Postprandial versus preprandial dosing of biphasic insulin aspart in elderly type 2 diabetes patients

Current situation analysis of diabetic home care patients

OBJECTIVE

Diabetes is one of the primary diagnoses for admission to home health care units. Although there are many studies about elderly diabetic patients, there are not many studies on home care patients with diabetes. The present study aims to analyze the current status of diabetic home care patients with their biochemical data and medications.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study, including 256 diabetic patients who were following up by the Home Health Unit of Istanbul Provincial Health Directorate Public Hospitals Services-2. In this study, we analyzed the current biochemical data of the patients with their medications.

RESULTS

In this study, 185 female (72.3%) and 71 male (27.7%) patients were recruited with the mean HbA1c of 8.25±1.77. Among these patients, 65% of them were using oral antidiabetic (OAD), and 58% were using insulin. There were 21 (8.2%) patients who were not receiving any treatment. While patients who were using only oral antidiabetic have better A1c levels (A1c: 7.73±1.45), patients who were insülin using had HbA1c levels as high as the patients who were not using any medication. This may be due to the progression of diabetes, fear of hypoglycemia or insufficient insülin use. While metformin was the most commonly used OAD, with a 38% usage rate. When compared to HbA1c levels, there was no difference between the types of insulin used (p=0.167).

CONCLUSION

As a result, it is important to plan regular visits and personalized treatment by keeping in mind the benefits to risk ratios in home-care diabetic patients.

Efficacy Comparison of Preprandial and Postprandial Prandilin 25 Administration in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Using a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to determine the clinical efficacy of preprandial and postprandial Prandilin 25 (premixed insulin lispro 25) administration in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system.

METHODS

This was a single-center, self-controlled comparative clinical trial. Newly diagnosed T2DM patients with hemoglobin A1c > 8.0% were hospitalized and received Prandilin 25 plus metformin treatment. Glycemic control was reached after a 7-to-8-day run-in period. Patients underwent 2 days of treatment consisting of preprandial Prandilin 25 on day 1 and postprandial Prandilin 25 on day 2 at the same dosage. The primary outcome was the 24-h mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (24 hMAGE); secondary outcomes were other daily glycemic variability parameters, including 24-h mean blood glucose (24hMBG), 24-h standard deviation of blood glucose (24hSDBG), large amplitude of glycemic excursion (LAGE), incremental area under the curve (AUC) values for different glucose levels, postprandial glucose excursion, and incidence of hypoglycemia, which were assessed using a CGM system.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients completed this study. There was no statistically significant difference in 24hMAGE, 24hMBG, 24hSDBG, or LAGE between the preprandial injection group and the postprandial injection group. Similarly, there was no between-treatment difference in the AUC for a blood glucose level below 3.9 mmol/L, in the AUC for a blood glucose level above 10.0 mmol/L, or in the percentages of time that the blood glucose level was below 3.9 mmol/L or above 10.0 mmol/L. Further analysis showed that the pre-meal glucose, peak height, and time to peak after each meal, the relative areas under the CGM curve at 1-4 h after each meal, as well as the incidence of hypoglycemia, were similar for the preprandial and postprandial Prandilin 25 groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with T2DM managed with premixed insulin lispro 25, postprandial injection (within 30 min of meal onset) may be an acceptable alternative to preprandial injection when the regular preprandial insulin dose is omitted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Register identifier: ChiCTR1800015828.

Optimal prandial timing of bolus insulin in diabetes management: a review

The inability to achieve optimal diabetes glucose control in people with diabetes is multifactorial, but one contributor may be inadequate control of postprandial glucose. In patients treated with multiple daily injections of insulin, both the dose and timing of meal-related rapid-acting insulin are key factors in this. There are conflicting opinions and evidence on the optimal time to administer mealtime insulin. We performed a comprehensive literature search to review the published data, focusing on the use of rapid-acting insulin analogues in patients with Type 1 diabetes. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of rapid-acting insulin analogues, together with postprandial glucose excursion data, suggest that administering these 15-20 min before food would provide optimal postprandial glucose control. Data from clinical studies involving people with Type 1 diabetes receiving structured meals and rapid-acting insulin analogues support this, showing a reduction in post-meal glucose levels of ~30% and less hypoglycaemia when meal insulin was taken 15-20 min before a meal compared with immediately before the meal. Importantly, there was also a greater risk of postprandial hypoglycaemia when patients took rapid-acting analogues after eating compared with before eating.

[Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in elderly patients]

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) increases markedly with age. Antidiabetic treatment and the objectives of glycaemic control in elderly patients with DM2 should be individualised according to their biopsychosocial characteristics. In elderly patients for whom the benefits of intensive antidiabetic treatment are limited, the basic objectives should be to improve the quality of life, preserve functionality and avoid adverse effects, especially hypoglycaemia. Treatment of DM2 in the elderly was the subject of a consensus document published in 2012 and endorsed by several Spanish scientific societies. Since then, new therapeutic groups and evidence have emerged that warrant an update to this consensus document. The present document focuses on the therapeutic aspects of DM2 in elderly patients, understood as being older than 75 years or frail.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in elderly patients

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) increases markedly with age. Antidiabetic treatment and the objectives of glycaemic control in elderly patients with DM2 should be individualised according to their biopsychosocial characteristics. In elderly patients for whom the benefits of intensive antidiabetic treatment are limited, the basic objectives should be to improve the quality of life, preserve functionality and avoid adverse effects, especially hypoglycaemia. Treatment of DM2 in the elderly was the subject of a consensus document published in 2012 and endorsed by several Spanish scientific societies. Since then, new therapeutic groups and evidence have emerged that warrant an update to this consensus document. The present document focuses on the therapeutic aspects of DM2 in elderly patients, understood as being older than 75 years or frail.

Switching from Biphasic Human Insulin to Premix Insulin Analogs: A Review of the Evidence Regarding Quality of Life and Adherence to Medication in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes is a growing public health concern. Effective use of therapies for this chronic disease is necessary to improve long-term prognosis, but treatment adherence can be difficult to promote in clinical practice, and insulin, in particular, can impact both positively and negatively on patients' quality of life (QoL). Currently, guidelines advocate for QoL as a treatment goal in its own right, with treatment decisions based on patient concerns regarding injection frequency and adverse events, as well as glycemic control. Successful insulin management ideally requires a regimen to replicate normal endogenous insulin release, and this was a key driver in the development of insulin analogs. These analogs have also been associated with lower hypoglycemia risk, lower levels of postprandial glucose excursions, better adherence, improved QoL, and higher patient satisfaction with treatment. Premixed insulin is prescribed for many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), as it combines both prandial and basal treatment, reducing the number of injections. Evidence suggests that premixed insulin analogs have advantages over conventional premixed human insulin for T2D treatment, but the objective of this review was to assess the evidence that switching from a biphasic human insulin to a biphasic insulin analog regimen improves patient QoL.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Biphasic insulin Aspart 30 vs. NPH plus regular human insulin in type 2 diabetes patients; a cost-effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, costs, and cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with NPH plus regular human insulin (NPH/Reg) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

It was a Single-center, parallel-group, randomized, clinical trial (Trial Registration: NCT01889095). One hundred and seventy four T2DM patients with poorly controlled diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 8 % (63.9 mmol/mol)) were randomly assigned to trial arms (BIAsp 30 and NPH/Reg) and were followed up for 48 weeks. BIAsp 30 was started at an initial dose of 0.2-0.6 IU/Kg in two divided doses and was titrated according to the glycemic status of the patient. Similarly, NPH/Reg insulin was initiated at a dose of 0.2-0.6 IU/Kg with a 2:1 ratio and was subsequently titrated. Level of glycemic control, hypoglycemic events, direct and indirect costs, quality adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio have been assessed.

RESULTS

HbA1c, Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and two-hour post-prandial glucose (PPG) were improved in both groups during the study (P < 0.05 for all analyses). Lower frequencies of minor, major, and nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes were observed with BIAsp 30 (P < 0.05). Additionally, BIAsp 30 was associated with less weight gain and also higher QALYs (P < 0.05). Total medical and non-medical costs were significantly lower with BIAsp 30 as compared with NPH/Reg (930.55 ± 81.43 USD vs. 1101.24 ± 165.49 USD, P = 0.004). Moreover, BIAsp 30 showed lower ICER as a dominant alternative.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being more expensive, BIAsp 30 offers the same glycemic control as to NPH/Reg dose-dependently and also appears to cause fewer hypoglycemic events and to be more cost-effective in Iranian patients with type 2 diabetes.

Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in different age-groups: a1chieve sub-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Effective management of type 2 diabetes requires sustained glycemic control over many years, which can be particularly challenging for elderly people. This sub-analysis of the A1chieve study evaluated the clinical safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in 3 age-groups (≤40, >40-65, and >65 years) of previously insulin-experienced and insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A1chieve was an international, multicenter, prospective, open-label, non-interventional, 24-week study in people with type 2 diabetes who had been receiving anti-diabetes medication before starting, or switching to, therapy with biphasic insulin aspart 30, insulin detemir or insulin aspart (alone or in combination) in routine clinical practice. This sub-analysis evaluated clinical safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (±oral glucose-lowering drugs) in different age-groups.

