14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Impact of Insulin Pump Therapy on Glycemic Profiles in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Data from the OpT2mise Study

      research-article

      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

          Background: The OpT2mise randomized trial was designed to compare the effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and multiple daily injections (MDI) on glucose profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes.

          Research Design and Methods: Patients with glycated hemoglobin (HbA 1c) levels of ≥8% (64 mmol/mol) and ≤12% (108 mmol/mol) despite insulin doses of 0.7–1.8 U/kg/day via MDI were randomized to CSII ( n=168) or continued MDI ( n=163). Changes in glucose profiles were evaluated using continuous glucose monitoring data collected over 6-day periods before and 6 months after randomization.

          Results: After 6 months, reductions in HbA 1c levels were significantly greater with CSII (−1.1±1.2% [−12.0±13.1 mmol/mol]) than with MDI (−0.4±1.1% [−4.4±12.0 mmol/mol]) ( P<0.001). Similarly, compared with patients receiving MDI, those receiving CSII showed significantly greater reductions in 24-h mean sensor glucose (SG) (treatment difference, −17.1 mg/dL; P=0.0023), less exposure to SG >180 mg/dL (−12.4%; P=0.0004) and SG >250 mg/dL (−5.5%; P=0.0153), and more time in the SG range of 70–180 mg/dL (12.3%; P=0.0002), with no differences in exposure to SG<70 mg/dL or in glucose variability. Changes in postprandial (4-h) glucose area under the curve >180 mg/dL were significantly greater with CSII than with MDI after breakfast (−775.9±1,441.2 mg/dL/min vs. −160.7±1,074.1 mg/dL/min; P=0.0015) and after dinner (−731.4±1,580.7 mg/dL/min vs. −71.1±1,083.5 mg/dL/min; P=0.0014).

          Conclusions: In patients with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes, CSII significantly improves selected glucometrics, compared with MDI, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

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

          Risk of hypoglycaemia in types 1 and 2 diabetes: effects of treatment modalities and their duration.

          (2007)
          We explored the epidemiology of hypoglycaemia in individuals with insulin-treated diabetes by testing the hypothesis that diabetes type and duration of insulin treatment influence the risk of hypoglycaemia. This was an observational study over 9-12 months in six UK secondary care diabetes centres. Altogether 383 patients were involved. Patients were divided into the following three treatment groups for type 2 diabetes: (1) sulfonylureas, (2) insulin for 5 years, and into two treatment groups for type 1 diabetes, namely 15 years disease duration. Self-reported (mild and severe) and biochemical episodes (interstitial glucose 15 years group, 3.2.episodes per subject-year). During early insulin use in type 2 diabetes, the frequency of hypoglycaemia is generally equivalent to that observed in patients treated with sulfonylureas and considerably lower than during the first 5 years of treatment in type 1 diabetes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            HbA1c: A Review of Analytical and Clinical Aspects

            After the relationship between glycemic control and the HbA1c concentration was demonstrated, many tests have been developed to determine the HbA1c concentration. The test results are standardized to the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) Reference Measurement Procedure (RMP) in harmony with the efforts of the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP). The longitudinal use of the test requires strict quality management including accreditation of the laboratory, a dedicated internal control design, participation in an external quality assessment (EQA) program (proficiency test), and careful consideration of pre- and post-analytical aspects of the test. Performance goals for optimizing determination of the HbA1c concentration have been described. As an index of long-term glycemic control and a risk predictor, the HbA1c concentration is an indispensable part of routine management of diabetes. Because of the improving quality of the test, the HbA1c concentration is being increasingly applied in the diagnosis of diabetes. There are, however, concerns of this application in point-of-care settings. The HbA1c concentration is also used to achieve stringent control in pregnant diabetic patients. Strict standardization enables the definition of universal reference values and clinical decision limits. This review describes the present status of analytical and clinical aspects of determining the HbA1c concentration and highlights the challenges involved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Effects of Prandial Versus Fasting Glycemia on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes: The HEART2D trial

              OBJECTIVE—Hyperglycemia and Its Effect After Acute Myocardial Infarction on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (HEART2D) is a multinational, randomized, controlled trial designed to compare the effects of prandial versus fasting glycemic control on risk for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Patients (type 2 diabetes, aged 30–75 years) were randomly assigned within 21 days after AMI to the 1) prandial strategy (PRANDIAL) (three premeal doses of insulin lispro targeting 2-h postprandial blood glucose <7.5 mmol/l) or the 2) basal strategy (BASAL) (NPH twice daily or insulin glargine once daily targeting fasting/premeal blood glucose <6.7 mmol/l). RESULTS—A total of 1,115 patients were randomly assigned (PRANDIAL n = 557; BASAL n = 558), and the mean patient participation after randomization was 963 days (range 1–1,687 days). The trial was stopped for lack of efficacy. Risks of first combined adjudicated primary cardiovascular events in the PRANDIAL (n = 174, 31.2%) and BASAL (n = 181, 32.4%) groups were similar (hazard ratio 0.98 [95% CI 0.8–1.21]). Mean A1C did not differ between the PRANDIAL and BASAL groups (7.7 ± 0.1 vs. 7.8 ± 0.1%; P = 0.4) during the study. The PRANDIAL group showed a lower daily mean postprandial blood glucose (7.8 vs. 8.6 mmol/l; P < 0.01) and 2-h postprandial blood glucose excursion (0.1 vs. 1.3 mmol/l; P < 0.001) versus the BASAL group. The BASAL group showed lower mean fasting blood glucose (7.0 vs. 8.1 mmol/l; P < 0.001) and similar daily fasting/premeal blood glucose (7.7 vs. 7.3 mmol/l; P = 0.233) versus the PRANDIAL group. CONCLUSIONS—Treating diabetic survivors of AMI with prandial versus basal strategies achieved differences in fasting blood glucose, less-than-expected differences in postprandial blood glucose, similar levels of A1C, and no difference in risk for future cardiovascular event rates.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Diabetes Technol Ther
                Diabetes Technol. Ther
                dia
                Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
                Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. (140 Huguenot Street, 3rd FloorNew Rochelle, NY 10801USA )
                1520-9156
                1557-8593
                01 January 2016
                01 January 2016
                : 18
                : 1
                : 22-28
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Diabetes Unit, Endocrinology and Nutrition Department, University Hospital Clinic , Barcelona, Spain.
                [ 2 ]Medtronic Bakken Research Center , Maastricht, The Netherlands.
                [ 3 ]University Clinic of Endocrinology , Skopje, Macedonia.
                [ 4 ]CHU de Nancy , Vandoeuvre-Les-Nancy, France.
                [ 5 ]Medtronic International Trading Sàrl , Tolochenaz, Switzerland.
                [ 6 ]Department of Endocrinology, University of Caen Côte de Nacre Regional Hospital Center , Caen, France.
                [ 7 ]LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology , Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
                Author notes
                [*]

                Members of the OpT2mise Study Group are given in the Appendix.

                This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov with clinical trial registration number NCT01182493.

                Some of the data reported in this article have previously been reported at the 2014 Congress of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the 2015 Congress of the International Conference on Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes.

                Address correspondence to: Ignacio Conget, MD, Hospital Clínic i Universitari Villarroel 170, 08036 Barcelona,, Spain

                E-mail: iconget@ 123456clinic.ub.es
                Article
                10.1089/dia.2015.0159
                10.1089/dia.2015.0159
                4717502
                26241790
                e3491f69-0f1a-4b4f-b846-ec80a00368eb
                © Ignacio Conget, et al., 2016; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

                This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, References: 29, Pages: 7
                Categories
                Original Articles

                Comments

                Comment on this article