Insulin glargine or NPH combined with metformin in type 2 diabetes: the LANMET study

A prospective, multicentre, randomized, open-label comparison of a long-acting basal insulin analog glargine plus glulisine with premixed insulin in insulin naïve patients with Type 2 diabetes - A study from India

AIMS

We aimed to compare the effectiveness of Glargine plus Glulisine to premixed insulin analogue, as measured by HbA1c ≤ 7.0% in insulin naive Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) patients with elevated fasting and/or postprandial plasma glucose.

METHODS

Insulin-naive T2D patients (116 men, 84 women) on ≥ 2 oral hypoglycemic agents with inadequate glycemic control were randomized either to group 1 (insulin Glargine plus Glulisine, n = 101) or group 2 (Premixed Insulin analogue, n = 99).

RESULTS

In the intention to treat analysis, at week 24, percentage of patients with good glycaemic control (HbA1c ≤ 7.0%) was similar between the two groups (16.8% in Group 1 vs. 13.1% in Group 2, χ2 - 0.535, p = 0.47). Significant reductions in fasting and postprandial levels were observed in groups 1 and 2 at both post-baseline time points (Week 12 and 24). In group 1, reduction in HbA1c from baseline to week 12 was 0.6 ± 0.1 and 0.7 ± 0.2 at week 24, p < 0.0001 for all. In group 2, no significant change in HbA1c was observed. In group 1, 83.2% required an additional dose of glulisine and in group 2, 88.9% required an additional dose of premixed insulin. Hypoglycemic events were similar in both groups (0.12 events per person-year in group 1 and 0.13 events per person-year in group 2). Weight gain was non-significant in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Glargine plus Glulisine, though in higher dose was effective as premixed insulin in lowering HbA1c. Hypoglycemic events per person-year were similar in both groups.

Efficacy and safety of basal insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Aim

The comparative effectiveness of basal insulins has been examined in several studies. However, current treatment algorithms provide a list of options with no clear differentiation between different basal insulins as the optimal choice for initiation.

Methods

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI, and Scopus, and a reference list of retrieved studies and reviews were performed up to November 2023. We identified phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens. The primary outcomes evaluated were HbA1c reduction, weight change, and hypoglycemic events. The revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals considering the critical assumptions in the networks. The certainty of the evidence and confidence in the rankings was assessed using the GRADE minimally contextualized approach.

Results

Of 20,817 retrieved studies, 44 RCTs (23,699 participants) were eligible for inclusion in our network meta-analysis. We found no significant difference among various basal insulins (including Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH), ILPS, insulin glargine, detemir, and degludec) in reducing HbA1c. Insulin glargine, 300 U/mL (IGlar-300) was significantly associated with less weight gain (mean difference ranged from 2.9 kg to 4.1 kg) compared to other basal insulins, namely thrice-weekly insulin degludec (IDeg-3TW), insulin degludec, 100 U/mL (IDeg-100), insulin degludec, 200 U/mL (IDeg-200), NPH, and insulin detemir (IDet), but with low to very low certainty regarding most comparisons. IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 were associated with significantly lower odds of overall, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemic events than NPH and insulin lispro protamine (ILPS) (moderate to high certainty evidence). NPH was associated with the highest odds of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to others. Network meta-analysis models were robust, and findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

The efficacy of various basal insulin regimens is comparable. However, they have different safety profiles. IGlar-300 may be the best choice when weight gain is a concern. In contrast, IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 may be preferred when hypoglycemia is the primary concern.

You may delay, but time will not. Beta cells lost are never found again: a case for timely initiation of basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Since its first use just over a century ago, insulin treatment has evolved dramatically, such that the molecules are physiologic in nature, and treatment can now closely resemble the natural hormone response over 24 hours. Newer, longer-acting basal insulin analogs have provided insulin therapies with improved characteristics and, therefore, ease of use, and can readily be incorporated as part of routine treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D), but evidence suggests that insulin remains underused in people with T2D. We review the barriers to initiation of basal insulin and the education needed to address these barriers, and we provide practical pointers, supported by evidence, for primary care physicians and advanced practice providers to facilitate timely initiation of basal insulin in the people with T2D who will benefit from such treatment.

Efficacy of a basal insulin dose management smartphone application for controlling fasting blood glucose in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus: A single-centre, randomised clinical study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the efficacy and safety of the 'Walk with you' application for titrating basal insulin (BI) doses in type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) hospitalised patients.

METHODS

This was a randomised, single-centre, open-label, controlled clinical trial to compare the changes in fasting blood glucose (FBG) and postprandial blood glucose (PBG), time to reach target FBG (FBG-TRT), incidence of hypoglycaemia events and FBG coefficient of variation in the application group (weight-based titration of BI dose regimen) and control group (typical adjustment regimen).

PATIENTS

This study selected 173 patients with T2DM using basal-prandial insulin therapy who were admitted to Binhaiwan Central Hospital of Dongguan between December 2021 and December 2022. Patients were randomised to the control group or the application group (App group) and then titrated to achieve an FBG concentration of less than 7.0 mmol/L.

RESULTS

There were 86 patients in the control group and 87 patients in the App group. The FBG concentrations in the control and App groups were decreased by 6.77 ± 4.75 and 5.95 ± 4.06 mmol/L, respectively. The FBG-TRTs in the control and App groups were 3.80 ± 1.52 and 2.82 ± 1.34 days, respectively (p < .001). Fewer patients in the control group reached the FBG-TRT within 3 days than in the App group, with 46.5% and 71.3% of patients reaching that target, respectively. There was no significant between-group difference in hypoglycaemia incidence.

CONCLUSION

The use of this weight-based insulin dose titration protocol for BI app is effective and safe for achieving the target FBG in noncritically ill patients with T2DM and is free, easy to use and user friendly.

Effectiveness, safety, initial optimal dose, and optimal maintenance dose range of basal insulin regimens for type 2 diabetes: A systematic review with meta-analysis

AIMS

To investigate the effectiveness, safety, optimal starting dose, optimal maintenance dose range, and target fasting plasma glucose of five basal insulins in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to February 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was adopted. The registration ID is CRD42022319078 in PROSPERO.

RESULTS

Among 11 163 citations retrieved, 35 publications met the planned criteria. From meta-analyses and network meta-analyses, we found that when injecting basal insulin regimens at bedtime, the optimal choice in order of most to least effective might be glargine U-300 or degludec U-100, glargine U-100 or detemir, followed by neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH). Injecting glargine U-100 in the morning may be more effective (ie, more patients archiving glycated hemoglobin < 7.0%) and lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than injecting it at bedtime. The optimal starting dose for the initiation of any basal insulins can be 0.10-0.20 U/kg/day. There is no eligible evidence to investigate the optimal maintenance dose for basal insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The five basal insulins are effective for the target population. Glargine U-300, degludec U-100, glargine U-100, and detemir lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than NPH without compromising glycemic control.

Comparison of two titration programmes for adding insulin detemir to oral antidiabetic drugs in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM

To explore the effect of active insulin titration versus usual titration on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).

METHODS

In a 24-week, prospective and randomized study, 172 patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to either active titration or usual titration. Efficacy and safety outcomes included changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose, percentage of individuals achieving HbA1c<53 mmol/mol, and hypoglycaemic events.

RESULTS

At Week 24, change in HbA1c was -1.08% ± 1.60% in the active titration group and -0.95% ± 1.34% in the usual titration group (P = 0.569). The percentages of individuals achieving HbA1c<53 mmol/mol were 29.4% and 16.1% in the active and usual titration groups, respectively (P = 0.037). There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypoglycaemia between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that, with active titration, baseline HbA1c levels and postprandial glucose excursion were significantly associated with achieving HbA1c<53 mmol/mol.

