ANALYSIS OF CLINICAL AND LABORATORY PARAMETERS CHILDREN WITH DIABETES MELLIUS TYPE 1 USING DIFFERENT TYPES OF INSULIN PREPARATIONS.

A comparative analysis of clinical and laboratory parameters was carried out in 49 children. The patients were divided into 3 groups depending on the type of insulin they received. Group 1 included 20 children who used Insulin human (Insulatard), group 2 included 15 children using insulin Glargine, and group 3 included 14 children using insulin Detemir. All children using Detemir and Glargine used short acting insulin Aspart. Those using Insulin human (Insulatard) used Human insulin (rDNA, Actrapid) in addition. In all children, blood glucose, glycohemoglobin and cholesterol were determined by laboratory methods. Statistical calculations were carried out using a statistical package at a confidence level of p＜0.05. A significant difference was found between the mean values of glycohemoglobin and glucose of Glargine users and patients with using Insulin human (Insulatard) (p≺0.05). These indicators were lower in Glargine users. There is a positive correlation between doses of Regular insulin and Insulin human (Insulatard) with body weight and height. There is a positive correlation between dose of Detemir and body mass. However, no such relationship between Glargine, body mass and height was recorded. It was a negative correlation between its dose Glargine with glycohemoglobin and also between glucose and cholesterol using Glargine.

