Improved Glycemic Control with Insulin Glargine Versus Pioglitazone as Add-On Therapy to Sulfonylurea or Metformin in Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo compare glycemic control with add-on insulin glargine versus pioglitazone treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes.MethodsThis 48-week, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label study randomized 389 adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin A1c [A1C], 8.0% to 12.0%), despite ≥ 3 months of sulfonylurea or metformin monotherapy, to receive add-on therapy with insulin glargine or pioglitazone. Outcomes included A1C change from baseline to end point (primary), percentage of patients achieving A1C levels ≤ 7.0%, and changes from baseline in fasting plasma glucose, body mass index, weight, and serum lipids. The safety analysis included incidence of adverse events and rates of hypoglycemia.ResultsAt end point, insulin glargine yielded a significantly greater reduction in A1C in comparison with pioglitazone (-2.48% versus -1.86%, respectively; 95% confidence interval, -0.93 to -0.31; P = .0001, 48-week modified intent-to-treat population). Insulin glargine also yielded significantly greater reductions in fasting plasma glucose at all time points (end point difference, -34.9 mg/ dL; 95% confidence interval, -47.6 to -22.2; P < .0001). In comparison with pioglitazone, insulin glargine resulted in a lower overall incidence of possibly related treatmentemergent adverse events (12.0% versus 20.7%) and fewer study discontinuations (2.2% versus 9.1%), but a higher rate (per patient-year) of confirmed clinically relevant hypoglycemic episodes (blood glucose < 70 mg/dL and all severe hypoglycemia) (4.97 versus 1.04; P <.0001) and severe hypoglycemia (0.07 versus 0.01; P = .0309). Weight and body mass index changes were similar between the 2 treatment groups.ConclusionThe addition of insulin glargine early in the diabetes treatment paradigm in patients for whom sulfonylurea or metformin monotherapy had failed resulted in significantly greater improvements in glycemic control in comparison with the addition of pioglitazone. Although severe hypoglycemia was more frequent in patients with insulin glargine therapy, hypoglycemic events occurred in < 5% of patients in the insulin glargine treatment group. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:588-599)     

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     

Contribution of the Dawn Phenomenon to the Fasting and Postbreakfast Hyperglycemia In Type 1 Diabetes Treated With Once-Nightly Insulin Glargine

ObjectiveTo observe the effect of the dawn phenomenon on basal glucose and postbreakfast hyperglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes treated with once-nightly insulin glargine and premeal insulin lispro.MethodsIn 49 study subjects consuming a fixed isocaloric (50% carbohydrate) diet of usual food, the insulin glargine dose was titrated from daily continuous glucose monitoring downloads to achieve a basal glucose goal of < 130 mg/dL 4 hours after meals and during serial meal omissions but with fewer than 10% of readings at < 70 mg/ dL during 24 hours. Patients also performed self-monitoring of plasma glucose 7 times a day (before and 2 hours after each meal or omitted meal and at bedtime).ResultsThe target mean basal glucose level was achieved only during the non-dawn phenomenon period (1400 hours to 0400 hours). During the dawn phenomenon, the mean (standard deviation) basal glucose level increased from 118 (57) mg/dL at 0400 hours to 156 (67) mg/dL before the breakfast meal, a 32% increase (P = .00149). The mean self-monitored plasma glucose level with meal omission was 63.8% of that increase with a breakfast meal.ConclusionThe fasting morning glucose concentration is considerably elevated because of the dawn phenomenon. Targeting insulin titration to this glucose level may result in excessive basal insulin dosing for the non-dawn phenomenon periods of the day. The dawn phenomenon is a large component of the postbreakfast hyperglycemia. Rather than increasing the morning premeal insulin bolus, consideration should be given to pretreating the earlier dawn phenomenon with an insulin pump with use of a variable basal insulin rate. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:558-562)     

Insulin Injections in Relation to Meals in the Hospital Medicine Ward: Comparison of 2 Protocols

