Explore the vast range of titles available.

OBJECTIVE: Human regular U-500 (U-500R) insulin (500 units/mL) is increasingly being used clinically, yet its pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) have not been well studied. Therefore, we compared PK and PD of clinically relevant doses of U-500R with the same doses of human regular U-100 (U-100R) insulin (100 units/mL). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a single-site, randomized, double-blind, crossover euglycemic clamp study. Single subcutaneous injections of 50- and 100-unit doses of U-500R and U-100R were administered to 24 healthy obese subjects. RESULTS: Both overall insulin exposure (area under the serum insulin concentration versus time curve from zero to return to baseline [AUC0-t’]) and overall effect (total glucose infused during a clamp) were similar between formulations at both 50- and 100-unit doses (90% [CI] of ratios contained within [0.80, 1.25]). However, peak concentration and effect were significantly lower for U-500R at both doses (P < 0.05). Both formulations produced relatively long durations of action (18.3 to 21.5 h). Time-to-peak concentration and time to maximum effect were significantly longer for U-500R than U-100R at the 100-unit dose (P < 0.05). Time variables reflective of duration of action (late tRmax50, tRlast) were prolonged for U-500R versus U-100R at both doses (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall exposure to and action of U-500R insulin after subcutaneous injection were no different from those of U-100R insulin. For U-500R, peaks of concentration and action profiles were blunted and the effect after the peak was prolonged. These findings may help guide therapy with U-500R insulin for highly insulin-resistant patients with diabetes.

To compare the efficacy and safety of 2 dosing regimens for human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R, 500 units/mL) replacing high-dose U-100 insulins with or without oral antihyperglycemic drugs in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D). We conducted a 24-week, open-label, parallel trial in 325 patients (demographics [means]: age, 55.4 years; diabetes duration, 15.2 years; body mass index, 41.9 kg/m(2); glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], 8.7%; U-100 insulin dose, 287.5 units administered in 5 injections/day [median; range, 2 to 10]). Patients were randomized to thrice-daily (TID, n = 162) or twice-daily (BID, n = 163) U-500R after a 4-week lead-in period. The primary outcome was HbA1c change from baseline. After 24 weeks, both treatments demonstrated significant HbA1c reductions (TID, -1.12%; BID, -1.22%; both, P<.001) and clinical equivalence (difference, -0.10%; 95% confidence interval, -0.33 to 0.12%; noninferiority margin, 0.4%). Comparable increases in total daily U-500R dose (TID, 242.7 to 343.1 units; BID, 249.0 to 335.0 units) were observed. Incidence and rate of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (≤70 mg/dL) were lower for TID versus BID (P = .003 and P = .02, respectively); severe hypoglycemia was similar between treatments. Weight gain was similar in both groups (TID, 5.4 kg; BID, 4.9 kg). Initiation and titration of U-500R using either algorithm (TID or BID) improves glycemic control effectively and safely with fewer injections in patients with T2D treated with high-dose/high-volume U-100 insulin. These results provide clinicians with a practical framework for using U-500R in severely insulin-resistant patients with suboptimally controlled T2D.

Few randomized studies have focused on the optimal management of non-intensive care unit patients with type 2 diabetes in Latin America. We compared the safety and efficacy of a basal-bolus regimen with analogues and human insulins in general medicine patients admitted to a University Hospital in Asunción, Paraguay. In a prospective, open-label trial, we randomized 134 nonsurgical patients with blood glucose (BG) between 140 and 400 mg/dL to a basal-bolus regimen with glargine once daily and glulisine before meals (n = 66) or Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) twice daily and regular insulin before meals (n = 68). Major outcomes included differences in daily BG levels and frequency of hypoglycemic events between treatment groups. There were no differences in the mean daily BG (157 ± 37 mg/dL versus 158 ± 44 mg/dL; P = .90) or in the number of BG readings within target <140 mg/dL before meals (76% versus 74%) between the glargine/glulisine and NPH/regular regimens. The mean insulin dose in the glargine/glulisine group was 0.76 ± 0.3 units/kg/day (glargine, 22 ± 9 units/day; glulisine, 31 ± 12 units/day) and was not different compared with NPH/regular group (0.75 ± 0.3 units/kg/day [NPH, 28 ± 12 units/day; regular, 23 ± 9 units/day]). The overall prevalence of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) was similar between patients treated with NPH/regular and glargine/glulisine (38% versus 35%; P = .68), but more patients treated with human insulin had severe (<40 mg/dL) hypoglycemia (7.6% versus 25%; P = .08). There were no differences in length of hospital stay or mortality between groups. The basal-bolus regimen with insulin analogues resulted in equivalent glycemic control and frequency of hypoglycemia compared to treatment with human insulin in hospitalized patients with diabetes.

