Comparison of insulin regimens in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Is Associated With Barriers to Activity and Worse Health Status: A Cross-Sectional Study in Primary Care

INTRODUCTION

Many individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) experience "psychological insulin resistance". Consequently, it could be expected that insulin therapy may have negative effects on psychological outcomes and well-being. Therefore, this study compared health status and psychosocial functioning of individuals with T2DM using only oral antihyperglycemic agents (OHA) and on insulin therapy (with or without OHA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we used baseline data of a cluster randomized controlled trial conducted in 55 Dutch general practices in 2005. Health status was measured with the Short Form (SF)-36 (scale 0-100) and psychosocial functioning with the Diabetes Health Profile (DHP, scale 0-100). To handle missing data, we performed multiple imputation. We used linear mixed models with random intercepts per general practice to correct for clustering at practice level and to control for confounding.

RESULTS

In total, 2,794 participants were included in the analysis, their mean age was 65.8 years and 50.8% were women. Insulin-users (n = 212) had a longer duration of T2DM (11.0 versus 5.6 years) and more complications. After correcting for confounders and multiple comparisons, insulin-users reported significantly worse outcomes on vitality (SF-36, adjusted difference -5.7, p=0.033), general health (SF-36, adjusted difference -4.8, p=0.043), barriers to activity (DHP, adjusted difference -7.2, p<0.001), and psychological distress (DHP, adjusted difference -3.7, p=0.004), all on a 0-100 scale.

DISCUSSION

While previous studies showed similar or better health status in people with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin therapy, we found that vitality, general health and barriers to activity were worse in those on insulin therapy. Although the causality of this association cannot be established, our findings add to the discussion on the effects of insulin treatment on patient-reported outcomes in daily practice.

Rationale for Timely Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Within the Framework of Individualised Treatment: 2020 Update

Type 2 diabetes is characterised by chronic hyperglycaemia and variable degrees of insulin deficiency and resistance. Hyperglycaemia and elevated fatty acids exert harmful effects on β-cell function, regeneration and apoptosis (gluco-lipotoxicity). Furthermore, chronic hyperglycaemia triggers a vicious cycle of insulin resistance, low-grade inflammation and a cascade of pro-atherogenic processes. Thus, timely near to normal glucose control is of utmost importance in the management of type 2 diabetes and prevention of micro- and macroangiopathy. The majority of patients are multimorbid and obese, with critical comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Recently published guidelines therefore recommend patient-centred risk/benefit-balanced use of oral glucose-lowering drugs or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, or switching to insulin with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) out of target. This article covers the indications of early insulin treatment to prevent diabetes-related complications, particularly in subgroups with severe insulin deficit, and to achieve recovery of residual β-cell function. Furthermore, the individualised, risk/benefit-balanced, timely initiation of insulin as second and third option is analysed. Timely insulin initiation may prevent diabetes progression, reduce diabetes-related complications and has less serious adverse effects. Basal insulin is the preferred option in most clinical situations with consequences of undertreatment of chronic hyperglycaemia.

Importance of fasting blood glucose goals in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review of the literature and a critical appraisal

Prandial insulin has been essential for the improved management of the type 1 diabetic patient. Interestingly, many studies have evaluated the addition of prandial insulin to the type 2 diabetic patients with improved control. The greatest drop in A1c with the use of various type of prandial insulins have resulted in the decrease of 1.3% in the A1c measurement. Interestingly, none of the published trials with goal of fasting blood glucose (FBG) have ever obtained the goal A1c. Since a drop in FBG of 28.7mg/dl is equal to a 1% drop in A1c, a simple approach to obtain a target A1c would be to focus on the FBG (per ADA: Average Blood Glucose = A1c (%) x 28.7 - 46.7mg/d). However, average blood glucose requires multiple measurements and may be less accurate then using just a FBG. Since prandial insulin clinical trials have only demonstrated a drop in A1c by 0.3-1.3% the use of only a FBG to help patients get to goal may be easier to teach and to obtain. It might save time and money. Our hypothesis is that if patient obtain a FBG <100 mg/dl for 2-3 months then 70% will be at an A1c goal <7.0%. After a few months of good fasting glucose control the provider can use this equation (FBG+80)/30 to estimate A1c. For example, a FBG of 130mg/dl would be (130 + 80)/30 = 7.0%; or a FBG of 190 would be (190+80)/30 =eA1c 9% (estimate of A1c). While type 1 diabetes has a very complex daily glucose pattern, the approach to type 2 diabetics on insulin could become simplified.

Weight Management in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: a Multidisciplinary Real-world Approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) are closely linked metabolic diseases. Most individuals with T2D are overweight or obese, which raises their cardiovascular risk. The etiology of both diseases is multifaceted, thus requiring a multidisciplinary approach to control them. This review describes the most effective multidisciplinary approach to weight management in patients with T2D in real-world clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Weight management programs in real-world clinical settings lead to long-term weight loss for up to 5 years. Multidisciplinary approach to manage obesity and T2D through weight reduction is feasible in real-world clinical practice and is recommended as part of the treatment plan for patients with T2D who are overweight or obese. Recent data demonstrates that multidisciplinary approach to weight management in patients with T2D results in long-term weight loss and is associated with improved cardiovascular risk factors.

Work-loss years among people diagnosed with diabetes: a reappraisal from a life course perspective

AIMS

Early exit from the workforce has been proposed to be one of the unfavorable consequences of diabetes. We examined whether early exit from the workforce differed between persons who were and were not diagnosed with diabetes during their work career.

METHODS

The cohort included 12,726 individuals of the Helsinki Birth Cohort Study, born between 1934 and 1944. Using data from nationwide registers, the cohort was followed up from early adulthood until they transitioned into retirement or died. Work-loss years were estimated using the restricted mean work years method.

