ABSTRACT
Background@#The high prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the Philippines has burdened the health care system. Therefore, we compared the standard of care Insulin 30/70 + Insulin Glulisine (Arm B) to a traditional insulin regimen NPH Insulin + Regular Insulin (Arm A) to test the concept that both insulin regimens provide comparable effectiveness and safety in real-world practice.@*Methods @#This is a ‘proof-of-concept,’ prospective, randomized, open label pragmatic study of 40 consecutive Filipino T2DM patients from October 2015 to June 2016. The primary endpoint was a reduction in HbA1c at 12 weeks. The secondary endpoints were changes in Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG), Post Prandial Glucose (PPG), Capillary Blood Sugar (CBS), weight and insulin dose at 12 weeks. ANCOVA and Fisher’s exact tests were used.@*Results @#Patients in treatment arm A showed comparable glycemic control to arm B as measured by reductions in HbA1c (2.89% vs. 2.67%; P = 0.657), FPG (65.94 vs. 46.71 mg/dl; P = 0.57), PPG (76.49 vs. 86.96 mg/dl; P = 0.271) and CBS (115.15 vs. 145.95 mg/dl; P = 0.420). Both treatment arms reported similar weight gain (1.92 vs. 1.22 kg), experienced similar incidence of hypoglycemia (7 vs. 6 patients) and adverse events (AE) (8 vs. 8 patients).@*Conclusion @#The traditional combination of NPH Insulin + Regular Insulin offers comparable glycemic control and tolerance as the standard of care without any new safety signals in the Filipino T2DM population. With a lower price, it can be one of the strategies to reduce the fi nancial burden of antidiabetic treatment.