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.     

A randomized multicentre trial of insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin in people with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND: To compare insulin glargine with NPH human insulin for basal insulin supply in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: People with type 1 diabetes (n = 585), aged 17-77 years, were randomized to insulin glargine once daily at bedtime or NPH insulin either once- (at bedtime) or twice-daily (in the morning and at bedtime) according to their prior treatment regimen and followed for 28 weeks in an open-label, multicentre study. Both groups continued with pre-meal unmodified human insulin. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two insulins in change in glycated haemoglobin from baseline to endpoint (insulin glargine 0.21 +/- 0.05% (mean +/- standard error), NPH insulin 0.10 +/- 0.05%). At endpoint, self-monitored fasting blood glucose (FBG) had decreased similarly in each group (insulin glargine -1.17 +/- 0.12 mmol/L, NPH insulin -0.89 +/- 0.12 mmol/L; p = 0.07). However, people on >1 basal insulin injection per day prior to the study had a clinically relevant decrease in FBG on insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (insulin glargine -1.38 +/- 0.15 mmol/L, NPH insulin -0.72 +/- 0.15 mmol/L; p < 0.01). No significant differences in the number of people reporting >or=1 hypoglycaemic episode were found between the two groups, including severe and nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Insulin glargine was well tolerated, with a similar rate of local injection and systemic adverse events versus NPH insulin. CONCLUSIONS: A single, bedtime, subcutaneous dose of insulin glargine provided a level of glycaemic control at least as effective as NPH insulin, without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia.     

Safety and efficacy of insulin glargine (HOE 901) versus NPH insulin in combination with oral treatment in Type 2 diabetic patients

Aims A European, randomized, 29‐centre, open‐label study compared the safety and efficacy of two formulations of insulin glargine and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) human insulin, in combination with oral agents, in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods Two‐hundred‐and‐four patients with Type 2 DM, in whom oral treatment alone was inadequate, were randomized to insulin glargine with 30 µg/ml zinc [insulin glargine (30)], or insulin glargine with 80 µg/ml zinc [insulin glargine (80)] or NPH insulin subcutaneously once daily. Insulin was titrated to aim for fasting blood glucose (FBG) values between 4 and 7 mmol/l. All participants received oral therapy during the 3‐week titration phase and 1‐week maintenance phase of the trial. Results No differences between treatment groups were observed in adjusted mean fasting plasma glucose; significant decreases of 3.4 mmol/l, 3.5 mmol/l and 3.1 mmol/l were observed within the insulin glargine (30), insulin glargine (80) and NPH insulin groups, respectively (P < 0.0001 in each case). No differences between groups, but significant changes within groups, were observed in self‐monitored FBG, mean FBG, blood glucose profile, stability of FBG, nocturnal blood glucose, fasting serum C‐peptide, non‐esterified fatty acids, haemoglobin A_1c, fructosamine and fasting serum insulin. A significantly greater proportion of NPH insulin patients experienced symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemia (19.1 NPH group vs. 7.3% glargine groups; P = 0.0123). Both insulins were well tolerated; one patient in each group experienced an injection site reaction. Conclusions Insulin glargine is as safe and effective as NPH insulin given once daily and in this study caused fewer episodes of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Diabet. Med. 20, 545–551 (2003)     

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.     

Efficacy and safety of insulin glulisine in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus

Aim: The rapid‐acting insulin analogue insulin glulisine (glulisine) was compared with insulin lispro (lispro) for efficacy and safety in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), using insulin glargine (glargine) as basal insulin. Methods: This was an open, randomized, parallel‐group, comparative non‐inferiority study. The primary efficacy measure was change in adjusted mean haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to endpoint. Safety and treatment satisfaction using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) were also assessed. Patients were treated for 28 weeks with either glulisine or lispro administered 0–15 min before a meal. Doses were titrated to obtain 2‐h postprandial plasma glucose (2h‐PPG) of 7.11–9.55 mmol/l (128–172 mg/dl). All patients were concomitantly treated with glargine at bedtime, titrated to obtain a fasting (prebreakfast) plasma glucose level of 5.27–7.11 mmol/l (95–128 mg/dl). Results: Baseline mean HbA1c values were similar for the glulisine (n = 132) and lispro (n = 135) groups (7.44 and 7.50% respectively). From baseline to endpoint, adjusted mean HbA1c increased by 0.10% in the glulisine group and by 0.04% in the lispro group. Non‐inferiority of glulisine compared with lispro was shown. There were no significant differences between glulisine and lispro in adjusted mean 2h‐PPG [glulisine, 9.06 mmol/l (163 mg/dl) vs. lispro, 8.13 mmol/l (146 mg/dl); p = 0.065] and change in adjusted mean daily rapid‐acting insulin dose (glulisine, 0.26 U vs. lispro, 0.26 U; p = 0.994) at study endpoint. There was a significant difference for change in adjusted mean daily basal insulin dose from baseline to study endpoint (glulisine, –0.54 U vs. lispro, 0.26 U; p = 0.013). The most common serious adverse events were hypoglycaemia‐related events (hypoglycaemia, hypoglycaemic seizure and hypoglycaemic coma) with no difference observed between the two groups [glulisine, 6.8% (9/132) vs. lispro, 4.4% (6/135); p = 0.437]. No noteworthy differences were observed for change in insulin antibodies from baseline to endpoint. Assessment of treatment satisfaction score and perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia by DTSQ showed no changes from baseline in either group. Conclusions: Glulisine was as effective as lispro with respect to change in HbA1c and was well tolerated when used in combination with glargine in Japanese patients with T1DM.     

