Functional intensified insulin therapy with short-acting insulin analog: effects on HbA1c and frequency of severe hypoglycemia

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Hartemann-Heurtier ◽  
C Sachon ◽  
N Masseboeuf ◽  
E Corset ◽  
A Grimaldi
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e000679 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jochen Seufert ◽  
Anja Borck ◽  
Peter Bramlage

We summarize here clinical and trial data on a once-daily administration of a single bolus to the meal with the largest expected postprandial glucose excursion (basal-plus), and comment on its clinical utility in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. A PubMed search of data published until September 2018 was taken into consideration and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Eighteen reports representing 15 studies were identified (age: 18–80 years; 50–890 patients; follow-up: 8 days to 60 weeks). Data suggest basal-plus is efficacious for improving glycemic control, with a low incidence of (severe) hypoglycemia and minor increases in bodyweight. The timing of short-acting insulin administration and use of different monitoring/titration approaches appear to have minimal impact. When compared with premixed insulin, basal-plus results in largely comparable outcomes. Compared with basal-bolus, it may result in non-inferior glycemic improvements with less weight gain, less hypoglycemia and fewer daily injections. A basal insulin/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist fixed ratio combination may offer several advantages over the basal-plus regimen, at the cost of gastrointestinal side effects. We conclude that the stepwise introduction of short-acting insulin via the basal-plus strategy represents a viable alternative to a full basal-bolus regimen and may help to overcome barriers associated with multiple injections and anticipated complexity of the insulin regimen.


Diabetes Care ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 1162-1166 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. B. E. Ahmed ◽  
J. Mallias ◽  
P. D. Home

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (03) ◽  
pp. 359-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camila Guimarães ◽  
Carlo A. Marra ◽  
Lindsey Colley ◽  
Sabrina Gill ◽  
Scot H. Simpson ◽  
...  

Objectives:The aim of this study was to determine the insulin-delivery system and the attributes of insulin therapy that best meet patients' preferences, and to estimate patients' willingness-to-pay (WTP) for them.Methods:This was a cross-sectional discrete choice experiment (DCE) study involving 378 Canadian patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Patients were asked to choose between two hypothetical insulin treatment options made up of different combinations of the attribute levels. Regression coefficients derived using conditional logit models were used to calculate patients' WTP. Stratification of the sample was performed to evaluate WTP by predefined subgroups.Results:A total of 274 patients successfully completed the survey. Overall, patients were willing to pay the most for better blood glucose control followed by weight gain. Surprisingly, route of insulin administration was the least important attribute overall. Segmented models indicated that insulin naïve diabetics were willing to pay significantly more for both oral and inhaled short-acting insulin compared with insulin users. Surprisingly, type 1 diabetics were willing to pay $C11.53 for subcutaneous short-acting insulin, while type 2 diabetics were willing to pay $C47.23 to avoid subcutaneous short-acting insulin (p< .05). These findings support the hypothesis of a psychological barrier to initiating insulin therapy, but once that this barrier has been overcome, they accommodate and accept injectable therapy as a treatment option.Conclusions:By understanding and addressing patients' preferences for insulin therapy, diabetes educators can use this information to find an optimal treatment approach for each individual patient, which may ultimately lead to improved control, through improved compliance, and better diabetes outcomes.


Diabetes Care ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (9) ◽  
pp. 945-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Torlone ◽  
S. Pampanelli ◽  
C. Lalli ◽  
P. D. Sindaco ◽  
A. D. Vincenzo ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 205-206
Author(s):  
Kenneth Lam ◽  
Siqi Gan ◽  
Bocheng Jing ◽  
Brian Nguyen ◽  
Sei Lee

Abstract The American Medical Directors Association and the American Diabetes Association discourage the use of sliding scale insulin (SSI) in nursing home residents with diabetes due to its association with hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, nursing burden, and patient discomfort. However, prevalence of SSI use is unclear. We used Veterans Affairs (VA) data from October 2013 to September 2016 to determine the weekly prevalence of SSI among 22,847 veterans with diabetes admitted to VA nursing homes (NHs). Average age was 75.3 (SD 8.3) years, mean A1c was 7.3% (SD 1.6%) and 57% were admitted from hospital. We first identified residents receiving any short-acting insulin. We then classified short-acting insulin use into three mutually exclusive regimens: (1) fixed scheduled doses, (2) SSI, defined as a variable dose of short-acting insulin without a concurrent fixed dose or (3) bolus with correction (BWC), defined as a variable dose given concurrently with a fixed dose that day. During the first week of NH admission, 64.7% of residents with diabetes received no short-acting insulin, 7.4% received fixed scheduled doses, 6.3% received BWC and 21.4% were on SSI. At week 12, the prevalence of fixed dose and BWC regimens was unchanged from baseline (fixed dose = 8.4%; BWC = 7.0%). In contrast, the prevalence of SSI decreased weekly to 15.8% (p for linear trend < 0.0001). Although SSI prevalence decreased from week 1 to week 12, 51% of residents on short-acting insulin were still using SSI in their 12th week of their NH stay.


2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 437.e1-437.e6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Bilotta ◽  
Rafael Badenes ◽  
Simona Lolli ◽  
Francisco Javier Belda ◽  
Sharon Einav ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document