The objective of this study was to compare acute effects of prolonged sitting, prolonged standing and sitting interrupted with regular activity breaks on vascular function and postprandial glucose metabolism. In a randomized cross-over trial, 18 adults completed: 1. Prolonged Sitting; 2. Prolonged Standing and 3. Sitting with 2-min walking (5 km/h, 10% incline) every 30 min (Regular Activity Breaks). Flow mediated dilation (FMD) was measured in the popliteal artery at baseline and 6 h. Popliteal artery hemodynamics, and postprandial plasma glucose and insulin were measured over 6 h. Neither raw nor allometrically-scaled FMD showed an intervention effect (p = 0.285 and 0.159 respectively). Compared to Prolonged Sitting, Regular Activity Breaks increased blood flow (overall effect of intervention p<0.001; difference = 80%; 95% CI 34 to 125%; p = 0.001) and net shear rate (overall effect of intervention p<0.001; difference = 72%; 95% CI 30 to 114%; p = 0.001) at 60 min. These differences were then maintained for the entire 6 h. Prolonged Standing increased blood flow at 60 min only (overall effect of intervention p<0.001; difference = 62%; 95% CI 28 to 97%; p = 0.001). Regular Activity Breaks decreased insulin incremental area under the curve (iAUC) when compared to both Prolonged Sitting (overall effect of intervention P = 0.001; difference = 28%; 95% CI 14 to 38%; p<0.01) and Prolonged Standing (difference = 19%; 95% CI 4 to 32%, p = 0.015). There was no intervention effect on glucose iAUC or total AUC (p = 0.254 and 0.450, respectively). In normal-weight participants, Regular Activity Breaks induce increases in blood flow, shear stress and improvements in postprandial metabolism that are associated with beneficial adaptations. Physical activity and sedentary behaviour messages should perhaps focus more on the importance of frequent movement rather than simply replacing sitting with standing.

