PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (1195280)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Influence of human insulin on symptoms and awareness of hypoglycaemia: a randomised double blind crossover trial. 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  1991;303(6803):622-626.
OBJECTIVE--To investigate the apparent increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia associated with use of human insulin by comparing the pattern of symptoms of hypoglycaemia with human insulin and porcine insulin. DESIGN--Randomised controlled double blind crossover trial of treatment with human insulin and porcine insulin, with two treatment periods of six weeks. SETTING--Diabetes outpatient department of a university teaching hospital in Berne, Switzerland. PATIENTS--44 patients (25 men, 19 women) aged 14 to 60 years, with insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. All patients met the following criteria: receiving treatment with fast acting soluble insulin and long acting protamine insulin; performing multiple daily fingerstick blood glucose self measurements; and had stable glycaemic control with about one mild hypoglycaemic episode a week during the preceding two months. INTERVENTION--Patients were randomised to receive either human or porcine insulin for six weeks and were then changed over to the other type of insulin for a further six weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Questionnaire recording "autonomic" and "neuroglycopenic" symptoms that occurred during hypoglycaemic episodes confirmed by a blood glucose concentration less than or equal to 2.8 mmol/l. RESULTS--Insulin doses and blood glucose, glycated haemoglobin A1c, and fructosamine concentrations were similar during the two treatment periods. 493 questionnaires on hypoglycaemia (234 during treatment with human insulin and 259 during treatment with porcine insulin) were analysed. With human insulin patients were more likely to report lack of concentration (52% v 35%, p = 0.0003) and restlessness (53% v 45%, p = 0.004) and less likely to report hunger (33% v 42%, p = 0.016) than during treatment with porcine insulin. The difference in the pattern of symptoms during the two treatments was similar to that between the 12 patients with a history of recurrent hypoglycaemic coma and the 32 patients without such a history. CONCLUSIONS--The pattern of symptoms associated with human insulin could impair patients' ability to take appropriate steps to avoid severe hypoglycaemia. Caution should be exercised when transferring patients from animal insulin to human insulin, and a large scale randomised trial of the two types of insulin may be justified.
PMCID: PMC1671054  PMID: 1932903
2.  Double blind clinical and laboratory study of hypoglycaemia with human and porcine insulin in diabetic patients reporting hypoglycaemia unawareness after transferring to human insulin. 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  1993;306(6871):167-171.
OBJECTIVES--To compare awareness of hypoglycaemia and physiological responses to hypoglycaemia with human and porcine insulin in diabetic patients who reported loss of hypoglycaemia awareness after transferring to human insulin. DESIGN--Double blind randomised crossover study of clinical experience and physiological responses during slow fall hypoglycaemic clamping with porcine and human insulin. SETTING--Clinical investigation unit of teaching hospital recruiting from diabetes clinics of five teaching hospitals and one district general hospital. SUBJECTS--17 patients with insulin dependent diabetes mellitus of more than five years' duration who had reported altered hypoglycaemia awareness within three months of transferring to human insulin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Glycaemic control and frequency of hypoglycaemic episodes during two months' treatment with each insulin. Glucose thresholds for physiological and symptomatic responses during clamping. RESULTS--Glycaemic control did not change with either insulin. 136 hypoglycaemic episodes (eight severe) were reported with human insulin and 149 (nine severe) with porcine insulin (95% confidence interval -4 to 2.5, p = 0.63). 20 episodes of biochemical hypoglycaemia occurred with human insulin versus 18 with porcine insulin (-0.8 to 1, p = 0.78). During controlled hypoglycaemia the mean adrenaline response was 138 nmol/l/240 min for both insulins; neurohormonal responses were triggered at 3.0 (SE 0.2) versus 3.1 (0.2) mmol/l of glucose for adrenaline and 2.5 (0.1) versus 2.5 (0.1) mmol/l for subjective awareness. CONCLUSIONS--These data suggest that human insulin per se does not affect the presentation of hypoglycaemia or the neurohumoral, symptomatic, and cognitive function responses to hypoglycaemia in insulin dependent diabetic patients with a history of hypoglycaemia unawareness.
PMCID: PMC1676615  PMID: 8443479
3.  Elderly Patients with Diabetes Experience a Lower Rate of Nocturnal Hypoglycaemia with Insulin Degludec than with Insulin Glargine: A Meta-Analysis of Phase IIIa Trials 
Drugs & Aging  2013;30(12):1009-1018.
Background and Objective
Elderly patients with diabetes are more vulnerable to the occurrence and effects of hypoglycaemia; therefore, treatments with low risk of hypoglycaemia are preferred in this population. This study aimed to compare hypoglycaemia rates between insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine (IGlar) in elderly patients.
Methods
Hypoglycaemia data from patients ≥65 years of age with type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 (T2DM) diabetes from seven randomised, treat-to-target phase IIIa trials were used to compare IDeg and IGlar in a pre-planned meta-analysis. Overall, 917/4345 (21 %) randomised patients in the seven trials were elderly (634 IDeg, 283 IGlar). Overall confirmed hypoglycaemia was defined as <3.1 mmol/L or severe hypoglycaemia (symptoms requiring external assistance). Nocturnal hypoglycaemia included confirmed episodes from 0001 to 0559 hours (inclusive). Treatment comparisons of hypoglycaemia in T1DM patients were not performed due to low numbers of elderly patients with T1DM randomised (43 IDeg, 18 IGlar); statistical comparisons were also not made for severe hypoglycaemia due to the low number of events.
Results
In elderly patients with T2DM, the rate of overall confirmed hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with IDeg than IGlar [estimated rate ratio (ERR) 0.76 (0.61; 0.95)95 % CI]; nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia was also significantly lower with IDeg [ERR 0.64 (0.43; 0.95)95 % CI]. Confirmed hypoglycaemia occurred in the majority of T1DM patients, whereas severe episodes occurred infrequently and at similar rates in both treatment groups in T1DM and T2DM.
Conclusion
Results of this pre-planned meta-analysis in elderly patients with diabetes demonstrate a significant reduction in hypoglycaemic events with IDeg relative to IGlar.
doi:10.1007/s40266-013-0128-2
PMCID: PMC3832772  PMID: 24170235
4.  Diabetes: glycaemic control in type 2 (drug treatments) 
Clinical Evidence  2012;2012:0609.
Introduction
Diabetes mellitus is a progressive disorder of glucose metabolism. It is estimated that about 285 million people between the ages of 20 and 79 years had diabetes worldwide in 2010, or 5% of the adult population. Type 2 diabetes may occur with obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia (the metabolic syndrome), which are powerful predictors of cardiovascular disease. Without adequate blood-glucose-lowering treatment, blood glucose levels may rise progressively over time in people with type 2 diabetes. Microvascular and macrovascular complications may develop.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of blood-glucose-lowering medications in adults with type 2 diabetes? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to February 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 194 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
Conclusions
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs), combination treatment (single, double, and triple), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues, insulins (including conventional [human] and analogue, different regimens, different length of action), meglitinides, metformin, sulphonylureas, and thiazolidinediones.
Key Points
Diabetes mellitus affects about 6.5% of people aged 20 to 79 years worldwide. In 2010, an estimated 285 million people have diabetes, over 85% of whom have type 2 diabetes.
Type 2 diabetes is often associated with obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia, which are all powerful predictors of cardiovascular disease. For that reason, the treatment of type 2 diabetes requires a multifactorial approach, including lifestyle advice, treatment of hypertension, and lowering of lipid levels.
Without adequate blood-glucose-lowering treatment, blood glucose levels may rise progressively over time in people with type 2 diabetes. Microvascular and macrovascular complications may develop.
Metformin reduces HbA1c effectively compared with placebo. The UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) RCT found that metformin may be moderately protective against mortality and cardiovascular morbidity, but further high-quality studies are needed.We found no evidence to suggest that metformin increases the risk of lactic acidosis.
Sulphonylureas reduce HbA1c by 1% compared with placebo, and they may reduce microvascular complications compared with diet alone. They can cause weight gain and hypoglycaemia. One review found that the risk of hypoglycaemia was highest with glibenclamide compared with other second-generation sulphonylureas.
The effectiveness of the combination of metformin and sulphonylurea on mortality and morbidity is unknown.
Meglitinides reduce HbA1c by about 0.4–0.9% compared with placebo, but robust data are sparse.
Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors reduce HbA1c by about 0.8% compared with placebo. We found no reports of dangerous adverse effects.
Thiazolidinediones reduce HbA1c by 1.0% compared with placebo but may increase the risk of congestive heart failure and bone fractures. Rosiglitazone increases the risk of MI. DRUG ALERT: Rosiglitazone has been withdrawn from the market in many countries because the benefits of treatment are no longer thought to outweigh the risks.
Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors reduce HbA1c by about 0.6–0.7% compared with placebo. We found no long-term data on effectiveness and safety.
Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues reduce HbA1c compared with placebo and result in weight loss. We found no long-term data on effectiveness and safety.
Combined oral drug treatment may reduce HbA1c levels more than monotherapy, but increases the risk of hypoglycaemia.
Insulin improves glycaemic control in people with inadequate control of HbA1c on oral drug treatment, but is associated with weight gain, and an increased risk of hypoglycaemia.
Adding metformin to insulin may reduce HbA1c levels compared with insulin alone, with less weight gain.
