A randomized clinical trial of basal insulin peglispro vs NPH in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: the IMAGINE 6 trial.

AIMS: Basal insulin peglispro (BIL) has a longer duration of action than conventional insulin analogues and a hepato-preferential mechanism of action. This study assessed whether BIL was non-inferior to isophane insulin (NPH) in reducing HbA1c in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes, when added to pre-study oral anti-hyperglycaemic medications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a Phase 3, open-label, treat-to-target (TTT), randomized trial with a 2-week lead-in, 26-week treatment and a 4-week safety follow-up period. Patients were randomized to bedtime (pm) NPH, morning (am) BIL or pm BIL in a 1:1:1 ratio. RESULTS: Six hundred and forty-one patients [NPH, n = 213; BIL, n = 428 (am, n = 213; pm, n = 215)] received study drug. BIL was non-inferior to NPH for HbA1c change from baseline at Week 26 with a between-treatment difference (95% confidence interval) of -0.37% (-0.50, -0.23%). HbA1c at baseline was 8.5%, and was lower in BIL- vs NPH-treated patients after 26 weeks of treatment (6.8% vs 7.1%; P < .001). More BIL-treated patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% and HbA1c <7.0% without nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Fasting serum glucose levels and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were lower in BIL-treated patients; total hypoglycaemia rates were similar. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups. Fasting triglycerides decreased from baseline in both groups and to a greater extent with NPH, but were not significantly different between groups at Week 26. Mean alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increased with BIL treatment, but there was no evidence of acute severe hepatotoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: In this TTT study, BIL treatment showed clinically relevant improvements in glycaemic control and a significant reduction in nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared to NPH.

Reduced peripheral activity leading to hepato-preferential action of basal insulin peglispro compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: Basal insulin peglispro (BIL), a novel PEGylated basal insulin with a large hydrodynamic size, has a delayed absorption and reduced clearance that prolongs the duration of action. The current study compared the effects of BIL and insulin glargine (GL) on endogenous glucose production (EGP), glucose disposal rate (GDR) and lipolysis in patients with type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, four-period, crossover study. Patients received intravenous infusions of BIL and GL, each at two dose levels selected for partial and maximal suppression of EGP, during an 8 to 10 h euglycemic clamp procedure with d-[3-3 H] glucose. RESULTS: Following correction for equivalent human insulin concentrations (EHIC), low-dose GL infusion resulted in similar EGP at the end of the clamp compared to low-dose BIL infusion (GL/BIL ratio of 1.03) but a higher GDR (GL/BIL ratio of 2.42), indicating similar hepatic activity but attenuated peripheral activity of BIL. Consistent with this, the EHIC-corrected GDR/EGP at the end of the clamp was 1.72-fold greater for GL than BIL following low-dose administration. At the lower dose of BIL and GL (concentrations in the therapeutic range), BIL produced less suppression of lipolysis compared with GL as indicated by free fatty acid and glycerol levels at the end of the clamp. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with GL, BIL restored the hepato-peripheral insulin action gradient seen in normal physiology via its peripherally restricted action on target tissues related to carbohydrate and lipid metabolism.

Different effects of basal insulin peglispro and insulin glargine on liver enzymes and liver fat content in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To compare effects of basal insulin peglispro (BIL), a hepatopreferential insulin, to insulin glargine (glargine) on aminotransferases and liver fat content (LFC) in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (T1D, T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from two Phase 2 and five Phase 3 randomized trials comparing BIL and glargine in 1709 T1D and 3662 T2D patients were integrated for analysis of liver laboratory tests. LFC, measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at baseline, 26 and 52 weeks, was analyzed in 182 T1D patients, 176 insulin-naïve T2D patients and 163 T2D patients previously treated with basal insulin. RESULTS: Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increased in patients treated with BIL, was higher than in glargine-treated patients at 4-78 weeks (difference at 52 weeks in both T1D and T2D: 7 international units/litre (IU/L), P < .001), and decreased after discontinuation of BIL. More BIL patients had ALT ≥3× upper limit of normal (ULN) than glargine. No patient had ALT ≥3× ULN with bilirubin ≥2× ULN that was considered causally related to BIL. In insulin-naїve T2D patients, LFC decreased with glargine but was unchanged with BIL. In T1D and T2D patients previously treated with basal insulin, LFC was unchanged with glargine but increased with BIL. In all three populations, LFC was higher after treatment with BIL vs glargine (difference at 52 weeks: 2.2% to 5.3%, all P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to glargine, patients treated with BIL had higher ALT and LFC at 52-78 weeks. No severe drug-induced liver injury was apparent with BIL treatment for up to 78 weeks.

