15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Early Insulin Treatment in Type 2 Diabetes : What are the pros?

      research-article
      , MD, MBA
      Diabetes Care
      American Diabetes Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The prevalence of diabetes in the world is growing at an unprecedented rate and rapidly becoming a health concern and burden in both developed and developing countries (1). In addition, we are now witnessing an upsurge in the incidence of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents, with the potential of translating into a future catastrophic disease burden as vascular complications of the disease begin affecting a younger population. Although there may be contention regarding the impact of lowering glycemia on macrovascular disease risk, there is strong consensus of the definite benefits of lowering blood glucose to reduce the risk of retinopathy and nephropathy in either type 1 or type 2 diabetes (2,3). Despite supporting data and multiple guidelines advanced by professional organizations, overall glycemic control falls far below expectations (4). Overall, <36% of individuals with diabetes are at recommended glycemic targets, with the most difficult-to-control cases represented by insulin-deficient individuals on insulin therapy to manage their diabetes (4). Furthermore, as β-cell dysfunction progresses over time, many patients with type 2 diabetes, treated with oral agents, fail to achieve or maintain adequate glycemic control. Unfortunately, in many of these cases, antiglycemic therapy is not adjusted or advanced, thereby exposing patients to prolonged hyperglycemia and the increased risk of diabetes-related complications. The term “clinical inertia,” which has come to define the lack of initiation, or intensification of therapy when clinically indicated (5), is most pronounced in the setting of insulin initiation. Subjects with type 2 diabetes, managed in a large integrated health care system, were initiated on additional blood glucose–lowering treatment only when the mean baseline A1C reached a value of 9.0% (6). Patients started on insulin had an even higher mean A1C of 9.6% and tended to have more severe baseline complications and comorbidities than those started on sulfonylurea, or metformin therapy. In addition, the higher the starting A1C when therapy was initiated or changed, the less likely the patient was of achieving adequate glycemic control (6). Although specialists are slightly more proficient than general practitioners in intensifying diabetes therapy when warranted (7), overall clinical inertia results in the majority of patients failing to achieve, or maintain, adequate metabolic goals from a period of months to several years (8,9). In summary, to improve these suboptimal metabolic outcomes, and reduce the risk of disease-related complications, more intensive management of glycemia is warranted, including the option of introducing insulin therapy earlier than the current widely practiced substandard of care. INTRODUCTION OF INSULIN EARLIER IN THE TREATMENT PARADIGM Typically, whereas introducing insulin therapy in a more timely fashion would significantly improve glycemic control among subjects with type 2 diabetes, the question of insulin initiation timing in relation to other antiglycemic therapies is the subject of considerable debate (10). While insulin administration has the potential of achieving the most effective reductions in glycemic control, the initiation of insulin therapy requires greater use of resources, time, and effort from provider and patient alike, compared with oral antidiabetic therapies (11). Patient resistance to the use of insulin therapy remains a challenge, especially in populations that may have misgivings and misconceptions regarding the role of insulin replacement in diabetes management. Notwithstanding these issues, there are specific populations that would clearly benefit from early, aggressive, and targeted introduction of insulin therapy. For instance, patients presenting with significant hyperglycemia may benefit from timely initiation of insulin therapy that can effectively and rapidly correct their metabolic imbalance and reverse the deleterious effects of excessive glucose (glucotoxicity) and lipid (lipotoxicity) exposure on β-cell function and insulin action (12). In vitro studies have demonstrated that chronic hyperglycemia leads to increased production of reactive oxygen species, and subsequent oxidative stress, which appears to affect insulin promoter activity (PDX-1 and MafA binding) and results in diminished insulin gene expression in glucotoxic β-cells (13). Interestingly, in vitro experiments have shown that these glucotoxic effects occur in a continuum of glucose concentrations (no clear threshold effect), are reversible with reinstitution of euglycemic conditions, and result in the greatest recovery of β-cell function with shorter periods of exposure to hyperglycemia (14). Various studies have demonstrated improvement in insulin sensitivity and β-cell function after correction of hyperglycemia with intensive insulin therapy (15). INTENSIVE INSULIN TREATMENT AND β-CELL