Post on 04-Jun-2018
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
1/31
Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes
Trent Davis, MD, Steven V. Edelman, MD*
Section of Diabetes/Metabolism, Veterans Affairs San Diego HealthCare System,
3350 La Jolla Village Drive 111G, San Diego, CA 92161, USA
Diabetes mellitus affects approximately 18 million people in the United
States, which is approximately 6% of the overall population, and over
800,000 new cases are diagnosed annually [1]. Diabetes may actually be
more endemic than these figures indicate because there are no symptoms in
the early stages of the disease, and potentially one undiagnosed individual
exists for every one that is identified [2]. Of the total diabetic population,
85% to 90% of individuals have type 2 diabetes whereas 10% to 15% have
type 1 diabetes[3].
Type 2 diabetes leads to a tremendous amount of death and disabilityand uses a large portion of the health care dollar [4]. Although diabetes is
associated with multiple disorders with distinct pathologic mechanisms,
insulin resistance is the common denominator and is associated with several
comorbidities, including obesity, hypertension, and vascular disease. The
natural history of the disease is often complicated by various microvascular
and macrovascular sequelae that can lead to blindness, end-stage renal
disease, lower-extremity amputation, and atherosclerosis resulting in heart
attack or stroke [3,5]. Although most of the human suffering is caused by
end-stage microvascular disease, 80% of diabetics die of macrovascularcardiovascular disease. There is now clear evidence from the United
Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and the Kumamoto study
that improved glycemic control through intensive diabetes management
delays the onset and significantly retards the progression of microvascular
complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus[6,7]. The results from
the UKPDS are reassuring in that, although intensive treatment with insulin
was associated with increased weight gain and hypoglycemia, there is no
evidence of any harmful effect of insulin on cardiovascular outcomes, which
has been a controversial issue. An epidemiologic analysis of the UKPDS
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address:svedelman@vapop.ucsd.edu(S.V. Edelman).
0025-7125/04/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mcna.2004.04.005
Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
mailto:svedelman@vapop.ucsd.edumailto:svedelman@vapop.ucsd.edu8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
2/31
data shows a continuous association between the risk of cardiovascular
complications and glycemia, such that for every percentage point of decrease
in HbA1c(eg, from 9% to 8%), there is a 25% reduction in diabetes-relateddeaths, a 7% reduction in all-cause mortality, and an 18% reduction in
combined fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction [6].
To achieve glycemic goals in patients with type 2 diabetes, we now have
multiple pharmacologic agents with different mechanisms of action, in-
cluding sulfonylureas, meglitinides, metformin, a-glucosidase inhibitors,
thiazolidinediones, and insulin. It must be emphasized, however, that unlike
patients with type 1 diabetes, who have no significant insulin secretion and
hence require insulin therapy from the onset of their disease, a prominent
feature in the early stages of the disease for patients with type 2 diabetesis insulin resistance with hyperinsulinemia. Therefore, improving insulin
sensitivity be means of caloric restriction, exercise, and weight management
early in the disease process will benefit type 2 diabetics. When these measures
fail, glycemic goals can often be achieved with oral agents used alone or
in combination with each other. When patients are diagnosed late in the
natural history, however, there is progressive loss of pancreatic beta-cell
function and endogenous insulin secretion, making diurnal glycemic control
difficult. At this late stage, most patients require exogenous insulin therapy
to achieve optimal glucose control. The American Diabetes Association(ADA) now recommends that the glycemic objective for patients with type 2
diabetes to normalize glycemia and glycosylated hemoglobin concentrations
should be similar to that for type 1 diabetes.
Pathogenesis and natural history of type 2 diabetes
Of the Americans diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, 80% to 90% are obese,
and the remainder are lean [8]. The genesis of hyperglycemia in type 2diabetes involves a triad of abnormalities: excessive hepatic glucose pro-
duction, impaired pancreatic insulin secretion, and peripheral resistance
to insulin action, occurring principally in liver and muscle tissue [9]. The
severity of these abnormalities and their contribution to the degree of
hyperglycemia can vary considerably, causing heterogeneity in the metabolic
expression of the diabetic state. Such differences are best exemplified by the
lean and obese varieties of type 2 diabetes, which have the same underlying
pathophysiologic basis but differ in the extent to which each abnormality
contributes to the development of the hyperglycemic state. Of these ab-normalities, peripheral insulin resistance to insulin action and impaired
pancreatic beta-cell secretion are early and primary abnormalities, whereas
increased hepatic glucose production is a late and secondary manifestation.
Early in their disease, patients with type 2 diabetes compensate for increased
insulin resistance at the tissue level by increasing pancreatic beta-cell insulin
secretion[10]. When this compensation is no longer adequate to overcome
866 T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
3/31
the insulin resistance, blood glucose levels begin to rise. Over the course
of the disease, endogenous insulin levels slowly begin to decrease and,
ultimately, many patients with type 2 diabetes are unable to achieve optimalglycemic control with oral agents [11].
In subjects with type 2 diabetes who are lean, impaired insulin secretion is
the predominant defect, and insulin resistance tends to be less severe than in
the obese variety [12]. On the other hand, insulin resistance and hyper-
insulinemia are the classical abnormalities of obese persons with type
2 diabetes [12]. In type 2 diabetes, insulin secretion is often excessive
compared with the nondiabetic situation but is still insufficient to overcome
the insulin resistance that is present. It is important to understand and
appreciate these fundamental differences when considering insulin therapyin type 2 diabetes. Based on this knowledge, lean type 2 diabetic subjects
usually fail oral agents faster and will require considerably less insulin to
control their hyperglycemia than their obese counterparts. In contrast, large
doses of exogenous insulin are the rule in the obese form of this disorder
when euglycemia is desired[13].
The need for large amounts of exogenous insulin in obese type 2 diabetes
also raises the question of the most appropriate methods of insulin delivery.
Under normal circumstances, insulin is secreted from the pancreas into the
portal vein, going directly to the liver in which a large first-pass extractionof portal insulin occurs [14]. When insulin is injected subcutaneously,
absorption occurs directly into the peripheral circulation, without the initial
effects of hepatic extraction. Therefore, the tissues are exposed to greater
levels of insulin than if insulin was provided by the portal route. Because the
primary target of exogenous insulin is the liver, type 2 diabetes may be
uniquely suited to delivery of insulin through the portal vein. Such a
situation occurs when insulin is delivered intraperitoneally, and the majority
of insulin is absorbed into the portal circulation[15].Intraperitoneal insulin
delivery systems will not be discussed in this section, however, this methodholds considerable promise in type 2 diabetes because of the more
physiologic delivery of insulin and because of selective and effective
inhibition of hepatic glucose output, with less peripheral insulinemia than
occurs with subcutaneous insulin injections[16].
Intensive insulin therapy
Successful insulin management requires an educated and motivatedpatient, as well as the participation of a multidisciplinary health care team.
Intensive insulin therapy requires a substantial input of physician and
support staff time, which has a significant economic impact on the health
care system [17]. Although long-term data on costs are not yet available,
projections suggest that substantial savings from the high costs of end-
stage disease could be achieved by following ADA guidelines [18].
867T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
4/31
Furthermore, as discussed later, we now have the opportunity to use
combinations of insulin and a variety of oral antidiabetic agents with
differing mechanisms of action. The use of these potent combinationspermit us to safely and effectively lower blood glucose levels and to
achieve ADA target glycemic levels with relatively low risk for hypogly-
cemia or weight gain.
In addition to the natural history of type 2 diabetes, there is heterogeneity
in the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus that may influence when
patients require insulin. Some patients who have been diagnosed with type 2
diabetes may actually have a condition more closely related to insulin-
dependent or type 1 diabetes, with severe insulinopenia. Many of these pa-
tients have been shown to have islet cell antibody positivity or antibodies toglutamic acid decarboxylase, with a decreased C-peptide response to
glucagon stimulation and a propensity for primary oral medication failure
[19]. These individuals are now labeled with the condition latent autoimmune
diabetes in adults [20]. There are also wide geographic and racial differences
that may influence the need for insulin therapy. For example, Asian patients
with type 2 diabetes tend to be thinner, are diagnosed with diabetes at an
earlier age, fail oral hypoglycemic agents much sooner, and are more
sensitive to insulin therapy than the classic centrally obese patient in the
United States and some parts of Europe[21].The goals of therapy should be tailored to individual patients. Candidates
for intensive management should be motivated, compliant, and educable,
and be without other medical conditions and physical limitations that
preclude accurate and reliable home glucose monitoring (HGM) and insulin
administration; caution is advised in patients who are aged or have hypo-
glycemic unawareness. Other limitations to achieving normoglycemia
may include high titers of insulin antibodies, especially in patients with a
history of intermittent use of insulin of animal origin. The site of insulin
injection also may change the pharmacokinetics, and absorption can behighly variable, especially if lipohypertrophy is present. The periumbilical
area has been shown to be one of the most desirable areas to inject insulin
because of the rapid and consistent absorption kinetics observed at this
location; however, rotating the injection site is usually advised[22]. It is also
advisable to inject in the same body location for a certain meal time (ie,
triceps fat pad for breakfast, abdomen for lunch, and upper thighs for
dinner)[23].
