Improved glycaemic control with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro: a multicentre, randomized, cross-over trial in people with Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To compare blood glucose control using insulin glargine + insulin lispro with that on NPH insulin + unmodified human insulin in adults with Type 1 diabetes managed with a multiple injection regimen. METHODS: In this 32-week, five-centre, two-way cross-over study, people with Type 1 diabetes (n = 56, baseline HbA1c 8.0 +/- 0.8%) were randomized to evening insulin glargine + mealtime insulin lispro or to NPH insulin (once- or twice-daily) + mealtime unmodified human insulin. Each 16-week period concluded with a 24-h inpatient plasma glucose profile. RESULTS: HbA1c was lower with glargine + lispro than with NPH + human insulin [7.5 vs. 8.0%, difference -0.5 (95% CI -0.7, -0.3) %, P < 0.001]. This was confirmed by an 8% lower 24-h plasma glucose area under the curve (AUC) (187 vs. 203 mmol l(-1) h(-1), P = 0.037), a 24% reduction in plasma glucose AUC > 7.0 mmol/l1 (47 vs. 62 mmol l(-1) h(-1), P = 0.017) and a 15% lower post-prandial plasma glucose AUC (75 vs. 88 mmol l(-1) h(-1), P = 0.002). There was no reduction in night-time plasma glucose AUC or increase in plasma glucose area < 3.5 mmol/l. Monthly rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was reduced by 44% with glargine + lispro (0.66 vs. 1.18 episodes/month, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with NPH insulin + unmodified human insulin, the combination of insulin glargine with a rapid-acting insulin analogue as multiple-injection therapy for Type 1 diabetes improves overall glycaemic control as assessed by HbA1c and 24-h plasma glucose monitoring to a clinically significant degree, together with a reduction in nocturnal hypoglycaemia.     

Comparison of insulin lispro mixture 25/75 with insulin glargine during a 24-h standardized test-meal period in patients with Type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To compare insulin lispro mixture (25% insulin lispro and 75% NPL; Mix 25/75) twice-daily plus oral glucose-lowering medications (metformin and/or sulphonylurea) with once-daily insulin glargine plus oral agents with respect to postprandial glycaemic control and other glucose and lipid parameters in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with insulin and/or oral glucose-lowering agents. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, crossover study. Prestudy oral agents were continued and patients not already on oral agents were treated with metformin. Mix 25/75 and insulin glargine were adjusted over 3 months to attain premeal plasma glucose (PG) < 6.0 mmol/l and were then given during a 24-h in-patient test meal period with frequent PG, serum triglyceride (TG) and free fatty acid (FFA) measurements. RESULTS: Twenty patients (10 F/10 M; mean +/-sd age 54.0 +/- 10.7 years, body mass index 37.0 +/- 8.6 kg/m2, HbA1c 8.4 +/- 1.01%) participated. Mean doses were 23 U before the morning and 37 U before the evening meal for Mix 25/75 and 44 U for insulin glargine. The combined 2-h morning and evening meal postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) was not different between groups (9.2 +/- 2.04 vs. 9.9 +/- 1.66 mmol/l, P = 0.161). Mix 25/75 was associated with a lower mean 2-h PPG for all meals combined (9.0 +/- 1.88 vs. 9.9 +/- 1.80 mmol/l, P < 0.05) and lower mean 24-h PG (6.7 +/- 1.00 vs. 7.5 +/- 1.32 mmol/l, P < 0.01). Eight patients experienced mild hypoglycaemia (PG < 3.5 mmol/l) with Mix 25/75 and 3 with insulin glargine. The endpoint HbA1c was lower with Mix 25/75 (6.9 +/- 0.52% vs. 7.3 +/- 0.81%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In a 24-h test-meal setting in 20 patients, Mix 25/75 insulin plus oral glucose-lowering agents was associated with lower mean PPG and 24-h PG, more mild hypoglycaemia and similar TG, FFA and fasting PG concentrations. HbA1c was lower with Mix 75/25 plus oral agents, although it may not have reached steady state due to ongoing dose adjustment.     

Better long-term glycaemic control with the basal insulin glargine as compared with NPH in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus given meal-time lispro insulin.

