Pulsatile intermittent intravenous insulin therapy for attenuation of retinopathy and nephropathy in type 1 diabetes mellitus

Effects of Periodic Intensive Insulin Therapy: An Updated Review

Background

Traditional insulin treatment for diabetes mellitus with insulin administered subcutaneously yields nonpulsatile plasma insulin concentrations that represent a fraction of normal portal vein levels. Oral hypoglycemic medications result in the same lack of pulsatile insulin response to blood glucose levels. Intensive treatments of significant complications of diabetes are not recommended due to complicated multidrug regimens, significant weight gain, and the high risk of hypoglycemic complications. Consequently, advanced complications of diabetes do not have an effective treatment option because conventional therapy is not sufficient. Intensive insulin therapy (IIT) simulates normal pancreatic function by closely matching the periodicity and amplitude of insulin secretion in healthy subjects; however, the mechanisms involved with the observed improvement are not clearly understood.

Objective

The current review aims to analyze the pathophysiology of insulin secretion, discuss current therapies for the management of diabetes, provides an updates on the recent advancements of IIT, and proposes its mechanism of action.

Methods

A literature search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and CrossRef databases was performed on multiple key words regarding the history and current variations of pulsatile and IIT for diabetes treatment. Articles reporting the physiology of insulin secretion, advantages of pulsatile insulin delivery in patients with diabetes patients, efficacy and adverse effects of current conventional insulin therapies for the management of diabetes, benefits and shortcomings of pancreas and islet transplantation, or clinical trials on patients with diabetes treated with pulsed insulin therapy or advanced IIT were included for a qualitative analysis and categorized into the following topics: mechanism of insulin secretion in normal subjects and patients with diabetes and current therapies for the management of diabetes, including oral hypoglycemic agents, insulin therapy, pancreas and islet transplantation, pulsed insulin therapy, and advances in IIT.

Results

Our review of the literature shows that IIT improves the resolution of diabetic ulcers, neuropathy, and nephropathy, and reduces emergency room visits. The likely mechanism responsible for this improvement is increased insulin sensitivity from adipocytes, as well as increased insulin receptor expression.

Conclusions

Recent advancements show that IIT is an effective option for both type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus patient populations. This treatment resembles normal pancreatic function so closely that it has significantly reduced the effects of relatively common complications of diabetes in comparison to standard treatments. Thus, this new treatment is a promising advancement in the management of diabetes. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2019; 80:XXX–XXX).

