In Type 1 diabetic patients with good glycaemic control, blood glucose variability is lower during continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion than during multiple daily injections with insulin glargine. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus intensive conventional insulin therapy in type I and type II diabetic pregnancy. Effect of near normoglycaemia for two years on progression of early diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy: the Oslo study. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (Mill-Hill Infuser) versus multiple injections (Medi-Jector) in the treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and the effect of metabolic control on microangiopathy. A randomized, prospective trial comparing the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with multiple daily injections using insulin glargine. Oscillatory potentials, macular recovery time, and diabetic retinopathy through 3 years of intensified insulin treatment. Effect of pump versus pen treatment on glycaemic control and kidney function in long-term uncomplicated insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). Comparison of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and multiple daily injection regimens using insulin lispro in type 1 diabetic patients on intensified treatment: a randomized study. The Study Group for the Development of Pump Therapy in Diabetes. Human insulin analogue [LYS(B28), PRO(B29)]: the ideal pump insulin? Comparison of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with multiple insulin injections using the NovoPen. Intensive insulin therapy with insulin lispro: a randomized trial of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily insulin injection. Efficacy, safety, and pump compatibility of insulin aspart used in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes. A comparison of troglitazone and metformin on insulin requirements in euglycemic intensively insulin-treated type 2 diabetic patients. Use of insulin lispro in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion treatment. Results of a multicenter trial. German Humalog-CSII Study Group. Glycemic patterns detected by continuous subcutaneous glucose sensing in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus treated by multiple daily injections vs continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Improved treatment satisfaction but no difference in metabolic control when using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion vs. multiple daily injections in children at onset of type 1 diabetes mellitus. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol-lowering with simvastatin in 5963 people with diabetes: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. A 2-year pilot trial of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus intensive insulin therapy in patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (IMDIAB 8). Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) of insulin aspart versus multiple daily injection of insulin aspart/insulin glargine in type 1 diabetic patients previously treated with CSII. Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial. Short-term subcutaneous insulin infusion in diabetic children. Comparison with three daily insulin injections.
The superiority of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) over multiple daily injections (MDI) with glargine is uncertain. In this randomized cross-over study, we compared CSII and MDI with glargine in patients with Type 1 diabetes well controlled with CSII. The primary end-point was glucose variability.
                Thirty-nine patients [38.1 +/- 9.3 years old (mean +/- sd), diabetes duration 16.6 +/- 8.2 years, glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) 7.6 +/- 0.8%], already on CSII for at least 6 months, were randomly assigned to CSII with lispro or MDI with lispro and glargine. After 4 months they were switched to the alternative treatment. During the last month of each treatment blood glucose variability was analysed using glucose standard deviation, mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions (MAGE), lability index and average daily risk range (ADRR). As secondary end-points we analysed blood glucose profile, HbA(1c), number of episodes of hypo- and hyperglycaemia, lipid profile, free fatty acids (FFA), growth hormone and treatment satisfaction.
                During CSII, glucose variability was 5-12% lower than during MDI with glargine. The difference was significant only before breakfast considering glucose standard deviation (P = 0.011), significant overall using MAGE (P = 0.016) and lability index (P = 0.005) and not significant using ADRR. Although HbA(1c) was similar during both treatments, during CSII blood glucose levels were significantly lower, hyperglycaemic episodes were fewer, daily insulin dose was less, FFA were lower and treatment satisfaction was greater than during MDI with glargine. The frequency of hypoglycaemic episodes was similar during both treatments.
