5.0.0.0 Ref­er­ences

1. Pe­ters A, 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 di­a­betes through the life span: a po­si­tion state­ment of the Amer­i­can Di­a­betes As­so­ci­a­tion. Di­a­betes Care 2014;37:2034–2054
3. Wolpert HA, Atakov-‍Castil­lo A, Smith SA, Steil GM. Di­etary fat acute­ly in­creas­es glu­cose con­cen­tra­tions and in­sulin re­quire­ments in pa­tients 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. Op­ti­mized 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. Com­par­a­tive ef­fec­tive­ness and safe­ty of meth­ods of in­sulin de­liv­ery and glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing for di­a­betes mel­li­tus: a sys­tematic re­view and meta­anal­y­sis. Ann In­tern Med 2012;157:336–347
7. Pick­up JC. The ev­i­dence base for di­a­betes tech­nol­o­gy: ap­pro­pri­ate and inap­pro­pri­ate meta­anal­y­sis. J Di­a­betes Sci Tech­nol 2013;7:1567– 1574
8. Bergen­stal RM, Klonoff DC, Garg SK, et al.; AS­PIRE In-‍Home Study Group. Thresh­old-‍based in­sulin-‍pump in­ter­rup­tion for re­duc­tion of hy­po­glycemia. N Engl J Med 2013;369:224–232
9. Buck­ing­ham BA, Raghi­naru D, Cameron F, et al.; In Home Closed Loop Study Group. Pre­dic­tive low-‍glu­cose in­sulin sus­pen­sion re­duces du­ra­tion of noc­tur­nal hy­po­glycemia in chil­dren with­out in­creas­ing ke­to­sis. Di­a­betes Care 2015; 38:1197–1204
10. Bergen­stal RM, Garg S, Weinz­imer SA, et al. Safe­ty of a hy­brid closed-‍loop in­sulin de­liv­ery sys­tem in pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes. JAMA 2016;316:1407–1408
11. Garg SK, Weinz­imer SA, Tam­bor­lane WV, et al. Glu­cose out­comes with the in-‍home use of a hy­brid closed-‍loop in­sulin de­liv­ery sys­tem in ado­les­cents and adults with type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Tech­nol Ther 2017;19:155–163
12. Cleary PA, Or­chard TJ, Genuth S, et al.; DCCT/EDIC Re­search Group. The ef­fect of in­ten­sive glycemic treat­ment on coro­nary artery calcification in type 1 di­a­bet­ic par­tic­i­pants of the Di­a­betes Con­trol and Com­pli­ca­tions Trial/‍ Epi­demi­ol­o­gy of Di­a­betes In­ter­ven­tions and Com­pli­ca­tions (DCCT/‍EDIC) Study. Di­a­betes 2006;55:3556–3565
13. Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Back­lund J-YC, et al.; Di­a­betes Con­trol and Com­pli­ca­tions Trial/‍ Epi­demi­ol­o­gy of Di­a­betes In­ter­ven­tions and Com­pli­ca­tions (DCCT/‍EDIC) Study Re­search Group. In­ten­sive di­a­betes treat­ment and car­dio­vas­cu­lar dis­ease in pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2643–2653
14. 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
15. Tric­co AC, Ashoor HM, Antony J, et al. Safe­ty, ef­fec­tive­ness, and cost ef­fec­tive­ness of long act­ing ver­sus in­ter­me­di­ate act­ing in­sulin for pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes: sys­tematic re­view and net­work meta-‍anal­y­sis. BMJ 2014;349: g5459
16. 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. Di­a­bet Med 2008;25:442–449
17. De­Witt DE, Hirsch IB. Outpa­tient in­sulin ther­a­py in type 1 and type 2 di­a­betes mel­li­tus: sci­en­tific re­view. JAMA 2003;289:2254–2264
18. Lane W, Bai­ley TS, Gere­ty G, et al.; Group Informa­tion; 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
