Frequency, severity and symptomatology of hypoglycaemia: a comparative trial of human and porcine insulins in type 1 diabetic patients

Diabetes Mellitus Is a Chronic Disease that Can Benefit from Therapy with Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality, with an increasing incidence worldwide. The impact of DM on public health in developing countries has triggered alarm due to the exaggerated costs of the treatment and monitoring of patients with this disease. Considerable efforts have been made to try to prevent the onset and reduce the complications of DM. However, because insulin-producing pancreatic β-cells progressively deteriorate, many people must receive insulin through subcutaneous injection. Additionally, current therapies do not have consistent results regarding the prevention of chronic complications. Leveraging the approval of real-time continuous glucose monitors and sophisticated algorithms that partially automate insulin infusion pumps has improved glycemic control, decreasing the burden of diabetes management. However, these advances are facing physiologic barriers. New findings in molecular and cellular biology have produced an extraordinary advancement in tissue development for the treatment of DM. Obtaining pancreatic β-cells from somatic cells is a great resource that currently exists for patients with DM. Although this therapeutic option has great prospects for patients, some challenges remain for this therapeutic plan to be used clinically. The purpose of this review is to describe the new techniques in cell biology and regenerative medicine as possible treatments for DM. In particular, this review highlights the origin of induced pluripotent cells (iPSCs) and how they have begun to emerge as a regenerative treatment that may mitigate the pathology of this disease.

Design and rationale of the IN CONTROL trial: the effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring on glycemia and quality of life in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia

BACKGROUND

Hypoglycemia is the main side effect of intensified insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes and recognized as a limitation in achieving glycemic targets. Patients with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia have a threefold to sixfold increased risk of severe hypoglycemia. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring may help patients with type 1 diabetes to achieve better glycemic control with less hypoglycemic episodes. Accordingly, one may hypothesize that particularly type 1 diabetes mellitus patients with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia will profit most from this technology with improvements in their quality of life. However, this has not yet been established. This trial aims to study the effect of real-time continuous glucose monitoring on glycemia and quality of life specifically in type 1 diabetes mellitus patients with established impaired awareness of hypoglycemia.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a two-center, randomized, cross-over trial with a 12-week wash-out period in between intervention periods. A total of 52 type 1 diabetes mellitus patients with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia according to Gold et al. criteria will be randomized to receive real-time continuous glucose monitoring or blinded continuous glucose monitoring for 16 weeks. After a wash-out period, patients will cross over to the other intervention. The primary outcome measure is time spent in euglycemia. Secondary outcomes include (diabetes-specific) markers of quality of life and other glycemic variables.

DISCUSSION

It remains unclear whether patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia benefit from real-time continuous glucose monitoring in real-life. This study will provide insight into the potential benefits of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in this patient population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01787903.

WITHDRAWN: Modification in redox status of diabetes mellitus type 1 patients after insulin transition

The Publisher regrets that this article is an accidental duplication of an article that has already been published, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bionut.2010.09.005. The duplicate article has therefore been withdrawn.

Frequency of biochemical hypoglycaemia in adults with Type 1 diabetes with and without impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia: no identifiable differences using continuous glucose monitoring

OBJECTIVE

Impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) is a major risk factor for severe hypoglycaemia in Type 1 diabetes. Although biochemical hypoglycaemia is asserted to be more frequent in IAH, this has not been estimated accurately. The aim of this study was to use Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) to quantify hypoglycaemia in IAH and evaluate its use in identifying impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

Ninety-five patients with Type 1 diabetes were classified as having normal (n = 74) or impaired awareness (n = 21) using an established method of assessing hypoglycaemia awareness. Hypoglycaemia exposure was assessed prospectively over 9-12 months using weekly 4-point capillary home blood glucose monitoring (HBGM), 5 days of CGM and prospective reporting of severe hypoglycaemia. The frequencies of biochemical and severe hypoglycaemia were compared in patients with normal and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

Patients with impaired awareness had a 3-fold higher incidence of severe hypoglycaemia than those with normal awareness [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 3.37 (95% CI 1.30-8.7); P = 0.01] and 1.6-fold higher incidence of hypoglycaemia on weekly HBGM [IRR 1.63 (95% CI 1.09-2.44); P = 0.02]. No significant differences were observed with CGM [IRR for sensor glucose < or = 3.0 mmol/l 1.47 (95% CI 0.91-2.39); P = 0.12; IRR for sensor glucose < or = 2.2 mmol/l 1.23 (95% CI 0.76-1.98); P = 0.40].

