|
 |
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
© 2005 by the American Diabetes Association, Inc.
Letters: Observations |
Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Versus Multiple Daily Injections
Modeling predicted benefits in relationship to baseline A1c
1 Division of Endocrinology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2 Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3 Department of Internal Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
4 Service de Diabetologie, Hospital de Rangueil, CHU de Toulouse, Toulouse, France
5 Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes Center, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Address correspondence to Dr. Bernard Zinman, Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, Lebovic Building, 5th Floor, Room L5-024, 600 University Ave., Toronto, ON, Canada, M5G 1X5. E-mail: zinman{at}mshri.on.ca
With either continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or multiple daily insulin injection (MDII) therapy, the optimal meal insulin is a rapid-acting analog (lispro or aspart). To date, the efficacy of CSII versus MDII therapy has been evaluated in a limited number of randomized controlled trials in which rapid-acting analogs were used for both regimens. In this context, we recently conducted a pooled analysis (1) using raw trial data from three such studies undertaken in adults with type 1 diabetes (2–4). This analysis suggested that CSII is associated with better glycemic control, particularly in those patients with poor initial control. Indeed, the relative benefit of CSII over MDII was found to increase with higher baseline A1c. To provide direct clinical context, we have now re-analyzed this data to evaluate the impact of CSII and MDII in relation to specific baseline A1c categories using the pooled dataset (139 patients representing 529 patient-months on MDII and 596 patient-months on CSII).
Treatment effect on A1c was studied using a mixed linear modeling approach (MIXED procedure in SAS 9.1.3), with an isotropic exponential spatial covariance structure used to model intrasubject correlation of the repeated measurements and random effects used to model patient, patient*treatment, study, and study*month effects. All fixed and random effects were initially allowed to differ between studies, with the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) approach used to reduce model complexity. Fixed effects in the final model included the following: 1) baseline A1c, 2) treatment modality, and 3) the interaction between baseline A1c and treatment effect.
These models predicted that, with both MDII and CSII, the reduction in A1c will progressively increase as baseline A1c rises (Fig. 1). Importantly, however, CSII is predicted to achieve a greater reduction in A1c at each level of initial glycemia. Moreover, the relative benefit of CSII over MDII in lowering A1c (i.e., difference in treatment effect between the two modalities) increases as baseline A1c rises. Indeed, for a patient with an A1c of 12%, CSII would be expected to reduce A1c by a full 1% more than MDII.
|
, MDII; 
, CSII.In summary, this analysis extends our earlier work by providing a quantitative estimate of the anticipated reduction in A1c associated with CSII and MDII therapy, respectively, in relation to baseline A1c. Importantly, the relative benefit of CSII over MDII in lowering A1c increases as baseline A1c rises. This analysis has significant clinical implications in that 1) it provides an anticipated response to intensive insulin regimens in adults with type 1 diabetes, and 2) it highlights the importance of baseline glycemic control as a factor to consider when choosing between CSII and MDII therapy.
It should be noted that NPH insulin provided basal replacement in MDII therapy in the current analysis. Given the superior basal pharmacokinetics of long-acting analogs, future clinical trial comparison between CSII and MDII using both rapid- and long-acting analogs will be of great interest. Based on the current findings, comparison of these treatment modalities across a broad range of baseline glycemic control would be particularly relevant.
Footnotes
R.J.H. is a member of an advisory board for Novo Nordisk, Denmark. B.Z. has received consulting fees from Smiths Medical Canada.
References
- Retnakaran R, Hochman J, DeVries JH, Hanaire-Broutin H, Heine RJ, Melki V, Zinman B: Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections: the impact of baseline A1c. Diabetes Care 27:2590–2596, 2004
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- DeVries JH, Snoek FJ, Kostense PJ, Masurel N, Heine RJ: A randomized trial of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and intensive injection therapy in type 1 diabetes for patients with long-standing poor glycemic control. Diabetes Care 25:2074–2080, 2002
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Tsui E, Barnie A, Ross S, Parkes R, Zinman B: Intensive insulin therapy with insulin lispro: a randomized trial of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily insulin injection. Diabetes Care 24:1722–1727, 2001
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Hanaire-Broutin H, Melki V, Bessieres-Lacombe S, Tauber JP: 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. Diabetes Care 23:1232–1235, 2000
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
CiteULike 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Garg and L. Jovanovic Relationship of Fasting and Hourly Blood Glucose Levels to HbA1c Values: Safety, accuracy, and improvements in glucose profiles obtained using a 7-day continuous glucose sensor Diabetes Care, December 1, 2006; 29(12): 2644 - 2649. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Diabetes | Diabetes Care | Clinical Diabetes | Diabetes Spectrum |