We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
A comparison between simplified and intensive dose-titration algorithms using AIR inhaled insulin for insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes in a randomized noninferiority trial.
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2009 September
BACKGROUND: Insulin initiation and optimization is a challenge for patients with type 2 diabetes. Our objective was to determine whether safety and efficacy of AIR inhaled insulin (Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN) (AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc., Cambridge, MA) using a simplified regimen was noninferior to an intensive regimen.
METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized study in insulin-naive adults not optimally controlled by oral antihyperglycemic medications. Simplified titration included a 6 U per meal AIR insulin starting dose. Individual doses were adjusted at mealtime in 2-U increments from the previous day's four-point self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) (total < or =6 U). Starting Air insulin doses for intensive titration were based on fasting blood glucose, gender, height, and weight. Patients conducted four-point SMBG daily for the study duration. Insulin doses were titrated based on the previous 3 days' mean SMBG (total < or =8 U).
RESULTS: End point hemoglobin A1C (A1C) was 7.07 +/- 0.09% and 6.87 +/- 0.09% for simplified (n = 178) and intensive (n = 180) algorithms, respectively. Noninferiority between algorithms was not established. The fasting blood glucose (least squares mean +/- standard error) values for the simplified (137.27 +/- 3.42 mg/dL) and intensive (133.13 +/- 3.42 mg/dL) algorithms were comparable. Safety profiles were comparable. The hypoglycemic rate at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks was higher in patients receiving intensive titration (all P < .0001). The nocturnal hypoglycemic rate for patients receiving intensive titration was higher than for those receiving simplified titration at 8 (P < 0.015) and 12 weeks (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Noninferiority between the algorithms, as measured by A1C, was not demonstrated. This finding re-emphasizes the difficulty of identifying optimal, simplified insulin regimens for patients.
METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized study in insulin-naive adults not optimally controlled by oral antihyperglycemic medications. Simplified titration included a 6 U per meal AIR insulin starting dose. Individual doses were adjusted at mealtime in 2-U increments from the previous day's four-point self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) (total < or =6 U). Starting Air insulin doses for intensive titration were based on fasting blood glucose, gender, height, and weight. Patients conducted four-point SMBG daily for the study duration. Insulin doses were titrated based on the previous 3 days' mean SMBG (total < or =8 U).
RESULTS: End point hemoglobin A1C (A1C) was 7.07 +/- 0.09% and 6.87 +/- 0.09% for simplified (n = 178) and intensive (n = 180) algorithms, respectively. Noninferiority between algorithms was not established. The fasting blood glucose (least squares mean +/- standard error) values for the simplified (137.27 +/- 3.42 mg/dL) and intensive (133.13 +/- 3.42 mg/dL) algorithms were comparable. Safety profiles were comparable. The hypoglycemic rate at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks was higher in patients receiving intensive titration (all P < .0001). The nocturnal hypoglycemic rate for patients receiving intensive titration was higher than for those receiving simplified titration at 8 (P < 0.015) and 12 weeks (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Noninferiority between the algorithms, as measured by A1C, was not demonstrated. This finding re-emphasizes the difficulty of identifying optimal, simplified insulin regimens for patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app