You are on page 1of 78


Pharmacotherapy: A Pathophysiologic Approach, 9e >

Chapter 57. Diabetes Mellitus

Curtis L. Triplitt; Thomas Repas; Carlos Alvarez

Key Concepts
Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a group of metabolic disorders of fat, carbohydrate, and protein metabolism that results from defects in
insulin secretion, insulin action (sensitivity), or both.
The incidence of type 2 DM is increasing. This has been attributed in part to a Western-style diet, increasing obesity, sedentary
lifestyle, and an increasing minority population.
The two major classifications of DM are type 1 (insulin deficient) and type 2 (combined insulin resistance and relative deficiency in
insulin secretion). They differ in clinical presentation, onset, etiology, and progression of disease. Both are associated with
microvascular and macrovascular disease complications.
Diagnosis of diabetes is made by four criteria: fasting plasma glucose126 mg/dL (7 mmol/L), a 2-hour value from a 75-g oral
glucose tolerance test 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L), a casual plasma glucose level of 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) with symptoms of
diabetes, or a hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] 6.5% (0.065; 48 mmol/mol Hb). The diagnosis should be confirmed by repeat testing if
obvious hyperglycemia is not present.
Goals of therapy in DM are directed toward attaining normoglycemia (or appropriate glycemic control based on the patients
comorbidities), reducing the onset and progression of retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy complications, intensive therapy for
associated cardiovascular risk factors, and improving quality and quantity of life.
Metformin should be included in the therapy for all type 2 DM patients, if tolerated and not contraindicated, as it is the only oral
antihyperglycemic medication proven to reduce the risk of total mortality, according to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes
Study (UKPDS).
Intensive glycemic control is paramount for reduction of microvascular complications (neuropathy, retinopathy, and nephropathy)
as evidenced by the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) in type 1 DM and the UKPDS in type 2 DM. The UKPDS also
reported that control of hypertension in patients with diabetes will not only reduce the risk of retinopathy and nephropathy but also
reduce cardiovascular risk.
Short-term (3 to 5 years), intensive glycemic control does not lower the risk of macrovascular events as reported by the Action in
Diabetes and Vascular Disease, Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes, and Veterans Administration Diabetes Trial trials.
Microvascular event reduction may be sustained, and macrovascular events reduced by improved early glycemic control, as
evidenced by the UKPDS and DCCT follow-up studies. Significant reductions in macrovascular risk may take 15 to 20 years. This
sustained reduction in microvascular risk and new reduction in macrovascular risk has been coined metabolic memory.
Knowledge of the patients quantitative and qualitative meal patterns, activity levels, pharmacokinetics of insulin preparations, and
pharmacology of oral and injected antihyperglycemic agents is essential to individualize the treatment plan and optimize blood
glucose control while minimizing risks for hypoglycemia and other adverse effects of pharmacologic therapies.
Type 1 DM treatment necessitates insulin therapy. Currently, the basalbolus insulin therapy or pump therapy in motivated
individuals often leads to successful glycemic outcomes. Basalbolus therapy includes a basal insulin for fasting and postabsorptive
control, and rapid-acting bolus insulin for mealtime coverage. Addition of mealtime pramlintide in patients with uncontrolled or erratic
postprandial glycemia may be warranted.
Type 2 DM treatment often necessitates use of multiple therapeutic agents (combination therapy), including oral and/or injected
antihyperglycemics and insulin, to obtain glycemic goals due to the persistent reduction in -cell function over time. Slowing, but not
arresting, -cell failure has been shown with thiazolidinediones and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist class of medications.
Aggressive management of cardiovascular disease risk factors in type 2 DM is necessary to reduce the risk for adverse
cardiovascular events or death. Smoking cessation, use of antiplatelet therapy as a secondary prevention strategy and in select
primary prevention situations, aggressive management of dyslipidemiaprimary goal to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
(<100 mg/dL [<2.59 mmol/L]) and secondarily to raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol to 40 mg/dL (1.03 mmol/L)and
treatment of hypertension (again often requiring multiple drugs) to <130/80 mm Hg are vital.
Prevention strategies for type 1 DM have been unsuccessful. Prevention strategies for type 2 DM are established. Lifestyle
changes, dietary restriction of fat, aerobic exercise for 30 minutes five times a week, and weight loss form the backbone of successful
prevention. No medication is currently FDA approved for prevention of diabetes, although several, including metformin, acarbose,
pioglitazone, and rosiglitazone, have clinical trials demonstrating a delay of diabetes onset.
Patient education and ability to demonstrate self-care and adherence to therapeutic lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions are
crucial to successful outcomes. Multidisciplinary teams of healthcare professionals including physicians (primary care,



endocrinologists, ophthalmologists, and vascular surgeons), podiatrists, dietitians, nurses, pharmacists, social workers, behavioral
health specialists, and certified diabetes educators are needed, as appropriate, to optimize these outcomes in persons with DM.

Learning Objectives
1. Define diabetes mellitus.
2. Describe differences in epidemiology of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus based on age, sex, race/ethnicity, and family history.
3. List the plasma glucose levels that diagnose a patient with impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, gestational diabetes,
or diabetes mellitus and the hemoglobin A1c values that denote high risk of diabetes or diabetes mellitus.
4. Compare and contrast type 1 and type 2 diabetes presentation, onset, characteristics, progression, and pathophysiology.
5. Apply evidence-based recommendations to nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment interventions and goals for diabetes
6. Understand common laboratory, procedures, and physical examination components that should be performed on initial evaluation of
a person with diabetes mellitus.
7. Identify key elements to the success of nonpharmacologic interventions for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.
8. Understand the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, side effects, drug interactions, and proper dosing of commonly used medications
for diabetes mellitus.
9. Learn about the implications of key clinical trials in the management of glucose, hypertension, and dyslipidemia for the treatment of
diabetes mellitus.
10. Construct and individualize rationale therapeutic regimens, and follow-up of these regimens, for treatment of type 1 and type 2
diabetes mellitus.
11. Know the specialized needs for the treatment of diabetes mellitus in special populations (adolescents, elderly, gestational diabetes,
having diabetes while pregnant, people with human immunodeficiency virus, and hospitalizations).
12. Identify common concomitant conditions and complications associated with diabetes mellitus and describe goals, treatments, and
monitoring parameters for each.
13. Develop treatment regimens (nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic) for common concomitant conditions and complications
associated with diabetes mellitus.
14. Understand proper counseling and education of a patient with diabetes mellitus to maximize outcomes.
15. Evaluate therapeutic outcomes by describing common quality of care measures used and the optimal numbers for each measure.

Diabetes Mellitus: Introduction

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a heterogeneous group of metabolic disorders characterized by hyperglycemia. It is associated with
abnormalities in carbohydrate, fat, and protein metabolism and may result in chronic complications including microvascular,
macrovascular, and neuropathic disorders. It is estimated that in 2010, 26 million Americans 20 years old have DM, with as many as one
fourth of these patients being undiagnosed, and an additional 79 million at high risk for the development of diabetes. The economic
burden of DM approximated $218 billion in 2007, for diabetes and prediabetes. This is representative of an annual cost for each citizen of
the United States of $700. DM is the leading cause of blindness in adults aged 20 to 74 years and the leading cause of end-stage renal
disease in the United States. It also accounts for approximately 65,000 lower extremity amputations annually. Finally, a cardiovascular
event is responsible for two thirds of deaths in individuals with type 2 DM and is the leading cause of death in type 1 DM of long
Optimal management of the patient with DM will reduce or prevent complications, decreasing morbidity and mortality while improving
quality of life. Research, clinical trials, and drug development efforts over the past several decades have provided valuable information
that applies directly to improving outcomes in patients with DM and have expanded the therapeutic armamentarium. Additionally,
interventions in an attempt to prevent complications and the onset of diabetes have been reported for type 1 and 2 DM.




Type 1 DM accounts for 5% to 10% of all cases of DM and is most often due to autoimmune destruction of the pancreatic cells.2
Although type 1 DM most frequently develops in childhood or early adulthood, new cases occur at any age.
Type 1 DM is thought to be initiated by the exposure of a genetically susceptible individual to an environmental agent. The development
of -cell autoimmunity occurs in less than 10% of the genetically susceptible population and progresses to type 1 DM in less than 1% of
that population.3 There is a direct relation to the prevalence of -cell autoimmunity and the incidence of type 1 DM in various populations.
The countries of Sweden, Sardinia, and Finland have the highest prevalence of islet cell antibody (ICA; 3% to 4.5%) and are associated
with the highest incidence of type 1 DM: 22 to 35 per 100,000.4 The prevalence of type 1 DM is increasing, but the cause of this increase
is not fully understood.
Markers of -cell autoimmunity are detected in 14% to 33% of persons with adult-onset diabetes. This type of DM is referred to as latent
autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA) and presents with early failure of oral agents and need for insulin therapy.4
Idiopathic type 1 DM is a nonautoimmune form of diabetes frequently seen in minorities, especially Africans and Asians, with intermittent
insulin requirements.2
Secondary forms of DM occur due to a variety of causes.2 Maturity onset diabetes of youth (MODY) is due to one of six genetic defects.
Endocrine disorders such as acromegaly and Cushings syndrome may also cause diabetes. Any disease of the exocrine pancreas such
as cystic fibrosis, pancreatitis, and hereditary hemochromatosis can damage cells and impair insulin secretion. These unusual causes,
however, only cause 1% to 2% of the total cases of DM. Please see Other Specific Types of Diabetes (<5% of Diabetes) below for further
Type 2 DM accounts for up to 90% of all cases of DM. Overall the prevalence of type 2 DM in the United States is about 11.3% in
persons aged 20 or older; this prevalence is increasing. It is estimated that for every four persons who are diagnosed with DM, one
person remains undiagnosed.1
There are multiple risk factors for the development of type 2 DM, including family history (i.e., parents or siblings with diabetes); obesity
(i.e., 20% over ideal body weight, or body mass index [BMI] 25 kg/m2); chronic physical inactivity; race or ethnicity (see list below);
history of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), impaired fasting glucose (IFG), or hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 5.7% to 6.4% (0.057 to 0.064; 39
to 46 mmol/mol Hb) (see Diagnosis of Diabetes below); hypertension (140/90 mm Hg in adults); high-density lipoprotein (HDL)
cholesterol (HDL-C) 35 mg/dL (0.91 mmol/L) and/or a triglyceride level 250 mg/dL (2.83 mmol/L); history of gestational diabetes
mellitus (GDM) (see Classification of Diabetes below) or delivery of a baby weighing >9 lb (>4 kg); history of vascular disease; presence of
acanthosis nigricans; and polycystic ovary disease.5
The prevalence of type 2 DM increases with age and varies widely among various racial and ethnic populations. The prevalence of
type 2 DM is especially increased in Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, African Americans, and Pacific Islanders.
While the prevalence of type 2 DM increases with age, the disorder is increasingly being diagnosed in adolescence. Much of the rise in
adolescent type 2 DM is related to an increase in overweight/obesity and sedentary lifestyle, in addition to genetic predisposition.6 Most
cases of type 2 DM are polygenetic; the underlying pathophysiology remains uncertain7 (Figs. 57-1 and 57-2).



National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES) prevalence of diabetes by age among adults 20 years of age: United States,
20052008. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011 National Diabetes Fact Sheet



Rate of new cases of type 1 and type 2 diabetes among youth aged <20 years, by race/ethnicity, 20022005. (NHW, non-Hispanic whites;
NHB, non-Hispanic blacks; H, Hispanics; API, Asians/Pacific Islanders; AI, American Indians.) (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2011 National Diabetes Fact Sheet at
GDM complicates approximately 7% of all pregnancies in the United States.8 Most women become normoglycemic after pregnancy;
however, 30% to 50% may develop prediabetes or type 2 DM later in life.

Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Classication

Classication of Diabetes
Diabetes is a metabolic disorder characterized by resistance to the action of insulin, insufficient insulin secretion, or both.2 The clinical
manifestation of these disorders is hyperglycemia. The vast majority of diabetic patients are classified into one of two broad categories:
type 1 diabetes caused by an absolute deficiency of insulin or type 2 diabetes defined by the presence of insulin resistance with an
inadequate compensatory increase in insulin secretion. Women who develop diabetes due to the stress of pregnancy are classified as
having gestational diabetes. Finally, uncommon types of diabetes caused by infections, drugs, endocrinopathies, pancreatic destruction,
and known genetic defects are classified separately (Table 57-1).
Table 57-1 Etiologic Classification of Diabetes Mellitusa

1. Type 1 diabetesb (-cell destruction, usually leading to absolute insulin deficiency)

2. Type 2 diabetesa (may range from predominantly insulin resistance with relative insulin deficiency to a
predominantly insulin secretory defect with insulin resistance)



3. Other specific types

Genetic defects of -cell function
Chromosome 20q, HNF-4 (MODY 1)
Chromosome 7p, glucokinase (MODY 2)
Chromosome 12q, HNF-1 (MODY 3)
Other rare forms
Chromosome 13q, insulin promoter factor-1 (MODY 4)
Chromosome 17q, HNF-1 (MODY 5)
Chromosome 2q, neurogenic differentiation 1/-cell e-box transactivator 2 (MODY 6)
Chromosome 9q, carboxyl ester lipase (MODY 7)
Mitochondrial DNA
Genetic defects in insulin action
Type A insulin resistance
Rabson-Mendenhall syndrome
Lipoatrophic diabetes
Diseases of the exocrine pancreas
Cystic fibrosis
Fibrocalculous pancreatopathy
Cushings syndrome
Drug or chemical induced
Vacor (Pyriminil)
Nicotinic acid
Thyroid hormone
-Adrenergic agonists
Congenital rubella
Uncommon forms of immune-mediated diabetes
Stiff-man syndrome
Anti-insulin receptor antibodies
Other genetic syndromes sometimes associated with diabetes
Downs syndrome
Klinefelters syndrome
Turners syndrome
Wolframs syndrome
Friedreichs ataxia
Huntingtons chorea



Laurence-Moon-Bieldel syndrome
Myotonic dystrophy
Prader-Willi syndrome
4. Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)

aOther rare forms may exist for all categorizations.

bPatients with any form of diabetes may require insulin treatment at some stage of their
disease. Such use of insulin does not in itself classify the patient.
Adapted from Diabetes Care 1997;20:11831197. Reproduced by permission of the
American Diabetes Association.2
Type 1 Diabetes
This form of diabetes results from autoimmune destruction of the cells of the pancreas. Evidence of -cell autoimmunity, including
ICAs, antibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase, islet protein tyrosine phosphatase-like molecule IA2, and/or antibodies to insulin, is
present at the time of diagnosis in 90% of individuals. Type 1 diabetes is often thought to most commonly present in children and
adolescents; however, it can occur at any age. Younger individuals typically have a more rapid rate of -cell destruction and often present
with ketoacidosis. Adults may maintain sufficient insulin secretion to prevent ketoacidosis for many years; this is referred to as latent
autoimmune diabetes in adults.3,4
Type 2 Diabetes
Type 2 DM is characterized by a combination of some degree of insulin resistance and a relative lack of insulin secretion (being
insufficient to normalize plasma glucose levels), with progressively lower insulin secretion over time. Most individuals with type 2 diabetes
exhibit abdominal obesity, which itself causes insulin resistance. In addition, hypertension, dyslipidemia (high triglyceride levels and low
HDL-C levels), and elevated plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) levels, which contribute to a hypercoagulable state, are often
present in these individuals. Due in part to these factors, patients with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk of developing macrovascular
complications in addition to microvascular complications. Type 2 diabetes has a strong genetic predisposition and is more common in all
ethnic groups other than those of European ancestry.4,5
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
GDM is defined as glucose intolerance that is first recognized during pregnancy. Hormone changes during pregnancy result in increased
insulin resistance, and GDM may ensue when the mother cannot adequately compensate with increased insulin secretion to maintain
normoglycemia. In most, glucose intolerance occurs near the beginning of the third trimester, although risk assessment and intervention
when appropriate should begin from the first prenatal visit due to the risk of undiagnosed diabetes. If DM is diagnosed prior to pregnancy,
this is not GDM, but rather pregnancy with preexisting DM. Clinical detection is important, as therapy will reduce perinatal morbidity and
Other Specic Types of Diabetes (<5% of Diabetes)
Genetic Defects

MODY is characterized by impaired insulin secretion in response to a glucose stimulus with minimal or no insulin resistance. Patients
typically exhibit mild hyperglycemia at an early age, but diagnosis may be delayed, depending on the severity of presentation. The
disease is inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern with at least six different loci identified to date (MODY 2 and 3 are most common).
The production of mutant insulin molecules has been identified in a few families and results in mild glucose intolerance.2
Several genetic mutations have been described in the insulin receptor and are associated with insulin resistance. Type A insulin
resistance refers to the clinical syndrome of acanthosis nigricans, virilization in women, polycystic ovaries, and hyperinsulinemia. In
contrast, anti-insulin receptor antibodies may block the binding of insulin. This was referred to in the past as type B insulin resistance.



Endocrinopathies, pancreatic exocrine dysfunction, drugs, and infections, among others, may also result in hyperglycemia (Table 57-1).

Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
The prevalence of type 1 DM is low in the general population. Due to the acute onset of symptoms in most individuals at time of
diagnosis, screening for type 1 DM in the asymptomatic general population is not recommended.5 Screening for -cell autoantibody
status in high-risk family members may be appropriate; however, such screening is most often recommended in the context of clinical
trials for the prevention of type 1 DM.
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for type 2 DM at any age in individuals who are overweight (BMI 25
kg/m2) and have at least one other risk factor for the development of type 2 DM. Risk factors, in addition to being overweight or obese,
include physical inactivity, first-degree relative with diabetes or high-risk ethnicity/race, women who have delivered a baby >9 lb (>4 kg)
or a history of GDM, hypertension, high triglycerides, low HDL, women with polycystic ovary syndrome, diagnosed with prediabetes,
acanthosis nigricans, or a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD; see also Epidemiology above). The recommended screening test is the
fasting plasma glucose (FPG), HbA1c, or 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Adults without risk factors should be screened
starting at age 45 years, as age itself is a risk factor for type 2 DM. The optimal time between screenings is not known, and the index of
suspicion for the presence of diabetes should guide the clinician. Repeat testing every 3 to 5 years is cost-effective.5
Children and Adolescents
Despite a lack of clinical evidence to support widespread testing of children for type 2 DM, it is clear that more children and adolescents
are developing type 2 DM. The ADA, by expert opinion, recommends that overweight (defined as BMI >85th percentile for age and sex,
weight for height >85th percentile, or weight >120% of ideal) youths with at least two of the following risk factors: a family history of type
2 diabetes in first- and second-degree relatives; Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asians/South Pacific
Islanders; those with signs of insulin resistance or conditions associated with insulin resistance (acanthosis nigricans, hypertension,
dyslipidemia, polycystic ovary syndrome, or small-for-gestational-age birth weight); or maternal history of diabetes or GDM during the
childs gestation be screened. Screening should be done every 3 years starting at 10 years of age or at the onset of puberty if it occurs at
a younger age.5
Gestational Diabetes
Risk assessment for GDM should occur at the first prenatal visit. Due to the increasing incidence of obesity and undiagnosed DM, it is
reasonable to screen women with risk factors for the development of diabetes as soon as feasible. If the initial screening is negative, they
should undergo retesting at 24 to 28 weeks gestation. Screening for GDM is done with a standard 75-g OGTT. The diagnosis of GDM is
confirmed when any one plasma glucose value measured at baseline (fasting), 1 hour, or 2 hours meets the diagnostic criteria. These
criteria are unique to GDM (Table 57-2).2,5,8
Table 57-2 Screening for and Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus with a 75-g Glucose Load


Plasma Glucose


92 mg/dL (5.1 mmol/L)

1 hour

180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L)

2 hours

153 mg/dL (8.5 mmol/L)

One abnormal value = diagnostic of GDM. Should be performed at 2428 weeks gestation
unless the patient has overt diabetes. The test should be done in the morning after an 8- to
14-hour fast.
See reference 2.



Diagnosis of Diabetes
The diagnosis of diabetes requires the identification of a glycemic cut point, which discriminates normals from diabetic patients. The
cut points are meant to reflect the level of glucose above which microvascular complications have been shown to increase. Crosssectional studies have shown a consistent increase in the risk of developing retinopathy at a fasting glucose level above 99 to 116 mg/dL
(5.5 to 6.4 mmol/L), a 2-hour postprandial level above 125 to 185 mg/dL (6.9 to 10.3 mmol/L), and a HbA1c above 5.9% to 6.0%. (0.059
to 0.060; 41 to 42 mmol/mol Hb). Current diagnostic criteria are slightly above these cut points (Table 57-3).2
Table 57-3 Criteria for the Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitusa

1. HbA1c 6.5% (0.065; 48 mmol/mol Hb). The test should be performed in a laboratory using a method that is
National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) certified and standardized to the DCCT assaya
2. Fasting plasma glucose126 mg/dL (7 mmol/L). Fasting is defined as no caloric intake for at least 8 hoursa
3. 2-hour plasma glucose200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) during an OGTT. The test should be performed as described
by the World Health Organization, using a glucose load containing the equivalent of 75-g anhydrous glucose
dissolved in watera
4. In a patient with classic symptoms of hyperglycemia or hyperglycemic crisis, a random plasma glucose
concentration 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L)

aIn the absence of unequivocal hyperglycemia, criteria 13 should be confirmed by repeat

The HbA1c was not recommended in the past due to many nonstandardized assays. Most laboratories now use a method that is National
Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) certified and standardized to the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)
assay, which allows for cross-application of their results. If standardized, the HbA1c is logical for the diagnosis of diabetes as it measures
glycemic exposure over the past 2 to 3 months, in contrast to a single-day, single-point glucose evaluation. In addition, patients do not
have to be fasting and the test is easily monitored. An HbA1c of 6% to 6.4% (0.060 to 0.066; 42 to 46 mmol/mol Hb) denotes a 10-fold
increase in risk of diabetes, yet does not consistently identify patients with IFG or IGT. In addition, there are slight race differences in
normal HbA1c levels. One-third fewer individuals with diabetes are identified using the A1C 6.5% (0.065; 48 mmol/mol Hb) versus a
FPG 126 mg/dL (7 mmol/L), yet more providers may be more likely to diagnose diabetes from an A1C than from an obviously elevated
FPG level. The ADA continues to recommend three other glucose criteria for the diagnosis of DM in nonpregnant adults (Table 57-3). If
the patient has obvious hyperglycemia and diabetes, reconfirming the diagnosis by one of the above criteria is not required.2
Increased Risk of Diabetes or Prediabetes
As shown in Table 57-4, the ADA identified a HbA1c value of 5.7% to 6.4% (0.057 to 0.064; 39 to 46 mmol/mol Hb) to define an
increased risk for diabetes. The HbA1c lower limit of 5.7% (0.057; 39 mmol/mol Hb) was chosen due to its good specificity, although it
has a low sensitivity, to identify patients at increased risk for diabetes. IFG continues to be defined as a plasma glucose of at least 100
mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L) but less than 126 mg/dL (7 mmol/L). IGT is defined as a 2-hour glucose value 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L), but less
than 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) during a 75-g OGTT.2,5
Table 57-4 Categorizations of Abnormal Glucose Status

Fasting plasma glucose (FPG)

Impaired fasting glucose (IFG)
100125 mg/dL (5.66.9 mmol/L)
Diabetes mellitusa
FPG 126 mg/dL (7 mmol/L)
2-hour postload plasma glucose (oral glucose tolerance test)
Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT)
2-hour postload glucose 140199 mg/dL (7.811 mmol/L)



Diabetes mellitusa
2-hour postload glucose200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L)
Increased risk of diabetes mellitus
HbA1c 5.76.4% (0.0570.064; 3946 mmol/mol Hb)
Diabetes mellitusa
HbA1c 6.5% (0.065; 48 mmol/mol Hb)

aDiagnosis to be confirmed if not unequivocal hyperglycemia (see Table 57-3).

Serial measurements, at clinician-defined intervals, can help to identify patients moving toward diabetes, and those who are stable.
Patients who have even minor increases in glucose or HbA1c values over time should be followed closely. Also, the HbA1c measurement
can be affected by anemias and several hemoglobinopathies, which necessitates the use of one of the plasma glucose criterion in these

Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
Type 1 DM results from pancreatic -cell failure with absolute deficiency of insulin secretion. Most often this is due to immune-mediated
destruction of pancreatic cells, but rare unknown or idiopathic processes may also contribute. There often is a long preclinical period of
immune-mediated -cell destruction later followed by onset of hyperglycemia when 80% to 90% of the cells have been destroyed.
Occasionally there is a period of transient remission called the honeymoon phase, before established disease develops along with the
requirement for lifelong insulin therapy and the potential risk of diabetes-related complications (Fig. 57-3).

Scheme of the natural history of the -cell defect in type 1 diabetes mellitus. (Copyright 2008 American Diabetes Association. From
Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes, 5th ed.Reprinted with permission from the American Diabetes Association.)
It is thought that in order for type 1 DM to develop, there must be a trigger in a genetically susceptible individual. However, it is unknown
whether there are one or more inciting factors such as cows milk (or lack of breast-feeding), or viral, dietary, or other environmental



exposures that initiate the autoimmune process.2,3Vitamin D deficiency has been observed to be more prevalent in patients who develop
type 1 DM; however, further study is needed to confirm a role in causation.9
The autoimmune process is mediated by macrophages and T lymphocytes with circulating autoantibodies to various -cell antigens. The
most commonly detected antibody associated with type 1 DM is the ICA. Other autoantibodies include insulin, glutamic acid
decarboxylase 65, and zinc transporter 8 (ZnT8). These antibodies are generally considered markers of disease rather than mediators of
-cell destruction. They have been used to identify individuals at risk for type 1 DM and in evaluating disease prevention strategies.3
More than 90% of newly diagnosed persons with type 1 DM have one of these antibodies, as will up to 4% of unaffected first-degree
relatives. Once insulin autoantibodies are detected, there is an increased risk of development of additional autoantibodies and
progression to diabetes. -Cell autoimmunity may precede the diagnosis of type 1 DM by up to 9 to 13 years. Autoimmunity may remit in
some individuals, or can progress to absolute -cell failure in others. Other autoimmune disorders frequently associated with type 1 DM
include Hashimotos thyroiditis, Graves disease, Addisons disease, vitiligo, and celiac sprue. The extent of involvement can range from
no other associated disorders to autoimmune polyglandular failure.
There are strong genetic linkages to the DQA and B genes and certain human leukocyte antigens (HLAs). Some are associated with
increased risk (DR3 and DR4) while others are protective (DRB1*04008-DQB1*0302 and DRB1*0411-DQB1*0302) on chromosome 6.10
Additional candidate gene regions have been identified on other chromosomes as well. Because twin studies do not show 100%
concordance, environmental factors such as infectious, chemical, and dietary agents likely also contribute to the expression of the
The autoimmune destruction of pancreatic -cell function results in hyperglycemia due to an absolute deficiency of insulin. Insulin lowers
blood glucose (BG) by a variety of mechanisms, including stimulation of tissue glucose uptake, suppression of glucose production by the
liver, and suppression of free fatty acid (FFA) release from fat cells.11 The suppression of FFAs plays an important role in glucose
homeostasis. Increased levels of FFAs inhibit the uptake of glucose by muscle and stimulate hepatic gluconeogenesis.12
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Normal Metabolism

In the fasting state 75% of total body glucose disposal takes place in noninsulin-dependent tissues such as the brain, neurons, and
others. Brain glucose uptake occurs at the same rate during fed and fasting periods. The remaining 25% of glucose metabolism takes
place in the liver and muscle, which is dependent on insulin. In the fasting state approximately 85% of glucose production is derived from
the liver, and the remaining amount is produced by the kidney. Glucagon, produced by pancreatic cells, is secreted in the fasting state
to oppose the action of insulin and stimulate hepatic glucose production and glycogenolysis. Glucagon and insulin secretion are closely
linked; one increases while the other decreases to keep plasma glucose levels normal. In the fed state, carbohydrate ingestion increases
the plasma glucose concentration and stimulates insulin release from the pancreatic cells. The resultant hyperinsulinemia (a)
suppresses hepatic glucose production, (b) stimulates glucose uptake by peripheral tissues, and (c) suppresses glucagon release (in
conjunction with incretin hormones). The majority (80% to 85%) of glucose is taken up by muscle, with only a small amount (4% to 5%)
being metabolized by adipocytes.7,13,14
Although fat tissue is responsible for only a small amount of total body glucose disposal, it plays a very important role in the maintenance
of total body glucose homeostasis. Small increments in the plasma insulin concentration exert a potent antilipolytic effect, leading to a
marked reduction in the plasma FFA levels. The decline in plasma FFA concentrations results in an increased glucose uptake in muscle
and reduces hepatic glucose production indirectly.
Type 2 Diabetes

Individuals are characterized by multiple defects including (a) defects in insulin secretion; (b) insulin resistance involving muscle, liver, and
the adipocyte; (c) excess glucagon secretion; (d) glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) deficiency and possibly resistance.7
Impaired Insulin Secretion

The pancreas in people with a normal-functioning cell is able to adjust its secretion of insulin to maintain normal plasma glucose levels.
In nondiabetic individuals, insulin increases in proportion to the severity of the insulin resistance and plasma glucose remains normal.
Impaired insulin secretion is a hallmark finding in T2DM. In early -cell dysfunction, first-phase insulin release, seen with an IV bolus of
glucose, is deficient. First-phase insulin is released if there is stored insulin in the cell and acts to prime the liver to nutrient intake.
Absent first-phase insulin necessitates an increase in second-phase insulin to compensate for hyperglycemia. When the insulin released
can no longer normalize plasma glucose, dysglycemia, including prediabetes and diabetes, can ensue. Both -cell mass and function in
the pancreas are reduced. -Cell failure is progressive, and starts years prior to the diagnosis of diabetes. People with T2DM lose 5% to
7% of -cell function per year of diabetes. The reasons for this loss are likely multifactorial including (a) glucose toxicity; (b) lipotoxicity; (c)



insulin resistance; (d) age; (e) genetics; and (f) incretin deficiency. Age results in declining -cell responsiveness and possibly mass. -Cell
failure predisposition is also present in high-risk ethnicity/races. Glucotoxicity involves glucose levels chronically exceeding 140 mg/dL
(7.8 mmol/L). The cell is unable to maintain elevated rates of insulin secretion, and releases less insulin as glucose levels increase (Fig.

The relationship between fasting plasma insulin and fasting plasma glucose in 177 normal-weight individuals. Plasma insulin and glucose
increase together up to a fasting glucose of 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L). When the fasting glucose exceeds 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L), the
cell makes progressively less insulin, which leads to an overproduction of glucose by the liver and results in a progressive increase in
fasting glucose. (Reprinted from DeFronzo RA. Pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Med Clin N Am 2004;88:787835, Copyright
2004, with permission from Elsevier.)

