To assess the efficacy and safety of adding sitagliptin, an oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with multiple daily insulin injections therapy (MDI). HbA1c, 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG), body mass index (BMI), insulin doses, six-point self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG) profiles were assessed before, after 12 weeks, and after 24 weeks of MDI with 50 mg/day of sitagliptin in 40 subjects with type 2 diabetes. Safety endpoints included hypoglycemia and any adverse events. HbA1c significantly decreased during the first 12 weeks ( -0.64±0.60%), and was sustained over 24 weeks ( -0.69±0.85%). 1,5-AG increased significantly from 7.5±4.5 μg/mL at baseline to 9.6±5.5 μg/mL after 24 weeks. The bolus insulin dose at 12 weeks was decreased, and the mean plasma glucose, the SD of daily glucose, M-value, and the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) also decreased significantly as compared with baseline values. BMI and frequency of hypoglycemia were not changed significantly. Univariate linear regression analyses revealed that % change in HbA1c was significantly associated with BMI, and % changes in the indexes of glycemic instability (SD of daily glucose and MAGE) were significantly associated with age. In conclusion, adding sitagliptin to MDI significantly improved glycemic control and decreased the daily glucose fluctuation in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with MDI, without weight gain or an increase in the incidence of hypoglycemia. This trial was registered with UMIN (no. UMIN000010157).

This study provided the first evidence that ARB treatment caused a smaller increase in plasma BNP and a greater decrease in UACR than non-ARB treatment, independently of blood pressure control, and gives a novel insight into the significance of BNP and UACR as predictors of cardiovascular and renal risk on antihypertensive treatment.

Aims/IntroductionThe aim of the present prospective observational study was to assess long‐term efficacy and safety of insulin degludec as a part of a basal–bolus therapy for Japanese patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.Materials and MethodsIn the present study, 93 type 1 diabetes patients and 135 type 2 diabetes patients treated with insulin glargine or detemir were switched from their basal insulin to insulin degludec. The primary end‐points were the changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline at 3, 6 and 12 months. The secondary end‐points were changes in body mass index, insulin dose, frequency of hypoglycemia and adverse events.ResultsHbA1c levels from baseline were significantly reduced at 3, 6, and 12 months by 0.4, 0.4 and 0.3% in type 1 diabetes patients, respectively, and by 0.5, 0.5 and 0.3% in type 2 diabetes patients, respectively. Body mass index in type 1 diabetes patients increased significantly (P < 0.05), whereas that in type 2 diabetes patients did not change. Basal insulin dose decreased significantly at 3 months after switching (P < 0.05), and returned baseline dose at 12 months in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes patients. The frequency of both total and nocturnal hypoglycemia decreased significantly in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes patients (P < 0.05). The result of multiple regression analysis showed that baseline HbA1c was a significant independent variable of the percentage change in HbA1c with switching.ConclusionIn both type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes patients, switching from insulin glargine or insulin detemir to insulin degludec led to improvement of glycemic control with a significant reduction of hypoglycemia.

The ultimate goal of the development of an artificial endocrine pancreas is to achieve long-term strict glycemic regulation. To establish the physiological insulin delivery route of the artificial endocrine pancreas, intraperitoneal insulin infusion may be important. For this purpose, we tried to develop a closed-loop intraperitoneal insulin infusion algorithm by analyzing the pharmacokinetics of intraperitoneal regular insulin absorption using a mathematical model. The parameters for this algorithm were calculated to simulate the plasma insulin profile after intraperitoneal insulin injection as closely as possible. To evaluate the appropriateness of this algorithm, we tried glycemic control after an oral glucose load of 2 g/kg or a meal load of 80 kcal/kg in diabetic dogs by applying the algorithm. With the use of the subcutaneous insulin lispro infusion algorithm, which we have previously reported, alloxan-induced diabetic dogs exhibited postprandial hyperglycemia and delayed hyperinsulinemia, followed by hypoglycemia after an oral glucose load of 2 g/kg. However, by using the intraperitoneal insulin infusion algorithm, excellent glycemic control (postprandial blood glucose levels of 9.1 +/- 0.8 mmol/l at 70 min and 3.8 +/- 0.3 mmol/l at 240 min, respectively) could be achieved without any associated delayed hyperinsulinemia or hypoglycemia. Glycemic excursion after a meal load of 80 kcal/kg was also controlled from 3.9 to 10.1 mmol/l. Our results confirm that the intraperitoneal insulin infusion algorithm in vivo is feasible and that this algorithm can be superior to the subcutaneous insulin lispro infusion algorithm in the regulation of blood glucose.

To examine the efficacy and safety of once-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) or once-daily secondgeneration basal insulin analogs (insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 units/mL) in insulin-naïve Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice. A 12-week multicenter, open-label, randomized, pilot study was performed in 52 subjects with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Subjects were randomized to once-daily IDegAsp (n = 26) or basal insulin (n = 26). The primary endpoint was percent change in HbA1c from baseline to week 12. Furthermore, it was analyzed post hoc in subgroups stratified by baseline HbA1c. During a follow-up period, percent change in HbA1c was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.161). Daily insulin doses and frequency of overall hypoglycemia were also similar in the two groups. In post hoc analyses, once-daily basal insulin was more effective than IDegAsp in subjects with HbA1c more than or equal to 8.5% (p < 0.05); however, in subjects with HbA1c less than 8.5%, once-daily IDegAsp showed a significant improvement in percent change in HbA1c at week 12, compared with basal insulin (p < 0.01). Although there was no apparent difference in the HbA1c-lowering effects between two groups, when compared in subjects with HbA1c less than 8.5%, once-daily IDegAsp showed a significant effect in comparison with once-daily basal insulin. These findings suggest that the baseline HbA1c level might provide the important information for choosing IDegAsp or basal insulin in patients insufficiently controlled with OADs. This trial was registered with UMIN (no. UMIN000035431).