Diabetes Care
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online October 12, 2007
Diabetes Care 31:20-25, 2008
DOI: 10.2337/dc07-1122
© 2008 by the American Diabetes Association
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Online-Only Appendix
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
dc07-1122v1
31/1/20    most recent
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rosenstock, J.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rosenstock, J.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition/Psychosocial Research
Original Research

Advancing Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Previously Treated With Glargine Plus Oral Agents

Prandial premixed (insulin lispro protamine suspension/lispro) versus basal/bolus (glargine/lispro) therapy

Julio Rosenstock, MD1, Andrew J. Ahmann, MD2, Gildred Colon, MD3, Jamie Scism-Bacon, PHD4, Honghua Jiang, PHD4 and Sherry Martin, MD4

1 Dallas Diabetes and Endocrine Center, Dallas, Texas
2 Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
3 San Juan Health Centre, San Juan, Puerto Rico
4 U.S. Medical Division, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Julio Rosenstock, MD, Dallas Diabetes and Endocrine Center at Medical City, Dallas, TX 75230. E-mail: juliorosenstock{at}dallasdiabetes.com


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS--
 References
 
OBJECTIVE—The purpose of this study was to compare two analog insulin therapies (prandial premixed therapy [PPT] versus basal/bolus therapy [BBT]) in type 2 diabetic patients previously treated with insulin glargine (≥30 units/day) plus oral agents, with the aim of demonstrating noninferiority of PPT to BBT.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Patients were randomly assigned to PPT (lispro mix 50/50: 50% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 50% lispro; n = 187) t.i.d. with meals or BBT (glargine at bedtime plus mealtime lispro; n = 187) in a 24-week, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial. Investigators could replace lispro mix 50/50 with lispro mix 75/25 at the evening meal if the fasting plasma glucose target was unachievable.

RESULTS—Baseline A1C was similar (PPT 8.8%; BBT 8.9%; P = 0.598). At week 24, A1C was lower with BBT (6.78 vs. 6.95%, P = 0.021). A1C was reduced significantly from baseline for both therapies (P < 0.0001). The difference in A1C change from baseline to the end point (BBT minus PPT) was –0.22% (90% CI –0.38 to –0.07). Noninferiority of PPT to BBT was not demonstrated based on the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%. The percentages of patients achieving target A1C <7.0% (PPT versus BBT, respectively) were 54 vs. 69% (P = 0.009) and for target ≤6.5% were 35 vs. 50% (P = 0.01) but did not differ for target ≤6.0% or <7.5%. Rates of hypoglycemia were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS—Although noninferiority of PPT to BBT was not demonstrated, findings for A1C reduction, percentage of patients achieving A1C targets, hypoglycemia, and number of required injections should be considered in the individual decision-making process of advancing insulin replacement to PPT versus BBT in type 2 diabetes.

Abbreviations: BBT, basal/bolus therapy • FPG, fasting plasma glucose • OHA, oral antihyperglycemic agent • PPT, prandial premixed therapy • SAE, severe adverse event • SMPG, self-monitored plasma glucose • TDI, total daily insulin


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS--
 References
 
The progressive deterioration of pancreatic β-cell function in type 2 diabetes necessitates the advancement of treatment over time for most patients (1,2). For patients in whom treatment with oral antihyperglycemic agents (OHAs) has failed, basal insulin is often initiated (3–10). When glycemic control can no longer be achieved or maintained with this therapy, then prandial insulin is added (11).

Potential options for advancement of insulin therapy to include prandial insulin are prandial premixed therapy (PPT) (12–15) or basal/bolus therapy (BBT) (16–18). BBT is the recommended regimen for insulin intensification (11). However, PPT is a more convenient regimen that has the potential to work as effectively as BBT (12–15). There have been no previous head-to-head studies assessing the effectiveness of analog PPT plus OHAs compared with analog BBT plus OHAs in patients with type 2 diabetes. Thus, in this study we tested the hypothesis that an analog PPT regimen (insulin lispro mixtures three times daily with meals) in combination with OHAs is noninferior in overall glycemic control (A1C) at end point compared with analog BBT (insulin glargine plus mealtime insulin lispro) in combination with OHAs in patients with type 2 diabetes who have failed to achieve glycemic targets with once-daily insulin glargine in combination with OHAs.


   RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--
RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS--
 References
 
This 24-week, randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial was conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonization Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki (19) at 58 centers in the U.S. and Puerto Rico from May 2004 to June 2006. All patients provided written informed consent.

Men and women, aged 30–75 years, with type 2 diabetes (World Health Organization classification) and inadequate glycemic control (A1C ≥7.5 and ≤12%) while taking insulin glargine for at least 90 days (≥30 units/day) in combination with OHAs as monotherapy, dual therapy, or triple therapy (sulfonylurea or glinide, metformin, and thiazolidinedione) were eligible to be randomly assigned.

Patients were excluded if they had a history of scheduled mealtime insulin use or more than one episode of severe hypoglycemia within the prior 6 months, BMI >45 kg/m2, or excessive insulin resistance (total daily insulin [TDI] dose >2.0 units/kg). Patients with congestive heart failure requiring pharmacological treatment, functional status of New York Heart Association class III or IV, a history of renal insufficiency (serum creatinine ≥1.5 mg/dl for men and ≥1.2 mg/dl for women), or liver disease were excluded.

Study medications and treatments
Eligible patients were randomly assigned through an interactive telephone system to either PPT or BBT and were assigned to either a more aggressive dosing algorithm based on plasma glucose levels as well as TDI requirement (insulin doses increased by 2–10 units if TDI was <100 IU and by 4–20 units if TDI was >100 IU). The more conservative dosing algorithm was based only on plasma glucose levels, and insulin doses were increased by 2–4 units if mean preprandial plasma glucose was >110 mg/dl (6.1 mmol/l) (Table 1 of the online appendix [available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc07-1122]). The randomization was 1:1:1:1 to regimen and algorithm, with sex stratification. PPT consisted of lispro mix 50/50 (Humalog Mix 50/50: 50% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 50% insulin lispro) administered three times daily with meals. The starting dose was based on the insulin glargine total dose at study entry divided into three equal doses of lispro mix 50/50 before meals. Because it was not known whether lispro mix 50/50 at the evening meal could effectively and safely achieve a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) target, investigators were allowed to switch this dose to lispro mix 75/25 (Humalog Mix 75/25: 75% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 25% insulin lispro) if FPG remained >110 mg/dl during the study. BBT consisted of insulin glargine (Lantus) administered at bedtime and insulin lispro (Humalog) with meals. The starting dose of this regimen was also based on the total glargine dose at study entry, with 50% administered as glargine and the other 50% given in three equal doses of lispro. Patients continued to take their prestudy OHAs, excluding sulfonylureas and glinides, which were discontinued upon random assignment.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1— Baseline demographics and characteristics of randomly assigned patients

 
In addition to scheduled 6-week office visits, patients were contacted weekly during the initial 3 months with adjustment of insulin doses to achieve target preprandial plasma glucose levels <110 mg/dl (<6.1 mmol/l). Insulin doses, self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) values, and any events associated with signs or symptoms of hypoglycemia were recorded in diaries.

Safety and tolerability were monitored throughout the study. Events related to hypoglycemia were assessed as to incidence, rate, and severity. Hypoglycemia was reported as any symptomatic event with classic cognitive and/or adrenergic signs with or without plasma glucose confirmation. Confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemia was reported as symptoms of hypoglycemia with plasma glucose levels ≤72 mg/dl (4 mmol/l), <60 mg/dl (≤3.3 mmol/l), and ≤50 mg/dl (≤2.8 mmol/l). Severe hypoglycemia was defined as any symptomatic event requiring assistance by another individual.

Outcome measures
The primary efficacy measure was change in A1C from baseline to end point for each treatment group. Secondary outcome measures included incidence of self-reported hypoglycemic episodes, comparison of SMPG values from 8-point profiles, insulin doses, and body weight. The percentage of patients achieving A1C goals was determined by a post hoc analysis based on current professional guidelines and trial design targets (20–22). All laboratory tests were analyzed by a central laboratory (Covance, Indianapolis, IN).

Statistical methods
All statistical analyses, except for percentage of patients achieving A1C goals and insulin formulation switching comparison, were performed in accordance with a predetermined statistical plan. The sample size for the primary analysis was calculated on the basis of a one-sided t test for noninferiority with a 5% significance level. Assuming SD of 1% for A1C change, 150 patients completing the study per treatment group provided 80% power to meet the prespecified noninferiority criterion of a 0.3% A1C difference. Use of the intent-to-treat population is generally not conservative in a noninferiority study; therefore, patients who completed the study with a 24-week A1C measurement constituted the primary efficacy analysis population (23).

