Search

Objective: Inhaled human insulin (Exubera; EXU) has shown encouraging tolerability in short-term trials. We evaluated the safety profile of EXU after long-term exposure., Design: In two, open-label, 2-year studies patients poorly controlled on a sulphonylurea were randomised to adjunctive EXU or metformin (study 1) and patients poorly controlled on metformin were randomised to adjunctive EXU or the sulphonylurea, glibenclamide (study 2)., Patients: The studies included 446 (study 1) and 476 (study 2) patients with type 2 diabetes, no clinically significant respiratory disease and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels of 8-12%., Measurements: Main outcome measures were pulmonary function tests and insulin antibody assays., Results: A total of 109 patients (study 1) and 195 patients (study 2) completed 104 weeks treatment. In both studies, small treatment group differences in change from baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 s were greatest at 6 months (first time-point measured) and less at later visits, and reversed on treatment discontinuation. At 2 years, differences in mean changes were -0.10 and -0.01 l in studies 1 and 2, respectively, and -0.04 l for the pooled studies. There was no discernable effect of long-term EXU therapy on pulmonary gas exchange. Insulin antibody binding reached a plateau at 6 months and did not correlate with HbA(1c) or lung function changes. Glycaemic control was maintained over 2 years., Conclusions: Exubera was well tolerated during long-term use. Pulmonary function changes compared with comparator groups were small, non-progressive and reversed upon treatment discontinuation. Importantly, rates of lung function change were indistinguishable between EXU and comparator after 6 months of therapy.

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety profile of adding inhaled human insulin (INH) (Exubera) or glibenclamide to metformin monotherapy in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes., Research Design and Methods: We conducted an open-label, parallel, 24-week multicenter trial. Patients uncontrolled on metformin were randomized to adjunctive INH (n = 243) or glibenclamide (n = 233). Before randomization, patients were divided into two HbA(1c) (A1C) arms: > or =8 to < or =9.5% (moderately high) and >9.5 to < or =12% (very high). The primary efficacy end point was A1C change from baseline., Results: Mean adjusted A1C changes from baseline were -2.03 and -1.88% in the INH and glibenclamide groups, respectively; between-treatment difference -0.17% (95% CI -0.34 to 0.01; P = 0.058), consistent with the noninferiority criterion. In the A1C >9.5% arm, inhaled insulin demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in A1C than glibenclamide, between-treatment difference -0.37% (-0.62 to -0.12; P = 0.004). In the A1C < or =9.5% arm, between-treatment difference was 0.04% (-0.19 to 0.27; P = 0.733). Hypoglycemia (events per subject-month) was greater with INH (0.18) than glibenclamide (0.08), risk ratio 2.24 (1.58-3.16), but there were no associated discontinuations. Other adverse events, except increased cough in the INH group, were similar. At week 24, changes from baseline in pulmonary function parameters were small. Insulin antibody binding increased more with INH but did not have any associated clinical manifestations., Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on metformin, adding INH or glibenclamide was similarly effective in improving glycemic control, and both were well tolerated. A predefined subgroup with very high A1C (>9.5%) was more effectively treated with the addition of INH.

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety profile of adding inhaled human insulin (INH; Exubera) or metformin to sulfonylurea monotherapy in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes., Research Design and Methods: We performed an open-label, parallel, 24-week, multicenter trial. At week -1, patients uncontrolled on sulfonylurea monotherapy were divided into two HbA(1c) (A1C) arms: > or =8 to < or =9.5% (moderately high) and >9.5 to < or =12% (very high). Patients were randomized to adjunctive premeal INH (n = 225) or metformin (n = 202). The primary efficacy end point was change in A1C from baseline., Results: In the A1C >9.5% arm, INH demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in A1C than metformin. Mean adjusted changes from baseline were -2.17 and -1.79%, respectively; between-treatment difference was -0.38% (95% CI -0.63 to -0.14, P = 0.002). In the A1C < or =9.5% arm, mean adjusted A1C changes were -1.94 and -1.87%, respectively (-0.07% [-0.33 to 0.19], P = 0.610), consistent with the noninferiority criterion. Hypoglycemia (events/subject-month) was greater in the INH (0.33) than in the metformin (0.15) group (risk ratio 2.16 [95% CI 1.67-2.78]), but there were no associated discontinuations. Other adverse events, except increased cough in the INH group, were similar. At week 24, changes in pulmonary function parameters were small and comparable between groups. Insulin antibody binding increased more with INH but did not have any associated clinical manifestations., Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on a sulfonylurea (A1C >9.5%), the addition of premeal INH significantly improves glycemic control compared with adjunctive metformin and is well tolerated.