                During CSII, glucose variability is lower, glycaemic control better and treatment satisfaction higher than during MDI with glargine. Two groups of pregnant diabetic women, fifteen with type I and fourteen with type II diabetes, were randomly assigned either to CSII or to ICT and the subgroups compared with respect to glycaemic control, insulin requirement and perinatal out-come. Ten non-diabetic pregnant women served as controls for the variations in the metabolic parameters considered (24-hour mean blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin). Strict glycaemic control was achieved and maintained by both regimens before week 13 in all patients with type I and in 57.1% of patients with type II diabetes. The mean insulin requirements in the type I group increased up to week 34-36 and then stabilized to term in patients receiving CSII and rose progressively to term in those receiving ICT. In the type II group insulin requirements rose up to week 36 in patients receiving CSII and up to week 32 in those receiving ICT, stabilizing thereafter on both regimens. No significant differences in mean insulin requirement at the different stages of gestation were found between the patients receiving CSII and those receiving ICT of either group. Perinatal outcome was satisfactory in both groups, although control of foetal growth was better with ICT than with CSII. CSII is a practical, safe and effective method of maintaining maternal normoglycemia in pregnancy but for the present we cannot consider it superior to ICT in the treatment of pregnant diabetic women. Forty five insulin dependent diabetics were randomised to treatment with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), multiple insulin injections (five or six daily), or conventional twice daily insulin injections. Near normoglycaemia was obtained with CSII and multiple injections but not with conventional treatment (p less than 0.01). Hypoglycaemic coma was observed less frequently with CSII than with multiple injections and conventional treatment (p less than 0.001), but blood glucose concentrations below 2.5 mmol/l (45 mg/100 ml) were more common. After two years fewer retinal microaneurysms and haemorrhages had developed in the patients given CSII and multiple injections compared with those given conventional treatment, in whom the number had increased significantly (p less than 0.01). Motor nerve conduction velocity deteriorated in the patients given conventional treatment; in those given CSII it was unchanged during the first year but had improved after two years (p less than 0.01). Glomerular hyperfiltration was reduced with CSII, but no change occurred in urine albumin excretion rates. Long term near normoglycaemia may prevent the progression of early stages of late diabetic complications. The present study was designed to compare continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) using the Mill-Hill Infuser (Muirhead Medical Products Ltd., London, England) with multiple injections (MI) using the Medi-Jector (Derata Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota) in the treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM), and to assess the effect of glucose control on diabetes complications. Twelve diabetic subjects were treated 3 mo with CSII and 3 mo with MI (bedtime ultralente and premeal boluses of regular insulin) in a randomized fashion. Prestudy preprandial/postprandial glucose levels were 147-215 mg/dl and improved to 108-138 mg/dl during CSII, and to 115-139 mg/dl during MI with glycosylated hemoglobin of 12.9%, 9.1%, and 8.7%, respectively. This improved glucose control with either CSII or MI was associated with an increase in sural nerve conductivity from 42.9 to 45 m/s and a decrease in proteinuria from 1.9 to 0.5 g/24 h. The 24-h insulin dose consisted of 45 U before the study, 44 U during CSII, and 56 U during MI. After the study, seven patients opted to continue with the Mill-Hill Infuser, and five with the Medi-Jector. We conclude the following: (1) treatment with both the Mill-Hill Infuser and the Medi-Jector was well accepted by the patients and resulted in similar improvement in measured blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin; (2) this improved metabolic control was associated with an increased nerve conductivity and a decreased protein excretion; and (3) MI required 20% more insulin than CSII to achieve similar glycemic control. The efficacy of the insulin analogs now available for multiple daily injection (MDI) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy in type 1 diabetes has not yet been established in pediatric patients. Our principal aim in this short-term study was to compare the efficacy of CSII to MDI with glargine in lowering HbA(1c) levels in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.
                Thirty-two youth with type 1 diabetes (age 8-21 years) were randomly assigned to receive either MDI treatment with once-daily glargine and premeal/snack insulin aspart or CSII with insulin aspart. Dose titration in both groups was based on home self-monitored blood glucose measurements and monthly HbA(1c). HbA(1c), total daily insulin dose (TDD), self-monitored blood glucose readings, and adverse events were compared after 16 weeks of therapy.
                While there was no significant change in the glargine group (HbA(1c) 8.2% at baseline vs. 8.1% at 16 weeks), youth randomized to CSII had a sharp reduction in HbA(1c) levels, from 8.1 to 7.2% after 16 weeks of therapy (P < 0.02 vs. baseline and <0.05 vs. glargine group). TDD was unchanged in the glargine group, but significantly dropped with CSII (1.4 units/kg at baseline vs. 0.9 units/kg at 16 weeks, P < 0.01). Both groups had similar basal doses and insulin-to-carbohydrate ratios. Fasting self-monitored blood glucose was similar in both groups, but lunch, dinner, and bedtime readings were significantly lower in the CSII group (P < 0.01).
