When a unit of insulin is not a unit: Detemir dosing and insulin cost in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background: Increasing acceptance of basal-bolus insulin therapy for the control of diabetes mellitus (DM) has led to newer formulations of basal insulin analogues. The newest one is detemir.Objectives: Clinical evidence suggests that patients with type 2 DM require higher doses of detemir than other basal insulins to achieve equivalent glycemic control. This study examines evidence for greater dosing requirements and the implications of higher doses on the cost of insulin treatment.Methods: We performed a MEDLINE search for randomized, prospective studies comparing detemir with other basal insulins in patients with type 2 DM that were published in English between January 2000 and November 2008. The mean daily doses of basal and bolus insulin and the mean total daily insulin doses were determined. Overall weighted mean doses of the insulins were used to estimate the mean total daily insulin doses required for a 100-kg patient, and published 2008 US retail prices were used to estimate the retail costs of basal-bolus and basal-only insulin regimens.Results: Seven trials involving 3311 patients were identified in the literature search. The mean total daily insulin dose was 0.80 unit/kg for detemir-based regimens and 0.58 unit/kg for comparison regimens. For basal-bolus regimens, the estimated retail cost of the mean total daily insulin dose was $11.24 for detemir-based regimens compared with $8.99 for glargine-based regimens and $6.41 for neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH)-based insulins. For basal-only regimens, the estimated retail cost of the mean total daily insulin dose was $8.23 for detemir compared with $5.19 for glargine and $2.35 for NPH.Conclusions: It is important for health care providers and patients to know that patients with type 2 DM may require substantially higher doses of detemir than other basal insulins. This should be considered when titrating the dose as well as in cost-benefit analyses of detemir versus other insulins.     

Potential Formula for the Calculation of Starting and Incremental Insulin Glargine Doses: ALOHA Subanalysis

Background

Pragmatic methods for dose optimization are required for the successful basal management in daily clinical practice. To derive a useful formula for calculating recommended glargine doses, we analyzed data from the Add-on Lantus® to Oral Hypoglycemic Agents (ALOHA) study, a 24-week observation of Japanese type 2 diabetes patients.

Methodology/Principal Findings

The patients who initiated insulin glargine in basal-supported oral therapy (BOT) regimen (n = 3506) were analyzed. The correlations between average changes in glargine dose and HbA1c were calculated, and its regression formula was estimated from grouped data categorized by baseline HbA1c levels. Starting doses of the background-subgroup achieving the HbA1c target with a last-observed dose above the average were compared to an assumed optimal starting dose of 0.15 U/kg/day. The difference in regression lines between background-subgroups was examined. A formula for determining the optimal starting and titration doses was thereby derived. The correlation coefficient between changes in dose and HbA1c was −0.9043. The estimated regression line formula was −0.964 × change in HbA1c+2.000. A starting dose of 0.15 U/kg/day was applicable to all background-subgroups except for patients with retinopathy (0.120 U/kg/day) and/or with eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m² (0.114 U/kg/day). Additionally, women (0.135 U/kg/day) and patients with sulfonylureas (0.132 U/kg/day) received a slightly decreased starting dose.

Conclusions/Significance

We suggest a simplified and pragmatic dose calculation formula for type 2 diabetes patients starting glargine BOT optimal daily dose at 24 weeks  =  starting dose (0.15×weight) + incremental dose (baseline HbA1c − target HbA1c+2). This formula should be further validated using other samples in a prospective follow-up, especially since several patient groups required lower starting doses.     

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 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)     