19. 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
20. Bode BW, McGill JB, Lor­ber DL, Gross JL, Chang PC, Breg­man DB; Affinity 1 Study Group. In­haled tech­no­sphere in­sulin com­pared with in­ject­ed pran­di­al in­sulin in type 1 di­a­betes: a ran­dom­ized 24-week trial. Di­a­betes Care 2015;38:2266–2273
21. Frid AH, Kreugel G, Gras­si G, et al. New in­sulin de­liv­ery rec­om­men­da­tions. Mayo Clin Proc 2016;91:1231–1255
22. Karges B, Boehm BO, Karges W. Early hy­po­gly­caemia after ac­ci­den­tal in­tra­mus­cu­lar in­jec­tion of in­sulin glargine. Di­a­bet Med 2005;22: 1444–1445
23. Frid A, Gun­nars­son R, Gu¨ntner P, Linde B. Ef­fects of ac­ci­den­tal in­tra­mus­cu­lar in­jec­tion on in­sulin ab­sorp­tion in IDDM. Di­a­betes Care 1988; 11:41–45
24. Gib­ney MA, Arce CH, Byron KJ, Hirsch LJ. Skin and sub­cu­ta­neous adi­pose layer thick­ness in adults with di­a­betes at sites used for in­sulin in­jec­tions: im­pli­ca­tions for nee­dle length rec­om­men­da­tions. Curr Med Res Opin 2010;26:1519–1530
25. Hirsch LJ, Gib­ney MA, Al­banese J, et al. Com­par­a­tive glycemic con­trol, safe­ty and pa­tient rat­ings for a new 4 mm 3 32G in­sulin pen nee­dle in adults with di­a­betes. Curr Med Res Opin 2010;26:1531–1541
26. Miwa T, Itoh R, Kobayashi T, et al. Com­par­isonofthe ef­fects ofa new 32-‍gauge 34-‍mmpen nee­dle and a 32-‍gauge 3 6-mm pen nee­dle on glycemic con­trol, safe­ty, and pa­tient rat­ings in Japanese adults with di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Tech­nol Ther 2012;14:1084–1090
27. Bergen­stal RM, Strock ES, Peremis­lov D, Gib­ney MA, Parvu V, Hirsch LJ. Safe­ty and efficacy of in­sulin ther­a­py de­liv­ered via a 4mm pen nee­dle in obese pa­tients with di­a­betes. Mayo Clin Proc 2015;90:329–338
28. Fa­mul­la S, Ho¨vel­mann U, Fis­ch­er A, et al. In­sulin in­jec­tion into lipo­hy­per­trophic tis­sue: blunt­ed and more vari­able in­sulin ab­sorp­tion and ac­tion and im­paired postpran­di­al glu­cose con­trol. Di­a­betes Care 2016;39:1486–1492
29. Rat­ner RE, Dick­ey R, Fine­man M, et al. Amylin re­place­ment with pram­lin­tide as an ad­junct to in­sulin ther­a­py im­proves long-‍term gly­caemic and weight con­trol in type 1 di­a­betes mel­li­tus: a 1-year, ran­dom­ized con­trolled trial. Di­a­bet Med 2004;21:1204–1212
30. Edel­man S, Garg S, Frias J, et al. A dou­ble­blind, place­bo-‍con­trolled trial as­sess­ing pram­lin­tide treat­ment in the set­ting of in­ten­sive in­sulin ther­a­py in type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Care 2006; 29:2189–2195
31. Meng H, Zhang A, Liang Y, Hao J, Zhang X, Lu J. Ef­fect of met­formin on gly­caemic con­trol in pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes: a meta-‍anal­y­sis of ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als. Di­a­betes Metab Res Rev 2018;34:e2983
32. Petrie JR, Chaturve­di N, Ford I, et al.; RE­MOVAL Study Group. Car­dio­vas­cu­lar and metabol­ic ef­fects of met­formin in pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes (RE­MOVAL): a dou­ble-‍blind, ran­domised, place­bo-‍con­trolled trial. Lancet Di­a­betes En­docrinol 2017;5:597–609
33. Wang W, Liu H, Xiao S, Liu S, Li X, Yu P. Ef­fects of in­sulin plus glucagon-‍like pep­tide-‍1 re­cep­tor ag­o­nists (GLP-1RAs) in treat­ing type 1 di­a­betes mel­li­tus: a sys­tematic re­view and meta-‍anal­y­sis. Di­a­betes Ther 2017;8:727–738
