Glycaemic outcomes in hospital with IDegAsp versus BIAsp30 premixed insulins.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: IDegAsp (Ryzodeg 70/30), a unique premixed formulation of long-acting insulin degludec and rapid-acting insulin aspart, is increasing in use. Management of IDegAsp during hospitalisation is challenging because of degludec's ultra-long duration of action. We investigated inpatient glycaemia in patients treated with IDegAsp compared to biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp30; Novomix30). METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study at two hospitals assessing inpatients with type 2 diabetes treated with IDegAsp or BIAsp30 prior to and during hospital admission. Standard inpatient glycaemic outcomes were analysed based on capillary blood glucose (BG) measurements. RESULTS: We assessed 88 individuals treated with IDegAsp and 88 HbA1c-matched individuals treated with BIAsp30. Patient characteristics, including insulin dose at admission, were well matched, but the IDegAsp group had less frequent twice-daily insulin dosing than the BIAsp30 group (49% vs 87%, P < 0.001). Patient-days with BG <4 mmol/L were not different (10.6% vs 9.9%, P = 0.7); however, the IDegAsp group had a higher patient-day mean BG (10.4 (SD 3.4) vs 10.0 (3.4) mmol/L, P < 0.001), and more patient-days with mean BG >10 mmol/L (48% vs 38%, P < 0.001) compared to the BIAsp30 group. Glucose was higher in the IDegAsp group in the evening (4 PM to midnight) (11.6 (SD 4.0) vs 10.9 (4.6) mmol/L, P = 0.004), but not different at other times during the day. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatients treated with IDegAsp compared to BIAsp30 had similar hypoglycaemia incidence, but higher hyperglycaemia incidence, potentially related to less frequent twice-daily dosing. With the increasing use of IDegAsp in the community, development of hospital management guidelines for this insulin formulation is needed.

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.

Drug treatments for managing cystic fibrosis-related diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation recommends both short-term and long-acting insulin therapy when cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD) has been diagnosed. Diagnosis is based on: an elevated fasting blood glucose level greater than 6.94 mmol/L (125 mg/dL); or oral glucose tolerance tests greater than 11.11 mmol/L (200 mg/dL) at two hours; or symptomatic diabetes for random glucose levels greater than 11.11 mmol/L (200 mg/dL); or glycated hemoglobin levels of at least 6.5%. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To establish the effectiveness of insulin and oral agents for managing diabetes in people with cystic fibrosis in relation to blood sugar levels, lung function and weight management. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also handsearched abstracts from pulmonary symposia and the North American Cystic Fibrosis Conferences. Date of most recent register search: 10 September 2020. We searched online trials registries; date of most recent searches: 21 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing all methods of pharmacological diabetes therapy in people with diagnosed CFRD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. Authors also used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: The searches identified 29 trials (45 references). Four included trials provide results: one short-term single-center cross-over trial (seven adults) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and no medication in adults with CFRD and normal fasting glucose; one long-term multicenter trial (61 adults with CFRD) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and placebo; one long-term multicenter trial (67 adults) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide; and one 12-week single-center cross-over trial (20 adults) comparing the long-acting insulin glargine to short-term neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Two ongoing trials of newly approved incretin mimics have been noted for possible future inclusion. Downgrading of the quality of the evidence was mainly due to risks of bias across all domains, but particularly due to concerns surrounding allocation concealment and selective reporting. There were also some concerns due to imprecision from small sample sizes and low event rates. Finally, there may be some bias due to the amounts of insulin and repaglinide given not being comparable. Data from one trial comparing insulin to placebo (39 participants) did not show any difference between groups for the primary outcomes of blood glucose levels (very low-quality evidence), lung function (low-quality evidence) or nutritional status (low-quality evidence). Similarly, no differences between groups were seen for the secondary outcomes of number of hypoglycemic episodes (low-quality evidence), secondary infection complications or quality of life (QoL). These results were mirrored in the narrative reports for the second trial in this comparison (seven participants). Data from the one-year trial comparing repaglinide to placebo (38 participants), showed no differences between groups for the primary outcomes of blood glucose levels (very low-quality evidence), lung function (low-quality evidence) and nutritional status (low-quality evidence). Also, no differences were seen between groups for the secondary outcomes of number of hypoglycemic episodes (low-quality evidence), secondary infection complications or QoL. These findings were mirrored in the narrative reports for the second trial (n = 7) in this comparison. Three trials compared insulin to repaglinide (119 participants). Data from one trial (n = 67) showed no difference in blood glucose levels at either 12 months (high-quality evidence) or 24 months; narrative reports from one trial (45 participants) reported no difference between groups, but the second trial (7 participants) reported a beneficial effect of insulin over repaglinide. Two trials (112 participants) found no difference between insulin and repaglinide in lung function or nutritional status (moderate-quality evidence). Two trials (56 participants) reported no difference in the number of hypoglycemic episodes (low-quality evidence). One trial (45 participants) reported no difference between groups in secondary infections and cystic fibrosis QoL. The single trial comparing glargine to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin did not report directly on the review's primary outcomes, but did report no differences between groups in post-prandial glucose values and weight; neither group reported infectious complications. There was no difference in episodes of hypoglycemia (very low-quality evidence) and while there was no difference reported in QoL, all participants opted to continue treatment with glargine after the trial was completed. Mortality was not reported by any trial in any comparison, but death was not given as a reason for withdrawal in any trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review has not found any conclusive evidence that any agent has a distinct advantage over another in controlling hyperglycemia or the clinical outcomes associated with CFRD. Given the treatment burden already experienced by people with cystic fibrosis, oral therapy may be a viable treatment option. While some cystic fibrosis centers use oral medications to help control diabetes, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (USA) clinical practice guidelines support the use of insulin therapy and this remains the most widely-used treatment method. Randomized controlled trials specifically related to controlling diabetes and its impact on the course of pulmonary disease process in cystic fibrosis continue to be a high priority. Specifically, investigators should evaluate adherence to different therapies and also whether there is benefit in using additional hypoglycemic agents as well as the newly approved incretin mimics. Agents that potentiate insulin action, especially agents with additional anti-inflammatory potential should also be further investigated as adjuvant therapy to insulin.

A randomized, open-label, multicentre, parallel-controlled study comparing the efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30 plus metformin with biphasic insulin aspart 30 monotherapy for type 2 diabetes patients inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs: The merit study.

AIM: To confirm non-inferiority of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) plus metformin to BIAsp 30 in lowering glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in Chinese patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes using oral antidiabetic drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this 16-week, prospective, randomized, open-label, multicentre, parallel-controlled study, patients aged 18-79 years with HbA1c ≥7% were randomized to BIAsp 30 plus metformin (n = 130) or BIAsp 30 (n = 127). Initially, 500 mg metformin was administered twice daily and BIAsp 30 was administered at 0.2-0.3 U/kg/d. Changes in HbA1c % from baseline to week 16 as well as secondary and safety endpoints were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 83.66% of patients in the BIAsp 30 plus metformin (n = 110) and the BIAsp 30 (n = 105) groups completed the study. Mean (±standard deviation) change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint was -1.74 ± 1.64% and -1.32 ± 2.05% with BIAsp 30 plus metformin and BIAsp 30, respectively. Least squares mean treatment difference was -0.67% (95% CI, -1.06; -0.28). The upper limit of the 95% CI was <0.4 (non-inferiority margin). A significantly higher proportion of individuals reached HbA1c <7% with BIAsp 30 plus metformin than with BIAsp 30 (53.15% vs 35.19%; P = 0.0074). At endpoint, daily BIAsp 30 dose (P < 0.001) and weight gain were significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the BIAsp 30 plus metformin group compared with the BIAsp 30 group. No between-group differences in number of hypoglycaemic events were observed. CONCLUSION: BIAsp 30 plus metformin was non-inferior to BIAsp 30 in safely reducing HbA1c in this study.

