Similar Breast Cancer Risk in Women Older Than 65 Years Initiating Glargine, Detemir, and NPH Insulins.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether initiation of insulin glargine (glargine), compared with initiation of NPH or insulin detemir (detemir), was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in women with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective new-user cohort study of female Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years initiating glargine (203,159), detemir (67,012), or NPH (47,388) from September 2006 to September 2015, with follow-up through May 2017. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for incidence of breast cancer according to ever use, cumulative duration of use, cumulative dose of insulin, length of follow-up time, and a combination of dose and length of follow-up time. RESULTS: Ever use of glargine was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer compared with NPH (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.88-1.06) or detemir (HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.92-1.05). No increased risk was seen with glargine use compared with either NPH or detemir by duration of insulin use, length of follow-up, or cumulative dose of insulin. No increased risk of breast cancer was observed in medium- or high-dose glargine users compared with low-dose users. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, glargine use was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer compared with NPH or detemir in female Medicare beneficiaries.

Impact of the mode of protraction of basal insulin therapies on their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and resulting clinical outcomes.

Manufacturers of insulin products for diabetes therapy have long sought ways to modify the absorption rate of exogenously administered insulins in an effort to better reproduce the naturally occurring pharmacokinetics of endogenous insulin secretion. Several mechanisms of protraction have been used in pursuit of a basal insulin, for which a low injection frequency would provide tolerable and reproducible glucose control; these mechanisms have met with varying degrees of success. Before the advent of recombinant DNA technology, development focused on modifications to the formulation that increased insulin self-association, such as supplementation with zinc or the development of preformed precipitates using protamine. Indeed, NPH insulin remains widely used today despite a frequent need for a twice-daily dosing and a relatively high incidence of hypoglycaemia. The early insulin analogues used post-injection precipitation (insulin glargine U100) or dimerization and albumin binding (insulin detemir) as methods of increasing therapeutic duration. These products approached a 24-hour glucose-lowering effect with decreased variability in insulin action. Newer basal insulin analogues have used up-concentration in addition to precipitation (insulin glargine U300), and multihexamer formation in addition to albumin binding (insulin degludec), to further increase duration of action and/or decrease the day-to-day variability of the glucose-lowering profile. Clinically, the major advantage of these recent analogues has been a reduction in hypoglycaemia with similar glycated haemoglobin control when compared with earlier products. Future therapies may bring clinical benefits through hepato-preferential insulin receptor binding or very long durations of action, perhaps enabling once-weekly administration and the potential for further clinical benefits.

Randomized controlled trial of insulin supplementation for correction of bedtime hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical guidelines recommend point-of-care glucose testing and the use of supplemental doses of rapid-acting insulin before meals and at bedtime for correction of hyperglycemia. The efficacy and safety of this recommendation, however, have not been tested in the hospital setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this open-label, randomized controlled trial, 206 general medicine and surgery patients with type 2 diabetes treated with a basal-bolus regimen were randomized to receive either supplemental insulin (n = 106) at bedtime for blood glucose (BG) >7.8 mmol/L or no supplemental insulin (n = 100) except for BG >19.4 mmol/L. Point-of-care testing was performed before meals, at bedtime, and at 3:00 a.m. The primary outcome was the difference in fasting BG. In addition to the intention-to-treat analysis, an as-treated analysis was performed where the primary outcome was analyzed for only the bedtime BG levels between 7.8 and 19.4 mmol/L. RESULTS: There were no differences in mean fasting BG for the intention-to-treat (8.8 ± 2.4 vs. 8.6 ± 2.2 mmol/L, P = 0.76) and as-treated (8.9 ± 2.4 vs. 8.8 ± 2.4 mmol/L, P = 0.92) analyses. Only 66% of patients in the supplement and 8% in the no supplement groups received bedtime supplemental insulin. Hypoglycemia (BG <3.9 mmol/L) did not differ between groups for either the intention-to-treat (30% vs. 26%, P = 0.50) or the as-treated (4% vs. 8%, P = 0.37) analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of insulin supplements for correction of bedtime hyperglycemia was not associated with an improvement in glycemic control. We conclude that routine use of bedtime insulin supplementation is not indicated for management of inpatients with type 2 diabetes.

Transitional NPH insulin therapy for critically ill patients receiving continuous enteral nutrition and intravenous regular human insulin.

BACKGROUND: The intent of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transitioning from a continuous intravenous (IV) regular human insulin (RHI) or intermittent IV RHI therapy to subcutaneous neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin with intermittent corrective IV RHI for critically ill patients receiving continuous enteral nutrition (EN). METHODS: Data were obtained from critically ill trauma patients receiving continuous EN during transitional NPH insulin therapy. Target blood glucose concentration (BG) range was 70-149 mg/dL. BG was determined every 1-4 hours. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were transitioned from a continuous IV RHI infusion (CIT) to NPH with intermittent corrective IV RHI therapy. Thirty-four patients had NPH added to their preexisting supplemental intermittent IV RHI therapy (SIT). BG concentrations were maintained in the target range for 18 ± 3 and 15 ± 4 h/d for the CIT and SIT groups, respectively (P < .05). Thirty-eight percent of patients experienced a BG <60 mg/dL, and 9% had a BG <40 mg/dL. Hypoglycemia was more prevalent for those who were older (P < .01) or exhibited greater daily BG variability (P < .01) or worse HgbA1C (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Transitional NPH therapy with intermittent corrective IV RHI was effective for achieving BG concentrations within 70-149 mg/dL for the majority of the day. NPH therapy should be implemented with caution for those who are older, have erratic daily BG control, or have poor preadmission glycemic control.

