Reviews/Commentaries/ADA Statements

C O N S E N S U S

S T A T E M E N T

Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2

Diabetes: A Consensus Algorithm for the
Initiation and Adjustment of Therapy
A consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the
European Association for the Study of Diabetes
DAVID M. NATHAN, MD1
JOHN B. BUSE, MD, PHD2
MAYER B. DAVIDSON, MD3
ROBERT J. HEINE, MD4

RURY R. HOLMAN, FRCP5

ROBERT SHERWIN, MD6
BERNARD ZINMAN, MD7

therapies directed at other coincident features, such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, hypercoagulability, obesity, and
insulin resistance, have also been a major
focus of research and therapy. Maintaining glycemic levels as close to the nondiabetic range as possible has been
demonstrated to have a powerful
beneficial impact on diabetes-specific
complications, including retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy in the setting

he epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the

latter part of the 20th and in the
early 21st century, and the recognition that achieving specific glycemic goals
can substantially reduce morbidity, have
made the effective treatment of hyperglycemia a top priority (13). While the
management of hyperglycemia, the hallmark metabolic abnormality associated
with type 2 diabetes, has historically had
center stage in the treatment of diabetes,

From the 1Diabetes Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; the 2University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; the 3Clinical
Trials Unit, Charles R. Drew University, Los Angeles, California; the 4Diabetes Center, VU University Medical
Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; the 5Diabetes Trials Unit, Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology
and Metabolism, Oxford University, Oxford, U.K.; the 6Department of Internal Medicine and Endocrinology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; and the 7Departments of Endocrinology
and Metabolism, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to David M. Nathan, MD, Diabetes Center, Massachusetts
General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114. E-mail: [email protected].
This document was reviewed and approved by the Professional Practice Committee of the American
Diabetes Association and by an ad hoc committee of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (Ulf
Smith, Gothenburg, Sweden; Stefano Del Prato, Pisa, Italy; Clifford Bailey, Birmingham U.K.; and Bernard
Charbonnel, Nantes, France).
D.M.N. has received research grants for investigator-initiated research from Aventis and Novo Nordisk.
J.B.B. has conducted research and/or served on advisory boards under contract between the University of
North Carolina and Amylin, Becton Dickinson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffman-LaRoche, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. M.B.D. has received research support from Eli Lilly, Merck,
and Pfizer; has served on advisory boards for Amylin, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi-Aventis; and has been
on speakers bureaus for Amylin, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. R.J.H. has received research support
from GlaxoSmithKline, Minimed-Medtronic, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and has served on advisory boards
for Amylin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. R.R.H. has
received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sante, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer,
and Pronova and has served on advisory boards and/or received honoraria for speaking engagements from
Amylin, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dome, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis. R.S. has served on
advisory boards for Amylin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Takeda. B.Z. has received research
support from Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and has been a member of scientific
advisory boards and/or received honoraria for speaking engagements from Amylin, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Smiths Medical.
Simultaneous publication: This article is being simultaneously published in 2006 in Diabetes Care and
Diabetologia by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Abbreviations: CVD, cardiovascular disease; DCCT, Diabetes Control and Complications Trial; GLP-1,
glucagon-like peptide 1; SMBG, self-monitoring of blood glucose; TZD, thiazolidinedione; UKPDS, U.K.
Prospective Diabetes Study.
DOI: 10.2337/dc06-9912
2006 by the American Diabetes Association, Inc., and Springer-Verlag. Copying with attribution
allowed for any noncommercial use of the work.

DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 29, NUMBER 8, AUGUST 2006

of type 1 diabetes (4,5); in type 2 diabetes,

more intensive treatment strategies have
likewise been demonstrated to reduce
complications (6 8). Intensive glycemic
management resulting in lower HbA1c
(A1C) levels has also been shown to have
a beneficial effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) complications in type 1 diabetes (9,10); however, the role of
intensive diabetes therapy on CVD in type
2 diabetes remains under active investigation (11,12). Some therapies directed at
lowering glucose levels have additional
benefits with regard to CVD risk factors,
while others lower glucose without additional benefits.
The development of new classes of
blood glucoselowering medications to
supplement the older therapies, such as
lifestyle-directed interventions, insulin,
sulfonylureas, and metformin, has increased the treatment options for type 2
diabetes. Whether used alone or in combination with other blood glucose
lowering interventions, the availability of
the newer agents has provided an increased number of choices for practitioners and patients and heightened
uncertainty regarding the most appropriate means of treating this widespread disease. Although numerous reviews on the
management of type 2 diabetes have been
published in recent years (1316), practitioners are often left without a clear
pathway of therapy to follow. We developed the following consensus approach
to the management of hyperglycemia in
the nonpregnant adult to help guide
health care providers in choosing the
most appropriate interventions for their
patients with type 2 diabetes.
Process
The guidelines and algorithm that follow
are based on clinical trials that have examined different modalities of therapy of
type 2 diabetes and on the authors clinical experience and judgment, keeping in
mind the primary goal of achieving and
maintaining glucose levels as close to the
1963

Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes

Table 1Summary of antidiabetic interventions as monotherapy

Interventions
Step 1: initial
Lifestyle to decrease weight
and increase activity
Metformin
Step 2: additional therapy
Insulin

Expected decrease
in A1C (%)

Advantages

Disadvantages

12

Low cost, many benefits

Fails for most in 1st year

1.5

Weight neutral, inexpensive

GI side effects, rare lactic acidosis

1.52.5
1.5
0.51.4

No dose limit, inexpensive,

improved lipid profile
Inexpensive
Improved lipid profile

Injections, monitoring, hypoglycemia,

weight gain
Weight gain, hypoglycemia*
Fluid retention, weight gain, expensive

0.50.8

Weight neutral

Exenatide

0.51.0

Weight loss

Glinides
Pramlintide

11.5
0.51.0

Short duration
Weight loss

Frequent GI side effects, three times/

day dosing, expensive
Injections, frequent GI side effects,
expensive, little experience
Three times/day dosing, expensive
Injections, three times/day dosing,
frequent GI side effects, expensive,
little experience

Sulfonylureas
TZDs
Other drugs
-Glucosidase inhibitors

*Severe hypoglycemia is relatively infrequent with sulfonylurea therapy. The longer-acting agents (e.g. chlorpropamide, glyburide glibenclamide, and sustainedrelease glipizide) are more likely to cause hypoglycemia than glipizide, glimepiride, and gliclazide. Repaglinide is more effective at lowering A1C than nateglinide.
GI, gastrointestinal.

