[Optimal timing of insulin detemir injection in patients with type 1 diabetes and poor metabolic control]

AIM

To compare different administration times of insulin detemir (IDet) in patients with type 1 diabetes and poor metabolic control.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This 24-week open study included 39 people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) randomized to one injection of IDet before lunch (mean 14.24 + or - 00.36 (+ or - SD) h) or at bedtime (23.19 + or - 0.42 h). Whenever target glycemia levels were not reached, the regimen was switched to insulin therapy with two injections (IDet-12h). Insulin aspart was used before main meals.

RESULTS

At week 24, only 12.2% of patients remained in the IDet bedtime group and 30.3% in the IDet before lunch group. The remaining 57.5% joined the IDet-12h group. There were no differences between the IDet before lunch and IDet bedtime groups. A subanalysis including the three groups demonstrated better metabolic control in the IDet before lunch group (glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.1 + or - 0.2 vs. 7.6 + or - 0.4 and 8.1 + or - 0.2% in IDet before-lunch, IDet bedtime and IDet-12h, respectively; p<0.05). An HbA1c value below 7% was achieved in 30.3% of the patients: 15.2% in the IDet before-lunch group, 3.3% in the IDet bedtime group and 12.2% in IDet-12h group. Quality of life did not differ among treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

One injection of IDet administered before lunch could improve metabolic control. However, most patients required two injections of IDet.

A randomized, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin lispro protamine suspension and insulin detemir in insulin-naive patients with Type 2 diabetes

AIMS

Insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) and insulin detemir were compared in insulin-naive patients with Type 2 diabetes poorly controlled by oral glucose-lowering agents (OGLAs) to demonstrate non-inferior overall glycaemic control.

METHODS

This was a 24-week, multinational, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial. Adults taking two or more OGLAs were randomized to ILPS (n = 223) or detemir (n = 219) once daily at bedtime. Doses were titrated to target fasting blood glucose (FBG) 5.0-7.2 mmol/l. A pre-breakfast dose was added up to week 8 per prespecified criteria. The primary objective was comparison of glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) change from baseline (non-inferiority margin 0.4%).

RESULTS

At end-point, HbA(1c) decreased from 8.8 +/- 0.7% in both groups to 7.3 +/- 0.9% (ILPS) and 7.5 +/- 1.1% (detemir). Least-squares mean difference (95% confidence interval) for HbA(1c) [-0.21% (-0.39, -0.03)] and glycaemic variability [0.10 mmol/l (-0.02, 0.23)] demonstrated non-inferiority. End-point mean FBG was 7.0 vs. 6.9 mmol/l (P = 0.85), and percentages of patients achieving H < 7.0% were 34.9% vs. 31.2% for ILPS vs. detemir. More ILPS patients used twice-daily dosing (59% vs. 49%). Mean daily insulin dose was 0.39 vs. 0.46 U/kg (P = 0.005) and weight gain was 1.88 vs. 0.36 kg (P < 0.001) for ILPS vs. detemir. Overall hypoglycaemia (episodes patient(-1) year(-1)) (24.2 +/- 33.0 vs. 16.2 +/- 26.1, P = 0.001) and nocturnal (6.3 +/- 12.1 vs. 3.8 +/- 13.2, P < 0.001) rates were higher for ILPS.

CONCLUSIONS

At end-point, ILPS was non-inferior to detemir in HbA(1c) change from baseline. Patients using ILPS achieved lower end-point HbA(1c) with lower insulin doses but greater hypoglycaemia and weight gain.

No higher dose requirements with insulin detemir than glargine in type 2 diabetes: a crossover, double-blind, and randomized study using continuous glucose monitoring

BACKGROUND

In a previous publication we reported no difference in the 24-hour glucose response between two basal analog insulins, detemir and glargine, when taken once a day in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We now report the dose comparison observed within this randomized, double-blind, crossover study.

METHOD

Of 36 patients on basal insulin and other noninsulin treatments, 29 completed the study. Both insulins were given once a day at 8 pm and no food was taken between 6 pm and the following morning. The dose was titrated daily by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) until the basal glucose (between 12 and 6 am) was <120 mg/dl but not >5% of CGM readings <70 mg/dl. Subjects were then crossed over to the other insulin and titrated similarly.

RESULTS

Glucose goals were achieved in all subjects. The mean dosage was 0.26 U/kg with very few subjects requiring >0.4 U/kg. Only 2 required an absolute dose less than 10 U/day and all others required more, some considerably higher. Of the 29 subjects, 7 required a greater, 6 a smaller, and 16 the same dose of detemir compared to glargine.