RESULTS

During a follow-up of 382,328 person-years for men and 349 894 for women, 36.8% transitioned into old age pension and 63.2% exited workforce early. Among men, 40.5% of those with and 32.8% of those without diabetes transitioned into old age pension (p=0.003). The corresponding numbers for women were 48.6% and 40.4% (p = 0.013), respectively. Mean age at exit from the workforce was 60.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 59.6 to 60.7) years among men with diabetes and 57.6 (95% CI, 57.2 to 58.0) years among men without diabetes (p = 0.016). Among women, corresponding ages were 61.4 (95% CI, 60.8 to 61.9) years for those with diabetes and 59.5 (95% CI, 59.3 to 59.7) years for those without diabetes (p < 0.001). The difference in mean restricted work-loss years according to diabetes was 2.5 (95% CI 0.5 to 4.6) for men and 1.9 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.8) for women.

CONCLUSION

Among individuals followed up throughout their work career, those with a diabetes diagnosis exited the workforce approximately two years later compared to those without diabetes.

Insulin Monotherapy Versus Insulin Combined with Other Glucose-Lowering Agents in Type 2 Diabetes: A Narrative Review

CONTEXT

Insulin can be prescribed as a monotherapy or a combined therapy with other anti-diabetic medications. In this narrative review, the authors aimed to gather data related to comparison of insulin monotherapy versus combination of insulin and other anti-diabetic treatments with regards to different outcome measures in type 2 diabetes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This study searched and focused on the most recently published systematic reviews and their references investigating issues related to the primary aim.

RESULTS

The current data available on this topic is heterogeneous and suffers from low quality with respect to most combination treatments. Considering the efficacy and safety of combination therapy of insulin with older hypoglycemic agents, in general metformin and pioglitazone have the best and worst profiles, respectively. Compared to insulin monotherapy, combination of insulin and metformin is associated with better glycemic control, reduced daily insulin dose, less hypoglycemia, and weight gain; combination of insulin and pioglitazone results in greater hypoglycemia and weight gain and is associated with increased risk of edema and heart failure. Regarding sulphonylurea, there is some concern regarding hypoglycemia and weight gain. Addition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors to insulin seems to be beneficial with respect to glycemic control without any significant adverse effects. New drugs, including glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, have acceptable profiles with significant benefits regarding weight reduction when added on insulin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the quality and longevity of evidence, compared to insulin monotherapy, insulin combined with metformin and pioglitazone has the best and worst profiles, respectively. New anti-diabetic medications have acceptable profiles yet are expensive. It is important for clinicians to meticulously weigh the advantages of combination therapy against the possible adverse effects with each drug class in every patient, individually.

Complex Assessment of Metabolic Effectiveness of Insulin Pump Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Beyond HbA1c Reduction

BACKGROUND

This prospective single-center study recruited insulin-resistant continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using insulin analog-based multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy and metformin.

METHODS

A total of 23 individuals with T2D (70% male), aged a mean ± standard deviation 57.2 ± 8.03 years, with body mass index of 36.2 ± 7.02 kg/m², diabetes duration of 13.3 ± 4.64 years, and HbA1c of 10.0% ± 1.05% were randomly assigned to a CSII arm or an MDI continuation arm to explore glucose control, weight loss, total daily insulin dose (TDD), and insulin resistance. Insulin dosing was optimized over a 2-month run-in period.

RESULTS

At 6 months, patients assigned to the CSII arm achieved a significant mean HbA1c reduction of -0.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.6, -0.1), while reducing their TDD by -29.8 ± 28.41 U/day (33% of baseline [92.1 ± 20.35 U/day]) and achieving body mass (BM) reduction of -0.8 ± 5.61 kg (0.98% of baseline [104.8 ± 16.15 kg]). MDI patients demonstrated a nonsignificant HbA1c reduction of -0.3% (95% CI = -0.8, 0.1) with a TDD reduction of 5% from baseline (99.0 ± 25.25 U/day to 94.3 ± 21.25 U/day), and a BM reduction of -1.0 ± 2.03 kg (0.99% of baseline [108.9 ± 20.55 kg]). After 6 months, the MDI arm crossed over to CSII therapy. At 12 months, patients continuing CSII demonstrated an additional mean 0.7% HbA1c reduction with 54.6% achieving HbA1c<8%. The final TDD reduction was -9.7 U/day in comparison to baseline; BM increased by 1.1 ± 6.5 kg from baseline. The MDI patients that crossed to CSII showed an HbA1c reduction of -0.5% ± 1.04%, HbA1c response rate of 27.3%, a TDD reduction of -17.4 ± 21.06 U/day, and a BM reduction of -0.3 ± 3.39 kg. Diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia did not occur in either arm.

CONCLUSION

CSII therapy safely and significantly improved metabolic control with less insulin usage, with no sustainable reduction of BM, blood pressure, and lipid profile, in insulin-resistant T2D patients. Treatment adherence and satisfaction in these patients were excellent.

Weight Management in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes and Obesity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) are typically viewed as lean individuals. However, recent reports showed that their obesity rate surpassed that of the general population. Patients with T1D who show clinical signs of type 2 diabetes such as obesity and insulin resistance are considered to have "double diabetes." This review explains the mechanisms of weight gain in patients with T1D and how to manage it.

RECENT FINDINGS

Weight management in T1D can be successfully achieved in real-world clinical practice. Nutrition therapy includes reducing energy intake and providing a structured nutrition plan that is lower in carbohydrates and glycemic index and higher in fiber and lean protein. The exercise plan should include combination stretching as well as aerobic and resistance exercises to maintain muscle mass. Dynamic adjustment of insulin doses is necessary during weight management. Addition of anti-obesity medications may be considered. If medical weight reduction is not achieved, bariatric surgery may also be considered.

Insulin Detemir in Combination with Oral Antidiabetic Drugs Improves Glycemic Control in Persons with Type 2 Diabetes in Near East Countries: Results from the Lebanese Subgroup

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of insulin detemir treatment as add-on therapy in a real-world setting of Lebanese insulin naïve persons, with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).

METHODS

Our study was a prospective, observational study representing the Lebanese arm of the multinational prospective and observational study involving 2,155 persons across Near East countries, Lebanon, Pakistan, Israel and Jordan. Effectiveness endpoints were changes in HbA1c, fasting and post-prandial glucose (FPG, PPG) after 24 weeks of treatment with insulin detemir in eligible persons. Safety endpoints were number of hypoglycemic events, incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), serious ADRs, adverse events, and body weight change between baseline and end of treatment.