nondiabetic range as possible. The paucity of high-quality evidence in the form

of clinical trials that directly compare different diabetes treatment regimens remains a
major impediment to recommending one
class of drugs, or a particular combination
of therapies, over another. While the algorithm that we propose is likely to engender debate, we hope that the
recommendations will help guide the
therapy of type 2 diabetes and result in
improved glycemic control and health
status over time.
Glycemic goals of therapy
Controlled clinical trials, such as the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial
(DCCT) (4) and the Stockholm Diabetes
Intervention Study (5) in type 1 diabetes
and the U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study
(UKPDS) (6,7) and Kumamoto Study (8)
in type 2 diabetes, have helped to establish the glycemic goals of therapy that result in improved long-term outcomes.
Although the various clinical trials have
had different designs, interventions, and
measured outcomes, the trials, in concert
with epidemiologic data (17,18), support
decreasing glycemia as an effective means
of reducing long-term microvascular and
neuropathic complications. The most appropriate target levels for blood glucose,
on a day-to-day basis, and A1C, as an index of chronic glycemia, have not been
systematically studied. However, both the
1964

DCCT (4) and the UKPDS (6,7) had as

their goals the achievement of glycemic
levels in the nondiabetic range. Neither
study was able to sustain A1C levels in the
nondiabetic range in their intensivetreatment groups, achieving mean levels
over time of 7%, 4 SDs above the nondiabetic mean.
The most recent glycemic goal recommended by the American Diabetes Association, selected on the basis of
practicality and the projected reduction
in complications over time, is in general
an A1C level 7% (19). For the individual patient, the A1C should be as close
to normal (6%) as possible without significant hypoglycemia. The most recent
glycemic goal set by the European Union
International Diabetes Federation is an
A1C level 6.5%. The upper limit of the
nondiabetic range is 6.1% (mean A1C of
5% 2 SD) with the DCCT-standardized
assay, which has been promulgated
through the National Glycohemoglobin
Standardization Program (NGSP) and
adopted by the vast majority of commercially available assays (20). Our consensus is that an A1C of 7% should serve as
a call to action to initiate or change therapy with the goal of achieving an A1C
level as close to the nondiabetic range as
possible or, at a minimum, decreasing the
A1C to 7%. We are mindful that this
goal is not appropriate or practical for
some patients, and clinical judgment,

based on the potential benefits and risks

of a more intensified regimen, needs to be
applied for every patient. Factors such as
life expectancy and risk for hypoglycemia
need to be considered for every patient
before intensifying therapeutic regimens.
Assiduous attention to abnormalities
other than hyperglycemia that accompany type 2 diabetes, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, has been shown to
improve microvascular and cardiovascular complications. Readers are referred to
published guidelines for a discussion of
the rationale and goals of therapy for the
nonglycemic risk factors, as well as recommendations as to how to achieve them
(1,21,22).
Principles in selecting
antihyperglycemic interventions
Choosing specific antihyperglycemic
agents is predicated on their effectiveness
in lowering glucose, extraglycemic effects
that may reduce long-term complications, safety profiles, tolerability, and
expense.
Effectiveness in lowering glycemia.
Apart from their differential effects on glycemia, there are insufficient data at this
time to support a recommendation of one
class of glucose-lowering agents, or one
combination of medications, over others
with regard to effects on complications. In
other words, the salutary effects of therapy on long-term complications appear to
DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 29, NUMBER 8, AUGUST 2006

Nathan and Associates

be predicated predominantly on the level
of glycemic control achieved rather than
on any other specific attributes of the intervention(s) used to achieve glycemic
goals. The UKPDS compared three classes
of glucose-lowering medications (sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin) but was
unable to demonstrate clear superiority of
any one drug over the others with regard
to complications (6,7). However, the different classes do have variable effectiveness in decreasing glycemic levels (Table
1), and the overarching principle in selecting a particular intervention will be its
ability to achieve and maintain glycemic
goals. In addition to the intention-to-treat
analyses demonstrating the superiority of
intensive versus conventional interventions, the DCCT and UKPDS demonstrated a strong correlation between mean
A1C levels over time and the development and progression of retinopathy and
nephropathy (23,24). Therefore, we
think it is reasonable to judge and compare blood glucoselowering medications, and the combinations of such
agents, primarily on the basis of the A1C
levels that are achieved and on their specific side effects, tolerability, and expense.
Nonglycemic effects of medications.
In addition to variable effects on glycemia, specific effects of individual therapies on CVD risk factors, such as
hypertension or dyslipidemia, were also
considered important. We also included
the effects of interventions that may benefit or worsen the prospects for long-term
glycemic control in our recommendations. Examples of these would be
changes in body mass, insulin resistance,
or insulin secretory capacity in type 2 diabetic patients.
Choosing specific diabetes
interventions and their roles in
treating type 2 diabetes
Numerous reviews have focused on the
characteristics of the specific diabetes interventions listed below (2533). The aim
here is to provide enough information to
justify the choices of medications, the order in which they are recommended, and
the utility of combinations of therapies.
Unfortunately, there is a dearth of highquality studies that provide head-to-head
comparisons of the ability of the medications to achieve the currently recommended glycemic levels. The authors
highly recommend that such studies be
conducted. However, even in the absence
of rigorous, comprehensive studies that
directly compare the efficacy of all availDIABETES CARE, VOLUME 29, NUMBER 8, AUGUST 2006

