Clinical Effects and Safety of Direct-Acting Insulin Analogs in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: A Nation-Wide Observational Cohort Study

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rapid-acting insulin analogs, lispro versus aspart, in the treatment of diabetes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated a potential move from one rapid-acting insulin analog to another, or their biosimilars, to aid better and faster decisions for diabetes management.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed according to PRISMA reporting guidelines. The MEDLINE/EMBASE/COCHRANE databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing aspart/lispro in type-1 (T1D) and type-2 (T2D) diabetes. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 753 records retrieved, the six selected efficacy/safety RCTs and the additional three hand-searched pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics RCTs showed some heterogeneity in the presentation of the continuous variables; however, collectively, the outcomes demonstrated that lispro and aspart had comparable efficacy and safety in adult patients with T1D and T2D. Both treatments yielded a similar decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and had similar dosing and weight changes, with similar treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) and serious adverse event (SAE) reporting, similar hypoglycemic episodes in both T1D and T2D populations, and no clinically significant differences for hyperglycemia, occlusions or other infusion site/set complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Aspart and lispro demonstrate comparative safety and efficacy in patients with T1D/T2D. Since both are deemed equally suitable for controlling prandial glycemic excursions and both have similar safety attributes, they may be used interchangeably in clinical practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023376793.

Effectiveness and Safety of Switching Rapid-Acting Insulins to Insulin Glulisine in Patients with Diabetes: The Observational IGLU-S Study

INTRODUCTION

The IGLU-S study assessed the effectiveness of insulin glulisine after switching from human insulin/other rapid-acting insulin analogues in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in a real-world setting in Germany.

METHODS

Open-label, prospective, multicentre, non-interventional study in Germany. The primary outcome was proportion of patients reaching pre-defined glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) goal at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included absolute changes in HbA1c, rate of hypoglycaemia and 7-point blood glucose profiles.

RESULTS

Overall, 432 (55 T1DM, 377 T2DM) patients were enrolled. Baseline HbA1c was 8.2% (T1DM) and 8.3% (T2DM); individual HbA1c targets were 6.8% and 6.9%, respectively. After insulin glulisine introduction, the proportion of patients achieving their individual HbA1c increased to 43.6% (T1DM) and 39.6% (T2DM) of patients at 12 months. At 12 months, mean HbA1c was reduced by 0.86 ± 1.03% (p < 0.0001) in T1DM and 1.01 ± 1.02 (p < 0.0001) in T2DM. The 7-point blood glucose profile showed a significant reduction in patients with T2DM (p< 0.0001) and a non-significant reduction in T1DM patients. Confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia was 5.7% (T1DM) and 1.6% (T2DM). There were no cases of severe hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSION

Switching prandial insulin to insulin glulisine resulted in improved effectiveness with 43.6% of T1DM and 39.6% of T2DM patients reaching their individual pre-defined HbA1c target within 1 year. Switching was safe and was associated with a low rate of hypoglycaemia and adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://awbdb.bfarm.de ; Identifier: 6818; Date of registration: 23.06.2016.

Clinical effects, cardiovascular and renal outcomes associated with rapid-acting insulin analogs among individuals with type 2 diabetes: a nation-wide observational cohort study

Background

Rapid-acting insulin analogs (RAIs) have not been examined for long-term safety in randomized clinical trials. We performed a nationwide longitudinal cohort study among individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) to address cardiovascular safety and mortality among users of lispro, aspart and glulisine insulins.

Methods

We used four national registers, following patients previously not treated with RAI but with continuous use of RAIs in 2005-2014 up to 6.4 years, to examine HbA1c and weight, and the occurrence of severe hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia, renal failure, cardiovascular events or death. The treatment groups were compared using a weighted Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

We included 17,620 patients, mean age slightly higher than 60 years, diabetes duration 9.9–11.7 years, mean BMI 30.5 kg/m², HbA1c around 70 mmol/mol (8.6% NGSP), and 40.9–54.0% of the patients exhibiting eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m² in the three groups. Around 95% of the patients also used another insulin, and 24.2–24.7% had a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Mean HbA1c and weight levels were stable and similar. Incidence rates of death were 234.4, 284.9 and 156.7 per 1000 person-years among users of lispro, aspart, and glulisine; incidence rates of all cardiovascular events were 668.4, 622.4, and 699.5 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

There were no differences in mortality, CVD, renal failure or severe hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia, although a lower mortality risk in patients on glulisine compared with aspart, and lower risk of stroke in users of glulisine was suggested. The risk of severe hyperglycemia was higher with lispro than aspart, and lower of severe hypoglycemia than aspart or glulisine among the older age group.

Conclusions

Overall, there do not appear to be any major important differences in effects on hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, weight or long-term safety between the three available RAIs among insulin-naive individuals with T2DM in clinical practice.