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
  • [31] Insulin analogues (insulin detemir and insulin aspart) versus traditional human insulins (NPH insulin and regular human insulin) in basal-bolus therapy for patients with Type 1 diabetes
    K. Hermansen
    P. Fontaine
    K. K. Kukolja
    V. Peterkova
    G. Leth
    M.-A. Gall
    [J]. Diabetologia, 2004, 47 : 622 - 629
  • [32] Use of PaQ®, a Simple 3-Day Basal/Bolus Insulin Delivery Device, Reduces Barriers to Insulin Therapy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
    Hermanns, Norbert
    Lilly, Leslie
    Mader, Julia K.
    Aberer, Felix
    Pachatz, Joerg
    Korsatko, Stefan
    Warner, Jay
    Pieber, Thomas
    [J]. DIABETES, 2013, 62 : A205 - A205
  • [33] COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF RAPID-ACTING ANALOG INSULIN FOR TYPE 1 DIABETES IN THE UK SETTING
    Saunders, R.
    Boye, K. S.
    van Brunt, K.
    Pollock, R. F.
    Valentine, W. J.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2015, 18 (07) : A610 - A610
  • [34] Glycemic control with insulin glulisine versus regular human insulin in a basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes
    Dailey, G
    Rosenstock, J
    Moses, R
    Ways, K
    [J]. DIABETES, 2004, 53 : A121 - A121
  • [35] Glycaemic control with insulin glulisine versus regular human insulin in a basal-bolus regimen in patients with Type 2 diabetes
    Dailey, G
    Rosenstock, J
    Moses, R
    Ways, K
    [J]. DIABETOLOGIA, 2004, 47 : A265 - A266
  • [36] U-500 Insulin as a Component of Basal Bolus Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes
    Lowery, Jolene Brown
    Donihi, Amy C.
    Korytkowski, Mary T.
    [J]. DIABETES TECHNOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2012, 14 (06) : 505 - 507
  • [37] Immunogenicity of different brands of human insulin and rapid-acting insulin analogs in insulin-naive children with type 1 diabetes
    Mianowska, B.
    Szadkowska, A.
    Pietrzak, I.
    Zmyslowska, A.
    Wegner, O.
    Tomczonek, J.
    Bodalski, J.
    Mlynarski, W.
    [J]. PEDIATRIC DIABETES, 2011, 12 (02) : 78 - 84
  • [38] Efficacy and safety of switching to insulin glulisine from other rapid-acting insulin analogs in children with type 1 diabetes
    Urakami, Tatsuhiko
    Kuwabara, Remi
    Habu, Masako
    Okuno, Misako
    Suzuki, Junichi
    Takahashi, Shori
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DIABETES INVESTIGATION, 2015, 6 (01): : 87 - 90
  • [39] Use of rapid-acting insulin aspart reduces costs and cardiovascular complications in type 2 diabetes when compared with human insulin
    Pollock, R. F.
    Valentine, W. J.
    Thomsen, T. L.
    Nishimura, H.
    [J]. DIABETOLOGIA, 2009, 52 : S349 - S350
  • [40] Efficacy and Safety of a 24-Hour Wearable Insulin Delivery Device for Basal-Bolus Therapy in Older Adults
    Zeidan, Trisha
    Nikkel, Carla C.
    Dziengelewski, Elizabeth A.
    [J]. DIABETES, 2019, 68