able glucose-lowering treatments, and

their combinations, we feel that there are
enough data regarding the characteristics
of the individual interventions to provide
the guidelines below.
An important intervention that is
likely to improve the probability that a
patient will have better long-term control
of diabetes is to make the diagnosis early,
when the metabolic abnormalities of diabetes are usually less severe. Lower levels
of glycemia at time of initial therapy are
associated with lower A1C over time and
decreased long-term complications (34).
Lifestyle interventions. The major environmental factors that increase the risk of
type 2 diabetes, presumably in the setting
of genetic risk, are overnutrition and a
sedentary lifestyle, with consequent overweight and obesity (35). Not surprisingly,
interventions that reverse or improve
these factors have been demonstrated to
have a beneficial effect on control of glycemia in established type 2 diabetes (36).
While there is still active debate regarding
the most beneficial types of diet and exercise, weight loss almost always improves
glycemic levels. Unfortunately, the high
rate of weight regain has limited the role
of lifestyle interventions as an effective
means of controlling glycemia long term.
The most convincing long-term data that
weight loss effectively lowers glycemia
have been generated in the follow-up of
type 2 diabetic patients who have had
bariatric surgery (37,38). In this setting,
diabetes is virtually erased, with a mean
sustained weight loss of 20 kg (37,38).
Studies of the pharmacologic treatment of
obesity have been characterized by high
drop-out rates, low sustainability, and
side effects; weight loss medications cannot be recommended as a primary therapy for diabetes at this time. In addition to
the beneficial effects of weight loss on glycemia, weight loss and exercise improve
coincident CVD risk factors, such as
blood pressure and atherogenic lipid profiles, and ameliorate other consequences
of obesity (37 40). There are few adverse
consequences of such lifestyle interventions other than the difficulty in incorporating them into usual lifestyle and
sustaining them and the usually minor
musculoskeletal injuries and potential
problems associated with neuropathy,
such as foot trauma and ulcers, that may
occur with increased activity. Theoretically, effective weight loss, with its pleiotropic benefits, safety profile, and low
cost, should be the most cost-effective

means of controlling diabetes, if it could

be achieved and maintained long term.
Given these beneficial effects, a lifestyle intervention program to promote
weight loss and increase activity levels
should, with rare exceptions, be included
as part of diabetes management. The beneficial effects of such programs are usually
seen rapidly, within weeks to months,
and often before there has been substantial weight loss (41). Weight loss of as little as 4 kg will often ameliorate
hyperglycemia. However, the limited
long-term success of lifestyle programs to
maintain glycemic goals in patients with
type 2 diabetes suggests that a large majority of patients will require the addition
of medications over the course of their
diabetes.
Medications. The characteristics of currently available antidiabetic interventions, when used as monotherapy, are
summarized in Table 1. The glucoselowering effectiveness of individual therapies and combinations demonstrated in
clinical trials is predicated not only on the
intrinsic characteristics of the intervention, but also on the baseline glycemia,
duration of diabetes, previous therapy,
and other factors. A major factor in selecting a class of drugs, or a specific medication within a class, to initiate therapy or
when changing therapy, is the ambient
level of glycemic control. When levels of
glycemia are high (e.g., A1C 8.5%),
classes with greater and more rapid glucose-lowering effectiveness, or potentially
earlier initiation of combination therapy,
are recommended; conversely, when glycemic levels are closer to the target levels
(e.g., A1C 7.5%), medications with
lesser potential to lower glycemia and/or a
slower onset of action may be considered.
Obviously, the choice of glycemic goals
and the medications used to achieve them
must be individualized for each patient,
balancing the potential for lowering A1C
and anticipated long-term benefit with
specific safety issues, as well as other characteristics of regimens, including side effects, tolerability, patient burden and
long-term adherence, expense, and the
nonglycemic effects of the medications.
Finally, type 2 diabetes is a progressive
disease with worsening glycemia over
time. Therefore, addition of medications
is the rule, not the exception, if treatment
goals are to be met over time.
Metformin. Metformin is the only biguanide available in most of the world. Its
major effect is to decrease hepatic glucose
output and lower fasting glycemia. Typi1965

Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes

cally, metformin monotherapy will lower
A1C by 1.5 percentage points (27,42).
It is generally well tolerated, with the
most common adverse effects being gastrointestinal. Although always a matter of
concern because of its potentially fatal
outcome, lactic acidosis is quite rare (1
case per 100,000 treated patients) (43).
Metformin monotherapy is usually not
accompanied by hypoglycemia and has
been used safely, without causing hypoglycemia, in patients with pre-diabetic
hyperglycemia (44). The major nonglycemic effect of metformin is either weight
stability or modest weight loss, in contrast
to many of the other blood glucose
lowering medications. The UKPDS demonstrated a beneficial effect of metformin
therapy on CVD outcomes that needs to
be confirmed (7).
Sulfonylureas. Sulfonylureas lower glycemia by enhancing insulin secretion.
They appear to have an effect similar to
metformin, and they lower A1C by 1.5
percentage points (26). The major adverse side effect is hypoglycemia, but severe episodes, characterized by need for
assistance, coma, or seizure, are infrequent. However, such episodes are more
frequent in the elderly. Episodes can be
both prolonged and life threatening, although these are very rare. Several of the
newer sulfonylureas have a relatively
lower risk for hypoglycemia (Table 1)
(45,46). In addition, weight gain of 2 kg
is common with the initiation of sulfonylurea therapy. This may have an adverse
impact on CVD risk, although it has not
been established. Finally, sulfonylurea
therapy was implicated as a potential
cause of increased CVD mortality in the
University Group Diabetes Program (47).
Concerns raised by the University Group
Diabetes Program study that sulfonylurea
therapy may increase CVD mortality in
type 2 diabetes were not substantiated by
the UKPDS (6).
Glinides. Like the sulfonylureas, the
glinides stimulate insulin secretion, although they bind to a different site within
the sulfonylurea receptor (28). They have
a shorter circulating half-life than the sulfonylureas and must be administered
more frequently. Of the two glinides currently available in the U.S., repaglinide is
almost as effective as metformin or the
sulfonylureas, decreasing A1C by 1.5
percentage points. Nateglinide is somewhat less effective in lowering A1C than
repaglinide when used as monotherapy or
in combination therapy (48,49). The glinides have a similar risk for weight gain as
1966