Detemir vs neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin for diabetes mellitus in pregnancy: a comparative effectiveness, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin detemir, being used increasingly during pregnancy, may have pharmacologic benefits compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the probability that compared with treatment with neutral protamine Hagedorn, treatment with insulin detemir reduces the risk for adverse neonatal outcome among individuals with type 2 or overt type 2 diabetes mellitus (gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosed at <20 weeks' gestation). STUDY DESIGN: We performed a multiclinic randomized controlled trial (September 2018 to January 2020), which included women with singleton gestation with type 2 or overt type 2 diabetes mellitus who sought obstetrical care at ≤21 weeks' gestation. Participants were randomized to receive either insulin detemir or neutral protamine Hagedorn by a clinic-stratified scheme. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes, including shoulder dystocia, large for gestational age, neonatal intensive care unit admission, respiratory distress (defined as the need of at least 4 hours of respiratory support with supplemental oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure or ventilation at the first 24 hours of life), or hypoglycemia. The secondary neonatal outcomes included gestational age at delivery, small for gestational age, 5-minute Apgar score of <7, lowest glucose level, need for intravenous glucose, respiratory distress syndrome, need for mechanical ventilation or continuous positive airway pressure, neonatal jaundice requiring therapy, brachial plexus injury, and hospital length of stay. The secondary maternal outcomes included hypoglycemic events, hospital admission for glucose control, hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, maternal weight gain, cesarean delivery, and postpartum complications. We used the Bayesian statistics to estimate a sample size of 108 to have >75% probability of any reduction in the primary outcome, assuming 80% power and a hypothesized effect of 33% reduction with insulin detemir. All analyses were intent to treat under a Bayesian framework with neutral priors (a priori assumed a 50:50 likelihood of either intervention being better; National Clinical Trial identifier 03620890). RESULTS: There were 108 women randomized in this trial (57 in insulin detemir and 51 in neutral protamine Hagedorn), and 103 women were available for analysis of the primary outcome (n=5 for pregnancy loss before 24 weeks' gestation). Bayesian analysis indicated an 87% posterior probability of reduced primary outcome with insulin detemir compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (posterior adjusted relative risk, 0.88; 95% credible interval, 0.61-1.12). Bayesian analyses for secondary outcomes showed consistent findings of lower adverse maternal outcomes with the use of insulin detemir vs neutral protamine Hagedorn: for example, maternal hypoglycemic events (97% probability of benefit; posterior adjusted relative risk, 0.59; 95% credible interval, 0.29-1.08) and hypertensive disorders (88% probability of benefit; posterior adjusted relative risk, 0.81; 95% credible interval, 0.54-1.16). CONCLUSION: In our comparative effectiveness trial involving individuals with type 2 or overt type 2 diabetes mellitus, use of insulin detemir resulted in lower rates of adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: People with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) need treatment with insulin for survival. Whether any particular type of (ultra-)long-acting insulin provides benefit especially regarding risk of diabetes complications and hypoglycaemia is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn) or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogue in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We explored the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Agency (EMA) web pages. We asked pharmaceutical companies, EMA and investigators for additional data and clinical study reports (CSRs). The date of the last search of all databases was 24 August 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 24 weeks or more comparing one (ultra-)long-acting insulin to NPH insulin or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin in people with T1DM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 (RoB 2) tool and extracted data. Our main outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (QoL), severe hypoglycaemia, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke (NFMI/NFS), severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events (SAEs) and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE instrument. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs. Two studies were unpublished. We obtained CSRs, clinical study synopses or both as well as medical reviews from regulatory agencies on 23 studies which contributed to better analysis of risk of bias and improved data extraction. A total of 8784 participants were randomised: 2428 participants were allocated to NPH insulin, 2889 participants to insulin detemir, 2095 participants to insulin glargine and 1372 participants to insulin degludec. Eight studies contributing 21% of all participants comprised children. The duration of the intervention varied from 24 weeks to 104 weeks. Insulin degludec versus NPH insulin: we identified no studies comparing insulin degludec with NPH insulin. Insulin detemir versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): five deaths reported in two studies including adults occurred in the insulin detemir group (Peto OR 4.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.38; 9 studies, 3334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies with 870 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). There was a reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir: 171/2019 participants (8.5%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 138/1200 participants (11.5%) in the NPH insulin group experienced severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 8 studies, 3219 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.34 and 1.39. Only 1/331 participants in the insulin detemir group compared with 0/164 participants in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFMI (1 study, 495 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported NFS. A total of 165/2094 participants (7.9%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 102/1238 participants (8.2%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21; 9 studies, 3332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 70/1823 participants (3.8%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 60/1102 participants (5.4%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17; 7 studies, 2925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin was 0.01%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 8 studies, 3122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): one adult died in the NPH insulin group (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.98; 8 studies, 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 1013 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial effect or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was observed in 122/1191 participants (10.2%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 145/1159 participants (12.5%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.04; 9 studies, 2350 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a NFMI and one participant in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFS in the single study reporting this outcome (585 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 109/1131 participants (9.6%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 110/1098 participants (10.0%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.84; 8 studies, 2229 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 69/938 participants (7.4%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 83/955 participants (8.7%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; 6 studies, 1893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin was 0.02%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 9 studies, 2285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine (2 RCTs),insulin degludec versus insulin detemir (2 RCTs), insulin degludec versus insulin glargine (4 RCTs): there was no evidence of a clinically relevant difference for all main outcomes comparing (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues with each other. For all outcomes none of the comparisons indicated differences in tests of interaction for children versus adults. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin for T1DM showed lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir (moderate-certainty evidence). However, the 95% prediction interval indicated inconsistency in this finding. Both insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin did not show benefits or harms for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. For all other main outcomes with overall low risk of bias and comparing insulin analogues with each other, there was no true beneficial or harmful effect for any intervention. Data on patient-important outcomes such as QoL, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications were sparse or missing. No clinically relevant differences were found between children and adults.

A review of the NG17 recommendations for the use of basal insulin in type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To revisit the data analysis used to inform National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) NG17 guidance for initiating basal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (diabetes). METHODS: We replicated the data, methodology and analysis used by NICE diabetes in the NG17 network meta-analysis (NMA). We expanded this data cohort to a more contemporary data set (extended 2017 NMA) and restricted the studies included to improve the robustness of the data set (restricted 2017 NMA) and in a post hoc analysis, changed the index comparator from neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin twice daily to insulin detemir twice daily. RESULTS: The absolute changes in HbA1c were similar to those reported in the NG17. However, all 95% credible intervals for change in HbA1c point estimates crossed the line of null effect, except for detemir twice daily (in the NICE and extended 2017 NMAs) and NPH four times daily. In the detemir twice-daily centred post hoc analysis, the 95% credible intervals for change in HbA1c crossed the line of null effect for all basal therapies, except NPH. CONCLUSIONS: In NG17, comparisons of basal insulins were based solely on efficacy of glycaemic control. Many of the trials used in this analysis were treat-to-target, which minimize differences in HbA1c . In the NMAs, statistical significance was severely undermined by the wide credible intervals. Despite these limitations, point estimates of HbA1c were used to rank the insulins and formed the basis of NG17 guidance. This study queries whether such analyses should be used to make specific clinical recommendations.

