Search

Objective: To examine the efficacy and safety of the tubeless Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery (AID) system compared with pump therapy with a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) in adults with type 1 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic outcomes., Research Design and Methods: In this 13-week multicenter, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial performed in the U.S. and France, adults aged 18-70 years with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c 7-11% (53-97 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned (2:1) to intervention (tubeless AID) or control (pump therapy with CGM) following a 2-week standard therapy period. The primary outcome was a treatment group comparison of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) during the trial period., Results: A total of 194 participants were randomized, with 132 assigned to the intervention and 62 to the control. TIR during the trial was 4.2h/day higher in the intervention compared with the control group (mean difference 17.5% [95% CI 14.0%, 21.1%]; P < 0.0001). The intervention group had a greater reduction in HbA1c from baseline compared with the control group (mean ± SD -1.24 ± 0.75% [-13.6 ± 8.2 mmol/mol] vs. -0.68 ± 0.93% [-7.4 ± 10.2 mmol/mol], respectively; P < 0.0001), accompanied by a significantly lower time <70 mg/dL (1.18 ± 0.86% vs. 1.75 ± 1.68%; P = 0.005) and >180 mg/dL (37.6 ± 11.4% vs. 54.5 ± 15.4%; P < 0.0001). All primary and secondary outcomes were met. No instances of diabetes-related ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in the intervention group., Conclusions: Use of the tubeless AID system led to improved glycemic outcomes compared with pump therapy with CGM among adults with type 1 diabetes, underscoring the clinical benefit of AID and bolstering recommendations to establish AID systems as preferred therapy for this population., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Background: We assessed the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of insulin pump therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who were suboptimally controlled with a multiple daily injection (MDI) regimen., Methods: In this subanalysis of a 16-week multicenter study, 21 insulin-pump-naïve patients [age 57 ± 13 years, hemoglobin A1c (A1C) 8.4 ± 1.0%, body weight 98 ± 20 kg, total daily insulin dose 99 ± 65 U, mean ± standard deviation] treated at baseline with MDI therapy with or without oral antidiabetic agents discontinued all diabetes medications except metformin and initiated insulin pump therapy. Insulin was titrated to achieve the best possible glycemic control with the simplest possible dosing regimen. Outcome measures included A1C, fasting and postprandial glucose, body weight, incidence of hypoglycemia, and PROs., Results: Glycemic control improved significantly after 16 weeks: A1C 7.3 ± 1.0% (-1.1 ± 1.2%, p < .001), fasting glucose 133 ± 33 mg/dl (-32 ± 74 mg/dl, p < .005), and postprandial glucose 153 ± 35 mg/dl (-38 ± 46 mg/dl, p < .001). At week 16, the mean daily basal, bolus, and total insulin doses were 66 ± 36, 56 ± 40, and 122 ± 72 U (1.2 U/kg), respectively, and 90% of patients were treated with two or fewer daily basal rates. Body weight increased by 2.8 ± 2.6 kg (p < .001). Mild hypoglycemia was experienced by 81% of patients at least once during the course of the study with no episodes of severe hypoglycemia. There were significant improvements in PRO measures., Conclusions: Insulin pump therapy using a relatively simple dosing regimen safely improved glucose control and PROs in patients with T2DM who were unable to achieve glycemic targets with MDI therapy. Controlled trials are needed to further assess the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of insulin pumps in this patient population., (© 2011 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Background: This study assessed insulin dose and dosing patterns required to optimize glycemic control with an insulin pump in patients with type 2 diabetes., Methods: In this 16-week, open-label, multicenter, pilot study, 56 insulin pump-naive patients treated at baseline with two or more oral antidiabetes agents (OADs), basal insulin with or without OADs, or basal-bolus insulin with or without OADs discontinued all diabetes medications except metformin and initiated insulin pump therapy. Insulin doses were adjusted to optimize glycemic control with the simplest possible insulin regimen. Outcomes included total daily insulin dose, daily basal and bolus insulin doses, number of daily basal rates, hemoglobin A1C, fasting and postprandial glucose, patient-reported outcomes and rate of hypoglycemia., Results: After 16 weeks of pump therapy, the mean +/- SD total daily insulin dose was 95 +/- 59 U. The percentage of the total daily insulin dose used as basal and as bolus delivery was 55% and 45%, respectively. Eighty-eight percent of patients were treated with two or fewer daily basal rates. Mean A1C was lowered by 1.2 +/- 1.2% (P < 0.001), and there was no severe hypoglycemia. Mean change in body weight was +1.9 +/- 3.3 kg (P < 0.001). Overall treatment preference improved with pump therapy compared to baseline., Conclusions: Insulin pump therapy using a simple dosing regimen significantly improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients experienced limited weight gain, there was no severe hypoglycemia, and overall treatment preference improved significantly.