34. Henry RR, Thakkar P, Tong C, Poli­dori D, Alba M. Efficacy and safe­ty of canagliflozin, a sodi­um– glu­cose co­trans­porter 2 in­hibitor, as add-‍on to in­sulin in pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Care 2015;38:2258–2265
35. Dan­dona P, Math­ieu C, Phillip M, et al.; DEPICT-‍1 In­ves­ti­ga­tors. Efficacy and safe­ty of da­pagliflozin in pa­tients with in­ad­e­quate­ly con­trolled type 1 di­a­betes (DEPICT-‍1): 24 week re­sults from a mul­ti­cen­tre, dou­ble-‍blind, phase 3, ran­domised con­trolled trial. Lancet Di­a­betes En­docrinol 2017;5:864–876
36. Pa­tou­lias D, Im­pri­a­los K, Stavropou­los K, Athy­ros V, Doumas M. SGLT-2 in­hibitors in type 1 di­a­betes mel­li­tus: a com­pre­hen­sive re­view of the lit­er­a­ture. Curr Clin Phar­ma­col. 7 Au­gust 2018 [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.2174/ 1574884713666180807150509
37. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. FDA to review ZynquistaTM (sotagliflozin) as potential treatment for type 1 diabetes [Internet], 2018. Available from http://www.lexpharma.com/media-center/news/673-fda-to-review-zynquista-sotagliflozinas-potential-treatment-for-type-1-diabetes. Accessed 30 September 2018
38. Robert­son RP, Davis C, Larsen J, Strat­ta R, Suther­land DER; Amer­i­can Di­a­betes As­so­ci­a­tion. Pan­creas and islet trans­plan­ta­tion in type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Care 2006;29:935
39. Davies MJ, D’Alessio DA, Frad­kin J, et al. Man­age­ment of hy­per­glycemia in type 2 di­a­betes, 2018. A con­sen­sus re­port by the Amer­i­can Di­a­betes As­so­ci­a­tion (ADA) and the Eu­ro­pean As­so­ci­a­tion for the Study of Di­a­betes (EASD). Di­a­betes Care 2018;41:2669–2701
40. Hol­man RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HAW. 10-year fol­low-‍up of in­ten­sive glu­cose con­trol in type 2 di­a­betes. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1577–1589
41. Maruthur NM, Tseng E, Hutfless S, et al. Di­a­betes med­i­ca­tions as monother­a­py or met­formin-‍based com­bi­na­tion ther­a­py for type 2 di­a­betes: a sys­tematic re­view and meta­anal­y­sis. Ann In­tern Med 2016;164:740–751
42. U.S. Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion. FDA Drug Safe­ty Com­mu­ni­ca­tion: FDA re­vis­es warn­ings re­gard­ing use of the di­a­betes medicine met­formin in cer­tain pa­tients with re­duced kid­ney func­tion [In­ternet]. Avail­able from http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafe­ty/ucm493244.htm. Ac­cessed 14 Oc­to­ber 2016
43. Out M, Kooy A, Lehert P, Schalk­wi­jk CA, Ste­houw­er CDA. Long-‍term treat­ment with met­formin in type 2 di­a­betes and methyl­malonic acid: post hoc anal­y­sis of a ran­dom­ized con­trolled 4.3 year trial. J Di­a­betes Com­pli­ca­tions 2018;32:171–178
44. Aroda VR, Edel­stein SL, Gold­berg RB, et al.; Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Re­search Group. Long-‍term met­formin use and vi­ta­min B12 de- ficien­cy in the Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Out­comes Study. J Clin En­docrinol Metab 2016; 101:1754–1761
45. Henry RR, Mur­ray AV, Mar­mole­jo MH, Hen­nick­en D, Ptaszyn­s­ka A, List JF. Da­pagliflozin, met­formin XR, or both: ini­tial pharmacother­a­py for type 2 di­a­betes, a ran­domised con­trolled trial. Int J Clin Pract 2012;66:446–456
