Search

Objective: To explore the impact of race/ethnicity on efficacy and safety of twice-daily insulin lispro mix 75/25 (LM75/25; 75% lispro protamine suspension, 25% insulin lispro) and once daily insulin glargine (GL)., Design, Setting, Patients: More than 2,000 Patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the 24-week initiation phase of the DURABLE Trial., Main Outcome Measures: Efficacy and safety variables at endpoint, including hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG), and hypoglycemia, in each racial/ethnic group were compared to Caucasians within treatment groups., Results: Asian patients had less (LM75/25: -1.46%, P < .01; GL: -1.25%, P < .01) and Hispanic patients had greater (LM75/25: -2.17%) HbA1c reduction from baseline vs Caucasian patients (LM75/25: -1.84%; GL: -1.78%). Fewer Asian (LM75/25: 20%, P < .001; GL: 22%, P < .001) and Hispanic patients (LM75/25: 40%, P < .01) reached HbA1c target (< 7%) vs Caucasian patients (LM75/25: 53%; GL: 44%). Fasting plasma glucose was similar among groups, postprandial glucose (PPG) with GL was lower for African patients post-breakfast and post-dinner and higher for Asian patients post-lunch. Only PPG with LM75/25 was lower for Hispanic patients post-breakfast. Weight gain was lower in Asian patients (LM75/ 25). Insulin dose was higher for Asian (LM75/25 and GL) and lower for African patients (GL). Hypoglycemia rate was lower for Asian (LM75/25 and GL) and Hispanic patients (LM75/25)., Conclusions: There were significant efficacy and safety differences among racial/ethnic groups in the DURABLE trial. These differences may be important in designing insulin based treatment plans.

Objective: Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble coformulation of the novel basal analog insulin degludec (IDeg: 70%) and insulin aspart (IAsp: 30%). We compared the safety and efficacy of IDegAsp, an alternative formulation (AF) (55% IDeg and 45% IAsp), and insulin glargine (IGlar) in insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs., Research Design and Methods: In this 16-week, open-label trial, subjects (mean age 59.1 years, A1C 8.5%, BMI 30.3 kg/m(2)) were randomized to once-daily IDegAsp (n = 59), AF (n = 59), or IGlar (n = 60), all in combination with metformin. Insulin was administered before the evening meal and dose-titrated to a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) target of 4.0-6.0 mmol/L., Results: After 16 weeks, mean A1C decreased in all groups to comparable levels (IDegAsp: 7.0%; AF: 7.2%; IGlar: 7.1%). A similar proportion of subjects achieved A1C <7.0% without confirmed hypoglycemia in the last 4 weeks of treatment (IDegAsp: 51%; AF: 47%; IGlar: 50%). Mean 2-h postdinner plasma glucose increase was lower for IDegAsp (0.13 mmol/L) and AF (0.24 mmol/L) than IGlar (1.63 mmol/L), whereas mean FPG was similar (IDegAsp: 6.8 mmol/L; AF: 7.4 mmol/L; IGlar: 7.0 mmol/L). Hypoglycemia rates were lower for IDegAsp and IGlar than AF (1.2, 0.7, and 2.4 events/patient year). Nocturnal hypoglycemic events occurred rarely for IDegAsp (1 event) and IGlar (3 events) compared with AF (27 events)., Conclusions: In this proof-of-concept trial, once-daily IDegAsp was safe, well tolerated, and provided comparable overall glycemic control to IGlar at similar low rates of hypoglycemia, but better postdinner plasma glucose control.

Objective: To explore the impact of race/ethnicity on the efficacy and safety of commonly used insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus., Methods: In this post hoc analysis, pooled data from 11 multinational clinical trials involving 1455 patients with type 2 diabetes were used to compare specific insulin treatments in Latino/Hispanic, Asian, African-descent, and Caucasian patients. Insulin treatments included once daily insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn (BASAL), insulin lispro mix 75/25 twice daily (LMBID), or insulin lispro mix 50/50 three times daily (LMTID)., Results: Race/ethnicity was associated with significant outcome differences for each of the insulin regimens. BASAL therapy was associated with greater improvement in several measures of glycemic control among Latino/Hispanic patients compared with Caucasian patients (lower end point hemoglobin A1c, greater reduction in hemoglobin A1c from baseline, and a larger proportion of patients achieving hemoglobin A1c level <7%). In contrast, LMBID therapy was associated with higher end point hemoglobin A1c and a smaller decrease in hemoglobin A1c from baseline in Latino/Hispanic and Asian patients than in Caucasian patients. Furthermore, fewer Asian patients attained a hemoglobin A1c level <7% than did Caucasians patients. For LMTID therapy, hemoglobin A1c outcomes were comparable across patient groups. Fasting blood glucose and glycemic excursions varied among racial/ethnic groups for the 3 insulin regimens. Weight change was comparable among racial/ethnic groups in each insulin regimen. During treatment with LMTID, Asian patients experienced higher incidence and rate of severe hypoglycemia than Caucasian patients., Conclusions: Latino/Hispanic, Asian, and African-descent patients with type 2 diabetes show different metabolic responses to insulin therapy, dependent in part on insulin type and regimen intensity.