Phase III Study on Efficacy and Safety of Triple Combination (Exenatide/Metformin/Biphasic Insulin Aspart) Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Exenatide, metformin (MET), and biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIA30) have been widely used in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); however, each of these medications has significant adverse effects, which limit their utilization. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple combination (exenatide/metformin/biphasic insulin aspart) therapy for T2DM. Two hundred patients with poorly controlled T2DM were randomly divided into the low-dose (0.5 µg exenatide, 0.05 U·kg·d BIA30, and 0.01 g MET twice daily) and normal-dose (2 µg exenatide, 0.2 U·kg·d BIA30, and 0.05 g MET twice daily) groups for 48 weeks of treatment. Of note, 82 and 90 individuals from the low-dose and normal-dose groups, respectively, completed the study. The levels of adiponectin, C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor-α, and resistin were measured. The normal-dose treatment was more effective at lowering hemoglobin A1c levels than the low-dose therapy (HbA1c changes of -2.5 ± 0.19% and -0.8 ± 0.07%, respectively) after 48 weeks. The maximum weight decrease was 0.9 kg in the low-dose group and 4.0 kg in the normal-dose group. The triple combination therapy increased the levels of insulin sensitivity and adiponectin and reduced the levels of C-reactive protein, resistin, and tumor necrosis factor-α. No significant difference in the adverse effects was found between the low-dose and normal-dose groups (P > 0.05). In conclusion, the investigated triple combination therapy for T2MD is therefore an effective and safe therapeutic strategy.

Comparing effects of insulin analogues and human insulin on nocturnal glycaemia in hypoglycaemia-prone people with Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To assess the difference between analogue and human insulin with regard to nocturnal glucose profiles and risk of hypoglycaemia in people with recurrent severe hypoglycaemia. METHODS: A total of 72 people [46 men, mean ± sd age 54 ± 12 years, mean ± sd HbA1c 65 ± 12 mmol/mol (8.1 ± 1.1%), mean ± sd duration of diabetes 30 ± 14 years], who participated in a 2-year randomized, crossover trial of basal-bolus therapy with insulin detemir/insulin aspart or human NPH insulin/human regular insulin (the HypoAna trial) were studied for 2 nights during each treatment. Venous blood was drawn hourly during sleep. Primary endpoints were nocturnal glucose profiles and occurrence of hypoglycaemia (blood glucose ≤ 3.9 mmol/l). RESULTS: During insulin analogue treatment, the mean nocturnal plasma glucose level was significantly higher than during treatment with human insulin (10.6 vs 8.1 mmol/l). The fasting plasma glucose level was similar between the treatments. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia was registered during 41/101 nights (41%) in the human insulin arm and 19/117 nights (16%) in the insulin analogue arm, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.26 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.45; P < 0.0001) with insulin analogue. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with insulin analogue reduces the occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia assessed by nocturnal glucose profiles in people with Type 1 diabetes prone to severe hypoglycaemia. Nocturnal glucose profiles provide a more comprehensive assessment of clinical benefit of insulin regimens as compared to conventional recording of hypoglycaemia.

Treatment of prednisolone-induced hyperglycaemia in hospitalized patients: Insights from a randomized, controlled study.

AIM: Prednisolone causes hyperglycaemia predominantly between midday and midnight. Consequently, glargine-based basal-bolus insulin regimens may under treat daytime hyperglycaemia and cause nocturnal hypoglycaemia. We investigated whether an isophane-based insulin regimen is safer and more effective than a glargine-based regimen in hospitalized patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty inpatients prescribed ≥20 mg/day prednisolone acutely with (1) finger prick blood glucose level (BGL) ≥15 mmol/L or (2) BGLs ≥10 mmol/L within the previous 24 hours were randomized to either insulin isophane or glargine before breakfast and insulin aspart before meals. The initial daily insulin dose was 0.5 U/kg bodyweight or 130% of the current daily insulin dose. Glycaemic control was assessed using a continuous glucose monitoring system. RESULTS: On Day 1, there were no significant differences in percentage of time outside a target glucose range of 4 to 10 mmol/L (41.3% ± 5.5% vs 50.0% ± 5.7%, P = .28), mean daily glucose (10.2 ± 0.7 vs 10.8 ± 0.8 mmol/L, P = .57) or glucose <4 mmol/L (2.2% ± 1.1% vs 2.0% ± 1.3%, P = .92) in patients randomized to isophane and glargine. In patients treated for 3 days, the prednisolone dose was reduced ( P = .02) and the insulin dose was increased over time ( P = .02), but the percentage of time outside the 4 to 10 mmol/L glucose range did not differ over time ( P = .45) or between groups ( P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in the efficacy or safety of the isophane and glargine-based insulin regimens. We recommend an initial daily insulin dose of 0.5 units/kg bodyweight if not on insulin, a greater than 30% increase in pre-prednisolone insulin dose and larger insulin dose adjustments in patients with prednisolone-induced hyperglycaemia.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of different basal insulins in a real-world setting.

