The basal to total insulin ratio in outpatients with diabetes on basal-bolus regimen

American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, ElSayed NA, McCoy RG, Aleppo G, Bajaj M, Balapattabi K, Beverly EA, Briggs Early K, Bruemmer D, Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Ekhlaspour L, Gaglia JL, Garg R, Girotra M, Khunti K, Lal R, Lingvay I, Matfin G, Neumiller JJ, Pandya N, Pekas EJ, Pilla SJ, Polsky S, Segal AR, Seley JJ, Stanton RC, Bannuru RR. 9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025

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, an interprofessional 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.

American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Bannuru RR, Bruemmer D, Collins BS, Ekhlaspour L, Gaglia JL, Hilliard ME, Johnson EL, Khunti K, Lingvay I, Matfin G, McCoy RG, Perry ML, Pilla SJ, Polsky S, Prahalad P, Pratley RE, Segal AR, Seley JJ, Stanton RC, Gabbay RA. 9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

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, an interprofessional 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.

Challenging the 50-50 rule for the basal-bolus insulin ratio in patients with type 2 diabetes who maintain stable glycaemic control

BACKGROUND

For patients using basal-bolus insulin therapy, it is widespread clinical practice to aim for a 50-50 ratio between basal and total daily bolus. However, this practice was based on a small study of individuals without diabetes. To assess the rule in real-world practice, we retrospectively analyzed patients on basal-bolus therapy that was adjusted at least weekly by an artificial intelligence-driven titration within the d-Nav® Insulin Management Technology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We obtained de-identified data from the Diabetes Centre of Ulster Hospital for patients with four inclusion criteria: type 2 Diabetes (T2D), on d-Nav >6 months, on basal-bolus insulin therapy >80% of the time (based on insulin analogs), and no gap in data >3 months.

RESULTS

We assembled a cohort of 306 patients, followed by the d-Nav service for 3.4 ± 1.8 years (mean ± SD), corresponding to about 180 autonomous insulin dose titrations and about 5000 autonomous individual dose recommendations per patient. After an initial run-in period, mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values in the cohort were maintained close to 7%. Surprisingly, in just over three-quarters of the cohort, the average basal insulin fraction was <50%; in half of the cohort average basal insulin fraction <41.2%; and in one-quarter the basal insulin fraction was <33.6%. Further, the basal insulin fraction did not remain static over time. In half of the patients, the basal insulin fraction varied by ≥1.9×; and, in 25% of the patients, ≥2.5×.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that a 50-50 ratio of basal-to-bolus insulin does not generally apply to patients with T2D who successfully maintain stable glycemia. Therefore, the 50-50 ratio should not serve as an ongoing treatment guide. Moreover, our results emphasize the importance of at least weekly insulin titrations.

Ultrasound-Triggered On-Demand Insulin Release for Diabetes Mellitus Treatment

Exogenous insulin (INS) is successfully used for controlling glucose in diabetic patients. Although frequent INS injections can overcome hyperglycemia, they are both painful and inconvenient. Herein, we report an ultrasound-regulated INS release platform (INS-PPIX@ER hydrogel) that allows for remotely regulated on-demand INS release and minimizes pain. In this system, protoporphyrin IX (PPIX)-containing erythrocytes (ERs) served as an INS reservoir, an injectable peptide hydrogel provided strong protection for the ERs, and INS release was regulated using ultrasound. This particular INS release behavior was triggered by increased production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) by PPIX from the PPIX-loaded ERs under ultrasound irradiation. The ROS then interacted with the phospholipid bilayer of the ERs, thereby opening the stomata of the INS-PPIX@ER and releasing INS. INS-PPIX@ER hydrogels could control hyperglycemia within 2 h and maintained normal blood glucose levels for up to 3 days. This effective remote approach allowed closed-loop drug release spatiotemporally without causing any pain and injury. Our findings could serve as a powerful tool for constructing a precisely controlled release system.

Insulin doses requirements in patients with type 1 diabetes using glargine U300 or degludec in routine clinical practice

There are not many real-world studies evaluating daily insulin doses requirements (DIDR) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using second-generation basal insulin analogs, and such comparison is necessary. The aim of this study was to compare DIDR in individuals with T1D using glargine 300 UI/mL (IGlar-300) or degludec (IDeg) in real clinical practice. An observational, retrospective study was designed in 412 patients with T1D (males: 52%; median age 37.0±13.4 years, diabetes duration: 18.7±12.3 years) using IDeg and IGla-300 ≥6 months to compare DIDR between groups. Patients using IGla-300 (n=187) were more frequently males (59% vs 45.8%; p=0.004) and had lower glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (7.6±1.2 vs 8.1%±1.5%; p<0.001) than patients using IDeg (n=225). Total (0.77±0.36 unit/kg/day), basal (0.43±0.20 unit/kg/day) and prandial (0.33±0.23 unit/kg/day) DIDR were similar in IGla-300 and IDeg groups. Patients with HbA1c ≤7% (n=113) used significantly lower basal (p=0.045) and total (p=0.024) DIDR, but not prandial insulin (p=0.241), than patients with HbA1c between 7.1% and 8% and >8%. Patients using IGla-300 and IDeg used similar basal, prandial and total DIDR regardless of metabolic control subgroup. No difference in basal, prandial and total DIDR was observed between patients with T1D using IGla-300 or IDeg during at least 6 months in routine clinical practice.