A one-year, randomised, multicentre trial comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin in combination with oral agents in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: The aim of the trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of the new, long-acting basal insulin, insulin glargine (LANTUS(R)), with NPH human insulin, each administered in a combination regimen with oral antidiabetic drugs in patients with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In a multicentre, open, randomised study, 570 patients with Type 2 diabetes, aged 34 - 80 years, were treated for 52 weeks with insulin glargine or NPH insulin given once daily at bedtime. Previous oral antidiabetic therapy was continued throughout the study. RESULTS: There was a clinically relevant decrease in glycosylated haemoglobin (GHb) values from baseline to endpoint with both drugs (insulin glargine: - 0.46 %; NPH insulin: - 0.38 %; p = 0.415); also, this difference was statistically significant in the subgroup of overweight patients with BMI > 28 kg/m 2 (insulin glargine: - 0.42 %, NPH insulin: - 0.11 %; p = 0.0237). Over the entire treatment period, NPH insulin-treated patients (41 %) and insulin glargine-treated patients (35 %) experienced a similar level of symptomatic hypoglycaemia. A statistically significant difference was observed in the number of patients treated with NPH insulin who reported at least one episode of nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared with those treated with insulin glargine in the overall population and in the overweight subgroup (overall: 24 % vs. 12 %, p = 0.002; overweight: 22.2 % vs. 9.5 %, p = 0.0006), using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. These differences were most pronounced in insulin-na?ve and overweight (BMI > 28 kg/m 2) sub-groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar for the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that insulin glargine is as effective as NPH insulin in achieving glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes, and is associated with fewer episodes of symptomatic hypoglycaemia, particularly nocturnal episodes.     

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     

New developments in the treatment and monitoring of type 1 diabetes mellitus

In recent years, insulin analogues are the benefits of the use in functional intensive insulin therapy for the treatment of diabetes. Shortacting insulin (lispro, aspart and glulisine) and long-acting insulin (glargine and detemir) have been developed for the management of diabetes. Short-acting insulin analogues are an alternative to regular human insulin before meals. These new short-acting insulin analogues show more rapid onset of activity and a shorter duration of action. As a result of these pharmacokinetic differences, an improved postprandial glycemic control is achieved, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. In addition, these insulin analogues can be administered immediately before a meal. The long-acting insulin analogues provide basal insulin levels for 24 h when administered once (glargine) or two (detemir) daily. Compared with previous intermediate- or long-acting conventional insulin, these insulins shows a flat profile of plasma insulin levels . The use of these long-acting insulin analogues appears to be associated with a reduced incidence of hypoglycemia, especially at night. The availability of these new insulin analogues has the potential to significantly improve long-term control over blood glucose in diabetic patients. In recent years more and more frequently the method of multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin is being replaced by the method of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). It is the most physiological way to administer insulin. In recent years treatment with insulin pumps has been used more frequently in the pediatric patients and in the treatment of diabetes in pregnancy. Use of continuous glucose monitoring systems enables detection of glycemia fluctuations unrevealed by selfmonitoring of blood glucose, such as night hypoglycemias and early postprandial hyperglycemias. Real-time systems allow to reduce HbA1c levels and limit number of excursions. Non-invasive glucose measurement devices are introduced. Fully automated continuous glucose monitoring systems integrated with insulin pumps operating in closed-loop model, requiring no patient assistance, are still being researched. Commercially available systems operate in open-loop model, where the patient has to decide on administration and dose of insulin.     

Impact of Glucose-Lowering Agents on the Risk of Cancer in Type 2 Diabetic Patients. The Barcelona Case-Control Study

Background

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the impact of glucose-lowering agents in the risk of cancer in a large type 2 diabetic population.

Methods

A nested case-control study was conducted within a defined cohort (275,164 type 2 diabetic patients attending 16 Primary Health Care Centers of Barcelona). Cases (n = 1,040) comprised those subjects with any cancer diagnosed between 2008 and 2010, registered at the Cancer Registry of Hospital Vall d''Hebron (Barcelona). Three control subjects for each case (n = 3,120) were matched by age, sex, diabetes duration, and geographical area. The treatments analyzed (within 3 years prior to cancer diagnosis) were: insulin glargine, insulin detemir, human insulin, fast-acting insulin and analogues, metformin, sulfonylureas, repaglinide, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and alpha glucosidase inhibitors. Conditional logistic regressions were used to calculate the risk of cancer associated with the use of each drug adjusted by age, BMI, dose and duration of treatment, alcohol use, smoking habit, and diabetes duration.

Results

No differences were observed between case and control subjects for the proportion, dose or duration of exposure to each treatment. None of the types of insulin and oral agents analyzed showed a significant increase in the risk of cancer. Moreover, no cancer risk was observed when glargine was used alone or in combination with metformin.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that diabetes treatment does not influence the risk of cancer associated with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, an eventual increase of cancer should not be a reason for biasing the selection of any glucose-lowering treatment in type 2 diabetic population.     

