Impact of improving postprandial glycemic control with intensifying insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes

Effect of rye consumption on markers of glycemic control: evidence on the "rye factor": a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Rye, as a source of dietary fiber, may have beneficial effects in glycemic control. In the current meta-analysis, we collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effect of rye consumption on glucose and insulin markers. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched to find the RCTs. Random-effects model was used to calculate mean difference and 95% confidence intervals. Thirty-one RCTs, including 922 participants, passed the screening and eligibility stages and were included in the meta-analysis. Rye consumption did not have a significant effect on glucose indices including fasting, postprandial, and area under the curve (AUC). Subgroup analysis did not make a difference in the results, except that there was trends for increased postprandial glucose in two subgroups: individuals aged > 50 y (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.93, 95% CI: -0.03, 1.90 mmol/l, P = 0.058) and short intervention lengths (≤ 270 min) (WMD = 0.48, 95% CI: -0.03, 0.99 mmol/l, P = 0.066), and a trend for decreased AUC for glucose in rye fiber doses ≥ 12 g (WMD = -0.22, 95% CI: -0.46, 0.01 mmol/l, P = 0.059). Rye consumption did not show an effect on fasting and postprandial insulin but indicated a reduction in AUC for insulin (WMD = -0.48, 95% CI: -0.66, -0.30 mU/l, P < 0.001). Overall, results of this meta-analysis suggest that rye consumption may reduce insulin postprandial AUC without affecting glucose markers. Prospective cohorts are needed to determine the clinical importance of the finding.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Crossover Study to Evaluate Postprandial Glucometabolic Effects of Mulberry Leaf Extract, Vitamin D, Chromium, and Fiber in People with Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Reducing postprandial (PP) hyperglycemia and PP glucose excursions is important for overall glycemic management. Although most therapeutic lifestyle interventions that reduce caloric intake would affect this, there is no particular nutritional intervention favored.

METHODS

We evaluated the effects of a novel natural food adjuvant combining mulberry leaf extract (MLE) with other bioactive ingredients, in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) originating from Asia, on improving PP glucometabolic response in a randomized controlled exploratory crossover, two-center study (USA, Singapore). A 2-g blend of 250 mg MLE [containing 12.5 mg of 1-deoxynojirimycin (DNJ)], fiber (1.75 g), vitamin D₃ (0.75 μg), and chromium (75 μg), compared with a similar blend without the MLE, was sprinkled over a 350-kcal breakfast meal (55.4 g carbs) and PP blood glucose (primary exploratory endpoint), insulin, and incretin hormones (GLP-1, GIP) were evaluated in blood samples over 3 h. Changes in incremental areas under the concentration curve (iAUC) and maximum concentrations (C_max) were compared.

RESULTS

Thirty individuals (12 women, mean age 59 years, HbA1c 7.1%, BMI 26.5 kg/m²) were enrolled and the MLE-based blend relative to the blend without MLE significantly reduced glucose iAUC at 1 h (- 20%, p < 0.0001), 2 h (- 17%, p = 0.0001), and 3 h (- 15%, p = 0.0032) and C_max [mean (95% CI) difference - 0.8 (- 1.2, - 0.3) mmol/L, p = 0.0006]. A statistically significant reduction in 1 h insulin iAUC (- 24%, p = 0.0236) was observed, but this reduction was no longer present at either 2 h or 3 h. No difference in GLP-1 was seen, but GIP response (iAUC and C_max) was less with the MLE-based blend.

CONCLUSIONS

The observation of a significant glucose reduction paralleled with a significant lower insulin response supports a reduced gastrointestinal glucose absorption. These results support the use of a 2-g natural blend of MLE, fiber, vitamin D, and chromium in T2D as a convenient dietary adjuvant to improve PP glucometabolic response.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifier NCT04877366.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin to improve glucose control in older people with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy: A randomized trial

AIM

To assess the addition of linagliptin as an alternative to insulin uptitration in older people with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This phase 4, randomized, multicentre, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 24-week study recruited individuals on stable insulin, with baseline HbA1c 7.0%-10.0%, aged ≥60 years and body mass index ≤45 kg/m² . HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose were measured at study visits, and participants assessed glycaemic control with a self-monitoring blood glucose device. Adverse events (AEs) were reported during the study.

RESULTS

Three hundred and two participants were randomized 1:1 to linagliptin 5 mg qd and placebo, with one third of patients from Japan. Study population age and HbA1c (baseline mean ± SD) were 72.4 ± 5.4 years and 8.2 ± 0.8%, respectively; ~80% of participants were aged ≥70 years; 80% had macrovascular complications, one third had a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m² ; and half had been diagnosed with diabetes for >15 years. Linagliptin significantly improved glucose control at 24 weeks (HbA1c-adjusted mean change vs. placebo: -0.63%; P <0.0001) and the probability of achieving predefined HbA1c targets without hypoglycaemia (HbA1c <8.0%: OR 2.02; P <0.05 and HbA1c <7.0%: OR 2.44; P <0.01). Linagliptin versus placebo was well tolerated, with similar incidences of AEs, including clinically important hypoglycaemia (blood glucose <54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of linagliptin improves glucose control without an excess of hypoglycaemia in older patients with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy.

