Considerations for diabetes: treatment with insulin pen devices.

Insulin is essential for the treatment of type 1 diabetes, and most patients with type 2 diabetes will eventually require insulin for glycemic control. Several barriers contribute to delays in initiating insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, insulin-treated patients often miss doses or otherwise fail to self-administer their insulin as prescribed, placing themselves at the risk of developing complications. Insulin pens can help overcome barriers to initiating insulin therapy and can facilitate the self-management of diabetes. Compared with the vial and syringe, insulin pens are more accurate, associated with greater adherence, and preferred by patients because of their convenience and ease of use. Large database analyses suggest that insulin pens may reduce the rate of occurrence of hypoglycemic events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Despite higher costs of insulin pens vs vials and syringes, studies suggest little or no increase in total health care costs and decreases in diabetes-related costs associated with reduced health care utilization with pens. Interestingly, the use of insulin pens within the United States lags far behind the use of pens in Europe and Japan. Insulin pens may be disposable or refillable, and some pens have special features [eg, audible clicks, large-dose selector and dial, memory function, half-unit dosing, high dosing (ie, 80 U)] that offer the opportunity to individualize treatment by meeting patients' needs. This review compares available insulin pens, describes strategies to facilitate their usage, and discusses how insulin pens can improve self-management of diabetes while reducing cost.

Diabetes control among Hispanics in the action to control cardiovascular risk in diabetes trial.

BACKGROUND: Hispanics in the United States represent diverse racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups, and manifest heterogeneous cardiovascular risks including diabetes. It is not known if there are residual differences in the control of diabetes among Hispanic groups given uniform access to diabetes care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate glucose control differences among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Dominicans receiving substantial diabetes care and support in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial comparing two treatment strategies: intensive, targeting glycated hemoglobin below 6.0 %, and standard, targeting glycated hemoglobin between 7.0 % and 7.9 %. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred and sixteen Hispanic and 6066 non-Hispanic white participants were recruited from 77 clinical sites across the United States and Canada. There were 243 Mexicans, 199 Puerto Ricans, and 150 Dominicans; and 135 of these Hispanic groups were born in the United States. MAIN MEASURE: Glycated hemoglobin RESULTS: Compared to Puerto Ricans, Mexicans were more likely (HR=1.38, CI:0.90-2.10) and Dominicans as likely (HR=1.01, CI:0.66-1.54) to achieve glycated hemoglobin goal in the intensive arm. Participants born in the United States achieved glycated hemoglobin goal at a higher rate than those born elsewhere (HR=1.57, CI:0.99-2.51 in the intensive arm, HR=1.51, CI:0.95-2.43 in the standard arm). These differences were not statistically significant. In the intensive arm, Puerto Ricans (OR=0.47, CI:0.31-0.71), and Dominicans (OR=0.41, CI:0.26-0.66) were less likely than non-Hispanic whites to achieve glycated hemoglobin goal, whereas the difference between non-Hispanic whites and Mexicans was not statistically significant, (OR=0.66, CI:0.43-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: Hispanic groups, given access to comprehensive diabetes care, differed from each other non-significantly and had a variable divergence from non-Hispanic whites in achieving intensive glycated hemoglobin goal. These differences, if confirmed, could be due to such factors as variable acculturation and functional health literacy levels that were not measured in the ACCORD trial, but should be further explored in future studies.

