Diabetes Receiving Insulin Therapy Research Articles

Usefulness of Hemoglobin A1c to Predict Outcome After Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure

Patients with diabetes and heart failure (HF) have worse clinical outcomes compared to patients with HF without diabetes after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Patients with HF and diabetes represent a growing population at high risk for cardiovascular events and are increasingly treated with CRT. Although patients with diabetes and HF appear to benefit from CRT, their clinical outcomes are worse than those of patients without diabetes after CRT. The aim of this study was to identify clinical predictors that explain the differential hazard in patients with diabetes. We studied 442 patients (169 with diabetes) with systolic HF referred to the Massachusetts General Hospital CRT clinic from 2003 to 2010 to identify predictors of outcomes after CRT in patients with HF and diabetes. Patients with diabetes were more likely to have ischemic causes of HF than those without diabetes, but there was no difference in the left ventricular ejection fraction or HF classification at implantation. Patients with diabetes had poorer event-free survival (death or HF hospitalization) compared to those without diabetes (log-rank p = 0.04). The presence of diabetes was the most important independent predictor of differential outcomes in the entire population (hazard ratio 1.65, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 2.51). Patients with diabetes receiving insulin therapy had poorer survival, whereas those not receiving insulin therapy had similar survival to patients without diabetes. Patients with peri-implantation glycosylated hemoglobin >7% had worse outcomes, whereas patients with glycosylated hemoglobin ≤7% had improved survival (hazard ratio 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.86) equivalent to that of patients without diabetes. In conclusion, although the presence of diabetes, independent of other variables, increases the hazard of worse outcomes after CRT, there is additional risk conferred by insulin use and suboptimal peri-implantation glycemic control.

Mecasermin Rinfabate

Mecasermin Rinfabate

Autoantibodies to IA-2 and GAD65 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus of Varied Duration: Prevalence and Correlation with Clinical Features

To determine the prevalence of autoantibodies to IA-2 (IA-2Ab) and glutamic acid decarboxylase (GADAb) in type 2 diabetes, their relationship to disease duration, and their importance in management decisions. We undertook a study of 101 patients with type 2 diabetes (defined as nonketotic hyperglycemia at diagnosis) of varied duration (median, 4 years). Results were compared with those from 36 patients with type 1 diabetes also of varied duration (median, 2 years). IA-2Ab and GADAb were measured by radioligand-binding assays with use of in vitro-synthesized, 35S-labeled antigens. Of the 101 patients with type 2 diabetes, 20 (20%) were positive for GADAb; only 4 of these 20 were positive for IA-2Ab. In comparison, 75% of patients with type 1 diabetes were positive for GADAb, IA-2Ab, or both (P<0.0001). The coincidence of IA-2Ab positivity in GADAb-positive patients with type 2 diabetes was significantly lower than in patients with type 1 diabetes (20% versus 73%, respectively; P = 0.002). All four IA-2Ab- and GADAb-positive patients with type 2 diabetes required insulin and were younger than those positive for GADAb alone (P = 0.018). GADAb positivity in patients with type 2 diabetes was highly associated with insulin requirement (P = 0.004), with an odds ratio of 5.8 in predicting insulin dependence. Among patients with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin therapy, disease duration was significantly shorter (P = 0.025) and body mass index was significantly lower (P<0.001) in GADAb-positive versus GADAb-negative patients. In contrast to type 1 diabetes, in which GADAb values were negatively correlated with disease duration (r = -0.34; P = 0.044), no significant correlation with disease duration was observed in type 2 diabetes (r = -0.166; P = 0.48). Irrespective of duration of disease, measurement of IA-2Ab and GADAb can help to identify those patients with type 2 diabetes most likely to require insulin therapy.

The Effect of Acarbose on Blood Glucose Profiles of Type 2 Diabetic Patients Receiving Insulin Therapy

Nine patients with Type 2 diabetes receiving insulin therapy were treated with acarbose 100 mg thrice daily for 1 week to investigate the effect of acarbose on blood glucose control. Daily blood glucose profiles contained fewer excursions during acarbose administration and low levels were maintained. The M-value, an indicator of blood glucose fluctuation, decreased significantly from a run-in period value of 37.6 +/- 8.7 (SEM) to 16.7 +/- 4.0 during the acarbose period (p < 0.05) and rose again to 28.9 +/- 6.7 (p > or = 0.05) in the follow-up period. The 24-h urinary glucose excretion similarly decreased during acarbose administration. As expected, no decrease in HbA1C was observed due to the short treatment period. The 24-h urinary C-peptide excretions and serum lipids were not influenced by acarbose therapy. Frequent episodes of clinical hypoglycaemia were experienced while on acarbose therapy, indicating a decrease in insulin requirements. Adverse events such as flatulence and abdominal distention were observed in six out of nine cases. Symptoms were generally mild and well tolerated, only one patient dropped out because of diarrhoea and abdominal pain. We conclude that acarbose could usefully be administered to Type 2 diabetic patients treated with insulin to improve blood glucose control and reduce insulin requirement if the appropriate selection criteria were met.