Premium
Effect of prandial treatment timing adjustment, based on continuous glucose monitoring, in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with once‐daily basal insulin: A randomized, phase IV study
Author(s) -
Ilany Jacob,
Bhandari Hamad,
Nabriski Dan,
Toledano Yoel,
Konvalioa,
Cohen Ohad
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
diabetes, obesity and metabolism
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.445
H-Index - 128
eISSN - 1463-1326
pISSN - 1462-8902
DOI - 10.1111/dom.13214
Subject(s) - medicine , continuous glucose monitoring , insulin , basal (medicine) , insulin glargine , randomized controlled trial , postprandial , diabetes mellitus , meal , type 2 diabetes , type 1 diabetes , blood glucose self monitoring , endocrinology , hypoglycemia , glycemic
Aims To evaluate the glycaemic control achieved by prandial once‐daily insulin glulisine injection timing adjustment, based on a continuous glucose monitoring sensor, in comparison to once‐daily insulin glulisine injection before breakfast in patients with type 2 diabetes who are uncontrolled with once‐daily basal insulin glargine. Materials and Methods This was a 24‐week open‐label, randomized, controlled, multicentre trial. At the end of an 8‐week period of basal insulin optimization, patients with HbA1c ≥ 7.5% and FPG < 130 mg/dL were randomized (1:1) to either arm A (no sensor) or arm B (sensor) to receive 16‐week intensified prandial glulisine treatment. Patients in arm A received pre‐breakfast glulisine, and patients in arm B received glulisine before the meal with the highest glucose elevation based on sensor data. The primary outcome was mean HbA1c at week 24 and secondary outcomes included rates of hypoglycaemic events and insulin dosage. Results A total of 121 patients were randomized to arm A ( n = 61) or arm B ( n = 60). There was no difference in mean HbA1c at week 24 between arms A and B (8.5% ± 1.2% vs 8.4% ± 1.0%; P = .66). The prandial insulin glulisine dosage for arm A and arm B was 9.3 and 10.1 units, respectively ( P = .39). The frequency of hypoglycaemic events did not differ between study arms (36.1% vs 51.7%; P = .08). Conclusion Using a CGM sensor to identify the meal with the highest glucose excursion and adjusting the timing of prandial insulin treatment did not show any advantage in terms of glycaemic control or safety in our patients.