the sulfonylureas, but hypoglycemia may

be less frequent, at least with nateglinide,
than with some sulfonylureas (49,50).
-Glucosidase inhibitors. -Glucosidase inhibitors reduce the rate of digestion of polysaccharides in the proximal
small intestine, primarily lowering postprandial glucose levels without causing
hypoglycemia. They are less effective in
lowering glycemia than metformin or the
sulfonylureas, reducing A1C by 0.5 0.8
percentage points (29). Since carbohydrate is absorbed more distally, malabsorption and weight loss do not occur;
however, increased delivery of carbohydrate to the colon commonly results in
increased gas production and gastrointestinal symptoms. This side effect has led to
discontinuation of the -glucosidase inhibitors by 25 45% of participants in
clinical trials (29,51). One clinical trial
examining acarbose as a means of preventing the development of diabetes in
high-risk subjects with impaired glucose
tolerance showed an unexpected reduction in severe CVD outcomes (51). This
potential benefit of -glucosidase inhibitors needs to be confirmed.
Thiazolidinediones. Thiazolidinediones (TZDs or glitazones) are peroxisome
proliferatoractivated receptor modulators; they increase the sensitivity of muscle, fat, and liver to endogenous and
exogenous insulin (insulin sensitizers)
(31). The limited data regarding the blood
glucoselowering effectiveness of TZDs
when used as monotherapy have demonstrated a 0.51.4% decrease in A1C. The
most common adverse effects with TZDs
are weight gain and fluid retention. There
is an increase in adiposity, largely subcutaneous, with redistribution of fat from
visceral deposits shown in some studies.
The fluid retention usually manifests as
peripheral edema, though new or worsened heart failure can occur. The TZDs
either have a beneficial or neutral effect on
atherogenic lipid profiles, with pioglitazone having a more beneficial effect than
rosiglitazone (52,53). The PROactive
(PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial
In macroVascular Events) study demonstrated no significant effects of pioglitazone compared with placebo on the
primary CVD outcome (composite of allcause mortality, nonfatal and silent myocardial infarction, stroke, major leg
amputation, acute coronary syndrome,
coronary artery bypass graft or percutaneous coronary intervention, and leg revascularization) after 3 years of follow-up,
but a 16% reduction in death, myocardial

infarction, and stroke, a secondary end

point, was reported with marginal statistical significance (54).
Insulin. Insulin is the oldest of the currently available medications and has the
most clinical experience. Although initially developed to treat the insulindeficient type 1 diabetic patient, in whom
it is life saving, insulin was used early on
to treat the insulin-resistant form of diabetes recognized by Himsworth and Kerr
(55). Insulin is the most effective of diabetes medications in lowering glycemia. It
can, when used in adequate doses, decrease any level of elevated A1C to, or
close to, the therapeutic goal. Unlike the
other blood glucoselowering medications, there is no maximum dose of insulin beyond which a therapeutic effect will
not occur. Relatively large doses of insulin
(1 unit/kg), compared with those required to treat type 1 diabetes, may be
necessary to overcome the insulin resistance of type 2 diabetes and lower A1C to
goal. Although initial therapy is aimed at
increasing basal insulin supply, usually
with intermediate- or long-acting insulins, patients may also require prandial
therapy with short- or rapid-acting insulins as well (Fig. 1). Insulin therapy has
beneficial effects on triglyceride and HDL
cholesterol levels (56) but is associated
with weight gain of 2 4 kg, probably
proportional to the correction of glycemia
and owing predominantly to the reduction of glycosuria. As with sulfonylurea
therapy, the weight gain may have an adverse effect on cardiovascular risk. Insulin
therapy is also associated with hypoglycemia, albeit much less frequently than in
type 1 diabetes. In clinical trials aimed at
normoglycemia and achieving a mean
A1C of 7%, severe hypoglycemic episodes (defined as requiring help from another person to treat) occurred at a rate of
between 1 and 3 per 100 patient-years
(8,56 59) compared with 61 per 100 patient-years in the DCCT intensive-therapy
group (4). Insulin analogs with longer,
nonpeaking profiles may decrease the risk
of hypoglycemia compared with NPH,
and analogs with very short durations of
action may reduce the risk of hypoglycemia compared with regular insulin
(60,61). Inhaled insulin was approved in
the U.S. in 2006 for the treatment of type
2 diabetes. Published clinical studies to
date have not demonstrated whether inhaled insulin, given as monotherapy
(62,63) or in combination with an injection of long-acting insulin (64), can lower
A1C to 7%.
DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 29, NUMBER 8, AUGUST 2006

Nathan and Associates

Figure 1Initiation and adjustment of insulin regimens. Insulin regimens should be designed taking lifestyle and meal schedule into account. The
algorithm can only provide basic guidelines for initiation and adjustment of insulin. See ref. 71 for more detailed instructions. Premixed insulins
are not recommended during adjustment of doses; however, they can be used conveniently, usually before breakfast and/or dinner if proportion of
rapid- and intermediate-acting insulins is similar to the fixed proportions available. bg, blood glucose.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists (exenatide). Glucagon-like peptide 1

(GLP-1) 7-37, a naturally occurring peptide produced by the L-cells of the small
intestine, stimulates insulin secretion. Exendin-4 has homology with the human
GLP-1 sequence but has a longer circulating half-life. It binds avidly to the GLP-1
receptor on the pancreatic -cell and
DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 29, NUMBER 8, AUGUST 2006

potentiates glucose-mediated insulin secretion (32). Synthetic exendin-4 (exenatide) was approved for use in the U.S.
in 2005 and is administered twice per day
by subcutaneous injection. Although
there are far less published data on this
new compound than the other blood glucoselowering medications, exendin-4
appears to lower A1C by 0.51 percent-

age points, mainly by lowering postprandial blood glucose levels (65 68).
Exenatide also suppresses glucagon secretion and slows gastric motility. It is not
associated with hypoglycemia but has a
relatively high frequency of gastrointestinal side effects, with 30 45% of treated
patients experiencing one or more episodes of nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea
1967

Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes

Figure 2Algorithm for the metabolic management of type 2 diabetes. Reinforce lifestyle
intervention at every visit. *Check
A1C every 3 months until 7%
and then at least every 6 months.

Although three oral agents can

be used, initiation and intensification of insulin therapy is preferred
based on effectiveness and expense. #See Fig. 1 for initiation
and adjustment of insulin.

