IntroductionIn patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with uncontrolled glycemia despite ongoing upward titration of basal insulin, targeting postprandial hyperglycemia may be required. Nevertheless, the point at which basal insulin is fully optimized and postprandial glucose (PPG) should be targeted with additional treatment remains unclear. We report here on the BeAM value (difference between bedtime and morning blood glucose values) as an indicator of the need to target PPG.MethodsThis study had 3 stages: exploratory, main, and proof-of-concept analyses. For the exploratory and main analyses, data were pooled from phase 3 trials in adults with T2DM adding basal insulin to oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). The main analysis included only patients who did not reach A1C ≤7.0% (53 mmol/mol) at week 24. The proof-of-concept analysis used pooled data from phase 3 trials in adults with T2DM adding insulin glargine and a single insulin glulisine injection to OADs.ResultsIn patients undergoing basal insulin titration, BeAM value increased over 24 weeks (27.8–61.7 mg/dL, n=1188; 32.6–71.2 mg/dL, n=553; exploratory and main analyses, respectively). There were significant correlations between week 24 BeAM value and postprandial contribution to hyperglycemia (Pearson's correlation coefficient (r)=0.375, p<0.001; r=0.396, p<0.001; exploratory and main analyses, respectively). When PPG was targeted (proof-of-concept analysis), the BeAM value reduced from 77.0 to 40.4 mg/dL (n=299).ConclusionsThe BeAM value described in this study is a simple, easy-to-calculate value that may identify patients with T2DM using basal insulin that need targeting of postprandial control rather than advancing basal insulin dose.

SummaryBackground and objectivesMany patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) do not achieve glycaemic control targets on basal insulin regimens. This analysis investigated characteristics, clinical outcomes and impact of concomitant oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) in patients with T2DM treated with high‐dose insulin glargine.MethodsPatient‐level data were pooled from 15 randomised, treat‐to‐target trials in patients with T2DM treated with insulin glargine ± OADs for ≥ 24 weeks. Data were stratified according to whether patients exceeded three insulin dose cut‐off levels (> 0.5, > 0.7 and > 1.0 IU/kg). End‐points included glycated haemoglobin A1c (A1C), fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and overall, nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia.ResultsData from 2837 insulin‐naïve patients were analysed. Patients with insulin titrated beyond the three doses investigated had significantly higher baseline A1C levels and were younger, with shorter diabetes duration than those at/below cut‐offs (p < 0.05 for all cut‐offs); they also had greater weight gain (p < 0.001 for the > 0.5 and > 0.7 IU/kg cut‐offs) than those who did not exceed the cut‐offs, regardless of concomitant OAD. Patients on concomitant metformin alone had higher insulin doses at Week 24, but achieved greater reductions in A1C, less weight gain and lower hypoglycaemia rates than patients on a concomitant sulfonylurea or metformin plus a sulfonylurea, regardless of whether cut‐offs were exceeded.ConclusionIn patients with T2DM, increasing basal insulin doses above 0.5 IU/kg may not improve glycaemic control; treatment strategies targeting postprandial glucose control should be considered for such patients.

Monitoring glycaemic control in patients with diabetes has evolved dramatically over the past decades. The introduction of easy-to-use systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) utilising capillary blood samples has resulted in the availability of a wide range of systems, providing different measurement quality. Systems for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) – used mainly in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) – were made possible by the development of glucose sensors that measure glucose levels in the interstitial fluid (ISF) in the subcutaneous tissue of the skin. CGM readings might not correspond exactly to SMBG measurement results taken at the same time, especially during rapid changes in either blood glucose or ISF glucose levels. The mean absolute relative difference is the most popular method used for characterising the measurement performance of CGM systems. Unlike the International Organization for Standardization 15197:2013 criteria for SMBG systems, no accuracy standards for CGM systems exist. Measurement quality of CGM systems can vary based on several factors, limiting their safety and effective use in managing diabetes. Patients have to be trained adequately to make safe and efficient use of CGM systems (like with SMBG systems). Also, systems for CGM must be evaluated in terms of patient safety and the ability to provide accurate measurements regardless of the fluctuation of glucose levels. As new technological advancements in glucose monitoring are essential for improved management options of diabetes, such as automated insulin dosing systems, there is a need for a critical view of all such developments. It is likely that both, SMBG and CGM systems, will play important future roles in the treatment of diabetes.

In this retrospective analysis of patient-level data, most patients had a stable weight (defined as ± 2.5 kg) after 24 weeks of insulin glargine, and weight gain varied with patient demographics. Therefore, insulin glargine can be used in these patient groups with type 2 diabetes without expectation of significant weight gain.