Glucose disposal and intermediary metabolism during one year of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII)

Insulin resistance in patients with type 1 diabetes assessed by glucose clamp studies: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on insulin resistance in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus compared to healthy controls, assessed by hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp studies.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of publications using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and COCHRANE Library. Hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp studies comparing adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus to healthy controls were eligible. Primary outcome measures were pooled mean differences of insulin sensitivity of endogenous glucose production (EGP), of glucose uptake and of lipolysis. We estimated mean (standardized) differences and 95% CIs using random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We included 38 publications in this meta-analysis. The weighed mean differences in EGP during hyperinsulinemia between patients and controls was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.47, 1.29) in the basal state and 0.52 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.95) in insulin stimulated conditions, indicating decreased hepatic insulin sensitivity in patients. Insulin sensitivity of glucose uptake was either reported as M value (M), glucose infusion rate (GIR), glucose disposal rate (GDR) or metabolic clearance rate (MCR). Weighed mean differences were similar for M -3.98 (95% CI: -4.68, -3.29) and GIR -4.61 (95% CI: -5.86, -3.53). Weighed mean difference for GDR was -2.43 (95% CI: -3.03, -1.83) and -3.29 (95% CI: -5.37, -1.22) for MCR, indicating decreased peripheral insulin sensitivity in patients. Insulin mediated inhibition of lipolysis was decreased in patients, reflected by increased non-esterified fatty acid levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin resistance is a prominent feature of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and involves hepatic, peripheral and adipose tissues.

Insulin resistance in multiple tissues in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus on long-term continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine whether insulin resistance is present in lean patients with uncomplicated type 1 diabetes mellitus on long-term continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), compared with matched healthy controls.

METHODS

We studied eight patients (four men and four women) with type 1 diabetes mellitus on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and eight healthy controls, matched for age, gender and body mass index. Insulin sensitivity was measured by hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp studies with infusion of [6,6-(2) H(2)] glucose.

RESULTS

Endogenous glucose production did not differ in the basal state between patients and controls. However, endogenous glucose production was less suppressed during clamp conditions in patients compared with controls (64% vs 79%, p = 0.01), indicating decreased hepatic insulin sensitivity. During the clamp study, glucose disposal rate was ~38% lower in patients compared with controls (24.4 ± 2.5 vs 39.7 ± 5.6 µmol/kgLBM/min, p = 0.04). Accordingly, the rate of infusion of glucose was ~51% lower in patients (17.7 ± 2.8 vs 39.7 ± 5.7 µmol/kgLBM/min, p = 0.02). Finally, non-esterified fatty acids levels were ~2.5 times higher in patients during steady state clamp conditions (150 ± 26 vs 58 ± 4 pmol/L, p = 0.01), reflecting decreased insulin sensitivity of lipolysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin resistance is a prominent feature of lean patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, despite long term and stable treatment with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Insulin resistance in type 1 diabetes involves both lipolysis, hepatic and peripheral glucose metabolism.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) versus multiple insulin injections for type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Type 1 diabetes is a metabolic disorder resulting from a defect in insulin secretion. Onset of type 1 diabetes mellitus may occur at any age and it is one of the most common chronic diseases of childhood and adolescence. Since there are no interventions known to prevent onset, it is vital that effective treatment regimes are available. Glycaemic control is maintained by replacement of insulin and may be in the form of 'conventional' insulin therapy (multiple injections per day) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of CSII compared to multiple insulin injections (MI) in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Studies were obtained from electronic searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials comparing CSII with three or more insulin injections per day (MI) in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted characteristics of included studies. Authors contacted study investigators to obtain missing information. Generic inverse variance meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty three studies randomised 976 participants with type 1 diabetes to either intervention. There was a statistically significant difference in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) favouring CSII (weighted mean difference -0.3% (95% confidence interval -0.1 to -0.4). There were no obvious differences between the interventions for non-severe hypoglycaemia, but severe hypoglycaemia appeared to be reduced in those using CSII. Quality of life measures suggest that CSII is preferred over MI. No significant difference was found for weight. Adverse events were not well reported, no information is available on mortality, morbidity and costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence to suggest that CSII may be better than MI for glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes. Non-severe hypoglycaemic events do not appear to be reduced with CSII. There is insufficient evidence regarding adverse events, mortality, morbidity and costs.