Basal insulin peglispro: Overview of a novel long-acting insulin with reduced peripheral effect resulting in a hepato-preferential action.

Basal insulin peglispro (BIL) is a novel basal insulin with a flat, prolonged activity profile. BIL has been demonstrated in a dog model, in healthy men and in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to have significant hepato-preferential action resulting from reduced peripheral activity. In the IMAGINE-Phase 3 clinical trial program, more than 6000 patients were included, of whom ~3900 received BIL. Of the 7 pivotal IMAGINE trials, 3 studies were double-blinded and 3 were in T1D patients. BIL consistently demonstrated a greater HbA1c reduction, less glycaemic variability and a clinically relevant reduction in the rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia across comparator [glargine and isophane insulin (NPH)] studies. Trials using basal/bolus regimens had higher rates of total hypoglycaemia with BIL due to higher rates of daytime hypoglycaemia. Severe hypoglycaemia rates were similar to comparator among both patients with T1D or type 2 diabetes (T2D). T1D patients lost weight compared with glargine (GL). Patients with T2D tended to gain less weight with BIL than with glargine. Compared to glargine, BIL was associated with higher liver fat, triglycerides and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, including a higher frequency of elevation of ALT ≥3 times the upper limit of normal, but without severe, acute drug-induced liver injury. Injection site reactions, primarily lipohypertrophy, were more frequent with BIL. In conclusion, BIL demonstrated better glycaemic control with reduced glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycaemia but higher triglycerides, ALT and liver fat relative to conventional comparator insulin. The hepato-preferential action of BIL with reduced peripheral activity may account for these findings.

A randomized clinical trial comparing basal insulin peglispro and insulin glargine, in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 1 diabetes: IMAGINE 1.

AIMS: The primary objective was to demonstrate that basal insulin peglispro (BIL) was non-inferior compared with insulin glargine (GL) for haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at 26 weeks with a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. MATERIALS AND METHODS: IMAGINE 1 was a Phase 3, open-label, parallel-arm study conducted in nine countries. Adults with type 1 diabetes (n = 455) were randomized (2:1) to bedtime BIL or GL in combination with prandial insulin lispro for 78 weeks, with a primary endpoint of 26 weeks. An electronic diary facilitated data capture and insulin dosing calculations for intensive insulin management. RESULTS: At 26 weeks, mean HbA1c was 7.06% ± 0.04% and 7.43% ± 0.06% for patients assigned to BIL (N = 295) and GL (N = 160), respectively (difference -0.37% [95% CI: -0.50 to -0.23], P < .001); more patients on BIL achieved HbA1c <7% (44.9% vs 27.5%, P < .001). Compared with GL, patients using BIL lost weight, with lower fasting serum glucose and between-day fasting blood glucose variability, and 36% less nocturnal hypoglycemia, 29% more total hypoglycemia and more severe hypoglycemia. Total and prandial insulin doses were lower with BIL; basal insulin doses were higher. Alanine aminotransferase increased with BIL, with more patients having elevations ≥3 × ULN. BIL treatment was associated with more frequent injection site reactions and an increase from baseline in serum triglycerides. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 1 diabetes, treatment with BIL compared to GL for 26 weeks was associated with lower HbA1c, less nocturnal hypoglycemia, lower glucose variability and weight loss. Increases in total and severe hypoglycemia, triglycerides, aminotransferases and injection site reactions were also noted.

Randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing basal insulin peglispro and insulin glargine, in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 1 diabetes: IMAGINE 3.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of basal insulin peglispro (BIL), which has a flat pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile and a long duration of action, with insulin glargine (GL) in patients with type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this phase III, 52-week, blinded study, we randomized 1114 adults with type 1 diabetes in a 3 : 2 distribution to receive either BIL (n = 664) or GL (n = 450) at bedtime, with preprandial insulin lispro, using intensive insulin management. The primary objective was to compare glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the groups at 52 weeks, with a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. RESULTS: At 52 weeks, mean (standard error) HbA1c was 7.38 (0.03)% with BIL and 7.61 (0.04)% with GL {difference -0.22% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.32, -0.12]; p < 0.001}. At 52 weeks more BIL-treated patients reached HbA1c <7% (35% vs 26%; p < 0.001), the nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate was 47% lower (p < 0.001) and the total hypoglycaemia rate was 11% higher (p = 0.002) than in GL-treated patients, and there was no difference in severe hypoglycaemia rate. Patients receiving BIL lost weight, while those receiving GL gained weight [difference -1.8 kg (95% CI -2.3, -1.3); p < 0.001]. Treatment with BIL compared with GL at 52 weeks was associated with greater increases from baseline in levels of serum triglyceride [difference 0.19 mmol/l (95% CI 0.11, 0.26); p < 0.001] and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels [difference 6.5 IU/l (95% CI 4.1, 8.9), p < 0.001], and more frequent injection site reactions. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 1 diabetes, treatment with BIL compared with GL for 52 weeks resulted in a lower HbA1c, more patients with HbA1c levels <7%, and reduced nocturnal hypoglycaemia, but more total hypoglycaemia and injection site reactions and higher triglyceride and ALT levels.

Basal insulin peglispro versus insulin glargine in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes: IMAGINE 2 randomized trial.

AIMS: To compare, in a double-blind, randomized, multi-national study, 52- or 78-week treatment with basal insulin peglispro or insulin glargine, added to pre-study oral antihyperglycaemic medications, in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The primary outcome was non-inferiority of peglispro to glargine with regard to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction (margin = 0.4%). Six gated secondary objectives with statistical multiplicity adjustments focused on other measures of glycaemic control and safety. Liver fat content was measured using MRI, in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Peglispro was non-inferior to glargine in HbA1c reduction [least-squares (LS) mean difference: -0.29%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.40, -0.19], and had a lower nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate [relative rate 0.74 (95% CI 0.60, 0.91); p = .005), more patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% without nocturnal hypoglycaemia [odds ratio (OR) 2.15 (95% CI 1.60, 2.89); p < .001], greater HbA1c reduction (p < .001), and more patients achieving HbA1c<7.0% [OR 1.97 (95% CI 1.57, 2.47); p < .001]. Total hypoglycaemia rate and fasting serum glucose did not achieve statistical superiority. At 52 weeks, peglispro-treated patients had higher triglyceride (1.9 vs 1.7 mmol/L). alanine transaminase (34 vs 27 IU/L), and aspartate transaminase levels (27 vs 24 IU/L). LS mean liver fat content was unchanged with peglispro at 52 weeks but decreased 3.1% with glargine [difference: 2.6% (0.9, 4.2); p = .002]. More peglispro-treated patients experienced adverse injection site reactions (3.5% vs 0.6%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with glargine at 52 weeks, peglispro resulted in a statistically superior reduction in HbA1c, more patients achieving HbA1c targets, less nocturnal hypoglycaemia, no improvement in total hypoglycaemia, higher triglyceride levels, higher aminotransferase levels, and more injection site reactions.

Glucodynamics of long-acting basal insulin peglispro compared with insulin glargine at steady state in patients with type 1 diabetes: substudy of a randomized crossover trial.