Liraglutide versus sitagliptin for patients with type 2 diabetes who did not have adequate glycaemic control with metformin: a 26-week, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Agonists of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor provide pharmacological levels of GLP-1 activity, whereas dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors increase concentrations of endogenous GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the human GLP-1 analogue liraglutide versus the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin, as adjunct treatments to metformin, in individuals with type 2 diabetes who did not achieve adequate glycaemic control with metformin alone. METHODS: In this parallel-group, open-label trial, participants (aged 18-80 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had inadequate glycaemic control (glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA(1c)] 7.5-10.0%) on metformin (>or=1500 mg daily for >or=3 months) were enrolled and treated at office-based sites in Europe, the USA, and Canada. Participants were randomly allocated to receive 26 weeks' treatment with 1.2 mg (n=225) or 1.8 mg (n=221) subcutaneous liraglutide once daily, or 100 mg oral sitagliptin once daily (n=219). The primary endpoint was change in HbA(1c) from baseline to week 26. The efficacy of liraglutide versus sitagliptin was assessed hierarchically by a non-inferiority comparison, with a margin of 0.4%, followed by a superiority comparison. Analyses were done on the full analysis set with missing values imputed by last observation carried forward; seven patients assigned to liraglutide did not receive treatment and thus did not meet criteria for inclusion in the full analysis set. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00700817. FINDINGS: Greater lowering of mean HbA(1c) (8.5% at baseline) was achieved with 1.8 mg liraglutide (-1.50%, 95% CI -1.63 to -1.37, n=218) and 1.2 mg liraglutide (-1.24%, -1.37 to -1.11, n=221) than with sitagliptin (-0.90%, -1.03 to -0.77, n=219). Estimated mean treatment differences for liraglutide versus sitagliptin were -0.60% (95% CI -0.77 to -0.43, p<0.0001) for 1.8 mg and -0.34% (-0.51 to -0.16, p<0.0001) for 1.2 mg liraglutide. Nausea was more common with liraglutide (59 [27%] patients on 1.8 mg; 46 [21%] on 1.2 mg) than with sitagliptin (10 [5%]). Minor hypoglycaemia was recorded in about 5% of participants in each treatment group. INTERPRETATION: Liraglutide was superior to sitagliptin for reduction of HbA(1c), and was well tolerated with minimum risk of hypoglycaemia. These findings support the use of liraglutide as an effective GLP-1 agent to add to metformin. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Effect of intensive treatment of hyperglycaemia on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the ACCORD randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Hyperglycaemia is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular complications in people with type 2 diabetes. We investigated whether reduction of blood glucose concentration decreases the rate of microvascular complications in people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: ACCORD was a parallel-group, randomised trial done in 77 clinical sites in North America. People with diabetes, high HbA(1c) concentrations (>7.5%), and cardiovascular disease (or >or=2 cardiovascular risk factors) were randomly assigned by central randomisation to intensive (target haemoglobin A(1c) [HbA(1c)] of <6.0%) or standard (7.0-7.9%) glycaemic therapy. In this analysis, the prespecified composite outcomes were: dialysis or renal transplantation, high serum creatinine (>291.7 micromol/L), or retinal photocoagulation or vitrectomy (first composite outcome); or peripheral neuropathy plus the first composite outcome (second composite outcome). 13 prespecified secondary measures of kidney, eye, and peripheral nerve function were also assessed. Investigators and participants were aware of treatment group assignment. Analysis was done for all patients who were assessed for microvascular outcomes, on the basis of treatment assignment, irrespective of treatments received or compliance to therapies. ACCORD is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00000620. FINDINGS: 10 251 patients were randomly assigned, 5128 to the intensive glycaemia control group and 5123 to standard group. Intensive therapy was stopped before study end because of higher mortality in that group, and patients were transitioned to standard therapy. At transition, the first composite outcome was recorded in 443 of 5107 patients in the intensive group versus 444 of 5108 in the standard group (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88-1.14; p=1.00), and the second composite outcome was noted in 1591 of 5107 versus 1659 of 5108 (0.96, 0.89-1.02; p=0.19). Results were similar at study end (first composite outcome 556 of 5119 vs 586 of 5115 [HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85-1.07, p=0.42]; and second 1956 of 5119 vs 2046 of 5115, respectively [0.95, 0.89-1.01, p=0.12]). Intensive therapy did not reduce the risk of advanced measures of microvascular outcomes, but delayed the onset of albuminuria and some measures of eye complications and neuropathy. Seven secondary measures at study end favoured intensive therapy (p<0.05). INTERPRETATION: Microvascular benefits of intensive therapy should be weighed against the increase in total and cardiovascular disease-related mortality, increased weight gain, and high risk for severe hypoglycaemia. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institute on Aging; National Eye Institute; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and General Clinical Research Centers.