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with Type 1 diabetes with impaired awareness had a 3-fold higher risk of severe hypoglycaemia and 1.6-fold higher incidence of biochemical hypoglycaemia measured with weekly glucose monitoring compared with normal awareness, but 5 days of CGM did not differentiate those with impaired from those with normal awareness.

Frequency and predictors of hypoglycaemia in Type 1 and insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes: a population-based study

AIMS

To ascertain the frequency and identify predictors of self-reported hypoglycaemia in Type 1 and insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A random sample of 267 people with insulin-treated diabetes were recruited from a population-based diabetes register in Tayside, Scotland. Each subject prospectively recorded the number of mild and severe hypoglycaemic episodes experienced over a 1-month period. Ordinal logistic regression was performed to identify potential predictors of hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

Five hundred and seventy-two hypoglycaemic events were reported by 155 patients. The participants with Type 1 diabetes had a total of 336 hypoglycaemic events with a rate of 42.89 events per patient per year. Of these, nine were severe hypoglycaemic events, with a rate of 1.15 events per patient per year. Participants with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes experienced a total of 236 hypoglycaemic events with a rate of 16.37 events per patient per year. Of these, five were severe hypoglycaemic events, which would be equivalent to 0.35 events per patient per year. Predictors of hypoglycaemia in Type 1 diabetes were a history of previous hypoglycaemia (P = 0.006) and co-prescribing of any oral drug (P = 0.048). In patients with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes, a history of previous hypoglycaemia (P < 0.0001) and duration of insulin treatment (P = 0.014) were significant predictors.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of self-reported severe hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes is lower than in Type 1 diabetes but does occur more often than previously reported and with sufficient frequency to cause significant morbidity. Duration of insulin treatment is a key predictor of hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes.

'Human' insulin versus animal insulin in people with diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Human insulin was introduced for the routine treatment of diabetes mellitus in the early 1980s without adequate comparison of efficacy to animal insulin preparations. First reports of altered hypoglycaemia awareness after transfer to human insulin made physicians and especially patients uncertain about potential adverse effects of human insulin.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different insulin species by evaluating their efficacy (in particular glycaemic control) and adverse effects profile (mainly hypoglycaemia).

SEARCH STRATEGY

A highly sensitive search for randomised controlled trials combined with key terms for identifying studies on human versus animal insulin was performed using The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE. We also searched reference lists and databases of ongoing trials. Date of latest search: July 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled clinical trials with diabetic patients of all ages that compared human to animal (for the most part purified porcine) insulin. Trial duration had to be at least one month in order to achieve reliable results on the main outcome parameter glycated haemoglobin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial selection as well as evaluation of study quality was performed by two independent reviewers. The quality of reporting of each trial was assessed according to a modification of the quality criteria as specified by Schulz and by Jadad.

MAIN RESULTS

Altogether 2156 participants took part in the 45 randomised controlled studies that were discovered through extensive search efforts. Though many studies had a randomised, double-blind design, most studies were of poor methodological quality. Purified porcine and semi-synthetic insulin were most often investigated. No significant differences in metabolic control or hypoglycaemic episodes between various insulin species could be elucidated. Insulin dose and insulin antibodies did not show relevant dissimilarities.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A comparison of the effects of human and animal insulin as well as of the adverse reaction profile did not show clinically relevant differences. Many patient-oriented outcomes like health-related quality of life or diabetes complications and mortality were never investigated in high-quality randomised clinical trials. The story of the introduction of human insulin might be repeated by contemporary launching campaigns to introduce pharmaceutical and technological innovations that are not backed up by sufficient proof of their advantages and safety.

'Human' insulin versus animal insulin in people with diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Human insulin was introduced for the routine treatment of diabetes mellitus in the early 1980s without adequate comparison of efficacy to animal insulin preparations. First reports of altered hypoglycaemia awareness after transfer to human insulin made physicians and especially patients uncertain about potential adverse effects of human insulin.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different insulin species by evaluating their efficacy (in particular glycaemic control) and adverse effects profile (mainly hypoglycaemia).

SEARCH STRATEGY

A highly sensitive search for randomised controlled trials combined with key terms for identifying studies on human versus animal insulin was performed using the Cochrane Library (issue 2, 2002), Medline (1966 to May, 2002) and Embase (1974 to February, 2002). We also searched reference lists and databases of ongoing trials. Date of latest search: May 2002.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled clinical trials with diabetic patients of all ages that compared human to animal (for the most part purified porcine) insulin. Trial duration had to be at least one month in order to achieve reliable results on the main outcome parameter glycated haemoglobin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial selection as well as evaluation of study quality was performed by two independent reviewers. The quality of reporting of each trial was assessed according to a modification of the quality criteria as specified by Schulz and by Jadad.

