BG >140 mg/dL. The primary endpoint was differences in mean daily BG between groups. Secondary endpoints included differences in hypoglycemia and hospital complications.Results: There were no differences in mean hospital daily BG among patients treated with DPP-4i alone (170 ± 37 mg/dL), DPP-4i plus basal (172 ± 42 mg/dL), or basalbolus (172 ± 43 mg/dL), P = .94; or in the percentage of BG readings within target of 70 to 180 mg/dL (63 ± 32%, 60 ± 31%, and 64 ± 28%, respectively; P = .42). There were no differences in length of stay or complications, but hypoglycemia was less common with DPP-4i alone (2%) compared to DPP-4i plus basal (9%) and basal-bolus (10%); P = .004.Conclusion: Treatment with DPP-4i alone or in combination with basal insulin is effective and results in a lower incidence of hypoglycemia compared to a basal-bolus insulin regimen in general medicine and surgery patients with T2D.Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose; BMI = body mass index; CI = confidence interval; DPP-4i = dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; OR = odds ratio; T2D = type 2 diabetes     

Diurnal Glucose Profiles Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Identify the Glucose-Lowering Characteristics of Colesevelam HCL (WELCHOL)

ObjectiveThe study's purpose was to identify the antihyperglycemic affects of colesevelam-HCl (C-HCl) by characterizing the diurnal and postprandial glucose patterns in type 2 diabetic subjects treated concomitantly with metformin, sulfonylurea, or a combination of metformin/ sulfonylurea. A secondary aim was to determine whether C-HCl significantly increased the risk of hypoglycemia.MethodsA prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study employing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) analysis was undertaken. Fifteen males and 6 females, age 60 ± 8 years, treated with metformin (n = 8), sulfonylurea (n = 2), or combination (n = 11) participated.ResultsTreatment with C-HCl led to reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbAlc) (7.5 ± 0.3 to 7.0 ± 0.4% P<.0001), LDL (90.9 ± 18.6 to 68.9 ± 15.2 mg/dL, P<.0007) and total cholesterol (169.2 ± 24.4 to 147.8 ± 21.5 mg/dL, P<.001). Significantly lower normalized diurnal (21 mg/dL/hour, P = .0006), nocturnal (19 mg/dL/hour, P = .0005), and daytime (22 mg/dL/hour, P = .0008) glucose exposure was detected immediately upon C-HCl administration. Additionally, there was a significant (P<.004) decline in postprandial glucose excursions (averaging 15% or -36 mg/dL/hour) pronounced at dinner following C-HCl administration. There was a nonsignificant increase in the incidence of hypoglycemia (0.4-1%), with no difference due to antihyperglycemic medications.ConclusionsAGP analysis of CGM visually and quantitatively showed immediate and midterm impacts of C-HCl on basal and postprandial glucose patterns. This suggests a multifactorial glucose-lowering mechanism for C-HCl affecting both meal-related and basal glucose levels. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19:275-283)     

Basal Insulin Degludec and Glycemic Control Compared to Aspart Via Insulin Pump in Type 1 Diabetes (BIGLEAP): A Single-Center,Open-Label,Randomized, Crossover Trial

ObjectiveWe compared the efficacy of the second-generation basal insulin degludec (IDeg) to that of insulin aspart via pump using continuous glucose monitoring in patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes.MethodsIn this 40-week, single-center, randomized, crossover-controlled trial, adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes (hemoglobin A1C of <7.5% [<58 mmol/mol]) (N = 52) who were using an insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring were randomized to 1 of 2 treatments for a 20-week period: a single daily injection of IDeg with bolus aspart via pump or a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with aspart, followed by crossover to the other treatment. The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during the final 2 weeks of each treatment period.ResultsFifty-two patients were randomized and completed both treatment periods. The time in range for IDeg and CSII was 71.5% and 70.9%, respectively (P = .553). The time in level 1 hypoglycemia for the 24-hour period with IDeg and CSII was 2.19% and 1.75%, respectively (P = .065). The time in level 2 hypoglycemia for the 24-hour period with IDeg and CSII was 0.355% and 0.271%, respectively (P = .212), and the nocturnal period was 0.330% and 0.381%, respectively (P = .639). The mean standard deviation of blood glucose levels for the 24-hour period for IDeg and CSII was 52.4 mg/dL and 51.0 mg/dL, respectively (P = .294). The final hemoglobin A1C level for each treatment was 7.04% (53 mmol/mol) with IDeg, and 6.95% (52 mmol/mol) with CSII (P = .288). Adverse events were similar between treatments.ConclusionWe observed similar glycemic control between IDeg and insulin aspart via CSII for basal insulin coverage in patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes.     