A Bridge to Insulin Pump Therapy: Twice-Daily Regimen with NPH and Detemir Insulins During Initial Treatment of Youth with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo describe clinical outcomes in youth with new-onset type 1 diabetes mellitus (TlDM) treated with a modified, twice-daily regimen of a mixture of NPH insulin and rapid-acting insulin analogue at breakfast and separate injections of rapid-acting insulin analogue and insulin detemir at dinner.MethodsOur clinic database was used to describe changes in insulin doses, hemoglobin A_1c (A1C) levels, and frequency of severe hypoglycemia during the first year of therapy in young patients with T1DM diagnosed between September 2006 and April 2009. Data are presented as median values (25%, 75%).ResultsOverall, 108 patients (62 girls; mean age, 10.0 ± 0.4 years) were eligible for inclusion. Total daily insulin doses at 3, 6, and 12 months were 0.6 (0.4, 0.8), 0.7 (0.4, 0.9), and 0.8 (0.6, 0.9) U/kg, respectively. A1C levels were 9.8% (8.5%, 10.8%) at 2 weeks (baseline). Of the 108 patients, 19 had switched to insulin pump therapy by 3 months and 49 had switched by 12 months after initial diagnosis of T1DM. The 49 pump-treated patients had an A1C of 6.9% (6.6%, 7.3%), whereas the 59 injection- treated patients had an A1C of 7.2% (6.7%, 7.7%) by 12 months. There were only 6 severe hypoglycemic events in 5 patients; none occurred during the first 3 months, none occurred during the night, and all occurred in patients receiving insulin injection treatment.ConclusionA twice-daily insulin regimen that uses insulin detemir for overnight basal replacement and morning NPH insulin to avoid lunch and afternoon snack doses is an effective initial treatment for young patients with new-onset T1DM that can provide a smooth transition to intensive basal/bolus insulin pump therapy. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:862-866)     

Inpatient Glycemic Control on the Vascular Surgery Service

ObjectiveTo describe a structured inpatient insulin management protocol and order set for glycemic control on a vascular surgery service.MethodsPatients admitted to the vascular surgery service with underlying diabetes were enrolled in a study of use of a preprinted basal-bolus insulin order set based on a total daily dose of 0.5 U/kg (0.25 U/kg of insulin glargine and 0.25 U/kg of insulin aspart divided into 3 equal mealtime doses). Outcomes included the mean glycemic control at each of 5 established time intervals, the percentage of blood glucose measurements within the target range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, the incidence of hypoglycemia, and the insulin dosages. Historical control patients with diabetes from the same hospital service were used for comparison.ResultsBoth the study group and the control group consisted of 26 patients. The number of finger-stick blood glucose measurements performed was 871 in the control group and 896 in the intervention group. The mean blood glucose level (± SD) for the intervention group was 149.4 ± 50.7 mg/dL, in comparison with 165.2 ± 64.4 mg/dL for the control group. The incidence of hypoglycemia decreased 50% in the intervention group—from 32 (4% of the finger-stick assessments in the control group) to 19 (2% of the finger-stick blood glucose measurements in the study group). The blood glucose target range of 70 to 180 mg/dL was achieved in 75% of the measurements in the study group versus 61% in the control group. The basal insulin dose was unchanged in 65% of the patients, and of the 9 patients requiring a change in the dose, 5 had the dose decreased by 10% and 4 had the dose increased by 10%.ConclusionThe use of a standardized basal-bolus weight-based insulin regimen was successful at achieving improved glycemic control as well as reducing the incidence of hypoglycemia in an inpatient population with diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2008;14:185-192)     

Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus and Lipohypertrophy - Impact of the Intervention on Glycemic Control via Patient’s Examination and Retraining on Change of Infusion Set

