Associations between clinical and psychosocial factors and HbA1c in adult insulin pump users with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: Many adults with type 1 diabetes do not achieve recommended glycemic goals despite intensive insulin therapy using insulin pumps. The aim of this study was to explore associations between clinical and psychosocial factors and HbA1c in insulin pump users to identify and prioritize areas for potential intervention. METHODS: A questionnaire-based survey covering clinical and psychosocial aspects of life with type 1 diabetes was distributed to all adult (≥ 18 years) insulin pump users in the Capital Region of Denmark. Responses were combined with data from medical records and national registries. Associations with HbA1c were modeled using regression-based machine learning. RESULTS: Of 1,591 invited individuals, 770 (48.4%) responded to the survey. Mean HbA1c among responders was 7.3% (56 mmol/mmol), and 35.6% had an HbA1c < 7.0% (53 mmol/mol). Six factors were significantly associated with HbA1c: diabetes duration (0.006% (0.1 mmol/mol) lower HbA1c per 1-year increase in diabetes duration); education (0.4% (4.3 mmol/mol) lower HbA1c with long higher education vs. primary school); insulin type (0.2% (2.2 mmol/mol) lower HbA1c with ultra-rapid-acting insulin vs. rapid-acting insulin); hypoglycemia awareness status (0.2% (2.2 mmol/mol) lower HbA1c with complete unawareness vs. full awareness); insulin device satisfaction (0.2% (2.7 mmol/mol) lower HbA1c per 1-point increase in Insulin Device Satisfaction Survey score); and diabetes distress (0.3% (3.1 mmol/mol) higher HbA1c per 1-point increase in Type 1 Diabetes Distress Scale score). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several associations between clinical and psychosocial factors and HbA1c that may be considered when developing interventions targeted people with type 1 diabetes.

Costs and Outcomes Comparison of Diabetes Technology Usage Among People With Type 1 or 2 Diabetes Using Rapid-Acting Insulin.

BACKGROUND: Does initiation of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) or insulin pump lower health care utilization and/or costs? METHODS: Distinct cohorts of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) using a blood glucose monitor (BGM), CGM, pump, or CGM with pump were identified from a large claims database. Patients ≥40 years old with 12 months of continuous enrollment before and after the device start date qualified for the study. Outcomes included one-year medical utilization and costs (minus device) for events such as hospitalizations and office visits. Generalized linear models were fitted, controlling for numerous baseline covariates. The Holm method corrected for the multiplicity of hypotheses tested. RESULTS: Of the 8235 total patients, the BGM control group was the largest, had the lowest percentage of patients with T1D, and was significantly different from the device groups in most baseline categories. Formally, only two comparisons were statistically significant: Compared with BGM, the pump cohort had greater adjusted first-year total medical and office visit costs. Other secondary outcomes such as days hospitalized, emergency department visits and labs, favored pump. Most endpoints were favorable for CGM. Results for CGM with pump generally were intermediate between CGM and pump alone. CONCLUSIONS: During a one-year follow-up, unadjusted medical costs of both CGM and pump appear lower than BGM, but multivariable modeling yielded adjusted savings only for CGM use. Economic benefits might be observable sooner for CGMs than for pumps. Generalized linear models fitted to health care utilization event rates produced favorable results for both CGM and pump.

Application of Machine Learning to Assess Interindividual Variability in Rapid-Acting Insulin Responses After Subcutaneous Injection in People With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Circulating insulin concentrations mediate vascular-inflammatory and prothrombotic factors. However, it is unknown whether interindividual differences in circulating insulin levels are associated with different inflammatory and prothrombotic profiles in type 1 diabetes (T1D). We applied an unsupervised machine-learning approach to determine whether interindividual differences in rapid-acting insulin levels associate with parameters of vascular health in patients with T1D. METHODS: We re-analyzed baseline pretreatment meal-tolerance test data from 2 randomized controlled trials in which 32 patients consumed a mixed-macronutrient meal and self-administered a single dose of rapid-acting insulin individualized by carbohydrate counting. Postprandial serum insulin, tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, plasma fibrinogen, human tissue factor (HTF) activity and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) were measured. Two-step clustering categorized individuals based on shared clinical characteristics. For analyses, insulin pharmacokinetic summary statistics were normalized, allowing standardized intraindividual comparisons. RESULTS: Despite standardization of insulin dose, individuals exhibited marked interpersonal variability in peak insulin concentrations (48.63%), time to peak (64.95%) and insulin incremental area under the curve (60.34%). Two clusters were computed: cluster 1 (n=14), representing increased serum insulin concentrations; and cluster 2 (n=18), representing reduced serum insulin concentrations (cluster 1: 389.50±177.10 pmol/L/IU h-1; cluster 2: 164.29±41.91 pmol/L/IU h-1; p<0.001). Cluster 2 was characterized by increased levels of fibrinogen, PAI-1, TNF-alpha and HTF activity; higher glycated hemoglobin; increased body mass index; lower estimated glucose disposal rate (increased insulin resistance); older age; and longer diabetes duration (p<0.05 for all analyses). CONCLUSIONS: Reduced serum insulin concentrations are associated with insulin resistance and a prothrombotic milieu in individuals with T1D, and therefore may be a marker of adverse vascular outcome.

