Factors affecting the benefit of insulin dose intensification in people with Type 2 diabetes: an analysis from the OpT2mise randomized trial

Young onset type 2 diabetic patients might be more sensitive to metformin compared to late onset type 2 diabetic patients

It is unknown whether YOD (young onset diabetes) and LOD (late onset diabetes) require similar insulin doses for intensive insulin therapy with a metformin add-on to achieve glycemic control. We analyzed data from our two previously performed randomized, controlled open-label trials. Patients were randomized to receive either continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy or CSII combined with metformin therapy for 4 weeks. The studies concentrated on the differences in the insulin doses used for the two groups. We included 36 YOD (age < 40 yrs) and 152 LOD (age > 40 yrs) patients. YOD patients who received metformin combined with CSII therapy required significantly lower insulin doses to maintain euglycemic control compared to patients with LOD. A multivariate analysis, controlled for gender and the fasting blood concentration, was performed to determine the significance of the differences between groups, particularly with respect to the total and basal insulin doses. There was a trend toward improvement in β-cell function and insulin resistance in terms of ΔHOMA-B and ΔHOMA-IR in patients with YOD compared to those with LOD. Newly diagnosed T2D patients with YOD required significantly lower insulin doses, particularly basal insulin doses, to maintain glycemic control compared to the LOD patients.

Factors associated with improved glycemic control following continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with bolus-basal insulin regimens: An analysis from the OpT2mise randomized trial

This analysis investigated factors associated with the decrease in HbA1c in patients receiving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in the OpT2mise randomized trial. In this study, patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c >8% following multiple daily injections (MDI) optimization were randomized to receive CSII (n = 168) or MDI (n = 163) for 6 months. Patient-related and treatment-related factors associated with decreased HbA1c in the CSII arm were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses. CSII produced a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c than MDI, and the treatment difference increased with baseline HbA1c. In the CSII arm, the only factors significantly associated with decreased HbA1c were higher baseline HbA1c (P < .001), geographical region (P < .001), higher educational level (P = .012), higher total cholesterol level (P = .002), lower variability of baseline glucose values on continuous glucose monitoring (P < .001) and the decrease in average fasting self-monitored blood glucose at 6 months (P < .001). These findings suggest that CSII offers an option to improve glycemic control in a broad range of patients with type 2 diabetes in whom control cannot be achieved with MDI. OpT2mise ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01182493 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/).

Glycemic Control During Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Versus Multiple Daily Insulin Injections in Type 2 Diabetes: Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis and Meta-regression of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare glycemic control during continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) in people with type 2 diabetes to identify patient characteristics that determine those best treated by CSII.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were selected comparing HbA_1c during CSII versus MDI in people with type 2 diabetes. Data sources included Cochrane database and Ovid Medline. We explored patient-level determinants of final HbA_1c level and insulin dose using Bayesian meta-regression models of individual patient data and summary effects using two-step meta-analysis. Hypoglycemia data were unavailable.

RESULTS

Five trials were identified, with 287 patients randomized to receive MDI and 303 to receive CSII. Baseline HbA_1c was the best determinant of final HbA_1c: HbA_1c difference (%) = 1.575 - (0.216 [95% credible interval 0.371-0.043] × baseline HbA_1c) for all trials, but with largest effect in the trial with prerandomization optimization of control. Baseline insulin dose was best predictor of final insulin dose: insulin dose difference (units/kg) = 0.1245 - (0.382 [0.510-0.254] × baseline insulin dose). Overall HbA_1c difference was -0.40% (-0.86 to 0.05 [-4.4 mmol/mol (-9.4 to 0.6)]). Overall insulin dose was reduced by -0.25 units/kg (-0.31 to -0.19) (26% reduction on CSII), and by -24.0 units/day (-30.6 to -17.5). Mean weight did not differ between treatments (0.08 kg [-0.33 to 0.48]).

CONCLUSIONS

CSII achieves better glycemic control than MDI in people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, with ∼26% reduction in insulin requirements and no weight change. The best effect is in those worst controlled and with the highest insulin dose at baseline.