46. Ben­nett WL, Maruthur NM, Singh S, et al. Com­par­a­tive ef­fec­tive­ness and safe­ty of med­i­ca­tions for type 2 di­a­betes: an up­date in­clud­ing new drugs and 2-drug com­bi­na­tions. Ann In­tern Med 2011;154:602–613
47. 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
48. Singh S, Wright EE Jr, Kwan AYM, et al. Glucagon-‍like pep­tide-‍1 re­cep­tor ag­o­nists com­pared with basal in­sulins for the treat­ment of type 2 di­a­betes mel­li­tus: a sys­tematic re­view and meta-‍anal­y­sis. Di­a­betes Obes Metab 2017; 19:228–238
49. Levin PA, Nguyen H, Wit­tbrodt ET, Kim SC. Glucagon-‍like pep­tide-‍1 re­cep­tor ag­o­nists: a sys­tematic re­view of com­par­a­tive ef­fec­tive­ness re­search. Di­a­betes Metab Syndr Obes 2017; 10:123–139
50. Abd El Aziz MS, Kahle M, Meier JJ, Nauck MA. A meta-‍anal­y­sis com­par­ing clin­i­cal ef­fects of short-‍ or long-‍act­ing GLP-1 re­cep­tor ag­o­nists ver­sus in­sulin treat­ment from head-‍to-‍head stud­ies in type 2 di­a­bet­ic pa­tients. Di­a­betes Obes Metab 2017;19:216–227
51. In­sti­tute for Clin­i­cal and Eco­nom­ic Re­view. Con­tro­ver­sies in the man­age­ment of pa­tients with type 2 di­a­betes [In­ternet], De­cem­ber 2014. Avail­able from https://icer-‍re­view.org/wp-con­tent/ uploads/‍2015/03/CEPAC-‍T2D-‍Final-‍Report-‍ De­cem­ber-‍22.pdf. Ac­cessed 9 Novem­ber 2018
52. Tru­ven Health An­a­lyt­ics. Mi­cromedex 2.0 In­tro­duc­tion to RED BOOK On­line [In­ternet], 2018. Avail­able from .com/‍micromedex2/4.34.0/‍WebHelp/‍RED_BOOK/ In­tro­duc­tion_to_REDB_BOOK_On­line.htm. Ac­cessed 5 Septem­ber 2018
53. Cen­ters for Medi­care & Med­i­caid Ser­vices. NADAC (na­tion­al av­er­age drug ac­qui­si­tion cost), drug pric­ing and pay­ment [In­ternet], 2018. Avail­able from https:/‍/‍data.med­i­caid.gov/Drug-Pricing-and-Payment/NADAC-Na­tion­al-Av­er­age-Drug- Ac­qui­si­tion-‍Cost-‍/a4y5-998d. Ac­cessed 5 Septem­ber 2018
54. Zin­man B, Wan­ner C, Lachin JM, et al.; EMPAREG OUT­COME In­ves­ti­ga­tors. Em­pagliflozin, car­dio­vas­cu­lar out­comes, and mor­tal­i­ty in type 2 di­a­betes. N Engl J Med 2015;373: 2117–2128
55. Neal B, Perkovic V, Ma­haf­fey KW, et al.; CAN­VAS Pro­gram Col­lab­o­ra­tive Group. Canagliflozin and car­dio­vas­cu­lar and renal events in type 2 di­a­betes. N Engl J Med 2017;377:644–657
56. Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-‍Frand­sen K, et al.; LEAD­ER Steer­ing Com­mit­tee; LEAD­ER Trial In­ves­ti­ga­tors. Li­raglu­tide and car­dio­vas­cu­lar out­comes in type 2 di­a­betes. N Engl J Med 2016;375:311–322
57. Marso SP, Bain SC, Con­soli A, et al.; SUSTAIN-‍ 6 In­ves­ti­ga­tors. Semaglu­tide and car­dio­vas­cu­lar out­comes in pa­tients with type 2 di­a­betes. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1834–1844
58. Blonde L, Mer­i­lainen M, Karwe V, Raskin P; TITRATE Study Group. Patient-di­rected titra­tion for achiev­ing gly­caemic goals using a once-‍daily basal in­sulin ana­logue: an as­sess­ment of two dif­fer­ent fast­ing plas­ma glu­cose tar­gets – the TITRATE study. Di­a­betes Obes Metab 2009;11:623–631
59. Por­cel­lati F, Lu­ci­di P, Cioli P, et al. Phar­ma­coki­net­ics and phar­ma­co­dy­nam­ics of in­sulin glargine given in the evening as com­pared with in the morn­ing in type 2 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Care 2015;38:503–512