BACKGROUND: Glargine is a long-acting insulin analogue potentially more suitable than NPH insulin in intensive treatment of Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1 DM), but no study has proven superiority. The aim of this study was to test superiority of glargine on long-term blood glucose (BG) as well as on responses to hypoglycaemia vs. NPH. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-one patients with T1 DM on intensive therapy on four times/day NPH and lispro insulin at each meal, were randomized to either continuation of NPH four times/day (n = 60), or once daily glargine at dinner-time (n = 61) for 1 year. Lispro insulin at meal-time was continued in both groups. In 11 patients from each group, responses to stepped hyperinsulinaemic-hypoglycaemia were measured before and after 1 year's treatment. RESULTS: Mean daily BG was lower with glargine [7.6 +/- 0.11 mmol/l (137 +/- 2 mg/dl)] vs. NPH [8.1 +/- 0.22 mmol/l (146 +/- 4 mg/dl)] (P < 0.05). HbA(1c) at 4 months did not change with NPH, but decreased with glargine (from 7.1 +/- 0.1 to 6.7 +/- 0.1%), and remained lower than NPH at 12 months (6.6 +/- 0.1%, P < 0.05 vs. NPH). Frequency of mild hypoglycaemia [self-assisted episodes, blood glucose < or = 4.0 mmol/l (72 mg/dl)] was lower with glargine vs. NPH (7.2 +/- 0.5 and 13.2 +/- 0.6 episodes/patient-month, P < 0.05). After 1 year, NPH treatment resulted in no change of responses to hypoglycaemia, whereas with glargine plasma glucose, thresholds and maximal responses of plasma adrenaline and symptoms to hypoglycaemia improved (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The simpler glargine regimen decreases the percentage of HbA(1c) and frequency of hypoglycaemia and improves responses to hypoglycaemia more than NPH. Thus, glargine appears more suitable than NPH as basal insulin for intensive treatment of T1 DM.     

Prandial insulin substitution with insulin lispro or insulin lispro mid mixture vs. basal therapy with insulin glargine: a randomized controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes beginning insulin therapy

PURPOSE: To compare the effects of prandial insulin therapy focusing on postprandial glucose control vs. basal insulin therapy focusing on fasting glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, parallel, three-arm multicenter trial in patients with type 2 diabetes starting insulin treatment. Patients (n=159) were randomly assigned to 24-week treatment with 3x daily insulin lispro, 3x daily lispro mid mixture (MidMix; 50% lispro, 50% protaminated lispro), or 1x daily insulin glargine; oral antihyperglycemic agents were discontinued. Primary end point was the postprandial glucose excursion 2 h after breakfast at the end of study. Secondary outcomes included HbA1c, self-monitored blood glucose profiles, hypoglycemic episodes, body weight, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: At the end of study, glucose excursions 2 h after breakfast were significantly lower with lispro and MidMix than with glargine (P<.001 for each vs. glargine): lispro, -0.6+/-2.0 mmol/l; MidMix, +0.8+/-2.4 mmol/l; glargine, +2.5+/-2.4 mmol/l. Fasting glucose decreases were significantly greater with glargine (-2.6+/-2.4 mmol/l) than with lispro or MidMix (-0.9+/-2.2 mmol/l; +0.9+/-1.8 mmol/l). Nevertheless, HbA1c decreased by 1.1% (lispro) and 1.2% (MidMix), vs. 0.3% with glargine. Hypoglycemic episodes were rare with 1-1.5 self-reported episodes per 100 patient-days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes starting insulin, 3x daily prandial treatment with a rapid-acting analog focusing on postprandial glucose values enabled better control of postprandial and circadian blood glucose profiles than once-daily glargine, in spite suboptimal fasting glucose levels, which targets fasting glucose values. These results support studies suggesting that control of postprandial hyperglycemia plays a key role in achieving HbA1c targets.     

Glargine is superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn for improving glycated haemoglobin and fasting blood glucose levels during intensive insulin therapy

AIM: To compare glycaemic control and symptomatic hypoglycaemia rates with glargine versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in poorly controlled type 1 diabetes patients. METHODS: Patients (n = 125) received preprandial insulin lispro and either glargine (n = 62) or NPH (n = 63) at bedtime for 30 weeks in a multicentre, randomized, single-blind (a blinded investigator made titration decisions) study. Basal insulin dosage was titrated to achieve fasting blood glucose (FBG) values < 5.5 mmol/L. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar for the two groups (mean diabetes duration 17.5 +/- 10.1 years) except mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), which was lower in the glargine versus NPH group (9.2 +/- 1.1% vs 9.7 +/- 1.3%; P < 0.02). At end-point, mean HbA(1c) was 8.3 versus 9.1% for the glargine versus NPH groups. Adjusted least-squares mean (LSM) change from baseline was -1.04 versus -0.51%, a significant treatment benefit of 0.53% for HbA(1c) in favour of glargine (P < 0.01). Mean baseline FBG were similar for the glargine and NPH groups (11.2 vs 11.4 mmol/L). The means for end-point FBG were 7.9 versus 9.0 mmol/L. Adjusted LSM change from baseline was -3.46 versus -2.34 mmol/L, with a significant difference of 1.12 mmol/L in favour of glargine (P < 0.05). There were similar total numbers of daytime mild, moderate or severe hypoglycaemia episodes in the two treatment arms. However, significantly fewer moderate or severe nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes were observed in the glargine group (P = 0.04 and P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Glargine is superior to NPH for improving HbA(1c) and FBG levels during intensive insulin therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes, and is associated with less severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia.     