FUNCTION A number of trials have evaluated the strategy of implementing short-term aggressive insulin replacement as first-line therapy in the management of hyperglycemia in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (Table 1), with the goal of improving and preserving β-cell function, reducing insulin resistance, and maintaining optimal glycemic control through disease “remission” (16 –18). In these studies, intensive insulin therapy was delivered via multiple daily insulin injections, or insulin pump therapy (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion), over a period of 2–3 weeks, with achievement of euglycemia in ∼90% of subjects on completion of insulin treatment. After insulin withdrawal, patients were maintained on diet therapy only, with 42–69% maintaining euglycemia 12 or more months after treatment. Patients who achieved and maintained long-term euglycemia tended to have a better response to insulin therapy, as well as associated improvements in β-cell function, including first-phase insulin release, as measured by homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function (HOMA-B) and intravenous glucose tolerance tests. Table 1 Baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes receiving temporary insulin therapy at disease diagnosis n Age BMI Baseline A1C (%) Insulin dose (units · kg−1 · day−1) Days to glycemic control Duration insulin therapy (weeks) % Early responders % Sustained responders Weight change Ilkova et al. (17) 13 50 27 11.2 0.61 1.9 2 92 69 (26 months) 0.4 kg Li et al. (16) 126 50 25 10.0 0.7 6.3 2 90 42 (24 months) −0.04 kg/m2 Ryan et al. (18) 16 52 31 11.8 0.37–0.73 <14 2–3 88 44 (12 months) −0.5 kg/m2 Early responders are subjects who achieved euglycemia with insulin treatment, and late responders are subjects who maintained long-term euglycemia without pharmacotherapy after the initial insulin treatment. Improvements in β-cell function and insulin action have also been reported when euglycemia is achieved with noninsulin therapies (19). Unfortunately, as illustrated by the U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study, long-term glycemic control in type 2 diabetes is difficult to maintain, regardless of the therapeutic intervention due, in part, to progressive loss of β-cell function over time. The recently published A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial (ADOPT) demonstrated longer maintenance of glycemic control in patients using a thiazolidinedione (rosiglitazone) compared with glyburide or metformin monotherapy, although β-cell function, as measured by HOMA-B was no different at the end of the trial between the rosiglitazone and sulfonylurea groups (20); the benefits in durability of control seemed to have been a result of improved insulin sensitivity. A recent study comparing intensive insulin therapy (multiple daily insulin injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion) with oral hypoglycemic agents (glicazide and/or metformin) in newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes provided some provocative results (21). In this trial, 92% of 382 subjects with poorly controlled diabetes achieved glycemic targets (fasting and 2-h postprandial capillary glucose levels of <110 mg/dl and <144 mg/dl, respectively) within an average of 8 days from start of therapy (Table 2). Treatment was withdrawn after 2 weeks of normoglycemia, followed by diet and exercise management. A greater proportion of patients randomized to intensive insulin therapy achieved glycemic targets and did so in a shorter period compared with oral agent therapy (Table 2). Shortly after discontinuing antiglycemic treatment, measures of first-phase insulin release, HOMA-B and HOMA-IR were similar among all treatment groups. By the end of 1 year, remission rates were significantly higher in the groups that had received initial insulin therapy (51 and 45% in the continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and multiple daily insulin injections groups, respectively), compared with 27% in the oral therapy group. Whereas in the oral agent group, acute insulin response at 1 year declined significantly compared with immediate post-treatment, it was maintained in the insulin treatment groups. Of note, responders typically had higher BMI, less baseline hyperglycemia, and greater responsiveness to therapy than nonresponders. Table 2 Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes comparing subjects treated with insulin or oral agent therapies lasting for 2 weeks after achievement of normoglycemia Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion Multiple daily injections Oral agents n 133 118 101 Age (yrs) 50 51 52 BMI (kg/m2) 25 24 25 Baseline A1C (%) 9.8 9.7 9.5 % Achieving euglycemia 97 95 83 Time to euglycemia (days) 4 5.6 9.3 Daily drug doses 0.68 units/kg (mean) 0.74 units/kg (mean) Glicazide 160 mg + metformin 1,500 mg (max median) Δ in AIR* (pmol · l−1 · min−1) 951 800 831 AIR (median) in remission groups at 1 year 809 729 335† From Weng et al. (21). *Change in median AIR (acute insulin response) between baseline and treatment end. †P < 0.05 compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Another