(65 68). In published trials, exenatide is

associated with an 2- to 3-kg weight
loss over 6 months, some of which may be
a result of its gastrointestinal side effects.
Currently, exenatide is approved for use
in the U.S. with sulfonylurea and/or
metformin.
Amylin agonists (pramlintide). Pramlintide is a synthetic analog of the -cell
hormone amylin. Currently, pramlintide
is approved for use in the U.S. only as
adjunctive therapy with insulin.
Pramlintide is administered subcutaneously before meals and slows gastric
emptying, inhibits glucagon production
in a glucose-dependent fashion, and predominantly decreases postprandial glucose excursions (33). In clinical studies,
A1C has been decreased by 0.5 0.7 percentage points (69). The major clinical
side effects of this drug, which is injected
before meals, are gastrointestinal in nature. Approximately 30% of treated participants in the clinical trials have
developed nausea. Weight loss associated
with this medication is 11.5 kg over 6
months; as with exenatide, some of the
weight loss may be the result of gastrointestinal side effects.
How to initiate diabetes therapy and
advance interventions
Except in rare circumstances, such as patients who are extremely catabolic or hyperosmolar, who are unable to hydrate
themselves adequately, or with diabetic
ketoacidosis (see SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/
PATIENTS below), hospitalization is not re1968

quired to initiate or adjust therapy. The

patient is the key player in the diabetes
care team and should be trained and empowered to prevent and treat hypoglycemia, as well as to adjust medications with
the guidance of health care providers to
achieve glycemic goals. Many patients
may be managed effectively with monotherapy; however, the progressive nature
of the disease will require the use of combination therapy in many, if not most, patients over time to achieve and maintain
glycemia in the target range.
The measures of glycemia that are initially targeted on a day-to-day basis are
the fasting and preprandial glucose levels.
Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)
is an important element in adjusting or
adding new interventions and, in particular, in titrating insulin doses. The need
for and number of required SMBG measurements are not clear (70) but are dependent on the medications used. Oral
hypoglycemic regimens that do not include sulfonylureas, and are therefore not
likely to cause hypoglycemia, usually do
not require SMBG. However, SMBG may
be used to determine whether therapeutic
blood glucose targets are being achieved
and to adjust treatment regimens without
requiring the patient to have laboratorybased blood glucose testing. A fasting glucose level measured several times per
week generally correlates well with the
A1C level. Insulin therapy requires more
frequent monitoring.
The levels of plasma or capillary glucose (most meters that measure finger-

stick capillary samples are adjusted to

provide values equivalent to plasma glucose) that should result in long-term glycemia in the nondiabetic target range, as
measured by A1C, are fasting and preprandial levels between 70 and 130 mg/dl
(3.89 and 7.22 mmol/l). If these levels are
not consistently achieved, or A1C remains above the desired target, postprandial levels, usually measured 90 120 min
after a meal, may be checked. They
should be less than 180 mg/dl (10
mmol/l) to achieve A1C levels in the target range.
Attempts to achieve target glycemic
levels with regimens including sulfonylureas or insulin may be associated with
modest hypoglycemia, with glucose levels
in the 55- to 70-mg/dl (3.06- to 3.89mmol) range. These episodes are generally well tolerated, easily treated with oral
carbohydrate, such as glucose tablets or
4 6 oz (120 180 ml) juice or nondiet
soda, and rarely progress to more severe
hypoglycemia, including loss of consciousness or seizures.
Algorithm
The algorithm (Fig. 2) takes into account
the characteristics of the individual interventions, their synergies, and expense.
The goal is to achieve and maintain glycemic levels as close to the nondiabetic
range as possible and to change interventions at as rapid a pace as titration of medications allows. Pramlintide, exenatide,
-glucosidase inhibitors, and the glinides
are not included in this algorithm, owing
DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 29, NUMBER 8, AUGUST 2006

Nathan and Associates

Table 2Titration of metformin
1) Begin with low-dose metformin (500
mg) taken once or twice per day with
meals (breakfast and/or dinner).
2) After 57 days, if GI side effects have
not occurred, advance dose to 850 or
1,000 mg before breakfast and dinner.
3) If GI side effects appear as doses
advanced, can decrease to previous
lower dose and try to advance dose at a
later time.
4) The maximum effective dose is usually
850 mg twice per day, with modestly
greater effectiveness with doses up to 3
g per day. GI side effects may limit the
dose that can be used.
5) Based on cost considerations, generic
metformin is the first choice of therapy.
A longer-acting formulation is available
in some countries and can be given
once per day.
GI, gastrointestinal.

to their generally lower overall glucoselowering effectiveness, limited clinical

data, and/or relative expense (Table 1).
However, they may be appropriate choices
in selected patients.
Step 1: lifestyle intervention and metformin. Based on the numerous demonstrated short- and long-term benefits that
accrue when weight loss and increased
levels of activity are achieved and maintained, and the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle interventions when they succeed,
the consensus is that lifestyle interventions should be initiated as the first step in
treating new-onset type 2 diabetes (Fig.
2). These interventions should be implemented by health care professionals with
appropriate training, usually registered
dietitians with training in behavioral
modification, and be sensitive to ethnic
and cultural differences among populations. Moreover, lifestyle interventions to
improve glucose, blood pressure, and lipids levels and to promote weight loss or at
least avoid weight gain should remain an
underlying theme throughout the management of type 2 diabetes, even after
medications are used. For the 10 20% of
patients with type 2 diabetes who are not
obese or overweight, modification of dietary composition and activity levels may
play a supporting role, but medications
are generally required earlier (see SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS/PATIENTS below).
The authors recognize that for most
individuals with type 2 diabetes, lifestyle
interventions fail to achieve or maintain
metabolic goals, either because of failure
DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 29, NUMBER 8, AUGUST 2006

to lose weight, weight regain, progressive

disease or a combination of factors.
Therefore, our consensus is that metformin therapy should be initiated concurrent with lifestyle intervention at
diagnosis. Metformin is recommended as
the initial pharmacologic therapy, in the
absence of specific contraindications, for
its effect on glycemia, absence of weight
gain or hypoglycemia, generally low level
of side effects, high level of acceptance,
and relatively low cost. Metformin treatment should be titrated to its maximally
effective dose over 12 months, as tolerated (Table 2). Rapid addition of other
glucose-lowering medications should be
considered in the setting of persistent
symptomatic hyperglycemia.
Step 2: additional medications. If lifestyle intervention and maximal tolerated
dose of metformin fail to achieve or sustain glycemic goals, another medication
should be added within 23 months of
the initiation of therapy or at any time
when A1C goal is not achieved. There was
no strong consensus regarding the second
medication added after metformin other
than to choose among insulin, a sulfonylurea, or a TZD (Fig. 2). As discussed
above, the A1C level will determine in
part which agent is selected next, with
consideration given to the more effective
glycemia-lowering agent, insulin, for patients with A1C 8.5% or with symptoms secondary to hyperglycemia. Insulin
can be initiated with a basal (intermediate- or long-acting) insulin (see Fig. 1 for
suggested initial insulin regimens) (71).
The relative increased cost of the newer
agents that are only available as brand
medications must be balanced against
their relative benefits.
Step 3: further adjustments. If lifestyle,
metformin, and a second medication do
not result in goal glycemia, the next step
should be to start, or intensify, insulin
therapy (Fig. 1). When A1C is close to
goal (8.0%), addition of a third oral
agent could be considered; however, this
approach is relatively more costly and potentially not as effective in lowering glycemia compared with adding or
intensifying insulin (72). Intensification
of insulin therapy usually consists of additional injections that might include a
short- or rapid-acting insulin given before
selected meals to reduce postprandial glucose excursions (Fig. 1). When prandial
rapid- or very-rapid-acting insulin injections are started, insulin secretagogues
(sulfonylurea or glinides) should be discontinued, or tapered and then discontin-