AIMS: To compare glucose control and safety of different basal insulin therapies (BI, including Insulin NPH, glargine and detemir) in real-world clinical settings based on a large-scale registry study. METHODS: In this multi-center 6-month prospective observational study, patients with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 7%) who were uncontrolled by oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) and were willing to initiate BI therapy were enrolled from 209 hospitals within 8 regions of China. Type and dose of BI were at the physician's discretion and the patients' willingness. Interviews were conducted at 0 months (visit 1), 3 months (visit 2) and 6 months (visit 3). Outcomes included change in HbA1c, hypoglycemia rate and body weight from baseline at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 16 341 and 9002 subjects were involved in Intention-To-Treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. After PS regression adjustment, ITT analysis showed that reduction in HbA1c in glargine (2.2% ± 2.1%) and detemir groups (2.2% ± 2.1%) was higher than that in the NPH group (2.0% ± 2.2%) (P < .01). The detemir group had the lowest weight gain (-0.1 ± 2.9 kg) compared with the glargine (+0.1 ± 3.0 kg) and NPH (+0.3 ± 3.1 kg) groups (P < .05). The glargine group had the lowest rate of minor hypoglycaemia, while there was no difference in severe hypoglycaemia among the 3 groups. The results observed in PP analyses were consistent with those in ITT analysis. CONCLUSION: In a real-world clinical setting in China, treatment with long-acting insulin analogues was associated with better glycaemic control, as well as less hypoglycaemia and weight gain than treatment with NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes patients. However, the clinical relevance of these observations must be interpreted with caution.

Basal Insulin Regimens for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost-Utility Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of basal insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus in England. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted in accordance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case. The UK National Health Service and personal and social services perspective was used and a 3.5% discount rate was applied for both costs and outcomes. Relative effectiveness estimates were based on a systematic review of published trials and a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used, in which net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. A wide range of sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Insulin detemir (twice daily) [iDet (bid)] had the highest mean QALY gain (11.09 QALYs) and NMB (£181,456) per patient over the model time horizon. Compared with the lowest cost strategy (insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn once daily), it had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £7844/QALY gained. Insulin glargine (od) [iGlarg (od)] and iDet (od) were ranked as second and third, with NMBs of £180,893 and £180,423, respectively. iDet (bid) remained the most cost-effective treatment in all the sensitivity analyses performed except when high doses were assumed (>30% increment compared with other regimens), where iGlarg (od) ranked first. CONCLUSIONS: iDet (bid) is the most cost-effective regimen, providing the highest QALY gain and NMB. iGlarg (od) and iDet (od) are possible options for those for whom the iDet (bid) regimen is not acceptable or does not achieve required glycemic control.

Insulin lispro 25/75 and insulin lispro 50/50 as starter insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: subanalysis of the CLASSIFY randomized trial.

