Comparison of Efficacy and Economic Value of Prandilin 25 and Humalog Mix 25 in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes by a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System

Comparing Equil patch versus traditional catheter insulin pump in type 2 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring metrics and profiles

AIMS

It is not clear whether there are differences in glycemic control between the Equil patch and the MMT-712 insulin pump. Our objective was to compare two types of insulin pumps in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics and profiles.

METHODS

This was a randomized case-crossover clinical trial. Participants were hospitalized and randomly allocated to two groups and underwent two types of insulin pump treatments (group A: Equil patch-Medtronic MMT-712 insulin pump; group B: Medtronic MMT-712-Equil patch insulin pump) separated by a 1-day washout period. Glycemic control was achieved after 7-8 days of insulin pump therapy. Each patient received CGM for 5 consecutive days (from day 1 to day 5). On day 3 of CGM performance, the Equil patch insulin pump treatment was switched to Medtronic MMT-712 insulin pump treatment at the same basal and bolus insulin doses or vice versa. CGM metrics and profiles including glycemic variability (GV), time in range (TIR, 3.9-10.0 mmol/L), time below range (TBR, <3.9 mmol/L), time above range (TAR, >10.0 mmol/L), and postprandial glucose excursions, as well as incidence of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Forty-six T2DM patients completed the study. There was no significant difference in parameters of daily GV and postprandial glucose excursions between the Equil patch insulin pump treatment and the Medtronic insulin pump treatment. Similarly, there was no between-treatment difference in TIR, TBR, and TAR, as well as the incidence of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

The Equil patch insulin pump was similar to the traditional MMT-712 insulin pump in terms of glycemic control. Equil patch insulin pump is a reliable tool for glycemic management of diabetes mellitus.

Efficacy Comparison of Preprandial and Postprandial Prandilin 25 Administration in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Using a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to determine the clinical efficacy of preprandial and postprandial Prandilin 25 (premixed insulin lispro 25) administration in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system.

METHODS

This was a single-center, self-controlled comparative clinical trial. Newly diagnosed T2DM patients with hemoglobin A1c > 8.0% were hospitalized and received Prandilin 25 plus metformin treatment. Glycemic control was reached after a 7-to-8-day run-in period. Patients underwent 2 days of treatment consisting of preprandial Prandilin 25 on day 1 and postprandial Prandilin 25 on day 2 at the same dosage. The primary outcome was the 24-h mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (24 hMAGE); secondary outcomes were other daily glycemic variability parameters, including 24-h mean blood glucose (24hMBG), 24-h standard deviation of blood glucose (24hSDBG), large amplitude of glycemic excursion (LAGE), incremental area under the curve (AUC) values for different glucose levels, postprandial glucose excursion, and incidence of hypoglycemia, which were assessed using a CGM system.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients completed this study. There was no statistically significant difference in 24hMAGE, 24hMBG, 24hSDBG, or LAGE between the preprandial injection group and the postprandial injection group. Similarly, there was no between-treatment difference in the AUC for a blood glucose level below 3.9 mmol/L, in the AUC for a blood glucose level above 10.0 mmol/L, or in the percentages of time that the blood glucose level was below 3.9 mmol/L or above 10.0 mmol/L. Further analysis showed that the pre-meal glucose, peak height, and time to peak after each meal, the relative areas under the CGM curve at 1-4 h after each meal, as well as the incidence of hypoglycemia, were similar for the preprandial and postprandial Prandilin 25 groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with T2DM managed with premixed insulin lispro 25, postprandial injection (within 30 min of meal onset) may be an acceptable alternative to preprandial injection when the regular preprandial insulin dose is omitted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Register identifier: ChiCTR1800015828.

Association of Higher Circulating Insulin Antibody with Increased Mean Amplitude Glycemic Excursion in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional, Retrospective Case-Control Study

Insulin antibody (IA) may potentially affect a patient's glycemic control due to its variability in both binding and/or releasing insulin. However, the association between IA titer and daily glycemic variability (GV) is still unknown. We thus performed this cross-sectional, retrospective case-control study to assess the relationship between IA titer and mean amplitude glycemic excursion (MAGE) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system. We recruited 100 eligible patients (IA > 5%, IA positive) and divided them into two groups-a low (L) group and a high (H) group-based on their IA titer. The control (C) group consisted of 47 patients (IA ≤ 5%, IA negative) matched for age, BMI, gender, and glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). The CGM determined the GV of enrolled patients. The primary outcome was the relationship between the IA titer and the MAGE, and the secondary outcome was the differences of GV among the three groups. We found that patients in the H group had higher levels of blood glucose fluctuation parameters than those in the L and C groups. The Ln(IA) was positively correlated with Ln(MAGE) even after adjusting for age, gender, BMI, HbA1c, and fasting and postprandial C-peptide(r = 0.423, p < 0.001). Multiple linear stepwise regression analysis revealed that Ln(IA) was an independent factor of Ln(MAGE) (beta = 0.405, p < 0.001). In conclusion, the higher circulating IA titer was associated with increased MAGE in T2DM patients, indicating that those patients with elevated IA titer should receive GV assessment and individualized treatment.