A Review of Insulin-Dosing Formulas for Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Dosing guidelines for patients with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), which are historically based on clinical experience and retrospective studies of patients consuming an American diet, recommend that basal insulin should represent approximately 50 % of the total daily dose (TDD). Recent prospective studies in the USA and Japan conclude that the more appropriate proportion is closer to 30-40 % of TDD. In addition, currently used formulas for calculating the carbohydrate-to-insulin ratio (CIR) and correction factor (CF) may lead to underdosing of bolus insulin by as much as 12.8-50 % for a hypothetical patient. The discrepancies between traditional formulas and data from newer studies can be accounted for by the more rigorous design of the newer studies (e.g., prospective design, controlled diets, meal omission, and frequent glucose monitoring). International differences in diet composition may also be important to consider when developing dosing recommendations for CSII.

Omitting late-night eating may cause hypoglycemia in "well controlled" basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess hypoglycemia caused by eating the last meal of the day earlier or its omission in "well controlled" type 2 diabetes mellitus patients treated with once-nightly basal insulin. METHODS: Previously basal insulin-titrated subjects (n = 20) (fasting plasma glucose, FPG, <110 mg/dL and no self-reported hypoglycemia) underwent continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) during 3 consecutive eating conditions of 3 days each; (1) usual eating, (2) the last meal restricted to 18:00, and (3) 1 sequential meal omitted/day thereby creating a fasting day after transposing the 4-hour period after a meal with that when the meal was omitted. One 24-hour (00:00 to 00:00) period within each eating condition was selected for comparison. RESULTS: The mean duration in all hypoglycemic ranges doubled (P = .0584 or greater) when the last meal was omitted or eaten at 18:09 ± 0:39 instead of 19:43 ± 1:01, the usual time for the subjects' undisturbed eating. The mean duration of hypoglycemia was greatest between 00:00 to 06:00 compared to the 3 other 6-hour periods of the day. CONCLUSIONS: Increased hypoglycemia occurs when the subject's last meal is eaten earlier or omitted and may not be recognized because it occurs predominately during sleep. When titrating basal insulin from the morning FPG, considerations should be given to the effect of the last meal of the day and possible hypoglycemia between 00:00 and 06:00 to avoid excessive basal insulin treatment.

PATIENTS ACHIEVING GOOD GLYCEMIC CONTROL (HBA1c <7%) EXPERIENCE A LOWER RATE OF HYPOGLYCEMIA WITH INSULIN DEGLUDEC THAN WITH INSULIN GLARGINE: A META-ANALYSIS OF PHASE 3A TRIALS.

OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis to compare hypoglycemia rates of basal insulin degludec (IDeg) with insulin glargine (IGlar) in patients with diabetes achieving good glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] <7% at end of trial). METHODS: In a preplanned meta-analysis, patient data from 7 randomized, treat-to-target, 26- or 52-week trials in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who administered IDeg (n = 2,899) or IGlar (n = 1,431) once daily were analyzed. Using a negative binomial regression model, this meta-analysis compared hypoglycemia rates in patients achieving HbA1c <7% at end of trial with IDeg (n = 1,347) and IGlar (n = 697). RESULTS: In all trials, IDeg was noninferior to IGlar in HbA1c reduction from baseline. At end of trial, 2,044 patients (T2DM, n = 1,661; T1DM, n = 383) achieved HbA1c <7%. The overall confirmed hypoglycemia rate, defined as plasma glucose <56 mg/dL or severe hypoglycemia if requiring assistance, was significantly lower with IDeg versus IGlar (estimated rate ratio [ERR] IDeg:IGlar, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 0.98). The nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate, defined as occurring between midnight and 6:00 am, was significantly lower with IDeg (ERR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.77). In the maintenance period (16 weeks onward when average insulin dose and glycemic levels stabilized), the overall confirmed hypoglycemia rate was significantly lower (ERR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.92) and the nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate was significantly lower (ERR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.72) with IDeg versus IGlar. CONCLUSION: Patients with T1DM and T2DM achieved HbA1c <7% with significantly lower rates of overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia with IDeg versus IGlar. The lower hypoglycemia rate with IDeg was more pronounced in the maintenance period.

Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes (BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 2): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Basal insulin therapy does not stop loss of ß-cell function, which is the hallmark of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and thus diabetes control inevitably deteriorates. Insulin degludec is a new, ultra-longacting basal insulin. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: In this 52 week, phase 3, open-label, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial, undertaken at 123 sites in 12 countries, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) of 7·0-10·0% after 3 months or more of any insulin regimen (with or without oral antidiabetic drugs). We randomly allocated eligible participants in a 3:1 ratio to receive once-daily subcutaneous insulin degludec or glargine, stratified by previous insulin regimen, via a central interactive response system. Basal insulin was titrated to a target plasma glucose concentration of 3·9-<5·0 mmol/L self-measured before breakfast. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of degludec to glargine measured by change in HbA(1c) from baseline to week 52 (non-inferiority limit of 0·4%) by ANOVA in the full analysis set. We assessed rates of hypoglycaemia in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00972283. FINDINGS: 744 (99%) of 755 participants randomly allocated degludec and 248 (99%) of 251 allocated glargine were included in the full analysis set (mean age 58·9 years [SD 9·3], diabetes duration 13·5 years [7·3], HbA(1c) 8·3% [0·8], and fasting plasma glucose 9·2 mmol/L [3·1]); 618 (82%) and 211 (84%) participants completed the trial. After 1 year, HbA(1c) decreased by 1·1% in the degludec group and 1·2% in the glargine group (estimated treatment difference [degludec-glargine] 0·08%, 95% CI -0·05 to 0·21), confirming non-inferiority. Rates of overall confirmed hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose <3·1 mmol/L or severe episodes requiring assistance) were lower with degludec than glargine (11·1 vs 13·6 episodes per patient-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·69 to 0·99; p=0·0359), as were rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia (1·4 vs 1·8 episodes per patient-year of exposure; 0·75, 0·58 to 0·99; p=0·0399). Rates of severe hypoglycaemia seemed similar (0·06 vs 0·05 episodes per patient-year of exposure for degludec and glargine) but were too low for assessment of differences. Rates of other adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: A policy of suboptimum diabetes control to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia and its consequences in advanced type 2 diabetes mellitus might be unwarranted with newer basal insulins such as degludec, which are associated with lower risks of hypoglycaemia than insulin glargine. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Evaluation of a patient education booklet (SimpleStart) effect on postprandial glucose control in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Post-meal hyperglycemia is emerging as a cardiovascular risk factor and may be elevated despite a hemoglobin A1C (A1C) of <7%. The Simple Start DVD (LifeScan, Milpitas, CA) was developed to educate patients about glycemic targets and dietary changes that could lessen glycemic excursions. We evaluated SimpleStart in a controlled, randomized, prospective trial using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). METHODS: Thirty subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus having an A1C of <7.0% (mean 6.0%) were recruited from the Center's population. Subjects were randomized to either Simple Start DVD presentation and a 30-min diet education course (SS Group) or just the latter (Control Group). Subjects were seen at baseline and during weeks 6 and 12 by an investigator. Life-style and medication changes were advised based on history and self-monitored blood glucose downloaded meter data. CGM and A1C were done at baseline and during weeks 6 and 12. RESULTS: Twenty-eight subjects completed the 12-week study with 14 subjects in the SS Group and Control Group being compared. There was no significant difference in the baseline or subsequent A1C levels or overall CGM glucose values between groups or over time. SMBG frequency was significantly increased in the SS Group from <1.0 per day to 2.0 per day (P < 0.001). At week 12, the mean glucose for the 4-h after-meal period was significantly lower in the SS Group than in the Control Group at breakfast and lunch in those subjects with adequate CGM tracings (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: An educational program incorporating Simple Start facilitates patient behavioral changes, decreasing post-meal hyperglycemia.

A Fixed Ratio Combination of Insulin Degludec and Liraglutide (IDegLira) Reduces Glycemic Fluctuation and Brings More Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Within Blood Glucose Target Ranges.