In Japan, premixed insulins are commonly used as starter insulin for type 2 diabetes. This subpopulation analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of twice-daily LM25 (25% insulin lispro/75% insulin lispro protamine) and LM50 (50% insulin lispro/50% insulin lispro protamine) as starter insulin in Japanese subjects, and compared these results with the whole-trial populations of East Asian subjects. In this subpopulation analysis of an open-label, phase 4, randomized trial (CLASSIFY), Japanese subjects received LM25 (n = 88) or LM50 (n = 84) twice-daily for 26 weeks. The primary outcome was change from baseline at Week 26 in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Results for Japanese subjects were generally similar to those for the whole-trial population. Similar changes from baseline in HbA1c were observed for LM25 and LM50 groups (least squares [LS] mean difference [95% confidence interval] of LM25 - LM50 = 0.13 [-0.16, 0.41]%, 1.42 [-1.75, 4.48] mmol/mol, p = 0.388). More LM50-treated subjects than LM25-treated subjects achieved HbA1c targets of <7.0% (59.5% versus 43.2%; p = 0.034) or ≤6.5% (45.2% versus 28.4%; p = 0.027). The reduction in postprandial blood glucose concentrations after morning and evening meals was statistically significantly greater for LM50 than for LM25. The incidence of both hypoglycemia and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between treatment groups. Both LM25 and LM50 twice daily appear to be effective and well tolerated as starter insulin, although LM50 might be more effective for Japanese type 2 diabetes patients.

Twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart provides superior fasting plasma glucose control and a reduced rate of hypoglycaemia compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 in insulin-naïve adults with Type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs. twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus who were naïve to insulin. METHODS: In this 26-week, multinational, open-label, controlled, two-arm, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, participants [mean (± sd) age 58.9 (±8.9) years, duration of diabetes 9.5 (±5.9) years, HbA1c 68 (±8.7) mmol/mol or 8.4 (±0.8)% and BMI 31.2 (±4.2) kg/m(2) ) were randomized (1:1) to insulin degludec/insulin aspart (n = 197) or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (n = 197), administered with breakfast and the main evening meal, titrated to a self-monitored plasma glucose target > 3.9 and ≤ 5.0 mmol/l. RESULTS: The mean HbA1c was reduced to 49 mmol/mol (6.6%) with insulin degludec/insulin aspart and 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) with biphasic insulin aspart 30. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart achieved the prespecified non-inferiority margin (estimated treatment difference 0.02%; 95% CI -0.12, 0.17). Insulin degludec/insulin aspart was superior in lowering fasting plasma glucose (estimated treatment difference -1.00 mmol/l; 95% CI -1.4, -0.6; P < 0.001) and reducing overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia at a similar overall insulin dose compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30. Similar proportions of participants in each arm experienced severe hypoglycaemia. Adverse events were equally distributed. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous findings, insulin degludec/insulin aspart twice daily effectively improved long-term glycaemic control, with superior reductions in FPG, and significantly less overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with Type 2 diabetes who were insulin-naïve.

Lipid changes during basal insulin peglispro, insulin glargine, or NPH treatment in six IMAGINE trials.

Basal insulin peglispro (BIL) is a novel basal insulin with hepato-preferential action resulting from reduced peripheral effects. This report provides an integrated summary of lipid changes at 26 weeks with BIL and comparator insulins (glargine, NPH) from phase III studies in type 1 diabetes (T1D), insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), patients with T2D on basal insulin only and patients with T2D on basal-bolus therapy. BIL treatment had little effect on HDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol in all patients. The effect of both BIL and glargine treatment on triglycerides (TG) depended on whether patients had been previously treated with insulin. When BIL replaced conventional insulin glargine or NPH treatments, increases in TG levels were observed. When BIL or comparator insulins were given for 26 weeks to insulin-naïve patients with T2D, TG levels were unchanged from baseline with BIL but decreased with either glargine or NPH. The decreased peripheral action of BIL may reduce suppression of lipolysis in peripheral adipose tissue resulting in increased free fatty acid delivery to the liver and, hence, increased hepatic TG synthesis and secretion.