CONCLUSION

Addition of basal insulin using active titration for 24 weeks provided a higher rate of HbA1c target achievement without significant hypoglycaemia compared to usual titration in individuals with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Twenty Years of Insulin Gla-100: A Systematic Evaluation of Its Efficacy and Safety in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to present the current evidence base with respect to the initiation and intensification of insulin therapy with glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) compared to other insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled clinical trials databases was performed to identify studies published up to September 30, 2020 that compared the effects of Gla-100 to that of other insulin regimens in people with T2DM. Relevant information pertaining to the predefined outcomes of interest was extracted. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change and response rates along with overall hypoglycemia incidence were the primary efficacy and safety outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine studies (63 interventional and 16 non-interventional) in which Gla-100 was either initiated in previously insulin-naïve patients (n = 57) or used in an intensified regimen (n = 22) were identified and evaluated. In insulin-naïve patients, most studies demonstrated that Gla-100 was significantly better compared with premixed insulins and similar compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations, and other first-generation basal insulins in terms of the primary efficacy parameters. Overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with NPH, premixed, coformulation, and other first-generation basal insulins and significantly higher compared with second-generation basal insulins. In studies with intensified regimens, efficacy outcomes with Gla-100 were significantly better compared with insulin detemir (IDet); similar compared with NPH, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations; and with premixed insulins. In these studies, overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with IDet and comparable to NPH, premixed insulins, co-formulations, and second-generation basal insulins. In addition, most intensification studies also revealed a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia with Gla-100-based regimens versus NPH and premixed insulins and a significantly greater risk compared to second-generation basal insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence presented in this review suggests that Gla-100 is an effective option for both insulin initiation and intensification strategies used in the management of T2DM.

Practical Guidance on Basal Insulin Initiation and Titration in Asia: A Delphi-Based Consensus

The global health burden of diabetes is on the rise and has affected more than half a billion people worldwide, particularly in Southeast Asia, North Africa, Africa, and the Western Pacific, Middle East, and South and Central America regions of the International Diabetes Federation (IDF). Despite many new treatments being available for the management of diabetes, glycemic control remains suboptimal in Asia, compared to the rest of the world. Delay in timely insulin initiation and inadequate titration of insulin are regarded to be some of the important reasons for inadequate glycemic control. Additionally, Asian populations have a distinct phenotype, including a younger age of onset and higher glycemic excursions, suggestive of a lower beta-cell function, as compared to non-Asians. Although there are multiple local and international guidelines on insulin initiation and titration, some of these guidelines can be complex. There is an unmet need for guideline recommendations on basal insulin initiation and titration to be simplified and customized for the Asian population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A unified approach would increase adoption of basal insulin initiation by primary care and family medicine physicians, which in turn would help reduce the inertia to insulin initiation. With this background, a consensus-seeking meeting was conducted with 14 experts from seven Asian countries to delineate appropriate practices for insulin initiation and titration in the Asian context. The key objective was to propose a simple insulin titration algorithm, specific for the Asian population, to improve glycemic control and optimize therapeutic outcomes of people with T2DM on basal insulin. Following a detailed review of literature and current guidelines, and potential barriers to insulin initiation and titration, the experts proposed a simplified insulin titration algorithm based on both physician- and patient-led components. The consensus recommendations of the experts related to basal insulin initiation and titration have been summarized in this article, along with the proposed titration algorithm for optimizing glycemic control in the Asian population with T2DM.

Efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus glargine in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

: Performing an updated meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of insulin glargine and insulin detemir in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

: Electronic databases were searched up to August 18, 2021. A random-effects model was applied to pool data from included studies to calculate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) for the continuous variables and relative risks (RRs) for the dichotomous variable.

RESULTS

: Nine studies compared insulin detemir and insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes and three studies in patients with type 1 diabetes. The pooled SMD of weight gain was -0.59 (95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; P=0.01; I²=98%) in patients with type 2 diabetes. The pooled RR of severe hypoglycemia was 0.28 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.63; P=0.002; I²=0%) in patients with type 1 diabetes. The effects of detemir and glargine on HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, nocturnal hypoglycemia, and overall hypoglycemia were not statistically different (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

It was found that there is no clinically considerable difference between the impacts of insulin detemir and insulin glargine in diabetic patients. The only statistically significant differences were less weight gain in type 2 diabetes and fewer episodes of severe hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes with insulin detemir.

Metabolic determinants of NAFLD in adults with type 1 diabetes

AIM

To assess the main metabolic determinants of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in adult patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

115 patients with T1D were divided into 4 groups according to NAFLD grade. NAFLD was diagnosed via transient elastography when CAP > 233 dB/m. Body composition was evaluated by Inbody720, Biospace. Serum lipids, liver enzymes, uric acid, creatinine, hsCRP and HbA1c were evaluated at fasting.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of NAFLD was 47% (n = 54). In the subgroup with BMI > 25 kg/m² NAFLD prevalence was 66%; and positive family history of type 2 diabetes brought the risk up to 76%. 37% of the lean individuals also had NAFLD. HbA1c > 7% doubled the risk of NAFLD. Waist circumference > 82.5 cm was independently related to NAFLD, accounting for 24% of its variation in females. Accumulation of two and three metabolic syndrome (MetS) components, besides hyperglycemia, increased the risk of NAFLD by 14% (p < 0.0001) and 6% (p = 0.024), respectively. Lean NAFLD correlated with total insulin dose; NAFLD in overweight T1D patients correlated with triglycerides.

CONCLUSIONS

NAFLD is highly prevalent in adults with T1D and obesity or other metabolic derangements and might be independently related to poor long-term glycemic control and waist circumference in females.

Time-series analysis of recent antihyperglycemic medication prescribing trends for a diverse sample of Medicare enrollees with type 2 diabetes mellitus in an integrated health system

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

Despite high type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) prevalence in Medicare enrollees, newer therapeutic options, and revised treatment guidelines, little is known about US antihyperglycemic prescribing trends after 2015. This research describes recent monthly antihyperglycemic prescribing trends in a large, diverse population of Medicare enrollees from the US Mid-Atlantic region.

METHODS

Encounter data (July 2018-July 2020) for Medicare enrollees 65 years of age or older with T2DM were extracted from electronic health records of a large integrated health system. Descriptive time-series regression models were estimated to describe monthly prescribing rates (ie, prescription orders per 100 eligible plan members with T2DM) overall and by medication subgroups for all-eligible and continuously-eligible samples. Trends in monthly prescription orders per 100 eligible plan members with T2DM were reported.

RESULTS

The monthly all-eligible member sample (n > 22,000) exhibited an overall positive baseline monthly prescribing rate of 23.88 T2DM medication orders per 100 members with T2DM and a significant positive monthly prescribing rate trend (ie, change) of 0.12 T2DM medication orders per 100 members with T2DM (P < 0.05). Subgroup T2DM medication order rates per 100 members with T2DM at baseline were 16.28 for first generation medications, 3.87 for human insulins, 3.04 for insulin analogs, 0.58 for second-generation medications, and 0.11 for combination medications. Human insulins, insulin analogs, and second-generation medications had positive monthly trends (P < 0.05). Among second-generation Medications, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists had positive monthly trends (P < 0.05). Continuously eligible members with T2DM (n = 19,185) had no significant overall monthly prescribing trend; however, human insulins, insulin analogs, and second-generation medications and the SGLT-2 inhibitor class had positive monthly prescribing trends (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In a diverse Medicare sample, this study observed increasing monthly trends for second-generation medications, human insulins, and insulin analogs consistent with emerging evidence. Among second-generation medications, SGLT-2 inhibitors became the most commonly prescribed over time.