                Lower HbA(1c) and premeal glucose levels were more achievable in this short-term study with CSII than with glargine-based MDI treatment. CSII is an efficacious treatment to improve metabolic control in youth with type 1 diabetes. Forty-five diabetic patients, 18 to 45 years of age, with mild or no retinopathy, were randomly assigned to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), multiple injections (Mls), and conventional insulin treatment (CIT). The effects of near-normoglycemia (CSII and MI) on oscillatory potentials (electroretinography [ERG]) and macular recovery time (nyctometry) were studied prospectively for 41 months. Before randomization, the amplitudes of oscillatory potentials were negatively correlated to age (P = 0.002) and positively correlated to the diameter of retinal veins (P less than 0.05). Men had shorter macular recovery time than women (P = 0.03). Nyctometry and oscillatory potentials were not related to mean blood glucose values, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1), retinopathy, blood pressure levels, or duration of diabetes. Changes in metabolic control (MI and CSII; P less than 0.01) and in microaneurysms and hemorrhages (CSII and CIT) during the study did not affect oscillatory potentials or nyctometry. Soft exudates (15 patients) and proliferative retinopathy (1 patient) transiently developed with MI and CSII regimens. No changes in oscillatory potentials or nyctometry were observed and no pretreatment characteristics of these parameters predicted the occurrence of these ischemic lesions. At the stage of proliferation, however, lowered amplitudes of oscillatory potentials and lengthened macular recovery time were observed. Glycaemic control on pump versus pen treatment was evaluated and the effects of optimised metabolic control on kidney function was studied in very long-term uncomplicated insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). Ten otherwise healthy patients participated, age: 36.5 yr +/- 7.9, diabetes duration: 23.7 yr +/- 2.9, urinary albumin excretion (UAE): 5.8 micrograms/min x/ divided by 2.2, se-creatinine and blood pressure were normal and only background retinopathy was present. A 2 x 6 months randomised cross-over study was performed using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and multiple injection technique (MIT). Glycaemic control was evaluated by a six point profile every two weeks and by measuring HbA1c monthly. At 0, 6 and 12 months, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and renal plasma flow (RPF) were measured by the constant infusion technique, and UAE by radioimmunoassay. Glycaemic control was significantly better on CSII as compared to MIT (p = 0.01) or pre-study conventional treatment (CT), p = 0.03, whereas there was no difference between MIT and CT. There was no change in kidney function during either treatment. Thus, in these very long-term uncomplicated patients, glycaemic control was significantly improved during CSII. In spite of this, no change was found in GFR, which might suggest that in long-standing diabetes, kidney function is unaltered by changes in metabolic control. To compare the efficacy of 2 intensified insulin regimens, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and multiple daily injections (MDI), by using the short-acting insulin analog lispro in type 1 diabetic patients.
                A total of 41 C-peptide-negative type 1 diabetic patients (age 43.5+/-10.3 years; 21 men and 20 women, BMI 24.0+/-2.4 kg/m2, diabetes duration 20.0+/-11.3 years) on intensified insulin therapy (MDI with regular insulin or lispro, n = 9, CSII with regular insulin, n = 32) were included in an open-label randomized crossover study comparing two 4-month periods of intensified insulin therapy with lispro: one period by MDI and the other by CSII. Blood glucose (BG) was monitored before and after each of the 3 meals each day.
                The basal insulin regimen had to be optimized in 75% of the patients during the MDI period (mean number of NPH injections per day = 2.65). HbA1c values were lower when lispro was used in CSII than in MDI (7.89+/-0.77 vs. 8.24+/-0.77%, P<0.001). BG levels were lower with CSII (165+/-27 vs. 175+/-33 mg/dl, P<0.05). The SD of all the BG values (73+/-15 vs. 82+/-18 mg/dl, P<0.01) was lower with CSII. The frequency of hypoglycemic events, defined as BG levels <60 mg/dl, did not differ significantly between the 2 modalities (CSII 3.9+/-4.2 per 14 days vs. MDI 4.3+/-3.9 per 14 days). Mean insulin doses were significantly lower with CSII than with MDI (38.5+/-9.8 vs. 47.3+/-14.9 U/day. respectively, P< 0.0001).