RESULTS

868 persons were included (mean age: 59.5 ± 10.4 years, men: 55.3%). Glycemic control improved with significant reduction in mean HbA1c from 9.7 ± 1.6% to 7.2 ± 1% (P<.0001). The percentage of persons who achieved the target of HbA1c<7% increased from .7% at baseline to 39% at week 24. Mean FPG decreased significantly from 213.7 ± 60.1 mg/dL to 120.3 ± 25.7 mg/dL (P<.001), and mean PPG from 271 ± 65.3 mg/dL to 158.1 ± 36.4 mg/dL (P<.0001). The rate of major hypoglycemic episodes decreased from .1498 at baseline to .0448 at week 24. Three adverse events but no ADR or serious ADR were reported. Body weight decreased from 80.4±13.2 Kg to 79.9±12.5 Kg (P<.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating insulin detemir in a clinical health care setting among Lebanese with type 2 diabetes mellitus on OADs improves glycemic control with no increase in hypoglycemia, adverse events or weight compared with baseline.

Insulin monotherapy compared with the addition of oral glucose-lowering agents to insulin for people with type 2 diabetes already on insulin therapy and inadequate glycaemic control

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on insulin monotherapy who do not achieve adequate glycaemic control should continue insulin as monotherapy or can benefit from adding oral glucose-lowering agents to the insulin therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of insulin monotherapy compared with the addition of oral glucose-lowering agents to insulin monotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes already on insulin therapy and inadequate glycaemic control.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and reference lists of articles. The date of the last search was November 2015 for all databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials of at least two months' duration comparing insulin monotherapy with combinations of insulin with one or more oral glucose-lowering agent in people with type 2 diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated overall quality of the evidence using GRADE. We summarised data statistically if they were available, sufficiently similar and of sufficient quality. We performed statistical analyses according to the statistical guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 trials with 40 treatment comparisons involving 3227 participants. The duration of the interventions ranged from 2 to 12 months for parallel trials and two to four months for cross-over trials.The majority of trials had an unclear risk of bias in several risk of bias domains. Fourteen trials showed a high risk of bias, mainly for performance and detection bias. Insulin monotherapy, including once-daily long-acting, once-daily intermediate-acting, twice-daily premixed insulin, and basal-bolus regimens (multiple injections), was compared to insulin in combination with sulphonylureas (17 comparisons: glibenclamide = 11, glipizide = 2, tolazamide = 2, gliclazide = 1, glimepiride = 1), metformin (11 comparisons), pioglitazone (four comparisons), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (four comparisons: acarbose = 3, miglitol = 1), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) (three comparisons: vildagliptin = 1, sitagliptin = 1, saxagliptin = 1) and the combination of metformin and glimepiride (one comparison). No trials assessed all-cause mortality, diabetes-related morbidity or health-related quality of life. Only one trial assessed patients' treatment satisfaction and showed no substantial differences between the addition of either glimepiride or metformin and glimepiride to insulin compared with insulin monotherapy.Insulin-sulphonylurea combination therapy (CT) compared with insulin monotherapy (IM) showed a MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of -1% (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 316 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. Insulin-metformin CT compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.9% (95% CI -1.2 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 698 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. We could not pool the results of adding pioglitazone to insulin. Insulin combined with alpha-glucosidase inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.2); P < 0.01; 448 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). Insulin combined with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.4); P < 0.01; 265 participants; 2 trials; low quality evidence. In most trials the participants with CT needed less insulin, whereas insulin requirements increased or remained stable in participants with IM.We did not perform a meta-analysis for hypoglycaemic events because the included studies used different definitions.. In most trials the insulin-sulphonylurea combination resulted in a higher number of mild episodes of hypoglycaemia, compared to the IM group (range: 2.2 to 6.1 episodes per participant in CT versus 2.0 to 2.6 episodes per participant in IM; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT also resulted in more mild to moderate hypoglycaemic episodes compared with IM (range 15 to 90 episodes versus 9 to 75 episodes, respectively; low-quality evidence. The trials that reported hypoglycaemic episodes in the other combinations found comparable numbers of mild to moderate hypoglycaemic events (low-quality evidence).The addition of sulphonylureas resulted in an additional weight gain of 0.4 kg to 1.9 kg versus -0.8 kg to 2.1 kg in the IM group (220 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT caused more weight gain compared to IM: MD 3.8 kg (95% CI 3.0 to 4.6); P < 0.01; 288 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence. Metformin CT was associated with weight loss: MD -2.1 kg (95% CI -3.2 to -1.1), P < 0.01; 615 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). DPP-4 inhibitors CT showed weight gain of -0.7 to 1.3 kg versus 0.6 to 1.1 kg in the IM group (362 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence). Alpha-glucosidase CT compared to IM showed a MD of -0.5 kg (95% CI -1.2 to 0.3); P = 0.26; 241 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence.Users of metformin CT (range 7% to 67% versus 5% to 16%), and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors CT (14% to 75% versus 4% to 35%) experienced more gastro-intestinal adverse effects compared to participants on IM. Two trials reported a higher frequency of oedema with the use of pioglitazone CT (range: 16% to 18% versus 4% to 7% IM).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of all oral glucose-lowering agents in people with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control who are on insulin therapy has positive effects on glycaemic control and insulin requirements. The addition of sulphonylureas results in more hypoglycaemic events. Additional weight gain can only be avoided by adding metformin to insulin. Other well-known adverse effects of oral glucose-lowering agents have to be taken into account when prescribing oral glucose-lowering agents in addition to insulin therapy.

Review: Combination treatment with insulin and oral agents in type 2 diabetes mellitus

The need to improve glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes has been reinforced by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS). Due to progressive deterioration of beta-cell function after diagnosis, oral hypoglycaemic agents often fail to maintain adequate glycaemic control after only a few years of treatment. This paper considers the treatment options available at this stage and reassures diabetologists that the combined use of insulin plus metformin with or without an added sulphonylurea is logical, is as effective as insulin alone, and provides superior weight regulation in many patients. A. combination of metformin with glargine insulin seems particularly effective and well tolerated. The long-term advantages of such treatments in terms of clinical outcomes have yet to be demonstrated in clinical trials.