Comparison of insulin detemir and insulin glargine in subjects with Type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy.

AIMS: To compare glycaemic control and risk of hypoglycaemia of twice-daily insulin detemir with once-daily insulin glargine in subjects with Type 1 diabetes. METHODS: In this 26-week, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group trial, 320 subjects with Type 1 diabetes received either insulin detemir twice daily or insulin glargine once daily. each in combination with premeal insulin aspart. RESULTS: After 26 weeks, HbA(1c) had decreased from 8.8 to 8.2% in the insulin detemir group and from 8.7 to 8.2% in the insulin glargine group. Home-measured fasting plasma glucose (PG) was lower with insulin glargine than with insulin detemir (7.0 vs. 7.7 mmol/l, P < 0.001). The overall shape of the home-measured nine-point PG profiles was comparable between treatments (P = 0.125). Overall, there was no significant difference in within-subject variation in PG (P = 0.437). Within-subject variation in predinner PG was lower with insulin detemir than with insulin glargine (P < 0.05). The overall risk of hypoglycaemia was similar with no differences in confirmed hypoglycaemia. However, the risk of severe and nocturnal hypoglycaemia was 72% and 32%, respectively, lower with insulin detemir than with insulin glargine (P < 0.05). Body weight gain was not significantly different comparing insulin detemir and insulin glargine (0.52 kg vs. 0.96 kg, P = 0.193). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with twice-daily insulin detemir or once-daily insulin glargine, each in combination with insulin aspart, resulted in similar glycaemic control. The overall risk of hypoglycaemia was comparable, whereas the risks of both severe and nocturnal hypoglycaemia were significantly lower with insulin detemir.     

Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension versus insulin glargine once daily in basal-bolus therapies with insulin lispro in type 2 diabetes patients: a prospective randomized open-label trial

Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) versus insulin glargine once daily in a basal‐bolus regimen in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. Methods: Three hundred eighty‐three insulin‐treated patients were randomized to either ILPS plus lispro or glargine plus lispro in this open‐label 24‐week European study. Insulin doses were titrated to predefined blood glucose (BG) targets. Non‐inferiority of ILPS versus glargine was assessed by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the change of HbA1c from baseline to week 24 (adjusted for country and baseline HbA1c) with the non‐inferiority margin of 0.4%. Secondary endpoints included HbA1c categories, BG profiles, insulin doses, hypoglycaemic episodes, adverse events and vital signs. Results: Non‐inferiority of ILPS versus glargine in the change of HbA1c from baseline was shown: least‐square mean between‐treatment difference (95% CI) was 0.1% (?0.11; 0.31). Mean changes at week 24 were ?1.05% (ILPS) and ?1.20% (glargine). HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 21.7 versus 29.4% of patients. Mean basal/mealtime insulin doses at week 24 were 29.6/36.2 IU/day (ILPS) versus 32.8/42.2 IU/day (glargine); the difference was not statistically significant for total dose (p = 0.7). In both groups, 56.1/25.7% versus 63.6/19.3% of patients experienced any/nocturnal hypoglycaemia (p = 0.2 for both). No relevant differences were noted in any other variables. Conclusions: A basal‐bolus regimen with ILPS once daily resulted in non‐inferior glycaemic control compared to a similar regimen with glargine, without statistically significant or clinically relevant differences in hypoglycaemia. ILPS‐based regimens can be considered an alternative to basal‐bolus regimens with glargine for T2DM patients.     

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

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

Optimal timing of injection of once-daily insulin glargine in people with Type 1 diabetes using insulin lispro at meal-times.

AIMS: To compare blood glucose control when insulin glargine is given at lunch-time, dinner-time, and bed-time in people with Type 1 diabetes using insulin lispro at meal-times. METHODS: In this 16-week, three-way, cross-over study, 23 people with Type 1 diabetes were randomized to insulin glargine injection at lunch-time (L) [mean 12.37 +/- 00.34 (+/- sd) h], dinner-time (D) (18.12 +/- 00.40 h), or bed-time (B) (22.29 +/- 00.40 h), each plus meal-time insulin lispro. Each 4-week treatment period concluded with a 24-h inpatient metabolic profile. RESULTS: Insulin doses, HbA(1c), and fructosamine concentration did not differ between treatment periods. Pre-breakfast self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) concentration was higher with injection of glargine at lunch-time than at other times [L: 9.2 +/- 0.3 (+/- se) vs. D: 8.2 +/- 0.3 or B: 8.0 +/- 0.3 mmol/l, P = 0.016], as probably was pre-lunch SMBG (L: 8.6 +/- 0.7 vs. D: 6.4 +/- 0.7 or B: 6.4 +/- 0.8 mmol/l, P = 0.051). Pre-dinner SMBG level was higher with dinner-time glargine than other injection times (D: 9.4 +/- 0.9 vs. L: 4.9 +/- 0.9 or B: 7.4 +/- 1.1 mmol/l, P = 0.007). For 22.00 to 02.00 h, mean inpatient plasma glucose concentration was higher with injection of glargine at bed-time than other times (B: 9.1 +/- 0.6 vs. L: 7.8 +/- 0.6 or D: 6.7 +/- 0.6 mmol/l, P = 0.023). Plasma free insulin concentration was lower at the end of the afternoon with dinner-time glargine than other injection times (D: 11.5 +/- 1.4 vs. L: 20.2 +/- 1.3 or B: 16.5 +/- 1.3 mU/l, P < 0.001). Frequency of hypoglycaemia was not different, but timing of hypoglycaemia differed between treatment periods. CONCLUSIONS: Blood glucose levels rise around the time of injection of insulin glargine whether given at lunch-time, dinner-time or bed-time. Bed-time injection leads to hyperglycaemia in the early part of the night which is improved by giving insulin glargine at lunch-time or dinner-time.     

