Making the transition from oral to insulin therapy

Patient characteristics and 6-month dose of basal insulin associated with HbA1c achievement <7.0% in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes: results from the Observational Registry of Basal Insulin Treatment (ORBIT)

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of basal insulin (BI) for adequate glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been well documented by randomized clinical trials. This post hoc analysis of the Observational Registry of Basal Insulin Treatment (ORBIT) study was performed to explore the 6-month dose of BI used in insulin-naïve T2DM patients achieving HbA1c target (<7%) and determine the patient characteristics that affect the 6-month dose of BI in the setting of real-world clinics in China.

METHODS

This multicenter observational registry screened 19 894 adult T2DM patients with inadequately controlled hyperglycemia and treated with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in China. Of these patients, 5191 who continued to receive BI after 6 months and achieved HbA1c target were analyzed. Patient characteristics including age, body weight, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), use of OADs, insulin (type and dose), and glycemic control were recorded at baseline and 6-month follow-ups.

RESULTS

The 6-month dose of BI needed for effective glycemic control was 0.20 ± 0.08 U/kg/day. High body mass index, high FPG, young age, longer duration of diabetes or OAD treatment, a greater number of OADs at baseline, and allocation to detemir and glargine were significant independent predictors for high dose of BI at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis of the ORBIT registry provides key information on the 6-month dose of BI needed for effective glycemic control in Chinese T2DM patients. Furthermore, it identified crucial patient characteristics that are significant determinants of the dose of BI in a real-world setting.

Common standards of basal insulin titration in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus has become a worldwide major health problem, and the number of people affected is steadily increasing. Thus, not all patients suffering from the disease can be treated by specialized diabetes centers or outpatient clinics, but by primary care physicians. The latter, however, might have time constraints and have to deal with many kinds of diseases or with multimorbid patients, so their focus is not so much on lowering high blood glucose values. Thus, the physicians, as well as the patients themselves, are often reluctant to initiate and adjust insulin therapy, although basal insulin therapy is considered the appropriate strategy after oral antidiabetic drug failure, according to the latest international guidelines. A substantial number of clinical studies have shown that insulin initiation and optimization can be managed successfully by using titration algorithms-even in cases where patients themselves are the drivers of insulin titration. Nevertheless, tools and strategies are needed to facilitate this process in the daily life of both primary health care professionals and patients with diabetes.

Real-world outcomes of US employees with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin: a comparative retrospective database study

OBJECTIVES

To compare real-world outcomes of initiating insulin glargine (GLA) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin among employees with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had both employer-sponsored health insurance and short-tem-disability coverages.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters/Health and Productivity Management Databases 2003-2009.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult employees with T2DM who were previously treated with oral antidiabetic drugs and/or glucagon-like-peptide 1 receptor agonists and initiated GLA or NPH were included if they were continuously enrolled in healthcare and short-term-disability coverages for 3 months before (baseline) and 1 year after (follow-up) initiation. Treatment selection bias was addressed by 2:1 propensity score matching. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using different matching ratios.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes during 1-year follow-up were measured and compared: insulin treatment persistence and adherence; hypoglycaemia rates and daily average consumption of insulin; total and diabetes-specific healthcare resource utilisation and costs and loss in productivity, as measured by short-term disability, and the associated costs.

RESULTS

A total of 534 patients were matched and analysed (GLA: 356; NPH 178) with no significant differences in baseline characteristics. GLA patients were more persistent and adherent (both p<0.05), had lower rates of hospitalisation (23% vs 31.4%; p=0.036) and endocrinologist visits (19.1% vs 26.9%; p=0.038), similar hypoglycaemia rates (both 4.4%; p=1.0), higher diabetes drug costs ($2031 vs $1522; p<0.001), but similar total healthcare costs ($14 550 vs $16 093; p=0.448) and total diabetes-related healthcare costs ($4686 vs $5604; p=0.416). Short-term disability days and costs were numerically lower in the GLA cohort (16.0 vs 24.5 days; p=0.086 and $2824 vs $4363; p=0.081, respectively). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin GLA results in better persistence and adherence, compared with NPH insulin, with no overall cost disadvantages. Better persistence and adherence may lead to long-term health benefits for employees with T2DM.