CONSENSUS STATEMENT BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE TYPE 2 DIABETES MANAGEMENT ALGORITHM--2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document represents the official position of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology. Where there were no randomized controlled trials or specific U.S. FDA labeling for issues in clinical practice, the participating clinical experts utilized their judgment and experience. Every effort was made to achieve consensus among the committee members. Position statements are meant to provide guidance, but they are not to be considered prescriptive for any individual patient and cannot replace the judgment of a clinician.

Review of Insulin Therapy

The objective of this article is to review the different types of insulin and to explain some of the different dosing regimens that are used. Articles were obtained via a MEDLINE search and product package inserts. There is no one insulin therapy that is best for all patients. Type 1 diabetes patients require insulin therapy tomaintain life. Studies support intensive insulin dosing in these patients to obtain an A1C of less than 7.0%. Insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes patients may be a little less clear. Long-acting insulin in combination with an oral agentmay be just as effective as insulin alone, and in patients who fail oral therapy, a simple insulin regimen is preferred over a complex one.

Efficacy of Sulfonylureas with Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND:

In subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus, glycemic control deteroriates while patients use sulfonylurea drugs during the course of the disease. Adjunctive therapy with insulin at this stage requires a lesser daily insulin dose in comparison with insulin monotherapy while restoring desirable glycemic control. However, data regarding direct comparison between various sulfonylureas in this regard are lacking.

OBJECTIVE:

To examine comparative efficacies of adjunctive therapy with insulin in subjects with type 2 diabetes manifesting lapse of glycemic control while receiving various individual sulfonylurea drugs.

METHODS:

Four groups of 10 subjects, each presenting with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C) >8.0% while using either tolazamide, glyburide, glipizide Gastrointestinal Therapeutic System (GITS), or glimepiride, were recruited. Two from each group were randomized to receive placebo; the others continued the same drug. Pre-supper subcutaneous 70 NPH/30 regular insulin was initiated at 10 units and gradually increased and adjusted as necessary to attain fasting blood glucose levels between 80 and 120 mg/dL and maintain the same range for 6 months. Fasting plasma glucose, plasma C-peptide, and HbA1C concentrations were determined prior to the addition of insulin and at the end of the study. Daily insulin dose and changes in body weight (BW) were noted at the end of the study, and the number of hypoglycemic events during the last 4 weeks of the study was determined.

RESULTS:

Daily insulin dose (units/kg BW), weight gain, and number of hypoglycemic events were significantly lower (p < 0.01) in subjects receiving sulfonylureas in comparison with placebo. However, the daily insulin dose alone was significantly lower (p < 0.05) with glimepiride (0.49 ± 0.10; mean ± SE) than with other sulfonylureas (tolazamide 0.58 ± 0.12, glyburide 0.59 ± 0.12, glipizide GITS 0.59 ± 0.14). Finally, a significant correlation (r = 0.68; p < 0.001) was noted between suppression of plasma C-peptide level and the daily insulin dose among all participants.

CONCLUSIONS:

By lowering the daily insulin dose, sulfonylurea drugs appear to improve the sensitivity of exogenous insulin in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus manifesting lapse of glycemic control. Moreover, glimepiride appears to possess a greater insulin-sparing property than other sulfonylureas.

Effects of biphasic, basal-bolus or basal insulin analogue treatments on carotid intima-media thickness in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the randomised Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy (CIMT) trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of 3 insulin analogue regimens on change in carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Investigator-initiated, randomised, placebo-controlled trial with a 2 × 3 factorial design, conducted at 8 hospitals in Denmark.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Participants with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 7.5% (≥ 58 mmol/mol), body mass index >25 kg/m(2)) were, in addition to metformin versus placebo, randomised to 18 months open-label biphasic insulin aspart 1-3 times daily (n=137) versus insulin aspart 3 times daily in combination with insulin detemir once daily (n=138) versus insulin detemir alone once daily (n=137), aiming at HbA1c ≤ 7.0% (≤ 53 mmol/mol).

OUTCOMES

Primary outcome was change in mean carotid IMT (a marker of subclinical cardiovascular disease). HbA1c, insulin dose, weight, and hypoglycaemic and serious adverse events were other prespecified outcomes.

RESULTS

Carotid IMT change did not differ between groups (biphasic -0.009 mm (95% CI -0.022 to 0.004), aspart+detemir 0.000 mm (95% CI -0.013 to 0.013), detemir -0.012 mm (95% CI -0.025 to 0.000)). HbA1c was more reduced with biphasic (-1.0% (95% CI -1.2 to -0.8)) compared with the aspart+detemir (-0.4% (95% CI -0.6 to -0.3)) and detemir (-0.3% (95% CI -0.4 to -0.1)) groups (p<0.001). Weight gain was higher in the biphasic (3.3 kg (95% CI 2.7 to 4.0) and aspart+detemir (3.2 kg (95% CI 2.6 to 3.9)) compared with the detemir group (1.9 kg (95% CI 1.3 to 2.6)). Insulin dose was higher with detemir (1.6 IU/kg/day (95% CI 1.4 to 1.8)) compared with biphasic (1.0 IU/kg/day (95% CI 0.9 to 1.1)) and aspart+detemir (1.1 IU/kg/day (95% CI 1.0 to 1.3)) (p<0.001). Number of participants with severe hypoglycaemia and serious adverse events did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid IMT change did not differ between 3 insulin regimens despite differences in HbA1c, weight gain and insulin doses. The trial only reached 46% of planned sample size and lack of power may therefore have affected our results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00657943.

