RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD: We reviewed a number of published articles from 2002 to 2016 to find out the appropriate management of diabetes mellitus. The paramount parameters of the selected studies include the insulin type & its dose, type of diabetes, duration and comparison of different insulin protocols. In addition, various newly developed approaches for insulin delivery with potential output have also been evaluated.
RESULTS: A great variability was observed in managing diabetes mellitus through insulin therapy and the important controlling factors found for this therapy include; dose titration, duration of insulin use, type of insulin used and combination therapy of different insulin.
CONCLUSION: A range of research articles on current trends and recent advances in insulin has been summarized, which led us to the conclusion that multiple daily insulin injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (insulin pump) is the best method to manage diabetes mellitus. In future perspectives, development of the oral and inhalant insulin would be a tremendous breakthrough in Insulin therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We pooled data from 17 observational studies involving 1,699 patients treated with either CSII or non-CSII (including premixed and MDI) regimen. The study outcomes were the frequencies of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia and/or ketosis. Given the lack of patient-level data, separate analyses for premixed and MDI regimen were not carried out.
RESULTS: The CSII-treated group (n = 203) was older (22.9 ± 6.9 vs 17.8 ± 4.0 years), and had longer diabetes duration (116.7 ± 66.5 vs 74.8 ± 59.2 months) and lower glycated hemoglobin (7.8 ± 1.1% vs 9.1 ± 2.0%) at baseline than the non-CSII-treated group (n = 1,496). The non-CSII-treated group had less non-severe hypoglycemia than the CSII-treated group (22%, 95% CI 13-34 vs 35%, 95% CI 17-55). Of the non-CSII-treated group, 7.1% (95% CI 5.8-8.5) developed severe hypoglycemia, but none from the CSII-treated group did. The non-CSII-treated group was more likely to develop hyperglycemia (12%, 95% CI 3-25 vs 8.8%, 95% CI 0-31) and ketosis (2.5%, 95% CI 1.0-4.6 vs 1.6%, 95% CI 0.1-4.7), and discontinue fasting (55%, 95% CI 34-76 vs 31%, 95% CI 9-60) than the CSII-treated group.
CONCLUSIONS: The CSII regimen had lower rates of severe hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia/ketosis, but a higher rate of non-severe hyperglycemia than premixed/MDI regimens. These suggest that appropriate patient selection with regular, supervised fine-tuning of the basal insulin rate with intensive glucose monitoring might mitigate the residual hypoglycemia risk during Ramadan.
METHODS: Our study included multinational Muslims with T2DM who were during routine consultation. We collected data on demographics, fasting characteristics, and complications. Descriptive statistics, chi-square test, and multiple testing were performed.
RESULTS: 12,529 patients participated. Mean age was 55.2 ± 11.8 years; 52.4% were females. Mean diabetes duration was 9.9 ± 7.4 years; 27.7% were with HbA1c >9% (75 mmol/mol) and 70% had complications. Metformin was the most used medication followed by insulin. 85.1% fasted ≥1 day; fasting mean duration was 27.6 ± 5.6 days. Hypoglycemia occurred in 15.5% of whom 11.7% attended emergency department or were hospitalized; this was significantly associated with age and/or duration of diabetes. Hyperglycemia occurred in 14.9% of whom 6.1% attended emergency department or were hospitalized and was also associated with age or duration of diabetes. 74.2% performed SMBG during fasting. 59.2% were educated on Ramadan fasting, with 89.7% receiving it during routine consultation.
CONCLUSIONS: Ramadan fasting in T2DM is high. Multidisciplinary approach is required to mitigate complications. Our findings support current recommendations for safe fasting.
DESIGN: A double blind randomized controlled hospital-based study involving diabetic patients with postoperative corneal epithelial defect after vitreoretinal surgery.
METHODS: Diabetic patients were randomized to 3 different concentrations of topical insulin (DTI 0.5, DTI 1, and DTI 2) or placebo in the control group (DNS). Primary outcome measure was the rate of corneal epithelial wound healing (mm² per hour) over pre-set interval and time from baseline to minimum size of epithelial defect on fluorescein stained anterior segment digital camera photography. Secondary outcome measure was any adverse effect of topical insulin. Follow-up was 1 month.
RESULTS: Thirty-two eyes of 32 patients undergoing intraoperative corneal debridement with resultant epithelial defect (8 eyes per group) were analyzed. DTI 0.5 was superior to other concentrations achieving 100% healing rate within 72 hours of treatment compared with 62.5% in DNS, 75% in DTI 1, and 62.5% in DTI 2. Statistically, DTI 0.5 achieved significant results (P = 0.036) compared with the diabetic control group (DNS) in terms of mean rate of corneal epithelial wound healing from maximum to minimum defect size. No adverse effect of topical insulin was reported.
CONCLUSIONS: Topical insulin 0.5 units QID is most effective for healing corneal epithelial defect in diabetic patients after vitrectomy surgery compared with placebo and higher concentrations. Topical insulin is safe for human ocular usage.