Switching from NPH insulin to once-daily insulin detemir in basal-bolus-treated patients with diabetes mellitus: data from the European cohort of the PREDICTIVE study

The Comparative Dosing and Glycemic Control of Intermediate and Long-Acting Insulins in Adult Patients With Type 1 and 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Objective:

The various basal insulin products possess differences in pharmacokinetics that can significantly impact glycemic control and total daily basal insulin dosing. In addition, there will be instances where transitions between the different long-acting insulins will need to be made. Because every basal insulin product is not interchangeable on a 1:1 unit-to-unit basis, it is important for health care providers to understand the expected dose adjustments necessary to maintain a similar level of glycemic control.

Data Sources:

A Medline and Web of Science search was conducted in September 2021 using the following keywords and medical subjecting headings: NPH, glargine, detemir, type 1 diabetes mellitus, and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

Included articles were those that followed adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus and compared the following types of insulin: “NPH and glargine,” “NPH and detemir,” and “glargine and detemir” for at least 4 weeks, had documented basal insulin (BI) doses, and excluded pregnant patients.

Data synthesis:

Twenty-five articles were found that include adult type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Once daily NPH can be converted unit-to-unit to glargine or detemir. Twice daily NPH converted to glargine or detemir requires an initial 20% reduction in BI dose. An increase in dose of BI is recommended when transitioning from glargine to detemir. Glargine and detemir consistently resulted in improved glycemic control with lower incidence of hypoglycemic events compared with NPH.

Conclusions:

When transitioning between long-acting insulins, the doses are not always interchangeable on a 1:1 basis. Unit dose adjustments are likely if transitioning between BIs and can influence short-term parameters in the acute care setting and long-term parameters in the outpatient setting.

The past, present, and future of basal insulins

Insulin production by the pancreas follows a basic pattern where basal levels of insulin are secreted during fasting periods, with prandial increases in insulin associated with food ingestion. The aim of insulin therapy in patients with diabetes is to match the endogenous pattern of insulin secretion as closely as possible without causing hypoglycaemia. There are several optimal pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of long-acting basal insulins that can help to achieve this aim, namely, as follows: activity that is flat and as free of peaks as possible, a duration of action of ≥24-h, and as little day-to-day variation as possible. The long-acting basal insulins are a fundamental therapy for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and those that are currently available have many benefits; however, the development of even longer-acting insulins and improved insulin delivery techniques may lead to better glycemic control for patients in the future. Established long-acting basal insulins available in the United States and Europe include insulin glargine 100 units/mL and insulin detemir, both of which exhibit similar glycemic control to that of the intermediate-acting neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin, but with a reduction in hypoglycaemia. Newer insulin products available include new insulin glargine 300 units/mL (United States and Europe) and the ultra-long-acting insulin degludec (Europe) with basal insulin peglispro currently in development. These new insulins demonstrate different pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles and longer durations of action (>24 h) compared with insulin glargine 100 units/mL, which may lead to potential benefits. The introduction of biosimilar insulins may also broaden access to insulins by reducing treatment costs. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Medication usage, treatment intensification, and medical cost in patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective database study

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to describe medication usage patterns in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating treatment with non-insulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs), basal insulin, or prandial/mixed insulin using real-world data.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis using the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases was conducted to identify adults (≥18 years) with T2DM from 2006 to 2012. Patients were categorized into four cohorts based on diabetes treatment. Cohort 1 (n=597 664) consisted of newly diagnosed patients who did not receive any treatment, cohort 2 (n=342 511) included NIAD initiators, cohort 3 (n=99 578) included basal insulin initiators, and cohort 4 (n=62 876) included prandial/mixed insulin initiators. Patients transitioned out of a cohort once they met the criteria for the next one.