MAIN RESULTS

Altogether 2156 participants took part in the 45 randomised controlled studies that were discovered through extensive search efforts. Though many studies had a randomised, double-blind design, most studies were of poor methodological quality. Purified porcine and semi-synthetic insulin were most often investigated. No significant differences in metabolic control or hypoglycaemic episodes between various insulin species could be elucidated. Insulin dose and insulin antibodies did not show relevant dissimilarities.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

A comparison of the effects of human and animal insulin as well as of the adverse reaction profile did not show clinically relevant differences. Many patient-oriented outcomes like health-related quality of life or diabetes complications and mortality were never investigated in high-quality randomised clinical trials. The story of the introduction of human insulin might be repeated by contemporary launching campaigns to introduce pharmaceutical and technological innovations that are not backed up by sufficient proof of their advantages and safety.

Human versus animal insulin in people with diabetes mellitus. A systematic review

This review is in accordance with the findings of the systematic review of Airey et al [18] with respect to the absence of a differential effect on hypoglycemia between human and animal insulin. For the first time, however, the review compares the relative efficacies of human and animal insulin, which indicates that human insulin was introduced without proof of being superior to animal insulin. Studies have not assessed patient-centered outcomes [41,42], such as patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life, and diabetes-related morbidity. Randomized trials did not report on qualitative assessments of patients' experiences when using different insulin species. Because history tends to repeat itself, we probably will be faced with other "innovations" (e.g., insulin analogs) evaluated in clinical trials tht focus on surrogate outcomes followed by marketing of insulins "proved" to be effective in short-term, underpowered, and badly executed studies.

Hypoglycaemia induced by exogenous insulin--'human' and animal insulin compared

AIMS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out to examine whether published evidence suggests a difference in the frequency and awareness of hypoglycaemia induced by 'human' and animal insulin.

METHODS

The review identified randomized controlled trials and studies of other designs including observational comparisons, case series and case reports in which the use of 'human' insulin was compared to animal insulin in people with diabetes. These were identified from bibliographic databases and hand-searches of key journals. The main outcome measures were frequency, severity, awareness and symptoms of insulin induced hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

Fifty-two randomized controlled trials, 37 of double-blind design, were identified which included one or more of the relevant outcome measures. Of these, 21 specifically investigated hypoglycaemic frequency and awareness as primary outcomes (six in people with previously reported reduced hypoglycaemic awareness). The remainder of the identified trials reported hypoglycaemic outcomes as a secondary or incidental outcome during comparative investigations of efficacy or immunogenicity. Seven of the double-blind studies reported differences in frequency of hypoglycaemia or awareness of symptoms, although none of the studies which selected subjects on the basis of previously reported impaired awareness demonstrated significant differences between insulin species. Four of the unblinded trials reported differences in hypoglycaemia. This reached statistical significance in two of the studies. A further 56 studies of other designs and case reports were considered. In addition to the 10 case reports describing individuals with impaired hypoglycaemic awareness, nine studies reported differences in the incidence and manifestation of hypoglycaemia during 'human' insulin treatment. Notably, none of the four population time trend studies found any relationship between the increasing use of 'human' insulin and hospital admission for hypoglycaemia or unexplained death among those with diabetes. The largest case series could find no support for the hypothesis that an influence of treatment with 'human' insulin on hypoglycaemia had contributed to any of the 50 deaths investigated. When all types of studies considered are ranked in order of rigour (according to the accepted 'hierarchy of evidence'), it is the least rigorous which lend most support to the notion that treatment with 'human' insulin has an effect on the frequency, severity or symptoms of hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence does not support the contention that treatment with 'human' insulin per se affects the frequency, severity or symptoms of hypoglycaemia. However, a number of studies, mainly those of less rigorous design, describe an effect when people are transferred from animal insulin to 'human' insulin. It is not possible to state how common this is or whether the phenomenon is specific to 'human' insulin or an effect resulting from stricter glycaemic control (perhaps compounded, in some cases, by neurological complications in long-standing diabetes). This remaining uncertainty makes it essential that insulin from animal sources continues to be available so that clinicians and patients may retain this choice of treatment.