Treatment options for insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a comparison of the artificial endocrine pancreas, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, and multiple daily insulin injections

Glycemic parameters with multiple daily injections using insulin glargine versus insulin pump

This study compared external insulin pump treatment using insulin lispro or insulin aspart with multiple daily injections (MDI; four or more injections per day) using insulin glargine and insulin lispro or insulin aspart. An electronic database was used to retrieve various parameters of glycemic control for 515 adult patients with type 1 diabetes. An insulin pump was used by 216 patients, and 299 patients were taking insulin glargine for at least 6 months. The mean age (approximately 33 years), duration of diabetes (approximately 16 years), and duration of treatment (approximately 12 months) were similar for both the pump and insulin glargine groups. The mean (+/-SEM) A1C values were significantly reduced in both groups from the baseline to the end of the study (7.7 +/- 0.1% to 7.5 +/- 0.1% for the pump group and 8.0 +/- 0.1% to 7.7 +/- 0.1% for the insulin glargine group, P< 0.001) with similar weight gain (P> 0.05) in both groups. The insulin glargine group significantly reduced basal insulin intake at follow-up. The premeal boluses were similar throughout the study for both groups. The subjects reporting severe hypoglycemic episodes were similar in the two groups; however, there were 12 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis reported in the pump group and none in the insulin glargine group. Patients with type 1 diabetes can achieve similar glycemic control using insulin glargine with premeal insulin lispro or by using an external infusion pump with insulin lispro or insulin aspart. However, costs and episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis are significantly higher for insulin pump users.

Comparative effects of two different multiple injection regimens on blood glucose control and patient acceptance in type 1 diabetes

In a randomized cross-over study we compared blood glucose control and patient acceptance of a 12-week basal-prandial regimen with short-acting insulin before meals and isophane (NPH) insulin at bedtime (4 injections) with a scheme with a second injection of isophane (NPH) insulin before breakfast (5 injections). Forty-three Type 1 diabetic patients (age 37 +/- 11 (+/- SD) years, duration of diabetes 15 (range 2-48) years, 26 males and 17 females) completed the study. Mean daily blood glucose was 8.6 +/- 2.4 mmol l-1 at baseline, and 8.1 +/- 2.2 mmol l-1 after the four-injection period and 7.9 +/- 2.0 mmol l-1 with five-injections (NS). HbA1c after 12 weeks was not different with the two treatments (6.6 +/- 1.1 vs 6.5 +/- 0.9%), neither was fasting blood glucose (9.6 +/- 4.2 mmol l-1 with 4 injections, and 9.0 +/- 4.4 mmol l-1 with 5 injections). Daily insulin dose did not differ between regimens (55 vs 56 U day-1). No differences in number or severity of hypoglycaemic events were observed. After the study, 13 patients preferred to continue the 5-injection regimen, and 21 patients preferred 4 injections. Treatment satisfaction with either regimen was equally high. It is concluded that dividing the intermediate-acting insulin into a morning and an evening dose did not lead to an improvement in blood glucose control in these moderately-controlled Type 1 diabetic patients.

Side effects and indwelling times of subcutaneous catheters for insulin injections: a new device for injecting insulin with a minimum of pain in the treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

For 2 months we observed side-effects and indwelling times when using a subcutaneous catheter (Insuflon, Viggo AB, Sweden) for insulin injections. This method is used by approximately 600 children and adolescents with IDDM in Sweden today. 22 children and adolescents aged 4-19 years with a diabetes duration of 4.0 +/- 3.0 (mean +/- SD) years participated. Their HbA1c was 5.8 +/- 1.0%. All used 4-6 dosages of insulin per day. The catheter was placed subcutaneously in the abdominal wall, and replaced by parents when home tests showed increased blood or urine glucose, when the child experienced pain or when skin changes were observed. The 22 patients used 239 catheters with a mean time between changing catheters of 4.8 +/- 2.2 (range 0.5-17) days (= 1147 catheter days). Noted side effects were (% of catheter days): fixation problems, 5.6%; minor infection/irritation (= redness greater than 1 mm), 5.6%; pain, 2.8%; sore skin from plastic wings, 2.4%; itching/dry skin, 2.0%; eczema from band-aid, 1.7%; blocked catheter/injection needle, 1.6%; leakage of insulin, 1.3%, transient lipohypertrophies, 1.1%; hematoma/blood in catheter, 0.8%, and moist skin, 0.3%. No major infections requiring surgical or antibiotic treatment occurred. In conclusion, the use of indwelling insulin catheters seems to be a safe method to lessen the pain of insulin injections with a low frequency of side effects. The long-term metabolic control was not altered in this group of well-controlled children. We therefore find that we can recommend the use of indwelling catheters to children and adolescents who have difficulties with injections because of needle phobia or pain, particularly when using MIT.