American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Impact of the Fasting Plasma Glucose Titration Target on the Success of Basal Insulin Titration in Insulin-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Analysis

BACKGROUND/AIM

We aimed to examine beneficial and adverse outcomes of basal insulin titration performed with different fasting plasma glucose (FPG) titration targets (TT).

METHODS

A PubMed literature search retrieved 43 reported prospective clinical trials introducing basal insulin in 17643 insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes reporting fasting plasma glucose (FPG), HbA_1c, target achievement, hypoglycemic events, and insulin doses. 61 individual study arms were grouped by fasting plasma glucose titration target (TT; 1: ≤5.0 mmol/l/90 mg/dl; 2: 5.01-5.6 mmol/l/90-100 mg/dl; and 3: ≥5.61 mmol/l/101 mg/dl). Weighted means and their standard deviations were calculated for baseline and end-of-treatment FPG (primary endpoint), HbA_1c, target achievement, hypoglycemic events, insulin doses, and body weight gain and compared over a duration of 31 ± 10 weeks.

RESULTS

Achieved FPG and HbA_1c at the end of the study were significantly lower (by up to 0.8 mmol/l or 0.23%, respectively) with more ambitious TTs (p < 0.0001), leading to better HbA_1c target achievement with more ambitious TTs (by up to 14.6% for HbA_1c ≤ 6.5%), without increasing the risk for hypoglycemic episodes.

CONCLUSIONS

Aiming for a lower FPG TT improves glycemic control without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia.

Tolerability and Effectiveness of Switching to Dulaglutide in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled With Insulin Therapy

AIMS

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have demonstrated strong glycemic control. However, few studies have investigated the effects of switching from insulin to GLP-1 receptor agonists. We aimed to investigate, using real-world data, whether switching to dulaglutide improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) inadequately controlled with conventional insulin treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 138 patients with T2D who were switched from insulin to dulaglutide therapy. We excluded 20 patients who dropped out during the follow-up period. The participants were divided into two groups according to whether they resumed insulin treatment at 6 months after switching to a GLP-1 receptor agonist (group I) or not (group II). A multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the parameters associated with the risk of resuming insulin after replacement with dulaglutide.

RESULTS

Of 118 patients initiated on the GLP-1 receptor agonist, 62 (53%) resumed insulin treatment (group I), and 53 (47%) continued with GLP-1 receptor agonists or switched to oral anti-hypoglycemic agents (group II). Older age, a higher insulin dose, and lower postprandial glucose levels while switching to the GLP-1 receptor agonist were associated with failure to switch to the GLP-1 receptor agonist from insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of patients with T2D inadequately controlled with insulin treatment successfully switched to the GLP-1 receptor agonist. Younger age, a lower dose of insulin, and a higher baseline postprandial glucose level may be significant predictors of successful switching from insulin to GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy.

Efficacy and safety of different basal and prandial insulin analogues for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

The aim of the present network meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy and safety across different long and short-acting analogs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases search (20th May, 2020) for all trials with a duration ≥24 weeks comparing an analogue with another or human insulin was performed. Indirect comparisons were performed by NMA choosing glargine U100 and human regular insulin, as the reference for long- and short-acting analogues, respectively. Primary endpoints were HbA1c at 24, 52, and 104 weeks. The weighted difference in means (WDM) and Mantel-Haenzel Odds Ratio [MH-OR] with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

Fifty trials (n = 43) and 7 for basal and prandial analogues, respectively, enrolling 25,554 and 3184 patients with type 2 and 1 diabetes, respectively, were included. At NMA, detemir was less effective than glargine U-100 at 52 weeks. A significant reduction of 24-week HbA1c (WMD [IC]: -0.10 [-0.17, -0.03]%); and risk of total (MH-OR [IC]: 0.80 [0.70, 0.91]), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (MH-OR [IC]: 0.57 [0.45, 0.73]) was observed for basal analogues versus NPH insulin. At NMA, glargine U300 and degludec were associated with a significant reduction in the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia. No significant differences across different short-acting insulin were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper supports the use of long-acting analogues, rather than NPH insulin, as basal insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, without any preferences for any individual long-acting analogue over the others. The evidence on short acting analogues is limited.

Switching from insulin to dulaglutide therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: A real-world data study

AIM

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who require injectable therapy have been conventionally treated with insulin. A glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist was recently recommended as first-line injectable treatment, but few studies have investigated the effects of switching from insulin to dulaglutide. This study investigated the clinical efficacy and parameters affecting responses to dulaglutide as an alternative to insulin in patients with T2DM in a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

Ninety-eight patients with T2DM who were switched from insulin to dulaglutide therapy were retrospectively evaluated. Changes in HbA1c concentrations were assessed after 6 months of consistent treatment with dulaglutide. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate parameters affecting the response to dulaglutide treatment.

RESULTS

After treatment with dulaglutide for 6 months, patients experienced changes in HbA1c of -0.95% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.30% to -0.59%, P < 0.001) and in body weight of -1.75 kg (95% CI: -2.42 to -1.08 kg, P < 0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that higher baseline HbA1c was significantly associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Switching from insulin to dulaglutide can lead to significant improvement in HbA1c levels and body weight ​reduction in T2DM patients over 6 months. Higher baseline HbA1c is associated with a better clinical response to dulaglutide.

Glycaemic variabilities: Key questions in pursuit of clarity

After years of intensive investigation, the definition of glycaemic variability remains unclear and the term variability in glucose homoeostasis might be more appropriate covering both short and long-term glycaemic variability. For the latter, we remain in the search of an accurate definition and related targets. Recent work leads us to consider that the within-subject variability of HbA1c calculated from consecutive determinations of HbA1c at regular time-intervals could be the most relevant index for assessing the long-term variability with a threshold value of 5% (%CV = SD of HbA1c/mean HbA1c) to separate stability from lability of HbA1c. Presently, no one can deny that short- and long-term glucose variability should be maintained within their lower ranges to limit the incidence of hypoglycaemia. Usually, therapeutic strategies aimed at reducing post-meal glucose excursions, i.e. the major contributor to daily glucose fluctuations, exert a beneficial effect on the short-term glucose variability. This explains the effectiveness of adjunct therapies with either GLP- receptor agonists or SGLT inhibitors in type 2 diabetes. In type 1 diabetes, the application of a CGM device alone reduces the short-term glycaemic variability. In contrast, sophisticated insulin delivery does not necessarily lead to such reductions despite marked downward shifts of 24-hour glycaemic profiles. Such contrasting observations raise the question as to whether the prolonged wear of CGM devices is or not the major causative factor for improvement in glucose variability among intensively insulin-treated persons with type 1 diabetes.

Correlates of analog vs human basal insulin use among individuals with type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Given the shift from use of less expensive human to costlier analog insulins for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D), we examine characteristics and glycemic control associated with type of basal insulin use.

METHODS

We analyzed respondents with T2D in six consecutive National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles (2005-2016). Logistic regression models examined associations between demographics, socioeconomic factors, and NHANES cycle with (1) type of basal insulin use and (2) hemoglobin A1c <8.0% and <7.0% according to basal insulin type.

FINDINGS

Basal insulin use increased from 9.6% to 17.2% of respondents with T2D between 2005 and 2016. Among 723 respondents meeting inclusion criteria, the proportion using analog basal insulin rose from 58% to 88%. African American (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24-0.74) and Hispanic (aOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30-0.96) respondents had lower odds of analog basal insulin use than non-Hispanic White respondents in adjusted and unadjusted models. Older age and having health insurance, but not type of basal insulin use, associated with meeting HbA1c targets.