RESULTS

Patients in cohort 2 were younger (56.2 years, SD±12.1) than patients in cohorts 1, 3, and 4 (58 years, SD±0.75). Metformin was the most commonly prescribed drug in cohort 2 patients. Basal insulin usage decreased from 71% in year 1 to 47% in year 4, in cohort 3 patients. Approximately one-third of these patients switched to prandial/mixed insulin each year. In cohort 4, the usage of prandial/mixed insulin decreased to 61% by year 4. Use of basal insulin and NIAD remained common in this group. Mean glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values decreased by ∼1% for each of the treatment cohorts following treatment initiation and remained stable during follow-up. All-cause and diabetes-related medical costs were highest for patients in cohorts 3 and 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our findings demonstrate that treatment intensification was low in all study cohorts despite elevated HbA1c levels during preindex and follow-up period.

Drug-related risk of severe hypoglycaemia in observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) leads to multiple complications, including severe hypoglycaemia events (SHEs). SHEs can impact a patient's quality of life and compliance and may directly result in additional costs to the health care system. The aim of this review was to evaluate the risk of severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 (T1) and 2 (T2) DM as observed in everyday clinical practice for various drug regimens.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of observational (retrospective or prospective) studies in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases that covered at least 100 children or adults with T1/T2 DM. In T1 DM, basal-bolus/pre-mix insulin (human or analogue) and insulin pump were reviewed, and in T2 DM, basal-bolus/pre-mix insulin (human or analogue), oral antidiabetic drugs supported with basal insulin (human or analogue), sulfonylureas in monotherapy, and combined oral treatment were reviewed. In order to estimate SHE rates, we extracted data on the time horizon of the study, number of patients, number of SHEs, and number of patients experiencing at least one SHE. We used a random effects model to estimate the annual SHE rate. We considered the risk for other antidiabetic medications in T2 DM to be negligible and the results of our main review yielded no observational data for premixes in T1 DM so they were assessed based on relative rates taken from additional systematic reviews. The study, being a desk research, did not involve any human subjects (including human material or human data) and no ethical committee approval was asked for. For the same reason there was no need to collect informed consent for participation in the study.

RESULTS

We identified 76 observational studies encompassing 707,722.30 patient-years. The estimated annual SHE rate varied from 0.168 (95 % CI 0.123-0.237) for insulin pump up to 1.628 for biphasic human insulin in T1 DM patients, and from 0.0035 for oral antidiabetic drugs up to 0.554 (95 % CI 0.157-7.534) for basal-bolus with human insulin in T2 DM patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review indicates that SHE rates differ between patients depending on treatment regimen. However, SHEs are also driven by other factors. Proper modelling techniques are needed to use various types of information in published studies.

Trends in Emergency Department Visit Rates for Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemic Crisis among Adults with Diabetes, United States, 2006-2011

Background

Despite concerns about hypoglycemia events from overly aggressive glycemic reduction, population trends in hypoglycemia and hyperglycemic crisis incidence are unclear. To address this gap, we examined changes in emergency department (ED) visit rates for hypoglycemia and hyperglycemic crisis 2006–2011.

Methods

Using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, we estimated the number of ED visits for hypoglycemia and hyperglycemic crisis via ICD-9-CM among adults with diabetes. Using data from the National Health Interview Survey, we estimated the population of adults with diabetes and calculated ED visit rates.

Results

From 2006 to 2011, ED visit rates for hypoglycemia declined by 22% from 1.8 to 1.4 per 100 adults (p = 0.003). The rates decreased in all age groups (all P<0.05) except those aged 18 to 44 years (P = 0.31). Hypoglycemia rates displayed a J-shaped curve across age, with the highest rates among adults aged 75 years or older (P <0.001). ED visit rates for hyperglycemic crisis did not change overall but increased 17% for adults aged 65 to 74 years (P = 0.02) and 29% for women (P = 0.01). Hyperglycemic crisis rates were highest among adults aged 18 to 44 years (P <0.001).

Conclusions

Hypoglycemia rates have declined for all adults but persons aged 18–44 years while rates for hyperglycemic crisis remained stable. Future preventive efforts should target on the susceptible population of adults aged 18 to 44 years and those aged 75 years or older.

Time to do more: addressing clinical inertia in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

Clinical inertia, the tendency to maintain current treatment strategies despite results demanding escalation, is thought to substantially contribute to the disconnect between clinical aspirations for patients with diabetes and targets achieved. We wished to explore potential causes of clinical inertia among physicians and people with diabetes.

METHODS

A 20-min online survey of 652 adults with diabetes and 337 treating physicians in six countries explored opinions relating to clinical inertia from both perspectives, in order to correlate perceptions and expectations relating to diagnosis, treatment, diabetes complications and therapeutic escalation.

RESULTS

Physicians had low expectations for their patients, despite the belief that the importance of good glycaemic control through lifestyle and pharmacological interventions had been adequately conveyed. Conversely, people with diabetes had, at best, a rudimentary understanding of the risks of complications and the importance of good control; indeed, only a small proportion believed lifestyle changes were important and the majority did not intend to comply.

CONCLUSIONS

The principal findings of this survey suggest that impairments in communication are at the heart of clinical inertia. This manuscript lays out four key principles that we believe are achievable in all environments and can improve the lives of people with diabetes.

A comparison of insulin detemir and neutral protamine Hagedorn (isophane) insulin in the treatment of diabetes: a systematic review

The aim of this review is to summarize the clinical efficacy, tolerability and safety data of insulin detemir, and compare its use with that of neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in randomized controlled trials in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. A literature search was conducted with PubMed using predefined search terms. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: randomized, controlled trial, comparison of insulin detemir with NPH insulin, non-hospitalized adults aged ≥18 years with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes, and study duration of ≥12 weeks. The following types of studies were excluded: non-randomized controlled trials, studies of mixed cohorts of patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes that did not report results separately, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies, reviews, pooled or meta-analyses or health-economic analyses. Fourteen publications met the inclusion criteria. Nine studies in people with type 1 diabetes and three studies in people with type 2 diabetes, using insulin detemir in a basal-bolus regimen were included. Two studies were in people with type 2 diabetes using insulin detemir with oral antidiabetes medicines. In 14 studies of people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, insulin detemir treatment provided similar or better glycaemic control, lower within-subject variability, similar or lower frequency of hypoglycaemia and less weight gain when compared with NPH insulin.

Clinical inertia in people with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study of more than 80,000 people

OBJECTIVE

To determine time to treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes treated with one, two, or three oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) and associated levels of glycemic control.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study based on 81,573 people with type 2 diabetes in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink between January 2004 and December 2006, with follow-up until April 2011.

RESULTS

In people with HbA1c ≥7.0, ≥7.5, or ≥8.0% (≥53, ≥58, or ≥64 mmol/mol), median time from above HbA1c cutoff to intensification with an additional OAD was 2.9, 1.9, or 1.6 years, respectively, for those taking one OAD and >7.2, >7.2, and >6.9 years for those taking two OADs. Median time to intensification with insulin was >7.1, >6.1, or 6.0 years for those taking one, two, or three OADs. Mean HbA1c at intensification with an OAD or insulin for people taking one, two, or three OADs was 8.7, 9.1, and 9.7%. In patients taking one, two, or three OADs, median time from treatment initiation to intensification with an OAD or insulin exceeded the maximum follow-up time of 7.2 years. The probability of patients with poor glycemic control taking one, two, or three OADs, intensifying at end of follow-up with an OAD, was 21.1-43.6% and with insulin 5.1-12.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

There are delays in treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes despite suboptimal glycemic control. A substantial proportion of people remain in poor glycemic control for several years before intensification with OADs and insulin.