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.     

A randomized cross-over trial to identify the optimal use of insulin glargine in prepubertal children using a three-times daily insulin regimen.

AIMS: The long-acting insulin analogue glargine reduces nocturnal hypoglycaemia and stabilizes morning blood glucose levels in patients with Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) on multiple injection therapy. However, young children may not tolerate such intensive insulin regimens. We investigated the effects of glargine in various three-injections-daily insulin combinations on 24-h glucose control in prepubertal children. METHODS: Seventeen T1DM prepubertal children (10 boys), median age 10.2 years (range 6.0-12.4), glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) 8.8% (6.8-11.5) were recruited to a randomized, open-label, cross-over study. After a 2-week run-in period (with NPH pre-bed), every child underwent three different 3-week treatment blocks in random order. All treatment blocks included glargine pre-bed, but used different morning insulins: block 1, soluble only; block 2, soluble + NPH; block 3, aspart + NPH. Continuous glucose monitoring was performed for 3 days at the end of the run-in and each treatment block. RESULTS: Compared with the run-in period on NPH, the three glargine treatment blocks were associated with lower (P < 0.0001) and less variable (P < 0.05) pre-breakfast glucose levels, and with an 8-15% reduction in total daily insulin dose (P < 0.0001). Risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia detected by continuous glucose monitoring varied significantly between the three glargine treatment blocks, and was lowest when children were given aspart + NPH in the morning (block 3). CONCLUSION: Insulin glargine pre-bed can be used in three-injections-daily regimens in prepubertal children to lower and stabilize pre-breakfast glucose levels. However, to avoid the risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia, the pre-bed glargine dose should be lowered by giving a further long-acting insulin, such as NPH, in the morning.     

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.     

Evaluation of the superiority of insulin glargine as basal insulin replacement by continuous glucose monitoring system

To evaluate the superiority of insulin glargine as basal insulin replacement by continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS). Twenty-four patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) whose blood glucose was not well controlled with sulphanylureas were enrolled. At first, they were treated with extended-release glipizide (glucotrol XL) 5mg/d before breakfast for 2 weeks, then randomized to combination treatment with glargine (16 patients) or NPH (8 patients) and treated for 12 weeks. CGMS were carried in the second week after treatment with glucotrol XL, and in the 12th week after combination treatment. The data of CGMS showed: (1) When FPG were well controlled in both groups (glargine group versus NPH group: 6.0+/-1.0 mmol/L versus 5.8+/-1.3 mmol/L), the blood glucose level at 3:00 a.m. (5.1+/-0.9 mmol/L versus 4.2+/-0.8 mmol/L) were higher (P<0.05), TPG< or =3.0 mmol/L at night were lower (2.56+/-1.79 versus 5.88+/-1.96), and the rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia (1/16 versus 4/8) were less (P=0.028) in glargine group than those in NPH group. (2) CGMS showed that the daily blood glucose profile excursion were more smoother in glargine group than those in NPH group. In conclusion, it was confirmed with CGMS that compared with traditionally basal insulin replacement with NPH, the combination treatment with glargine injection at bedtime may be predominant for stabilizing the daily blood glucose profile excursion and decreasing the nocturnal hypoglycemia events incidence. So glargine may be a more ideal basal insulin replacement than NPH.     

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.     