Metformin compared with insulin in the management of gestational diabetes mellitus: a randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the effect of metformin and insulin in glycemic control and compare pregnancy outcome in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was conducted in GDM women with singleton pregnancy and gestational age between 20 and 34 weeks who did not achieve glycemic control on diet were assigned randomly to receive either metformin (n=80) or insulin (n=80). The primary outcomes were maternal glycemic control and birth weight. The secondary outcomes were neonatal and obstetric complications. RESULTS: Two groups were comparable regarding the maternal characteristics. Two groups were similar in mean FBS (P=0.68) and postprandial measurements (P=0.87) throughout GDM treatment. The neonates of metformin group had less rate of birth weight centile >90 than insulin group (RR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3-0.9, P=0.012). Maternal weight gain was reduced in the metformin group (P<0.001). Two groups were comparable according to neonatal and obstetric complications (P>0.05). In metformin group 14% of women needed to supplemental insulin to achieve euglycemia. CONCLUSION: Metformin is an effective and safe alternative treatment to insulin for women with GDM. This study does not show significant risk of maternal or neonatal adverse outcome with the use of metformin.

Insulin analogs versus human insulin in type 2 diabetes.

Oral hypoglycaemic agents become less effective as beta cell function declines. Thus many patients with type 2 diabetes will ultimately require treatment with insulin. There are two main approaches to starting insulin: (a) as a basal supplement with an intermediate to long-acting preparation (NPH, glargine or detemir) plus oral agents; (b) as a premixed insulin regimen. Almost all the studies have shown similar glucose control with both NPH and the new insulin analogs. Further analyses between these insulins have documented significant reductions in hypoglycaemia especially at night with the insulin analogs. The weight gain is an important issue in patients with diabetes. It appears that insulin detemir studies have reported weight neutrality or less weigh gain or even weight loss. However, most insulin glargine studies have reported a weight gain. On the other hand insulin analogs have the important disadvantage of high cost. It is important to take in to account all the above factors such as cost, weight gain, number of insulin injections and hypoglycaemia while prescribing insulin.

Insulin analogues (insulin detemir and insulin aspart) versus traditional human insulins (NPH insulin and regular human insulin) in basal-bolus therapy for patients with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of the trial was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two types of basal-bolus therapy, using either the soluble long-acting basal insulin analogue, insulin detemir, in combination with the rapid-acting analogue, insulin aspart, or NPH insulin in combination with mealtime regular human insulin. METHODS: In this 18-week, 1:1 randomised, open-labelled, parallel trial, 595 patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus received insulin detemir or NPH insulin in the morning and at bedtime in combination with mealtime insulin aspart or regular human insulin respectively. RESULTS: Glycaemic control with insulin detemir/insulin aspart was improved in comparison with NPH insulin/regular human insulin (HbA1c: 7.88% vs 8.11%; mean difference: -0.22% point [95% CI: -0.34 to -0.10]; p<0.001). Self-measured 8-point plasma glucose profiles differed between the groups (p<0.001), with lower postprandial plasma glucose levels in the insulin detemir/insulin aspart group. Within-person day-to-day variation in plasma glucose was lower with insulin detemir/insulin aspart than with NPH insulin/regular human insulin (SD: 2.88 vs 3.12 mmol/l; p<0.001). Risk of overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia (23.00-06.00 hours) was, respectively, 21% (p=0.036) and 55% (p<0.001) lower in the insulin detemir/insulin aspart group than in the NPH insulin/regular human insulin group. Body weight (adjusted for baseline and change in HbA1c) was 1 kg lower with insulin detemir/insulin aspart than with NPH insulin/regular human insulin (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Basal-bolus therapy using insulin detemir/insulin aspart offers a better balance of control and tolerability than with NPH insulin/regular human insulin. The low variability and more physiological action profiles generated with these insulin analogues resulted in improved glycaemic control with lower risk of hypoglycaemia and no concomitant body weight increase.

Six month administration of gelified intranasal insulin in 16 type 1 diabetic patients under multiple injections: efficacy vs subcutaneous injections and local tolerance.

OBJECTIVE: Nasal insulin administration is a potential route for intensive insulin management, less invasive and more rapid than subcutaneous injections. Previous studies have shown poor bioavailability (less than 15%) with nasal insulin administration with various absorption enhancers. The aim of the study was to evaluate in type 1 diabetic patients, the metabolic efficacy and local tolerance of a new gelified sprayed nasal insulin containing glychocolate and methylcellulose as absorption promoters. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conducted in 16 type 1 diabetic patients (HbA1c 8.6+/-0.2%) in a cross-over trial including 2 six month randomized periods: a) NPH twice daily + 3 pre-prandial nasal insulin doses + nasal supplementation in case of unexpected hyperglycaemia; b) NPH twice daily + 3 pre-prandial regular insulin injections. End points were HbA1c levels, hypoglycaemic episodes and tolerance evaluated at month 0, 2, 6 and 8 on clinical symptoms and objective nasal assessments. RESULTS: Four patients were withdrawn because of nasal burning (3 cases) and persistent sinusitis (1 case), and one patient had purulent sinusitis at the month 6 examination. At month 6, HbA1c levels were comparable (8.3 +/- 0.1 vs 8.6 +/- 0.1%, m +/- SEM, NS) for nasal and subcutaneous period respectively. The number of hypoglycaemic events was identical during the 2 periods (88 episodes). Nasal tolerance with the gelified form was better than with the already reported lyophilized form but, when present, symptoms were more marked, suggesting a potentiating additional role of methylcellulose excipient on nasal intolerance. CONCLUSIONS: 1) Gelified nasal insulin is as efficient as subcutaneous regular insulin in type 1 diabetic patients. 2) Other galenic forms should be investigated to improve nasal tolerance and bioavailability.