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

Insulin degludec as an ultralong-acting basal insulin once a day: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Insulin degludec (IDeg) is a neutral, ultralong-acting new generation basal insulin analog developed by NovoNordisk currently in Phase III clinical development. IDeg offers a duration of action of more than 42 hours in adults, much longer than current basal insulin formulations.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to assess the efficacy and safety data of IDeg in the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

Relevant English language articles from 2010 to 2012 were identified through MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, BIOSIS, and Google Scholar. Online conference proceedings of the 71st ADA Scientific Sessions and the 47th EASD Annual Meeting were reviewed. Studies were compared in terms of their study designs, primary and secondary efficacy parameters, and tolerability data.

RESULTS

There are a total of nine published trials investigating the clinical efficacy and safety of IDeg in over 3000 subjects with type 1 and 2 diabetes. Only three trials were published in full. All were open-label, randomized multicenter trials with durations of 16 to 52 weeks. IDeg and coformulations of IDeg with insulin aspart (IAsp) were compared to insulin glargine (IGlar), detemir, and biphasic IAsp 30 (BIAsp 30).

CONCLUSION

Based upon the available evidence, there appear to be no reported differences between IDeg and IGlar, detemir, or BIAsp 30 in the reduction of the primary efficacy end-points of HbA(1c) and mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations. Only flexible dosing of IDeg provided a significant reduction in FPG compared to IGlar. IDeg demonstrated a significant reduction in nocturnal hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. In type 2 diabetes, IDeg reduced the incidence of hypoglycemia by 18% and 58% compared to IGlar and BIAsp 30, respectively.

Sequential intensification of metformin treatment in type 2 diabetes with liraglutide followed by randomized addition of basal insulin prompted by A1C targets

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the addition of liraglutide to metformin in type 2 diabetes followed by intensification with basal insulin (detemir) if glycated hemoglobin (A1C) ≥7%.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In 988 participants from North America and Europe uncontrolled on metformin ± sulfonylurea, sulfonylurea was discontinued and liraglutide 1.8 mg/day added for 12 weeks (run-in). Subsequently, those with A1C ≥7% were randomized 1:1 to 26 weeks' open-label addition of insulin detemir to metformin + liraglutide (n = 162) or continuation without insulin detemir (n = 161). Patients achieving A1C <7% continued unchanged treatment (observational arm). The primary end point was A1C change between randomized groups.

RESULTS

Of 821 participants completing the run-in, 61% (n = 498) achieved A1C <7% (mean change -1.3% from 7.7% at start), whereas 39% (n = 323) did not (-0.6% from 8.3% at start). During run-in, 167 of 988 (17%) withdrew; 46% of these due to gastrointestinal adverse events. At week 26, A1C decreased further, by 0.5% (from 7.6% at randomization) with insulin detemir (n = 162) versus 0.02% increase without insulin detemir (n = 157) to 7.1 and 7.5%, respectively (estimated treatment difference -0.52 [95% CI -0.68 to -0.36]; P < 0.0001). Forty-three percent of participants with insulin detemir versus 17% without reached A1C <7%. Mean weight decreased by 3.5 kg during run-in, then by 0.16 kg with insulin detemir or 0.95 kg without insulin detemir. In the randomized phase, no major hypoglycemia occurred and minor hypoglycemia rates were 0.286 and 0.029 events per participant-year with and without insulin detemir (9.2 vs. 1.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Supplementation of metformin with liraglutide and then insulin detemir was well tolerated in the majority of patients, with good glycemic control, sustained weight loss, and very low hypoglycemia rates.

Intensifying treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: adding insulin

Treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is typically initiated with a combination of lifestyle modification and oral drugs. This treatment provides sustained glycemic control in some patients, but many others require administration of insulin as their disease progresses and pancreatic β cells are lost. One of the most important points in long-term care for patients with type 2 diabetes is the transition to insulin therapy. Health care professionals must choose the most appropriate insulin preparations for management of patients with type 2 diabetes who cannot achieve treatment goals by using other therapies. These include basal, premixed, and basal-bolus insulin regimens. In addition, there are multiple approaches to initiation of insulin treatment, including addition of basal insulin to oral drugs, switching patients to a premixed insulin formulation, or basal-bolus treatment. The pharmacist can play a key role in the transition to insulin therapy by providing education and assisting in day-to-day management of patients with type 2 diabetes who require insulin for intensification of treatment.