ObjectiveLipohypertrophy (LH) is a common complication of insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). We examined whether an intervention consisting of LH assessment and retraining on insulin infusion set use improves glycemic control on subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in patients with T1DM.MethodsThe intervention was conducted in 79 consecutive patients with T1DM. Data on glucose levels, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and insulin doses were collected at baseline and after a median of 22 weeks (20-31.75 weeks).ResultsA total of 46 patients with T1DM (23 [50%] women) participating in the follow-up were characterized by a median age of 29 years (25-33.8 years), body mass index of 24.6 ± 3.3 kg/m², T1DM duration of 16.5 years (8.3-20 years), and subcutaneous insulin infusion duration of 7 years (4-10.8 years). Patients’ median HbA1c fell from 7.4% (6.7%-8.2%) to 7.05% (6.4%-7.6%) (P < .001), daily insulin dose/kg decreased (0.7 ± 0.20 vs 0.68 ± 0.15 IU/kg; P = .017) together with the total daily insulin dose (50.3 [40.5-62.7] vs 47.6 [39.8-62.1] IU; P = .019]. Furthermore, the percentage of basal insulin dose increased (43.0% [36-50] vs 44.0% [39.0-50.0]; P = .010], whereas the percentage of bolus dose decreased (57% [50-64] vs 56% [50-61], P = .010).ConclusionsThe structured LH-related intervention in patients with T1DM on insulin pumps resulted in better glycemic control and a decrease in total daily insulin dose.     

Plasma constituents and mortality in rat pups given chronic insulin via injection, pellet, or osmotic minipump

Two studies compared the glucose responses of 9-day-old rats given subcutaneous insulin, either continuously or via daily injection, for 10 days. In Experiment 1, implanted pellets released a total of 0, 1.9, or 5.7 U insulin/kg the first 24 h. Injected doses were larger, 0 or 8 U/kg. Injections caused no deaths, but insulin-releasing pellets caused high mortality within 24 h. Pups surviving the pellets were normoglycemic by treatment day 8. In Experiment 2, pups received 0.184 U of insulin daily, approximately 8 U/kg at 9 days, via either injection or osmotic minipump. All pups survived. Injected pups were hypoglycemic 2 h postinjection through treatment day 10, whereas pups with insulin minipumps were normoglycemic by day 5. Insulin injections, but not minipumps, lowered plasma triglycerides on day 10. To examine age differences in response to insulin, additional pups and adults received daily injections of 0 or 8 U/kg for 10 days. All survived. Insulin lowered plasma glucose more in pups than in adults and reduced triglycerides in pups but not in adults. The rapid development of normoglycemia in pups with insulin minipumps, compared with pups injected daily with the same dose, suggests that continuous early insulin may produce insulin resistance.     

Insulin requirement profiles and related factors of insulin pump therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion(CSII) is an effective therapy to control hyperglycemia in both patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes.However,there is little data investigating the insulin dose setting during CSII therapy in type 2 diabetes to achieve optimal glycemic control and avoid the risk of hypoglycemia.Thus,this study is aimed to assess the dose characteristics of insulin requirement and explore the related clinical factors in patients with type 2 diabetes who were treated with CSII.A total of 327 patients(195 males) aged 52.9±12.5 years old were included in this study.Patients were treated with CSII to achieve the target fasting capillary blood glucose(4.4-7.0 mmol L ~(-1)) and 2-h postprandial capillary blood glucose(4.4-10.0 mmol L ~(-1)) by adjusting insulin infusion according to the seven-point capillary blood glucose profiles.Total daily insulin dose(TDD),total daily insulin dose per kilogram(TDD kg-1) and the ratio of total basal insulin dose(TBD) to TDD(%TBa) were calculated after patients achieved the glucose targets for at least 3 days via 1-2 weeks of CSII treatment.And insulin dose,insulin dosing patterns and the relevant clinical factors were analyzed.The mean ratio of basal/bolus insulin distribution of all patients was 40%:60%.Patients with central obesity needed more TDD(51.3±17.1 U versus 43.5±14.0 U,P0.05) and TDD kg ~(-1)(0.8±0.3 U kg ~(-1) versus 0.7±0.2 U kg ~(-1),P0.05) than those without central obesity.Pearson's correlation analysis demonstrated that TDD was positively correlated with body mass index(BMI),waist circumference(WC),baseline fasting plasma glucose(FPG),fasting C-peptide level,2 h-postprandial C-peptide level and time to achieve glycemic target(all P0.05);TDD kg ~(-1) was positively correlated with waist-to-hip ratio(WHR),baseline FPG,glycosylated hemoglobin Ale(HbAlc),fasting C-peptide level and time to achieve glycemic target,and negatively correlated with BMI(all P0.05).Multiple linear regression analyses revealed that BMI(β=1.796,P0.01),WC(β=0.109,P0.01),baseline FPG(β=1.459,P0.01) and HbAlc(β=0.930,P=0.021) were independently related to TDD.Gender(β=-0.107,P=0.003),WC(β=0.005,P=0.029),baseline FPG(β=0.025,P0.01) and HbAlc(β=0.016,β=0.007) were independently associated with TDD kg ~(-1).Gender(β=-0.015,P=0.048) and disease duration(β=0.134,P=0.029) were independently associated with %TBa.%TBa is around 40% in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes treated with CSII when glycemic control is achieved.In addition to body weight or BMI,WC and glucose levels before CSII should be considered to set TDD.Patients with central obesity or poor glycemic control might need more TDD.Higher %TBa should be considered in female patients or patients with longer disease duration.     