Comparison of Hypoglycemia and Safety Outcomes With Long-Acting Insulins Versus Insulin NPH in Pregestational and Gestational Diabetes.

Background: Current guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend insulin as the standard therapy for treatment of pregestational and gestational diabetes (PGDM and GDM). However, the guidelines do not specify which type(s) of insulin to utilize. Additionally, there are limited published data regarding safety parameters of insulin in this population. Objective: To evaluate if insulin glargine or detemir (long-acting insulin) results in less hypoglycemia, hospitalizations, or delivery complications compared with intermediate-acting insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in PGDM and GDM. Methods: This single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study included pregnant women who were 18 years or older with PGDM or GDM and received insulin therapy during pregnancy at an outpatient obstetric clinic. The primary outcome was the frequency of hypoglycemia (BG < 60 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits and hospitalizations, delivery complications, and the duration of time at glycemic targets during pregnancy. Results: A total of 63 patients were included for evaluation. There was no significant difference in the frequency of hypoglycemia between the long-acting and NPH groups (4.4 vs 6.2 events per patient, respectively; P = 0.361). Patients receiving long-acting insulin had significantly more encounters with diabetes education (10.6 vs 5.1 visits per patient, P = 0.002) and more consistently provided glucose readings at their appointments (8.3 vs 4.8, P = 0.043). There was no difference in hospitalizations or maternal and neonatal complications. Conclusion and Relevance: Long-acting insulins did not reduce the frequency of hypoglycemia compared with NPH. The results of this study confirm the need for additional investigations with larger populations.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Evidence that antihyperglycaemic therapy is beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. While the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) found tighter glycaemic control to be positive, other studies, such as the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, found the effects of an intensive therapy to lower blood glucose to near normal levels to be more harmful than beneficial. Study results also showed different effects for different antihyperglycaemic drugs, regardless of the achieved blood glucose levels. In consequence, firm conclusions on the effect of interventions on patient-relevant outcomes cannot be drawn from the effect of these interventions on blood glucose concentration alone. In theory, the use of newer insulin analogues may result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine U100 and U300, insulin detemir and insulin degludec) with NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin (human isophane insulin) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: For this Cochrane Review update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 5 November 2019, except Embase which was last searched 26 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 24 RCTs. Of these, 16 trials compared insulin glargine to NPH insulin and eight trials compared insulin detemir to NPH insulin. In these trials, 3419 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomised to insulin glargine and 1321 people to insulin detemir. The duration of the included trials ranged from 24 weeks to five years. For studies, comparing insulin glargine to NPH insulin, target values ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.8 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 140 mg/dL) for fasting blood glucose (FBG), from 4.4 mmol/L to 6.6 mmol/L (80 mg/dL to 120 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, when applicable. Blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target values for studies comparing insulin detemir to NPH insulin ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for FBG, less than 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) to less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and 5.8% to less than 6.4% HbA1c, when applicable. All trials had an unclear or high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Overall, insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Changes in HbA1c were comparable for long-acting insulin analogues and NPH insulin. Insulin glargine compared to NPH insulin had a risk ratio (RR) for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.06; absolute risk reduction (ARR) -1.2%, 95% CI -2.0 to 0; 14 trials, 6164 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The RR for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.09; P = 0.13; ARR -0.7%, 95% CI -1.3 to 0.2; 10 trials, 4685 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with insulin glargine reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treatment with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin found an RR for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.45 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.20; P = 0.11; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.4 to 0.4; 5 trials, 1804 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Peto odds ratio for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; P = 0.007; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.4; 5 trials, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with detemir also reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Information on patient-relevant outcomes such as death from any cause, diabetes-related complications, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects was insufficient or lacking in almost all included trials. For those outcomes for which some data were available, there were no meaningful differences between treatment with glargine or detemir and treatment with NPH. There was no clear difference between insulin-analogues and NPH insulin in terms of weight gain. The incidence of adverse events was comparable for people treated with glargine or detemir, and people treated with NPH. We found no trials comparing ultra-long-acting insulin glargine U300 or insulin degludec with NPH insulin. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While the effects on HbA1c were comparable, treatment with insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Treatment with insulin detemir also reduced the incidence of serious hypoglycaemia. However, serious hypoglycaemic events were rare and the absolute risk reducing effect was low. Approximately one in 100 people treated with insulin detemir instead of NPH insulin benefited. In the studies, low blood glucose and HbA1c targets, corresponding to near normal or even non-diabetic blood glucose levels, were set. Therefore, results from the studies are only applicable to people in whom such low blood glucose concentrations are targeted. However, current guidelines recommend less-intensive blood glucose lowering for most people with type 2 diabetes in daily practice (e.g. people with cardiovascular diseases, a long history of type 2 diabetes, who are susceptible to hypoglycaemia or older people). Additionally, low-certainty evidence and trial designs that did not conform with current clinical practice meant it remains unclear if the same effects will be observed in daily clinical practice. Most trials did not report patient-relevant outcomes.