                When used with external pumps versus MDI, lispro provides better glycemic control and stability with much lower doses of insulin and does not increase the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes. The short-acting insulin analogue lispro ([LYS(B28), PRO(B29)] is absorbed from the subcutis more rapidly than soluble insulin (S). To compare the clinical effectiveness of lispro vs S, 11 Type 1 patients using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy (6 F, 5 M, age 30 +/- 2.5 years, diabetes duration 14 +/- 1.0 years, BMI 24.0 +/- 0.8 kg m(-2), HbA1c 6.5 +/- 0.2%) were studied in an open, randomized, crossover study for 6 months (3 months lispro and 3 months S or vice versa). During lispro treatment mean fasting and 2 h postprandial blood glucose were lower compared to the S phase (fasting 6.5 +/- 0.4 vs 7.5 +/- 0.4 mmol l(-1) (NS), postprandial 6.8 +/- 0.3 vs 8.3 +/- 0.3 mmol l(-1), p = 0.03). In patients treated first with lispro HbA1c levels improved from 6.3 +/- 0.2% to 5.7 +/- 0.3%; On reversion to S HbA1c increased to 6.2 +/- 0.2%. In the group treated first with S, HbA1c fell (6.7 +/- 0.4% vs 6.5 +/- 0.3%) and then improved further to 6.3 +/- 0.3% with lispro. None of these changes were significant. There was no significant difference with respect to hypoglycaemic or other adverse events. It can be concluded that lispro in CSII therapy is safe and may improve postprandial glucose excursions. Twenty-one patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) participated in a 20-week randomized cross-over comparison of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with intensified conventional treatment (ICT) using the NovoPen. The Medix or the Auto-Syringe pumps were used for CSII and, during ICT with NovoPen, conventional plastic syringes were used for injections of intermediate-acting insulin at bedtime. At entry HbA1c, was 8.7 +/- 0.4% (mean +/- SE) in CSII patients and 8.8 +/- 0.5% in the ICF group. HbA1c declined significantly in both groups (ICT 7.6 +/- 0.2%; CSII 7.6 +/- 0.2%) though there was no significant difference between the responses. Overall mean blood glucose was slightly but significantly lower during CSII than during ICT (CSII: 7.6 +/- 0.2 mmol/l; ICT: 8.7 +/- 0.4 mmol/l, p less than 0.05). The number of hypoglycaemic episodes did not differ significantly between patients treated with NovoPen and CSII. At the end of the study, a questionnaire revealed that all but one patient preferred ICT with NovoPen to conventional therapy. Given the choice for future treatment, 6 patients chose CSII, 12 patients preferred ICT with NovoPen and 1 was unsure. To evaluate glycemic control, hypoglycemic events, and quality of life in patients treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and multiple daily insulin injection (MDI), with insulin lispro as the principal insulin.
                This clinical trial enrolled 27 patients with type 1 diabetes. They were randomly assigned to CSII (n = 13) or MDI (n = 14) treatment regimens. Glycemic control (HbA(1c) level) was the primary outcome and was measured monthly for 9 months. Secondary outcomes were patient reports of hypoglycemic events (recorded monthly for 9 months) and quality of life assessed at 9 months using the Diabetes Quality of Life (DQOL) questionnaire.
                A significant decrease in HbA(1c) from baseline was shown for both groups. However, the overall treatment effect (CSII - MDI) for HbA(1c) was +0.08% (95% CI -0.23 to +0.39, P > 0.10). This was significantly less than the a priori limit of +/-0.5% (P = 0.004). The relative treatment effect ([CSII - MDI]/MDI) for the overall number of hypoglycemic events was +9% (95% CI -37 to +87, P > 0.10). There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups for any of the DQOL subscales.