Clinical Outcomes Using Long-Term Combination Therapy with Insulin Glargine and Exenatide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo examine the long-term effects of combination insulin glargine/exenatide treatment on glycemic control.MethodsWe conducted a 24-month retrospective US chart review of patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and hemoglobin A_1c (A1C) levels > 7.0% for whom glargine and exenatide were coprescribed in differing order (glargine added after exenatide [exenatide/glargine]; exenatide added after glargine [glargine/exenatide]). Treatment order groups were combined to form a pooled treatment group. Changes from baseline in A1C, patients with A1C ≤ 7.0%, body weight, glargine/exenatide daily dose, oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) use, and hypoglycemia were evaluated.ResultsTreatment groups were similar at baseline; however, patients in the glargine/exenatide group (n = 121) (vs exenatide/glargine group [n = 44]) had longer disease duration (11.8 vs 8.0 years) and took fewer OADs (1.7 vs 2.3). Overall, baseline A1C was 8.8 ± 1.3% and weight was 109.5 ± 25.3 kg. Significant A1C reductions emerged at month 6 and persisted throughout 24 months (vs baseline) in both treatment groups (pooled: –0.7 ± 1.6; P < .001), and 33.0% of patients achieved an A1C level ≤ 7.0%. After 24 months of exenatide/glargine, body weight remained unchanged (0.7 ± 8.3 kg; P = .640). With glargine/exenatide, body weight decreased (–2.5 ± 6.7 kg; P = .001). At month 24, daily glargine dose was 0.40 ± 0.23 units/kg for the exenatide/glargine group and 0.47 ± 0.30 units/kg for the glargine/exenatide group. Hypoglycemia frequency was similar in both treatment groups.ConclusionsRegardless of treatment order, long-term combined therapy with glargine and exenatide for up to 24 months in patients with inadequately controlled T2DM suggests reduction of A1C without significant weight gain or increased hypoglycemia risk. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:17-25)     

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     

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.     

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.     

Analogues et dosages d’insuline : le cas général et le cas particulier de la glargine

Since 1996, genetic engineering has allowed modifications of insulin yielding to multiple modified insulins with different pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic properties. Molecules with maintained pharmacodynamic and modified pharmacokinetic profiles have been selected. Currently available rapid-acting analogues (lispro, aspart and glulisine) achieve plasma peak concentrations about twice as high and within approximately half the time compared with regular human insulin thus closely mimicking the physiological insulin response to a meal. Long-acting analogues (glargine and detemir) ensure the steady supplement of basal insulin plasma levels, with a plateau type of profile. Main analytical pitfalls of commercially human insulin immunoassays include crossreactivity with analogues and their metabolites. These crossreactivities are of great concern for interpreting insulin levels in patients treated with analogues. The development of more specific analytical methods to quantify separately the concentrations of endogenous insulin, rapid-acting and long-acting analogues and metabolites would be of utmost importance: (1) to further understand long-acting analogue variability in terms of efficiency; (2) to perform analogue kinetic studies; (3) to measure analogues in routine toxicology (forensic medicine) and (4) to assess intact glargine or glargine metabolite in vivo toxicity: recent debates about glargine safety have highlighted the lack of data about metabolite status (proportion of metabolized glargine and bioactivity of its metabolite). This goal could be achieved by specific immunoassay development or/and mass spectrometry analysis.     