Optimizing insulin therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes can be challenging given the need for frequent dose adjustments. Most patients receive suboptimal doses and do not achieve glycemic control. To examine whether a voice-based conversational artificial intelligence (AI) application can help patients with type 2 diabetes titrate basal insulin at home to achieve rapid glycemic control. In this randomized clinical trial conducted at 4 primary care clinics at an academic medical center from March 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022, 32 adults with type 2 diabetes requiring initiation or adjustment of once-daily basal insulin were followed up for 8 weeks. Statistical analysis was performed from January to February 2023. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive basal insulin management with a voice-based conversational AI application or standard of care. Primary outcomes were time to optimal insulin dose (number of days needed to achieve glycemic control), insulin adherence, and change in composite survey scores measuring diabetes-related emotional distress and attitudes toward health technology and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes were glycemic control and glycemic improvement. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. The study population included 32 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.1 [12.7] years; 19 women [59.4%]). Participants in the voice-based conversational AI group more quickly achieved optimal insulin dosing compared with the standard of care group (median, 15 days [IQR, 6-27 days] vs >56 days [IQR, >29.5 to >56 days]; a significant difference in time-to-event curves; P = .006) and had better insulin adherence (mean [SD], 82.9% [20.6%] vs 50.2% [43.0%]; difference, 32.7% [95% CI, 8.0%-57.4%]; P = .01). Participants in the voice-based conversational AI group were also more likely than those in the standard of care group to achieve glycemic control (13 of 16 [81.3%; 95% CI, 53.7%-95.0%] vs 4 of 16 [25.0%; 95% CI, 8.3%-52.6%]; difference, 56.3% [95% CI, 21.4%-91.1%]; P = .005) and glycemic improvement, as measured by change in mean (SD) fasting blood glucose level (-45.9 [45.9] mg/dL [95% CI, -70.4 to -21.5 mg/dL] vs 23.0 [54.7] mg/dL [95% CI, -8.6 to 54.6 mg/dL]; difference, -68.9 mg/dL [95% CI, -107.1 to -30.7 mg/dL]; P = .001). There was a significant difference between the voice-based conversational AI group and the standard of care group in change in composite survey scores measuring diabetes-related emotional distress (-1.9 points vs 1.7 points; difference, -3.6 points [95% CI, -6.8 to -0.4 points]; P = .03). In this randomized clinical trial of a voice-based conversational AI application that provided autonomous basal insulin management for adults with type 2 diabetes, participants in the AI group had significantly improved time to optimal insulin dose, insulin adherence, glycemic control, and diabetes-related emotional distress compared with those in the standard of care group. These findings suggest that voice-based digital health solutions can be useful for medication titration. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05081011.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of intensive glycemic control therapy (IT) on insulin sensitivity and β-cell function in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients compared with subjects with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) and those with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Forty-eight newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients were randomly assigned to IT for 2 weeks and followed up for 1 year. Intravenous glucose tolerance tests were conducted in NGT, IGT, and diabetic subjects. Blood glucose and insulin were measured before and after IT and at the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: IT lowered the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) for insulin resistance (IR) significantly, from 3.12 ± 1.4 (mean ± SD) to 1.72 ± 0.8, a level comparable to the IGT (1.96 ± 1.1) and NGT (1.37 ± 0.6) subjects in the remission group; however, no HOMA-IR improvement was observed in nonremission subjects. HOMA-β in the remission group was improved (mean, interquartile range) from 18.4 (8.3-28.5) to 44.6 (32.1-69.1) and acute insulin response of insulin (AIRins) from 1.50 ± 0.22 to 1.83 ± 0.19 μIU/mL after IT, but was still significantly lower than those in NGT individuals (HOMA-β: 86.4 [56.7-185.2], P < 0.01; AIRins: 2.54 ± 0.39 μIU/mL, P < 0.01). After IT and at 1 year, the hyperbolic relationship between HOMA-β and HOMA sensitivity of remission subjects shifted close to that of IGT subjects. CONCLUSIONS: IT in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes not only partially restored β-cell function but also greatly restored insulin sensitivity. Compared with IGT and NGT subjects, β-cell function was less restored than insulin sensitivity after IT in the remission subjects.

Aims/hypothesis Several publications suggest an association between certain types of insulin and cancer, but with conflicting results. We investigated whether insulin glargine (A21Gly,B31Arg,B32Arg human insulin) is associated with an increased risk of cancer in a large population-based cohort study. Methods Data for this study were obtained from dispensing records from community pharmacies individually linked to hospital discharge records from 2.5 million individuals in the Netherlands. In a cohort of incident users of insulin, the association between insulin glargine and other insulin analogues, respectively, and cancer was analysed in comparison with human insulin using Cox proportional hazard models with cumulative duration of drug use as a time-varying determinant. The first hospital admission with a primary diagnosis of cancer was considered as the main outcome; secondary analyses were performed with specific cancers as outcomes. Results Of the 19,337 incident insulin users enrolled, 878 developed cancer. Use of insulin glargine was associated with a lower risk of malignancies in general in comparison with human insulin (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.71, 0.80). In contrast, an increased risk was found for breast cancer (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.22, 2.05). Dose–response relationships could not be identified. Conclusion/interpretation Users of insulin glargine and users of other insulin analogues had a lower risk of cancer in general than those using human insulin. Both associations might be a consequence of residual confounding, lack of adherence or competing risk. However, as in previous studies, we demonstrated an increased risk of breast cancer in users of insulin glargine in comparison with users of human insulin.