Comparison of 2 intensification regimens with rapid-acting insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by once-daily insulin detemir and oral antidiabetes drugs: the step-wise randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of 2 intensification strategies for stepwise addition of prandial insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin detemir.

METHODS

This randomized, controlled, parallel-group, open-label, 48-week trial compared the stepwise addition of insulin aspart to either the largest meal (titration based on premeal glucose values [SimpleSTEP]) or to the meal with the largest prandial glucose increment (titration based on postmeal glucose values [ExtraSTEP]) in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin and oral antidiabetes drugs. After 12 weeks of basal insulin detemir dosage optimization, participants with a hemoglobin A1c level of 7% or greater entered three 12-week treatment periods with stepwise addition of a first insulin aspart bolus, then a second, and then a third, if hemoglobin A1c remained at 7% or greater after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, respectively. Endpoints included hemoglobin A1c (primary endpoint), fasting plasma glucose, self-measured plasma glucose, adverse events, and hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-six patients were randomly assigned to treatment with insulin aspart in the SimpleSTEP (n = 150) and ExtraSTEP (n = 146) groups. Hemoglobin A1c decreased by approximately 1.2% in both groups, to 7.5 ± 1.1% (Simple-STEP) and 7.7 ± 1.2% (ExtraSTEP) at end of trial (estimated treatment difference, SimpleSTEP - ExtraSTEP: -0.06% [95% confidence interval, -0.29 to 0.17]). Self-measured plasma glucose levels decreased with both regimens. At trial end, approximately 75% of patients in each group were using 3 prandial injections. The frequency of adverse events and hypoglycemia was low and similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

The SimpleSTEP and ExtraSTEP strategies for stepwise addition of insulin aspart to 1 or more meals were equally effective at intensifying therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin and oral antidiabetic drugs.

Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes (BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 2): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Basal insulin therapy does not stop loss of β-cell function, which is the hallmark of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and thus diabetes control inevitably deteriorates. Insulin degludec is a new, ultra-longacting basal insulin. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

In this 52 week, phase 3, open-label, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial, undertaken at 123 sites in 12 countries, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) of 7·0-10·0% after 3 months or more of any insulin regimen (with or without oral antidiabetic drugs). We randomly allocated eligible participants in a 3:1 ratio to receive once-daily subcutaneous insulin degludec or glargine, stratified by previous insulin regimen, via a central interactive response system. Basal insulin was titrated to a target plasma glucose concentration of 3·9-<5·0 mmol/L self-measured before breakfast. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of degludec to glargine measured by change in HbA(1c) from baseline to week 52 (non-inferiority limit of 0·4%) by ANOVA in the full analysis set. We assessed rates of hypoglycaemia in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00972283.

FINDINGS

744 (99%) of 755 participants randomly allocated degludec and 248 (99%) of 251 allocated glargine were included in the full analysis set (mean age 58·9 years [SD 9·3], diabetes duration 13·5 years [7·3], HbA(1c) 8·3% [0·8], and fasting plasma glucose 9·2 mmol/L [3·1]); 618 (82%) and 211 (84%) participants completed the trial. After 1 year, HbA(1c) decreased by 1·1% in the degludec group and 1·2% in the glargine group (estimated treatment difference [degludec-glargine] 0·08%, 95% CI -0·05 to 0·21), confirming non-inferiority. Rates of overall confirmed hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose <3·1 mmol/L or severe episodes requiring assistance) were lower with degludec than glargine (11·1 vs 13·6 episodes per patient-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·69 to 0·99; p=0·0359), as were rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia (1·4 vs 1·8 episodes per patient-year of exposure; 0·75, 0·58 to 0·99; p=0·0399). Rates of severe hypoglycaemia seemed similar (0·06 vs 0·05 episodes per patient-year of exposure for degludec and glargine) but were too low for assessment of differences. Rates of other adverse events did not differ between groups.