Twice-daily compared with once-daily insulin glargine in people with Type 1 diabetes using meal-time insulin aspart.

AIM: To compare blood glucose control when using insulin glargine twice daily at breakfast- and dinner-times with insulin glargine once daily at dinner time, in unselected people with Type 1 diabetes using insulin aspart at meal-times. METHODS: In this 8-week, two-way, cross-over study, 20 people with Type 1 diabetes were randomized to insulin glargine injection once daily at dinner-time or twice daily at breakfast- and dinner-times, both plus meal-time insulin aspart. Each 4-week treatment period concluded with a 24-h inpatient metabolic profile. RESULTS: Insulin doses, HbA1c, fructosamine concentration and pre-breakfast self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) concentration did not differ between treatment periods. SMBG concentrations after breakfast, after lunch and before dinner were lower with twice-daily compared with once-daily dinner-time glargine [9.3 +/- 0.5 (+/- se) vs. 6.7 +/- 0.5 mmol/l, P = 0.003; 10.2 +/- 0.9 vs. 7.0 +/- 0.9 mmol/l, P = 0.024; 9.6 +/- 0.5 vs. 6.6 +/- 0.5 mmol/l, P = 0.001]. Mean 24-h SMBG concentration was lower with twice-daily glargine (7.1 +/- 0.5 vs. 8.8 +/- 0.5 mmol/l, P = 0.031). Within-day variability of SMBG concentration was lower with twice-daily glargine (sd 3.2 +/- 0.2 vs. 4.0 +/- 0.3 mmol/l, P = 0.044). Plasma free insulin concentration was higher in the afternoon with twice-daily glargine (21.9 +/- 1.4 vs. 16.1 +/- 1.3 mU/l, P = 0.009), but lower overnight (12.1 +/- 1.7 vs. 17.8 +/- 1.7 mU/l, P = 0.030), compared with once-daily injection. Plasma glucose concentration overnight was higher with twice-daily compared with once-daily glargine (mean 9.0 +/- 0.4 vs. 6.6 +/- 0.4 mmol/l, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Blood glucose concentration rises in the late afternoon in association with falling plasma insulin levels towards the end of the 24-h period after insulin glargine injection in some people with Type 1 diabetes using once-daily glargine at dinner-time plus a rapid-acting insulin analogue at meal-times. This is prevented by twice-daily injection of insulin glargine.     

Therapy after single oral agent failure: adding a second oral agent or an insulin mixture?

AIM: to compare the glycemic response to an insulin lispro mixture (25% insulin lispro and 75% NPL) twice daily plus metformin (Mix25+M) with glibenclamide plus metformin (G+M), in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with a single oral agent. METHODS: 597 patients treated in a randomized, open-label, 16-week parallel study. Variables evaluated: hemoglobin A1C (A1C), patient symptoms, hypoglycemia rate (episodes/patient/30 days), and incidence (% patients experiencing > or =1 episode). For a subset of patients (N=120), fasting, 1-h, and 2-h postprandial plasma glucose (FPG, 1-h ppPG, 2-h ppPG) in response to a standardized test meal (STM) and self-monitored blood glucose (BG) profiles were measured. RESULTS: improved A1C at endpoint for both groups, and A1C changes from baseline to endpoint were not significantly different between treatments (Mix25+M, -1.87+/-1.35% vs. G+M, -1.98+/-1.28%; p=0.288). Among patients completing STM; endpoint 2-h ppPG was significantly lower with Mix25+M (9.05+/-3.32 mmol/l vs. 12.31+/-3.65 mmol/l; p<0.001), as was 2-h ppPG excursion (2-h ppPGex)(0.38+/-3.23 mmol/l vs. 2.88+/-1.98 mmol/l; p<0.001). Percentage of patients achieving postprandial BG targets (<10 mmol/l) at endpoint was significantly greater with Mix25+M (80% vs. 48%; p<0.001). Although, overall hypoglycemia rates were similar, percentage of patients experiencing and rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia was less with Mix25+M (1% vs. 5%; p<0.01, and 0.01 vs. 0.08 episodes/pt/30 d; p=0.007). Patients reported less polyuria with Mix25+M (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: in patients with type 2 diabetes failing on metformin or a sulfonylurea, Mix25+M provided similar overall glycemic control, lower ppPG, reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia, and fewer hyperglycemic symptoms compared to G+M.     