CONCLUSIONS

When given once daily in T2DM and titrated using CGM to the same fasting glucose, there was no difference in the glucose response between basal insulins during the basal titration period (4-10 hours after injection) nor during the entire 24-hour period following the injection. Further, the mean dosage to achieve this glucose goal was the same with both insulins.

An analysis of dosing equivalence of insulin detemir and insulin glargine: more evidence?

Current guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes call for the use of basal insulin when glycemic targets are not achieved. Previous studies have demonstrated noninferiority of insulin detemir, dosed once or twice daily, and insulin glargine, dosed once daily. In this issue of Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, Dr. Allen King provides additional data of his previously published randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial in which both insulins were restricted to once-daily use. In this trial of 29 patients, 24-hour continuous glucose monitoring profiles (published previously) and dosing requirements (in this publication) were shown to be statistically equivalent between the two insulins. The shortcomings of this trial are its short duration, small number of patients, and potential interference from endogenous insulin. Longer trials with more patients, studying once-daily use of these medications, will help better determine if any significant differences exist.

The role of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists in the therapeutic management of type 2 diabetes--a comprehensive review

The treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been revolutionized by the introduction of novel therapeutic regimens following the clinical approval of the long-acting basal insulin glargine 10 years ago, followed by insulin detemir and, more recently, agents that target the glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 system with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4)-resistant products, such as liraglutide and exenatide, and DPP-4 inhibitors, such as sitagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, and vildagliptin. The position and clinical efficacy of the GLP-1 mimetics are less well understood, however, and how they should be best used in the context of the established clinical efficacy of long-acting insulin analogs is yet to be defined. The aim of this review is to provide a summary of the efficacy, safety, and weight changes associated with long-acting insulin analogs (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) and two GLP-1 mimetics (exenatide and liraglutide). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and BIOSIS databases were searched with a timeframe of January 1, 2003-January 12, 2009 using the following terms: "Insulin glargine," with the co-indexing terms "LANTUS" and "HOE901"; "Insulin detemir," with the co-indexing term "Levemir"; "Exenatide"; and "Liraglutide." This literature review demonstrates that GLP-1 and basal insulin therapies are effective treatment options for insulin-naïve patients with suboptimal glycemic control with oral hypoglycemic agents. There are potential advantages of basal insulin and GLP-1 therapies in particular populations of patients. Further comparative data are needed to fully investigate the relative positioning of these therapies within the T2DM treatment paradigm.

No evidence of increased risk of malignancies in patients with diabetes treated with insulin detemir: a meta-analysis

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Recent epidemiological studies suggest that treatment with insulin glargine (A21Gly,B31Arg,B32Arg human insulin) may promote cancer growth. The present meta-analysis was performed to assess the risk of cancer during treatment with insulin detemir (B29Lys(epsilon-tetradecanoyl),desB30 human insulin), another long-acting insulin analogue.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed in a population of 8,693 patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, who were included in Novo Nordisk-sponsored, randomised and controlled diabetes trials of at least 12 weeks in duration that compared insulin detemir with NPH insulin or insulin glargine. In a blinded manner, the adverse events with suspected treatment-emergent malignant tumours were obtained from these studies under three system-organ classes: 'Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (including cysts and polyps)', 'Neoplasm' and 'Surgical and medical procedures'. Conditional ORs were estimated applying both the Mantel-Haenzel and Peto methods to ensure robustness of results.

RESULTS

Separate analyses were performed for trials comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin and insulin detemir with insulin glargine. In the first analysis, 16 studies were included with a total of 3,983 patients treated with insulin detemir and 2,661 patients treated with NPH insulin. In the second analysis, five studies were included with a total of 1,219 patients treated with insulin detemir and 830 patients treated with insulin glargine. The estimated OR for a cancer diagnosis between NPH insulin and insulin detemir was statistically significantly >1, with the ratio favouring insulin detemir. There was a more than twofold higher cancer occurrence in the NPH insulin-treated population. For the insulin detemir comparison with insulin glargine, there was a non-significant difference in ORs in favour of insulin detemir.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

In these randomised controlled diabetes trials, patients treated with insulin detemir had a lower or similar occurrence of a cancer diagnosis compared with patients treated with NPH insulin or insulin glargine, respectively.