Background and Aim: Frequent blood glucose (BG) monitoring and insulin administration are necessary in intensive insulin regimes. A new integrated system, InDuo is a compact and portable combined insulin doser and BG monitor, designed to overcome some of the limitations of current insulin therapy. The aim of the study was to compare InDuo and a non-integrated system (HumaPen Ergo and Accu-Chek Sensor Meter) for efficacy and safety, and to evaluate patients preference., Materials and Methods: The trial design was a multicentre, randomised, 12-week, open-label, comparative, two period crossover. One hundred and ten patients with diabetes, treated with a basal bolus regime, were included. The subjects were assigned to use either InDuo or the non-integrated system. After six weeks of treatment, the subjects were transferred to the alternative system. To assess efficacy, fasting plasma glucose (FBG), 7-point blood glucose profile, serum fructosamine and HbA1c were measured. Serum fructosamine and FBG were measured at baseline and at six and 12 weeks; HbA1c was measured at baseline and week 12. Safety endpoints were number and severity of hypoglycaemic episodes, adverse events and adverse device effects. Patient preference was assessed by a comparative device questionnaire at 12 weeks., Results: Analysis with an ANOVA mixed model showed no difference after each treatment between serum fructosamine or between FBG levels. HbA1c decreased during the trial from 7.5 % +/- 1.2 to 7.1 % +/- 0.8 at 12 weeks. The safety profiles were similar for both treatments for hypoglycaemic episodes. The incidence of adverse events was also similar. There were 10 adverse device effects reported: eight for the Innovo device in the InDuo, one for the InDuo device and one for the Accu-Chek Sensor Meter. The comparative device questionnaire at 12 weeks showed patients strongly preferred InDuo to HumaPen Ergo and Accu-Chek Sensor Meter (all p < 0.0001). Of those preferring InDuo, more than 60 % classified their choice as very or extremely strong. Both memory functions in InDuo(R) (i. e., for insulin dosage and for blood glucose readings) were used by more than 70 % of the patients., Conclusion: Treatment with the InDuo system was as effective and safe as treatment with the non-integrated system. Almost 75 % preferred using InDuo to the non-integrated HumanPen Ergo and Accu-Chek Sensor Meter.

Today, intensified conventional insulin therapy (ICT) is the standard treatment for type 1 diabetes, but patients with type 2 diabetes younger than 70 also profit it. Within an international framework too, the DCCT study has confirmed the usefulness of intensified insulin therapy. Factors that have a decisive influence on the success of such treatment are the choice of a suitable insulin, its dose, site of injection, and prandial adaptation. The various possibilities of carrying out ICT are discussed.

We investigated a family in which at least 4 men in 3 generations had a syndrome of obesity, mild mental retardation, delayed puberty, macroorchidism, acanthosis nigricans, hyperinsulinemia, and later overt insulin-resistant diabetes mellitus (non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, NIDDM). The patients have markedly curly scalp hair, deficient face and body hair. Their teeth were healthy and normal in size and position. The clinical and biochemical findings and characteristics of the insulin receptors investigated in fibroblasts are reported. There was normal insulin binding to fibroblasts in the 2 brothers and their father. However, insulin-stimulated RNA synthesis was decreased as compared to that of normal control individuals. These findings suggest a postbinding defect of insulin action. The pedigree documents an autosomal dominant mode of inheritance. The diagnosis is of practical importance since it enables medical supervision of gene carriers in a preclinical state of atherosclerotic complications and overt diabetes. The findings in this family have relevance also to the explanation of familial mild mental retardation and to the study of different forms of insulin resistance due to a disturbance in biosignal transfer.

In a large percentage of cases, diabetes mellitus leads to hyperlipidemia. In addition to the diabetes-related secondary hyperlipidemias, all types of primary disturbances of lipid metabolism can also be observed in diabetics. Depending upon the degree of severity and type of metabolic disorder presenting, not only suitable dietetic treatment, but also the various lipid-lowering drugs, fibrates, nicotinic acid, probucol, cholestyramine and the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors should be introduced into therapy. As in all groups with an elevated coronary risk, strict management of the lipid levels is mandatory in diabetics, too.