NBI-6024 is an altered peptide ligand (APL) corresponding to the 9-23 amino acid region of the insulin B chain (B(9-23)), an epitope recognized by inflammatory interferon-gamma-producing T helper (Th)1 lymphocytes in type 1 diabetic patients. Immunomodulatory effects of NBI-6024 administration in recent-onset diabetic patients in a phase I clinical trial (NBI-6024-0003) were measured in peripheral blood mononuclear cells using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay. Analysis of the mean magnitude of cytokine responses to B(9-23) and NBI-6024 for each cohort showed significant increases in interleukin-5 responses (a Th2 regulatory phenotype) in cohorts that received APL relative to those receiving placebo. A responder analysis showed that Th1 responses to B(9-23) and NBI-6024 were observed almost exclusively in the placebo-treated diabetic population but not in nondiabetic control subjects and that APL administration (five biweekly subcutaneous injections) significantly and dose-dependently reduced the percentage of patients with these Th1 responses. The results of this phase I clinical study strongly suggest that NBI-6024 treatment shifted the Th1 pathogenic responses in recent-onset type 1 diabetic patients to a protective Th2 regulatory phenotype. The significance of these findings on the clinical outcome of disease is currently under investigation in a phase II multidose study.

Objective: An acid-induced-viscosity (I-V) complex containing alginate, citrate, and insoluble calcium was incorporated into a glucose-based beverage. We hypothesized that the acid I-V beverage would become viscous in the stomach (due to the solubilization of calcium and its interaction with alginate and citrate) and would blunt glycemia., Methods: Thirty subjects were used in a double-masked, placebo-controlled crossover study evaluating the acid I-V complex. The placebo was a glucose-based beverage that had a similar total dietary fiber level and initial viscosity (Control). After a 12-h overnight fast, serum glucose and insulin were monitored over a 3-h postprandial period., Results: The postprandial mean peak incremental change from baseline in serum glucose tended (P < 0.06) to be lower for the acid I-V product. The net incremental area under the curve (AUC) for serum glucose was reduced 75% (P < 0.01) by the acid I-V product, which was due mainly to an increased undershoot. The mean peak incremental change from baseline in serum insulin was higher (P < 0.05) for the acid I-V product. Net incremental AUC for serum insulin did not differ (P > 0.20) between products., Conclusions: Results of this study suggested that the acid I-V complex may attenuate the postprandial glycemic response to a glucose challenge in healthy subjects.

The effect of glipizide alone and glipizide preceded by a short course of insulin therapy (10 weeks) was studied in 69 patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) in a 10-month study. The patients were obese, had poor glycemic control, and, in all patients, first-generation sulfonylurea therapy had failed. The majority were Mexican-Americans, an ethnic population with a high incidence of NIDDM and insulin resistance. Plasma glucose levels were monitored using the eight-point [Saarstedt] series. In the group receiving glipizide alone, mean fasting plasma glucose levels decreased from 255.9 mg/dl at baseline to 228.7 mg/dl at the end of the study; two-hour postprandial glucose levels decreased from 280.1 to 260.5 mg/dl; glycosylated hemoglobin decreased from 9.1 to 7.4 percent; and post-Sustacal C-peptide levels increased from 0.7 to 1.0 pmol/ml. In the group receiving insulin/glipizide, mean fasting plasma glucose levels decreased from 241.1 mg/dl at baseline to 217.0 mg/dl; two-hour postprandial glucose levels increased from 267.2 to 279.0 mg/dl; glycosylated hemoglobin decreased from 9.1 to 7.5 percent; and post-Sustacal C-peptide levels increased from 0.6 to 1.0 pmol/ml. At the end of 10 weeks, insulin administration was associated with a more rapid decrease in the levels of fasting plasma glucose, two-hour postprandial glucose, and glycosylated hemoglobin, but there was no significant difference between the two therapies by the end of the study. Both regimens had a positive influence on reducing the total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein ratio. More patients in the group receiving insulin/glipizide withdrew from the study, which may have been due to difficulties associated with insulin administration. In conclusion, there does not appear to be a prolonged effect of insulin treatment on the post-receptor defect. Some patients in whom first-generation oral agents fail may not have to be given permanent insulin therapy, especially those with fasting plasma glucose levels of less than 200 mg/dl. There was no overall difference between these treatments with respect to glycemic control or lipoprotein profiles. In the interests of simplifying both therapy and monitoring, enhancing patient compliance, and achieving cost reductions, therapy with glipizide alone ultimately may be sufficient for cases in which immediate control is unnecessary (for example, patients with asymptomatic hyperglycemia, and in the absence of hyperlipidemia and vascular disease).