Current concepts in the management of diabetic polyneuropathy.

Diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) is encountered in approximately one-third of people with diabetes. This, in turn, might markedly impoverish their quality of life, mainly owing to neuropathic pain and foot ulcerations. Painful DSPN might be as frequent as 25% in diabetes patients. Symptoms as a result of DSPN typically comprise pain, paresthesia and numbness in the distal lower limbs. Asymptomatic DSPN might reach 50% among patients with this condition. Unfortunately, DSPN is still not adequately diagnosed and treated. Its management has three priorities: (i) lifestyle improvement, near-normoglycemia and multifactorial cardiovascular risk intervention; (ii) pathogenesis-oriented pharmacotherapy; and (iii) symptomatic alleviation of pain. Intensive diabetes therapy showed evidence for favorable effects on the incidence and deterioration of DSPN in type 1 diabetes, but not type 2 diabetes. Among pathogenesis-oriented treatments, α-lipoic acid, actovegin, benfotiamine and epalrestat are currently authorized to treat DSPN in several countries. Symptomatic therapy uses analgesics, notably antidepressants, opioids and anticonvulsants, reducing pain by ≥50% in approximately 50% of individuals, but might be limited, particularly by central nervous system-related adverse events. Local treatment with the capsaicin 8% patch might offer an alternative. In addition to pain relief, therapy should improve sleep, mobility and quality of life. In conclusion, multimodal treatment of DSPN should consider the individual risk profile, pathogenetic treatment and pain management using pharmacotherapy (combinations, if required), as well as non-pharmacological options.

An RCT Investigating Patient-Driven Versus Physician-Driven Titration of BIAsp 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled Using NPH Insulin.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to confirm the efficacy of patient-driven titration of BIAsp 30 in terms of glycemic control, by comparing it to physician-driven titration of BIAsp 30, in patients with type 2 diabetes in North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. METHODS: A 20-week, open-label, randomized, two-armed, parallel-group, multicenter study in Egypt, Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam. Patients (n = 155) with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled using neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin were randomized to either patient-driven or physician-driven BIAsp 30 titration. RESULTS: The noninferiority of patient-driven compared to physician-driven titration with respect to the reduction in HbA1c was confirmed. The estimated mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 20 was -1.27% in the patient-driven arm and -1.04% in the physician-driven arm, with an estimated treatment difference of -0.23% (95% confidence interval: -0.54; 0.08). After 20 weeks of treatment, the proportions of patients achieving the target of HbA1c <7.5% were similar between titration arms; the proportions of patients achieving the target of ≤6.5% were also similar. Both titration algorithms were well tolerated, and hypoglycemic episode rates were similar in both arms. CONCLUSION: Patient-driven titration of BIAsp 30 can be as effective and safe as physician-driven titration in non-Western populations. Overall, the switch from NPH insulin to BIAsp 30 was well tolerated in both titration arms and led to improved glycemic control. A limitation of the study was the relatively small number of patients recruited in each country. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01589653. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark.