Practical Guidance on the Use of Premix Insulin Analogs in Initiating, Intensifying, or Switching Insulin Regimens in Type 2 Diabetes

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: Insights into clinical efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, and adherence challenges

Insulin therapy plays a crucial role in the management of type 2 diabetes as the disease progresses. Over the past century, insulin formulations have undergone significant modifications and bioengineering, resulting in a diverse range of available insulin products. These products show distinct pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Consequently, various insulin regimens have em-erged for the management of type 2 diabetes, including premixed formulations and combinations of basal and bolus insulins. The utilization of different insulin regimens yields disparate clinical outcomes, adverse events, and, notably, patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs provide valuable insights from the patient's perspective, serving as a valuable mine of information for enhancing healthcare and informing clinical decisions. Adherence to insulin therapy, a critical patient-reported outcome, significantly affects clinical outcomes and is influenced by multiple factors. This review provides insights into the clinical effectiveness of various insulin preparations, PROs, and factors impacting insulin therapy adherence, with the aim of enhancing healthcare practices and informing clinical decisions for individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Blood glucose may be another index to initiate insulin treatment besides glycated hemoglobin A1c after oral antidiabetic medications failure for glycemic control: A real-world survey

OBJECTIVE

The inertia of insulin initiation is a barrier to achieving glycemic control when oral antidiabetic drugs fail to control glucose during the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Insulin initiation is usually based on glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C). To investigate whether there is another index for insulin initiation besides A1C, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in the real world.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter cross-section survey with a total of 1034 T2D patients. All patients, at the time of the survey, decided to initiate insulin therapy due to failure of controlling glucose using only oral antidiabetic drugs. We analyzed the differences of blood glucose between patients who were tested for A1C and those who were not.

RESULTS

666 (64.4%) patients were tested A1C and 368 (35.6%) were not. Neither fasting blood glucose (FBG) (12.0 ± 2.9 vs 12.3 ± 2.9 mmol/L, t = 1.494, P = 0.135) nor postprandial blood glucose (PBG) (18.4 ± 4.8 vs 17.9 ± 4.8 mmol/L, t = 1.315, P = 0.189) were significantly different between patients with and without A1C.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated that initiating insulin based on FBG or PBG is a common clinical practice, at least in China; moreover, since it is easier to obtain than A1C, it can be a simple and effective way to overcome clinical inertia for initiating insulin.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart Compared with a Conventional Premixed Insulin or Basal Insulin: A Meta-Analysis

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a novel co-formulation of 70% insulin degludec and 30% insulin aspart. The present meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp compared with a conventional premixed insulin or basal insulin. We extracted data from citation databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, since inception to 2021. We calculated the mean differences for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-measured mean glucose, and postprandial glucose (PPG) and odds ratios for confirmed hypoglycemia events. Compared with twice-daily conventional premixed insulin, twice-daily IDegAsp showed a similar effect on changes in HbA1c, but it significantly reduced FPG and self-measured mean glucose levels. Furthermore, compared to once-daily basal insulin, once-daily IDegAsp had a similar effect on changes in HbA1c, but it significantly reduced self-measured mean glucose and PPG levels. The risk of overall confirmed hypoglycemia was similar between treatments; however, the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia events was significantly lower with IDegAsp than with conventional premixed insulin and basal insulin. Thus, IDegAsp was more effective than conventional premixed insulin and basal insulin at reducing blood glucose with fewer nocturnal hypoglycemia events.

A Century of Progress in Diabetes Care with Insulin: A History of Innovations and Foundation for the Future

The year 2021 marks the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin, which has greatly changed the lives of people with diabetes and become a cornerstone of advances in medical science. A rapid bench-to-bedside application of the lifesaving pancreatic extract and its immediate commercialization was the result of a promising idea, positive drive, perseverance, and collaboration of Banting and colleagues. As one of the very few proteins isolated in a pure form at that time, insulin also played a key role in the development of important methodologies and in the beginning of various fields of modern science. Since its discovery, insulin has evolved continuously to optimize the care of people with diabetes. Since the 1980s, recombinant DNA technology has been employed to engineer insulin analogs by modifying their amino acid sequence, which has resulted in the production of insulins with various profiles that are currently used. However, unmet needs in insulin treatment still exist, and several forms of future insulins are under development. In this review, we discuss the past, present, and future of insulin, including a history of ceaseless innovations and collective intelligence. We believe that this story will be a solid foundation and an unerring guide for the future.