Starting insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: twice-daily biphasic insulin Aspart 30 plus metformin versus once-daily insulin glargine plus glimepiride.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of two analog insulins as starting regimens in insulin-na?ve Type 2 diabetes patients. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label parallel study, twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 (30% soluble and 70% protaminated insulin aspart; BIAsp 30) plus metformin (met) was compared with once-daily insulin glargine (glarg) plus glimepiride (glim) in 255 insulin-na?ve patients (131 male; mean+/-SD age, 61.2+/-9.1 years). Mean baseline HbA (1c) (+/-SD) was 9.2+/-1.4% and 8.9+/-1.3% for BIAsp 30 plus met ( N=128) and glarg plus glim ( N=127), respectively ( P=0.0747). Primary endpoint was the difference in absolute change in HbA (1c) between groups after 26 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: HbA (1c) change was significantly greater in the BIAsp 30 plus met group than the glarg plus glim group (between-group difference: -0.5% (95% CI: -0.8; -0.2); P=0.0002). Mean prandial plasma glucose increment was significantly lower for BIAsp 30 plus met compared with glarg plus glim: 1.4+/-1.4 mmol/l vs. 2.2+/-1.8 mmol/l; P=0.0002. During the maintenance phase (weeks 6-26), one major hypoglycemic episode occurred in each group; 20.3% and 9% of patients experienced minor hypoglycemic episodes in the BIAsp 30 plus met and glarg plus glim groups, respectively ( P=0.0124). At end-of-trial, mean daily insulin doses were 0.40 U/kg BIAsp 30 and 0.39 U/kg glarg. Glarg plus glim-treated patients experienced significant weight gain of 1.5 kg (95% CI: 0.84; 2.19; P<0.0001). Weight change with BIAsp 30 plus met of +0.7 kg was not statistically significant (95% CI: -0.07; 1.42; P=0.0762). CONCLUSIONS: Starting insulin in Type 2 diabetes patients with twice-daily BIAsp 30 plus met can reduce HbA (1c) and mean prandial plasma glucose increment to a greater extent than once-daily glarg plus glim.     

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

Aims: The addition of basal insulin to existing oral therapy can help patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) achieve glycaemic targets. This study compares the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) and insulin glargine in insulin‐naive patients with T2D and inadequate control on oral antihyperglycaemic medication (OAM). Materials and Methods: An open‐label, randomized, multicentre, multinational 24‐week study of 471 patients receiving ≥2 OAMs for ≥3 months with a body mass index between 25 and 45 kg/m² and HbA1c 7.5–10.0% was conducted. ILPS was injected once or twice daily vs. glargine injected once daily plus prestudy OAMs. Primary objective compared the HbA1c change from baseline. Results: HbA1c change from baseline to endpoint was similar in both groups [?1.46% (ILPS) and ?1.41% (glargine)]. Least‐squares mean difference (95% CI) for HbA1c (?0.05 [?0.21, 0.11]%), glycaemic variability (0.06 [?0.06, 0.19] mmol/l) and weight change (?0.01 [?0.61, 0.59] kg) showed non‐inferiority (margins of 0.4%, 0.8 mmol/l and 1.5 kg, respectively). Percentages of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% were 43.8% ILPS and 41.2% glargine. Mean daily insulin dose was 0.39 vs. 0.35 U/kg (p = 0.02) and weight gain was 1.04 vs. 1.07 kg for ILPS vs. glargine (p = 0.98). Overall hypoglycaemia (episodes/patient/year) was similar for ILPS and glargine (24.2 ± 28.8 vs. 23.0 ± 30.9); nocturnal (6.1 ± 10.6 vs. 4.1 ± 9.4, p < 0.001) rates were higher for ILPS. Severe hypoglycaemia was higher for ILPS vs. glargine (n = 9 vs. n = 2; p = 0.04). Conclusions: At endpoint, ILPS was non‐inferior to glargine in HbA1c change from baseline, but associated with increased risk of hypoglycaemia.     

A randomized pilot study in Type 1 diabetes complicated by severe hypoglycaemia, comparing rigorous hypoglycaemia avoidance with insulin analogue therapy, CSII or education alone.