Objective: Although the choice of starting insulin for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is often a basal or premix insulin analog, there is little evidence to base this decision on. This analysis aimed to determine if measurable clinical characteristics prior to starting insulin could predict differences in improved glycemic control between these options., Research Design and Methods: A thorough literature search was performed for treat-to-target studies in insulin-naïve individuals with T2DM treated with biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30), a basal insulin analog (insulin glargine or insulin detemir) or NPH insulin regimens once or twice daily plus oral glucose-lowering drugs (OGLDs). Patient data were pooled and mean baseline age, diabetes duration, gender, body mass index (BMI), HbA(1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), average postprandial plasma glucose over three meals (PPG) and bedtime PG were investigated for prediction of improved HbA(1c), FPG or PPG. Statistical analyses employed a linear mixed model with insulin type, OGLD, time and time-squared as fixed effects and patient and trial as random effects., Results: Baseline age (p = 0.022) and bedtime PG (p = 0.036) were inter-related predictors of HbA(1c). In older individuals with higher bedtime PG, BIAsp 30 appeared to be more beneficial. In contrast, basal insulin appeared to be a better choice in younger individuals with lower bedtime PG. For FPG, BMI (p = 0.011) and post-breakfast PG (p = 0.042) were identified as predictors. Basal insulin appeared to achieve better FPG in patients with lower BMI and higher post-breakfast PG, while BIAsp 30 appeared to be better in patients with higher BMI and lower post-breakfast PG. Age (p = 0.0347) was the only baseline characteristic associated with differences in average PPG: mean PPG was similar between regimens in younger people, but BIAsp 30 achieved better PPG results in older persons. Minor hypoglycemia was reported by 56% of BIAsp 30- and 45% of basal-treated individuals. The major limitation of the study was that only Novo Nordisk trials were included in the analysis as access to individual patient data was required. As the trials were fairly heterogeneous a strict methodology was used to minimize potential confounding factors., Conclusions: Premix analog rather than basal insulin may be an appropriate choice to target HbA(1c) values in older individuals and those with higher bedtime PG, while basal insulin may be more appropriate to target FPG in patients with lower BMI and higher post-breakfast PG.

Objective: In this post hoc analysis, we examined insulin requirements and regimens, glycemic control, cardiovascular outcomes, and safety in the patients treated with insulin at baseline in the Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events study., Design: The Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled outcome study (mean follow-up 34.5 months) in 5238 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes randomized to pioglitazone (force titrated to 45 mg) or placebo. One third of the total population (pioglitazone 864; placebo 896) were receiving insulin at baseline., Results: A rapid and sustained decrease in insulin dose was observed with pioglitazone vs. a progressive increase with placebo. By study end, the mean insulin dose was lower with pioglitazone (42 vs. 55 U/d with placebo; P < 0.0001). The insulin regimen (number on insulin, need for multiple injections, and reduction in oral agents) had been simplified vs. placebo; nevertheless, a greater glycosylated hemoglobin reduction was observed with pioglitazone (-0.93%) vs. placebo (-0.45%; P < 0.0001). At the final visit, insulin had been discontinued in 9% of pioglitazone vs. 2% of placebo patients (P < 0.0001). More insulin-resistant patients (defined as poorly controlled type 2 diabetes despite high doses of insulin) in the pioglitazone plus insulin group showed the greatest glycosylated hemoglobin decline. There were nonsignificant reductions with pioglitazone relative to placebo in the cardiovascular primary (hazard ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.71, 1.04; P = 0.1198) and main secondary (hazard ratio 0.85; 95% confidence interval 0.67, 1.08; P = 0.1831) end points in insulin-treated patients. The rates of overall heart failure, edema, and hypoglycemia were higher with pioglitazone [13.5 vs 10.5% (P = 0.0489); 30.8 vs. 18.2% (P < 0.0001); and 42.1 vs 29.0% (P < 0.0001), respectively], but there were no significant differences in serious events., Conclusions: Pioglitazone use in combination with insulin resulted in a sustained improved glycemic control and allowed the treatment regimens to be simplified and the insulin doses reduced.

Aims: To compare total costs and risk of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiated on NPH insulin versus glargine in a real-world setting., Methods: This study used claims data (10/2001 to 06/2005) from a privately insured U.S. population of adult T2D patients who were initiated on NPH or glargine following a 6-month insulin-free period. A sample of 1698 glargine-treated and 400 NPH-treated patients met the inclusion criteria. Total and diabetes-related costs (inflation-adjusted to 2006) were calculated for 6-month pre- and post-index periods and compared between 400 patient pairs matched by a propensity score method., Results: In the post-index 6-month period, glargine patients incurred higher diabetes-related drug costs than NPH patients ($785 versus $632, p<0.0001) but there were no significant differences in diabetes-related medical or total costs, or all other total cost categories. Compared to the pre-index period, glargine patient costs declined by $2420 (p=0.058) whereas NPH patient costs declined by $4200 (p=0.046), with no statistically significant group differences (p=0.469). Among patients with hypoglycemia-related claims (0.75% in both groups), mean hypoglycemia-related costs were $85 and $202 for NPH and glargine patients, respectively (p=0.564)., Conclusion: Initiation of either NPH or glargine was associated with major cost reductions and infrequent hypoglycemia-related claims., (Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Insulin is recommended as a second-line treatment after diet and metformin fail to reach and/or maintain glycemic targets considered to minimize the risk for long-term diabetic complications. Hypoglycemia and the fear of developing hypoglyce-mia, however, remain substantial barriers to the initiation and optimal use of insulin., Objective: The aim of this study was to compare biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30) with respect to glycemic control and the risk for hypoglycemia using a meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing these insulins in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)., Methods: We included all published and unpublished, randomized, controlled trials in adult patients with T2DM (treatment duration > or = 12 weeks) for which individual patient data were available. All clinical databases and local trial registries of Novo Nordisk A/S (Soeborg, Denmark) were searched to identify clinical trials comparing the 2 products. The predefined primary end point of the study was the overall rate of nocturnal hypoglyce-mia (major, minor, and symptoms-only hypoglycemia occurring from 12:00-6:00 AM). Hypoglycemia was analyzed using a negative binomial distribution model, accounting for exposure time. Glycemic end points were analyzed at 12 to 16 weeks of treatment using ANCOVA, adjusting for baseline. Secondary safety end points were the rates of major hypoglycemia (hypoglycemia requiring third-party assistance), minor hypoglycemia (symptoms confirmed by plasma glucose [PG] <3.1 mmol/L), daytime hypoglycemia (major, minor, and symptoms-only hypoglycemia occurring from 6:01 AM-11:59 PM), overall hypoglycemia (the sum of all major, minor, and symptoms-only episodes), and change in weight from baseline to 12 to 16 weeks of treatment. Secondary efficacy end points were changes in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting PG (FPG), postprandial PG increment (averaged over breakfast, lunch, and dinner), and insulin dose., Results: Nine randomized, parallel or crossover trials were included (N = 1674; male sex, 57%; mean [SD] age, 61.0 [10.6] years; body mass index, 26.7 [4.6] kg/m(2); HbA(1c), 8.1% [1.4%]; duration of diabetes, 10.9 [7.9] years). Rates of overall hypoglycemia were not significantly different (rate ratio [RR] = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.94-1.24; P = NS) between treatments. BIAsp 30 had a 50% lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia than BHI 30 (RR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.67; P < 0.01), whereas the rate of daytime hypoglycemia was 24% lower for BHI 30 (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.43; P < 0.01). The likelihood of major hypo-glycemia was significantly lower with BIAsp 30 compared with BHI 30 (odds ratio = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.93; P < 0.05). BIAsp 30 was associated with reduced PPG increment (averaged over breakfast, lunch and dinner) compared with BHI 30 (treatment difference, -0.31; 95% CI, -0.49 to -0.07; P < 0.01). There was a significantly larger reduction in FPG associated with BHI 30 (treatment difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.31-0.95; P < 0.01). However, no significant treatment difference was found for HbA(1c) (treatment difference, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.10; P = NS)., Conclusion: This meta-analysis found BIAsp 30 to be associated with a significantly lower rate of nocturnal and major hypoglycemia, but a significantly increased risk for daytime hypoglycemia, compared with BHI 30 at a similar level of HbA(1c) in patients with T2DM.

