PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW:

1). ZERO (0) PLAGIARISM

2). ATLEAST 5 REFERENCES, NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS

3).  PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHMENT FOR RUBRIC DETAILS AND GLYCEMIC ARTICLE.

4). Please review and follow the grading rubric details well, and include each component in the assignment as required. Also, follow the APA writing rules and style. 

Each year, 1.5 million Americans are diagnosed with diabetes (American Diabetes Association, 2019). If left untreated, diabetic patients are at risk for several alterations, including heart disease, stroke, kidney failure, neuropathy, and blindness. There are various methods for treating diabetes, many of which include some form of drug therapy. The type of diabetes as well as the patient’s behavior factors will impact treatment recommendations. 

For this Discussion, you compare types of diabetes, including drug treatments for type 1, type 2, gestational, and juvenile diabetes. 

  

Reference: American Diabetes Association. (2019). Statistics about diabetes. Retrieved from

http://diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/

 

To Prepare

• Review the Resources for this module and reflect on differences between types of diabetes, including type 1, type 2, gestational, and juvenile diabetes.
• Select one type of diabetes to focus on for this Discussion.
• Consider one type of drug used to treat the type of diabetes you selected, including proper preparation and administration of this drug. Then, reflect on dietary considerations related to treatment.
• Think about the short-term and long-term impact of the diabetes you selected on patients, including effects of drug treatments.

 Write a brief explanation of the differences between the types of diabetes, including type 1, type 2, gestational, and juvenile diabetes. Describe one type of drug used to treat the type of diabetes you selected, including proper preparation and administration of this drug. Be sure to include dietary considerations related to treatment. Then, explain the short-term and long-term impact of this type of diabetes on patients. including effects of drug treatments. Be specific and provide examples. 

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name:

 

NURS_6521_Week5_Discussion_Rubric

• Grid View
• List View

 

Main Posting

Main Post: Timeliness

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

First Response

Second Response

Participation

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Points: Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3 Feedback:				Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3 Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. . Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. . Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. . Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. . Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days Feedback:

Show Descriptions

Show Feedback

Main Posting–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Good
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Fair
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.

Poor
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Feedback:

Main Post: Timeliness–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3

Good
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Fair
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Poor
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3

Feedback:

First Response–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. .
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Good
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. .
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Fair
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Poor
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Second Response–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. .
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Good
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Fair
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. .

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Poor
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Participation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

Good
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Fair
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Poor
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6521_Week5_Discussion_Rubric

8. Pharmacologic Approaches to
Glycemic Treatment: Standards of
Medical Care in Diabetesd2018
Diabetes Care 2018;41(Suppl. 1):S73–S85 | https://doi.org/10.2337/dc18-S008

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes”
includes ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide
the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools
to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a
multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards
of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of
ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system
for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care
Introduction. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to
do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

PHARMACOLOGIC THERAPY FOR TYPE 1 DIABETES

Recommendations

c Most people with type 1 diabetes should be treated with multiple daily in-
jections of prandial insulin and basal insulin or continuous subcutaneous
insulin infusion. A

c Most individuals with type 1 diabetes should use rapid-acting insulin analogs to
reduce hypoglycemia risk. A

c Consider educating individuals with type 1 diabetes on matching prandial insulin
doses to carbohydrate intake, premeal blood glucose levels, and anticipated
physical activity. E

c Individuals with type 1 diabetes who have been successfully using continuous
subcutaneous insulin infusion should have continued access to this therapy after
they turn 65 years of age. E

Insulin Therapy
Insulin is the mainstay of therapy for individuals with type 1 diabetes. Generally,
the starting insulin dose is based on weight, with doses ranging from 0.4 to
1.0 units/kg/day of total insulin with higher amounts required during puberty.
The American Diabetes Association/JDRF Type 1 Diabetes Sourcebook notes
0.5 units/kg/day as a typical starting dose in patients with type 1 diabetes who
are metabolically stable, with higher weight-based dosing required immediately
following presentation with ketoacidosis (1), and provides detailed information
on intensification of therapy to meet individualized needs. The American Diabetes
Association (ADA) position statement “Type 1 Diabetes Management Through
the Life Span” additionally provides a thorough overview of type 1 diabetes
treatment (2).

Suggested citation: American Diabetes Associ-
ation. 8. Pharmacologic approaches to glyce-
mic treatment: Standards of Medical Care in
Diabetesd2018. Diabetes Care 2018;41(Suppl. 1):
S73–S85

© 2017 by the American Diabetes Association.
Readers may use this article as long as the work
is properly cited, the use is educational and not
for profit, and the work is not altered. More infor-
mation is available at http://www.diabetesjournals
.org/content/license.

American Diabetes Association

Diabetes Care Volume 41, Supplement 1, January 2018 S73

8
.
P
H
A
R
M
A
C
O
LO

G
IC

A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
E
S
T
O
G
LY
C
E
M
IC

T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T

https://doi.org/10.2337/dc18-S008

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.2337/dc18-sppc01

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.2337/dc18-sint01

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.2337/dc18-sint01

http://professional.diabetes.org/SOC

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.2337/dc18-S008&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-11-21

http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license

http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license

ADA
Comment on Text
This article contains updated information as of April 11, 2018.
As of 2018, the ADA updates and revises the online version of the Standards of Care throughout the year, making necessary additions and annotations as new evidence and regulatory changes merit immediate incorporation.
Read more about the living Standards of Care: https://doi.org/10.2337/dci17-0064
Read about the methodoloy: https://professional.diabetes.org/content-page/living-standards

Education regarding matching prandial
insulin dosing to carbohydrate intake,
premeal glucose levels, and anticipated
activity should be considered, and se-
lected individuals who have mastered
carbohydrate counting should be edu-
cated on fat and protein gram estimation
(3–5). Although most studies of multiple
daily injections versus continuous subcu-
taneous insulin infusion (CSII) have been
small and of short duration, a systematic
review and meta-analysis concluded that
there are minimal differences between
the two forms of intensive insulin therapy
in A1C (combined mean between-group
difference favoring insulin pump therapy
–0.30% [95% CI –0.58 to –0.02]) and se-
vere hypoglycemia rates in children and
adults (6). A 3-month randomized trial in
patients with type 1 diabetes with noctur-
nal hypoglycemia reported that sensor-
augmented insulin pump therapy with
the threshold suspend feature reduced
nocturnal hypoglycemia without increas-
ing glycated hemoglobin levels (7). The
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
has also approved the first hybrid closed-
loop system pump. The safety and effi-
cacy of hybrid closed-loop systems has
been supported in the literature in ado-
lescents and adults with type 1 diabetes
(8,9).
Intensive management using CSII and

continuous glucose monitoring should be
encouraged in selected patients when
there is active patient/family participa-
tion (10–12).
The Diabetes Control and Complica-

tions Trial (DCCT) clearly showed that in-
tensive therapy with multiple daily
injections or CSII delivered by multidisci-
plinary teams of physicians, nurses, dieti-
tians, and behavioral scientists improved
glycemia and resulted in better long-term
outcomes (13–15). The study was carried
out with short-acting and intermediate-
acting human insulins. Despite better mi-
crovascular, macrovascular, and all-cause
mortality outcomes, intensive therapy
was associated with a high rate of severe
hypoglycemia(61episodesper100patient-
yearsoftherapy).SincetheDCCT,anumber
of rapid-acting and long-acting insulin an-
alogshave been developed. These analogs
are associated with less hypoglycemia,
less weight gain, and lower A1C than human
insulins in people with type 1 diabetes
(16–18). Longer-acting basal analogs
(U-300 glargine or degludec) may addi-
tionally convey a lower hypoglycemia risk

compared with U-100 glargine in patients
with type 1 diabetes (19,20).

Rapid-acting inhaled insulin used be-
fore meals in patients with type 1 diabe-
tes was shown to be noninferior when
compared with aspart insulin for A1Clow-
ering, with less hypoglycemia observed
with inhaled insulin therapy (21). How-
ever, the mean reduction in A1C was
greater with aspart (–0.21% vs. –0.40%,
satisfying the noninferiority margin of
0.4%), and more patients in the insulin
aspart group achieved A1C goals of
#7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and #6.5% (48
mmol/mol). Because inhaled insulin car-
tridges are only available in 4-, 8-, and
12-unit doses, limited dosing increments
to fine-tune prandial insulin doses in type 1
diabetes are a potential limitation.

Postprandial glucose excursions may
be better controlled by adjusting the tim-
ing of prandial (bolus) insulin dose admin-
istration. The optimal time to administer
prandial insulin varies, based on the type
of insulin used (regular, rapid-acting ana-
log, inhaled, etc.), measured blood glucose
level, timing of meals, and carbohydrate
consumption. Recommendations for pran-
dial insulin dose administration should
therefore be individualized.

Pramlintide
Pramlintide, an amylin analog, is an agent
that delays gastric emptying, blunts pan-
creatic secretion of glucagon, and en-
hances satiety. It is FDA-approved for use
in adults with type 1 diabetes. It has been
shown to induce weight loss and lower in-
sulin doses. Concurrent reduction of pran-
dial insulin dosing is required to reduce the
risk of severe hypoglycemia.

