Use of Inhaled Insulin in a Basal/Bolus Insulin Regimen in Type 1 Diabetic Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the demonstrated benefits of glycemic control, patient acceptance of basal/bolus insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes has been slow. We investigated whether a basal/bolus insulin regimen involving rapid-acting, dry powder, inhaled insulin could provide glycemic control comparable with a basal/bolus subcutaneous regimen. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with type 1 diabetes (ages 12-65 years) received twice-daily subcutaneous NPH insulin and were randomized to premeal inhaled insulin (n = 163) or subcutaneous regular insulin (n = 165) for 6 months. RESULTS: Mean glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) decreased comparably from baseline in the inhaled and subcutaneous insulin groups (-0.3 and -0.1%, respectively; adjusted difference -0.16% [CI -0.34 to 0.01]), with a similar percentage of subjects achieving A1C <7%. Although 2-h postprandial glucose reductions were comparable between the groups, fasting plasma glucose levels declined more in the inhaled than in the subcutaneous insulin group (adjusted difference -39.5 mg/dl [CI -57.5 to -21.6]). Inhaled insulin was associated with a lower overall hypoglycemia rate but higher severe hypoglycemia rate. The overall hypoglycemia rate (episodes/patient-month) was 9.3 (inhaled) vs. 9.9 (subcutaneous) (risk ratio [RR] 0.94 [CI 0.91-0.97]), and the severe hypoglycemia rate (episodes/100 patient-months) was 6.5 vs. 3.3 (RR 2.00 [CI 1.28-3.12]). Increased insulin antibody serum binding without associated clinical manifestations occurred in the inhaled insulin group. Pulmonary function between the groups was comparable, except for a decline in carbon monoxide-diffusing capacity in the inhaled insulin group without any clinical correlates. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled insulin may provide an alternative for the management of type 1 diabetes as part of a basal/bolus strategy in patients who are unwilling or unable to use preprandial insulin injections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".