A randomized, open-label, comparative, crossover trial on preference, efficacy, and safety profiles of lispro insulin u-100 versus concentrated lispro insulin u-200 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a possible contribution to greater treatment adherence.

BACKGROUND: Several outstanding pharmacological advances making innovative drugs sophisticateddevices available during the last few years. Nevertheless too many patients still disappointingly fail to meetthe metabolic targets suggested by current guidelines. Incorrect insulin administration techniques may greatly affect metabolic control in T2DM people. The aim of our study was to compare glycemic control associated with a concentrated insulin analog preparation (U-200 lispro) in people with T2DM to the one observed with standard U-100 lispro. The secondary endpoint of our study was patients' preference and performance ratings of U-200 lispro. METHODS: 126 patients with T2DM were enrolled. They were also assessed for limited joint mobility syndrome (LJMS),defined as limitation in at least two anatomical areas of the dominant upper extremity. After a 4-weekstructured insulin injection education period. Half of them were randomized to U-100 lispro, half to U-200 and after 12 weeks they were switched to the other preparation for 12 weeks. At the end a questionnaire was also administered to investigate patient preference. RESULTS: No significant variation in fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, severe or mild hypoglycemic rate and daily fast-acting insulin analog dose was observed with U-100 lispro while U-200 lispro treatment was associated with a significant improvement of all the above mentioned parameters and with around 20% decrease in insulin requirement. Moreover patients' answers to the questionnaire pointed out a higher preference for U-200 lispro for continuing treatment due to fewer difficulties completing injection. DISCUSSION: The explanation of better metabolic results with the U-200 device might be the lower inner piston inertia and volume and shorter duration of a complete injection. CONCLUSIONS: Checking for LJIMS before insulin prescription could be adopted as a standard practiceaimed at choosing the most suitable device for patient's specific characteristics and abilities. The use of U-200 lispro might improve treatment adherence and metabolic control. This would also result intocost reduction by saving about half the amount of pens per year and of time spent to both fill prescriptionand dump the pharmacy.