Investigational Agents

Metformin

Adding metformin to insulin therapy may
reduce insulin requirements and improve
metabolic control in patients with type 1
diabetes. In one study, metformin was
found to reduce insulin requirements
(6.6 units/day, P , 0.001), and led to
small reductions in weight and total and
LDL cholesterol but not to improved gly-
cemic control (absolute A1C reduction
0.11%, P 5 0.42) (22). A randomized clin-
ical trial similarly found that, among over-
weight adolescents with type 1 diabetes,
the addition of metformin to insulin did
not improve glycemic control and in-
creased risk for gastrointestinal adverse
events after 6 months compared with

placebo(23).TheReducingWithMetformin
VascularAdverse Lesionsin Type1 Diabetes
(REMOVAL) trial investigated the addition
of metformin therapy to titrated insulin
therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes at
increased risk for cardiovascular disease
and found that metformin did not signifi-
cantly improve glycemic control beyond
the first 3 months of treatment and that
progression of atherosclerosis (measured
by carotid artery intima-media thickness)
was not significantly reduced, although
other cardiovascular risk factors such as
body weight and LDL cholesterol im-
proved (24). Metformin is not FDA-
approved for use in patients with type 1
diabetes.

Incretin-Based Therapies

Due to their potential protection of b-cell
massandsuppressionofglucagonrelease,
glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor
agonists (25) and dipeptidyl peptidase
4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (26) are being studied
in patients with type 1 diabetes but are
not currently FDA-approved for use in pa-
tients with type 1 diabetes.

Sodium–Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors

Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2)
inhibitors provide insulin-independent
glucose lowering by blocking glucose re-
absorptionintheproximalrenal tubule by
inhibiting SGLT2. These agents provide
modest weight loss and blood pressure
reduction in type 2 diabetes. There are
three FDA-approved agents for patients
with type 2 diabetes, but none are FDA-
approved for the treatment of patients
with type 1 diabetes (2). SGLT2 inhibitors
may have glycemic benefits in patients
with type 1 or type 2 diabetes on insulin
therapy (27). The FDA issued a warning
about the risk of ketoacidosis occurring
in the absence of significant hyperglyce-
mia (euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis)
in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabe-
tes treated with SGLT2 inhibitors.
Symptoms of ketoacidosis include dysp-
nea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal
pain. Patients should be instructed to
stop taking SGLT2 inhibitors and seek
medical attention immediately if they
have symptoms or signs of ketoacidosis
(28).

SURGICAL TREATMENT FOR
TYPE 1 DIABETES

Pancreas and Islet Transplantation
Pancreas and islet transplantation have
been shown to normalize glucose levels

S74 Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment Diabetes Care Volume 41, Supplement 1, January 2018

but require life-long immunosuppression
to prevent graft rejection and recurrence
of autoimmune islet destruction. Given
the potential adverse effects of immuno-
suppressive therapy, pancreas transplan-
tation should be reserved for patients
with type 1 diabetes undergoing simulta-
neous renal transplantation, following re-
nal transplantation, or for those with
recurrent ketoacidosis or severe hypogly-
cemia despite intensive glycemic man-
agement (29).

PHARMACOLOGIC THERAPY FOR
TYPE 2 DIABETES

Recommendations

c Metformin, if not contraindicated
and if tolerated, is the preferred ini-
tial pharmacologic agent for the
treatment of type 2 diabetes. A

c Long-term use of metformin may be
associated with biochemical vitamin
B12 deficiency, and periodic mea-
surementofvitaminB12levelsshould
be considered in metformin-treated
patients, especially in those with ane-
mia or peripheral neuropathy. B

c Consider initiating insulin therapy
(with or without additional agents)
in patients with newly diagnosed
type 2 diabetes who are symptom-
atic and/or have A1C $10% (86
mmol/mol) and/or blood glucose
levels $300mg/dL (16.7mmol/L).E

c Consider initiating dual therapy in
patients with newly diagnosed
type 2 diabetes who have A1C
$9% (75 mmol/mol). E

c In patients without atherosclerotic
cardiovascular disease, if mono-
therapy or dual therapy does not
achieve or maintain the A1C goal
over 3 months, add an additional
antihyperglycemic agent based on
drug-specific and patient factors
(Table 8.1). A

c A patient-centered approach should
be used to guide the choice of
pharmacologic agents. Consider-
ations include efficacy, hypoglyce-
mia risk, history of atherosclerotic
cardiovascular disease, impact on
weight, potential side effects, re-
nal effects, delivery method (oral
versus subcutaneous), cost, and
patient preferences. E

c In patients with type 2 diabetes and
established atherosclerotic cardio-
vascular disease, antihyperglycemic

therapy should begin with lifestyle
management and metformin and
subsequently incorporate an agent
proven to reduce major adverse car-
diovascular events and cardiovascu-
lar mortality (currently empagliflozin
and liraglutide), after considering
drug-specific and patient factors
(Table 8.1). A*

c In patients with type 2 diabetes and
established atherosclerotic cardiovascu-
lar disease, after lifestyle management
and metformin, the antihyperglycemic
agent canagliflozin may be considered
to reduce major adverse cardiovascular
events, based on drug-specific and pa-
tient factors (Table 8.1). C*

c Continuousreevaluationofthemed-
ication regimen and adjustment as
needed to incorporate patient fac-
tors (Table 8.1) and regimen com-
plexity is recommended. E

c For patients with type 2 diabetes
whoarenotachievingglycemicgoals,
drug intensification, including consid-
eration of insulin therapy, should not
be delayed. B

c Metformin should be continued
whenusedincombinationwithother
agents,includinginsulin,ifnotcontra-
indicated and if tolerated. A

See Section 12 for recommendations
specific for children and adolescents
with type 2 diabetes. The use of metfor-
min as first-line therapywas supported by
findings from a large meta-analysis, with
selection of second-line therapies based
on patient-specific considerations (30).
An ADA/European Association for the Study
of Diabetes position statement “Manage-
ment of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabe-
tes, 2015: A Patient-Centered Approach”
(31) recommended a patient-centered ap-
proach, including assessment of efficacy,
hypoglycemia risk, impact on weight, side
effects, costs, and patient preferences. Re-
nal effects may also be considered when
selecting glucose-lowering medications for
individual patients. Lifestyle modifications
thatimprovehealth(seeSection4“Lifestyle
Management”) should be emphasized
along with any pharmacologic therapy.

Initial Therapy
Metformin monotherapy should be
started at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes un-
less there are contraindications. Metfor-
min is effective and safe, is inexpensive,

and may reduce risk of cardiovascular
events and death (32). Compared with
sulfonylureas, metformin as first-line
therapy has beneficial effects on A1C,
weight, and cardiovascular mortality
(33). Metformin may be safely used in
patients with estimated glomerular filtra-
tion rate (eGFR) as low as 30 mL/min/
1.73 m2, and the FDA recently revised
the label for metformin to reflect its
safety in patients with eGFR $30 mL/
min/1.73 m2 (34). Patients should be ad-
vised to stop the medication in cases of
nausea, vomiting, or dehydration. Met-
formin is associated with vitamin B12
deficiency, with a recent report from the
Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes
Study (DPPOS) suggesting that periodic
testing of vitamin B12 levels should be
considered in metformin-treated pa-
tients, especially in those with anemia
or peripheral neuropathy (35).

In patients with metformin contrain-
dications or intolerance, consider an ini-
tial drug from another class depicted in
Fig. 8.1 under “Dual Therapy” and pro-
ceed accordingly. When A1C is $9% (75
mmol/mol), consider initiating dual com-
bination therapy (Fig. 8.1) to more expe-
ditiously achieve the target A1C level.
Insulin has the advantage of being effec-
tive where other agents may not be and
should be considered as part of any com-
bination regimen when hyperglycemia is
severe, especially if catabolic features
(weight loss, ketosis) are present. Con-
sider initiating combination insulin in-
jectable therapy (Fig. 8.2) when blood
glucose is $300 mg/dL (16.7 mmol/L) or
A1C is $10% (86 mmol/mol) or if the pa-
tient has symptoms of hyperglycemia
(i.e., polyuria or polydipsia). As the pa-
tient’s glucose toxicity resolves, the regi-
men may, potentially, be simplified.