Insulin analogues, short-acting, long-acting, and combined in various regimens, seem no more effective than conventional (human) insulin in reducing HbA1c levels. However, in people presenting with recurrent hypoglycaemic episodes, long-acting insulin analogues may be preferred above human insulin.
Long-acting insulin analogues seem equally effective at reducing HbA1c.
There is lack of evidence about the effectiveness of various insulin analogue regimens after once-daily long-acting insulin has failed.
The effectiveness of insulin basal bolus regimens is not well established.
PMCID: PMC3462437  PMID: 23862772
5.  Research: Complications Self-reported non-severe hypoglycaemic events in Europe 
Diabetic Medicine  2013;31(1):92-101.
Aims
Hypoglycaemia presents a barrier to optimum diabetes management but data are limited on the frequency of hypoglycaemia incidents outside of clinical trials. The present study investigated the rates of self-reported non-severe hypoglycaemic events, hypoglycaemia awareness and physician discussion of events in people with Type 1 diabetes mellitus or insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Methods
People in seven European countries aged >15 years with Type 1 diabetes or insulin–treated Type 2 diabetes (basal-only, basal-bolus and other insulin regimens) were recruited via consumer panels, nurses, telephone recruitment and family referrals. Respondents completed four online questionnaires. The first questionnaire collected background information on demographics and hypoglycaemia-related behaviour, whilst all four questionnaires collected data on non-severe hypoglycaemic events in the preceding 7 days.
Results
Analysis was based on 11 440 respondent-weeks from 3827 respondents. All participants completed the first questionnaire and 57% completed all four. The mean number of events/respondent–week was 1.8 (Type 1 diabetes) and 0.4–0.7 (Type 2 diabetes, with different insulin treatments) corresponding to annual event rates of 94 and 21–36, respectively. A total of 63% of respondents with Type 1 diabetes and 49–64% of respondents with Type 2 diabetes, treated with different insulin regimens, who experienced hypoglycaemic events, reported impaired hypoglycaemia awareness or unawareness. A high proportion of respondents rarely or never informed their general practitioner/specialist about hypoglycaemia: 65% (Type 1 diabetes) and 50–59% (Type 2 diabetes). Overall, 16% of respondents with Type 1 diabetes and 26% of respondents with Type 2 diabetes reported not being asked about hypoglycaemia during routine appointments.
Conclusion
Non-severe hypoglycaemic events are common amongst people with Type 1 diabetes and insulin–treated Type 2 diabetes in real-world settings. Many rarely or never inform their general practitioner/specialist about their hypoglycaemia and the real burden of hypoglycaemia may be underestimated.
doi:10.1111/dme.12261
PMCID: PMC4232857  PMID: 23796113
6.  Hypoglycaemia risk with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in type 2 and type 1 diabetes: a pre-planned meta-analysis of phase 3 trials 
Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism  2012;15(2):175-184.
Aim
Hypoglycaemia and the fear of hypoglycaemia are barriers to achieving normoglycaemia with insulin. Insulin degludec (IDeg) has an ultra-long and stable glucose-lowering effect, with low day-to-day variability. This pre-planned meta-analysis aimed to demonstrate the superiority of IDeg over insulin glargine (IGlar) in terms of fewer hypoglycaemic episodes at equivalent HbA1c in type 2 and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T2DM/T1DM).
Methods
Pooled patient-level data for self-reported hypoglycaemia from all seven (five in T2DM and two in T1DM) randomized, controlled, phase 3a, treat-to-target trials in the IDeg clinical development programme comparing IDeg once-daily (OD) vs. IGlar OD were analysed.
Results
Four thousand three hundred and thirty subjects (2899 IDeg OD vs. 1431 IGlar OD) were analysed. Among insulin-naïve T2DM subjects, significantly lower rates of overall confirmed, nocturnal confirmed and severe hypoglycaemic episodes were reported with IDeg vs. IGlar: estimated rate ratio (RR):0.83[0.70;0.98]95%CI, RR:0.64[0.48;0.86]95%CI and RR:0.14[0.03;0.70]95%CI. In the overall T2DM population, significantly lower rates of overall confirmed and nocturnal confirmed episodes were reported with IDeg vs. IGlar [RR:0.83[0.74;0.94]95%CI and RR:0.68[0.57;0.82]95%CI). In the T1DM population, the rate of nocturnal confirmed episodes was significantly lower with IDeg vs. IGlar during maintenance treatment (RR:0.75[0.60;0.94]95%CI). Reduction in hypoglycaemia with IDeg vs. IGlar was more pronounced during maintenance treatment in all populations.
Conclusions
The limitations of this study include the open-label design and exclusion of subjects with recurrent severe hypoglycaemia. This meta-analysis confirms that similar improvements in HbA1c can be achieved with fewer hypoglycaemic episodes, particularly nocturnal episodes, with IDeg vs. IGlar across a broad spectrum of patients with diabetes.
doi:10.1111/dom.12032
PMCID: PMC3752969  PMID: 23130654
confirmed hypoglycaemia; insulin degludec; insulin glargine; nocturnal hypoglycaemia; severe hypoglycaemia
7.  Insulin degludec is not associated with a delayed or diminished response to hypoglycaemia compared with insulin glargine in type 1 diabetes: a double-blind randomised crossover study 
Diabetologia  2013;57(1):40-49.
Aims/hypothesis
Insulin degludec (Des(B30)LysB29(γ-Glu Nε-hexadecandioyl) human insulin; IDeg) is a new basal insulin with an ultra-long flat action profile. The acute physiological responses to hypoglycaemia with IDeg and insulin glargine (A21Gly,B31Arg,B32Arg human insulin; IGlar) were compared.
Methods
Twenty-eight adult type 1 diabetic patients with normal hypoglycaemia awareness (age = 41 ± 12 years, HbA1c = 7.8 ± 0.6% [62.8 ± 7 mmol/mol]) were randomised to once-daily IDeg or IGlar for 5 days in a two-period crossover design. Participants and research staff were blinded to group assignment. Patients were assigned the lowest available randomisation number from a set of blinded randomisation codes provided by the trial sponsor. Hypoglycaemia was induced by administering three times the usual daily insulin dose at midnight on day 5. Plasma glucose (PG) was stabilised by glucose clamp (5.5 mmol/l) for 7–9 h post dosing. Next morning, PG was allowed to decrease stepwise from 5.5 to 3.5 mmol/l (maintained for 30 min) to 2.5 mmol/l (for 15 min). PG was then increased to 3.9 mmol/l (for 120 min), before being returned to baseline. Hypoglycaemic symptom score (HSS), hypoglycaemic awareness, cognitive function, counter-regulatory hormones and vital signs were assessed during each glucose plateau. The primary analysis was to compare IDeg vs IGlar with respect to HSS at nadir PG concentration (2.5 mmol/l).
Results
The full analysis set for treatment comparisons comprised data from all 28 exposed patients. Rates of PG decline and PG at nadir were similar for IDeg and IGlar. No treatment differences in HSS (estimated difference: 0.17 [95% CI −1.71, 2.05]; p > 0.05), cognitive function or awareness were observed at any time. Growth hormone and cortisol responses during hypoglycaemia were greater with IDeg than IGlar (AUC treatment ratio [IDeg/IGlar]: 2.44 [1.30, 4.60], p < 0.01; and 1.23 [1.01, 1.50]; p < 0.05), and adrenaline (epinephrine) responses trended higher (1.40 [0.96, 2.04], p = 0.07). The rates of recovery from hypoglycaemia were similar.
Conclusions/interpretation
IDeg and IGlar elicit comparable symptomatic and cognitive responses to induced hypoglycaemia. IDeg may elicit a moderately greater endocrine response, but times to PG recovery were similar for the two insulins.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01002768.
Funding
Novo Nordisk.
doi:10.1007/s00125-013-3056-0
PMCID: PMC3855490  PMID: 24057153
Counter-regulation; Degludec; Glargine; Hormones; Hypoglycaemia; Type 1 diabetes
8.  Cost of severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes in Spain and the cost-effectiveness of insulin lispro compared with regular human insulin in preventing severe hypoglycaemia 
Objectives
To determine the costs of severe hypoglycaemia (SH) in a population of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus in the Spanish healthcare system and the cost-effectiveness of insulin lispro over regular insulin in preventing SH episodes.
Methods
A retrospective study of 100 patients in three Spanish health centres was performed. Resource utilisation data were collected only for interventions specifically relating to the hypoglycaemic episode. The direct medical costs determined in the analyses were: costs of hospitalisation, diagnostic tests carried out, costs of treatment administered and other associated costs such as visits to the endocrinologist and re-training in glucose control, transportation and assistance of a care-giver. In addition, indirect costs such as days of lost productivity were measured. The incidence rates of SH for insulin lispro and regular insulin were obtained from the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness of insulin lispro over regular insulin was calculated.
Results
The overall mean cost per episode of SH was €366, comprised of 65.4% direct costs and 35.6% indirect costs. The largest cost was for hospitalisation at €183 per episode. The SH episodes incidence rates for 100 patients per year were 33 and 73 for insulin lispro and 48 (p < 0.05) and 117 (p < 0.01) for regular insulin, in the two clinical trials found in the literature. The additional cost to prevent one episode of SH with insulin lispro over regular insulin ranged from €277 to insulin lispro dominance.
Conclusions
Severe hypoglycaemia has a significant impact on the total cost of diabetes. The use of insulin lispro is associated with reductions in annual costs because of SH and, possibly, the overall effect may be cost neutral or cost saving when total costs are considered. The cost of SH should be included in the analysis of total socio-economic burden of diabetes.