In the type 2 diabetic patient, decreased postprandial insulin secretion is due to both impaired pancreatic -cell function and a reduced
stimulus for insulin secretion from gut hormones. The role gut hormones play in insulin secretion is best shown by comparing the insulin
response to an oral glucose load versus an isoglycemic IV glucose infusion. In nondiabetic control individuals 73% more insulin is
released in response to an oral glucose load compared with reproducing the oral glucose loads plasma glucose curve by giving IV
glucose. This increased insulin secretion in response to an oral glucose stimulus is referred to as the incretin effect and suggests that
gut-derived hormones when stimulated by glucose lead to an increase in pancreatic insulin secretion. In type 2 diabetic patients, this
incretin effect is blunted, with the increase in insulin secretion only being 50% of that seen in nondiabetic control individuals. It is now
known that two hormones, GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), are responsible for over 90% of the increased
insulin secretion seen in response to an oral glucose load. Patients with type 2 diabetes remain sensitive to GLP-1 while GIP levels are
normal or elevated in T2DM.7
GLP-1 is secreted from the L cells, with the highest L-cell concentration in the distal intestinal mucosa, in response to mixed meals. Since
GLP-1 levels rise within minutes of food ingestion, neural signals and possibly proximal GI tract receptors stimulate GLP-1 secretion. The
insulinotropic action of GLP-1 is glucose dependent, and for GLP-1 to enhance insulin secretion, glucose concentrations must be higher
than 90 mg/dL (5 mmol/L). In addition to stimulating insulin secretion, GLP-1 suppresses glucagon secretion, slows gastric emptying, and
reduces food intake by increasing satiety. These effects of GLP-1 combine to limit postprandial glucose excursions. GIP is secreted by K



cells in the intestine and may have a role with insulin secretion during near-normal glucose levels and may act as an insulin sensitizer in
adipocytes. However, GIP has no effect on glucagon secretion, gastric motility, or satiety. The half-lives of GLP-1 and GIP are short (<10
minutes). Both hormones are rapidly inactivated by removal of two N-terminal amino acids by the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4).
GLP-1 levels appear to decrease as glucose values increase from normal to type 2 DM, and it is unlikely to be a primary defect that
causes diabetes in the majority of T2DM. Genetically a minority may have the TCF7L2 gene defect, which is associated with a decreased
response to GLP-1.7
Insulin Resistance

In type 2 diabetic subjects with mild to moderate fasting hyperglycemia (140 to 200 mg/dL, 7.8 to 11.1 mmol/L), basal hepatic glucose
production is increased by 0.5 mg/kg/min. Consequently, during the overnight sleeping hours the liver of an 80-kg diabetic individual with
modest fasting hyperglycemia adds an additional 35 g of glucose to the systemic circulation. This increase in fasting hepatic glucose
production is the cause of fasting hyperglycemia.13,14
Following glucose ingestion, insulin is secreted into the portal vein and carried to the liver, where it reduces hepatic glucose output. T2DM
patients also fail to suppress glucagon in response to a meal and may even have a paradoxical rise in glucagon levels. Thus, hepatic
insulin resistance and hyperglucagonemia result in continued production of glucose by the liver. Therefore, T2DM patients have two
sources of glucose in the postprandial state: one from the diet and one from continued glucose production from the liver. These sources
of glucose may result in marked hyperglycemia.
Peripheral (Muscle)

Muscle is the major site of postprandial glucose disposal in humans, and approximately 80% of total body glucose uptake occurs in
skeletal muscle. In response to a physiologic increase in plasma insulin concentration, muscle glucose uptake increases linearly, reaching
a plateau value of 10 mg/kg/min. Even in lean T2DM, the onset of insulin action is delayed for 40 minutes, and the ability of insulin to
stimulate leg glucose uptake is reduced by 50%. Impaired intracellular insulin signaling is a well-established abnormality, with notable
impairments at almost every step of activation due to insulin resistance, lipotoxicity, and glucotoxicity. The compensatory
hyperinsulinemia required to overcome impaired insulin signaling (insulin resistance) can activate an alternative pathway through MAP
kinase, which may be involved in atherosclerosis. Mitochondrial dysfunction may also play a role in muscle insulin resistance.
Mitochondrial function and/or density appear to be lower in type 2 DM. This may result in less energy expenditure and an increased risk
of dysfunction with high-fat diets (Fig. 57-5).13,14



Whole-body glucose disposal, a measure of insulin resistance, is reduced 40% to 50% in obese nondiabetic and lean type 2 diabetic
individuals. Obese diabetic individuals are slightly more resistant than lean diabetic patients. (From DeFronzo RA. Diabetes Reviews
Peripheral (Adipocyte)

In obese nondiabetic and T2DM, basal plasma FFA levels are increased and fail to suppress normally after glucose ingestion. FFAs are
stored as triglycerides in adipocytes and serve as an important energy source during conditions of fasting. Insulin is a potent inhibitor of
lipolysis, and restrains the release of FFAs from the adipocyte by inhibiting the hormone-sensitive lipase enzyme. It is now recognized that
chronically elevated plasma FFA concentrations can lead to insulin resistance in muscle and liver, and impair insulin secretion. In addition
to FFAs that circulate in plasma in increased amounts, T2DM patients have increased stores of intracellular fat products in muscle and
liver, and the increased fat content correlates closely with the presence of insulin resistance in these tissues. Excess lipolysis from fat can
also contribute to gluconeogenesis indirectly through glycerol and FFAs.7,13,14
Cellular Mechanisms of Insulin Resistance
Obesity and Insulin Resistance

Weight gain leads to insulin resistance in most, and obese nondiabetic individuals with risk factors often have the same degree of insulin
resistance as lean T2DM patients. Subsets of obese, but metabolically normal patients (6% to 30%) do exist, as well as nonobese, but
metabolically abnormal patients, so broad categorization of risk for a patient needs to be confirmed by further examination.
The term visceral adipose tissue (VAT) refers to fat cells located within the abdominal cavity and includes omental, mesenteric,
retroperitoneal, and perinephric adipose tissue. VAT has been shown to correlate with insulin resistance and explain much of the variation
in insulin resistance seen. It represents 20% of fat in men and 6% of fat in women. Central obesity can be easily assessed using waist
circumference, which is a good surrogate marker for VAT. This fat tissue has been shown to have a higher rate of lipolysis than
subcutaneous fat, resulting in an increase in FFA production. These fatty acids are released into the portal circulation and drain into the
liver, where they stimulate the production of very-low-density lipoproteins and decrease insulin sensitivity in peripheral tissues.13,14
VAT also produces a number of adipocytokines, such as TNF-, interleukin 6, angiotensinogen, PAI-1, and resistin, which contribute to
insulin resistance, hypertension, and hypercoagulability. These factors drain into the portal circulation and reduce insulin sensitivity in
peripheral tissues. The fat cell also has the capability of producing at least one adipocytokine that improves insulin sensitivity:
adiponectin. This factor is made in decreasing amounts as an individual becomes more obese. In animal models, adiponectin decreases



hepatic glucose production and increases fatty acid oxidation in muscle.

The Metabolic Syndrome

The metabolic syndrome is a risk indicator, but not an absolute risk indicator, because it does not specifically account for all risk factors,
such as age, sex, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, or directly measure hypercoagulability of the proinflammatory
condition. Patients with metabolic syndrome do have a higher risk for CVD, and at least a fivefold increase in their risk of type 2 DM, if
they do not already have type 2 DM. The metabolic syndrome does not identify synergism among identified risk factors, but rather
additive risk, leading many to question its relevance above adequate risk factor identification and aggressive treatment. It may be useful
to certain clinicians to package risk factors into the metabolic syndrome to encourage aggressive management.
The most recent definition of metabolic syndrome was adopted by multiple organizations in 2009 (Table 57-5).15,16
Table 57-5 Defining the Metabolic Syndrome

Defining the Metabolic Syndrome NCEP-ATP III: Five Components of the Metabolic Syndrome (Individuals
Having at Least Three Components Meet the Criteria for Diagnosis)
Risk Factor

Defining Level

Abdominal obesity

Waist circumference


>102 cm (>40 in)


>88 cm (>35 in)


150 mg/dL (1.70 mmol/L)

High-density lipoprotein C

<40 mg/dL (<1.03 mmol/L)


<50 mg/dL (<1.29 mmol/L)

Blood pressure

130/85 mm Hg

Fasting glucose

110 mg/dL (6.1 mmol/L)

2009 Statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International
Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of ObesityCriteria for Clinical Diagnosis of
the Metabolic Syndrome (Individuals having at Least Three Components Meet the Criteria for Diagnosis)

Categorical Cut Points

Elevated waist circumferencea

Population- and country-specific


Elevated triglycerides (drug treatment for

elevated triglycerides is an alternate

150 mg/dL (1.7 mmol/L)

Reduced HDL-C (drug treatment for reduced

HDL-C is an alternate indicator)b

40 mg/dL (1.03 mmol/L) in males

50 mg/dL (1.29 mmol/L) in females

Elevated blood pressure: systolic 130 mm Hg and/or diastolic 80 mm Hg (antihypertensive drug treatment in a
patient with a history of hypertension is an alternate indicator)
Elevated fasting glucosec (drug treatment of
elevated glucose is an alternate indicator)

100 mg/dL (2.59 mmol/L)



Current Recommended Waist Circumference Thresholds for Abdominal Obesity by Organization


Organization (Reference)

Men (All
values )

(All values



94 cm

80 cm



94 cm

80 cm

102 cm
(still higher

88 cm (still
higher risk)

United States


102 cm

88 cm


Health Canada

102 cm

88 cm


European CV Societies

102 cm

88 cm

Asia (including Japanese)


90 cm

80 cm



90 cm

80 cm


Japanese Obesity Society

85 cm

90 cm


Cooperative Task Force

85 cm

80 cm

Middle East

Mediterranean IDF

94 cm

80 cm

Sub-Saharan African


94 cm

80 cm

Central/South American


90 cm

80 cm

aIt is recommended that the IDF cut points be used for non-Europeans and either the IDF or
AHA/NHLBI cut points used for people of European origin until more data are available.
bThe most commonly used drugs for elevated triglycerides and reduced HDL-C are fibrates
and nicotinic acid. A patient taking one of these drugs can be presumed to have high
triglycerides and low HDL-C. High-dose omega-3 fatty acids presume high triglycerides.
cMost patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus will have the metabolic syndrome by the
proposed criteria.
Reproduced from reference 15. Reprinted with permission from reference 16, 2009
American Heart Association, Inc.



Metabolic Syndrome: Fact or Fiction?

The term metabolic syndrome was first coined in the late 1970s and associated with CVD. This disease has been studied extensively and
also referred to as the insulin resistance syndrome, dysmetabolic syndrome, and syndrome X. In 2001, the National Cholesterol
Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III formally defined the metabolic syndrome as a clustering of risk factors that
include at least three of the following: elevated blood pressure, abdominal obesity, elevated triglycerides, low high-density lipoproteins,
and elevated BG.15 Since the metabolic syndrome was formally defined, several other organizations including the International Diabetes
Federation (IDF), American Heart Association (AHA), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and the World Heart Federation,
among others, have released statements to further refine the proposed definition.16
It is estimated that 34% of adults in the United States have the metabolic syndrome17 and are considered to be at high risk of developing
CVD and DM.18 This epidemic has also been described in children and adolescents19 and is expected to expand as the US obesity rates
continue to climb.
However, in 2005 the ADA in conjunction with the European Association for the Study of Diabetes released a joint statement critical of the
clinical utility of the metabolic syndrome.20 They concluded in their statement that there is no doubt that CVD risk factors cluster in
certain individuals, although they assert the definition is imprecise and its use as a CVD marker is questionable. They also state that there
is critical information missing to warrant its designation as a syndrome. A swift rebuttal from the AHA and NHLBI was released weeks
later encouraging the continued use of the metabolic syndrome concept.21 In their statement, the authors stressed that the metabolic
syndrome is not considered a singular entity and that it is a syndrome with no single pathogenesis. The authors of the statement also
argue that the distinction of the metabolic syndrome should allow clinicians to approach patients as a whole with an emphasis on
intensive lifestyle management. Those in the diabetes community and who authored the ADA/EASD statement contend that there is no
additional benefit from identifying these clusters of CVD risk factors over measuring and treating them individually. They maintain the lack
of predictive capabilities limits the metabolic syndromes utility as a CVD marker.
The use of the metabolic syndrome in clinical practice remains a controversy. Clinicians should always take care to individualize therapy
for patients who present with high CVD risk. Patients individual goals, values, and resources should be considered when tailoring a
treatment plan.

Clinical Presentation
The clinical presentations of type 1 DM and type 2 DM are very different. Autoimmune type 1 DM can occur at any age. Approximately
75% will develop the disorder before age 20 years, but the remaining 25% develop the disease as adults. Individuals with type 1 DM are
often thin and are prone to develop diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) if insulin is withheld, or under conditions of severe stress with an excess
of insulin counterregulatory hormones.2,3,5 Symptoms in patients with type 1 DM such as polyuria, polydipsia, polyphagia, weight loss,
and lethargy accompanied by hyperglycemia are the most common initial presentation. In the outpatient setting, many patients initially
present with vague complaints such as weight loss and fatigue. Polyuria, polydipsia, and polyphagia may not be apparent unless a
comprehensive history is taken. Twenty percent to 40% of patients with type 1 DM present with DKA after several days of polyuria,
polydipsia, polyphagia, and weight loss. This presentation is common in patients from a low socioeconomic background. Rarely, type 1
DM patients are diagnosed without multiple symptoms or DKA when they have blood tests drawn for other reasons. This rare
presentation typically occurs when patients have a first-degree family member with type 1 DM and are closely monitored.
Patients with type 2 DM often present without symptoms, even though complications tell us that they may have been hyperglycemic for
several years.10 Often these patients are diagnosed secondary to unrelated blood testing. Lethargy, polyuria, nocturia, and polydipsia
can be seen at diagnosis in type 2 diabetes, but significant weight loss at diagnosis is less common. More often, patients with type 2 DM
are overweight or obese. Clinically, DM is a spectrum of diseases ranging from absolute insulin deficiency to relative insulin deficiency,
and patients can have normal to grossly abnormal insulin sensitivity. Classical clinical presentation characteristics should be used in
conjunction with other definitive laboratory data to properly classify patients (see also Classical Clinical Presentation of Diabetes Mellitus
Clinical Presentation: Diabetes Mellitusa


Type 1 DM

Type 2 DM


<30 yearsb

>30 yearsb






Body habitus


Obese or history of obesity

Insulin resistance




Often present

Rarely present



Often asymptomatic

Ketones at diagnosis



Need for insulin therapy


Years after diagnosis

Acute complications

Diabetic ketoacidosis

Hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state

Microvascular complications at diagnosis



Macrovascular complications at or before diagnosis



aClinical presentation can vary widely.

bAge of onset for type 1 DM is generally <20 years of age, but can present at any age. The
prevalence of type 2 DM in children, adolescents, and young adults is increasing. This is
especially true in ethnic and minority children.
cType 1 may present acutely with symptoms of polyuria, nocturia, polydipsia, polyphagia,
and weight loss.
dType 2 children and adolescents are more likely to present with ketones, but after the
acute phase may be treated with oral agents. Prolonged fasting can also produce ketones
in individuals.

Treatment: Diabetes Mellitus

Desired Outcome
The primary goals of DM management are to reduce the risk for microvascular and macrovascular disease complications, to
ameliorate symptoms, to reduce mortality, and to improve quality of life.5 Early treatment with near-normal glycemia will reduce the risk
for development of microvascular disease complications, but aggressive management of traditional cardiovascular risk factors (i.e.,
smoking cessation, treatment of dyslipidemia, intensive blood pressure control, and antiplatelet therapy) is needed to reduce the
likelihood of development of macrovascular disease. Hyperglycemia not only increases the risk for microvascular disease but also
contributes to poor wound healing, compromises white blood cell function, alters capillary function, and leads to classic symptoms of
DM. DKA and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS) are severe manifestations of poor diabetes control, almost always requiring
hospitalization. Reducing the potential for microvascular complications is targeted by adherence to therapeutic lifestyle intervention (i.e.,
diet and exercise programs) and drug therapy regimens, as well as attaining blood pressure goals. Minimizing weight gain and
hypoglycemia, especially severe hypoglycemia, and altering the glycemic goal to match the patients morbidities are necessary.
Evidence-based guidelines, as published by the ADA, may help in the attainment of these goals (Table 57-6).5



Table 57-6 Selected American Diabetes Association Evidence-Based Recommendationsa


Specific Recommendation


Screening for

Screen overweight or obese at any age; screen those without risk factors
beginning at age 45 years

To screen for diabetes a FPG, 2-hour 75-g OGTT, or HbA1c is appropriate

Interval between screenings should be individualized based on risk, or every 3


Home blood glucose monitoring is recommended for patients on multidose insulin

or pump therapy at least prior to meals and snacks, and before events such as

Subjects on other therapeutic interventions, including oral agents, may perform

home blood glucose monitoring, but ongoing instruction to patient on how to
adjust therapy based on monitoring must be in place

Quarterly HbA1c in individuals not meeting glycemic goals, twice yearly in

individuals meeting glycemic goals should be performed

In adults, measure fasting lipid profile at least annually

Perform an annual urine albumin excretion in type 1 diabetes with duration 5

years. Type 2 DM from diagnosis

Perform a screen for distal symmetrical polyneuropathy at diagnosis in type 2 DM

and after 5 years duration in type 1 DM; screen at least annually thereafter

A dilated eye examination should be performed within 5 years of diagnosis in type

1 DM, and shortly after diagnosis in type 2 DM, with follow-up every year, or every
23 years as recommended by an eye specialist

HbA1c goal for patients in general is <7% (<0.07; <53 mmol/mol Hb)

HbA1c goal should be individualized, with <6.5% (<0.065; <48 mmol/mol Hb) if
achieved without significant hypoglycemia or adverse effects in younger, long life
expectancy, and no CVD patient

Less stringent HbA1c goal (<8% [<0.08; <64 mmol/mol Hb]) may be appropriate in
patients with a history of severe hypoglycemia, limited life expectancy, advanced
microvascular/macrovascular complications or comorbidities, or in difficult to
reach goal patients despite adequate therapy


Glycemic goals

Hospital: Critically ill: 140180 mg/dL (7.810 mmol/L) (A), or more stringent
guidelines down to 110140 mg/dL (6.17.8 mmol/L) if without hypoglycemia
Noncritically ill: No clear evidence but in general premeal BG <140 mg/dL
(<7.8 mmol/L) and random BG <180 mg/dL (<10 mmol/L) (E)

See text

Prevention of type
2 diabetes

Patients with IGT (A), IFG (E), or an A1C of 5.76.4% (0.0570.064; 3946
mmol/mol Hb) (E) should attempt weight loss (510%), increasing physical activity

See text

Metformin may be considered in obese, <60-year-old patients, and women with



prior GDM with IGT (A), IFG (E), or an A1C 5.76.4% (0.0570.064; 3946
mmol/mol Hb) (E)

See text

Weight loss is recommended for all insulin-resistant/overweight or obese

individuals. Either low-carbohydrate, low-fat calorie-restricted diets, or
Mediterranean diets may work

In patients with known CVD consider ACE inhibitor therapy (C), as well as aspirin
and statin therapy (A)

See text

Saturated fat should be <7% of total calories

Monitoring carbohydrate intake by carbohydrate counting, exchanges, or

experienced estimation is recommended to achieve glycemic goals

Routine supplementation with antioxidants, such as vitamins E and C, is not

advised due to lack of efficacy

150 min/wk of moderate-intensity exercise spread over at least 3 days and with no
more than 2 days without exercise

Resistance training of large muscle groups should be 2 times per week

Systolic blood pressure should be treated to <140 mm Hg

Diastolic blood pressure should be treated to <80 mm Hg

Initial drug therapy should be with an ACE inhibitor or ARB


In treatment of nonpregnant patients with modest (30299 mg/day) (C) or higher

levels (300 mg/day) (A) of urinary albumin excretion, either ACE inhibitors or
ARBs are recommended

See text


The primary goal is an LDL <100 mg/dL (<2.59 mmol/L) if without overt CVD

Statin therapy should be added to lifestyle, regardless of baseline lipid levels if

patient has CVD, or is >40 years of age and has one other CVD risk factor

In patients with overt CVD, using a statin to achieve a LDL <70 mg/dL (<1.81
mmol/L) is an option

Triglycerides lowered to <150 mg/dL (<1.70 mmol/L) and raising HDL to >40
mg/dL (>1.03 mmol/L) in men and >50 mg/dL (1.29 mmol/L) in women is desirable

Use aspirin (75162 mg daily) for secondary cardioprotection

Use aspirin (75162 mg) for primary prevention in type 1 or 2 DM if the 10-year risk
of CVD is >10%, the patient is >50 (men) or >60 (women) with at least one
additional risk factor present

Critically ill: By IV insulin protocol (E); noncritically ill: scheduled subcutaneous

insulin with basal, nutritional, and correction coverage (C)

See text

Medical nutrition

Physical activity

Blood pressure



aBased on American Diabetes Association practice recommendations. Other evidencebased recommendations available.8
bEvidence levels: A, clear evidence from well-conducted, generalizable, randomized



controlled trials that are adequately powered; B, supportive evidence from well-conducted
cohort studies or well-conducted casecontrol study; C, supportive evidence from poorly
controlled or uncontrolled studies or conflicting evidence with weight of evidence
supporting intervention; E, expert consensus or clinical experience.
General Approach to Treatment
Appropriate care requires goal setting for glycemia, blood pressure, lipid levels (goals described later in chapter; see also Chaps. 3 and
11), regular monitoring for complications, dietary and exercise modifications, medications, appropriate self-monitoring of blood glucose
(SMBG), and laboratory assessment of the aforementioned parameters.5 Glucose control alone does not sufficiently reduce the risk of
macrovascular complications in persons with DM.22

Glycemic Goal Setting and Hemoglobin A1c

Controlled clinical trials provide ample evidence that glycemic control is paramount in reducing microvascular complications in both type
1 DM23 and type 2 DM.24 HbA1c measurements are the gold standard for following long-term glycemic control for the previous 2 to 3
months.5 Hemoglobinopathies, anemia, red cell membrane defects, transfusions, and substantial increase or decrease of red blood cell
life span in a patient can affect HbA1c measurements. Identification of potential problems and then ensuring the test is performed in a
laboratory using a method that is NGSP certified and standardized to the DCCT assay (see will minimize issues. Other
strategies such as measurement of fructosamine, which measures glycated plasma proteins or glycated albumin, may be necessary to
assess diabetes control in patients with altered red blood cell life span, although they are less standardized, and not correlated to risk of
The A1C-Derived Average Glucose study correlated multiple HbA1c and glucose readings to term the phrase estimated average glucose
(eAG). The eAG better correlates with HbA1c readings, and now is regularly reported below HbA1c values on laboratory results. For
example, a HbA1c of 6% or 7% (0.060 to 0.070; 42 to 53 mmol/mol Hb) correlates with an average glucose of 126 or 154 mg/dL (7 or 8.5
mmol/L), respectively, and online calculators and graphs are easily found.25
Less stringent HbA1c goals (>7% [>0.070; >53 mmol/mol Hb]) may be appropriate in patients with a history of severe hypoglycemia,
limited life expectancy, advanced microvascular/macrovascular complications or comorbidities, at-risk elderly, dementia, or in younger
children. A HbA1c target of <7% (<0.070; <0.53 mmol/mol Hb) is appropriate for others (Table 57-7), and lower values should be targeted
if significant hypoglycemia, weight gain, and other adverse effects can be avoided.5 Glycemic control recommendations for different age
groups of type 1 DM patients are based on the risk of hypoglycemia, the relatively low risk of complications prior to puberty, and
psychological and/or developmental issues (Table 57-7).
Table 57-7 Glycemic Goals of Therapy by Organization

Biochemical Index



Hemoglobin A1c

<7% (<0.07; <53


6.5% (0.065; 48 mmol/mol


Preprandial plasma glucose

70130 mg/dL (3.97.2


<110 mg/dL (<6.1 mmol/L)

Postprandial plasma glucose

<180 mg/dLb (<10


<140 mg/dL (<7.8 mmol/L)

ADA plasma glucose and HbA1c goals for type 1 DM by age groupc
Values by age (years)

Plasma glucose goal



Before meals bedtime/overnight

Toddlers and preschoolers

100180 (5.610

110200 (6.111.1

7.5% to 8.5% (<0.085; <69

mmol/mol Hb)

School age (612)

90180 (510

100180 (5.610 mmol/L)

<8% (<0.080; <64 mmol/mol Hb)

Adolescents and young

adults (1319)

90130 (57.2

90150 (58.3 mmol/L)

<7.5% (<0.075; <58 mmol/mol


ADA, American Diabetes Association; ACE, American College of Endocrinology; AACE,

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
aAssay should be National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP)certified
measurement and Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) standardized. More
stringent glycemic control may be appropriate if accomplished without significant
hypoglycemia or adverse effects. Less stringent HbA1c goals may be appropriate in
patients with a history of severe hypoglycemia, limited life expectancy, advanced
microvascular/macrovascular complications or comorbidities, at-risk elderly, dementia, or in
younger children.
bPostprandial glucose measurements should be made 12 hours after the beginning of the
meal, generally the time of peak levels in patients with diabetes.
cVulnerability to hypoglycemia and relatively low risk of complication prior to puberty
considered. Adolescents and young adults may have adult goals if without developmental
and psychological issues, and if without excessive hypoglycemia.
See reference 8.
Initial Evaluation of Diabetes Mellitus
On initial evaluation, a thorough medical history and identification of specific type of diabetes, including duration of diabetes,
characteristics of onset (e.g., DKA or asymptomatic), dietary and weight history, education history, medication history including current
and past medications for DM, current regimen including medications, diet, physical activity, and adherence, should be performed.
Hospitalization history, hypoglycemia (frequency, cause, timing), and diabetes-related complications should be documented. Laboratory
evaluation should include at a minimum an A1C, lipid profile, liver function tests, thyroid-stimulating hormone level, serum creatinine and
electrolytes, and a urine analysis for microalbuminuria. In type 1 DM, consider screening for celiac disease by measuring tissue
transglutaminase or antiendomysial antibodies. The physical examination and pertinent data should include all vital signs, weight and/or
BMI, blood pressure assessment, thyroid palpation, cardiovascular and carotid auscultation, skin integrity, assessment for acanthosis
nigricans, and a foot examination, including screening for impaired sensation detection with a 10-g force monofilament.5



Monitoring for Complications

The ADA recommends initiation of complications monitoring at the time of diagnosis of DM.8 Current recommendations continue to
advocate yearly dilated eye examinations in type 2 DM, and an initial dilated eye examination in the first 3 to 5 years in type 1 DM, and
then yearly thereafter. Less frequent testing (every 2 to 3 years) can be implemented on the advice of an eye care specialist. The blood
pressure should be assessed at each visit. The feet should be examined at each visit for distal pulses, skin integrity, calluses, and
deformities, and yearly screening should be done for loss of protective sensation with a distal polyneuropathy tool, such as the 10-g force
Semmes-Weinstein monofilament. A urine test for microalbumin to screen for nephropathy once yearly from diagnosis is appropriate in
type 2 DM, and initiated 5 years after diagnosis if the patient has type 1 DM. Yearly testing for lipid abnormalities, and more frequently if
needed to achieve lipid goals, is recommended. It is generally accepted that a yearly thyroid-stimulating hormone level may be
appropriate in type 1 DM, LADA, and select type 2 DM patients.5

Self-Monitored Blood Glucose and Continuous Glucose Monitoring

The advent of SMBG in the early 1980s revolutionized the treatment of DM, enabling patients to know their BG concentration at any
moment easily and relatively inexpensively. At its core, SMBG is a tool to provide structure for a change and/or safety: change, in that the
patient has an opportunity to intervene when a SMBG value is obtained, and safety, as hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia need to be
avoided and/or identified and treated. In general, SMBG frequency should match how complicated the regimen is for glycemic control
and minimally allow testing to avoid hypoglycemia.
Frequent SMBG is necessary to achieve near-normal BG concentrations if hypoglycemic agents are used. Assessment for hypoglycemia
and hyperglycemia, adjustment of prandial doses of insulin, administration of corrective doses of insulin, change in diet and exercise, and
checking accuracy of continuous glucose monitors are but a few of the reasons a patient may need SMBG at a given time. This is
particularly true in patients with type 1 DM, as most will be intensively managed with insulin. The more intense the pharmacologic regimen
is, the more intense the SMBG needs to be (before meals, at bedtime, occasionally after meals, and middle of sleep cycle in patients on
multiple insulin injections or pump therapy whether type 1 or type 2 DM). The optimal frequency of SMBG for patients with type 2 DM on
oral agents is unresolved.26 Frequency of monitoring in type 2 DM should be sufficient to facilitate reaching glucose goals and to test for
hypoglycemia. The role of SMBG in improving glycemic control in type 2 DM patients is controversial, but has shown to reduce the
HbA1c 0.4% (0.004; 4 mmol/mol Hb) to no improvement. What is clear is that patients must be empowered to change their therapeutic
regimen (lifestyle and medications) in response to test results, or no meaningful glycemic improvement is likely to be effected.5
Alternate site testing may improve adherence to SMBG recommendations, but only SMBG meters that can sip blood onto the strip will
accommodate such testing. Alternate site glucose testing is performed on the palm, forearm, or the thigh. These areas tend to have less
nerve endings and may be more comfortable for a patient, but several cautions must be observed. Interstitial glucose readings identified
with alternative site testing will lag behind fingertip capillary blood, as the capillary flow/density is often less in the alternate testing sites
when compared with that in the fingertip. Alternate site testing is discouraged in any situation where immediate action will be needed
based on the glucose reading, such as testing for hypoglycemia or in patients with hypoglycemia unawareness, wide fluctuations in
SMBG, or when the BG is known to be fluctuating, such as postprandially.
Choosing a meter for your patient depends most importantly on his or her dexterity, eye acuity, strip cost, and features that may be
important to him or her. Demonstrate to and then have the patient confirm the monitoring technique to minimize problems. Each meter
has specifications on hematocrit, elevation, whole blood versus plasma, and heat/cold tolerance. In addition, acetaminophen, ascorbate,
dopamine, mannitol, and sugar-based products may alter testing results. Consult the manufacturer materials for specifics.
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may be useful in select patients. CGM measures interstitial glucose, which lags behind capillary
SMBG, and the same cautions as alternate site testing should be followed. CGM can be useful in patients with frequent hypoglycemia or
hypoglycemic unawareness, nocturnal hypoglycemia, and for identification of fluctuating glucose patterns and/or previously unknown
problems in patients with higher or lower than expected HbA1c results. CGM still needs to be calibrated after insertion of a new sensor
and minimally every 12 hours with SMBG readings, alarms need to be properly set, and a new sensor must be placed every 3 to 7 days.
The ADA currently recommends that CGM can be considered in type 1 DM adults 25 years of age, and those <25 years of age, if
adherent to its use, and in others with the above issues noted.5

Nonpharmacologic Therapy
Medical nutrition therapy is recommended for all persons with DM and, along with activity, is a cornerstone of treatment.5 Paramount for
all medical nutrition therapy is the attainment of optimal metabolic outcomes and the prevention and treatment of complications. It is



imperative that patients understand the connection between carbohydrate intake, medications, and glucose control. For individuals with
type 1 DM, the focus is on physiologically regulating insulin administration with a balanced diet to achieve and maintain a healthy body
weight. A healthy meal plan that is moderate in carbohydrates and low in saturated fat (<7% of total calories), with a focus on balanced
meals delivering all of the essential vitamins and minerals, is recommended in DM. The amount (grams) and type (via the glycemic index,
though controversial) of carbohydrates, whether accounted for by exchanges or carbohydrate counting, should be considered. All foods
can be fit into a healthy meal plan, and the days of recommending no sweets are in the past. If a healthy weight and normal glucose goals
can be maintained, there is no reason to deny food choices. Overweight/obese patients with type 2 DM often require caloric restriction to
promote weight loss, and portion size and frequency are often issues. The specific diet appears to be less important than if the patient
will adhere to the diet, although low-fat diet for CVD or avoiding a high-protein diet in nephropathy may be appropriate. Rather than a set
diabetic diet, advocate a diet using foods that are within the financial reach and cultural milieu of the patient. Discourage bedtime and
between-meal snacks, set realistic goals for changes based on what the patient can/will change, and follow up to see how and if those
changes occurred.27
In general, most patients with DM can benefit from increased activity.28 Aerobic exercise improves insulin sensitivity and modestly
improves glycemic control in the majority of individuals, and reduces cardiovascular risk factors, contributes to weight loss or
maintenance, and improves well-being. The patient should choose an activity that he or she is likely to continue. Start exercise slowly in
previously sedentary patients. It remains unclear which asymptomatic patients should be screened for CVD prior to the beginning of an
exercise regimen. Patients with long-standing disease (age >35 years, or >25 years old with DM 10 years), patients with multiple
cardiovascular risk factors, presence of microvascular disease (especially renal disease), and patients with previous evidence of
atherosclerotic disease should have a cardiovascular evaluation, probably including an electrocardiogram, with further workup related to
CVD risk. In addition, several complications (uncontrolled hypertension, autonomic neuropathy, insensate feet, and retinopathy) may
require restrictions on the activities recommended. Physical activity goals include at least 150 min/wk of moderate (50% to 70% maximal
heart rate) intensity exercise spread over at least 3 days a week with no more than 2 days between activity. In addition,
resistance/strength training, in patients without retinal contraindications, is recommended to be added into this exercise regimen at least
two times a week.5

Pharmacologic Therapy
From the late 1970s to 1995, only two options for pharmacologic treatment were available for patients with diabetes: sulfonylureas (for
type 2 DM only) and insulin (for type 1 or 2). Since 1995, a number of new oral agents, injectables, and insulins have been introduced in
the United States.
The Look Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) trial recently reported that no decrease in cardiovascular outcomes from intensive
lifestyle changes in type 2 DM subjects was noted after 10 years of follow-up. In addition, intensive lifestyle was not able to obtain
intensive glycemic control in the majority of subjects, reiterating the need for early diabetes medication use in conjunction with diet and
exercise interventions.
Currently, nine classes of oral agents are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: -glucosidase inhibitors, biguanides,
meglitinides, peroxisome proliferatoractivated receptor (PPAR-) agonists (which are also commonly identified as thiazolidinediones
[TZDs] or glitazones), DPP-4 inhibitors, dopamine agonists, bile acid sequestrants, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, and
sulfonylureas. Oral antidiabetic agents are often grouped according to their glucose-lowering mechanism of action. Biguanides and TZDs
are often categorized as insulin sensitizers due to their ability to reduce insulin resistance. Sulfonylureas and meglitinides are often
categorized as insulin secretagogues because they enhance endogenous insulin release. Three injectable classes, including insulin, GLP1 receptor agonists, and amylinomimetics, are also available.