The primary outcome (change from baseline in A1C) was analyzed by ANCOVA with treatment, dosing algorithm, sex, and baseline A1C as fixed effects. Noninferiority would be claimed if the lower limit of the two-sided 90% CI for the difference in change from baseline A1C did not exceed –0.3%. Secondary outcomes (SMPG, TDI dose, and change in weight) were analyzed by ANCOVA with treatment, dosing algorithm, and sex as fixed effects. Percentage of patients achieving A1C goals (<7.5, <7.0, ≤6.5, and ≤6.0%) was analyzed using Fisher's exact test.

In contrast with analysis of the primary outcome, safety assessments were based on the entire randomly assigned population. The proportions of patients in each group reporting at least one hypoglycemic event or a severe hypoglycemic event were compared with Fisher's exact test. Hypoglycemic rate and severe hypoglycemic rate were analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment, dose algorithm, and sex as fixed effects. Categorical safety variables were compared between groups with Fisher's exact test.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--
 RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS--
 References
 
Patient disposition
Of the 547 patients who were screened, 374 were randomly assigned to receive the study treatment (PPT, n = 187; BBT, n = 187). All randomly assigned patients received at least one dose of study medication. A total of 158 patients in each treatment group (84%) completed the protocol. Reasons for early discontinuation are provided in Table 2 of the online appendix. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (Table 1). The average duration of diabetes was 11 years, baseline weight was ~99 kg, and 45% of the study population was non-Caucasian. The numbers of patients taking various combinations of concomitant OHAs at study entry and during the study are shown in Table 2. At study entry, the only difference between groups was that the OHA combination of sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione was more frequently used in the BBT group (BBT n = 12; PPT n = 3; P = 0.032); however, an equal number of patients in both groups discontinued sulfonylurea treatment upon random assignment (BBT n = 131; PPT n = 130).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2— Incidence and rate of symptomatic hypoglycemia in patients receiving PPT versus BBT

 
Glycemic control
Baseline A1C was similar in both groups (PPT 8.8 ± 1.0%; BBT 8.9 ± 1.1%; P = 0.598). Significant decreases in mean A1C values were observed within 6 weeks of therapy initiation for both groups (P < 0.001), and A1C continued to decline throughout the duration of the study. At study end (24 weeks), mean A1C was reduced from baseline by 1.87% in the PPT group to 6.95% and by 2.09% in the BBT group to 6.78% (P = 0.021 for comparison of end point A1C values) (Fig. 1A). The difference in A1C change from baseline to end point (BBT minus PPT) was –0.22%, with a 90% CI of –0.38 to –0.07 (Fig. 1A). The protocol-specified lower limit of the CI required for noninferiority was –0.3%. Thus, noninferiority of PPT was not demonstrated.


Figure 1
View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1— A: Change in mean A1C ± SEM from baseline to end point for the BBT ({square}) and PPT ({blacksquare}) groups and the difference (BBT – PPT) in A1C change, with the 90% CI. B: Distribution of the cumulative percentage of patients across A1C values after 24 weeks of treatment with PPT (——) or BBT (–– –). C: Cumulative percentage of patients achieving specific target A1C values after 24 weeks of treatment with PPT ({blacksquare}) or BBT (Figure 1). *P < 0.05. D: SMPG 8-point profiles at baseline and end point for patients treated with PPT ({blacktriangleup}, baseline; {triangleup}, end point) or BBT ({blacksquare}, baseline; {square}, end point). *P < 0.05 for comparison of end point values between treatment groups. PP, postprandial.

 
The cumulative percentage of patients across A1C values was analyzed. At baseline, the distribution was similar between the two groups (data not shown). By visit 4 (12 weeks), the BBT group began to show a trend toward a greater number of patients achieving target A1C values of <7.0 and ≤6.5% (data not shown). This trend became statistically significant by the study conclusion; 101 patients (69%) in the BBT group achieved an A1C <7.0% vs. 81 patients (54%) in the PPT group, whereas 74 patients (50%) in the BBT group achieved an A1C ≤6.5% vs. 53 patients (35%) in the PPT group (Fig. 1B). High percentages of patients receiving both insulin regimens were able to achieve an A1C <7.5% (BBT 83%; PPT 82%). The percentage of patients at specific A1C values is shown in Fig. 1C. Two patients in the PPT group and none in the BBT group had an A1C ≥10% at 24 weeks.