60. Wang Z, Hedring­ton MS, Gog­i­tidze Joy N, et al. Dose-‍re­sponse ef­fects of in­sulin glargine in type 2 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Care 2010;33:1555– 1560
61. Singh SR, Ahmad F, Lal A, Yu C, Bai Z, Ben­nett H. Efficacy and safe­ty of in­sulin ana­logues for the man­age­ment of di­a­betes mel­li­tus: a meta­anal­y­sis. CMAJ 2009;180:385–397
62. Hor­vath K, Jeitler K, Berghold A, et al. Long-‍act­ing in­sulin ana­logues ver­sus NPH in­sulin (human iso­phane in­sulin) for type 2 di­a­betes mel­li­tus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;2: CD005613
63. Mon­a­mi M, Mar­chion­ni N, Man­nuc­ci E. Long-‍act­ing in­sulin ana­logues ver­sus NPH human in­sulin in type 2 di­a­betes: a meta-‍anal­y­sis. Di­a­betes Res Clin Pract 2008;81:184–189
64. Owens DR, Tray­lor L, Mullins P, Land­graf W. Pa­tient-‍level meta-‍anal­y­sis of efficacy and hy­po­gly­caemia in peo­ple with type 2 di­a­betes ini­ti­at­ing in­sulin glargine 100 U/mL or neu­tral pro­tamine Hage­dorn in­sulin anal­ysed ac­cord­ing to con­comi­tant oral antidi­a­betes ther­a­py. Di­a­betes Res Clin Pract 2017;124(Suppl. C):57–65
65. Rid­dle MC, Rosen­stock J, Gerich J; In­sulin Glargine 4002 Study In­ves­ti­ga­tors. The treat-to-tar­get trial: ran­dom­ized ad­di­tion of glargine or human NPH in­sulin to oral ther­a­py oftype 2 di­a­bet­ic pa­tients. Di­a­betes Care 2003;26:3080–3086
66. Her­mansen K, Davies M, Derezin­s­ki T, Mar­tinez Ravn G, Clau­son P, Home P. A 26-week, ran­dom­ized, par­al­lel, treat-to-tar­get trial com­par­ing 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
67. Yki-‍Ja¨rvi­nen H, Kauppinen-‍Ma¨kelin R, Ti­ikkainen M, et al. In­sulin glargine or NPH com­bined with met­formin in type 2 di­a­betes: the LAN­MET study. Di­a­betologia 2006;49:442–451
68. Bolli GB, Rid­dle MC, Bergen­stal RM, et al.; EDI­TION 3 study in­ves­ti­ga­tors. New in­sulin glargine 300 U/ml com­pared with glargine 100 U/ml in in­sulin-‍na¨ıve peo­ple with type 2 di­a­betes on oral glu­cose-‍low­er­ing drugs: a ran­dom­ized con­trolled trial (EDI­TION 3). Di­a­betes Obes Metab 2015;17:386–394
69. Ter­auchi Y, Koya­ma M, Cheng X, et al. New in­sulin glargine 300 U/ml ver­sus glargine 100 U/ml in Japanese peo­ple with type 2 di­a­betes using basal in­sulin and oral antihypergly­caemic drugs: glu­cose con­trol and hy­po­gly­caemia in a ran­dom­ized con­trolled trial (EDI­TION JP 2). Di­a­betes Obes Metab 2016;18:366–374
70. Yki-‍Ja¨rvi­nen 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 EDI­TION 2 ran­dom­ized 12-‍month trial in­clud­ing 6-‍month ex­ten­sion. Di­a­betes Obes Metab 2015;17:1142–1149
71. Marso SP, McGuire DK, Zin­man B, et al.; DE­VOTE Study Group. Efficacy and safe­ty of degludec ver­sus glargine in type 2 di­a­betes. N Engl J Med 2017;377:723–732
72. Rod­bard HW, Car­i­ou B, Zin­man B, et al.; BEGIN Once Long trial in­ves­ti­ga­tors. Com­par­i­son of in­sulin degludec with in­sulin glargine in in­sulin-‍naive sub­jects with type 2 di­a­betes: a 2-year ran­dom­ized, treat-to-tar­get trial. Di­a­bet Med 2013;30:1298–1304
73. Wysham C, Bhar­ga­va A, Chaykin L, et al. 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