Drug Class Information


Insulin is an anabolic and anticatabolic hormone. It plays major roles in protein, carbohydrate, and fat metabolism. Endogenously
produced insulin is cleaved from the larger proinsulin peptide in the cell to the active peptide of insulin and inactive C-peptide. All
commercially available insulin preparations contain only the active insulin peptide.

Characteristics that are commonly used to categorize insulin preparations include source, strength, onset, and duration of action.
Additionally, insulin may be characterized as analog, defined as insulin preparations that had amino acids within the insulin molecule



modified and/or modifiers added to impart particular physiochemical and pharmacokinetic advantages. Table 57-8 summarizes
available insulin preparations.
Table 57-8 Available Injectable and Insulin Preparations




Administration Options

Humalog (insulin lispro)



Insulin pen 3 mL, vial, or 3-mL pen


28 days

NovoLog (insulin aspart)

Novo Nordisk


Insulin pen 3 mL, vial, or 3-mL pen


28 days

Apidra (insulin glulisine)



Insulin pen 3 mL, vial, or 3-mL pen


28 days

Humulin R (regular) available in

U-100 and U-500



U-100, 10-mL vial U-500, 20-mL


28 days

Novolin R (regular)

Novo Nordisk


10-mL vial

30 days

Humulin N



Vial, 3-mL prefilled pen

Vial: 28 days;
pen: 14 days

Novolin N

Novo Nordisk



30 days

Lantus (insulin glargine)



Vial, 3-mL pen, 3-mL pen cartridge

28 days

Levemir (insulin detemir)

Novo Nordisk


Vial, 3-mL prefilled pen

42 days



Vial, prefilled pen

Vial: 28 days;
pen: 10 days

Generic Name


Rapid-acting Insulins

Short-acting Insulins

Intermediate-acting Insulins

Long-acting Insulins

Premixed Insulins
Premixed insulin analogs
Humalog Mix 75/25 (75%
neutral protamine lispro, 25%
Novolog Mix 70/30 (70% aspart
protamine suspension, 30%

Novo Nordisk


Vial, 3-mL prefilled pen

Vial: 28 days;
others: 14

Humalog Mix 50/50 (50%

neutral protamine lispro/50%



Vial, 3-mL pen

Vial: 28 days;
pen: 10 days

NPHregular Combinations
Vial: 28 days;



Humulin 70/30



Vial, 3-mL prefilled pen

pen: 10 days

Novolin 70/30

Novo Nordisk



30 days

Byetta (exenatide)



5- and 10-mcg pen, 60 injections


30 days 25C

Victoza (liraglutide)

Novo Nordisk


3-mL pen, delivers 0.6-, 1.2-, or

1.8-mg dose

30 days

Bydureon (exenatide)



2-mg vial with separate diluent,

single-use system

30 days 25C



1.5-mL pen: delivers 15-, 30-, 45-,

or 60-mcg dose; 2.7-mL pen:
delivers 60- or 120-mcg dose

30 days

Other Injectables
Glucagon-like peptide-1
agonists (GLP-1 agonists)

Symlin (pramlintide)

aAll diabetes injectables available in the United States are now made by human
recombinant DNA technology. An insulin analog is a modified human insulin molecule that
imparts particular pharmacokinetic advantages.
bRoom temperature defined as 1530C (5986F). All products are good until expiration
date on product if unopened and stored correctly.
U-100 and U-500, 100 and 500 units/mL, respectively, are the strengths of injectable insulin currently available in the United States. U500 regular insulin is available for individuals who may require large doses of insulin to control their diabetes. In the United States, all
other insulin preparations are available only in U-100 strength. For some patients with type 1 diabetes who require extremely low doses of
insulin, dilution of U-100 insulin to obtain accurate insulin doses may be necessary. Diluents, instructions on dilution, and empty bottles
can be obtained from the manufacturers for dilution.
Historically, insulin came from either beef or pork sources. Manufacturers in the United States have discontinued production of beef and
pork source insulin preparations as of December 2003, and now exclusively use recombinant DNA technology to manufacture insulin. Eli
Lilly and Sanofi-Aventis currently use a nondisease-producing strain of Escherichia coli for synthesis of insulin, whereas Novo Nordisk
uses Saccharomyces cerevisiae, or bakers yeast, for synthesis.
Purity of insulin refers to the amount of proinsulin and other impurities present in a given insulin product. Prior to 1980, most insulin
contained enough impurities (300 to 10,000 ppm) to cause local reactions on injection, as well as systemic adverse effects from antibody
production. Modern technology has provided less expensive techniques to purify insulin. As a result, all insulin products contain 10 ppm
of proinsulin, with purified preparations (all recombinant DNA human insulin and insulin analogs) containing <1 ppm of proinsulin.
Regular crystalline insulin naturally self-associates into a hexameric (six insulin molecules) structure when injected subcutaneously. Before
absorption through a blood capillary can occur, the hexamer must dissociate first to dimers, and then to monomers. This principle is the
premise for additives such as protamine and zinc described below, and modification of amino acids for insulin analogs. Lispro, aspart,
and glulisine insulin preparations dissociate rapidly to monomers; thus, absorption is rapid. Lispro (B-28 lysine and B-29 proline human
insulin; monomeric) insulin with two amino acids transposed, aspart (B-28 aspartic acid human insulin; monomeric and dimeric) insulin
with replacement of one amino acid, and glulisine (B-3 lysine and B-29 glutamic acid) are rapidly absorbed, peak faster, and have shorter
durations of action when compared with regular insulin. Proteins tend to be insoluble near their isoelectric point, and glargine insulin uses



this to prolong absorption. In comparison to human insulin, with an isoelectric point of 5.4, the analog glargine insulin (A-21 glycine, B30a-arginine, B-30a L-arginine, and B-30b L-arginine human insulin) has an isoelectric point of 6.8. In the bottle, glargine is buffered to a
pH of 4, a level at which it is completely soluble, resulting in a clear colorless solution. When injected into the neutral pH of the body, it
rapidly forms microprecipitates that slowly dissolve into monomers and dimers that are then subsequently absorbed. The result is a longacting, approximately 24-hour duration insulin analog. Detemir, in contrast, attaches a C14 fatty acid (a 14-carbon fatty acid) at the B-29
position and removes the B-30 amino acid. This allows the fatty acid side chain to bind to interstitial albumin at the SQ injection site. Also,
the formulation allows stronger hexamer self-associations, which prolong absorption. Once detemir dissociates from the interstitial
albumin, it is free to enter a capillary, where it is again bound to albumin, which can further prolong action. It then travels to a site of
action and interacts, after dissociation from albumin, with insulin receptors.
Insulin analogs are modified human insulin molecules, and safety is paramount for FDA approval. Key factors that should be considered
in the approval process include local injection reactions, antigenicity, efficacy compared with human insulin, insulin receptor binding
affinity, and insulin-like growth factor 1receptor affinity (which is compared with that of human insulin to determine mitogenic potential).

Subcutaneous injection kinetics is dependent on onset, peak, and duration of action, and is summarized in Table 57-9. Absorption of
insulin from a subcutaneous depot is dependent on several factors, including source of insulin, concentration of insulin, additives to the
insulin preparations (e.g., zinc, protamine), blood flow to the area (rubbing of injection area, increased skin temperature, and exercise in
muscles near the injection site may enhance absorption), and injection site. Regular or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin is
commonly injected in (from most rapid to slowest absorption): abdominal fat, posterior upper arms, lateral thigh area, and superior
buttocks area. Insulin analogs, unlike regular or NPH insulin, appear to retain their kinetic profile at all sites of injection. U-500 regular
insulin has a delayed onset and peak, and a longer duration of action when compared with U-100 regular insulin; the pharmacokinetic
profile of U-500 is more similar to NPH.
Table 57-9 Pharmacokinetics of Various Insulins Administered Subcutaneously




Maximum Duration




















0.51 hours





24 hours






2 hours





45 hours




Type of Insulin
Rapid Acting

Short Acting
Long Acting

aGlargine is considered flat pharmacokinetically, and detemir has a slight peak, but both
have exhibited peak effects during comparative testing, and these peak effects may



necessitate changing therapy in a minority of type 1 DM patients.

Addition of protamine (NPH, NPL, and aspart protamine suspension) or excess zinc (historically lente or ultralente insulin) will delay onset,
peak, and duration of the insulins effect. Variability in absorption, inconsistent suspension of the insulin by the patient or healthcare
provider when drawing up a dose, and inherent insulin action based on the pharmacokinetics of the products may all contribute to a labile
glucose response. NPH insulin and all suspension-based insulin preparations should be inverted or rolled gently at least 10 times to fully
suspend the insulin prior to each use.
As detemir insulin has a unique mechanism to prolong absorption, it should not be surprising that the pharmacokinetics is unique.
Detemir insulin reported less intrapatient variability between injections when compared with NPH or glargine insulin. This may be
advantageous when variability in the insulin level may make a large difference in glycemic excursions, as in type 1 DM. It should be noted
that at low dose (0.2 unit/kg) the duration of action is approximately 14 to 16 hours, while at doses above 0.3 unit/kg, it is close to 24
hours. In type 1 DM, 30% to 50% of patients may require twice-daily use of detemir insulin to cover 24-hour basal insulin needs, but this
is unlikely to be an issue in type 2 DM patients, as they tend to use more units per day to attain glycemic goals. Direct comparative data
between glargine insulin and detemir insulin are difficult to interpret, as detemir insulin was allowed to be dosed twice daily. Equivalent
glycemic control was attained with either insulin. It is possible that glargine insulin in a minority of type 1 DM patients may require twicedaily dosing, but this is poorly documented in the literature.
The half-life of an IV injection of regular insulin is about 9 minutes. Thus, the effective duration of action of a single IV injection is short,
and changes in IV insulin rates will reach steady state in approximately 45 minutes. IV pharmacokinetics of other soluble insulin
preparations (lispro, aspart, glulisine, and even glargine) is similar to IV regular insulin, but they have no advantages over IV regular insulin
and are more expensive. For completeness, aspart, lispro, and glulisine are FDA approved for IV use.
Insulin is degraded in the liver, muscle, and kidney. Liver deactivation is 20% to 50% in a single passage. Approximately 15% to 20% of
insulin metabolism occurs in the kidney. This may partially explain the lower insulin dosage requirements in patients with end-stage renal
Currently, insulin must be injected to retain its glycemic lowering properties. Alternative absorption pathways, including pulmonary,
topical, GI, and even nasal, are being explored. The first inhalation insulin (Exubera) was discontinued due to poor sales and subsequent
reports of lung cancer. Technosphere inhaled insulin (Afrezza) was rejected by the FDA due to concerns regarding the redesign of their
delivery device. Additional trials are underway to assess the safety of the redesigned delivery device in patients with type 1 and type 2
DM. The onset of action is similar to IV insulin, which is unique.
Microvascular Complications

Insulin has been shown to be as efficacious as any oral agent for treating DM. The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS),
which used sulfonylureas or insulin, showed equal efficacy in lowering the risk of microvascular events in newly diagnosed type 2 DM.24
Similarly, in type 1 DM, the DCCT showed efficacy in reducing microvascular complications.23
Macrovascular Complications

The connection between high insulin levels (hyperinsulinemia), insulin resistance, and cardiovascular events incorrectly leads some
clinicians to believe that insulin therapy may cause macrovascular complications. Endogenous hyperinsulinemia in the setting of insulin
resistance has been linked to increased cardiovascular events; however, this is not the case with hyperinsulinemia due to exogenous
injectable insulin preparations. The UKPDS and DCCT found no differences in macrovascular outcomes with intensive insulin therapy.
One study, the Diabetes Mellitus, Insulin Glucose Infusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction study,29 reported reductions in mortality with
insulin therapy. This group assessed the effect of an insulinglucose infusion in type 2 DM patients who had experienced an acute
myocardial infarction (MI). Those randomized to insulin infusion followed by intensive insulin therapy lowered their absolute mortality risk
by 11% over a mean follow-up period of approximately 3 years. This was most evident in subjects who were insulin-nave or had a low
cardiovascular risk prior to the acute MI.29 The importance of glycemic control in hospitalized patients is covered later in the chapter.
Adverse Eects

The most common adverse effects reported with insulin are hypoglycemia and weight gain. Hypoglycemia is more common in patients on
intensive insulin therapy regimens versus those on less-intensive regimens. Also, patients with type 1 DM tend to have more
hypoglycemic events compared with type 2 DM patients. In the UKPDS study, performed over 10 years, the percentage of diabetic
patients who needed assistance (third-party or hospitalization) due to a hypoglycemic reaction was 2.3%. The UKPDS reported a rate of
36.5% for risk of any hypoglycemic event, including mild, self-treated events. In the DCCT, tighter control produced a risk three times
higher for severe hypoglycemia compared with conventional therapy. Moreover, insulin was associated with 14% of emergency



hospitalizations in older Americans using nationally representative public health surveillance data.30 Glycemic goals should incorporate
hypoglycemic risk versus the benefit of lowering the glucose when HbA1c levels are near normal, especially in type 1 DM.

Minimization of risk for patients on insulin should include education about the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia, proper treatment of
hypoglycemia, and BG monitoring. BG monitoring is essential for those on insulin, and is particularly of value in patients with
hypoglycemia unawareness. Patients with hypoglycemia unawareness do not experience the normal sympathetic symptoms of
hypoglycemia (tachycardia, tremulousness, and, often, sweating). Initial hypoglycemia symptoms are neuroglycopenic in nature
(confusion, agitation, loss of consciousness, and/or progression to coma). Patients with hypoglycemia unawareness should at least
temporarily raise their glycemic goals (requiring a reduction in insulin dose) and check their BG level prior to any activities that may be
dangerous with a low blood sugar (e.g., driving and certain sports, among others). Proper treatment of hypoglycemia dictates ingestion of
carbohydrates, with glucose being preferred. Unconsciousness is an indication for either IV glucose or glucagon injection, which
increases glycogenolysis in the liver. Glucagon use would be appropriate in any situation in which the patient does not have or cannot
have ready IV access for glucose administration. Education for reconstitution and injection of glucagon is recommended for close friends
and family of a patient who has recurrent neuroglycopenic events. The patient and close contacts should be informed that it can take 10
to 15 minutes for the injection to start raising glucose levels, and patients often vomit during this time. Proper positioning to avoid
aspiration should be emphasized.
Weight gain is predominantly from increased truncal fat, and tends to be related to daily dose and plasma insulin levels present. It is
undesirable in most type 2 DM patients, but may be seen as beneficial in underweight patients with type 1 DM. Weight gain appears to be
related to intensive insulin therapy, and can be somewhat minimized by physiologic replacement of insulin.
Two forms of lipodystrophy, although much less common today in people with diabetes, still occur. Lipohypertrophy is caused by many
injections into the same injection site. Due to insulins anabolic actions, a raised fat mass is present at the injection site with resultant
variable insulin absorption. Lipoatrophy, in contrast, is thought to be due to insulin antibodies or allergic-type reactions with destruction of
fat at the site of injection. In both cases, injection away from the site with more purified insulin is recommended, although reports of
lipoatrophy have been reported with most insulin preparations. Anecdotal evidence has shown that specially formulated cromolyn may
help to stabilize the allergic type of reaction.
One large study using administrative data found an association between insulin glargine and cancer. However, several other large
database studies and meta-analysis have shown no such association. Glargine in vitro has a higher affinity for IGF-1 than regular human
insulin, which could theoretically explain the increased risk of cancer, yet in vivo the metabolite of glargine is mostly present. The
metabolite has similar affinity for IGF-1 as regular insulin. However, in the observational retrospective study, confounding by indication,
selection, or detection bias in older patients may have played a greater role in the detection of cancer than the insulin glargine therapy.
Supporting this premise, when glargine was used in intensive insulin therapy regimens in healthier populations, no such association was
seen. Recently, the prospective, randomized Outcome Reduction with Initial Glargine Intervention trial reported no difference in cancer
risk or cardiovascular events with low-dose insulin glargine use over approximately 6 years.31 These data are not definitive, but
DrugDrug Interactions

There are no significant drugdrug interactions with injected insulin, although other medications that may affect glucose control can be
considered. Detemir does not have albumin binding interactions, as it occupies only a small percent of albumin binding sites. Table 57-10
lists common medications known to affect BG levels.
Table 57-10 Medications that may Affect Glycemic Control


Effect on


enzyme inhibitors

Slight reduction

Improves insulin sensitivity



Reduces hepatic glucose production



Decreases insulin sensitivity/induces counterregulatory hormones


Decrease insulin sensitivity; weight gain

Atypical antipsychotics



Calcineurin inhibitors


Decrease insulin secretion



Decreases insulin secretion, decreases peripheral glucose use

Diuretics (thiazides)


May increase insulin resistance and/or decrease insulin secretion,

K+ change may be in part responsible



Impairs insulin action



Unclear, potential drug interaction with sulfonylureas or change in

insulin secretion

Nicotinic acid


Impairs insulin action, increases insulin resistance

Oral contraceptives




Decrease, and
then increase

Toxic to cells; initial release of stored insulin, and then depletion



Decreases insulin secretion

Protease inhibitors (PI)


Worsen insulin resistance/decrease first-phase insulin release or

increase lipotoxicity. Dependent on PI


May increase

Decreases insulin secretion



Improves oxidative glucose disposal



Inhibition of IB kinase- (IKK-) (only high doses, e.g., 46 g/day)


Slight increase

Increased glycogenolysis and gluconeogenesis

aThis list is not inclusive of all medications reported to cause glucose changes.
Dosing and Administration

The dose of insulin for any person with altered glucose metabolism must be individualized. In type 1 DM, the average daily requirement
for insulin is 0.5 to 0.6 unit/kg, with approximately 50% being delivered as basal insulin, and the remaining 50% dedicated to meal
coverage. During the honeymoon phase it may fall to 0.1 to 0.4 unit/kg. During acute illness or with ketosis or states of relative insulin
resistance, higher dosages are warranted. In type 2 DM a higher dosage is required for those patients with significant insulin resistance.
Dosages vary widely depending on underlying insulin resistance and concomitant oral insulin sensitizer use. Strategies on how to initiate
and monitor insulin therapy will be described later in Therapeutics below.
U-500 regular insulin is reserved for use in patients with extreme insulin resistance and most often is given two or three times a day.
Caution must be used, however, in order to avoid errors in prescribing and dispensing U-500. In the inpatient setting, the prescription of
U-500 is often written in volume (mL) and administered using a tuberculin syringe. In an individual prescribed 50 units three times a day
before meals, this prescription would be written as follows: U-500 regular insulin, inject 50 units (0.1 mL) subcutaneously three times
daily before meals. In outpatients, however, it is often easier for patients to use U-100 insulin syringes. One unit of U-500 insulin drawn
up using the markings of a U-100 equals 5 units of insulin. The same prescription as described above would be written as follows: U-500
regular insulin: inject 50 units (10 units as measured by the unit markings of a U-100 syringe) subcutaneously three times daily before

It is recommended that unopened injectable insulin be refrigerated (2C to 8C [36F to 46F]) prior to use. The manufacturers expiration
date printed on the insulin is used for unopened, refrigerated insulin. Once the insulin is in use, the manufacturer-recommended
expiration dates will vary based on the insulin and delivery device. Table 57-8 outlines manufacturer-recommended expiration dates for
room temperature (15C to 30C [59F to 86F]) insulin. For financial reasons, patients may attempt to use insulin preparations longer than
their expiration dates, but careful attention must be paid to monitoring for glycemic control deterioration and signs of insulin decay



(clumping, precipitates, discoloration, etc.) if this is attempted.

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Agonists


Exendin 4 is a 39amino acid peptide isolated from the saliva of the Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum) and shares 53% amino acid
sequence with human GLP-1. Exenatide is the synthetic version of naturally occurring exendin 4. Exenatide (Byetta, Bydureon) has been
shown to bind to GLP-1 receptors in many parts of the body including the brain and pancreas but is more resistant to DPP-4 degradation
than endogenous GLP-1. Exenatide and GLP-1 have common glucoregulatory actions. The GLP-1 receptor activity of exenatide is
pharmacologic, however, and is approximately three to four times more than the normal peak physiologic GLP-1 activity. Exenatide
enhances insulin secretion in a glucose-dependent manner, suppressing inappropriately high postprandial glucagon secretion resulting in
decreased hepatic glucose production. It increases satiety, slows gastric emptying, and promotes weight loss.

There are two formulations of exenatide: exenatide injected twice daily (Byetta) and extended-release exenatide injected once weekly
The concentration of twice-daily exenatide is detectable in plasma within 10 to 15 minutes after subcutaneous injection, and the drug has
a tmax of 2 hours and a plasma half life of 3.3 to 4 hours. Plasma concentrations increase in a dose-dependent manner and
concentrations are detectable for up to 10 hours postinjection, although pharmacodynamically, effects last for approximately 6 hours.
Extended-release once-weekly exenatide has a prolonged duration of action due to the exenatide being contained in a suspension of
microspheres and gradually released over time. Following a single dose, exenatide is released from the microspheres over approximately
10 weeks. After initiation of once-weekly injections of 2 mg exenatide suspension, there is a gradual increase in plasma exenatide
concentration over 6 to 7 weeks, after which steady state is achieved.
Bioavailability of exenatide after injection in the abdomen, upper arm, or the thigh is similar. Elimination of exenatide is primarily by
glomerular filtration with subsequent proteolytic degradation. When exenatide is administered to subjects with worsening degrees of renal
insufficiency, there is a progressive prolongation of the half-life, and in dialysis patients, plasma clearance of exenatide is markedly
reduced. The incidence of GI side effects appears to be increased in individuals with impaired renal function, possibly due to higher
plasma levels; thus, caution is advised.
No significant differences in exenatide pharmacokinetics have been observed with obesity, race, gender, or advancing age.

The average HbA1c reduction is approximately 0.9% (0.009; 10 mmol/mol Hb) with twice-daily exenatide, similar to oral agents, but
HbA1c lowering is dependent on baseline values. Some patients will have greater or lesser reduction in HbA1c. Similar HbA1c reduction
is seen in patients on oral agents. Once-weekly extended-release exenatide resulted in significantly greater changes from baseline
compared with twice-daily exenatide in HbA1c (1.6% vs. 0.9% [0.016 vs. 0.009; 18 mmol/mol Hb vs. 10 mmol/mol Hb) and FPG
(35 mg/dL vs. 12 mg/dL [1.9 mmol/L vs. 0.7 mmol/L]).32
Exenatide significantly decreases postprandial glucose excursions, but has only a modest effect on FPG values. If a patient has
significant elevations in FPG levels, these should be corrected with other agents and then exenatide added later. It is recommended to
lower the sulfonylurea dose only if GLP-1 agonists are started with near-normal glucose levels. Sulfonylureas release insulin in a non
glucose-dependent fashion and can cause hypoglycemia.
Exenatide may aid some patients efforts to lose weight. The average weight loss in controlled trials of twice-daily exenatide was 1 to 2 kg
over 30 weeks, without dietary advice being given to the patients. Long-term, open-label follow-up on 10 mcg twice a day shows
continued and sustained weight loss for at least 3 years. Approximately 84% of patients on exenatide lost some weight. Exenatide,
through decreasing appetite and slowing gastric emptying, may reduce the number of calories a patient eats at a meal. If a patient does
not decrease calorie intake, no weight loss is likely to occur, as exenatide does not increase caloric expenditure.
Microvascular Complications

Exenatide reduces the HbA1c level, which has been shown to be related to the risk of microvascular complications.
Macrovascular Complications

No randomized clinical trials have examined the effect of exenatide on long-term cardiovascular outcomes. However, improvements in



several cardiovascular risk factors have been reported. In an open-label study of exenatide 10 mcg twice a day, triglycerides (37 10
mg/dL [0.42 0.11 mmol/L]) decreased, and HDL cholesterol (+4.5 0.4 mg/dL [0.12 0.01 mmol/L]) increased. Once-weekly
extended-release exenatide resulted in greater reduction in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol compared with twice-daily exenatide.33
Nonsignificant reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure have been observed; a significant reduction was seen in subjects with
above-normal systolic blood pressure. The greatest improvement in cardiovascular risk factors was, in general, seen in subjects who had
the greatest weight loss.
Adverse Eects

The most common adverse effects associated with exenatide are GI. Nausea is more likely with twice-daily exenatide (>35%) compared
with once-weekly extended-release exenatide (14%). Vomiting or diarrhea occurs in approximately 10% of patients on twice-daily
exenatide. As these adverse effects appear to be dose related, the patient on twice-a-day exenatide should be started on 5 mcg twice a
day and titrated to 10 mcg twice a day only if the adverse effects have resolved. When the patient is increased to the 10 mcg twice a day
dose, these adverse effects may recur for a short period of time. GI adverse effects appear to decrease over time. However,
approximately 1 in 20 patients on twice-daily exenatide have prolonged problems with side effects, possibly requiring discontinuation or
transition to once-weekly extended-release exenatide.
Many episodes of nausea are better characterized as stomach fullness. Patients should be instructed to eat slowly and stop eating when
full, or risk nausea/vomiting. Weight loss does not appear to be related to adverse effects, but rather to a reduction in calories consumed.
Exenatide provides glucose-dependent insulin secretion; thus, hypoglycemic rates when combined with metformin or a TZD are not
substantially increased. However, when combined with a sulfonylurea or insulin, hypoglycemia may occur. Although exenatide reduces
glucagon when the glucose is high, there is no suppression of counterregulatory hormones during hypoglycemia. Exenatide antibodies
can occur, but generally decrease over time and usually do not affect glycemic control. In approximately 5% of patients, titers may
increase over time, potentially resulting in a deterioration of glycemic control.
Exenatide has been associated with cases of acute pancreatitis, but this has not been shown to be causal. Further study is needed,
however, and several important points should be noted: (a) patients with type 2 DM often have risk factors for pancreatitis such as
gallstones, hypertriglyceridemia, obesity, and concomitant medication use; (b) GLP-1 agonists could mask initial signs of pancreatitis,
including nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain; and (c) large database studies have not linked exenatide to a higher rate of acute
pancreatitis. In a patient with a history of pancreatitis, the benefits of using exenatide must be weighed against potential risks. If a patient
with abdominal pain, nausea, and/or vomiting presents, it is best to discontinue exenatide temporarily and confirm that the symptoms are
not a sign of a more serious underlying problem. Exenatide given twice daily does not change the risk of thyroid C-cell tumors in rats and
does not have a black box warning; no increased risk of C-cell tumors has been reported in humans. Extended-release exenatide has a
black box warning in regards to thyroid C-cell tumors due to rat data. The difference appears to be that the extended release continually
stimulates the GLP-1 receptor on the thyroid of rodents, increasing the risk of thyroid C-cell tumors. No tumors have been reported in
There have been reports of injection site reactions with extended-release once-weekly exenatide. Nodule injection site reactions are not
painful and are often not visible, but can be felt at the injection site, which may have been injected 2 to 4 weeks prior. These nodules are
an aggregation of the microspheres subcutaneously, not an immune reaction, and they may last 6 to 8 weeks. Injection site erythema,
which can be severe in some cases, is related to exenatide antibody status (potentially worse if very high titers) or may be due to the
platform, as this reaction is well described with the poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) microsphere material.
Drug Interactions

Exenatide delays gastric emptying; if the patient has gastroparesis, exenatide is not recommended. Exenatide can also delay the
absorption of other medications. Examples of medications that may be effected include oral pain medications and antibiotics dependent
on concentration-dependent efficacy. If rapid absorption of the medication is necessary, it is best to take the mediation 1 hour before, or
at least 3 hours after, the injections of twice-daily exenatide. There have been postmarketing reports of increased INR in patients on
warfarin on exenatide, sometimes associated with bleeding. It is advised that INR be monitored frequently until stable on initiation of
Dosing and Administration

Dosing of twice-daily exenatide (Byetta) should begin with 5 mcg twice a day, and titrated to 10 mcg twice a day in 1 month or when
tolerability allows and if warranted for glycemic control. Twice-daily exenatide should be injected subcutaneously 0 to 60 minutes before
the morning and evening meals. If the patient does not eat breakfast, he or she may take the first injection of the day at lunch. The peak
effect of twice-daily exenatide is at approximately 2 hours, so anecdotally the patient may get better appetite suppression if injected an
hour prior to the meal.
The dosing of extended-release exenatide (Bydureon) is 2 mg suspension injected subcutaneously every 7 days, at any time of day, with



or without meals. Extended-release exenatide is injected immediately after the powder is suspended in the diluent. The process of
extended-release once-weekly exenatide injections is more complex than using the twice-daily exenatide pen. Patients must be
instructed on self-administration.
Exenatide may be injected in abdomen, thigh, or upper arm region, but patients are advised to use a different injection site when injecting
into the same region.
Storage and dosage availability information can be found in Table 57-8.

Liraglutide (Victoza) is a GLP-1 receptor agonist that has 97% amino acid sequence homology to endogenous GLP-1. The only alteration
is an arginine substituted for lysine at position 34. A C-16 fatty acid (palmitic acid) is attached at position 26 (with a glutamic amino acid
spacer to optimize GLP-1 receptor interaction) so that liraglutide can bind noncovalently to albumin, prolonging the half-life.
Liraglutide enhances glucose-dependent insulin secretion while suppressing inappropriately high glucagon secretion in the presence of
elevated glucose concentrations, resulting in a reduction in hepatic glucose production. Liraglutide reduces food intake, which may result
in weight loss, and slows gastric emptying so that the rate of glucose appearance into the plasma better matches the glucose disposition.
During hypoglycemia, liraglutide does not stimulate insulin secretion and does not inhibit the release of the counterregulatory hormone

After injection of liraglutide, there is self-association into a heptameric structure, binding to albumin first in the interstitial space, then in
the blood, and then in the interstitial space around the GLP-1 receptor that prolongs the half-life. In healthy individuals, the half-life is 13
hours, making it suitable for daily administration. Injection into the abdomen, upper arm, and thigh gives clinically similar
pharmacokinetics. Maximum concentrations are reached approximately 8 to 12 hours after injection, with steady state reached after
approximately 3 days. Liraglutide is extensively plasma protein bound (mostly to albumin as previously stated) with an elimination half-life
of 10 to 18 hours. The absolute bioavailability is approximately 50%.
The metabolism of liraglutide appears to be by degradation, similar to other large proteins, and several small minor metabolites (total of
3% to 5% of the dose) may be found. The DPP-4 enzyme in vitro has been shown to slowly metabolize liraglutide, and this may be the
case in vivo as well.
The pharmacokinetics of liraglutide does not appear to be affected by age, race, and gender. Severe renal or mild to severe hepatic
impairment may actually lower the AUC by approximately 25%, although the clinical significance of this is not known.