ObjectiveTo investigate whether changing the prandial regular insulin to rapid-acting insulin analogue in hospital medicine wards improves the timing of insulin delivery in relation to meals and improves patient safety and glucose control.MethodsThis open-label randomized controlled trial in type 2 diabetic patients compared insulin lispro with meals and basal insulin glargine (intervention) vs regular insulin before meals and basal neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin twice daily (control). The primary endpoint was the rate of targeted timing of insulin to meals (target time). In the intervention group, target time was defined as insulin administered from 15 minutes before to 15 minutes after the patient started a meal. For the control group, target time was defined as insulin administered from 30 minutes before to 30 minutes after the patient started a meal. Hypoglycemic, hyperglycemic, and severe hyperglycemic patient-days were compared between groups.ResultsTwenty-seven patients in the intervention group and thirty-three patients in the control group were studied. The percentage of times that the insulin was given within target time was significantly higher in the intervention group as a whole (88.9% vs 70.1%, P < .001) and was higher for lunch and the evening meal (90% vs 66.7% and 94.7% vs 70.1%, P < .001). The rate of hypoglycemia was lower in the intervention group (1.85% vs 15%, P < .001). The rate of hyperglycemia was similar in both groups (68.2% vs 59.8%, P = .224), but the intervention group had a higher rate of severe hyperglycemia (28.9% vs 12.9%, P = .003).ConclusionsThe use of prandial insulin analogues in medicine wards allows better timing with meals than regular insulin and results in better hypoglycemic outcomes. Higher rates of hyperglycemia with prandial analogues may need adjustment in insulin doses. (Endocr Pract. 2011:17:737-746)     

A Comparison of Twice-Daily Biphasic Insulin Aspart 70/30 and Once-Daily Insulin Glargine in Persons With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled on Basal Insulin and Oral Therapy: A Randomized,Open-Label Study

ObjectiveTo compare efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 30) with insulin (glargine) in type 2 diabetic patients who were not maintaining glycemic control on basal insulin and oral antidiabetic drugs.MethodsIn a 24-week, open-label, parallel-group trial, type 2 diabetic patients who were not maintaining glycemic control on basal insulin (glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn) + oral antidiabetic drugs were randomly assigned to twice-daily BIAsp 30 + metformin or oncedaily glargine + metformin + secretagogues (secretagogues were discontinued in the BIAsp 30 arm).ResultsOne hundred thirty-seven patients were randomly assigned to the BIAsp 30 group and 143 patients were randomly assigned to the glargine group. Of 280 patients randomized, 229 (81.8%) completed the study. End-of-trial hemoglobin A_1c reductions were − 1.3% (BIAsp 30) vs − 1.2% (glargine) (treatment difference: 95% confidence interval, − 0.06 [− 0.32 to 0.20]; P = .657). Of patients taking BIAsp 30, 27.3% reached a hemoglobin A_1c level < 7.0% compared with 22.0% of patients taking glargine (treatment difference: P = .388). Glucose increment averaged over 3 meals was lower in the BIAsp 30 arm (treatment difference: − 17.8 mg/dL, P = .001). Fasting plasma glucose reductions from baseline were − 13.8 mg/ dL (BIAsp 30) vs − 42.5 mg/dL (glargine) (P = .0002). Final minor hypoglycemia rate, insulin dose, and weight change were higher in the BIAsp 30 arm (6.5 vs 3.4 events/patient per year, P <.05; 1.19 vs 0.63 U/kg; and 3.1 vs 1.4 kg, P = .0004, respectively).ConclusionsDespite not receiving secretagogues, patients taking BIAsp 30 + metformin achieved similar hemoglobin A_1c levels and lower postprandial plasma glucose compared with those receiving glargine + metformin + secretagogues. The large improvement in the glargine group suggests the patients were not true basal failures at randomization. While switching to BIAsp 30 improves glycemic control in this patient population, remaining on basal insulin and optimizing the dose may be equally effective in the short term. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:41-50)     

Evaluating the Impact of Inadequate Meal Consumption on Insulin-Related Hypoglycemia in Hospitalized Patients