In summary, before starting insulin therapy, the patient should be well
educated in the techniques of HGM, proper insulin administration, and self-adjustment of the insulin dose, if appropriate, as well as knowledgeable
about dietary and exercise strategies, including carbohydrate counting. The
patient and family members also need to be informed about hypoglycemia
prevention, recognition, and treatment. Initial and ongoing education by a
diabetes management team, including a certified diabetes educator, is crucial
for long-term success and safety.
868 T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
5/31
Insulin treatment strategies
Combination therapy
Combination therapy usually refers to the use of daytime oral antidia-
betic agents together with a single injection of intermediate or long-acting
insulin at bedtime. Several studies [2436] have looked at the safety and
efficacy of combination therapy. For many of the reasons mentioned earlier,
the analysis of studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination
therapy is difficult. Several review articles using meta-analysis conclude that
combination therapy results in only modest improvements in glucose con-
trol and contribute to increased medical costs of diabetes management
compared with insulin therapy alone. These earlier studies, however, wereconducted when sulfonylureas were the only available type of oral agent.
Because of heterogeneity in type 2 diabetes together with variability in the
design and clinical situations of previous studies, however, the use of meta-
analysis may be inappropriate for making generalized statements regarding
this form of therapy [27,37]. Based on several recent reports, the use of
combination therapy has been quite successful in selected patients, especially
with the newer oral agents used alone or together with insulin [26
29,35,36,3841].
For a number of practical reasons, combination therapy may bebeneficial. The patient does not need to learn how to mix different types
of insulin, and patient compliance and acceptance are better with a single
injection than with multiple injections of insulin. Combination therapy also
requires a lower total dose of exogenous insulin than regimens of two or
three injections per day. Combination therapy also contributes to less
weight gain and peripheral hyperinsulinemia. Last, combination therapy is
ideally suited to suppress excessive hepatic glucose production overnight.
The rationale for combination therapy with insulin and sulfonylureas is
based on the assumption that, if evening insulin lowers the fasting glucoseconcentration to normal, then daytime oral agents will be more effective
in controlling postprandial hyperglycemia and maintaining euglycemia
throughout the day. Metabolic profiles of patients who have type 2 diabetes
have demonstrated that fasting blood glucose contributes significantly to
daytime hyperglycemia[42]. In addition, the fasting blood glucose concen-
tration is highly correlated with the degree of hepatic glucose production
during the early morning hours [13]. Hepatic glucose output is directly
decreased by insulin[43]and indirectly inhibited by the ability of insulin to
reduce adipose tissue lipolysis, with lower concentrations of free fatty acidsand gluconeogenesis [41]. Also, the peak of bedtime intermediate-acting
insulin coincides with the onset of the dawn phenomenon (early morning
resistance to insulin caused by diurnal variations in growth hormone
and possibly in levels of norepinephrine), which usually occurs between
3 and 7 AM. Bedtime insulin also increases the morning serum insulin
869T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
6/31
concentration and may assist in reducing the post-breakfast glucose rise in
addition to the fasting value.
Combination of insulin and sulfonylurea agents
In one of the first large studies demonstrating the efficacy of insulin/
sulfonylurea combination therapy, Yki-Jarvinen et al [38] compared com-
bination therapy with regimens of two and four insulin injections per day
in patients with type 2 diabetes. These patients were on submaximal doses
of glyburide (12.5 mg/d), glipizide (20 mg/d), and metformin (1.4 g/d),
with fasting blood glucose concentrations at approximately 225 mg/dL and
mean fasting serum C-peptide values of 0.66 nmol/L. After 3 months, alltreatment groups had similar reductions in mean diurnal glucose con-
centrations and glycosylated hemoglobin levels (1.6%1.9%) compared
with the control group, who were taking oral agents alone. The group
treated with a combination of oral agents and bedtime neutral protamine
Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, however, had the least weight gain (1.2 0.5 kg)
of any group and a 50% to 65% lower increment in mean diurnal serum-free
insulin concentrations. There was no evidence of severe hypoglycemia with
combination therapy, and patient acceptance was excellent.
Several other recent publications [26,28,29,31,34,40] also support theadditional efficacy and safety of combination therapy in patients who are
inadequately controlled by oral hypoglycemic agents alone. A recent study
conducted by Riddle and Schneider[36]demonstrates the efficacy and safety
of a combination consisting of 70% NPH insulin and 30% regular insulin
(70/30) insulin at dinnertime and sulfonylurea therapy. In this study, 145
type 2 diabetics with uncontrolled hyperglycemia (fasting plasma glucose
level [FPG] 180300 mg/dL), on maximum sulfonylurea therapy (glimepir-
ide, 8 mg orally, twice daily) were randomized to placebo plus insulin or
glimepiride plus insulin for 6 months. The dose of 70/30 insulin atdinnertime was titrated to keep fasting fingerstick capillary blood glucose
to less than 120 mg/dL. At 24 weeks, HbA1c levels decreased significantly
and similarly in both groups (9.9%7.6%). The combination therapy
group, however, needed nearly 35% less insulin than the insulin-only group
(49 versus 78 units) and achieved glycemic control faster, with fewer
dropouts (3% versus 15%,P\ 0.01). Surprisingly, weight gain was similar
(4.0 kg) in both groups.
Insulin and metformin
Weight gain is a constant occurrence in most clinical trials in which
insulin or sulfonylureas, or both agents, are used to treat type 2 diabetes.
Although it was attenuated with combination therapy with sulfonylureas in
the study by Yki-Jarvinen[38],weight gain remains a problem because it can
exacerbate insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia. The use of metformin in
870 T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
7/31
this situation may prove advantageous because its use is associated with
reduced weight gain.
The safety and efficacy of metformin in combination with insulin hasbeen demonstrated in a recent multicenter study by Yki-Jarvinen et al [35].
In this placebo-controlled study, 96 type 2 diabetics who were poorly
controlled with oral sulfonylurea therapy (mean glycosylated hemoglobin
value 9.9% 0.2%; mean fasting plasma glucose level 214 5 mg/dL) were
randomized to 1 year of treatment with bedtime intermediate-acting insulin
plus either glyburide (10.5 mg), metformin (2 g), glyburide and metformin,
or a second injection of intermediate-acting insulin in the morning. Patients
were taught to adjust the bedtime insulin dose on the basis of fasting glucose
measurements. At 1 year, body weight remained unchanged in patientsreceiving bedtime insulin plus metformin (mean change 0.9 1.2 kg) but
increased by 3.9 0.7 kg, 3.6 1.2 kg, and 4.6 1.0 kg, respectively, in
patients receiving bedtime insulin plus glyburide, bedtime insulin plus both
oral drugs, and bedtime and morning insulin. In addition, the greatest
decrease in the glycosylated hemoglobin value was observed in the bedtime
insulin and metformin group (from 9.7 0.4% to 7.2 0.2%, a difference
of 2.5 0.4 percentage points) at 1 year (P 0.001 compared with
baseline and P 0.05 compared with other groups). This group also had
significantly fewer symptomatic and biochemical cases of hypoglycemia(P 0.05) than the other groups. The authors conclude that combination
therapy with bedtime insulin plus metformin not only prevents weight gain
but also seems superior to other bedtime insulin regimens, with respect to
improvements in glycemic control and frequency of hypoglycemia.
In a more recent study [44] of approximately 390 type 2 diabetics, the
combination of insulin and metformin led to a significant improvement in
glycemic control that was greater than with insulin alone. The mean daily
glucose level decreased from 141 34 to 137 31 mg/dL in the insulin-only
group (mean decrease 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]; 104 mg/dL)and from 141 40 to 140 31 mg/dL in the metformin group (P= 0.006
versus placebo; mean decrease 1.04; 95% CI; 27 to 9 mg/dL). The
mean daily glucose level decreased by 13 mg/dL more in the metformin
group compared with the placebo groupFig 1.
Insulin and thiazolidinediones
The glitazones are potent insulin sensitizers and are, therefore, well suited
for use in insulin-resistant patients with type 2 diabetes. In several earlystudies, troglitazone was documented to not only improve glycemic control
but also to reduce exogenous insulin requirements in obese patients with
type 2 diabetes [45,46]; however, troglitazone was withdrawn from the
US market as a result of an increased risk of severe idiosyncratic liver
damage. Presently there are two glitazones available, rosiglitazone and
pioglitazone, for clinical use in the US, and several more are in development.
871T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
8/31
In one 16-week study, Rubin et al[47]demonstrated that the daily additionof 15 and 30 mg of pioglitazone to the regimen of patients receiving a median
dose of 61 units of insulin resulted in mean FPG reductions of 36 and 49 mg/
dL and HbA1c reductions of 0.7% and 1.0%, respectively, compared with
placebo. The insulin-sparing properties of rosiglitazone were shown in a 6-
month study conducted by Raskin et al [48]. They demonstrated that the
addition of 2 and 4 mg orally twice daily of rosiglitazone improved HbA1c
Fig. 1. (A) Blood glucose levels measured at home. (B) Change in blood glucose levels
measured at home. Data are means with SD error bars. For each time point indicated, the first
and the second bars show values at baseline and the third and the fourth show values at
16 weeks. Blood glucose levels in the metformin group compared with the placebo group are all
significantly lower at 16 weeks (P 0.05). The change in glucose values is also significantly
greater in the metformin than in the placebo group at all times during the day (P 0.05). (From
Wulffele MG, Kooy K, Lehert P. Bets D Ogterop JC, Van Der Burg BB, Donker AJM,
Stehouwer CDA. Combination of insulin and metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.