A randomized trial of insulin aspart with intensified basal NPH insulin supplementation in people with Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: Insulin aspart has been shown to improve post-prandial and overall glycaemic control in people with Type 1 diabetes. We hypothesized that insulin aspart with intensified basal NPH insulin supplementation would result in better overall glycaemic control than human regular insulin with standard basal NPH insulin. METHODS: The trial was conducted in 43 centres in seven countries. People with Type 1 diabetes were randomized to mealtime insulin aspart with up to four daily NPH doses if meals were > 5 h apart and a 25% increase in bedtime NPH dose (n = 187), or to mealtime human unmodified insulin with once or twice daily basal NPH insulin (n = 181). Efficacy and safety were evaluated at 12 weeks (primary evaluation period) and 64 weeks. RESULTS: At 12 and 64 weeks there was no statistically significant difference in HbA1c between the insulin aspart and regular insulin groups: -0.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23, +0.05)% and -0.14 (-0.32, +0.04)%. Post-prandial glucose values were lower and the area under the 24-h self-monitored blood glucose curve above 7.0 mmol/l was 28% smaller with insulin aspart (35.2 +/- 3.2 vs. 48.9 +/- 3.1 mmol/l h, P = 0.0015). No significant differences were found in mild or severe hypoglycaemia, or adverse event rate. At 64 weeks treatment satisfaction was higher in the insulin aspart group (difference 1.57 (95% CI 0.49, 2.64) points, P = 0.004), while quality of life was not different. CONCLUSIONS: Improved post-prandial glycaemic control and treatment satisfaction with insulin aspart were confirmed. Intensifying basal insulin supplementation resulted in a similar HbA1c decrement as previously found with the use of insulin aspart and standard NPH insulin supplementation. This does not support routinely basal NPH insulin intensification when using rapid-acting insulin analogues in daily practice.     

Twice-daily pre-mixed insulin rather than basal insulin therapy alone results in better overall glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To compare the glycaemic control of an insulin lispro mixture (25% insulin lispro and 75% NPL) twice daily in combination with metformin to that of once-daily insulin glargine plus metformin in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with intermediate insulin, or insulin plus oral agent(s) combination therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Ninety-seven patients were randomized in a multicentre, open-label, 32-week crossover study. Primary variables evaluated: haemoglobin A1c (A1c), 2-h post-prandial blood glucose (BG), hypoglycaemia rate (episodes/patient/30 days), incidence (% patients experiencing > or = 1 episode) of overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: At endpoint, A1c was lower with the insulin lispro mixture plus metformin compared with glargine plus metformin (7.54% +/- 0.87% vs. 8.14% +/- 1.03%, P < 0.001). Change in A1c from baseline to endpoint was greater with the insulin lispro mixture plus metformin (-1.00% vs. -0.42%; P < 0.001). Two-hour post-prandial BG was lower after morning, midday, and evening meals (P < 0.001) during treatment with the insulin lispro mixture plus metformin. The fasting BG values were lower with glargine plus metformin (P = 0.007). Despite lower BG at 03.00 hours (P < 0.01), patients treated with the insulin lispro mixture plus metformin had a lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia (0.14 +/- 0.49 vs. 0.34 +/- 0.85 episodes/patient/30 days; P = 0.002), although the overall hypoglycaemia rate was not different between treatments (0.61 +/- 1.41 vs. 0.44 +/- 1.07 episodes/patient/30 days; P = 0.477). CONCLUSION: In patients with Type 2 diabetes and inadequate glucose control while on insulin or insulin and oral agent(s) combination therapy, treatment with a twice-daily insulin lispro mixture plus metformin, which targets both post-prandial and pre-meal BG, provided clinically significant improvements in A1c, significantly reduced post-prandial BG after each meal, and reduced nocturnal hypoglycaemia as compared with once-daily glargine plus metformin, a treatment that targets fasting BG.     

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.     

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.     

Transferring to insulin detemir from NPH insulin or insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes patients on basal-only therapy with oral antidiabetic drugs improves glycaemic control and reduces weight gain and risk of hypoglycaemia: 14-week follow-up data from PREDICTIVE

Aim:  The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of insulin detemir in type 2 diabetes patients previously receiving NPH insulin (NPH group, n = 175) or insulin glargine (glargine group, n = 118) in combination with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).
Methods:  Patients were transferred to insulin detemir, while the OAD regimen and number of injections remained the same. The incidence of serious adverse drug reactions, including major hypoglycaemia, and haemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c), fasting glucose, within-patient fasting glucose variability and body weight change were measured at 14 weeks.
Results:  Glycaemic control improved in both NPH (HbA_1c = −0.2%, p < 0.05; fasting glucose −1.0 mmol/l, p < 0.0001) and glargine (HbA_1c = −0.6%, p < 0.0001; fasting glucose −1.4 mmol/l, p < 0.0001) groups, including a reduction in fasting glucose variability (p < 0.01 for both). The incidence of total and nocturnal hypoglycaemia was reduced in both NPH and glargine groups. The incidence of major hypoglycaemia was low and did not change significantly during the follow-up period. Mean body weight was significantly reduced in the NPH (−0.7 kg, p < 0.01) and glargine (−0.5 kg, p < 0.05) groups.
Conclusions:  These results indicate that in type 2 diabetes, transferring from other basal insulins to insulin detemir in combination with OADs was associated with improvements in glycaemic control, which were accompanied by a reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and a reduction in body weight.     