Combination Therapy
Although there are numerous trials
comparing dual therapy with metformin
alone, few directly compare drugs as add-
on therapy. A comparative effectiveness
meta-analysis (36) suggests that each
new class of noninsulin agents added to
initial therapy generally lowers A1C ap-
proximately 0.7–1.0%. If the A1C target
isnotachievedafterapproximately3months
and patient does not have atherosclerotic
cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), consider
a combination of metformin and any one
of the preferred six treatment options:
sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, DPP-4

care.diabetesjournals.org Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment S75

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.2337/dc18-S004

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.2337/dc18-S004

http://care.diabetesjournals.org

inhibitor, SGLT2 inhibitor, GLP-1 receptor
agonist,orbasalinsulin(Fig. 8.1); the choice
of which agent to add is based on drug-
specific effects and patient factors (Table
8.1). For patients with ASCVD, add a

second agent with evidence of cardiovas-
cular risk reduction after consideration of
drug-specific and patient factors (see p. S77
CARDIOVASCULAR OUTCOMESTRIALS). If A1C target
is still not achieved after ;3 months of

dual therapy, proceed to a three-drug
combination (Fig. 8.1). Again, if A1C target
is not achieved after ;3 months of triple
therapy, proceed to combination injectable
therapy (Fig. 8.2). Drug choice is based on

Figure 8.1—Antihyperglycemic therapy in type 2 diabetes: generalrecommendations. *If patientdoes not tolerateor hascontraindications tometformin,
consider agents from another class in Table 8.1. #GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors should not be prescribed in combination. If a patient with
ASCVD is not yet on an agent with evidence of cardiovascular risk reduction, consider adding.

S76 Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment Diabetes Care Volume 41, Supplement 1, January 2018

T
a
b
le

8
.1
—
D
ru

g
-sp

e
c
ifi
c
a
n
d
p
a
tie

n
t
fa
c
to
rs

to
c
o
n
sid

e
r
w
h
e
n
se
le
c
tin

g
a
n
tih

y
p
e
rg
ly
c
e
m
ic

tre
a
tm

e
n
t

in

a
d
u
lts

w
ith

ty
p
e
2
d
ia
b
e
te
s

*
Se
e
re
f.
3
1
fo
r
d
e
scrip

tio
n
o
f
e
ffi
cacy.

†
FD

A
a
p
p
ro
ve
d
fo
r
C
V
D
b
e
n
e
fi
t.
C
V
D
,
ca
rd
io
vascu

la
r

d
ise

ase
;
D
K
A
,
d
ia
b
e
tic

keto
a
cid

o
sis;

D
K
D
,
d
ia
b
e
tic

kid
n
ey

d
ise

ase
;
N
A
SH

,
n
o
n
a
lco

h
o
lic

ste
a
to
h
e
p
a
titis;

R
A
s,

re
ce
p
to
r

a
go
n
ists;

SQ
,
su
b
cu
tan

e
o
u
s;
T2
D
M
,
typ

e
2
d
ia
b
e
te
s.

care.diabetesjournals.org Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment S77

http://care.diabetesjournals.org

patient preferences (37), as well as various
patient, disease, and drug characteristics,
with the goal of reducing blood glucose
levels while minimizing side effects, espe-
cially hypoglycemia. If not already in-
cluded in the treatment regimen, addition
of an agent with evidence of cardiovas-
cular risk reduction should be consid-
ered in patients with ASCVD beyond

dual therapy, with continuous reevalu-
ation of patient factors to guide treat-
ment (Table 8.1).

Table 8.2 lists drugs commonly used in
the U.S. Cost-effectiveness models of the
newer agents based on clinical utility and
glycemic effect have been reported (38).
Table 8.3 provides cost information for
currently approved noninsulin therapies.

Of note, prices listed are average whole-
sale prices (AWP) (39) and National Aver-
age Drug Acquisition Costs (NADAC) (40)
and do not account for discounts, re-
bates, or other price adjustments often
involved in prescription sales that affect
the actual cost incurred by the patient.
While there are alternative means to esti-
mate medication prices, AWP and NADAC

Figure 8.2—Combination injectable therapy for type 2 diabetes. FBG, fasting blood glucose; hypo, hypoglycemia. Adapted with permission from Inzucchi
et al. (31).

S78 Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment Diabetes Care Volume 41, Supplement 1, January 2018

T
a
b
le

8
.2
—
P
h
a
rm

a
c
o
lo
g
y
o
f
a
v
a
il
a
b
le

g
lu
c
o
se
-l
o
w
e
ri
n
g
a
g
e
n
ts

in
th
e
U
.S
.
fo
r
th
e
tr
e
a
tm

e
n
t
o
f
ty
p
e
2
d
ia
b
e
te
s

C
la
ss

C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
(s
)

C
e
ll
u
la
r
m
e
ch
a
n
is
m
(s
)

P
ri
m
a
ry

p
h
y
si
o
lo
g
ic
a
l
a
ct
io
n
(s
)

R
e
n
a
l
d
o
si
n
g
re
co
m
m
e
n
d
a
ti
o
n
s
(6
3
–
6
6
)*

B
ig
u
an
id
e
s

c
M
e
tf
o
rm

in
A
ct
iv
a
te
s
A
M
P
ki
n
a
se

(?
o
th
e
r)

↓
H
e
p
at
ic
gl
u
co
se

p
ro
d
u
ct
io
n

c
N
o
d
o
se

ad
ju
st
m
e
n
t
if
e
G
FR

.
4
5
;

d
o
n
o
t
in
it
ia
te

O
R
as
se
ss
ri
sk
/b
en
efi
t
if
cu
rr
en
tl
y
o
n
m
et
fo
rm

in
if
eG

FR
3
0
–
4
5
;

d
is
co
n
ti
n
u
e
if
e
G
FR

,
3
0

Su
lf
o
n
yl
u
re
as

(2
n
d

ge
n
e
ra
ti
o
n
)

c
G
ly
b
u
ri
d
e

C
lo
se
s
K
A
T
P
ch
an
n
e
ls
o
n
b
-c
e
ll

p
la
sm

a
m
e
m
b
ra
n
e
s

↑
In
su
lin

se
cr
e
ti
o
n

c
A
vo
id
u
se

in
p
at
ie
n
ts
w
it
h

re
n
al
im
p
ai
rm

e
n
t

c
G
lip
iz
id
e

c
In
it
ia
te

co
n
se
rv
at
iv
e
ly
at

2
.5
m
g
d
ai
ly
to

av
o
id
h
yp
o
gl
yc
e
m
ia

c
G
lim

e
p
ir
id
e

c
In
it
ia
te

co
n
se
rv
at
iv
el
y
at

1
m
g
d
ai
ly
to

av
o
id
h
yp
o
gl
yc
e
m
ia

M
e
gl
it
in
id
e
s

(g
lin
id
e
s)

c
R
e
p
ag
lin
id
e

C
lo
se
s
K
A
T
P
ch
an
n
e
ls
o
n
b
-c
e
ll
p
la
sm
a
m
e
m
b
ra
n
e
s
↑
In
su
lin
se
cr
e
ti
o
n
c
In
it
ia
te
co
n
se
rv
at
iv
el
y
at

0
.5
m
g
w
it
h
m
e
al
s
if
e
G
FR

,
3
0

c
N
at
e
gl
in
id
e

c
In
it
ia
te
co
n
se
rv
at
iv
e
ly
at

6
0
m
g
w
it
h
m
e
al
s
if
e
G
FR

,
3
0

T
h
ia
zo
lid
in
e
d
io
n
e
s

c
P
io
gl
it
az
o
n
e

A
ct
iv
a
te
s
th
e
n
u
cl
e
a
r

tr
a
n
sc
ri
p
ti
o
n
fa
ct
o
r
P
P
A
R
-g

↑
In
su
lin

se
n
si
ti
vi
ty

c
N
o
d
o
se

ad
ju
st
m
e
n
t
re
q
u
ir
e
d

c
R
o
si
gl
it
az
o
n
e
§

c
N
o
d
o
se
ad
ju
st
m
e
n
t
re
q
u
ir
e
d

a
-G
lu
co
si
d
as
e

in
h
ib
it
o
rs

c
A
ca
rb
o
se

In
h
ib
it
s

in
te
st
in
a
l

a
-g
lu
co
si
d
as
e

Sl
o
w
s
in
te
st
in
a
l
ca
rb
o
h
y
d
ra
te

d
ig
e
st
io
n
/a
b
so
rp
ti
o
n

c
A
vo
id
if
e
G
FR

,
3
0

c
M
ig
lit
o
l

c
A
vo
id
if
e
G
FR

,
2
5

D
P
P
-4

in
h
ib
it
o
rs

c
Si
ta
gl
ip
ti
n

In
h
ib
it
s
D
P
P
-4

a
ct
iv
it
y
,

in
cr
e
a
si
n
g
p
o
st
p
ra
n
d
ia
l
in
cr
e
ti
n

(

G
LP
-1

,
G
IP
)
co
n
ce
n
tr
a
ti
o
n
s

↑
In
su
lin

se
cr
e
ti
o
n
(g
lu
co
se

d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t)

;

↓
G
lu
ca
go
n
se
cr
e
ti
o
n
(g
lu
co
se

d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t)

c

1
0
0
m
g
d
ai
ly
if
e
G
FR

.
5
0
;

5
0
m
g
d
ai
ly
if
e
G
FR

3
0
–
5
0
;

2
5
m
g
d
ai
ly
if
e
G
FR

,
3
0

c
Sa
xa
gl
ip
ti
n

c
5
m
g
d
ai
ly
if
e
G
FR

.
5
0
;