ObjectiveMeal intake is sometimes reduced in hospitalized patients. Meal-time insulin administration can cause hypoglycemia when a meal is not consumed. Inpatient providers may avoid ordering meal-time insulin due to hypoglycemia concerns, which can result in hyperglycemia. The frequency of reduced meal intake in hospitalized patients remains inadequately determined. This quality improvement project evaluates the percentage of meals consumed by hospitalized patients with insulin orders and the resulting risk of postmeal hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] <70 mg/dL, <3.9 mmol/L).MethodsThis was a retrospective quality improvement project evaluating patients with any subcutaneous insulin orders hospitalized at a regional academic medical center between 2015 and 2017. BG, laboratory values, point of care, insulin administration, diet orders, and percentage of meal consumed documented by registered nurses were abstracted from electronic health records.ResultsMeal consumption ≥50% was observed for 85% of meals with insulin orders, and bedside registered nurses were accurate at estimating this percentage. Age ≥65 years was a risk factor for reduced meal consumption (21% of meals 0%-49% consumed, P < .05 vs age < 65 years [12%]). Receiving meal-time insulin and then consuming only 0% to 49% of a meal (defined here as a mismatch) was not rare (6% of meals) and increased postmeal hypoglycemia risk. However, the attributable risk of postmeal hypoglycemia due to this mismatch was low (4 events per 1000) in patients with premeal BG between 70 and 180 mg/dL.ConclusionThis project demonstrates that hospitalized patients treated with subcutaneous insulin have a low attributable risk of postmeal hypoglycemia related to inadequate meal intake.     

Comparison of 2 Intensification Regimens with Rapid-Acting Insulin Aspart in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled by Once-Daily Insulin Detemir and Oral Antidiabetes Drugs: The Step-Wise Randomized Study

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of 2 intensification strategies for stepwise addition of prandial insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin detemir.MethodsThis randomized, controlled, parallel-group, open-label, 48-week trial compared the stepwise addition of insulin aspart to either the largest meal (titration based on premeal glucose values [SimpleSTEP]) or to the meal with the largest prandial glucose increment (titration based on postmeal glucose values [ExtraSTEP]) in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin and oral antidiabetes drugs. After 12 weeks of basal insulin detemir dosage optimization, participants with a hemoglobin A₁ level of 7% or greater entered three 12-week treatment periods with stepwise addition of a first insulin aspart bolus, then a second, and then a third, if hemoglobin A_1c remained at 7% or greater after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, respectively. Endpoints included hemoglobin A_1c (primary endpoint), fasting plasma glucose, self-measured plasma glucose, adverse events, and hypoglycemia.ResultsTwo hundred ninety-six patients were randomly assigned to treatment with insulin aspart in the SimpleSTEP (n = 150) and ExtraSTEP (n = 146) groups. Hemoglobin A_1c decreased by approximately 1.2% in both groups, to 7.5 ± 1.1% (SimpleSTEP) and 7.7 ± 1.2% (ExtraSTEP) at end of trial (estimated treatment difference, SimpleSTEP ExtraSTEP: -0.06% [95% confidence interval, -0.29 to 0.17]). Self-measured plasma glucose levels decreased with both regimens. At trial end, approximately 75% of patients in each group were using 3 prandial injections. The frequency of adverse events and hypoglycemia was low and similar between groups.ConclusionThe SimpleSTEP and ExtraSTEP strategies for stepwise addition of insulin aspart to 1 or more meals were equally effective at intensifying therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin and oral antidiabetic drugs. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:727-736)     

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)     

Ultra Rapid-Acting Inhaled Insulin Improves Glucose Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo determine whether the use of an inhaled insulin would improve HbA1c.MethodsThis study was performed in 20 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) participants with HbA1c values ≥7.5 (58) to ≤11.5% (102 mmol/mol) on a variety of glucose-lowering regimens. Prandial Technosphere insulin (TI) was rapidly titrated based on a treatment algorithm using postprandial blood glucose to calculate premeal doses. A 2-week baseline period was followed by 12 weeks of active treatment with TI. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes included glucose time in range (time in range: 70-180 mg/dL) obtained by a blinded continuous glucose monitoring during the baseline period and at the end of 12 weeks. Goals were to assess how to rapidly and safely initiate TI intensification, determine dosing requirements, and establish an effective dose range in uncontrolled T2DM.ResultsMean HbA1c decreased by −1.6% (−17 mmol/mol) from 9.0% (75 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7.4% (57 mmol/mol) at 12 weeks (P < .0001). Mean time in range increased from 42.2% to 65.7% (P < .0002). Mean prandial doses of TI were 18 or 19 units for all meals. Time below range was 1.1% baseline and 2.6% post treatment (P = .01).ConclusionTreatment with inhaled TI dosed using a simple algorithm improved glycemic control measured by both HbA1c and time in range, with low rates of hypoglycemia. These data add significantly to understanding TI in the management of T2DM patients for whom prandial insulin is a consideration.     

Intermittent Intensive Insulin Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes: Effects on Hypoglycemia,Weight Gain,and Quality of Life Over 2 Years

Objective: In early type 2 diabetes (T2DM), the administration of short-term intensive insulin therapy (IIT) can induce glycemic remission for a year thereafter, but this effect ultimately wanes. In this context, intermittently repeating short-term IIT could provide a strategy for maintaining the otherwise transient benefits of this intervention. However, the viability of this strategy would be contingent upon not inducing undesirable effects of insulin therapy such as excessive hypoglycemia and fat deposition. We thus sought to evaluate the effect of administering short-term IIT every 3 months on hypoglycemia, weight gain, and quality of life in early T2DM.Methods: In this 2-year pilot trial, 24 adults with T2DM of 2.0 ± 1.7 years duration and hemoglobin A1c of 6.4 (46 mmol/mol) ± 0.1% were randomized to 3 weeks of IIT (glargine, lispro) followed by either (1), repeat IIT for up to 2 weeks every 3 months or (2), daily metformin. IIT was titrated to target near-normoglycemia (premeal glucose 4 to 6 mmol/L; 2-hour postmeal <8 mmol/L). Participants were assessed every 3 months, with quality of life (QOL) evaluated annually.Results: The rate of hypoglycemia (<3.5 mmol/L) was low in the metformin and intermittent IIT arms (0.37 versus 0.95 events per patient-year; P = .28). There were no differences between the groups in changes over time in overall, central, or hepatic fat deposition (as reflected by weight &lsqb;P = .10], waist-to-hip ratio &lsqb;P = .58], and alanine aminotransferase &lsqb;P = .64], respectively). Moreover, there were no differences between the groups in QOL at 1- and 2-years.Conclusion: Intermittent short-term IIT may be safely administered in early T2DM without excessive adverse impact on hypoglycemic risk, anthropometry, or QOL.Abbreviations: ALT = alanine aminotransferase; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; IIT = intensive insulin therapy; ISSI-2 = insulin secretion-sensitivity index-2; OGTT = oral glucose tolerance test; QOL = quality of life; SF-36 = medical outcomes study 36-item short-form health survey; T2DM = type 2 diabetes     

Comparison of the Effect of Insulin Glulisine to Insulin Aspart on Breakfast Postprandial Blood Glucose Levels in Children with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus on Multiple Daily Injections

ObjectiveRapid-acting insulins, including insulin aspart (NovoLog) and lispro (Humalog), do not seem to effectively control postprandial glycemic excursions in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). The objective of this study was to determine if insulin glulisine (Apidra), another rapid-acting insulin analog, would be superior in controlling postprandial hyperglycemia in children with T1DM.MethodsThirteen prepubertal children ages 4 to 11 years completed this study. Inclusion criteria included T1DM ≥6 months, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbAlC) 6.9 to 10%, blood glucose (BG) levels in adequate control for 1 week prior to study start, multiple daily injections (MDI) with insulin glargine or determir once daily and aspart or lispro premeal. If fasting BG was 70 to 180 mg/dL, subjects received insulin glulisine alternating with aspart prior to a prescribed breakfast with a fixed amount of carbohydrate (45, 60, or 75 g) for 20 days. Postprandial BG values were obtained at 2 and 4 hours.ResultsMean baseline BG values for insulin glulisine (136.4 ± 15.7 mg/dL; mean ± SD) and aspart (133.4 ± 14.7 mg/dL) were similar (P = .34). Mean increase in 2-hour postprandial BG was higher in glulisine (+113.5 ± 65.2 mg/dL) than aspart (+98.6 ± 66.9 mg/dL), (P = .01). BG remained higher at 4 hours (glulisine: 141.9 ± 36.5 mg/ dL, aspart: 129.0 ± 37.0 mg/dL) (P = .04). Although statistically insignificant, more hypoglycemic events occurred at 2-and 4-hours postprandial with insulin aspart.ConclusionInsulin aspart appears to be more effective than insulin glulisine in controlling 2-and 4-hour postprandial BG excursions in prepubertal children with T1DM. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19:614-619)     

