Bookmark and Share
Showing posts with label Intensified insulin therapy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intensified insulin therapy. Show all posts

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Diabetes: Look To Older, Longer-Studied Treatments


The safety of most diabetes drugs are time-tested — insulin was discovered in the early 1920s, and two of the other most commonly prescribed, metformin and sulfonylurea, have been around since the 1950s. Indeed, these drugs have five characteristics physicians look for in diabetes medications: few potential complications, safety, tolerability, ease of use and a low cost.

But newer, "high-tech" drugs such as Avandia (Rosiglitazone Maleate) – branded differently outside the US market (e.g. Windia in India) - are different. Avandia landed with a splash on the market 11 years ago and quickly became the top-selling diabetes drug in the world. It's used by Type 2 diabetics to help improve blood sugar control in a different way than most other diabetes medications. Instead of causing the body to make more insulin, it works to use what is naturally made more efficiently.

But when studies began to link it to an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes, its fortunes quickly reversed. Now an advisory panel to the US Food and Drug Administration has recommended that the drug be slapped with stricter warnings and increased supervision.

That doesn't mean diabetes patients taking Avandia should necessarily stop. Or that there are no options for those who choose to do so. Far from it. Rather, it offers a lesson in how medications are prescribed for Type 2 diabetes, which accounts for 90% to 95% of the 23.7 million diagnosed diabetes cases in the US alone.

As with high blood pressure and cholesterol, there is no silver-bullet, cure-all medication for either type of diabetes, said Daniel Einhorn, president of the American Assn. of Clinical Endocrinologists. Treatment for Type 1 (in which the body produces no insulin) largely amounts to taking insulin and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. But treatment for Type 2 (in which the body does not produce enough insulin or is resistant to what is produced) often includes a combination of drugs, which can produce varying results among different patients or even in the same person over a number of years.

Neither doctors nor their patients have to wade through the offerings on their own. They have a long history of data on which to draw. Avandia's rapid rise and fall highlights the importance of knowing what to expect.

Other Treatments

To improve medication management for diabetics, professional associations such as the American College of Endocrinology and the International Diabetes Center have created charts detailing how and when to prescribe the drugs based on myriad factors, including a patient's weight, fitness level, health conditions, other medications and ability to control blood glucose levels.

"Doctors can take many paths down the road, but the road maps give you advice," Einhorn said. "They like the ability to choose a plan for patients, but many are kind of glad to have the guidance of general principles."

The charts provide information on target glucose levels, potential side effects and benefits of the drugs, and suggestions on when to add new medications.

When first diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, most patients are advised to regulate blood sugar with exercise, diet and stress management. If that fails, the first medication that they receive is usually metformin, said Sanjay Kaul, a cardiologist at the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute and member of the FDA's Avandia panel.

Metformin has the five characteristics physicians look for in diabetes medications, Kaul said: few potential complications, safety, tolerability, ease of use and a low cost.

"Metformin is preferred by professional societies as the treatment of first choice for diabetic patients," he said. "It is relatively safe, without side effects, well tolerated, weight neutral and inexpensive. And evidence shows it may save lives."

It decreases the amount of sugar (glucose) the body takes from foods and the amount of glucose produced by the liver. About 15% to 20% of diabetes patients cannot tolerate the drug because of gastric side effects or kidney problems, said Richard Bergenstal, president of medicine and science for the American Diabetes Assn. and executive director of the International Diabetes Center.

When first starting diabetes medications, some patients experience side effects such as water retention. These are usually seen within a week or so, and three months is sufficient time to see if a drug is affecting glucose reduction, Bergenstal said.

If a patient can't tolerate the drug or it doesn't decrease blood sugar adequately, a second medication is typically added to the regimen. About a dozen categories of drugs are available in the second class of medications, Bergenstal said, but four of them make up about 90% of prescriptions.

One group is sulfonylureas (such as Amaryl, or glimepiride), which help the pancreas release more insulin. A second is DPP-4 inhibitors (such as Onglyza, or saxagliptin). DPP-4 is an enzyme that blocks the secretion of the hormone GLP-1, which stimulates the release of insulin. The third is GLP-1 agonists (such as Byetta, or exenatide), which mimic the actions of GLP-1. And lastly, thiazolidinediones (such as Avandia, or rosiglitazone, and Actos, or pioglitazone), which increase the body's sensitivity to insulin.

If patients still don't meet their target glucose levels, a third medication is added to the regimen. This could be another of the drugs not used in the second tier, background insulin (long-acting, which stays in the bloodstream for 24 hours) or a thiazolidinedione. If patients continue to have problems, the fourth, and final, level of treatment is insulin therapy.

Patient-Specific Help

But doctors can, and obviously should at times, move beyond the guidelines. Among the most important factors in doing so are patient preferences and needs.

Treatments should not just be safe but manageable over the long term. That often amounts to a limit of one or two doses a day, Einhorn said. Further, they should be as effective as possible so patients aren't forced to monitor glucose too frequently.