Background: The Optimizing Control in Diabetes (OPTIMIZE) survey was conducted to understand the patients' perspective to achieving good glycemic control and to determine how patients' perceptions of insulin may affect their decisions to initiate or intensify their insulin therapy., Methods: A total of 1,444 subjects with type 2 diabetes, at least 25% of whom were currently using insulin, were recruited from an online patient database and via physicians., Results: Duration of diabetes was >or=2 years in 1,243 (86%) respondents. Two-thirds (975 [67%]) of respondents were not using insulin, of whom 111 (11%) were using diet and exercise alone and 864 (89%) were receiving oral agents, and 469 (32%) were using subcutaneous (SC) insulin. Overall, 823 of 1,444 (57%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 54% to 60%) individuals were not aware of their most recent hemoglobin A1c (HbA(1c)) test results or declined to answer. Of those using SC insulin, 120 of 175 (69%; 95% CI, 61% to 75%) reported HbA(1c) levels >or=7%. This was unrelated to whether they used pens or syringes. The majority of respondents "wished there was another way to take insulin" whether they were using insulin (371 of 469 [79%]; 95% CI, 75% to 83%) or not (782 of 975 [80%]; 95% CI, 78% to 83%). When patients not currently using insulin were questioned how they felt about requiring SC insulin in the future, 445 of 975 (46%; 95% CI, 42% to 49%) indicated they would avoid it if at all possible. The majority (71%) cited injection-related factors as the main reason for their apprehension., Conclusions: In this survey, the majority of patients reported that they wished there was another way to take SC insulin regardless of whether they were currently using SC insulin or not. Improving patients' perceptions and acceptance of insulin could encourage earlier insulin use and assist in achieving and maintaining long-term appropriate glycemic control.

Starting insulin therapy earlier can help reduce the risk of micro- and macrovascular complications associated with the progression of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, barriers to the initiation of insulin have been identified. Premixed insulins offer a simpler regimen than basal-bolus therapy for T2DM. Modern premixes, which combine a rapid-acting soluble insulin with a protaminated form of the same insulin, have become increasingly popular. As primary care practitioners and diabetes specialists are encouraged to initiate insulin, premixes that can be used within flexible dosing regimens to improve glycaemic control could be beneficial.

Background: Biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30 [30% soluble, rapid-acting insulin aspart and 70% protamine-bound insulin aspart], NovoLog Mix 70/30, Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark), a premixed insulin analogue, addresses both the prandial and basal aspects of glucose regulation when used once or twice daily in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. It provides overall glycemic control similar to biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30, 30% human insulin and 70% neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH] insulin) in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes., Objective: The aim of this review was to evaluate the safety profile associated with BIAsp 30 in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes versus that of comparator insulin products, including BHI 30 and biphasic insulin lispro 25 (Mix 25 [25% biphasic insulin lispro and 75% protaminated lispro], Humalog Mix 75/25, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana), together with the basal insulins, including NPH insulin and insulin glargine (Lantus, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Paris, France)., Methods: Data from human clinical studies published in peer-reviewed journals or as conference proceedings that reported safety results in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who were treated with BIAsp 30 versus comparator insulins were evaluated. To locate the appropriate articles, a MEDLINE search was performed for all years up to February 2005, using the following key words: biphasic insulin aspart, BIAsp 30, biphasic insulin, and premixed insulin. Additional papers were identified by examining the reference lists in these papers as well as our own personal reference files. Results from 17 publications were analyzed. The analysis included >2600 patients with type 2 diabetes (mean [range] age, 58 [36-70] years; duration of diabetes, 11.8 [9-17] years; and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c], 8.6% [7.5%-9.9%]). It also included 104 patients with type 1 diabetes (mean [range] age, 44.5 [30-58] years; duration of diabetes, 16 [2-30] years; and baseline HbA1c, 8.4% [7.2%-10.4%])., Results: Hypoglycemia occurred in 43% to 57% of patients receiving BIAsp 30 versus 32% to 57% of patients receiving BHI 30 and 28% of patients receiving NPH insulin. Major hypoglycemic events were uncommon in most studies; but when they did occur, they were reported less frequently in patients receiving BIAsp 30 (2%-8% of patients) than in patients receiving BHI 30 (2%-14% of patients). Furthermore, patients treated with BIAsp 30 were at lower risk of experiencing minor nocturnal hypoglycemia than patients receiving comparator insulin; in 1 study, the relative risk (BIAsp 30 vs BHI 30) was calculated to be 0.63 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.09). The adverse event (AE) profile, weight gain during treatment, and formation of cross-reactive antibodies were not different between BIAsp 30 and BHI 30. AEs were reported in 36% to 90% of patients receiving BIAsp 30, 38% to 88% of patients receiving BHI 30, and 51% of patients receiving Mix 25. The use of oral antidiabetic drugs in combination with BIAsp 30 did not alter the safety profile of BIAsp 30., Conclusion: The flexible and convenient treatment regimen offered by BIAsp 30, together with its ability to improve postprandial glucose control, is associated with a safety profile comparable to that of BHI 30 and NPH insulin, with a lower risk of major and nocturnal hypoglycemic events.