BACKGROUND: Reducing glycemic fluctuation is important for optimal diabetes management. This post hoc analysis examined glycemic fluctuations and the proportion of subjects achieving recommended blood glucose targets with the fixed ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) compared to insulin degludec (IDeg) and liraglutide alone. METHODS: We analyzed nine-point self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) profiles from two randomized trials involving IDegLira in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from a subset of patients in one of these trials to assess glycemic fluctuation and day-to-day variability. RESULTS: Compared with IDeg, IDegLira resulted in a greater proportion of subjects with SMBG values within target ranges (3.9-9.0 mmol/L) than IDeg for all pre- and postprandial values, and for the full nine-point profile (P < 0.05 for all). IDegLira also resulted in a greater reduction in the range of SMBG values over 24 h than IDeg (P ≤ 0.0001). CGM data showed that IDegLira provided greater reductions in interstitial glucose (IG) fluctuation (P = 0.0018) and postprandial IG increment (P = 0.0288) compared with IDeg. Compared with liraglutide, IDegLira brought a higher proportion of subjects within SMBG target ranges (all pre- and all postprandial values, and the full nine-point profile, P < 0.01 for all) and resulted in a greater reduction of time outside the IG target range (P = 0.0072). IDegLira also reduced mean IG more than liraglutide (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IDegLira allows more patients with T2D to maintain blood glucose within target ranges throughout the day than either IDeg or liraglutide alone.

Misled by the Morning "Fasting" Plasma Glucose.

Because of its ease and simplicity of its measurement, the morning fasting plasma glucose (FPG), has been as used a surrogate marker for the entire basal day when titrating once-nightly basal insulin. Common in obese insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes, late and large evening meals elevate the FPG. This has led to dosing of basal insulin well beyond the basal requirements and contributes to hypoglycemia and weight gain seen with this therapy. It is recommended that during basal insulin titration, the evening meal be limited and hypoglycemia be monitored early in the morning, that bewitching time when the "peakless" basal insulin's action is peaking and the predawn phenomenon insulin sensitivity is higher.

Lipid response to pioglitazone in diabetic patients: clinical observations from a retrospective chart review.

The objective of this study was to determine whether improvements in the lipid profile observed in controlled clinical trials with pioglitazone are seen in the clinical practice setting, and to ascertain the influence of concurrent statin treatment. Charts of 100 consecutive patients with type 2 diabetes (mean age 56.8 years) treated with pioglitazone (45 mg/day) for 2-4 months were retrospectively analyzed for changes in serum lipids, glycemic parameters, and body weight. Subanalyses were performed on the relationship of lipid changes to baseline lipid values and to concurrent statin therapy. Pioglitazone was associated with statistically significant (p < 0.001) changes from baseline in HbA(1C) (mean decrease 1.09%), body weight (mean increase 1.76 kg), HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) levels (mean increase 15.6%), and triglycerides (mean decrease 9.9%). There was an increase (+ 1.09%) in mean individual LDL-C levels from baseline values, but this change was not statistically significant. The greatest absolute and percentage improvements in HDL-C and triglycerides were observed in patients who had the greatest lipid abnormalities at baseline: in patients with baseline HDL-C < 35 mg/dL, mean individual HDL-C values increased by 31% (p < 0.001); in those with baseline triglycerides >399 mg/dL, triglyceride levels decreased by 46% (p < 0.001); and in patients with baseline LDL-C > 129 mg/dL, mean individual LDL-C values decreased by 10.6% (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed similar beneficial changes in HDL-C and triglycerides in patients who were not receiving concurrent statin therapy (n = 48) as in those who were receiving statins (n = 49). This observational study demonstrated that significant improvements in HDL-C and triglyceride levels can be achieved with pioglitazone in the clinical practice setting. The greatest improvements occurred in patients with the worst baseline lipid levels, and benefits were seen regardless of whether patients were receiving concurrent statin therapy.

Individualizing insulin therapy in the management of type 2 diabetes.

It is recognized that reducing hyperglycemia early on in disease progression has long-term benefits for patients with diabetes. Insulin therapy has greater potential to reduce hyperglycemia than other therapies; however, there is often a significant delay in insulin initiation and intensification. Insulin replacement therapy in type 2 diabetes should no longer be viewed as the treatment of last resort. With the development of modern insulin analogs, the field has evolved. Large clinical trials have improved our understanding of the potential benefits and risks associated with intensive glycemic control in different patient populations and highlighted the need for individualization of glycemic targets and treatment strategies. Current treatment guidelines recognize the important role of insulin therapy both early on and throughout the progression of type 2 diabetes.

