Effect of recombinant human insulin-like growth factor-I on progression of ALS. A placebo-controlled study. The North America ALS/IGF-I Study Group. Insulin aspart vs. human insulin in the management of long-term blood glucose control in Type 1 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. No increase of hypoglycaemia upon transfer of aged longstanding type 1 diabetic patients to human insulin: a prospective randomized study. The Investigators of the Transfert Study. Health-related quality-of-life results from multinational clinical trials of insulin lispro. Assessing benefits of a new diabetes therapy. Randomized trial of human versus animal species insulin in diabetic pregnant women: improved glycemic control, not fewer antibodies to insulin, influences birth weight. Comparative double-blind trial of the effectiveness and antigenicity of semisynthetic human insulin and purified porcine insulin in newly treated diabetic subjects. Severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia: a comparative study of insulin lispro and regular human insulin. Comparison of human versus porcine insulin in treatment of diabetes in children. Evaluation of efficacy and safety of human insulin (Novo) in the treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a double-blind, multicenter clinical trial. Cinnamon supplementation does not improve glycemic control in postmenopausal type 2 diabetes patients. Influence of human insulin on symptoms and awareness of hypoglycaemia: a randomised double blind crossover trial. Comparison of highly purified semi-synthetic insulin and highly purified porcine insulin in the treatment of type I diabetes: interim report of a multi-centre randomised single blind study. [Insulin transference in 198 patients from 6 Latin American countries]. A comparative study of insulin lispro and human regular insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and secondary failure of oral hypoglycemic agents. Use of insulin lispro in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion treatment. Results of a multicenter trial. German Humalog-CSII Study Group. Effect of the rapid-acting insulin analogue insulin aspart on quality of life and treatment satisfaction in patients with Type 1 diabetes. Human (semisynthetic) insulin and porcine insulin in the treatment of non-insulin-dependent diabetes. A double-blind, comparative clinical trial. A randomized, controlled trial comparing insulin lispro with human soluble insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes on intensified insulin therapy. The UK Trial Group. Metabolic efficacy of preprandial administration of Lys(B28), Pro(B29) human insulin analog in IDDM patients. A comparison with human regular insulin during a three-meal test period. Insulin analogues (insulin detemir and insulin aspart) versus traditional human insulins (NPH insulin and regular human insulin) in basal-bolus therapy for patients with type 1 diabetes. A twelve month double-blind randomized study of the efficacy and immunogenicity of human and porcine insulins in non-insulin-dependent diabetics. A comparison of semisynthetic human NPH insulin and porcine NPH insulin in the treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Nafarelin in the management of endometriosis: quality of life assessment. Effects of insulin pump vs. injection treatment on quality of life and impact of disease in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus in a randomized, prospective comparison. Improved glycemic control with insulin aspart: a multicenter randomized double-blind crossover trial in type 1 diabetic patients. UK Insulin Aspart Study Group. Warning symptoms of hypoglycaemia during treatment with human and porcine insulin in diabetes mellitus. Double blind clinical and laboratory study of hypoglycaemia with human and porcine insulin in diabetic patients reporting hypoglycaemia unawareness after transferring to human insulin. A randomized trial of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and intensive injection therapy in type 1 diabetes for patients with long-standing poor glycemic control. Human ultralente insulin: a comparison with porcine lente insulin as a twice-daily insulin in insulin-dependent diabetic patients with fasting hyperglycaemia. A randomized multicentre trial of insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin in people with type 1 diabetes. A comparison of insulin lispro and buffered regular human insulin administered via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump. Metformin for obese, insulin-treated diabetic patients: improvement in glycaemic control and reduction of metabolic risk factors. Insulin lispro lowers postprandial glucose in prepubertal children with diabetes. Transfer from animal insulins to semisynthetic human insulin: a study in four centres. A placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of nortriptyline for chronic low back pain. Comparison of the safety and effectiveness of human and bovine long-acting insulins. A direct efficacy and safety comparison of insulin aspart, human soluble insulin, and human premix insulin (70/30) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Efficacy, safety, and pump compatibility of insulin aspart used in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes. Effectiveness of lifestyle counseling by certified expert nurse of Japan for non-insulin-treated diabetic outpatients: a 1-year randomized controlled trial.
The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of recombinant human insulinlike growth factor-I (rhIGF-I) in the treatment of sporadic ALS. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study of 266 patients was conducted at eight centers in North America. Placebo or rhIGF-I (0.05 mg/kg/day or 0.10 mg/kg/day) was administered for 9 months. The primary outcome measure was disease symptom progression, assessed by the rate of change (per patient slope) in the Appel ALS rating scale total score. The Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), a patient-perceived, health-related quality of life assessment, was a secondary outcome variable. Progression of functional impairment in patients receiving high-dose (0.10 mg/kg/day) rhIGF-I was 26% slower than in patients receiving placebo (p = 0.01). The high-dose treatment group was less likely to terminate the study due to protocol-defined markers of disease symptom progression, and members in this group exhibited a slower decline in quality of life, as assessed by the SIP. Patients receiving 0.05 mg/kg/day of rhIGF-I exhibited trends similar to those associated with high-dose treatment, suggesting a dose-dependent response. The incidence of clinically significant adverse experiences was comparable among the three treatment groups. Recombinant human insulin-like growth factor-I slowed the progression of functional impairment and the decline in health-related quality of life in patients with ALS with no medically important adverse effects. To compare the efficacy of insulin aspart, a rapid-acting insulin analogue, with that of unmodified human insulin on long-term blood glucose control in Type 1 diabetes mellitus.
                Prospective, multi-centre, randomized, open-labelled, parallel-group trial lasting 6 months in 88 centres in eight European countries and including 1,070 adult subjects with Type 1 diabetes. Study patients were randomized 2:1 to insulin aspart or unmodified human insulin before main meals, with NPH-insulin as basal insulin. Main outcome measures were blood glucose control as assessed by HbA1c, eight-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles, insulin dose, quality of life, hypoglycaemia, and adverse events.
                After 6 months, insulin aspart was superior to human insulin with respect to HbA1c with a baseline-adjusted difference in HbA1c of 0.12 (95% confidence interval 0.03-0.22) %Hb, P < 0.02. Eight-point blood glucose profiles showed lower post-prandial glucose levels (mean baseline-adjusted -0.6 to -1.2 mmol/l, P < 0.01) after all main meals, but higher pre-prandial glucose levels before breakfast and dinner (0.7-0.8 mmol/l, P < 0.01) with insulin aspart. Satisfaction with treatment was significantly better in patients treated with insulin aspart (WHO Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) baseline-adjusted difference 2.3 (1.2-3.3) points, P < 0.001). The relative risk of experiencing a major hypoglycaemic episode with insulin aspart compared to human insulin was 0.83 (0.59-1.18, NS). Major night hypoglycaemic events requiring parenteral treatment were less with insulin aspart (1.3 vs. 3.4% of patients, P < 0.05), as were late post-prandial (4-6 h) events (1.8 vs. 5.0% of patients, P < 0.005).