Continuation or discontinuation of pioglitazone when starting bedtime insulin in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes in an inner-city population

OBJECTIVE

We studied the impact of continuing versus discontinuing pioglitazone on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and weight when starting bedtime insulin in patients with poor glycemic control.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from a 13-month randomized control trial on 77 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), who despite maximum doses of three oral diabetes medications (metformin, sulfonylurea and pioglitazone) had HbA1C levels above 7.5%. Patients were randomized to either continuing or discontinuing pioglitazone in addition to starting and up-titrating bedtime insulin. HbA1C, FPG, and weight were assessed at baseline, 3months, 7months and 13months with the differences from baseline for the two groups compared at each of the three time points using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

RESULTS

We found that HbA1c was significantly lower at the 7-month (p=0.01) and 13-month time points (p=0.036), and FPG was significantly lower at all three time points in the group continuing pioglitazone compared with those discontinuing pioglitazone. Continuing pioglitazone resulted in a greater increase in weight at the 3-month (p=0.002), 7-month (p=0.0001) and 13-month (p=0.00003) time points. Patients with the lowest HbA1c (<8.2%) at baseline were more likely to benefit from continuing pioglitazone than those with higher baseline HbA1c. Patients who started insulin and discontinued pioglitazone had similar HbA1c, FPG and weight at the three time points as at baseline, suggesting that pioglitazone and bedtime insulin has similar glycemic effect in this population.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that in patients with uncontrolled type 2 DM, continuing pioglitazone while concurrently starting bedtime insulin within a 13-month period led to a significant decrease in both HbA1c and FPG levels compared with those who did not receive pioglitazone; however weight increased during this period.

Insulin Therapy: A Personal Approach

IN BRIEF Insulin therapy is challenging for providers as well as for patients. This article describes a set of principles underlying appropriate insulin treatment and a detailed discussion of how to use them.

Are you ready for more insulin concentrations?

Practitioners need to prepare for a rapid expansion of new concentrated insulins. For many years, the treatment regimens for patients have been limited to 2 concentrations (100 units/mL and 500 units/mL), which pose challenges to both patients and providers. As the new concentrated insulins are at various stages of development, this manuscript reviews the available information on the new concentrated products. This information was obtained from publications, poster presentations, abstracts, and the manufacturers for the products in earlier stages of development. To have a basis for comparison, it is important to understand the activity profile and the challenges with use of the currently available concentrated insulin, regular insulin 500 units/mL (U500R). We also examine how the newer products may assist clinicians and patients with the difficulties faced with the use of U500R.

Analysis of factors influencing postprandial C-peptide levels in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: Comparison with C-peptide levels after glucagon load

Aims/Introduction:  Postprandial serum C‐peptide levels are readily determined in clinical practice and have a good correlation with serum C‐peptide levels after glucagon load; the measurement is often used as an index of endogenous insulin secretion. However, the factors affecting postprandial serum C‐peptide levels remain to be evaluated.

Materials and Methods:  To investigate the clinical factors affecting postprandial serum C‐peptide, 2‐h postprandial C‐peptide levels after breakfast (PPCPR) were analyzed retrospectively for comparison with glucagon‐stimulated C‐peptide (CPR‐6min) levels measured during hospital admission in 273 Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Results:  Multiple regression analysis showed that years from diagnosis, body mass index (BMI) and HbA_1c were the major independent variables predicting PPCPR (R² = 0.315). HbA_1c was a major factor predicting PPCPR, but did not predict CPR‐6min. In addition, HbA_1c was negatively correlated with PPCPR (r = −0.410, P < 0.0001) and PPCPR/CPR‐6min (r = −0.313, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions:  PPCPR was correlated with common factors predicting CPR, including years from diagnosis and BMI, but also was negatively correlated with HbA_1c, a unique factor. These results show that chronic elevation of the glucose level might impair endogenous insulin secretion after meal load, but might have little effect on endogenous insulin secretion after glucagon load. (J Diabetes Invest, doi: 10.1111/j.2040‐1124.2011.00126.x, 2011)

Utility of indices using C-peptide levels for indication of insulin therapy to achieve good glycemic control in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes

Aims/Introduction:  Type 2 diabetes is progressive in that therapy must be altered over time, which is partly as a result of the progressive loss of pancreatic β‐cell function. To elucidate the relationship between residual endogenous insulin secretion and the necessity of insulin therapy to achieve good glycemic control, indices using serum C‐peptide immunoreactivity (CPR) were analyzed in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Materials and Methods:  The data of 201 Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes who achieved the target of glycemic control during admission were analyzed retrospectively. Indices using CPR including fasting CPR (FCPR), CPR 6 min after intravenous injection of glucagon (CPR‐6 min), increment of CPR (ΔCPR), secretory unit of islet in transplantation index (SUIT) and C‐peptide index (CPI) were compared between the group requiring insulin (insulin group) and the group not requiring insulin (non‐insulin group). A receiver–operator characteristic (ROC) curve was made, and optimal cut‐off point and likelihood ratio were determined for each index.

Results:  All indices of CPR were lower in the insulin group compared with those in the non‐insulin group. Likelihood ratios at the optimal point of FCPR, CPR‐6 min, ΔCPR, SUIT, and CPI were 2.0, 2.1, 1.6, 2.3 and 2.8, respectively. Optimal cut‐off point of CPI was 1.1 ng/mg. Sensitivity and specificity at optimal point of CPI were 61 and 78%, respectively.

Conclusions:  The advantage of CPI of the indices of CPR to select insulin therapy to achieve good glycemic control was shown, but limitations of the predictive abilities of the indices using CPR should be taken into account. (J Diabetes Invest, doi: 10.1111/j.2040‐1124.2010.00096.x, 2011)

Comparison between the therapeutic effect of metformin, glimepiride and their combination as an add-on treatment to insulin glargine in uncontrolled patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To compare the commonly prescribed oral anti-diabetic drug (OAD) combinations to use as an add-on therapy with insulin glargine in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes despite submaximal doses of OADs.

METHODS

People with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (n = 99) were randomly assigned on a 1∶1∶1 basis to receive insulin glargin, with fixed doses of glimepiride, metformin, and glimepiride plus metformin. Outcomes assessed included HbA1c, the changes in fasting glucose levels, body weight, serum lipids values, insulin dose and symptomatic hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

After 24 weeks, HbA1C levels improved from (mean ± SD) 8.5±0.9% to 7.7±0.8% (69.0±10.0 mmol/mol to 60.8±8.6 mmol/mol) with insulin glargine plus metformin, from 8.4±1.0% to 7.7±1.3% (68.8±10.6 mmol/mol to 61.1±14.4 mmol/mol) with insulin glargine plus glimepiride and from 8.7±0.9% to 7.3±0.6% (71.7±9.8 mmol/mol to 56.2±6.7 mmol/mol) with insulin glargine plus glimepirde plus metformin. The decrease in HbA1c was more pronounced with insulin glargine plus glimepiride plus metformin than with insulin glargine plus metformin (0.49% [CI, 0.16% to 0.82%]; P = 0.005) (5.10 mmol/mol [CI, 1.64 to 8.61]; P = 0.005) and insulin glargine plus glimepiride (0.59% [CI, 0.13% to 1.05%]; P = 0.012) (5.87 mmol/mol [CI, 1.10 to 10.64]; P = 0.012) (overall P = 0.02). Weight gain and the risk of hypoglycemia of any type did not significantly differ among the treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

The combination therapy of metformin and glimepiride plus glargine insulin resulted in a significant improvement in overall glycemic control as compared with the other combinations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00708578. The approval number of Kangbuk Samsung hospital's institutional review board (IRB): C0825.