[Long-term evaluation of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin glargine]

AIMS OF THE STUDY

To evaluate long-term effects of treatment with insulin analogue glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and to follow up their further course of life.

PATIENT SAMPLE AND METHODOLOGY

Retrospective evaluation of 114 patients who, from September 2004, had their basal insulin changed from NPH insulin to insulin glargine. Treatment was changed again in patients in whom a year-long treatment with insulin glargine did not bring improvement in diabetes control. The original sample was divided into 3 groups and the results compared. Compensation of diabetes (HbA1c) after 1, 2 and 3 years and changes to basal and bolus daily insulin dose and body weight were evaluated.

RESULTS

The results are presented as median and 25th and 75th percentile. Group A--75 patients (65%) treated for the entire evaluation period with insulin glargine. Initial HbA1c was 7.3 (6.4-8.2)%, 6.9 (6.0-8.4)% after 1 year, 7.1 (5.9-7.9)% after 2 years and 6.6 (5.5-7.7)% after 3 years (p < 0.001). We did not identify any statistically significant changes to total, basal or bolus daily dose of insulin or statistically significant body weight increase over the evaluation period. Group B--19 patients (17%). Switch from insulin glargine to detemir twice daily. Initial HbA1c was 7.3 (6.9-8.5)%, 7.4 (6.8-8.7)% after 1 year of treatment with insulin glargine, 7.7 (7.2-8.1)% before the treatment switch and 7.8 (6.7-8.5)% (NS) after 3 years of treatment. Daily dose of total, basal and bolus insulin did not change and, similarly, no statistically significant change to patients' bodyweight was identified. Group C--17 patients (15%). Switch from insulin glargine to an insulin pump. This group had better initial compensation with HbA1c 6.7(5.7-8.6)%, HbA1c after 1 year was 6.2 (5.6-8.1)%, 7.0 (6.0-7.4)% before the treatment switch and 6.3 (5.2-7.7)% after 3 years of treatment. Total daily insulin dose: 48 (34-60)-38 (25-49) IU/day (NS). Basal daily insulin dose: 17.5 (13-28) IU/day-23 (12-32) IU/day (NS). Bolus daily dose decreased significantly: from 25.5 (21-33) to 15.5 (12-22) IU/day (p < 0.01). Body weight: 76 (71-97) kg-73 (72-99) kg (NS). Only 3% of patients went back to NPH insulin.

CONCLUSION

Insulin glargine brings improved control of diabetes. The dose of insulin glargine did not differ from NPH insulin. No statistically significant body weight increase was observed during the evaluation period.

Contact frequency determines outcome of basal insulin initiation trials in type 2 diabetes

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of the present study was to investigate whether predetermined contact frequency with the study team and endpoint insulin dose are associated with study outcomes in basal insulin initiation trials in type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A systematic Medline search was performed. Using data from the selected studies, contact frequency was plotted against HbA(1c) reduction and endpoint insulin dose. The importance of face-to-face vs telephone contact was also analysed. Insulin dose was plotted against HbA(1c) reduction, hypoglycaemia rate and weight gain. To investigate non-specific study effects, the relationship between contact frequency and HbA(1c) was also assessed in dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor trials.

RESULTS

The reduction in HbA(1c) was highly correlated with contact frequency and endpoint insulin dose (r (2) = 0.751, p < 0.001 and r (2) = 0.433, p = 0.008, respectively). However, after adjusting for contact frequency, the relationship between insulin dose and HbA(1c) reduction was no longer significant (p = 0.270). The frequency of both clinical and telephone contacts were independent predictors of HbA(1c) improvement (p = 0.010 and p < 0.001, respectively). We found no dose-response relationship between end-of-study insulin dose and hypoglycaemia or weight gain. In DPP-4 inhibitor studies, contact frequency was not positively associated with HbA(1c).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

The frequency of contact with the study team is highly correlated with the improvement in HbA(1c) achieved in basal insulin initiation trials in type 2 diabetic patients. This has important implications for trial design and interpretation, as well as for clinical care.