                These results show small but useful advantage for the rapid-acting insulin analogue insulin aspart as a tool to improve long-term blood glucose control, hypoglycaemia, and quality of life, in people with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. To assess the frequency and severity of hypoglycaemia following transfer to human insulin, 94 aged Type 1 diabetic patients on animal insulin were randomly assigned either to continue their usual insulin (group A, n = 48) or convert to equivalent preparations of human insulin (group B, n = 46). At inclusion, the two groups showed no differences in age (58.1 +/- 2.2 vs. 54.4 +/- 2.3 years), duration of diabetes (20.8 +/- 1.4 vs. 19.6 +/- 1.6 years) (mean +/- SEM), and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) values (9.1 +/- 0.2% vs. 8.9 +/- 0.2%). There were 43 eligible patients in group A and 41 in group B. After three months of treatment, HbA1c values were not significantly different between the two groups (8.6 +/- 0.2% vs. 8.5 +/- 0.2%), and there was no difference in the frequency and intensity of hypoglycaemic episodes. Quality of life, as assessed by a questionnaire, was similar at inclusion and after three months. However, the anxiety level was significantly lower in group B. Type 1 diabetic patients were efficiently and safely switched from animal to human insulin without aggravating the incidence of hypoglycaemia, in spite of two major risk factors, i.e. advanced age and diabetes of long duration. To compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with diabetes receiving insulin lispro with patients receiving regular human insulin (Humulin R).
                We performed two randomized comparative studies over a 6-month period (3 months per treatment). Primary analyses used crossover baseline to 3-month changes in HRQOL scores. Ninety-three principal investigators in Canada, France, Germany, and the U.S. participated in these studies. One HRQOL crossover study included 468 patients with type I diabetes; the other HRQOL crossover study included 474 patients with type II diabetes. In both studies, patients were taking insulin at least 2 months before enrollment. Primary outcomes included two generic HRQOL domains, energy/fatigue and health distress, and two diabetes-specific domains, treatment satisfaction and treatment flexibility. Thirty secondary outcomes included both generic and diabetes-specific measures. Secondary outcome domains were controlled for multiplicity in the analyses.
                Primary analyses showed that treatment satisfaction scores (P < 0.001) and treatment flexibility scores (P = 0.001) were higher for insulin lispro in type I diabetic patients. No other significant treatment differences were detected using the data from these 6-month crossover studies.
                Treatment satisfaction and treatment flexibility were significantly improved in patients with type I diabetes using insulin lispro. Other HRQOL findings were comparable for insulin lispro and regular human insulin. Insulin lispro appears to have a measurable impact on lifestyle benefits in patients with type I diabetes, as demonstrated by increased treatment satisfaction and treatment flexibility. Macrosomia occurs in infants of diabetic mothers in spite of "nearly normal maternal blood glucose levels" with insulin treatment. Insulin antibodies may carry bound insulin into the fetal blood and thus may be associated with fetal hyperinsulinemia and macrosomia in these infants. Our objective was to test the hypothesis that human insulin is associated with lower insulin antibody levels and less macrosomia than is animal species insulin.
                Forty-three insulin-requiring pregnant (< 20 weeks' gestation) women, previously treated with animal insulin, were randomized to human and animal insulins and studied at weeks 10 through 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, and 38, at delivery, and at 3 months post partum. Infant blood was drawn at delivery (cord) and at 1 day and 3 months post partum 1 hour after a glucose-amino acid challenge.
                Women receiving human insulin required significantly less insulin per kilogram of body weight and showed significant dampening of glucose excursions (p < 0.05 for each comparison). Infants born to mothers receiving human insulin weighed 2880 +/- 877 gm compared with 3340 +/- 598 gm for infants of women treated with animal insulin (p < 0.05). There was no difference in insulin antibody levels between groups for either mothers or infants. Infants born to mothers receiving human insulin had a 1 hour C-peptide level after the glucose-amino acid challenge at 3 months of age of 0.21 +/- 0.13 pmol/ml compared with 0.32 +/- 0.13 pmol/ml (p = 0.01).
                Administration of human insulin to pregnant diabetic women has a therapeutic advantage over animal insulin, with less maternal hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia, fewer larger-for-gestational-age infants, and less neonatal hyperinsulinemia. Our data do not support the hypothesis that maternal antibodies to insulin influence infant birth weight. A double-blind comparative trial of the effectiveness and antigenicity of semisynthetic human insulin (Novo) and highly purified (Monocomponent) porcine insulin was performed over a 12 month period in 20 diabetic subjects newly treated with insulin. Human insulin was shown to be indistinguishable from porcine insulin of comparable purity with respect to plasma glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin levels and insulin dose requirements. Human insulin was no less antigenic than porcine insulin; significant IgG-associated insulin binding activity was detected in six of the ten patients in the human insulin treated group and four of the ten patients in the porcine insulin treated group. In all patients, the binding activity was of low capacity. No adverse reactions to human insulin were noted. It is concluded that semisynthetic human insulin, like purified porcine insulin, is safe and effective. Although there may be advantages for human insulin in the setting of insulin allergy, this study does not indicate that human insulin has advantages over purified porcine insulin with respect to elicitation of antibodies of the IgG class. To assess the potential of insulin lispro to limit the frequency of severe hypoglycaemia without compromising glycaemic control in a cohort of patients with type 1 diabetes who are at a high risk of severe hypoglycemia. Research design and methods An open-label, randomised, 12-month comparative crossover study of insulin lispro and regular human insulin was performed in 33 patients with type 1 diabetes with impaired hypoglycaemia awareness. The efficacy of each treatment was evaluated by glycaemic control (HbA(1c)), eight-point home blood glucose profiles, and the frequency and severity of hypoglycaemic episodes and quality of life.
                Eighteen (55%) patients experienced one or more episodes of severe hypoglycaemia in the 48 weeks of study. There was a trend to a lower incidence of severe hypoglycaemia during treatment with insulin lispro in comparison with regular human insulin (55 vs 84 episodes, p=0.087). This resulted principally from a 47% lower incidence of nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia with insulin lispro (25 vs 47 episodes, p=0.11). The lower frequency of severe hypoglycaemia associated with insulin lispro was not explained by differences in glycated haemoglobin between insulin treatments (HbA(1c) 9.1% insulin lispro vs 9.3% regular human insulin).
                In individuals with type 1 diabetes, who have impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, treatment with insulin lispro may be associated with a lower incidence of severe hypoglycaemia manifested predominantly through less frequent nocturnal episodes. Insulin lispro may have a beneficial role in the management of patients with diabetes at risk of severe hypoglycaemia, although a larger study is required to confirm these findings.
                Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The blood glucose control obtained when using semi-synthetic monocomponent human insulin (insulin A) was compared with that using standard monocomponent porcine insulin (insulin B) in 14 children in a double blind crossover study. At the start of the study age, duration of diabetes, insulin dose, and daily carbohydrate intake were the same in both groups. After a one month run in period of standard treatment with porcine insulin the children were randomly divided into group 1 (three months of insulin A followed by three months of insulin B) and group 2 (three months of insulin B followed by three months of insulin A). During each treatment period blood glucose control was assessed by clinical symptoms, glycosylated haemoglobin, and home blood glucose monitoring. Although a significant difference in the period after lunch during 24 hour blood glucose profiles suggested a shorter onset time and faster peak action time of human insulin, no significant difference in the overall diabetic control was seen between the two types of insulin. There was a trend towards improved blood glucose control (irrespective of insulin) as the trial progressed. No clinical reactions to human insulin occurred, and there was no significant difference in the daily insulin dose between porcine and human insulin. The safety and efficacy of human insulin (Novo) were evaluated in a double-blind, parallel, multicenter trial in which 47 insulin-dependent diabetic patients were randomly divided into two equal groups and treated with either purified pork or human insulin (Actrapid and Monotard, Novo) for 12 wk. Mean levels of fasting plasma glucose, glycohemoglobin, and daily insulin dosages showed no statistical differences between the two groups, and there was no significant difference in the incidence of hypoglycemic reactions. The results from this clinical trial indicate that human insulin, prepared by enzymatic transpeptidation of pork insulin, appears to be as safe and efficacious as purified pork insulin in the treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. In vitro and in vivo animal studies have reported strong insulin-like or insulin-potentiating effects after cinnamon administration. Recently, a human intervention study showed that cinnamon supplementation (1 g/d) strongly reduced fasting blood glucose concentration (30%) and improved the blood lipid profile in patients with type 2 diabetes. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of cinnamon supplementation on insulin sensitivity and/or glucose tolerance and blood lipid profile in patients with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, a total of 25 postmenopausal patients with type 2 diabetes (aged 62.9 +/- 1.5 y, BMI 30.4 +/- 0.9 kg/m2) participated in a 6-wk intervention during which they were supplemented with either cinnamon (Cinnamomum cassia, 1.5 g/d) or a placebo. Before and after 2 and 6 wk of supplementation, arterialized blood samples were obtained and oral glucose tolerance tests were performed. Blood lipid profiles and multiple indices of whole-body insulin sensitivity were determined. There were no time x treatment interactions for whole-body insulin sensitivity or oral glucose tolerance. The blood lipid profile of fasting subjects did not change after cinnamon supplementation. We conclude that cinnamon supplementation (1.5 g/d) does not improve whole-body insulin sensitivity or oral glucose tolerance and does not modulate blood lipid profile in postmenopausal patients with type 2 diabetes. More research on the proposed health benefits of cinnamon supplementation is warranted before health claims should be made. To investigate the apparent increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia associated with use of human insulin by comparing the pattern of symptoms of hypoglycaemia with human insulin and porcine insulin.
                Randomised controlled double blind crossover trial of treatment with human insulin and porcine insulin, with two treatment periods of six weeks.
                Diabetes outpatient department of a university teaching hospital in Berne, Switzerland.
                44 patients (25 men, 19 women) aged 14 to 60 years, with insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. All patients met the following criteria: receiving treatment with fast acting soluble insulin and long acting protamine insulin; performing multiple daily fingerstick blood glucose self measurements; and had stable glycaemic control with about one mild hypoglycaemic episode a week during the preceding two months.
                Patients were randomised to receive either human or porcine insulin for six weeks and were then changed over to the other type of insulin for a further six weeks.
                Questionnaire recording "autonomic" and "neuroglycopenic" symptoms that occurred during hypoglycaemic episodes confirmed by a blood glucose concentration less than or equal to 2.8 mmol/l.
                Insulin doses and blood glucose, glycated haemoglobin A1c, and fructosamine concentrations were similar during the two treatment periods. 493 questionnaires on hypoglycaemia (234 during treatment with human insulin and 259 during treatment with porcine insulin) were analysed. With human insulin patients were more likely to report lack of concentration (52% v 35%, p = 0.0003) and restlessness (53% v 45%, p = 0.004) and less likely to report hunger (33% v 42%, p = 0.016) than during treatment with porcine insulin. The difference in the pattern of symptoms during the two treatments was similar to that between the 12 patients with a history of recurrent hypoglycaemic coma and the 32 patients without such a history.
                The pattern of symptoms associated with human insulin could impair patients' ability to take appropriate steps to avoid severe hypoglycaemia. Caution should be exercised when transferring patients from animal insulin to human insulin, and a large scale randomised trial of the two types of insulin may be justified. This is an interim report of a long term single-blind study of the effects of changing diabetic patients treated with highly purified porcine insulin to semi-synthetic human insulins of identical formulation. Twenty four insulin dependent diabetics were randomly allocated to continue with porcine insulin (n = 11) or human insulin (n = 13). There were no significant changes within the groups nor differences between the groups in mean preprandial capillary blood glucose, glycosylated haemoglobin or insulin dose during the first 24 weeks of the study. Insulin antibody levels remained low and did not differ between the groups. No local or systemic adverse reactions were observed. In this group of patients conversion to human insulin did not result in a change in diabetic control or insulin dose. A multicentric, comparative, single-blind, randomized, prospective study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the transference from animal source insulins to rDNA human insulin in Latinamerican insulin-requiring diabetic patients. All the patients were on animal insulin for at least two months before inclusion. The patients were evaluated at the beginning, and at two and six weeks after inclusion. A total 198 patients completed the study and were considered evaluable: 94 were assigned to the animal insulin group, and 104 to the human insulin group. There were no statistically significant baseline differences between groups. The only statistically significant difference, detected at the end of the study, was a reduction in fasting blood glucose level in the human insulin group (animal insulin 212 +/- 95.3 initial vs 193 +/- 78.3 mg/dL final, p = 0.18; human insulin 198 +/- 86.8 vs 169 +/- 71.7, p = 0.025). There were no statistically significant initial-final changes in the rest of the parameters evaluated although a trend of reduction in glycohemoglobin levels was observed in both groups. There were more episodes of mild hipoglycemia in the human insulin group, and only one episode of severe unwarned hypoglycemia in the same group. We conclude that the transference of insulins in Latinamerican diabetic patients is effective and reasonably safe (with a dose adjustment when the change is made). To compare the effects of insulin lispro (LP) and human regular insulin (HR) when given twice daily with NPH insulin on glycemic control (HbA1c), daily blood glucose profiles and rates of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus after failure to respond to sulfonylurea drugs.
                A 5.5-month randomized, open-label, parallel study of 148 patients receiving either LP (n = 70) or HR (n = 78). Eight-point blood glucose profiles and HbA1c measurements were collected at baseline, 1.5, 3.5 and 5.5 months.
                Two-hour post-breakfast and 2-hour post-supper blood glucose levels (means [and standard errors]) were significantly lower for LP than for HR at the end point (9.5 [0.4] mmol/L v. 10.9 [0.4] mmol/L and 8.4 [0.4] mmol/L v. 9.7 [0.4] mmol/L, respectively, p = 0.02 in both cases). HbA1c improved from 10.5% (0.2%) (LP) and 10.3% (0.2%) (HR) to 8.0% (0.1%). Hypoglycemia rates were similar during the day; however, there was an overnight trend to reduced rates with LP (0.08 [0.03] episodes/30 d v. 0.16 [0.04] episodes/30 d, p = 0.057). Quality-of life assessment showed significant improvement (p < 0.05) in the diabetes-related worry scale for LP subjects whereas HR subjects slightly worsened.