The average HbA1c reduction is approximately 1.1% (0.0011; 12 mmol/mol Hb) with liraglutide. Similar to other agents, the reduction in
HbA1c is dependent on the baseline values. Liraglutide lowers FPG level by approximately 25 to 40 mg/dL (1.4 to 2.2 mmol/L), and
postprandial plasma glucose levels are reduced similarly. Due to the longer half-life, liraglutide can suppress glucagon overnight, which
improves the FPG. Similar to exenatide, liraglutide-treated patients may lose weight. The average weight loss in controlled trials was 1 to
3 kg over 26 weeks, and weight loss achieved appeared to be sustained through 2 years. Liraglutide, through decreasing appetite and
slowing gastric emptying, may reduce the number of calories a patient eats at a meal.
Microvascular Complications

Liraglutide reduces the HbA1c level, which has been shown to be related to the risk of microvascular complications.
Macrovascular Complications

There are no published clinical trials examining the effect of liraglutide on long-term cardiovascular outcomes; however, no signal of
cardiovascular harm was noted on FDA approval.
Adverse Eects

The most common adverse effects associated with liraglutide are GI. Nausea occurs in 11% to 29% of subjects on 1.2 mg, and 14% to
40% of subjects on 1.8 mg daily. Vomiting occurs in approximately 5% of subjects, and diarrhea occurs in approximately 8% to 15% of
patients placed on liraglutide. GI adverse effects appear to decrease over time, but approximately 5% to 10% of subjects withdrew due
to GI side effects. As these adverse effects appear to be dose related, the patient should be titrated from 0.6 to 1.2 mg, and to 1.8 mg as
tolerated. Randomized trials did not allow for individualized titration, and likely had worse tolerability that can be obtained clinically by
individualization of titration.



Many episodes of nausea would be better characterized as stomach fullness. To minimize GI side effects, patients should be instructed
to eat slowly and stop eating when full, or risk nausea/vomiting. Liraglutide provides glucose-dependent insulin secretion, and
hypoglycemic rates when combined with metformin a TZD are not substantially increased, but when combined with a sulfonylurea or
insulin, significant hypoglycemia may occur. When combined with a sulfonylurea, the rates of hypoglycemia were similar between
addition of liraglutide and that of glargine insulin. Liraglutide antibodies can occur (4% to 13%), but the rates are generally low and do not
affect glycemic control or risk of side effects.
Liraglutide has been associated with the serious adverse event of acute pancreatitis, but causality has not been proven. Further study is
needed, but type 2 DM patients have many risk factors for pancreatitis and the common GI side effects of GLP-1 agonists could mask
initial signs of pancreatitis. If a patient with abdominal pain, nausea, and/or vomiting presents, it is best to discontinue liraglutide
temporarily and if symptoms persist, evaluate for other potential causes, including pancreatitis. Clinicians must weigh the benefits of
liraglutide against the potential risks in a patient with a history of pancreatitis.
A boxed warning about thyroid C-cell tumors (as with extended-release exenatide) is listed in the package insert of liraglutide. Rodent
models reported a higher risk of C-cell tumors of the thyroid, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. Rodents may not be the ideal model
to study this effect as they express a high number of GLP-1 receptors on thyroid C-cells, whereas in humans the expression of GLP-1
receptors in the thyroid is minimal. Rodents also have a higher baseline prevalence of C-cell tumors compared with humans. In addition,
calcitonin, a marker used to screen for C-cell tumors, may increase by a nonclinically significant amount in select patients. No signal for
C-cell tumors in humans or nonhuman primates has been noted thus far. As clinical use increases, however, this will continue to be
examined. Currently no specific additional monitoring of patients is recommended. Nonetheless, liraglutide is contraindicated in patients
with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, and in those with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndromes.
Drug Interactions

Liraglutide delays gastric emptying; thus, it can delay the absorption of other medications. Examples of medications that may be effected
include oral pain medications and antibiotics dependent on threshold levels for efficacy. If rapid absorption of the medication is
necessary, it is best to take the mediation 1 hour before, or at least 3 hours after, the injection. Liraglutide may worsen gastroparesis and
clinically it may not be prudent to use in this patient population.
Dosing and Administration

The dosing of liraglutide should begin with 0.6 mg daily for 1 week, and then increased to 1.2 mg daily for 1 week. Patients may be
maintained on the 1.2-mg dose, or increased to the maximum dose of 1.8 mg daily after 1 week. The 0.6-mg dose is considered a
titration dose, and does not reduce the HbA1c substantially in the majority of patients. This titration is recommended to improve GI
tolerability. Titration should be individualized based on side effects and clinical response. Liraglutide is dosed once daily, and may be
given independent of meals. As with exenatide, a reduction in insulin secretagogues and insulin may be necessary if the patient is near
glycemic goal or hypoglycemia occurs.
Storage and dosage availability information can be found in Table 57-8.


Pramlintide (Symlin) is an antihyperglycemic agent used in patients currently treated with insulin. Pramlintide is a synthetic analog of
amylin (amylinomimetic), a neurohormone cosecreted from the cells with insulin. Amylin is very low or absent in type 1 DM, and lower
than normal in type 2 DM patients requiring insulin therapy. Pramlintide is provided as a 37amino acid polypeptide, which differs in
amino acid sequence from human amylin by replacement positions 25 (alanine), 28 (serine), and 29 (serine) with proline. Pramlintide
suppresses inappropriately high postprandial glucagon secretion, increases satiety, which may result in weight loss, and slows gastric
emptying so that the rate of glucose appearance into the plasma better matches the glucose disposition.

The absolute bioavailability of pramlintide after subcutaneous injection is 30% to 40%. The tmax is approximately 20 minutes, but the
Cmax is dose dependent. The t1/2 is approximately 45 minutes; thus, the pharmacodynamic duration of action is about 3 to 4 hours.
Pramlintide does not extensively bind to albumin, and should not have significant binding interactions. Metabolism is primarily by the
kidneys, and one active metabolite (2-37 pramlintide) has a similar half-life as the parent compound. No accumulation has been seen in
renal insufficiency, but caution is advised. Injection into the arm may increase exposure and variability of absorption, so injection into the
abdomen or thigh is recommended. Moderate to severe renal insufficiency does not affect exposure.



The average HbA1c reduction is approximately 0.6% (0.006; 7 mmol/mol Hb) with pramlintide, although optimization of the insulin and
pramlintide doses may result in further drops in HbA1c. If the 120-mcg dose is used in type 2 DM patients on insulin, it may also result in
1.5-kg weight loss. In type 1 DM patients, the average reduction in HbA1c was 0.4% to 0.5% (0.004 to 0.005; 5 to 6 mmol/mol Hb).
Prandial pramlintide added versus rapid-acting insulin in type 2 DM subjects uncontrolled on basal insulin reported similar efficacy, but
with no weight gain, compared with 5-kg weight gain with rapid-acting insulin. Pramlintide decreases prandial glucose excursions, but
has little effect on the FPG concentration. When pramlintide is injected before the meal, gastric emptying may delay absorption of
mealtime nutrients, necessitating delay of rapid-acting insulin. This may be overcome by injecting the mealtime insulin at the conclusion
of the meal, or whenever the BG starts to rise. The average weight loss in controlled trials was 1 to 2 kg, without dietary advice being
given to the patients. Pramlintide, through decreasing appetite, may reduce the number of calories a patient eats at a meal.
Microvascular Complications

Pramlintide reduces the HbA1c level, which has been shown to be related to the risk of microvascular complications.
Macrovascular Complications

No published clinical trials have examined the effect of pramlintide on cardiovascular outcomes.
Adverse Eects

The most common adverse effects associated with pramlintide are GI in nature. Nausea occurs in 20% of type 2 DM patients, and
vomiting or anorexia occurs in approximately 10% of type 1 or type 2 DM patients. Nausea is more common in type 1 DM, occurring in
40% to 50% of patients. The higher rates in type 1 DM related to GI adverse effects appear to decrease over time and are dose related;
thus, starting at a low dose and slowly titrating as tolerated is recommended. Pramlintide alone does not cause hypoglycemia, but it is
indicated for use in patients on insulin; thus, hypoglycemia can occur. The risk of severe hypoglycemia early in therapy is higher in type 1
DM than in type 2 DM patients. A twofold increase in severe hypoglycemic reactions in type 1 DM patients has been reported.
Drug Interactions

Pramlintide delays gastric emptying; thus, it can delay the absorption of other medications. Examples of medications that may be
effected include oral pain medications and antibiotics dependent on threshold levels for efficacy. If rapid absorption of the medication is
necessary, it is best to take the mediation 1 hour before, or at least 3 hours after, the injection of pramlintide.
Dosing and Administration

Pramlintide dosing varies in type 1 and type 2 DM. It is imperative that the prandial insulin dose, if used, be reduced 30% to 50% when
pramlintide is started to minimize severe hypoglycemic reactions or delayed until postprandial glucose levels rise. Basal insulin may need
to be adjusted only if the FPG is close to normal. In type 2 DM, the starting dose is 60 mcg prior to meals, and may be titrated to the
maximally recommended 120-mcg dose as tolerated and warranted based on postprandial plasma glucose concentrations. At least one
clinical trial started at the 120-mcg dose without significantly more intolerability. In type 1 DM, dosing starts at 15 mcg prior to meals, and
can be titrated up in 15-mcg increments to a maximum of 60 mcg prior to each meal if tolerated and warranted. Snacks may or may not
need to be covered with pramlintide (recommended if 250 kcal [1,046 kJ] or 30 g of carbohydrate is eaten). Storage information can
be found in Table 57-8.

The primary mechanism of action of sulfonylureas is enhancement of insulin secretion. Sulfonylureas bind to a specific sulfonylurea
receptor (SUR) on pancreatic cells. Binding closes an adenosine triphosphatedependent K+ channel, leading to decreased potassium
efflux and subsequent depolarization of the membrane. Voltage-dependent Ca2+ channels open and allow an inward flux of Ca2+.
Increases in intracellular Ca2+ bind to calmodulin on insulin secretory granules, causing translocation of secretory granules of insulin to
the cell surface and resultant exocytosis of the granule of insulin. Elevated secretion of insulin from the pancreas travels via the portal vein
and subsequently suppresses hepatic glucose production.

Sulfonylureas are classified as first-generation and second-generation agents. The classification scheme is largely derived from
differences in relative potency, potential for selective side effects, and differences in binding to serum proteins (i.e., risk for proteinbinding displacement drug interactions). First-generation agents consist of acetohexamide, chlorpropamide, tolazamide, and tolbutamide.
Each of these agents is lower in potency relative to the second-generation drugs: glimepiride, glipizide, and glyburide (Table 57-11). It is
important to recognize that all sulfonylureas are equally effective at lowering BG when administered in equipotent doses.



Table 57-11 Oral Agents for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Starting Dosage
Drug Namea







1,500 mg/day

Metabolized in
liver; metabolite
potency equal
to parent

500 mg/day

Metabolized in
liver; also

1,000 mg/day

Metabolized in
liver; metabolite
less active than




Tolazamide (Y)




250, 500 mg

100, 250 mg





100, 250, 500





3,000 mg/day

Metabolized in
liver to inactive
metabolites that
are renally

Tolbutamide (Y)


250, 500 mg


Glipizide (Y)


5, 10 mg

5 mg/day


40 mg/day

Metabolized in
liver to inactive

Glipizide (Y)


2.5, 5, 10, 20

5 mg/day


20 mg/day

form; do not cut

20 mg/day

Metabolized in
liver; elimination
one half renal,
one half feces.
two active

Glyburide (Y)


1.25, 2.5, 5

5 mg/day


12 mg/day

absorption from

8 mg/day

Metabolized in
liver to inactive

micronized (Y)


1.5, 3, 6 mg

3 mg/day


Glimepiride (Y)


1, 2, 4 mg






Nateglinide (Y)

Repaglinide (N)

120 mg three
times a day

Metabolized by
P450 (CYP450)
2C9 and 3A4 to
weakly active


16 mg/day

Caution with
gemfibrozil or


2,550 mg/day

No metabolism;
renally secreted
and excreted

2,550 mg/day

Take full dose

with evening
meal or may
split dose; may
consider trial if
intolerant to

2,000 mg/day

Metformin is
indicated in
children 10
years old

45 mg/day

Metabolized by
CYP2C8 and
3A4; two active
have longer
half-lives than

8 mg/day or 4
mg twice a day

Continuation of
therapy or
unable to take
sign that known
risk of MI

60, 120 mg

with meals



0.05, 1, 2 mg

with meals


500, 850,
1,000 mg

500 mg
twice a day


Metformin (Y)

Metformin ER (Y)




500, 750,
1,000 mg

mg with


500 mg/5 mL

500 mg



Pioglitazone (Y)

Rosiglitazone (N)



15, 30, 45 mg

2, 4, 8 mg

15 mg/day



2 mg/day




Acarbose (Y)

Miglitol (N)



25, 50, 100


25 mg one
to three
times a day

25 mg
one to
times a

25100 mg
three times a

Eliminated in
bile. Slow
titration key for
tolerability. With

25, 50, 100


25 mg one
to three
times a day

25 mg
one to
times a

25100 mg
three times a


100 mg daily

50 mg daily if
clearance >30
to <50 mL/min
(>0.50 to <0.83
mL/s); 25 mg if
clearance <30
mL/min (<0.50

5 mg daily

2.5 mg daily if
clearance <50
mL/min (<0.83
mL/s) or if on
strong inhibitors
of CYP3A4/5

5 mg daily

eliminated by
renal, found in
feces. Do not
use with strong
inducer of

25 mg

75% eliminated
unchanged in
urine. 12.5 mg
CrCl <60
mL/min (<1
mL/s), 6.25 mg
<3015 mL/min

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors)

Sitagliptin (N)

Saxagliptin (N)

Linagliptin (N)

Alogliptin (N)





100, 50, 25

2.5, 5 mg

5 mg

25, 12.5, 6.25


100 mg

mg daily
based on

5 mg daily

2.55 mg
based on

5 mg daily

25 mg daily

5 mg daily

25 mg

Bile acid

daily or


may occur.
Take with meal.


Colesevelam (N)


1.875- and
3.75-g oral

twice a
1.875 g
twice a
day or
3.75 g

a day
a day
3.75 g

3.75 g/day

present, may
if TG>500
mg/dL (>5.65

Dopamine agonist

mesylate (N)


0.8-mg tablets

1.64.8 mg

mg daily

4.8 mg daily

Take within 2
hours of rising
with food.
nausea, other
side effects,
and drugdrug,
may occur

aGeneric version available? Y, yes; N, no.


All sulfonylureas are metabolized in the liver, some to active and others to inactive metabolites. Glyburide metabolites are active, whereas
glipizide and glimepiride do not have active metabolites. Cytochrome P450 (CYP450) 2C9 is involved with the hepatic metabolism of the
majority of sulfonylureas. Agents with active metabolites or parent drug that are renally excreted require dosage adjustment or use with
caution in patients with compromised renal function. The half-life of the sulfonylurea also relates directly to the risk for hypoglycemia. The
hypoglycemic potential is therefore higher with chlorpropamide and glyburide. The long duration of effect of chlorpropamide may be
particularly problematic in elderly individuals, whose renal function declines with age, and therefore it has great potential for
accumulation, resulting in severe and protracted hypoglycemia. Individuals at high risk for hypoglycemia (e.g., elderly individuals and
those with renal insufficiency or advanced liver disease) should be started at a very low dose of a sulfonylurea with a short half-life.
Hypoglycemia on low-dose sulfonylureas may dictate a therapy without the risk of hypoglycemia.

As mentioned earlier, when given in equipotent doses, all sulfonylureas are equally effective at lowering BG. On average, HbA1c will fall
1.5% to 2% (0.015 to 0.020; 17 to 22 mmol/mol Hb) in drug-nave patients, with FPG reductions of 60 to 70 mg/dL (3.3 to 3.9 mmol/L),
but is dependent on baseline values and duration of diabetes. A majority of patients will not reach glycemic goals with sulfonylurea
monotherapy. Patients with inadequate control on a sulfonylurea usually fall into two groups: those with low C-peptide levels and high
(>250 mg/dL [>13.9 mmol/L]) FPG levels. These patients are often primary failures on sulfonylureas (<30 mg/dL [<1.7 mmol/L] drop of
FPG) and have significant glucose toxicity or LADA. The other group is those with a good initial response (>30 mg/dL [>1.7 mmol/L] drop
of FPG), but which is insufficient to reach their glycemic goals. Over 75% of patients fall into the second group. Factors that portend a
positive response include newly diagnosed patients with no indicators of type 1 DM, high fasting C-peptide levels, and moderate fasting
hyperglycemia (<250 mg/dL [<13.9 mmol/L]).
Microvascular Complications

Sulfonylureas showed a reduction of microvascular complications in type 2 DM patients in the UKPDS.24 A more in-depth discussion
follows later in the chapter.
Macrovascular Complications

The UKPDS reported no significant benefit or harm in newly diagnosed type 2 DM patients given sulfonylureas over 10 years. The



University Group Diabetes Program study documented higher rates of coronary artery disease in type 2 patients given tolbutamide, when
compared with patients given insulin or placebo, although this study has been widely criticized.34 Some sulfonylureas bind to the SUR2A receptor that is found in cardiac tissue. Binding to the SUR-2A receptor has been implicated in blocking ischemic preconditioning via
K+ channel closure in the heart. Ischemic preconditioning is the premise that prior ischemia in cardiac tissue can provide greater
tolerance of subsequent ischemia. Thus, patients with heart disease potentially have one compensatory mechanism to protect the heart
from ischemia blocked. Conclusions are controversial, but alternative treatments are available if questioned.
Adverse Eects

The most common side effect of sulfonylureas is hypoglycemia. The pretreatment FPG is a strong predictor of hypoglycemic potential.
The lower the FPG is on initiation, the higher the potential for hypoglycemia. Also, in addition to the high-risk individuals outlined in
Pharmacokinetics below, those who skip meals, exercise vigorously, or lose substantial amounts of weight are also more likely to
experience hypoglycemia.
Hyponatremia (serum sodium <129 mEq/L [129 mmol/L]) is reportedly associated with tolbutamide, but it is most common with
chlorpropamide and occurs in as many as 5% of individuals treated. An increase in antidiuretic hormone secretion is the mechanism for
hyponatremia. Risk factors include age >60 years, female gender, and concomitant use of thiazide diuretics.
Weight gain is common with sulfonylureas. In essence, patients who are no longer glycosuric and who do not reduce caloric intake with
improvement of BG will store excess calories. Other notable, although much less common, adverse effects of sulfonylureas are skin rash,
hemolytic anemia, GI upset, and cholestasis. Disulfiram-type reactions and flushing have been reported with tolbutamide and
chlorpropamide when alcohol is consumed.
Drug Interactions

Several drugs are thought to interact with sulfonylureas, most likely through the CYP450 system or altered renal excretion. Proteinbinding changes should occur shortly after the interacting medication is given, as the concentration of free (thus active) sulfonylurea will
acutely increase. First-generation sulfonylureas, which bind to proteins ionically, are more likely to cause drugdrug interactions than
second-generation sulfonylureas, which bind nonionically. The clinical importance of protein-binding interactions has been questioned, as
the majority of these drug interactions have been found to be truly due to hepatic metabolism. Drugs that are inducers or inhibitors of
CYP450 2C9 should be monitored carefully when used with a sulfonylurea.35 Additionally, other drugs known to alter BG should be
considered (Table 57-10).
Dosing and Administration

The usual starting dose and maximum dose of sulfonylureas are summarized in Table 57-11. Lower dosages are recommended for most
agents in elderly patients and those with compromised renal or hepatic function. The dosage can be titrated as soon as every 2 weeks
based on FPG values (use a longer interval with chlorpropamide) to achieve glycemic goals. This is possible due to the rapid increase of
insulin secretion in response to the sulfonylurea. Of note, immediate-release glipizides maximal dose is 40 mg/day, but its maximal
effective dose is about 10 to 15 mg/day. The maximal effective dose of sulfonylureas tends to be about 60% to 75% of their stated
maximum dose.
Short-Acting Insulin Secretagogues

Although the binding site is adjacent to the binding site of sulfonylureas, nateglinide and repaglinide stimulate insulin secretion from the
cells of the pancreas, similarly to sulfonylureas. Both repaglinide (a benzoic acid derivative) and nateglinide (a phenylalanine amino acid
derivative) require the presence of glucose to stimulate insulin secretion. As glucose levels diminish to normal, stimulated insulin secretion

Both nateglinide and repaglinide are rapid-acting insulin secretagogues that are rapidly absorbed (0.5 to 1 hour) and have a short half-life
(1 to 1.5 hours). Nateglinide is highly protein bound, primarily to albumin, but also to 1-acid glycoprotein. It is predominantly metabolized
by CYP2C9 (70%) and CYP3A4 (30%) to less active metabolites. Glucuronide conjugation then allows rapid renal elimination. No dosage
adjustment is needed in moderate to severe renal insufficiency. Repaglinide is highly protein bound, and is mainly metabolized by
oxidative metabolism and glucuronidation. The CYP3A4 and 2C8 systems have been shown to be involved with metabolism.
Approximately 90% of repaglinide is eliminated in the feces, with only 10% found in the urine. Moderate to severe renal insufficiency does
not appear to affect repaglinide, but moderate to severe hepatic impairment may prolong exposure.



In monotherapy, both significantly reduce postprandial glucose excursions and reduce HbA1c levels. Repaglinide, dosed 4 mg three
times a day, when compared with glyburide in diet-treated, drug-nave patients reduced HbA1c levels less (1% vs. 2.4% [0.01 vs. 0.024;
11 mmol/mol Hb vs. 26 mmol/mol Hb], from baseline, respectively). Nateglinide, dosed 120 mg three times a day, in a similar population
reduced HbA1c values by 0.8% (0.008; 9 mmol/mol Hb). The lower efficacy of these agents versus sulfonylureas should be considered
when patients are >1% (>0.01; >11 mmol/mol Hb) above their HbA1c goal. These agents can be used to provide increased insulin
secretion during meals, when it is needed, in patients close to glycemic goals. Also, it should be noted that addition of either agent to a
sulfonylurea will not result in any improvement in glycemic parameters.
Adverse Eects

Hypoglycemia is the main side effect noted with both agents. Hypoglycemic risk appears to be less versus sulfonylureas. In part, this is
due to the glucose-sensitive release of insulin. If the glucose concentration is normal, less glucose-stimulated release of insulin will occur.
In two separate studies, nateglinide rates of hypoglycemia were 3% and repaglinide 15% versus glyburide and glipizide rates of 15% and
19%, respectively. Weight gain of 2 to 3 kg has been noted with repaglinide, whereas weight gain with nateglinide appears to be <1 kg.
Drug Interactions

Glycemic control and hypoglycemia should be closely monitored when glucuronidation inhibitors are given with repaglinide. Gemfibrozil
more than doubles the half-life of repaglinide and has resulted in prolonged hypoglycemic reactions. It is a potent glucuronidation
inhibitor and CYP2C8 inhibitor. Trimethoprim, a CYP2C8 inhibitor, increased repaglinide levels by 60%. Nateglinide appears to be a weak
inhibitor of CYP2C9 based on tolbutamide metabolism. Although no significant drugdrug interactions have been reported, caution
should be used with strong CYP2C9 and CYP3A4 inhibitors.
Dosing and Administration

Nateglinide and repaglinide should be dosed prior to each meal (up to 30 minutes prior). The recommended starting dose for repaglinide
is 0.5 mg in subjects with HbA1c <8% (<0.08; <64 mmol/mol Hb) or treatment-nave patients, increased weekly to a total maximum daily
dose of 16 mg (see Table 57-11). The maximal effective dose of repaglinide is likely 2 mg with each meal, as a dose of 1 mg prior to each
meal provides approximately 90% of the maximal glucose-lowering effect. Nateglinide should be dosed at 120 mg prior to meals, and
does not require titration. A 60-mg dose is available, but the HbA1c decrement is small (0.3% to 0.5% [0.003 to 0.005; 3 to 6 mmol/mol
Hb]). If a meal is skipped, the medication can be skipped, and meals extremely low in carbohydrate content may not need a dose. Both
agents may be used in patients with renal insufficiency, and may fit into therapy in patients in need of an insulin secretagogue but having
hypoglycemia to sulfonylureas, moderate to severe renal insufficiency, and well-controlled diabetes, but with erratic meal schedules.

Metformin is the only biguanide available in the United States. It has been used clinically for more than 50 years, and has been approved
in the United States since 1995. Metformin enhances insulin sensitivity of mainly hepatic but also peripheral (muscle) tissues. This allows
for an increased uptake of glucose into these insulin-sensitive tissues. All the mechanisms of how metformin accomplishes glucose
reduction are still being investigated, although adenosine 5-monophosphateactivated protein kinase activity, tyrosine kinase activity
enhancement, increased adenosine 5-monophosphate, and partial inhibition of the mitochondrial respiratory chain are involved.
Metformin has no direct effect on the cells, although insulin levels are reduced, reflecting increases in insulin sensitivity.

Metformin has approximately 50% to 60% oral bioavailability, low lipid solubility, and a volume of distribution that approximates body
water. It is not metabolized and does not bind to plasma proteins. Metformin is eliminated by renal tubular secretion and glomerular
filtration. The average plasma half-life of metformin is 6 hours, although pharmacodynamically, metformins antihyperglycemic effects last
more than 24 hours. Red blood cells are a second compartment of distribution for metformin, delivering an effective half-life of 17 hours.

Metformin consistently reduces HbA1c levels by 1.5% to 2% (0.015 to 0.020; 17 to 22 mmol/mol Hb) and FPG levels by 60 to 80 mg/dL
(3.3 to 4.4 mmol/L) in drug-nave patients, and retains the ability to reduce FPG levels when they are extremely high (>300 mg/dL [>16.7
mmol/L]). The sulfonylureas ability to stimulate insulin release from cells at extremely high glucose levels is often impaired, a concept
commonly referred to as glucose toxicity. Metformin also has positive effects on several components of the insulin resistance syndrome.
It decreases plasma triglycerides and LDL-C by approximately 8% to 15%, in addition to increasing HDL-C very modestly (2%).
Metformin reduces levels of PAI-1 and causes a modest reduction in weight (2 to 3 kg). In preliminary findings, metformin may also lower
the risk of pancreatic, colon, and breast cancer in type 2 DM patients. Metformin, potentially through multiple mechanisms including
adenosine 5-monophosphateactivated protein kinase activity, may act as a growth inhibitor in some cancers and help to kill cancer



stem cells which are resistant to chemotherapy, and liver kinase B1, which is an upstream kinase of adenosine 5-monophosphate
activated protein kinase. More controlled studies are needed.
Microvascular Complications

Metformin (n = 342) was compared with intensive glucose control with insulin or sulfonylureas in the UKPDS. No significant differences
were seen between therapies with regard to reducing microvascular complications, but the power of the study is questionable.36
Image not available. Macrovascular Complications

Metformin reduced macrovascular complications in obese subjects in the UKPDS.36 It significantly reduced all-cause mortality and risk of
stroke versus intensive treatment with sulfonylureas or insulin. Metformin also reduced diabetes-related death and MIs versus the
conventional treatment arm of the UKPDS. It should be noted that the UKPDS had very few people on lipid-lowering therapy,
antihypertensives, or aspirin. Metformin is logical in overweight/obese patients, if tolerated and not contraindicated, as it is the only oral
antihyperglycemic medication potentially proven to reduce the risk of total mortality and is generic.
Adverse Eects

Metformin causes GI side effects, including abdominal discomfort, stomach upset, and/or diarrhea, in approximately 30% of patients.
Anorexia and stomach fullness is likely part of the reason loss of weight is noted with metformin. These side effects are usually mild and
can be minimized by slow titration. GI side effects also tend to be transient, lessening in severity over several weeks. If encountered,
make sure patients are taking metformin with or right after meals, and reduce the dose to a point at which no GI side effects are
encountered. Increases in the dose may be tried again in several weeks. Anecdotally, extended-release metformin (Glucophage XR) may
lessen some of the GI side effects. Metallic taste, interference with vitamin B12 absorption, and hypoglycemia during intense exercise
have been documented, but are clinically uncommon.
Metformin therapy rarely (3 to 9 cases per 100,000 patient-years) causes lactic acidosis. Metformin partially blocks the mitochondrial
respiratory chain. In addition, any disease state that may increase lactic acid production or decrease lactic acid removal may predispose
to lactic acidosis. Tissue hypoperfusion, such as that due to congestive heart failure, severe lung disease, hypoxic states, shock, or
septicemia, via increased production of lactic acid, and severe liver disease or alcohol, via reduced removal of lactic acid in the liver, all
increase the risk of lactic acidosis. The clinical presentation of lactic acidosis is often nonspecific flu-like symptoms; thus, the diagnosis is
usually made by laboratory confirmation of high lactic acid levels and acidosis. Metformin use in renal insufficiency, defined as a serum
creatinine of 1.4 mg/dL (124 mol/L) in women and 1.5 mg/dL (133 mol/L) in men or greater, is contraindicated, as it is renally
eliminated. Elderly patients, who often have reduced muscle mass, should have their glomerular filtration rate estimated by a 24-hour
urine creatinine collection. If the estimated glomerular filtration rate is less than 60 mL/min (1 mL/s), metformin use should be carefully
evaluated. Recent evidence has reported that metformin may be fairly safe in moderate renal insufficiency. Metformin use can be
modified based on the estimated glomerular filtration rate, at <60, <45 to 30, and <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (<0.58, <0.43 to 0.29, and <0.29
mL/s/m2); corresponding actions are to monitor renal function every 3 to 6 months, then limit dose to 50% of maximal dose, and then
stop metformin, respectively. Due to the risk of acute renal failure during IV dye procedures, metformin therapy should be withheld
starting the day of the procedure and resumed in 2 to 3 days, after normal renal function has been documented.
Drug Interactions

Cimetidine competes for renal tubular secretion of metformin and concomitant administration leads to higher metformin serum
concentrations. At least one case report of lactic acidosis with metformin therapy implicates cimetidine. Theoretically other cationic drugs
may interact, but none have been reported to date.
Dosing and Administration

Immediate-release metformin is usually dosed 500 mg twice a day with the largest meals to minimize GI side effects. Metformin may be
increased by 500 mg as tolerated until glycemic goals or 2,500 mg/day is achieved (see Table 57-11). Metformin 850 mg may be dosed
daily, and then increased every 1 to 2 weeks to the maximum dose of 850 mg three times a day (2,550 mg/day). Approximately 80% of
the glycemic-lowering effect may be seen at 1,500 mg, and 2,000 mg/day is the maximal effective dose.
Extended-release metformin can be initiated at 500 mg a day with the evening meal and titrated by 500 mg as tolerated to a single
evening dose of 2,000 mg/day. Extended-release metformin 750-mg tablets may be titrated as tolerated to the maximum dose of 2,250
mg/day, although, as stated above, 1,500 mg/day provides the majority of the glycemic-lowering effect. Twice-daily to three-times-a-day
dosing of extended-release metformin may help to minimize GI side effects and improve glycemic control, but will not change the
glycemic reduction.




TZDs are also referred to as glitazones. Pioglitazone (Actos) and rosiglitazone (Avandia) are the two currently approved TZDs for the
treatment of type 2 DM (see Table 57-11). TZDs work by binding to the PPAR-, which are primarily located on fat cells and vascular cells.
The concentration of these receptors in the muscle is very low, but improvement in mitochondrial function through changes in lipotoxicity,
glucotoxicity, and possibly binding of proteins outside the mitochondrial membrane may occur. TZDs enhance insulin sensitivity at
muscle, liver, and fat tissues indirectly. They cause preadipocytes to differentiate into mature fat cells in subcutaneous fat stores. Small
fat cells are more sensitive to insulin and more able to store FFAs. The result is a flux of FFAs out of the plasma, visceral fat, and liver into
subcutaneous fat, a less insulin-resistant storage tissue. Muscle intracellular fat products, which contribute to insulin resistance, also
decline. TZDs also affect adipokines (e.g., angiotensinogen, tissue necrosis factor-, interleukin 6, PAI-1), which can positively affect
insulin sensitivity, endothelial function, and inflammation. Of particular note, adiponectin is reduced with obesity and/or diabetes, but is
increased with TZD therapy, which improves endothelial function and insulin sensitivity, and has a potent antiinflammatory effect. Lastly,
TZDs appear to improve mitochondrial function through a reduction in FFAs. Cyclin-dependent kinase 5 has also recently been purposed
as an important activator of PPAR-.

Pioglitazone and rosiglitazone are well absorbed with or without food. Both are highly (>99%) bound to albumin. Pioglitazone is primarily
metabolized by CYP2C8, to a lesser extent by CYP3A4 (17%), and by hydroxylation/oxidation. The majority of pioglitazone is eliminated
in the feces with 15% to 30% appearing in urine as metabolites. Two active metabolites (M-III and M-IV) are present. Rosiglitazone is
metabolized by CYP2C8, and to a lesser extent by CYP2C9, and also by N-demethylation and hydroxylation. Two thirds is found in urine
and one third in feces. The half-lives of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone are 3 to 7 and 3 to 4 hours, respectively. The two active metabolites
of pioglitazone, with longer half-lives, deliver the majority of activity at steady state. Pioglitazone requires no dosage adjustment in
moderate to severe renal disease for pharmacokinetic reasons. Interestingly, with pioglitazone the AUC in women is 20% to 60% higher,
which is not seen with rosiglitazone, but no dosage adjustment is recommended. Both medications have a duration of antihyperglycemic
action of over 24 hours.

Pioglitazone and rosiglitazone reduce HbA1c values 1% to 1.5% (0.010 to 0.015; 11 to 17 mmol/mol Hb) and reduce FPG levels by 60
to 70 mg/dL (3.3 to 3.9 mmol/L) at maximal doses. Glycemic-lowering onset is slow, and maximal glycemic-lowering effects may not be
seen until 3 to 4 months of therapy. It is important to inform patients of this fact and that they should not stop therapy even if minimal
glucose lowering is initially encountered. The efficacy of both drugs is dependent on sufficient insulinemia. If there is insufficient
endogenous insulin production (-cell function) or exogenous insulin delivery via injections, neither will lower glucose concentrations
efficiently. Interestingly, patients who are more obese or who gain weight on either medication tend to have a larger reduction in HbA1c
values. Pioglitazone consistently decreases plasma triglyceride levels by 10% to 20%, whereas rosiglitazone tends to have a neutral
effect. LDL-C concentrations tend to increase with rosiglitazone 5% to 15%, but do not significantly increase with pioglitazone. Both
appear to convert small, dense LDL particles, which have been shown to be highly atherogenic, to large, fluffy LDL particles that are less
dense. Large, fluffy LDL particles may be less atherogenic, but any increase in LDL must be of concern. Both drugs increase HDL,
although pioglitazone may raise it more than rosiglitazone. TZDs also affect several components of the insulin resistance syndrome. PAI-1
levels are decreased, and many other adipocytokines are affected, endothelial function improves, and blood pressure may decrease
Microvascular Complications

TZDs reduce HbA1c levels, which have been shown to be related to the risk of microvascular complications.
Macrovascular Complications

Macrovascular complications with TZDs are controversial. In PROactive, the prospective pioglitazone clinical trial in macrovascular
events, pioglitazone 45 mg was added to standard therapy in patients who had experienced a macrovascular event or had peripheral
vascular disease.37 The two groups were well matched at baseline and the reported average observation time period was about 3 years.
The primary end point (reduction in death, MI, stroke, acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularization, leg amputation, and leg
revascularization) was reduced 10% (P = 0.095). The main secondary end point (all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, or stroke) was reduced
16% (P = 0.027). The seemingly dichotomous results relate to the inclusion of leg revascularization as a primary end point, which were
increased in the pioglitazone group. Reasons for the increase are speculative, but may relate to more testing/inspection due to peripheral
edema. Also of note, the pioglitazone group had 209 nonadjudicated admissions for heart failure occur versus 153 in the placebo group
(P = 0.007), although fatal heart failure was not increased. Several published meta-analyses of rosiglitazone reported higher MI rates with
rosiglitazone, but none have reported a higher risk of mortality. A hazard ratio (HR) of 1.43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.98; P =
0.03) for the risk of an MI with rosiglitazone versus other oral agents was reported.38



A prospective, multicenter, open-label noninferiority trial in 4,447 patients of rosiglitazone added to background metformin or sulfonylurea
versus the active comparator metformin + sulfonylurea was recently reported (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes in
Oral Agent Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes [RECORD]). Rosiglitazone was noninferior to the comparator for all CV outcomes
except for heart failure. A nonsignificant increase in risk for MI (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.63) as well as a nonsignificant reduction in
stroke (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.05) was reported. On subset analysis, previous ischemic heart disease trended toward a higher risk
(HR, 1.26; CI, 0.95 to 1.68; P = 0.055).39 Most studies with rosiglitazone trend toward, but do not reach, statistically significant increases
in ischemic events. The FDA has placed rosiglitazone under a strict risk evaluation and mitigation program, limiting access to patients and
prescribers who acknowledge and consent to knowing its macrovascular risks.
Adverse Eects

Troglitazone, the first TZD approved, caused idiosyncratic hepatotoxicity and had deaths from liver failure, which prompted removal from
the U.S. market. Newer TZDs do not have the same propensity, but have had postmarketing reports of liver injury. Patients with abnormal
alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels should be started with caution, and if the ALT is >3 times the upper limit of normal, especially if the
total bilirubin is also >2 times the upper limit of normal, the medication should be discontinued. Pioglitazone has been shown in one welldesigned trial to reduce hepatic steatosis, which may improve abnormal ALT levels in many patients with diabetes.
Retention of fluid leads to many different possible side effects with TZDs. The etiology of the fluid retention has not been fully elucidated,
but appears to include peripheral vasodilation and/or improved insulin sensitization at the kidney with a resultant increase in renal sodium
and water retention. A reduction in plasma hemoglobin (2% to 4%), attributed to a 10% increase in plasma volume, may result in a
dilutional anemia that does not require treatment. Peripheral edema is also commonly (4% to 5% in monotherapy or combination therapy)
reported. When a TZD is used in combination with insulin, the incidence of edema (15%) is increased. TZDs are contraindicated in
patients with New York Heart Association Class III and IV heart failure, and great caution should be exercised when given to patients with
Class I and II heart failure or other underlying cardiac disease, as pulmonary edema and heart failure have been reported. Edema tends to
be dose related and if not severe, a reduction in the dose as well as use of diuretics, anecdotally hydrochlorothiazide with triamterene,
amiloride, or spironolactone instead of loop diuretics, will allow the continuation of therapy in the majority of patients. Rarely, TZDs have
been reported to worsen macular edema of the eye.
Weight gain, which is also dose related, can be seen with both rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. Mechanistically, both fluid retention and fat
accumulation play a part in explaining the weight gain. TZDs, besides stimulating fat cell differentiation, also reduce leptin levels, which
stimulate appetite and food intake. Average weight gain varies, but a 1.5- to 4-kg weight gain is not uncommon. Rarely, a patient will gain
large amounts of weight in a short period of time, and this may necessitate discontinuation of therapy. Weight gain positively predicts a
larger HbA1c reduction, but must be balanced with the well-documented effects of long-term weight gain.
TZDs have also been associated with an increased fracture rate in the upper and lower limbs in women and men, although women appear
to have a higher risk. These fractures are not osteoporitic in the classic sense, and do not occur in common osteoporosis fracture sites
such as spine or hip. Most occur in wrists, forearms, ankles, or feet. Versus comparative diabetes therapy, TZDs may increase the risk of
a fracture by 25%. The underlying pathophysiology is speculative, but may relate to TZD effects on the pluripotent stem cell and shunting
of new cells to fat instead of osteocytes as well as altering osteoblasts/osteoclasts. It would be prudent to consider a patients risk
factors for fractures if a TZD is being considered as antidiabetic therapy.
The risk of bladder cancer is slightly increased with pioglitazone, and likely rosiglitazone. Bladder tumors have been noted in rodent
models using TZDs. An ongoing 10-year observational study reported an excess of 3 in 10,000 patient-years (from 7 to 10 in 10,000) risk
of bladder cancer with pioglitazone at 5 years. Excess risk appears to be mostly in men and smokers, and is dose and duration
associated. Mechanisms are speculative, but may involve microcrystals of the drug in the bladder that cause chronic irritation.
As a caution, premenopausal anovulatory patients may resume ovulation on TZDs. Adequate pregnancy and contraception precautions
should be explained to all women capable of becoming pregnant, as both agents are pregnancy category C.
Drug Interactions

Significant drug interactions that can cause clinical sequelae have not been noted with either medication. Neither pioglitazone nor
rosiglitazone appears to be an inhibitor or inducer of CYP3A4/2C8 or CYP2C8/CYP2C9, respectively, although drugs that are strong
inhibitors or inducers of these pathways (e.g., gemfibrozil or rifampin) may increase or decrease levels of active drug significantly. The
package insert recommends limiting the dose of pioglitazone to 15 mg in combination with gemfibrozil.
Dosing and Administration

The recommended starting dosages of pioglitazone and of rosiglitazone are 15 to 30 mg once daily and 2 to 4 mg once daily,
respectively. Dosages may be increased slowly based on therapeutic goals and side effects. The maximum dose and maximum effective
dose of pioglitazone is 45 mg, and rosiglitazone is 8 mg once daily, although 4 mg twice a day may reduce HbA1c by 0.2% to 0.3%



(0.002 to 0.003; 2 to 3 mmol/mol Hb) more versus 8 mg once daily.

Rosiglitazones availability is limited for now, and an active risk evaluation and mitigation program has been implemented due to the risk
of ischemic events. Patients and prescribers must sign up through the rosiglitazone website in order to receive the medication from a
central mail-order pharmacy, as local pharmacies no longer carry rosiglitazone. Patients and prescribers must agree either that it is
continuation of therapy and the risks versus benefits are known to both or that it is a new prescription and that the patient has been fully
informed of the risk, including MI, and of the alternatives available, including pioglitazone. Pioglitazone is not included in this particular
risk evaluation and mitigation program.
-Glucosidase Inhibitors

Currently, there are two -glucosidase inhibitors available in the United States: acarbose (Precose) and miglitol (Glyset). -Glucosidase
inhibitors competitively inhibit enzymes (maltase, isomaltase, sucrase, and glucoamylase) in the small intestine, delaying the breakdown
of sucrose and complex carbohydrates. They do not cause any malabsorption of these nutrients. The net effect from this action is to
reduce the postprandial BG rise. GLP-1 may also be increased. Distal intestinal degradation of undigested carbohydrate by the gut flora
results in gas (CO2 and methane) and production of short-chain fatty acids, which may stimulate GLP-1 release from intestinal L cells.

The mechanism of action of -glucosidase inhibitors is limited to the luminal side of the intestine. Some metabolites of acarbose are
systemically absorbed and renally excreted, whereas the majority of miglitol is absorbed and renally excreted unchanged.

Postprandial glucose concentrations are reduced (40 to 50 mg/dL [2.2 to 2.8 mmol/L]), while fasting glucose levels are relatively
unchanged (10% reduction). Efficacy on glycemic control is modest (average reductions in HbA1c of 0.3% to 1% [0.003 to 0.010; 3 to 11
mmol/mol Hb]), affecting primarily postprandial glycemic excursions. Thus, patients near target HbA1c levels with near-normal FPG
levels, but high postprandial levels, may be candidates for therapy.
Microvascular Complications

-Glucosidase inhibitors modestly reduce HbA1c levels, which has been shown to be related to the risk of microvascular complications.
Macrovascular Complications

The STOP-NIDDM study, in subjects with IGT, reported a significant reduction in the risk of cardiovascular events, although the total
number of events was very small.40,41 No large cardiovascular study confirming these preliminary results has been done in prediabetes
or diabetes patients.
Adverse Eects

The GI side effects, such as flatulence, bloating, abdominal discomfort, and diarrhea, are very common and greatly limit the use of glucosidase inhibitors. Mechanistically, these side effects are caused by distal intestinal degradation of undigested carbohydrate by the
microflora, which results in gas (CO2 and methane) production. Microflora convert the carbohydrate to short-chain fatty acids that are
mostly absorbed; thus, there is not a large calorie loss. -Glucosidase inhibitors should be initiated at a low dose and titrated slowly to
reduce GI intolerance. Beano, an -glucosidase enzyme, may help to decrease GI side effects, but may decrease efficacy slightly, and it
is better to decrease carbohydrate or the dose of the -glucosidase inhibitor.
If a patient develops hypoglycemia within several hours of ingesting an -glucosidase inhibitor, oral glucose is advised because the drug
will inhibit the breakdown of more complex sugar molecules. Milk, with lactose sugar, may be used as an alternative when no glucose is
available, as acarbose only slightly (10%) inhibits lactase. Fructose may also work, if the others are not available.
Rarely, elevated serum aminotransferase levels have been reported with the highest doses of acarbose. It appeared to be dose and
weight related, and is the premise for the weight-based maximum doses.
Dosing and Administration

Dosing for both miglitol and acarbose are similar. Initiate with a very low dose (25 mg with one meal a day); increase very gradually (over
several months) to a maximum of 50 mg three times a day for patients 60 kg or 100 mg three times a day for patients >60 kg (see Table
57-11). Titration speed should be varied based on GI side effects to the target dose. Both -glucosidase inhibitors should be taken with
the first bite of the meal so that drug may be present to inhibit enzyme activity. Only patients consuming a diet high in complex
carbohydrates will have significant reductions in glucose levels. -Glucosidase inhibitors are contraindicated in patients with short-bowel
syndrome or inflammatory bowel disease, and neither should be administered in patients with serum creatinine >2 mg/dL (>177 mol/L),



as this population has not been studied.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors
Sitagliptin (Januvia), saxagliptin (Onglyza), linagliptin (Tradjenta), and alogliptin (Nesina) are DPP-4 inhibitors currently approved in the
United States.

DPP-4 inhibitors prolong the half-life of endogenously produced GLP-1 and GIP that normally is only minutes. GIP levels are normal in
type 2 DM, and may contribute a minor amount of insulin secretion but have no effect on glucagon. However, levels of GLP-1 are
deficient in type 2 DM. As these agents block nearly 100% of the DPP-4 enzyme activity for at least 12 hours, normal physiologic,
nondiabetic GLP-1 levels are achieved. DPP-4 inhibitors significantly reduce the inappropriately elevated glucagon postprandially,
although not back to nondiabetic levels, and improve insulin response to hyperglycemia. This results in reduction of glucose levels
without increase in hypoglycemia when used as monotherapy. These drugs do not alter gastric emptying and do not have significant
satiety effects. DPP-4 inhibitors also appear to be weight neutral.

Sitagliptin has rapid absorption, with a tmax of approximately 1.5 hours. Absolute bioavailability after oral intake is approximately 87%.
Only 40% is bound to plasma proteins; the volume of distribution is approximately 200 L. The t1/2 of sitagliptin is approximately 12
hours. Seventy-nine percent of the dose of sitagliptin is excreted unchanged in the urine by active tubular secretion; however, the organic
anion transporter 3 or p-glycoprotein transport may be involved as well. Sitagliptin exposure is increased by approximately 2.3-, 3.8-, and
4.5-fold relative to healthy subjects for patients with moderate renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance [CLcr] 30 to <50 mL/min [0.50 to
<0.83 mL/s]), severe renal insufficiency (CLcr <30 mL/min [<0.50 mL/s]), and ESRD (on dialysis), respectively. This is not a safety or
adverse reaction issue; however, reduction of the dose based on renal function is appropriate, as only 100% of the enzyme can be
inhibited, and long-term exposure to higher levels in humans has not been extensively studied. Pharmacodynamically, DPP-4 inhibition
appeared to mirror directly the plasma concentration of sitagliptin. Doses of 50 mg produce at least 80% inhibition of DPP-4 enzyme
activity at 12 hours, and those of 100 mg produce 80% inhibition of DPP-4 enzyme activity at 24 hours. Food has no effect on absorption
kinetics of sitagliptin. Hepatic impairment, age, gender, or race has no effect on the pharmacokinetics of sitagliptin.
When saxagliptin is administered with a high-fat meal, the tmax increases about 20 minutes and the AUC increases about 27%. However,
this is not clinically significant and saxagliptin may be given with or without meals. The oral bioavailability of saxagliptin is approximately
67%. Distribution is similar to the body water compartment. There is negligible protein binding, and one active metabolite, 5-hydroxy
saxagliptin, is half as potent a DPP-4 inhibitor as the parent compound, and contributes to activity. Metabolism is by the CYP3A4/5
system, and strong inhibitors or inducers will have an effect on activity. The half-lives of saxagliptin and its active metabolite are 2.5 and
3.1 hours, respectively. Approximately 25% of the dose is found in feces representing unabsorbed drug and bile excretion. Females have
25% more exposure to 5-hydroxy saxagliptin, and exposure is increased 25% to 50% in elderly, likely due to renal clearance. The
majority (75%) of saxagliptin and 5-hydroxy saxagliptin is renally eliminated, and some renal excretion is seen. In moderate (CLcr 30 to 50
mL/min [0.50 to 0.83 mL/s]) or severe (CLcr <30 mL/min [<0.50 mL/s]) renal impairment, saxagliptin and its active metabolite exposure are
increased 2.1- and 4.5-fold, respectively.
The peak plasma concentrations of linagliptin occur at approximately 1.5 hours after oral administration of a single 5-mg dose to healthy
subjects. The half-life of linagliptin is approximately 12 hours. The absolute bioavailability of linagliptin is approximately 30%. A high-fat
meal reduces Cmax by 15% and increases AUC by 4%. However, this effect is not clinically relevant and linagliptin may be taken with or
without food. Linagliptin distributes extensively in tissues and at high concentrations. Seventy percent to 80% is bound to plasma
proteins while 20% to 30% is unbound in plasma. Plasma binding is not altered in patients who have renal or hepatic impairment.
Following oral administration, metabolism is minimal and about 90% of linagliptin is excreted unchanged. Renal excretion is less than 5%
of the administered dose and is not affected by decreased renal function.
Alogliptin has a bioavailability of approximately 100% and can be administered with or without food. It is only 20% bound to plasma
proteins and approximately 75% of the dose is found unchanged in the urine. Less than 1% is metabolized to an active metabolite, and
<6% to an inactive metabolite.

The average reduction in HbA1c is approximately 0.7% to 1% (0.007 to 0.010; 8 to 11 mmol/mol Hb) at maximum dose. The decrease in
HbA1c at different baseline values is very small. As these drugs are well tolerated, adjustment in the dose due to adverse effects is
unlikely. They tend to have a shallow doseresponse curve.
Microvascular and Macrovascular Complications



HbA1c levels are reduced, which has been related to a reduction in microvascular complications, but no outcome data are available to
DrugDrug Interactions

Significant drugdrug interactions with sitagliptin are unlikely. Sitagliptin is metabolized approximately 20% by CYP450 3A4 with some
CYP450 2C8 involvement, but is neither an inhibitor nor an inducer of any CYP450 enzyme system. It is a p-glycoprotein substrate, but
had negligible effects on digoxin and cyclosporine A, increasing the AUC by only 30%.
Saxagliptin is metabolized by CYP3A4/5, and is a p-glycoprotein substrate, but is neither an inhibitor nor an inducer. Rifampin, an
inducer, can decrease active levels by 50%. However, moderate to strong inhibitors or inducers of CYP3A4/5, such as diltiazem or
ketoconazole, can increase the AUC of saxagliptin by approximately twofold, with a corresponding decrease in the formation of the active
metabolite 5-hydroxy saxagliptin. In such situations, it is recommended that the dose of saxagliptin be limited to 2.5 mg daily.
Linagliptin is a weak to moderate inhibitor of CYP3A4, and a p-glycoprotein substrate. Thus, efficacy of linagliptin may be reduced when
administered in combination with inducers of p-glycoprotein and CYP3A4 (e.g., with rifampin). If patients require the use of such drugs,
the use of alternative treatments is recommended. No other significant drug interactions have been reported.
No significant drugdrug interactions with alogliptin have been noted to date.
Adverse Eects

DPP-4 inhibitors are very well tolerated, are weight neutral, and do not cause GI side effects. Mild hypoglycemia may occur, but in
monotherapy or in combination with medications that have a low incidence of hypoglycemia, DPP-4 inhibitors do not increase the risk of
hypoglycemia. Headache and nasopharyngitis, potentially related to the drug, may be slightly more common with DPP-4 inhibitors, but no
significant increases in peripheral edema, hypertension, or cardiac outcomes have been noted to date.
Urticaria and/or facial edema may be seen in approximately 1% of patients, and discontinuation is warranted. Rare cases of StevensJohnson syndrome have been reported.
In regard to long-term safety, DPP-4 enzymes metabolize a wide variety of peptides (PYY, neuropeptide Y, growth hormonereleasing
hormone, vasoactive intestinal polypeptide, and others), potentially affecting other regulatory systems. DPP-4 (also known as CD26) plays
an important role for T-cell activation. Theoretically the inhibition of DPP-4 could be associated with adverse immunologic reactions.
Saxagliptin results in a dose-related reduction in absolute lymphocyte count in up to 0.5% to 1.5% of patients. In most, recurrence is not
observed with reexposure. However, it may recur with rechallenge in some patients. The clinical relevance is not known, but if prolonged
infection is encountered, it is logical to measure lymphocyte counts and consider discontinuation.
Dosing and Administration

Sitagliptin is dosed orally at 100 mg daily unless renal insufficiency is present. The 50-mg dose is recommended if the CLcr is 30 to <50
mL/min (0.50 to <0.83 mL/s), or 25 mg if <30 mL/min (<0.50 mL/s). Saxagliptin is dosed orally 5 mg daily, unless the CLcr is <50 mL/min
(<0.83 mL/s), or strong CYP3A4/5 inhibitors are used; then the recommended daily dose is 2.5 mg. Linagliptin is available only in one
dose: 5 mg daily, and does not require dose adjustment in renal insufficiency or related to concomitant drug therapy. Alogliptin, similar to
sitagliptin, has a two-step dosing adjustment in renal insufficiency. Alogliptin 25 mg daily should be decreased to 12.5 mg when the CrCl
<60 mL/min (<1 mL/s), and 6.25 mg when <30 mL/min (<0.50 mL/s). Because of their excellent tolerability profile and flat doseresponse
curve, these drugs should be maximally dosed, unless noted above.
Bile Acid Sequestrants
Currently, the only bile acid sequestrant approved for the treatment of type 2 DM is colesevelam (Welchol).

Colesevelam is a bile acid sequestrant that acts in the intestinal lumen to bind bile acid, decreasing the bile acid pool for reabsorption.
Whether colesevelams mechanism of action to lower plasma glucose levels is in the intestinal lumen, a systemic effect due to the
intestinal lumen effect or some combination of these two is unknown. Possible mechanisms include effects on the farnesoid X and TGR5
receptors within the intestine as well as effects on farnesoid X receptor within the liver. There is evidence that colesevelam may affect the
secretion of GLP-1 and GIP. See also Chapter 11.

Colesevelam is not absorbed from the intestinal lumen; thus, there is no absorption, distribution, or metabolism.



HbA1c reductions from baseline (8% [0.08; 64 mmol/mol Hb]) were approximately 0.4% (0.004; 5 mmol/mol Hb) when a dose of 3.8
g/day was added to stable metformin, sulfonylureas, or insulin. The FPG was modestly reduced about 5 to 10 mg/dL (0.3 to 0.6 mmol/L).
Colesevelam also reduces LDL-C cholesterol in patients with type 2 DM. A 12% to 16% reduction in LDL-C was reported from baseline
LDL-C concentrations of 105 mg/dL (2.72 mmol/L). Triglycerides increased when combined with sulfonylureas or insulin, but not with
metformin. Colesevelam is weight neutral. Pediatric patients (10 to 17 years of age) have been studied for cholesterol reduction, but not
for type 2 DM.
Microvascular Complications

Bile acid sequestrants modestly reduce HbA1c levels, which have been shown to be related to the risk of microvascular complications.
Macrovascular Complications

Although colesevelam lowers plasma glucose and LDL-C, it has not been proven to prevent cardiovascular morbidity or mortality.
DrugDrug Interactions

There are multiple absorption-related drugdrug interactions with colesevelam. The most important include levothyroxine, glyburide, and
oral contraceptives. In addition, phenytoin, warfarin, digoxin, and fat-soluble vitamins have postmarketing reports of altered absorption. It
is recommended that medications suspected of an interaction should be moved at least 4 hours prior to dosing the colesevelam.
Colesevelam has also been implicated in the malabsorption of fat-soluble vitamins (A, E, D, K). In addition to the obvious fat-soluble
vitamin supplementation, this may have implications for associated conditions. Other drugs that are very fat-soluble such as cyclosporine
A, drugs that may be affected by a change in fat-soluble vitamin status such as warfarin and vitamin K, or conditions that may be
potentially worsened by fat-soluble vitamin status such as some bleeding disorders or dermatologic conditions should be monitored.
Adverse Eects

The most common side effects are GI. Constipation (11%) and dyspepsia (8%) are more common with colesevelam than placebo.
Because of the constipating effects of colesevelam, it is not recommended in patients with gastroparesis, bowel obstruction, or a history
of major GI surgery. It also should not be used in patients with significant swallowing or esophageal issues, as it may worsen the
underlying condition or cause obstruction. Colesevelam should be taken with a large amount of water to lower the risk of the above
issues. Hypoglycemia rates were low, although caution with insulin or sulfonylureas is prudent.
Colesevelam, similar to all bile acid sequestrants, may raise triglyceride levels. The increase in triglycerides is proportional to baseline
triglyceride levels, and colesevelam is contraindicated in patients with a triglyceride >500 mg/dL (>5.65 mmol/L). Close monitoring is
recommended if the baseline triglycerides >300 mg/dL (3.39 mmol/L). Colesevelam is contraindicated in patients with a history of
triglyceridemia-induced pancreatitis, and prudent clinical judgment should be used in any patient with a history of pancreatitis and
elevated triglycerides.
Dosing and Administration

Dosing for type 2 DM is six 625-mg tablets daily (total dose/day = 3.75 g), which may be split into three tablets two times a day if desired.
A 3.75-g oral suspension packet, dosed daily, or a 1.875-g oral suspension packet dose twice daily is also available. Suspension packets
must be diluted in a minimum of one half to one cup of water. Take tablets and suspension with a large amount of water, if possible. All
dosage forms should be administered with meals as colesevelam binds to bile released during the meal.
Dopamine Agonists
Bromocriptine mesylate (Cycloset) is currently approved for the treatment of type 2 DM.

Bromocriptine is a dopamine agonist, but the exact mechanism of how bromocriptine improves glycemic control is unknown. Low
hypothalamic dopamine levels, especially on waking, are augmented, which may decrease sympathetic tone and output. These effects
are speculated to improve hepatic insulin sensitivity.

Bioavailability is 65% to 95% after an orally administered dose; bioavailability may be increased 50% if given with a meal. Peak plasma
concentration is about 1 hour if taken without food, but with food it is 90 to 120 minutes. Bromocriptine is highly protein bound, and has a
volume of distribution of 61 L. Only 7% reaches the systemic circulation due to GI-based metabolism and first-pass metabolism.
Bromocriptine is extensively metabolized by the CYP3A4 pathway, and the majority (95%) is excreted in the bile. The half-life is
approximately 6 hours. Plasma exposure is increased in females by approximately 18% to 30%, but no dosage adjustment is currently




In clinical trials, bromocriptine mesylate reduced HbA1c by 0.3% to 0.6% (0.003 to 0.006; 3 to 7 mmol/mol Hb) from baseline.
Microvascular and Macrovascular Complications

There is no study examining microvascular disease. Macrovascular event reduction has not been proven. In just over 3,000 subjects,
bromocriptine decreased a composite cardiovascular outcome over 1 year. The composite outcome occurred in 37 (1.8%) bromocriptinetreated subjects versus 32 (3.2%) subjects not given bromocriptine (HR 0.6 [95% two-sided CI, 0.35 to 0.96]).
DrugDrug Interactions

Bromocriptine is extensively metabolized by CYP3A4 and strong inhibitors or inducers may change bromocriptine levels. As
bromocriptine is highly protein bound, it may increase the unbound fraction of other highly protein-bound drugs. Several drugdrug and
potential drugdisease interactions are present including antipsychotics in psychotic disorders as they decrease dopamine activity,
atypical antipsychotics as they may decrease the effectiveness of bromocriptine, and ergot-based therapy for migraines as bromocriptine
may increase migraine and ergot-related nausea and vomiting. There are case reports of hypertension and tachycardia when
administered with sympathomimetic drugs in postpartum women, and bromocriptine should not be given to this group of potential
patients. The effectiveness in other disease states where dopamine agonism may be indicated is unknown.
Adverse Eects

Adverse reactions leading to discontinuation occurred in 24% of bromocriptine patients compared with 9% in the placebo comparator
group. Nausea, rhinitis, headache, asthenia, dizziness, constipation, and sinusitis all occurred in over 10% of subjects. Nausea occurred
in 25% to 35% of patients, and vomiting, which tended to be more common in women, occurred in 5% to 6% of patients. Nausea,
vomiting, fatigue, headache, and dizziness were common adverse events during the titration phase of phase 3 studies, and only 70% of
completors could be titrated to the maximum dose. Orthostatic hypotension or syncope occurred in 2.2% and 1.4%, and 0.6% and 0.8%
in the bromocriptine and placebo groups, respectively. No predisposing factors were identified, but caution should be exercised in
patients with low, normal blood pressure. Somnolence was reported in 4.3% of patients on bromocriptine, compared with 1.3% in the
placebo, and response to the drug should be ascertained prior to operating machinery or combining with other sedating medications.
Psychiatric disorders including hallucinations and pathologic gambling have been reported with other forms of bromocriptine, but were
not seen in phase III trials.
Dosing and Administration

Bromocriptine is dosed with 0.8-mg tablets administered within 2 hours of waking from sleep daily with food. From 0.8 mg daily, the dose
may be increased weekly based on response by 0.8-mg tablet increments, to a maximum of 4.8 mg daily (0.8 mg 6 tablets, although it
is unclear if another commercial dose could be made available). The minimal effective dose is 1.6 mg daily. It is recommended to be
taken with food as this may decrease nausea/vomiting.

Potential Future Medications

Many medications for the treatment of diabetes are currently in late-phase development. No guarantee of FDA approval is given for any
agent in development.
Insulin degludec is a long-acting basal insulin that appears to be truly peakless. Hypoglycemia in clinical trials has been slightly less to
date versus insulin glargine with similar glycemic control.
Incretin Class Medications
Once-daily lixisenatide and several weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist medications are being developed. Closest to market is albiglutide, but
also in development is semaglutide.
Selective Sodium-Dependent Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors (SGLT-2 Inhibitors)
SGLT-2 inhibitors work in the kidney to block the reabsorption of some glucose. Normally, all glucose is reabsorbed back into the
systemic circulation from the kidney at normal glucose levels: about 10% through the SGLT-1 receptor, and 90% through the SGLT-2
receptor. Early data have shown approximately 50 to 80 g of glucose per day may be allowed to pass into the urine with SGLT-2
inhibition. This lowers systemic glucose and allows weight loss. Glucose levels may be lowered in both type 1 and type 2 DM by this
mechanism of action. Safety data have shown a slightly higher rate of genitourinary yeast infections. SGLT-1 is involved with glucose
absorption in the gut, and inhibition of SGLT-1 has been historically thought to cause GI toxicity, but this is unclear and dual inhibitors
may be marketed. Canagliflozin (Invokana) is currently the farthest in development, but several are being developed. Dapagliflozin has



been rejected by the FDA several times due to concerns about cancer.