2
.5
m
g
d
ai
ly
if
e
G
FR

#
5
0

c
Li
n
ag
lip
ti
n

c
N
o
d
o
se
ad
ju
st
m
e
n
t
re
q
u
ir
e
d

c
A
lo
gl
ip
ti
n

c
2
5
m
g
d
ai
ly
if
e
G
FR

.
6
0
;

1
2
.5
m
g
d
ai
ly
if
e
G
FR

3
0
–
6
0
;

6
.2
5
m
g
d
ai
ly
if
e
G
FR

,
3
0

B
ile

ac
id

se
q
u
e
st
ra
n
ts

c
C
o
le
se
ve
la
m

B
in
d
s
b
il
e
a
ci
d
s
in

in
te
st
in
a
l

tr
a
ct
,
in
cr
e
a
si
n
g
h
e
p
a
ti
c
b
il
e

a
ci
d
p
ro
d
u
ct
io
n

?
↓
H
e
p
at
ic
gl
u
co
se

p
ro
d
u
ct
io
n
;

?
↑
In
cr
e
ti
n
le
ve
ls

c
N
o
sp
e
ci
fi
c
d
o
se

ad
ju
st
m
e
n
t
re
co
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
m
an
u
fa
ct
u
re
r

D
o
p
am

in
e
-2

ag
o
n
is
ts

c
B
ro
m
o
cr
ip
ti
n
e
(q
u
ic
k

re
le
as
e

)§

A
ct
iv
a
te
s
d
o
p
a
m
in
e
rg
ic

re
ce
p
to
rs

M
o
d
u
la
te
s
h
yp
o
th
al
am

ic
re
gu
la
ti
o
n

o
f
m
e
ta
b
o
lis
m
;

↑
In
su
lin
se
n
si
ti
vi
ty
c
N
o
sp
e
ci
fi
c
d
o
se
ad
ju
st
m
e
n
t
re
co
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
m
an
u
fa
ct
u
re
r

SG

LT
2
in

h
ib
it
o
rs

c
C
an
ag
lifl
o
zi
n

In
h
ib
it
s
SG

LT
2
in

th
e
p
ro
xi
m
a
l

n
e
p
h
ro
n

B
lo
ck
s
g
lu
co
se

re
a
b
so
rp
ti
o
n
b
y
th
e

ki
d
n
e
y,
in
cr
e
a
si
n
g
g
lu
co
su
ri
a

c
N
o
d
o
se

ad
ju
st
m
e
n
t
re
q
u
ir
e
d
if
e
G
FR

$
6
0
;

1
0
0
m
g
d
ai
ly
if
e
G
FR

4
5
–
5
9
;

av
o
id
u
se

an
d
d
is
co
n
ti
n
u
e
in
p
at
ie
n
ts
w
it
h
e
G
FR

p
e
rs
is
te
n
tl
y
,
4
5

c
D
ap
ag
lifl
o
zi
n

c
A
vo
id
in
it
ia
ti
n
g
if
e
G
FR

,
6
0
;

n
o
t
re
co
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
w
it
h
e
G
FR

3
0
–
6
0
;

co
n
tr
ai
n
d
ic
at
e
d
w
it
h
e
G
FR

,
3
0

c
E
m
p
ag
lifl
o
zi
n

c
C
o
n
tr
ai
n
d
ic
at
e
d
w
it
h
e
G
FR

,
3
0
G
LP
-1
re
ce
p
to
r
ag
o
n
is
ts

c
E
xe
n
at
id
e

A
ct
iv
a
te
s
G
LP
-1

re
ce
p
to
rs
↑
In
su
lin
se
cr
e
ti
o
n
(g
lu
co
se
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t)

c
N
o
t
re
co
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
w
it
h
e
G
FR

,
3
0

c
E
xe
n
at
id
e
e
xt
e
n
d
e
d

re
le
as
e
c
N
o
t
re
co
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
w
it
h
e
G
FR
,
3
0

C
o
n
ti
n
u
ed

o
n
p
.
S8
0

care.diabetesjournals.org Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment S79

http://care.diabetesjournals.org

ADA
Comment on Text
In December 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the SGLT2 inhibitor ertugliflozin as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.
Reference:
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Drugs@FDA: FDA Approved Drug Products. Available from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&applno=209803. Accessed 1 January 2018
Rationale/Reason for Change:
Approval of new treatments (medications or devices) has the potential to impact patient care.
Annotation published April 11, 2018.
Annotation approved by PPC: March 10, 2018.
Suggested citation: American Diabetes Association. 8. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2018 [web annotation]. Diabetes Care 2018;41(Suppl. 1):S73–S85. Retrieved from https://hyp.is/8Qjypj2VEei_E2-Ft0MSjQ/care.diabetesjournals.org/content/41/Supplement_1/S73.

EBerg
Sticky Note
Unmarked set by EBerg

ADA
Comment on Text
In December 2017, the U.S. FDA approved the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.
Reference:
U.S. Food & Drug Administration. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&applno=209637. Accessed January 1, 2018
Rationale/Reason for Change:
Approval of new treatments (medications or devices) has the potential to impact patient care.
Annotation published April 11, 2018.
Annotation approved by PPC: March 10, 2018.
Suggested citation: American Diabetes Association. 8. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2018 [web annotation]. Diabetes Care 2018;41(Suppl. 1):S73–S85. Retrieved from https://hyp.is/D0tVED2WEeiK8ZvLIDyLZg/care.diabetesjournals.org/content/41/Supplement_1/S73.

T
a
b
le

8
.2
—
C
o
n
ti
n
u
e
d

C
la
ss
C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
(s
)
C
e
ll
u
la
r
m
e
ch
a
n
is
m
(s
)
P
ri
m
a
ry
p
h
y
si
o
lo
g
ic
a
l
a
ct
io
n
(s
)
R
e
n
a
l
d
o
si
n
g
re
co
m
m
e
n
d
a
ti
o
n
s
(6
3
–
6
6
)*
↓
G
lu
ca
go
n
se
cr
e
ti
o
n
(g
lu
co
se

d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t)
;

Sl
o
w
s
ga
st
ri
c
e
m
p
ty
in
g;

↑
Sa
ti
e
ty

c
Li
ra
gl
u
ti
d
e

c
N
o
sp
e
ci
fi
c
d
o
se

ad
ju
st
m
e
n
t
re
co
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
th
e
m
an
u
fa
ct
u
re
r;
lim

it
e
d

e
xp
e
ri
e
n
ce

in
p
at
ie
n
ts
w
it
h
se
ve
re

re
n
al
im
p
ai
rm
e
n
t

c
A
lb
ig
lu
ti
d
e

c
N
o
d
o
se

ad
ju
st
m
e
n
t
re
q
u
ir
e
d
fo
r
e
G
FR

1
5
–
8
9
p
e
r
m
an
u
fa
ct
u
re
r;
lim

it
e
d
e
xp
e
ri
e
n
ce
in
p
at
ie
n
ts
w
it
h
se
ve
re
re
n
al
im
p
ai
rm
e
n
t

c
Li
xi
se
n
at
id
e

c
N
o
d
o
se
ad
ju
st
m
e
n
t
re
q
u
ir
e
d
fo
r
e
G
FR

6
0
–
8
9
;

n
o
d
o
se

ad
ju
st
m
e
n
t
re
q
u
ir
e
d
fo
r
e
G
FR

3
0
–
5
9
,
b
u
t
p
at
ie
n
ts
sh
o
u
ld
b
e

m
o
n
it
o
re
d

fo
r
ad
ve
rs
e
e
ff
e
ct
s
an
d
ch
an
ge
s
in
ki
d
n
e
y
fu
n
ct
io
n
;

cl
in
ic
al
e
xp
e
ri
e
n
ce

is
lim

it
e
d
w
it
h
e
G
FR

1
5
–
2
9
;
p
at
ie
n
ts
sh
o
u
ld
b
e
m
o
n
it
o
re
d

fo
r
ad
ve
rs
e
e
ff
e
ct
s
an
d
ch
an
ge
s
in
ki
d
n
e
y
fu
n
ct
io
n
;

av
o
id
if
e
G
FR

,
1
5

c
D
u
la
gl
u
ti
d
e

c
N
o
sp
e
ci
fi
c
d
o
se
ad
ju
st
m
e
n
t
re
co
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
th
e
m
an
u
fa
ct
u
re
r;
lim
it
e
d
e
xp
e
ri
e
n
ce
in
p
at
ie
n
ts
w
it
h
se
ve
re
re
n
al
im
p
ai
rm
e
n
t

A
m
yl
in
m
im
e
ti
cs

c
P
ra
m
lin
ti
d
e
§

A
ct
iv
a
te
s
a
m
yl
in

re
ce
p
to
rs

↓
G
lu
ca
go
n
se
cr
e
ti
o
n
;