                No statistically significant differences in glycemic control, reported hypoglycemic events, or quality of life were found in this study. Furthermore, a clinically significant difference of more than +/-0.5% HbA(1c) between the two regimens can be confidently ruled out. We conclude that the choice of intensive insulin therapy should be a matter of patient preference, consistent with lifestyle. 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. Troglitazone and metformin lower glucose levels in diabetic patients without increasing plasma insulin levels. We compared the insulin sparing actions of these two agents and their effects on insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion in 20 type 2 diabetic patients. To avoid the confounding effect of improved glycemic control on insulin action and secretion, patients were first rendered euglycemic with 4 weeks of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) before randomization to CSII plus troglitazone (n = 10) or CSII plus metformin (n = 10); euglycemia was maintained for another 6-7 weeks. Insulin sensitivity was assessed by a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp 1) at baseline, 2) after 4 weeks of CSII, and 3) after CSII plus either troglitazone or metformin. The 24-h glucose, insulin, and C-peptide profiles were performed on the day before the second and third glucose clamps. Good glycemic control was achieved with CSII alone and was maintained with CSII plus an oral agent (mean 24-h glucose: troglitazone, 6.2+/-0.6 mmol/l; metformin, 6.2 +/-0.3 mmol/l). Insulin requirements decreased 53% with troglitazone compared with CSII alone (48+/-4 vs. 102+/-13 U/day, P < 0.001), but only 31% with metformin (76+/-13 vs. 110+/-18 U/day, P < 0.005). The 24-h C-peptide profiles were similar. Normal fasting hepatic glucose output was maintained with both agents despite lower insulin levels than on CSII alone. Insulin sensitivity did not change significantly with CSII alone or with CSII plus metformin, but improved 29% with CSII plus troglitazone (P < 0.005 vs. CSII alone) and was then 45% higher than in the CSII plus metformin patients (P < 0.005). In conclusion, metformin has no effect on insulin-stimulated glucose disposal independent of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Troglitazone (600 mg/day) has greater insulin-sparing effects than metformin (1,700 mg/day) in CSII-treated euglycemic patients. This is probably explained by the peripheral tissue insulin-sensitizing effects of troglitazone. 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 glycemic patterns by mode of therapy in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus using the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS).
                Open randomized crossover comparing 3(1/2) months of multiple daily injections (MDI) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII).
                Tertiary care, university-affiliated medical center. Patients Twenty-three children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus.
                The CGMS was applied for 72 hours after 1 month and at the end of each study arm.
                Hemoglobin A(1c) levels and glucose level profiles were compared between the 2 study arms and the 2 sensor applications for each arm.
                The arms were similar for mean (SD) hemoglobin A(1c) levels (CSII, 8.0% [0.8%]; and MDI, 8.2% [0.8%]) and glucose levels. Areas under the curve were significantly larger during MDI for nocturnal and 24-hour hypoglycemia (P =.01 and.04, respectively) and for postprandial hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia (P =.03 and.05, respectively). The rate of hyperglycemia increased during CSII (P =.03), but 24-hour duration and area under the curve for hyperglycemia were similar. Compared with the first CGMS reading in each arm, the second had a longer mean duration of postprandial within-target glucose levels (P =.04), tendency for lower rate of diurnal hypoglycemic events (P =.1), shorter duration of nocturnal hypoglycemia (P =.05), and smaller 24-hour area under the curve for hypoglycemia (P =.04).
                Intensive treatment with CSII seemed to be associated with slightly better prebreakfast, postprandial, and within-target glucose profiles than MDI, as well as a smaller area under the curve for hypoglycemia. Lower hypoglycemia-related variables in the second sensor reading in each arm indicate that the CGMS may serve as an educational tool to decrease the rate and magnitude of hypoglycemia. The aim of this study was to compare safety, metabolic control, and treatment satisfaction in children/adolescents at onset of type 1 diabetes mellitus who were treated with either continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or multiple daily injections (MDI).
                Seventy-two children/adolescents (7-17 yr of age) were enrolled in this open, randomized, parallel, multicenter study. Approximately half of the patients were treated with MDI (natural protamine hagedorn [NPH] insulin twice daily and rapid-acting insulin three to -four times daily, n = 38) by pen, and the other half received CSII (n = 34). The patients were followed for 24 months with clinical visits at the entry of the study and after 1, 6, 12, and 24 months. During these visits, hemoglobin A1c, insulin doses, weight, and height were registered. Severe episodes of hypoglycemia and ketoacidosis as well as technical problems were recorded. In addition, the patients/parents answered the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire.
                There was no significant difference in metabolic control between the treatment groups. Treatment satisfaction was significantly higher in the group treated with CSII compared with the MDI group (p <or= 0.01 at all screening visits). There were no episodes of ketoacidosis and there was no significant difference regarding severe hypoglycemia between the treatment groups.
