Last Updated: 03/15/04 06:40 PM
From:
marina@electriciti.com [mailto:marina@electriciti.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 1999 3:57 PM
To: dggroves@earthlink.net
Subject: Hypoglycemia Unawareness: Another reported
study
Hi Dave,
While I
was rummaging through my files today, I
came across an interesting report of a study on
hypoglycemia unawareness made on normally NON-insulin using
NIDDM's, of all people. This is really moving in
the direction of experimenting on non-diabetics,
which would tend to discredit the arguments that
human insulin actually functions acceptably well
on a certain large portion of diabetics in
general.
This was
published in Diabetes, March 1995 (fairly
recently). For now, I'll just lift out the
highlights as well as the upshot.
DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF HUMAN AND
ANIMAL INSULIN ON THE RESPONSES
TO HYPOGLYCEMIA IN ELDERLY PATIENTS WITH NIDDM
by Graydon S. Meneilly,
William P. Milberg, and Holly Tuokko
Abstract
(complete):
Recent studies suggest that
insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus patients
switched from animal to human insulin may have
decreased awareness of hypoglycemia warning
symptoms. The risk of severe or fatal
hypoglycemia associated with the treatment of
diabetes increases with age. We conducted these
studies to determine if awareness of
hypoglycemic warning symptoms was greater with
animal than with human insulin in elderly
patients with diabetes. Non-obese elderly
patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes
(NIDDM) (n=13, age 74 +/- 1 years, body mass
index, 26.6 +/- .7 kg/m2) underwent paired
hyperinsulinemic glucose clamp studies in random
order. In one study, regular human insulin was
infused, and in the other study, regular
beef/pork insulin was infused. In all studies,
plasma glucose was decreased from fasting levels
to 5 mmol/L during the first 60 minutes and was
then allowed to fall to 4.4, 3.8, 3.3 and 2.8
mmol/L in each subsequent hour. Subjects were
unaware as to which study they were undergoing.
In each study, a hypoglycemic checklist was
administered, and counterregulatory hormones
were measured every 15 min. Neuropsychological
tests were administered, and counterregulatory
hormone responses to the two insulin
preparations were similar. Autonomic
( P < 0.05) and neuroglycopenic (P < 0.01)
symptom scores were significantly higher during
the beef/pork insulin studies.
We conclude
that beef/pork insulin results in *greater*
awareness of hypoglycemic warning symptoms than
does human insulin with elderly patients with
NIDDM. (Diabetes 44:272-277, 1995)
[skipping research design, as
well as results, for now]
Discussion:
We conducted these studies to determine if
there was any potential advantage of animal over
human insulin for elderly patients with
diabetes. We found that, although
counterregulatory hormone responses to
hypoglycemia induced by the two insulins were
similar, animal insulin resulted in greater
awareness of hypoglycemic warning symptoms and a
higher glucose threshold for awareness of
symptoms.
[snip]
...If
animal insulin results in greater awareness of
hypoglycemic warning symptoms, what is the
mechanism for the effect? In particular, why
were there similar catecholamine and heart rate
responses to hypoglycemia with the two insulin
preparations, but reduced autonomic symptom
responses with human insulin? We do not have a
definitive explanation for the separation
between *hormone* and *symptom* responses,
although this is certainly consistent with data
from other investigators [22,32].
It
is likely that animal insulins cross the
blood-brain barrier more readily than human
insulins since they are more lipophilic [39]. It has been shown in animals
that insulin stimulates glucose uptake in
hypothalamus [40] and that direct stimulation of
hypothalamic insulin receptors evokes behaviors
consistent with hypoglycemia [41]. If hormonal
responses are mediated primarily by the glucose
levels in the central nervous system, while the
symptom responses are mediated, at least in
part, by the direct effect of insulin on
neurons, this could be an
explanation for the differential effect of the
two insulins.
[End of material from report.
There
is a lot of research being done on this, judging
from the length of the list of references at the
end of this article. The last paragraph quoted
above, in its conclusion, shows the high
likelihood of a definitive explanation
eventually being found which unquestionably
substantiates this inferior aspect of human
insulin.
The
reason that human insulin doesn't have this
problem in NON-diabetics is that their
pancreases are continuously infusing insulin
directly into the bloodstream in microunit
quantities. Since the half life of insulin (once
in the blood stream) is only 3-5 minutes, the
properly functioning pancreas can respond to and
halt the fall of blood glucose within a minute
by cutting off (if only temporarily) the
secretion of insulin. But this is not possible
with insulin taken by injection or infusion
(which is nothing more than continuous
subcutaneous injection), because such insulin
continuously enters the blood stream from the
point of application, and there is no way of
stopping it.
(For
MDI diabetics and even pump users to think that
their regimens are mimicking the insulin
delivery of a normal pancreas is nothing than
more than wishful thinking.)
Looking
at all this objectively and dispassionately, the
outcome of the research that is now being
carried out to investigate the
"anecdotal" observations of a great
number of diabetics reporting hypoglycemia
unawareness, will probably show good reason why
human insulin is NOT suitable for *anyone*,
either by injection or infusion, the reason
being that no one who uses it is free from the
danger of its causing all but undetected severe
hypoglycemia at some time or another, very
possibly leading to unconsciousness and coma,
which can also be dangerous to others as well.
Since
it appears that researchers are well on their
way to demonstrating in a definitive manner the
physiological reason for human insulin causing
this phenomenon, no longer should the answer to
the question "Why does human insulin
produce hypoglycemia unawareness?" be that
"No one knows".
Instead,
it should now be:
"Biomedical research has established the
very real possibility that human insulin's
marked increase of hypoglycemia unawareness is
caused by the neurons in the brain which give
rise to the symptoms of hypoglycemia being less
activated by human insulin, due to the
happenstance chemical difference of human
insulin being less lipophilic (more hydrophilic)
than either beef or pork".
A
short article discussing the progress of this
research should be written, complete with
references (if no one else has done this, which
is called a "review"). As Dr. Teuscher
pointed out over three years ago in the Bellagio
Report, so much evidence has been accumulated as
to the phenomenological aspect of hypoglycemia
unawareness (the fact that it has been observed
a huge number of times), and so much progress on
the neurophysiological explanation as to its
cause has been made, that there no longer exists
any possibility that the subject of the greatly
increased incidence of hypoglycemia unawareness
among users of human insulin will ever be
discredited.
TTYL
Michel]
|