SMPG 8-point profiles, collected at baseline and end point, are shown in Fig. 1D. Both therapies significantly reduced plasma glucose values from baseline at all time points measured. End point profiles collected were similar between the two groups at all time points except fasting and morning 2-h postprandial, for which BBT produced significantly lower plasma glucose (147 ± 43 mg/dl [8.2 ± 2.4 mmol/l] vs. 159 ± 55 mg/dl [8.8 ± 3.0 mmol/l], P = 0.013; and 155 ± 53 mg/dl [8.6 ± 3.0 mmol/l] vs. 174 ± 56 mg/dl [9.6 ± 3.1 mmol/l], P = 0.002).

Insulin dose and weight gain
At study entry, patients had similar total daily glargine doses (PPT 52 ± 24 units [0.5 ± 0.2 units/kg]; BBT 55 ± 28 units [0.6 ± 0.3 units/kg]) (Table 1). At the end of the study, the mean TDI dose was significantly greater for the BBT group (146 ± 85 units [1.4 ± 0.8 units/kg] vs. the PPT group (123 ± 69 units [1.2 ± 0.5 units/kg]; P = 0.002). In the BBT group, 48% of the TDI dose was administered as glargine and the remainder was lispro. By the study end, 87 patients (55%) in the PPT group were switched from an evening meal injection of lispro mix 50/50 to lispro mix 75/25. There was no difference in end point FPG between patients who continued to receive the lispro mix 50/50 and those who were switched to lispro mix 75/25 (160 ± 45 mg/dl [8.9 ± 2.5 mmol/l] vs. 158 ± 62 mg/dl [8.8 ± 3.4 mmol/l]; P = 0.862). The mean end point A1C was reduced significantly from baseline for both groups but was lower in the group of patients who were switched than in those who were not switched (6.9 vs. 7.1%; P = 0.032). Patients in the PPT and BBT groups experienced similar weight gains (PPT 4.0 ± 4.2 kg; BBT 4.5 ± 4.4 kg; P = 0.224).

Safety: hypoglycemia and adverse events
During the study, there was no difference between groups in the rate or incidence of overall, nocturnal, or severe hypoglycemia or in any hypoglycemia confirmed by plasma glucose (Table 2). The incidence (patients with at least one self-reported episode) of overall hypoglycemia was ~90% for both regimens. However, rates (number of episodes per patient per year) of severe hypoglycemia were very low (BBT 0.05 ± 0.31; PPT 0.10 ± 0.65; P = 0.266).

There were a total of 9 serious adverse events (SAEs) reported in the PPT group and 13 in the BBT group, and no difference in the incidence of SAEs (6 [3.2%] for PPT vs. 9 [4.8%] for BBT; P = 0.600). No SAEs were identified as potentially being related to the study drug other than hypoglycemia (one event: BBT group).


   CONCLUSIONS—
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS--
References
 
We report the first head-to-head comparison of two basal/prandial insulin analog regimens (PPT versus BBT) designed to optimize glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients previously treated with insulin glargine plus oral agents. The difference in A1C change from baseline to end point (BBT minus PPT) was –0.22% (90% CI –0.38 to –0.07); thus, noninferiority of PPT to BBT was not demonstrated based on a prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%. More patients in the BBT group reached A1C targets of <7.0 and ≤6.5%; however, mean end point A1C values for both groups were <7.0%. The slightly lower A1C results in the BBT group compared with the PPT group may be partially accounted for by the significantly lower FPG and morning 2-h postprandial plasma glucose results observed in the BBT group. This result may have reflected the lack of prior clinical experience with titration of lispro mix 50/50.

Both insulin regimens caused a modest weight gain of 4–5 kg in conjunction with significant A1C reduction. Intensive insulin therapy is also known to be associated with hypoglycemia, although severe events are infrequent in type 2 diabetes (11,24). This study, using downloadable glucose meter data and patient diaries to capture any occurrence of hypoglycemia, showed that with both insulin regimens the majority of patients experienced at least one episode of self-reported hypoglycemia. In contrast, among all patients, there was a maximum of 6 nocturnal events and 0.1 severe event per patient per year.