                CSII treatment proved to be a safe therapy in children/adolescents followed for 24 months after onset of their diabetes. Treatment satisfaction was higher in the CSII group, although there was no difference in metabolic control compared with the MDI group. Individuals with diabetes are at increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, although typically their plasma concentrations of LDL cholesterol are similar to those in the general population. Previous evidence about the effects of lowering cholesterol in people with diabetes has been limited, and most diabetic patients do not currently receive cholesterol-lowering therapy despite their increased risk.
                5963 UK adults (aged 40-80 years) known to have diabetes, and an additional 14573 with occlusive arterial disease (but no diagnosed diabetes), were randomly allocated to receive 40 mg simvastatin daily or matching placebo. Prespecified analyses in these prior disease subcategories, and other relevant subcategories, were of first major coronary event (ie, non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death) and of first major vascular event (ie, major coronary event, stroke or revascularisation). Analyses were also conducted of subsequent vascular events during the scheduled treatment period. Comparisons are of all simvastatin-allocated versus all placebo-allocated participants (ie, intention to treat), which yielded an average difference in LDL cholesterol of 1.0 mmol/L (39 mg/dL) during the 5-year treatment period.
                Both among the participants who presented with diabetes and among those who did not, there were highly significant reductions of about a quarter in the first event rate for major coronary events, for strokes, and for revascularisations. For the first occurrence of any of these major vascular events among participants with diabetes, there was a definite 22% (95% CI 13-30) reduction in the event rate (601 [20.2%] simvastatin-allocated vs 748 [25.1%] placebo-allocated, p<0.0001), which was similar to that among the other high-risk individuals studied. There were also highly significant reductions of 33% (95% CI 17-46, p=0.0003) among the 2912 diabetic participants who did not have any diagnosed occlusive arterial disease at entry, and of 27% (95% CI 13-40, p=0.0007) among the 2426 diabetic participants whose pretreatment LDL cholesterol concentration was below 3.0 mmol/L (116 mg/dL). The proportional reduction in risk was also about a quarter among various other subcategories of diabetic patient studied, including: those with different duration, type, or control of diabetes; those aged over 65 years at entry or with hypertension; and those with total cholesterol below 5.0 mmol/L (193 mg/dL). In addition, among participants who had a first major vascular event following randomisation, allocation to simvastatin reduced the rate of subsequent events during the scheduled treatment period.
                The present study provides direct evidence that cholesterol-lowering therapy is beneficial for people with diabetes even if they do not already have manifest coronary disease or high cholesterol concentrations. Allocation to 40 mg simvastatin daily reduced the rate of first major vascular events by about a quarter in a wide range of diabetic patients studied. After making allowance for non-compliance, actual use of this statin regimen would probably reduce these rates by about a third. For example, among the type of diabetic patient studied without occlusive arterial disease, 5 years of treatment would be expected to prevent about 45 people per 1000 from having at least one major vascular event (and, among these 45 people, to prevent about 70 first or subsequent events during this treatment period). Statin therapy should now be considered routinely for all diabetic patients at sufficiently high risk of major vascular events, irrespective of their initial cholesterol concentrations. In a pilot study, the metabolic effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) versus intensive subcutaneous insulin therapy (ISIT) started at diagnosis in patients with Type 1 diabetes and continued for a 2-year period were evaluated and compared. Twenty-three patients (between 12 and 35 years old, mean +/- SD 18.4 +/- 9 years) were randomized into two treatment groups (CSII vs. ISIT), and both received supplemental nicotinamide (NA), 25 mg/kg of body weight. CSII was started immediately after admission to the hospital. Parameters of metabolic control [insulin dose, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and C-peptide] were evaluated for a 2-year follow-up period. Data are presented for a total of 19 patients who remained in the study for its duration. Two years after diagnosis, mean +/- SD HbA1c was 6.3 +/- 0.5% and 6.2 +/- 0.3% for the CSII and ISIT groups, respectively (p=not significant). Compared with baseline values, an increase of baseline C-peptide of 38% for the CSII group and 27% for the ISIT group was observed; however, the difference between the groups was not significant. The insulin requirement for the entire duration of the study, but not at entry and 3 months, was significantly higher in CSII compared with ISIT patients (0.62 +/- 0.4 IU/kg/day vs. 0.3 +/- 0.4 IU/kg/day, respectively; p<0.01). After trial completion patients on CSII continued with this mode of therapy. Implementation of CSII as well as ISIT at diagnosis of Type 1 diabetes and continuation for 2 years thereafter achieved similar and optimal metabolic control, but more insulin was required with the CSII group. Both types of intensive insulin therapy combined with NA are able to preserve C-peptide secretion or even increase baseline levels for up to 2 years after diagnosis. Multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy of bolus insulin aspart and basal insulin glargine was compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with aspart in type 1 diabetic patients previously treated with CSII.