                With traditional twice-daily insulin administration algorithms, LP improves 2-hour postprandial glucose levels, quality of life and overnight hypoglycemia rates while delivering an equivalent level of glycemic control (HbA1c) compared with HR to insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes who require insulin. Insulin lispro is an analog of human insulin with a faster onset and a shorter duration of action than regular human insulin. Efficacy and tolerability of insulin lispro in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) treatment were assessed in an open randomized crossover trial comparing insulin lispro and regular human insulin, both applied with insulin pumps.
                A total of 113 type 1 patients (60 male, 53 female, age [mean +/- SD] 37 +/- 12 years, duration of diabetes 19 +/- 9 years) participated in this open, randomized crossover study. Both insulins were applied for 4 months each with the appropriate intervals between the prandial insulin bolus and the meal (human insulin: 30 min; lispro: 0 min). Observation parameters were HbA1c, daily and postprandial blood glucose profiles, adverse events, rate of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, number of catheter obstructions, and treatment satisfaction as assessed with an international validated questionnaire.
                The patients were well controlled with a mean HBA1c of 7.24 +/- 1.0% at baseline. HbA1c decreased in both treatment periods, but it was better during insulin lispro treatment (insulin lispro: 6.8 +/- 0.9%, regular human insulin: 6.9 +/- 1.0%, Friedman's rank-sum test: P < 0.02). In addition, the 1-h and 2-h postprandial rises in blood glucose were significantly lower (P < 0.001 for each meal) with insulin lispro, resulting in smoother daily glucose profiles as compared with regular human insulin. No significant differences were reported for the rate of hypoglycemia (mean +/- SD [median]: insulin lispro 12.4 +/- 13.9 [8], regular human insulin 11.0 +/- 11.2 [8]), for the rate of catheter obstructions (42 events in each treatment arm), and for the number and type of adverse events. No severe case of ketoacidosis was seen during insulin lispro treatment, whereas one case was reported during therapy with regular human insulin. Treatment satisfaction was better when patients were treated with insulin lispro.
                Insulin lispro is a suitable and very convenient pump insulin that may result in an improvement of long-term glucose control during CSII treatment. Its safety profile does not differ from that of regular human insulin. To compare quality of life (QoL) and treatment satisfaction in patients with Type 1 diabetes receiving the rapid-acting insulin analogue, insulin aspart (IAsp), with that in patients receiving soluble human insulin (HI).
                In this 6-month, multinational, randomized, open-label trial, 424 patients from German-speaking countries were subjected to psychometric assessment before and after randomization (ratio 2 : 1) to basal-bolus treatment with either IAsp (n = 283) or HI (n = 141). Patients on HI were advised to keep an injection-meal interval of 30 min, whereas patients on IAsp were advised to inject immediately before meals. Treatment satisfaction and diabetes-related QoL were assessed using validated instruments to measure the domains of patients' individual treatment goals, physical complaints, worries about the future, social relations, leisure time flexibility, daily hassles, diet restrictions, burdens and fear of hypoglycaemia, blood glucose fluctuations, self-efficacy, and fear of insulin analogues.
                After 6 months, IAsp was associated with significantly greater improvement in treatment satisfaction than HI in two different scales (P < 0.01), and in QoL with respect to diet restrictions (P < 0.01). Improved satisfaction was mainly due to increased dietary and leisure time flexibility (P < 0.0001). Twenty-three percent of the IAsp group vs. 14% of the HI group achieved small but important improvements of total QoL (between-group difference, P < 0.06). The number needed to treat (NNT) with IAsp for an important increase in QoL was calculated to be 10. Regression analyses of potential predictors of improvement in QoL highlighted patients intensely striving for physical strength (P < 0.01; NNT = 7) and patients feeling less protected against hypoglycaemia (P < 0.005; NNT = 8) as being the most likely to benefit from IAsp.
                Under these study conditions, IAsp improved treatment satisfaction and quality of life regarding diet restrictions when compared with human insulin. The 'numbers needed to treat' for important quality of life benefits indicate that the effect of IAsp in this regard is not trivial. Twenty-one patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes, who had not previously received insulin therapy, participated in a double-blind comparative trial of six months' duration to evaluate the efficacy of human (semisynthetic) insulin. Patients were allocated at random to treatment either with human (semisynthetic) insulin (10 patients) or with an equivalent porcine insulin regimen (11 patients). Sex ratio, age, body mass index, duration of diabetes, C-peptide concentrations, baseline metabolic control and initial insulin requirements were similar in both groups. After six months, no significant differences between the treatment effects of human (semisynthetic) insulin and porcine insulin, as assessed by measurements of fasting and postprandial plasma glucose levels, the concentration of glycosylated haemoglobin, serum lipid levels, insulin dose, and body weight, were found. No adverse reactions, injection-site anomalies, or drug-related biochemical abnormalities were noted in either group. It was concluded that human (semisynthetic) insulin is as effective as porcine insulin in initiating the treatment of patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes who require insulin therapy. Despite considerable experience with insulin lispro, few blinded comparisons with soluble insulin are available. This study compared insulin lispro with human soluble insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus on multiple injection therapy who inject shortly before meals.
                Glucose control, frequency of hypoglycaemia and patient preference were examined in the course of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison, with a 6-week run-in period and 12 weeks on each therapy. Ninety-three patients took part, all on multiple daily doses of insulin, with soluble insulin before meals and NPH (isophane) insulin at night. The main outcome measures were self-monitored blood glucose profiles, glycated haemoglobin, frequency of hypoglycaemic episodes, patient satisfaction and well-being and patient preference.
                Blood glucose levels were significantly lower after breakfast and lunch, but higher before breakfast, lunch and supper, in patients taking insulin lispro. Levels of HbA(1c) were 7.4 +/- 1.1% on Humulin S and 7.5 +/- 1.1% on insulin lispro (P = 0.807). The overall frequency of symptomatic hypoglycaemia did not differ, but patients on insulin lispro were less likely to experience hypoglycaemia between midnight and 6 a.m., and more likely to experience episodes from 6 a.m. to midday. Questionnaires completed by 84/87 patients at the end of the study showed that 43 (51%) were able to identify each insulin correctly, nine (11%) were incorrect, and 32 (38%) were unable to tell the insulins apart. No significant preference emerged: 35 (42%) opted for insulin lispro, 24 (29%) opted for Humulin S, while the remainder had no clear preference.
                Substitution of insulin lispro for soluble insulin in a multiple injection regimen improved post-prandial glucose control at the expense of an increase in fasting and pre-prandial glucose levels. Patients who already injected shortly before meals expressed no clear preference for the fast-acting analogue, and did not improve their overall control as a result of using it. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia was however, less frequent on insulin lispro, and may emerge as a robust indication for its use. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of the rapid-acting Lys(B28), Pro(B29) human insulin analog, insulin lispro, with currently available short-acting human insulin in a multiple injection therapy (MIT) regimen with respect to blood glucose and plasma insulin profiles and to serum metabolites (lactate, free fatty acids, glycerol, and beta-hydroxybutyrate) in 12 well-controlled type 1 diabetic subjects (8 male, HbA1c 6.8 +/- 0.9% [mean +/- SD]).