study comparing early and continued insulin treatment versus oral agent therapy (glibenclamide) over a period of 2 years in recently diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes showed better long-term glycemic control and β-cell function in the insulin-treated group (22). There was no difference in weight gain between insulin and oral agent therapy and no reported cases of severe hypoglycemia, reflecting easier-to-manage glycemia, probably as a result of better endogenous insulin production. POTENTIAL PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF INSULIN REPLACEMENT THERAPY What could account for some of the differences in β-cell function seen in studies with early aggressive insulin therapy? A study evaluating the anti-inflammatory effects of an insulin infusion on obese subjects without diabetes demonstrated suppression of nuclear factor κB. Nuclear factor κB is the key transcription factor responsible for the transcription of proinflammatory cytokines, adhesion molecules and enzymes responsible for producing reactive oxygen species (23). As a consequence, insulin infusion significantly suppressed generation of reactive oxygen species and decreased concentrations of plasma soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1), monocyte chemo-attractant protein-1 (MCP-1), and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), among other observed anti-inflammatory actions (24). Could the timing of the intervention affect the metabolic response to insulin therapy? For example, loss of first-phase insulin response, possibly as a consequence of glucotoxicity, is evident with fasting plasma glucose concentrations >115 mg/dl (25). Often, when diabetes is diagnosed, fasting plasma glucose levels are usually significantly higher, and may have been so for quite some time (26), exposing β-cells to chronic hyperglycemia and consequent β-cell decompensation (13). It could be hypothesized that early aggressive physiologic insulin replacement with both prandial and basal coverage results in rapid improvement in glucolipotoxicity, reduction of the inflammatory milieu, and consequent greater preservation of β-cell function. Some of these improvements in β-cell function were also evident after rigorous management with glyburide and metformin. INSULIN REPLACEMENT OPTIONS AND STRATEGIES Whereas the use of insulin therapy in newly diagnosed subjects with type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain, the use of algorithm-driven insulin replacement in more advanced disease is often associated with a greater incidence of weight gain and hypoglycemia. Individualizing the insulin prescription may minimize some of these adverse outcomes. Using the A1C status of a patient, the fasting blood glucose, and if available, the postprandial glucose could assist the provider in individualizing insulin replacement. Published trials in suboptimally controlled insulin-naive type 2 diabetes seem to indicate that basal insulin replacement yields similar effectiveness, but with less weight gain, and hypoglycemia risk than basal/prandial or mixed insulin strategies, when baseline A1C is ≤8.5% (27). Thus, in a patient whose predominant glycemic burden occurs overnight and whose A1C level is within 1–2% points of target, starting with a low dose of basal insulin (0.2 units · kg−1 · day−1) and adjusting the dose to achieve fasting blood glucose levels <110–130 mg/dl often proves an effective strategy. With higher A1C levels, replacing prandial insulin, with or without basal insulin coverage, results in greater A1C reduction than basal-only replacement, albeit at the expense of more weight gain and hypoglycemia (28). For example, patients inadequately controlled on basal insulin can be started on one or more doses of rapid-acting insulin (0.05 units/kg/meal) before one or more meals (usually the largest meals), and the insulin dose titrated to achieve postprandial blood glucose levels <180 mg/dl. A basal/bolus insulin replacement, giving patients flexible prandial dosing instructions, as opposed to fixed doses of premeal insulin, has been shown to be associated with equivalent glycemic control, but with less weight gain (29). Furthermore, the use of basal insulin analogs (glargine or detemir) is associated with less hypoglycemia (especially nocturnal hypoglycemia) and, in the case of insulin detemir, less weight gain than human NPH insulin (27,30). CONCLUSIONS In summary, aggressive and often temporary use of insulin therapy at disease onset in type 2 diabetes is associated with effective glycemic control with minimal weight gain and hypoglycemia. Early restitution of physiologic insulin secretion and glycemic control could be, in theory, followed by therapies to prolong maintenance of euglycemia, such as thiazolidinediones- (20) or glucagons-like peptide 1–based interventions (to date not clinically tested). A more timely and selective introduction of insulin replacement therapy, as β-cell function progresses, could facilitate the achievement and maintenance of euglycemia and thus reduce disease-associated complications.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030.