AIMS: To compare, in an open-label, randomized, crossover phase II substudy, the glucodynamics of insulin glargine and those of basal insulin peglispro (BIL) in patients with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Patients (n = 23) underwent 24-h euglycaemic clamps after 8 weeks of treatment with glargine or with BIL. Clinically-titrated basal insulin doses (BIL group 16-64 U; glargine group 19-60 U) were administered on the morning of the clamp. RESULTS: At baseline, the patients' mean ± standard deviation (s.d.) body mass index was 26.78 ± 4.20 kg/m2 and glycated haemoglobin was 7.69 ± 0.99%. The mean ± s.d. endpoint dose for the BIL group was 0.42 ± 0.13 U/kg and for the glargine group was 0.42 ± 0.10. The daily mean ± s.d. blood glucose concentration was 7.7 ± 1.2 in the BIL group and 7.9 ± 1.2 mmol/l in the glargine group (p = 0.641). The mean ± s.d. total and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates/30 days were 2.7 ± 2.3 and 0.5 ± 0.8, respectively, for the BIL group, and 3.0 ± 2.4 and 0.7 ± 1.1, respectively, for the glargine group (p = 0.112 and 0.428). The mean glucose infusion rate (GIR) normalized to insulin unit was lower for BIL than for glargine. One patient in the glargine group and eight patients in the BIL group had minimal (<0.8 g/kg) GIRs over 24 h. The mean ± s.d. total glucose infused over 24 h (GTOT(0-24) ) was 1.22 ± 0.82 g/kg in the BIL group and 1.90 ± 1.01 g/kg in the glargine group (p = 0.002). The mean ± s.d. total glucose infused during hours 0-6 (GTOT(0-6) ) was 0.21 ± 0.22 in the BIL group and 0.41 ± 0.22 g/kg in the glargine group (p < 0.001), while the mean total glucose infused during hours 18-24 (GTOT(18-24) ) in the BIL group was 0.28 ± 0.18 g/kg and in the glargine group was 0.35 ± 0.23 g/kg (p = 0.198). The peak-to-trough ratio was 1.41 for BIL versus 2.22 for glargine. CONCLUSIONS: BIL has a flatter profile than glargine, with potentially more stable metabolic control. The lower GTOT(0-24) observed in the BIL group is consistent with BIL's reduced peripheral action.

Contrasting weight changes with LY2605541, a novel long-acting insulin, and insulin glargine despite similar improved glycaemic control in T1DM and T2DM.

AIMS: The basal insulin analogue LY2605541, a PEGylated insulin lispro with prolonged duration of action, was previously shown to be associated with modest weight loss in Phase 2, randomized, open-label trials in type 2 (N=288) and type 1 (N=137) diabetes mellitus (T2DM and T1DM), compared with modest weight gain with insulin glargine. Exploratory analyses were conducted to further characterize these findings. METHODS: Pearson correlations between change in body weight and other variables were calculated. Continuous variables were analysed using a mixed linear model with repeated measurements. Proportions of subjects with weight loss were analysed using Fisher's exact test for T2DM and Nagelkerke's method for T1DM. RESULTS: Weight loss was more common in LY2605541-treated patients than in patients treated with insulin glargine (T2DM: 56.9 vs. 40.2%, p=0.011; T1DM: 66.1 vs. 40.3%, p<0.001). More LY2605541-treated patients experienced ≥5% weight loss compared to patients treated with glargine (T2DM: 4.8 vs. 0%, p=0.033; T1DM: 11.9 vs. 0.8%, p<0.001). In both the T1DM and T2DM studies, weight change did not correlate with baseline body mass index (BMI), or change in HDL-cholesterol in either treatment group. No consistent correlations were found across both studies between weight change and any of the variables assessed; however, weight change was significantly correlated with hypoglycaemia rate in glargine-treated T2DM patients. CONCLUSION: In two Phase 2 trials, improved glycaemic control with long-acting basal insulin analogue LY2605541 is associated with weight loss in previously insulin-treated patients. This weight change is independent of baseline BMI or hypoglycaemia.