Sl
o
w
s
ga
st
ri
c
e
m
p
ty
in
g;
↑
Sa
ti
e
ty
c
N
o
sp
e
ci
fi
c
d
o
se
ad
ju
st
m
e
n
t
re
co
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
m
an
u
fa
ct
u
re
r

In
su
lin
s

c
R
ap
id
-a
ct
in
g

an
al
o
gs

A
ct
iv
a
te
s
in
su
lin

re
ce
p
to
rs

↑
G
lu
co
se

d
is
p
o
sa
l;

↓
H
e
p
at
ic
gl
u
co
se
p
ro
d
u
ct
io
n
;

Su
p
p
re
ss
e
s
ke
to
ge
n
e
si
s

c
Lo
w
e
r
in
su
lin

d
o
se
s
re
q
u
ir
e
d
w
it
h
a
d
e
cr
e
as
e
in
e
G
FR
;
ti
tr
at
e
p
e
r
cl
in
ic
al

re
sp
o
n
se

Li
sp
ro

A
sp
ar
t

G
lu
lis
in
e

In
h
al
e
d
in
su
lin

c
Sh
o
rt
-a
ct
in
g
an
al
o
gs

H
u
m
an

R
e
gu
la
r

c
In
te
rm

ed
ia
te
-a
ct
in
g
an
al
og
s

H
u
m
an

N
P
H

c
B
as
al
in
su
lin

an
al
o
gs

G
la
rg
in
e

D
e
te
m
ir

D
e
gl
u
d
e
c

c
P
re

m
ix

e
d
in
su
lin

p
ro
d
u
ct
s

N
P
H
/R
e
gu
la
r
7
0
/3
0

7
0
/3
0
as
p
ar
t
m
ix

7
5
/2
5
lis
p
ro

m
ix

5
0
/5
0
lis
p
ro

m
ix

*
e
G
FR

is
gi
ve
n
in
m
L/
m
in
/1
.7
3
m

2
.
§
N
o
t
lic
e
n
se
d
in
E
u
ro
p
e
fo
r
ty
p
e
2
d
ia
b
e
te
s.
G
IP
,
gl
u
co
se
-d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
in
su
lin
o
tr
o
p
ic
p
e
p
ti
d
e
;
P
P
A
R
-g
,
p
e
ro
xi
so
m
e
p
ro
lif
e
ra
to
r–
ac
ti
va
te
d
re
ce
p
to
r
g
.

S80 Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment Diabetes Care Volume 41, Supplement 1, January 2018

were utilized to provide two separate mea-
sures to allow for a comparison of drug
prices with the primary goal of highlighting
the importance of cost considerations
when prescribing antihyperglycemic treat-
ments. The ongoing Glycemia Reduction
Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Ef-
fectiveness Study (GRADE) will compare
four drug classes (sulfonylurea, DPP-4 in-
hibitor, GLP-1 receptor agonist, and basal
insulin) when added to metformin therapy
over 4 years on glycemic control and other
medical,psychosocial, and health economic
outcomes (41).
Rapid-actingsecretagogues(meglitinides)

may be used instead of sulfonylureas in
patients with sulfa allergies or irregular
meal schedules or in those who develop

late postprandial hypoglycemia when
taking a sulfonylurea. Other drugs not
shown in Table 8.1 (e.g., inhaled insulin,
a-glucosidase inhibitors,colesevelam,bro-
mocriptine, and pramlintide) may be tried
in specific situations but considerations
include modest efficacy in type 2 diabetes,
frequency of administration, potential for
druginteractions, cost, and/or side effects.

Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials

There are now three large randomized
controlled trials reporting statistically sig-
nificantreductionsincardiovascularevents
for two SGLT2 inhibitors (empagliflozin
and canagliflozin) and one GLP-1 receptor
agonist (liraglutide) where the majority, if
not all patients, in the trial had ASCVD.

The empagliflozin and liraglutide trials
demonstrated significant reductions in
cardiovascular death. Exenatide once-
weekly did not have statistically sig-
nificant reductions in major adverse
cardiovascular events or cardiovascu-
lar mortality but did have a significant
reduction in all-cause mortality. In con-
trast, other GLP-1 receptor agonists
have not shown similar reductions in
cardiovascular events (Table 9.4).
Whether the benefits of GLP-1 receptor
agonists are a class effect remains to be
definitively established. See ANTIHYPERGLYCEMIC
THERAPIES AND CARDIOVASCULAR OUTCOMES in
Section 9 “Cardiovascular Disease and
Risk Management” and Table 9.4 for a de-
tailed description of these cardiovascular

Table 8.3—Median monthly cost of maximum approved daily dose of noninsulin glucose-lowering agents in the U.S.

Class Compound(s)
Dosage strength/product

(if applicable)
Median AWP
(min, max)†

Median NADAC
(min, max)†

Maximum approved
daily dose*

Biguanides c Metformin 500 mg (IR) $84 ($4, $93) $2 2,000 mg
850 mg (IR) $108 ($6, $109) $3 2,550 mg
1,000 mg (IR) $87 ($4, $88) $2 2,000 mg
500 mg (ER) $89 ($82, $6,671) $5 ($5, $3,630) 2,000 mg
750 mg (ER) $72 ($65, $92) $5 1,500 mg
1,000 mg (ER) $1,028 ($1,028,

$7,214)
$539 ($539, $5,189) 2,000 mg

Sulfonylureas
(2nd generation)

c Glyburide 5 mg $93 ($63, $103) $17 20 mg
6 mg (micronized) $50 ($48, $71) $12 12 mg (micronized)

c Glipizide 10 mg (IR) $75 ($67, $97) $4 40 mg (IR)
10 mg (XL) $48 $16 20 mg (XL)

c Glimepiride 4 mg $71 ($71, $198) $7 8 mg

Meglitinides (glinides) c Repaglinide 2 mg $659 ($122, $673) $40 16 mg
c Nateglinide 120 mg $155 $56 360 mg

Thiazolidinediones c Pioglitazone 45 mg $348 ($283, $349) $5 45 mg
c Rosiglitazone 4 mg $387 $314 8 mg

a-Glucosidase
inhibitors

c Acarbose 100 mg $104 ($104, $106) $25 300 mg
c Miglitol 100 mg $241 N/A†† 300 mg

DPP-4 inhibitors c Sitagliptin 100 mg $477 $382 100 mg
c Saxagliptin 5 mg $462 $370 5 mg
c Linagliptin 5 mg $457 $367 5 mg
c Alogliptin 25 mg $449 $357 25 mg

Bile acid sequestrants c Colesevelam 625 mg tabs $713 $570 3.75 g
1.875 g suspension $1,426 $572 3.75 g

Dopamine-2 agonists c Bromocriptine 0.8 mg $784 $629 4.8 mg

SGLT2 inhibitors c Canagliflozin 300 mg $512 $411 300 mg
c Dapagliflozin 10 mg $517 $413 10 mg
c Empagliflozin 25 mg $517 $415 25 mg

GLP-1 receptor
agonists

c Exenatide 10 mg pen $802 $642 20 mg
c Lixisenatide 20 mg pen $669 N/A†† 20 mg
c Liraglutide 18 mg/3 mL pen $968 $775 1.8 mg
c Exenatide (extended
release)

2 mg powder for
suspension or pen

$747 $600 2 mg**

c Albiglutide 50 mg pen $626 $500 50 mg**
c Dulaglutide 1.5/0.5 mL pen $811 $648 1.5 mg**

Amylin mimetics c Pramlintide 120 mg pen $2,336 N/A†† 120 mg/injection†††

ER and XL, extended release; IR, immediate release. †Calculated for 30-day supply (AWP or NADAC unit price 3 number of doses required to provide
maximum approved daily dose 3 30 days); median AWP or NADAC listed alone when only one product and/or price. *Utilized to calculate median AWP
and NADAC (min, max); generic prices used, if available commercially. ††Not applicable; data not available. **Administered once weekly. †††AWP
and NADAC calculated based on 120 mg three times daily.

care.diabetesjournals.org Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment S81

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/41/Supplement_1/S86#T4

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.2337/dc18-S009

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.2337/dc18-S009

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/41/Supplement_1/S86#T4

http://care.diabetesjournals.org

outcomes trials. Additional large random-
ized trials of other agents in these classes
are ongoing.
Of note, these studies examined the

drugs in combination with metformin
(Table 9.4) in the great majority of pa-
tients for whom metformin was not con-
traindicated or not tolerated. For patients
with type 2 diabetes who have ASCVD, on
lifestyle and metformin therapy, it is rec-
ommended to incorporate an agent with
strong evidence for cardiovascular risk re-
duction especially those with proven ben-
efit on both major adverse cardiovascular
events and cardiovascular death after con-
sideration of drug-specific patient factors
(Table 8.1). See Fig. 8.1 for additional rec-
ommendations on antihyperglycemic
treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Insulin Therapy
Many patients with type 2 diabetes even-
tually require and benefit from insulin
therapy. The progressive nature of type 2
diabetesshouldberegularlyandobjectively
explained to patients. Providers should

avoid using insulin as a threat or de-
scribing it as a sign of personal failure
or punishment.