Objective: To review clinical trial evidence supporting treatment of patients to a near-normal HbA(1c) target level and outline therapeutic strategies that optimize glycemic control., Research Design and Methods: The current MEDLINE database and bibliographies were searched for literature relevant to diabetic complications, glycemic control, and the intensive management of diabetes mellitus., Results: Two randomized trials, the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial and the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), provided evidence that intensive glycemic control obtained with either intensive insulin or oral therapy effectively slowed the onset and progression of diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. An epidemiologic analysis of the UKPDS results showed a significant correlation between glycemic control and microvascular and cardiovascular disease risk and mortality rates., Conclusions: The results of clinical trials confirm that stringent levels of glycemic control can be attained through the use of intensive multiple-injection insulin regimens (administration of insulin 3 or more times daily by injection or an external pump with dosage adjustments as needed), oral monotherapy or combination therapy, or a combination of insulin and oral therapy. The expanded choices for oral agents and the availability of insulin analogs now provide physicians with the tools to tailor therapy to prevent or delay the devastating complications of diabetes. Indeed, newer insulin analogs, both short-acting (insulin lispro, insulin aspart) and long-acting (insulin glargine), are an important part of a treatment strategy to circumvent diabetes complications and overcome the shortcomings of conventional insulin preparations.

Initiating insulin therapy for patients who have type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus presents a variety of challenges. Knowing when and how to initiate treatment, establishing realistic patient expectations, and being familiar with new approaches and combination therapies will help ensure more effective treatment.

Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of insulin aspart (IAsp), buffered regular insulin (BR), and insulin lispro administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in patients with type 1 diabetes., Research Design and Methods: After completing a 4-week run-in period with BR, 146 adult patients with type 1 diabetes (with pretrial CSII experience) were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to CSII treatment with IAsp, BR, or lispro for 16 weeks in a multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group study. Bolus insulin doses were administered 30 min before meals (BR) or immediately before meals (IAsp or lispro)., Results: Treatment groups had similar baseline HbA(1c) (7.3% +/- 0.7 for IAsp, 7.5% +/- 0.8 for BR, and 7.3% +/- 0.7 for lispro). After 16 weeks of treatment, HbA1c values were relatively unchanged from baseline, and the mean changes in baseline HbA1c values were not significantly different between the three groups (0.00 +/- 0.51, 0.15 +/- 0.63, and 0.18 +/- 0.84 for the IAsp, BR, and lispro groups, respectively). The rates of hypoglycemic episodes (blood glucose <50 mg/dl) per patient per month were similar (3.7, 4.8, and 4.4 for the IAsp, BR, and lispro groups, respectively). Clogs/blockages in pumps or infusion sets were infrequent; most subjects (76, 83, and 75% in the IAsp, BR, and lispro groups, respectively) had < or = 1 clog or blockage per 4 weeks during the trial., Conclusions: Insulin aspart in CSII was as efficacious and well tolerated as BR and lispro and is a suitable insulin for continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion using external pumps.