INTERPRETATION

Non-White NHANES respondents were less likely to use analog basal insulin than White respondents. Increased analog basal insulin use between 2005 and 2016 was not associated with improved glycemic control.

Glucose variability and diabetes complications: Risk factor or biomarker? Can we disentangle the "Gordian Knot"?

« Variability in glucose homoeostasis » is a better description than « glycaemic variability » as it encompasses two categories of dysglycaemic disorders: i) the short-term daily glucose fluctuations and ii) long-term weekly, monthly or quarterly changes in either HbA1c, fasting or postprandial plasma glucose. Presently, the relationship between the "variability in glucose homoeostasis" and diabetes complications has never been fully clarified because studies are either observational or limited to retrospective analysis of trials not primarily designed to address this issue. Despite the absence of definitive evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is most likely that acute and long-term glucose homoeostasis "cycling", akin to weight and blood pressure "cycling" in obese and hypertensive individuals, are additional risk factors for diabetes complications in the presence of sustained ambient hyperglycaemia. As hypoglycaemic events are strongly associated with short- and long-term glucose variability, two relevant messages can be formulated. Firstly, due consideration should be given to avoid within-day glucose fluctuations in excess of 36% (coefficient of variation) at least for minimizing the inconvenience and dangers associated with hypoglycaemia. Secondly, it seems appropriate to consider that variability in glucose homoeostasis is not only associated with cardiovascular events but is also a causative risk factor via hypoglycaemic episodes as intermediary step. Untangling the" Gordian Knot", to provide confirmation about the impact of variability in glucose homoeostasis and diabetes complications remains a daunting prospect.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

A Difference Between Bedtime and Pre-Breakfast Plasma Glucose Levels Indicates the Need for Prandial Insulin in Basal Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetic Patients with Normal Fasting Glucose

AIM

In the present analysis, we characterised the efficacy and safety of adding a single daily injection of insulin glulisine to optimised basal-supported oral therapy (BOT) in patients with a high BeAM value, defined as a more than 50 mg/dl difference between bedtime and pre-breakfast blood glucose.

METHODS

The BeAM value was retrospectively calculated for patients pooled from two clinical trials that supplemented BOT with glulisine. Data regarding changes in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and postprandial glucose (PPG) levels from observation periods of 3 to 6 months were assessed.

RESULTS

Out of 358 patients that received BOT/glulisine, 182 had a high BeAM value. Patients with a high BeAM value were older and had a longer diabetes duration than patients with a medium BeAM value. Significant reductions in HbA1c (7.5% to 7.2% [59 to 55 mmol/mol], p<0.0001) and PPG (202 to 143 mg/dl, p<0.0001) levels were documented. The proportion of patients with a high BeAM value achieving an HbA1c <7% [53 mmol/mol], alone or in combination with no hypoglycaemia, was lower than that of patients with a medium BeAM value.

CONCLUSION

The analysis indicates that the supplementation of BOT with a single daily injection of prandial insulin is safe and effective for reducing HbA1c and PPG levels in patients with a high BeAM value (more than 50 mg/dl). However, patients with a medium BeAM value also responded well, which suggests that they should also be considered candidates for this change in therapy.

Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: Synopsis of the 2020 American Diabetes Association's Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes Clinical Guideline

DESCRIPTION

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) updates the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes annually to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested parties with evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of diabetes.

METHODS

To develop the 2020 Standards, the ADA Professional Practice Committee, comprising physicians, adult and pediatric endocrinologists, diabetes educators, registered dietitians, epidemiologists, pharmacists, and public health experts, continuously searched MEDLINE (English language only) from 15 October 2018 through August-September 2019 for pertinent studies, including high-quality trials that addressed pharmacologic management of type 2 diabetes. The committee selected and reviewed the studies, developed the recommendations, and solicited feedback from the larger clinical community.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This synopsis focuses on guidance relating to the pharmacologic treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes. Recommendations address oral and noninsulin injectable therapies, insulin treatment, and combination injectable therapies. Results of recent large trials with cardiovascular and renal outcomes are emphasized.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Evidence that antihyperglycaemic therapy is beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. While the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) found tighter glycaemic control to be positive, other studies, such as the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, found the effects of an intensive therapy to lower blood glucose to near normal levels to be more harmful than beneficial. Study results also showed different effects for different antihyperglycaemic drugs, regardless of the achieved blood glucose levels. In consequence, firm conclusions on the effect of interventions on patient-relevant outcomes cannot be drawn from the effect of these interventions on blood glucose concentration alone. In theory, the use of newer insulin analogues may result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine U100 and U300, insulin detemir and insulin degludec) with NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin (human isophane insulin) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

For this Cochrane Review update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 5 November 2019, except Embase which was last searched 26 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 24 RCTs. Of these, 16 trials compared insulin glargine to NPH insulin and eight trials compared insulin detemir to NPH insulin. In these trials, 3419 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomised to insulin glargine and 1321 people to insulin detemir. The duration of the included trials ranged from 24 weeks to five years. For studies, comparing insulin glargine to NPH insulin, target values ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.8 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 140 mg/dL) for fasting blood glucose (FBG), from 4.4 mmol/L to 6.6 mmol/L (80 mg/dL to 120 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, when applicable. Blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target values for studies comparing insulin detemir to NPH insulin ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for FBG, less than 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) to less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and 5.8% to less than 6.4% HbA1c, when applicable. All trials had an unclear or high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Overall, insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Changes in HbA1c were comparable for long-acting insulin analogues and NPH insulin. Insulin glargine compared to NPH insulin had a risk ratio (RR) for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.06; absolute risk reduction (ARR) -1.2%, 95% CI -2.0 to 0; 14 trials, 6164 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The RR for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.09; P = 0.13; ARR -0.7%, 95% CI -1.3 to 0.2; 10 trials, 4685 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with insulin glargine reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treatment with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin found an RR for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.45 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.20; P = 0.11; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.4 to 0.4; 5 trials, 1804 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Peto odds ratio for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; P = 0.007; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.4; 5 trials, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with detemir also reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Information on patient-relevant outcomes such as death from any cause, diabetes-related complications, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects was insufficient or lacking in almost all included trials. For those outcomes for which some data were available, there were no meaningful differences between treatment with glargine or detemir and treatment with NPH. There was no clear difference between insulin-analogues and NPH insulin in terms of weight gain. The incidence of adverse events was comparable for people treated with glargine or detemir, and people treated with NPH. We found no trials comparing ultra-long-acting insulin glargine U300 or insulin degludec with NPH insulin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While the effects on HbA1c were comparable, treatment with insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Treatment with insulin detemir also reduced the incidence of serious hypoglycaemia. However, serious hypoglycaemic events were rare and the absolute risk reducing effect was low. Approximately one in 100 people treated with insulin detemir instead of NPH insulin benefited. In the studies, low blood glucose and HbA1c targets, corresponding to near normal or even non-diabetic blood glucose levels, were set. Therefore, results from the studies are only applicable to people in whom such low blood glucose concentrations are targeted. However, current guidelines recommend less-intensive blood glucose lowering for most people with type 2 diabetes in daily practice (e.g. people with cardiovascular diseases, a long history of type 2 diabetes, who are susceptible to hypoglycaemia or older people). Additionally, low-certainty evidence and trial designs that did not conform with current clinical practice meant it remains unclear if the same effects will be observed in daily clinical practice. Most trials did not report patient-relevant outcomes.