Many patients don't want to give themselves shots and look at insulin as "the end of the road," so doctors may try to avoid insulin when possible, Bergenstal said. Others may need to lose weight, so doctors might choose drugs less likely to cause weight gain.

"Knowing your patient is really critical," he said. "As much as we put algorithms out … if you match them to patients' best preferences, you will get the best outcome."

And monitoring is crucial — both of the patient and of the drugs on, and coming to, the market, as the troubles with Avandia so aptly highlighted.

"Even when a drug gets approved for sure, maybe 5,000 people have taken it, so now we have 1 million who will be using it," Bergenstal said. "We have to have good surveillance and be willing to change our mind and modify things."

Even after a drug is approved by the FDA, doctors and medical associations gather data to see how it affects patients before relying on it too heavily, he said. Sometimes the data are inconclusive, as with Avandia — even the FDA panel that waded through numerous studies could not decide if there was enough of a cardio risk to pull it from the market.

This is where physicians help decide the risks and benefits to their patients, Kaul said. When an FDA advisory committee meeting was held in 2007 to look at Avandia studies, physicians had already started curtailing the use of the medication, he said. The market share of thiazolidinediones that year was essentially split 50-50 between GlaxoSmithKline's Avandia and its competitor, Takeda Chemical's Actos. Avandia's market share is about 10% now and "rapidly shrinking," Kaul said.

"Physicians have already decided what to do with Avandia," he said. "They use their clinical judgment and are obligated to protect patients from potentially harmful therapies."

Thank you Tammy Worth/latimes.com

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Diabetes: What Is The Ideal Insulin Injection-Meal Interval?

I have always asked doctors what is the ideal interval between taking an insulin injection and starting a meal. Because regular insulin does not lower blood glucose immediately after injection many physicians recommend an injection-meal interval (IMI).

By asking patients to inject well before beginning a meal, these physicians hope to compensate for the lag time between the injection of insulin and its onset of action. 

Hubert Overmann, Lutz Heinemann tried to find out what physicians recommend to their patients with respect to the IMI when prescribing intensive insulin therapy. A total of 58 diabetologists were surveyed by means of a structured questionnaire.

A fixed IMI of 15 (0–30) min [median (range)] was recommended by 29% of the 58 diabetologists, and a flexible IMI was recommended by 71%. The minimal interval for the suggested flexible IMI was 0 min and the maximal interval 45 min (median 23 min).

The researchers compared these results with findings of 192 patients with type 1 diabetes from a population based study. In this study patients were asked by questionnaire about their daily life handling of the IMI.

Among the group of 134 patients reporting use of a flexible IMI, 62% used an IMI of ≤15 min, 16% one of 20–25 min, and 21% one of ≥30 min. There were 12 patients using a flexible IMI who adapted it so frequently that they could not state a typical interval. A total of 58 patients (30%) used a fixed IMI (67% used an IMI of ≤15 min, 7% one of 20–25 min, 26% one of ≥30 min).

The surveys showed that diabetologists advocating intensive insulin therapy usually recommend an IMI shorter than 30 min. The majority of patients (75%) with type 1 diabetes use an IMI of <30 min in daily life.

In sum, most doctors say the interval should be between 15 to 30 minutes. However, some recommend that a patient must wait till the action of the insulin is at its optimum (determined by taking a reading at 15-minute intervals) before starting a meal.

But such recommendations just cause more confusion. Still, for good BS control, an insulin-dependent diabetic would be better off knowing when to start eating.

I came across this oft-cited article by ME Lean, LL Ng, and BR Tennison and its summary in the British Medical Journal that sheds some light on the subject. Though no clear-cut answers are provided, it's good to know what researchers have discovered. 
In a survey of 225 diabetics treated with insulin, 24 (10.6%) claimed never to have received advice concerning the interval between insulin injection and eating. Of the remainder, 67 (33%) admitted disregarding advice and using shorter intervals.

There was a significant (p less than 0.01) difference between the reported frequencies of clinical hypoglycaemia in patients using different intervals.

The effects on glucose control of intervals between insulin injection and breakfast of zero, 15, 30, and 45 minutes were studied for periods of one week in 11 patients with type I diabetes who were receiving twice daily injections of monocomponent porcine insulins and high fibre, high carbohydrate diets, using standard home blood glucose monitoring techniques to measure blood glucose concentrations each morning.

The delay of 45 minutes resulted in the lowest frequency of hypoglycaemia and the most acceptable pattern of glucose concentrations measured one and two hours after breakfast and before lunch. Combining results obtained at these three times, the mean increment in blood glucose concentration was smaller after allowing a delay of 45 minutes than after delays of zero (p less than 0.001), 15 (p less than 0.03), and 30 (NS) minutes.

A delay of 30 minutes resulted in smaller mean increments in blood glucose concentration than did delays of zero (p less than 0.001) and 15 (NS) minutes. These results suggest that this aspect of diabetic management may be neglected, with important consequences for blood glucose control.

An increase in delay between insulin injection and eating to 45 minutes would be a simple and safe way of improving blood glucose control in at least the 37% of the diabetic population surveyed in this study who currently allow less than 15 minutes.