INTERPRETATION

A policy of suboptimum diabetes control to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia and its consequences in advanced type 2 diabetes mellitus might be unwarranted with newer basal insulins such as degludec, which are associated with lower risks of hypoglycaemia than insulin glargine.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Insulins: past, present, and future

This article highlights selected milestones in insulin discovery and its continued development as a pivotal therapy for diabetes. The last 90 years have witnessed tremendous progress in insulin therapy, from the initial crude, yet life-saving, animal insulin extracts to novel human insulin analogues. Although the complete physiologic replacement of insulin is inherently difficult to achieve with open-loop subcutaneously administered insulin, the continued development of improved injectable insulin formulations with superior pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics will enhance glucose control, and represents important clinical advances in the treatment of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: treatment guidelines, clinical evidence and patterns of use of basal vs premixed insulin analogues

This review addresses the apparent disconnect between international guideline recommendations, real-life clinical practice and the results of clinical trials, with regard to the initiation of insulin using basal (long-acting) or premixed insulin analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). English language guidelines vary considerably with respect to recommended glycaemic targets, the selection of human vs analogue insulin, and choice of insulin regimen. Randomised trials directly comparing insulin initiation between basal and premixed analogues are scarce, and hard endpoint outcome data are inadequate. The evidence presented suggests that a major component of the HbA1c not being attained in every day clinical practice may be a result of factors that are not adequately addressed in forced titration trials of highly motivated patients, including failure to comply with complex treatment and monitoring regimens. Enforced intensification of unrealistic complex treatment regimens and glycaemic targets may theoretically worsen the psychological well-being in some patients. More simple and sustainable treatment regimens and guidelines are urgently needed. As for the use of insulin in T2D, there is limited evidence to convincingly support that initiation of insulin using basal insulin analogues is superior to initiation using premixed insulin analogues. While awaiting improved clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness data, practical guidance from national and international diabetes organisations should consider more carefully the importance of: i) being clear and consistent; and ii) the early implementation of sustainable and cost-effective insulin treatment regimens with an emphasis on optimising treatment ease of use and patient compliance.

Insulin detemir for the treatment of obese patients with type 2 diabetes

The risk for developing type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is greater among obese individuals. Following onset of the disease, patients with T2DM become more likely to be afflicted with diabetic micro- and macrovascular complications. Decreasing body weight has been shown to lower glycosylated hemoglobin and improve other metabolic parameters in patients with T2DM. Medications used to lower blood glucose may increase body weight in patients with T2DM and this has been repeatedly shown to be the case for conventional, human insulin formulations. Insulin detemir is a neutral, soluble, long-acting insulin analog in which threonine-30 of the insulin B-chain is deleted, and the C-terminal lysine is acetylated with myristic acid, a C14 fatty acid chain. Insulin detemir binds to albumin, a property that enhances its pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile. Results from clinical trials have demonstrated that treatment with insulin detemir is associated with less weight gain than either insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. There are many potential reasons for the lower weight gain observed among patients treated with insulin detemir, including lower risk for hypoglycemia and therefore decreased defensive eating due to concern about this adverse event, along with other effects that may be related to the albumin binding of this insulin that may account for lower within-patient variability and consistent action. These might include faster transport across the blood-brain barrier, induction of satiety signaling in the brain, and preferential inhibition of hepatic glucose production versus peripheral glucose uptake. Experiments in diabetic rats have also indicated that insulin detemir increases adiponectin levels, which is associated with both weight loss and decreased eating.

Increase of body weight during the first year of intensive insulin treatment in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

This systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the body weight increase and its clinical correlates, through direct weighted regressions, as well as the effect of different insulin regimens and insulin analogues, through meta-analysis.

METHODS

Appropriate methodology according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was adhered to. Forty-six randomized studies, published as full papers, reporting the effect of insulin treatment on change in body weight were identified, and used to identify predictors of weight change; studies were included in a meta-analysis to study the effect of different insulin regimens or insulin analogues on weight change.

RESULTS

Intensity of treatment [aim of study (fasting blood glucose, mg/dl), dose of insulin, final HbA1c, change of HbA1c and frequency of hypoglycaemia] was significantly associated with body weight increase, with small differences between basal versus twice-a-day and prandial regimen. At meta-analysis, body weight increase was lower with basal regimen than with twice-a-day regimen and than with a prandial regimen. Within all regimens, body weight increase was lower with detemir than with NPH, with no difference between glargine and NPH; only two studies directly compared detemir and glargine, indicating lower weight gain with the former insulin. Within twice-a-day regimens and within prandial regimens, comparison was between newer analogues and older drugs, with no significant difference in body weight increase.

CONCLUSION

Body weight increase during the first year of insulin treatment is associated with the intensity of treatment; body weight increase also depends on the insulin regimen applied.