Disclosures J. Reviriego and J. Sacristan are currently employees of Lilly Spain. Dr Gomis, Dr Marañes and Dr Ricart have served as consultant and speakers in Lilly medical educational and scientific meetings. In addition all authors at some point have been involved as investigators in Lilly registration trials.
What's knownLittle or none data were available with respect to the costs of acute diabetes-related complications associated with insulin treatment as is the case for severe hypoglycaemia.What's newWe provide valuable information on the impact of therapeutic alternatives such as the use of an insulin analogue (insulin lispro) vs. regular human insulin on the total cost of diabetes.
doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01783.x
PMCID: PMC2438603  PMID: 18489577
9.  Risk of severe hypoglycaemia in insulin treated diabetic patients transferred to human insulin: a case control study. 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  1991;303(6803):617-621.
OBJECTIVE--To examine whether transfer from animal insulin to human insulin is associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia. DESIGN--Matched case-control study of insulin treated diabetic patients admitted to hospital because of hypoglycaemia during 1984-7, the period when human insulin was introduced into treatment. SETTING--Case admissions and control admissions were obtained from eight public hospitals within the Swiss canton of Berne and a second control group comprised members of the Bernese section of the Swiss Diabetes Association. SUBJECTS--94 patients with insulin treated diabetes with a total of 112 admissions for hypoglycaemia during 1984-7 (case admissions), 182 patients with insulin treated diabetes seen in the same hospitals for reasons other than hypoglycaemia with a total of 225 admissions (control admissions), and 86 insulin treated diabetic patients who were members of the Bernese section of the Swiss Diabetes Association. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Type of insulin used at time of admission, glycaemic control as measured by amount of glycated haemoglobin or glucose concentration; severity of hypoglycaemia. RESULTS--Treatment with human insulin at admission was more common in cases than controls (52/112 (46%) admissions v 77/225 (34%); p = 0.003). 116 out of 129 (90%) of admissions taking human insulin had been transferred from animal insulin, mainly because of non-availability of porcine insulins. The ratio of rate of hypoglycaemia in those taking human insulin to the rate in those taking animal insulin was 2.4 (95% confidence interval 1.3 to 4.4). Other risk factors for hypoglycaemia were a history of hypoglycaemic coma (rate ratio of history to no history 3.8, 2.3 to 6.4) and good glycaemic control (rate ratio of good to poor control 3.9, 1.4 to 7.5). With multivariate analysis the increase in rate ratio associated with use of human insulin rose to 3.0 (1.4 to 6.4). Comparison with the diabetes association controls also showed an increased risk associated with use of human insulin (2.2; 1.1 to 4.8). CONCLUSIONS--Transfer of treatment from animal insulin to human insulin was associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia. Caution should be exercised when transferring diabetic patients to human insulin. Further studies are required to elucidate why this effect occurs.
PMCID: PMC1671049  PMID: 1932902
10.  The effects of baseline characteristics, glycaemia treatment approach, and glycated haemoglobin concentration on the risk of severe hypoglycaemia: post hoc epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study 
Objectives To investigate potential determinants of severe hypoglycaemia, including baseline characteristics, in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial and the association of severe hypoglycaemia with levels of glycated haemoglobin (haemoglobin A1C) achieved during therapy.
Design Post hoc epidemiological analysis of a double 2×2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial.
Setting Diabetes clinics, research clinics, and primary care clinics.
Participants 10 209 of the 10 251 participants enrolled in the ACCORD study with type 2 diabetes, a haemoglobin A1C concentration of 7.5% or more during screening, and aged 40-79 years with established cardiovascular disease or 55-79 years with evidence of significant atherosclerosis, albuminuria, left ventricular hypertrophy, or two or more additional risk factors for cardiovascular disease (dyslipidaemia, hypertension, current smoker, or obese).
Interventions Intensive (haemoglobin A1C <6.0%) or standard (haemoglobin A1C 7.0-7.9%) glucose control.
Main outcome measures Severe hypoglycaemia was defined as episodes of “low blood glucose” requiring the assistance of another person and documentation of either a plasma glucose less than 2.8 mmol/l (<50 mg/dl) or symptoms that promptly resolved with oral carbohydrate, intravenous glucose, or glucagon.
Results The annual incidence of hypoglycaemia was 3.14% in the intensive treatment group and 1.03% in the standard glycaemia group. We found significantly increased risks for hypoglycaemia among women (P=0.0300), African-Americans (P<0.0001 compared with non-Hispanic whites), those with less than a high school education (P<0.0500 compared with college graduates), aged participants (P<0.0001 per 1 year increase), and those who used insulin at trial entry (P<0.0001). For every 1% unit decline in the haemoglobin A1C concentration from baseline to 4 month visit, there was a 28% (95% CI 19% to 37%) and 14% (4% to 23%) reduced risk of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance in the standard and intensive groups, respectively. In both treatment groups, the risk of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance increased with each 1% unit increment in the average updated haemoglobin A1C concentration (standard arm: hazard ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.06; intensive arm: hazard ratio 1.15, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21).
Conclusions A greater drop in haemoglobin A1C concentration from baseline to the 4 month visit was not associated with an increased risk for hypoglycaemia. Patients with poorer glycaemic control had a greater risk of hypoglycaemia, irrespective of treatment group. Identification of baseline subgroups with increased risk for severe hypoglycaemia can provide guidance to clinicians attempting to modify patient therapy on the basis of individual risk.
Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00000620.
doi:10.1136/bmj.b5444
PMCID: PMC2803743  PMID: 20061360
11.  A review of modern insulin analogue pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles in type 2 diabetes: improvements and limitations 
Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism  2011;13(8):677-684.
Insulin analogues have been engineered to enhance desired molecular properties without altering immunogenicity. The majority of insulin pharmacology studies are conducted in healthy volunteers and patients with type 1 diabetes. At present, there are more patients with type 2 than type 1 diabetes receiving insulin treatment. As the responsibility for initiating insulin therapy in these patients continues to shift to primary care, it will be important for general practitioners to understand the different pharmacological properties of insulin preparations in patients with type 2 diabetes, so that treatment can be adapted to meet patients’ physiological and lifestyle requirements. The purpose of this review is to summarize pharmacological studies of insulin analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes. Faster onset of action of rapid acting insulin analogues has improved postprandial glycaemic control. Biphasic insulin analogues are associated with a lower incidence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared with human biphasic preparations and allow for intensification from once to twice or thrice daily dosing. More predictable glycaemic-lowering profiles of the insulin analogues have also led to reductions in nocturnal hypoglycaemia, particularly comparing long-acting insulin analogues with protaminated human insulin. Enhancing insulin self-association and reversible binding with albumin has led to further reductions in variability. However, improvements can still be made. Effective once daily clinical dosing of long-acting insulin analogues is not possible in all patients. In addition, the protaminated component of biphasic insulin analogues do not provide the duration of action or profile for physiological basal insulin replacement and neither insulin glargine nor insulin detemir are suitable for mixing with other insulin analogues as this would substantially alter their pharmacokinetic properties. Enhancing the pharmacological predictability and extending the duration of action could simplify insulin titration and further reduce the incidence of hypoglycaemia.
doi:10.1111/j.1463-1326.2011.01395.x
PMCID: PMC3380549  PMID: 21410860
insulin analogues; insulin therapy; pharmacology; type 2 diabetes
12.  Levofloxacin-associated hypoglycaemia complicated by pontine myelinolysis and quadriplegia 
Diabetic Medicine  2008;25(7):856-859.
Background
Central pontine myelinolysis (CPM) usually presents in chronic alcoholics and in patients in whom hyponatraemia has been corrected rapidly. However, CPM may occur in other clinical circumstances, including patients with severe hypoglycaemia. We describe the occurrence of CPM and quadriplegia in a patient who experienced fluoroquinolone-associated severe hypoglycaemia.
Case report
A 63-year-old man with Type 2 diabetes mellitus was admitted to hospital for resection of a large liposarcoma. Renal-dose levofloxacin was utilized as part of an antimicrobial regimen to treat post-operative peritonitis. On days 6–8 of levofloxacin therapy, the patient experienced recurrent hypoglycaemia despite total parenteral nutrition, 10% dextrose containing fluids and cessation of insulin therapy 3 days prior to the first hypoglycaemic episode. Hypoglycaemia resolved within 24 h of stopping levofloxacin. After a final and severe hypoglycaemic event, the patient developed quadriplegia and tonic left deviation of gaze. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a high-intensity lesion in the central pons consistent with CPM.
Conclusions
Fluoroquinolones should be considered as a potential cause of hypoglycaemia. Severe hypoglycaemia has the potential to cause white matter lesions in the pons. Putative mechanisms include failure of membrane ion channels, oligodendrocyte apoptosis and oxidative stress of glucose reperfusion. Fluoroquinolone-associated hypoglycaemia and hypoglycaemia-induced quadriplegia are both rare and we believe this is the first case report linking the two events.
Diabet. Med. 25, 856–859 (2008)
doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2008.02465.x
PMCID: PMC2613252  PMID: 18644072
central pontine myelinolysis; fluoroquinolones; hypoglycaemia; quadriplegia; Type 2 diabetes mellitus
13.  When glycaemic targets can no longer be achieved with basal insulin in type 2 diabetes, can simple intensification with a modern premixed insulin help? Results from a subanalysis of the PRESENT study 
Aims:
The aim of this analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of intensifying insulin therapy from a basal-only regimen to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes previously failing to reach glycaemic targets.