Pivotal Trials
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial
Much of the last century in diabetes care was dominated by the debate over whether glycemic control actually was causative in
complications of DM. Animal studies and some human studies suggested that the worse the glycemia, the greater the risk of
complications. But the glucose hypothesis was not ultimately accepted as proven until the publication of the DCCT in 1993.23 In this
study, 1,441 patients with type 1 DM were divided into two groups: those without complications (726 subjects, primary prevention) and
those with early microvascular complications (715 subjects, secondary prevention). These two groups were then again divided into two
groups: one randomized to receive conventional therapy (one or two shots of insulin daily and infrequent SMBG with no attempt to
change therapy based on home BG readings) and the other to receive intensive therapy (>3 injections of insulin daily or insulin pump, with
frequent SMBG and alteration of insulin therapy based on SMBG results, plus frequent contact with a health professional). After 6.5 years,
mean follow-up with a difference in HbA1c between the two groups being 2% (0.02; 22 mmol/mol Hb) (9% vs. 7% [0.09 vs. 0.07;
75 mmol/mol Hb vs. 53 mmol/mol Hb), retinopathy was decreased by 76% in the primary prevention cohort, with retinopathy
progression reduced 54% in the secondary prevention group. Neuropathy was decreased by 60% in both groups combined.
Microalbuminuria was decreased 39%, while macroproteinuria was reduced 54% with intensive therapy. Hypoglycemia was more
common and weight gain greater with intensive therapy. A nonstatistically significant reduction in coronary events was seen in the
intensively treated group as compared with the conventional group. The DCCT revolutionized therapy of DM, demanding that stricter
glycemic control be the goal.
United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study
The UKPDS was a landmark study for the care of patients with type 2 DM, confirming the importance of glycemic control for reducing
the risk of microvascular complications.24 More than 5,000 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 DM were entered into the study.
Patients were followed for an average of 10 years. The major portion of the study assessed conventional therapy (no drug therapy
unless the patient was symptomatic or had FPG >270 mg/dL [>15 mmol/L]), versus intensive therapy starting with either sulfonylureas or
insulin, aimed at keeping the FPG <108 mg/dL (6 mmol/L). A subset of obese patients was studied using metformin as the primary
therapeutic agent.
Significant findings from the study include the following:
1. Microvascular complications (predominantly the need for laser photocoagulation on retinal lesions) are reduced by 25% when median
HbA1c is 7% (0.07; 53 mmol/mol Hb) as compared with 7.9% (0.079; 63 mmol/mol Hb).24
2. A continuous relationship exists between glycemia and microvascular complications, with a 35% reduction in risk for each 1%
decrement in HbA1c (0.01; 11 mmol/mol Hb). No glycemic threshold for microvascular disease exists.42
3. Glycemic control has minimal effect on macrovascular disease risk. Excess macrovascular risk appears to be related to conventional
risk factors such as dyslipidemia and hypertension.43
4. Sulfonylureas and insulin therapy do not increase macrovascular disease risk.24
5. Metformin reduces macrovascular risk in obese patients.36
6. Vigorous blood pressure control reduces microvascular and macrovascular events.43 There was no evidence for a threshold systolic
blood pressure above 130 mm Hg for protection against complications. -Blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)
inhibitors appear to be equally efficacious.44
Long-Term Follow-up of DCCT (EDIC) and UKPDS
At the conclusion of the DCCT and UKPDS trials, willing subjects continued to be followed over time to ascertain microvascular and
macrovascular outcomes. In the follow-up of the DCCT, called the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC),
several important points have been discovered. First, HbA1c levels between conventional and intensive groups converged to an HbA1c of
approximately 8% (0.08; 64 mmol/mol Hb). Despite similar HbA1c values, continued microvascular and new macrovascular benefit was
seen. Microvascular benefits were maintained for 10 to 15 years, and at 17 years of follow-up, a 57% (P = 0.02) reduction in death, first
occurrence of nonfatal MI, and stroke was seen between the conventional and intensive groups.45,46
In the follow-up of the UKPDS, HbA1c (8% [0.08; 64 mmol/mol Hb]) converged and values were not significantly different for the



majority of the follow-up. After a mean follow-up of 8.5 years, a 24% (P = 0.001) reduction in microvascular complications (during the
UKPDS, 25% reduction was reported) and a significant reduction in MI (15%; P = 0.014) and all-cause mortality (13%; P = 0.007) in the
intensively treated group versus the conventional group were reported.47 Early glycemic control may have long-standing benefits to
patients over several decades, despite later glycemic control deterioration. This concept is being called metabolic memory or the legacy
effect. These studies lay the framework for why early intensive glycemic control is important not only for short-term but also for long-term
prevention of complications.
The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD),48 Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease (ADVANCE),49 and
Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT)50 were three trials that reported on the effects of glycemic control and macrovascular disease risk.
ACCORD randomized 10,251 high CVD risk subjects (CVD event or significant risk) with type 2 DM to intensive glycemic control (goal
HbA1c <6% [<0.06; <42 mmol/mol Hb]) or standard glycemic control (HbA1c 7% to 7.9% [0.07 to 0.079; 53 to 63 mmol/mol Hb]).
Multiple oral agents and/or insulin were allowed to achieve glycemic goals. Baseline HbA1c level was 8.1% (0.081; 65 mmol/mol Hb), and
the intensive glycemic group achieved a HbA1c of 6.4% (0.064; 46 mmol/mol Hb), whereas standard glycemic control achieved a HbA1c
of 7.5% (0.075; 58 mmol/mol Hb) when the study stopped after a mean follow-up period of 3.5 years. The study was stopped after an
interim analysis reported an increased rate of mortality in the intensive arm (1.41%/y vs. 1.14%/y; HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.46).
Interestingly, the primary end point (myocardial, stroke, or cardiovascular death) was trending down due to a lower risk of nonfatal MI in
the intensive therapy group. In addition, on subset analysis, individuals with a baseline HbA1c <8% (<0.08; <64 mmol/mol Hb) or no
previous CVD had a significant reduction in the primary outcome. Increased mortality, though substantially increased in the intensive
group, could not be associated with a specific medication, hypoglycemia (higher in intensive group), lipid levels, or weight gain. The
dichotomous results have been hard to explain, although the ACCORD investigators reported that in the intensive group, it was subjects
who could not attain intensive glycemic control goals who were at higher risk, not subjects who did achieve the goal. A 20% higher risk of
death for each 1% (0.01; 11 mmol/mol Hb) above an HbA1c of 6% (0.06; 42 mmol/mol Hb) was reported.
ADVANCE randomized 11,140 subjects to intensive (6.5% HbA1c [0.065; 48 mmol/mol Hb]) or standard therapy (investigator-driven
goals). Extended-release gliclazide, a sulfonylurea available outside of the United States, was used as first-line therapy in the intensive
group versus no gliclazide in the standard therapy group, although multiple other agents were needed in both groups. A baseline HbA1c
was only 7.5% (0.075; 58 mmol/mol Hb), and at the end of therapy, the intensive group versus standard group HbA1c was 6.5% versus
7.2% (0.065 vs. 0.072; 48 mmol/mol Hb vs. 55 mmol/mol Hb). ADVANCE reported a significant reduction in renal events, including new
or worsening nephropathy (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93), but no difference in major macrovascular events (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to
1.06) with intensive versus standard therapy.
VADT randomized 1,791 subjects to intensive glycemic control (HbA1c goal <6% [<0.06; <42 mmol/mol Hb], and action required of
>6.5% [>0.065; >48 mmol/mol Hb]) versus nonintensive glycemic control (investigator determined). At entry, the HbA1c was the highest
of the three trials (9.4% [0.094; 79 mmol/mol Hb]). Multiple medications including insulin were used to achieve glycemic control. The
intensive group achieved an HbA1c of 6.9% versus 8.5% (0.069 vs. 0.085; 52 mmol/mol Hb vs. 69 mmol/mol Hb) in the investigatordetermined group. The primary end point of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, CVD death, hospitalization for heart failure, and revascularization
was not significantly different (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.05) and mortality was unchanged.
These three trials should be viewed as confirmatory that short term (3 to 5 years) of intensive glycemic control does not positively affect
the risk of macrovascular risk in type 2 DM. ACCORD reported that a subset of subjects who could not achieve intensive glycemic control
may be at higher risk of death, but identifying these patients and implementing this recommendation into clinical practice may prove to be
challenging. As previously mentioned in Long-Term Followup of DCCT (EDIC) and UKPDS above, reduction of macrovascular events from
improved glycemic control may take over a decade to come to fruition.

Knowledge of the patients quantitative and qualitative meal patterns, activity levels, pharmacokinetics of insulin preparations and
other injectables, and pharmacology of oral and antidiabetic agents for type 2 DM is essential to individualize the treatment plan an
optimize BG control while minimizing risks for hypoglycemia and other adverse effects of pharmacologic therapies.
Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
All patients with type 1 DM require insulin. However, how that insulin is delivered to the patient is a matter of considerable practice
difference among patients and clinicians.
Historically, after the discovery of insulin by Banting and Best in 1921, frequent injections of regular insulin (initially the only insulin



available) were given. Modifications of insulin led to longer-acting insulin suspensions and the use by many patients of one or two
injections of longer-acting insulin each day. Because self-monitored BG and HbA1c testing were not available at that time, patients and
practitioners had no idea how well their patients BG concentrations were controlled, other than a vague sense from an indirect method,
measurement of glucose in the urine. While the renal threshold for glucose is relatively predictable in young healthy subjects, it is highly
variable in older patients and patients with renal disease. The advent of SMBG and HbA1c testing in the 1980s revolutionized the care of
diabetes, enabling patients and practitioners to directly access BG for assessment, and enabling the patient to make instantaneous
changes in the insulin regimen if need be. Modern diabetes management would be impossible without these two tools.
Contemporary management of type 1 DM attempts to match carbohydrate intake with glucose-lowering processes, most commonly
insulin, as well as with exercise. The goal is to allow the patient to live as normal a life as possible. Understanding the principles of
glucose input and glucose egress from the blood allows the practitioner and the patient great latitude in the management of type 1 DM.
Normal secretion of insulin can be divided into a relatively constant background level of insulin (basal) during the fasting and
postabsorptive period, with prandial spikes of insulin after eating (bolus) (Fig. 57-6).51 Insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion are not
constant throughout the day, however, which renders the concept of stable basal insulin requirements to be inaccurate. However, in most
clinical situations, attempting to emulate normal secretion of insulin is a useful paradigm for understanding and applying insulin treatment
for the management of type 1 DM. The other basic principle to consider is that the timing of insulin onset, peak, and duration of effect
must match meal patterns and exercise schedules to achieve near-normal BG values throughout the day.



Relationship between insulin and glucose over the course of a day and how various insulin and amylinomimetic regimens could be given.
(A, aspart; CSII, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; D, detemir; G, glargine; GLU, glulisine; L, lispro; P, pramlintide; N, NPH; R,
Historically, the complexity of insulin regimens was related to the number of injections of insulin administered per day. This was a
reasonable classification; however, a single injection of any insulin preparation daily will in no way mimic normal physiology, and therefore
is unacceptable. Similarly, two injections of any insulin daily will fail to replicate normal patterns of insulin release.
Injection regimens that begin to approximate physiologic insulin release start with split-mixed injections consisting of a morning dose of
an intermediate-acting insulin such as NPH and a bolus rapid-acting insulin or regular insulin before breakfast, and again before the
evening meal. The presumption is made that the morning intermediate-acting insulin gives basal insulin for the day and covers the midday
meal, the morning bolus insulin covers breakfast, the evening intermediate-acting insulin gives basal insulin for the rest of the day, and
the evening bolus insulin covers the evening meal. If patients are very compulsive about consistency of timing of their injections and
meals and intake of carbohydrate, such a strategy may be acceptable. However, the vast majority of patients are not sufficiently
predictable in their schedule and food intake to allow tightglucose control with such an approach.
A modification that can be made to the above regimen is the movement of the evening NPH to bedtime (now three total injections per
day) because the fasting glucose in the morning is too high or there is hypoglycemia in the early hours of sleep. This approach improves
glycemic control and may reduce hypoglycemia sufficiently for those patients who decline or are unable to follow more intense regimens.
However, most patients with type 1 DM need a more intense approach that also allows greater flexibility in their lifestyle.
The basalbolus concept attempts to replicate normal insulin physiology with a combination of intermediate- or long-acting insulin to
provide the basal component, and rapid-acting insulin to provide the bolus or premeal component. Various long-acting insulins have been
used to provide the basal insulin component, including once- or twice-daily NPH, detemir, or glargine. Insulin glargine and insulin detemir
are the most feasible basal insulins for most patients with type 1 DM.
The bolus or prandial insulin component can be regular insulin, insulin lispro, insulin aspart, or insulin glulisine injected before meals. The
rapid onset of action and short time course of rapid-acting insulin analogs more closely replicate normal physiology than does regular
insulin. The patient varies the amount of before meal rapid-acting insulin injected, depending on the preprandial BG level, the anticipated
activity (upcoming exercise may reduce insulin requirement), and anticipated carbohydrate intake. Many patients start with a prescribed
dose of insulin before meals that they vary by use of an adjusted scale insulin or correction factor to normalize a high premeal plasma
glucose reading. Patients on more advanced regimens later may adjust the amount of mealtime insulin based on anticipated
carbohydrate intake.
A correction factor can be calculated as a starting point to estimate the approximate plasma glucoselowering effect of 1 unit of shortacting insulin in mg/dL. For regular insulin, one may use a factor of 1,500 (a corresponding factor for calculation of glucose in SI units
would require multiplying by 0.0555) divided by the total daily insulin dose in number of units that the patient currently uses. For rapid



acting insulin analogs, a factor of 1,700 is more often used when calculating the correction factor. For example, if a patient is currently
taking 40 units of basal insulin and 12 units of rapid-acting insulin at each of three meals, the total daily insulin dose equals 76 units.
Using this calculation 1,700 divided by 76 equals 22; thus, each unit of rapid-acting insulin analog will lower the plasma glucose
approximately 22 mg/dL (1.2 mmol/L). Review of follow-up BG data permits better individualization of the correction factor.
Carbohydrate counting is a very effective tool for determining the amount of rapid-acting insulin that should be injected preprandially in
people with type 1 DM. Instead of using a prescribed or preset dose of rapid-acting insulin before meals, patients can self-adjust their
premeal dose based on the estimated grams of carbohydrates that will be consumed. Although general algorithms for carbohydrate
counting give rough guidelines, each patient will have to adjust the preprandial insulin dosage based on his or her own individual
response to different food items.
One method of calculating how much carbohydrate (grams) 1 unit of rapid-acting insulin will cover is to use 500 divided by the total daily
dose of insulin in number of units. Therefore, using the example above with a total daily insulin dose of 76 units, we would use 500
divided by 76, which estimates that 1 unit of rapid-acting insulin will cover approximately 7 g of carbohydrate. Review of follow-up BG
data before and 2 hours after meals will enable more precise determination of an individuals insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio.
In type 1 DM, approximately 50% of total daily insulin replacement should be basal insulin, and the other 50% will be bolus insulin,
divided into doses before meals. If the patients ratio is not close to this recommendation, a reassessment of the regimen should be
implemented. Empirically, patients may be begun on 0.6 unit/kg/day with basal insulin 50% of total dose and prandial insulin 20% of
total dose prebreakfast, 15% prelunch, and 15% presupper. Type 1 DM patients generally require between 0.5 and 1 unit/kg/day. The
need for significantly higher amounts of insulin suggests the presence of insulin resistance or, less often, of insulin antibodies.
Intensive basalbolus multi-injection insulin therapy is recommended for all adult patients with type 1 DM at the time of diagnosis to
reinforce the importance of glycemic control from the outset rather than change strategies over time because of lack of control.
Occasional patients with an extended honeymoon period may need less intense therapy initially, but should later be converted to basal
bolus therapy at the onset of glycemic lability.
For those patients who insist on only two injections daily, intermediate-acting insulin and a rapid-acting insulin or regular insulin (starting
at 0.6 unit/kg with two thirds in the morning, two thirds of the morning dose as intermediate-acting insulin, and one half of evening dose
as intermediate-acting insulin) is an option; however, most often this approach will not be allowed as an aggressive glycemic control
option due to increased risk of hypoglycemia.
Insulin pump therapy (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII], generally using a rapid-acting analog insulin) is the most
sophisticated form of insulin delivery. In a motivated patient, CSII may be more efficacious in achieving excellent glycemic control than
multiple-dose insulin injections. Extensive discussion of this mode of therapy is beyond the scope of this text. Nevertheless, the basic
principles for implementation are the same.
One advantage of pump therapy is that the basal insulin dose may be varied, related to changes in basal insulin requirements throughout
the day. In selected patients, this feature allows better glycemic control with CSII. However, insulin pumps require even greater attention
to detail and frequency of SMBG than does a basalbolus regimen with four injections daily.52 In appropriately selected patients willing to
pay sufficient attention to detail of SMBG and insulin administration, CSII can be a very effective form of therapy. CSII is only a tool for
diabetes control, however. Thus, if the patient is not well controlled and/or unwilling to actively control the diabetes on injections, it is
unlikely that the patient will have superior control on a pump. CSII placement and adjustment should be made by an experienced
clinician, and only after a discussion with the patient about the reality of CSII, addressing expectations, and proper training on the pump.
Regardless of the insulin regimen chosen, gross adjustments in the total insulin dose are made based on HbA1c measurements and
symptoms such as polyuria, polydipsia, and weight gain or loss. Finer insulin adjustments are determined on the basis of the results of
frequent BG monitoring, documentation of mealtime carbohydrate intake, physical activity, and other factors that affect glycemic control.
All patients should have extensive education in the recognition and treatment of hypoglycemia. Many patients experiencing hypoglycemia
are tempted to overtreat episodes of hypoglycemia resulting in rebound hyperglycemia afterwards. To minimize this, patients are advised
to follow the rule of 15. If hypoglycemia is identified (BG less than 70 mg/dL [3.9 mmol/L]), the patient is instructed to consume 15 g of
simple carbohydrate (8 oz [250 mL] orange juice or four glucose tablets) and then retest his or her BG 15 minutes later. If BG is still less
than 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L), the patient may repeat the rule of 15 until his or her BG has normalized.
At each visit, patients with type 1 DM should be questioned about hypoglycemia. The frequency of hypoglycemia, particularly
hypoglycemia requiring assistance of another person, a visit to an emergent or urgent care facility, or hospitalization, should be recorded.
In type 1 DM, it is common for patients to develop hypoglycemia unawareness. Hypoglycemic unawareness may result from progression
of disease with autonomic neuropathy. The loss of warning signs of hypoglycemia is a relative contraindication to intensive therapy. More
commonly, type 1 DM patients have loss of warning signs because of a presumed lower set point for release of counterregulatory
hormones as a result of frequent episodes of hypoglycemia (hypoglycemia begets hypoglycemia). In such situations, more normal



hypoglycemia awareness may be restored by reduction or redistribution of the insulin dose to eliminate significant and/or frequent
hypoglycemic episodes.
In children and pubescent adolescents, glycemic goals may need to be tempered with the risks of hypoglycemia. Table 57-7 lists
glycemic goals for different age groups of type 1 DM patients. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to use less intense management until the
patient is postpubertal, if age-specific goals can be maintained.5
Occasional patients develop antibodies to injected insulin, but the significance of the antibodies is usually minimal. Human insulin therapy
has not totally eliminated insulin allergies. In most patients local reactions will dissipate over time. If mild reactions at the site of injection
occur, reassess the insulin injected. Many times the patient is injecting cold insulin, which may cause compensatory local vasodilation
around the injection site in response to the injected cold liquid. Anecdotally, a different type or source of insulin could be tried. If the
allergic reaction does not improve or is systemic, insulin desensitization can be carried out. Protocols for desensitization are available
from major insulin manufacturers.
While more common in the animal insulin era, lipohypertrophy is still seen in some patients with long-standing type 1 DM. Some patients
give their insulin injections in the same site repeatedly to minimize discomfort; over time this can result in lipohypertrophy.
Lipohypertrophy can sometimes be visualized on physical examination and also can be identified by palpation of injection sites. Because
insulin absorption from an area of lipohypertrophy is unpredictable, it is mandatory to avoid insulin injections into these areas.
There are several common errors in the management of patients with type 1 DM that can cause erratic glucose fluctuations:
1. Failure to take into account action of insulin: The timing of meals and/or physical activity must be planned around the peaks of
insulin action accordingly.
2. Choice of insulin injection sites: There is variability of insulin absorption from site to site such that random selection of insulin
injection sites may cause wide glucose swings. The most consistent absorption of insulin is from the abdominal wall. Patients are
encouraged to take all their injections in the abdomen. If the patient is unable or unwilling to follow this advice, then systematic site
rotation is the next preferable option. The patient should always give the insulin injection in the same region of the body the same
time of the day each day. For instance, the arms are always used every morning. Needless to say, the patient should not inject in a
limb and then go out and exercise that limb, which could cause increased blood flow and insulin absorption.
3. Overinsulinization: The answer to all high BG is not necessarily more insulin. Hyperglycemia could be due to too little insulin or it
could be due to rebounding from a previous low glucose and treating it with excessive amounts of carbohydrate. Fastidious BG
testing, particularly during the night (or selected use of CGM), can assist in sorting this out. Many clinicians do not adequately
differentiate type 1 DM from type 2 DM when choosing doses of insulin. Patients with type 1 DM are insulin deficient but have normal
insulin sensitivity. Patients with type 2 DM have varying degrees of insulin resistance. Therefore, a small change in the dose of insulin
for a patient with type 1 DM can have a dramatic effect on glucose concentrations, whereas in patients with type 2 DM and insulin
resistance a change in dose many times that amount of insulin has little effect on glucose concentrations. Large changes in insulin
dose in patients with type 1 DM are not usually indicated unless the patients BG control is very poor. Widely erratic BGs and/or
weight gain may be due to too high a dose of insulin.
4. Injection technique and BG monitoring: When in doubt, always reevaluate the patients technique for insulin dosing, insulin
injection, and BG testing. Sometimes simple errors result in unpredictable glycemic control.
Type 1 DM patients who continue to have erratic postprandial control despite implementation of the above strategies may be appropriate
for treatment with pramlintide (Symlin). Pramlintide is not recommended to be mixed with insulin; therefore, the patient will need to take
an additional injection at each meal. With initiation of pramlintide the doses of prandial insulin (rapid-acting analog or regular insulin)
should be reduced by 30% to 50%, to prevent hypoglycemia. Pramlintide should be titrated based on GI adverse effects and
postprandial glycemic goals. Injecting pramlintide prior to the meal and the rapid-acting insulin at the time of or after the meal may better
match the appearance of the food with the postprandial increase in glucose due to delayed gastric emptying. The patient must be
cognizant of the risk of hypoglycemia, GI side effects, and how to reduce both.
Islet cell and whole pancreas transplantation is occasionally used in patients who require immunosuppressive therapy for other reasons,
such as renal transplants.53 Many patients are able to stop insulin and/or only require insulin secretion support therapy with sulfonylureas
or GLP-1 agonists. However, within 2 years as many 80% or more will need to reinitiate some form of insulin therapy.
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Pharmacotherapy for type 2 DM has changed dramatically in the last few years with the addition of several new drug classes and
recommendations to achieve more stringent glycemic control. Symptomatic patients may initially require treatment with insulin or
combination oral therapy to reduce glucose toxicity (which may reduce -cell insulin secretion and worsen insulin resistance). Patients
with HbA1c 7% (0.07; 53 mmol/mol Hb) or less are usually treated with therapeutic lifestyle measures and an agent that will not cause



hypoglycemia. Those with HbA1c >7% but <8.5% (>0.07 but <0.085; >53 but <69 mmol/mol Hb) could be initially treated with single oral
agents, or combination therapy. Patients with higher initial HbA1c may benefit from initial therapy with two oral

agents, or insulin. This

section addresses management of hyperglycemia; however, this needs to be balanced within a multifactorial risk reduction framework of
blood pressure reduction, dyslipidemia and antiplatelet therapy, and smoking cessation. All therapeutic decisions should consider the
needs and preferences of the patient, if feasible. Individualization of therapy is necessary for success.
Depending on patient motivation and adherence to therapeutic lifestyle changes, most patients with HbA1c greater than 9% to 10% (0.09
to 0.10; 75 to 86 mmol/mol Hb) will likely require therapy with two or more oral agents to reach glycemic goals. Treatment of type 2 DM
often necessitates use of multiple therapeutic agents (combination therapy), to obtain glycemic goals.
The best oral therapy regimen for patients with type 2 DM is widely debated. Based on the results of the UKPDS and safety record, obese
patients (>120% ideal body weight) without contraindications should be started on metformin titrated to 2,000 mg/day.5,54 Nearnormal-weight patients may be better treated with insulin secretagogues, although metformin will work in this population. Metformin is the
only oral antihyperglycemic agent to ever report a reduction in total mortality. Despite this, long-term durability of HbA1c reduction, due
to the inability to stop progressive -cell failure, is suboptimal with metformin, and patients over several years will often need additional
therapy. An insulin secretagogue, such as a sulfonylurea, is often added second, although it has clearly been shown that sulfonylureas do
not produce durable HbA1c reductions in the majority of patients. Better choices to sustain HbA1c reductions would be a TZD or GLP-1
agonist, but each has limitations as well. Goal-oriented therapy is what we currently strive for, meaning the intervention should be in
relation to the distance from the glycemic goal. When initial therapy is no longer keeping the patient at goal, if the HbA1c is close to goal,
one additional agent may be appropriate. If >1% to 1.5% (>0.01 to 0.015; >11 to 16 mmol/mol Hb) above goal, it is unlikely any one oral
agent will result in reaching the glycemic goal, and multiple oral agents or insulin therapy may be appropriate. TZDs may be substituted in
situations in which a patient is intolerant of, or has a contraindication to, metformin, understanding that TZDs should be used with caution
in heart failure. Figure 57-7 is a consensus algorithm by the ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.54 No algorithm
can substitute for good clinical judgment, and algorithms for glycemic control start with the premise that the clinician will identify
medication contraindications, adverse reactions, and comorbidities that may be advantageous or harmful if the medication was taken.



Position Statement on the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study
of Diabetes. (Adapted from reference 54.)
We should also treat type 2 DM by matching therapy to the suspected underlying problem. Consider some simple questions to guide
therapy: (a) How long has the patient had diabetes? The longer a patient has had diabetes, the more insulinopenic he or she likely is and
the more likely that insulin therapy will be needed. (b) Fasting, postprandial, or both plasma glucose readings poorly controlled? Some
drugs address postprandial glucose excursions better, whereas some address FPG better. (c) How far do we have to go to goal and what
is the goal? Each oral agent has limits on HbA1c reduction, and the reduction is baseline HbA1c dependent. (d) Adverse effect profile?
Contraindications, hypoglycemia potential, and tolerability are based on the current status of the patient. (e) Comorbidities? CVD,
dementia, life expectancy, depression, osteoporosis, and other conditions where select medications may be poor choices and
additionally those comorbidities may drive our HbA1c goal. Based on the ADVANCE, ACCORD, and VADT trials, a HbA1c goal may now
be above 7% (0.07; 53 mmol/mol Hb) if certain comorbidities are present. See Figure 57-8 for HbA1c individualization based on
comorbidities from the Texas Diabetes Council. Drugs such as metformin, TZDs, sulfonylureas, repaglinide, liraglutide, extended-release
exenatide, intermediate-acting insulins given at bedtime, and basal insulins control FPG more effectively. Exenatide, DPP-4 inhibitors, glucosidase inhibitors, nateglinide, and regular and rapid-acting insulin better control postprandial glucose excursions. We can also guide
therapy based on the risk of hypoglycemia. Metformin, TZDs, liraglutide, exenatide, DPP-4 inhibitors, and -glucosidase inhibitors have a
low risk of hypoglycemia. Combining these agents will allow aggressive targeting of near-normal HbA1c levels while minimizing
hypoglycemia and weight gain. Combining these agents early in the diagnosis of type 2 DM is logical to potentially realize the
microvascular and macrovascular reduction seen in the long-term follow-up of UKPDS.



A1C goals. See for current algorithms. (Reprinted with permission from the Texas Diabetes Council.)
Preserving -cell function, thus arresting the progressive nature of type 2 DM, could be paradigm changing, but to date medications have
only shown to slow, not arrest, progression. In the UKPDS, insulin, metformin, or sulfonylureas did not halt -cell failure. TZDs (out to 5
years with rosiglitazone) and GLP-1 agonists (open-label exenatide has shown durable HbA1c reduction to 3 years and liraglutide to 2
years) may potentially slow -cell failure. Pathophysiologically treating type 2 DM for potential -cell preservation is possible, but
unproven. It appears unlikely any one drug class will arrest -cell failure, necessitating combination therapy. TZD and GLP-1 agonist
combination is logical as TZDs reduce apoptosis of cells and GLP-1 agonists augment pancreatic function through insulin secretion in a
glucose-dependent manner and reduction of inappropriate glucagon, but long-term data are lacking. -Cell function is heavily damaged
by the time type 2 DM is diagnosed, and it is possible that -cell failure is inevitable by type 2 DM diagnosis. HbA1c reduction is
dependent on baseline values, with higher reductions seen with higher values, but, again, therapy should be goal oriented. Triple therapy
is often with metformin, a sulfonylurea, and a TZD or DPP-4 inhibitor, but a logical alternative is to use metformin, a TZD, and a GLP-1
agonist, which can lower glucose levels and increase satiety, reducing the weight gain potential of a TZD, and still has a low risk of
hypoglycemia. A DPP-4 inhibitor may be an alternative, although without weight loss potential, if an injectable product is not preferred. If
the HbA1c is >8.5% to 9% (>0.085 to 0.09; >69 to 75 mmol/mol Hb) on multiple therapies, insulin therapy should be considered.
Sulfonylureas are often stopped when insulin is added and insulin sensitizers continued. This may be beneficial to decrease
hypoglycemia, but continuing the sulfonylurea is permissible until multiple daily injections are started, at which time it should definitely be
discontinued. Combination therapy with a TZD and insulin should be closely monitored for excessive weight gain and edema.
Virtually all patients with type 2 DM ultimately become relatively insulinopenic and will require insulin therapy. Insulin therapy for type 2
DM has changed dramatically in the last few years. Specifically, patients are often transitioned to insulin by using a bedtime injection of
an intermediate- or long-acting insulin, and using oral agents primarily for control during the day. This strategy leads to less
hyperinsulinemia during the day and is associated with less weight gain and has equal efficacy and a lower risk of hypoglycemia for up to



3 years when compared with starting prandial insulin or split-mix twice-daily insulin.55 Because most patients are insulin resistant, insulin
sensitizers are commonly used with insulin therapy. Patients with type 2 DM are usually well buffered against hypoglycemia. Patients
should be monitored for hypoglycemia by asking about nocturnal sweating, nightmares (both indicative of nocturnal hypoglycemia),
palpitations, tremulousness, and neuroglycopenic symptoms, as well as SMBG. When bedtime insulin plus daytime oral medications fail
to achieve glycemic goals, a conventional multiple daily dose insulin regimen while continuing the insulin sensitizers is often tried. This
may mean adding an injection of bolus insulin with the largest meal of the day for a total of two injections. If this is unsuccessful, a bolus
injection can be given with the second largest meal of the day, for a total of three injections. After this, the standard basalbolus model is
followed. Alternatively, patients may be switched to split-mix insulin such as 70/30 mix insulin, Humalog Mix 75/25, or Novolog Mix 70/30.
These are often given twice daily before the first and third meals (see Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus under Therapeutics above for longer
explanation), but if inadequate control is seen, a third dose of mix insulin may be given with the third meal of the day. This allows for
better prandial coverage, but can also increase the risk of hypoglycemia.56 Use of GLP-1 agonists or pramlintide for prandial coverage
can be considered. GLP-1 agonists, based on chosen drug, can be dosed weekly, daily, or twice daily, whereas pramlintide can be given
before each meal. Concerns and problems with insulin administration as addressed in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus under Therapeutics above
generally relate to the therapy of type 2 DM. However, patients with type 2 DM rarely have hypoglycemia unawareness. Also, the
variability of insulin resistance means that insulin doses may range from 0.7 to 2.5 units/kg or more. Figure 57-9 is an algorithm for insulin
therapy options in type 2 diabetes developed by the Texas Diabetes Council. This algorithm gives most options for insulin therapy, but
the choice of regimen should be individualized based on the discussion with the patient.