A look into the future: improving diabetes care by 2015

Insulin initiation, which was traditionally the province of specialists, is increasingly undertaken by primary care. However, significant barriers to appropriate and timely initiation still exist. Whilst insulin is recognized as providing the most effective treatment in type 2 diabetes, it is also widely considered to be the most challenging and time consuming. This editorial identifies that the organization of existing healthcare services, the challenges faced by patients, and the treatments themselves contribute to suboptimal insulin management. In order to improve future diabetes care, it will be necessary to address all three problem areas: (1) re-think the best use of existing human and financial resources to promote and support patient self-management and adherence to treatment; (2) empower patients to participate more actively in treatment decision making; and (3) improve acceptance, persistence and adherence to therapy by continuing to refine insulin therapy and treatment regimens in terms of safety, simplicity and convenience. The principles discussed are also applicable to the successful management of any chronic medical illness.

Detemir as a once-daily basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Background

Insulin detemir, a long-acting basal insulin analog, is labeled for once-daily or twice-daily dosing in patients with type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 (T2DM) diabetes mellitus. Protocols for some earlier clinical studies of detemir evaluated twice-daily dosing, which may have generated the misperception that detemir should be prescribed twice daily for most patients. This review examines pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD), observational, and controlled studies that have evaluated once-daily and twice-daily detemir in patients with T2DM to determine the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing.

Methods

PubMed was searched using the keywords “detemir,” “once daily,” “twice daily,” and “type 2 diabetes” with the limits of clinical trial, human, and English.

Results

Detemir has a relatively flat time–action profile and duration of action of up to 24 hours for patients with T2DM. Once-daily dosing is the most commonly used detemir regimen reported in observational studies, and controlled clinical studies indicate that once-daily dosing controls glycosylated hemoglobin when detemir is administered alone or in combination with a prandial insulin or oral antidiabetes drugs. In comparative clinical trials, detemir had a similar time–action profile and duration of action to another long-acting insulin analog, glargine, with less within-subject variability. Once-daily detemir was associated with no weight gain or less weight gain than comparator regimens. For patients who had not achieved glycemic control with a basal dose of once-daily detemir, adding a prandial insulin provided better glycemic control, less postprandial hypoglycemia, and a lower total daily dose of detemir than twice-daily detemir. Involvement of a multidisciplinary team and the use of a holistic approach for the treatment of T2DM patients are recommended to achieve and maintain the best patient outcomes.

Conclusion

Results from PK/PD, observational, and controlled clinical studies support a once-daily detemir regimen alone or in combination with a prandial insulin or oral antidiabetes drugs.

Multiple HbA1c targets and insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

PROBLEM

Insulin analogues are increasingly used in patients with type 2 diabetes. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the role of insulin analogues to reach different hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) targets (from 6.5% to 8%) in type 2 diabetic patients.

METHODS

RCTs involving insulin regimens (basal, prandial, biphasic, and basal-bolus) with insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes were identified through electronic searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library) through August 2010. We included any study arm of RCTs if they were at least 12 weeks in duration, and reported HbA1c as an outcome and the proportion of diabetic patients reaching the HbA1c target of <7%. The proportion of patients with HbA1c <6.5%, <7.0%, <7.5%, and <8.0% was estimated using mean and standard deviation of HbA1c at the end of treatment.

RESULTS

We identified 53 RCTs, with 92 arms, and 32,689 patients. The proportion of patients at target was highest with the basal-bolus regimen, and ranged from 27.8% (95% CI, 22.2-34%) for the HbA1c target <6.5% to 88% (CI 83-92%) for the HbA1c target <8%. Biphasic insulin regimen ranked second at any HbA1c target, while prandial and basal regimens alternated across different HbA1c targets.

CONCLUSIONS

At any HbA1c target, basal-bolus insulin regimens with insulin analogues obtained the best results, which may be useful for detailing the best treatment effect in individual patients.

Relationship of baseline HbA1c, HbA1c change and HbA1c target of < 7% with insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIM

We performed a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes utilising a least-squared regression model in order to assess the relationship between baseline HbA1c, the magnitude of HbA1c decrease and attainment of HbA1c target of < 7%.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials involving insulin regimens (basal, prandial, biphasic and basal-bolus) were identified through electronic searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library) through September 2010. We included any study arm of RCTs if they were at least 12 weeks in duration; the number of patients in any arm was more than 30 and reported the baseline HbA1c and change from baseline HbA1c.

RESULTS

We found 87 studies, with a total of 135 arms, and 38,803 patients. The weighted R(2) values for the overall analysis assessing the association between baseline HbA1c and absolute change in HbA1c or the proportion of patients at target were 0.485 (p < 0.001) and 0.146 (p < 0.001), respectively. Subanalyses of insulin regimens for the association between basal HbA1c and absolute decrease of HbA1c produced weighted R(2), which were significant for all insulin regimens with the highest association for basal-bolus (R(2) = 0.719, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The strong positive relationship between baseline HbA1c and the magnitude of HbA1c change we found in RCTs using insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes should be considered when assessing the clinical efficacy of insulin therapies.

Treatment regimens with insulin analogues and haemoglobin A1c target of <7% in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of insulin regimens (basal, biphasic, prandial, and basal-bolus) with insulin analogues to reach the haemoglobin A1c target of <7% in patients with type 2 diabetes. We identified 48 trials, with 85 arms and 30,588 patients. There were 38 arms using basal insulin, with 17,588 patients, and a primary outcome of 41.4% (95% CI=35.6-47.4%); 26 arms using biphasic insulin, with 9237 patients, and a primary outcome of 46.5% (40.8-52.3%); 9 arms using prandial insulin, with 1605 patients, and a primary outcome of 39.6% (95% CI, 28.6-51.3%); and 12 arms using basal-bolus insulin, with 2114 patients, and a primary outcome of 53.9% (43.5-64). The high heterogeneity was related, in part, to first time insulin use, final insulin dose, and use of oral drug. The overall incidence of hypoglycaemia ranged from 0 to 4.71 events/patient/30 days; weight gain ranged from 1.75 kg for basal to 3 kg for biphasic insulin. The HbA1c target of <7% can be achieved in a percentage of type 2 diabetic patients ranging from 40% to 54% depending on the particular insulin regimen.

Comparing the efficacy, safety, and utility of intensive insulin algorithms for a primary care practice

Diabetes management is firmly based within the primary care community. Landmark randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated that even modest reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) can yield improvements in economic and medical end-points. Diabetes is a chronic, progressive disease associated with loss of pancreatic β-cell function. Therefore, most patients will eventually require insulin therapies in order to achieve their individualized targeted HbA(1c) as their β-cell function and mass wanes. Although clinicians understand the importance of early insulin initiation, there is little agreement as to when to introduce insulin as a therapeutic option. Once initiated, questions remain as to whether to allow the patients to self-titrate their dose or whether the dosing should be tightly regulated by the clinician. Physicians have many evidence-based basal insulin protocols from which to choose, all of which have been shown to drive HbA1c levels to the American Diabetes Association target of ≤7%. This article will discuss ways by which insulin therapies can be effectively introduced to patients within busy primary care practices. Published evidence-based basal insulin protocols will be evaluated for safety and efficacy.

Diabetes management: optimizing roles for nurses in insulin initiation

Type 2 diabetes is a major public health concern. Screening and early diagnosis followed by prompt and aggressive treatment interventions can help control progression of diabetes and its complications. Nurses are often the first healthcare team members to interact with patients and are being called on to apply their specialized knowledge, training, and skills to educate and motivate patients with diabetes about insulin use and practical ways to achieve treatment goals. Clinical nurse specialists possess specific training and skills to provide this level of care, while staff or office-based nurses may be trained by physicians to fulfill a task-specific role. This manuscript reviews the benefits of intensive glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, therapeutic goals and guidelines, advances in insulin therapy, and contribution of nurses in overcoming barriers to insulin initiation and related aspects of diabetes care. Nurses are particularly well positioned to fill the gap and improve efficiency in diabetes-related healthcare by assisting patients with insulin initiation and other aspects of glycemic self-management.

How pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles pave the way for optimal basal insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes

This pedagogical review illustrates the differences between pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) measures, using insulin therapy as the primary example. The main conclusion is that PD parameters are of greater clinical significance for insulin therapy than PK parameters. The glucose-clamp technique, the optimal method for determining insulin PD, is explained so that the reader can understand the important studies in the literature. Key glucose-clamp studies that compare two basal insulin analogues - insulin glargine and insulin detemir - to Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin and to each other are then presented. The review further explains how PD parameters have been translated into useful clinical concepts and simple titration algorithms for everyday clinical practice. Finally, the necessity of overcoming patient and/or physician barriers to insulin therapy and providing continuing education and training is emphasised.

Treat early, treat appropriately

The treatment of type 2 diabetes is shifting from secondary specialist centres to the primary care setting. However, for this shift to be sustainable and successful, primary care physicians (PCPs) must effectively provide aspects of diabetes care traditionally supplied by specialists. In particular, the early and appropriate use of insulin in type 2 diabetes will increasingly become the responsibility of PCPs. This review examines how patients with type 2 diabetes are currently managed across several European countries, and explores the evidence around insulin use in type 2 diabetes and the implications for primary care.

Addressing barriers to initiation of insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is progressive in nature and many people with the condition will inevitably require insulin therapy to attain and maintain adequate glycaemic control. In clinical practice, insulin initiation is delayed in many patients who would benefit from such treatment. Patients' and physicians' beliefs and perceptions regarding insulin therapy are known to create barriers contributing to the delay in its initiation. This article explores the nature of these barriers and offers suggestions and practical solutions for addressing and overcoming these hurdles so that insulin can be initiated confidently and appropriately in order to improve diabetes care.

Practical guidance to insulin management

The practical guidance to insulin management is a simple tool for health care providers, particularly primary care physicians (PCPs). Developed by experts in diabetes care at an international meeting, it aims to help physicians make key decisions to optimize insulin management and decrease long-term morbidity risk. With a growing role for PCPs in type 2 diabetes, the practical guidance focuses on confident, appropriate and timely insulin initiation. Using the acronym 'TIME' (Targets, Insulin, Managing weight, Encouragement and support) the practical guidance aims, in a visually appealing format, to help physicians address the challenges of insulin management with their patients, from diagnosis through insulin initiation to follow-up.

Critical appraisal of the safety and efficacy of insulin detemir in glycemic control and cardiovascular risk management in diabetics

Insulin detemir is an analog of human insulin designed to provide a long duration of basal insulin action. This is achieved by protracted absorption from the injection depot, which results in part from increased self-association of insulin detemir molecules and in part from reversible albumin binding. Subsequent albumin binding in the circulation is thought to buffer changes in the effects at target tissues that could otherwise arise from variability in absorption rate. In consequence, insulin detemir has shown a less variable pharmacodynamic profile than alternative basal insulins; this manifests as more consistent temporal glucose reduction profiles in repeat-clamp studies. In clinical trials, insulin detemir has been characterized by consistent risk reductions in hypoglycemia, as well as reduced weight gain in comparison with other basal insulins. Given some recent associations that have been made in prospective and epidemiologic studies between glucose variability and/or hypoglycemia and increased cardiovascular risk, and the long-known association between excess weight and cardiovascular risk, it is possible that the clinical profile of insulin detemir may carry prognostic value with regard to cardiovascular safety, although this is yet to be substantiated. There have also been some concerns raised recently over the use of insulin analogs and cancer risk, but available clinical data and the receptor interaction profile of insulin detemir suggest no excess in risk in comparison with human insulin therapy. Optimal approaches for the clinical use of insulin detemir have been emerging through an increasing clinical study base, and the analog is becoming established as a potentially valuable therapy option.

Are analogue insulins superior to human insulin in clinical practice?

Insulin analogues were designed to provide more physiologic pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties compared with human insulin. This article examines the literature over a 2-year period, focusing on studies directly comparing analogue and human insulin in controlled clinical trials and large observational studies documenting the introduction of, or change to, analogue insulin in clinical practice. Findings indicate that analogues provide objective benefits that include improved glycemic control, lower risk of hypoglycemia, lower glucose variability, and (for insulin detemir) reduced weight gain. Recent data with analogues also explore their safety and efficacy in special patient groups such as children and adolescents. These data complement increasing evidence that analogues offer improved acceptability and accessibility to people with diabetes.

Insulin detemir: A historical perspective on a modern basal insulin analogue

Insulin detemir provides prolonged, reproducible blood glucose reduction through a mechanism unique among basal insulins. It was originally studied clinically in predominantly basal + bolus regimens and found to be associated with a low risk of hypoglycaemia compared to insulin NPH, and reduced weight gain compared to other basal insulins. Insulin detemir has been increasingly studied in basal-only insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes, in which an understanding of how to optimize its use has been built incrementally. Glycaemic control and limitation of weight gain tend to be maximized by once-daily (evening) dosing, earlier initiation and careful titration to appropriate fasting glucose targets.