                After a run-in period of 4 weeks, patients were treated with either lispro at mealtime or human insulin 30 min before the meal for two periods of 4 weeks in a randomized open-label crossover study. Intermediate-acting insulin (NPH insulin) was given at bedtime. At the end of both study periods, metabolic profiles were assessed from 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. the next day.
                During the treatment periods, glycemic control was stable during lispro but improved during human insulin (delta HbA1c lispro 0.1 +/- 0.48, NS; human insulin -0.41 +/- 0.34%, P < 0.05). Glucose excursions, as measured by the incremental AUC, during the day and for the 2-h postprandial periods, were lower, although not significantly, for lispro. Insulin profiles demonstrated a faster rise after administration of lispro as compared with human insulin, peaking at 61 +/- 11.9 and 111 +/- 48.1 min (P < 0.01). Glycerol levels showed a slight increase before lunch and dinner, suggestive of enhanced lipolytic activity and compatible with the lower insulin levels.
                Lispro insulin applied in an MIT regimen creates more physiologic insulin profiles and tends to lower the glycemic excursions during the day compared with short-acting insulin. The analog can be applied safely in an MIT regimen, with mealtime intervals up to 5 h. The aim of the trial was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two types of basal-bolus therapy, using either the soluble long-acting basal insulin analogue, insulin detemir, in combination with the rapid-acting analogue, insulin aspart, or NPH insulin in combination with mealtime regular human insulin.
                In this 18-week, 1:1 randomised, open-labelled, parallel trial, 595 patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus received insulin detemir or NPH insulin in the morning and at bedtime in combination with mealtime insulin aspart or regular human insulin respectively.
                Glycaemic control with insulin detemir/insulin aspart was improved in comparison with NPH insulin/regular human insulin (HbA1c: 7.88% vs 8.11%; mean difference: -0.22% point [95% CI: -0.34 to -0.10]; p<0.001). Self-measured 8-point plasma glucose profiles differed between the groups (p<0.001), with lower postprandial plasma glucose levels in the insulin detemir/insulin aspart group. Within-person day-to-day variation in plasma glucose was lower with insulin detemir/insulin aspart than with NPH insulin/regular human insulin (SD: 2.88 vs 3.12 mmol/l; p<0.001). Risk of overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia (23.00-06.00 hours) was, respectively, 21% (p=0.036) and 55% (p<0.001) lower in the insulin detemir/insulin aspart group than in the NPH insulin/regular human insulin group. Body weight (adjusted for baseline and change in HbA1c) was 1 kg lower with insulin detemir/insulin aspart than with NPH insulin/regular human insulin (p<0.001).
                Basal-bolus therapy using insulin detemir/insulin aspart offers a better balance of control and tolerability than with NPH insulin/regular human insulin. The low variability and more physiological action profiles generated with these insulin analogues resulted in improved glycaemic control with lower risk of hypoglycaemia and no concomitant body weight increase. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and immunogenicity of semisynthetic human insulin (NOVO) and highly purified (monocomponent) porcine insulin over a 12 month period in 16 non-insulin-dependent diabetic subjects not previously exposed to insulin. Sixteen patients were randomly allocated for treatment with either human (n = 9) or monocomponent porcine (n = 7) insulin in a double-blind trial. Both groups were identical with respect to age, sex and measures of metabolic control. Significant insulin antibody was detected in seven of the nine patients (78%) 3 months after the commencement of human insulin therapy whereas it was detected in all patients (100%) in the group treated with monocomponent porcine insulin as early as 2 months after insulin therapy. Besides the delayed rise of insulin antibodies during the first 3 months of human insulin therapy, it tended to have a lower mean insulin antibody titer, though statistically insignificant, at the end of the study. No adverse reaction to either type of insulins was noted. It is concluded that both semisynthetic human and monocomponent porcine insulin were safe and effective. Although human insulin showed a slightly lower immunogenicity than monocomponent porcine insulin of the same formulation and purities, it was not non-immunogenic. Hence, there is no reason to treat all insulin-requiring diabetic subjects with human insulin except those who have developed insulin allergy or those at risk or with a history of allergy. Twenty-two insulin-dependent diabetic patients participated in a double-blind, cross-over study, where treatment with semisynthetic human NPH insulin (Novo Industri) was compared with porcine NPH insulin (Nordisk). Each treatment period lasted 8 weeks. Blood glucose level, glycosylated haemoglobin, insulin requirements, and frequency of hypoglycaemic events were compared. No difference was found in 24-hour blood glucose profiles. Fasting blood glucose level was 8.3 mmol/l during treatment with human insulin and 8.7 mmol/l during treatment with porcine insulin (p less than 0.1). Mean HbA1c was 7.7% at the end of study compared to 9.5% at baseline (p less than 0.01), but this decline in HbA1c was independent of the treatment regimen. Forty-six hypoglycaemic events occurred during treatment with human insulin compared to 39 events during treatment with porcine insulin. No difference was found regarding insulin requirements during the study. It is concluded that semisynthetic human NPH insulin is indistinguishable from porcine NPH insulin with respect to 24-hour blood glucose profile, HbA1c level and insulin dose requirements. Quality of life is important when comparing the relative advantages of nafarelin versus danazol for the treatment of endometriosis. Recent studies have investigated the potential differences between the safety profiles of nafarelin and danazol and the impact of these profiles on the patient's quality of life. Results show that although these drugs have similar efficacy, they are associated with very different safety profiles. Most notable are the androgenic effects such as weight gain associated with danazol. With nafarelin, hypoestrogenic side effects, such as hot flashes, are more common. More important, these differences in safety profiles may prove to be relevant to patient satisfaction and compliance with therapy. Effects of pump treatment vs. four times daily injections were explored in children with diabetes with regard to quality of life and impact of disease as well as adverse effects and parameters of metabolic control.
                An open, parallel, randomized controlled prospective comparative study lasting 14 months was completed by 38 type 1 children with diabetes (age 4-16 yr) following a 3.5-months run-in phase. Standardized quality-of-life Pediatric Quality of life Inventory (PedsQL) and impact of disease scores were obtained every 3.5 months as well as regular medical parameters. Parallel treatment group data and longitudinal within-patient data were analysed for each treatment modality.
                Within-patient comparisons of the two treatment modalities showed significant improvement in PedsQL and impact scores after pump treatment. Treatment group comparisons did not show significant improvement. Pump treatment resulted in decreased symptomatic hypoglycaemia and lowered haemoglobin A1c by 0.22% after run in.
                Within-patient comparison suggests that metabolic control, frequency of severe hypoglycaemia (a threefold decrease), quality of life and impact of disease scores are improved by pump treatment in comparison to regular treatment with four daily insulin injections. To compare glycemic control obtained with the new rapid-acting insulin analog insulin aspart with that obtained with unmodified human insulin using algorithm-driven dosage adjustment.