                One hundred patients were enrolled in a randomized, multicenter, open-label, crossover study. After a 1-week run-in period with aspart by CSII, 50 subjects were randomly assigned to MDI therapy (aspart immediately before each meal and glargine at bedtime) and 50 subjects continued CSII. After 5 weeks of the first treatment, subjects crossed over to the alternate treatment for 5 weeks. During the last week of each treatment period, subjects wore a continuous glucose monitoring system for 48-72 h.
                Mean serum fructosamine levels were significantly lower after CSII therapy than after MDI therapy (343 +/- 47 vs. 355 +/- 50 micromol/l, respectively; P = 0.0001). Continuous glucose monitoring profiles over a 24-h time period showed that glucose exposure was 24 and 40% lower for CSII than MDI as measured by area under the curve (AUC) glucose >/=80 mg/dl (1,270 +/- 742 vs. 1,664 +/- 1,039 mg . h . dl(-1); P < 0.001) and AUC glucose >/=140 mg/dl (464 +/- 452 vs. 777 +/- 746 mg . h . dl(-1), CSII vs. MDI, respectively; P < 0.001). Similar percentages of subjects reported hypoglycemic episodes (CSII: 92%, MDI: 94%) and nocturnal (12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.) hypoglycemic episodes (CSII: 73%, MDI: 72%). Major hypoglycemia was infrequent (CSII: two episodes, MDI: five episodes).
                In a trial of short duration, CSII therapy with insulin aspart resulted in lower glycemic exposure without increased risk of hypoglycemia, as compared with MDI with insulin aspart and glargine. Patients with type 2 diabetes are at high risk of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke. There is indirect evidence that agonists of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR gamma) could reduce macrovascular complications. Our aim, therefore, was to ascertain whether pioglitazone reduces macrovascular morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes.
                We did a prospective, randomised controlled trial in 5238 patients with type 2 diabetes who had evidence of macrovascular disease. We recruited patients from primary-care practices and hospitals. We assigned patients to oral pioglitazone titrated from 15 mg to 45 mg (n=2605) or matching placebo (n=2633), to be taken in addition to their glucose-lowering drugs and other medications. Our primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, non fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infarction), stroke, acute coronary syndrome, endovascular or surgical intervention in the coronary or leg arteries, and amputation above the ankle. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN NCT00174993.
                Two patients were lost to follow-up, but were included in analyses. The average time of observation was 34.5 months. 514 of 2605 patients in the pioglitazone group and 572 of 2633 patients in the placebo group had at least one event in the primary composite endpoint (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.02, p=0.095). The main secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. 301 patients in the pioglitazone group and 358 in the placebo group reached this endpoint (0.84, 0.72-0.98, p=0.027). Overall safety and tolerability was good with no change in the safety profile of pioglitazone identified. 6% (149 of 2065) and 4% (108 of 2633) of those in the pioglitazone and placebo groups, respectively, were admitted to hospital with heart failure; mortality rates from heart failure did not differ between groups.
                Pioglitazone reduces the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes who have a high risk of macrovascular events. Sixteen insulin-dependent diabetic children and adolescents were studied on intensified insulin treatment (3II) and during continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Mean blood glucose, M-value and 24-h glycosuria were similar in both types of treatment. Symptomatic hypoglycemia occurred more often in patients on 3II than CSII. With 3II we observed blood glucose peaks early in the morning confirming that better overnight control can be achieved by CSII.
There is some evidence to suggest that CSII may be better than MI for glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes. Non-severe hypoglycaemic events do not appear to be reduced with CSII. There is insufficient evidence regarding adverse events, mortality, morbidity and costs.