Methods and patients:
The analysis is based on data from a subpopulation of the Physicians’ Routine Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of NovoMix® 30 Therapy (PRESENT) study, which was a 6-month observational study in 15 countries. This subanalysis included patients previously receiving long-acting analogue insulin (AB; n = 348), or human basal insulin (long and intermediate acting) (HB; n = 3414), who were transferred to BIAsp 30. Efficacy end-points included change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), from baseline to the end of the study. Episodes of hypoglycaemia, adverse events, and physician and patient satisfaction were also recorded. End-points were considered separately by previous basal regimen (AB or HB).
Results:
After 6 months' treatment with BIAsp 30, HbA1c was significantly lowered in both groups (−1.60% and −1.42% in the AB and HB groups; p < 0.0001 compared with baseline). Reductions in FPG and PPG were also statistically significant in both groups. The rate (events/patient/year) of overall hypoglycaemia remained relatively constant in patients switching from AB, but it was statistically lower in patients switching from HB (change from baseline −3.8; p < 0.001).
Conclusion:
In routine clinical practice, patients with type 2 diabetes who are failing to reach glycaemic targets on basal insulin can achieve better glycaemic control without an increase in overall hypoglycaemia by intensifying with BIAsp 30.
Disclosure Hak Chul Jang, Serdar Guler and Marina Shestakova have no conflicts of interest.
What's knownBasal insulin is a commonly used insulin initiation regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes who fail to achieve optimal glycaemic control on oral anti-diabetic drugs.As type 2 diabetes takes its natural course of progression, treatment regimens need to be monitored and, when necessary, intensified to maintain acceptable glycaemic control.What's newTo date, there are little data that demonstrate how effective modern premixes can be in type 2 patients who are failing to achieve glycaemic targets with basal insulin.The PRESENT study is a 6-month, prospective, uncontrolled, clinical experience evaluation study using biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) for type 2 diabetes patients in daily clinical practice in several countries.In this subanalysis, we show that patients failing to achieve good control (as defined by HbA1c) on basal insulin were able to significantly improve their glycaemic control by simply intensifying with the modern premix insulin, BIAsp 30.
doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01792.x
PMCID: PMC2438599  PMID: 18479365
14.  Similar progression of diabetic retinopathy with insulin glargine and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a long-term, randomised, open-label study 
Diabetologia  2009;52(9):1778-1788.
Aims/hypothesis
This long-term study was designed to further characterise the retinal safety profile of insulin glargine and human neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Methods
An open-label, 5 year, randomised (1:1), multicentre, stratified, parallel-group study conducted in the USA and Canada enrolled individuals with type 2 diabetes and either no or non-proliferative retinopathy (less than severe; Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] level less than 53 in both eyes) who were treated with oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHAs) alone, insulin alone or OHAs with insulin for ≥3 months prior to study entry and a baseline HbA1c level of 6.0–12.0%. Patients were randomised by the investigator according to the centralised interactive voice response system to receive twice-daily NPH insulin (n = 509) or once-daily basal insulin glargine (n = 515). The investigator was not blinded to the treatment group to which each participant had been assigned. The main objective of this study was to compare the progression of diabetic retinopathy between treatment groups by analysing the percentage of patients with three or more step progression in the ETDRS retinopathy patient-level severity scale after treatment with either basal insulin. Masked, centralised grading of seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs was used.
Results
Similarly sustained glycaemic control was observed in both the insulin glargine and NPH insulin treatment groups. Despite a slightly greater severity of diabetic retinopathy for the insulin glargine group at baseline, three or more step progression in ETDRS score from baseline to end-of-study was similar between treatment groups (14.2% [53/374] of insulin glargine-treated patients vs 15.7% [57/363] of NPH-treated patients); the difference in the incidence of progression was −1.98% (95% CI −7.02, 3.06%). Other measures of retinopathy—the development of proliferative diabetic retinopathy and progression to clinically significant macular oedema—occurred to a similar degree in both treatment groups. No other safety issues, such as unexpected adverse events for either insulin emerged during the 5 year study. However, NPH insulin treatment was associated with a higher incidence of severe hypoglycaemia compared with insulin glargine.
Conclusions/interpretation
This study shows no evidence of a greater risk of the development or progression of diabetic retinopathy with insulin glargine vs NPH insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00174824
Funding
This study was sponsored by sanofi-aventis.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00125-009-1415-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.
doi:10.1007/s00125-009-1415-7
PMCID: PMC2723680  PMID: 19526210
CSME; ETDRS; Insulin action; Insulin glargine; Insulin therapy; NPH insulin; Retinopathy; Type 2 diabetes
15.  Lower risk of hypoglycaemia and greater odds for weight loss with initiation of insulin detemir compared with insulin glargine in Turkish patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: local results of a multinational observational study 
Background
The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of insulin initiation with once-daily insulin detemir (IDet) or insulin glargine (IGlar) in real-life clinical practice in Turkish patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
Methods
This was a 24-week multinational observational study of insulin initiation in patients with T2DM.
Results
The Turkish cohort (n = 2886) included 2395 patients treated with IDet and 491 with IGlar. The change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from the pre-insulin levels was -2.21% [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.32, -2.09] in the IDet group and -1.88% [95% CI -2.17, -1.59] in the IGlar group at the final visit. The incidence rate of minor hypoglycaemia increased in both groups from the pre-insulin to the final visit (+0.66 and +2.23 events per patient year in the IDet and IGlar groups, respectively). Weight change in the IDet group was -0.23 kg [95% CI -0.49, 0.02 kg], and +1.55 kg [95% CI 1.11, 2.00 kg] in the IGlar group. Regression analysis with adjustment for previously identified confounders (age, gender, duration of diabetes, body mass index, previous history of hypoglycaemia, microvascular disease, number and change in oral anti-diabetic drug therapy, HbA1c at baseline and insulin dose) identified an independent effect of insulin type (IDet versus IGlar) with a risk of at least one episode of hypoglycaemia (odds ratio (OR): 0.33 [95% CI 0.21, 0.52], p <0.0001), and weight loss ≥1 kg (OR: 1.75 [95% CI 1.18, 2.59], p = 0.005), but not on HbA1c (+0.05% [95% CI -0.15, 0.25%], p = 0.6).
Conclusions
Initiation of basal insulin analogues, IDet and IGlar, were associated with clinically significant glycaemic improvements. A lower risk of minor hypoglycaemia and greater odds of weight loss ≥1 kg was observed with IDet compared with IGlar.
Trial registration
NCT00825643 and NCT00740519
doi:10.1186/1472-6823-14-61
PMCID: PMC4223563  PMID: 25048824
Insulin detemir; Insulin glargine; Basal insulin; Type 2 diabetes; Weight loss; Hypoglycaemia
16.  A randomised, 52-week, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine when administered as add-on to glucose-lowering drugs in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes 
Diabetologia  2008;51(3):408-416.
Aims/hypothesis
This 52-week multinational, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial compared clinical outcomes following supplementation of oral glucose-lowering drugs with basal insulin analogues detemir and glargine in type 2 diabetic patients.
Methods
Insulin-naive adults (n = 582, HbA1c 7.5–10.0%, BMI ≤ 40.0 kg/m2) were randomised 1:1 to receive insulin detemir or glargine once daily (evening) actively titrated to target fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≤ 6.0 mmol/l. An additional morning insulin detemir dose was permitted if pre-dinner plasma glucose (PG) was >7.0 mmol/l after achieving FPG < 7.0 mmol/l. Due to labelling restrictions, no second glargine dose was allowed.
Results
Baseline HbA1c decreased from 8.6 to 7.2 and 7.1% (NS) with detemir and glargine, respectively. FPG improved from 10.8 to 7.1 and 7.0 mmol/l (NS), respectively. With detemir, 45% of participants completed the study on once daily dosing and 55% on twice daily dosing, with no difference in HbA1c. Overall, 52% of participants achieved HbA1c ≤ 7.0%: 33% (detemir) and 35% (glargine) without hypoglycaemia. Within-participant variability for self-monitored FPG and pre-dinner PG did not differ by insulin treatment, nor did the relative risk of overall or nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Modest reductions in weight gain were seen with detemir vs glargine in completers (3.0 vs 3.9 kg, p = 0.01) and in the intention-to-treat population (2.7 vs 3.5 kg, p = 0.03), primarily related to completers on once-daily detemir. Mean daily detemir dose was higher (0.78 U/kg [0.52 with once daily dosing, 1.00 U/kg with twice daily dosing]) than glargine (0.44 IU/kg). Injection site reactions were more frequent with detemir (4.5 vs 1.4%).
Conclusions/interpretation
Supplementation of oral agents with detemir or glargine achieves clinically important improvements in glycaemic control with low risk of hypoglycaemia. Non-inferiority was demonstrated for detemir using higher insulin doses (mainly patients on twice daily dosing); weight gain was somewhat reduced with once daily insulin detemir.
ClinicalTrials.gov ID no.: NCT00283751.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00125-007-0911-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.
doi:10.1007/s00125-007-0911-x
PMCID: PMC2235909  PMID: 18204830
Body weight; Fasting plasma glucose; Glucose variability; Glucose control; Hypoglycaemia; Insulin detemir; Insulin glargine; Insulin supplementation; Oral glucose-lowering agents; Type 2 diabetes
17.  The association between symptomatic, severe hypoglycaemia and mortality in type 2 diabetes: retrospective epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study  
Objective To determine whether there is a link between hypoglycaemia and mortality among participants in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial.