Background Initiation and titration of human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) with a dosing algorithm of either thrice daily (TID) or twice daily (BID) improved glycemic control with fewer injections in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with high-dose, high-volume U-100 insulin. The objective of this analysis was to compare patient-reported outcomes between U-500R TID and BID treatment groups in this titration-to-target randomized, clinical trial. Methods In this 24-week, open-label, parallel trial, 325 patients were randomized to TID ( n  = 162) or BID ( n  = 163) U-500R after a 4-week lead-in period (screening). The Treatment Related Impact Measure-Diabetes (TRIM-D) and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were administered at screening, baseline/randomization, and endpoint (24 weeks). The Visual Analog Scale-Injection Site Pain (VAS-ISP) was assessed at baseline/randomization, 12 weeks, and endpoint. Results The TRIM-D showed statistically significant improvements in overall scores from baseline to endpoint for both BID and TID groups, most domains in the TID group, and all domains in the BID group. The BID group achieved better scores than the TID patients in overall and in treatment burden, daily life, and compliance domains ( p  < .05). EQ-5D-5L index scores showed no statistically significant differences for TID and BID groups (and no differences between TID and BID groups) from baseline to endpoint. VAS-ISP scores improved for both treatment groups (−5.60 TID; −6.47 BID; p  < .05 for both) from baseline to endpoint. Conclusions U500 can be successfully titrated for improved glycemic control using BID and TID regimens with diabetes-specific Patient-Reported Outcomes showing improvements in both arms; however, BID had better scores than TID in overall, treatment burden, daily life, and compliance domains. Trial registration These secondary analyses are based on the study first received January 22, 2013 and reported in Clinical Trial Registry No.: NCT01774968 .

Aims/hypothesis We compared the effects of insulin degludec (IDeg; Des(B30)LysB29(γ-Glu Nε-hexadecandioyl) human insulin) and insulin glargine (IGlar; A21Gly,B31Arg,B32Arg human insulin) on the day-to-day variability of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels in individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin injections. Methods The effects of basal-bolus insulin therapy for 4 weeks with either IDeg or IGlar as the basal insulin in adult C-peptide-negative outpatients with type 1 diabetes were investigated in an open-label, multicentre, randomised, crossover trial. Randomisation was conducted using a centralised allocation process. The primary endpoints were the SD and CV of FPG during the final week of each treatment period. Secondary endpoints included serum glycoalbumin level, daily dose of insulin, intraday glycaemic variability and frequency of severe hypoglycaemia. Results Thirty-six randomised participants (17 in the IDeg/IGlar and 19 in the IGlar/IDeg groups) were recruited, and data for 32 participants who completed the trial were analysed. The mean (7.74 ± 1.76 vs 8.56 ± 2.06 mmol/l; p  = 0.04) and SD (2.60 ± 0.97 vs 3.19 ± 1.36 mmol/l; p  = 0.03) of FPG were lower during IDeg treatment than during IGlar treatment, whereas the CV did not differ between the two treatments. The dose of IDeg was smaller than that of IGlar (11.0 ± 5.2 vs 11.8 ± 5.6 U/day; p  < 0.01), but other secondary endpoints did not differ between the treatments. Conclusions/interpretation IDeg yielded a lower FPG level and smaller day-to-day variability of FPG at a lower daily dose compared with IGlar in participants with type 1 diabetes. IDeg serves as a good option for basal insulin in the treatment of type 1 diabetes. Trial registration : University Hospital Medical Information Network 000009965. Funding : This research recieved no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

To assess β-cell function and insulin sensitivity following improvement in glycemic control in severely insulin-resistant patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D). A subset of patients in a 24-week, open-label, randomized trial comparing thrice-daily (n = 14/162) versus twice-daily (n = 11/163) human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) underwent mixed meal tolerance testing at baseline and endpoint. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups (combined means: age, 54.0 years; diabetes duration, 13.6 years; body mass index, 38.8 kg/m(2); glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], 8.3%; U-100 insulin dose, 287.6 units/day, 2.6 units/kg/day). Primary outcome measure was ratio of area under the curve (AUC) for C-peptide to glucose (AUCC-peptide/AUCglucose) at 24-week endpoint. Change from baseline HbA1c, daily U-500R dose, and weight were -1.17% (P = .0002), +80.8 units (P = .0003), and +5.9 kg (P = .33), respectively. β-Cell function significantly improved after 24 weeks of U-500R therapy in combined treatment groups. The AUCC-peptide/AUCglucose increased 34.0% (ratio of least-squares geometric mean, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.18 to 1.52; P = .0001). Integral of total insulin secretion rate increased from 27.0 to 33.7 nmol/m(2), and glucose sensitivity improved from 18.3 to 24.0 pmol/min/m(2)/mM (both, P = .02). Matsuda index improved from 0.8 to 1.3 (P = .008). Despite long-standing diabetes and poor glycemic control at baseline, functional recovery of β-cells was observed with improved glycemic control in these severely insulin-resistant patients with T2D, possibly due to alleviation of glucotoxicity.