          The goal of this study was to estimate the prevalence of diabetes and the number of people of all ages with diabetes for years 2000 and 2030. Data on diabetes prevalence by age and sex from a limited number of countries were extrapolated to all 191 World Health Organization member states and applied to United Nations' population estimates for 2000 and 2030. Urban and rural populations were considered separately for developing countries. The prevalence of diabetes for all age-groups worldwide was estimated to be 2.8% in 2000 and 4.4% in 2030. The total number of people with diabetes is projected to rise from 171 million in 2000 to 366 million in 2030. The prevalence of diabetes is higher in men than women, but there are more women with diabetes than men. The urban population in developing countries is projected to double between 2000 and 2030. The most important demographic change to diabetes prevalence across the world appears to be the increase in the proportion of people >65 years of age. These findings indicate that the "diabetes epidemic" will continue even if levels of obesity remain constant. Given the increasing prevalence of obesity, it is likely that these figures provide an underestimate of future diabetes prevalence.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The treat-to-target trial: randomized addition of glargine or human NPH insulin to oral therapy of type 2 diabetic patients.

            To compare the abilities and associated hypoglycemia risks of insulin glargine and human NPH insulin added to oral therapy of type 2 diabetes to achieve 7% HbA(1c). In a randomized, open-label, parallel, 24-week multicenter trial, 756 overweight men and women with inadequate glycemic control (HbA(1c) >7.5%) on one or two oral agents continued prestudy oral agents and received bedtime glargine or NPH once daily, titrated using a simple algorithm seeking a target fasting plasma glucose (FPG)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Glucolipotoxicity: fuel excess and beta-cell dysfunction.

              Glucotoxicity, lipotoxicity, and glucolipotoxicity are secondary phenomena that are proposed to play a role in all forms of type 2 diabetes. The underlying concept is that once the primary pathogenesis of diabetes is established, probably involving both genetic and environmental forces, hyperglycemia and very commonly hyperlipidemia ensue and thereafter exert additional damaging or toxic effects on the beta-cell. In addition to their contribution to the deterioration of beta-cell function after the onset of the disease, elevations of plasma fatty acid levels that often accompany insulin resistance may, as glucose levels begin to rise outside of the normal range, also play a pathogenic role in the early stages of the disease. Because hyperglycemia is a prerequisite for lipotoxicity to occur, the term glucolipotoxicity, rather than lipotoxicity, is more appropriate to describe deleterious effects of lipids on beta-cell function. In vitro and in vivo evidence supporting the concept of glucotoxicity is presented first, as well as a description of the underlying mechanisms with an emphasis on the role of oxidative stress. Second, we discuss the functional manifestations of glucolipotoxicity on insulin secretion, insulin gene expression, and beta-cell death, and the role of glucose in the mechanisms of glucolipotoxicity. Finally, we attempt to define the role of these phenomena in the natural history of beta-cell compensation, decompensation, and failure during the course of type 2 diabetes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Diabetes Care
                diacare
                dcare
                Diabetes Care
                Diabetes Care
                American Diabetes Association
                0149-5992
                1935-5548
                November 2009
                : 32
                : Supplement_2
                : S266-S269
                Affiliations
                [1]From the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism and the Diabetes Research Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Luigi F. Meneghini, lmeneghi@ 123456med.miami.edu .
                Article
                S320
                10.2337/dc09-S320
                2811460
                19875562
                988e8c56-8817-4b80-89ac-046b1e842f7e
                © 2009 by the American Diabetes Association.

                Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.

                History
                Categories
                Diabetes Progression, Prevention, and Treatment
                Treatment

                Endocrinology & Diabetes
                Endocrinology & Diabetes

                Comments

                Comment on this article