Design Retrospective epidemiological analysis of data from the ACCORD trial.
Setting Diabetes clinics, research clinics, and primary care clinics.
Participants Patients were eligible for the ACCORD study if they had type 2 diabetes, a glycated haemoglobin (haemoglobin A1C) concentration of 7.5% or more during screening, and were aged 40-79 years with established cardiovascular disease or 55-79 years with evidence of subclinical disease or two additional cardiovascular risk factors.
Intervention Intensive (haemoglobin A1C <6.0%) or standard (haemoglobin A1C 7.0-7.9%) glucose control.
Outcome measures Symptomatic, severe hypoglycaemia, manifest as either blood glucose concentration of less than 2.8 mmol/l (<50 mg/dl) or symptoms that resolved with treatment and that required either the assistance of another person or medical assistance, and all cause and cause specific mortality, including a specific assessment for involvement of hypoglycaemia.
Results 10 194 of the 10 251 participants enrolled in the ACCORD study who had at least one assessment for hypoglycaemia during regular follow-up for vital status were included in this analysis. Unadjusted annual mortality among patients in the intensive glucose control arm was 2.8% in those who had one or more episodes of hypoglycaemia requiring any assistance compared with 1.2% for those with no episodes (53 deaths per 1924 person years and 201 deaths per 16 315 person years, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.93). A similar pattern was seen among participants in the standard glucose control arm (3.7% (21 deaths per 564 person years) v 1.0% (176 deaths per 17 297 person years); adjusted HR 2.30, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.65). On the other hand, among participants with at least one hypoglycaemic episode requiring any assistance, a non-significantly lower risk of death was seen in those in the intensive arm compared with those in the standard arm (adjusted HR 0.74, 95% 0.46 to 1.23). A significantly lower risk was observed in the intensive arm compared with the standard arm in participants who had experienced at least one hypoglycaemic episode requiring medical assistance (adjusted HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99). Of the 451 deaths that occurred in ACCORD up to the time when the intensive treatment arm was closed, one death was adjudicated as definitely related to hypoglycaemia.
Conclusion Symptomatic, severe hypoglycaemia was associated with an increased risk of death within each study arm. However, among participants who experienced at least one episode of hypoglycaemia, the risk of death was lower in such participants in the intensive arm than in the standard arm. Symptomatic, severe hypoglycaemia does not appear to account for the difference in mortality between the two study arms up to the time when the ACCORD intensive glycaemia arm was discontinued.
Trial registration NCT00000620.
doi:10.1136/bmj.b4909
PMCID: PMC2803744  PMID: 20061358
18.  Comparison of insulin degludec with insulin glargine in insulin-naive subjects with Type 2 diabetes: a 2-year randomized, treat-to-target trial 
Diabetic Medicine  2013;30(11):1298-1304.
Aims
The aim of this study was to compare long-term safety and efficacy of the basal insulin analogue degludec with glargine in insulin-naive subjects with Type 2 diabetes.
Methods
This open-label trial included a 52-week core period followed by a 52-week extension. Participants were randomized 3:1 to once-daily degludec or glargine, administered with metformin ± dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Basal insulin was titrated to target pre-breakfast plasma glucose 3.9–4.9 mmol/l.
Results
At end of treatment (104 weeks), mean HbA1c reductions were similar for degludec and glargine; estimated treatment difference between degludec and glargine was 1 mmol/mol (95% CI −1 to 3) [0.07% (95% CI −0.07 to 0.22)], P = 0.339 in the extension trial set (degludec 551, glargine 174), comprising subjects who completed core trial and continued into the extension trial. Overall confirmed hypoglycaemia rates (1.72 vs. 2.05 episodes/patient-year), rates of adverse events possibly or probably related to trial product (0.19 events/patient-year), weight gain (2.7 vs. 2.4 kg) and mean daily insulin doses (0.63 U/kg) were similar between treatments in the safety analysis set (degludec 766, glargine 257) comprising all treated subjects. Rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia (0.27 vs. 0.46 episodes/patient-year; P = 0.002) and severe hypoglycaemia (0.006 vs. 0.021 episodes/patient-year, P = 0.023) were significantly lower with degludec for the safety analysis set (analysis based on intention-to-treat full analysis set comprising all randomized subjects).
Conclusions
In Type 2 diabetes, insulin degludec in combination with oral anti-diabetic drugs, safely and effectively improves long-term glycaemic control, with a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia as compared with glargine.
doi:10.1111/dme.12303
PMCID: PMC4208679  PMID: 23952326
19.  Comparison of Optimised MDI versus Pumps with or without Sensors in Severe Hypoglycaemia (the Hypo COMPaSS trial) 
Background
Severe hypoglycaemia (SH) is one of the most feared complications of type 1 diabetes (T1DM) with a reported prevalence of nearly 40%. In randomized trials of Multiple Daily Injections (MDI) and Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) therapy there is a possible benefit of CSII in reducing SH. However few trials have used basal insulin analogues as the basal insulin in the MDI group and individuals with established SH have often been excluded from prospective studies. In published studies investigating the effect of Real Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring (RT-CGM) benefit in terms of reduced SH has not yet been demonstrated. The primary objective of this study is to elucidate whether in people with T1DM complicated by impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH), rigorous prevention of biochemical hypoglycaemia using optimized existing self-management technology and educational support will restore awareness and reduce risk of recurrent SH.
Methods/design
This is a multicentre prospective RCT comparing hypoglycaemia avoidance with optimized MDI and CSII with or without RT-CGM in a 2×2 factorial design in people with type 1 diabetes who have IAH. The primary outcome measure for this study is the difference in IAH (Gold score) at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes include biomedical measures such as HbA1c, SH incidence, blinded CGM analysis, self monitored blood glucose (SMBG) and response to hypoglycaemia in gold standard clamp studies. Psychosocial measures including well-being and quality of life will also be assessed using several validated and novel measures. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis.
Discussion
Most existing RCTs using this study’s interventions have been powered for change in HbA1c rather than IAH or SH. This trial will demonstrate whether IAH can be reversed and SH prevented in people with T1DM in even those at highest risk by using optimized conventional management and existing technology.
Trial Registration
ISRCTN52164803 Eudract No: 2009-015396-27
doi:10.1186/1472-6823-12-33
PMCID: PMC3556156  PMID: 23237320
20.  Long-term efficacy and safety of insulin detemir compared to Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes using a treat-to-target basal–bolus regimen with insulin aspart at meals: a 2-year, randomized, controlled trial 
Diabetic Medicine   2008;25(4):442-449.
Aims
This 24-month, multi-national, open-label, parallel group trial investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of insulin detemir and Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin in combination with mealtime insulin aspart in patients with Type 1 diabetes using a treat-to-target concept.
Methods
Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to detemir (n = 331) or NPH (n = 166) groups. Basal insulin was initiated once daily (evening) and titrated individually based on self-measured plasma glucose (PG) levels, aiming for pre-breakfast and pre-dinner targets ≤ 6.0 mmol/l. A second basal morning dose could be added according to pre-defined criteria.
Results
After 24 months, superiority of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was achieved with detemir compared to NPH (detemir 7.36%, NPH 7.58%, mean difference −0.22% points) [95% confidence interval (CI) −0.41 to −0.03%], with reductions of 0.94% and 0.72% points, respectively. Fasting PG (FPGlab) was also lower with detemir (detemir 8.35 mmol/l, NPH 9.43 mmol/l; P = 0.019). Twenty-two per cent of patients treated with detemir reached an HbA1c ≤ 7.0% in the absence of confirmed hypoglycaemia during the last month of treatment vs. 13% on NPH (P = 0.019). Risk of major and nocturnal hypoglycaemia was 69% and 46% lower with detemir than with NPH (P < 0.001), respectively; patients treated with detemir gained less weight (detemir 1.7 kg, NPH 2.7 kg; P = 0.024). The overall safety profile was similar in the two groups and treatment with detemir did not result in any unexpected findings.
Conclusions
Long-term treatment with the insulin analogues detemir + aspart was superior to NPH + aspart in reducing HbA1c, with added benefits of less major and nocturnal hypoglycaemia and less weight gain.
Diabet. Med. 25, 442–449 (2008)
doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02407.x
PMCID: PMC2327220  PMID: 18387078
insulin analogues; glycaemic control; hypoglycaemia; Type 1 diabetes; HbA1c
21.  Incidence and predictors of hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes – an analysis of the prospective DiaRegis registry 
Background
Hypoglycaemia is a serious adverse effect of antidiabetic drug therapy. We aimed to determine incidence rates of hypoglycaemia in type-2 diabetic patients and identify predictors of hypoglycaemia when treatment is intensified.
Methods
DiaRegis is a prospective German registry that follows 3810 patients with type-2 diabetes referred for treatment intensification because of insufficient glycaemic control on one or two oral antidiabetic drugs.