Clinical studies have been conducted to compare PPT with basal insulin therapy, and other studies have evaluated the safety and efficacy of BBT, but trials evaluating the efficacy of three-times-daily PPT in type 2 diabetic patients previously treated with insulin are few (12,15), as are analog BBT studies (17,18). Differences in insulin titration algorithms and glycemic targets may limit potential theoretical comparisons with these studies. Furthermore, previous trials assessing the efficacy of PPT in type 2 diabetic patients have not used BBT as a comparator.

A recent 24-week, parallel-group study by Robbins et al. (15), compared overall glycemic control with lispro mix 50/50 three times daily (plus metformin) to once daily glargine (plus metformin) in type 2 diabetic patients previously treated with OHAs (metformin and/or sulfonylureas) and zero to two daily insulin injections. The end point mean A1C for the lispro mix 50/50 group was similar to our PPT value (7.1 and 6.9%, respectively). The change in A1C from baseline observed in our PPT group (–1.87%) was larger than the comparable value in the lispro mix 50/50 group (–0.7%). However, it should be noted that the Robbins et al. study had a 6-week lead-in period in which patients received twice-daily lispro mix 75/25 and metformin, which may have resulted in a lower baseline A1C of 7.8%.

Glycemic control using once-, twice-, or thrice-daily injections of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (NovoLog Mix 70/30) was assessed in type 2 diabetic patients in whom OHA treatment with or without basal insulin has failed (The 1-2-3 Study) (12). Treatment with biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 once daily for 16 weeks was started, which was then progressed to twice daily for 16 weeks and finally to thrice daily for 16 weeks if A1C exceeded 6.5% at the end of any phase. Patients were considered completers if they attained target A1C by the end of a phase and were then withdrawn from the study. By combining all three phases, 77% of patients achieved a target A1C <7% at the end point. In the PPT arm of our study, 54% of patients achieved this target. However, the 1-2-3 Study was an uncontrolled, nonrandomized trial with no comparator arm and is therefore of limited comparison value owing to these important methodological limitations. In addition, loss of glycemic control over time would not have been reflected in completer populations of the 1-2-3 Study because of withdrawal of patients upon achievement of the target A1C.

Other studies using basal/bolus insulin therapy (17,18) have demonstrated efficacy and safety findings similar to those observed in our trial. In a recent study, Bergenstal et al. (18) used BBT (glargine/glulisine) to test a premeal glucose pattern algorithm versus carbohydrate counting for dose adjustment of insulin glulisine (Apidra). Similar to our study, eligible subjects in the trial had type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by previous insulin therapy plus OHAs, an average duration of diabetes of >10 years, and baseline BMI of 36.7 kg/m2. These authors observed a 1.5–1.6% decrease in mean A1C from baseline to end point (8.2 to ~6.6%, respectively). Together with our study, these findings support the fact that patients with a longer duration of disease and higher BMI require large TDI doses (>1.0 unit/kg) to achieve targeted glycemic goals. Herman et al. (17) compared BBT (glargine/lispro) to a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion using insulin lispro in older adults with type 2 diabetes. That study demonstrated a safety profile for the BBT group similar to what we observed for BBT patients in our trial (90% of the BBT patients in their study experienced at least one episode of self-treated hypoglycemia, with a rate of 0.23 severe event per person-year).

Potential limitations of the current study include the open-label design, the possibility that the glargine dose before the study entry was not optimized, and the chance that insulin doses were more aggressively titrated in the BBT arm than in the PPT arm. It should be noted that the average daily prestudy glargine dose for patients in our study was ≥53 units (0.53 unit · kg–1 · day–1), which is higher than the optimized glargine therapy reported previously (47 units/day or 0.48 unit · kg–1 · day–1) (6). Dose titration might have been more aggressive in the BBT group because of greater investigator familiarity with adjustment of BBT. This familiarity could explain the significantly higher insulin doses administered in the BBT arm, which would have favored glycemic outcomes for this group. However, data on how individual investigators titrated insulin in their patients were not collected, so this suggestion remains speculative.

