Comparison of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and multiple daily insulin injections in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion vs. Multiple Daily Injections in Type-2 Diabetes

Diabetes mellitus (DM) has a growing prevalence worldwide, even in developing countries. Many antidiabetic agents are used to improve glycemic control; however, in cases of an insufficient outcome, insulin is administered. Yet, the timing of proper insulin administration is still a subject of intense research. To date, there have been no recommendations or guidelines for the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). In the present study, we have performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the use of CSII in patients with T2DM. An extensive literature search was conducted through the electronic databases Pubmed, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from October 2019-May 2022, for interventional studies related to T2DMI and CSII versus multiple daily injections (MDI). We included articles published in the English language only, yielding a total of thirteen studies. We found better outcomes in patients receiving CSII, in regard to glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and total insulin dose. In contrast, fasting plasma glucose and body weight did not show statistically significant differences between the two groups. Our analyses showed that CSII could be beneficial in patients with T2DM in order to achieve their glucose targets.

Insulin Pump Therapy for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Evidence, Current Barriers, and New Technologies

An increasing number of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) use insulin pumps. The first insulin pumps especially designed for patients with T2DM have recently become available. However, national guidelines do not primarily recommend the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) for this patient group. The effectiveness of CSII in T2DM has not yet been convincingly demonstrated, despite some positive evidence. An overview and an assessment of various studies to date will be given. T2DM is a heterogeneous disease with a substantial phenotypic variability; therefore, it is difficult to provide general conclusions about the effectiveness of CSII in T2DM therapy. The pump types, characteristics, and associated barriers may play a relevant role for therapy outcome. Most advanced functions like various bolus dosages offered by conventional insulin pumps are not needed for T2DM treatment and complicate the device handling for this subject group. Additionally, new technologies like increased connectivity, advanced software features, and interoperability are currently becoming available representing further barriers. The implementation of this technological progress might be a benefit for pumps for T2DM as well. However, these have not been sufficiently examined either and increased security challenges due to integrated peripheral components should not be neglected in terms of a sound cybersecurity. Pump features and handling for patients with T2DM should be as easy as possible, indicating a need for insulin pumps specially designed for patients with T2DM. However, it has to be investigated if pumps designed for T2DM are more effective than other intensified insulin regimens.

Efficacy of Vildagliptin Added to Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to short-term continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with CSII monotherapy in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A total of 200 hospitalized patients with inadequately controlled T2DM were randomized into groups, with one group receiving CSII monotherapy (CSII group, n =100) and the other group receiving CSII plus vildagliptin as add-on (CSII + Vig group, n = 100). Of these, 191 completed the 7-day trial (CSII group, n = 99; CSII + Vig group, n = 92) and included in the analysis. The glycemic control and variability of the patients were measured using all-day capillary blood glucose (BG) monitoring. Weight and fasting C-peptide levels were evaluated before and after the interventions.

RESULTS

Mean BG concentrations during the whole treatment period were lower and the time to reach target BG was reduced in the CSII + Vig group compared with the CSII group (9.89 ± 3.37 vs. 9.46 ± 3.23 mmol/L, P < 0.01; 129 ± 4 vs. 94 ± 5 h, P < 0.01, respectively). Similarly, the indicators of glycemic variability, namely the standard deviation of BG and the largest amplitude of glycemic excursion, were significantly decreased in the CSII + Vig group compared with the CSII group (2.68 ± 1.05 vs. 2.39 ± 1.00 mmol/L, P < 0.01; 7.19 ± 2.86 vs. 6.23 ± 2.73 mmol/L, P < 0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term CSII with vildagliptin as add-on therapy may be an optimized treatment for hospitalized patients with T2DM compared with short-term CSII monotherapy.

Multicentre randomized controlled trial with sensor-augmented pump vs multiple daily injections in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes in China: Time to reach target glucose

AIM

Sensor-augmented pump (SAP) technology, which combines continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM), has been available for several years in China. In this study, the time required to reach predefined glycaemic targets with SAP vs multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy was compared in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Adults (aged 18-65 years) with T2DM treated with insulin and admitted to hospital for glucose management were randomized to either SAP (Medtronic MiniMed™ Paradigm™ 722 system) or MDI with blinded CGM (Medtronic MiniMed CGMS System Gold™) for a 2-week period. Glycaemic targets were defined as three preprandial measurements between 80 and 130mg/dL (4.4 and 7.2mmol/L) and three 2-h postprandial measurements between 80 and 180mg/dL (4.4 and 10.0mmol/L) within the same day.

RESULTS

When data from 81 patients (40 SAP, 41 MDI) were analysed, 21 patients using SAP therapy, compared with six using MDI therapy, achieved their glycaemic targets within 3 days, and their time to reach their glucose targets was significantly shorter (3.7±1.1 vs 6.3±3.1 days for MDI; P<0.001), while three MDI patients failed to reach glycaemic targets within 14 days. SAP vs MDI patients experienced significantly less hypoglycaemia [sensor glucose<50mg/dL (2.8mmol/L): 0.04% vs 0.32%, respectively; P<0.05] and significantly less hyperglycaemia [sensor glucose>180mg/dL (10mmol/L): 21.56% vs 35.03%, respectively; P<0.05].

CONCLUSION

SAP vs MDI therapy in hospitalized patients with T2DM significantly reduced the time required to achieve glycaemic targets, and such systems may be a cost-effective way to improve glucose control and reduce hospital stays in T2DM patients.

Comparison of the Effects of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion and Add-On Therapy with Sitagliptin in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

To identify a new regimen to optimize treatment for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2DM) by short-term continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) alone. Methods. 60 patients with newly diagnosed T2DM were randomized into two groups (n = 30 each) and treated for 2 weeks with CSII alone (CSII group) or with CSII plus sitagliptin (CSII + Sig group). The glycemic variability of the patients was measured using a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) for the last 72 hours. A standard meal test was performed before and after the interventions, and the levels of glycated albumin, fasting glucose, fasting C-peptide, postprandial 2 h blood glucose, and postprandial 2 h C-peptide were examined. Results. Compared with the CSII group, the indicators of glycemic variability, such as the mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (MAGE) and the standard deviation of blood glucose (SDBG), were decreased significantly in the CSII + Sig group. The changes before and after treatment in the C-peptide reactivity index (ΔCPI) and the secretory unit of islet in transplantation index (ΔSUIT) indicated a significant improvement in the CSII + Sig group. Conclusions. Add-on therapy with sitagliptin may be an optimized treatment for patients with newly diagnosed T2DM compared with short-term CSII alone.

The optimal choice of medication administration route regarding intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous injection

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), and subcutaneous (SC) are the three most frequently used injection routes in medication administration. Comparative studies of SC versus IV, IM versus IV, or IM versus SC have been sporadically conducted, and some new findings are completely different from the dosage recommendation as described in prescribing information. However, clinicians may still be ignorant of such new evidence-based findings when choosing treatment methods.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Sciences™ Core Collection to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of SC, IV, and IM administration in head-to-head comparative studies.

RESULTS

"SC better than IV" involves trastuzumab, rituximab, antitumor necrosis factor medications, bortezomib, amifostine, recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, recombinant interleukin-2, immunoglobulin, epoetin alfa, heparin, and opioids. "IV better than SC" involves ketamine, vitamin K1, and abatacept. With respect to insulin and ketamine, whether IV has advantages over SC is determined by specific clinical circumstances. "IM better than IV" involves epinephrine, hepatitis B immu-noglobulin, pegaspargase, and some antibiotics. "IV better than IM" involves ketamine, morphine, and antivenom. "IM better than SC" involves epinephrine. "SC better than IM" involves interferon-beta-1a, methotrexate, human chorionic gonadotropin, hepatitis B immunoglobulin, hydrocortisone, and morphine. Safety, efficacy, patient preference, and pharmacoeconomics are four principles governing the choice of injection route. Safety and efficacy must be the preferred principles to be considered (eg, epinephrine should be given intramuscularly during an episode of systemic anaphylaxis). If the safety and efficacy of two injection routes are equivalent, clinicians should consider more about patient preference and pharmacoeconomics because patient preference will ensure optimal treatment adherence and ultimately improve patient experience or satisfaction, while pharmacoeconomic concern will help alleviate nurse shortages and reduce overall health care costs. Besides the principles, the following detailed factors might affect the decision: patient characteristics-related factors (body mass index, age, sex, medical status [eg, renal impairment, comorbidities], personal attitudes toward safety and convenience, past experience, perception of current disease status, health literacy, and socioeconomic status), medication administration-related factors (anatomical site of injection, dose, frequency, formulation characteristics, administration time, indication, flexibility in the route of administration), and health care staff/institution-related factors (knowledge, human resources).

CONCLUSION

This updated review of findings of comparative studies of different injection routes will enrich the knowledge of safe, efficacious, economic, and patient preference-oriented medication administration as well as catching research opportunities in clinical nursing practice.