Results
Out of a total of 3347 patients with data available for the present analysis 473 (14.1%) presented any severity hypoglycaemia over a follow-up of 12 months. 0.4% were hospitalized (mean of 1.3±0.6 episodes), 0.1% needed medical assistance (1.0±0.0), 0.8% needed any help (1.1±0.5) and 10.1% no help (3.4±3.7), and 8.0% had no specific symptoms (3.6±3.5). Patients with incident hypoglycaemia had longer diabetes duration, higher HbA1c and a more frequent smoking history; more had co-morbid disease conditions such as coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease, amputation, heart failure, peripheral neuropathy, diabetic retinopathy and clinically relevant depression at baseline. Multivariable adjusted positive predictors of incident hypoglycaemia over the follow-up were prior anamnestic hypoglycaemia, retinopathy, depression, insulin use and blood glucose self-measurement, but not sulfonylurea use as previously reported for anamnestic or recalled hypogylcaemia. On the contrary, glitazones, DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues were associated with a reduced risk of hypoglycaemia.
Conclusions
Hypoglycaemia is a frequent adverse effect in ambulatory patients when antidiabetic treatment is intensified. Particular attention is warranted in patients with prior episodes of hypoglycaemia, microvascular disease such as retinopathy and in patients receiving insulin. On the other hand glitazones, DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues are associated with a reduced risk.
doi:10.1186/1472-6823-12-23
PMCID: PMC3515411  PMID: 23075070
22.  Contemporary Rates of Severe Hypoglycaemia in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes: Variability by Insulin Regimen 
Aims
To determine incidence rates of severe hypoglycaemia and compare incidence rates by insulin regimen in a diverse sample of youth with type 1 diabetes from two sites.
Methods
In this observational study, 255 youth (51% female) aged 9–15 years receiving varied insulin regimens provided data prospectively for a median of 1.2 years. Reported episodes of severe hypoglycaemia, defined as episodes requiring help from another person for oral treatment or episodes resulting in seizure/coma, and current insulin regimens were collected systematically. Incidence rates were calculated and compared according to insulin regimen in bivariate and multivariate analyses.
Results
At first encounter, participants had a median age of 12.2 years (range 9.0–15.0), median diabetes duration of 4.4 years (range 1.0–13.0) and mean A1C of 67±12 mmol/mol (8.3±1.1%). The incidence rate was 37.6/100-patient-years for all severe hypoglycaemia and 9.6/100-patient-years for seizure/coma. The incidence rate for severe hypoglycaemia was 31.8/100-patient-years on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), 34.4/100-patient-years on basal-bolus injections (B-B) and 46.1/100-patient-years on NPH (NPH vs. CSII: p=.04). The incidence rate for seizure/coma was 4.5/100-patient-years on CSII, 11.1/100-patient-years on B-B, and 14.4/100-patient-years on NPH (NPH vs. CSII: p=.004). In the multivariate analysis, the rate of seizure/coma was significantly higher for those on NPH vs. CSII (rate ratio 2.9, p=.03).
Conclusions
Rates of severe hypoglycaemia in youth with type 1 diabetes remain high. CSII was associated with lower rates of all severe hypoglycaemia and seizure/coma in comparison to NPH.
doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03646.x
PMCID: PMC3597100  PMID: 22417321
Hypoglycaemia; type 1 diabetes; paediatrics; insulin therapy
23.  Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) Pumps for Type 1 and Type 2 Adult Diabetic Populations 
Executive Summary
In June 2008, the Medical Advisory Secretariat began work on the Diabetes Strategy Evidence Project, an evidence-based review of the literature surrounding strategies for successful management and treatment of diabetes. This project came about when the Health System Strategy Division at the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care subsequently asked the secretariat to provide an evidentiary platform for the Ministry’s newly released Diabetes Strategy.
After an initial review of the strategy and consultation with experts, the secretariat identified five key areas in which evidence was needed. Evidence-based analyses have been prepared for each of these five areas: insulin pumps, behavioural interventions, bariatric surgery, home telemonitoring, and community based care. For each area, an economic analysis was completed where appropriate and is described in a separate report.
To review these titles within the Diabetes Strategy Evidence series, please visit the Medical Advisory Secretariat Web site, http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/mas_about.html,
Diabetes Strategy Evidence Platform: Summary of Evidence-Based Analyses
Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Pumps for Type 1 and Type 2 Adult Diabetics: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Behavioural Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Bariatric Surgery for People with Diabetes and Morbid Obesity: An Evidence-Based Summary
Community-Based Care for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Home Telemonitoring for Type 2 Diabetes: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Application of the Ontario Diabetes Economic Model (ODEM) to Determine the Cost-effectiveness and Budget Impact of Selected Type 2 Diabetes Interventions in Ontario
Objective
The objective of this analysis is to review the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pumps as compared to multiple daily injections (MDI) for the type 1 and type 2 adult diabetics.
Clinical Need and Target Population
Insulin therapy is an integral component of the treatment of many individuals with diabetes. Type 1, or juvenile-onset diabetes, is a life-long disorder that commonly manifests in children and adolescents, but onset can occur at any age. It represents about 10% of the total diabetes population and involves immune-mediated destruction of insulin producing cells in the pancreas. The loss of these cells results in a decrease in insulin production, which in turn necessitates exogenous insulin therapy.
Type 2, or ‘maturity-onset’ diabetes represents about 90% of the total diabetes population and is marked by a resistance to insulin or insufficient insulin secretion. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes increases with age, obesity, and lack of physical activity. The condition tends to develop gradually and may remain undiagnosed for many years. Approximately 30% of patients with type 2 diabetes eventually require insulin therapy.
CSII Pumps
In conventional therapy programs for diabetes, insulin is injected once or twice a day in some combination of short- and long-acting insulin preparations. Some patients require intensive therapy regimes known as multiple daily injection (MDI) programs, in which insulin is injected three or more times a day. It’s a time consuming process and usually requires an injection of slow acting basal insulin in the morning or evening and frequent doses of short-acting insulin prior to eating. The most common form of slower acting insulin used is neutral protamine gagedorn (NPH), which reaches peak activity 3 to 5 hours after injection. There are some concerns surrounding the use of NPH at night-time as, if injected immediately before bed, nocturnal hypoglycemia may occur. To combat nocturnal hypoglycemia and other issues related to absorption, alternative insulins have been developed, such as the slow-acting insulin glargine. Glargine has no peak action time and instead acts consistently over a twenty-four hour period, helping reduce the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes.
Alternatively, intensive therapy regimes can be administered by continuous insulin infusion (CSII) pumps. These devices attempt to closely mimic the behaviour of the pancreas, continuously providing a basal level insulin to the body with additional boluses at meal times. Modern CSII pumps are comprised of a small battery-driven pump that is designed to administer insulin subcutaneously through the abdominal wall via butterfly needle. The insulin dose is adjusted in response to measured capillary glucose values in a fashion similar to MDI and is thus often seen as a preferred method to multiple injection therapy. There are, however, still risks associated with the use of CSII pumps. Despite the increased use of CSII pumps, there is uncertainty around their effectiveness as compared to MDI for improving glycemic control.
Part A: Type 1 Diabetic Adults (≥19 years)
An evidence-based analysis on the efficacy of CSII pumps compared to MDI was carried out on both type 1 and type 2 adult diabetic populations.
Research Questions
Are CSII pumps more effective than MDI for improving glycemic control in adults (≥19 years) with type 1 diabetes?
Are CSII pumps more effective than MDI for improving additional outcomes related to diabetes such as quality of life (QoL)?
Literature Search
Inclusion Criteria
Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analysis and/or health technology assessments from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL
Adults (≥ 19 years)
Type 1 diabetes
Study evaluates CSII vs. MDI
Published between January 1, 2002 – March 24, 2009
Patient currently on intensive insulin therapy
Exclusion Criteria
Studies with <20 patients
Studies <5 weeks in duration
CSII applied only at night time and not 24 hours/day
Mixed group of diabetes patients (children, adults, type 1, type 2)
Pregnancy studies
Outcomes of Interest
The primary outcomes of interest were glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, mean daily blood glucose, glucose variability, and frequency of hypoglycaemic events. Other outcomes of interest were insulin requirements, adverse events, and quality of life.
Search Strategy
The literature search strategy employed keywords and subject headings to capture the concepts of:
1) insulin pumps, and
2) type 1 diabetes.
The search was run on July 6, 2008 in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE (1996 to June Week 4 2008), OVID MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE (1980 to 2008 Week 26), OVID CINAHL (1982 to June Week 4 2008) the Cochrane Library, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination/International Agency for Health Technology Assessment. A search update was run on March 24, 2009 and studies published prior to 2002 were also examined for inclusion into the review. Parallel search strategies were developed for the remaining databases. Search results were limited to human and English-language published between January 2002 and March 24, 2009. Abstracts were reviewed, and studies meeting the inclusion criteria outlined above were obtained. Reference lists were also checked for relevant studies.
Summary of Findings
The database search identified 519 relevant citations published between 1996 and March 24, 2009. Of the 519 abstracts reviewed, four RCTs and one abstract met the inclusion criteria outlined above. While efficacy outcomes were reported in each of the trials, a meta-analysis was not possible due to missing data around standard deviations of change values as well as missing data for the first period of the crossover arm of the trial. Meta-analysis was not possible on other outcomes (quality of life, insulin requirements, frequency of hypoglycemia) due to differences in reporting.
HbA1c
In studies where no baseline data was reported, the final values were used. Two studies (Hanaire-Broutin et al. 2000, Hoogma et al. 2005) reported a slight reduction in HbA1c of 0.35% and 0.22% respectively for CSII pumps in comparison to MDI. A slightly larger reduction in HbA1c of 0.84% was reported by DeVries et al.; however, this study was the only study to include patients with poor glycemic control marked by higher baseline HbA1c levels. One study (Bruttomesso et al. 2008) showed no difference between CSII pumps and MDI on Hba1c levels and was the only study using insulin glargine (consistent with results of parallel RCT in abstract by Bolli 2004). While there is statistically significant reduction in HbA1c in three of four trials, there is no evidence to suggest these results are clinically significant.