Basal Insulin Analogs versus Neutral Protamine Hagedorn for Type 2 Diabetics.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether basal insulin analogs reduce the rate of composite neonatal morbidity compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of women with T2DM and singleton pregnancy at a single tertiary center. Primary outcome was a composite neonatal morbidity of any of the following: shoulder dystocia, large for gestational age, neonatal intensive care unit admission, neonatal hypoglycemia, or respiratory distress syndrome. Secondary outcomes were rates of maternal hypoglycemic events, hypertensive disorders, preterm birth, and primary cesarean delivery. Adjusted relative risk (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Of 233 women with T2DM that met the inclusion criteria, 114 (49%) were treated with basal insulin analogs and 119 (51%) with NPH. The rate of composite neonatal morbidity was similar between groups (73 vs. 60%; aRR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.92-1.51). There were no differences in the rates of maternal adverse outcomes between the groups. Basal insulin analog was associated with a lower rate of primary cesarean delivery as compared with NPH (21 vs. 36%; aRR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.25-0.78). CONCLUSION: Among pregnant women with T2DM managed with either basal or NPH insulin regimen, the rates of composite neonatal morbidity and maternal complications were similar.

Comparative effectiveness and harms of long-acting insulins for type 1 and type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To review evidence comparing benefits and harms of long-acting insulins in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes. METHODS: MEDLINE and two Cochrane databases were searched during February 2018. Two authors selected studies meeting inclusion criteria and assessed their quality. Comparative studies of adult or paediatric patients with diabetes treated with insulin degludec, detemir or glargine were included. Meta-analysis was used to combine results of similar studies, and the I2 statistic calculated to assess statistical heterogeneity. RESULTS: Of 2534 citations reviewed, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria. No statistically significant differences in HbA1c were seen between any two insulins or formulations. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than with glargine, including nocturnal hypoglycaemia in type 1 (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.81) and type 2 diabetes (rate ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.82), and severe hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes (relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.96). Patients with type 2 diabetes had higher rates of withdrawal because of adverse events when treated with detemir compared with glargine (relative risk 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.3). Adults taking detemir gained about 1 kg less body weight than those taking degludec (type 1) or glargine (type 2). CONCLUSIONS: No differences in glycaemic control were seen between insulin degludec, detemir and glargine. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than glargine, and patients taking detemir gained less body weight than those given degludec or glargine. In type 2 diabetes, withdrawals as a result of adverse events were more probable with detemir than glargine.