Evolving treatment strategies for the management of type 2 diabetes

It is well known that improved metabolic control significantly reduces both micro- and macrovascular complications in diabetes. As it relates to specific treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, clinicians have traditionally initiated lifestyle intervention and progressed therapy using various drug treatments first as monotherapy and then as combination therapy throughout the course of the disease. This "stepwise" strategy has not always achieved the desired outcome of normal glycemic control; consequently, several clinical problems, such as hypoglycemia, weight gain and postprandial hyperglycemia, persist. However, new therapies that improve glycemic control and have favorable effects to address the unmet clinical problems have recently been developed or are still in development. These therapies include 2 classes of incretin-directed therapy, the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, which help restore physiologic levels and activity of the incretin glucagon-like peptide-1. Also in development are additional therapies that have effects on the kidney to promote glucose excretion. These therapies are proposed to treat the key metabolic abnormalities associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus and minimize the side effects noted with conventional therapies.

Basal plus basal-bolus approach in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is characterized by insulin resistance and progressive β-cell deterioration. As β-cell function declines, most patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral agents, in monotherapy or combination, will require insulin therapy. Addition of basal insulin (glargine, detemir, or NPH/neutral protamine lispro insulin) to previous treatment is accepted as the simplest way to start insulin therapy in those patients. But even when basal insulin is adequately titrated, some patients will also need prandial insulin to achieve or maintain individual glycemic targets over time. Starting with premixed insulin is an effective option, but it is frequently associated with increased hypoglycemia risk, fixed meal schedules, and weight gain. As an alternative, a novel approached known as "basal plus strategy" has been developed. This approach considers the addition of increasing injections of prandial insulin, beginning with the meal that has the major impact on postprandial glucose values. Finally, if this is not enough intensification to basal-bolus will be necessary. In reducing hyperglycemia, this modality still remains the most effective option, even in people with type 2 diabetes. This article will review the currently evidence on the basal plus strategy and also its progression to basal-bolus therapy. In addition, practical recommendations to start and adjust basal plus therapy will be provided.

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.

Optimal insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analyses

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We compared the effect of biphasic, basal or prandial insulin regimens on glucose control, clinical outcomes and adverse events in people with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and major American and European conference abstracts for randomised controlled trials up to October 2008. A systematic review and meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two trials that randomised 4,379 patients were included. Seven trials reported both starting insulin dose and titration schedules. Hypoglycaemia definitions and glucose targets varied. Meta-analyses were performed pooling data from insulin-naive patients. Greater HbA(1c) reductions were seen with biphasic and prandial insulin, compared with basal insulin, of 0.45% (95% CI 0.19-0.70, p = 0.0006) and 0.45% (95% CI 0.16-0.73, p = 0.002), respectively, but with lesser reductions of fasting glucose of 0.93 mmol/l (95% CI 0.21-1.65, p = 0.01) and 2.20 mmol/l (95% CI 1.70-2.70, p < 0.00001), respectively. Larger insulin doses at study end were reported in biphasic and prandial arms compared with basal arms. No studies found differences in major hypoglycaemic events, but minor hypoglycaemic events for prandial and biphasic insulin were inconsistently reported as either higher than or equivalent to basal insulin. Greater weight gain was seen with prandial compared with basal insulin (1.86 kg, 95% CI 0.80-2.92, p = 0.0006).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Greater HbA(1c) reduction may be obtained in type 2 diabetes when insulin is initiated using biphasic or prandial insulin rather than a basal regimen, but with an unquantified risk of hypoglycaemia. Studies with longer follow-up are required to determine the clinical relevance of this finding.

[Types of insulin therapy]

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease associated with a series of long-term microvascular and macrovascular complications that requires continuing therapeutic control. In recent years, the pharmaceutical industry has developed new types of insulin and administration systems in order to more closely mimic human insulin secretion. In this way, insulin therapy is divided into conventional and intensive regimens according to their complexity. In type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients, the treatment of choice is the one which achieves intensive glycemic control. In type 2 diabetes mellitus, we can start with a simplified conventional regimen which could progress into an intensive one similar to that of T1DM treatment. Both types of diabetes require an individualized treatment prescription based on the needs and characteristics of each patient.

Premixed insulin treatment for type 2 diabetes: analogue or human?