Both insulin regimens demonstrated a clinically meaningful ability to improve glycemic control, although, based on the prespecified margin, noninferiority of PPT compared with BBT was not demonstrated. This study assessed multiple factors that need to be considered in the individual decision-making process of selecting PPT versus BBT for type 2 diabetic patients requiring insulin advancement, such as the magnitude of desired A1C reduction from baseline, the percentage of patients achieving specific A1C targets, the incidence and severity of hypoglycemia, and the number of required injections. BBT was associated with a greater reduction in A1C from baseline and a larger proportion of patients who achieved A1C targets of <7.0 and ≤6.5%. However, both PPT and BBT (in combination with OHAs) can effectively lower A1C levels to <7% in patients with type 2 diabetes who have previously been treated with insulin glargine plus OHAs.


   Acknowledgments
 
This study was supported by Eli Lilly and Company.

The authors thank Dr. Scott Jacober for scientific contributions to the study design, Dr. Pamela Anderson for scientific manuscript review, and Ms. Diana Robertson, Mr. Lyndon Lacaya, and Mr. David Quinn for technical assistance.


   Footnotes
 
Published ahead of print at http://care.diabetesjournals.org on 12 October 2007. DOI: 10.2337/dc07-1122. Clinical trial reg. no. NCT00110370, clinicaltrials.gov.

J.R. has received grant support for clinical studies and also consulting fees for serving on advisory boards from Eli Lilly, sanofi-aventis, and Novo Nordisk. A.J.A. has received honoraria for serving on advisory boards of and as a speaker for Eli Lilly and Company and sanofi-aventis. G.C. has received consulting fees for being a member of the Scientific Advisory Board on Erectile Dysfunction and the Diabetes Advisory Board from Eli Lilly and Company.

Additional information for this article can be found in an online appendix at http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc07-1122.

Funding for this study was provided by Eli Lilly and Company. Authors affiliated with Eli Lilly were involved in the study conceptualization, design, and interpretation of results as well as authoring of this article.

A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Received for publication June 13, 2007. Accepted for publication October 4, 2007.