Effectiveness of premixed insulin to achieve glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: A retrospective UK cohort study

AIM

To investigate the effectiveness of premixed insulin for achieving glycaemic outcomes in clinical practice in the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic medical record data from The Health Improvement Network database were captured for adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled (HbA1c ≥9%) on two or more oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) initiating premixed insulin. Effectiveness of premixed insulin was assessed by the probability and incidence of achieving glycaemic outcomes (target HbA1c <7.5% [<58 mmol/mol] and a ≥1% or ≥2% HbA1c reduction) over 24 months.

RESULTS

Data from 974 participants (mean age 62 years; 56% male; 52% obese or extremely obese; mean HbA1c 11.3% [100 mmol/mol]; hypertension 64%, dyslipidaemia 23% and nephropathy 21%) were analysed. The probability of achieving HbA1c  <7.5% was highest during months 3-6 (18.2%), while the cumulative probability of achieving this target plateaued between months 15-24 (15.7%-16.0%). Incidence of achieving all glycaemic outcomes plateaued after 12 months and differed by baseline HbA1c, but not OAD use. Factors affecting some glycaemic outcomes included a body mass index >40 kg/m2 and co-morbidities including nephropathy and stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

In people with uncontrolled T2D (HbA1c ≥9%), glycaemic outcome achievement on premixed insulin was low at 6 months with little additional clinical benefit beyond 12 months, suggesting a high unmet need for early, timely treatment changes with more effective, simpler therapies.

The Evolution of Insulin and How it Informs Therapy and Treatment Choices

Insulin has been available for the treatment of diabetes for almost a century, and the variety of insulin choices today represents many years of discovery and innovation. Insulin has gone from poorly defined extracts of animal pancreata to pure and precisely controlled formulations that can be prescribed and administered with high accuracy and predictability of action. Modifications of the insulin formulation and of the insulin molecule itself have made it possible to approximate the natural endogenous insulin response. Insulin and insulin formulations had to be designed to produce either a constant low basal level of insulin or the spikes of insulin released in response to meals. We discuss how the biochemical properties of endogenous insulin were exploited to either shorten or extend the time-action profiles of injectable insulins by varying the pharmacokinetics (time for appearance of insulin in the blood after injection) and pharmacodynamics (time-dependent changes in blood sugar after injection). This has resulted in rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting insulins, as well as mixtures and concentrated formulations. An understanding of how various insulins and formulations were designed to solve the challenges of insulin replacement will assist clinicians in meeting the needs of their individual patients.

Differences in Clinical Outcomes between Patients with and without Hypoglycemia during Hospitalization: A Retrospective Study Using Real-World Evidence

BACKGROUND

Some patients admitted to hospitals for glycemic control experience hypoglycemia despite regular meals and despite adhering to standard blood glucose control protocols. Different factors can have a negative impact on blood glucose control and prognosis after discharge. This study investigated risk factors for hypoglycemia and its effects on glycemic control during the hospitalization of patients in the general ward.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who were admitted between 2009 and 2018. Patients were provided regular meals at fixed times according to ideal body weights during hospitalization. We categorized the patients into two groups: those with and those without hypoglycemia during hospitalization.

RESULTS

Of the 3,031 patients, 379 experienced at least one episode of hypoglycemia during hospitalization (HYPO group). Hypoglycemia occurred more frequently particularly in cases of premixed insulin therapy. Compared with the control group, the HYPO group was older (61.0±16.8 years vs. 59.1±16.5 years, P=0.035), with more females (60.4% vs. 49.6%, P<0.001), lower body mass index (BMI) (23.5±4.2 kg/m² vs. 25.1±4.4 kg/m², P<0.001), and higher prevalence of type 1 diabetes mellitus (6.1% vs. 2.6%, P<0.001), They had longer hospital stay (11.1±13.5 days vs. 7.6±4.6 days, P<0.001). After discharge the HYPO group had lower glycosylated hemoglobin reduction rate (-2.0%±0.2% vs. -2.5%±0.1%, P=0.003) and tended to have more frequent cases of cardiovascular disease.

CONCLUSION

Hypoglycemia occurred more frequently in older female patients with lower BMI and was associated with longer hospital stay and poorer glycemic control after discharge. Therefore, clinicians must carefully ensure that patients do not experience hypoglycemia during hospitalization.

