Dataset Information

Randomized study comparing a Basal-bolus with a basal plus correction insulin regimen for the hospital management of medical and surgical patients with type 2 diabetes: basal plus trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Effective and easily implemented insulin regimens are needed to facilitate hospital glycemic control in general medical and surgical patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Research design and methods

This multicenter trial randomized 375 patients with T2D treated with diet, oral antidiabetic agents, or low-dose insulin (≤ 0.4 units/kg/day) to receive a basal-bolus regimen with glargine once daily and glulisine before meals, a basal plus regimen with glargine once daily and supplemental doses of glulisine, and sliding scale regular insulin (SSI).

Results

Improvement in mean daily blood glucose (BG) after the first day of therapy was similar between basal-bolus and basal plus groups (P = 0.16), and both regimens resulted in a lower mean daily BG than did SSI (P = 0.04). In addition, treatment with basal-bolus and basal plus regimens resulted in less treatment failure (defined as >2 consecutive BG >240 mg/dL or a mean daily BG >240 mg/dL) than did treatment with SSI (0 vs. 2 vs. 19%, respectively; P < 0.001). A BG <70 mg/dL occurred in 16% of patients in the basal-bolus group, 13% in the basal plus group, and 3% in the SSI group (P = 0.02). There was no difference among the groups in the frequency of severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL; P = 0.76).

Conclusions

The use of a basal plus regimen with glargine once daily plus corrective doses with glulisine insulin before meals resulted in glycemic control similar to a standard basal-bolus regimen. The basal plus approach is an effective alternative to the use of a basal-bolus regimen in general medical and surgical patients with T2D.

SUBMITTER: Umpierrez GE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3714500 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTo date, there have been few head-to-head comparisons between semaglutide once-weekly (OW) and short-acting meal-time insulin in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with basal insulin and requiring treatment intensification. This indirect comparison evaluated the effects of these regimens on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, hypoglycaemia, and other clinically relevant outcomes.MethodsA post-hoc, unanchored, individual participant data meta-analysis was conducted on the basis of data from single treatment arms in the SUSTAIN 5 and DUAL 7 trials. Semaglutide 0.5 mg OW and 1.0 mg OW plus basal insulin were compared with an optimised (treat-to-target) basal-bolus regimen of insulin glargine and insulin aspart over 26 weeks, using regression adjustment to account for baseline differences between the trials.ResultsOver 26 weeks, semaglutide 1.0 mg OW plus basal insulin reduced mean HbA1c by significantly more than the basal-bolus regimen (treatment difference: - 0.36%; p = 0.003), while semaglutide 0.5 mg OW plus basal insulin was comparable with basal-bolus insulin (treatment difference: 0.08%, p = 0.53). Both doses of semaglutide were associated with significant weight loss relative to insulin intensification (treatment differences: 6.8-9.4 kg; p < 0.001). At both doses, semaglutide intensification required less basal insulin per day than bolus intensification, and more participants on semaglutide met HbA1c targets of < 7.0% and ≤ 6.5% without hypoglycaemia or weight gain (odds ratio [OR] for < 7.0%, 21.9; OR for ≤ 6.5%, 16.2; both p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn T2D uncontrolled by basal insulin, intensification with semaglutide 1.0 mg OW was associated with better glycaemic control, weight loss, and reduced hypoglycaemia versus a basal-bolus regimen, while limiting the treatment burden associated with frequent injections. Clinicians could consider treatment intensification with semaglutide when T2D is uncontrolled by basal insulin, especially when weight management is a priority. Effective glycaemic control coupled with weight management can alleviate the burden of diabetes-associated complications.

Project description:IntroductionIdentification of subgroups of patients that may benefit most from certain treatment is important because individual treatment response varies due to multiple contributing factors. The present study used the subgroup identification based on the differential effect search (SIDES) algorithm to identify subgroups with different treatment responses to insulin intensification therapies.MethodsThis was a post hoc analysis of a 24-week, multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel study comparing prandial premixed therapy (PPT) to basal-bolus therapy (BBT). Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized to PPT (insulin lispro mix 50/50 thrice daily with meals) or BBT (glargine at bedtime plus mealtime insulin lispro) insulin intensification therapies. The SIDES algorithm was used to identify the subgroups from at-goal patients [glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0% (53.0 mmol/mol) at the end of 24 weeks; n = 182] who could have benefitted from insulin intensification therapies.ResultsBaseline characteristics of overall at-goal patients were comparable between PPT and BBT groups. The SIDES algorithm identified patients with race other than Caucasian (i.e., African-American, Asian, and Hispanic) and baseline fasting blood glucose (FBG) <8.89 mmol/L as a subgroup that could respond better to PPT relative to BBT than the overall at-goal patient population. In this identified subgroup population, the HbA1c mean (standard deviation) changes from baseline to endpoint in PPT and BBT groups were -2.27 (0.88)% versus -2.05 (0.75)%; p = 0.40, respectively; while in the overall at-goal patients, the HbA1c changes were -2.17 (0.79)% versus -2.34 (1.00)%; p = 0.19, respectively.ConclusionsThe preliminary results showed that the subgroup of patients with race other than Caucasian and FBG <8.89 mmol/L may respond better to premixed intensification therapy. This result provides some preliminary information for further investigation in prospective studies.FundingEli Lilly and Company.Clinical trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov ID number: NCT00110370.