Meta‐analysis of individual patient data to assess the risk of hypoglycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes using NPH insulin or insulin glargine

Aim: To estimate absolute and relative incidence rates of hypoglycaemia when using once‐daily evening or morning regimens of insulin glargine (glargine) versus once‐daily evening NPH insulin (NPH) using individual patient data (IPD). Materials and methods: Randomized controlled trials with accessible IPD and including white European people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) using glargine or NPH once‐daily (with oral glucose‐lowering drugs) were identified. Two study pools were analysed: evening glargine versus evening NPH (pool 1); and morning glargine versus evening NPH (pool 2). The number‐needed‐to‐treat to avoid hypoglycaemia was calculated for glargine versus NPH. Results: In study pool 1 (n = 2711), the risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was approximately halved with glargine compared with NPH [odds ratios (OR): 0.44–0.52, p < 0.001–0.047]. This led to a significant reduction in anytime risk of symptomatic hypoglycaemia [plasma glucose (PG) <3.9 mmol/l, OR: 0.64, p = 0.018; PG <2.0 mmol/l, OR: 0.51, p < 0.001]. In study pool 2 (n = 470), although a strong numerical reduction in all types of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed (OR: 0.16–0.64), statistical significance was reached only for symptomatic hypoglycaemia with PG <3.9 mmol/l (p < 0.001). Eight (pool 1) or five (pool 2) people with T2DM needed to use glargine rather than NPH to avoid one person from experiencing a nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemic event within a median of about 25 weeks of starting insulin. Conclusions: This meta‐analysis of open‐label studies provides confidence that reductions of around 50% of risk for nocturnal hypoglycaemia can be achieved with using glargine instead of NPH.     

加用甘精胰岛素或中效胰岛素的2型糖尿病患者血糖波动的比较

目的 比较空腹血糖控制不佳的2型糖尿病患者加用甘精胰岛素(glargine)或中效胰岛素治疗对血糖波动的影响.方法 30例口服抗糖尿病药治疗的2型糖尿病患者(空腹血糖>9.0 mmoL/L,HbA1C> 8.5%),按1:1随机分成两组,分别加用甘精胰岛素(来得时(R))或中效胰岛素(诺和灵(R)N)联合治疗.以空腹指尖毛细血管血糖<6.0 mmol/L为目标,用动态血糖检测仪监测患者血糖水平,计算全天血糖水平的标准差(SDBG)、最大血糖波动幅度(LAGE)以及空腹血糖变异系数(CV-FPG)作为反映lffL糖波动的指数.结果 加用甘精胰岛素组上述三个指标均低于加用中效胰岛素组(SDBG:1.49±0.35 vs 1.73±0.46;LAGE:3.23±0.76 vs 3.73±1.00;CV-FPG 17.26±2.24 vs 3520.33±3.21,均P<0.05),同时甘精胰岛素组低血糖发生人次数也低于中效胰岛素组,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 空腹血糖控制不佳的2型糖尿病患者加用甘精胰岛素比加用中效胰岛素治疗更有利于血糖的平稳,且不增加低血糖的风险.     

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.     

Comparison of three multiple injection regimens for Type 1 diabetes: morning plus dinner or bedtime administration of insulin detemir vs. morning plus bedtime NPH insulin.

AIMS: This trial investigated the efficacy and safety of two different administration-time regimens with insulin detemir (IDet) to that of a conventional basal insulin regimen with NPH insulin (NPH). METHODS: This multinational, 16-week, open, parallel group trial included 400 people with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) randomized to IDet either morning and before dinner (IDetmorn+din) or morning and bedtime (IDetmorn+bed), or to NPH morning and bedtime (NPHmorn+bed), all in combination with mealtime insulin aspart (IAsp). RESULTS: HbA1c was comparable between the three groups after 16 weeks (P = 0.64), with reductions of 0.39-0.49% points. Lower fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was observed with IDetmorn+din and IDetmorn+bed compared with NPHmorn+bed (9.8 and 9.1 vs. 11.1 mmol/l, P = 0.006), whereas the IDet groups did not differ (P = 0.15). Within-person variation in self-measured FPG was significantly lower for both IDet regimens (sd IDetmorn+din 2.5, IDetmorn+bed 2.6 mmol/l) than for NPHmorn+bed (sd 3.1 mmol/l, P < 0.001), but was comparable between the IDet groups (P = 0.48). Ten-point plasma glucose profiles were lower between dinner and breakfast in the IDetmorn+din group (P = 0.043), compared with the two other groups. Risk of overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia was similar for the three groups. Lower mean bodyweight was observed with IDet compared with NPH after 16 weeks (difference: (IDetmorn+din)-1.3 kg, P < 0.001, (IDetmorn+bed)-0.6 kg, P = 0.050). CONCLUSIONS: Both IDet regimens were well tolerated and provided lower and less variable glucose levels with no, or less, weight gain than NPH at comparable HbA1c. IDet can be administered either at dinner or bedtime, with similar glycaemic control according to the need of the individual person.