A multicenter observational safety study in Swedish children and adolescents using insulin detemir for the treatment of type 1 diabetes

This 26-wk observational study in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in Sweden investigated the safety and efficacy of insulin detemir (IDet) in newly diagnosed (ND) patients and those with established diabetes (ED) switching to IDet. A total of 159 patients initiated IDet as part of basal-bolus therapy, 59 in the ND stratum (mean age 9.7 yr) and 97 in the ED stratum (mean age 12.5 yr). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of severe adverse drug reactions; just one major hypoglycemic event occurred in a patient in the ND stratum during the study and one patient was withdrawn due to injection-site reactions. All other events were classified as mild. In the ED stratum, there was a reduction in hypoglycemic events in the 4 wk prior to study end from baseline (mean reduction of 2.46 events, not significant) and a significant reduction in nocturnal hypoglycemia (mean reduction of 2.24 events, p = 0.0078). Glycemic control improved in the ND stratum as expected and, in the ED stratum, there was no significant change in HbA1c from baseline (mean reduction of -0.45%). At study end, mean daily IDet doses were 0.39 U/kg (ND) and 0.54 U/kg (ED). Weight increased by 5.7 and 2.0 kg in the ND and ED strata, respectively, and was within the normal limits for growing children. IDet provided good glycemic control and was well tolerated, with a reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia in a heterogeneous cohort of children and adolescents with T1D.

Insulin treatment of type 2 diabetes: considerations when converting from human insulin to insulin analogs

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a highly prevalent disease characterized by insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, and diminished pancreatic β-cell function. Conventional insulin products used to manage this disease include regular human insulin and intermediate-acting human insulin. However, due to several limitations imposed by human insulins, such as onset and duration of action that do not coincide with physiologic needs and increased risk of hypoglycemia, insulin analogs were developed. Because they more closely mimic the physiologic action of endogenous insulin, insulin analogs are associated with more effective glucose control, a lower risk of hypoglycemia, greater convenience, and, in some instances, less weight gain. Switching from human insulin to insulin analogs is easily accomplished. Several studies have demonstrated a high rate of success with patient-initiated, self-adjusted dosing algorithms compared to investigator/clinician-initiated dose adjustments. These studies and several other published guidelines on insulin analogs provide patients and clinicians with information pertaining to better treatment options and can help increase overall patient satisfaction.

Observational 6-Month Open-Label Study of Japanese Type 2 Diabetes Patients Switching from NPH Insulin to Insulin Detemir in Basal—Bolus Regimen: 23rd Article of the Japan Diabetes Clinical Data Management Study Group (JDDM23)

OBJECTIVE: Glycaemic control is critical to prevent diabetic complications and mortality. This 6-month, open-label, observational study assessed the efficacy and safety of switching Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes from neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin to insulin detemir. METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes ( n = 126) receiving basal—bolus insulin therapy with NPH insulin plus rapid-acting insulin analogues were recruited. NPH insulin was replaced with insulin detemir for 6 months. Glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), daily glucose levels and hypoglycaemia were monitored. Nocturnal quality of life was assessed by insulin therapy related quality of life at night questionnaire. RESULTS: HbA1c, FPG and body weight were all significantly reduced after treatment with insulin detemir for 6 months, without increasing severe hypoglycaemia. Insulin dose increased significantly over the same time. There were significant improvements in overall nocturnal quality of life, as well as well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with insulin detemir for 6 months resulted in substantial benefits, including reduced HbA1c, FPG and body weight, and improvements in nocturnal quality of life, without increasing hypoglycaemia.