Addition of insulin lispro protamine suspension or insulin glargine to oral type 2 diabetes regimens: a randomized trial.

AIMS: The addition of basal insulin to existing oral therapy can help patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) achieve glycaemic targets. This study compares the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) and insulin glargine in insulin-naive patients with T2D and inadequate control on oral antihyperglycaemic medication (OAM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An open-label, randomized, multicentre, multinational 24-week study of 471 patients receiving ≥2 OAMs for ≥3 months with a body mass index between 25 and 45 kg/m(2) and HbA1c 7.5-10.0% was conducted. ILPS was injected once or twice daily vs. glargine injected once daily plus prestudy OAMs. Primary objective compared the HbA1c change from baseline. RESULTS: HbA1c change from baseline to endpoint was similar in both groups [-1.46% (ILPS) and -1.41% (glargine)]. Least-squares mean difference (95% CI) for HbA1c (-0.05 [-0.21, 0.11]%), glycaemic variability (0.06 [-0.06, 0.19] mmol/l) and weight change (-0.01 [-0.61, 0.59] kg) showed non-inferiority (margins of 0.4%, 0.8 mmol/l and 1.5 kg, respectively). Percentages of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% were 43.8% ILPS and 41.2% glargine. Mean daily insulin dose was 0.39 vs. 0.35 U/kg (p = 0.02) and weight gain was 1.04 vs. 1.07 kg for ILPS vs. glargine (p = 0.98). Overall hypoglycaemia (episodes/patient/year) was similar for ILPS and glargine (24.2 ± 28.8 vs. 23.0 ± 30.9); nocturnal (6.1 ± 10.6 vs. 4.1 ± 9.4, p < 0.001) rates were higher for ILPS. Severe hypoglycaemia was higher for ILPS vs. glargine (n = 9 vs. n = 2; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: At endpoint, ILPS was non-inferior to glargine in HbA1c change from baseline, but associated with increased risk of hypoglycaemia.

Comparison of pharmacodynamic intrasubject variability of insulin lispro protamine suspension and insulin glargine in subjects with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate pharmacodynamic (PD) intrasubject variability of a single, s.c. dose of insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) compared with insulin glargine in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus and additionally, to compare the intrasubject variability of pharmacokinetic parameters of both insulins. DESIGN: This was a single-center, investigator-blinded and subject-blinded, two-arm, parallel, randomized, four-period study. During the replicate visits, subjects received a single s.c. 0.6 U/kg dose of either ILPS or glargine, and underwent 24-h euglycemic glucose clamps. RESULTS: The intrasubject variabilities of the primary PD parameters, total amount of glucose infused (G(tot)) and maximum glucose infusion rate (GIR; R(max)), were statistically significantly lower for ILPS when compared with glargine (P<0.0001). Least-square (LS) mean estimates for G(tot) and R(max) were 2512.7 mg/kg and 3.740 mg/min per kg respectively for ILPS, and 1291.9 mg/kg and 1.793 mg/min per kg respectively for glargine. The LS mean estimates for G(tot) and R(max) were statistically greater (P=0.0010 and P<0.0001 respectively) for ILPS compared with glargine, suggesting that ILPS had greater 24-h glucose-lowering activity. Glargine demonstrated a flatter GIR-time curve, and ILPS demonstrated a significantly shorter time of maximum GIR (tR(max)) and earlier time to half-maximal GIR before tR(max) and time to half-maximal GIR after tR(max). ILPS administration resulted in significantly greater exposure compared with glargine (area under the baseline-corrected serum concentration versus time curve from time 0 to 24 h (AUC(0-24)): 77 150 vs 53 111 pmol min/l; maximum serum insulin concentration (C(max)): 119 vs 68 pmol/l; ILPS versus glargine respectively), but the intrasubject variabilities for AUC and C(max) were comparable. CONCLUSION: Although glargine demonstrated a flatter GIR-time profile, the lower PD intrasubject variability of ILPS may provide a more predictable response.