Mean Blood Glucose
Three of four studies reported a statistically significant reduction in the mean daily blood glucose for patients using CSII pump, though these results were not clinically significant. One study (DeVries et al. 2002) did not report study data on mean blood glucose but noted that the differences were not statistically significant. There is difficulty with interpreting study findings as blood glucose was measured differently across studies. Three of four studies used a glucose diary, while one study used a memory meter. In addition, frequency of self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) varied from four to nine times per day. Measurements used to determine differences in mean daily blood glucose between the CSII pump group and MDI group at clinic visits were collected at varying time points. Two studies use measurements from the last day prior to the final visit (Hoogma et al. 2005, DeVries et al. 2002), while one study used measurements taken during the last 30 days and another study used measurements taken during the 14 days prior to the final visit of each treatment period.
Glucose Variability
All four studies showed a statistically significant reduction in glucose variability for patients using CSII pumps compared to those using MDI, though one, Bruttomesso et al. 2008, only showed a significant reduction at the morning time point. Brutomesso et al. also used alternate measures of glucose variability and found that both the Lability index and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) were in concordance with the findings using the standard deviation (SD) values of mean blood glucose, but the average daily risk range (ADRR) showed no difference between the CSII pump and MDI groups.
Hypoglycemic Events
There is conflicting evidence concerning the efficacy of CSII pumps in decreasing both mild and severe hypoglycemic events. For mild hypoglycemic events, DeVries et al. observed a higher number of events per patient week in the CSII pump group than the MDI group, while Hoogma et al. observed a higher number of events per patient year in the MDI group. The remaining two studies found no differences between the two groups in the frequency of mild hypoglycemic events. For severe hypoglycemic events, Hoogma et al. found an increase in events per patient year among MDI patients, however, all of the other RCTs showed no difference between the patient groups in this aspect.
Insulin Requirements and Adverse Events
In all four studies, insulin requirements were significantly lower in patients receiving CSII pump treatment in comparison to MDI. This difference was statistically significant in all studies. Adverse events were reported in three studies. Devries et al. found no difference in ketoacidotic episodes between CSII pump and MDI users. Bruttomesso et al. reported no adverse events during the study. Hanaire-Broutin et al. found that 30 patients experienced 58 serious adverse events (SAEs) during MDI and 23 patients had 33 SAEs during treatment out of a total of 256 patients. Most events were related to severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis.
Quality of Life and Patient Preference
QoL was measured in three studies and patient preference was measured in one. All three studies found an improvement in QoL for CSII users compared to those using MDI, although various instruments were used among the studies and possible reporting bias was evident as non-positive outcomes were not consistently reported. Moreover, there was also conflicting results in two of the studies using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). DeVries et al. reported no difference in treatment satisfaction between CSII pump users and MDI users while Brutomesso et al. reported that treatment satisfaction improved among CSII pump users.
Patient preference for CSII pumps was demonstrated in just one study (Hanaire-Broutin et al. 2000) and there are considerable limitations with interpreting this data as it was gathered through interview and 72% of patients that preferred CSII pumps were previously on CSII pump therapy prior to the study. As all studies were industry sponsored, findings on QoL and patient preference must be interpreted with caution.
Quality of Evidence
Overall, the body of evidence was downgraded from high to low due to study quality and issues with directness as identified using the GRADE quality assessment tool (see Table 1) While blinding of patient to intervention/control was not feasible in these studies, blinding of study personnel during outcome assessment and allocation concealment were generally lacking. Trials reported consistent results for the outcomes HbA1c, mean blood glucose and glucose variability, but the directness or generalizability of studies, particularly with respect to the generalizability of the diabetic population, was questionable as most trials used highly motivated populations with fairly good glycemic control. In addition, the populations in each of the studies varied with respect to prior treatment regimens, which may not be generalizable to the population eligible for pumps in Ontario. For the outcome of hypoglycaemic events the evidence was further downgraded to very low since there was conflicting evidence between studies with respect to the frequency of mild and severe hypoglycaemic events in patients using CSII pumps as compared to CSII (see Table 2). The GRADE quality of evidence for the use of CSII in adults with type 1 diabetes is therefore low to very low and any estimate of effect is, therefore, uncertain.
GRADE Quality Assessment for CSII pumps vs. MDI on HbA1c, Mean Blood Glucose, and Glucose Variability for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes
Inadequate or unknown allocation concealment (3/4 studies); Unblinded assessment (all studies) however lack of blinding due to the nature of the study; No ITT analysis (2/4 studies); possible bias SMBG (all studies)
HbA1c: 3/4 studies show consistency however magnitude of effect varies greatly; Single study uses insulin glargine instead of NPH; Mean Blood Glucose: 3/4 studies show consistency however magnitude of effect varies between studies; Glucose Variability: All studies show consistency but 1 study only showed a significant effect in the morning
Generalizability in question due to varying populations: highly motivated populations, educational component of interventions/ run-in phases, insulin pen use in 2/4 studies and varying levels of baseline glycemic control and experience with intensified insulin therapy, pumps and MDI.
GRADE Quality Assessment for CSII pumps vs. MDI on Frequency of Hypoglycemic
Inadequate or unknown allocation concealment (3/4 studies); Unblinded assessment (all studies) however lack of blinding due to the nature of the study; No ITT analysis (2/4 studies); possible bias SMBG (all studies)
Conflicting evidence with respect to mild and severe hypoglycemic events reported in studies
Generalizability in question due to varying populations: highly motivated populations, educational component of interventions/ run-in phases, insulin pen use in 2/4 studies and varying levels of baseline glycemic control and experience with intensified insulin therapy, pumps and MDI.
Economic Analysis
One article was included in the analysis from the economic literature scan. Four other economic evaluations were identified but did not meet our inclusion criteria. Two of these articles did not compare CSII with MDI and the other two articles used summary estimates from a mixed population with Type 1 and 2 diabetes in their economic microsimulation to estimate costs and effects over time. Included were English articles that conducted comparisons between CSII and MDI with the outcome of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) in an adult population with type 1 diabetes.
From one study, a subset of the population with type 1 diabetes was identified that may be suitable and benefit from using insulin pumps. There is, however, limited data in the literature addressing the cost-effectiveness of insulin pumps versus MDI in type 1 diabetes. Longer term models are required to estimate the long term costs and effects of pumps compared to MDI in this population.
Conclusions
CSII pumps for the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes
Based on low-quality evidence, CSII pumps confer a statistically significant but not clinically significant reduction in HbA1c and mean daily blood glucose as compared to MDI in adults with type 1 diabetes (>19 years).
CSII pumps also confer a statistically significant reduction in glucose variability as compared to MDI in adults with type 1 diabetes (>19 years) however the clinical significance is unknown.
There is indirect evidence that the use of newer long-acting insulins (e.g. insulin glargine) in MDI regimens result in less of a difference between MDI and CSII compared to differences between MDI and CSII in which older insulins are used.
There is conflicting evidence regarding both mild and severe hypoglycemic events in this population when using CSII pumps as compared to MDI. These findings are based on very low-quality evidence.
There is an improved quality of life for patients using CSII pumps as compared to MDI however, limitations exist with this evidence.
Significant limitations of the literature exist specifically:
All studies sponsored by insulin pump manufacturers
All studies used crossover design
Prior treatment regimens varied
Types of insulins used in study varied (NPH vs. glargine)
Generalizability of studies in question as populations were highly motivated and half of studies used insulin pens as the mode of delivery for MDI
One short-term study concluded that pumps are cost-effective, although this was based on limited data and longer term models are required to estimate the long-term costs and effects of pumps compared to MDI in adults with type 1 diabetes.
Part B: Type 2 Diabetic Adults
Research Questions
Are CSII pumps more effective than MDI for improving glycemic control in adults (≥19 years) with type 2 diabetes?
Are CSII pumps more effective than MDI for improving other outcomes related to diabetes such as quality of life?
Literature Search
Inclusion Criteria
Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analysis and/or health technology assessments from MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)
Any person with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin treatment intensive
Published between January 1, 2000 – August 2008
Exclusion Criteria
Studies with <10 patients
Studies <5 weeks in duration
CSII applied only at night time and not 24 hours/day
Mixed group of diabetes patients (children, adults, type 1, type 2)
Pregnancy studies
Outcomes of Interest
The primary outcome of interest was a reduction in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. Other outcomes of interest were mean blood glucose level, glucose variability, insulin requirements, frequency of hypoglycemic events, adverse events, and quality of life.
Search Strategy
A comprehensive literature search was performed in OVID MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and the International Agency for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) for studies published between January 1, 2000 and August 15, 2008. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected from the search results. Data on the study characteristics, patient characteristics, primary and secondary treatment outcomes, and adverse events were abstracted. Reference lists of selected articles were also checked for relevant studies. The quality of the evidence was assessed as high, moderate, low, or very low according to the GRADE methodology.