Insulin algorithm for type 2 DM in children and adults. See for current algorithms. (Reprinted with
permission from the Texas Diabetes Council.)
The availability of short-acting insulin secretagogues, rapid-acting insulin analogs, exenatide, DPP-4 inhibitors, and -glucosidase
inhibitors, all of which target postprandial glycemia, has reminded practitioners that glycemic control is a function of fasting, preprandial,
and postprandial glycemic excursions. Many clinicians and patients neglect monitoring postprandial glucose. However, postprandial
glycemic excursions proportionally contribute more than the FPG to the HbA1c percentage when the HbA1c nears goals, and thus will
need to be targeted for optimal glycemic control in many patients. It remains controversial whether targeting after-meal glucose
excursions will have more of an effect on complications risk than more conventional strategies.

Special Populations
Children and Adolescents with Type 2 DM



Type 2 DM is increasing in adolescence.1,6 Obesity and physical inactivity seem to be particular culprits in the pathogenesis of this
disease. Given the many years that the patient will have to live with diabetes, and recent evidence that the time frame after diagnosis for
microvascular complications may mimic that of older adults, extraordinary efforts should be expended on lifestyle modification measures
in an attempt to normalize glucose levels. Failing that strategy, the only labeled oral agent for use in children (10 to 16 years of age) is
metformin, although sulfonylureas are also commonly used in therapy. TZDs and DPP-4 inhibitors have not been adequately studied in
children, but studies to ascertain safety and efficacy are currently under way. GLP-1 agonist therapy, as it potentially helps the child to
lose weight, is attractive, but the long-term effects of this therapeutic modality are unknown. Insulin therapy continues to be the standard
therapy after metformin and a sulfonylurea. In adolescent females, the possibility of future pregnancy should be considered in the
prescription of any drug regimen. Screening and recommendations for treatment of hypertension, dyslipidemia, nephropathy, retinopathy,
hypothyroidism, and celiac disease are available.6
Elderly Patients with DM
Elderly patients with newly diagnosed DM (almost always type 2 DM) present a different therapeutic challenge. Consideration of the risks
of hypoglycemia, the extent of comorbidities including severe microvascular disease, CVD, dexterity, self-care and social situations, falls
risk, mental status, and the probable life span should help determine glycemic goals. If extensive comorbidities, hypoglycemic
unawareness, unstable CVD, dementia, high falls risk, or similar diagnosis is made, the clinician may adjust the glycemic goal. Avoidance
of hypoglycemia, especially severe hypoglycemia, as well as elevated glucose levels that may exacerbate the comorbidities is necessary
(Fig. 57-8). It should also be remembered that elderly may have an altered presentation of hypoglycemia, as they lose adrenergic
symptoms due to loss of autonomic nerve function as they age. This may raise the rise of neuroglycopenic symptoms shortly after
identification of hypoglycemia. If the patient is newly diagnosed and does not have the above problems, a goal HbA1c <7% (<0.07; <53
mmol/mol Hb) is justified. If the person has significant comorbidities as mentioned above, then a goal <8% (<0.08; <64 mmol/mol Hb)
may be reasonable, and if the person has end-stage illness, glycemic control should limit symptomatic (polyuria/polydipsia) or mental
status issues. If oral agents will work, DPP-4 inhibitors, shorter-acting insulin secretagogues, low-dose sulfonylureas (preferably not longacting ones), or -glucosidase inhibitors may be used. The risk for lactic acidosis, which increases with older age and the age-related
decline in renal function, makes metformin therapy difficult, but lower doses may be used if not contraindicated. In a patient in whom
weight gain or loss may not be unwelcome, TZDs or GLP-1 agonists, respectively, may be considered, but falls risk and fracture risk must
be considered with TZDs. DPP-4 inhibitors or -glucosidase inhibitors are oral medications that may be advantageous due to a low risk of
hypoglycemia. Simple insulin regimens such as an injection of basal insulin daily may be appropriate for glycemic control in elderly
patients, especially if tight glycemic control is not the goal. The Texas Diabetes Council publishes an algorithm; see
Sidebar: Clinical Controversy...

Treatment of Type 2 DM in Older Adults

The U.S. population continues to age. The ACCORD,48 ADVANCE,49 and VADT50 had older individuals who were in their 60s at
enrollment. As stated earlier in the chapter, all improved glycemic control but did not reduce the risk of CVD over 3 to 5 years, although
more people died in the ACCORD, resulting in termination of the study. ADVANCE reported improvement in nephropathy outcomes, and
this did not differ by age, but otherwise these neutral studies did not report improved microvascular outcomes. In addition, one Japanese
study had subjects with a mean age of 72 years, and a 6-year follow-up, but changes in glycemia were minimal, thus showing no
benefit.57 This is unfortunate, as up to one in three people in this age category may have type 2 DM. Diabetes in older adults is
complicated by clinical and functional heterogeneity. Patients may be relatively healthy, free-living adults all the way to the other end of
the spectrum with assistive living, multiple comorbidities, and cognitive issues. Based on this, what is the optimal medication therapy for
this group of individuals?
Critical evaluation of most medications in populations over 65 years of age is severely lacking. Many clinicians have decided that insulin,
especially basal insulin, is a reasonable choice in this age group, and that minimal orals (maybe metformin if not contraindicated) are
reasonable. Yet, in the new ADA guidelines and clinical practice recommendations, a patient-centered approach is stated. It is unlikely
that most patients would choose basal insulin as their initial intervention if asked. Also, the cost for basal insulin is not minimal, and one
must ask if it is truly more cost-effective than many other interventions. Severe hypoglycemia must be avoided in this population, as it has
been associated with a higher risk of death for more than 1 year after the incident. Any of the agents can avoid severe hypoglycemia if
used properly, but the risk factors for hypoglycemia are: use of insulin or insulin secretagogues, duration of diabetes, antecedent
hypoglycemia, erratic meals, exercise, and renal insufficiency. In addition, self-care, visual acuity, and dexterity issues may be of concern
in patients.
Medications that do not cause hypoglycemia may be advantageous. Metformin, if not contraindicated, continues to be an excellent first
choice. As metformin may be used in Stage III CKD, with a reduced dose, this may be a reasonable choice. Second-choice agents such
as DPP-4 inhibitors, if close to the chosen HbA1c goal, or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, if farther from the chosen goal, may be warranted.
Each has its own issues, as both may be cost prohibitive and GLP-1 receptor agonists may be inappropriate for patients with GI issues or



gastroparesis, or normal-weight to underweight patients. -Glucosidase inhibitors, if close to goal and constipation is an issue, may be
helped by these agents, although GI tolerability is problematic.
As the care for people with diabetes improves, it is imperative that issues concerning older adults continue to be addressed. It is
important for our society that optimal therapy in older adults be properly addressed, as this population will continue to grow, and
currently there is no consensus. Several organizations have recommendations in regards to older adults,58,59 but recommendations on
optimal pharmacotherapy are not included.
Gestational DM and Pregnancy with Preexisting Diabetes
GDM is diagnosed as previously described. The adverse outcomes associated with GDM include birth defects, increased rates of
miscarriage, necessity of cesarean section delivery, neonatal hypoglycemia, preeclampsia/eclampsia, preterm delivery, shoulder
dystocia/birth injury, and hyperbilirubinemia. Dietary therapy to minimize wide fluctuations in BG is of paramount importance.5,8 Intensive
educational efforts are usually necessary. Pregnant women without DM maintain plasma glucose concentrations between 50 and 130
mg/dL (2.8 and 7.2 mmol/L). Normoglycemia is the goal, and failure to maintain this despite dietary interventions often will necessitate
medication use. Goals during therapy are minimally a preprandial goal of 90 mg/dL (5 mmol/L), and either 1-hour postprandial plasma
glucose levels 120 mg/dL (6.7 mmol/L) or 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose levels 110 mg/dL (6.1 mmol/L), and avoidance of
ketones as much as possible. In patients who have preexisting type 1 or type 2 DM and become pregnant, premeal, bedtime, and
overnight glucose should be 60 to 90 mg/dL (3.3 to 5 mmol/L), with a peak postprandial of 100 to 120 mg/dL (5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L). HbA1c
during pregnancy should be less than 6% (<0.06; <42 mmol/mol Hb), but frequent SMBG is the method of choice for monitoring glycemic
control. Titration of insulin and switching to more complicated regimens is guided by SMBG results. Use of basal insulins other than NPH
is still debated, but with the ease of use of detemir or glargine insulin, their use in GDM is increasing. In addition, pump therapy for the
duration of the pregnancy is often instituted, as it can obtain excellent glycemic control and is quickly adjustable. Both metformin and
glyburide have been studied as alternatives to insulin therapy. Glyburide was not detected in the cord serum of any infant in one study,
whereas metformin crosses the placenta. Further study is needed prior to routinely recommending them in GDM. Patients with GDM
should be evaluated 6 weeks after delivery to ensure that normal glucose tolerance has returned. Because these patients lifetime risk for
the development of type 2 DM is >50%, periodic assessment after that is warranted.
Sidebar: Clinical Controversy...

Oral Agents in Pregnancy

The use of oral antidiabetic agents for the management of gestational diabetes or type 2 DM during pregnancy is controversial. For those
patients who fail to maintain optimal glycemic control during pregnancy with diet and lifestyle modification, traditionally the next step has
been to proceed with insulin therapy. More recently, however, some clinicians have begun using oral agents including sulfonylureas
and/or metformin in patients with GDM or type 2 DM during pregnancy.
A randomized, open-label, controlled trial evaluated the efficacy of glyburide compared with insulin initiated after 11 weeks gestation.60
The control of BG compared with insulin therapy was similar, with less hypoglycemia in the glyburide group. There was not any evidence
of significant difference in complications, including cord serum insulin concentrations, incidence of macrosomia (birth weight 4,000 g),
cesarean delivery, or neonatal hypoglycemia between regimens. Glyburide was not detected in the cord serum of any infant. However,
this study limited enrollment to beyond 11 weeks gestation; therefore, no conclusions can be made regarding teratogenicity from using
glyburide in the first trimester.
A more recent retrospective cohort study of 10,682 women with GDM who required medical therapy, however, revealed that babies born
to women with GDM who were managed on glyburide were more likely to be macrosomic and to be admitted to the intensive care unit
compared with those treated with insulin therapy.61
Metformin has also been used in the management of GDM and type 2 DM in pregnancy, and also in polycystic ovarian syndrome to
prevent miscarriage. Early studies dating back to the 1980s did not show any differences in perinatal mortality, maternal hypoglycemia,
lactic acidosis, or congenital anomalies.62,63
However, a more recent cohort study investigating the effects of metformin, sulfonylureas, and insulin in pregnant women with diabetes
found a significantly higher rate of preeclampsia in women treated with metformin compared with women treated with sulfonylurea or
insulin (32% metformin vs. 7% sulfonylureas vs. 10% insulin). The perinatal mortality was also significantly increased in women treated
with metformin in the third trimester compared with women not treated with metformin (11.6% vs. 1.3%).64
In contrast, another study of 751 women with GDM randomly assigned subjects at 20 to 33 weeks of gestation to open treatment with
metformin (with supplemental insulin if required) or insulin. This study did not find any increased rate of preeclampsia or other perinatal
complications compared with insulin.65



Subsequently there have also been meta-analyses that also revealed no differences in maternal or neonatal outcomes with the use of
glyburide or metformin compared with the use of insulin in women with GDM.66,67
The current guidelines of the ADA continue to suggest insulin therapy as the preferred treatment for managing women with gestational
diabetes or type 2 DM in pregnancy who fail to achieve optimal control with diet/lifestyle modification alone.68 Moreover, neither
metformin nor glyburide has formal FDA approval for the management of diabetes in pregnancy.
The use of oral antidiabetic agents in pregnancy is becoming more common, but nevertheless remains controversial. Clinicians who
prescribe oral agents to manage their patients with diabetes during pregnancy must consider the potential benefits (avoidance of
injections, decreased cost, and patient preference) against the potential risk (unknown safety, inconsistent effect on the pregnancy
outcomes, and potential liability due to using nonFDA-approved therapy).

Special Situations
Sick Days
Acute self-limited illness rarely presents a major problem for patients with type 2 DM, but can be a significant challenge for insulinopenic
type 1 DM patients.69 While caloric intake generally declines, insulin sensitivity also decreases, meaning that it may take greater amounts
of insulin to control BG concentrations. Patients need to be adept at frequent SMBG, checking urine ketones, use of short-acting insulin,
and understanding that sugar intake in this situation is not detrimental but may be necessary to balance the glucose levels when extra
insulin is needed during illness. Plan to maintain a meal plan containing 120 to 150 g of carbohydrates per day. We encourage patients to
continue their usual insulin regimen and to use supplemental rapid-acting insulin based on SMBG results, with additional insulin given if
ketonuria develops. Ketone testing should be in type 1 DM patients prone to ketonuria, if two consecutive plasma glucose readings are
above 250 mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L), or if vomiting occurs, as it is a possible sign of ketosis. Sugar and electrolyte solutions, can be used to
maintain hydration, to provide needed electrolytes if there are significant GI or urinary losses, and to provide sugar to keep the patient
from developing hypoglycemia because of the extra insulin that is usually needed. If patients with type 1 DM are consistently
hyperglycemic, we suggest they abstain from sugary drinks and increase intake of sugar-free liquids. In contrast, patients with type 2 DM
may need to switch to sugar-free drinks if BG levels are continually elevated. Most patients can be taught how to sufficiently manage sick
days and avoid hospitalization.
Diabetic Ketoacidosis and Hyperosmolar Hyperglycemic State
DKA and HHS are true diabetic emergencies.70 A comprehensive discussion of their treatment is beyond the scope of this chapter. In
patients with known diabetes, DKA is usually precipitated by insulin omission in type 1 DM, and intercurrent illness, particularly infection,
in both type 1 and type 2 DM. However, patients with type 1 or type 2 DM (the latter being usually nonwhites or Hispanics) may present
with DKA at initial presentation. It is possible that some of the patients deemed to have type 2 DM actually have type 1 idiopathic DM.
Patients with DKA may be alert, stuporous, or comatose at presentation. The hallmark diagnostic laboratory values for DKA include
hyperglycemia, anion gap acidosis, and large ketonemia or ketonuria. Diagnostic criteria for HHS are similar with the exception of
significantly higher plasma glucose, elevated effective serum osmolality, and little to no ketonuria or ketonemia when compared with DKA.
HHS typically evolves over several days to weeks, whereas DKA evolves much quickly. Afflicted patients will have either fluid deficits of
several liters or sodium and potassium deficits of several hundred milliequivalents. Restoration of intravascular volume acutely with
normal saline, followed by hypotonic saline to replace free water, potassium supplements, and constant infusion of insulin restore the
patients metabolic status relatively quickly. A flow sheet is often helpful in tracking the fluid and insulin therapies and laboratory
parameters in these patients. Bicarbonate administration is generally not needed and may be harmful, especially in children. Treatment of
the inciting medical condition is also vital. Hourly bedside monitoring of glucose and frequent monitoring (every 2 to 4 hours) of potassium
is essential. Metabolic improvement is manifested by an increase in the serum bicarbonate or pH. Serum phosphorus usually starts high
and plummets to lower-than-normal levels, although replacing phosphorus, while not unreasonable, is of questionable benefit in most
patients. Fluid administration alone will reduce the glucose concentration, so a decrement in glucose values does not necessarily mean
that the patients metabolic status is improving. Rare patients will require larger amounts of insulin than those usually given (5 to 10
units/h). We double the patients insulin dose if the serum bicarbonate has not improved after the first 4 hours of insulin therapy. Constant
infusion of a fixed dose of insulin and the administration of IV glucose when the BG level decreases to <250 mg/dL (<13.9 mmol/L) are
preferable to titration of the insulin infusion based on the glucose level. The latter strategy may delay clearance of the ketosis and prolong
treatment. The insulin infusion should be continued until the urine ketones clear and the anion gap closes. Long-acting insulin should be
given 1 to 3 hours prior to discontinuing the insulin infusion. Intramuscular regular insulin or subcutaneous insulin lispro or aspart given
every 1 to 2 hours can be utilized rather than an insulin infusion in patients without hypoperfusion. Patients may develop hyperchloremic
metabolic acidosis with treatment if they have been given large volumes of normal saline in the course of their treatment. Such a situation
does not require any specific treatment.
HHS usually occurs in older patients with type 2 DM, at times undiagnosed, or in younger patients with prolonged hyperglycemia and



dehydration or significant renal insufficiency. Large ketonemia is usually not seen, as residual insulin secretion suppresses lipolysis.
Infection or another medical illness is the usual precipitant. Fluid deficits are usually greater and BG concentrations higher (at times
>1,000 mg/dL [>55.5 mmol/L]) in these patients than in patients with DKA. BG levels should be lowered very gradually with hypotonic
fluids and low-dose insulin infusions (1 to 2 units/h). Rapid correction of the glucose levels, a drop greater than 75 to 100 mg/dL/h (4.2 to
5.6 mmol/L/h), is not recommended, as it can result in cerebral edema. This is especially true for children with DKA. Mortality is high with
the HHS.
Hospitalization for Intercurrent Medical Illness
Patients on oral agents may need transient therapy with insulin to achieve adequate glycemic control. In patients requiring insulin,
patients should receive scheduled doses of insulin with additional short-acting insulin. Sliding-scale insulin is to be discouraged, as it is
notorious for not controlling glucose and for sometimes resulting in therapeutic misadventures, with wide amplitudes of glycemic
excursions.71 In-hospital mortality is increased in many hyperglycemic conditions. At least one study documented a reduction in mortality
in type 2 diabetes patients with acute MIs72 who receive constant IV insulin during the acute phase of the event to maintain near-normal
glucose concentrations. Similar mortality results have been documented in some intensive care unit settings using IV insulin and tight
glucose control.72,73 The ADA and American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists released a joint consensus statement on inpatient
glycemic control stating that glucose control measures should be implemented if the BG is 180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L), and maintained
between 140 and 180 mg/dL (7.8 and 10 mmol/L).74 The Normoglycemia in Intensive Care EvaluationSurvival Using Glucose Algorithm
Regulation trial, and several other negative trials, has resulted in this loosening of inpatient glycemic goals. Critically ill patients had higher
90-day mortality when a goal of 81 to 108 mg/dL (4.5 to 6 mmol/L) was targeted than when BG of 180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L) (achieved
144 mg/dL [8 mmol/L]) was targeted.75 For noncritically ill patients there are no established BG goals. Reasonable BG goals for these
patients are <140 mg/dL (<7.8 mmol/L) premeal and <180 mg/dL (<10 mmol/L) random.5 Many protocols for IV insulin infusion are
currently available, and implementation for an inpatient setting should use a well-established protocol. It is prudent to stop metformin in
all patients who arrive in acute care settings until full elucidation of the reason for presentation can be ascertained, as contraindications to
metformin are prevalent in hospitalized patients. Discharge planning is also important, as approximately one third of patients will have
newly diagnosed diabetes and another one third will likely have prediabetes, as determined by obtaining an HbA1c on admission (best) or
prior to discharge.
Perioperative Management
Surgical patients may experience worsening of glycemia for reasons similar to those listed above for intercurrent medical illness. Therapy
should be individualized based on the type of DM, nature of the surgical procedure, previous therapy, and metabolic control prior to the
procedure. Patients on oral agents may need transient therapy with insulin to control BG. In patients requiring insulin, scheduled doses of
insulin or continuous insulin infusions are preferred. For patients who can eat soon after surgery, the time-honored approach of giving one
half of the usual morning NPH insulin dose with dextrose 5% in water IV is acceptable, with resumption of scheduled insulin, perhaps at
reduced doses, within the first day. Patients receiving basal/bolus insulin therapy can continue receiving their usual dose of long-acting
insulin while holding the premeal bolus doses until the patient can tolerate meals. For patients requiring more prolonged periods without
oral nutrition and for major surgery, such as coronary artery bypass grafting and major abdominal surgery, constant infusion of IV insulin
is preferred. Use of IV insulin infusion has been shown to reduce deep sternal wound infections in patients after coronary artery bypass
grafting, although there is no need to start the infusion during or before the procedure. Metformin should be discontinued temporarily
after any major surgery until it is clear that the patient is hemodynamically stable and normal renal function is documented.
Reproductive-Age Women and Preconception Care for Women
An increasing prevalence of DM has been noted in reproductive-age women.5,76,77 Prepregnancy planning is absolutely mandatory, as
organogenesis is largely completed within 8 weeks, so good glycemic control should be obtained prior to conception. Unfortunately,
major congenital malformations due to poor glucose control remain the leading cause of mortality and serious morbidity in infants of
mothers with type 1 or type 2 DM. For women with DM controlled by lifestyle measures alone, conversion to insulin as soon as the
pregnancy is confirmed is appropriate. Patients previously treated with insulin may need intensification of their regimen to achieve
therapeutic goals. Normal pregnancy is associated with a decrease in the BG concentration as it is diverted to the fetus.
Human Immunodeciency Virus (HIV) Patients and Diabetes
Patients living with HIV are at higher risk for the development of type 2 DM.78 This risk may be related to HIV infection, concomitant
infections such as hepatitis C, and concomitant medications often used to treat HIV or comorbidities. Pentamidine, used for P. carinii
pneumonia, is directly -cell toxic in some patients; hypoglycemia may be followed by hyperglycemia. Megestrol, used as an appetite
stimulant, can have glucocorticoid-like effects in some patients. In addition, protease inhibitors, used to manage HIV, have been shown to
potentially worsen insulin sensitivity, decrease the ability of the cell to secrete insulin, and/or worsen lipotoxicity. Long-term stavudine



may also increase the risk of diabetes. Redistribution of fat from medication or HIV infection, with resultant increases in visceral fat and
decreases in subcutaneous fat, is not uncommon. Metformin continues to be the first-line therapy choice for HIV patients, as weight gain
can be minimized, but additional cautions must be noted. Stavudine, zidovudine, and didanosine may cause lactemia, especially on longterm use, whereas abacavir, lamivudine, and tenofovir have less incidence of lactemia. It may be advisable to check lactate levels in
appropriate subjects prior to metformin use. If lactate levels are greater than two times normal, alternative therapy should be considered.
If excess visceral adiposity is noted, a TZD, which redistributes fat back to subcutaneous adipose tissue and causes visceral fat
apoptosis, may be considered. Significant drugdrug interactions may also be present (refer to specific diabetes drugs in Chap. 103).

Special Topics
Prevention of Diabetes Mellitus
Efforts to prevent type 1 DM with niacinamide, injected insulin, or oral insulin therapy have been unsuccessful. Anti-CD3 and antiCD20 monoclonal antibodies and a GAD vaccine have shown to delay, but not stop, -cell destruction in type 1 DM. In addition, a 24
amino acid sequence derived from human heat shock protein 60 called DiaPep277 may slow loss of C-peptide secretion in type 1 DM.
Future directions include potential combination therapy trials. The Diabetes Prevention Program79 confirmed that modest weight loss in
association with exercise can have a dramatic impact on insulin sensitivity and the conversion from IGT to type 2 diabetes. In this study
approximately 2,000 individuals with IGT were randomized to lifestyle changes (diet, exercise, and weight loss) versus usual care. The
study, which was originally planned to be ongoing for 5 years, was stopped early after 2.8 years. The usual care group developed
diabetes at the rate of 11% each year. The lifestyle arm developed diabetes at a rate of 5% per year, a 58% reduction in the risk of
developing diabetes.79 Surprisingly, a modest amount of diet and exercise yielded impressive results. The exercise program in the
lifestyle group was walking 30 minutes 5 days each week. The mean weight loss over the 2.8-year study period was only 8 lb (3.6 kg). In
the Diabetes Prevention Program79 discussed above, approximately 1,000 of the study patients were randomized to metformin therapy.
Metformin therapy reduced the risk of developing type 2 DM by 31% compared with usual care and resulted in a 4-lb (1.8-kg) weight loss.
Interestingly, young and overweight individuals on metformin had a greater reduction in the risk of developing diabetes than normalweight and older study patients.79
All diabetes medications studied for the prevention of diabetes, when discontinued, do not appear to have residual positive effects on cell function. Thus, patients must continue the medication for continued prevention, although the question arises if this is merely early
treatment. Troglitazone, a TZD removed from the market, was able to prevent the development of diabetes in women with a history of
gestational diabetes. Total preservation of -cell function was demonstrated over a 5-year period in women who had near-normal -cell
function at baseline and who initially responded to the drug.80 The preservation of -cell function was observed for at least 8 months
after the drug had been discontinued. The DREAM trial evaluated rosiglitazone and/or ramipril treatment for the delay or prevention of
type 2 DM in impaired glucose-tolerant subjects.81,82 Rosiglitazone 8 mg daily, over approximately 3 years, reduced the incidence of
type 2 diabetes by 60%. In addition, a 37% nonsignificant increase in cardiovascular events was reported. Ramipril 15 mg daily did not
significantly prevent the conversion to diabetes. It is possible that longer exposure could have made a difference, but the study was
stopped prematurely. In contrast, valsartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), administered for 5 years was recently reported to
reduce the risk of progression from IGT to type 2 DM by 14%. The ACT Now trial used pioglitazone 45 mg daily in an IGT population and
found a 72% reduction in the risk of development of diabetes over 2.4 years.83 It should be noted that no pharmacologic agents are
currently FDA approved or recommended for prevention of type 2 diabetes, although the ADA recommends metformin in conjunction with
lifestyle changes if the patient is younger, obese, has a family history of diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, or a HbA1c >6% (>0.06;
>42 mmol/mol Hb).5 The next step is discussions with the FDA to decide how and if medications to prevent diabetes can be approved for
this indication.
Patient Education
It is not satisfactory to give patients with DM brief instructions with a few pamphlets and expect them to manage their disease
adequately.84 Diabetes education is a lifetime exercise. Successful treatment of DM involves lifestyle changes for the patient (e.g.,
medical nutrition therapy, physical activity, SMBG and possibly of urine for ketones, recognition of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, and
taking prescribed medications). The American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) has developed the AADE7 self-care behaviors of
healthy eating, being active, monitoring, taking medication, problem solving, reducing risk, and healthy coping, which is a good starting
framework for patient discussions. The patient must be involved in the decision-making process and must learn as much about the
disease and associated complications as possible. Emphasis should be placed on the evidence that indicates that complications can be
prevented or minimized with glycemic control and management of risk factors for CVD. Recognition of the need for proper patient
education to empower them into self-care has generated programs for certification in diabetes education for pharmacists. Certified
diabetes educators (CDEs) must document their patient education hours and sit for a certification examination that assesses the



knowledge, tasks, and skills of an educator in order to become certified. An increasing number of nurses, pharmacists, dietitians, and
physicians are becoming CDEs to document to the public that they meet a minimum standard for diabetes education, and to fulfill quality
initiatives in meeting guidelines for education recognition. Being a CDE does not guarantee reimbursement of services, and CDEs who are
not dietitians will often need to become part of a recognized program to obtain reimbursement. Currently the AADE and ADA have
accreditation programs.

Treatment of Concomitant Conditions and Complications

Patients with established retinopathy should see an ophthalmologist or optometrist trained in diabetic eye disease. A dilated eye
examination is required to fully evaluate diabetic eye disease. Early background retinopathy may reverse with improved glycemic control
and optimized blood pressure control. More advanced retinopathy will not fully regress with improved glycemia, but caution should be
taken on the expediency of glycemia lowering, as aggressive reductions in glycemia may acutely worsen retinopathy. The
pathophysiology of retinopathy is better understood to involve inappropriate growth factor increase and microcirculation ischemia.
Bevacizumab, used off-label, and ranibizumab, recently FDA approved, are antivascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibodies
given by intravitreal injection. Although approved for macular edema, use may also apply to other neovascular ocular conditions. A
protein kinase C inhibitor has been studied, but results have been modest. Laser photocoagulation has markedly improved sight
preservation in diabetic patients. People with diabetes also have a higher rate of cataracts and possibly open-angle glaucoma.
Neuropathy in diabetes can generally be placed into three categories: peripheral neuropathy, autonomic neuropathy, and focal
neuropathy. Distal symmetrical peripheral neuropathy is the most common complication seen in type 2 DM patients in outpatient
clinics.85 Paresthesias, perceived hot or cold, numbness, or pain may be the predominant symptom. The feet are involved far more often
than the hands as it affects longer nerves first and progresses proximally. Improved glycemic control is the primary treatment and may
alleviate some of the symptoms. If neuropathy is painful, symptomatic pain treatment is indicated, although it will not change the course
of the neuropathy nor has one medication been shown to be superior to another. Treatment may be with low-dose tricyclic
antidepressants, anticonvulsants (gabapentin, pregabalin, rarely carbamazepine), duloxetine, venlafaxine, topical capsaicin, and various
pain medications, including tramadol and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Duloxetine and pregabalin have FDA approval for this
indication. The numb variant of peripheral neuropathy is not treated with medication, but may lead to pressure areas on the foot and
subsequent ulcer in a subset of patients. Clinical manifestations of diabetic autonomic neuropathy include resting tachycardia, exercise
intolerance, orthostatic hypotension, constipation, gastroparesis, erectile dysfunction, sudomotor dysfunction (anhidrosis, heat
intolerance, gustatory sweating, and/or dry skin), impaired neurovascular function, and hypoglycemic autonomic failure. Gastroparesis
can be a severe and debilitating complication of DM. Improved glycemic control, discontinuation of medications that slow gastric motility,
and the use of metoclopramide (preferably for only a few weeks at a time) or low-dose erythromycin may be helpful. Gastric pacemakers
as therapeutic hardware are rarely used, though available. Cisapride, removed from the market several years ago, is still available for
compassionate use and domperidone, available outside of the United States, may be useful. Orthostatic hypotension, after stopping
antihypertensives and liberalizing dietary sodium intake, may require pharmacologic management with mineralocorticoids or adrenergic
agonist agents. In severe cases, supine hypertension is extreme, mandating that the patient sleep in a sitting or semirecumbent position.
Patients with cardiac autonomic neuropathy are at a higher risk for silent MI and sudden cardiac death. The hallmark of diabetic diarrhea
is its nocturnal occurrence. Diabetic diarrhea frequently responds to a 10- to 14-day course of an antibiotic such as doxycycline or
metronidazole. In more unresponsive cases, octreotide may be useful. Erectile dysfunction is common in diabetes, and initial treatment
should include a trial of one of the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors prior to referral. People with diabetes often require the highest
doses of these medications to have an adequate response. Sudomotor dysfunction, as earlier defined, results in loss of sweating and
resultant dry, cracked skin. Use of hydrating creams and ointments is needed. Hypoglycemic unawareness requires the patient to avoid
hypoglycemia, as the body will slowly increase the glycemic level at which it will signal the autonomic signals, although damage may
severely lessen the response. Focal neuropathies are uncommon, but occur more often in older, poorly controlled diabetes patients.
Diabetic amyotrophy, which is characterized by a proximal thigh muscle pain and weakness, is one of the most debilitating. In addition,
cranial nerve III, IV, and VI neuropathies, as well as Bells palsy, may occur. The presentation can be quite dramatic, but the course is
usually self-limited, and partial or full recovery happens in a few weeks to months. Carpal tunnel syndrome, caused by radial nerve
entrapment, is also more common in people with diabetes,
Microalbuminuria and Nephropathy
DM, particularly type 2 DM, is the biggest contributor statistically to the development of end-stage renal disease in the United States.1,5
The ADA recommends a screening urinary analysis for albumin at diagnosis in persons with type 2 DM. Precise onset of type 2 DM can
rarely be ascertained, and patients will often present at diagnosis with microvascular complications. In type 1 DM, microalbuminuria rarely
occurs with short duration of disease or before puberty. Screening individuals with type 1 DM should begin with puberty and after 5



years disease duration. There are three methods for assessing microalbuminuria: (a) measurement of the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio
in a random spot collection (preferably the first morning void); (b) 24-hour timed collection; and (c) timed (e.g., 4- or 10-hour overnight)
collection. Microalbuminuria on a spot urine specimen is defined as an albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 30 to 300 mg/g (3.4 to 34 mg/mmol
creatinine). On timed collections, microalbuminuria is defined as 30 to 300 mg/24 hours or an albumin excretion rate of 20 to 200
mcg/min. Because of day-to-day variability, microalbuminuria should be confirmed on at least two of three samples over 3 to 6 months
unless unequivocal. Additionally, when assessing urine protein or albumin, conditions that may cause transient elevations in urinary
albumin excretion should be excluded. These conditions include intense exercise, recent urinary tract infections, hypertension, short-term
hyperglycemia, heart failure, and acute febrile illness.5
In type 2 DM, the presence of microalbuminuria is a strong risk factor for macrovascular disease and is frequently present at the time of
diagnosis. Microalbuminuria is a weaker predictor for future end-stage kidney disease in type 2 versus type 1 DM. Glucose and blood
pressure control are most important for the prevention of nephropathy, and blood pressure control is the most important for retarding the
progression of established nephropathy. ACE inhibitors and ARBs, considered first-line recommended treatment modalities, have shown
efficacy in preventing the clinical progression of renal disease in patients with diabetes. Combined reninangiotensinaldosterone system
blockage (with ACE inhibitors, ARBs, aldosterone receptor blockers, and/or direct renin inhibitors) cannot currently be recommended for
routine practice in nephropathy. Diuretics frequently are necessary due to the volume-expanded state of the patient and are
recommended second-line therapy. The ADA and the National Kidney Foundation blood pressure goal of <130/80 mm Hg can be difficult
to achieve. Three or more antihypertensives are often needed to treat to goal blood pressures (see also Chap. 29).
Peripheral Vascular Disease and Foot Ulcers
Claudication and nonhealing foot ulcers are common in type 2 DM patients.86 Smoking cessation, correction of lipid abnormalities, and
antiplatelet therapy are important strategies in treating claudicants. Cilostazol may be useful for reducing intermittent claudication
symptoms in select patients. Revascularization is successful in selected patients, although small vessel disease that cannot be bypassed
is common in diabetes. Local dbridement and appropriate footwear and foot care are vitally important in the early treatment of foot
lesions. In more advanced lesions multiple treatments including grafts, topical wound healing, and even hyperbaric treatments may be
necessary. Diabetic foot care is an excellent example of the adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Thus, a foot
examination at each visit is recommended. A yearly Semmes-Weinstein 5.07/10-g force monofilament test for sensation can be used to
identify high-risk patients who need further podiatric evaluation.
Coronary Heart Disease
The risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) is two to four times greater in diabetic patients than in nondiabetic individuals. CHD is the
major source of mortality in patients with DM. Multiple risk factor intervention (lipids, hypertension, smoking cessation, and antiplatelet
therapy)5 will reduce the burden of excess macrovascular events. The ADA recommends aspirin therapy in all secondary prevention
situations, and if allergic to aspirin, consider clopidogrel. Recent evidence in primary prevention studies of antiplatelet therapy in type 2
DM has not shown benefit. The ADA currently recommends that if the 10-year risk of CVD is at least 10%, or the patient is at your
judgment high risk, or in women at least 60 years old or men at least 50 years old, primary prevention antiplatelet therapy can be
considered. Epidemiologic data suggest that CHD prevention guidelines for type 2 DM apply equally to patients with type 1 DM.5 Blocker therapy supplies an even greater protection from recurrent CHD events in diabetic patients than in nondiabetic subjects. Masking
of hypoglycemic symptoms is a greater problem in type 1 DM patients than in patients with type 2 DM, although this risk can be
adequately managed with proper glycemic control interventions (see also Chap. 6).

The Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS) randomized diabetes subjects with no documented CVD to atorvastatin 10 mg
daily (n = 1,428) or placebo (n = 1,410). The trial was stopped 2 years early (mean duration of follow-up was 3.9 years) after meeting the
primary efficacy end point of major cardiovascular events, which were reduced by 37% (P = 0.001). All-cause death was reduced 27% (P
= 0.059), and potentially could have had its significance influenced by the early stoppage of the trial.87 The Heart Protection Study
randomized 5,963 patients aged >40 years with diabetes and total cholesterol >135 mg/dL (>3.49 mmol/L). A significant 22% reduction
(95% CI, 13 to 30) in the event rate for major cardiovascular events was seen with simvastatin 40 mg/day. This was evident even at lower
LDL levels (<116 mg/dL [<3 mmol/L]), and suggests that 30% to 40% reduction in LDL levels regardless of starting LDL levels may be
appropriate.88 The ADA recommends statin therapy, regardless of baseline lipid or LDL-C levels in patients with overt CVD or without
documented CVD who are over the age of 40 and have CVD risk factors besides diabetes.5
The proper use of fibrates in diabetes continues to be controversial. The Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD)
was conducted in 9,795 subjects (22% with previously documented CVD) with type 2 DM given fenofibrate 200 mg daily or placebo. A
relative reduction of 11% (P = 0.16) was seen in any coronary event in conjunction with a slight increase in the risk of all-cause mortality
(0.7%; P = 0.18). Reasons for this have been speculated on, including the increased use of statins in the placebo group, but continue to



be controversial.89 On subset analysis, only subjects without CVD had a significant reduction in CVD events. The lipid arm of the
ACCORD90 reported on 5,518 subjects randomized to fenofibrate or placebo given with low-dose simvastatin (20 mg/day). Fenofibrate
addition did not significantly lower cardiovascular events (0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.08). Niacin in combination with a statin recently failed to
improved CVD outcomes as well.
The NCEP-ATP III15 guidelines classify the presence of DM as a CHD risk equivalent, and therefore recommend that LDL-C be lowered
to <100 mg/dL (<2.59 mmol/L). An optional LDL goal in high-risk DM patients, such as those who already have CHD, has been updated
to <70 mg/dL (<1.81 mmol/L)91 (Table 57-12). The primary goal of treatment is to obtain the LDL-C goal. After the LDL-C goal is reached
(usually with a statin), via NCEP-ATP, triglycerides are possibly considered for pharmacologic management, assuming unresponsiveness
to glycemic control efforts, weight management, and exercise. In such situations, a nonHDL-C goal is established (a surrogate for all
apolipoprotein Bcontaining particles). The nonHDL-C goal for patients with DM is <130 mg/dL (<3.36 mmol/L). Niacin or a fibrate can
be added to reach that goal if triglycerides are 201 to 499 mg/dL (2.27 to 5.64 mmol/L), although there is little evidence this will lower
CVD. Patients with marked hypertriglyceridemia (500 mg/dL [5.65 mmol/L]) are at risk for pancreatitis. Efforts to reduce triglycerides
with glycemic control, elimination of other secondary causes (including medications), and drug therapy (fibrates, statins, and potentially
niacin) are effective treatment strategies. Readers are also referred to the Chapters 3 and 11 for further information.
Table 57-12 Classification of Lipid and Lipoprotein Levels in Adults



Treatment (In Order of Preference)


<100 mg/dL (<2.59 mmol/L) <70

mg/dL (<1.81 mmol/L)a

Lifestyle; HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors; cholesterol

absorption inhibitor; niacin or fenofibrate


Men: >40 mg/dL (>1.03 mmol/L)

Lifestyle; nicotinic acid; fibric acid derivatives

Women: >50 mg/dL (>1.29 mmol/L)


<150 mg/dL (<1.70 mmol/L)

Lifestyle; glycemic control; fibric acid derivatives; high-dose

statins (in those with high LDL)

HDL, high-density lipoprotein; HMG-CoA, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A; LDL,

low-density lipoprotein.
aMay be optimal goal in patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease.
See references 5, 91, and 92.
The role of hypertension in increasing microvascular and macrovascular risk in patients with DM has been confirmed in the UKPDS.44
The ADA has loosened its goals for blood pressure (<140/80 mm Hg) in patients with DM.5 The ACCORD blood pressure arm studied
type 2 DM patients, with a goal of achieving a systolic blood pressure of either <120 mm Hg (achieved 119 mm Hg) or <140 mm Hg (133
mm Hg achieved).92 The lower pressure group did not have lower CVD or renal outcomes, but did have a lower risk of stroke. A goal of
<130 mm Hg can still be considered in patients at high risk of a stroke or if renal disease is present. ACE inhibitors and ARBs are
generally recommended for initial therapy, as they have shown to be cardioprotective, and likely have special renal protection. Many
patients require multiple agents, on average three agents, to obtain goals, so diuretics, calcium channel blockers, and -blockers
frequently are useful as second and third agents. African Americans need special consideration. They receive renoprotection from ACE
inhibitors or ARBs, but as a population may lower blood pressure slightly less with these agents. It is recommended that combination
therapy with a diuretic or calcium channel blocker be considered as first-line therapy. After initial therapy, which agent to add next is still
controversial. Blood pressure goals are generally more difficult to achieve than glycemic goals or lipid goals in most diabetic patients.
Readers are referred to Chapter 3 for more information.



Whole pancreas and islet cell transplantation are options in patients with type 1 DM; those with end-stage renal disease also receive
kidney transplantation. Lifelong immunosuppression is required.

Personalized Pharmacotherapy
Individualization of therapy in DM is based on several factors. There is no optimal regimen in diabetes, and it is mostly based on reaching
glycemic goals. In type 1 DM, as insulin must be used, it is to tailor the insulin regimen to the lifestyle of the patient. This almost always
involves basalbolus therapy, individualized based on SMBG readings. In addition, if the patient does not mind being attached to a pump,
therapy can be further tailored to the patient. It may in unusual circumstances involve simplification of the regimen to premix insulins, as
basalbolus therapy may not fit into their lifestyle. Elevated glucagon levels in some patients, as the hormone amylin is low or absent, may
require glucagon suppression therapy. FDA-approved therapy includes addition of pramlintide, but there is evidence for use of
nonapproved medications such as GLP-1 receptor antagonists to act as an alternative to pramlintide, which requires many extra
injections per day. In addition, metformin has been used in some type 1 DM patients who are adherent (and thus at low risk of DKA) but
have suboptimal control of their FPG readings. Metformin use should not be routine, but in examples such as adolescents who miss
injections after frank discussions with patients and parents.
No one regimen in type 2 DM is considered to be optimal for all patients. Common individualization points include mechanism of action,
contraindications, side effects, and potential adverse events including hypoglycemia, efficacy (including fasting vs. postprandial control),
long-term safety, ease of use, and cost. In addition, nonglycemic effects such as weight changes, lipid effects, cardiovascular
outcomes, and even perceived -cell preservation/effects may influence final choices.

Evaluation of Therapeutic Outcomes

A comprehensive pharmaceutical care plan for the patient with DM will integrate considerations of goals to optimize BG control and
protocols to screen for, prevent, or manage microvascular and macrovascular complications. In terms of standards of care for persons
with DM, one can review the document published by the ADA that outlines initial and ongoing assessments for patients with DM.5 The
major performance measure by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), such as Health Plan Employer Data and
Information Set (HEDIS), should assess the ability to meet current standards of care and recognize the minimal treatment goals for
glycemia, lipids, and hypertension, and provide targets for monitoring and adjusting pharmacotherapy as discussed in various sections
above. Publicly reported quality measures continue to move closer to current guidelines, but lack the ability to differentiate reasons why a
patient is not controlled. Glycemic control (tested minimally yearly; HbA1c <8% [<0.08; <64 mmol/mol Hb] is good control and HbA1c
>9% [>0.09; >75 mmol/mol Hb] is poor control), lipid (percentage of patients with LDL <100 mg/dL [<2.59 mmol/L]), and hypertension
(percentage of patients with blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg, but also with blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg) are NCQA-based measures.
Glycemic control is paramount in managing type 1 or type 2 DM, but as readily identified from the above discussion, it requires frequent
assessment and adjustment in diet, exercise, and pharmacologic therapies. The ADA also has clinical practice recommendations that are
widely cited and followed.5 Minimally, HbA1c should be measured twice a year in patients meeting treatment goals on a stable
therapeutic regimen. Quarterly assessments are recommended for those whose therapy has changed or who are not meeting glycemic
goals. Fasting lipid profiles should be obtained as part of an initial assessment and thereafter at each follow-up visit if not at goal,
annually if stable and at goal, or every 2 years if the lipid profile suggests low risk. Documenting regular frequency of foot examinations
(each visit), urine albumin assessment (annually), dilated ophthalmologic examinations (yearly or more frequently with identified
abnormalities), and office visits for follow-up are also important. Assessment for pneumococcal vaccine administration (and one-time
revaccination recommended in individuals at least 65 years old), annual administration of influenza vaccine, new recommendations that all
people with diabetes receive the hepatitis B vaccine series, and routine assessment for and management of other cardiovascular risks
(e.g., smoking and antiplatelet therapy) are components of preventive medicine strategies. The multiplicity of assessments for each
patient visit is likely to be better facilitated utilizing an integrative computer program and electronic medical record, standardized progress
note forms, or flow sheets, which assist the clinician in identifying whether the patient has met standards of care in the frequency of
monitoring and achievement of defined targets of therapy. Adherence continues to be of issue, as with many chronic diseases, and use of
frequent education and potential simplification of regimens, if possible through combination medications, may be warranted (Table 5713). In addition, many patients do not take medications because of tolerance, side effects, and perceived risk versus benefit from their
clinician or from family, friends, or the Internet (Table 57-14).
Table 57-13 Combination Products Available in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitusa


Combined With

Trade Name
Actosplus Met



Metformin and/or metformin extended release










aAt time chapter written.

Table 57-14 Drug Monitoring for Diabetes Mellitus Medications

Medication Class

Adverse Drug Reaction

Monitoring Parameters



GI upset

Gas, bloating, loose stools

Titrate, take in less


Bile acid


Bowel movement frequency

Do not use if history of

bowel obstruction

Raises triglycerides


Not recommended TG
>500 mg/dL (>5.65

GI upset

Reflux, nausea, vomiting, stomach

upset, loose stools

Take with food and

titrate dose; split doses;
consider extended

Lactic acidosis

Hypoxic states, renal function

Lactate levels usually

not measured, but can if
suspected toxicity

and exfoliating dermatologic
skin reactions

Skin rash, signs/symptoms of


Risk factors, such as

history of angioedema,
possibly ACE inhibitor
use, and past history of
severe dermal drug
reactions, should be


Amylase, lipase, abdominal pain

with nausea/vomiting

Discontinue; look for

underlying causes


Syncopal symptoms

Stop antihypertensives

Worsening psychiatric

Signs/symptoms of underlying
mental illness

Avoid use with


CNS effects


Titrate slowly


DPP-4 inhibitors




Gastrointestinal side effects


Titrate slowly

Heart failure/pulmonary

Signs/symptoms of heart failure,

BNP, weight


Peripheral edema

Peripheral edema measures

Limit dose, consider

diuretic (see text), or

Weight gain


Consider if weight is
fluid or likely caloric

Peripheral fractures

None except fracture

Avoid use in
osteoporosis and



Self-monitored blood glucose



Self-monitored blood glucose

GLP-1 receptor



Titrate slowly; avoid in



Amylase, lipase, abdominal pain

with nausea/vomiting

Discontinue; look for

underlying causes

C-cell tumors of thyroid

None recommended, calcitonin

Calcitonin could be
measured if suspected,
has not occurred in
humans to date


GI upset


Titrate slowly; avoid in




Self-monitored blood glucose



American Association of Diabetes Educators


Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes


angiotensin-converting enzyme


American Diabetes Association


Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease


American Heart Association


alanine aminotransferase


angiotensin receptor blocker


blood glucose


body mass index


Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study




certified diabetes educator


continuous glucose monitoring


coronary heart disease


confidence interval


creatinine clearance


continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion


cardiovascular disease


cytochrome P450


Diabetes Control and Complications Trial


diabetic ketoacidosis


diabetes mellitus


dipeptidyl peptidase-4


estimated average glucose


Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications


free fatty acid


Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes


fasting plasma glucose


gestational diabetes mellitus


glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide


glucagon-like peptide-1


hemoglobin A1c


high-density lipoprotein


high-density lipoprotein cholesterol


Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set


hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state


human immunodeficiency virus


human leukocyte antigen


hazard ratio


islet cell antibody


International Diabetes Federation




impaired fasting glucose


impaired glucose tolerance


latent autoimmune diabetes in adults


low-density lipoprotein cholesterol


Look Action for Health in Diabetes


myocardial infarction


maturity onset diabetes of youth


National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel


National Committee for Quality Assurance


National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute


neutral protamine Hagedorn


oral glucose tolerance test


plasminogen activator inhibitor-1


peroxisome proliferatoractivated receptor


Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes in Oral Agent Combination Therapy for Type 2


sodium-dependent glucose cotransporter-2


self-monitoring of blood glucose


sulfonylurea receptor




United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study


Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial


visceral adipose tissue


zinc transporter 8

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Fact Sheet: National Estimates and General Information on Diabetes
and Prediabetes in the United States, 2011. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 2011.
2. American Diabetes Association. Clinical practice recommendations. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care
2013;36(Suppl 1): S67S74.
3. Naik R, Lernmark A, Palmer J. Pathophysiology and genetics of type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes. In: Porte D Jr, Sherwin RS, Baron
A, Ellenberg M, Rifkin H, eds. Ellenberg & Rifkins Diabetes Mellitus, 6th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2003:301330.
4. Bennett P, Rewers M, Knowler W. Epidemiology of diabetes mellitus. In: Porte D Jr, Sherwin RS, Baron A, Ellenberg M, Rifkin H, eds.



Ellenberg & Rifkins Diabetes Mellitus, 6th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2003:277300.
5. American Diabetes Association. Standards for medical care in diabetes2013. Diabetes Care 2013;36(Suppl 1):S11S66.
6. American Diabetes Association. Standards of care. Children and adolescents in: Clinical practice recommendations. Diabetes Care
2013;36(Suppl 1):S40S43.
7. DeFronzo RA. From the triumvirate to the ominous octet: A new paradigm for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes
2009;58:773795. [PubMed: 19336687]
8. International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel, Metzger BE, Gabbe SG, et al. International
Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in
pregnancy. Diabetes Care 2010;33: 676682.
9. Zipitis CS, Akobeng AK. Vitamin D supplementation in early childhood and risk of type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Arch Dis Child 2008;93: 512517. [PubMed: 18339654]
10. Winter W, Harris N, Schatz M. Immunological markers in the diagnosis and prediction of autoimmune type 1a diabetes. Clin Diabetes
11. Cherrington AD. Banting Lecture 1997: Control of glucose uptake and release by the liver in vivo. Diabetes 1999;48:11981214.
[PubMed: 10331429]
12. McGarry JD. Banting Lecture 2001: Dysregulation of fatty acid metabolism in the etiology of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2002;51:718.
[PubMed: 11756317]
13. DeFronzo RA. Pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus: Metabolic and molecular implications for identifying diabetes genes. Diabetes
14. DeFronzo RA. Pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Med Clin North Am 2004;88:787835. [PubMed: 15308380]
15. Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. Executive summary of the third report of
the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in
Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA 2001;285(19):24862497.
16. Alberti KGMM, Eckel RH, Grundy SM, et al. Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome. A joint interim statement of the International
Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association;
World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation
2009;120:16401645. [PubMed: 19805654]
17. Ervin RB. Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome among Adults 20 Years of Age and Over, by Sex, Age, Race and Ethnicity, and Body
Mass Index: United States, 20032006. National Health Statistics Reports, No. 13. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics,
18. Alexander CM, Landsman PB, Teutsch SM, et al. NCEP-defined metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and prevalence of coronary heart
disease among NHANES III participants age 50 years and older. Diabetes 2003;52(5):12101214. [PubMed: 12716754]
19. Ford ES, Giles WH, Dietz WH. Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome among US adults: Findings from the third National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey. JAMA 2002;287(3):356359. [PubMed: 11790215]
20. Kahn R, Buse J, Ferrannini E, Stern M, American Diabetes Association, European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The
metabolic syndrome: Time for a critical appraisal: Joint statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association
for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005;28(9):22892304. [PubMed: 16123508]
21. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Daniels SR, et al. Diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome: An American Heart
Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute scientific statement. Circulation 2005;112(17): 27352752. [PubMed: 16157765]
22. Gaede P, Vedel P, Larsen N, et al. Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J
Med 2003;348:383393. [PubMed: 12556541]
23. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and
progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993; 329:977986.
24. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional
treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998; 352:837853.
25. Nathan DM, Kuenen J, Borg R, et al. Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values. Diabetes Care 2008;31:1473
1478. [PubMed: 18540046]
26. Malanda UL, Welschen LMC, Riphagen II, et al. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are not
using insulin. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;(1):CD005060.
27. American Diabetes Association. Nutrition recommendations and interventions for diabetes. Diabetes Care 2008; 31(Suppl 1):S61S78.
28. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes mellitus and exercise. Diabetes Care 2010;33(Suppl 1):S26S27.
29. Malmberg K, for the DIGAMI Study Group. Prospective randomised study of intensive insulin treatment on long term survival after
acute myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes mellitus. BMJ 1997;314:15121515. [PubMed: 9169397]
30. Budnitz DS, Lovegrove MC, Shehab N, Richards CL. Emergency hospitalizations for adverse drug events in older Americans. N Engl J
Med 2011;365:20022012. [PubMed: 22111719]
31. The ORIGIN Trial Investigators. Basal insulin and cardiovascular and other outcomes in dysglycemia. N Engl J Med 2012;367:319



32. Blevins T, Pullman J, Malloy J, et al. DURATION-5. Exenatide once weekly resulted in greater improvements in glycemic control
compared to exenatide twice daily in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96:13011310. [PubMed: 21307137]
33. Drucker DJ, Buse JB, Taylor K, et al. Exenatide once weekly versus twice daily for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: A randomised,
open-label, non-inferiority study. Lancet 2008;372:12401250. [PubMed: 18782641]
34. Schor S. The University Group Diabetes Program. A statistician looks at the mortality results. JAMA 1971; 217:16731675.
35. Triplitt C. Drug interactions of medications commonly used in diabetes. Diabetes Spectrum 2006;19:202211.
36. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in
overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet 1998;352:854865.
37. Dormandy JA, Charbonnel B, Eckland DJA, et al. Secondary prevention of vascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the
PROactive study prospective pioglitazone clinical trial in macrovascular events: A randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366:1279
1289. [PubMed: 16214598]
38. Nissen SE, Wolski K. The effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J
Med 2007;356:115.
39. Home PD, Pocock SJ, Beck-Nielsen H, et al. Rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes in oral agent combination therapy
for type 2 diabetes (RECORD): A multicentre, randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 2009; 373:21252135. [PubMed: 19501900]
40. Chiasson JL, Josse RG, Gomis R, et al. Acarbose for prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus: The STOP-NIDDM randomized trial.
Lancet 2002;359:20722077. [PubMed: 12086760]
41. Chiasson JL, Josse RG, Gomis R, et al. Acarbose treatment and the risk of cardiovascular disease and hypertension in patients with
impaired glucose tolerance: The STOP-NIDDM trial. JAMA 2003;290:486494. [PubMed: 12876091]
42. Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes
(UKPDS 35): Prospective observational study. BMJ 2000;321:405412. [PubMed: 10938048]
43. Adler AI, Stratton IM, Neil HA. Association of systolic blood pressure with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2
diabetes (UKPDS 36): Prospective observational study. BMJ 2000;321:412419. [PubMed: 10938049]
44. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Efficacy of atenolol and captopril in reducing risk of macrovascular and microvascular
complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 39. BMJ 1998;317:713720.
45. Writing Team for the Diabetes Control and Complications/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Research
Group. Sustained effect of intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus on development and progression of diabetic nephropathy: The
Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study. JAMA 2003;290:21592167.
46. DCCT/EDIC Study Research Group. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl
J Med 2005;353:26432653.
47. Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Mathews DR, Neil HAW. 10-Year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J
Med 2008;359:15771589. [PubMed: 18784090]
48. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J
Med 2008;358:25452559.
49. The ADVANCE Collaborative Group. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J
Med 2008;358:25602572.
50. Duckworth W, Abraira C, Mortiz T, et al. Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med
51. Strowig S, Raskin P. Intensive management of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. In: Porte D Jr, Sherwin RS, eds. Ellenberg &
Rifkins Diabetes Mellitus, 5th ed. Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lange, 1997:709733.
52. Schade DS, Valentine V. To pump or not to pump. Diabetes Care 2002;25:21002102. [PubMed: 12401763]
53. Kort H, Koning EJ, Rabelink TJ, et al. Islet transplantation in type 1 diabetes. BMJ 2011;342:d247.
54. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: A patient-centered approach: Position
statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care
2012;35: 13641379. [PubMed: 22517736]
55. Holman RR, Farmer AJ, Davies MJ, et al. Three-year efficacy of complex insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med
2009;361:17361747. [PubMed: 19850703]
56. Triplitt CL. How to initiate, titrate, and intensify insulin treatment in type 2 diabetes. US Pharm 2007;32:1016.
57. Araki A, Iimuro S, Sakurai T, et al. Japanese Elderly Diabetes Intervention Trial Study Group. Long-term multiple risk factor
interventions in Japanese elderly diabetic patients: The Japanese Elderly Diabetes Intervention Trial: Study design, baseline
characteristics and effects of intervention. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2012;12(Suppl 1):717.
58. Kirkman MS, Briscoe VJ, Clark N, et al. Diabetes in older adults. Diabetes Care 2012;35:26502664. [PubMed: 23100048]
59. Sinclair AJ, Paolisso G, Castro M, et al., European Diabetes Working Party for Older People. European Diabetes Working Party for
Older People 2011 clinical guidelines for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Executive summary. Diabetes Metab 2011; 37(Suppl 3):S27S38.
60. Langer O, Conway DL, Berkus MD, Xenakis EM. A comparison of glyburide and insulin in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. N
Engl J Med 2000;343: 11341138. [PubMed: 11036118]
61. Cheng YW, Chung JH, Block-Kurbisch I, Inturrisi M, Caughey AB. Treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus: Glyburide compared to



subcutaneous insulin therapy and associated perinatal outcomes. J Mater Fetal Neonatal Med 2012;25(4):379384. [PubMed: 21631239]
62. Coetzee EJ, Jackson WP. Pregnancy in established non-insulin-dependent diabetics. A five-and-a-half year study at Groote Schuur
Hospital. S Afr Med J 1980;58: 795802. [PubMed: 6777880]
63. Coetzee EJ, Jackson WP. Oral hypoglycaemics in the first trimester and fetal outcome. S Afr Med J 1984;65: 635637. [PubMed:
64. Hellmuth E, Damm P, Mlsted-Pedersen L. Oral hypoglycaemic agents in 118 diabetic pregnancies. Diabet Med 2000;17:507511.
[PubMed: 10972579]
65. Rowan JA, Hague WM, Gao W, Battin MR, Moore MP; MiG Trial Investigators. Metformin versus insulin for the treatment of
gestational diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:20032015. [PubMed: 18463376]
66. Nicholson W, Bolen S, Witkop CT, et al. Benefits and risks of oral diabetes agents compared with insulin in women with gestational
diabetes: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:193. [PubMed: 19104375]
67. Dhulkotia JS, Ola B, Fraser R, Farrell T. Oral hypoglycemic agents vs insulin in management of gestational diabetes: A systematic
review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203:457. [PubMed: 20739011]
68. American Diabetes Association. Gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2004;27(1):s88s90.
69. Laffel L. Sick-day management in type 1 diabetes. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2000;29:707723. [PubMed: 11149158]
70. Kitabchi AE, Umpierrez GE, Miles JM, Fisher JN. Hyperglycemic crises in adult patients with diabetes. A consensus statement from
the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 2009;32:13351343. [PubMed: 19564476]
71. Hirsch IB. Sliding scale insulinTime to stop sliding. JAMA 2009;301:213214. [PubMed: 19141770]
72. Malmberg K, Norhammar A, Wedel H, Rydn L. Glycometabolic state at admission: Important risk marker of mortality in
conventionally treated patients with diabetes mellitus and acute myocardial infarction: Long-term results from the Diabetes and Insulin
Glucose Infusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (DIGAMI) study. Circulation 1999;99:26262632. [PubMed: 10338454]
73. van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F, et al. Intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1359
74. Moghissi ES, Korykowski MT, DiNardo M, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American Diabetes Association
consensus statement on inpatient glycemic control. Diabetes Care 2009;32:11191131. [PubMed: 19429873]
75. The NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators. Intensive versus conventional glycemic control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med
76. American Diabetes Association. Preconception care of women with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004;27(Suppl 1): S76S78.
77. Mahmud M, Mazza D. Preconception care of women with diabetes: A review of current guideline recommendations. BMC Womens
Health 2010;10:5. [PubMed: 20113524]
78. Spollett G. Hyperglycemia in HIV/AIDS. Diabetes Spectrum 2006;19:163166.
79. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin.
N Engl J Med 2002;346:393403.
80. Buchanan TA, Xiang AH, Peters RK, et al. Preservation of pancreatic -cell function and prevention of type 2 diabetes by
pharmacological treatment of insulin resistance in high-risk Hispanic women. Diabetes 2002;51:27962803. [PubMed: 12196473]
81. The Dream Trial Investigators. The effect of ramipril on the incidence of diabetes. N Engl J Med 2006;355: 15511562.
82. The DREAM Trial Investigators. The effect of rosiglitazone on the frequency of diabetes in patients with impaired glucose tolerance or
impaired fasting glucose. A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006;368:10961105.
83. DeFronzo R, Tripathy D, Schwenke D, et al. Pioglitazone for diabetes prevention in impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med
2011;364:11041115. [PubMed: 21428766]
84. Haas L, Maryniuk M, Beck J, et al. National standards diabetes self-management education. Diabetes Care 2013;36(Suppl 1):S100
85. Boulton AJ, Malik RA, Arezzo JC, Sosenko JM. Diabetic somatic neuropathies. Diabetes Care 2004;27:14581486. [PubMed:
86. Boulton AJM, Armstrong DG, Albert SF, et al. Comprehensive foot exam and risk assessment. Diabetes Care 2008;31:16791685.
[PubMed: 18663232]
87. Colhoun HM, Betteridge DJ, Durrington PN, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes in
the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS): A multicentre, randomised placebo controlled trial. Lancet 2004;364:685696.
[PubMed: 15325833]
88. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol-lowering with simvastatin in 5963
people with diabetes: A randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2003;361:20052016.
89. The FIELD Study Investigators. Effects of long-term fenofibrate therapy on cardiovascular events in 9795 people with type 2 diabetes
mellitus (the FIELD study): Randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366: 18491861.
90. The ACCORD Study Group. Effects of combination lipid therapy in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2010;362: 15631574 [erratum
91. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult
Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation 2004;110:227239. [PubMed: 15249516]



92. The ACCORD Study Group. Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1628

Copyright McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC.

All rights reserved.
Your IP address is

National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES) prevalence of diabetes by age among adults 20 years of age: United States,
20052008. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011 National Diabetes Fact Sheet
Rate of new cases of type 1 and type 2 diabetes among youth aged <20 years, by race/ethnicity, 20022005. (NHW, non-Hispanic whites;
NHB, non-Hispanic blacks; H, Hispanics; API, Asians/Pacific Islanders; AI, American Indians.) (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2011 National Diabetes Fact Sheet at
Scheme of the natural history of the -cell defect in type 1 diabetes mellitus. (Copyright 2008 American Diabetes Association. From
Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes, 5th ed.Reprinted with permission from the American Diabetes Association.)
The relationship between fasting plasma insulin and fasting plasma glucose in 177 normal-weight individuals. Plasma insulin and glucose
increase together up to a fasting glucose of 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L). When the fasting glucose exceeds 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L), the
cell makes progressively less insulin, which leads to an overproduction of glucose by the liver and results in a progressive increase in
fasting glucose. (Reprinted from DeFronzo RA. Pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Med Clin N Am 2004;88:787835, Copyright
2004, with permission from Elsevier.)
Whole-body glucose disposal, a measure of insulin resistance, is reduced 40% to 50% in obese nondiabetic and lean type 2 diabetic
individuals. Obese diabetic individuals are slightly more resistant than lean diabetic patients. (From DeFronzo RA. Diabetes Reviews
Relationship between insulin and glucose over the course of a day and how various insulin and amylinomimetic regimens could be given.
(A, aspart; CSII, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; D, detemir; G, glargine; GLU, glulisine; L, lispro; P, pramlintide; N, NPH; R,
Position Statement on the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study
of Diabetes. (Adapted from reference 54.)
A1C goals. See for current algorithms. (Reprinted with permission from the Texas Diabetes Council.)
Insulin algorithm for type 2 DM in children and adults. See for current algorithms. (Reprinted with
permission from the Texas Diabetes Council.)