What is the value of faster acting prandial insulin? Focus on ultra rapid lispro.

Rapid-acting insulins (RAIs) have been instrumental in the management of diabetes because of their improved postprandial glucose (PPG) control compared with regular human insulin. However, their absorption rate and time action following subcutaneous administration still falls short of the normal physiological response to meal consumption, increasing the risk of early postmeal hyperglycaemia and late postmeal hypoglycaemia. Increased demand for faster acting insulins, which can quickly control PPG excursions without increasing the risk of late hypoglycaemia, led to the development of ultra-rapid-acting insulins, including ultra-rapid lispro (URLi). URLi is a novel formulation of insulin lispro with accelerated absorption driven by two excipients: treprostinil, which increases local vasodilation, and citrate, which increases local vascular permeability. Clinical pharmacology studies consistently showed an earlier onset and shorter duration of action with URLi compared with Lispro. In a head-to-head study with Faster aspart, Aspart and Lispro, URLi was absorbed faster, provided earlier insulin action, and more closely matched physiological glucose response than the other insulins tested. URLi's unique pharmacokinetic properties increase its potential for improved PPG control beyond that achieved with RAIs. Indeed, in pivotal phase 3 trials, URLi was superior to Lispro for PPG control both at 1 and 2 hours after a meal in type 1 and type 2 diabetes with multiple daily injections, and in type 1 diabetes with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. This was achieved without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. In this review, we focus on the clinical and pharmacological evidence for URLi in the treatment of diabetes and discuss the potential benefits and considerations with URLi compared with RAIs.

An automated all-in-one system for carbohydrate tracking, glucose monitoring, and insulin delivery.

Glycemic control through titration of insulin dosing remains the mainstay of diabetes mellitus treatment. Insulin therapy is generally divided into dosing with long- and short-acting insulin, where long-acting insulin provides basal coverage and short-acting insulin supports glycemic excursions associated with eating. The dosing of short-acting insulin often involves several steps for the user including blood glucose measurement and integration of potential carbohydrate loads to inform safe and appropriate dosing. The significant burden placed on the user for blood glucose measurement and effective carbohydrate counting can manifest in substantial effects on adherence. Through the application of computer vision, we have developed a smartphone-based system that is able to detect the carbohydrate load of food by simply taking a single image of the food and converting that information into a required insulin dose by incorporating a blood glucose measurement. Moreover, we report the development of comprehensive all-in-one insulin delivery systems that streamline all operations that peripheral devices require for safe insulin administration, which in turn significantly reduces the complexity and time required for titration of insulin. The development of an autonomous system that supports maximum ease and accuracy of insulin dosing will transform our ability to more effectively support patients with diabetes.

Characteristics of pregnant women with diabetes using injectable glucose-lowering drugs in the EVOLVE study.