Equippingpatientswith an algorithmfor
self-titration of insulin doses based on self-
monitoring of blood glucose improves
glycemic control in patients with type 2 di-
abetes initiating insulin (42). Comprehen-
sive education regarding self-monitoring
of blood glucose, diet, and the avoidance
of and appropriate treatment of hypogly-
cemia are critically important in any pa-
tient using insulin.

Basal Insulin

Basal insulin alone is the most convenient
initial insulinregimen,beginningat 10units
per day or 0.1–0.2 units/kg/day, depend-
ing on the degree of hyperglycemia. Basal
insulin is usually prescribed in conjunc-
tion with metformin and sometimes one
additional noninsulin agent. When basal
insulin is added to antihyperglycemic
agents in patients with type 2 diabetes,
long-acting basal analogs (U-100 glargine
or detemir) can be used instead of NPH

to reduce the risk of symptomatic and noc-
turnal hypoglycemia (43–48). Longer-
acting basal analogs (U-300 glargine or
degludec) may additionally convey a
lower hypoglycemia risk compared with
U-100 glargine when used in combination
with oral antihyperglycemic agents (49–
55). While there is evidence for reduced
hypoglycemia with newer, longer-acting
basal insulin analogs, people without a
history of hypoglycemia are at decreased
risk and could potentially be switched to
human insulin safely. Thus, due to high
costs of analog insulins, use of human in-
sulin may be a practical option for some
patients, and clinicians should be familiar
with its use (56). Table 8.4 provides AWP
(39) and NADAC (40) information (cost
per 1,000 units) for currently available in-
sulin and insulin combination products
in the U.S. There have been substantial
increases in the price of insulin over the
past decade and the cost-effectiveness
of different antihyperglycemic agents is
an important consideration in a patient-
centered approach to care, along with

Table 8.4—Median cost of insulin products in the U.S. calculated as AWP (39) and NADAC (40) per 1,000 units of specified dosage
form/product

Insulins Compounds Dosage form/product
Median AWP
(min, max)*

Median NADAC
(min, max)*

Rapid-acting
analogs

c Lispro U-100 vial; $330 $264
U-100 3 mL cartridges; $408 $326
U-100 prefilled pen; U-200 prefilled pen $424 $339

c Aspart U-100 vial; $331 $265
U-100 3 mL cartridges; $410 $330
U-100 prefilled pen $426 $341

c Glulisine U-100 vial; $306 $245
U-100 prefilled pen $394 $315

c Inhaled insulin Inhalation cartridges $725 ($544, $911) N/A†

Short-acting analogs c Human Regular U-100 vial $165 ($165, $178) $135 ($135, $145)

Intermediate-acting analogs c Human NPH U-100 vial; $165 ($165, $178) $135 ($135, $145)
U-100 prefilled pen $377 $305

Concentrated Human
Regular insulin

c U-500 Human
Regular insulin

U-500 vial; $178 $143
U-500 prefilled pen $230 $184

Basal analogs c Glargine U-100 vial; U-100 prefilled pen;
U-300 prefilled pen

$298 $239 ($239, $241)

c Glargine biosimilar U-100 prefilled pen $253 $203
c Detemir U-100 vial; U-100 prefilled pen $323 $259
c Degludec U-100 prefilled pen; U-200 prefilled pen $355 $285

Premixed insulin products c NPH/Regular 70/30 U-100 vial; $165 ($165, $178) $134 ($134, $146)
U-100 prefilled pen $377 $305

c Lispro 50/50 U-100 vial; $342 $278
U-100 prefilled pen $424 $339

c Lispro 75/25 U-100 vial; $342 $273
U-100 prefilled pen $424 $340

c Aspart 70/30 U-100 vial; $343 $275
U-100 prefilled pen $426 $341

Premixed insulin/GLP-1
receptor agonist products

c Degludec/Liraglutide 100/3.6 prefilled pen $763 N/A†
c Glargine/Lixisenatide 100/33 prefilled pen $508 $404

*AWP or NADAC calculated as in Table 8.3; median listed alone when only one product and/or price. †Not applicable; data not available.

S82 Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment Diabetes Care Volume 41, Supplement 1, January 2018

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/41/Supplement_1/S86#T4

efficacy, hypoglycemia risk, weight, and
other patient and drug-specific factors
(Table 8.1) (57).

Bolus Insulin

Many individuals with type 2 diabetes
may require mealtime bolus insulin dos-
ing in addition to basal insulin. Rapid-
acting analogs are preferred due to their
prompt onset of action after dosing. In
September 2017, the FDA approved a new
faster-acting formulation of insulin aspart.
The recommended starting dose of meal-
time insulin is 4 units, 0.1 units/kg, or 10%
ofthe basaldose. IfA1C is ,8% (64 mmol/
mol) when starting mealtime bolus in-
sulin, consideration should be given to
decreasing the basal insulin dose.

Premixed Insulin

Premixed insulin products contain both a
basal and prandial component, allowing
coverage of both basal and prandial needs
with a single injection. NPH/Regular 70/30
insulin, for example, is composed of 70%
NPHinsulinand30%regularinsulin.Theuse
of premixed insulin products has its advan-
tages and disadvantages, as discussed be-
low in COMBINATION INJECTABLE THERAPY.

Concentrated Insulin Products

Several concentrated insulin preparations
are currently available. U-500 regular insu-
lin, by definition, is five times as concen-
trated as U-100 regular insulin and has a
delayed onset and longer duration of ac-
tion than U-100 regular, possessing both
prandial and basal properties. U-300 glar-
gine and U-200 degludec are three and
two times as concentrated as their U-100
formulationsandallowhigherdosesofbasal
insulin administration per volume used.
U-300 glargine has a longer duration of ac-
tion than U-100 glargine. The FDA has also
approved a concentrated formulation of
rapid-acting insulin lispro, U-200 (200
units/mL). These concentrated preparations
may be more comfortable for the patient
and may improve adherence for patients
with insulin resistance who require large
doses of insulin. While U-500 regular insulin
isavailablein both prefilledpensand vials(a
dedicated syringe was FDA approved in July
2016), other concentrated insulins are avail-
able only in prefilled pens to minimize the
risk of dosing errors.

Inhaled Insulin

Inhaled insulin is available for prandial use
withamorelimiteddosingrange.Itiscontra-
indicated in patients with chronic lung dis-
ease such as asthma and chronic obstructive

pulmonarydiseaseandisnotrecommended
inpatientswho smokeorwho recently stop-
ped smoking. It requires spirometry (FEV1)
testing toidentifypotentiallungdiseaseinall
patients prior to and after starting therapy.

Combination Injectable Therapy
If basal insulin has been titrated to an ac-
ceptable fasting blood glucose level (or if
thedoseis.0.5 units/kg/day)and A1C re-
mains above target, consider advancing
to combination injectable therapy (Fig.
8.2). When initiating combination inject-
able therapy, metformin therapy should
be maintained while other oral agents
may be discontinued on an individual ba-
sis to avoid unnecessarily complex or
costly regimens (i.e., adding a fourth anti-
hyperglycemic agent). In general, GLP-1
receptor agonists should not be discon-
tinued with the initiation of basal insulin.
Sulfonylureas, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-
1 receptor agonists are typically stopped
once more complex insulin regimens be-
yond basal are used. In patients with sub-
optimal blood glucose control, especially
those requiring large insulin doses, adjunc-
tive use of a thiazolidinedione or SGLT2
inhibitor may help to improve control
and reduce the amount of insulin needed,
though potential side effects should be
considered. Once an insulin regimen is ini-
tiated, dose titration is important with ad-
justments made in both mealtime and
basal insulins based on the blood glucose
levels and an understanding of the phar-
macodynamic profile of each formulation
(pattern control).

Studies have demonstrated the non-
inferiority of basal insulin plus a single
injectionofrapid-actinginsulinat thelarg-
est meal relative to basal insulin plus a
GLP-1 receptor agonist relative to two
daily injections of premixed insulins
(Fig. 8.2). Basal insulin plus GLP-1 recep-
tor agonists are associated with less hy-
poglycemia and with weight loss instead
of weight gain but may be less tolerable
and have a greater cost (58,59). In No-
vember 2016, the FDA approved two dif-
ferent once-daily fixed-dual combination
products containing basal insulin plus a
GLP-1 receptor agonist: insulin glargine
plus lixisenatide and insulin degludec
plus liraglutide. Other options for treat-
ment intensification include adding a sin-
gle injection of rapid-acting insulin analog
(lispro, aspart, or glulisine) before the
largest meal or stopping the basal insulin
and initiating a premixed (or biphasic)

insulin (NPH/Regular 70/30, 70/30 aspart
mix, 75/25 or 50/50 lispro mix) twice
daily, usually before breakfast and before
dinner. Each approach has its advan-
tages and disadvantages. For example,
providers may wish to consider regimen
flexibility when devising a plan for the ini-
tiation and adjustment of insulin therapy
in people with type 2 diabetes, with rapid-
acting insulin offering greater flexibility in
terms of meal planning than premixed in-
sulin. If one regimen is not effective (i.e.,
basal insulin plus GLP-1 receptor agonist),
consider switching to another regimen to
achieve A1C targets (i.e., basal insulin plus
singleinjectionofrapid-actinginsulinorpre-
mixed insulin twice daily) (60,61). Regular
human insulin and human NPH/Regular
premixed formulations (70/30) are less
costly alternatives to rapid-acting insulin
analogs and premixed insulin analogs,
respectively, but their pharmacody-
namicprofilesmaymakethemlessoptimal.