The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes makes insulin initiation a necessary therapeutic step for many patients. Premixed insulin formulations containing both basal and prandial insulin (so called biphasic insulin) are often prescribed because they are superior to long- or intermediate-acting insulin in obtaining good metabolic control. In addition, they are considered as an attractive alternative to classical basal-bolus therapy as fewer daily injections are required. Premixed insulin formulations include conventional (e.g. biphasic human insulin 70/30, or 30/70 in European countries, BHI 30) and newer premixed human analogues (e.g. biphasic insulin aspart 70/30, or 30/70 in Europe, BIAsp 30; insulin lispro mix 75/25-Mix 75/25, or Mix 25/75 in Europe). Like conventional premixed human insulin, premixed insulin analogues contain a fixed proportion of soluble, rapid-acting insulin analogue, with protaminated analogue comprising the remainder. Unlike conventional premixes, analogue premixes have more physiological pharmacokinetic and therapeutically more desirable pharmacodynamic profiles than premixed human insulin. Consequently, postprandial glycaemic control is better with premixed insulin analogues than with premixed human insulin. In nontreat-to-target registration trials, the lowering of haemoglobin A(1c) with premixed insulin analogues was not inferior to that seen with premixed human insulin. Minor hypoglycaemia was similar for premixed analogue and premixed human insulins, while major hypoglycaemia appears to be rare with either formulation. The occurrence of adverse events, other than hypoglycaemia, was also similar between various premix insulins. The premixed insulin analogues, BIAsp 30 and Mix 75/25, like the fast-acting analogues from which they are derived, also allow flexible injection timing, relative to meal timing, thus improving adherence, compliance and quality of life compared with premixed human insulin. Overall, the evidence suggests that premixed insulin analogues are cost effective and have useful advantages over premixed human insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Dosing of insulin glargine in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes is a progressive disease characterized by insulin resistance and declining beta-cell function, often leading to a requirement for insulin therapy to maintain good glycemic control and prevent diabetes-associated complications. Adequate insulin dosing is crucial to the achievement of good glycemic control with minimal hypoglycemia, and dose titration immediately following insulin initiation is needed to ensure its success. Insulin may be initiated as an add-on therapy to oral treatment using a single evening basal insulin dose and titrating according to fasting blood glucose (FBG) levels (with an ideal target of <5.5 mmol/L [<100 mg/dL] to achieve glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c] <7%).

OBJECTIVE

This review investigated options for, and clinical efficacy of, titration algorithms of insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Articles from peer-reviewed journals were identified through searches of MEDLINE (years: 2000-2006). Search terms included insulin glargine, titration, algorithm, and type 2 diabetes. Studies were assessed and included in this review if they provided information regarding the method of dose titration of insulin glargine used.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were identified and included in this review. In the 24-week Treat-to-Target study, in which 756 patients were randomized to receive either insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, once-daily using a simple titration regimen (titration of daily insulin dose by 0-2, 2, 4, or 6-8 IU if mean fasting plasma glucose over the 3 previous days was >or=5.6-<6.7, >or=6.7-<7.8, >or=7.8-<10.0 or >or=10 mmol/L [>or=100-<120, >or=120-<140, >or=140-<180, or >or=180 mg/dL], respectively, in the absence of plasma glucose <4.0 mmol/L [<72 mg/dL]) more patients reached HbA1c <or=7% without nocturnal hypoglycemia with insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (33.2% vs 26.7%; P < 0.05). In the 24-week AT.LANTUS (A Trial comparing LANTUS Algorithms to achieve Normal blood glucose Targets in subjects with Uncontrolled blood Sugar) study, 4961 patients were randomized to receive insulin glargine with either clinic-managed (as in the Treat-to-Target study) or patient-managed dose titration (increase insulin dose by 2 IU every 3 days in the absence of blood glucose <4.0 mmol/L [<72 mg/dL]). Greater reductions in HbA(1c) were found with patient- versus clinic-managed titration (-1.22% vs -1.08%; P < 0.001), and fewer patients experienced hypoglycemia with clinic-managed titration (29.8% vs 33.3%; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The results from the studies discussed in this review suggest that adequate titration of the insulin dose, either by physicians or by patients, can help patients reach treatment goals, including HbA(1c) <7% and FBG <5.5 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL). The choice between algorithms may depend on clinical circumstance and a patient's willingness and ability to become more involved in management of therapy.

The treat-to-target A1C approach to control type 2 diabetes and prevent complications

Before initiating insulin therapy, clinicians often wait until oral antidiabetic agents fail to adequately reduce glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) levels and control hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. Long-term, randomized clinical trials demonstrate that reducing A1C to close to normal decreases rates of microvascular complications and can also reduce macrovascular complications. Insulin regimens that treat to target A1C levels may achieve greater control of hyperglycemia. Various randomized trials have assessed the efficacy and safety of initiating insulin therapy with human insulins and insulin analogs in patients with type 2 diabetes whose condition is inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetics. These studies assessed different regimens, including basal and premixed insulins, for their ability to reach target A1C goals and provided evidence-based protocols for the initiation and systematic dosage titration of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Examples of how to initiate and intensify insulin therapy to achieve target A1C goals based on these protocols are presented.