AIMS: To examine clinical parameters, glycemic control, folic acid supplementation, and the presence of other chronic diseases during early pregnancy in the EVOLVE study population (women with pre-existing diabetes treated with injectable glucose-lowering drugs). METHODS: Cross-sectional baseline evaluation of EVOLVE: an international, multicenter, non-interventional study investigating the safety of injectable glucose-lowering drugs in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Data were collected at enrollment visit interviews before gestational week 16. RESULTS: In total, 2383 women from 17 mainly European countries were enrolled in the study: 2122 with T1D and 261 with T2D; mean age was 31 and 33 years, and duration of diabetes was 15 and 6 years, respectively. For women with T1D or T2D, 63% and 75%, respectively, received basal and rapid-acting insulin, 36% and 3% rapid-acting insulin only, 0.7% and 14.0% basal insulin only, 0.2% and 5.4% premix insulin, 0.0% and 1.2% injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatment without insulin. In women with T1D or T2D, respectively, during early pregnancy, 59% and 62% had HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol); 16% and 36% reported not taking folic acid before or during early pregnancy. Overall, >40% of women had ≥1 chronic concomitant condition (predominantly thyroid disease or hypertension). Retinopathy was the most commonly reported diabetic complication. The most commonly reported previous pregnancy complication was miscarriage. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline data from this large multinational population of women with pre-existing diabetes indicate that sub-optimal glycemic control, poor pregnancy planning, and chronic concomitant conditions were common in early pregnancy.

The impact of strict COVID-19 lockdown in Spain on glycemic profiles in patients with type 1 Diabetes prone to hypoglycemia using standalone continuous glucose monitoring.

AIMS: Spain has been one of the worst affected countries by the COVID-19 pandemic. A very strict lockdown at home was imposed with a tough restriction of mobility. We aimed to evaluate the impact of this exceptional scenario on glucose profile of patients with T1D prone to hypoglycemia using standalone continuous glucose monitoring. METHODS: Patients with T1D prone to hypoglycemia using multiple daily injections and either a Dexcom G5® or a Free Style Libre® CGM systems for at least 6 months under the funding of National Health Service were included in an observational, retrospective study. Data were collected in two periods: pre-lockdown (PL), February 23rd-March 7th and within lockdown (WL), April 1st-14th 2020. The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of time in target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL (TIR). Additional glucometric data were also analysed. RESULTS: 92 patients were included: 40 women, age 42.8 ± 3.9 years, disease duration of 23.1 ± 12.6 years. Seventeen patients used Dexcom G5® and 75 Free Style Libre®. TIR 70-180 mg/dL (59.3 ± 16.2 vs 62.6 ± 15.2%), time > 180 (34.4 ± 18.0 vs 30.7 ± 16.9%), >250 (11.1 ± 10.6 vs 9.2 ± 9.7%) and Glucose Management Indicator (7.2 ± 0.8 vs 7.0 ± 0.8%) significantly improved (PL vs WL, respectively, p < 0.05). Time in hypoglycemia remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Lockdown conditions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic may be managed successfully in terms of glycemic control by population with T1D prone to hypoglycemia using CGM. The strict daily routine at home could probably explain the improvement in the time in glycemic target without increasing the time in hypoglycemia.

Precision Dosing of Rapid-Acting Insulin Matters.

Despite several molecular and technological advances in insulin therapy and insulin delivery, global evidence highlights inadequate glycemic control in populations with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). In this review, we discuss the importance of more precise dosing of insulin as one of the approaches to improve glycemic control while reducing hypoglycemic events. This report is based on the expert opinion of authors and literature search of articles relevant to the past and present insulin delivery devices in diabetes management, especially half-unit insulin pens. We describe the various factors that facilitate better glycemic control, focusing on the impact of appropriate insulin delivery device selection on diabetes management. Precision dosing of insulin is a lesser-studied factor that contributes toward better glycemic control. Insulin pens have consistently outperformed syringes as delivery devices due to their greater accuracy and precision of dosing, ease-of-use, and patient preference. These advantages make them better suited to administer insulin in hypoglycemia-prone insulin-sensitive people with T1D, particularly younger children and geriatric patients. Half-unit insulin pens further extend this benefit by delivering half-unit doses of insulin accurately. They may contribute to better management of diabetes by allowing flexible dosing for mealtimes and physical activities even in erratic diet situations or illnesses by offering corrective doses in small increments. They are ideal delivery devices for insulin-sensitive people with T1D who require greater accuracy and precision in insulin delivery to achieve more stringent glycemic control.