Improvement of glycemic control by re-education in insulin injection technique in patients with diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of re-education in the insulin injection technique for glycemic control.

METHODS

A preliminary experimental study was performed with 87 insulin-treated diabetic outpatients (11 with type 1 diabetes, 76 with type 2 diabetes; 43 men, 44 women). All patients had been treated with insulin for more than 3 years. After answering questions about the insulin injection technique, the patients' knowledge levels were scored. Correct answers and explanation sheets were subsequently given to all patients. The physicians in charge gave a short lecture and provided 10 min of individual advice. Two, three, and four months after re-education the HbA1c and glycoalbumin levels were measured.

RESULTS

The mean HbA1c levels of almost all patients significantly improved from 7.46 ± 0.09% to 6.73 ± 0.10% (P < 0.01), and the mean glycoalbumin levels significantly improved from 22.76 ± 0.50% to 20.26 ± 0.68% (P < 0.01). Twenty-five patients demonstrated a poor understanding (score of ≤6 points) and showed a significant decrease in the HbA1c level from 7.62 ± 0.20% to 6.71 ± 0.21% (P = 0.02). Forty-three patients demonstrated a moderate understanding (score of 7 or 8 points) and showed a decrease in the HbA1c level from 7.40 ± 0.13% to 6.68 ± 0.07% (P = 0.07). Finally, 19 patients demonstrated a good understanding (score of ≥9 points) and showed a slight decrease in the HbA1c level from 7.38 ± 0.15% to 6.93 ± 0.12% (P = 0.09). Patients with a poor understanding showed the largest decrease in the mean level of HbA1c.

CONCLUSION

Re-education in the insulin injection technique led to an improvement in glycemic control in insulin-treated diabetic patients, especially in those with a poor understanding of the insulin injection technique. More attention should be paid to these strategies for outpatients.

The associations of body mass index with physical and mental aspects of health-related quality of life in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: results from a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine the associations of various clinical factors with generic health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores among Hong Kong Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the outpatient primary care setting using the short-form 12 (SF-12).

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of 488 Chinese adults with T2DM recruited from a primary care outpatient clinic was conducted from May to August 2008. Data on the standard Chinese (HK) SF-12 Health Survey and patients' socio-demographics were collected from face-to-face interviews. Glycaemic control, body mass index (BMI), chronic co-morbidities, diabetic complications and treatment modalities were determined for each patient through medical records. Associations of socio-demographic and clinical factors with physical component summary (PCS-12) and mental component summary scores (MCS-12) were evaluated using multiple linear regression.

RESULTS

The socio-demographic correlates of PCS-12 and MCS-12 were age, gender and BMI. After adjustment for socio-demographic variables, the BMI was negatively associated with PCS-12 but positively associated with MCS-12. The presence of diabetic complications was associated with lower PCS-12 (regression coefficient:-3.0 points, p < 0.05) while being on insulin treatment was associated with lower MCS-12 (regression coefficient:-5.8 points, p < 0.05). In contrast, glycaemic control, duration of T2DM and treatment with oral hypoglycaemic drugs were not significantly associated with PCS-12 or MCS-12.

CONCLUSIONS

Among T2DM subjects in the primary care setting, impairments in the physical aspect of HRQOL were evident in subjects who were obese or had diabetic complications whereas defects in the mental aspect of HRQOL were observed in patients with lower BMI or receiving insulin injections.

Complementing insulin therapy to achieve glycemic control

INTRODUCTION

Most patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) will need incrementally more complex therapeutic regimens to control hyperglycemia as the disease progresses. Insulin is very effective in reducing hyperglycemia and may improve β-cell function in patients with T2DM. However, insulin therapy is associated with weight gain and increased risk of hypoglycemia. Adding other antidiabetes medications to insulin can improve glycemic control and potentially lower the required insulin dose, resulting in less weight gain and lower risk for hypoglycemia. This article summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of different classes of commonly used antidiabetes agents, with emphasis on newer classes, for use as add-on therapy to insulin in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on insulin therapy.

METHODS

A PubMed search from July 1, 2003 to April 15, 2013 for peer-reviewed clinical and review articles relevant to insulin combination or add-on therapy in T2DM was conducted. Search terms included "insulin combination therapy," "add-on therapy diabetes," "dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors," "glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist," "sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors", "insulin metformin," "insulin sulfonylurea," and "insulin thiazolidinedione." Bibliographies from retrieved articles were also searched for relevant articles. Study design, clinical relevance, and effect on insulin combination therapy were analyzed.

RESULTS

Therapies used as add-on to insulin include agents associated with weight gain (thiazolidinediones and sulfonylureas) and/or hypoglycemia (sulfonylureas), which, therefore, may exacerbate risks already present with insulin. GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors, and SGLT2 inhibitors improve glycemic control when added to insulin and have a low propensity for hypoglycemia and cause no change (DPP-4 inhibitors) or a reduction (GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors) in body weight.

CONCLUSION

GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors, and SGLT2 inhibitors improve glycemic control when combined with insulin. They also have low propensity for weight gain and hypoglycemia and so may be preferred treatment options for insulin combination when compared with traditional therapies.