Intra-erythrocyte Magnesium Is Associated with Gamma-Glutamyl Transferase in Obese Children and Adolescents

This study aims at determining the association between markers of hepatic injury and serum, urinary, and intra-erythrocyte magnesium concentrations and dietary magnesium intake in obese children and adolescents. In a case–control study, 42 obese children and adolescents (8–18 years) and 42 sex- and puberty-matched controls were studied. Serum, urinary, and intra-erythrocyte magnesium levels, indices of insulin sensitivity, and liver enzymes were measured. Dietary magnesium intake was assessed using a food frequency questionnaire. Obese children and adolescents exhibited insulin resistance as determined by a higher fasting insulin and the HOMA-IR (p < 0.001) and lower QUICKI indices (p = 0.001); in addition these subjects had significantly higher intra-erythrocyte magnesium (IEM) concentrations, than non-obese ones (3.99 ± 1.05 vs. 3.35 ± 1.26 mg/dL of packed cell; p = 0.015). Among liver enzymes, only gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) was significantly higher in obese than in non-obese subjects (22.7 ± 9.4 vs. 17.1 ± 7.9 U/l; p = 0.002). A positive association was found between GGT and IEM in both groups; however in multivariate analysis, in obese subjects, only GGT (p = 0.026) and, in non-obese subjects, only age (p = 0.006) remained as significant predictors of IEM. In conclusion, increased IEM concentration was seen in insulin-resistant obese children and adolescents; furthermore, serum GGT was associated with IEM, independently of body mass index and HOMA-IR.     

门冬胰岛素、地特胰岛素、甘精胰岛素分别联合二甲双胍对糖尿病孕妇妊娠结局的影响

摘要 目的：探究门冬胰岛素、地特胰岛素、甘精胰岛素分别联合二甲双胍对糖尿病孕妇妊娠结局的影响。方法：随机抽取本院400例妊娠期糖尿病产妇为研究对象，按照简单随机法分为对照组（n=100例）、试验A组（n=100例）、试验B组（n=100例）和试验C组（n=100例）。对照组采用口服二甲双胍治疗，试验A、B、C组，分别采用门冬胰岛素、地特胰岛素、甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍治疗。对比四组产妇的分娩方式，各产程时间，体重指数（BMI）、随机血糖、内脂素、脂联素的水平，妊娠并发症发生率，新生儿结局。结果：试验A、B、C组的自然分娩率均高于对照组（P<0.05），且试验A组的自然分娩率均高于试验B组、试验C组（P<0.05），试验B组、试验C组的自然分娩率对比无差异（P>0.05）；对照组、试验A、B、C组自然分娩产妇的第一产程、第二产程、第三产程时间对比无差异（P>0.05）；试验A、B、C组的BMI指数、随机血糖、内脂素、脂联素的水平均低于对照组（P<0.05），且试验A组的BMI指数、随机血糖、内脂素、脂联素的水平均低于试验B组、试验C组（P<0.05），试验B组、试验C组的BMI指数、随机血糖、内脂素、脂联素的水平对比无差异（P>0.05）；试验A、B、C组的妊娠并发症发生率均低于对照组（P<0.05），且试验A组的妊娠并发症发生率低于试验B组、试验C组（P<0.05），试验B组、试验C组的妊娠并发症发生率对比无差异（P>0.05）；试验A、B、C组的新生儿不良结局发生率均低于对照组（P<0.05），且试验A组的新生儿不良结局发生率低于试验B组、试验C组（P<0.05），试验B组、试验C组的新生儿不良结局发生率对比无差异（P>0.05）。结论：门冬胰岛素、地特胰岛素、甘精胰岛素分别联合二甲双胍均能够提高糖尿病孕妇妊娠的自然分娩率，降低BMI指数、随机血糖、内脂素、脂联素的水平，降低妊娠并发症发生率，改良新生儿不良结局，其中门冬胰岛素的疗效最好，具有较强的临床推广价值。