Improving blood pressure control in individuals with diabetes: a quality improvement collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Studies show that it is difficult to achieve blood pressure (BP) targets among people with diabetes. Methods to improve BP control are needed. A quality improvement (QI) collaborative was established to improve systolic BP (SBP) control in persons with diabetes. METHODS: A longitudinal study with a three-phase QI collaborative as the intervention was conducted with 51 primary care practices within 12 health care organizations in the United States. Baseline, 6-, and 12-month posteducation performance data were collected. Phase 1 began in October 2006, and all sites completed all three phases by June 2008. Sites participated on four collaborative conference calls to discuss shared data and individual site activities, as well as on monthly calls with their project consultant. Some 624 staff participated in interactive education programs, and data were collected on 11,510 patients with diabetes. FINDINGS: All site champions stated that the collaborative supported process changes and engaged stakeholders and patients, focused staff on accurate BP measurement and treatment options, and served to identify and address gaps in outcomes. Mean SBP significantly improved from baseline (130.4 mmHg) to 6 months (127.4 mmHg; p < .001) and to 12 months (128.6 mmHg; p < .001). The proportion of patients with SBP < 130 mmHg increased from baseline (47.3%) to 6 months (56.4%; p < .001) and to 12 months (53.1%; p < .001). The proportion of patients with BP < 130/80 mmHg increased from baseline (36.8%) to 6 months (45.1%; p < .001) and to 12 months (42.2%; p < .001) CONCLUSIONS: A QI collaborative that provides focus, structure, and strategies to help health care organizations customize and standardize processes related to BP management can improve BP control in patients with diabetes.

Characterizing glucose exposure for individuals with normal glucose tolerance using continuous glucose monitoring and ambulatory glucose profile analysis.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to mimic euglycemia depend upon targets from epidemiologic studies that rely on episodic measurements reduced to statistical summaries, leaving open the question, "What is normal glycemia?" We postulated that portrayal of euglycemia was possible through application of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and a novel analytical tool, the ambulatory glucose profile (AGP). METHODS: Individuals with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) and with diabetes used CGM for 30 days. AGP analysis, which graphs CGM data by time without regard to date, was used to characterize glucose exposure, variability, and stability. RESULTS: Sixty-two subjects completed the study, employing CGM for 28 +/- 4 days averaging 99 +/- 18 (range, 33-125) readings per day. NGT subjects (n = 32) had a mean CGM of 102 +/- 7 mg/dL, ranging between 94 and 117 mg/dL and averaging 105 +/- 8 mg/dL daytime and 97 +/- 6 mg/dL overnight. Glucose variability, as expressed by the interquartile range, was 21 +/- 4 mg/dL (range, 14-29 mg/dL). Stability in glycemic control (hourly change in the median) for NGT subjects averaged 3 +/- 1 mg/dL/h. Subjects with diabetes (n = 30) were significantly higher on all glycemic characteristics with the exception of the percentage of hypoglycemic (CGM <70 mg/dL) episodes for type 2 diabetes (2.9%), compared to 2.7% for subjects with NGT. CONCLUSIONS: CGM technologies enabled collection of verified data under normal living conditions, providing an exceptional vantage point from which to obtain important clinical information. This will facilitate an understanding of the range of euglycemic patterns, provide a sensitive means of detecting impaired glucose tolerance, and help set realistic treatment goals for individuals with diabetes.

Effects of canagliflozin versus glimepiride on adipokines and inflammatory biomarkers in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Type 2 diabetes and obesity are pro-inflammatory states associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Canagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, demonstrated superiority in lowering HbA1c versus glimepiride with less hypoglycemia and greater weight reduction via loss of fat mass in a 52-week trial of type 2 diabetes patients. This post hoc, exploratory analysis assessed the effects of canagliflozin versus glimepiride on select adipokines, inflammatory biomarkers, and chemokines. METHODS: Changes from baseline to Week 52 in serum leptin, adiponectin, IL-6, TNFα, CRP, PAI-1, VCAM-1, and MCP-1 were measured in a randomly selected subset of type 2 diabetes patients on metformin receiving canagliflozin 300 mg (n = 100) or glimepiride (n = 100) in the overall study. Correlations between change in biomarkers and change in select metabolic and anthropometric variables were assessed. RESULTS: At Week 52, canagliflozin decreased median serum leptin by 25% (95% CI: -34%, -15%) and increased median serum adiponectin by 17% (95% CI: 11%, 23%) compared with glimepiride. There was a 22% reduction in median serum IL-6 (95% CI: -34%, -10%) and a 7% increase in median serum TNFα (95% CI: 1%, 12%) with canagliflozin versus glimepiride. No between-group differences were observed with the other biomarkers. The decrease in serum leptin with canagliflozin was correlated with change in weight (r ≥ 0.3) only; the increase in adiponectin and decrease in IL-6 with canagliflozin occurred independently of changes in HbA1c, weight, or lipids. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that canagliflozin may improve adipose tissue function and induce changes in serum leptin, adiponectin, and IL-6 that favorably impact insulin sensitivity and cardiovascular disease risk.