Fig. 8.2 outlines these options, as well
as recommendations for further intensifi-
cation, if needed, to achieve glycemic
goals. If a patient is still above the A1C
target on premixed insulin twice daily,
consider switching to premixed analog in-
sulin three times daily (70/30 aspart mix,
75/25 or 50/50 lispro mix). In general,
three times daily premixed analog insu-
lins have been found to be noninferior
to basal-bolus regimens with similar rates
of hypoglycemia (62). If a patient is still
above the A1C target on basal insulin
plus single injection of rapid-acting insulin
before the largest meal, advance to a
basal-bolus regimen with $2 injections
of rapid-acting insulin before meals. Con-
sider switching patients from one regimen
to another (i.e., premixed analog insulin
three times daily to basal-bolus regimen
or vice-versa) if A1C targets are not being
met and/or depending on other patient
considerations (60,61). Metformin should
be continued in patients on combination
injectable insulin therapy, if not contra-
indicated and if tolerated, for further gly-
cemic benefits.

References
1. Peters AL, Laffel L, Eds. American Diabetes
Association/JDRF Type 1 Diabetes Sourcebook.
Alexandria, VA, American Diabetes Association,
2013
2. Chiang JL, Kirkman MS, Laffel LMB, Peters AL;
Type 1 Diabetes Sourcebook Authors. Type 1 di-
abetes through the life span: a position statement
of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes
Care 2014;37:2034–2054

care.diabetesjournals.org Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment S83

http://care.diabetesjournals.org

3. Wolpert HA, Atakov-Castillo A, Smith SA, Steil
GM. Dietary fat acutely increases glucose con-
centrations and insulin requirements in pa-
tients with type 1 diabetes: implications for
carbohydrate-based bolus dose calculation
and intensive diabetes management. Diabetes
Care 2013;36:810–816
4. Bell KJ, Toschi E, Steil GM, Wolpert HA. Opti-
mized mealtime insulin dosing for fat and protein
in type 1 diabetes: application of a model-based
approach to derive insulin doses for open-loop
diabetes management. Diabetes Care 2016;39:
1631–1634
5. Bell KJ, Smart CE, Steil GM, Brand-Miller JC,
King B, Wolpert HA. Impact of fat, protein, and
glycemic index on postprandial glucose control in
type 1 diabetes: implications for intensive diabetes
management in the continuous glucose monitoring
era. Diabetes Care 2015;38:1008–1015
6. Yeh H-C, Brown TT, Maruthur N, et al. Compar-
ative effectiveness and safety of methods of in-
sulin delivery and glucose monitoring for diabetes
mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ann Intern Med 2012;157:336–347
7. Bergenstal RM, Klonoff DC, Garg SK, et al.;
ASPIRE In-Home Study Group. Threshold-based
insulin-pump interruption for reduction of hypo-
glycemia. N Engl J Med 2013;369:224–232
8. Bergenstal RM, Garg S, Weinzimer SA, et al.
Safety of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery sys-
tem in patients with type 1 diabetes. JAMA 2016;
316:1407–1408
9. Garg SK, Weinzimer SA, Tamborlane WV, et al.
Glucose outcomes with the in-home use of a hy-
brid closed-loop insulin delivery system in adoles-
cents and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes
Technol Ther 2017;19:155–163
10. Wood JR, Miller KM, Maahs DM, et al.; T1D
Exchange Clinic Network. Most youth with type 1
diabetes in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry do not
meet American Diabetes Association or International
Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes clinical
guidelines. Diabetes Care 2013;36:2035–2037
11. Kmietowicz Z. Insulin pumps improve control
and reduce complications in children with type 1
diabetes. BMJ 2013;347:f5154
12. Phillip M, Battelino T, Atlas E, et al. Nocturnal
glucose control with an artificial pancreas at a di-
abetes camp. N Engl J Med 2013;368:824–833
13. Nathan DM, Genuth S, Lachin J, et al.; Diabe-
tes Control and Complications Trial Research
Group. The effect of intensive treatment of dia-
betes on the development and progression of
long-term complications in insulin-dependent
diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993;329:977–
986
14. Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund J-YC, et al.;
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/
Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Com-
plications (DCCT/EDIC) Study Research Group. In-
tensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular
disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J
Med 2005;353:2643–2653
15. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial
(DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions
and Complications (EDIC) Study Research Group.
Mortality in type 1 diabetes in the DCCT/EDIC
versus the general population. Diabetes Care
2016;39:1378–1383
16. Tricco AC, Ashoor HM, Antony J, et al. Safety,
effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of long act-
ing versus intermediate acting insulin for patients

with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and net-
work meta-analysis. BMJ 2014;349:g5459
17. Bartley PC, Bogoev M, Larsen J, Philotheou A.
Long-term efficacy and safety of insulin detemir
compared to Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin
in patients with type 1 diabetes using a treat-to-
target basal-bolus regimen with insulin aspart at
meals: a 2-year, randomized, controlled trial. Dia-
bet Med 2008;25:442–449
18. DeWitt DE, Hirsch IB. Outpatient insulin ther-
apy in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: scien-
tific review. JAMA 2003;289:2254–2264
19. Lane W, Bailey TS, Gerety G, et al.; SWITCH 1.
Effect of insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100
on hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes:
the SWITCH 1 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA
2017;318:33–44
20. Home PD, Bergenstal RM, Bolli GB, et al. New
insulin glargine 300 units/mL versus glargine
100 units/mL in people with type 1 diabetes: a
randomized, phase 3a, open-label clinical trial
(EDITION 4). Diabetes Care 2015;38:2217–2225

21. Bode BW, McGill JB, Lorber DL, Gross JL,
Chang PC, Bregman DB; Affinity 1 Study Group.
Inhaled technosphere insulin compared with in-
jected prandial insulin in type 1 diabetes: a ran-
domized 24-week trial. Diabetes Care 2015;38:
2266–2273
22. Vella S, Buetow L, Royle P, Livingstone S,
Colhoun HM, Petrie JR. The use of metformin in
type 1 diabetes: a systematic review of efficacy.
Diabetologia 2010;53:809–820
23. LibmanIM,MillerKM,DiMeglioLA,etal.;T1D
Exchange Clinic Network Metformin RCT Study
Group. Effect of metformin added to insulin on
glycemic control among overweight/obese ado-
lescents with type 1 diabetes: a randomized clin-
ical trial. JAMA 2015;314:2241–2250
24. Petrie JR, Chaturvedi N, Ford I, et al.;
REMOVAL Study Group. Cardiovascular and met-
abolic effects of metformin in patients with type 1
diabetes (REMOVAL): a double-blind, rando-
mised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes
Endocrinol 2017;5:597–609
25. Dejgaard TF, Frandsen CS, Hansen TS, et al.
Efficacy and safety of liraglutide for overweight
adult patients with type 1 diabetes and insufficient
glycaemic control (Lira-1): a randomised, double-
blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes
Endocrinol 2016;4:221–232
26. Guo H, Fang C, Huang Y, Pei Y, Chen L, Hu J.
The efficacy and safety of DPP4 inhibitors in pa-
tients with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2016;
121:184–191
27. Yang Y, Chen S, Pan H, et al. Safety and effi-
ciency of SGLT2inhibitor combiningwithinsulinin
subjects with diabetes: systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e6944
28. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. SGLT2
inhibitors: drug safety communication – labels to
include warnings about too much acid in the blood
and serious urinary tract infections [Internet], 2015.
Available from http://www.fda.gov/safety/
medwatch/safetyinformation/safetyalertsforhuma
nmedicalproducts/ucm475553.htm. Accessed 3
October 2016
29. Robertson RP, Davis C, Larsen J, Stratta R,
Sutherland DER; American Diabetes Association.
Pancreas and islet transplantation in type 1 dia-
betes. Diabetes Care 2006;29:935