Discharge pharmacotherapy for Type 2 diabetic inpatients at two hospitals of different tiers in Zhejiang Province, China

Objects

To look into the discharge pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetics admitted to two general hospitals of different ranks and inspect current real-world management of discharge pharmacology and its related factors.

Methods

Type 2 diabetics admitted to a tertiary general hospital (Ningbo Medical Treatment Centre Lihuili Hospital, LHLH) or a secondary general hospital (Simen Hospital, SMH) for intensification of their anti-diabetics were included for retrospective analysis. Patients’ demographics, clinical characteristics, admission diabetes therapy and discharge diabetes pharmacology were analyzed and compared among patients in each hospital as well as between two hospitals.

Results

391 patients from LHLH and 164 patients from SMH were included for analyzing. Compared with patients from LHLH, patients from SMH were older, more illiterate and had higher HbA1c concentrations. While there was a nearly equal split of oral anti-diabetes drugs (OADs)-only and Insulin treatment in LHLH’s discharge pharmacotherapy, insulin treatment dominated SMH’s. Basal-and-bolus insulin assumed the majority of SMH’s insulin regimens but only accounted for less than 20% of LHLH’s. The principal discrepancy in OADs-only treatment existed in the utilization of newer classes of OADs. Cost and body mass index (BMI) were the main differentiating factors among OADs-only treatments while duration, BMI and HbA1c differ among insulin treatments at LHLH. Clinical characteristics didn’t significantly differ among OADs-only treatments and HbA1c was the only differentiating factor among insulin treatments at SMH. Overall, hospital, duration, HbA1c, and vascular diseases were main factors that affect discharge pharmacology.

Conclusions

Great disparities exist in the discharge pharmacotherapy at two hospitals. Diabetes management is mostly glucose-oriented at SMH while multifactorial considerations were reflected in LHLH’s discharge pharmacotherapy. Besides differences in patients’ demographics, medication availability and diagnosis of early-stage vascular complications, lack of practical algorithm for discharge management in T2DM may be the underlying deficiency and a key part for future improvement.

Better glycaemic control with BioChaperone glargine lispro co-formulation than with insulin lispro Mix25 or separate glargine and lispro administrations after a test meal in people with type 2 diabetes

Because of its physico-chemical properties, insulin glargine is usually not mixable with rapid insulins. BioChaperone BC147 is a polyanionic amphiphilic polymer, solubilizing insulin glargine at neutral pH, and thus enabling stable glargine formulation with fast-acting insulin lispro (BioChaperone glargine lispro co-formulation [BC Combo]). We investigated pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints and postprandial glucose (PPG) control after administration of BC Combo (75% insulin glargine, 25% insulin lispro), insulin lispro Mix25 (LMix) and separate injections of insulins glargine (75% total dose) and lispro (25% total dose [G + L]) immediately before ingestion of a mixed meal in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), using a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy crossover study design. Participants received individualized bolus doses (mean 0.62 U/kg) of BC Combo, LMix or G + L, together with a solid mixed meal (610 kcal, 50% carbohydrate, 30% fat, 20% protein). Insulin dosages were kept constant for each study day. Thirty-nine participants with T2DM (mean ± SD age and glycated haemoglobin 60.8 ± 7.5 years and  64 ± 6 mmol/mol, respectively) were randomized. BC Combo improved the predefined primary endpoint, early PPG control, compared to LMix (incremental area under the blood glucose concentration-time curve from 0 to 2 hours after the meal [ΔAUC_BG,0-2h ] reduction of 18%; P = 0.0009) and G + L (ΔAUC_BG,0-2h reduction of 10%; P = 0.0450). The number of mealtime hypoglycaemic episodes per participant was lower with BC Combo (22 episodes in 14 participants) compared to LMix (43 episodes in 20 participants; P = 0.0028), but not significantly different from G + L (28 episodes in 19 participants; P = 0.2523). BC Combo demonstrated superior early PPG control with fewer hypoglycaemic episodes compared to LMix and superior early PPG control compared to separate G + L administrations.

