Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Minor Hypoglycaemia (minor + hypoglycaemia)
Selected AbstractsPremixed insulin treatment for type 2 diabetes: analogue or human?DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM, Issue 5 2007Alan J. Garber The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes makes insulin initiation a necessary therapeutic step for many patients. Premixed insulin formulations containing both basal and prandial insulin (so called biphasic insulin) are often prescribed because they are superior to long- or intermediate-acting insulin in obtaining good metabolic control. In addition, they are considered as an attractive alternative to classical basal-bolus therapy as fewer daily injections are required. Premixed insulin formulations include conventional (e.g. biphasic human insulin 70/30, or 30/70 in European countries, BHI 30) and newer premixed human analogues (e.g. biphasic insulin aspart 70/30, or 30/70 in Europe, BIAsp 30; insulin lispro mix 75/25,Mix 75/25, or Mix 25/75 in Europe). Like conventional premixed human insulin, premixed insulin analogues contain a fixed proportion of soluble, rapid-acting insulin analogue, with protaminated analogue comprising the remainder. Unlike conventional premixes, analogue premixes have more physiological pharmacokinetic and therapeutically more desirable pharmacodynamic profiles than premixed human insulin. Consequently, postprandial glycaemic control is better with premixed insulin analogues than with premixed human insulin. In nontreat-to-target registration trials, the lowering of haemoglobin A1c with premixed insulin analogues was not inferior to that seen with premixed human insulin. Minor hypoglycaemia was similar for premixed analogue and premixed human insulins, while major hypoglycaemia appears to be rare with either formulation. The occurrence of adverse events, other than hypoglycaemia, was also similar between various premix insulins. The premixed insulin analogues, BIAsp 30 and Mix 75/25, like the fast-acting analogues from which they are derived, also allow flexible injection timing, relative to meal timing, thus improving adherence, compliance and quality of life compared with premixed human insulin. Overall, the evidence suggests that premixed insulin analogues are cost effective and have useful advantages over premixed human insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. [source] Mid- and high-ratio premix insulin analogues: potential treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes in need of greater postprandial blood glucose controlDIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM, Issue 2 2010J. S. Christiansen Some patients with type 2 diabetes continue to have high postprandial blood glucose levels on twice-daily regimens of ,low-ratio' premix insulin formulations (up to 30% rapid-acting, with 70% protracted insulin). These patients require intensified insulin therapy, which can be provided by a twice- or thrice-daily regimen of mid-ratio (50% rapid-acting and 50% protaminated intermediate-acting insulin , human or analogue) or high-ratio (70% rapid-acting and 30% protaminated insulin , analogue only) premix insulin. Alternatively, a third daily injection of low-ratio premix insulin can be added to the regimen, with the option of incorporating one or more injections of mid- or high-ratio premix as required, and as an alternative to basal,bolus therapy. How these mid- and high-ratio formulations differ from the low-ratio premix insulins is reviewed here, with the aim of identifying the role of these formulations in diabetes management. Glucose clamp studies have shown that premix analogues give serum insulin levels proportional to their percentage of rapid-acting uncomplexed insulin: the higher the proportion, the greater the maximum level reached. Other pharmacokinetic parameters were not always significantly different between the mid- and high-ratio formulations. In clinical trials, postprandial plasma glucose and glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels were significantly reduced with thrice-daily mid- /high-ratio premix analogue when compared with twice-daily low-ratio biphasic human insulin (BHI) 30/70 or once-daily insulin glargine. Moreover, glycaemic control with mid-/high-ratio premix analogue was found to be similar to that with a basal,bolus therapy. Mid- and high-ratio premix regimens are generally well tolerated. The frequency of minor hypoglycaemia was reportedly higher with mid- /high-ratio premix analogues than with BHI 30, but nocturnal hypoglycaemia was less frequent. Although there is little evidence that clinical outcomes with mid-ratio premix