   References
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS--
 References
 

  1. Matthews DR, Cull CA, Stratton IM, Holman RR, Turner RC: UKPDS26: sulphonylurea failure in non-insulin-dependent diabetic patients over six years: UK prospective diabetes study (UKPDS) group. Diabet Med 15:297–303, 1998[Medline]
  2. Turner RC, Cull CA, Frighi V, Holman RR: Glycemic control with diet, sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: progressive requirement for multiple therapies (UKPDS 49). JAMA 281:2005–2012, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Riddle MC: Evening insulin strategy. Diabetes Care 13:676–686, 1990[Abstract]
  4. Yki-Järvinnen H, Dressler A, Ziemen M, the HOE 901/3002 Study Group: Less nocturnal hypoglycemia and better post-dinner glucose control with bedtime insulin glargine compared with bedtime NPH insulin during insulin combination therapy in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 23:1130–1136, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Yki-Järvinnen H: Combination therapy with insulin and oral agents: optimizing glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 18:S77–S81, 2002[Medline]
  6. Riddle MC, Rosenstock J, Gerich J, the Insulin Glargine 4002 Study Investigators: The treat-to-target trial: randomized addition of glargine or human NPH insulin to oral therapy of type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 26:3080–3086, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Rosenstock J: Basal insulin supplementation in type 2 diabetes: refining the tactics. Am J Med 116:10S–16S, 2004[Medline]
  8. Hermansen K, Davies M, Derezinski T, Martinez Ravn G, Clauson P, Home P: A 26-week, randomized, parallel, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin as add-on therapy to oral glucose-lowering drugs in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 29:1269–1274, 2006[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Rosenstock J, Sugimoto D, Strange P, Stewart JA, Soltes-Rak E, Dailey G: Triple therapy in type 2 diabetes insulin glargine or rosiglitazone added to combination therapy of sulfonylurea plus metformin in insulin-naïve patients. Diabetes Care 29:554–559, 2006[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Yki-Järvinen H, Kauppinen-Mäkelin R, Tiikkainen M, Vähätalo M, Virtamo H, Nikkilä K, Tulokas T, Hulme S, Hardy K, McNulty S, Hänninen J, Levänen H, Lahdenperä S, Lehtonen R, Ryysy J: Insulin glargine or NPH combined with metformin in type 2 diabetes: the LANMET study. Diabetologia 49:442–451, 2006[Medline]
  11. Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB, Heine RJ, Holman RR, Sherwin R, Zinman B: Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy: a consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetelogia 49:1711–1721, 2006[Medline]
  12. Garber AJ, Wahlen J, Wahl T, Bressler P, Braceras R, Allen E, Jain R: Attainment of glycaemic goals in type 2 diabetes with once-, twice-, or thrice-daily dosing with biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (the 1-2-3 Study). Diabetes Obes Metab 8:58–66, 2006[Medline]
  13. Jacober SL, Scism-Bacon JL, Zagar AJ, the IONW Study Investigators: A comparison of intensive mixture therapy with basal insulin therapy in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes receiving oral antidiabetes agents. Diabetes Obes Metab 8:448–455, 2006[Medline]
  14. Kazda C, Hulstrunk H, Helsberg K, Langer F, Forst T, Hanefeld M: Prandial insulin substitution with insulin lispro or insulin lispro mid mixture vs. basal therapy with insulin glargine: a randomized controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes beginning insulin therapy. J Diabetes Complications 20:145–152, 2006[Medline]
  15. Robbins DC, Beisswenger PJ, Ceriello A, Sarwat S, Jones CA, Tan MH: Thrice-daily lispro mid mixture (MM) plus metformin (Met) improved glycemic control better than glargine (G) plus met in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (Abstract). Diabetes 55 (Suppl. 1):A132, 2006
  16. Raskin P, Bode BW, Marks JB, Hirsch IB, Weinstein RL, McGill JB, Peterson GE, Mudaliar SR, Reinhardt RR: Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and multiple daily injection therapy are equally effective in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, parallel-group, 24-week study. Diabetes Care 26:2598–2603, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Herman WH, Ilag LL, Johnson SL, Martin CL, Sinding J, Harthi AA, Plunkett CD, LaPorte FB, Burke R, Brown MB, Halter JB, Raskin P: A clinical trial of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections in older adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 28:1568–1573, 2005[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Bergenstal RM, Johnson ML, Powers MA, Wynne A, Vlajnic A, Hollander PA: Using a simple algorithm (ALG) to adjust mealtime glulisine (GLU) based on pre-prandial glucose patterns is a safe and effective alternative to carbohydrate counting (Carb Count) (Abstract). Diabetes 55 (Suppl. 1):A105, 2006
  19. Declaration of Helsinki: Recommendations guiding medical physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects. JAMA 277:925–926, 1997[Medline]
  20. American Diabetes Association: Standards of medical care in diabetes—2007. Diabetes Care 30 (Suppl. 1):S4–S41, 2007
  21. AACE Diabetes Mellitus Clinical Practice Guidelines Task Force: American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists medical guidelines for clinical practice for the management of diabetes mellitus. Endocr Pract 13 (Suppl. 1):3–68, 2007
  22. ACCORD Study Group, Buse JB, Bigger JT, Byington RP, Cooper LS, Cushman WC, Friedewald WT, Genuth S, Gerstein HC, Ginsberg HN, Goff DC Jr, Grimm RH Jr, Margolis KL, Probstfield JL, Simons-Morton DG, Sullivan MD: Action to control cardiovascular risk in diabetes (ACCORD) trial: design and methods. Am J Cardiol 99 (12A):21i–33i, 2007
  23. International Conference on Harmonization: Statistical principles for clinical trials, Federal Register [article online], 1998. Available from http://www.ich.org/cache/compo/475-272-1.html. Accessed 14 March 2007
  24. Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB, Heine RJ, Holman RR, Sherwin R, Zinman B: Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy: a consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 30:194–196, 2007[Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
R. Qayyum, S. Bolen, N. Maruthur, L. Feldman, L. M. Wilson, S. S. Marinopoulos, P. Ranasinghe, M. Amer, and E. B. Bass
Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Premixed Insulin Analogues in Type 2 Diabetes
Ann Intern Med, October 21, 2008; 149(8): 549 - 559.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
R. M. Bergenstal, M. Johnson, M. A. Powers, A. Wynne, A. Vlajnic, P. Hollander, and M. Rendell
Adjust to Target in Type 2 Diabetes: Comparison of a simple algorithm with carbohydrate counting for adjustment of mealtime insulin glulisine
Diabetes Care, July 1, 2008; 31(7): 1305 - 1310.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Online-Only Appendix
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
dc07-1122v1
31/1/20    most recent
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rosenstock, J.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rosenstock, J.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Diabetes Diabetes Care Clinical Diabetes Diabetes Spectrum