                This was a multicenter randomized double-blind crossover study of 90 male subjects with type 1 diabetes. Insulin aspart or soluble human insulin was administered before meals, and NPH insulin was administered at bedtime as basal therapy. Each 4-week study period ended with a 24-h inpatient serum insulin and plasma glucose profile.
                The 24-h plasma glucose control obtained with insulin aspart, as assessed by excursions of blood glucose outside a predefined normal range (4.0-7.0 mmo/l), was superior (22% reduction in excursion, P < 0.01). Fructosamine levels remained unchanged with insulin aspart, with daytime glycemic control superior but nighttime glycemic control inferior. Eight-point home blood glucose profiles confirmed that insulin aspart significantly improved postprandial blood glucose control after lunch and dinner (P < 0.05) without deterioration of preprandial blood glucose control. Hypoglycemic episodes requiring third-party intervention were significantly fewer with insulin aspart than with human insulin (20 vs. 44 events, P < 0.002). Insulin aspart was well tolerated.
                In comparison with human insulin, insulin aspart can improve postprandial glycemic control as assessed by a reduction in hyper- and hypoglycemic excursions in people with type 1 diabetes. For its full potential to be realized, it will need to provide better control of nighttime hyperglycemia. 32 subjects with long-term insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) were entered into a double-blind, randomised crossover trial with human and porcine insulin. They were treated during both periods with regular insulin and with protamine (NPH) insulin. 18 subjects started with human and 14 with porcine insulin; the two insulin periods each lasted twelve weeks; the insulin doses were much the same in the two periods (mean 23 [SD 9] U daily NPH; 14 [7] U daily regular insulin), as were blood glucose profiles and HbA1c values. There were 171 episodes of hypoglycaemia during human and 150 episodes during porcine insulin. Patients completed questionnaires after each hypoglycaemic episodes and at the end of the trial. Hunger and sweating without concomitant neuroglycopenic symptoms were significantly more frequent as initial warning symptoms during porcine than during human insulin (41% vs 20%), whereas neuroglycopenic symptoms were more frequent during human insulin. At the end of the trial 18 of 32 subjects reported diminished awareness of hypoglycaemia during human insulin compared with 6 of 32 during porcine insulin. Hypoglycaemia developed faster during human than during porcine insulin administration. The transfer of IDDM subjects from porcine to human insulin seems to alter warning symptoms of low blood glucose concentration, with consequent impairment of its early recognition. To compare awareness of hypoglycaemia and physiological responses to hypoglycaemia with human and porcine insulin in diabetic patients who reported loss of hypoglycaemia awareness after transferring to human insulin.
                Double blind randomised crossover study of clinical experience and physiological responses during slow fall hypoglycaemic clamping with porcine and human insulin.
                Clinical investigation unit of teaching hospital recruiting from diabetes clinics of five teaching hospitals and one district general hospital.
                17 patients with insulin dependent diabetes mellitus of more than five years' duration who had reported altered hypoglycaemia awareness within three months of transferring to human insulin.
                Glycaemic control and frequency of hypoglycaemic episodes during two months' treatment with each insulin. Glucose thresholds for physiological and symptomatic responses during clamping.
                Glycaemic control did not change with either insulin. 136 hypoglycaemic episodes (eight severe) were reported with human insulin and 149 (nine severe) with porcine insulin (95% confidence interval -4 to 2.5, p = 0.63). 20 episodes of biochemical hypoglycaemia occurred with human insulin versus 18 with porcine insulin (-0.8 to 1, p = 0.78). During controlled hypoglycaemia the mean adrenaline response was 138 nmol/l/240 min for both insulins; neurohormonal responses were triggered at 3.0 (SE 0.2) versus 3.1 (0.2) mmol/l of glucose for adrenaline and 2.5 (0.1) versus 2.5 (0.1) mmol/l for subjective awareness.
                These data suggest that human insulin per se does not affect the presentation of hypoglycaemia or the neurohumoral, symptomatic, and cognitive function responses to hypoglycaemia in insulin dependent diabetic patients with a history of hypoglycaemia unawareness. To assess in a randomized crossover trial the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in improving glycemic control and health-related quality of life in type 1 diabetic patients with long-standing poor glycemic control.
                A total of 79 patients in 11 Dutch centers were randomized to 16 weeks of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion followed by 16 weeks intensive injection therapy or the reverse order. Glycemic control was assessed by HbA(1c), self-reported hypoglycemic events, and blood glucose memory meter read outs. Changes in quality of life were assessed by self-report questionnaires administered at baseline and 16 weeks.
                As the drop-out rate after crossover was high (17 of 79 patients [22%]), we analyzed the trial as a parallel clinical trial, using data of the first half of the crossover phase only. At 16 weeks, mean HbA(1c) was 0.84% (95% CI -1.31 to -0.36) lower in the continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion group compared with the insulin injection group (P = 0.002). Stability of blood glucose self-measurement values, expressed as SD of the nine-point blood glucose profiles, improved in the insulin pump group by 29.3 +/- 41.1 vs. 8.2 +/- 36.5% in the injection group (P = 0.039). The number of mild hypoglycemic episodes per patient-week was 0.99 (95% CI 0.11-1.87) higher in the insulin pump group (P = 0.028). Weight gain was similar in both groups. Scores on the Short-Form 36-Item subscales 'general health' and 'mental health' improved in the continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion group, compared with stable values in the injection group (P = 0.048 and 0.050, respectively).
                Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion improves glycemic control and some aspects of health-related quality of life in patients with a history of long-term poor glycemic control. Six C-peptide-deficient diabetic patients, selected because of raised fasting blood glucose concentrations, participated in a randomised cross-over trial comparing twice-daily porcine soluble plus human ultralente with porcine soluble plus porcine lente insulins. As out-patients, overall mean blood glucose concentrations before and after breakfast were significantly lower during human ultralente therapy (7.2 +/- 0.8 vs 12.0 +/- 1.3, 11.1 +/- 1.0 vs 14.3 +/- 1.0 mmol/l, p less than 0.05), but were unchanged for the rest of the day. During overnight in-patient metabolic profiles a nadir in blood glucose occurred between 2-4 am with both insulin regimens (5.2 +/- 0.9 mmol/l ultralente, 6.5 +/- 1.3 mmol/l lente). Mean fasting and post-breakfast blood glucose levels were significantly lower with human ultralente as were fasting concentrations of glycerol and non-esterified fatty acids (p less than 0.05). Patients with poor overnight metabolic control and raised fasting blood glucose concentrations may benefit from human ultralente insulin, used as part of their twice-daily insulin regimen. To compare insulin glargine with NPH human insulin for basal insulin supply in adults with type 1 diabetes.
                People with type 1 diabetes (n = 585), aged 17-77 years, were randomized to insulin glargine once daily at bedtime or NPH insulin either once- (at bedtime) or twice-daily (in the morning and at bedtime) according to their prior treatment regimen and followed for 28 weeks in an open-label, multicentre study. Both groups continued with pre-meal unmodified human insulin.