Predictors of blood pressure control in patients with diabetes and hypertension seen in primary care clinics.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) is not well controlled in the majority of patients with both diabetes and hypertension. This study was designed to identify predictors of BP control in patients with both diabetes and hypertension who are seen in primary care clinics. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted by identifying a cohort of patients diagnosed with diabetes before January 1, 2000 (inception) who met predefined criteria for hypertension at inception and who received primary care in the ensuing 3-year study period (January 1, 2000, to February 31, 2002). Using the mean of all BP values between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2002, subjects were divided into two groups: those with controlled BP and those with uncontrolled BP. The distribution of clinical predictors was compared between the two groups. Independent predictors were identified using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Predictors of poor BP control were as follows: 1) isolated systolic hypertension at inception (OR= 0.62, CI = 0.47 to 0.82); 2) uncontrolled BP at inception (OR = 0.71, CI = 0.55 to 0.93); 3) use of oral hypoglycemic drugs versus diet and exercise alone or insulin use (OR = 0.73, CI = 0.56 to 0.95); 4) use of three or more antihypertensive drugs (OR = 0.74, CI = 0.56 to 0.97); and 5) older age (OR = 0.98, CI = 0.97 to 0.99). Predictors of better control were 1) use of nitrates (OR = 1.82, CI = 1.26 to 2.64); 2) history of coronary heart disease (OR = 1.47, CI = 1.08 to 2.00); and 3) at least one annual visit to subspecialist physician (OR = 1.43, CI = 1.09 to 1.88). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with both diabetes and hypertension who are older, have isolated systolic hypertension, use oral hypoglycemic drugs, or use three or more antihypertensive drugs should be targeted for better BP control. The roles of nitrate medication and subspecialist physicians in achieving better BP control needs further study.

Women with diabetes have poorer control of blood pressure than men.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes is associated with a higher coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in women compared with men. Less aggressive control of the CHD risk factors in women can contribute to this excess mortality. Because hypertension has a high prevalence in subjects with diabetes, we compared the control of this risk factor between men and women. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing blood pressure levels and trends over a 1-year period between men and women with diabetes receiving primary care. Using a chronic disease registry database, subjects with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, aged >or=18, were identified for inclusion. Mean weighted systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were calculated for subjects with multiple longitudinal readings. Subjects were classified into four blood pressure control categories based on the mean weighted blood pressure. Comparisons were made between men and women before and after controlling for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 3181 subjects (46% women) were included in the study. More women than men were in the moderate and severely elevated blood pressure categories (40% and 6% compared with 32% and 5%, respectively, p<0.001). The unadjusted mean SBP was 3 mm Hg higher in women (139 mm Hg in women compared with 136 in men, p<0.001). These differences remained significant after controlling for baseline variables. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with diabetes receiving medical care, women had poorer control of blood pressure and a significantly higher mean SBP compared with men. These findings might partially explain the excess CHD mortality in women with diabetes.

The INITIATOR study: pilot data on real-world clinical and economic outcomes in US patients with type 2 diabetes initiating injectable therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) progression often results in treatment intensification with injectable therapy to maintain glycemic control. Using pilot data from the Initiation of New Injectable Treatment Introduced after Anti-diabetic Therapy with Oral-only Regimens study, real-world treatment patterns among T2DM patients initiating injectable therapy with insulin glargine or liraglutide were assessed. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of claims from the OptumInsight™ (OI; January 1, 2010 to July 30, 2010) and HealthCore(®) (HC; January 1, 2010 to June 1, 2010) health insurance databases. Baseline characteristics, health care resource utilization, and costs were compared between adults with T2DM initiating injectable therapy with insulin glargine pen versus liraglutide. Follow-up outcomes, including glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C), hypoglycemia, health care utilization, and costs, were assessed. RESULTS: At baseline, almost one in three liraglutide patients (OI, n = 363; HC, n = 521) had A1C <7.0%, while insulin glargine patients (OI, n = 498; HC, n = 1,188) had poorer health status, higher A1C (insulin glargine: 9.8% and 9.1% versus liraglutide: 7.9% and 7.7%, OI and HC, respectively, both P < 0.001), and were less likely to be obese (insulin glargine: 10.8% and 9.2% versus liraglutide: 17.4% and 18.8%, OI and HC, respectively, both P < 0.01). The percentage of patients experiencing a hypoglycemic event was numerically higher for insulin pen use for both cohorts (OI 4.4% versus 3.0%; HC 6.2% versus 2.3%). During follow-up, in the insulin glargine cohort, annualized diabetes-related costs remained unchanged ($8,344 versus $7,749 OI, and $7,094 versus $7,731 HC), despite a significant increase in pharmacy costs, due to non-significant decreases in medical costs, while the liraglutide cohort had a significant increase in annualized diabetes-related costs ($4,510 versus $7,731 OI, and $4,136 versus $7,111 HC; both P < 0.001) due to a non-significant increase in medical costs coupled with a significant increase in pharmacy costs. CONCLUSION: These descriptive data identified differences in demographic and baseline clinical characteristics among patients initiating injectable therapies. The different health care utilization and cost patterns warrant further cost-effectiveness analysis.