Insulin and glucose-lowering agents for treating people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Diabetes is the commonest cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Both conditions commonly co-exist. Glucometabolic changes and concurrent dialysis in diabetes and CKD make glucose-lowering challenging, increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Glucose-lowering agents have been mainly studied in people with near-normal kidney function. It is important to characterise existing knowledge of glucose-lowering agents in CKD to guide treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and safety of insulin and other pharmacological interventions for lowering glucose levels in people with diabetes and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 February 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at head-to-head comparisons of active regimens of glucose-lowering therapy or active regimen compared with placebo/standard care in people with diabetes and CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and quality of data and performed data extraction. Continuous outcomes were expressed as post-treatment mean differences (MD). Adverse events were expressed as post-treatment absolute risk differences (RD). Dichotomous clinical outcomes were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four studies (128 records, 13,036 participants) were included. Nine studies compared sodium glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to placebo; 13 studies compared dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors to placebo; 2 studies compared glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists to placebo; 8 studies compared glitazones to no glitazone treatment; 1 study compared glinide to no glinide treatment; and 4 studies compared different types, doses or modes of administration of insulin. In addition, 2 studies compared sitagliptin to glipizide; and 1 study compared each of sitagliptin to insulin, glitazars to pioglitazone, vildagliptin to sitagliptin, linagliptin to voglibose, and albiglutide to sitagliptin. Most studies had a high risk of bias due to funding and attrition bias, and an unclear risk of detection bias.Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors probably reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 1092 participants: MD -0.29%, -0.38 to -0.19 (-3.2 mmol/mol, -4.2 to -2.2); I2 = 0%), fasting blood glucose (FBG) (5 studies, 855 participants: MD -0.48 mmol/L, -0.78 to -0.19; I2 = 0%), systolic blood pressure (BP) (7 studies, 1198 participants: MD -4.68 mmHg, -6.69 to -2.68; I2 = 40%), diastolic BP (6 studies, 1142 participants: MD -1.72 mmHg, -2.77 to -0.66; I2 = 0%), heart failure (3 studies, 2519 participants: RR 0.59, 0.41 to 0.87; I2 = 0%), and hyperkalaemia (4 studies, 2788 participants: RR 0.58, 0.42 to 0.81; I2 = 0%); but probably increase genital infections (7 studies, 3086 participants: RR 2.50, 1.52 to 4.11; I2 = 0%), and creatinine (4 studies, 848 participants: MD 3.82 μmol/L, 1.45 to 6.19; I2 = 16%) (all effects of moderate certainty evidence). SGLT2 inhibitors may reduce weight (5 studies, 1029 participants: MD -1.41 kg, -1.8 to -1.02; I2 = 28%) and albuminuria (MD -8.14 mg/mmol creatinine, -14.51 to -1.77; I2 = 11%; low certainty evidence). SGLT2 inhibitors may have little or no effect on the risk of cardiovascular death, hypoglycaemia, acute kidney injury (AKI), and urinary tract infection (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether SGLT2 inhibitors have any effect on death, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), hypovolaemia, fractures, diabetic ketoacidosis, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 867 participants: MD -0.62%, -0.85 to -0.39 (-6.8 mmol/mol, -9.3 to -4.3); I2 = 59%) but may have little or no effect on FBG (low certainty evidence). DPP-4 inhibitors probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular death (2 studies, 5897 participants: RR 0.93, 0.77 to 1.11; I2 = 0%) and weight (2 studies, 210 participants: MD 0.16 kg, -0.58 to 0.90; I2 = 29%; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors may have little or no effect on heart failure, upper respiratory tract infections, and liver impairment (low certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, it is uncertain whether DPP-4 inhibitors have any effect on eGFR, hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, GLP-1 agonists probably reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 867 participants: MD -0.53%, -1.01 to -0.06 (-5.8 mmol/mol, -11.0 to -0.7); I2 = 41%; moderate certainty evidence) and may reduce weight (low certainty evidence). GLP-1 agonists may have little or no effect on eGFR, hypoglycaemia, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether GLP-1 agonists reduce FBG, increase gastrointestinal symptoms, or affect the risk of pancreatitis (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, it is uncertain whether glitazones have any effect on HbA1c, FBG, death, weight, and risk of hypoglycaemia (very low certainty evidence).Compared to glipizide, sitagliptin probably reduces hypoglycaemia (2 studies, 551 participants: RR 0.40, 0.23 to 0.69; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to glipizide, sitagliptin may have had little or no effect on HbA1c, FBG, weight, and eGFR (low certainty evidence). Compared to glipizide, it is uncertain if sitagliptin has any effect on death or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty).For types, dosages or modes of administration of insulin and other head-to-head comparisons only individual studies were available so no conclusions could be made.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering agents in diabetes and CKD is limited. SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists are probably efficacious for glucose-lowering and DPP-4 inhibitors may be efficacious for glucose-lowering. Additionally, SGLT2 inhibitors probably reduce BP, heart failure, and hyperkalaemia but increase genital infections, and slightly increase creatinine. The safety profile for GLP-1 agonists is uncertain. No further conclusions could be made for the other classes of glucose-lowering agents including insulin. More high quality studies are required to help guide therapeutic choice for glucose-lowering in diabetes and CKD.

In type 1 diabetics, high-dose biotin may compensate for low hepatic insulin exposure, promoting a more normal expression of glycolytic and gluconeogenic enyzymes and thereby aiding glycemic control

In type 1 diabetics, hepatic exposure to insulin is chronically subnormal even in the context of insulin therapy; as a result, expression of glycolytic enzymes is decreased, and that of gluconeogenic enzymes is enhanced, resulting in a physiologically inappropriate elevation of hepatic glucose output. Subnormal expression of glucokinase (GK) is of particular importance in this regard. Possible strategies for correcting this perturbation of hepatic enzyme expression include administration of small molecule allosteric activators of GK, as well as a procedure known as chronic intermittent intravenous insulin therapy (CIIIT); however, side effects accompany the use of GK activators, and CIIIT is time and labor intensive. Alternatively, administration of high-dose biotin has potential for modulating hepatic enzyme expression in a favorable way. Studies in rodents and in cultured hepatocytes demonstrate that, in the context of low insulin exposure, supra-physiological levels of biotin induce increased expression of GK while suppressing that of the key gluconeogenic enzyme phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase. These effects may be a downstream consequence of the fact that biotin down-regulates mRNA expression of FOXO1; insulin's antagonism of the activity of this transcription factor is largely responsible for its modulatory impact on hepatic glycolysis and gluconeogenesis. Hence, high-dose biotin may compensate for subnormal insulin exposure by suppressing FOXO1 levels. High-dose biotin also has the potential to oppose hepatic steatosis by down-regulating SREBP-1 expression. Two pilot trials of high-dose biotin (16 or 2mg per day) in type 1 diabetics have yielded promising results. There is also some reason to suspect that high-dose biotin could aid control of diabetic neuropathy and nephropathy via its stimulatory effect on cGMP production. Owing to the safety, good tolerance, moderate expense, and current availability of high-dose biotin, this strategy merits more extensive evaluation in type 1 diabetes.