Biphasic insulin Aspart 30 vs. NPH plus regular human insulin in type 2 diabetes patients; a cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, costs, and cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with NPH plus regular human insulin (NPH/Reg) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: It was a Single-center, parallel-group, randomized, clinical trial (Trial Registration: NCT01889095). One hundred and seventy four T2DM patients with poorly controlled diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 8 % (63.9 mmol/mol)) were randomly assigned to trial arms (BIAsp 30 and NPH/Reg) and were followed up for 48 weeks. BIAsp 30 was started at an initial dose of 0.2-0.6 IU/Kg in two divided doses and was titrated according to the glycemic status of the patient. Similarly, NPH/Reg insulin was initiated at a dose of 0.2-0.6 IU/Kg with a 2:1 ratio and was subsequently titrated. Level of glycemic control, hypoglycemic events, direct and indirect costs, quality adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio have been assessed. RESULTS: HbA1c, Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and two-hour post-prandial glucose (PPG) were improved in both groups during the study (P < 0.05 for all analyses). Lower frequencies of minor, major, and nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes were observed with BIAsp 30 (P < 0.05). Additionally, BIAsp 30 was associated with less weight gain and also higher QALYs (P < 0.05). Total medical and non-medical costs were significantly lower with BIAsp 30 as compared with NPH/Reg (930.55 ± 81.43 USD vs. 1101.24 ± 165.49 USD, P = 0.004). Moreover, BIAsp 30 showed lower ICER as a dominant alternative. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being more expensive, BIAsp 30 offers the same glycemic control as to NPH/Reg dose-dependently and also appears to cause fewer hypoglycemic events and to be more cost-effective in Iranian patients with type 2 diabetes.

Insulin and oral agents for managing cystic fibrosis-related diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation recommends both short-term and long-acting insulin therapy when cystic fibrosis-related diabetes has been diagnosed. Diagnosis is based on: an elevated fasting blood glucose level greater than 6.94 mmol/liter (125 mg/deciliter); or oral glucose tolerance tests greater than 11.11 mmol/liter (200 mg/deciliter) at two hours; or symptomatic diabetes for random glucose levels greater than 11.11 mmol/liter (200 mg/deciliter); or glycated hemoglobin levels of at least 6.5%. OBJECTIVES: To establish the effectiveness of insulin and oral agents for managing diabetes in people with cystic fibrosis in relation to blood sugar levels, lung function and weight management. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also handsearched abstracts from pulmonary symposia and the North American Cystic Fibrosis Conferences.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 18 February 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing all methods of diabetes therapy in people with diagnosed cystic fibrosis-related diabetes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: The searches identified 22 trials (34 references). Four trials (200 participants) are included: one short-term single-center trial (n = 7) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and no medication in people with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes and normal fasting glucose; one long-term multicenter trial (n = 100, 74 of whom had cystic fibrosis-related diabetes) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and placebo; one long-term multicenter trial (n = 73) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide; and one 12-week single-center trial (n = 20) comparing the long-acting insulin glargine to short-term neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin.Two trials with data for the comparison of insulin to placebo did not report any significant differences between groups for the primary outcomes of blood glucose levels, lung function and nutritional status. This was also true for the single trial with data for the comparison of repaglinide to placebo. Two trials (one lasting one year and one lasting two years) contributed data for the comparison of insulin versus repaglinide. There were no significant differences for the primary outcomes at any time point, except at one year (in the two-year trial) when the insulin group had significant improvement in z score for body mass index compared to the repaglinide group. The single trial comparing glargine to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin also did not report any significant differences in the review's primary outcomes. A few cases of hypoglycemia were seen in three out of the four trials (none in the longest trial), but these events resolved without further treatment.There was an unclear risk of bias from randomization and allocation concealment in two of the four included trials as the authors did not report any details; in the remaining two studies details for randomization led to a low risk of bias, but only one had sufficient details on allocation concealment to allow a low risk judgement, the second was unclear. There was a high risk from blinding for all trials (except for the comparison of oral repaglinide versus placebo) due to the nature of the interventions. Complete data for all outcomes were not available from any trial leading to a high risk of reporting bias. The amounts of insulin and repaglinide administered were not comparable and this may lead to bias in the results. None of the included trials were powered to show a significant improvement in lung function. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review has not found any significant conclusive evidence that long-acting insulins, short-acting insulins or oral hypoglycemic agents have a distinct advantage over one another in controlling hyperglycemia or clinical outcomes associated with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes. While some cystic fibrosis centers use oral medications to help control diabetes, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (USA) clinical practice guidelines support the use of insulin therapy and this remains the most widely-used treatment method. Randomized controlled trials specifically related to controlling diabetes with this impact on the course of pulmonary disease process in cystic fibrosis continue to be a high priority.There is no demonstrated advantage yet established for using oral hypoglycemic agents over insulin, and further trials need to be evaluated to establish whether there is clear benefit for using hypoglycemic agents. Agents that potentiate insulin action, especially agents with additional anti-inflammatory potential should be further investigated to see if there may be a clinical advantage to adding these medications to insulin as adjuvant therapy.

Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus in a Bali Mynah (Leucopsar rothschildi).

An 18-year-old female Bali mynah (Leucopsar rothschildi) was presented for polyphagia, weight loss, and incoordination. Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed based on the history and clinical findings, including persistent hyperglycemia with concurrent hypoinsulinemia and glucosuria. A treatment protocol was developed that led to improvement of clinical signs and management of hyperglycemia over several months. Because of the advanced age of the animal, difficulty in maintaining euglycemia, and the stress of handling and treatment, euthanasia was elected 167 days after initial presentation. At postmortem examination, no pancreatic lesions were detected histologically that would account for the diabetes mellitus. To our knowledge this is the first reported case of diabetes mellitus and clinical management of this condition in a passerine species.

Twice- rather than once-daily basal insulin is associated with better glycaemic control in Type 1 diabetes mellitus 12 months after skills-based structured education in insulin self-management.

AIM: This study investigates the relationship between basal insulin regimen and glycaemic outcomes 12 months after skills-based structured education in the UK Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating (DAFNE) programme for Type 1 diabetes mellitus. METHOD: Retrospective analysis of data from 892 DAFNE participants from 11 UK centres. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c 12 months after DAFNE was lower in those using twice- rather than once-daily basal insulin after correcting for differences in baseline HbA1c , age and duration of diabetes; difference -2 (95% CI -3 to -1) mmol/mol [-0.2 (-0.3 to -0.1)%], P = 0.009. The greatest fall in HbA1c of -5 (-7 to -3) mmol/mol [-0.4 (-0.6 to -0.3)%], P < 0.001 occurred in those with less good baseline control, HbA1c  ≥ 58 mmol/mol, who switched from once- to twice-daily basal insulin. There was no difference in the 12-month HbA1c between users of glargine, detemir and NPH insulin after correcting for other variables. Relative risk of severe hypoglycaemia fell by 76% and ketoacidosis by 63% 12 months after DAFNE. The rate of severe hypoglycaemia fell from 0.82 to 0.23 events/patient year in twice-daily basal insulin users. In the group with greatest fall in HbA1c , the estimated relative risk for severe hypoglycaemia in twice-daily basal insulin users versus once daily at 12 months was 1.72 (0.88-3.36, P = 0.110). CONCLUSION: After structured education in adults with Type 1 diabetes mellitus, use of basal insulin twice rather than once daily was associated with lower HbA1c , independent of insulin type, with significant reductions in severe hypoglycaemia and ketoacidosis in all groups.