A practice-based research network focused on comparative effectiveness research in type 2 diabetes management.

PURPOSE: To establish a real-world research platform focused on comparative effectiveness research and health care decision making in diabetes care in order to obtain a detailed understanding of individualized patient management in primary care. METHODS: Diabetes FORWARD (Foundation of Real-World Assessment and Research in Diabetes) is a North American research platform being organized to conduct longitudinal, noninterventional investigations of an anticipated 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Recruitment will be stratified to reflect typical (primarily primary care) clinical T2DM populations. Streamlined data collection relying on electronic medical records (retrospective) and periodic surveys (prospective) will reduce the burden of study participation and, therefore, enhance enrollment by busy primary care and endocrinology practices. Physician data will include baseline demographic and practice information. Patient data will include demographics, T2DM characteristics and treatment, resource utilization information, and patient-reported outcomes. Responses can be tracked within the observation window in near-real time, allowing immediate, noninterventional reaction at the point of nonresponse. EXPECTED OUTCOMES: Diabetes FORWARD is expected to provide important real-world data describing how actual clinical T2DM management differs across sites, settings, and clinicians, and its impact on glycemic control, treatment adherence and persistence, and clinical outcomes. These data will also help to identify the effect of diabetes management on the onset and progression of retinopathy, neuropathy, nephropathy, and cardiovascular disease at 6-month intervals. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, Diabetes FORWARD is the first diabetes-focused, practice-based research network in the United States and Canada. The current study will provide robust data that should reflect typical management of T2DM in clinical practice in North America.

Efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly versus metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin used as monotherapy in drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (DURATION-4): a 26-week double-blind study.

OBJECTIVE: To test the safety and efficacy of exenatide once weekly (EQW) compared with metformin (MET), pioglitazone (PIO), and sitagliptin (SITA) over 26 weeks, in suboptimally treated (diet and exercise) drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to subcutaneous (SC) EQW 2.0 mg + oral placebo (n = 248), MET 2,000 mg/day + SC placebo (n = 246), PIO 45 mg/day + SC placebo (n = 163), or SITA 100 mg/day + SC placebo (n = 163) for 26 weeks. MET and PIO therapies were increased to maximum-tolerated dosages. Injections with EQW or placebo were administered weekly, while oral medication or placebo was administered daily. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were as follows: 59% men, 67% Caucasian, mean age 54 years, HbA(1c) 8.5%, fasting serum glucose 9.9 mmol/L, body weight 87.0 kg, and diabetes duration 2.7 years. HbA(1c) reductions (%) at 26 weeks (least-squares means) with EQW versus MET, PIO, and SITA were -1.53 vs. -1.48 (P = 0.620), -1.63 (P = 0.328), and -1.15 (P < 0.001), respectively. Weight changes (kg) were -2.0 vs. -2.0 (P = 0.892), +1.5 (P < 0.001), and -0.8 (P < 0.001), respectively. Common adverse events were as follows: EQW, nausea (11.3%) and diarrhea (10.9%); MET, diarrhea (12.6%) and headache (12.2%); PIO, nasopharyngitis (8.6%) and headache (8.0%); and SIT, nasopharyngitis (9.8%) and headache (9.2%). Minor (confirmed) hypoglycemia was rarely reported. No major hypoglycemia occurred. CONCLUSIONS: EQW was noninferior to MET but not PIO and superior to SITA with regard to HbA(1c) reduction at 26 weeks. Of the agents studied, EQW and MET provided similar improvements in glycemic control along with the benefit of weight reduction and no increased risk of hypoglycemia.