Patient characteristics and 6-month dose of basal insulin associated with HbA1c achievement <7.0% in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes: results from the Observational Registry of Basal Insulin Treatment (ORBIT)

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of basal insulin (BI) for adequate glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been well documented by randomized clinical trials. This post hoc analysis of the Observational Registry of Basal Insulin Treatment (ORBIT) study was performed to explore the 6-month dose of BI used in insulin-naïve T2DM patients achieving HbA1c target (<7%) and determine the patient characteristics that affect the 6-month dose of BI in the setting of real-world clinics in China.

METHODS

This multicenter observational registry screened 19 894 adult T2DM patients with inadequately controlled hyperglycemia and treated with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in China. Of these patients, 5191 who continued to receive BI after 6 months and achieved HbA1c target were analyzed. Patient characteristics including age, body weight, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), use of OADs, insulin (type and dose), and glycemic control were recorded at baseline and 6-month follow-ups.

RESULTS

The 6-month dose of BI needed for effective glycemic control was 0.20 ± 0.08 U/kg/day. High body mass index, high FPG, young age, longer duration of diabetes or OAD treatment, a greater number of OADs at baseline, and allocation to detemir and glargine were significant independent predictors for high dose of BI at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis of the ORBIT registry provides key information on the 6-month dose of BI needed for effective glycemic control in Chinese T2DM patients. Furthermore, it identified crucial patient characteristics that are significant determinants of the dose of BI in a real-world setting.

Influence of Fasting Glucose Levels on Achieving Glycemic Target in Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes: a Post Hoc Analysis

INTRODUCTION

FPG GOAL was a 24-week, open-label, treat-to-target randomized controlled trial which demonstrated that the optimal self-monitored fasting blood glucose (SM-FBG) target for most Chinese individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using insulin glargine 100 IU/mL was 3.9-6.1 mmol/L. Individuals who achieved lower fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels might achieve the target HbA1c of < 7% without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia.

METHODS

For this post hoc analysis, individuals were redivided into three groups based on their actual laboratory FPG levels at 24 weeks: level 1, ≤ 5.6 mmol/L; level 2, > 5.6 to ≤ 6.1 mmol/L; and level 3, > 6.1 to ≤ 7.0 mmol/L.

RESULTS

At week 24, 863 individuals with diabetes had available FPG data and 179, 122, and 179 individuals achieved FPG levels 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The proportion of individuals with HbA1c < 7% or HbA1c < 7% without hypoglycemia (≤ 3.9 or ≤ 3.0 mmol/L) was significantly higher in FPG levels 1 (p < 0.01) and 2 (p < 0.05) than in level 3. The least squares mean changes from baseline in HbA1c (- 1.77% and - 1.66% vs - 1.34%; both p < 0.001) and 2-h postprandial glucose (- 3.88 mmol/L and - 3.98 mmol/L vs - 3.22 mmol/L; both p < 0.05) were also significantly higher in FPG levels 1 and 2 compared with level 3. Linear regression analysis showed a moderate relationship between FPG and HbA1c levels at 24 weeks (r = 0.449).

CONCLUSIONS

Chinese individuals with T2D who achieved lower FPG levels with insulin glargine 100 IU/mL were more likely to achieve the recommended target HbA1c of < 7% compared with those with higher FPG levels. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02545842.

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.

Effects of Basal Insulin on Lipid Profile Compared to Other Classes of Antihyperglycemic Agents in Type 2 Diabetic Patients

OBJECTIVE

The lipid profile represents a driver of cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes. The effect of chronic insulin therapy on cholesterol levels is unclear. We aim to evaluate the effect of basal insulin on lipid profile compared to other classes of antihyperglycemic agents in type 2 diabetic patients.

DESIGN

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reporting changes of lipid parameters in type 2 diabetic patients randomly assigned to basal insulin or other classes of anti-hyperglycemic agents.

RESULTS

The levels of total (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) appeared to be significantly reduced by therapies with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) in comparison to basal insulin (mean difference [MD] -3.80; 95% CI [-6.30 to -1.30] mg/dL, P < .001 and -4.17; 95% CI [-6.04 to -2.30] mg/dL, P < .0001), whereas no difference was detected between basal insulin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-I) or standard therapy (sulfonylurea ± metformin). Thiazolidinediones (TZD) produced a significant improvement in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (MD 3.55; 95% CI: 0.55 to 6.56 mg/dL, P = .02) but were associated with an increase in TC and LDL-C (MD 16.20; 95% CI: 9.09 to 23.31 mg/dL, P < .001 and 5.19: 95% CI: -3.00 to 13.39 mg/dL, P = .21). Basal insulin was superior to standard therapy in triglyceride reduction (MD 3.8; 95% CI: 0.99 to 6.63 mg/dL, P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

GLP-1RA were superior to basal insulin in the control of TC and LDL-C. Basal insulin effectively reduced serum triglycerides. TZD led to improvement in HDL-C. DPP4-I and standard therapy did not have any significant effect on lipid levels.

Use of Antihyperglycemic Medications in U.S. Adults: An Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

OBJECTIVE

1) To examine trends in the use of diabetes medications and 2) to determine whether physicians individualize diabetes treatment as recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2003-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data. We included people ≥18 years who had ever been told they had diabetes, had an HbA_1c >6.4%, or had a fasting plasma glucose >125 mg/dL. Pregnant women and patients aged <20 years receiving only insulin were excluded. We assessed trends in use of ADA's seven preferred classes from 2003-2004 to 2015-2016. We also examined use by hypoglycemia risk (sulfonylureas, insulin, and meglitinides), weight effect (sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones [TZDs], insulin, and meglitinides), cardiovascular benefit (canagliflozin, empagliflozin, and liraglutide), and cost (brand-name medications and insulin analogs).

RESULTS

The final sample included 6,323 patients. The proportion taking any medication increased from 58% in 2003-2004 to 67% in 2015-2016 (P < 0.001). Use of metformin and insulin analogs increased, while use of sulfonylureas, TZDs, and human insulin decreased. Following the 2012 ADA recommendation, the choice of drug did not vary significantly by older age, weight, or presence of cardiovascular disease. Patients with low HbA_1c, or HbA_1c <6%, and age ≥65 years were less likely to receive hypoglycemia-inducing medications, while older patients with comorbidities were more likely. Insurance, but not income, was associated with the use of higher-cost medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Following ADA recommendations, the use of metformin increased, but physicians generally did not individualize treatment according to patients' characteristics. Substantial opportunities exist to improve pharmacologic management of diabetes.

Best Practices and Tools for Titrating Basal Insulins: Expert Opinion from an Indian Panel via the Modified Delphi Consensus Method

AIM

To develop an evidence-based expert group consensus document on the best practices and simple tools for titrating basal insulins in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

BACKGROUND

Glycemic control is suboptimal in a large proportion of persons with T2DM, despite insulin therapy, thereby increasing the risk of potentially severe complications. Early initiation of insulin therapy and appropriate dose titration are crucial to achieving glycemic targets. Attitudes and practices among healthcare professionals (HCPs) and perceptions about insulin therapy among persons with diabetes contribute largely to suboptimal glycemic control. Improving HCP-patient communication, encouraging the use of additional educational tools, and providing support for the titration process to increase confidence, both at the initiation visit and at home, facilitate the optimization of dose titration. In Indian settings, specific guidelines and a consensus statement are lacking on the optimal insulin initiation dose, frequency of dose titration, and basal insulin profile needed to achieve optimal titration. In clinical practice, physicians and persons with diabetes often do not adhere to the titration algorithms that currently exist for the purpose of achieving optimal titration as they perceive these to be very cumbersome. In this context, a group of experts met at an advisory board meeting and arrived at a consensus on best practices for the titration of basal insulin in persons withT2DM in India, using the modified Delphi methodology.

REVIEW RESULTS

After a review of evidence and further discussions, the expert group provided recommendations on insulin initiation dose, ideal period for titration in practice, titration regimen for use in practice, basal insulin profile for titration, and choosing a self-monitoring blood glucose schedule for titration.

CONCLUSIONS

In the management of T2DM, insulin can be effectively titrated by following a few simple recommendations. The use of second-generation basal insulin aids in mitigating the risk of hypoglycemic events. The implementation of a simplified titration regimen is crucial to achieving glycemic targets and long-term treatment goals.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Predictors of response to insulin therapy in youth with poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes in the TODAY trial

OBJECTIVE

To understand the factors associated with glycemic control after starting insulin in youth with type 2 diabetes following glycemic failure (persistent HbA1c ≥8%) with metformin alone, metformin + rosiglitazone or metformin + lifestyle in the TODAY study.

METHODS

Change in HbA1c after add-on insulin therapy and the factors predictive of glycemic response were evaluated. At 1-year postinsulin initiation, 253 youth had a mean of 3.9 ± 1.0 visits since the time of insulin initiation. Participants were divided into three groups according to glycemic control: consistent decrease in HbA1c by ≥0.5%, change <0.5%, or consistent increase in HbA1c ≥0.5%, at 75% or more of the visits.

RESULTS

Within 1-year postinsulin initiation, 33.2% of participants had a consistent HbA1c decrease of ≥0.5%, 46.2% changed HbA1c <0.5%, and 20.6% had an increase ≥0.5%. At randomization into TODAY and at time of insulin initiation, the three glycemia groups were similar in age, sex, race-ethnicity, pubertal stage, BMI z-score, diabetes duration, and insulin secretion indices. Consistent HbA1c improvement was associated with higher insulin sensitivity (1/fasting insulin) at randomization and at time of failure, higher adiponectin at randomization, and was not associated with indices of β-cell function.

CONCLUSIONS

Response to add-on insulin was highly variable among youth in TODAY. Greater insulin sensitivity and higher adiponectin concentrations at randomization were associated with improved glycemic control after initiation of insulin. Due to limited information on adherence to insulin injections, the roles of adherence to the prescribed insulin regimen or psychosocial factors are unknown.

Efficacy of two telemonitoring systems to improve glycaemic control during basal insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes: The TeleDiab-2 randomized controlled trial

TeleDiab-2 was a 13-month randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of two telemonitoring systems to optimize basal insulin (BI) initiation in subjects with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c, 7.5%-10%). A total of 191 participants (mean age 58.7 years, mean HbA1c 8.9%) were randomized into three groups: group 1(G1, standard care, n = 63), group 2 (G2, interactive voice response system, n = 64) and group 3 (G3, Diabeo-BI app software, n = 64). The two telemonitoring systems proposed daily adjustments of BI doses, in order to facilitate the achievement of fasting blood glucose (FBG) values targeted at ~100 mg/dL. At 4 months follow-up, HbA1c reduction was significantly higher in the telemonitoring groups (G2: -1.44% and G3: -1.48% vs. G1: -0.92%; P < 0.002). Moreover, target FBG was reached by twice as many patients in the telemonitoring groups as in the control group, and insulin doses were also titrated to higher levels. No severe hypoglycaemia was observed in the telemonitoring groups and mild hypoglycaemia frequency was similar in all groups. In conclusion, both telemonitoring systems improved glycaemic control to a similar extent, without increasing hypoglycaemic episodes.

Use of Insulin Glargine 100 U/mL for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in East Asians: A Review

Insulin glargine (IGlar) 100 U/mL (IGlar-100) is widely used in East Asian countries for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and is the gold standard of basal insulin treatment. In this review we summarize key information about clinical experience with IGlar-100 in East Asian patients with T2DM, including findings from clinical trials and postmarketing studies. We also provide recommendations and opinions on the optimal use of IGlar-100 in this population. The findings from the studies highlighted in our review indicate that IGlar-100 can be a suitable treatment option for East Asians with T2DM, from initial therapy in combination with oral antihyperglycemic medications through to different combinations and intensification models. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Honokiol Improves Insulin Resistance, Hepatic Steatosis, and Inflammation in Type 2 Diabetic db/db Mice

This study focuses on the effect of honokiol (HON) on glucose homeostasis, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, hepatic steatosis, and inflammation in type 2 diabetic db/db mice. Male C57BL/KsJ-db/db mice were fed a normal diet with or without HON (0.02%, w/w) or pioglitazone (PIO, anti-diabetic agent, 0.01%, w/w) for 5 weeks. Blood biomarker, tissue morphology and enzymatic and genetic parameters were determined. PIO significantly decreased food intake, fasting blood glucose, and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, but markedly increased body weight, adipose tissue weight, and plasma leptin levels. HON did not significantly affect food intake, body weight, or levels of plasma leptin and blood glucose. However, HON led to significant decreases in adipose tissue weight, plasma insulin, blood HbA1c and HOMA-IR levels and improved glucose tolerance. The anti-diabetic and anti-adiposity effects of HON were partially related to the inhibition of gluconeogenic enzymes and their mRNA expression in the liver; and the inhibition of lipogenic enzymes in adipose tissue, respectively. Unlike PIO, HON did not affect dyslipidemia, but ameliorated hepatic steatosis by inhibiting hepatic lipogenic enzymes activity. Moreover, HON exhibited anti-inflammatory effects similar to PIO. These results suggest that HON can protect against type 2 diabetes by improving insulin resistance, glucose and lipid metabolism, and inflammation.

Achievement of Target A1C <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) by U.S. Type 2 Diabetes Patients Treated With Basal Insulin in Both Randomized Controlled Trials and Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVE

Many patients with type 2 diabetes do not reach glycemic goals despite basal insulin treatment. This study assessed the achievement of a target A1C <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) after initiation of basal insulin in two settings.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of pooled randomized controlled trial (RCT) data, from 11 24-week studies of patients initiating basal insulin performed between 2000 and 2005 and of outpatient electronic medical record (EMR) data from the General Electric Centricity database for insulin-naive patients initiating basal insulin between 2005 and 2012. Baseline characteristics stratified by target A1C and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) attainment were compared descriptively.

RESULTS

In the RCT dataset, 49.0% of patients failed to achieve the target A1C at 6 months versus 72.4% and 72.9% at 6 and 12 months in the EMR dataset, respectively. Despite this, in the RCT dataset, 79.4% of patients achieved the target A1C and/or an FPG <130 mg/dL. In the EMR dataset, only 47.6% and 47.3% of patients achieved an A1C <7.0% and/or FPG <130 mg/dL at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Overall, patients with an A1C >7.0% had a longer diabetes duration and were more likely to be female, nonwhite, and self-funding or covered by Medicaid. Among patients with an A1C >7.0%, more RCT patients (58.0%) had an FPG <130 mg/dL than EMR patients at 6 months (27.8%) and 12 months (27.7%).

CONCLUSION

Unmet needs remain after basal insulin initiation, particularly in real-world settings, where many patients require further insulin titration. In both populations, patients failing to achieve the target A1C despite attaining an FPG <130 mg/dL require interventions to improve postprandial control.