Diabetes Care 2002;25(12):213340; with permission.)
872 T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
9/31
levels by 0.6% and 1.2%, respectively, compared with placebo, in 312
patients with type 2 diabetes who were uncontrolled on approximately 70
units of insulin daily (baseline HbA1c 9%). Moreover, insulin requirementswere also reduced by approximately 5 and 10 units, respectively, in the two
groups treated with rosiglitazone, in keeping with the insulin sensitizing
effects of the glitazones. In summary, both rosiglitazone and pioglitazone
improve glucose control in poorly controlled, insulin-treated patients with
type 2 diabetes mellitus. There have been no reports of insulin added to
subjects treated with glitazones alone.
Insulin and a-glucosidase inhibitors
The addition of acarbose to insulin therapy may be an option in patients
who have pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia. The first long-term
controlled study to demonstrate a beneficial effect of acarbose in patients
on insulin therapy was reported by Chiasson et al[49]. Of the total number
of patients in this study, 91 were receiving insulin and had glycosylated
hemoglobin values greater than 7%. Postprandial plasma glucose levels at
90 minutes were significantly reduced to 282 mg/dL with the addition of
acarbose, compared with 331 mg/dL seen with insulin alone. Glycosylated
hemoglobin values decreased by 0.4% in the acarbose group, but, as ex-
pected, no significant decreases in fasting plasma glucose levels were seen.
Acarbose may be initiated in patients on insulin treatment by starting with
a low dose of 25 mg with breakfast and titrating up by 25 mg weekly to 50
to 100 mg three times daily with meals (100 mg three times daily for
patients 60 kg body weight), depending on gastrointestinal tolerance and
efficacy.
Insulin glargine and oral agents
The long-acting analog insulin glargine was studied in comparison with
NPH insulin in 756 patients with type 2 diabetes in an open-label, 24-week,
multicenter study [50]. In this study, patients who were inadequately
controlled on oral agents including sulfonylurea, metformin, and glitazones
were randomized to receive either bedtime insulin glargine or NPH insulin,
and the doses were adjusted to obtain a target fasting glucose level of less
than 100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L). At the conclusion of the trial, the median
daily dose of insulin was approximately 0.45 IU/kg of body weight in bothgroups. The two forms of insulin produced a similar improvement in HbA1c(6.96 versus 6.97%) and similar reductions in fasting glucose levels (117
versus 120 mg/dL); however, the incidence of mild nocturnal hypoglycemia
was significantly lower among patients treated with insulin glargine than in
the group treated with NPH insulin (P\ 0.001)[50]. There was a reduction
of approximately 45% of nocturnal hypoglycemia with glargine compared
873T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
10/31
with NPH[50]. Treatment with NPH or glargine in addition to oral therapy
in type 2 diabetic patients resulted in a decrease of fasting glucose in both
groups, reaching a plateau by 12 weeks. HbA1c declined at a predictablyslower rate, stabilizing after 18 weeks (Fig. 2) [50].
Fig. 2. (A) FPG and (B) HbA1cduring the study. Values in both figures are means; error bars
indicate SE. (FromRiddle MC, Rosenstock J, Gerich J. The Treat-to-Target Trial: Randomized
addition of glargine or human NPH insulin to oral therapy of type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes
Care 2003;26(11):30806; with permission.)
874 T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
11/31
Selection of patients most likely to succeed on combination treatment
The most common type of patient in whom combination therapy will
succeed is the one who is failing oral treatment without significant glucose
toxicity and has some evidence of responsiveness to oral agents. Patients
have a higher likelihood of success using combination therapy if they are
obese, have had overt diabetes for less than 10 to 15 years, are diagnosed
with type 2 diabetes after the age of 35, do not have fasting blood glucose
values consistently over 250 to 300 mg/dL, and have evidence of endogenous
insulin secretory ability. Although standard measurement conditions and C-
peptide concentrations have not been established for this clinical situation,
a fasting C-peptide concentration (0.2 nmol/L) or glucagon-stimulated
level (0.40 nmol/L) indicates some degree of endogenous insulin secretory
ability[51,52]. Patients with type 2 diabetes diagnosed before the age of 35
more often have atypical forms of diabetes. Patients who have had diabetes
for more than 10 to 15 years tend to have a greater chance of beta-cell
exhaustion and, thus, tend to be less responsive to oral hypoglycemic agents
and combination therapy. Thin patients are more likely to be hypoinsuli-
nemic and often respond inadequately to oral agents, which lead to
combination therapy failure. In addition, markedly elevated fasting glucose
concentration is often associated with a concomitant decrease in endoge-
nous insulin secretory ability, which renders oral agents ineffective. The
actual number of patients who might respond favorably to combination
therapy is unknown but is estimated to be between 20% and 40%.
Initiating combination therapy
Calculation of the initial bedtime dose of intermediate-acting insulin can
be based on clinical judgment or various formulas based on the fasting
blood glucose concentration or body weight. For example, the average
fasting blood glucose (mg/dL) can be divided by 18 or body weight (kg) canbe divided by 10 to calculate the initial dose of NPH or insulin glargine to be
started at bedtime[43]. Also, 5 to 10 units of insulin can be safely started for
thin patients, and 10 to 15 units can be started for obese patients at bedtime,
as an initial estimated dose. In either case, the dose is increased in
increments of 2 to 5 units every 3 to 4 days until the morning fasting blood
glucose concentration is consistently in the range of 70 to 120 mg/dL [53].
The best time to give the evening injection of intermediate-acting insulin
is between 10 PM and midnight. Insulin glargine has been shown to be
effective when taken either in the morning or evening. Many reliable pa-tients can make their own adjustments using HGM.
Based on the results of HGM, combination therapy can be altered to
reduce hyperglycemia at identified times during the day. For example, a
common situation seen with daytime oral agents and bedtime intermediate-
acting insulin therapy is an improvement in the fasting, pre-lunch, and pre-
dinner blood sugar values, although the post-dinner blood glucose
875T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
12/31
concentration remains excessively high (200 mg/dL). In this clinical
situation, an injection of premixed insulin (70/30 or 75/25 mix) can be
given before dinner instead of a bedtime dose of intermediate- or long-actinginsulin. This regimen will often improve the post-dinner blood glucose
values because the premixed insulin contains rapid-acting analogs yet allows
overnight glucose control secondary to the intermediate-acting component.
With this regimen, however, one must be more cautious about early
morning hypoglycemia because the intermediate-acting insulin given before
dinner will exert its peak effect earlier. In the experience of these authors,
this has not been a major clinical problem in obese patients with type 2
diabetes compared with those with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Normally the
dose of bedtime intermediate- or long-acting insulin can be converted to thedose of premixed insulin, dose per dose, and adjustments can be made
through HGM.
Dose adjustment
Once the fasting blood glucose concentrations are consistently in a desir-
able range, the pre-lunch, pre-dinner, and bedtime blood sugar values must
be monitored to determine if the oral hypoglycemic agents are maintaining
daylong glycemia. It is recommended that after the addition of evening
insulin patients continue to take the maximal dose of the oral sulfonylurea
agent. If the daytime blood glucose concentrations become excessively low,
the dose of oral medication must be reduced. The morning dose of sul-
fonylurea should be reduced or discontinued first. This situation is common
because glucose toxicity may be reduced because of improved glucose
control, leading to enhanced sensitivity to both oral agents and insulin. If
the pre-lunch and pre-dinner blood glucose concentrations remain exces-
sively high on combination therapy, it is likely that the oral agents are not
contributing significantly to glycemic control throughout the day. In this
situation, a more conventional or intensive regimen of two injections perday is indicated.
Multiple-injection regimens
One of the most common insulin regimens used in type 2 diabetes mellitus
is the split-mixed regimen consisting of a pre-breakfast and pre-dinner dose
of intermediate- and fast-acting insulin. This split-mixed regimen of two
injections per day is often inadequate for patients with type 1 or leanpatients with type 2 diabetes and can result in persistent early morning
hypoglycemia and fasting hyperglycemia. Such problems do not appear to
occur as frequently in obese type 2 diabetes. This is likely caused by
pathophysiologic differences, particularly in endogenous insulin secretory
ability, insulin resistance, and counter-regulatory mechanisms in type 1 and
type 2 diabetes.
876 T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
13/31
In a landmark trial with type 2 diabetes by Henry et al [54], daylong gly-
cemia and glycosylated hemoglobin were essentially normalized by 6 months
of intensive treatment with a split-mixed insulin regimen. In this study,14 typical obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (age 59 2 years;
duration of diabetes 7 2 years; body mass index 31 2 kg/m2; fasting
blood glucose concentration 283 13 mg/dL) failing therapy with oral
antidiabetic agents were intensively managed with pre-breakfast and pre-
dinner NPH and regular insulin over a 6-month period. The insulin dose
was adjusted based on HGM results of four injections per day. Glycemic
control was rapidly achieved within 1 month and was maintained for the
duration of the study.