Exenatide once-weekly clinical development: safety and efficacy across a range of background therapies.

In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the physiologic glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) response, which is involved in glucose regulation through several mechanisms, is dysfunctional. GLP-1 receptor agonists can fill an unmet therapeutic need in the treatment of T2DM: improving glycemic control without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia (except with concomitant sulfonylureas) and reducing weight in a substantial proportion of patients. GLP-1 receptor agonists have impacted established disease treatment algorithms for T2DM. For example, in 2009 the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes revised their consensus treatment algorithm to incorporate GLP-1 receptor agonists. GLP-1 receptor agonists were originally represented by exenatide BID (ExBID), a short-acting agent requiring twice-daily injections at mealtime. The longer-acting agent liraglutide, requiring once-daily injections, recently received regulatory approval. Several other long-acting agents are in clinical development, one of which is the once-weekly formulation of exenatide (exenatide once weekly [ExQW]). This article reviews the clinical development of ExQW in the DURATION program. Patients in theses clinical trials were receiving various background treatments, ranging from lifestyle therapy to combination oral therapy, although the majority (68%) received metformin monotherapy. Specifically, safety, glycemic control, and weight were compared in patients treated with ExQW versus ExBID, sitagliptin, pioglitazone, or insulin glargine. Moreover, measures of ß-cell function, cardiovascular risk, inflammation, and hepatic health were investigated. During ExQW clinical development, consistent clinical efficacy (glycosylated hemoglobin, -1.5% to -1.9%; weight, -2 kg to -4 kg) and safety data were observed in patients with T2DM treated with ExQW.

Type 2 diabetes care and insulin intensification: is a more multidisciplinary approach needed? Results from the MODIFY survey.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the opinions of primary care physicians (PCPs) and diabetes specialists on their perceived role in tackling type 2 diabetes (T2D) and the challenges they face, particularly regarding insulin intensification. METHODS: Six hundred physicians from Germany, Japan, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States were recruited to complete an online survey. Screening criteria included T2D patients seen per week (Europe/Japan: all ≥ 2; United States: PCPs ≥ 5; specialists ≥ 10) and years in practice (3-30 years). RESULTS: Most physicians had seen an increase in TD2 patients in the past 5 years, and almost all agreed that the burden of diabetes is increasing. Notable proportions of PCPs never initiate/modify insulin and never/rarely intensify insulin. Main barriers to insulin intensification cited were lack of experience and lack of time to educate patients. Better collaboration between primary and secondary care was considered one of the most important factors in improving insulin treatment of T2D. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs are less involved in the initiation and intensification of insulin than specialists; however, all physicians appreciate the need for increased PCP involvement. A multidisciplinary approach that includes using the skills of diabetes educators will assist physicians in improving management of T2D.

A new-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulin with a bolus boost compared with insulin glargine in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble coformulation of the novel basal analog insulin degludec (IDeg: 70%) and insulin aspart (IAsp: 30%). We compared the safety and efficacy of IDegAsp, an alternative formulation (AF) (55% IDeg and 45% IAsp), and insulin glargine (IGlar) in insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 16-week, open-label trial, subjects (mean age 59.1 years, A1C 8.5%, BMI 30.3 kg/m(2)) were randomized to once-daily IDegAsp (n = 59), AF (n = 59), or IGlar (n = 60), all in combination with metformin. Insulin was administered before the evening meal and dose-titrated to a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) target of 4.0-6.0 mmol/L. RESULTS: After 16 weeks, mean A1C decreased in all groups to comparable levels (IDegAsp: 7.0%; AF: 7.2%; IGlar: 7.1%). A similar proportion of subjects achieved A1C <7.0% without confirmed hypoglycemia in the last 4 weeks of treatment (IDegAsp: 51%; AF: 47%; IGlar: 50%). Mean 2-h postdinner plasma glucose increase was lower for IDegAsp (0.13 mmol/L) and AF (0.24 mmol/L) than IGlar (1.63 mmol/L), whereas mean FPG was similar (IDegAsp: 6.8 mmol/L; AF: 7.4 mmol/L; IGlar: 7.0 mmol/L). Hypoglycemia rates were lower for IDegAsp and IGlar than AF (1.2, 0.7, and 2.4 events/patient year). Nocturnal hypoglycemic events occurred rarely for IDegAsp (1 event) and IGlar (3 events) compared with AF (27 events). CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept trial, once-daily IDegAsp was safe, well tolerated, and provided comparable overall glycemic control to IGlar at similar low rates of hypoglycemia, but better postdinner plasma glucose control.