Comparative Benefits and Harms of Basal Insulin Analogues for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Background: Basal insulin analogues aim for protracted glycemic control with minimal adverse effects. Purpose: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of basal insulin analogues for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Data Sources: Several databases from inception to April 2018 without language restrictions, ClinicalTrials.gov to April 2018, references of reviews, and meeting abstract books. Study Selection: Randomized trials lasting at least 12 weeks that compared efficacy (change in hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] level from baseline [primary outcome]; percentage of patients with HbA1c level <7% at end of study and change in body weight [secondary outcomes]) and safety (hypoglycemia) of basal insulin analogues. Data Extraction: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each outcome. All authors evaluated overall confidence in the evidence. Data Synthesis: Thirty-nine trials (26 195 patients) assessed 10 basal insulin analogues. Low- to very-low-quality evidence indicated that thrice-weekly degludec (Deg-3TW) was inferior to most other regimens for reducing HbA1c level, with mean differences ranging from 0.21% (vs. degludec, 100 U/mL [Deg-100]) to 0.32% (vs. glargine, 300 U/mL [Glar-300]). High- to moderate-quality evidence suggested that detemir had a favorable weight profile versus all comparators, and Glar-300 was associated with less weight gain than glargine, 100 U/mL (Glar-100); Deg-100; degludec, 200 U/mL (Deg-200); Deg-3TW; and LY2963016. Low- and very-low-quality evidence suggested that Deg-100, Deg-200, and Glar-300 were associated with lower incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia than detemir, Glar-100, LY2963016, and neutral protamine lispro (NPL). Incidence of severe hypoglycemia did not differ among regimens, except NPL, which was associated with increased risk versus Deg-100, detemir, Glar-100, and Glar-300. Limitations: Results are based mostly on indirect comparisons. Confidence in summary estimates is low or very low due to individual-study limitations, imprecision, or inconsistency. Conclusion: Low-quality evidence suggests that basal insulin analogues for T2DM do not substantially differ in their glucose-lowering effect. Low- and very-low-quality evidence suggests some regimens may be associated with lower risk for nocturnal hypoglycemia (Deg-100, Deg-200, and Glar-300) or less weight gain (detemir and Glar-300). Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42016037055).

Trajectories of Body Mass Index from Childhood to Young Adulthood among Patients with Type 1 Diabetes-A Longitudinal Group-Based Modeling Approach Based on the DPV Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To identify distinct longitudinal patterns of body mass index (BMI) z score in type 1 diabetes from childhood to young adulthood and secondly to determine sex differences as well as associated clinical covariates. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 5665 patients with type 1 diabetes (51% male) with follow-up from 8 to 20 years of age from the multicenter diabetes prospective registry DPV were studied (baseline diabetes duration ≥1 years, BMI z score aggregated per year of life). Latent class growth modeling (SAS: PROC TRAJ) was applied to analyze BMI z score over time. RESULTS: Six distinct BMI z score trajectories were identified (group 1: 7% of patients, group 2: 22%, group 3: 20%, group 4: 16%, group 5: 25%, and group 6: 10%). Group 1, 2, 5, and 6 had an almost stable BMI z score, either in the low, near-normal, high stable, or chronic overweight range. Group 3 (60% girls) increased their BMI during puberty, whereas group 4 (65% boys) had a BMI decrease. Similar patterns were observed for girls only, whereas boys followed nearly stable trajectories without fluctuation over time. Between the near-normal and the other groups, significant differences (P < .05) in sex ratio, migration background, mental health, height z score, glycated hemoglobin A1c, diabetes treatment, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In youth with type 1 diabetes, a great heterogeneity of BMI z score trajectories exists that highlight the importance of personalized sex-specific intervention programs for subjects at risk for unfavorable BMI development.

Effects of insulin analogs as an add-on to metformin on cutaneous microcirculation in type 2 diabetic patients.