AIM: To determine potential for amelioration of recurrent severe hypoglycaemia without worsening in overall control in individuals with long-standing Type 1 diabetes (T1DM). METHODS: Twenty-one people with T1DM characterized by altered hypoglycaemia awareness and debilitating severe hypoglycaemia were randomized in a pilot 24-week prospective study to optimized analogue therapy (ANALOGUE; lispro/glargine); continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy (CSII; lispro); or re-education with relaxation of blood glucose targets on existing conventional insulin regimen (EDUCATION). Glycaemic profiles and duration of biochemical hypoglycaemia were measured by continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring and self-monitored blood glucose. RESULTS: Further severe hypoglycaemia was prevented in five participants (71%) in each group (P = 0.06). Incidence of severe hypoglycaemia was: 0.6 (ANALOGUE), 0.9 (CSII), and 3.7 (EDUCATION) episodes per patient year. Restoration of hypoglycaemia awareness was confirmed by validated questionnaire in three (43%) ANALOGUE, four (57%) CSII and five (71%) EDUCATION patients. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was significantly improved in the ANALOGUE group between weeks 0 and 24 (8.6 +/- 1.1 vs. 7.6 +/- 0.8%; P = 0.04 for change). Non-significant improvement was seen in the CSII group (8.5 +/- 1.9 vs. 7.4 +/- 1.0%; P = 0.06). No change in HbA1c was seen in the EDUCATION group (8.5 +/- 1.1 vs. 8.3 +/- 1.0%; P = 0.54). There were no episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis or any other adverse events in any group. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot randomized trial comparing optimized ANALOGUE, CSII or EDUCATION alone in unselected individuals with recurrent severe hypoglycaemia, we show potential for restoring hypoglycaemia awareness and preventing further severe hypoglycaemia with concomitant improvement in glycaemic control in ANALOGUE and CSII groups.     

Efficacy and treatment satisfaction of once-daily insulin glargine plus one or two oral antidiabetic agents versus continuing premixed human insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes previously on long-term conventional insulin therapy: the SWITCH Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Addition of the long-acting basal human insulin analogue insulin glargine (LANTUS) to the treatment regimen of patients with inadequate glycaemic control on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) alone has previously been evaluated as effective, safe and convenient. This pilot study aimed to establish whether insulin glargine plus OADs is effective in Type 2 diabetes patients previously poorly controlled on premixed insulin therapy. METHODS: In an open, controlled, randomized, parallel-group, single-centre, 16-week pilot study, 52 patients (age 65.6+/-9.2 years; diabetes duration 15.3+/-7.6 years; insulin therapy duration 4.2+/-1.7 years, body mass index 31.4+/-2.9 kg/m(2)) with Type 2 diabetes (HbA (1c)> or =8.0%) on premixed human insulin (75/25 or 70/30) were randomized to once-daily morning insulin glargine plus glimepiride (Group A; n=17), insulin glargine plus glimepiride and metformin (Group B; n=18) or premixed insulin (Group C; n=17). Glycaemic control and incidence of hypoglycaemia were evaluated. RESULTS: HbA (1c) decreased significantly from baseline in Groups A and B, but not in Group C; (Group A: 7.87+/-0.66%, -0.35%, p=0.013; Group B: 7.44+/-0.92%, -0.69%, p=0.0057; Group C: 7.83+/-1.13%, -0.25%, p=0.32). There were no between-treatment differences at endpoint in HbA (1c), fasting blood glucose, mean daily blood glucose or symptomatic hypoglycaemia (mean events/patient: Group A, 2.2; Group B, 2.3; Group C, 2.0). At endpoint, 88% of patients in Group A, 81% in Group B and 94% in Group C opted to continue with their assigned regimen. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study is the first prospective study to show that switching from premixed insulin to insulin glargine plus OAD treatment resulted in similar glycaemic control and treatment satisfaction. The results support the need for prospective examination in a larger-scale clinical study in patients with long-standing Type 2 diabetes and sub-optimal glycaemic control previously using a conventional premixed insulin regimen.     

Insulin lispro: a potential role in preventing nocturnal hypoglycaemia in young children with diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: The long duration of action of soluble insulin given in the evening could contribute to the high prevalence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia seen in young children with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). We examined whether replacing soluble insulin with insulin lispro reduced this risk in children on a three times daily insulin regimen. METHODS: Open crossover study comparing insulin lispro vs. soluble insulin in 23 (16 boys) prepubertal children (age 7-11 years) with T1DM on three injections/day; long-acting isophane insulin remained identical. At the end of each 4-month treatment arm, an overnight 15-min venous sampled blood glucose profile was performed. RESULTS: Despite similar blood glucose levels pre-evening meal (lispro vs. soluble: mean +/- se 6.5 +/- 1.0 vs. 7.1 +/- 1.1 mmol/l, P = 0.5), post-meal (18.00-22.00 h) blood glucose levels were lower on insulin lispro (area under curve 138 +/- 12 vs. 170 +/- 13 mmol min-1 l-1, P = 0.03). In contrast, in the early night (22.00-04.00 h) the prevalence of low blood glucose levels (< 3.5 mmol/l) was lower on lispro (8% of blood glucose levels) than on soluble insulin (13%, P = 0.01). In the early morning (04.00-07.00 h) mean blood glucose and prevalence of low levels were no different between the two treatment groups, and fasting (07.00 h) blood glucose levels were similar (6.1 +/- 0.8 vs. 6.3 +/- 0.9 mmol/l, P = 0.8). At the end of each treatment arm there were no differences in HbA1c (lispro vs. soluble 8.6% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.3), or in insulin doses (mean, range 0.97, 0.68-1.26 vs. 0.96, 0.53-1.22 U/kg per day, P = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: The shorter duration of action of insulin lispro given before the evening meal may reduce the prevalence of early nocturnal hypoglycaemia without compromising HbA1c in young children with T1DM.     