The average total insulin dose needed to maintain glycemic controlapproached 100 units per day, with approximately 50% of the total dose
required before breakfast and 50% before dinner. The ratio of NPH to
regular insulin was approximately 75%:25%. There was a very low incidence
of mild hypoglycemic reactions, which decreased as the study progressed,
and no reactions were severe or required assistance. In addition, patient
compliance and sense of well being were excellent. Near-normalization of
the glycosylated hemoglobin, however, led to some adverse effects in these
patients. The mean serum insulin concentration obtained during 24-hour
metabolic profile studies increased from 308 80 pmol/L at baseline to510 102 pmol/L (P 0.05) at completion of the 6-month study. The
exacerbation of hyperinsulinemia by exogenous insulin therapy was strongly
correlated with weight gain throughout the study. Despite biweekly visits
with the study dietitian and instructions to reduce the daily caloric intake,
a mean weight gain of approximately 9 kg or 18.8 pounds occurred.
Interestingly, the total daily insulin dose was 86 13 units at 1 month and
100 24 units at 6 months, despite minimal additional improvement in
glycemic control during that period. Most of the improvement in glycemic
control was caused by the suppression of basal hepatic glucose production(from 628 44 to 350 17 lmol/m2/min,P 0.001), with a more modest
but significant improvement in peripheral glucose uptake (from 1418 156
to 1657 128 lmol/m2/min,P 0.05), as determined by the glucose clamp
technique.
This study emphasizes a number of important aspects of intensive glucose
control with insulin in obese subjects with type 2 diabetes. First, the average
daily dose of insulin needed to control such patients approximates 1 unit per
kilogram of body weight. Second, the total daily insulin requirement can be
split equally between the pre-breakfast and pre-dinner injections. Third, thesplit-mixed regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes is usually devoid of the
common problems seen with this regimen in type 1 diabetes, particularly
early morning hypoglycemia and fasting (pre-prandial) hyperglycemia.
Fourth, both severe and mild hypoglycemic events are much less fre-
quent in patients with type 2 compared with patients with type 1 diabetes
undergoing intensive insulin therapy. And finally, weight gain with
877T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
14/31
peripheral hyperinsulinemia occurs, which may contribute to metabolic and
vascular complications.
A similar but larger 3-month clinical trial [38] compared a split-mixedcombination with a multiple-injection regimen consisting of pre-meal
regular and bedtime NPH insulin injections. Both the split-mixed and
multiple-injection regimen treatment groups achieved equivalent and near-
normal glycosylated hemoglobin values. These therapies, however, were
associated with weight gain of 0.8 0.05 and 2.9 0.05 kg, a 39% and 36%
increase in mean diurnal serum-free insulin levels, and a total daily insulin
dose of 43 and 45 units, respectively. The authors demonstrated that the
change in body weight was negatively correlated with the change in
glycosylated hemoglobin values and positively correlated with the meandiurnal serum-free insulin values. The differences between these two studies
with regard to total insulin requirements, mean insulin concentrations, and
weight gain are primarily the result of differences in patient characteristics.
Patients in the latter study were leaner (body mass index 29 versus 31 kg/
m2), had lower baseline fasting blood glucose values (225 versus 283 mg/dL)
and reduced baseline mean diurnal serum-free insulin values (138 versus 308
pmol), and were previously treated with submaximal doses of sulfonylureas,
compared with the patients in the former study. In addition, the latter study
was conducted over a shorter period of time (3 months versus 6 months).Another long-term (5-year) clinical trial using a split-mixed regimen of two
injections per day in 102 nonobese type 2 diabetic patients demonstrated
that excellent glycemic control could be achieved with intensive split-dose
insulin without significant hypoglycemia but at the expense of progressive
weight gain[55]. All these studies clearly demonstrate the efficacy of various
insulin regimens and the adverse consequences of such therapy.
Premixed insulin approach: rapid-acting insulin analogs
Rapid-acting insulin analogs are also available as manufactured, pre-
mixed insulin formulations. One such insulin preparation is Humalog Mix
75/25, which is a fixed-ratio mixture of 25% rapid-acting insulin lispro and
75% novel protamine-based intermediate-acting insulin called neutral
protamine lispro (NPL). NPL was developed to solve the problem of
instability with prolonged storage that occurs with NPH combined with
insulin. Studies of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of
NPL show they are comparable to those of NPH insulin[56].Humalog Mix 75/25 was studied in comparison to premixed human
insulin 70/30 in 89 patients with type 2 diabetes in a 6-month randomized,
open-label, two-period crossover study[57]. All patients had been previously
treated with mixed insulin therapies, including short- or rapid-acting and an
intermediate- or long-acting insulin, twice daily for at least 30 days before
enrollment. During a 2 to 4 week lead-in period, patients were treated with
878 T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
15/31
human insulin 70/30. The patients were randomized to receive one of two
treatment sequences: therapy twice per day with Humalog Mix 75/25 in-
jected before morning and evening meals for 3 months, after which theywere crossed over to receive human insulin 70/30 using the same dosing
frequency for an additional 3 months, or the alternate treatment sequence.
Patients performed self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) at scheduled
intervals during the study period (preprandial, 2-h postprandial, and
occasional 3 AM readings) and recorded this information along with any
hypoglycemic episodes in a study diary. Mean insulin doses were similar or
identical between treatments. Blood glucose values after the morning meal
were significantly lower during treatment with Humalog Mix 75/25
(Humalog Mix 75/25 8.95 2.17 versus human insulin 70/30 10.00 2.28 mmol/L, P= 0.017). Treatment with Humalog Mix 75/25 produced
similar significant blood glucose results 2 hours after the evening meal as
well (Humalog Mix 75/25 9.28 2.15 versus human insulin 70/30 10.27
2.76 mmol/L,P = 0.014). Blood glucose results at other time points, HbA1clevels, daytime hypoglycemia, and nocturnal hypoglycemia were not sig-
nificantly different between treatments. Compared with human insulin 70/
30, twice-daily injections of Humalog Mix 75/25 in patients with type 2
diabetes resulted in improved postprandial glycemic control after the
morning and evening meals, similar overall glycemic control, and the addedconvenience of administration immediately before meals.
Insulin aspart, another rapid-acting insulin analog, is available in a
premixed formulation with a protamine-retarded insulin aspart called
Novolog Mix 70/30 (70% insulin aspart protamine suspension and 30%
insulin aspart). A comparison study [58] of the pharmacokinetic and
pharmacodynamic parameters of the Novolog Mix 70/30 and human
insulin 70/30 in healthy patients showed that the faster onset and greater
peak action of insulin aspart was preserved in the aspart mixture.
Another study [59] compared premixed aspart mixture 70/30 withpremixed human insulin 70/30 administered twice daily in a randomized
12-week open-label trial in 294 patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
Patients were instructed to inject the human insulin 70/30 30 minutes before
morning and evening meals and the premixed aspart mixture 10 minutes
before morning and evening meals. SMBG levels and hypoglycemia
incidence were recorded in diaries. Patients required a small increase in
the total daily aspart mixture dose compared with human insulin 70/30
(mean difference at 12 weeks [95% CI 0.01; 0.05]), P 0.01; 0.03 U/kg.
There was no significant difference in HbA1c between groups, yet the meanblood glucose values after treatment with the aspart mixture showed
statistically significant treatment differences after breakfast, before lunch,
after dinner, and at bedtime. Blood glucose values were approximately
1.0 mmol/L lower compared with the human insulin 70/30 group at each
time point (P 0.05). The incidence of hypoglycemia was not found to be
different between the two groups, and weight gain was not significant during
879T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
16/31
the study period with either type of insulin. Treatment with twice-daily
premixed aspart mixture 70/30 resulted in similar overall glycemic control;
yet postprandial control improved without additional hypoglycemia andwith injections immediately before meals compared with premixed human
insulin 70/30 given 30 minutes before the meal.
In a more recent study that focused on changes in lipid levels, Schwartz
et al [60] compared insulin 70/30 mix taken twice per day plus metformin
versus triple oral therapy (secretagogues, metformin, and thiazolidine-
diones) and clearly demonstrated that insulin plus metformin are superior
in lowering total cholesterol and triglycerides levels. The baseline values for
total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, and
triglycerides indicated no differences between the triple OHA and insulin/metformin groups. By the end of the study (week 24) significant decreases in
total cholesterol and triglycerides were evident in the insulin plus metformin
group (P= 0.038 and 0.033, respectively, compared with the triple oral
therapy group). Subjects in the triple oral therapy group showed a small
increase in cholesterol and less of a decrease in triglyceride levels [60]. For
glucose control, both groups had similar FPG values at the beginning of the
study. After 24 weeks of treatment, the changes from baseline mean FPG
values were 55 and 65 mg/dL for the triple oral therapy and insulin plus
metformin, respectively[60]. Baseline HbA1c values were 9.62 1.25% forsubjects in the triple oral therapy and 9.65 1.62% in the insulin group.