Liraglutide achieves A1C targets more often than sitagliptin or exenatide when added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes and a baseline A1C <8.0%.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the safety and efficacy of liraglutide to that of sitagliptin or exenatide as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and glycated hemoglobin (A1C) <8.0%. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of 26-week data from liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily (OD) versus exenatide 10 µg twice daily (LEAD-6) and liraglutide 1.8 mg OD versus sitagliptin 100 mg OD (LIRA-DPP-4); only patients treated as add-on to metformin with baseline A1C <8.0% were included. Efficacy analysis was performed on the intention-to-treat population with missing values imputed by last observation carried forward. RESULTS: More patients achieved A1C targets (<7.0% and ≤6.5%) with liraglutide versus exenatide or sitagliptin; the difference was greatest for A1C ≤6.5% (LEAD-6: 65% versus 35%; odds ratio [OR]=3.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31-8.63; P = .01 or LIRA-DPP-4: 53% versus 19%; OR = 4.78, 95% CI 2.10 to 10.87; P = .0002). Significantly more patients achieved a composite endpoint of A1C <7.0% with no weight gain or hypoglycemia with liraglutide compared with exenatide (78% versus 42%; OR = 4.99, 95% CI: 1.77 to 14.04; P = .0023) or sitagliptin (61% versus 21%; OR = 5.95, 95% CI: 2.66 to 13.29; P<.0001). All treatments were well tolerated, there was no major hypoglycemia and few patients (8 to 10%) experienced minor hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: When added to metformin in patients with an A1C <8.0%, more patients using liraglutide 1.8 mg reached A1C targets than with exenatide or sitagliptin. Sitagliptin had particularly low efficacy in this analysis. These data support the use of liraglutide 1.8 mg as a safe and effective alternative to sitagliptin or exenatide following metformin failure in patients with an A1C <8.0%.

Continuous glucose monitoring-guided insulin dosing in pump-treated patients with type 1 diabetes: a clinical guide.

This article describes our methods for structured continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-guided insulin dosing in pump-treated type 1 diabetes. Some of the methods have been reported and some are based on clinical experience. It is expected that this guide will help those involved in the care of such patients and who have experience with CGM to achieve better glucose control in their patients. More research needs to be done on insulin dosing and we hope that this article will also encourage others to pursue this field. This is a guide and, as such, is not meant to replace clinical judgment. Also, these dosing approaches apply only to those patients on pump therapy. They do not necessarily carry over to those patients treated with basal analog insulin.

The number of basal rates required to achieve near-normal basal glucose control in pump-treated type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that most pump-treated patients with type 2 diabetes require only two or fewer basal rates. Using daily continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-directed titration, this premise was re-evaluated at near-normal glycemic control. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty subjects who were insulin-naive (n = 10), on basal insulin (n = 10), or on basal-bolus insulin therapy (n=10) ate a fixed diet. The basal rate was started as a single rate and then adjusted to a basal glucose goal of 70-130 mg/dL. The insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio (ICR) (in g/U) was adjusted to 2-4-h postmeal CGM glucose goal of 80-120% of premeal glucose. RESULTS: The mean (SE) CGM basal glucose was 99.9 (4.9) mg/dL, and 4.5% (1.4%) of the readings were <70 mg/dL. The mean 2-4-h postmeal glucose was 113.3% (4.8%) of the premeal glucose. Only six subjects (20%) required two basal rates, while the remainder needed only one. The mean (SE) dosing relationships were as follows: total basal dose (TBD) (in U/day) = 0.226(0.018) × weight (in kg); TBD (in U/day) = 0.339(0.012) × total daily dose (TDD) (in U/day); ICR (in g/U) = 126(8)/TBD (in U/day); and ICR (in g/U) = 365(14)/TDD (in U/day). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that one basal rate is adequate for the majority of subjects with type 2 diabetes. The mathematical proportionality between dosing factors closely agrees with those obtained in CGM-titrated pump-treated type 1 diabetes but differs from those derived from clinical studies in which insulin titration was based on infrequent self-monitored plasma glucose testing and while on an unstructured diet.