Insulin detemir causes increased symptom awareness during hypoglycaemia compared to human insulin

AIM

The long-acting insulin analogue detemir (Levemir) has structural and physicochemical properties which differ from human insulin. The aim of the present study was to test whether this leads to altered hormone and symptom response during hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

12 healthy subjects [6f/6m, age 32 +/- 6 years (mean +/- s.d.), body mass index (BMI) 24.2 +/- 2.5 kg/m(2)] underwent a 200-min stepwise hypoglycaemic clamp (45 min steps of 4.4, 3.7, 3.0 and 2.3 mmol/l) with either detemir or human insulin in random order. A bolus of detemir (660 mU/kg) or human insulin (60 mU/kg) was given before insulin was infused at a rate of 5 (detemir) or 2 (human insulin) mU/kg/min. Blood was drawn and a semi-quantitative symptom questionnaire was administered before and after each plateau of the hypoglycaemic clamp. Cognitive function was assessed during each step.

RESULTS

Blood glucose levels and glucose infusion rates were comparable with detemir and human insulin. The total symptom score was higher with detemir during the 3 and 2.3 mmol glucose step compared to human insulin (p = 0.048). Especially sweating was increased with detemir (p = 0.02) with an earlier and faster increase during the clamp (interaction insulin x time: p = 0.04). No significant differences between detemir and human insulin in cortisol, norepinephrine, epinephrine, glucagon, growth hormone, lactate or free fatty acid (FFA) levels during hypoglycaemia were observed, and there were no significant differences in cognitive function tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin detemir increased symptom awareness during hypoglycaemia compared to human insulin in healthy individuals, whereas counter-regulatory hormone response and cognitive function were unaltered.

Differential effects of insulin detemir and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin on hepatic glucose production and peripheral glucose uptake during hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We compared the symptoms of hypoglycaemia induced by insulin detemir (NN304) (B29Lys(epsilon-tetradecanoyl),desB30 human insulin) and equally effective doses of neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in relation to possible differential effects on hepatic glucose production and peripheral glucose uptake.

METHODS

After overnight intravenous infusion of soluble human insulin 18 participants with type 1 diabetes received subcutaneous injections of NPH insulin or insulin detemir (0.5 U/kg body weight) on separate occasions in random order. During the ensuing gradual development of hypoglycaemia cognitive function and levels of counter-regulatory hormones were measured and rates of endogenous glucose production and peripheral glucose uptake continuously evaluated using a primed constant infusion of [6,6-(2)H(2)]glucose. The study was terminated when plasma glucose concentration had fallen to 2.4 mmol/l or had reached a minimum at a higher concentration.

RESULTS

During the development of hypoglycaemia no difference between the two insulin preparations was observed in symptoms or hormonal responses. Significant differences were seen in rates of glucose flux. At and below plasma glucose concentrations of 3.5 mmol/l suppression of endogenous glucose production was greater with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin, whereas stimulation of peripheral glucose uptake was greater with NPH insulin than with insulin detemir.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

In participants with type 1 diabetes subcutaneously injected insulin detemir exhibits relative hepatoselectivity compared with NPH insulin, but symptoms of hypoglycaemia and hormonal counter-regulation are similar.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00760448.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin lispro protamine suspension compared with insulin glargine and insulin detemir in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim was to evaluate duration of action of a single 0.8 U/kg dose of insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients; secondarily to compare onset and duration of action of ILPS, glargine (G), and detemir (D) (0.8 U/kg) and evaluate pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) dose responses of ILPS.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a single-center, double-blind, five-arm crossover study, 34 patients were randomized to a treatment sequence which included a single subcutaneous 0.8 U/kg dose of G and D and three doses of ILPS (0.4 U/kg, 0.8 U/kg, and 1.2 U/kg) and were studied using 24-hour euglycemic glucose clamps.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Duration of action was determined as the time to the last measurable glucose infusion rate (tR(last)) during glucose clamps.

RESULTS

The duration of insulin action (tR(last)) for ILPS at 0.8 U/kg was >23 hours and was similar to G (p = 0.114) and D (p = 0.570). Post-hoc analysis demonstrated the probability of achieving 24 hours of glucose-lowering activity after a 0.8 U/kg dose: 48% (ILPS), 43% (G), and 26% (D). G(tot) and R(max) were significantly greater for ILPS versus G or D. The median ILPS time-dependent values demonstrated a significantly earlier maximum PD response (tR(max) and early 50% tR(max)) versus either G or D. ILPS demonstrated dose-dependent increases in PK and PD measures across the dose range.

CONCLUSIONS

Following a single 0.8 U/kg dose in T2DM patients, ILPS, G, and D demonstrated similar durations of glucose-lowering activity and ILPS demonstrated significantly greater glucose-lowering activity (R(max) and G(tot)) and earlier maximum PD response. These results potentially support once-daily dosing of ILPS in T2DM.