Modulation of insulin dose titration using a hypoglycaemia-sensitive algorithm: insulin glargine versus neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To examine whether insulin glargine can lead to better control of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) than that achieved by neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, using a protocol designed to limit nocturnal hypoglycaemia. METHODS: The present study, the Least One Oral Antidiabetic Drug Treatment (LANCELOT) Study, was a 36-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-arm study conducted in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and South America. Participants were randomized (1:1) to begin glargine or NPH, on background of metformin with glimepiride. Weekly insulin titration aimed to achieve median prebreakfast and nocturnal plasma glucose levels ≤5.5 mmol/l, while limiting values ≤4.4 mmol/l. RESULTS: The efficacy population (n = 701) had a mean age of 57 years, a mean body mass index of 29.8 kg/m², a mean duration of diabetes of 9.2 years and a mean HbA1c level of 8.2% (66 mmol/mol). At treatment end, HbA1c values and the proportion of participants with HbA1c <7.0 % (<53 mmol/mol) were not significantly different for glargine [7.1 % (54 mmol/mol) and 50.3%] versus NPH [7.2 % (55 mmol/mol) and 44.3%]. The rate of symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemia, confirmed by plasma glucose ≤3.9 or ≤3.1 mmol/l, was 29 and 48% less with glargine than with NPH insulin. Other outcomes were similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: Insulin glargine was not superior to NPH insulin in improving glycaemic control. The insulin dosing algorithm was not sufficient to equalize nocturnal hypoglycaemia between the two insulins. This study confirms, in a globally heterogeneous population, the reduction achieved in nocturnal hypoglycaemia while attaining good glycaemic control with insulin glargine compared with NPH, even when titrating basal insulin to prevent nocturnal hypoglycaemia rather than treating according to normal fasting glucose levels.

Effect of subcutaneous insulin detemir on glucose flux, lipolysis and electroencephalography in type 1 diabetes.

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of subcutaneous detemir on glucose flux, lipid metabolism and brain function. Twelve people with type 1 diabetes received, in random order, 0.5 units/kg body weight detemir or NPH insulin. Glucose concentration was clamped at 5 mmol/l then increased to 10 mmol/l. Glucose production rate (glucose Ra), glucose uptake (glucose Rd) and glycerol production (glycerol Ra) were measured with a constant intravenous infusion of [6,6(2) H(2)]glucose and [(2)H(5)]glycerol. Electroencephalography direct current (DC) and alternating current (AC) potentials were measured. While detemir induced similar effects on glucose Ra, glucose Rd and glycerol Ra during euglycaemia compared with NPH, it triggered a distinct negative shift in DC potentials, with a significant treatment effect in frontal cerebrocortical channels (p < 0.001). AC spectral power showed significant differences in theta and alpha frequencies during euglycaemia (p = 0.03). Subcutaneous detemir exerts different effects on brain function when compared with NPH in people with type 1 diabetes. This may be an important mechanism behind the limitation of weight gain with detemir.

Intensifying insulin regimen after basal insulin optimization in adults with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, randomized, open-label trial comparing insulin glargine plus insulin glulisine with biphasic insulin aspart (LanScape).

AIM: To test the hypothesis that a 'basal plus' regimen--adding once-daily main-meal fast-acting insulin to basal insulin once daily--would be non-inferior to biphasic insulin twice daily as assessed by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration (predefined as ≤0.4%), but would provide superior treatment satisfaction. METHODS: This open-label trial enrolled adults to an 8- or 12-week run-in period, during which oral therapies except metformin were stopped and insulin glargine dose was titrated. Those with fasting glucose <7 mmol/l but HbA1c >7% (53 mmol/mol) were randomized to insulin glargine/glulisine once daily (n = 170) or insulin aspart/aspart protamine 30/70 twice daily (n = 165) for 24 weeks, with dose titration to glucose targets using standardized algorithms. RESULTS: For HbA1c, the basal plus regimen was non-inferior to biphasic insulin (least squares mean difference, 0.21%, upper 97.5% confidence limit 0.38%) meeting the predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. Treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version and Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire total scores) significantly favoured basal plus. No difference was observed between the basal plus and the biphasic insulin groups in responders (HbA1c <7%, 20.6 vs 27.9%; p = 0.12), weight gain (2.06 vs 2.50 kg; p = 0.2), diabetes-specific quality of life (Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life average weighted impact (AWI) score) and generic health status (five-dimension European Quality of Life questionnaire). Overall hypoglycaemia rates were similar between groups (15.3 vs 18.2 events/patient-year; p = 0.22); nocturnal hypoglycaemia was higher with the basal plus regimen (5.7 vs 3.6 events/patient-year; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In long-standing type 2 diabetes with suboptimal glycaemia despite oral therapies and basal insulin, the basal plus regimen was non-inferior to biphasic insulin for biomedical outcomes, with a similar overall hypoglycaemia rate but more nocturnal events.