Insulin detemir for the treatment of obese patients with type 2 diabetes

The risk for developing type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is greater among obese individuals. Following onset of the disease, patients with T2DM become more likely to be afflicted with diabetic micro- and macrovascular complications. Decreasing body weight has been shown to lower glycosylated hemoglobin and improve other metabolic parameters in patients with T2DM. Medications used to lower blood glucose may increase body weight in patients with T2DM and this has been repeatedly shown to be the case for conventional, human insulin formulations. Insulin detemir is a neutral, soluble, long-acting insulin analog in which threonine-30 of the insulin B-chain is deleted, and the C-terminal lysine is acetylated with myristic acid, a C14 fatty acid chain. Insulin detemir binds to albumin, a property that enhances its pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile. Results from clinical trials have demonstrated that treatment with insulin detemir is associated with less weight gain than either insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. There are many potential reasons for the lower weight gain observed among patients treated with insulin detemir, including lower risk for hypoglycemia and therefore decreased defensive eating due to concern about this adverse event, along with other effects that may be related to the albumin binding of this insulin that may account for lower within-patient variability and consistent action. These might include faster transport across the blood-brain barrier, induction of satiety signaling in the brain, and preferential inhibition of hepatic glucose production versus peripheral glucose uptake. Experiments in diabetic rats have also indicated that insulin detemir increases adiponectin levels, which is associated with both weight loss and decreased eating.

Detemir as a once-daily basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Background

Insulin detemir, a long-acting basal insulin analog, is labeled for once-daily or twice-daily dosing in patients with type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 (T2DM) diabetes mellitus. Protocols for some earlier clinical studies of detemir evaluated twice-daily dosing, which may have generated the misperception that detemir should be prescribed twice daily for most patients. This review examines pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD), observational, and controlled studies that have evaluated once-daily and twice-daily detemir in patients with T2DM to determine the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing.

Methods

PubMed was searched using the keywords “detemir,” “once daily,” “twice daily,” and “type 2 diabetes” with the limits of clinical trial, human, and English.

Results

Detemir has a relatively flat time–action profile and duration of action of up to 24 hours for patients with T2DM. Once-daily dosing is the most commonly used detemir regimen reported in observational studies, and controlled clinical studies indicate that once-daily dosing controls glycosylated hemoglobin when detemir is administered alone or in combination with a prandial insulin or oral antidiabetes drugs. In comparative clinical trials, detemir had a similar time–action profile and duration of action to another long-acting insulin analog, glargine, with less within-subject variability. Once-daily detemir was associated with no weight gain or less weight gain than comparator regimens. For patients who had not achieved glycemic control with a basal dose of once-daily detemir, adding a prandial insulin provided better glycemic control, less postprandial hypoglycemia, and a lower total daily dose of detemir than twice-daily detemir. Involvement of a multidisciplinary team and the use of a holistic approach for the treatment of T2DM patients are recommended to achieve and maintain the best patient outcomes.

Conclusion

Results from PK/PD, observational, and controlled clinical studies support a once-daily detemir regimen alone or in combination with a prandial insulin or oral antidiabetes drugs.

Direct healthcare costs of patients with type 2 diabetes using long-acting insulin analogues or NPH insulin in a basal insulin-only regimen

AIMS

To compare direct healthcare costs incurred by patients with type 2 diabetes in Denmark prescribed long-acting insulin analogues (LAIA) or intermediate-acting human insulin (NPH) in a basal-only regimen.

METHODS

Demographic and socio-economic patient characteristics, hospital utilisation data, primary care visits, specialist physician visits and prescription data were extracted from registers covering the Danish population. Patients receiving basal insulin were identified during a 1-year inclusion period (2005) and allocated to a LAIA (n=303) or NPH group (n=8523). LAIA patients were then matched with NPH patients using propensity scores based on observable covariates. Annual direct healthcare costs were determined during a <2-year analysis period (2005-2006).

RESULTS

Direct healthcare costs, including prescription costs, were equivalent between groups. However, while most cost items were similar between groups, ambulatory visit costs were significantly lower in LAIA-treated patients (p=0.03), whereas insulin pharmacy costs were significantly lower in NPH-treated patients (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in direct healthcare costs between patients using LAIAs or NPH insulin.

