Key result
Basal-bolus insulin yields comparable HbA1c reductions to twice-daily biphasic insulin in type 2 diabetes.
Why the study?
Does basal-bolus insulin therapy improve HbA1c compared to twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue in type 2 diabetic patients with secondary failure of sulfonylureas?
RCT (n=42)
Open-label
Randomly assigned
No
Does basal-bolus insulin therapy improve HbA1c compared to twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue in type 2 diabetic patients with secondary failure of sulfonylureas?
Basal-bolus insulin therapy and twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue provide comparable reductions in HbA1c in type 2 diabetic patients with secondary failure to sulfonylureas.
BACKGROUND: The large clinical trials proved that Basal-Bolus (BB) insulin therapy was effective in the prevention of diabetic complications and their progression. However, BB therapy needs multiple insulin injections per a day. In this regard, a biphasic insulin analogue needs only twice-daily injections, and is able to correct postprandial hyperglycemia. Therefore it may achieve the blood glucose control as same as that of BB therapy and prevent the diabetic complications including macroangiopathy. METHODS: In PROBE (Prospective, Randomized, Open, Blinded-Endpoint) design, forty-two type 2 diabetic patients (male: 73.8%, median(inter quartile range) age: 64.5(56.8-71.0)years) with secondary failure of sulfonylurea (SU) were randomly assigned to BB therapy with a thrice-daily insulin aspart and once-daily basal insulin (BB group) or to conventional therapy with a twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue (30 Mix group), and were followed up for 6 months to compare changes in HbA1c, daily glycemic profile, intima-media thickness (IMT) of carotid artery, adiponectin levels, amounts of insulin used, and QOL between the two groups. RESULTS: After 6 months, HbA1c was significantly reduced in both groups compared to baseline (30 Mix; 9.3(8.1-11.3) --> 7.4(6.9-8.7)%, p < 0.01, vs BB;8.9(7.7-10.0) --> 6.9(6.2-7.3)%, p < 0.01), with no significant difference between the groups in percentage change in HbA1c (30 Mix; -14.7(-32.5- (-)7.5)% vs BB -17.8(-30.1- (-)11.1)%, p = 0.32). There was a significant decrease in daily glycemic profile at all points except dinner time in both groups compared to baseline. There was a significant increase in the amount of insulin used in the 30 Mix group after treatment compared to baseline (30 Mix;0.30(0.17-0.44) --> 0.39(0.31-0.42) IU/kg, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in IMT, BMI, QOL or adiponectin levels in either group compared to baseline. CONCLUSION: Both BB and 30 mix group produced comparable reductions in HbA1c in type 2 diabetic patients with secondary failure. There was no significant change in IMT as an indicator of early atherosclerotic changes between the two groups. The basal-bolus insulin therapy may not be necessarily needed if the type 2 diabetic patients have become secondary failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials number, NCT00348231.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Miyashita et al. (2008) conducted an RCT in Type 2 diabetes with secondary failure of sulfonylurea (n=42). Basal-bolus insulin therapy (insulin aspart and NPH) vs. Twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue (BIAsp70/30) was evaluated on Percentage change in HbA1c at 6 months (p=0.32). Basal-bolus insulin therapy and twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue produced comparable reductions in HbA1c in type 2 diabetic patients with secondary failure of sulfonylurea.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: