Safety and Effectiveness of an Investigational Insulin Delivery Device Providing Basal/Bolus Therapy with Rapid-Acting or Regular Human Insulin in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

被引:0
|
作者
Aronson, Ronnie [1 ]
Mahoney, Edward [2 ]
Saliu, Drilon [2 ]
Sze, David [2 ]
Morel, Didier [3 ]
Bergquist, Leya [4 ]
Hirsch, Laurence [2 ]
机构
[1] LMC Diabet & Endocrinol, Suite 107,1929 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON M4G 3E8, Canada
[2] Becton Dickinson & Co, Med Affairs, Franklin Lakes, NJ USA
[3] Becton Dickinson & Co, Global Clin Dev, Le Pont De Claix, France
[4] Becton Dickinson & Co, Human Factors Engn, R&D, Franklin Lakes, NJ USA
关键词
Glycemic control; Insulin delivery device; Prospective study; Type; 2; diabetes; MULTIPLE DAILY INJECTIONS; PUMP THERAPY; GLOBAL ATTITUDES; GLYCEMIC CONTROL; ADHERENCE; OPT2MISE; PHYSICIANS; INFUSION; ACCESS; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1089/dia.2019.0356
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: This study undertook to assess usability, 24-h glycemic profiles, and safety of an investigational basal/bolus insulin delivery device (IDD) providing rapid-acting or regular human insulin (RHI) for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) transitioning from multiple daily insulin injections (MDIs). Methods: This prospective, single-center, open-label two-period study enrolled adults with T2D and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7%-11% (53-97 mmol/M). Participants continued the usual MDI therapy during a 2- to 3-day in-clinic MDI period and then within 7 days were switched to the IDD, using current insulin dose, for a 6-day in-clinic IDD period, with blinded continuous glucose monitoring throughout the in-clinic periods. Results: We enrolled 21 participants (mean +/- standard deviation age 57 +/- 8 years; HbA1c 8.2% +/- 0.9% [66 +/- 9.8 mmol/M]) using U-100 insulin lispro (n = 11) or who switched to U-100 RHI (n = 10). Glycemic measures improved from the MDI to IDD period, including fasting blood glucose (BG), 141.2 +/- 38.3 mg/dL (7.8 +/- 2.1 mmol/L) versus 121.2 +/- 35.0 mg/dL (6.7 +/- 1.9 mmol/L; P = 0.002), respectively; 24-h mean BG, 137.0 +/- 20.5 mg/dL (7.6 +/- 1.1 mmol/L) versus 125.0 +/- 16.5 mg/dL (6.9 +/- 0.9 mmol/L; P = 0.004); and time in range (at 70-180 mg/dL; 3.9-10 mmol/L), 81.0% +/- 14.4% versus 87.5% +/- 10.6% (P = 0.008). No significant differences between MDIs and IDD use were recorded for time <70 mg/dL (1.6% +/- 2.7% vs. 3.1% +/- 2.7%, P = 0.08), CV%, or mean of daily differences. Mean amplitude of glycemic excursions was significantly lower with the IDD (P = 0.011). There were no significant differences between insulin lispro and RHI for any glycemic measure. No serious adverse events were recorded. Conclusions: In the context of this exploratory study, the IDD was safe and effective to administer insulin lispro and RHI for adults with T2D.
引用
收藏
页码:352 / 359
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Safety and Efficacy of a Novel Basal-Bolus Insulin Delivery Device (IDD) in Adults with T2D Using Rapid-Acting or Regular Human Insulin
    Aronson, Ronnie
    Mahoney, Edward T.
    Saliu, Drilon
    Bergquist, Leya
    Hirsch, Laurence
    [J]. DIABETES, 2019, 68
  • [2] Addition of rapid-acting insulin to basal insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: indications and modalities
    Monnier, L
    Colette, C
    [J]. DIABETES & METABOLISM, 2006, 32 (01) : 7 - 13
  • [3] Safety of Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogs Versus Regular Human Insulin
    Kitabchi, Abbas E.
    Gosmanov, Aidar R.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2012, 344 (02): : 136 - 141
  • [4] RAPID-ACTING INSULIN ANALOGUES IN BASAL-BOLUS REGIMENS IN TYPE 1 DIABETES MELLITUS
    Garg, Satish
    Javier Ampudia-Blasco, Francisco
    Pfohl, Martin
    [J]. ENDOCRINE PRACTICE, 2010, 16 (03) : 486 - 505
  • [5] Regular insulin, rather than rapid-acting insulin, is a suitable choice for premeal bolus insulin in lean patients with type2 diabetes mellitus
    Kuroda, Akio
    Kaneto, Hideaki
    Kawashima, Satoshi
    Sakamoto, Kenya
    Takahara, Mitsuyoshi
    Shiraiwa, Toshihiko
    Yasuda, Tetsuyuki
    Katakami, Naoto
    Matsuoka, Taka-aki
    Shimomura, Iichiro
    Matsuhisa, Munehide
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DIABETES INVESTIGATION, 2013, 4 (01): : 78 - 81
  • [6] Efficacy and safety comparison of rapid-acting insulin aspart and regular human insulin in the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review
    Rys, P.
    Pankiewicz, O.
    Lach, K.
    Kwaskowski, A.
    Skrzekowska-Baran, I.
    Malecki, M. T.
    [J]. DIABETES & METABOLISM, 2011, 37 (03) : 190 - 200
  • [7] Comparison of Hypoglycemia Safety between U-100 Human Regular Insulin and Rapid-Acting Insulin Delivered By V-Go Wearable Insulin Delivery in Type 2 Diabetes
    Mora, Pablo F.
    Sutton, David R.
    Gore, Ashwini
    Baliga, Bantwal
    Goldfaden, Rebecca F.
    Nikkel, Carla C.
    Sink, John H., II
    Adams-Huet, Beverley A.
    [J]. DIABETES, 2020, 69
  • [8] iGlarLixi versus basal plus Rapid-Acting insulin in adults with type 2 diabetes advancing from basal insulin therapy: The SoliSimplify Real-World study
    McCrimmon, Rory J.
    Cheng, Alice Y. Y.
    Galstyan, Gagik
    Djaballah, Khier
    Li, Xuan
    Coudert, Mathieu
    Frias, Juan P.
    [J]. DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM, 2023, 25 (01): : 68 - 77
  • [9] Iglarlixi vs basal plus rapid-acting insulin in adults with type 2 diabetes advancing from basal insulin therapy: the SoliSimplify real-world study
    McCrimmon, R. J.
    Cheng, A. Y. Y.
    Galstyan, G.
    Djaballah, K.
    Li, X.
    Coudert, M.
    Frias, J.
    [J]. DIABETOLOGIA, 2022, 65 (SUPPL 1) : S331 - S332
  • [10] Patient reported outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin randomized to addition of mealtime pramlintide or rapid-acting insulin analogs
    Peyrot, Mark
    Rubin, Richard R.
    Polonsky, William H.
    Best, Jennie H.
    [J]. CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2010, 26 (05) : 1047 - 1054