Although insulin monotherapy prevents death from ketoacidosis, it does not prevent either the hyperglycemic surges or the hypoglycemic plunges of glucose levels that plague the majority of patients with type 1 diabetes. However, significant improvements have occurred with the combination of continuous insulin delivery matched by continuous glucose monitoring, but the technology is not available for all patients, requires extensive education, is expensive and moreover, while much better than standard care, it almost never reduces haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c ) to below 6%. This may indicate that an improved diabetes therapy involving antagonism of glucagon action will for the first time control glucose levels to normal and eradicate the long-term complications of diabetes. Although one can never predict that results in animals will be reproduced in humans, the available evidence suggests that patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes may expect far superior control of the metabolic abnormalities without the need for significant monitoring of glucose, a very important but expensive part of any insulin regimen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: In 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) launched the Competitive Bidding Program (CBP) in nine markets for diabetes supplies. The intent was to lower costs to consumers. Medicare claims data (2009-2012) were used to confirm the CMS report (2012) that there were no disruptions in acquisition caused by CBP and no changes in health outcomes.Research Design and Methods: The study population consisted of insulin users: 43,939 beneficiaries in the nine test markets (TEST) and 485,688 beneficiaries in the nontest markets (NONTEST). TEST and NONTEST were subdivided: those with full self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) supply acquisition (full SMBG) according to prescription and those with partial/no acquisition (partial/no SMBG). Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to reduce selection bias. Outcomes were impact of partial/no SMBG acquisition on mortality, inpatient admissions, and inpatient costs.Results: Survival was negatively associated with partial/no SMBG acquisition in both cohorts (P < 0.0001). Coterminous with CBP (2010-2011), there was a 23.0% (P < 0.0001) increase in partial/no SMBG acquisition in TEST vs. 1.7% (P = 0.0002) in NONTEST. Propensity score-matched analysis showed beneficiary migration from full to partial/no SMBG acquisition in 2011 (1,163 TEST vs. 605 NONTEST) was associated with more deaths within the TEST cohort (102 vs. 60), with higher inpatient hospital admissions and associated costs.Conclusions: SMBG supply acquisition was disrupted in the TEST population, leading to increased migration to partial/no SMBG acquisition with associated increases in mortality, inpatient admissions, and costs. Based on our findings, more effective monitoring protocols are needed to protect beneficiary safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To determine the effects of pioglitazone treatment combined with insulin on glucose and lipid metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: In a multicentre, double-blind study, 690 patients [body mass index, 33.19 kg/m2 ± 5.47; haemoglobin A1c (A1C), 9.78 ± 1.51; mean duration, 12.9 years] with diabetes poorly controlled with a stable insulin dose (> 30 U/day for ≥30 days) were randomly allocated to pioglitazone 30 or 45 mg once daily for 24 weeks. Results: In the pioglitazone 30- and 45-mg groups, respectively, 71 and 70% of patients completed the study. At 24 weeks, statistically significant, dose-dependent mean decreases from baseline were seen in the pioglitazone 30- and 45-mg groups for A1C (−1.17 and −1.46%, respectively) and fasting plasma glucose (−31.9 and −45.8 mg/dl, respectively). Insulin dosage also decreased significantly (−4.5 and −7.3 U, respectively; p ≤ 0.05) from baseline. Decreases in triglycerides [pioglitazone 45 mg: −5.9% (p ≤ 0.05)], very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [pioglitazone 45 mg: −6.2% (p ≤ 0.05)] and free fatty acids [−0.94 (p ≤ 0.05) and −2.13 (p < 0.0001) mg/dl, respectively] and increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (9.7 and 13.0%, respectively; p < 0.0001) also were observed from baseline. Small but significant increases in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p < 0.01) from baseline were observed. Mean weight gain was 2.9 and 3.4 kg in the respective groups; lower limb oedema was reported in 13 and 12% of patients, respectively. The incidences of oedema, weight gain and heart failure were not higher than anticipated in this population. No evidence of hepatotoxicity or clinically significant elevations in liver function test parameters was seen. Conclusions: In patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, addition of pioglitazone to insulin significantly improved glycaemic control, had a positive effect on important components of the lipid profile in a dose-dependent manner and was generally well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the increasing prevalence of diabetes, improved understanding of the disease, and a variety of new medications, glycemic control does not appear to be improving. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is one strategy for improving glycemic control; however, patient adherence is suboptimal and proper education and follow-up are crucial. Patients need to understand why they are being asked to self-test, what their glycemic targets are, and what they should do based on the results of self-monitoring. Patients also must be taught proper technique and must be given specific recommendations regarding frequency and timing for self-monitoring. Situations in which SMBG is essential or should be more frequent include self-adjustment of insulin doses, changes in medications, lack of awareness of hypoglycemia, gestational diabetes, illness, or when hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values are above target. SMBG should include postprandial monitoring to identify glycemic excursions after meals, to indicate the need for lifestyle adjustments, and to provide patient feedback on dietary choices. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]