Postprandial serum C-peptide value is the optimal index to identify patients with non-obese type 2 diabetes who require multiple daily insulin injection: Analysis of C-peptide values before and after short-term intensive insulin therapy

Aims/Introduction

Type 2 diabetes is a progressive disease characterized by a yearly decline in insulin secretion; however, no definitive evidence exists showing the relationship between decreased insulin secretion and the need for insulin treatment. To determine the optimal insulin secretory index for identifying patients with non‐obese type 2 diabetes who require multiple daily insulin injection (MDI), we evaluated various serum C‐peptide immunoreactivity (CPR) values.

Materials and Methods

We near‐normalized blood glucose with intensive insulin therapy (IIT) over a 2‐week period in 291 patients with non‐obese type 2 diabetes, based on our treatment protocol. After improving hyperglycemia, we challenged with oral hypoglycemic agent (OHA), and according to the responsiveness to OHA, patients were classified into three therapy groups: OHA alone (n = 103), basal insulin plus OHA (basal insulin‐supported oral therapy [BOT]; n = 56) and MDI (n = 132). Glucagon‐loading CPR increment (ΔCPR), fasting CPR (FCPR), CPR 2 h after breakfast (CPR2h), the ratio of FCPR to FPG (CPI), CPI 2 h after breakfast (CPI2h) and secretory unit of islets in transplantation (SUIT) were submitted for the analyses. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and multiple logistic analyses for these CPR indices were carried out.

Results

Many CPR values were significantly lower in the MDI group compared with the OHA alone or BOT groups. ROC and multiple logistic analyses disclosed that post‐prandial CPR indices (CPR2h and CPI2h) were the most reliable CPR markers to identify patients requiring MDI.

Conclusions

Postprandial CPR level after breakfast is the most useful index for identifying patients with non‐obese type 2 diabetes who require MDI therapy.

Factors that influence basal insulin requirement in type 2 diabetes

In clinical practice, basal insulin dosage (BID) for the treatment for type 2 diabetes given as slow-acting analogues or NPH insulin varies widely when adjusted for body weight (UI/kg). In this study, we investigated the interrelationship between BID and anthropometric, laboratory and clinical parameters. A total of 681 type 2 diabetic patients, treated with bedtime insulin in association with other antidiabetic drugs (preprandial insulin and/or oral agents), were studied. Anthropometric, clinical and biochemical parameters, as well as micro- and macrovascular complications, were evaluated. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was assessed by liver ultrasound. BID was titrated to achieve a fasting blood glucose target of ≤6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL). In the multivariate analysis, BID was significantly associated with waist circumference (p = 0.04) and the insulin treatment duration (p = 0.004) as the type of insulin treatment ("basal-bolus" regimen vs. basal insulin only, p < 0.0001), the use of lipid-lowering drugs (p = 0.0003) and insulin sensitizers (p = 0.005). Several glycometabolic parameters were strongly associated with BID (HbA1c p = 0.01, FPG p < 0.0001, HDL p = 0.02, triglycerides p = 0.03). Moreover, the presence of severe NAFLD resulted in a higher BID (p = 0.03). We concluded that when starting and titrating the basal insulin in type 2 diabetes, certain anthropometric, laboratory and clinical factors can be useful to find optimal BID more quickly and appropriately.

Obesity and low target attainment rates in Chinese with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Although it is known that the prevalence of type 2 diabetes and obesity is increasing in China, there is little research into how obese or non-obese patients may differ in their attainment of treatment goals for type 2 diabetes. To do this, we assessed the attainment of American Diabetes Association (ADA)-recommended goals in Chinese with type 2 diabetes stratified by body mass index (BMI).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study enrolled 520 Chinese with type 2 diabetes to find out if they had attained the following ADA-recommended goals: HbA1c<7%, SBP<130 mm Hg, DBP<80 mm Hg, LDL-C<100mg/dl, TG<150 mg/dl, HDL-C>40 mg/dl for men and >50mg/dl for women.

RESULTS

Only 44.4% of all participants achieved the blood pressure goal, 20.8% the HbA1c goal, 44.8% the LDL-C goal, 43.3% the HDL-C goal, and 66.8% the triglyceride goal. Obese patients were less likely than normal weight patients to achieve the blood pressure goal (OR, 0.474; 95% CI, 0.231-0.973; p = 0.01), the HDL goal (OR, 0.365; 95% CI, 0.163-0.817; p = 0.01), or the triglyceride goal (OR, 0.416; 95% CI, 0.212-0.817; p = 0.01), after adjusting for confounders. Compared to normal weight participants, the obese patients had a significantly higher prescription rates for statin, metformin and anti-hypertensive drugs.

CONCLUSION

Obese diabetic patients were less likely to achieve the blood pressure, LDL-C, HDL-C and triglyceride targets even when they were receiving several drugs to help them meet their target treatment goals. More strategies are needed to improve the treatment of Chinese with type 2 diabetes, particularly those who are obese.

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Health care providers and patients have lots of choice to treat type 2 diabetes, but the blood glucose improvement is limited. The one therapy with unlimited potential (at least theoretically) is insulin. Many studies show that glucose control is achievable with insulin safely in most patients with type 2 diabetes. Effective diabetes management at the primary care or specialty level requires a belief in the importance of insulin therapy in uncontrolled patients with type 2 diabetes. This review details the theories, observed outcomes, and how-tos regarding insulin use in type 2 diabetes.

A prospective trial of U500 insulin delivered by Omnipod in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and severe insulin resistance

OBJECTIVE

To test the effectiveness and safety of U500 regular insulin delivered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) via the Omnipod insulin delivery system in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus and severe insulin resistance.

METHODS

In this prospective, 1-year, proof-of-concept trial, patients with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes who had a hemoglobin A1c level of 7.0% or higher and severe insulin resistance (average insulin requirement, 1.74 units of insulin per kilogram each day; range, 1.4 to 2.64 units of insulin per kilogram [average insulin dose, 196.4 units daily]) were identified at routine office visits at Mountain Diabetes and Endocrine Center in Asheville, North Carolina, between December 2007 and August 2008. All patients had been on intensive insulin therapy with or without oral agents for more than 3 months. All patients were switched from baseline failed therapy to U500 regular insulin by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion via Omnipod. Effectiveness was assessed by hemoglobin A1c measurement and 72-hour continuous glucose monitoring at baseline and at weeks 13, 26, and, 52 and by treatment satisfaction assessed by the Insulin Delivery Rating System Questionnaire at baseline and at week 52 while on U500 via Omnipod.