Costo efectividad de insulina lispro protamina (NPL) vs. combinación de insulina NPH + insulina rápida / Cost effectiveness of lispro protamine insulin (NPL) vs combination of NPH insulin + rapid insulin

OBJETIVO: La estrategia farmacológica en el manejo de la diabetes tipo 2 incluye la insulina lispro protamina (NPL) vs. combinación de insulina NPH + insulina rápida. El análisis costo efectividad aborda el aspecto económico y el epidemiológico en el proceso de elección entre dos o más alternativas. El objetivo fue determinar el costo efectividad de la insulina lispro protamina (NPL) vs. combinación de insulina NPH + insulina rápida. MÉTODOS: Estudio de costo efectividad en pacientes con diabetes tipo 2. Alternativa 1, usuarios de insulina lispro protamina (NPL), y 2, usuarios de insulina NPH + insulina rápida. Tamaño de muestra de 62 por grupo, técnica muestral aleatoria simple. El costo incluyó, costo unitario, intensidad de uso del servicio, costo promedio por insumo, costo promedio por servicio, y costo por tipo de alternativa (incluyó medicina familiar, laboratorio y medicamentos). La efectividad se determinó con el promedio de los resultados de glucosa realizados durante todo el año. El plan de análisis incluyó análisis costo efectividad y análisis costo efectividad incremental. RESULTADOS: Costo promedio (estimado en pesos mexicanos) de la alternativa lispro protamina (NPL) $6,146.30 y NPH + insulina rápida $2,671.02. La NPH + insulina rápida tiene menor costo y mayor efectividad. El costo efectividad incremental identifica que con la alternativa NPH + insulina rápida existe ahorro de $158.98 por cada miligramo de glucosa por decilitro en relación a la alternativa  lispro protamina (NPL). CONCLUSION: El resultado, bajo nuestras limitantes, sugiere mejor relación costo efectividad en insulina NPH + insulina rápida

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacological strategies for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes include lispro protamine insulin (NPL) and NPH insulin + rapid insulin. The cost-effectiveness study addresses the economic and epidemiological aspects in the process of choosing between two or more alternatives. The objective is to determine the cost effectiveness of lispro protamine insulin (NPL) vs combination of NPH insulin + rapid insulin. METHODS: Cost effectiveness study in patients with type 2 diabetes. Alternative 1: lispro protamine insulin (NPL) and alternative 2: NPH insulin + rapid insulin. Sample size 62 per group, simple random sampling technique. Cost (estimated in Mexican pesos) included, unit cost, intensity of use of the service, average cost per input, average cost per service, and cost per type of alternative (including family medicine, laboratory and medication.) Effectiveness was determined with the average glucose results carried out throughout the year. Analysis plan included cost effectiveness analysis and incremental cost effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: The total average cost of lispro protamine insulin (NPL) and NPH insulin + rapid insulin mixture was $6,146.30 and $2,671.02, respectively. The NPH insulin + rapid insulin mixture alternative has lower cost and greater effectiveness. According to the cost effectiveness analysis, with the NPH insulin + rapid insulin mixture alternative, there was a saving of $159.98 for each milligram of glucose per deciliter comparing to the lispro protamine insulin (NPL) alternative. CONCLUSION: According with our results, a better cost-effectiveness ratio was obtained in NPH insulin + rapid insulin

Glycaemic efficacy and safety of linagliptin compared to a basal-bolus insulin regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing non-cardiac surgery: A multicentre randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: The use of incretin-based therapy, rather than or complementary to, insulin therapy is an active area of research in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We determined the glycaemic efficacy and safety of linagliptin compared to a basal-bolus insulin regimen in hospitalized surgical patients with T2D. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective open-label multicentre study randomized T2D patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery with admission blood glucose (BG) of 7.8 to 22.2 mmol/L who were under treatment with diet, oral agents or total insulin dose (TDD) ≤ 0.5 units/kg/day to either linagliptin (n = 128) daily or basal-bolus (n = 122) with glargine once daily and rapid-acting insulin before meals. Both groups received supplemental insulin for BG > 7.8 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was difference in mean daily BG between groups. RESULTS: Mean daily BG was higher in the linagliptin group compared to the basal-bolus group (9.5 ± 2.6 vs 8.8 ± 2.3 mmol/L/dL, P = 0.03) with a mean daily BG difference of 0.6 mmol/L (95% confidence interval 0.04, 1.2). In patients with randomization BG < 11.1 mmol/L (63% of cohort), mean daily BG was similar in the linagliptin and basal-bolus groups (8.9 ± 2.3 vs 8.7 ± 2.3 mmol/L, P = 0.43); however, patients with BG ≥ 11.1 mmol/L who were treated with linagliptin had higher BG compared to the basal-bolus group (10.9 ± 2.6 vs 9.2 ± 2.2 mmol/L, P < 0.001). Linagliptin resulted in fewer hypoglycaemic events (1.6% vs 11%, P = 0.001; 86% relative risk reduction), with similar supplemental insulin and fewer daily insulin injections (2.0 ± 3.3 vs 3.1 ± 3.3, P < 0.001) compared to the basal-bolus group. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with T2D undergoing non-cardiac surgery who presented with mild to moderate hyperglycaemia (BG < 11.1 mmol/L), daily linagliptin is a safe and effective alternative to multi-dose insulin therapy, resulting in similar glucose control with lower hypoglycaemia.