Summary of Findings
The database search identified 286 relevant citations published between 1996 and August 2008. Of the 286 abstracts reviewed, four RCTs met the inclusion criteria outlined above. Upon examination, two studies were subsequently excluded from the meta-analysis due to small sample size and missing data (Berthe et al.), as well as outlier status and high drop out rate (Wainstein et al) which is consistent with previously reported meta-analyses on this topic (Jeitler et al 2008, and Fatourechi M et al. 2009).
HbA1c
The primary outcome in this analysis was reduction in HbA1c. Both studies demonstrated that both CSII pumps and MDI reduce HbA1c, but neither treatment modality was found to be superior to the other. The results of a random effects model meta-analysis showed a mean difference in HbA1c of -0.14 (-0.40, 0.13) between the two groups, which was found not to be statistically or clinically significant. There was no statistical heterogeneity observed between the two studies (I2=0%).
Forrest plot of two parallel, RCTs comparing CSII to MDI in type 2 diabetes
Secondary Outcomes
Mean Blood Glucose and Glucose Variability
Mean blood glucose was only used as an efficacy outcome in one study (Raskin et al. 2003). The authors found that the only time point in which there were consistently lower blood glucose values for the CSII group compared to the MDI group was 90 minutes after breakfast. Glucose variability was not examined in either study and the authors reported no difference in weight gain between the CSII pump group and MDI groups at the end of study. Conflicting results were reported regarding injection site reactions between the two studies. Herman et al. reported no difference in the number of subjects experiencing site problems between the two groups, while Raskin et al. reported that there were no injection site reactions in the MDI group but 15 such episodes among 8 participants in the CSII pump group.
Frequency of Hypoglycemic Events and Insulin Requirements
All studies reported that there were no differences in the number of mild hypoglycemic events in patients on CSII pumps versus MDI. Herman et al. also reported no differences in the number of severe hypoglycemic events in patients using CSII pumps compared to those on MDI. Raskin et al. reported that there were no severe hypoglycemic events in either group throughout the study duration. Insulin requirements were only examined in Herman et al., who found that daily insulin requirements were equal between the CSII pump and MDI treatment groups.
Quality of Life
QoL was measured by Herman et al. using the Diabetes Quality of Life Clinical Trial Questionnaire (DQOLCTQ). There were no differences reported between CSII users and MDI users for treatment satisfaction, diabetes impact, and worry-related scores. Patient satisfaction was measured in Raskin et al. using a patient satisfaction questionnaire, whose results indicated that patients in the CSII pump group had significantly greater improvement in overall treatment satisfaction at the end of the study compared to the MDI group. Although patient preference was also reported, it was only examined in the CSII pump group, thus results indicating a greater preference for CSII pumps in this groups (as compared to prior injectable insulin regimens) are biased and must be interpreted with caution.
Quality of Evidence
Overall, the body of evidence was downgraded from high to low according to study quality and issues with directness as identified using the GRADE quality assessment tool (see Table 3). While blinding of patient to intervention/control is not feasible in these studies, blinding of study personnel during outcome assessment and allocation concealment were generally lacking. ITT was not clearly explained in one study and heterogeneity between study populations was evident from participants’ treatment regimens prior to study initiation. Although trials reported consistent results for HbA1c outcomes, the directness or generalizability of studies, particularly with respect to the generalizability of the diabetic population, was questionable as trials required patients to adhere to an intense SMBG regimen. This suggests that patients were highly motivated. In addition, since prior treatment regimens varied between participants (no requirement for patients to be on MDI), study findings may not be generalizable to the population eligible for a pump in Ontario. The GRADE quality of evidence for the use of CSII in adults with type 2 diabetes is, therefore, low and any estimate of effect is uncertain.
GRADE Quality Assessment for CSII pumps vs. MDI on HbA1c Adults with Type 2 Diabetes
Inadequate or unknown allocation concealment (all studies); Unblinded assessment (all studies) however lack of blinding due to the nature of the study; ITT not well explained in 1 of 2 studies
Indirect due to lack of generalizability of findings since participants varied with respect to prior treatment regimens and intensive SMBG suggests highly motivated populations used in trials.
Economic Analysis
An economic analysis of CSII pumps was carried out using the Ontario Diabetes Economic Model (ODEM) and has been previously described in the report entitled “Application of the Ontario Diabetes Economic Model (ODEM) to Determine the Cost-effectiveness and Budget Impact of Selected Type 2 Diabetes Interventions in Ontario”, part of the diabetes strategy evidence series. Based on the analysis, CSII pumps are not cost-effective for adults with type 2 diabetes, either for the age 65+ sub-group or for all patients in general. Details of the analysis can be found in the full report.
Conclusions
CSII pumps for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes
There is low quality evidence demonstrating that the efficacy of CSII pumps is not superior to MDI for adult type 2 diabetics.
There were no differences in the number of mild and severe hypoglycemic events in patients on CSII pumps versus MDI.
There are conflicting findings with respect to an improved quality of life for patients using CSII pumps as compared to MDI.
Significant limitations of the literature exist specifically:
All studies sponsored by insulin pump manufacturers
Prior treatment regimens varied
Types of insulins used in study varied (NPH vs. glargine)
Generalizability of studies in question as populations may not reflect eligible patient population in Ontario (participants not necessarily on MDI prior to study initiation, pen used in one study and frequency of SMBG required during study was high suggesting highly motivated participants)
Based on ODEM, insulin pumps are not cost-effective for adults with type 2 diabetes either for the age 65+ sub-group or for all patients in general.
PMCID: PMC3377523  PMID: 23074525
24.  Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections 
Hippokratia  2009;13(2):93-96.
Background and aim: Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) and Multiple Daily insulin Injections (MDI) are both strategies aiming to achieve a tight glycemic and metabolic control. However, the choice between them remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of MDI (three or more injections daily) with CSII on glycemic control in patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus and assess satisfaction from treatment in the CSII group.
Material and Methods: Seventeen patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus on CSII (previously on MDI) and 17 patients on MDI, matched for age, gender, BMI and duration of diabetes, were retrospectively studied. Glucosylated Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), frequency of hypoglycaemias (assessed as self reported episodes), BMI and total units of insulin per day were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months in both groups. CSII group completed a questionnaire concerning motive for treatment selection, advantages, deficiencies and inconvenience at the end of the study. Satisfaction from treatment was assessed with a scale from 0 to10.
Results: CSII group had more hypoglycaemic episodes at baseline than MDI group (16.2±2.8 vs 2.8±1.3, p<0,001). HbA1c (8.4±0.5 before vs 7.3±0.4 after, p<0.05) and total hypoglycaemic episodes per month (16.2±2.8 before vs 8.7±2.3 after, p<0.05) significantly decreased in CSII group 6 months after baseline. On the contrary, total hypoglycaemic episodes per month were increased in MDI group (2.8±1.3 before vs 10.8 ±2,6 after, p<0.05) in order to maintain HbA1c levels. No significant differences were observed in BMI in both groups. Total insulin demands were reduced in the CSII group (49.4±3.3 before vs 39.0±4.6 after, p<0.05) and remained unchanged in MDI group. None of the patients discontinued CSII therapy, while overall satisfaction rate in this group was high. The main motive for CSII selection was frequent hypoglycaemic episodes and glucose fluctuations (10/17). The majority of patients expressed their wish for incorporating glucose trend indicator and/or continuous glucose measurement into pump and reducing pump size (15/17). Most commonly stated advantage was improved flexibility, followed by greater freedom and decreased sense of physical restrictions (10/17). Inconvenience mainly derived from alarm malfunction and catheter or needle occlusion and was reported from a minority of patients (4/17).
Conclusion: CSII group reported more hypoglycaemias than MDI group at baseline but 6 months later had significantly less hypoglycaemic events, while on the contrary, MDI group 6 months after baseline had more frequent and more severe hypoglycaemias. Although baseline hypoglycaemias are not equal between the two groups, we can assume that CSII group achieved less hypoglycaemic events along with significant reduction in HbA1c while utilising less insulin units.
PMCID: PMC2683151  PMID: 19561778
continuous insulin infusion; diabetes mellitus; hypoglycaemia; HbA1c; insulin; insulin pump; intensified insulin treatment
25.  Therapeutics of Diabetes Mellitus: Focus on Insulin Analogues and Insulin Pumps 
Experimental Diabetes Research  2010;2010:178372.
Aim. Inadequately controlled diabetes accounts for chronic complications and increases mortality. Its therapeutic management aims in normal HbA1C, prandial and postprandial glucose levels. This review discusses diabetes management focusing on the latest insulin analogues, alternative insulin delivery systems and the artificial pancreas. Results. Intensive insulin therapy with multiple daily injections (MDI) allows better imitation of the physiological rhythm of insulin secretion. Longer-acting, basal insulin analogues provide concomitant improvements in safety, efficacy and variability of glycaemic control, followed by low risks of hypoglycaemia. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) provides long-term glycaemic control especially in type 1 diabetic patients, while reducing hypoglycaemic episodes and glycaemic variability. Continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems provide information on postprandial glucose excursions and nocturnal hypo- and/or hyperglycemias. This information enhances treatment options, provides a useful tool for self-monitoring and allows safer achievement of treatment targets. In the absence of a cure-like pancreas or islets transplants, artificial “closed-loop” systems mimicking the pancreatic activity have been also developed. Conclusions. Individualized treatment plans for insulin initiation and administration mode are critical in achieving target glycaemic levels. Progress in these fields is expected to facilitate and improve the quality of life of diabetic patients.
doi:10.1155/2010/178372
PMCID: PMC2877202  PMID: 20589066

Results 1-25 (1195280)