The present study showed the comparable efficacy of Gla300 and Deg on glycemic control; however, the risk of hypoglycemia was markedly lower for Gla300 than for Deg.

Our aim was to investigate the significance of neck circumference (NC) on the presence and severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) syndrome independent of visceral fat (VF) obesity. A total of 219 subjects with suspected OSA underwent a complete polysomnography (PSG) study, along with the measurement of NC, and total body fat (TF) and VF levels (VFLs) measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis. We proposed NC divided by height (NC/H) as the simple index for height-corrected NC in Japanese subjects. NC/H exhibited a significantly stronger correlation than NC per se with BMI (r = 0.781 vs. 0.675, P = 0.0178), TF (r = 0.531 vs. 0.156, P < 0.0001), and VF (r = 0.819 vs. 0.731, P = 0.0203), indicating that NC/H is a better indicator of visceral obesity than NC per se. Interestingly, despite the strong correlation between NC/H and VFL, VFL was significantly associated with the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) ≥5, ≥15, and ≥30, but not with ≥40 or ≥50, whereas NC/H was significantly associated with higher AHI values, i.e., AHI ≥50 but not with lower AHI value. Furthermore, multiple regression analyses revealed that VFL and NC/H were independently associated with the square root of AHI (AHI 0.5 ) levels in obese and nonobese patients, respectively. In conclusion, NC is associated with the severity of OSA independently of visceral obesity, especially in nonobese patients.

Introduction Hypoglycemia resulting from insulin therapy for treatment of diabetes increases the risk of adverse cardiovascular events. Determining biomarkers that provide accurate estimation of hypoglycemia risk may allow for more accurate patient management and care. The purpose of this study was to determine the cutoff value of serum albumin (s-alb) that increases the risk of hypoglycemia in patients treated with insulin degludec. Methods This study used a crossover design and randomized 30 patients admitted for glycemic control to compare differences between insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla300) and degludec treatments. Results The cutoff value of s-alb associated with 24-h hypoglycemia and nocturnal hypoglycemia in patients treated with degludec was 3.8 g/dl. In patients with s-alb levels < 3.8 g/dl, mean percentages of time with hypoglycemia, clinically important hypoglycemia, and nocturnal hypoglycemia were significantly lower in those treated with Gla300 compared with patients treated with degludec. Conclusion This study identified a cutoff value for s-alb levels that indicates risk of hypoglycemia in patients treated with degludec. Monitoring s-alb levels in patients treated with degludec will help to mitigate the risk of hypoglycemia. Trial Registration University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN 000031044). Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-019-0654-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction We aimed to compare the efficacy of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) and insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) in controlling glucose fluctuation and suppressing postprandial glucose levels using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring. Methods Twenty-four patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomly allocated to receive either IDegLira or IDegAsp followed by IDegAsp or IDegLira, respectively. A crossover study was conducted with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring. We compared the postprandial blood glucose level, time in range, and time below range from a 3-day intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring period for each treatment group. Results The time in range was significantly higher in IDegLira than in IDegAsp. Postprandial glucose levels 90 and 120 min after breakfast and 60, 90, and 120 min after lunch were significantly lower for IDegLira than for IDegAsp. However, postprandial glucose levels 90 and 120 min after supper were significantly lower for IDegAsp than for IDegLira. There was no significant difference in the time below range between IDegLira and IDegAsp. Conclusion IDegLira was more effective in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus than IDegAsp, as indicated by a higher time in range and lower postprandial glucose level at breakfast and lunch. This study was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN 000039221). Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02138-w.

Aims/Introduction: Multiple daily injection therapy for early glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with hypoglycemia and weight gain. This study aimed to compare the efficacy (time in range of glucose level 70-180 mg/dL), safety (time below range level 1 of glucose <70 mg/dL), glycemic variability changes, therapeutic indices, body mass index and titration periods between multiple daily injection and insulin glargine U100 and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) combination (iGlarLixi + insulin glulisine; injected once daily [evenings]) therapies using intermittent continuous glucose monitoring. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to the iGlarLixi + insulin glulisine group or the multiple daily injection group. An intermittent continuous glucose monitoring system was attached, and each injection was adjusted to achieve the target glucose level according to the respective titration algorithm. Times in and below the range were analyzed using data collected on days 11-13 of the intermittent continuous glucose monitoring. Results: The time in range did not significantly differ between the groups. However, the time below range level 1 was lower in the iGlarLixi + insulin glulisine group (P = 0.047). The changes in glycemic variability, therapeutic indices and body mass index were not significantly different between the groups, although the titration period was significantly shorter in the iGlarLixi + insulin glulisine group (P = 0.033). Conclusions: iGlarLixi + insulin glulisine combination therapy is safe and equally efficacious as multiple daily injection therapy for glycemic control, while avoiding hypoglycemia risk and reducing the number of injections are required.