Recommendations for Initiating Use of Afrezza Inhaled Insulin in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes.

Treatment with Afrezza® (insulin human) inhalation powder in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) reduces HbA1c levels similar to rapid-acting insulin analogs, but with significantly less hypoglycemia due to its unique time action profile. Examinations of studies of Afrezza pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, relevant clinical trials, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documentation suggest that current FDA-mandated dosing recommendations for initiating Afrezza treatment may not result in optimal glycemic control for individuals with T1D. Recommendations for initiating Afrezza insulin therapy in T1D patients are presented in this article.

[INFLUENCE OF THE METFORMIN THERAPY ON THE ACTIVITY OF ENDOTHELIAL-DEPENDENT MEDIATORS AMONG PATIENTS WITH ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION AND CONCOMITANT TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS].

Aim of study‒ estimate the influence of the metformin therapy on the sCD40-ligand and sVE-cadherinlevels among patients with acute myocardial infarction and concomitant type 2 diabetes mellitus. The study included44patients with AMI and type 2 diabetes whichweredividedintotwo groupsdependingonthe glucose lowering drugs they have been taken: I group ‒ 21patients who have been taken metformin; II group ‒ 23patients, who have been taken short-acting insulin. Accordingtotheobtainedresults using of metformin as a glucose lowering drug in comparison with patients who have been taken short-acting insulin causes faster decreasing of the sCD40L level (-29,3% and -24,4% accordingly; р<0,05). Whereas there was no significant differencesin the dynamics of sVE-cadherinlevels (-22,4% and -19,2% accordingly; р>0,05). Positive influence of them et form in on thes CD40-ligand level probably is caused by the inhibition of the Akt-kinase phosphorylation responsible for the activation of the nuclear factor kappa-b which controls expression of the immune response genes, particulary CD40. It leads to the inhibition of the thrombocytes activation and differentiation of the monocytes to the macrophages able to product proatherogenic factors. It was established that metformin therapy among patients with acute myocardial infarction and diabetes mellitus type 2 leads to the faster decreasing of sCD40-ligand in comparison with insulin therapy, which can contribute to the improvemenet of the prognosis in this cohort.

Improving postprandial hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes already on basal insulin therapy: Review of current strategies.

A large number of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin do not reach their HbA1c goals and require additional therapy to address postprandial hyperglycemia. Guidelines from expert bodies have outlined several approaches to accomplish postprandial glucose (PPG) control, and recent literature suggests several more. This article provides strategies for primary care physicians caring for patients with T2D who do not achieve glycemic control with basal insulin alone. Current treatment guidelines and strategies for improving PPG control are reviewed, including the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rapid-acting insulin (RAI) analogs, premixed insulin, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, and α-glucosidase inhibitors. Other approaches, such as combinations of newer basal insulin plus RAI and a fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin and a GLP-1 RA, are also described.

Impact of improving postprandial glycemic control with intensifying insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes.

Worldwide, many people with type 2 diabetes are not at recommended glycemic targets and remain at increased risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications. Reaching recommended glycemic targets requires normalizing both fasting and postprandial glucose (PPG). For some patients, this will require addition of a prandial insulin delivered by injection to control PPG excursions. Evidence from epidemiological studies suggests an association between postprandial hyperglycemia and cardiovascular disease, and thus, expert guidelines recommend that treatment for elevated PPG not be delayed. Indeed, studies have demonstrated that PPG makes the greatest contribution to HbA1c in patients who are approaching, but have not yet reached HbA1c <7.0%. Appropriately timed exposure of the liver to insulin is critical in suppressing hepatic glucose output (and therefore PPG levels) after a meal. Rapid-acting insulin analogs, with their faster onset and shorter duration of action, offer advantages over regular human insulin. Unfortunately, even with improved pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics, rapid-acting insulin analogs are still unable to fully reproduce the rapid release of insulin into the portal circulation and suppression of hepatic glucose output that occurs in the individual without diabetes after starting a meal. The next generation of rapid-acting insulin analogs will have an even more favorable pharmacokinetic profile that should allow patients to further improve glycemic control. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) represents another option for intensifying therapy and improving postprandial control in some patients, and studies have shown that the benefits are sustainable long-term. However, it is currently unclear which patients stand to benefit the most from the extra expense and complexity of a CSII regimen, and further studies are needed.