analogues are different from those with high-ratio, they are useful additions to the low-ratio formulations for the management of diabetes, and addressing postprandial hyperglycaemia in particular. [source] Liraglutide, a once-daily human GLP-1 analogue, added to a sulphonylurea over 26 weeks produces greater improvements in glycaemic and weight control compared with adding rosiglitazone or placebo in subjects with Type 2 diabetes (LEAD-1 SU)DIABETIC MEDICINE, Issue 3 2009M. Marre Abstract Aim To compare the effects of combining liraglutide (0.6, 1.2 or 1.8 mg/day) or rosiglitazone 4 mg/day (all n , 228) or placebo (n = 114) with glimepiride (2,4 mg/day) on glycaemic control, body weight and safety in Type 2 diabetes. Methods In total, 1041 adults (mean ± sd), age 56 ± 10 years, weight 82 ± 17 kg and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 8.4 ± 1.0% at 116 sites in 21 countries were stratified based on previous oral glucose-lowering mono : combination therapies (30 : 70%) to participate in a five-arm, 26-week, double-dummy, randomized study. Results Liraglutide (1.2 or 1.8 mg) produced greater reductions in HbA1c from baseline, (,1.1%, baseline 8.5%) compared with placebo (+0.2%, P < 0.0001, baseline 8.4%) or rosiglitazone (,0.4%, P < 0.0001, baseline 8.4%) when added to glimepiride. Liraglutide 0.6 mg was less effective (,0.6%, baseline 8.4%). Fasting plasma glucose decreased by week 2, with a 1.6 mmol/l decrease from baseline at week 26 with liraglutide 1.2 mg (baseline 9.8 mmol/l) or 1.8 mg (baseline 9.7 mmol/l) compared with a 0.9 mmol/l increase (placebo, P < 0.0001, baseline 9.5 mmol/l) or 1.0 mmol/l decrease (rosiglitazone, P < 0.006, baseline 9.9 mmol/l). Decreases in postprandial plasma glucose from baseline were greater with liraglutide 1.2 or 1.8 mg [,2.5 to ,2.7 mmol/l (baseline 12.9 mmol/l for both)] compared with placebo (,0.4 mmol/l, P < 0.0001, baseline 12.7 mmol/l) or rosiglitazone (,1.8 mmol/l, P < 0.05, baseline 13.0 mmol/l). Changes in body weight with liraglutide 1.8 mg (,0.2 kg, baseline 83.0 kg), 1.2 mg (+0.3 kg, baseline 80.0 kg) or placebo (,0.1 kg, baseline 81.9 kg) were less than with rosiglitazone (+2.1 kg, P < 0.0001, baseline 80.6 kg). Main adverse events for all treatments were minor hypoglycaemia (< 10%), nausea (< 11%), vomiting (< 5%) and diarrhoea (< 8%). Conclusions Liraglutide added to glimepiride was well tolerated and provided improved glycaemic control and favourable weight profile. [source] Comparison between repaglinide and glipizide in Type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 1-year multicentre studyDIABETIC MEDICINE, Issue 5 2001S. Madsbad Abstract Aims To evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of repaglinide, a novel prandial glucose regulator, in comparison with glipizide in the treatment of patients with Type 2 diabetes. Methods Diet or tablet-treated patients with Type 2 diabetes (n = 256; age 40,75 years, body mass index (BMI) 20,35 kg/m2, HbA1c 4.2,12.8%), without signs of severe microvascular or macrovascular complications, were included in this double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group comparative trial. Patients were randomized at a 2:1 ratio to repaglinide, 1,4 mg at mealtimes, or glipizide, 5,15 mg daily. Results Changes in fasting blood glucose (FBG) and HbA1c during the 12 months of treatment showed a significant difference in favour of repaglinide. In oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHA)-naive patients, HbA1c decreased in the repaglinide and glipizide groups by 1.5% and 0.3%, respectively (P < 0.05 between groups). Fasting blood glucose decreased in the repaglinide group by 2.4 mmol/l and increased in the glipizide group by 1.0 mmol/l (P < 0.05 between groups). In the study population as a whole, repaglinide was able to maintain glycaemic control (HbA1c level) during the 1-year study period, whereas control deteriorated significantly with glipizide. Change in HbA1c from baseline was significantly better with repaglinide than with glipizide after 12 months (P < 0.05). In addition, FBG deteriorated significantly in the glipizide group compared with the repaglinide group (P < 0.05). No patients in either group experienced a major hypoglycaemic event; the number of patients experiencing minor hypoglycaemia was similar in the repaglinide and glipizide groups (15% and 19%, respectively). Conclusions Repaglinide, given as a prandial glucose regulator, is shown to be an effective and safe treatment of patients with Type 2 diabetes, and is better than glipizide in controlling HbA1c and FBG levels, overall, and in OHA-naive patients. Diabet. Med. 18, 395,401 (2001) [source] | ||||||||||