Intensive insulin therapy with insulin lispro: a randomized trial of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily insulin injection. 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. A randomized, prospective trial comparing the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with multiple daily injections using insulin glargine. Incremental value of continuous glucose monitoring when starting pump therapy in patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes: the RealTrend 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 2-year pilot trial of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus intensive insulin therapy in patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (IMDIAB 8). Patient-reported outcomes for an integrated real-time continuous glucose monitoring/insulin pump system. 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. Improved blood glucose variability, HbA1c insuman Infusat and less insulin requirement in IDDM patients using insulin lispro in CSII. The Swedish Multicenter Lispro Insulin Study.
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 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. 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. To compare the improvements in glycemic control associated with transitioning to insulin pump therapy in patients using continuous glucose monitoring versus standard blood glucose self-monitoring.
                The RealTrend study was a 6-month, randomized, parallel-group, two-arm, open-label study of 132 adults and children with uncontrolled type 1 diabetes (A1C >or=8%) being treated with multiple daily injections. One group was fitted with the Medtronic MiniMed Paradigm REAL-Time system (PRT group), an insulin pump with integrated continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring (CGM) capability, with instructions to wear CGM sensors at least 70% of the time. Conventional insulin pump therapy was initiated in the other group (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII] group). Outcome measures included A1C and glycemic variability.
                A total of 115 patients completed the study. Between baseline and trial end, A1C improved significantly in both groups (PRT group -0.81 +/- 1.09%, P < 0.001; CSII group -0.57 +/- 0.94%, P < 0.001), with no significant difference between groups. When the 91 patients who were fully protocol-compliant (including CGM sensor wear >or=70% of the time) were considered, A1C improvement was significantly greater in the PRT group (P = 0.004) (PRT group -0.96 +/- 0.93%, P < 0.001; CSII group -0.55 +/- 0.93%, P < 0.001). Hyperglycemia parameters decreased in line with improvements in A1C with no impact on hypoglycemia.
                CGM-enabled insulin pump therapy improves glycemia more than conventional pump therapy during the first 6 months of pump use in patients who wear CGM sensors at least 70% of the time. 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. 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. A 16-week, two-site study evaluated outcomes for a new device (the Paradigm 722 System, Medtronic MiniMed, Northridge, CA) that combines a "smart" continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pump with real-time (RT) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and CareLinktrade mark data management software (DMS).
                CSII-naive adults with type 1 diabetes in suboptimal control (mean glycosylated hemoglobin [A1C] = 8.6%) were randomized to the control arm, consisting of multiple daily injections (MDI) and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), or the study arm (CSII with RT-CGM as an adjunct to SMBG). Participants (n = 28) completed the validated Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire (IDSRQ) and the parallel Blood Glucose (BG) Monitoring System Rating Questionnaire (BGMSRQ) at study start and end. Participants in the study arm (n = 14) also completed newly developed User Acceptance Questionnaires (UAQs) for CSII, RT-CGM, and DMS at study end.
                A1C reduction from study start to end was significant (P < 0.05) in both arms (-1.7% for study arm;-1.0% for control arm); there was no significant change in weight in either arm. The IDSRQ showed significantly (P < 0.05) greater benefit for the study arm in convenience, acceptability of BG monitoring requirements, BG control efficacy, diabetes worries, and interpersonal hassles, as well as higher overall satisfaction/preference. The BGMSRQ showed significantly (P < 0.05) greater benefit for the study arm in the BG monitoring system's ability to help manage glycemic control and less interest in changing to another BG monitoring system. The Study Arm UAQs showed positive ratings of system features.
                Several patient-reported outcomes were significantly more positive in the study arm than the control arm; none was significantly more positive in the control arm. The features of the integrated RT-CGM/CSII system were frequently used and highly rated by participants, with high user satisfaction. 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. The aim of the study was to compare lispro (LP) and Insuman(R) (I) insulin in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy with respect to blood glucose control as expressed by the standard deviation of blood glucose (SD(BG) ) and HbA(1c) and to monitor the well-being (WBQ) and treatment satisfaction (DTSQ) parameters during such treatment. Forty-one IDDM patients who had used CSII for at least 6 months participated in an open-label, randomized, cross-over, multicenter study for 4 months (2 months LP and 2 months I or vice versa). Boluses with LP were given 5 min before each meal and with I 30 min before each meal. During LP administration compared with I, the SD(BG) of all blood glucose values (3.6 mmol/l vs. 3.9 mmol/l, p=0.012), as well as the SD(BG) of the postprandial, blood glucose values (3.6 mmol/l vs. 4.0 mmol/l, p=0.006), were significantly reduced. The HbA(1c) was significantly lower during LP administration (7.4% vs. 7.6%, p=0.047). The incidence of hypoglycemic events per 30 days (capillary blood glucose<3.0 mmol/l and/or symptoms) did not significantly differ between LP and I (9.7 vs. 8.0 per month, p=0.23). The total amount of daily insulin was slightly but significantly lower with LP, compared to I (38.0 IU vs. 40.3 IU, p=0.004). There was no treatment effects of LP compared to I concerning WBQ and DTSQ. It is concluded that in CSII therapy LP is superior to I with respect to the stability of blood glucose control, a lower HbA(1c), a less insulin requirement without increasing the frequency of hypoglycemia.
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.