Poor pregnancy outcome in women with type 1 diabetes is predicted by elevated HbA1c and spikes of high glucose values in the third trimester.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse data from a randomised, controlled study of prandial insulin aspart versus human insulin, both with NPH insulin, in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes for potential factors predicting poor pregnancy outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN/METHOD: Post hoc analysis including 91 subjects randomised prior to pregnancy with known outcome in early pregnancy and 259 subjects randomised prior to pregnancy/during pregnancy of <10 weeks' gestation with known late-pregnancy outcomes. Poor early-pregnancy outcomes included fetal loss <22 gestational weeks and/or congenital malformation (n=18). Poor late-pregnancy outcomes included: composite endpoint including pre-eclampsia, preterm delivery and perinatal death (n=78); preterm delivery (n=63); and excessive fetal growth (n=88). RESULTS: 18 patients experienced a malformed/lost fetus in early pregnancy - none preceded by severe hypoglycaemia. Albuminuria in early pregnancy was a significant predictor of poor late-pregnancy outcome (composite endpoint; p=0.012). In the third trimester, elevated HbA1c, ≥ 1 plasma glucose (PG) measurement >11 mmol/L (198 mg/dL) and %PG values outside 3.9-7.0 mmol/L (70-126 mg/dL) were significant predictors of poor late-pregnancy outcomes (all p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Elevated HbA1c, high glucose spikes and out-of-range %PG in the third trimester, and albuminuria in early pregnancy, are associated with poor late-pregnancy outcomes.

The effect of terbutaline on the absorption of pulmonary administered insulin in subjects with asthma.

AIM: To investigate the effect of prior administration of a bronchodilator on the absorption of inhaled insulin in people with asthma treated with inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: A single-centre, randomized, open-label, two-period cross-over trial was carried out in 41 nondiabetic subjects with asthma treated with inhaled steroids, with reversible bronchoconstriction (Rev+; n= 25) or without reversible bronchoconstriction (Rev-; n= 16). A dose of 0.10 U kg(-1) inhaled human insulin was administered on each dosing day with or without prior administration of the bronchodilator terbutaline (in random order). RESULTS: Prior administration of terbutaline led to a 44% increase in absorption of insulin over 6 h for the Rev+ group compared with no prior administration of bronchodilator [ratio (95% confidence interval) 1.44 (1.13, 1.82), P= 0.004], whereas no effect was seen for the Rev- or the whole group. The maximum insulin concentration (C(max)) increased by 34% for the Rev+ group (P = 0.018) and 17% for the whole group (P= 0.046), whereas no significant effect of prior terbutaline administration was seen for Rev-. The time to C(max) was not significantly different for the Rev+ group, whereas it was approximately 30% longer after bronchodilator administration for the Rev- group (P= 0.044) and the whole group (P= 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: In people with asthma and reversible bronchoconstriction, the administration of a bronchodilator prior to administration of inhaled insulin led to increased absorption of insulin, whereas no effect on insulin absorption in subjects without significant reversibility could be detected.

Parental preference of prandial insulin aspart compared with preprandial human insulin in a basal-bolus scheme with NPH insulin in a 12-wk crossover study of preschool children with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Preprandial insulin injection in preschool children is complicated by irregular eating habits. Postprandial injection of rapid-acting insulin analogs such as insulin aspart (IAsp) offers the convenience of adjusting insulin dose to match food consumed. This trial compared safety and efficacy - including parental treatment satisfaction - of two basal-bolus regimens [IAsp plus Neutral Protein Hagedorn (NPH) insulin vs. regular human insulin (HI) plus NPH] in preschool children with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This study is a randomized, 12-wk, crossover trial comparing IAsp and regular HI in 26 children (17 boys and 9 girls; age: 2.4-6.9 yr). Regular HI was injected 30 min before and IAsp after or shortly before meals. Treatment satisfaction was assessed by a modified version of the WHO Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ-M). RESULTS: Glycemic control for IAsp treatment was not different from that for regular HI treatment as assessed by mean postprandial blood glucose increment (IAsp vs. regular HI: 2.0 vs. 1.6 mmol/L), fructosamine (300 vs. 302 micromol/L), and hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) (7.7 vs. 7.6%). The relative risk of hypoglycemia was not significantly different [relative risk for IAsp/regular HI (95% CI): 1.06 (0.96-1.17), p = 0.225]. Mean total daily insulin dose (0.7 U/kg) remained constant throughout the trial with both treatments. The DTSQ-M score tended to be better for IAsp and reached statistical significance regarding the parental satisfaction with continuing IAsp treatment (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In preschool children, a basal-bolus treatment scheme with postprandial IAsp as bolus insulin was equally effective and safe compared with preprandial regular HI, although the parents showed a preference for the IAsp treatment.

Efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30 combined with pioglitazone in type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on glibenclamide (glyburide) monotherapy or combination therapy: an 18-week, randomized, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Few large randomized controlled trials have assessed the value of adding insulin to an oral antidiabetic drug regimen. OBJECTIVE: This trial compared the efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) plus pioglitazone (n = 93), glibenclamide (glyburide) plus pioglitazone (n = 91), or BIAsp 30 monotherapy (n = 97). METHODS: This 18-week, multinational, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial involved 281 patients with type 2 diabetes (60% male; mean age, 56 years; mean body mass index, 29.5 kg/m2) with inadequate glycemic control (mean glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)], 9.5%; range, 7.4%-14.7%) on glibenclamide monotherapy or combination therapy. The primary objective was to compare end-of-trial HbA(1c) among the 3 treatment groups. Fasting and mean 7- and 8-point blood glucose profiles, blood lipid levels, plasminogen activator inhibitor levels, adverse events, and hypoglycemia frequency were also compared. Patients using BIAsp 30 (alone or with pioglitazone) were injected twice daily (immediately before breakfast and dinner). Pioglitazone (30 mg/d) and glibenclamide (5-15 mg/d) were taken orally once daily with or immediately after breakfast. RESULTS: At the end of the trial, HbA(1c) was significantly lower for the BIAsp 30 plus pioglitazone group than for the glibenclamide plus pioglitazone group (mean [SD], -0.64% [0.23%]; P = 0.005) and the BIAsp 30 monotherapy group (-0.60% [0.22%]; P = 0.008). Mean (SD) fasting blood glucose (before breakfast) was significantly lower for BIAsp 30 plus pioglitazone than for glibenclamide plus pioglitazone (153 [45] mg/dL vs 169 [65] mg/dL, respectively; P = 0.012). Each time point on the 8-point blood glucose profile was lower for BIAsp 30 plus pioglitazone than for glibenclamide plus pioglitazone (P < 0.001 to P < 0.05). No major hypoglycemic episodes were reported, and the absolute rate of hypoglycemic events was low (<1 event/patient-week) in the BIAsp-only group. Edema was reported in < or =9% of patients in each treatment group, but no occurrence was classified as serious. Weight gain (mean, 4.0 kg) was more common in the BIAsp plus pioglitazone group (8%); however, this was consistent with improved glycemic control and is similar to that reported in other pioglitazone trials. CONCLUSIONS: BIAsp 30 plus pioglitazone provided an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment alternative to glibenclamide plus pioglitazone or BIAsp 30 alone in this population of patients who previously were not well controlled on glibenclamide monotherapy or combination therapy.

Randomized, multinational, open-label, 2-period, crossover comparison of biphasic insulin aspart 30 and biphasic insulin lispro 25 and pen devices in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (30% soluble insulin aspart and 70% protaminated insulin aspart [BIAsp 30]) and biphasic insulin lispro 25 (25% soluble insulin lispro and 75% neutral protamine lispro [Mix25]) used in a BID injection regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Also assessed was patients' preference for pen device--the NovoMix 30 FlexPen /NovoLog Mix 70/30 FlexPen (FlexPen) versus the Humalog Mix25 Pen/Humalog Mix75/25 Pen (Humalog Pen). METHODS: Patients with type 2 DM receiving current insulin treatment were randomized to a multinational, multicenter, open-label, 2-period, crossover comparison of BIAsp 30 and Mix25. Efficacy (by analyses of variance) and safety profiles were assessed after 12 weeks of treatment. Patients' preference for pen device was assessed by questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients were randomized to treatment; 4 were withdrawn during the 2-week run-in treatment with biphasic human insulin 30. The mean (SD) characteristics of the remaining 133 patients (79 men, 54 women) were as follows: age, 62.3 (9.2) years; body mass index, 28.1 (3.9) kg/m(2); and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), 8.5% (1.1). Glycemic control was assessed by the measurement of HbA(1c) after 12 weeks of treatment. Treatment with BIAsp 30 was noninferior to treatment with Mix25 (upper limit of 90% CI for estimated difference [BIAsp 30 - Mix25] was <0.4%). Self-monitored blood glucose levels were comparable (P = NS). Adverse-event profiles were similar between treatments, as was the incidence of hypoglycemic episodes (0.69 episode/mo with BIAsp 30 and 0.62 episode/mo with Mix25, P = 0.292). For all device features assessed, the FlexPen consistently received higher scores (all P < 0.005). A total of 9.0% of patients experienced problems with the FlexPen, compared with 32.4% with the Humalog Pen (P < 0.001). Furthermore, 74.6% preferred to continue using the FlexPen, whereas 14.3% preferred the Humalog Pen (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, glycemic control with BIAsp 30 and Mix25 was found to be comparable in these patients with type 2 DM. Safety profiles were similar for both regimens. Patients preferred and experienced fewer problems with the FlexPen than the Humalog Pen.

Immune responses to insulin aspart and biphasic insulin aspart in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The antibody responses to a novel rapid-acting insulin analog, insulin aspart (IAsp), and their potential clinical correlates were studied with a specifically developed method in 2,420 people with diabetes treated for up to 1 year with preprandial subcutaneous injections of IAsp. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Circulating insulin antibodies were analyzed by radioimmunoassay with (125)I insulin or IAsp tracers and polyethylene glycol precipitation. Four multinational, open, parallel group studies were conducted in Europe and North America, with a total of 1,534 people with diabetes exposed to IAsp and 886 people exposed to human insulin (HI) as meal-related insulin for 6-12 months. RESULTS: Insulin antibodies specific to HI or IAsp were absent in a majority of patients throughout the 6- to 12-month study periods. A majority of the patients (64-68%) had antibodies cross-reacting between HI and IAsp when entering the studies, with baseline levels (means +/- SD of percent bound/total) of 16.6 +/- 16.3% in study 1 and 10.3 +/- 14.0% in study 4. In all four studies, cross-reactive antibodies increased in patients exposed to IAsp, with a maximum at 3 months, and thereafter there was a decline toward baseline levels at 9-12 months (levels at 3 and 12 months: 22.3 +/- 19.7 and 16.8 +/- 16.5% in study 1 and 21.5 +/- 21.9 and 16.9 +/- 17.4% in study 4). Antibody levels showed similar changes in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and there was no consistent relationship between antibody formation and glycemic control or between antibody formation and safety in terms of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IAsp is associated with an increase in cross-reactive insulin antibodies, with a subsequent fall toward baseline values, without any indication of clinical relevance because no effect on efficacy or safety could be identified.