Primary care physician beliefs about insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Insulin is the most effective drug available to achieve glycaemic goals in patients with type 2 diabetes. Yet, there is reluctance among physicians, specifically primary care physicians (PCPs) in the USA, to initiate insulin therapy in these patients. AIMS: To describe PCPs' attitudes about the initiation of insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes and identify areas in which there is a clear lack of consensus. METHODS: Primary care physicians practicing in the USA, seeing 10 or more patients with type 2 diabetes per week, and having > 3 years of clinical practice were surveyed via an internet site. The survey was developed through literature review, qualitative study and expert panel. RESULTS: Primary care physicians (n = 505, mean age = 46 years, 81% male, 62% with > 10 years practice; 52% internal medicine) showed greatest consensus on attitudes regarding risk/benefits of insulin therapy, positive experiences of patients on insulin and patient fears or concerns about initiating insulin. Clear lack of consensus was seen in attitudes about the metabolic effects of insulin, need for insulin therapy, adequacy of self-monitoring blood glucose, time needed for training and potential for hypoglycaemia in elderly patients. CONCLUSIONS: The beliefs of some PCPs are inconsistent with their diabetes treatment goals (HbA1c < or = 7%). Continuing medical education programmes that focus on increasing primary care physician knowledge about the progression of diabetes, the physiological effects of insulin, and tools for successfully initiating insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes are needed.

A comparison of intensive mixture therapy with basal insulin therapy in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes receiving oral antidiabetes agents.

AIM: In patients with type 2 diabetes, insulin therapy is commonly initiated with either a single dose of basal insulin or twice-daily premixed (basal plus prandial) insulin despite no widely accepted recommendation. We compared the glycaemic control, as measured by a change in HbA1c, of intensive mixture therapy (IMT), a basal plus prandial regimen using insulin lispro mixture 50/50 (50% lispro and 50% NPL) before breakfast and lunch and insulin lispro mixture 25/75 (25% lispro and 75% NPL) before dinner, vs. once-daily insulin glargine therapy, while continuing patients on oral antidiabetes medications. METHODS: Following inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c 1.2-2.0 times the upper limit of normal) and at least 2 months of two or more oral antidiabetes agent therapy, 60 insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of the insulin regimens for 4 months with crossover to the alternative regimen for an additional 4 months. Glycaemic goals were preprandial blood glucose <120 mg/dl (6.7 mmol/l) and 2-h postprandial blood glucose <180 mg/dl (10.0 mmol/l). The insulin dose was optimized by investigators without forced titration. RESULTS: Mean prestudy (baseline) HbA1c for all patients was 9.21 +/- 1.33% (+/-s.d.). IMT compared to glargine resulted in both a lower endpoint in HbA1c (7.08 +/- 0.11% vs. 7.34 +/- 0.11%; p = 0.003) and a greater change in HbA1c from pretherapy (-1.01 +/- 0.10% vs. -0.75 +/- 0.10%; p = 0.0068). Forty-four per cent of patients receiving IMT and 31% of patients receiving insulin glargine achieved HbA1c < or = 7%. Two-hour postprandial glucose values (for all three meals) and predinner glucose values were significantly less with IMT than with insulin glargine (p = 0.0034, 0.0001, 0.0066 and 0.0205). Overall hypoglycaemia throughout the complete treatment period was infrequent (IMT vs. Glargine: 3.98 +/- 4.74 vs. 2.57 +/- 3.22 episodes/patient/30 days, p = 0.0013), and no severe hypoglycaemia was observed during the study with either therapy. There was no difference in nocturnal hypoglycaemia between the two therapies. The mean insulin dose at the end of therapy was greater for IMT than for once-daily insulin glargine (0.353 +/- 0.256 vs. 0.276 +/- 0.207 IU/kg, p = 0.0107). CONCLUSIONS: In combination with oral antidiabetes agents, multiple daily injections of a basal plus prandial insulin IMT regimen (using premixed insulin lispro formulations) resulted in greater improvements and a lower endpoint in HbA1c compared with a basal-only insulin regimen. IMT also resulted in improved postprandial blood glucose control at each meal and enabled administration of a greater daily dose of insulin, which most likely contributed to these lower HbA1c measures. This greater reduction in HbA1c with IMT is accompanied by a small increased occurrence of mild hypoglycaemia but without any severe hypoglycaemia. Greater consideration should be given to initiating insulin as a basal plus prandial regimen rather than a basal-only regimen.