LIMITATIONS

The observed number of 24-hour censored observations was higher than expected and the wash-out period for basal insulin treated patients may have been too short to definitively rule out a carry-over effect; however, such an effect, if present, would potentially only affect onset of action and not the primary outcome measure.

Insulin is a stronger inducer of insulin resistance than hyperglycemia in mice with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM)

Subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) eventually develop insulin resistance and other features of T2DM such as cardiovascular disorders. The exact mechanism has been not been completely understood. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that excessive or inappropriate exposure to insulin is a primary mediator of insulin resistance in T1DM. We found that continuous exposure of mice with non-obese diabetes to insulin detemir, which is similar to some current conventional treatment of human T1DM, induced severe insulin resistance, whereas untreated hyperglycemia for the same amount of time (2 weeks) did not cause obvious insulin resistance. Insulin resistance was accompanied by decreased mitochondrial production as evaluated by mitochondrial DNA and levels of transcripts and proteins of mitochondrion-associated genes, increased ectopic fat accumulation in liver and skeletal muscle (gastrocnemius) evaluated by measurements of triglyceride content, and elevated oxidative stress detected by the GSH/GSSG ratio. Prolonged exposure of cultured hepatocytes to insulin induced significant insulin resistance, whereas the same length of exposure to a high level of glucose (33 mm) did not cause obvious insulin resistance. Furthermore, our results showed that prolonged exposure to insulin caused oxidative stress, and blockade of mitochondrion-derived oxidative stress by overexpression of manganese-superoxide dismutase prevented insulin resistance induced by the prolonged exposure to insulin. Together, our results show that excessive exposure to insulin is a primary inducer of insulin resistance in T1DM in mice.

Plasma glucose and hypoglycaemia following exercise in people with Type 1 diabetes: a comparison of three basal insulins

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of exercise on plasma glucose excursions when using each of three basal insulins in people with Type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a multinational, open-label, randomized, three-period, crossover clinical trial. People with Type 1 diabetes [n = 51, age 39 +/- 10 (+/- sd) years, 67% men] managed with mealtime plus basal insulin regimens, were exercised for 30 min, 5 h after the last mealtime and basal insulin injection when using insulin detemir, insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the plasma glucose excursions during or for 150 min after exercise. During 30 min exercise, five (11%) participants on insulin detemir developed minor hypoglycaemia, six (12%) for NPH and 18 (38%) for glargine. From the end of exercise to 150 min, five (11%) on insulin detemir developed minor hypoglycaemia, seven (14%) for NPH and nine (19%) for glargine. In total, from start of exercise to 150 min after exercise, 10 (21%) participants on insulin detemir experienced minor hypoglycaemia as compared with 13 (27%) for NPH and 27 (57%) for glargine (P < 0.001 glargine vs. detemir and NPH). Maximum plasma cortisol levels were lower on detemir and NPH than glargine.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin detemir was associated with less hypoglycaemia than insulin glargine but not NPH insulin in relatively well-controlled people with Type 1 diabetes during and after exercise.

Comparison of insulin detemir and insulin glargine using a basal-bolus regimen in a randomized, controlled clinical study in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

This treat-to-target study compared the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir (IDet) and insulin glargine (IGla) in a basal-bolus (insulin aspart) regimen in type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

385 patients were randomized 2 : 1 (IDet : IGla). Non-inferiority of IDet to IGla was determined by HbA(1c) 95% CI upper limit <0.4.

RESULTS

IDet and IGla showed similar efficacy in HbA(1c) reduction at 26 weeks, as the non-inferiority criterion was met at 26 weeks (LS mean [Det-Gla]: 0.207; 95% CI: 0.0149,0.3995). It appeared that IGla in some cases did better than IDet in terms of HbA(1c), but the difference (0.207%) was not clinically meaningful. Based on the CONSORT guideline, non-inferiority analysis using the LOCF approach was inconclusive regarding possible inferiority of delta 0.4 (LS mean of [Det-Gla]: 0.307; 95% CI: 0.1023, 0.5109). HbA(1c) decreased significantly from baseline in IDet (-1.1% [26 weeks], -0.9% [LOCF], p < 0.001) and in IGla (-1.3% [26 weeks, LOCF], p < 0.001). Final HbA(1c) were 7.1% (26 weeks) and 7.3% (LOCF) in IDet, and 6.9% (26 weeks) and 7.0% (LOCF) in IGla. Final FPG were 130 mg/dL (26 weeks) and 135 mg/dL (LOCF) in IDet, and 134 mg/dL (26 weeks) and 137 mg/dL (LOCF) in IGla. There was significantly less weight gain in IDet-treated patients (1.2 +/- 3.96 kg versus 2.7 +/- 3.94 kg, p = 0.001). Hypoglycemia risk was comparable between groups. The majority of IDet-treated patients (87.4%) remained on a once-daily basal insulin regimen throughout the study.