Appropriate Titration of Basal Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes and the Potential Role of the Pharmacist

A substantial proportion of patients with suboptimal control of their type 2 diabetes experience delays in treatment intensification. Additionally, patients often experience overuse of basal insulin, commonly referred to as "over-basalization," whereby basal insulin continues to be uptitrated in order to meet targets, when addition of a mealtime bolus insulin dose may be a more appropriate option. In order to overcome these challenges, there is a need to develop the capacity of allied healthcare professionals to provide appropriate support to these patients, such as during initiation or titration of basal insulin. Pharmacists play an integral role in healthcare delivery, with patients seeing their pharmacist, on average, seven times more often than their primary care physician. This places pharmacists in a unique position to provide diabetes education and care, which may help patients avoid clinical inertia. Nevertheless, the management of the disease with basal insulin is becoming increasingly complex, with growing numbers of treatment options (such as recent second-generation longer-acting basal insulin formulations) and frequently updated titration algorithms. The two most common titration schedules specify either increasing doses by a set amount every 2-3 days or a treat-to-target strategy. Neither schedule has been shown to be superior, and the decision to use one or the other should be based on a discussion between the clinician and patient after assessment of mental and physical acumen, comfort of both parties, and follow-up plans. This review article discusses basal insulin therapy options and titration algorithms from the unique perspective of the pharmacist in order to help ensure that optimal antidiabetes therapy is initiated, appropriately titrated, and maintained.Funding: Sanofi US, Inc.

An observational, multicentre study on different insulin glargine U100 titration algorithms used in patients with type 2 diabetes in daily medical practice in Adriatic countries: The ADRESA study

AIMS

To compare the effectiveness of different titration algorithms for insulin glargine U100 used in everyday practice to achieve glycaemic targets in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A total of 526 patients (278 in Slovenia, 248 in Croatia) with T2DM (aged ≥ 18 years) and treated with insulin glargine prior to inclusion were enrolled. Patients self-titrated insulin glargine according to physicians' guidance.

RESULTS

Among the 524 patients included in the final analysis, the titration algorithm from the LANMET study was used most commonly (n = 368, 70.5% patients), followed by the Treat-To-Target (TTT) algorithm (n = 117, 22.4%). At the end of the study (6 months), 179 (34.3%) patients reached HbA1c ≤ 7%. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who reached their target HbA1c between the different algorithms at 6 months (35.6% using LANMET, 30.7% with TTT, and 32.4% with other algorithms; p = 0.611). HbA1c levels were more significantly reduced in patients using the TTT algorithm compared to LANMET (-2.31%, vs. -1.57%; p < 0.05). The proportion of patients with reported symptomatic hypoglycaemia did not differ significantly between the algorithms.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous titration of insulin glargine U100 is a safe and efficient option for T2DM management, regardless of the titration algorithm applied.

Insulin in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes-Should the Dose of Insulin Before a Meal be Based on Glycemia or Meal Content?

The aim of this review was to investigate existing guidelines and scientific evidence on determining insulin dosage in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and in particular to check whether the prandial insulin dose should be calculated based on glycemia or the meal composition, including the carbohydrates, protein and fat content in a meal. By exploring the effect of the meal composition on postprandial glycemia we demonstrated that several factors may influence the increase in glycemia after the meal, which creates significant practical difficulties in determining the appropriate prandial insulin dose. Then we reviewed effects of the existing insulin therapy regimens on glycemic control. We demonstrated that in most existing algorithms aimed at calculating prandial insulin doses in type 1 diabetes only carbohydrates are counted, whereas in type 2 diabetes the meal content is often not taken into consideration. We conclude that prandial insulin doses in treatment of people with diabetes should take into account the pre-meal glycemia as well as the size and composition of meals. However, there are still open questions regarding the optimal way to adjust a prandial insulin dose to a meal and the possible benefits for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes if particular parameters of the meal are taken into account while calculating the prandial insulin dose. The answers to these questions may vary depending on the type of diabetes.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in mainly Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus on metformin and/or a sulphonylurea: A 52-week open-label, randomized phase III trial

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide with that of insulin glargine in combination with metformin and/or a sulphonylurea in mainly Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this 52-week, randomized, parallel-arm open-label study, we enrolled patients aged ≥18 years with T2DM for at least 6 months and a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration ≥53.0 mmol/mol (7.0%) and ≤96.7 mmol/mol (11.0%). The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 to determine non-inferiority of dulaglutide 1.5 mg versus glargine.

RESULTS

A total of 774 patients from China, South Korea, Mexico and Russia were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg or glargine treatment groups. The patients' mean age was 55 years and the average T2DM duration was ~8 years. The least squares mean (SE) changes from baseline in HbA1c at 26 weeks were - 18.9 (0.73) mmol/mol (-1.73 [0.067]%) for dulaglutide 1.5 mg and -14.5 (0.73) mmol/mol (-1.33 [0.067]%) for dulaglutide 0.75 mg, compared with -12.7 (0.73) mmol/mol (-1.16 [0.067]%) for glargine. Statistical criteria for superiority were met with both dulaglutide 1.5 mg and dulaglutide 0.75 mg. More patients in the dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg groups achieved HbA1c target <53.0 mmol/mol (<7.0%) than in the glargine group at week 26 (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). Body weight decreased with dulaglutide and increased with glargine. The incidence and rate of total hypoglycaemia were lower with dulaglutide versus glargine. Gastrointestinal adverse events, including diarrhoea and nausea, were the most frequently reported for patients taking dulaglutide.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-weekly dulaglutide provides greater improvement in HbA1c, with weight loss and less hypoglycaemia, than once-daily insulin glargine in a population of mainly Asian patients with T2DM who had failed to achieve optimal glycaemic control on metformin and/or a sulphonylurea.

Lilly Insulin Glargine Versus Lantus® in Insulin-Naïve and Insulin-Treated Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized, Controlled Trial (ELEMENT 5)

INTRODUCTION

This study compared the efficacy and safety of similar U-100 insulin glargine products, namely, Lilly insulin glargine (LY IGlar; Basaglar®) and the reference insulin glargine product (IGlar; Lantus®), used once daily in combination with oral antihyperglycemic medications (OAMs) in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

ELEMENT 5 was a phase III, randomized, multinational, open-label, treat-to-target, 24-week trial. Participants were insulin naïve (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] ≥ 7.0% to ≤ 11.0%) or on basal insulin (IGlar, neutral protamine Hagedorn or insulin detemir; HbA1c ≤ 11.0%) and taking ≥ 2 OAMs. The primary objective was to show  that LY IGlar is noninferior to IGlar in terms of HbA1c reduction (0.4% noninferiority margin).

RESULTS

The study population (N = 493) was predominantly Asian (48%) or White (46%), with similar baseline characteristics between arms (P > 0.05). At 24 weeks, LY IGlar was noninferior to IGlar in terms of change in HbA1c level from baseline (- 1.25 vs. - 1.22%, respectively; least squares mean difference - 0.04%; 95% confidence interval - 0.22%, 0.15%). Other 24-week efficacy and safety results were also similar between treatments (P > 0.05), including insulin dose; percentage of patients having HbA1c of < 7% and ≤ 6.5%; overall rate and incidence of total, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemia; adverse events; insulin antibody response; and weight gain. Daily mean 7-point self-monitored blood glucose reduction was similar between treatments at 24 weeks, with no differences at any time point except premorning-meal (fasting) blood glucose (LY IGlar - 2.37 mmol/L; IGlar - 2.69 mmol/L; P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Overall, LY IGlar and IGlar combined with OAMs provided similar glucose control and safety findings in this T2D population, which included a greater proportion of Asian patients and had broader background basal insulin experience than a previously studied T2D population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02302716.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company and Boehringer Ingelheim. Plain language summary available for this article.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Dulaglutide as an Add-on to Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes; Clinical Efficacy and Parameters Affecting the Response in Real-World Practice