BACKGROUND: A single insulin injection was shown to improve microcirculatory blood flow. Our aim was to examine the effects of 4weeks of insulin therapy by three randomly assigned insulin analog regimens (Detemir, Aspart, and their combination) on cutaneous blood flow (CBF) and microcirculatory endothelial function as an add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetic patients poorly controlled on oral antidiabetic treatment. METHODS: Fourty-two type 2 diabetic patients with no history of cardiovascular disease in secondary failure to oral antidiabetic agents had CBF measurements before and after acetylcholine (Ach) iontophoretic administration. CBF measurements were performed at fasting and after a standardized breakfast during the post-prandial period. Before randomization (Visit 1, V1) during the tests, participants took only metformin. The same tests were repeated after 4weeks of insulin treatment (Visit 2, V2). RESULTS: Thirty-four patients had good quality recordings for both visits. During V1, CBF and CBF response to Ach increased in the post-prandial period. After 4weeks of insulin treatment, metabolic parameters improved. Compared to V1, CBF at fasting did not increase at V2 but there was an improvement in endothelial function at fasting after Ach iontophoresis, without difference across insulin regimens. Oxidative stress markers were not modified, and E-selectin and vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 levels decreased after insulin treatment, without differences between insulin groups. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of improving glycemic control for 4weeks with insulin analogs improves microcirculatory endothelial reactivity and reduces endothelial biomarkers at fasting, whatever the insulin regimen used. Insulin therapy associated to metformin is able to improve fasting microvascular endothelial function even before complete metabolic control.

Role of omalizumab in insulin hypersensitivity: a case report and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Insulin allergy is a rare yet severe side effect of exogenous insulin use. Management typically involves use of alternative antihyperglycaemic agents, symptom control with antihistamines, use of different insulin formulations, and induction of tolerance with incremental doses of insulin. This treatment regimen is not always successful, and the use of omalizumab, an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, has been used to induce tolerance to insulin. CASE REPORT: G.M. is a 62-year-old man with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. His condition was not optimized on oral agents, and insulin therapy was required. G.M. had anaphylaxis to insulin NPH, and subsequent skin-prick testing was positive to insulin aspart, insulin NPH, insulin glulisine, insulin detemir, regular insulin, insulin glargine 100 units/ml and insulin glargine 300 units/ml. He received incremental doses of several insulin formulations; however, he experienced diffuse urticaria preventing optimal glycaemic control. Three successful cases have been described in the literature of omalizumab inducing tolerance to exogenous insulin; therefore, G.M. was started on omalizumab. He subsequently tolerated treatment doses of insulin glulisine and insulin detemir with no allergic reactions and with improvement in glycaemic control. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first described case of allergy to insulin glargine 300 units/ml and reiterates the potential use of omalizumab in insulin allergy. Further research is warranted to determine if omalizumab should be considered standard of care in difficult-to-treat insulin hypersensitivity.

Relationship between treatment persistence and A1C trends among patients with type 2 diabetes newly initiating basal insulin.

This study examines the relationship between glycated haemoglobin (A1C) levels and treatment persistence with, or time to discontinuation of, basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) newly initiating insulin. Claims data were extracted from the Optum Clinformatics database from January 2010 to June 2015. Adult patients with T2D initiating insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) or insulin detemir (DET) with ≥1 A1C measurement during 12-month baseline and 18-month follow-up periods were included. Patients with a refill gap of >90 days were considered non-persistent; otherwise, patients were considered persistent with insulin. The main outcome was A1C, measured closest to the end of each quarter during the follow-up period. A total of 3993 of 109 934 patients met the inclusion criteria (43.0% persistent; 57.0% non-persistent). Persistent patients were older (54.7 vs 52.7 years; P < .001), were more likely to be male (59.4% vs 54.4%; P = .002), and had significantly lower mean unadjusted A1C values at 18 months (8.26% vs 8.60%; P < .001) and quarterly. Only 43.0% of adults initiating basal insulin persisted with treatment for 18 months, with earlier discontinuation associated with higher A1C.

Efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart in comparison with insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes (onset 1): A 52-week, randomized, treat-to-target, phase III trial.

AIMS: To compare the safety and efficacy of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) with conventional insulin aspart (IAsp) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: onset 1 was a randomized, multicentre, treat-to-target, phase III, 52-week (initial 26 weeks + additional 26 weeks) trial conducted at 165 sites across 9 countries. Adults with T1D were randomly allocated to double-blind mealtime faster aspart or IAsp, each with once- or twice-daily insulin detemir. The primary endpoint, change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline after the initial 26 weeks, has been reported previously. In the present paper, we report data from the full 52-week study period. RESULTS: Between August 2013 and June 2015, 381 participants were assigned to double-blind faster aspart and 380 participants to IAsp. After 52 weeks, estimated mean changes from baseline in HbA1c levels were -0.08% (faster aspart) and +0.01% (IAsp); estimated treatment difference significantly favoured faster aspart (-0.10% [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.19;-0.00]; P = .0424). Changes from baseline in 1-hour postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) increment (meal test; faster aspart -1.05 mmol/L; IAsp -0.14 mmol/L) also significantly favoured faster aspart (estimated treatment difference -0.91 mmol/L [95% CI -1.40;-0.43]; -16.48 mg/dL [95% CI -25.17;-7.80]; P = .0002). There was no difference in overall severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes or treatment-emergent adverse events between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: At 52 weeks, overall glycaemic control had significantly improved with faster aspart vs IAsp, consistent with the 26-week study findings. Achieving an insulin profile closer to physiological insulin secretion with faster aspart translates into lower PPG and HbA1c levels compared with those achieved with IAsp in people with T1D.

A 26-week, randomized trial of insulin detemir versus NPH insulin in children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes (iDEAt2).

There are limited studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of treatments in young people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study compared the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, both in combination with metformin and lifestyle intervention, in children and adolescents with T2D. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial recruited patients (n = 42) aged 10-17 years diagnosed with T2D already receiving metformin ± other oral antidiabetic drugs ± basal insulin. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either insulin detemir or NPH insulin, both with the maximum tolerated dose of metformin, and lifestyle intervention, over 26 weeks. Enrollment terminated prematurely after 17 months due to a very slow recruitment rate (12% of the target met). After 26 weeks, the observed mean HbA1c value had decreased by 0.61% points in the insulin detemir group vs. 0.84% points in the NPH insulin group. The rate of symptomatic blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycemic episodes was 0.4 episodes/patient-year of exposure (PYE) for insulin detemir vs. 1.1 episodes/PYE for NPH insulin. CONCLUSION: No safety issues were revealed with either basal insulin. Due to the low number of patients recruited, no efficacy conclusions could be drawn. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02131272. What is known: • There is a growing worldwide epidemic of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents. • There is a lack of research and limited treatment options currently available in this population. What is new: • No safety issues with insulin detemir or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes were observed. • Improving clinical trial recruitment, along with providing early, efficacious, and safe treatment options, in this population is critical.

Association of Initiation of Basal Insulin Analogs vs Neutral Protamine Hagedorn Insulin With Hypoglycemia-Related Emergency Department Visits or Hospital Admissions and With Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

Importance: In clinical trials of patients with type 2 diabetes, long-acting insulin analogs modestly reduced the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia compared with human neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, but cost 2 to 10 times more. Outcomes in clinical practice may differ from trial results. Objective: To compare the rates of hypoglycemia-related emergency department (ED) visits or hospital admissions associated with initiation of long-acting insulin analogs vs human NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective observational study using data from Kaiser Permanente of Northern California from January 1, 2006, through September 30, 2015. Patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated a long-acting insulin analog or NPH insulin were included and censored at death, loss of health plan coverage, change in insulin treatment, or study end on September 30, 2015. Exposure: Initiation of basal insulin analogs (glargine or detemir) vs NPH insulin. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the time to a hypoglycemia-related ED visit or hospital admission and the secondary outcome was the change in hemoglobin A1c level within 1 year of insulin initiation. Results: There were 25 489 patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated basal insulin therapy (mean age, 60.2 [SD, 11.8] years; 51.9% white; 46.8% female). During a mean follow-up of 1.7 years, there were 39 hypoglycemia-related ED visits or hospital admissions among 1928 patients who initiated insulin analogs (11.9 events [95% CI, 8.1 to 15.6] per 1000 person-years) compared with 354 hypoglycemia-related ED visits or hospital admissions among 23 561 patients who initiated NPH insulin (8.8 events [95% CI, 7.9 to 9.8] per 1000 person-years) (between-group difference, 3.1 events [95% CI, -1.5 to 7.7] per 1000 person-years; P = .07). Among 4428 patients matched by propensity score, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.16 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.78) for hypoglycemia-related ED visits or hospital admissions associated with insulin analog use. Within 1 year of insulin initiation, hemoglobin A1c level decreased from 9.4% (95% CI, 9.3% to 9.5%) to 8.2% (95% CI, 8.1% to 8.2%) after initiation of insulin analogs and from 9.4% (95% CI, 9.3% to 9.5%) to 7.9% (95% CI, 7.9% to 8.0%) after initiation of NPH insulin (adjusted difference-in-differences for glycemic control, -0.22% [95% CI, -0.09% to -0.37%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with type 2 diabetes, initiation of a basal insulin analog compared with NPH insulin was not associated with a reduced risk of hypoglycemia-related ED visits or hospital admissions or with improved glycemic control. These findings suggest that the use of basal insulin analogs in usual practice settings may not be associated with clinical advantages for these outcomes.

