Efficacy, safety and acceptability of the new pen needle 34G × 3.5 mm: a crossover randomized non-inferiority trial; AGO 02 study.

OBJECTIVE: Insulin injection aspects, such as fear of injection and pain, directly affect glycemic control, patient adherence and quality of life. Use of thinner and shorter needles could increase acceptance of injections. The aim of the study is to evaluate the non-inferiority of the new 34G × 3.5 mm needle compared to a 32G × 4 mm in patients with diabetes treated with insulin. METHODS: This is an open, randomized, two-period crossover, non-inferiority trial. Every treatment period lasted 3 weeks. Patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, treated with multiple daily insulin injections, were randomly assigned to receive a 34G × 3.5 mm or a 32G × 4 mm pen needle. The primary endpoint was the non-inferiority of the 34G × 3.5 mm in comparison with the 32G × 4 mm pen needle in terms of percentage absolute change of blood fructosamine (% |ΔFru|), using a non-inferiority margin of 20%. RESULTS: Overall 77 patients were randomized and 73 completed the study. Patients characteristics were: 52% male, 80.5% affected by type 1 diabetes, mean age 52 years (±14.6), mean BMI 24.5 kg/m2 (±5.6), HbA1c 8% (±1.1) and baseline fructosamine level 350 µmol/l (±84). Mean fructosamine levels increased by 0.56 µmol/l with the 34G needle, while a reduction of 7.29 µmol/l was documented with the 32G needle. The difference between the two groups (7.84 µmol/l) was not statistically significant (p = .27). The % |ΔFru| between the two groups was 7.55% (95% CI 5.67-9.44), meeting the non-inferiority criterion. Glycemic variability, expressed as standard deviation of fasting blood glucose and post-prandial glucose, was not different between the two treatment groups (p = .63 and p = .77, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The 34G × 3.5 mm needle was non-inferior to the 32G × 4 mm needle regarding fructosamine levels and glycemic variability supporting the suitability of the 34G × 3.5 mm needle for insulin injection in patients with diabetes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02690467.

Comparison of Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension with NPH Insulin in Pregnant Women with Type 2 and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes.

Insulin therapy is still the gold standard in diabetic pregnancy. Insulin lispro protamine suspension is an available basal insulin analogue. Aim. To study pregnancy outcomes of women with type 2 and gestational diabetes mellitus when insulin lispro protamine suspension or human NPH insulin was added to medical nutrition therapy and/or short-acting insulin. Methods. In this retrospective study, for maternal outcome we recorded time and mode of delivery, hypertension, glycaemic control (fasting blood glucose and HbA1c), hypoglycemias, weight increase, and insulin need. For neonatal outcome birth weight and weight class, congenital malformations was recorded and main neonatal complications. Two-tail Student's t-test and chi-square test were performed when applicable; significant P < 0.05. Results. Eighty-nine pregnant women (25 with type 2 diabetes and 64 with gestational diabetes mellitus; 53 under insulin lispro protamine suspension and 36 under human NPH insulin) were recruited. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were quite similar between the two therapeutic approaches; however, insulin need was higher in NPH. At the end of pregnancy, eight women with gestational diabetes continued to use only basal insulin analogue. Conclusions. Pregnancy outcome in type 2 and gestational diabetes mellitus with insulin lispro protamine suspension was similar to that with NPH insulin, except for a lower insulin requirement.

Experiences of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes during delivery from four Italian centers: a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: An optimized metabolic control during delivery is mandatory to prevent maternal-neonatal complications. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) during delivery in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. The secondary aim was to assess the impact of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) added to CSII versus CSII alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a multicenter observational retrospective study. A standardized protocol, to use CSII throughout pregnancy and delivery, foresaw three different insulin basal rates according to blood glucose level: profile A, the last basal rate in use; profile B, preventive 50% reduction of the last basal rate in use; and profile C, 0.1-0.2 U/h for blood glucose level <70 mg/dL, activated just before anesthesia or at the beginning of active labor. An alternative intravenous protocol (IVP) was given in case of complications and relevant metabolic deterioration. Blood glucose in the target range (70-140 mg/dL) throughout delivery and percentage of activation of the IVP were primary outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-five pregnant women with diabetes included in the study (56-86% cesarean section; 9-14% spontaneous/stimulated vaginal delivery). Mean blood glucose level was 102 ± 31 mg/dL at 0 min, 109 ± 42 mg/dL at 30 min, 120 ± 48 mg/dL at 60 min, and 99 ± 34 mg/dL at 24 h. Mean basal rate during delivery was 0.6 ± 0.4 U/h (profile B). Mean capillary blood glucose (CBG) level was lower in the RT-CGM group relative to the CSII-alone group: 80 ± 14 mg/dL versus 111 ± 32 mg/dL at 0 min (P<0.01), 79 ± 11 mg/dL versus 109 ± 42 mg/dL at 30 min (P<0.02), and 98 ± 20 mg/dL versus 125 ± 51 mg/dL at 60 min (difference not significant). Eleven newborns experienced transient neonatal hypoglycemia. None of the women switched to IVP. No major differences were observed according to delivery procedure. CONCLUSIONS: CSII is possible and safe in different types of delivery in selected and educated women. RT-CGM helps to obtain better outcomes in terms of maternal peripartum CBG level.