Performance evaluation and labeling comprehension of a new blood glucose monitoring system with integrated information management.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated performance and product labeling of CONTOUR® USB, a new blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) with integrated diabetes management software and a universal serial bus (USB) port, in the hands of untrained lay users and health care professionals (HCPs). METHOD: Subjects and HCPs tested subject's finger stick capillary blood in parallel using CONTOUR USB meters; deep finger stick blood was tested on a Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) glucose analyzer for reference. Duplicate results by both subjects and HCPs were obtained to assess system precision. System accuracy was assessed according to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197:2003 guidelines [within ±15 mg/dl of mean YSI results (samples <75 mg/dl) and ±20% (samples ≥75 mg/dl)]. Clinical accuracy was determined by Parkes error grid analysis. Subject labeling comprehension was assessed by HCP ratings of subject proficiency. Key system features and ease-of-use were evaluated by subject questionnaires. RESULTS: All subjects who completed the study (N = 74) successfully performed blood glucose measurements, connected the meter to a laptop computer, and used key features of the system. The system was accurate; 98.6% (146/148) of subject results and 96.6% (143/148) of HCP results exceeded ISO 15197:2003 criteria. All subject and HCP results were clinically accurate (97.3%; zone A) or associated with benign errors (2.7%; zone B). The majority of subjects rated features of the BGMS as "very good" or "excellent." CONCLUSIONS: CONTOUR USB exceeded ISO 15197:2003 system performance criteria in the hands of untrained lay users. Subjects understood the product labeling, found the system easy to use, and successfully performed blood glucose testing.

Effect of intensive glycemic lowering on health-related quality of life in type 2 diabetes: ACCORD trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of intensive versus standard glycemic control strategies on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in a substudy of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomly selected subsample of 2,053 ACCORD participants enrolled in the HRQL substudy was assessed at baseline and 12-, 36-, and 48-month visits. HRQL assessment included general health status (the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]), diabetes symptoms (the Diabetes Symptom Distress Checklist), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ]-9), and treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire [DTSQ]). Repeated-measures ANOVA models were used to estimate change in HRQL outcomes by treatment group over 48 months adjusting for model covariates. The effects of early discontinuation of the ACCORD intensive glycemic control arm on study results were explored. RESULTS: A total of 1,956 (95%) completed the self-report HRQL instrument(s) at baseline. The intensive arm had a larger decrease in SF-36 physical health component score than the standard arm (-1.6 vs. -1.1, P = 0.0345). Treatment satisfaction (DTSQ) showed larger improvement with intensive than standard (P = 0.0004). There were no differences in mean scores of the Diabetes Symptom Checklist and PHQ-9. Effects of participant transition following discontinuation of the intensive arm on HRQL were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The ACCORD trial strategy of intensive glycemic control did not lead to benefits in HRQL and was associated with modest improvement in diabetes treatment satisfaction. Thus patient acceptability was apparently not compromised with intensive and complex interventions such as those used in ACCORD.