CONCLUSIONS

IDet and IGla were both effective and safe treatments for glycemic control in a basal-bolus regimen for type 2 diabetes. Clinically significant reductions in HbA(1c) were achieved in both groups, but with significantly less weight gain in the IDet group at comparable basal insulin dosage.

Insulin analogs and pregnancy: an update

It is well known that good metabolic control maintained throughout pregnancy reduces maternal and fetal complications in diabetes. Before conception and throughout pregnancy, insulin therapy needs to be optimized and, in this context, the insulin analogs currently available in the market may help to achieve good metabolic control. We therefore review here what is known about the potential benefits and risks related to the use of these new insulins in pregnancy. Clinical and experimental data on insulin aspart and lispro strongly suggest that they have no adverse maternal or fetal effects during pregnancy in women with pregestational and gestational diabetes, and that their use results in improved glycemic control, fewer hypoglycemic episodes, and improved patient satisfaction. At present there are no published data on the use of glulisine in pregnancy. Insulin glargine during pregnancy is not recommended but, in the last years, larger surveys (retrospective and case-control studies) have been published on this field and, to date, results of about 335 pregnancies with type 1 diabetes are available showing an incidence of congenital malformation similar to that obtained with human insulin. There are no published data concerning the use of detemir in pregnancy but the results of a prospective study are expected in 2010.

A comparison of injection force and dosage scale size between NovoPen 3 and NovoPen 4

BACKGROUND

Easy-to-use insulin devices are an important tool in the treatment of diabetes. In this study, injection force requirements and dosage scale displays were evaluated for NovoPen 3 and NovoPen 4 (both from Novo Nordisk A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark).

METHODS

To simulate 5 years of expected lifetime usage, 5,475 injections were performed automatically. Before and after lifetime testing, the force required to expel 60 U of insulin from NovoPen 3 and NovoPen 4 with 30-gauge or 31-gauge needles was measured. To compare dosage scale displays, digital images of multiple settings were made, and the total inked areas of digits were converted to mm(2).

RESULTS

At baseline, the mean +/- SD injection force of NovoPen 4 was 9.14 +/- 0.87 N and 16.55 +/- 1.17 N, which was significantly lower (P < 0.001) than for NovoPen 3, at 18.36 +/- 1.06 N and 29.81 +/- 1.26 N, with the 30-gauge and 31-gauge needle, respectively. After simulated lifetime testing, mean +/- SD injection force was 10.93 +/- 0.77 N and 17.77 +/- 1.14 N for NovoPen 4, which was significantly lower than the injection force of 18.54 +/- 0.94 N and 31.69 +/- 1.98 N for NovoPen 3 (P < 0.001). The mean dosage scale digit size was 1.63 mm(2) for NovoPen 3 and 7.82 mm(2) for NovoPen 4, with a mean difference of 6.19 mm(2). The display for NovoPen 4 was 4.74 times larger (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The mean injection force required to operate NovoPen 4 was reduced up to 50% compared with NovoPen 3 (P < 0.001), and the mean dosage display for NovoPen 4 was over four times larger than for NovoPen 3 (P < 0.001). Based on these findings, patients with diabetes who have manual or visual impairment should find it easier to dose insulin with NovoPen 4.

Short-term effects of the long-acting insulin analog detemir and human insulin on plasma levels of insulin-like growth factor-I and its binding proteins in humans

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to compare responses of plasma levels of IGF-I and IGF binding proteins (IGFBP-1 and IGFBP-3) induced by human regular insulin (HI) and the long-acting insulin analog detemir (IDet) at doses equivalent with respect to the glucose-lowering effect.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Ten nondiabetic subjects (six males, four females; age, 36 +/- 7 yr; body mass index, 22.9 +/- 2.6 kg/m(2)) were studied on four randomized occasions with iv infusion of IDet (2 mU/kg . min for 4 h, followed by 4 mU/kg . min for 1 h) or HI (1 mU/kg . min for 4 h, followed by 2 mU/kg . min for 1 h) in euglycemia [plasma glucose (PG), 90 mg/dl] or during stepped hypoglycemia (PG, 90, 78, 66, 54, and 42 mg/dl).