Projected long-term outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes treated with fast-acting insulin aspart vs conventional insulin aspart in the UK setting.

AIM: To assess the impact of faster aspart vs insulin aspart on long-term clinical outcomes and costs for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in the UK setting. METHODS: The QuintilesIMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical outcomes and costs over patient lifetimes in a cohort with data on baseline characteristics from the "onset 1" trial. Treatment effects were taken from the 26-week main phase of the onset 1 trial, with costs and utilities based on literature review. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3.5% annually. RESULTS: Projections indicated that faster aspart was associated with improved discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy (by 0.13 quality-adjusted life-years) vs insulin aspart. Improved clinical outcomes resulted from fewer diabetes-related complications and a delayed time to their onset with faster aspart. Faster aspart was found to be associated with reduced costs vs insulin aspart (cost savings of £1715), resulting from diabetes-related complications avoided and reduced treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: Faster aspart was associated with improved clinical outcomes and cost savings vs insulin aspart for patients with T1DM in the UK setting.

Safety and efficacy of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist added to basal insulin therapy versus basal insulin with or without a rapid-acting insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes: results of a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To consolidate the evidence from randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as add-on to basal insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched the EMBASE® and NCBI PubMed (Medline) databases and relevant congress abstracts for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of GLP-1 RAs as add-on to basal insulin compared with basal insulin with or without rapid-acting insulin (RAI) through 23 May 2016. The pooled data were analyzed using a random-effects meta-analysis model. A subanalysis was performed for trials investigating basal insulin plus GLP-1 RAs versus basal insulin plus RAI. RESULTS: Of the 2617 retrieved records, 19 randomized controlled trials enrolling 7,053 patients with T2D were included. Compared with basal insulin ± RAI, reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline (difference in means: -0.48% [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.67 to -0.30]; p < 0.0001) and weight loss (-2.60 kg [95% CI, -3.32 to -1.89]; p < 0.0001) were significantly greater with basal insulin plus GLP-1 RA. The subanalysis similarly showed significant results for change in HbA1c from baseline and for weight loss, as well as a significantly lower risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia in patients treated with basal insulin plus GLP-1 RA versus basal insulin plus RAI (odds ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.64]; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of GLP-1 RA to basal insulin provided improved glycemic control, led to weight reduction and similar hypoglycemia rates versus an intensified insulin strategy; however, symptomatic hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower when compared with a basal insulin plus RAI.

Comparative Effectiveness of Rapid-Acting Insulins in Adults with Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Although there are a variety of insulin products and new delivery modalities available, the absence of direct clinical and economic comparisons can make treatment planning and formulary decision making difficult. Direct comparisons between insulin aspart and insulin lispro from a large heterogeneous population are not available. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in clinical outcomes, medication adherence, utilization, and total health care costs between aspart and lispro and vial versus pen modalities for administering these short-acting insulin analogs. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from the Humana Research Database to identify people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and Medicare or commercial insurance (with medical and pharmacy benefits) who newly initiated rapid-acting insulin between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2013, and were continuously enrolled during the 12-month baseline and 12-month follow-up periods. Generalized linear models were used to assess differences in costs and utilization. Logistic regression models measured the likelihood of having a hypoglycemic event, worsening diabetes complications, or a change in glycated hemoglobin (A1c). RESULTS: 8,189 patients included in the study were grouped by rapid-acting insulin product (aspart, n = 5,364, and lispro, n = 2,566) and modality (vial, n = 6,135, and pen, n = 2,054). There were no significant differences in the percentage of patients with a hypoglycemic event, new or worsening diabetes complications, or change in A1c, and there were no significant differences in adjusted total health care, medical and pharmacy costs, or emergency department visits between any of the product or modality comparisons. There was a significant difference in mean annual inpatient stays between lispro and aspart (adjusted mean = 2.24, 95% CI = 0.73-6.69, and adjusted mean = 2.65, 95% CI = 0.86-7.86, respectively; P < 0.001) and pen and vial cohorts (adjusted mean = 1.74, 95% CI = 0.56-4.99, and adjusted mean = 3.05, 95% CI = 1.01-9.08, respectively; P < 0.001). Adherence was similar for the lispro and aspart cohorts. Adherence was higher in the pen cohort (as measured by medication possession ratio ≥80%) compared with the vial cohort (adjusted odds ratio = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.12-1.50). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive assessment of outcomes and costs between 2 commonly used rapid-acting insulin products. Overall, there was little differentiation between products, although adherence improved significantly with pen devices. These findings may simplify decisions related to formulary options and choice of therapy. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Racsa and Ellis are employees of Comprehensive Health Insights, a subsidiary of Humana, and Saverno was employed with Comprehensive Health Insights at the time of this study. Meah is an employee of, and owns stock in, Humana. The authors have no financial disclosures or potential conflicts of interest to report. All authors contributed equally to study concept and design, data interpretation, and manuscript preparation. Racsa collected the data.