Critical appraisal of the safety and efficacy of insulin detemir in glycemic control and cardiovascular risk management in diabetics

Insulin detemir is an analog of human insulin designed to provide a long duration of basal insulin action. This is achieved by protracted absorption from the injection depot, which results in part from increased self-association of insulin detemir molecules and in part from reversible albumin binding. Subsequent albumin binding in the circulation is thought to buffer changes in the effects at target tissues that could otherwise arise from variability in absorption rate. In consequence, insulin detemir has shown a less variable pharmacodynamic profile than alternative basal insulins; this manifests as more consistent temporal glucose reduction profiles in repeat-clamp studies. In clinical trials, insulin detemir has been characterized by consistent risk reductions in hypoglycemia, as well as reduced weight gain in comparison with other basal insulins. Given some recent associations that have been made in prospective and epidemiologic studies between glucose variability and/or hypoglycemia and increased cardiovascular risk, and the long-known association between excess weight and cardiovascular risk, it is possible that the clinical profile of insulin detemir may carry prognostic value with regard to cardiovascular safety, although this is yet to be substantiated. There have also been some concerns raised recently over the use of insulin analogs and cancer risk, but available clinical data and the receptor interaction profile of insulin detemir suggest no excess in risk in comparison with human insulin therapy. Optimal approaches for the clinical use of insulin detemir have been emerging through an increasing clinical study base, and the analog is becoming established as a potentially valuable therapy option.

Are analogue insulins superior to human insulin in clinical practice?

Insulin analogues were designed to provide more physiologic pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties compared with human insulin. This article examines the literature over a 2-year period, focusing on studies directly comparing analogue and human insulin in controlled clinical trials and large observational studies documenting the introduction of, or change to, analogue insulin in clinical practice. Findings indicate that analogues provide objective benefits that include improved glycemic control, lower risk of hypoglycemia, lower glucose variability, and (for insulin detemir) reduced weight gain. Recent data with analogues also explore their safety and efficacy in special patient groups such as children and adolescents. These data complement increasing evidence that analogues offer improved acceptability and accessibility to people with diabetes.

Barriers to insulin initiation and intensification and how to overcome them

AIMS

To review published evidence and clinical experience of the perceived barriers to insulin initiation and intensification and to develop solutions for patient management.

METHOD

Literature review and workshop discussions.

RESULTS

Many patients with diabetes fail to achieve targets for glycaemic control because of inappropriate use of insulin. Patients and health care professionals face many potential barriers to insulin initiation and intensification in primary care. These can be categorised as low motivation, lack of familiarity or experience and time constraints.

CONCLUSION

Solutions should be tailored to different health care settings. Strategies include improving education and training, providing prescribing aids and increasing the efficiency of collaborative working and communications.

Basal-bolus therapy with insulin detemir using the 303 algorithm in the US PREDICTIVE 303 trial

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare a simplified patient-driven algorithm (303 Algorithm) to physician-driven adjustments in a subset of 193 patients with type 2 diabetes from the PREDICTIVE 303 study who were using basal-bolus insulin therapy.

METHODS

PREDICTIVE 303 was a 26-week, randomized, phase 4 study, in which subjects were either instructed to adjust their insulin detemir dose every 3 days by +/-3 units if mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) values were above 110 mg/dL or below 80 mg/dL (303 Algorithm), or had physicians adjust the insulin detemir dose according to usual practice (Standard-of-care).

RESULTS

Patients in both groups achieved similar reductions in glycated hemoglobin (-0.2% and -0.3% for 303 Algorithm and Standard-of care groups, respectively; between groups P=0.60). 303 Algorithm group patients achieved a greater reduction in FPG (-21.3 mg/dL vs. 0.2 mg/dL; between groups P=0.03). Both 303 Algorithm and Standard-of care groups experienced a similar rate of overall hypoglycemia, and similar weight reduction (-1.7 kg and -0.4 kg, respectively; between groups P=0.07). Over 82% of patients in both groups used insulin detemir once daily.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjustments of a once-daily detemir dose by patients using the 303 Algorithm in a basal-bolus setting is equally effective in improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with physician-directed basal dose adjustments.