RESULTS

PG was maintained at preselected plateaus, without any significant difference between IDet and HI (P > 0.2). Plasma insulin concentrations were on average approximately nine times greater with IDet than HI (749 +/- 52 vs. 83 +/- 19 muU/ml, respectively). Plasma IGF-I concentrations did not change from baseline during insulin infusion in euglycemia (IDet, 147 +/- 16 ng/ml; HI, 155 +/- 15 ng/ml) and hypoglycemia (IDet, 163 +/- 14 ng/ml; HI, 165 +/- 14 ng/ml) with no differences between the two insulins (P > 0.2). A similar pattern was observed for plasma IGFBP-3 levels. Insulin infusion resulted in a suppression of plasma IGFBP-1 concentrations with no differences between IDet (baseline, 16.6 +/- 3.8 ng/ml; endpoint, 2.0 +/- 0.6 ng/ml) and HI (baseline, 16.6 +/- 4.1 ng/ml; endpoint, 2.6 +/- 1.4 ng/ml) (P > 0.2) and study conditions (P > 0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

The greater plasma insulin concentrations obtained with IDet exert effects on plasma levels of IGF-I, IGFBP-1, and IGFBP-3 similar to those of HI. Additional studies are needed to confirm these short-term results in patients with diabetes mellitus on long-term treatment with IDet.

Patient-directed titration for achieving glycaemic goals using a once-daily basal insulin analogue: an assessment of two different fasting plasma glucose targets - the TITRATE study

AIMS

To compare efficacy and safety of two fasting plasma glucose (FPG) titration targets [4.4-6.1 mmol/l (80-110 mg/dl) and 3.9-5.0 mmol/l (70-90 mg/dl)] using a patient-directed, treat-to-target algorithm for once-daily basal insulin in insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes suboptimally treated with oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs).

METHODS

In this 20-week, randomized, controlled, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target study, 244 insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes, HbA(1c)>or=7.0 and <or=9.0% on OAD treatment, were randomized (1 : 1) to one of two treatment arms using 3.9-5.0 or 4.4-6.1 mmol/l FPG as titration targets. Once-daily insulin detemir doses were adjusted using algorithm-guided patient-directed titration to achieve target FPG values.

RESULTS

Overall, the combined treatment groups achieved a mean HbA(1c) level of 6.9% at the end of the study. Substantial reductions in HbA(1c) were seen in both treatment groups, with the majority of subjects in both titration groups at the end of the study achieving the American Diabetes Association (ADA)-recommended HbA(1c) level of <7%. In the 3.9-5.0 mmol/l FPG target treatment group, HbA(1c) values decreased from a baseline mean of 8.0% to 6.8% at 20 weeks. In the 4.4-6.1 mmol/l FPG target group, HbA(1c) values decreased from 7.9% at baseline to 7.0% at 20 weeks (Intention to treat - last observation carried forward data set). These decreases were significantly different between the two treatment groups (Least squares mean difference = -0.271, 95% CI -0.441 to -0.101, p = 0.0019), favouring the FPG target of 3.9-5.0 mmol/l vs. the 4.4-6.1 mmol/l target. At the end of the study period, 64.3% of subjects in the 3.9-5.0 mmol/l treatment group achieved HbA(1c) levels <7% compared with 54.5% of subjects in the 4.4-6.1 mmol/l group (95% CI 1.03-3.37, odds ratio 1.86, p = 0.04). Insulin detemir dosing patterns were similar between treatment groups, with the 3.9-5.0 mmol/l group using slightly greater doses throughout the study period (0.57 U/kg vs. 0.51 U/kg at the end of the study). Overall rates of hypoglycaemia episodes were low and were comparable between treatment groups (7.73 and 5.27 events/subject/year for the 3.9-5.0 and 4.4-6.1 mmol/l groups, respectively). A single event of major hypoglycaemia was reported in the 3.9-5.0 mmol/l group. Mean weight changes from baseline to the end of the study were small and did not differ significantly between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3.9-5.0 mmol/l FPG target showed superior efficacy compared with the 4.4-6.1 mmol/l target, although both FPG titration targets resulted in substantial reductions of HbA(1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes using a patient-directed insulin titration algorithm. A majority of subjects in both titration groups achieved the ADA-recommended guideline of <7% HbA(1c) at the end of the study with low rates of hypoglycaemia. These data indicate that lowering the fasting glucose target using a self-directed titration algorithm with once-daily detemir is safe and increases the likelihood of achieving the target level of HbA(1c). Indeed, using this approach, a majority of patients can achieve an HbA(1c) of <7%.