                There was no significant difference between the two insulins in change in glycated haemoglobin from baseline to endpoint (insulin glargine 0.21 +/- 0.05% (mean +/- standard error), NPH insulin 0.10 +/- 0.05%). At endpoint, self-monitored fasting blood glucose (FBG) had decreased similarly in each group (insulin glargine -1.17 +/- 0.12 mmol/L, NPH insulin -0.89 +/- 0.12 mmol/L; p = 0.07). However, people on >1 basal insulin injection per day prior to the study had a clinically relevant decrease in FBG on insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (insulin glargine -1.38 +/- 0.15 mmol/L, NPH insulin -0.72 +/- 0.15 mmol/L; p < 0.01). No significant differences in the number of people reporting >or=1 hypoglycaemic episode were found between the two groups, including severe and nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Insulin glargine was well tolerated, with a similar rate of local injection and systemic adverse events versus NPH insulin.
                A single, bedtime, subcutaneous dose of insulin glargine provided a level of glycaemic control at least as effective as NPH insulin, without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia.
                Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This study compared glycemic control achieved with insulin lispro or buffered regular human insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) using an external insulin pump. In this 24-week multicenter, randomized, two-way crossover, open-label trial, 58 patients on CSII with adequate glycemic control received either insulin lispro or buffered regular human insulin for 12 weeks, followed by the alternate treatment for another 12 weeks. Efficacy and safety measures included hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) at baseline and endpoint, home blood glucose monitoring, hypoglycemia, and frequency of pump catheter occlusion. Patients consumed a standard test meal on three occasions, with determinations of fasting, 1- and 2-h postprandial glucose values. Insulin lispro use was associated with a significantly lower HbA(1c) than was buffered regular human insulin (7.41+/-0.97 vs. 7.65+/-0.85 mmol/l; P=.004). Fasting serum glucose values before the test meal were similar between the two therapies. The 1-h (11.16+/-4.29 vs. 13.20+/-4.68 mmol/l; P=.012) and 2-h (9.64+/-4.10 vs. 12.53+/-4.64 mmol/l; P=.001) postprandial glucose concentrations were significantly lower during treatment with insulin lispro. No differences between treatments were observed in basal or bolus insulin doses, weight gain, or the incidence and rate of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, or pump occlusions. When used in external pumps, insulin lispro provides better glycemic control than buffered regular human insulin with a similar adverse event profile. The efficacy and safety of metformin in the treatment of obese, non-insulin-dependent, diabetic subjects poorly controlled by insulin after secondary failure to respond to sulphonylureas has been investigated. Fifty insulin-treated, obese diabetics participated in this prospective, randomised double-blind six-month trial. After a four-week run-in period, during which all patients were given placebo (single-blind), patients were randomly assigned to continue to receive placebo or to active treatment with metformin. At six months, there was a relevant and significant improvement in glycaemic control in diabetics receiving the combined insulin-metformin treatment (decrease in glucose -4.1 mmol.l-1; glycosylated haemoglobin A1 decrease -1.84%). No significant changes were seen in diabetics receiving insulin and placebo. There was a significant decrease in blood lipids (trygliceride and cholesterol), an increase in HDL-cholesterol and a reduction in blood pressure in diabetics taking metformin. These positive findings were most marked in the 14 diabetics who experienced a good response to metformin (glucose profile < 10 mmol.l-1), and were less marked but still significant in the remaining 13 diabetics, whose response to therapy was not so good (glucose profile > 10 mmol.l-1). The fasting insulin level was significantly lower after six months of combined insulin-metformin treatment as shown by a 25% reduction in the daily dose of insulin (-21.6 U/day). Metformin was well tolerated by all diabetics.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) This study compared the glucose-lowering effect of insulin lispro, given before or after meals, with regular human insulin given before meals in prepubertal children with diabetes.
                A 3-way crossover, open-label study involving 61 prepubertal children (ages 2.9-11.4 years) with type 1 diabetes. The children were randomly assigned to receive regular human insulin 30 to 45 minutes before meals, insulin lispro within 15 minutes before or immediately after meals, combined with basal insulin. Each treatment lasted 3 months. Hemoglobin A(1c) levels and home glucose monitoring profiles were measured at the end of each treatment period.
                Treatment with insulin lispro before breakfast resulted in lower 2-hour postprandial glucose values than regular human insulin (11.7 +/- 4.4 mmol/L vs 15.0 +/- 5.4 mmol/L). Similarly, insulin lispro given before dinner resulted in lower blood glucose values 2 hours postprandially (8.8 +/- 5.0 mmol/L vs 10.8 +/- 5.4 mmol/L) than regular human insulin. When insulin lispro was administered after meals, the 2-hour glucose levels were between those seen with either insulin lispro or regular human insulin given before meals. The number and types of adverse events, the rates of hypoglycemia, and the HbA(1c) levels did not differ among the 3 therapies.
                In prepubertal children, insulin lispro given before meals is safe and significantly lowers postprandial glucose levels after breakfast and dinner compared with regular human insulin, and insulin lispro given after the meal provides similar benefits as regular human insulin before the meal. The effects of transfer from animal insulin to semisynthetic human insulin on glycaemic control, insulin dose and anti-insulin antibodies were investigated in a total of 108 patients at four centres in a double-blind controlled study of eight months duration. Six months after transfer from porcine to human insulin there was a mean (+/- SE) increase in pre-breakfast blood glucose of 1.1 +/- 0.6 mmol l-1 (vs a reduction of 1.6 +/- 0.7 mmol l-1 in controls) (p less than 0.01), and a mean increase of pre-lunch blood glucose of 0.9 +/- 0.7 mmol l-1 (vs a reduction of 1.14 +/- 0.7 mmol l-1 in controls) (p less than 0.05). Six months after transfer from bovine to human insulin, there were no significant changes in blood glucose. Glycated haemoglobin showed no significant change six months after transfer from either bovine or porcine to human insulin. Hypoglycaemic symptoms, the total daily insulin dose, and the ratio of short- to intermediate-acting insulin did not change significantly after transfer from either bovine or porcine to human insulin. Transfer from bovine to human insulin resulted in a significant decline in anti-human insulin antibodies (mean (range): 50.5(14.8-125)% of initial levels), vs controls (113(43.4-234)% of initial levels; p = 0.034), and a non-significant decline in anti-bovine insulin antibodies (52.2(25.8-111)% vs 81.7(42.5-128)%; p = 0.082). To assess the efficacy of nortriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, as an analgesic in chronic back pain without depression, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week trial in 78 men recruited from primary care and general orthopedic settings, who had chronic low back pain (pain at T-6 or below on a daily basis for 6 months or longer). Of these 57 completed the trial; of the 21 who did not complete, four were withdrawn because of adverse effects. The intervention consisted of inert placebo or nortriptyline titrated to within the therapeutic range for treating major depression (50-150 ng/ml). The main outcome endpoints were pain (Descriptor Differential Scale), disability (Sickness Impact Profile), health-related quality of life (Quality of Well-Being Scale), mood (Beck Depression Inventory, Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory, Hamilton Anxiety/Depression Rating Scales), and physician rated outcome (Clinical Global Impression). Reduction in pain intensity scores was significantly greater for participants randomized to nortriptyline (difference in mean change 1.68, 95%-0.001, CI -3.36, P = 0.050), with a reduction of pain by 22% compared to 9% on placebo. Reduction in disability marginally favored nortriptyline (P = 0.055), but health-related quality of life, mood, and physician ratings of overall outcome did not differ significantly between treatments. Subgroup analyses of study completers supported the intent-to-treat analysis. Also, completers with radicular pain on nortriptyline (n = 5) had significantly (P < 0.05) better analgesia and overall outcome than did those on placebo (n = 6). The results suggest noradrenergic mechanisms are relevant to analgesia in back pain. This modest reduction in pain intensity suggests that physicians should carefully weigh the risks and benefits of nortriptyline in chronic back pain without depression. Since ultralente insulin pharmacokinetics suggest faster absorption by human insulin when compared with bovine insulin using the subcutaneous route, the safety and efficacy of human ultralente in the outpatient setting was evaluated. Twenty type I patients participated in a randomized study using a crossover design of four six-week phases: (a) one daily injection of human ultralente; (b) two daily injections of human ultralente; (c) one daily injection of bovine ultralente and (d) two daily injections of bovine ultralente. Pre-meal human regular insulin was used with ultralente insulins and comprised 39 +/- 2% of the total daily insulin dose. Total and ultralente daily insulin doses were lower with human ultralente insulin (51.3 +/- 3.0 total and 30.9 +/- 3.4 ultra lente u/day) when compared to bovine ultralente insulin (57.8 +/- 4.4 and 36.1 +/- 4.4 u/day, p less than 0.01), yet the metabolic control achieved was virtually identical during both phases: (hemoglobin Alc 8.6 +/- 0.2% human vs. 8.4 +/- 0.4 bovine, p = NS). The frequency of mild hypoglycemia was 3.0 +/- 0.5 events per week vs 2.0 +/- 0.3 (p = NS). No severe hypoglycemia occurred. There were no differences between blood glucose daily profiles, insulin doses, hemoglobin Alc (8.6 +/- 0.4% BID vs. 8.4 +/- 0.3% QD injections) and occurrence of hypoglycemia between the single and two-dose long-acting regimens. These data indicate that long-acting semi-synthetic human insulin (a) can be effectively used as a once daily injection, (b) may be more biologically active than bovine, and (c) can be associated with safe and effective diabetes control. Because there are limited data on the comparison of insulin aspart and mixed insulin in type 2 diabetes, this trial was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of preprandial insulin aspart with human soluble insulin (HI) and human premix (70% NPH/30% regular) insulin (MIX).
                A total of 231 type 2 diabetic patients were randomized to insulin aspart (n = 75), HI (n = 80), or MIX (n = 76) for 3 months. Insulin aspart and HI were administered with or without bedtime NPH insulin. A total of 204 patients completed the trial according to protocol. HbA1c, 7-point blood glucose, insulin dosage, and hypoglycemic episodes were recorded. The primary end point was "change of HbA1c" from baseline to last visit. Analysis for equivalence was performed by t tests with three subtests.
                HbA1c decreased 0.91 +/- 1.00 for insulin aspart, 0.73 +/- 0.87 for HI, and 0.65 +/- 1.10 for MIX with the following confidence intervals: insulin aspart HI (-0.21 to 0.57, P = 0.025), insulin aspart MIX (-0.17 to 0.69, P = 0.092), and HI-MIX (-0.33 to 0.48, P = 0.006). Postprandial blood glucose decreased in the insulin aspart group: 0.44 mmol/l to >1.67 mmol/l compared with HI and 1.1 mmol/l to >1.67 mmol/l compared with MIX. Preprandial insulin doses were similar in the insulin aspart and HI groups (10-14.5 U). Hypoglycemic events per month were 0.56 HI, 0.40 insulin aspart, and 0.19 MIX.
                Statistically, insulin aspart was not equivalent to another treatment in terms of HbA1c reduction. Insulin aspart treatment resulted in improved HbA1c and postprandial blood glucose. The application of insulin aspart was safe and well tolerated. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and pump compatibility of insulin aspart (a rapid-acting insulin analog) and buffered regular human insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes undergoing continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy.
                This was a single-center randomized open-label study Patients received CSII therapy with insulin aspart (n = 19) or buffered regular human insulin (n = 10) for 7 weeks. Bolus doses of insulin aspart were administered immediately before meals and buffered regular human insulin 30 min before meals.
                Insulin aspart and buffered regular human insulin were both effective in controlling average daily blood glucose levels (8.2 +/- 1.9 and 8.5 +/- 2.1 mmol/l, respectively) (mean +/- SD) and maintaining serum fructosamine (343 +/- 25.7 and 336 +/- 27.4 micromol/l) and HbA1c (6.9 +/- 0.6 and 7.1 +/- 0.6%) levels. Possible obstructions and set leakages were infrequently reported in both groups. Similar numbers of patients experienced hypoglycemia (blood glucose <2.5 mmol/l): 14 (74%) insulin aspart patients versus 6 (60%) buffered regular human insulin patients. Patients receiving insulin aspart had fewer hypoglycemic events per patient (2.9) than those patients receiving buffered regular human insulin (6.2). There were no differences between the two insulins in the occurrence of hyperglycemic events (blood glucose >19 mmol/l) or in the number and type of adverse events.
                Insulin aspart and buffered regular human insulin were effective and well tolerated and provided similar pump compatibility when used in CSII therapy. We examine whether one-to-one lifestyle counseling for non-insulin-treated diabetic outpatients by a Certified Expert Nurse (CEN) can improve patients' health outcomes. Participants were randomly assigned to a 1-year lifestyle intervention (n=67) or to a usual care group (n=67). Main outcome measures were changes from baseline in: HbA(1C) and score of health related quality of life scales (SF-36 and Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale). Cognitive/behavioral modification for 1 year and satisfaction in CEN counseling was also measured by self-produced items. We found no significant differences in HbA(1C), BMI, blood pressure, serum lipids, or health related quality of life over 1 year between the two groups. Patients in the intervention group, however, showed modest but more favorable modification of cognition (p=0.004) and behavior (p<0.001) than subjects in usual care group. The low attrition rate (9%), more frequent hospital visit (12+/-2 times versus 11+/-3 times; p=0.03) and high degree of satisfaction (95%) in the intervention group indicate feasibility of the monthly CEN counseling in the outpatient settings of Japanese hospitals. Future research should confirm the long-term effectiveness of the CEN counseling on clinical outcomes and the cost effectiveness of a possibly time-consuming intervention.
A comparison of the effects of human and animal insulin as well as of the adverse reaction profile did not show clinically relevant differences. Many patient-oriented outcomes like health-related quality of life or diabetes complications and mortality were never investigated in high-quality randomised clinical trials. The story of the introduction of human insulin might be repeated by contemporary launching campaigns to introduce pharmaceutical and technological innovations that are not backed up by sufficient proof of their advantages and safety.