Interventions for Diabetic Retinopathy in Type 1 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically review the effectiveness of systemic interventions for diabetic retinopathy (DR) in type 1 diabetes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published from January 1990 to December 2014. Randomized controlled trials and controlled cohort studies reporting incidence or progression of DR following systemic intervention were included. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. For each intervention, pooled outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies involving 9302 patients met inclusion criteria. Incident DR was reduced by intensive vs conventional insulin therapy (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23-0.83), insulin pumps vs multiple daily injections (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.24-0.83), and angiotensin receptor blockade vs placebo (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49-0.85). The benefit of insulin pumps over multiple daily infections was independent of HbA1c. DR progression was reduced by intensive vs conventional insulin therapy (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.43-0.92), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition vs placebo (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.41-0.86), and islet cell transplantation vs medical therapy (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.08-0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive insulin therapy, and specifically insulin pump therapy vs multiple daily injections, prevents DR in both adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Antihypertensive agents provide protection in normotensive, normoalbuminuric adults. In patients with type 1 diabetes of longer duration, islet cell transplantation may be more effective than medical therapy. There is insufficient evidence for antilipid therapy or other systemic interventions.

Acute hyperinsulinemia increases the contraction of retinal arterioles induced by elevated blood pressure

Diabetic retinopathy is accompanied by disturbances in retinal blood flow, which is assumed to be related to the diabetic metabolic dysregulation. It has previously been shown that normoinsulinemic hyperglycemia has no effect on the diameter of retinal arterioles at rest and during an increase in the arterial blood pressure induced by isometric exercise. However, the influence of hyperinsulinemia on this response has not been studied in detail. In seven normal persons, the diameter response of retinal arterioles to an increased blood pressure induced by isometric exercise, to stimulation with flickering light, and to the combination of these stimuli was studied during euglycemic normoinsulinemia (protocol N) on one examination day, and euglycemic hyperinsulinemia (protocol H) on another examination day. Isometric exercise induced significant contraction of retinal arterioles at all examinations, but during a repeated examination the diameter response was significantly reduced in the test persons following the N protocol and increased in the persons following the H protocol. Flicker stimulation induced a significant dilatation of retinal arterioles at all examinations, and the response was significantly higher during a repeated examination, irrespective of the insulin level. Repeated exposure to isometric exercise reduces contraction, whereas repeated exposure to flickering light increases dilatation of retinal arterioles in vivo. Hyperinsulinemia increases contraction of retinal arterioles induced by isometric exercise.

Increased action of pulsatile compared to non-pulsatile insulin delivery during a meal-like glucose exposure simulated by computerized infusion in healthy humans

It has previously been demonstrated that pulsatile insulin has a greater hypoglycemic effect than non-pulsatile insulin during euglycemic conditions. The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of pulsatile versus non-pulsatile insulin delivery during a meal-like iv-glucose challenge. Ten healthy young subjects were examined on two occasions. A pancreatic-pituitary clamp was maintained with somatostatin infusion and replacement of glucagon and growth hormone at baseline levels. During the first three hours on both study days, insulin was infused in a pulsatile manner. Hereafter glucose and insulin were infused by computer-controlled pumps for four hours in a pattern mimicking the postprandial glucose and insulin profiles. At one study day, insulin infusion was done in a continuous manner, while at the other study day this profile was done in a pulsatile pattern. The hypoglycemic effect of insulin was measured as the integrated area under the curve of glucose during the four-hour infusion period. The mean insulin concentration measured as the integrated area under the curve was identical (P > .9). The hypoglycemic effect of insulin was significantly augmented by 13% during pulsatile delivery as compared to continuous delivery (P = .015). Likewise was the maximal glucose concentration significantly lower at the day of the pulsatile profile (9.9 ± 1.0 vs. 11.4 ± 2.3 mmol/l, P = .036). Pulsatile insulin release plays an important role in the postprandial glucose homeostasis. The disturbed insulin pulsatility in type 2 diabetes mellitus may contribute to the postprandial hyperglycemia.

Diabetic microvascular complications: possible targets for improved macrovascular outcomes

The results of recent outcome trials challenge hypotheses that tight control of both glycohemoglobin and blood pressure diminishes macrovascular events and survival among type 2 diabetic patients. Relevant questions exist regarding the adequacy of glycohemoglobin alone as a measure of diabetes control. Are we ignoring mechanisms of vasculotoxicity (profibrosis, altered angiogenesis, hypertrophy, hyperplasia, and endothelial injury) inherent in current antihyperglycemic medications? Is the polypharmacy for lowering cholesterol, triglyceride, glucose, and systolic blood pressure producing drug interactions that are too complex to be clinically identified? We review angiotensin-aldosterone mechanisms of tissue injury that magnify microvascular damage caused by hyperglycemia and hypertension. Many studies describe interruption of these mechanisms, without hemodynamic consequence, in the preservation of function in type 1 diabetes. Possible interactions between the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and physiologic glycemic control (through pulsatile insulin release) suggest opportunities for further clinical investigation.