ued, since they are not considered

synergistic with administered insulin.
Rationale in selecting specific
combinations
More than one medication will be necessary for the majority of patients over time.
Selection of the individual agents should
be made on the basis of their glucoselowering effectiveness and other characteristics listed in Table 1. However, when
adding second and potentially third antihyperglycemic medications, the synergy
of particular combinations and other interactions should be considered. In general, antihyperglycemic drugs with
different mechanisms of action will have
the greatest synergy. Insulin plus metformin (73) and insulin plus a TZD (74)
are particularly effective means of lowering glycemia. The increased risk of fluid
retention with the latter combination
must be considered. (TZD in combination
with insulin is not currently approved in
the European Union.) Although both
TZDs and metformin effectively increase
sensitivity to insulin, they have different
target organs and have been shown to
have modest additive effects, with addition of TZD to metformin lowering A1C
by 0.3 0.8% (75,76).
Special considerations/patients
In the setting of severely uncontrolled diabetes with catabolism, defined as fasting
plasma glucose levels 250 mg/dl (13.9
mmol/l), random glucose levels consistently 300 mg/dl (16.7 mmol/l), A1C
10%, or the presence of ketonuria, or as
symptomatic diabetes with polyuria,
polydipsia, and weight loss, insulin therapy in combination with lifestyle intervention is the treatment of choice. Some
patients with these characteristics will
have unrecognized type 1 diabetes; others
will have type 2 diabetes but with severe
insulin deficiency. Insulin can be titrated
rapidly and is associated with the greatest
likelihood of returning glucose levels rapidly to target levels. After symptoms are
relieved, oral agents can often be added
and it may be possible to withdraw insulin, if preferred.
Conclusions/summary
Type 2 diabetes is epidemic. Its long-term
consequences translate into enormous
human suffering and economic costs. We
now understand that much of the morbidity associated with long-term complications can be substantially reduced with
interventions that achieve glucose levels
1969

Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes

close to the nondiabetic range. Although
new classes of medications, and numerous combinations, have been demonstrated to lower glycemia, current-day
management has failed to achieve and
maintain the glycemic levels most likely
to provide optimal health care status for
people with diabetes.
The guidelines and treatment algorithm presented here emphasize

achievement and maintenance of normal glycemic goals;

initial therapy with lifestyle intervention and metformin;
rapid addition of medications, and
transition to new regimens, when target
glycemic goals are not achieved or sustained; and
early addition of insulin therapy in patients who do not meet target goals.

References
1. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care of diabetes. Diabetes
Care 28 (Suppl. 1):S15S35, 2005
2. European Diabetes Policy Group: A desktop guide to type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med 16:716 730, 1999
3. The Royal College of General Practitioners Effective Clinical Practice Unit: Clinical guidelines for type 2 diabetes mellitus:
management of blood glucose [article online], 2002. Available from http://www.nice
.org.uk/pdf/NICE_full_blood_glucose.pdf
4. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial
Research Group: The effect of intensive
diabetes treatment on the development
and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. N Engl J Med 329:978
986, 1993
5. Reichard P, Nilsson B-Y, Rosenqvist U:
The effect of long-term intensified insulin
treatment on the development of microvascular complications of diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 329:304 309, 1993
6. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS)
Group: Intensive blood glucose control
with sulphonylureas or insulin compared
with conventional treatment and risk of
complication in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 352:837 853,
1998
7. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS)
Group: Effect of intensive blood glucose
control with metformin on complication
in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet 352:854 865,
1998
8. Ohkubo Y, Kishikawa H, Araki E, Takao
M, Isami S, Motoyoshi S, Kojima Y, Furuyoshi N, Shichiri M: Intensive insulin
1970

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.
16.
17.

18.

19.
20.

21.

22.

therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in

Japanese patients with NIDDM: a randomized prospective 6-year study. Diabetes
Res Clin Pract 28:103117, 1995
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial
/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions
and Complications Research Group: Intensive diabetes therapy and carotid intima-media thickness in type 1 diabetes.
N Engl J Med 348:2294 2303, 2003
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Research Group:
Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1
diabetes. N Engl J Med 353:26432653,
2005
Advance Collaborative Group: ADVANCE: Action in Diabetes and Vascular
Disease: patient recruitment and characteristics of the study population at baseline. Diabet Med 22:882 888, 2005
Bastien A: The ACCORD trial: a multidisciplinary approach to control cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Pract
Diabetol 23:6 11, 2004
Nathan DM: Initial management of glycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl
J Med 347:13421349, 2002
Deeg MA: Basic approach to managing
hyperglycemia for the nonendocrinologist. Am J Cardiol 96 (Suppl. 1):37E 40E,
2005
Sheehan MT: Current therapeutic options
in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a practical approach. Clin Med Res 1:189 200, 2003
Inzucchi SE: Oral antihyperglycemic
therapy for type 2 diabetes. JAMA 287:
360 372, 2002
Klein R, Klein BEK, Moss SE, Davis MD,
DeMets DL: Glycosylated hemoglobin
predicts the incidence and progression
of diabetic retinopathy. JAMA 260:2864
2871, 1988
Chase HP, Jackson WE, Hoops, SL, Cockerham RS, Archer PG, OBrien D: Glucose
control and the renal and retinal complications of insulin-dependent diabetes.
JAMA 261:11551160, 1989
American Diabetes Association: Standards of medical care in diabetes2006.
Diabetes Care 29 (Suppl. 1):S4 42, 2006
Little RR, Rohlfing CL, Wiedmeyer H-M,
Myers GL, Sacks DB, Goldstein DE: The
National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP): a five year progress
report. Clin Chem 47:19851992, 2001
Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation,
and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol
in Adults: Executive summary of the
Third Report of the National Cholesterol
Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel
on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment
of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults
(Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA 285:
2486 2497, 2001
Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR,

23.