Basal-bolus insulin therapy in Type 1 diabetes: comparative study of pre-meal administration of a fixed mixture of insulin lispro (50%) and neutral protamine lispro (50%) with human soluble insulin.

AIMS: To ascertain whether pre-meal administration of 50% insulin lispro and 50% neutral protamine lispro (NPL), given as a fixed mixture (Humalog Mix50, human soluble (regular) insulin as a basal-bolus regimen in people with Type 1 diabetes. Both regimens included bedtime human isophane (NPH) insulin. METHODS: This was a multinational, multicentre, randomized, open-label, two-period crossover comparison of two insulin treatments for two 12-week periods in 109 patients with Type 1 diabetes. The protocol provided preliminary evaluations of dose requirements and recommendations for insulin dose adjustment when switching regimens on the basis of blood glucose (BG) values. Eight-point BG profiles, frequency of hypoglycaemia, HbA1c, insulin dose, time of injection, and frequency of snacking were assessed during each treatment. RESULTS: Total daily insulin dose was similar for both treatments, but the total pre-meal doses were higher (P < 0.001) and the bedtime dose of isophane was lower (P < 0.001) with Mix50. The pre-meal dose before breakfast and lunch, although statistically different (P = 0.006 and P < 0.001, respectively), was of similar magnitude, but the pre-evening meal dose was higher with Mix50 (P < 0.001). Median (interquartile range) time of insulin injection before meals was: Mix50 4.2 (25th percentile = 1.0; 75th percentile = 6.3) min, human soluble insulin 24.6 (25th percentile = 16.6; 75th percentile = 30.0) min. Pre-meal and bedtime BG concentrations did not differ between treatments. The BG 2 h after the evening meal was lower with Mix50 (8.40 +/- 2.95 mmol/l vs. 9.60 +/- 3.47 mmol/l) (P = 0.049). BG after breakfast and lunch, mean HbA1c, frequency of hypoglycaemia, frequency of snacks, and body weight were not different. CONCLUSION: The use of Mix50 in a basal-bolus regimen achieved similar control of pre-meal BG to human soluble insulin, and overall glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia risk were equivalent. This suggests that Mix50 can provide an adequate supply of insulin to control BG between meals while providing the convenience of injecting immediately before meals.     

A randomized, controlled trial comparing insulin lispro with human soluble insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes on intensified insulin therapy. The UK Trial Group.

AIMS: Despite considerable experience with insulin lispro, few blinded comparisons with soluble insulin are available. This study compared insulin lispro with human soluble insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus on multiple injection therapy who inject shortly before meals. METHODS: Glucose control, frequency of hypoglycaemia and patient preference were examined in the course of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison, with a 6-week run-in period and 12 weeks on each therapy. Ninety-three patients took part, all on multiple daily doses of insulin, with soluble insulin before meals and NPH (isophane) insulin at night. The main outcome measures were self-monitored blood glucose profiles, glycated haemoglobin, frequency of hypoglycaemic episodes, patient satisfaction and well-being and patient preference. RESULTS: Blood glucose levels were significantly lower after breakfast and lunch, but higher before breakfast, lunch and supper, in patients taking insulin lispro. Levels of HbA(1c) were 7.4 +/- 1.1% on Humulin S and 7.5 +/- 1.1% on insulin lispro (P = 0.807). The overall frequency of symptomatic hypoglycaemia did not differ, but patients on insulin lispro were less likely to experience hypoglycaemia between midnight and 6 a.m., and more likely to experience episodes from 6 a.m. to midday. Questionnaires completed by 84/87 patients at the end of the study showed that 43 (51%) were able to identify each insulin correctly, nine (11%) were incorrect, and 32 (38%) were unable to tell the insulins apart. No significant preference emerged: 35 (42%) opted for insulin lispro, 24 (29%) opted for Humulin S, while the remainder had no clear preference. CONCLUSIONS: Substitution of insulin lispro for soluble insulin in a multiple injection regimen improved post-prandial glucose control at the expense of an increase in fasting and pre-prandial glucose levels. Patients who already injected shortly before meals expressed no clear preference for the fast-acting analogue, and did not improve their overall control as a result of using it. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia was however, less frequent on insulin lispro, and may emerge as a robust indication for its use.     