How much do I give? Dose estimation formulas for once-nightly insulin glargine and premeal insulin lispro in type 1 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the mathematical relationships between dosing factors in type 1 diabetic patients using multiple daily injections. METHODS: In this single-center, prospective study in type 1 diabetic patients, the basal continuous glucose monitoring glucose target was less than 130 mg/dL with fewer than 10% of 24-hour readings at less than 70 mg/dL. Basal glucose for the 4-hour meal periods was obtained from once-daily serial meal omissions. On an isocaloric, 50% carbohydrate, fixed diet, the insulin to carbohydrate ratio was adjusted to achieve a 2- to 4-hour postbolus glucose value within ±20% of premeal glucose. For determining dosing formulas, the slope of the linear regression line comparing the variables of weight, total daily dose (TDD), total basal dose (TBD), insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio (ICR), and correction factor (CF) was determined. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were included. Titrating insulin glargine to the morning glucose led to hypoglycemia during the rest of the day (2 PM to 4 AM). Therefore the basal glucose target was the nondawn phenomenon portion of the day. The resulting estimation formulas could be rounded to the following: TBD = 0.2 x weight (kg) | TBD = 0.33 x TDD | 90/TBD = ICR = CF/4.5. CONCLUSIONS: Smaller insulin glargine doses to achieve control are in contrast to those much larger doses reported in clinical trials in multiple daily injection-treated type 1 diabetes in which the morning fasting glucose is the basal insulin target.

Contribution of the dawn phenomenon to the fasting and postbreakfast hyperglycemia in type 1 diabetes treated with once-nightly insulin glargine.

OBJECTIVE: To observe the effect of the dawn phenomenon on basal glucose and postbreakfast hyperglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes treated with once-nightly insulin glargine and premeal insulin lispro. METHODS: In 49 study subjects consuming a fixed isocaloric (50% carbohydrate) diet of usual food, the insulin glargine dose was titrated from daily continuous glucose monitoring downloads to achieve a basal glucose goal of <130 mg/dL 4 hours after meals and during serial meal omissions but with fewer than 10% of readings at <70 mg/dL during 24 hours. Patients also performed self-monitoring of plasma glucose 7 times a day (before and 2 hours after each meal or omitted meal and at bedtime). RESULTS: The target mean basal glucose level was achieved only during the non-dawn phenomenon period (1400 hours to 0400 hours). During the dawn phenomenon, the mean (standard deviation) basal glucose level increased from 118 (57) mg/dL at 0400 hours to 156 (67) mg/dL before the breakfast meal, a 32% increase (P = .00149). The mean self-monitored plasma glucose level with meal omission was 63.8% of that increase with a breakfast meal. CONCLUSION: The fasting morning glucose concentration is considerably elevated because of the dawn phenomenon. Targeting insulin titration to this glucose level may result in excessive basal insulin dosing for the non-dawn phenomenon periods of the day. The dawn phenomenon is a large component of the postbreakfast hyperglycemia. Rather than increasing the morning premeal insulin bolus, consideration should be given to pretreating the earlier dawn phenomenon with an insulin pump with use of a variable basal insulin rate.

Comparison of the post-meal glucose response to different insulin bolus waveforms in insulin pump- and pre-meal pramlintide-treated type 1 diabetes patients.

BACKGROUND: Both pramlintide and insulin pump waveforms separately provide improved post-meal glucose control. However, when used together there may be a mismatch in actions leading to hypoglycemia. We studied the three currently available waveforms and a "modified combination wave" (MC) in pramlintide-treated patients. The MC was a "square" (SQ) wave combined with a "standard" (ST) bolus that was delayed 1 h into the mealtime. METHODS: Using the CGMS Gold (Medtronics, Northridge, CA) we measured the glucose response 0-4 h after the beginning of a meal and 15 min after the initiation of the insulin bolus wave and pramlintide (60 microg), bolus. Pump-treated type 1 diabetes subjects were randomized to one bolus waveform for one full day of three meals and then crossed over to the other bolus waveforms. In the first study nine subjects were randomized to the ST, SQ, or "combination" (C) wave consisting of a ST wave at the beginning of a SQ wave. In the second study nine subjects were randomized to SQ or MC. RESULTS: With ST and C waves glucose fell approximately 40 mg/dL 0-2 h post-meal and then returned to baseline by the fourth hour. Initially isoglycemic, the SQ wave increased approximately 20 mg/dL in the late meal period. The MC demonstrated minimal (approximately 10 mg/dL) change during the entire post-meal period. CONCLUSIONS: For currently available insulin pump bolus waves, SQ and MC may be least likely to cause hypoglycemia in pramlintide-treated patients.