Eating and Glycemic Control Among Critically Ill Patients Receiving Continuous Intravenous Insulin

Objective: Consensus guidelines recommend that intensive care unit (ICU) patients with blood glucose (BG) levels >180 mg/dL receive continuous intravenous insulin (CII). The effectiveness of CII at controlling BG levels among patients who are eating relative to those who are eating nothing by mouth (nil per os; NPO) has not been described.Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 260 adult patients (156 eating, 104 NPO) admitted to an ICU between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, who received CII. Patients were excluded for a diagnosis of diabetic ketoacidosis or hyperglycemic hyperosmolar nonketotic syndrome, admission to an obstetrics service, or receiving continuous enteral or parenteral nutrition.Results: Among 22 baseline characteristics, the proportion of patients receiving glucocorticoid treatment (GCTx) (17.3% eating, 37.5% NPO; P<.001) and APACHE II score (15.0 ± 7.5 eating, 17.9 ± 7.9 NPO; P = .004) were significantly different between eating and NPO patients. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of patient-day weighted mean BG overall (153 ± 8 mg/dL eating, 156 ± 7 mg/dL NPO; P = .73), or day-by-day BG (P = .37) adjusted for GCTx and APACHE score. Surprisingly, there was a significant difference in the distribution of BG values, with eating patients having a higher percentage of BG readings in the recommended range of 140 to 180 mg/dL. However, eating patients showed greater glucose variability (coefficient of variation 23.1 ± 1.0 eating, 21.2 ± 1.0 NPO; P = .034).Conclusion: Eating may not adversely affect BG levels of ICU patients receiving CII. Whether or not prandial insulin improves glycemic control in this setting should be studied.Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose; CII = continuous insulin infusion; CV = coefficient of variation; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; ICU = intensive care unit; NPO = nil per os; PDWMBG = patient day weighted mean blood glucose     

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)     

Glucose Variability is an Independent Predictor of Mortality in Hospitalized Patients Treated with Total Parenteral Nutrition

ObjectiveHyperglycemia is associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients treated with total parenteral nutrition (TPN). The role of glucose variability (GV) in predicting outcomes in these patients is not known.MethodsThis retrospective study included medical and surgical patients receiving TPN in a community teaching hospital. GV was calculated by standard deviation (SD) of blood glucose (BG) values and by mean BG daily (Δ) change (daily max – daily minimum).ResultsA total of 276 medical and surgical patients (mean age: 51 ± 18 years), 19% with a history of diabetes mellitus (DM), and 74% with intensive care unit (ICU) admission were treated with TPN. During TPN, the mean daily BG was 142.9 ± 33 mg/dL; frequencies of hypoglycemia < 70 and < 40 mg/dL were 41% and 3%, respectively; and hospital mortality was 27.2%. The mean GV by SD was 38 ± 21 mg/dL and by mean (Δ) change 58 ± 34 mg/dL. GV was significantly higher in deceased patients (SD: 48 ± 25 vs. 34 ± 18 mg/dL and Δ change: 75 ± 39 vs. 51 ± 29 mg/dL, both P < .01) than surviving patients. Multivariate analysis adjusted for age, DM status, gender, APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) score, mean daily glucose, and hypoglycemia revealed that GV was an independent predictor of hospital mortality (P < .05). The association between GV and mortality was limited to patients without a history of DM and was not present in patients with DM.ConclusionHigh GV is associated with increased hospital mortality independent of the presence and severity of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia during TPN therapy. Prospective randomized trials are needed to determine if reduction in GV with intensive glycemic control improves clinical outcomes in patients treated with TPN. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:41-45)     

Long-Acting Subcutaneously Administered Insulin for Glycemic Control Immediately After Cardiac Surgery

ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that subcutaneous administration of basal insulin begun immediately after cardiac surgery can decrease the need for insulin infusion in patients without diabetes and save nursing time.MethodsAfter cardiac surgery, 36 adult patients without diabetes were randomly assigned to receive either standard treatment (control group) or insulin glargine once daily in addition to standard treatment (basal insulin group). Standard treatment included blood glucose measurements every 1 to 4 hours and intermittent insulin infusion to maintain blood glucose levels between 100 and 150 mg/dL. The study period lasted up to 72 hours.ResultsThere were no differences in demographics or baseline laboratory characteristics of the 2 study groups. Mean daily blood glucose levels were lower in the basal insulin group in comparison with the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (129.3 ± 9.4 mg/ dL versus 132.6 ± 7.3 mg/dL; P = .25). The mean duration of insulin infusion was significantly shorter in the basal insulin group than in the control group (16.3 ± 10.7 hours versus 26.6 ± 17.3 hours; P = .04). Nurses tested blood glucose a mean of 8.3 ± 3.5 times per patient per day in the basal insulin group and 12.0 ± 4.7 times per patient per day in the control group (P = .01). There was no occurrence of hypoglycemia (blood glucose level < 60 mg/dL) in either group.ConclusionOnce-daily insulin glargine is safe and may decrease the duration of insulin infusion and reduce nursing time in patients without diabetes who have hyperglycemia after cardiac surgery. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17: 558-562)