Our analyses suggest that there is no clinically relevant difference in efficacy or safety between insulin detemir and insulin glargine for targeting hyperglycaemia. However, to achieve the same glycaemic control insulin detemir was often injected twice-daily in a higher dose but with less weight gain, while insulin glargine was injected once-daily, with somewhat fewer injection site reactions.

If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using sulfonylurea derivatives or insulin may experience hypoglycaemia. However, recent data regarding the incidence of hypoglycaemia are scarce. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that experience hypoglycaemia when treated with sulfonylurea or insulin. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials that compared incretin-based drugs to sulfonylureas or insulin and assessed hypoglycaemia incidence in the latter therapies. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to study possible associations with potential risk factors for hypoglycaemia. Data of 25 studies were extracted, 22 for sulfonylurea and 3 for insulin. Hypoglycaemia with glucose ≤3.1 mmol/L or ≤2.8 mmol/L was experienced by 10.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.3-13.8%] and 5.9% (95% CI 2.5-13.4%) of patients with any sulfonylurea treatment. Severe hypoglycaemia was experienced by 0.8% (95% CI 0.5-1.3%) of patients. Hypoglycaemia with glucose ≤3.1 mmol/L and severe hypoglycaemia occurred least frequently with gliclazide: in 1.4% (95% CI 0.8-2.4%) and 0.1% (95% CI 0-0.7%) of patients, respectively. None of the risk factors were significant in a stepwise multivariate meta-regression analysis. Too few studies had insulin as comparator, so these data could not be meta-analysed. The majority of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus on sulfonylurea therapy in clinical trials remain free of any relevant hypoglycaemia. Gliclazide was associated with the lowest risk of hypoglycaemia. Because participants in randomized controlled trials differ from the general population, care should be taken when translating these data into clinical practice.

This review presents an overview of the candidates for an improved basal insulin in the pharmaceutical pipeline. The first new basal insulin to enter the market is most likely insulin degludec (IDeg), currently reporting in phase 3 of development, from Novo Nordisk (Bagsvaerd, Denmark). IDeg has a longer duration of action than currently available analogs. Phase 2 studies show comparable efficacy and safety outcomes compared with insulin glargine once daily with less hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. The final results of phase 3 studies seem to confirm this, also in type 2 diabetes. Biodel (Danbury, CT) has two long-acting basal insulin formulations in the pipeline, both in the preclinical phase of development: BIOD-Adjustable Basal, a modified formulation of insulin glargine, is available in long-, medium-, and short-acting forms and could be mixed, and BIOD-Smart Basal releases insulin proportional to the subcutaneous glucose concentration. Eli Lilly (Indianapolis, IN) is also developing a basal insulin. Phase 2 trials have been completed, but no results are published yet. Clinical trials with the new patch pump from CeQur (Montreux, Switzerland) have recently started in Europe. This patch pump delivers both basal and bolus doses subcutaneously and is intended for people with type 2 diabetes who need multiple daily injection insulin therapy.

BackgroundComputer-assisted decision support is an emerging modality to assist patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in insulin self-titration (ie, self-adjusting insulin dose according to daily blood glucose levels). Computer-assisted insulin self-titration systems mainly focus on helping patients overcome barriers related to the cognitive components of insulin titration. Yet other (eg, psychological or physical) barriers could still impede effective use of such systems.ObjectiveOur primary aim was to identify experiences with and barriers to self-monitoring of blood glucose, insulin injection, and insulin titration among patients with T2DM. Our research team developed a computer-assisted insulin self-titration system, called PANDIT. The secondary aim of this study was to evaluate patients’ perceptions of computer-assisted insulin self-titration. We included patients who used PANDIT in a 4-week pilot study as well as patients who had never used such a system.MethodsIn-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted individually with patients on insulin therapy who were randomly recruited from a university hospital and surrounding general practices in the Netherlands. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed qualitatively. To classify the textual remarks, we created a codebook during the analysis, in a bottom-up and iterative fashion. To support examination of the final coded data, we used three theories from the field of health psychology and the integrated model of user satisfaction and technology acceptance by Wixom and Todd.ResultsWhen starting insulin therapy, some patients feared a lifelong commitment to insulin therapy and disease progression. Also, many barriers arose when implementing insulin therapy (eg, some patients were embarrassed to inject insulin in public). Furthermore, patients had difficulties increasing the insulin dose because they fear hypoglycemia, they associate higher insulin doses with disease progression, and some were ignorant of treatment targets. Patients who never used a computer-assisted insulin self-titration system felt they had enough knowledge to know when their insulin should be adjusted, but still believed that the system advice would be useful to confirm their reasoning. Furthermore, the time and effort saved with automated insulin advice was considered an advantage. Patients who had used PANDIT found the system useful if their glycemic regulation improved. Nevertheless, for some patients, the absence of personal contact with their caregiver was a drawback. While guidelines state that adjustment of basal insulin dose based on fasting plasma glucose values is sufficient, both patients who had and those who had not used PANDIT felt that such a system should take more patient data into consideration, such as lifestyle and diet factors.ConclusionsPatients encounter multiple obstacles when implementing insulin therapy. Computer-assisted insulin self-titration can increase patient awareness of treatment targets and increase their confidence in self-adjusting ...