HbA1cvalues at weeks 2 and 6 demonstrated the efficacy of both treatments;
however, insulin plus metformin treatment achieved improvements in
HbA1c values at weeks 2 and 6 (9.03 1.35% and 8.11 1.20%,
respectively) that were significantly greater than the response to triple oral
therapy (P= 0.001 and 0.001, respectively). At weeks 12 and 24, no
statistically significant difference in HbA1c between the two groups were
observed (final values at week 24 were 7.59 1.4% for triple oral therapy
and 7.59 1.25% for insulin plus metformin [P= 0.772]) (Fig. 3)[60].Along with SMBG, the use of rapid-acting premixed insulin analogs is
convenient and can be beneficial in reducing postprandial hyperglycemia
and in helping patients achieve glycemic control without the increased
incidence of hypoglycemia. In addition, protocols are currently underway to
assess the efficacy of using rapid-acting premixed insulin analogs three times
per day before breakfast lunch and dinner, based on HGM data. This
regimen is more related to a basal bolus strategy discussed below.
Basalbolus strategy
The basalbolus insulin strategy, which can be used in patients with
either type 1 or type 2 diabetes, incorporates the concept of providing
continuous basal insulin levels throughout the day and night with brief
increases in insulin levels at the time of meal ingestion by bolus doses.
880 T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
17/31
The use of pre-meal regular insulin with bedtime NPH as the basal insulin
has been a common strategy for intensive insulin therapy in the United
States, but because regular insulin should be administered 20 to 40 minutes
before meals, a risk of hypoglycemia exists if the meal is delayed. If regular
Fig. 3. (A) Mean FPG values at screening and weeks 12 and 24 by treatment group. No
statistically significant changes were observed between the triple oral therapy () and insulin
plus metformin (). (B) Mean SEM changes for the total cholesterol, HDL, LDL, andtriglycerides at week 24. * Statistically significant (P 0.05) reduction in total cholesterol and
triglyceride levels in the insulin plus metformin group compared with the triple oral therapy
group. HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; OHA, XXX. (From
Schwartz S, Sievers R, Strange P Lyness W, Hollander P. Insulin 70/30 mix plus metformin
versus triple oral therapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes after failure of two oral drugs:
efficacy, safety, and cost analysis. Diabetes Care 2003;26(8):2598603; with permission.)
881T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
18/31
insulin is given just before a meal, high postprandial glucose levels and
delayed hypoglycemia may result. A strategy that provides for some
flexibility in the mealtime administration of insulin with the use of rapid-acting insulin analogs, lispro or aspart, administered immediately before
meals, and long-acting insulin, such as glargine, ultralente, lente, or NPH as
the basal insulin. These regimens that use multiple doses of intermediate-
acting insulin such as NPH can be associated with unpredictable nocturnal
hypoglycemia and day-to-day instability of blood glucose patterns in part
because of intrapatient variability of the effect of subcutaneous injected
insulin and the patients peak action profile[61]. NPH, which exhibits peak
action 5 to 7 hours after administration, has also been used in combination
with rapid-acting insulin analogs, commonly given at least twice daily,although the disadvantages of NPH used in this manner are similar to those
associated with Ultralente [62]. Because of its time to peak action, NPH
should be given every 6 hours or 4 times per day to be effective as a basal
insulin, in many patients [63].
Improved mealtime glucose control with the rapid-acting analogs has
exposed the gaps in basal insulin coverage provided by therapy with the
traditional intermediate- and long-acting insulin preparations. Taking
a basal insulin analog with a relatively constant and flat pharmacokinetic
profile such as insulin glargine once per day will result in a morephysiologic pattern of basal insulin replacement. Insulin glargine in
combination with a rapid-acting insulin analog has demonstrated effective
glycemic control and a lower incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia[64]than
other insulin preparations currently used for basal insulin supplementation
[6468].
Patients on multiple-injection basalbolus regiments should use carbo-
hydrate counting to estimate their pre-meal bolus dose of a rapid-acting
analog. In addition, a correction factor should be determined by HGM
before and after rapid-acting insulin boluses. For example, a typicalinsulin-resistant subject with type 2 diabetes may need 1 unit of lispro or
aspart for every 8 g of carbohydrate compared with a 1:15 ratio for a lean
insulin-sensitive person with type 1 diabetes. A typical correction factor
would be 1 unit of lispro or aspart to bring down the blood glucose value
to 25 mg/dL compared with a person with type 1 diabetes whose cor-
rection factor is 1 unit of lispro or aspart to bring down the blood glucose
value to 50 mg/dL. The carbohydrate to insulin ratio and correction factor
may be different depending on the time of the day and degree of
hyperglycemia.The availability of mealtime and basal insulin analogs, combination
therapy with oral agents, and the use of insulin regimens comprising
basal and mealtime (bolus) insulin components that better simulate
normal insulin secretion represent important advances in insulin therapy.
All of these approaches can have a significant impact on treatment
outcomes.
882 T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
19/31
External insulin pump therapy
External insulin pump therapy or continuous subcutaneous insulin
infusion (CSII) has been traditionally used mainly in people with type 1
diabetes. However, insulin pump therapy is extremely valuable in patients
with type 2 diabetes who require insulin but who have not achieved glycemic
control with subcutaneous injections or who are seeking for a more flexible
lifestyle. All of the benefits that are enjoyed by patients with type 1 diabetes
are shared with people with type 2 diabetes. Many experts believe that
because of the more physiologic delivery of insulin, glucose control is
achieved with less insulin than was needed with the subcutaneous insulin
regimen. This may be caused by a reduction in glucose toxicity and im-
provement of insulin resistance and beta-cell secretory function as a result of
improved glycemic control with pump therapy. Weight gain is less of an
issue because the patient is using less insulin than was used before insulin
pump therapy. In addition, with the reduction of hypoglycemic events there
is less overeating to compensate for excessive insulin. Last, it is possible that
pump therapy may result in less strain placed on the pancreatic beta-cells of
patients with type 2 diabetes, and this may help with overall glycemic
control because a functioning beta-cell can also autoregulate against hyper-
and hypoglycemia, as seen in non-diabetic individuals.
Many older patients with the diagnosis of insulin-requiring type 2
diabetes have acute, true, late-onset type 1 diabetes. The literature
documents large groups of patients with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes
who were tested for anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies with a
positivity rate of approximately 5% to 8%. These individuals are thinner at
the time of diagnosis, generally do not respond well to oral agents, and
require insulin, although they do not present in severe diabetic ketoacidosis.
These patients generally should be put on an intensive insulin injection
regimen, and insulin pump therapy should be considered.
Insulin pump therapy allows for increased flexibility in meal timing and
amounts, increased flexibility in the time and intensity of exercise, improved
glucose control while traveling across time zones or with variable working
schedules, and quality of life in terms of self-reliance and control.
Because pumps use only regular and fast-acting insulin, there is no
peaking of injected intermediate- and long-acting insulins, which do not
provide as constant a basal rate caused by variable absorption and
pharmacokinetics. Insulin glargine is an exception in that it serves as
excellent basal insulin. Variable insulin absorption and pharmacokinetics
are probably responsible for up to 50% to 60% of the day-to-day
fluctuation in blood glucose values in individuals using multiple-injection
regimens with various insulin types. Insulin pump therapy allows for more
regular insulin absorption and pharmacokinetic profile, resulting in im-
proved reproducibility in insulin availability and reduced fluctuations in
glycemic control [62].
883T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
20/31
Presently, there is a paucity of clinical trials using insulin pumps in type 2
diabetes, but pump therapy is a viable option in insulin-requiring patients
with type 2 diabetes who are unable to achieve adequate glycemic controlwith multiple-injection regimens. Although some studies demonstrate
metabolic benefits of pump therapy in type 2 diabetes, all are limited by
a relatively short period of evaluation and a small number of heterogeneous
subjects. Interpretation of these studies is further confounded by the
random assignment of subjects to dissimilar conventional insulin regimens,
making comparison between studies difficult.
Garvey et al[69]studied the effect of intensive insulin therapy on insulin
secretion and insulin action before and after 3 weeks of CSII therapy in 14
patients with type 2 diabetes (age 50 3 years, duration of diabetes 7.8 2.1 years, and 119% ideal body weight). In 3 weeks of therapy, the mean
fasting plasma blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin values fell 46%
and 38%, respectively. The mean daily insulin dose stabilized at approxi-
mately 110 units/d, and there was a 74% increase in the insulin-stimulated
glucose disposal rate and a 45% reduction in hepatic glucose output to
mean levels similar to those of normal subjects. In addition, there were
significant improvements in both endogenous insulin and C-peptide
secretion. This study demonstrated that pump therapy was feasible and ef-
fective at improving metabolic control and reversing glucose toxicity inthese poorly controlled subjects with type 2 diabetes.
