Search

Objective: Progressive β-cell dysfunction in Type 2 diabetes results in the need for insulin therapy in many patients. Yet the best regimen to prescribe to patients transitioning from oral anti-hyperglycemic drugs (OADs) is not clear. We sought to compare the effects of two standard initial insulin strategies (basal insulin alone versus premixed insulin) on post-prandial glucose metabolism and precursors of advanced glycation end-products in patients with type 2 diabetes suboptimally controlled on OADs., Research Design and Methods: This was a 6-month, open-label, single-center study using a cross-over design. 14 subjects were randomized to one of two protocols: once daily insulin glargine or twice-daily 75%/25% neutral protamine lispro/lispro mix. At 12 weeks, the subjects were crossed-over to the opposite protocol. During each period, insulin doses were titrated to target fasting blood glucose of 90-110 mg/dL. At baseline and after the two 12-week treatment periods, subjects were studied in the Clinical Research Center; they consumed three liquid mixed isocaloric meals at 4-h intervals, and glucose, free fatty acids (FFA), lipids, and α-dicarbonyls (3-deoxyglucosone [3-DG] and methylglyoxal [MG]) were measured before and after each meal. Patient data were analyzed in the context of their assigned insulin strategy groups., Result: Both insulin regimens led to a significant improvement in glycemic profiles, including fasting glucose and HbA1c, compared to baseline. However, mean post-prandial glucose was lower with lispro mix than with glargine (153 ± 36 vs. 199 ± 49 mg/dL, respectively; P=0.001). Likewise, there was a reduction in both fasting (48 ± 13 vs. 57 ± 19, P=0.047) and post-prandial (53 ± 19 vs. 63 ± 23; P=0.007) 3DG levels with lispro mix as compared to glargine. No differences were noted in MG concentrations., Conclusion: In type 2 diabetes patients failing OAD therapy, an initial insulin regimen of twice daily premixed insulin results in significantly improved post-prandial glucose levels as well as a reduction in a precursor of AGEs. The effect of these two initial insulin regimens on long-term diabetic complications requires further study., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: For patients with diabetes, the quality of outpatient glycemic control is readily assessed by hemoglobin A1c. In contrast, standardized measures for assessing the quality of blood glucose (BG) management in hospitalized patients are lacking. Because of recent studies demonstrating the benefits of strict glycemic control in critically ill patients, hospitals nationwide are dedicating resources to address this important issue. To facilitate advances in this nascent field, standardized metrics for inpatient glycemic control should be developed and validated., Methods: We used 1 month of fingerstick BG levels from a general hospital ward to develop and test three analytic models, based on three units of inpatient BG analysis: population (i.e., ward), patient-day, and patient. To assess the effect of the source of blood samples, we repeated these analyses after adding venous plasma glucose levels. Finally, we employed an idealized intensive care unit data set to establish "gold standard" metrics for inpatient glycemic control., Results: Mean and median BG levels and the proportion of BG levels within an "optimal" range (80-139 mg/dL) were similar among the three models, whereas hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic event rates varied considerably. Inclusion of venous glucose levels did not substantially affect the results. Of the three models tested, the patient-day model appears to most faithfully reflect the quality of inpatient glycemic control. Achieving 85% of BG levels within optimal range may be considered gold standard., Conclusions: If validated elsewhere, these "glucometrics" would permit objective comparisons of inpatient glycemic control among hospitals and patient care units, and would allow institutions to gauge the success of their quality improvement initiatives.