Effect of V-Go Versus Multiple Daily Injections on Glycemic Control, Insulin Use, and Diabetes Medication Costs Among Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Coping with discomfort and the uncertainties of daily adjustments are prominent challenges confronting individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who require multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin. For this growing population, wearable, disposable devices capable of delivering consistent and sustained doses of basal-bolus therapy may help to alleviate concerns and improve outcomes. However, studies on the comparative effectiveness of new, innovative delivery systems versus MDI on insulin requirements, glycemic control, and health care costs are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To examine glycemic control, insulin use, and diabetes medication costs for users of the V-Go Wearable Insulin Delivery device compared with MDI insulin therapy among individuals with T2DM in a commercially insured population in the United States.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study queried administrative claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database from July 1, 2011, through July 31, 2017. Cohorts included individuals with T2DM aged 21-80 years either newly initiating V-Go or using MDI for basal/bolus insulin. The date of earliest claim for V-Go prescription fill or for bolus insulin was defined as the index date, depending on the cohort. Previous insulin therapy was required in both cohorts. Baseline hemoglobin A1c (A1c) values were identified during the 6 months before and 15 days after the index date; results closest to 12 months after the index date were selected as follow-up. Insulin use and diabetes medication cost data were examined during the 6 months baseline and the second half of the 1-year follow-up. V-Go and MDI users were 1:1 matched on baseline insulin exposure, A1c level, and other characteristics of interest. Univariate and multivariate tests were used to compare follow-up outcomes.

RESULTS

Matched cohorts included 118 well-balanced pairs (mean age: 56 years; mean baseline A1c: 9.2%). During follow-up, both cohorts experienced improvements in glycemic control relative to baseline (% with A1c ≤ 9%, baseline/follow-up: V-Go 49/69, P < 0.001; MDI 50/60, P = 0.046). With similar baseline insulin prescription fills and diabetes medication costs, V-Go users required fewer insulin prescription fills (mean change: -0.8 vs. +1.8 fills, P < 0.001; -17% vs. +38%); had a smaller increase in diabetes medication costs (mean change in 2016 USD: $341 vs. $1,628, P = 0.012; +10% vs. +47%); and a decrease in insulin total daily dose (mean change in insulin units per day: -29.2 vs. +5.8, P < 0.001; -21% vs. +4%), compared with MDI users, during the last 6 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was the first to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes associated with the use of V-Go for up to a 1-year follow-up period. Relative to MDI users, V-Go users had similar glycemic control but lower insulin use and lower diabetes medication costs during follow-up. V-Go therapy may provide an opportunity to improve quality measures more cost-effectively in people with T2DM who require basal-bolus therapy.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Valeritas. Nguyen is an employee of Valeritas. Zhou, Grabner, Barron, and Quimbo are employees of HealthCore, which received funding for this study from Valeritas. Raval was an employee of HealthCore at the time the study was conducted. Partial findings from this study were presented at the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 23rd Annual International Meeting; May 19-23, 2018; Baltimore, MD; and the 54th European Association for the Study of Diabetes Annual Meeting; October 1-5, 2018; Berlin, Germany.

Effect of V-Go Versus Multiple Daily Injections on Glycemic Control, Insulin Use, and Diabetes Medication Costs Among Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Coping with discomfort and the uncertainties of daily adjustments are prominent challenges confronting individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who require multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin. For this growing population, wearable, disposable devices capable of delivering consistent and sustained doses of basal-bolus therapy may help to alleviate concerns and improve outcomes. However, studies on the comparative effectiveness of new, innovative delivery systems versus MDI on insulin requirements, glycemic control, and health care costs are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To examine glycemic control, insulin use, and diabetes medication costs for users of the V-Go Wearable Insulin Delivery device compared with MDI insulin therapy among individuals with T2DM in a commercially insured population in the United States.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study queried administrative claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database from July 1, 2011, through July 31, 2017. Cohorts included individuals with T2DM aged 21-80 years either newly initiating V-Go or using MDI for basal/bolus insulin. The date of earliest claim for V-Go prescription fill or for bolus insulin was defined as the index date, depending on the cohort. Previous insulin therapy was required in both cohorts. Baseline hemoglobin A1c (A1c) values were identified during the 6 months before and 15 days after the index date; results closest to 12 months after the index date were selected as follow-up. Insulin use and diabetes medication cost data were examined during the 6 months baseline and the second half of the 1-year follow-up. V-Go and MDI users were 1:1 matched on baseline insulin exposure, A1c level, and other characteristics of interest. Univariate and multivariate tests were used to compare follow-up outcomes.

RESULTS

Matched cohorts included 118 well-balanced pairs (mean age: 56 years; mean baseline A1c: 9.2%). During follow-up, both cohorts experienced improvements in glycemic control relative to baseline (% with A1c ≤ 9%, baseline/follow-up: V-Go 49/69, P < 0.001; MDI 50/60, P = 0.046). With similar baseline insulin prescription fills and diabetes medication costs, V-Go users required fewer insulin prescription fills (mean change: -0.8 vs. +1.8 fills, P < 0.001; -17% vs. +38%); had a smaller increase in diabetes medication costs (mean change in 2016 USD: $341 vs. $1,628, P = 0.012; +10% vs. +47%); and a decrease in insulin total daily dose (mean change in insulin units per day: -29.2 vs. +5.8, P < 0.001; -21% vs. +4%), compared with MDI users, during the last 6 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was the first to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes associated with the use of V-Go for up to a 1-year follow-up period. Relative to MDI users, V-Go users had similar glycemic control but lower insulin use and lower diabetes medication costs during follow-up. V-Go therapy may provide an opportunity to improve quality measures more cost-effectively in people with T2DM who require basal-bolus therapy.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Valeritas. Nguyen is an employee of Valeritas. Zhou, Grabner, Barron, and Quimbo are employees of HealthCore, which received funding for this study from Valeritas. Raval was an employee of HealthCore at the time the study was conducted. Partial findings from this study were presented at the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 23rd Annual International Meeting; May 19-23, 2018; Baltimore, MD; and the 54th European Association for the Study of Diabetes Annual Meeting; October 1-5, 2018; Berlin, Germany.