30. PalmerSC,MavridisD,Nicolucci A, etal.Com-
parison of clinical outcomes and adverse events
associated with glucose-lowering drugs in patients
with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2016;
316:313–324
31. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al.
Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabe-
tes, 2015: a patient-centered approach: update
to a position statement of the American Diabe-
tes Association and the European Association
for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2015;
38:140–149
32. Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews
DR, Neil HAW. 10-year follow-up of intensive glu-
cosecontrol intype2diabetes.NEnglJMed2008;
359:1577–1589
33. Maruthur NM, Tseng E, Hutfless S, et al. Di-
abetes medications as monotherapy or metformin-
based combination therapy for type 2 diabetes: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern
Med 2016;164:740–751
34. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Metformin-
containing drugs: drug safety communication –
revised warnings for certain patients with
reduced kidney function [Internet], 2016. Available
from http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/
SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedical
Products/ucm494829.htm?source5govdelivery&
utm_medium5email&utm_source5govdelivery.
Accessed 3 October 2016
35. Aroda VR, Edelstein SL, Goldberg RB, et al.;
Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group.
Long-term metformin use and vitamin B12 defi-
ciency in the Diabetes Prevention Program Out-
comes Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2016;101:
1754–1761
36. Bennett WL, Maruthur NM, Singh S, et al.
Comparative effectiveness and safety of medica-
tions for type 2 diabetes: an update including new
drugs and 2-drug combinations. Ann Intern Med
2011;154:602–613
37. Vijan S, Sussman JB, Yudkin JS, Hayward RA.
Effect of patients’ risks and preferences on health
gains with plasma glucose level lowering in type 2
diabetes mellitus. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:
1227–1234
38. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.
Controversies in the management of patients with
type 2 diabetes [Internet], 2014. Available from
https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/
2015/03/CEPAC-T2D-Final-Report-December-22
. Accessed 2 November 2017
39. Truven Health Analytics. Red Book: A Com-
prehensive, Consistent Drug Pricing Resource
[Internet], 2016. Available from: http://www
.micromedexsolutions.com/micromedex2/librarian.
Accessed 18 July 2017
40. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Pharmacy pricing: national average drug acquisi-
tion cost [Internet], 2017. Available from https://
www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/prescription-drugs/
pharmacy-pricing/index.html. Accessed 19 July
2017
41. Nathan DM, Buse JB, Kahn SE, et al.; GRADE
Study Research Group. Rationale and design of
the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes:
A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE). Di-
abetes Care 2013;36:2254–2261
42. Blonde L, Merilainen M, Karwe V, Raskin P;
TITRATE Study Group. Patient-directed titra-
tion for achieving glycaemic goals using a once-
daily basal insulin analogue: an assessment of

S84 Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment Diabetes Care Volume 41, Supplement 1, January 2018

http://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch/safetyinformation/safetyalertsforhumanmedicalproducts/ucm475553.htm

http://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch/safetyinformation/safetyalertsforhumanmedicalproducts/ucm475553.htm

http://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch/safetyinformation/safetyalertsforhumanmedicalproducts/ucm475553.htm

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494829.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494829.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494829.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494829.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CEPAC-T2D-Final-Report-December-22

https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CEPAC-T2D-Final-Report-December-22

https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CEPAC-T2D-Final-Report-December-22

http://www.micromedexsolutions.com/micromedex2/librarian

http://www.micromedexsolutions.com/micromedex2/librarian

https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/prescription-drugs/pharmacy-pricing/index.html

https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/prescription-drugs/pharmacy-pricing/index.html

https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/prescription-drugs/pharmacy-pricing/index.html

two different fasting plasma glucose targets – the
TITRATE study. Diabetes Obes Metab 2009;11:
623–631
43. Singh SR, Ahmad F, Lal A, Yu C, Bai Z, Bennett
H. Efficacy and safety of insulin analogues for the
managementofdiabetesmellitus:ameta-analysis.
CMAJ 2009;180:385–397
44. Horvath K, Jeitler K, Berghold A, et al. Long-
acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (hu-
manisophaneinsulin)fortype2diabetesmellitus.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;2:CD005613
45. Monami M, Marchionni N, Mannucci E. Long-
acting insulin analogues versus NPH human insu-
lin in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes
Res Clin Pract 2008;81:184–189
46. Owens DR, Traylor L, Mullins P, Landgraf W.
Patient-level meta-analysis of efficacy and hypo-
glycaemia in peoplewithtype 2 diabetes initiating
insulin glargine 100U/mL or neutral protamine
Hagedorn insulin analysed according to concomi-
tant oral antidiabetes therapy. Diabetes Res Clin
Pract 2017;124(Suppl. C):57–65
47. RiddleMC,RosenstockJ,GerichJ;InsulinGlar-
gine 4002 Study Investigators. The treat-to-target
trial: randomized addition of glargine or human
NPH insulin to oral therapy of type 2 diabetic
patients. Diabetes Care 2003;26:3080–3086
48. Hermansen K, Davies M, Derezinski T,
Martinez Ravn G, Clauson P, Home P. A 26-week,
randomized, parallel, treat-to-target trial compar-
ing insulin detemir with NPH insulin as add-on
therapy to oral glucose-lowering drugs in insulin-
naive people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care
2006;29:1269–1274
49. Bolli GB, Riddle MC, Bergenstal RM, et al.;
EDITION 3 Study Investigators. New insulin glar-
gine 300 U/ml compared with glargine 100 U/ml
in insulin-näıve people with type 2 diabetes on
oral glucose-lowering drugs: a randomized con-
trolled trial (EDITION 3). Diabetes Obes Metab
2015;17:386–394
50. Terauchi Y, Koyama M, Cheng X, et al. New
insulin glargine300U/ml versusglargine 100U/ml

in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes using
basal insulin and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs:
glucose control and hypoglycaemia in a random-
ized controlled trial (EDITION JP 2). Diabetes Obes
Metab 2016;18:366–374
51. Yki-Järvinen H, Bergenstal RM, Bolli GB, et al.
Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia with new
insulin glargine 300 U/ml versus insulin glargine
100 U/ml in people with type 2 diabetes using
basal insulin and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs:
the EDITION2 randomized 12-month trial including
6-month extension. Diabetes Obes Metab 2015;
17:1142–1149
52. Marso SP, McGuire DK, Zinman B, et al. Effi-
cacy and safety of degludec versus glargine in
type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2017;377:723–732
53. RodbardHW,CariouB,ZinmanB,etal.;BEGIN
Once Long trial investigators. Comparison of insu-
lin degludec with insulin glargine in insulin-naive
subjects with Type 2 diabetes: a 2-year random-
ized, treat-to-target trial. Diabet Med 2013;30:
1298–1304
54. WyshamC,BhargavaA, ChaykinL,etal.Effect
of insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 on
hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes:
the SWITCH 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA
2017;318:45–56
55. Zinman B, Philis-Tsimikas A, Cariou B, et al.;
NN1250-3579 (BEGIN Once Long) Trial Investiga-
tors. Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in
insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a
1-year, randomized, treat-to-target trial (BEGIN
Once Long). Diabetes Care 2012;35:2464–2471
56. Lipska KJ, Hirsch IB, Riddle MC. Human insulin
for type 2 diabetes: an effective, less-expensive
option. JAMA 2017;318:23–24
57. Hua X, Carvalho N, Tew M, Huang ES, Herman
WH, Clarke P. Expenditures and prices of antihy-
perglycemic medications in the United States:
2002-2013. JAMA 2016;315:1400–1402
58. Diamant M, Nauck MA, Shaginian R, et al.; 4B
StudyGroup. Glucagon-likepeptide1 receptor ag-
onist or bolus insulin with optimized basal insulin

in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2014;37:2763–
2773
59. Eng C, Kramer CK, Zinman B, Retnakaran R.
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and
basal insulin combination treatment for the
management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2014;384:
2228–2234
60. Dieuzeide G, Chuang L-M, Almaghamsi A,
Zilov A, Chen J-W, Lavalle-González FJ. Safety
and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in
people with type 2 diabetes switching from basal-
bolus insulin regimens in the A1chieve study.Prim
Care Diabetes 2014;8:111–117
61. Mathieu C, StormsF,TitsJ,VenemanTF,Colin
IM. Switching from premixed insulin to basal-
bolus insulin glargine plus rapid-acting insulin:
the ATLANTIC study. Acta Clin Belg 2013;68:28–
33
62. Giugliano D, Chiodini P, Maiorino MI,
Bellastella G, Esposito K. Intensification of insulin
therapy with basal-bolus or premixed insulin reg-
imens in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. En-
docrine 2016;51:417–428
63. Tuttle KR, Bakris GL, Bilous RW, et al. Diabetic
kidney disease: a report from an ADA Consensus
Conference. Diabetes Care 2014;37:2864–2883
64. Neumiller JJ, Alicic RZ, Tuttle KR. Therapeutic
considerations for antihyperglycemic agents in di-
abetic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 2017;28:
2263–2274
65. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Cycloset
[bromocriptine] prescribing information [In-
ternet], 2017. [Available from https://www
.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/
020866s006s007lbl . Accessed 22 September
2017
66. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Welchol
[Colesevelam] prescribing information [Internet],
2014. Available from https://www.accessdata.fda
.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/022362s007lbl
. Accessed 22 September 2017

care.diabetesjournals.org Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment S85

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/020866s006s007lbl

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/020866s006s007lbl

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/020866s006s007lbl

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/022362s007lbl

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/022362s007lbl

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/022362s007lbl

http://care.diabetesjournals.org