Jennings et al[70]randomized 20 type 2 diabetic subjects (median age 61
years, duration of diabetes 6 years, and percentage of ideal body weight
120%) to either CSII or twice-daily injections of regular and NPH insulin for
4 months. Glycemic control improved in both groups, although there was
a 30% reduction in the glycosylated hemoglobin in the CSII-treated group
and only a 17% reduction in the twice-daily injection-treated group. There
were no significant differences between the two groups in median daily
insulin requirement (0.58 versus 0.65 units/kg), weight gained (4.5 versus4.2 kg), prevalence of mild hypoglycemic reactions, or patient acceptance. In
addition, in the CSII group 58% of the total daily insulin requirement was
given as a basal infusion, with the remainder as pre-meal bolus injections
using insulin algorithms. This ratio of basal to bolus insulin requirements are
similar to the rates commonly used in type 1 diabetes, but there are
characteristics of pump therapy that are very different in type 2 diabetes.
In a more recent study, Pouwels et al[71]prospectively studied 8 patients
with poorly controlled (HbA1c 12.0 1.7%) type 2 diabetes with high
insulin requirements (1.92 0.66 U/kg/d). The subjects where aggressivelytreated with intravenous (IV) insulin for approximately 1 month followed by
12 months of CSII therapy. Insulin sensitivity and secretion were measured
before and after the IV insulin treatment phase.
Euglycemia was achieved after 12 days of IV therapy, and the insulin
requirements eventually reduced from 1.7 0.09 to 1.1 0.06 U/kg/d (P
0.005) during the IV treatment phase of the protocol. Whole-body glucose
884 T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
21/31
uptake increased from 12.7 5.7 to 22.4 8.8 lmol/kg/min (P 0.0005), and
in 1 month of intensive therapy, the HbA1cdropped to 8.9% 1.2% with no
significant change in the patients body weight. After 6 and 12 months of CSIItherapy, the mean HbA1c values were 7.1 0.6% and 8.3 1.4%, respectively
(P 0.001 versus pretreatment values for all time points)[71].
In another recent study [72], 132 CSII nave type 2 diabetics were
randomized to the pump or multiple daily injections (MDI). This study
showed that pump therapy provided efficacy and safety equivalent to MDI
therapy. Lower 8-point blood glucose values were shown by the CSII group at
most time points (values were only significant 90 min after breakfast; 167
47.5 mg/dL versus 192 65.0 mg/dL for CSII and MDI, respectively;
P= 0.019) (Fig. 4).In summary, insulin pump therapy has not been fully evaluated in
patients with type 2 diabetes. From published studies, however, it is
apparent that CSII therapy can safely improve glycemic control while
limiting hypoglycemia. CSII may be particularly useful in treating patients
with type 2 diabetes who do not respond satisfactorily to more conventional
insulin treatment strategies.
Alternative insulin delivery systems
Inhaled insulin is currently under development by several pharmaceutical
companies for use in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The insulin is
Fig. 4. Baseline and end-of-study 8-point blood glucose profiles (mean SEM) for the intent-
to-treat population. Dashed lines represent baseline profiles; solid lines represent end-of-studyprofiles; , means for CSII; n, means for MDI therapy. Number of patients at each time point:
CSII, 5663; MDI, 5459. *P, 0.02. BB, before breakfast; B90, 90 minutes after breakfast;
BL, before lunch;L90, 90 minutes after lunch; BD, before dinner;D90, 90 minutes after dinner;
BE, at bedtime. (From Raskin P, Bode BW, Marks JB, Hirsh IB, Weinstein RL, McGill
JB, Peterson GE, Mudaliar SR, Reinhardt RR. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and
multiple daily injection are equally effective in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, parallel-group,
24-week study. Diabetes Care 2003;26(9):2598603; with permission.)
885T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
22/31
contained in a pellet and is vaporized in an inhaler, which aerosolizes the
liquid insulin. Inhaled insulin can also be delivered to the pulmonary
microvasculature as a dry powder system and inhaled through a mouthpiece.It provides the obvious incentive for diabetic patients to use insulin without
the need for injections.
Cefalu et al[73]conducted a randomized, open-label, 3-month study with
26 patients (16 men, 10 women; average age, 51.1 years) with type 2 diabetes
(average duration of diabetes, 11.2 years). Patients received inhaled insulin
before each meal plus a bedtime injection of ultralente insulin, performed
HGM, and adjusted their insulin dose weekly. The target level for
preprandial plasma glucose was 100 to 160 mg/dL. At the end of 3 months,
inhaled insulin treatment significantly improved glycemic control comparedwith baseline, and mean HbA1c levels decreased by 0.07%. Hypoglycemic
events were mild, and patients showed no significant weight gain or change
in pulmonary function compared with baseline. Thus in this study, pul-
monary delivery of insulin in type 2 diabetic patients who require insulin
improved glycemic control was well tolerated and demonstrated no short-
term adverse pulmonary effects [74].
A new Aerodose insulin inhaler proved to be comparable to sub-
cutaneous injections through overlapping dose-response curves, with con-
sistent relative bioavailability and relative biopotency. The inhaler delivereda pharmacologically predictable insulin dose to type 2 diabetics, similar
to that with subcutaneous insulin injections[75].The Aerodose inhaler used
regular insulin (Humulin R), U-500, whereas Humulin R, U-100 was used
for subcutaneous injections. Serum insulin levels before exogenous insulin
administrations were similar between inhaled and subcutaneously inject
insulin (t, baseline,P = 0.12). At the end of dosing (t, 0 min), serum insulin
levels were significantly higher for inhalation treatments than for sub-
cutaneously injected treatments, indicating rapid, systemic insulin absorp-
tion following inhalation. The area under the curve (AUC)0-8h andmaximum serum insulin concentration demonstrated a clear dose-response
relationship for the three doses of inhaled insulin and the three doses of
subcutaneously injected insulin (Fig. 5)[75].
Insulin can also be taken orally by capsules, enterocoated with a soybean
trypsin inhibitor that prevents insulin degradation. This approach has
clinical potential, but large clinical trials have not been carried out.
Chemically modified human insulin, called hexyl insulin, using proprietary
conjugation technology to improve its stability and oral absorption has
shown promise. Preliminary results reported that in healthy humanvolunteers, hexyl insulin caused dose-dependent glucose lowering, was safe,
and was well tolerated. In a small clinical study, oral insulin illustrates the
similarities and differences among hexyl insulin monoconjugate (HIM)2 oral
insulin, subcutaneous insulin, and placebo. All three curves are indistin-
guishable from each other during the first hour postdose. The placebo curve
then separates from the other two curves, displaying a significantly higher
886 T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
23/31
peak excursion. The HIM2 and subcutaneous insulin curves remain nearly
indistinguishable for at least another hour. During the fourth hour
postdose, the HIM2 curve clearly separates from the subcutaneous insulincurve, becoming nearly identical to the placebo curve, as the glucose
excursion values in all three groups decline toward baseline. Peripheral
plasma insulin revealed an initial peak in peripheral plasma insulin
concentrations following administration of HIM2; however, this initial
insulin peak was caused by one patient who had a rapid peak of insulin. The
median insulin Cmax values, following administration of HIM2 and sub-
cutaneous regular insulin, were nearly identical (Fig. 6)[76].
Amylin analog: a novel injectable peptide that compliments the action
of insulin
Destruction and dysfunction of pancreatic beta-cells, resulting in
absolute and relative insulin deficiency, represent key abnormalities in the
pathogenesis of type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively [77]. Following the
Fig. 5. Glucose infusion rate (GIR) registered following administration of inhaled insulin (,
80 units; n,160 units; , 240 units) and subcutaneous injection (}, 8 units; , 16 units; , 24
units) in patients with type 2 diabetes. GIRs have been averaged over 30-minute periods. Datapoints are means SE (n = 16) at each time point for low, medium, and high doses for inhaled
and injected insulin. (From Kim D, Mudaliar S, Chinnapongse S, Chu N, Boies SM, Davis T,
Perera AD, Fishman RS, Shapiro DA, Henry R. Dose-response relationships of inhaled insulin
delivered via the Aerodose insulin inhaler and subcutaneously injected insulin in patients with
type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2003;26(10):28427; with permission.)
887T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
24/31
888 T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
25/31
discovery of amylin in 1987, a second beta-cell 37-amino acid hormone that
is co-secreted with insulin in response to nutrient stimuli, it was realized that
diabetes represents a state of bi-hormonal beta-cell deficiency and that a lackof amylin action may contribute to abnormal glucose homeostasis.
Experimental studies show that amylin acts as a neuroendocrine hormone
that complements the effects of insulin in postprandial glucose regulation
through several centrally mediated effects. These include a suppression of
postprandial glucagon secretion and a vagus mediated regulation of gastric
emptying, thereby helping to control the inflow of endogenous and
exogenous glucose, respectively. In animal studies, amylin also reduces
food intake and body weight, consistent with an early satiety effect[78].
Insulin is the major hormonal regulator of glucose disposal. Preclinicaland clinical studies indicate that amylin complements the effects of insulin
by regulating the rate of glucose inflow to the bloodstream, suppressing
glucagons secretion and inducing satiety.
Pramlintide is a soluble, nonaggregating, injectable, synthetic analog of
human amylin currently under development for the treatment of type 1 and
insulin-using type 2 diabetes. Long-term clinical studies have consistently
demonstrated that prandial subcutaneous. injections of pramlintide, in
addition to the current insulin regimen, reduce HbA1c and body weight in
type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients, without an increase in insulin use or inthe incidence of severe hypoglycemia[79].