Expert Opinion: Patient Selection for Premixed Insulin Formulations in Diabetes Care

Premixed insulins are an important tool for glycemic control in persons with diabetes. Equally important in diabetes care is the selection of the most appropriate insulin regimen for a particular individual at a specific time. Currently, the choice of insulin regimens for initiation or intensification of therapy is a subjective decision. In this article, we share insights, which will help in rational and objective selection of premixed formulations for initiation and intensification of insulin therapy. The glycemic status and its variations in a person help to identify the most appropriate insulin regimen and formulation for him or her. The evolution of objective glucometric indices has enabled better glycemic monitoring of individuals with diabetes. Management of diabetes has evolved from a 'glucocentric' approach to a 'patient-centered' approach; patient characteristics, needs, and preferences should be evaluated when considering premixed insulin for treatment of diabetes.Funding: Novo Nordisk, India.

Efficacy and safety of ipragliflozin as add-on therapy to insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (IOLITE): a 36-week, open-label extension of a 16-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study

Objective

To examine long-term efficacy/safety of ipragliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, added to ongoing insulin therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

We conducted a 36-week, open-label extension of ipragliflozin therapy following a 16-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind period (treatment periods II and I, respectively). Prior to the open-label period, patients taking insulin with/without a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor were randomized to receive placebo or 50 mg once-daily ipragliflozin. Oral antidiabetic drugs other than DPP-4 inhibitors were discontinued 4 weeks before screening. Following treatment period I, all patients received open-label ipragliflozin 50 mg, with the possibility of a dose increase to 100 mg at week 24 if HbA1c was ≥ 7.0% at week 20. Efficacy endpoints were changes in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-monitored blood glucose, bodyweight, and metabolic hormones. Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were monitored for safety.

Results

Of 175 patients randomized to ipragliflozin, 168 entered treatment period II, 121 (69%) of whom completed this period. The mean ± standard deviation changes in HbA1c, FPG, and bodyweight from baseline (start of treatment period I) to the end of treatment were - 0.83 ± 0.72%, - 31.5 ± 41.2 mg/dL, and - 1.34 ± 1.80 kg, respectively. Between weeks 8 and 32, HbA1c was lower in patients taking a DPP-4 inhibitor than in those without. The most common drug-related TEAE was hypoglycemia; no drug-related TEAEs not already reported for ipragliflozin were observed.

Conclusions

Ipragliflozin was well tolerated, effective, and reduced bodyweight over a period of 52 weeks in patients treated with insulin with/without a DPP-4 inhibitor.

Clinicaltrialsgov identifier

NCT02175784.

Real-life glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin therapy: A prospective, longitudinal cohort study (Diabetes Distress and Care Registry at Tenri [DDCRT 9])

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

We investigated the association between four insulin regimens, and increase in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and insulin dose in a real-life clinical setting because there are no data about them among insulin regimens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants included 757 patients with type 2 diabetes having been treated with insulin therapy for more than 1 year. The four insulin regimens were regimen 1 (long-acting insulin, once daily), regimen 2 (biphasic insulin, twice daily), regimen 3 (biphasic insulin, three times daily) and regimen 4 (basal-bolus therapy). Main outcomes were increases in HbA1c levels >0.5% and increases in daily insulin units after 1 year. We carried out multivariable analyses to examine differences in glycemic control and insulin dose with adjustment for possible confounders.

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c level and duration of insulin therapy were 7.8% and 11.3 years, respectively. HbA1c levels increased by >0.5% at follow up in 22.8, 24.9, 20.7, and 29.3% of participants using regimen 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, with no significant differences between groups. Daily insulin doses increased in 62.3, 68.8, 65.3 and 38.6% of patients, respectively (P < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis showed that patients who received regimen 4 had significantly lower odds of requiring future insulin dose increases than those who had received regimen 2 (adjusted odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.41; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients receiving insulin therapy showed increases in HbA1c levels and insulin doses 1 year later. The smallest increase in insulin dose was observed in the basal-bolus therapy group compared with other regimens.

A 32-Week Randomized Comparison of Stepwise Insulin Intensification of Biphasic Insulin Aspart (BIAsp 30) Versus Basal-Bolus Therapy in Insulin-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

This 32-week, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multinational trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of stepwise insulin intensification of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) relative to stepwise intensification of a basal-bolus regimen in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who continued pretrial treatment with metformin and sulfonylurea.

METHODS

Adults with T2D were randomized into one of two treatment arms for 32 weeks: (1) BIAsp 30 once daily (OD), with the possibility of stepwise treatment intensification up to BIAsp 30 three times daily (TID); (2) insulin glargine OD, with the possibility of stepwise treatment intensification with insulin aspart up to TID. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA_1c after 32 weeks.