RESULTS

Twenty-one adults were enrolled (mean age, 54 years; mean duration of diabetes, 4 years; mean body mass index, 39.4 kg/m2; mean insulin requirement, 1.7 U/kg per day; and mean hemoglobin A1c, 8.6%) whose previous treatment with U100 insulin regimens had failed. Twenty patients completed the study. Treatment with U500 insulin via Omnipod significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c by 1.23% (P<.001) and significantly increased the percentage of time spent in the blood glucose target range (70-180 mg/dL) by 70.75% as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (P<.001) without a significant increase in hypoglycemia. Patients were satisfied with treatment with U500 insulin via Omnipod, and 14 patients elected to remain on treatment at study completion.

CONCLUSIONS

U500 insulin delivered subcutaneously continuously via Omnipod is a safe and effective method of insulin delivery in the very insulin-resistant type 2 diabetic population.

Basal plus basal-bolus approach in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is characterized by insulin resistance and progressive β-cell deterioration. As β-cell function declines, most patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral agents, in monotherapy or combination, will require insulin therapy. Addition of basal insulin (glargine, detemir, or NPH/neutral protamine lispro insulin) to previous treatment is accepted as the simplest way to start insulin therapy in those patients. But even when basal insulin is adequately titrated, some patients will also need prandial insulin to achieve or maintain individual glycemic targets over time. Starting with premixed insulin is an effective option, but it is frequently associated with increased hypoglycemia risk, fixed meal schedules, and weight gain. As an alternative, a novel approached known as "basal plus strategy" has been developed. This approach considers the addition of increasing injections of prandial insulin, beginning with the meal that has the major impact on postprandial glucose values. Finally, if this is not enough intensification to basal-bolus will be necessary. In reducing hyperglycemia, this modality still remains the most effective option, even in people with type 2 diabetes. This article will review the currently evidence on the basal plus strategy and also its progression to basal-bolus therapy. In addition, practical recommendations to start and adjust basal plus therapy will be provided.

Effects of insulin initiation on patient-reported outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: results from the durable trial

AIM

To examine changes in patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on oral agents who initiated insulin (insulin lispro mix 25/75 [LM25] or insulin glargine) in the DURABLE trial (n=580).

METHODS

Subjects completed generic and diabetes-specific health-related quality-of-life measures (RAND-36 and Diabetes-39) and a symptom assessment measure (DSC-Revised) at baseline and 6 months post insulin initiation. Mean score change was evaluated. Effect size (ES; Cohen's d) and analysis of covariance were used to examine extent and significance of change both within and between treatment groups.

RESULTS

Subject characteristics were mean age 57 years, males 59%, duration of diabetes 9.6 years, and baseline HbA1c 8.9%. In the total sample, significant (P<0.01) improvements (with small ES) were observed in four of eight RAND-36 subscales (ES range: 0.13-0.24), three of five Diabetes-39 subscales (ES range: 0.09-0.34), and five of eight DSC-Revised subscales (ES range: 0.15-0.38). While significance of within-group changes varied by treatment, only one subscale (physical functioning for LM25) showed deterioration. The changes were not significantly different (P>0.01) between regimens for any subscales.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that insulin initiation improves selective PRO in patients with poorly controlled T2DM.

Analysis of glycaemic control and weight change in patients initiated with human or analog insulin in an US ambulatory care setting

BACKGROUND

Insulin is a mainstay in the treatment of type 1 diabetes and is a recommended option in patients with type 2 diabetes who fail to maintain glycaemic control on other non-insulin therapies. The purpose of this study was to describe patient characteristics and evaluate changes in glycaemic control and weight in patients treated with insulin in an ambulatory care setting.

METHODS

Patients with diabetes were identified from the General Electric electronic medical record (EMR) database (1 September 2004 to 30 April 2008). Patients were > or =18 years, insulin naive, newly treated with monoinsulin therapy (index date). Baseline characteristics were identified overall and stratified by insulin type (basal, mixed, and rapid). Basal insulins were described by human versus analog and for insulin detemir and insulin glargine. Change in haemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) and weight from baseline (45 days pre- to 15 days postindex date) to 6 months (+/-90 days) were compared. Regression analyses were used to evaluate HbA1C outcomes across insulins and for the likelihood of gaining 0.9 kg (2 lbs) for detemir versus glargine controlling for baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 12 136 patients were included. A majority were initiated on a basal insulin (64.7%) followed by mixed (20.8%) and rapid (14.4%). Basal users had significantly higher mean body weight and lower mean baseline HbA1C than mixed users (p < 0.001 for all), and were significantly older, had higher baseline HbA1C and higher baseline body mass index (BMI) than rapid insulin users (p < 0.001 for all). Glargine patients had a significantly higher mean baseline HbA1C (p = 0.003) than detemir patients. The adjusted reduction in HbA1C was greater for rapid insulin than for mixed or basal insulin (p < or = 0.05). The adjusted differences in HbA1C between basal human and basal analog insulins and between detemir and glargine were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Patients using detemir were 30% less likely to gain 0.9 kg or more than glargine users (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

HbA1C outcomes in the ambulatory care setting were generally not different between insulin classes. The likelihood of weight gain was less with insulin detemir than with insulin glargine. Thus, real-world weight outcomes for basal analog insulin may differ by specific product.

Diabetes medications and body weight

Tight diabetes control sometimes comes with a price: weight gain and hypoglycemia. Two of the three major recent trials that looked at the relationship between intensive diabetes control and cardiovascular events reported significant weight gain among the intensively treated groups. There is a growing concern that the weight gain induced by most diabetes medications diminishes their clinical benefits. On the other hand, there is a claim that treating diabetes with medications that are weight neutral or induces weight loss or less weight gain while minimizing those that increase body weight may emerge as the future direction for treating overweight and obese patients with diabetes. This review clarifies the weight effect of each of the currently available diabetes medications, and explains the mechanism of action behind this effect. Despite the great variability among reviewed clinical trials, the currently available evidence is quite sufficient to demonstrate the change in body weight in association with most of the currently available medications. This review also provides some guidelines on using diabetes medications during weight management programs.