24.

25.

26.
27.
28.

29.

30.
31.
32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL, Jones

DW, Materson BJ, Oparil S, Wright JT,
Rocella EJ, the National Heart, Lung, and
Blood Institute Joint National Committee
on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and
Treatment of High Blood Pressure, the
National High Blood Pressure Education
Program Coordinating Committee: The
seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood
Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 289:
2560 2571, 2003
DCCT Research Group: The association
between glycemic exposure and longterm diabetic complications in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial.
Diabetes 44:968 983, 1995
Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA, Matthews
DR, Manley SE, Cull CA, Hadden D,
Turner RC, Holman RR: Association of
glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes
(UKPDS 35): prospective observational
study. BMJ 321:405 412, 2000
National Institutes of Health: Clinical
Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation,
and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in
Adults: The Evidence Report. Bethesda, MD,
National Institutes of Health, 1999 (NIH
publ. no. 98-4083)
Groop L: Sulfonylureas in NIDDM. Diabetes Care 15:737747, 1992
Bailey CJ, Turner RC: Metformin. N Engl
J Med 334:574 583, 1996
Malaisse WJ: Pharmacology of the meglitinide analogs: new treatment options
for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Treat Endocrinol 2:401 414, 2003
Van de Laar FA, Lucassen PL, Akkermans
RP, Van de Lisdonk EH, Rutten GE, Van
Weel C: Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors for
type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD003639, 2005
Genuth S: Insulin use in NIDDM. Diabetes
Care 13:1240 1264, 1990
Yki-Jarvinen H: Drug therapy: thiazolidinediones. N Engl J Med 351:1106,
2004
Drucker DJ: Biologic actions and therapeutic potential of the proglucagon-derived peptides. Nature Endocrinol Metab
1:2231, 2005
Schmitz O, Brock B, Rungby J: Amylin
agonists: a novel approach in the treatment of diabetes. Diabetes 53 (Suppl. 3):
S233S238, 2004
Colagiuri S, Cull CA, Holman RR, UKPDS
Group: Are lower fasting plasma glucose
levels at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes associated with improved outcomes? Diabetes
Care 25:1410 1417, 2002
Harris MI: Epidemiologic correlates of
NIDDM in Hispanics, whites and blacks
in the U.S. population. Diabetes Care 14
(Suppl. 3):639 648, 1991
Rewers M, Hamman RF: Risk factors for
non-insulin dependent diabetes. In Dia-

DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 29, NUMBER 8, AUGUST 2006

Nathan and Associates

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

betes in America. 2nd ed. Harris M, Ed.

Bethesda, MD, National Institutes of
Health, 1995, p. 179 220 (NIH publ. no.
95-1468)
Pories WJ, Swanson MS, MacDonald KG,
Long SB, Morris PG, Brown BM, Barakat
HA, daRamon RA, Israel G, Dolezal JM:
Who would have thought it? An operation
proves to be the most effective therapy for
adult-onset diabetes mellitus. Ann Surg
222:339 350, 1995
Sjostrom L, Lindroos AK, Peltonen M,
Torgerson J, Bouchard C, Carlsson B,
Dahlgren S, Larrson B, Narbro K, Sjostrom CD, Sullivan M, Wedel H, Swedish
Obese Subjects Study Scientific Group:
Lifestyle, diabetes, and cardiovascular
risk factors 10 years after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 351:26832693, 2004
Pontiroli AE, Folli F, Paganelli M,
Micheletto G, Pizzocri P, Vedani P, Luisi
F, Perego L, Morabito A, Doldi SB: Laparoscopic gastric banding prevents type 2
diabetes and arterial hypertension and induces their remission in morbid obesity.
Diabetes Care 28:27032709, 2005
Diabetes Prevention Program Research
Group: Impact of intensive lifestyle and
metformin therapy on cardiovascular disease risk factors in the Diabetes Prevention Program. Diabetes Care 28:888 894,
2005
Hadden DR, Montgomery DAD, Skelly
RJ, Trimble ER, Weaver JA, Wilson EA,
Buchanan KD: Maturity onset diabetes
mellitus: response to intensive dietary
management. BMJ 3:276 278, 1975
DeFronzo R, Goodman A, Multicenter
Metformin Study Group: Efficacy of metformin in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med
333:541, 1995
Salpeter S, Greyber E, Pasternak G, Salpeter E: Risk of fatal and nonfatal lactic
acidosis with metfromin use in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst
Rev CD002967, 2006
Diabetes Prevention Program Research
Group: Reduction in incidence of type 2
diabetes with lifestyle intervention or
metformin. N Engl J Med 346:393 403,
2002
Tessier D, Dawson K, Tetrault JP, Bravo
G, Meneilly GS: Glibenclamide versus gliclazide in type 2 diabetes of the elderly.
Diabet Med 11:974 980, 1994
Holstein A, Plaschke A, Egberts E-H:
Lower incidence of severe hypoglycemia
in patients with type 2 diabetes treated
with glimepiride versus glibenclamide.
Diabetes Metab Res Rev 17:467 473, 2001
Klimt CR, Knatterud GL, Meinert CL,
Prout TE: The University Group Diabetes
Program: a study of the effect of hypoglycemic agents on vascular complications in
patients with adult-onset diabetes. I. Design, methods and baseline characteristics. II. Mortality results. Diabetes 19

DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 29, NUMBER 8, AUGUST 2006

(Suppl. 2):747 830, 1970

48. Rosenstock J, Hassman DR, Madder RD,
Brazinsky SA, Farrell J, Khutoryansky N,
Hale PM: Repaglinide versus nateglinide
monotherapy: a randomized, multicenter
study. Diabetes Care 27:12651270,
2004
49. Gerich J, Raskin P, Jean-Louis L, Purkayastha D, Baron A: PRESERVE-: twoyear efficacy and safety of initial
combination therapy with nateglinide or
glyburide plus metformin. Diabetes Care
28:20932100, 2005
50. Kristensen JS, Frandsen KB, Bayer T, Muller PG: Compared with repaglinide, sulfonylurea treatment in type 2 diabetes is
associated with a 2.5 fold increase in
symptomatic hypoglycemia with blood
glucose levels 45 mg/dl (Abstract). Diabetes 49 (Suppl. 1):A131, 2000
51. Chiasson JL, Josse RG, Gomis R, Hanefeld
M, Karasik A, Laakso M: Acarbose treatment and the risk of cardiovascular disease and hypertension in patients with
impaired glucose tolerance: the STOPNIDDM Trial. JAMA 290:486 494, 2003
52. Khan MA, St. Peter JV, Xue JL: A prospective, randomized comparison of the
metabolic effects of pioglitazone or rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes
who were previously treated with troglitazone. Diabetes Care 25:708 711, 2002
53. Goldberg RB, Kendall DM, Deeg MA,
Buse JB, Zagar AJ, Pinaire JA, Tan MH,
Khan MA, Perez AT, Jacober SJ, GLAI
Study Investigators: A comparison of lipid
and glycemic effects of pioglitazone and
rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia. Diabetes Care 28:
15471554, 2005
54. Dormandy JA, Charbonnel B, Eckland
DJA, Erdmann E, Massi-Benedetti M,
Moules IK, Skene AM, Tan MH, Lefebvre
PJ, Murray GD, Standl E, Wilcox RG, Wilhelmsen L, Betteridge J, Birkeland K, Golay A, Heine RJ, Koranyi L, Laakso M,
Mokan M, Norkus A, Pirags V, Podar T,
Scheen A, Scherbaum W, Schernthaner
G, Schmitz O, Skrha J, Smith U, Taton J,
PROactive Investigators: Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the
PROactive (PROspective pioglitAzone
Clinical Trial in macroVascular Events): a
randomized controlled trial. Lancet 366:
1279 1289, 2005
55. Himsworth HP, Kerr RB: Insulin-sensitive
and insulin-insensitive types of diabetes
mellitus. Clin Sci 4:119 152, 1939
56. Nathan DM, Roussell A, Godine JE: Glyburide or insulin for metabolic control in
non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus:
a randomized double-blind study. Ann Intern Med 108:334 340, 1988
57. Abraira C, Johnson N, Colwell J, VA
CSDM Group: VA Cooperative study on
glycemic control and complications in
type II diabetes. Diabetes Care 18:1113

1123, 1995
58. Zammitt NN, Frier BM: Hypoglycemia in
type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 28:2948
2961, 2005
59. Miller CD, Phillips LS, Ziemer DC,
Gallina DL, Cook CB, El-Kebbi IM: Hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes
mellitus. Arch Intern Med 161:1653
1659, 2005
60. Raskin P, Allen E, Hollander P, Lewin A,
Gabbay RA, Hu P, Bode B, Garber A: Initiating insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes.
Diabetes Care 28:260 265, 2005
61. Dailey G, Rosenstock J, Moses RG, Ways
K: Insulin glulisine provides improved
glycemic control in patients with type 2
diabetes. Diabetes Care 27:23632368,
2004
62. Hollander PA, Blonde L, Rowe R, Mehta
AE, Milburn JL, Hershon KS, Chiasson
J-L, Levin SR: Efficacy and safety of inhaled insulin (Exubera) compared with
subcutaneous insulin therapy in patients
with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 27:
256 2363, 2004
63. Rosenstock J, Zinman B, Murphy LJ,
Clement SC, Moore P, Bowering CK,
Hendler R, Lan S-P, Cefalu WT: Inhaled
insulin improves glycemic control when
substituted for or added to oral combination therapy in type 2 diabetes. Ann Intern
Med 143:549 558, 2005
64. Cefalu WT, Skyler JS, Kourides IA, Landschulz WH, Balagtas CC, Cheng S-L, Gelfand RA, Inhaled Insulin Study Group:
Inhaled human insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann
Intern Med 134:203207, 2001
65. Kendall DM, Riddle MC, Rosenstock J,
Zhuang D, Kim DD, Fineman MS, Baron
AD: Effects of exenatide (exendin-4) on
glycemic control and weight over 30
weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes
treated with metformin and a sulfonylurea. Diabetes Care 28:10831091, 2005
66. DeFronzo R, Ratner RE, Han J, Kim DD,
Fineman MS, Baron AD: Effects of exenatide on glycemic control and weight
over 30 weeks in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care
28:10921100, 2005
67. Buse JB, Henry RR, Han J, Kim DD, Fineman MS, Baron AD, Exenatide-113 Clinical Study Group: Effects of exenatide on
glycemic control over 30 weeks in sulfonylurea-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 27:2628 2635, 2004
68. Heine RJ, Van Gaal LF, Johns D, Mihm
MJ, Widel MH, Brodows RG: Exenatide
versus insulin glargine in patients with
suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes.
Ann Intern Med 143:559 569, 2005
69. Hollander PA, Levy P, Fineman MS,
Maggs DG, Shen LZ, Strobel SA, Weyer C,
Kolterman OG: Pramlintide as an adjunct
to insulin therapy improves long-term
glycemic and weight control in patients
with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 26:
1971

Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes

784 790, 2003
70. Welschen LMC, Bloemendal E, Nijpels G,
Dekker JM, Heine RJ, Stalman WAB,
Bouter LM: Self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes who
are not using insulin: a systematic review.
Diabetes Care 28:1510 1517, 2005
71. Hirsch IB, Bergenstal RM, Parkin CG,
Wright E, Buse JB: A real-world approach
to insulin therapy in primary care practice. Clin Diabetes 23:78 86, 2005
72. Schwartz S, Sievers R, Strange P, Lyness
WH, Hollander P: Insulin 70/30 mix plus

1972

metformin versus triple oral therapy in

the treatment of type 2 diabetes after failure of two oral drugs. Diabetes Care 26:
2238 2243, 2003
73. Yki-Jarvinen H, Ryysy L, Nikkila K, Tulokas T, Vanamo R, Heikkila M: Comparison of bedtime insulin regimens in
patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Ann Intern Med 130:389 396, 1999
74. Strowig S, Aviles-Santa ML, Raskin P: Improved glycemic control without weight
gain using triple therapy in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 27:15771583, 2004

75. Fonseca V, Rosenstock J, Patwardhan R,

Salzman A: Effect of metformin and rosiglitazone combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. JAMA
283:16951702, 2000
76. Bailey CJ, Bagdonas A, Rubes J, McMorn
SO, Donaldson J, Biswas N, Stewart MW:
Rosiglitazone/metformin fixed dose combination compared with uptitrated metformin alone in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a
24 week, multicenter, randomized, double blind, parallel group study. Clin Ther
27:1548 1561, 2005

DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 29, NUMBER 8, AUGUST 2006