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)     

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)     

Patient-Led Versus Physician-Led Titration of Insulin Glargine in Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Multinational Atlas Study

ObjectiveSelf-adjustment of insulin dose is commonly practiced in Western patients with type 2 diabetes but is usually not performed in Asian patients. This multinational, 24-week, randomized study compared patient-led with physician-led titration of once-daily insulin glargine in Asian patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who were on 2 oral glucose-lowering agents.MethodsPatient-led (n = 275) or physician-led (n = 277) subjects followed the same dose-titration algorithm guided by self-monitored fasting blood glucose (FBG; target, 110 mg/dL [6.1 mmol/L]). The primary endpoint was change in mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) at week 24 in the patient-led versus physician-led titration groups.ResultsPatient-led titration resulted in a significantly higher drop in HbA_1c value at 24 weeks when compared with physician-led titration (− 1.40% vs. − 1.25%; mean difference, − 0.15; 95% confidence interval, − 0.29 to 0.00; P = .043). Mean decrease in FBG was greatest in the patient-led group (− 2.85 mmol/L vs. − 2.48 mmol/L; P = .001). The improvements in HbA_1c and FBG were consistent across countries, with similar improvements in treatment satisfaction in both groups. Mean daily insulin dose was higher in the patient-led group (28.9 units vs. 22.2 units; P < .001). Target HbA_1c of < 7.0% without severe hypoglycemia was achieved in 40.0% and 32.9% in the patient-led and physician-led groups, respectively (P = .086). Severe hypoglycemia was not different in the 2 groups (0.7%), with an increase in nocturnal and symptomatic hypoglycemia in the patient-led arm.ConclusionPatient-led insulin glargine titration achieved near-target blood glucose levels in Asian patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who were on 2 oral glucose-lowering drugs, demonstrating that Asian patients can self-uptitrate insulin dose effectively when guided. (Endocr Pract. 2015;21:143-157)     

Reduced Hypoglycemia and Comparable Efficacy with Insulin Glargine 300 U/ML Versus Insulin Glargine 100 U/ML in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Achieving Different Levels of Prebreakfast Self-Monitored Plasma Glucose

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who reached prebreakfast self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) levels <100 and <130 mg/dL.Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of insulin-naïve (EDITION 3, NCT01676220) and experienced (EDITION 2, NCT01499095) patients with uncontrolled T2D, randomized to 6 months of Gla-300 versus Gla-100 treatment. Endpoints included glycated hemoglobin A1c change, hypoglycemia incidence, and event rates. Separate comparisons were done for patients achieving prebreak-fast fasting glucose of <100 versus ≥100 mg/dL and <130 versus ≥130 mg/dL.Results: Efficacy did not differ significantly between treatments in either study. Overall, basal insulin doses were ~10% higher with Gla-300 versus Gla-100. EDITION 2: overall and documented (≤70 mg/dL) hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 in all SMPG groups except <100 mg/dL; nocturnal hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower with Gla-300 in all SMPG groups. EDITION 3: overall hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower with Gla-300 in patients with SMPG ≥100 mg/dL and those with SMPG <130 mg/dL; documented hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower in all SMPG groups except ≥130 mg/dL. Nocturnal and nocturnal documented hypoglycemia rates did not differ by treatment group. Hypoglycemia incidence did not differ by treatment in any SMPG group.Conclusion: In patients with T2D initiating basal insulin or previously treated for ≥6 months with basal insulin, Gla-300 provides similar efficacy to Gla-100 and reduces risk of hypoglycemia for many patients, despite a ~10% higher insulin dose.Abbreviations: A1C = glycated hemoglobin A1c; ADA = American Diabetes Association; Gla-100 = insulin glargine 100 U/mL; Gla-300 = insulin glargine 100 U/mL; OAD = oral antidiabetes drug; SMPG = self-monitored plasma glucose; T2D = type 2 diabetes     