Efficacy and treatment satisfaction of once-daily insulin glargine plus one or two oral antidiabetic agents versus continuing premixed human insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes previously on long-term conventional insulin therapy: the Switch pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Addition of the long-acting basal human insulin analogue insulin glargine (LANTUS) to the treatment regimen of patients with inadequate glycaemic control on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) alone has previously been evaluated as effective, safe and convenient. This pilot study aimed to establish whether insulin glargine plus OADs is effective in Type 2 diabetes patients previously poorly controlled on premixed insulin therapy. METHODS: In an open, controlled, randomized, parallel-group, single-centre, 16-week pilot study, 52 patients (age 65.6+/-9.2 years; diabetes duration 15.3+/-7.6 years; insulin therapy duration 4.2+/-1.7 years, body mass index 31.4+/-2.9 kg/m2) with Type 2 diabetes (HbA1c>or=8.0%) on premixed human insulin (75/25 or 70/30) were randomized to once-daily morning insulin glargine plus glimepiride (Group A; n=17), insulin glargine plus glimepiride and metformin (Group B; n=18) or premixed insulin (Group C; n=17). Glycaemic control and incidence of hypoglycaemia were evaluated. RESULTS: HbA1c decreased significantly from baseline in Groups A and B, but not in Group C; (Group A: 7.87+/-0.66%, -0.35%, p=0.013; Group B: 7.44+/-0.92%, -0.69%, p=0.0057; Group C: 7.83+/-1.13%, -0.25%, p=0.32). There were no between-treatment differences at endpoint in HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, mean daily blood glucose or symptomatic hypoglycaemia (mean events/patient: Group A, 2.2; Group B, 2.3; Group C, 2.0). At endpoint, 88% of patients in Group A, 81% in Group B and 94% in Group C opted to continue with their assigned regimen. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study is the first prospective study to show that switching from premixed insulin to insulin glargine plus OAD treatment resulted in similar glycaemic control and treatment satisfaction. The results support the need for prospective examination in a larger-scale clinical study in patients with long-standing Type 2 diabetes and sub-optimal glycaemic control previously using a conventional premixed insulin regimen.     

Albumin-bound basal insulin analogues (insulin detemir and NN344): comparable time-action profiles but less variability than insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes

AIM: This study compared the time-action profiles of the novel albumin-bound basal insulin analogue NN344 with those of insulin detemir and insulin glargine in individuals with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Twenty-seven insulin-treated men with type 2 diabetes [body mass index 30.8 +/- 2.6 kg/m(2) (mean +/- s.d.), haemoglobin A(1c) 7.6 +/- 1.1%] were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind trial and participated in six euglycaemic glucose clamp experiments [target blood glucose (BG) 5 mmol/l] each. Participants received NN344 in three experiments at a dose of 0.8, 1.6 and 2.8 dosing units (DU) (1 DU corresponds to 6 nmol NN344) per kilogram of body weight. In the other three experiments, the participants received 0.4, 0.8 and 1.4 U/kg of either insulin detemir or insulin glargine. The insulin preparations were characterized with regards to their effects on glucose infusion rates (GIRs) (in particular duration of action and within-subject and between-subject variabilities), BG, C-peptide, free fatty acids (FFA), endogenous glucose production (EGP) and peripheral glucose uptake (PGU) over 24 h post-dose. RESULTS: The mean GIR profiles for all three preparations were similar in shape/flatness and showed increasing effect (area under the curve for GIR: AUC-GIR(total)) with increasing dose [low dose: 647 +/- 580, 882 +/- 634, 571 +/- 647 mg/kg (insulin detemir vs. NN344 vs. insulin glargine]; medium dose: 1203 +/- 816, 1720 +/- 1109, 1393 +/- 1203 mg/kg and high dose: 2171 +/- 1344, 3119 +/- 1549, 2952 +/- 2028 mg/kg; p = 0.48]. The duration of action increased with rising doses of all insulin preparations, without major differences between treatments. BG remained below 7 mmol/l in nearly all the experiments. Within-subject variability was lower for the albumin-bound insulin analogues, insulin detemir and NN344, than for insulin glargine (p < 0.0001). Between-subject variability did not differ between treatments, nor did the effects on BG, C-peptide, FFA, EGP or PGU. CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with type 2 diabetes, the time-action profiles and the duration of action of the albumin-bound insulin analogues, insulin detemir and NN344, were comparable with those of insulin glargine, whereas within-subject variability in the metabolic effect was significantly lower. Therefore, insulin detemir and NN344 seem to be as well suited as insulin glargine for once-daily administration in type 2 diabetes. The better predictability may be an important characteristic of the albumin-bound analogues as insulin detemir has already been shown to improve hypoglycaemia.