Altered myosin light-chain phosphorylation in resting platelets from premenopausal women with diabetes.

Gender-related differences in the rate of coronary heart disease (CHD) between premenopausal women and men are greatly diminished in women with diabetes mellitus (DM). This may be related, in part, to altered platelet function in premenopausal diabetic women. Hyperglycemia may contribute to increase platelet aggregation through enhancement of oxidative stress, increased nitric oxide (NO) destruction, and increased myosin light-chain (MLC) phosphorylation (MLC-P). Accordingly, we investigated functional and biochemical parameters of platelet function in 32 women (14 premenopausal and postmenopausal controls and 18 age-matched patients with DM); platelet MLC-P and cyclic guanosine monophosphate ([cGMP] reflecting NO) were assessed. Other parameters including age, body mass index (BMI), waist to hip ratio, total cholesterol, and platelet count were not different in the control and diabetic groups. In the premenopausal women, baseline MLC-P was lower in women with DM versus the control group (P = .02). GMP levels were similar in the two groups at baseline (22.7 +/- 3 fmol/mL in controls v 23.1 +/- 3 fmol/mL in diabetic subjects) and 3 minutes after insulin exposure. The platelet content of ascorbic acid (AA), an endogenous antioxidant compound, was elevated in premenopausal women with DM (P = .02) compared with the controls. Despite similar estradiol (beta,E2) levels, platelets of premenopausal women with DM exhibited reduced MLC-P. This paradoxic difference may be accounted for by an increase in platelet AA, as this suggests decreased platelet oxidative stress in this patient population. These observations indicate that an altered redox state and associated MLC-P of platelets does not contribute to enhanced platelet aggregation and CHD in premenopausal women with DM.

The influence of treatment modality and ethnicity on attitudes in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The study examines diabetes attitude differences by treatment modality (insulin vs. no insulin), race/ethnicity, and the interaction of these two variables for people with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were collected with the Diabetes Care Profile (DCP), an instrument that assesses psychosocial factors related to diabetes. Participants (n = 672) were recruited in the metropolitan Detroit, Michigan, area from 1993 to 1996. A total of 68% of these participants were African-Americans with type 2 diabetes, and 32% were Caucasians with type 2 diabetes. Analyses of covariance were performed to examine the effects of race/ethnicity, treatment, and their interaction for each DCP scale. RESULTS: The four patient categories (two ethnicities by two treatment modalities) differed by age, years with diabetes, education, and sex distribution. Treatment modality had a significant effect on 6 of the 16 DCP scales (Control, Social and Personal Factors, Positive Attitude, Negative Attitude, Self-Care Ability, and Exercise Barriers). Ethnicity was a significant effect for three scales (Control, Support, and Support Attitudes). The interaction of race/ethnicity and treatment modality was a significant effect for two related attitude scales (Positive Attitude and Negative Attitude). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that attitudes toward diabetes are similar for African-American and Caucasian patients with type 2 diabetes. The results also suggest that treatment modality has a greater effect on attitudes than either race/ethnicity or the interaction effect. However, Caucasian patients using insulin differed from the other patient groups by having the least positive and the most negative attitudes regarding diabetes.

Cardiovascular disease in the diabetic woman.

The incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) with age is increasing in the United States, and elderly women constitute a disproportional component of the aging population. Elderly women also have a relatively high incidence of diabetes, which contributes to this relatively high CVD risk. Although CVD is less common in premenopausal women than in men, this difference begins to disappear after the onset of menopause, presumably related to decreased levels of female sex hormones (estrogen and/or progesterone). Diabetes mellitus removes the normal premenopausal gender-related differences in the prevalence of CVD by mechanisms that are not clearly defined, including metabolic and hemodynamic factors associated with diabetes. Dyslipidemia in diabetes mellitus consists of low high density lipoprotein cholesterol, elevated triglyceride levels, and a small, dense, more atherogenic low density lipoprotein particle (i.e. oxidized). Dyslipidemia interacts with associated hemodynamic (i.e. hypertension) and metabolic abnormalities (i.e. increased platelet aggregation and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 levels) to promote CVD risks in diabetic women. Recent controlled trials underscore the critical importance of aggressively treating CVD risk factors, especially dyslipidemia, in women with diabetes.

An update on perioperative management of diabetes.

Surgery in the patient with diabetes mellitus is relatively common, as the numbers of persons with diabetes is increasing and diabetes predisposes to medical conditions that require surgical intervention. An estimated 25% of diabetic patients will require surgery, and advances in perioperative care of these patients allow them to safely undergo the most complicated surgical procedures. We will review issues of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care of diabetic patients.

The reliability of the Diabetes Care Profile for African Americans.

The Diabetes Care Profile (DCP) is an instrument used to assess social and psychological factors related to diabetes and its treatment. The reliability of the DCP was established in populations consisting primarily of Caucasians with type 2 diabetes. This study tests whether the DCP is a reliable instrument for African Americans with type 2 diabetes. Both African American (n = 511) and Caucasian (n = 235) patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited at six sites located in the metropolitan Detroit area. Scale reliability was calculated by Cronbach's coefficient alpha. The scale reliabilities ranged from .70 to .97 for African Americans. These reliabilities were similar to those of Caucasians, whose scale reliabilities ranged from .68 to .96. The Feldt test was used to determine differences between the reliabilities of the two patient populations. No significant differences were found. The DCP is a reliable survey instrument for African American and Caucasian patients with type 2 diabetes.

The safety of injecting insulin through clothing.

OBJECTIVE: Many of the "antiseptic" practices recommended by health care professionals for insulin injection have been successfully challenged as unnecessary. Since people with diabetes have long been observed to inject their insulin through their clothing, this study was undertaken to determine the safety and perceived benefits of administering insulin by this "rogue" technique. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Fifty people with insulin-treated diabetes were randomized into a 20-week single-blinded prospective crossover study comparing the conventional subcutaneous injection technique (with skin preparation) to an experimental injection technique through clothing. Skin assessment, glycated hemoglobin levels, and leukocyte count were determined before randomization, at 10 weeks (before crossover), and again at 20 weeks (at completion). The participants injected through a single layer of fabric, which ranged from nylon to denim. Problems, benefits, type of clothing, and other comments were recorded by the subjects in an injection log. RESULTS: Forty-two (84%) subjects completed the study. The mean age was 41 years (range, 23-63 years), 50% were women, 86% were Caucasian, and 80% had type I diabetes. The mean duration of diabetes was 14 years (range, 1-33 years). Fifty-one percent had > 16 years of education. The demographic characteristics of the dropouts were similar to those who completed the study. Over the 20-week period approximately 13,720 injections were performed by participants. None of the subjects experienced erythema, induration, or abscess at injection sites. Neither the glycated hemoglobin levels nor the leukocyte counts differed between the conventional and experimental regimens. During the injection-through-clothing phase of the study, only minor problems, such as blood stains on clothing and bruising, were recorded in the logbooks. However, subjects reported that injection through clothing offered benefits such as convenience and saving time. CONCLUSIONS: It is safe and convenient to inject insulin through clothing.