PURPOSE

For patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who remain above their glycemic target on insulin therapy, a combination of insulin and a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist has been recommended. However, few studies have been conducted to determine the clinical efficacy and parameters affecting the response to this combination in a real-world setting. This study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and parameters affecting the glycemic response to dulaglutide as an add-on to insulin therapy for T2DM in a real-world clinical setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was performed in 120 patients with T2DM who had initiated dulaglutide as an add-on to insulin therapy between January 2017 and December 2018. After 6 months of treatment, the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was evaluated. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine the parameters affecting the therapeutic response to dulaglutide.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 55.1 years and 57.5% were male. The mean baseline HbA1c, body mass index, and duration of diabetes were 9.1%, 27.5 kg/m², and 17.2 years, respectively. The change in HbA1c between baseline and 6 months was -0.97% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.28 to -0.66%, P<0.001), the change in body weight was -2.05 kg (95% CI: -2.93 to -1.17 kg, P<0.001), and the change in total daily insulin dose was -11.67 IU (95% CI: -14.55 to -8.78 IU, P<0.001). In multiple linear regression analysis, higher baseline HbA1c was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms, but these were well-tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Dulaglutide treatment in combination with insulin resulted in a significant improvement in HbA1c and body weight over a 6-month period in a real-world clinical setting. Higher baseline HbA1c was associated with a good clinical response.

Contribution of BHG and PPHG to Overall Hyperglycemia in T2DM Patients Treated with LM25 and LM50: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Crossover Trial

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the relative contribution rates of basal hyperglycemia (BHG) and postprandial hyperglycemia (PPHG) to overall hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with insulin lispro mix 25 and 50 (LM25 and LM50) as evaluated by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

METHODS

Eighty-one T2DM patients treated with premixed human insulin 70/30 (PHI70/30) were randomly divided into two groups and received a crossover protocol. In the first 16-week stage, one group received LM25 twice daily, the other group received LM50 twice daily. In the second 16-week stage, the two groups exchanged therapeutic regimen. Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) measurement and CGM were performed at enrollment and at the end of each treatment stage.

RESULTS

BHG's contribution rate increased with increasing HbA_1c (from 34.5% to 60.8%). PPHG's contribution rates in the LM50 regimen were significantly lower than those in LM25 and PHI70/30 regimens at HbA_1c levels < 7.5%. Compared with LM50, LM25 shows a significant difference in reducing HbA_1c in the subgroup with baseline HbA_1c ≥ 8.5% (ΔHbA_1c LM25 vs. LM50 - 0.6 ± 0.1% vs. 0.3 ± 0.1%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For T2DM patients treated with premixed insulin analogues, postprandial hyperglycemia played a major role in the subgroup of patients with HbA_1c < 8.5%, while fasting hyperglycemia became the major contributor to overall hyperglycemia in the subgroup of patients with HbA_1c ≥ 8.5%.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier ChiCTR-TTRCC-12002516.

FUNDING

Lilly Suzhou Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Branch, China) and National Key Program of Clinical Science of China (WBYZ2011-873).

Characteristics of insulin-Naïve people with type 2 diabetes who successfully respond to insulin glargine U100 after 24 weeks of treatment: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 3 randomized clinical trials

Background

To identify baseline/clinical characteristics associated with clinically meaningful responses to insulin glargine 100 U/mL (IGlar) in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

Individual participant data were pooled from 3 randomized trials to compare baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes associated with 24-week response to IGlar in combination with non-insulin antihyperglycemic agents in participants with T2DM. Responders were defined as achieving endpoint HbA1c target < 53 mmol/mol (< 7%) and/or ≥ 11 mmol/mol (≥ 1%) HbA1c reduction from baseline.

Results

Differences in baseline characteristics for responders versus nonresponders were higher HbA1c (99 vs 91 mmol/mol [9.1 vs 8.3%]; P < 0.001), higher fasting blood glucose (FBG; 10.4 vs 8.8 mmol/L [187 vs 159 mg/dL; P < 0.001), and fewer participants (94% vs 98%; P = 0.006) taking oral medications targeting postprandial blood glucose (BG). Most participants (80%) achieved one or both components of composite endpoint. 12-week response was a strong predictor of subsequent 24-week response (sensitivity, 85.9%; predictive positive value, 91.4%). At both 12 and 24 weeks, < 40% of responders and nonresponders reached target FBG ≤ 5.6 mmol/L (≤ 100 mg/dL). Responders at 24 weeks had higher incidence of hypoglycemia (total, 82.5% vs 70.4%; P < 0.001; nocturnal, 60.3% vs 50.5%; P = 0.002; documented symptomatic, 65.8% vs 55.6%; P < 0.001) than nonresponders.

Conclusions

Baseline characteristics associated with response were identified. The strong predictability of 12-week response suggests that the magnitude of early HbA1c reduction should be considered when assessing response to IGlar. More aggressive IGlar titration may be reasonable for nonresponders and responders who have not reached FBG and HbA1c targets, taking into account other BG timepoints.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40842-018-0059-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Lipid Profiles, Inflammatory Markers, and Insulin Therapy in Youth with Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVES

Data regarding atherogenic dyslipidemia and the inflammation profile in youth with type 2 diabetes is limited and the effect of insulin therapy on these variables has not previously been studied in youth. We determined the impact of insulin therapy on lipid and inflammatory markers in youth with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.

STUDY DESIGN

In the Treatment Options for type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) multicenter trial, 285 participants failed to sustain glycemic control on randomized treatment (primary outcome, glycated hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] at ≥8% for 6 months); 363 maintained glycemic control (never reached primary outcome). Statins were used for a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol of ≥130 mg/dL. Upon reaching the primary outcome, insulin was started. Changes in lipids and inflammatory markers (slopes over time) were examined.

RESULTS

Progression of dyslipidemia was related to glycemic control. In those with the primary outcome, insulin therapy impacted HbA1c modestly, and dampened the increase in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and total apolipoprotein B, although statin use increased from 8.6% to 22% year after the primary outcome. The increase in triglycerides and plasma nonesterified fatty acids stabilized after insulin was started, independent of HbA1c. There was an increase in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein that continued after insulin initiation, related to HbA1c and percent overweight.

CONCLUSIONS

Worsening dyslipidemia and inflammation over time raise concern regarding premature development of atherosclerosis in youth with type 2 diabetes. Insulin therapy has a limited benefit in the absence of glycemic control. Strategies to achieve better glycemic control are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00081328.

Insulin Matters: A Practical Approach to Basal Insulin Management in Type 2 Diabetes

It is currently estimated that 11 million Canadians are living with diabetes or prediabetes. Although hyperglycemia is associated with serious complications, it is well established that improved glycemic control reduces the risk of microvascular complications and can also reduce cardiovascular (CV) complications over the long term. The UKPDS and ADVANCE landmark trials have resulted in diabetes guidelines recommending an A1C target of ≤ 7.0% for most patients or a target of ≤ 6.5% to further reduce the risk of nephropathy and retinopathy in those with type 2 diabetes (T2D), if it can be achieved safely. However, half of the people with T2D in Canada are not achieving these glycemic targets, despite advances in diabetes pharmacological management. There are many contributing factors to account for this poor outcome; however, one of the major factors is the delay in treatment advancement, particularly a resistance to insulin initiation and intensification. To simplify the process of initiating and titrating insulin in T2D patients, a group of Canadian experts reviewed the evidence and best clinical practices with the goal of providing guidance and practical recommendations to the diabetes healthcare community at large. This expert panel included general practitioners (GPs), nurses, nurse practitioners, endocrinologists, dieticians, pharmacists, and a psychologist. This article summarizes the panel recommendations.