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)     

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

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

Exenatide Twice Daily Plus Glargine Versus Aspart 70/30 Twice Daily in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes With Inadequate Glycemic Control on Premixed Human Insulin and Metformin

ObjectiveMany patients with type 2 diabetes treated with premixed insulin gradually have inadequate glycemic control and switch to a basal-bolus regimen, which raises some concerns for weight gain and increased hypoglycemic risk. Switching to combination use of glp-1 agonist and basal insulin may be an alternative option.MethodsAfter a 12-week premixed human insulin 70/30 dosage optimization period, 200 patients with HbA1c of 7.0% to 10.0% were randomized into 24-week treatment groups with exenatide twice a day plus glargine or with aspart 70/30 twice a day.ResultsAfter 24 weeks, the patients receiving exenatide plus glargine (n = 90) had improved HbA1c control compared with those receiving aspart 70/30 (n = 90) (least squares mean change: ‒0.59 vs ‒0.13%; difference [95% CI]: ‒0.45 [‒0.74 to ‒0.17]) in the full analysis set population. Weight decreased 3.5 kg with exenatide and decreased 0.4 kg with aspart 70/30 (P < .001). The insulin dose was reduced 10.7 units/day (95% CI, ‒12.2 to ‒9.2 units; P < .001) with exenatide, and increased 9.7 units/day (95% CI, 8.2 to 11.2 units; P < .001) with aspart 70/30. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal adverse effects in the exenatide group (nausea [21%], vomiting [16%], diarrhea [13%]). The incidence of hypoglycemia was similar in 2 groups (27% for exenatide and 38% for aspart 70/30; P = .1).ConclusionIn premixed human insulin‒treated patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control, switching to exenatide twice a day plus glargine was superior to aspart 70/30 twice a day for glycemic and weight control.     

Reduced Risk of Hypoglycemia with Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Requiring High Doses of Basal Insulin: A Meta-Analysis of 5 Randomized Begin Trials

ObjectiveThis meta-analysis of 5 trials from the Phase 3a insulin degludec (IDeg) clinical trial program evaluated the risk of hypoglycemia in a subset of subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who required high basal insulin doses at the end of the trials.MethodsThis meta-analysis compared glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), basal insulin dose, body weight, and rates of overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia in a pooled population of T2D subjects using > 60 U basal insulin at trial completion. Five Phase 3a, open-label, randomized, treat-to-target, confirmatory 26-or 52-week trials with IDeg (n = 2,262) versus insulin glargine (IGlar) (n = 1,110) administered once daily were included. Overall confirmed hypoglycemia was defined as self-measured blood glucose < 56 mg/dL or any episode requiring assistance; nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia had an onset between 00:01 and 05:59 am.ResultsMore than one-third of IDeg-(35%) and IGlar-(34%) treated T2D subjects required > 60 U of basal insulin daily at the ends of the trial. Patients achieved similar mean HbA_1c values (estimated treatment difference [ETD] IDeg - IGlar: 0.05%, P = .44) while mean FPG values were lower with IDeg than IGlar (ETD: - 5.9 mg/ dL, P = .04) at end-of-trial. There was a 21% lower rate of overall confirmed hypoglycemic episodes for IDeg (estimated rate ratio [RR] IDeg/IGlar: 0.79, P = .02) and a 52% lower rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemic episodes for IDeg (RR: 0.48, P < .01).ConclusionIn this post hoc meta-analysis, more than 30% of subjects with T2D required > 60 U/day of basal insulin at the end of the trials. In these individuals, IDeg achieves similar HbA_1c reduction with significantly less overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia compared with IGlar. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:285-292)