Treatment with 120 lg twice per day of pramlintide in subjects with type
2 diabetes led to a sustained reduction from baseline in HbA1c (0.68 and
0.62% at weeks 26 and 52, respectively) that was significantly greater than
that in the placebo group (P\ 0.05) (Fig. 7)[80]. The greater reduction of
HbA1c observed with pramlintide was not accompanied by an increase in
body weight. Instead, patients in both pramlintide treatment groups
experienced a sustained reduction in body weight that was significantly
different from placebo at week 26 (both P 0.05) [80]. In the group ofsubjects who took 120 lg twice daily, the reduction in body weight was
sustained to week 52 (P 0.05 versus placebo).
The most commonly observed side effects were gastrointestinal-related,
mainly mild nausea, which typically occurred on initiation of treatment and
Fig. 6. 0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg HIM2 dose groups; pooled data. (A) Mean plasma glucose
excursion versus time profiles and (B) mean plasma insulin concentration versus time profiles.
At time 0, patients received 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg oral HIM2, 8 units subcutaneous regular insulin or
oral placebo. At 30 min, patients began ingesting the standardized meal (Boost Plus). Patientsingested the entire meal over a 10-minute period. Postprandial plasma glucose excursions and
insulin concentrations were determined from blood samples collected a the time points
indicated. Data are expressed as means SE (n = 12 patients). , oral HIM2 (0.5) and 1.0 mg/kg
dose groups combined); , 8 units of subcutaneous regular insulin; , oral placebo. (From Kipnes
M, Dandona P, Tripathy D, Still JG, Kosutic G. Control of postprandial plasma glucose by an
oral insulin product (hexyl-insulin monoconjugate 2 [HIM2]) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Diabetes Care 2003;26(2):4216; with permission.)
=
889T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
26/31
resolved within days or weeks. Amylin replacement with pramlintide as an
adjunct to insulin therapy is a novel physiological approach toward
improved long-term glycemic and weight control in patients with type 1
and type 2 diabetes.
Summary
Type 2 diabetes is a common disorder often accompanied by numerous
metabolic abnormalities leading to elevated rates of cardiovascular morbid-
ity and mortality. Improved glycemia will delay or prevent the development
of microvascular disease and reduce many or all of the acute and subacute
complications that worsen the quality of daily life. Exogenous insulin is
Fig. 7. Change from baseline in mean HbA1c (A) and weight (B) (intent-to-treat population).
*P 0.05 for treatment arm versus placebo. , placebo; n, 90 lg twice daily; , 120 lg. (FromHollander PA, Levy P, Fineman MS, Maggs DG, Shen LZ, Strobel SA, et al. Pramlintide as
an adjunct to insulin therapy improves long-term glycemic and weight control in patients with
type 2 diabetes: a 1-year randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2003;26(3):78490; withpermission.)
890 T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
27/31
usually the last line of treatment used to normalize glycosylated hemoglobin
in patients with type 2 diabetes who have failed other therapeutic modalities.
Not all patients are candidates for aggressive insulin management; therefore,the goals of therapy should be tailored to the individual. Candidates for
intensive management should be motivated, compliant, educable, and
without other medical conditions and physical limitations that would
preclude accurate and reliable HGM and insulin administration.
In selected patients, combination therapy with insulin and oral antidia-
betic medications can be an effective method for normalizing glycemia
without the need for rigorous insulin regimens. The most common clinical
situation in which combination therapy can be successful occurs in patients
who are failing daytime oral agents therapy and still show some evidence ofresponsiveness to the medications. Bedtime intermediate- and long acting-
insulin are administered and progressively increased until the fasting blood
glucose concentration is normalized. Additional benefits of combination
therapy include ease of administration, excellent patient compliance and
safety, and lower exogenous insulin requirements with less peripheral
hyperinsulinemia and weight gain. If combination therapy is not successful,
a split-mixed regimen of an intermediate- and a fast-acting insulin equally
divided between the pre-breakfast and pre-dinner periods can be effective
especially in obese patients.For patients who do not achieve glucose control on combination or split-
mixed regimens, an intensive basal bolus multiple-injection regimen is
indicated. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pumps can be partic-
ularly useful in treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who do not
respond satisfactorily to more conventional treatment strategies. The use of
fast-acting insulin analogs should be used in the majority of insulin-requiring
diabetics because of its more physiologic pharmacokinesis. Inhaled insulin
and the amylin analog pramlintide also hold promise to intensively control
glycemia in patients with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes.The glycemic objectives for patients with type 2 diabetes should be similar
to those for patients with type 1 diabetes, namely, to normalize glycemia and
glycosylated hemoglobin without causing undue weight gain or hypoglyce-
mia or adversely affecting the quality of daily life. This is best achieved in
a multidisciplinary setting using complementary therapeutic modalities that
include a combination of diet, exercise, and pharmacologic therapy.
Emphasis should be placed on diet and exercise initially, and throughout
the course of management as well, since even modest success with these
therapies will enhance the glycemic response to both oral antidiabetic agentsand insulin.
References
[1] American Podiatric Medical Association. E-foot FAQS [frequently asked questions]. 2002.
Available at:http://www.apma.org/faqsdiab.html. Accessed March 12, 2003.
891T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
http://www.apma.org/faqsdiab.htmlhttp://www.apma.org/faqsdiab.html8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
28/31
[2] Bennett PH, Rewers MJ, Knowler WC. Epidemiology of diabetes mellitus. In: Porte DJ,
Sherwin RS, editors. Ellenberg and Rifkins diabetes mellitus. Stamford: Appleton &
Lange; 1997. p. 37397.
[3] Sherwin RS. Diabetes mellitus. In: Goldman L, Bennett JC, editors. Cecil textbook of
medicine. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2000. p. 126385.
[4] American Academy of Family Physicians. Number of visits to family physicians by the 45
most frequent primary diagnoses. 2002. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey 2000.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Preven-
tion. National Center for Health Statistics. Available at: http://www.aafp.org/practice/
icd9code.html. Accessed March 12, 2003.
[5] Hiatt WR. Atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease. In: Goldman L, Bennett JC, editors.
Cecil textbook of medicine. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2000. p. 35762.
[6] Prospective Diabetes Study UK (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with
sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications
in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998;352:83753.
[7] Shichiri M, Kishikawa H, Ohkubo Y, Wake N. Long-term results of the Kumamoto Study
on optimal diabetes control in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2000;23(Suppl 2):
B219.
[8] Galloway JA. Treatment of NIDDM with insulin agonists or substitutes. Diabetes Care
1990;13:1209.
[9] DeFronzo RA. Insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, and coronary artery disease: A com-
plex metabolic web. J Cardiovasc Pharm 1992;20(Suppl 11):S116.
[10] Weyer C, Bogardus C, Mott DM, Pratlet RE. The natural history of insulin secretory
dysfunction and insulin resistance in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Clin
Invest 1999;104:78794.[11] American Diabetes Association. The pharmacologic treatment of hyperglycemia in
NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1995;18:15108.
[12] Caro JF. Insulin resistance in obese and nonobese man (Clinical Review 26). J Clin
Endocrinol Metab 1991;73:691.
[13] Genuth S. Insulin use in NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1990;13:1240.
[14] Duckworth WC, Saudek CD, Henry RR, Veterans Affairs Study Group. Perspectives in
diabetes: why intraperitoneal delivery of insulin with implantable pumps in NIDDM?
Diabetes 1992;41:657.
[15] Saudek CD, Duckworth WC, Veterans Affairs Study Group. The Department of Veterans
Affairs implanted insulin pump study. Diabetes Care 1992;15:567.
[16] Department of Veterans Affairs Implantable Insulin Pump Study Group. Implantableinsulin pump vs multiple-dose insulin for non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. JAMA
1996;276:13227.
[17] American Diabetes Association. Clinical practice recommendations american diabetes
association 1999. Diabetes Care 1999;22(Suppl 1):2.
[18] Colwell JA. Controlling type 2 diabetes: are the benefits worth the costs? JAMA 1997;
278(20):1700.
[19] Tuomi T, Groop LC, Zimmet PZ, Rowley MJ, Knowles W, Mackay IR. Antibodies to
glutamic acid decarboxy - lase reveal latent autoimmune diabetes mellitus in adults with
a non-insulin-dependent onset of disease. Diabetes 1993;42:359.
[20] American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Dictionary. 2004. Available at: http://www.
diabetes.org/diabetesdictionary.jsp. Accessed on October 4, 2003.[21] Yu A, Wu PS, Edelman SV. The natural history of non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus
in a Filipino migrant population. Presented at the 3rd International Diabetes Federation,
Western Pacific Regional Congress: Hong Kong; September 2528, 1996.
[22] Vora JP, Burch A, Peters JR, Owens DR. Relationship between absorption of radiolabeled
soluble insulin, subcutaneous blood flow, and anthropometry. Diabetes Care 1992;15:
148493.