74. Zin­man B, Philis-‍Tsimikas A, Car­i­ou B, et al.; NN1250-3579 (BEGIN Once Long) Trial In­ves­ti­ga­tors. 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
75. Lip­s­ka KJ, Park­er MM, Mof­fet HH, Huang ES, Karter AJ. As­so­ci­a­tion of ini­ti­a­tion of basal in­sulin ana­logs vs neu­tral pro­tamine Hage­dorn in­sulin with hy­po­glycemia-‍re­lat­ed emer­gen­cy de­part­ment vis­its or hos­pi­tal ad­mis­sions and with glycemic con­trol in pa­tients with type 2 di­a­betes. JAMA 2018;320:53–62
76. Ce­falu WT, Dawes DE, Gavlak G, et al.; In­sulin Ac­cess and Affordabil­i­ty Work­ing Group. In­sulin Ac­cess and Affordabil­i­ty Work­ing Group: con­clu­sions and rec­om­men­da­tions. Di­a­betes Care 2018;41:1299–1311
77. Lip­s­ka KJ, Hirsch IB, Rid­dle MC. Human in­sulin for type 2 di­a­betes: an ef­fec­tive, less-‍ex­pen­sive op­tion. JAMA 2017;318:23–24
78. Man­nuc­ci E, Mon­a­mi M, Mar­chion­ni N. Short-‍act­ing in­sulin ana­logues vs. reg­u­lar human in­sulin in type 2 di­a­betes: a meta-‍anal­y­sis. Di­a­betes Obes Metab 2009;11:53–59
79. Heller S, Bode B, Ko­zlovs­ki P, Svend­sen AL. Meta-‍anal­y­sis of in­sulin as­part ver­sus reg­u­lar human in­sulin used in a basal-‍bolus reg­i­men for the treat­ment of di­a­betes mel­li­tus. J Di­a­betes 2013;5:482–491
80. Rid­dle MC, Yki-‍Ja¨rvi­nen H, Bolli GB, et al. One-‍year sus­tained gly­caemic con­trol and less hy­po­gly­caemia with new in­sulin glargine 300 U/ml com­pared with 100 U/ml in peo­ple with type 2 di­a­betes using basal plus meal-‍time in­sulin: the EDI­TION 1 12-‍month ran­dom­ized trial, in­clud­ing 6-‍month ex­ten­sion. Di­a­betes Obes Metab 2015;17:835–842
81. Yki-‍Ja¨rvi­nen H, Bergen­stal R, Ziemen M, et al.; EDI­TION 2 Study In­ves­ti­ga­tors. New in­sulin glargine 300 units/‍mL ver­sus glargine 100 units/‍ mL in peo­ple with type 2 di­a­betes using oral agents and basal in­sulin: glu­cose con­trol and hy­po­glycemia in a 6-‍month ran­dom­ized con­trolled trial (EDI­TION 2). Di­a­betes Care 2014; 37:3235–3243
82. Ak­turk HK, Snell-‍Bergeon JK, Rew­ers A, et al. Im­proved postpran­di­al glu­cose with in­haled tech­no­sphere in­sulin com­pared with in­sulin as­part in pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes on mul­ti­ple daily in­jec­tions: the STAT­study. Di­a­betes Tech­nol Ther 2018;20:639–647
83. Dia­mant M, Nauck MA, Shagini­an R, et al.; 4B Study Group. Glucagon-‍like pep­tide 1 re­cep­tor ag­o­nist or bolus in­sulin with op­ti­mized basal in­sulin in type 2 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Care 2014;37: 2763–2773
84. 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
85. Maior­i­no MI, Chio­di­ni P, Bel­lastel­la G, Ca­puano A, Es­pos­i­to K, Giugliano D. In­sulin and glucagon-‍like pep­tide 1 re­cep­tor ag­o­nist com­bi­na­tion ther­a­py in type 2 di­a­betes: a sys­tematic re­view and meta-‍anal­y­sis of ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als. Di­a­betes Care 2017;40:614–624
86. Rod­bard HW, Visco VE, An­der­sen H, Hiort LC, Shu DHW. Treat­ment in­ten­sification with step­wise ad­di­tion of pran­di­al in­sulin as­part bo­lus­es com­pared with full basal-‍bolus ther­a­py (Full­STEP Study): a ran­domised, treat-to-tar­get clin­i­cal trial. Lancet Di­a­betes En­docrinol 2014;2:30–37