Comparison of a novel insulin bolus-patch with pen/syringe injection to deliver mealtime insulin for efficacy, preference, and quality of life in adults with diabetes: a randomized, crossover, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy, safety, device satisfaction, and quality of life (QOL) in people with diabetes using an insulin bolus-patch versus current devices (pen/syringe) to deliver mealtime insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Thirty-eight subjects with diabetes (26 with type 1 and 12 with type 2) were randomized to bolus-patch or current injection device (55% pen and 45% syringe) to deliver mealtime insulin in a multicenter, 6-week crossover study. Efficacy was assessed by equivalence in mean daily seven-point blood glucose (MDBG). Safety assessments included severe hypoglycemia episodes, adverse device effects (ADEs), and adverse events (AEs). Device satisfaction was determined by the validated Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire (IDSRQ) and QOL by the validated Diabetes Specific QOL Scale (DSQOLS). RESULTS: Using bolus-patch, MDBG (mean±SE) was equivalent to that using pen/syringe (8.61±0.28 vs. 9.02±0.26 mmol/L; P=0.098). SD of the seven-point blood glucose measurements was lower using bolus-patch (3.18±0.18 vs. 3.63±0.17 mmol/L; P=0.004), as was the coefficient of variation (CV) (37.2±1.7 vs. 40.3±1.7%; P=0.046). Hemoglobin A1c, 1,5-anhydroglucitol, fructosamine, and insulin use were similar between groups. There were no severe hypoglycemia episodes or serious ADEs. Between-device AEs were comparable. Subjects scored better on six of seven subscales on the DSQOLS and five of six subscales on the IDSRQ while using bolus-patch versus pen/syringe. At study completion, 76% of subjects would choose to switch to bolus-patch (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of mealtime insulin with bolus-patch compared with pen/syringe resulted in equivalent MDBG, lower SD and CV of seven-point blood glucose measurements, good safety, significant device satisfaction, and improved QOL.

Continuous glucose monitoring reveals different glycemic responses of moderate- vs high-carbohydrate lunch meals in people with type 2 diabetes.

This single-center, meal-intervention, crossover study was conducted to determine the glycemic response to fixed meals with varying carbohydrate content. Continuous glucose monitoring was used to document the glycemic response. Participants were 14 people with type 2 diabetes on metformin only. On 4 consecutive days in March or July 2008, study participants consumed a fixed breakfast and one of two test meals (lunch) provided in random order. The two lunch types varied only in carbohydrate content; the protein, fat, fiber, and glycemic index were similar. They consumed no caloric food or beverages for 4 hours after each meal. Consuming double the carbohydrate content did not double the glycemic response variables, yet most were substantially different in glucose value (mg/dL) or minutes. General linear model analyses revealed substantial differences for peak glucose, change from baseline glucose to peak, time to return to preprandial glucose, 4-hour glucose area under the curve, and 4-hour mean glucose. Continuous glucose monitoring data provided a robust description of the glycemic response to the two meals. Such data can help improve postprandial glucose levels through more informed nutrition recommendations and synchronization of food intake, diabetes medication, and/or physical activity.

Effects of exenatide combined with lifestyle modification in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a lifestyle modification program plus exenatide versus lifestyle modification program plus placebo on weight loss in overweight or obese participants with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin and/or sulfonylurea. METHODS: In this 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 194 patients participated in a lifestyle modification program, consisting of goals of 600 kcal/day deficit and physical activity of at least 2.5 hours/week. Participants were randomized to 5 microg exenatide twice daily injection + lifestyle modification program (n = 96) or placebo + lifestyle modification program (n = 98), and after 4 weeks increased their exenatide dose to 10 microg twice daily or volume equivalent of placebo. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics: (mean +/- standard deviation) age, 54.8 +/- 9.5 years; weight, 95.5 +/- 16.0 kg; hemoglobin A(1c), 7.6 +/- 0.8%. At 24 weeks (least squares mean +/- standard error), treatments showed similar decreases in caloric intake (-378 +/- 58 vs -295 +/- 58 kcal/day, exenatide + lifestyle modification program vs placebo + lifestyle modification program, P = .27) and increases in exercise-derived energy expenditure. Exenatide + lifestyle modification program showed greater change in weight (-6.16 +/- 0.54 kg vs -3.97 +/- 0.52 kg, P = .003), hemoglobin A(1c) (-1.21 +/- 0.09% vs -0.73 +/- 0.09%, P <.0001), systolic (-9.44 +/- 1.40 vs -1.97 +/- 1.40 mm Hg, P <.001) and diastolic blood pressure (-2.22 +/- 1.00 vs 0.47 +/- 0.99 mm Hg, P = .04). Nausea was reported more for exenatide + lifestyle modification program than placebo + lifestyle modification program (44.8% vs 19.4%, respectively, P <.001), with no difference in withdrawal rates due to adverse events (4.2% vs 5.1%, respectively, P = 1.0) or rates of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: When combined with lifestyle modification, exenatide treatment led to significant weight loss, improved glycemic control, and decreased blood pressure compared with lifestyle modification alone in overweight or obese participants with type 2 diabetes on metformin and/or sulfonylurea treatment.