RESULTS

After 32 weeks, the estimated mean change in HbA_1c from baseline was statistically significantly lower in the BIAsp 30 arm (- 1.18%) versus basal-bolus (- 1.36%) [estimated treatment difference 0.18%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.01; 0.36; p < 0.05]. The proportion of patients with HbA_1c below 7.0% was statistically significantly lower with BIAsp 30 (42.9%) compared with basal-bolus (56.9%) (odds ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.37; 0.89; p = 0.01). The overall rate of severe or blood glucose (BG)-confirmed hypoglycemic events was numerically lower for BIAsp 30 compared with basal-bolus, and a statistically significantly lower rate in nocturnal severe or BG-confirmed hypoglycemia in the BIAsp 30 arm relative to basal-bolus was observed: estimated rate ratio 0.32 (95% CI 0.13; 0.79), p = 0.0131. The proportion of patients with adverse events was similar in both treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Insulin intensification with BIAsp 30 and basal-bolus showed an improvement in glycemic control; the change in HbA_1c was statistically significantly lower for BIAsp 30 compared to basal-bolus. Basal-bolus treatment was accompanied by a numerically, and statistically significantly, higher rate of overall and nocturnal severe or BG-confirmed hypoglycemia, respectively, compared with BIAsp 30.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02453685.

Use of 50/50 Premixed Insulin Analogs in Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Clinical Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Premixed insulin analogs represent an alternative to basal or basal-bolus insulin regimens for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). "Low-mix" formulations with a low rapid-acting to long-acting analog ratio (e.g., 25/75) are commonly used, but 50/50 formulations (Mix50) may be more appropriate for some patients. We conducted a systematic literature review to assess the efficacy and safety of Mix50, compared with low-mix, basal, or basal-bolus therapy, for insulin initiation and intensification.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, LillyTrials.com, and NovoNordisk-trials.com were searched (11 or 13 Dec 2016) using terms for T2D, premixed insulin analogs, and/or Mix50. Studies (randomized, nonrandomized, or observational; English only) comparing Mix50 with other insulins (except human) and reporting key efficacy [glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting and postprandial glucose] and/or safety (hypoglycemia, weight gain) outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Narrative reviews, letters, editorials, and conference abstracts were excluded. Risk of bias in randomized trials was assessed using the Cochrane tool.

RESULTS

MEDLINE and EMBASE searches identified 716 unique studies, of which 32 met inclusion criteria. An additional three studies were identified in the other databases. All 19 randomized trials except one were open label; risk of other biases was generally low. Although not conclusive, the evidence suggests that Mix50 may provide better glycemic control (HbA1c reduction) and, particularly, postprandial glucose reduction in certain patients, such as those with high carbohydrate diets and Asian patients, than low-mix and basal therapy. Based on this evidence and our experience, we provide clinical guidance on factors to consider when deciding whether Mix50 is appropriate for individual patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Mix50 may be more suitable than low-mix therapy for certain patients. Clinicians should consider not only efficacy and safety but also patient characteristics and preferences when tailoring insulin treatment to individuals with T2D.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly.

Evidence-based recommendations for insulin intensification strategies after basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Over the time due to progressive nature of diabetes, proactive intensification of the existing insulin therapy becomes imminent as it minimizes patients' exposure to chronic hypo/hyperglycaemia and reduces weight gain while achieving individualized glycaemic targets. This review focuses on the strength of evidence behind various options for intensification, primarily the insulins as also the GLP-1 analogues. The recommendations presented here are meant to serve as a guide for the physician managing type 2 diabetes patients requiring insulin intensification upon failing of basal insulin therapy.

Review of basal-plus insulin regimen options for simpler insulin intensification in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To identify simple insulin regimens for people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus that can be accepted and implemented earlier in primary and specialist care, taking into consideration each individual's needs and capabilities.

METHODS

Using randomized clinical trials identified by a search of the PubMed database, as well as systematic reviews, meta-analyses and proof-of-concept studies, this review addresses topics of interest related to the progressive intensification of a basal insulin regimen to a basal-plus regimen (one basal insulin injection plus stepwise addition of one to three preprandial short-acting insulin injections/day) vs a basal-bolus regimen (basal insulin plus three short-acting insulin injections per day) in people with Type 2 diabetes. The review explores approaches that can be used to define the meal for first prandial injection with basal-plus regimens, differences among insulin titration algorithms, and the importance of self-motivation and autonomy in achieving optimum glycaemic control.

RESULTS

A basal-plus regimen can provide glycaemic control equivalent to that obtained with a full basal-bolus regimen, with fewer injections of prandial insulin. The first critical step is to optimize basal insulin dosing to reach a fasting glucose concentration of ~6.7 mmol/l; this allows ~40% of patients with baseline HbA1c >75 mmol/mol (9%) to be controlled with only one basal insulin injection per day.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with a basal-bolus regimen, a basal-plus insulin regimen is as effective but more practical, and has the best chance of acceptance and success in the real world.

Insulin lispro 25/75 and insulin lispro 50/50 as starter insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: subanalysis of the CLASSIFY randomized trial

In Japan, premixed insulins are commonly used as starter insulin for type 2 diabetes. This subpopulation analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of twice-daily LM25 (25% insulin lispro/75% insulin lispro protamine) and LM50 (50% insulin lispro/50% insulin lispro protamine) as starter insulin in Japanese subjects, and compared these results with the whole-trial populations of East Asian subjects. In this subpopulation analysis of an open-label, phase 4, randomized trial (CLASSIFY), Japanese subjects received LM25 (n = 88) or LM50 (n = 84) twice-daily for 26 weeks. The primary outcome was change from baseline at Week 26 in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Results for Japanese subjects were generally similar to those for the whole-trial population. Similar changes from baseline in HbA1c were observed for LM25 and LM50 groups (least squares [LS] mean difference [95% confidence interval] of LM25 - LM50 = 0.13 [-0.16, 0.41]%, 1.42 [-1.75, 4.48] mmol/mol, p = 0.388). More LM50-treated subjects than LM25-treated subjects achieved HbA1c targets of <7.0% (59.5% versus 43.2%; p = 0.034) or ≤6.5% (45.2% versus 28.4%; p = 0.027). The reduction in postprandial blood glucose concentrations after morning and evening meals was statistically significantly greater for LM50 than for LM25. The incidence of both hypoglycemia and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between treatment groups. Both LM25 and LM50 twice daily appear to be effective and well tolerated as starter insulin, although LM50 might be more effective for Japanese type 2 diabetes patients.

Different insulin concentrations in resuspended vs. unsuspended NPH insulin: Practical aspects of subcutaneous injection in patients with diabetes

AIMS

This study measured the insulin concentration (Ins_[C]) of NPH insulin in vials and cartridges from different companies after either resuspension (R+) or not (R-; in the clear/cloudy phases of unsuspended NPH).

METHODS

Measurements included Ins_[C] in NPH(R+) and in the clear/cloudy phases of NPH(R-), and the time needed to resuspend NPH and time for NPH(R+) to separate again into clear/cloudy parts.

RESULTS

In vials of NPH(R+) (assumed to be 100%), Ins_[C] in the clear phase of NPH(R-) was<1%, but 230±41% and 234±54% in the cloudy phases of Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly NPH, respectively. Likewise, in pen cartridges, Ins_[C] in the clear phase of NPH(R-) was<1%, but 182±33%, 204±22% and 229±62% in the cloudy phases of Novo, Lilly and Sanofi NPH. Time needed to resuspend NPH (spent in tipping) in vials was brief with both Novo (5±1s) and Lilly NPH (6±1s), but longer with all pen cartridges (50±8s, 40±6s and 30±4s from Novo, Lilly and Sanofi, respectively; P=0.022). Time required for 50% separation into cloudy and clear parts of NPH was longer with Novo (60±7min) vs. Lilly (18±3min) in vials (P=0.021), and affected by temperature, but not by the different diameter sizes of the vials. With pen cartridges, separation into clear and cloudy parts was significantly faster than in vials (P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Ins_[C] in NPH preparations varies depending on their resuspension or not. Thus, subcutaneous injection of the same number of units of NPH in patients with diabetes may deliver different amounts of insulin depending on its prior NPH resuspension.

Choice of Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes: A Southeast Asian Perspective

Southeast Asia faces a diabetes epidemic, which has created significant challenges for health care. The unique Asian diabetes phenotype, coupled with peculiar lifestyle, diet, and healthcare-seeking behavior, makes it imperative to develop clinical pathways and guidelines which address local needs and requirements. From an insulin-centric viewpoint, the preparations prescribed in such pathways should be effective, safe, well tolerated, nonintrusive, and suitable for the use in multiple clinical situations including initiation and intensification. This brief communication describes the utility of premixed or dual action insulin in such clinical pathways and guidelines.

Factors associated with reaching or not reaching target HbA1c after initiation of basal or premixed insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To evaluate factors associated with reaching or not reaching target glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels by analysing the respective contributions of fasting hyperglycaemia (FHG), also referred to as basal hyperglycaemia, vs postprandial hyperglycaemia (PHG) before and after initiation of a basal or premixed insulin regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis of insulin-naïve patients in the DURABLE study randomised to receive either insulin glargine or insulin lispro mix 25 evaluated the percentages of patients achieving a target HbA_1c of <7.0% (<53mmol/mol) per baseline HbA_1c quartiles, and the effect of each insulin regimen on the relative contributions of PHG and FHG to overall hyperglycaemia.

RESULTS

Patients had comparable demographic characteristics and similar HbA_1c and FHG values at baseline in each HbA_1c quartile regardless of whether they reached the target HbA_1c. The higher the HbA_1c quartile, the greater was the decrease in HbA_1c, but also the smaller the percentage of patients achieving the target HbA_1c. HbA_1c and FHG decreased more in patients reaching the target, resulting in significantly lower values at endpoint in all baseline HbA_1c quartiles with either insulin treatment. Patients not achieving the target HbA_1c had slightly higher insulin doses, but lower total hypoglycaemia rates.

CONCLUSION

Smaller decreases in FHG were associated with not reaching the target HbA_1c, suggesting a need to increase basal or premixed insulin doses to achieve targeted fasting plasma glucose and improve patient response before introducing more intensive prandial insulin regimens.

Efficacy and safety of ipragliflozin as add-on therapy to insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (IOLITE): a multi-centre, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study

AIMS

To examine the efficacy and safety of add-on ipragliflozin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes in the early stage of insulin therapy.

METHODS

Patients treated with insulin (bolus component <30% of total daily dose) with/without a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor were randomized to receive placebo (n = 87) or ipragliflozin (n = 175) for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline. Secondary endpoints included changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and metabolic hormones. Safety endpoints were also examined.

RESULTS

The changes in HbA1c were 0.27% and -0.79% (2.9 and -8.7 mmol/mol) in the placebo and ipragliflozin groups, respectively (baseline: 8.62% vs 8.67% [70.8 vs 71.2 mmol/mol]), corresponding to an adjusted mean difference of -1.07% (95% confidence interval -1.24, -0.91) or -11.7 mmol/mol (-13.5, -9.9), p < .001. Ipragliflozin reduced FPG and serum C-peptide levels and body weight (all p < .001), and increased serum adiponectin levels (p = .022). There was a statistically significant interaction for use/non-use of a DPP-4 inhibitor × treatment group for the change in HbA1c (p = .042). Hypoglycaemia was the only treatment-related adverse event reported in >5% of patients (14.9% vs 29.1%). Events consistent with urinary tract infection (placebo 1.1% vs ipragliflozin 2.3%) or genital infection (0.0% and 4.0%, respectively) occurred in <5% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Ipragliflozin was well tolerated and effective in insulin-treated patients, especially when used with a DPP-4 inhibitor.

Initiation and Intensification Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes Management: A Comparison of Basal Plus and Premix Regimens

The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes (T2D) often results in the need for initiation and subsequent intensification of insulin treatment to achieve glycemic control. The aim of this review is to examine published clinical evidence that has directly compared two recommended treatment approaches in patients with T2D: (1) a 'basal plus' regimen, whereby 1-2 injections of prandial insulin are added to basal insulin; or (2) the use of once- or twice-daily premix insulin analogs, which contain both basal and prandial insulin in a single injection. Broadly, the available evidence suggests that both basal plus and premix regimens are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety when used for insulin initiation in insulin-naïve patients and intensification in patients who have failed on basal insulin; instances of greater glycemic control are observed with premix insulin; however, these are often accompanied by increases in hypoglycemia and/or weight relative to basal plus treatment, and results should be interpreted within the context of total insulin doses used. Relatively low numbers of patients achieved glycemic control when both regimens were used for insulin intensification following failure of basal insulin, suggesting that a full basal-bolus regimen and/or the use of different treatments is clinically indicated in certain patients. In summary, the current review argues that both basal plus and premix insulin regimens are relatively efficacious and safe options for patients with T2D during both insulin initiation in insulin-naïve patients and intensification in patients who have failed on basal insulin. This emphasizes the important role of patient-centered factors in clinical decision-making.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.