BENEFITS OF EARLY SCREENING AND PROPER TREATMENT IN PATIENT WITH SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTORS FOR GESTATIONAL DIABETES MELLITUS (CASE REPORT).

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) occurs in 2-9% of all pregnancies. Evidence suggests that the use of insulin in treating hyperglycemia in GDM patients reduces the risk of perinatal morbidity. Pregnancy is an exciting time in a woman's life. However, once patient is diagnosed with GDM, she will be managed more intensively. GDM is managed using diet and exercise but one in six women with GDM requires insulin. A 35-year-old woman at the 14th gestational week of her tenth pregnancy was seen for routine prenatal care. She had the history of nine consecutive spontaneous abortions. Patient was hospitalized and based on the revealed glucose values insulin therapy was initiated with long-acting insulin analogue - Levemir and rapid-acting insulin analogue - NovoRapid. Patient's diabetes was compensated on insulin therapy. Follow-ups were planned at intervals of 1-2 weeks depending on the glucose levels. This is the case report of a GDM in a high-risk patient. She's at the 21st gestational weeks and has passed "delicate weeks". At her 21st week of gestation patient's glucose levels are compensated on insulin therapy and she is feeling well. In this unusual case report, no insulin therapy had been started during previous pregnancies, so we managed to achieve a good glycemic control with insulin treatment. This could be one of the factors that could help a normal pregnancy and delivery. The discussion should be focusing on early screening and proper treatment for GDM.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists compared with basal insulins for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Since 2005, several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been approved to treat people with type 2 diabetes. These agents are considered for use at the same point in the treatment paradigm as basal insulins. A comprehensive comparison of these drug classes, therefore, can help inform treatment decisions. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of GLP-1 RAs compared with basal insulins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed databases were searched. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of ≥16 weeks' duration comparing GLP-1 RAs vs basal insulins in adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antihyperglycemic drugs were included. Data on the change from baseline to 26 weeks (±10 weeks) of treatment in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and weight, as well as the proportion of patients experiencing hypoglycaemia, were extracted. Fixed-effect pairwise meta-analyses were conducted where data were available from ≥2 studies. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs were identified and 11 were meta-analysed. The once-weekly GLP-1 RAs, exenatide long acting release (LAR) and dulaglutide, led to greater, statistically significant mean HbA1c reductions vs basal insulins (exenatide: -0.31% [95% confidence interval -0.42, -0.19], dulaglutide: -0.39% [-0.49, -0.29]) whilst once-daily liraglutide and twice-daily exenatide did not (liraglutide: 0.06% [-0.06, 0.18], exenatide: 0.01% [-0.11, 0.13]). Mean weight reduction was seen with all GLP-1 RAs while mean weight gain was seen with basal insulins. Interpretation of the analysis of hypoglycaemia was limited by inconsistent definitions and reporting. Because of the limited number of available studies sensitivity analyses to explore heterogeneity could not be conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Although weight reduction is seen with all GLP-1 RA's, only the once-weekly agents, exenatide LAR and dulaglutide, demonstrate significant HbA1c reductions when compared to basal insulins.