Prevalence of anxiety disorder in patients with type 2 diabetes: a nationwide population-based study in Taiwan 2000-2010.

This study investigates the prevalence of anxiety disorder (AD) in Taiwanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Study participants were identified based on at least one service claim for ambulatory or inpatient care with a principal diagnosis of AD and at least 2 service claims for ambulatory care or one service claim for inpatient care with a principal diagnosis of T2D, as listed in the National Health Insurance database of Taiwan. The prevalence of AD decreased from 13.75 to 11.00 % in patients with T2D, whereas it increased from 4.17 to 6.09 % in the general population during the 2000-2010 period. A high prevalence of AD in patients with T2D was associated with age >30 years, the female sex, living in the northern region, comorbidities of congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, and depression disorder, and a Charlson participant comorbidity index of ≥1. A low prevalence of AD in patients with T2D was associated with residency in urban areas, the comorbidity of hemiplegia or paraplegia, the usage of metformin and sulfonylureas, and rapid-acting insulin injection therapy. The prevalence of AD was higher in patients with T2D than in the general population. Therefore, more public health emphasis is required for preventing and treating AD in patients with T2D, specifically those with the mentioned risk factors.

Titration of basal insulin or immediate addition of rapid acting insulin in patients not at target using basal insulin supported oral antidiabetic treatment - A prospective observational study in 2202 patients.

AIM: Optimal treatment intensification strategies in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving basal insulin supported oral antidiabetic therapy (BOT) remain controversial. The objective of the present study was to compare outcomes of BOT-intensification by either the uptitration of long-acting insulin glargine or by the immediate addition of a rapid acting insulin analogue (RAIA). METHODS: This was a prospective, observational, 24-week study in T2DM patients with BOT using insulin glargine and baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) between 7.0 and 8.5%. Patients were stratified by their physicians to one of the following treatment intensification strategies: Basal insulin titration to target with discretionary subsequent addition of RAIA at weeks 12 or 24 (GLAR), or immediate addition of RAIA at baseline (GLARplus). RESULTS: A total of 3266 patients were prescreened of whom 2202 fulfilled the selection criteria. Of these, 1684 patients were documented in the GLAR group and 518 in the GLARplus group. In the GLAR group, in 91 (5.5%) and 21 patients (1.3%) RAIA was added at weeks 12 and 24, respectively. The groups displayed similar baseline characteristics; except, mean diabetes duration was slightly shorter in the GLAR group (8.7 vs. 9.4 years). During the study, insulin glargine dose was increased from 18.7 to 26.4U (plus 7.7U) in GLAR and from 24.9 to 27.3U (plus 2.4U) in GLARplus patients. Mean RAIA dose was 9.6±4.7U at the final visit. After 24 weeks, HbA1c was reduced by 0.8 and 0.9% in the GLAR and GLARplus groups, respectively (both p<0.001). An HbA1c of ≤7.0% was achieved in 49.2% of GLAR and 48.5% of GLARplus patients. In both groups, we observed improvements in cardiovascular risk factors such as lipids and blood pressure. The rates of symptomatic (1.6 vs. 1.7%) and severe (0.18 vs. 0.19%) hypoglycemic episodes were low and comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: These findings provide evidence that treatment intensification in patients with type 2 diabetes not at glycemic target on BOT with insulin glargine is equally safe and effective using either long-acting insulin titration alone or the addition of a rapid-acting insulin analogue.