892 T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
http://www.aafp.org/practice/icd9code.htmlhttp://www.aafp.org/practice/icd9code.htmlhttp://www.diabetes.org/diabetesdictionary.jsphttp://www.diabetes.org/diabetesdictionary.jsphttp://www.diabetes.org/diabetesdictionary.jsphttp://www.diabetes.org/diabetesdictionary.jsphttp://www.aafp.org/practice/icd9code.htmlhttp://www.aafp.org/practice/icd9code.html8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
29/31
[23] Edelman SV. Taking control of your diabetes. Caddo (OK): Professional Communica-
tions, Inc., 2000.
[24] Bailey TS, Mezitis NHE. Combination therapy with insulin and sulfonylureas for type 2
diabetes. Diabetes Care 1990;13:687.
[25] Lebovitz HE, Pasmantier R. Combination insulin-sulfonylurea therapy. Diabetes Care
1990;12:667.
[26] Groop LC, Widen E, Ekstrand A, Saloranta C, Franssila-Kallunki A, Schalin-Jantti C,
et al. Morning or bedtime NPH insulin combined with sulfonylurea in treatment of
NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1992;15:831.
[27] Pugh JA, Wagner ML, Sawyer J, Ramirez G, Tuley M, Friedberg SJ. Is combination
sulfonylurea and insulin therapy useful in NIDDM patients? A metaanalysis. Diabetes
Care 1992;15:953.
[28] Riddle MC. Evening insulin strategy. Diabetes Care 1990;13:676.
[29] Taskinen M-R, Sane T, Helve E, Karonen SL, Nikkila EA, Yki-Jarvinen H. Bedtime
insulin for suppression of overnight free-fatty acid, blood glucose, and glucose production
in NIDDM. Diabetes 1989;38:580.
[30] Karlander SG, Gutniak MKM, Efendic S. Effects of combination therapy with glyburide
and insulin on serum lipid levels in NIDDM patients with secondary sulfonylurea failure.
Diabetes Care 1991;14:963.
[31] Mezitis NHE, Heshka S, Saitas V, Bailey TS, Costa R, Pi-Sunyer FX. Combination therapy
for NIDDM with biosynthetic human insulin and glyburide. Diabetes Care 1992;15:265.
[32] Vigneri R, Trischitta V, Italia S, Mazzarino S, Rabuazzo MA, Squatrito S. Treatment of
NIDDM patients with secondary failure to glyburide: Comparison of the addition of either
metformin or bedtime NPH insulin to glyburide. Diabetes Metab 1991;17:232.
[33] Raskin P. Combination therapy in NIDDM. N Engl J Med 1992;327:1453.[34] Marks JB. Combination glyburide and insulin treatment in secondary sulfonylurea failure.
Clinical Diabetes 1994;12:21.
[35] Yki-Jarvinen H, Ryysy L, Nikkila K, Tulokas T, Vanamo R, Heikkila M. Comparison
of bedtime insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A randomized,
controlled trial. Ann Int Med 1999;130(5):38996.
[36] Riddle MC, Schneider J. Beginning insulin treatment of obese patients with evening 70/30
insulin plus glimepiride versus insulin alone. Glimepiride Combination Group. Diabetes
Care 1998;21(7):10527.
[37] Johnson JL, Wolf SL, Kabadi UM. Efficacy of insulin and sulfonylurea combination
therapy in type II diabetes. A meta-analysis of the randomized placebo-controlled trials.
Arch Intern Med 1996;156:25964.[38] Yki-Jarvinen H, Kauppila M, Kujansuu E, Lahti J, Marjanen T, Niskanen L, et al.
Comparison of insulin regimens in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.
N Engl J Med 1992;327:1426.
[39] Riddle MC, Hart J, Bingham P, Garrison C, McDaniel P. Combined therapy for obese type 2
diabetes: suppertime mixed insulin withdaytime sulfonylurea. Am J Med Sci 1992;303:1516.
[40] Shank ML, Del Prato S, DeFronzo RA. Bedtime insulin/daytime glipizide: effective
therapy for sulfonylurea failures in NIDDM. Diabetes 1995;44:16572.
[41] Koivisto VA. Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 1993;16(Suppl 3):S29.
[42] Riddle MC. Evening insulin strategy. Diabetes Care 1990;13:676.
[43] Turner RC, Holman RR. Insulin use in NIDDM. Rationale based on pathophysiology
of disease. Diabetes Care 1990;13:1011.[44] Wulffele MG, Kooy K, Lehert P, Bets D, Ogterop JC, Van Der Burg BB, et al.
Combination of insulin and metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care
2002;25(12):213340.
[45] Buse JB, Gumbiner B, Mathias NP, Nelson DM, Faja BW, Whitcomb RW, and the
Troglitazone Insulin Study Group. Troglitazone use in insulin-treated type 2 diabetic
patients. Diabetes Care 1998;21(9):145561.
893T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
30/31
[46] Schwartz S, Raskin P, Fonseca V, and the Troglitazone Exogenous Insulin Study Group.
Effects of troglitazone in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Ann Intern Med
1998;338:8616.
[47] Rubin C, Egan J, Schneider R, et al. Combination therapy with pioglitazone and
insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes [abstract 0474]. Diabetes 1999;48(Suppl 1):A110.
[48] Raskin P, Dole JF, Rappaport EB. Rosiglitazone improves glucose control in poorly
controlled, insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus [abstract 0404]. Diabetes
1999;48(Suppl 1):A95.
[49] Chiasson J-L, Josse RG, Hunt JA, Palmason C, Rodger NW, Ross SA, et al. The efficacy
of acarbose in the treatment of patients with noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus:
a multicenter controlled clinical trial. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:92835.
[50] Riddle MC, Rosenstock J, Gerich J. The Treat-to-Target Trial: Randomized addition of
glargine or human NPH insulin to oral therapy of type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care
2003;26(11):30806.
[51] Polonsky KS, Rubenstein AH. C-peptide as a measure of the secretion and hepatic
extraction of insulin. Pitfalls and limitations. Diabetes 1984;33:486.
[52] Greco AC, Caputo S, Bertoli A, Ghirlanda G. The beta cell function in NIDDM patients
with secondary failure: A three year follow-up of combined oral hypoglycemic and insulin
therapy. Horm Metab Res 1992;24:280.
[53] Edelman SV, Henry RR. Diagnosis and management of type 2 diabetes. Caddo (OK):
Professional Communications, Inc.; 2002. p. 132.
[54] Henry RR, Gumbiner B, Ditzler T, Wallace P, Lyon R, Glauber HS. Intensive
conventional insulin therapy for type II diabetes. Metabolic effects during a 6-mo out-
patient trial. Diabetes Care 1993;16(1):2131.
[55] Kudlacek S, Schernthaner G. The effect of insulin treatment on HbAlc, body weight andlipids in type 2 diabetic patients with secondary failure to sulfonylureas. A five year follow-
up study. Horm Metab Res 1992;24:478.
[56] Roach P, Woodworth JR. Clincal pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin
lispro mixtures. Clini Pharmacokinet 2002;41(13):104357.
[57] Roach P, Yue L, Arora V for the Humalog Mix25 Study Group. Improved postprandial
glycemic control during treatment with Humalog Mix25, a novel protamine-based insulin
lispro formulation. Diabetes Care 1999;22(8):125861.
[58] Jacobsen LV, Sogaard B, Riis A. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a premixed
formulation of soluble and protamine-retarded insulin aspart. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000;
56(5):399403.
[59] Boehm BO, Home PD, Brehend C, Kamp NM, Lindholm A. Premixed insulin aspart 30vs. premixed human insulin 30/70 twice daily: a random mixed trial in type 1 and type 2
diabetic patients. Diabet Med 2002;19:3939.
[60] Schwartz S, Sievers R, Strange P, Lyness W, Hollander P. Insulin 70/30 mix plus
metformin versus triple oral therapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes after failure of two
oral drugs: efficacy, safety, and cost analysis. Diabetes Care 2003;26(8):223843.
[61] Leahy JT. Intensive insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes mellitus. In: Leahy JT, Cefalu WT,
editors. Insulin therapy. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 2002. p. 87112.
[62] Lepore M, Pampanelli S, Fanelli C, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of
subcutaneous injection of long-acting human insulin analog glargine, NPH insulin, and
ultralente human insulin and continuous subcutaneous infusion of insulin lispro. Diabetes
2000;49:21428.[63] Rossetti P, Pampanelli S, Fanelli C, Porcellati F, Costa E, Torlone E, et al. Intensive
replacement of basal insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes given rapid-acting insulin
analog at mealtime. Diabetes Care 2003;26(5):14907.
[64] Yki-Ja rvinen H, Dressler A, Ziemen M for the HOE 901/3002 Study Group. Less
nocturnal hypoglycemia and better post-dinner glucose control with bedtime insulin
894 T. Davis, S.V. Edelman / Med Clin N Am 88 (2004) 865895
8/13/2019 Curso Insulin Therapy
31/31
glargine compared with bedtime NPH insulin during insulin combination therapy in type 2
diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000;23:11306.
[65] Raskin P, Klaff L, Bergenstal R, Halle JP, Donley D, Mecca T. A 16-week comparison of
the novel i