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes using a basal-bolus regimen in five European countries

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the long-term clinical and economic outcomes associated with insulin detemir and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in combination with mealtime insulin aspart in patients with type 1 diabetes in Belgian, French, German, Italian and Spanish settings.

METHODS

The published and validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to make long-term projections of life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs. The analysis was based on patient characteristics and treatment effects from a 2-year randomised controlled trial. Events were projected for a time horizon of 50 years. Potential uncertainty using a modelling approach was addressed.

RESULTS

Basal-bolus therapy with insulin detemir was projected to improve quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.45 years versus NPH in the German setting, with similar improvements in the other countries. Insulin detemir was associated with cost savings in Belgium, Germany and Spain. In France and Italy, lifetime costs were slightly higher in the detemir arm, leading to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 519 euro per QALY gained and 3,256 euro per QALY gained, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to NPH, insulin detemir is likely to be a dominant treatment strategy in Belgium, Germany and Spain and highly cost-effective in France and Italy in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Waist circumference reduction after insulin detemir therapy in type 2 diabetes patients previously treated with NPH

We studied the weight-sparing effect and treatment satisfaction when switching from NPH to insulin detemir in type 2 diabetes. Mean HbA(1c) (P<0.05) and waist circumference (P<0.05) were reduced while treatment satisfaction improved (P<0.03). No weight gain was observed. Detemir improves glycemic control, treatment satisfaction, and may provide additional weight-sparing benefits.

Higher dose requirements with insulin detemir in type 2 diabetes--three cases and a review of the literature

We report on three type 2 diabetic patients whose daily basal insulin dose requirements were substantially reduced after switching from insulin detemir to insulin glargine. Meta-analysis of three randomised trials of basal insulin initiation confirmed this increased insulin detemir dose requirement in type 2 patients. Potential explanations are discussed.

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin for type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Canadian payer setting: modeling analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to quantify the long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir (Levemir) versus intermediate-acting neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Canada, and to assess the sensitivity of results to dis-utilities for hypoglycemic events. dagger Levemir is a trade name of Novo Nordisk, Princeton, NJ, USA RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The web-based IMS-CORE diabetes model has a menu-driven interface programmed in hypertext markup language (HTML). It was used to project lifetime (60 years for T1DM and 35 years for T2DM) clinical and economic outcomes for patients on detemir vs. NPH. Cohort characteristics, utilities, and costs were derived from published literature. For T1DM, clinical trial data for HbA(1c) improvement (detemir -0.94% +/- 1.07; NPH -0.82% +/- 1.01) from baseline, and rates of hypoglycemic events (major events: 0.20 vs. 0.80 per patient-year for detemir vs. NPH, respectively) were modeled. For T2DM, observational study data for HbA(1c) improvement (detemir -0.18%) from baseline, and reductions in hypoglycemic events (major events: 0.0995 vs. 1.33 per patient-year for detemir vs. NPH, respectively) were modeled. Base-case hypoglycemia dis-utilities were -0.0118 for major and -0.0035 for minor events. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on discount rate and hypoglycemia dis-utility.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes included costs of treatment/management and costs (and incidence) of diabetes-related complications. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from differences in total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

Average total costs for T1DM were $CAN 83 622 +/- 4585 for detemir and $CAN 72 016 +/- 4593 for NPH. QALYs increased by 0.475 years with detemir, with an ICER of $CAN 24 389/QALY. Average direct costs for T2DM were $CAN 74 919 +/- 6391 (detemir) and $CAN 69 230 +/- 6840 (NPH). QALYs increased by 0.305 years. The ICER was $CAN 18 677. Although detemir was associated with slightly lower costs for most complications, results were driven by the differences in rates and costs for hypoglycemic events, and their assumed dis-utility. Study limitations include the use of single trials for clinical assumptions and the lack of analyses for patient risk sub-groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings provide evidence for the cost-effectiveness of detemir vs. NPH in treating T1 and T2DM in Canada, and support the key role of assumptions regarding the impact of hypoglycemic events. Additional work is needed to determine the extent to which results are robust for different sub-groups of patients and for variation in assumptions around HbA(1c) improvements and hypoglycemic event rates.