RESULTS

Data on 40,122 participants were included. In all age-groups, the proportion of participants experiencing any hypoglycemia, major hypoglycemia or nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly reduced from baseline, except for the following in insulin-naïve patients: a significant increase in any hypoglycemia in patients aged >65 years; no change in any hypoglycemia, major hypoglycemia, and nocturnal hypoglycemia in patients aged >40-65, ≤40, and >65 years, respectively. Significant improvements at 24 weeks vs. baseline were observed in insulin-experienced and insulin-naïve participants for: glycated hemoglobin (change from baseline ranged from -1.8% to -2.4%); fasting plasma glucose (from -3.0 to -4.3 mmol/l); post-breakfast post-prandial plasma glucose (from -4.1 to -6.5 mmol/l); and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Sixteen serious adverse drug reactions were reported.

CONCLUSION

After 24-week treatment with biphasic insulin aspart 30, all age-groups of insulin-experienced and insulin-naïve patients experienced significantly improved glycemic control and HRQoL; incidence of hypoglycemia was generally reduced. The tolerability and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 may benefit all age-groups.

Predictors of achieving HbA(1c) <7% and no hypoglycaemia 6 months after initiation of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes in the IMPROVE study

BACKGROUND

Early initiation of insulin therapy has widely been associated with numerous benefits, including improved glycaemic control and reduced long-term risk of developing microvascular diseases. Biphasic insulins offer a convenient option for insulin initiation, addressing both basal and postprandial insulin requirements with one injection, making them relatively simple for patients to dose. Development of biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) has further offered improved postprandial glycaemic control and lower rates of nocturnal and major hypoglycaemia than biphasic human insulin.

METHODS

The safety and efficacy of the 30/70 rapid-acting/intermediate-acting formulation of BIAsp (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes was examined in the IMPROVE study, a 26-week, international, observational trial. In this subanalysis, baseline clinical factors that predicted treatment success, defined as HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) without experiencing hypoglycaemia after 26 weeks on BIAsp 30 therapy, were assessed.

RESULTS

The composite endpoint was defined for 44,010 (77%) patients from the total cohort of 57,478, and 28,696 of these were included in the statistical examination. The results of the analysis suggest that those with lower baseline HbA1c of ≤8% (≤64 mmol/mol), shorter duration of diabetes at baseline (<5 years) and no incidence of major hypoglycaemia at 13 weeks, or minor hypoglycaemia at 4 weeks, before the beginning of the trial were more likely to achieve treatment success.

CONCLUSION

Lower baseline HbA1c, shorter duration of diabetes and no incidence of hypoglycaemia up to 13 weeks prior to initiation are predictors of achieving HbA1c <7% without hypoglycaemia with a BIAsp 30 regimen. These results suggest that it is easier to reach target without hypoglycaemia with BIAsp 30 when prescribed earlier. As this was an observational study, lack of control groups or randomisation, as well as varying clinical practices in study countries, potentially introduced bias.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00659282.

Ten years of experience with biphasic insulin aspart 30: from drug development to the latest clinical findings

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) includes 30% soluble rapid-acting insulin aspart (IAsp) along with an intermediate-acting 70% protaminated IAsp that provides coverage of prandial and basal insulin in a single injection. As BIAsp 30 has been available internationally for 10 years, this review provides a comprehensive overview of the discovery of BIAsp 30, its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile, safety and efficacy outcomes from the clinical trial programme, 'real-life' clinical insights provided by observational study data, and cost effectiveness and quality-of-life information. These studies have demonstrated that BIAsp 30 once or twice daily is an appropriate option for insulin initiation. BIAsp 30 also provides a switch option in patients on biphasic human insulin (BHI). Switching from BHI to BIAsp 30 is associated with improved postprandial glucose (PPG) and reduced nocturnal and major hypoglycaemia, although daytime hypoglycaemia is higher with BIAsp 30. Intensification of BIAsp 30 can be achieved by increasing the number of daily doses up to three times daily with meals. Therefore, BIAsp 30 provides an intensification option for individuals who are not achieving control with basal insulin and would prefer the simplicity of a single biphasic insulin instead of progressing to a basal-bolus approach. BIAsp 30 has a simple dose-titration algorithm, which enables patients to effectively self-titrate their insulin dose. Cost-effectiveness analyses have demonstrated that BIAsp 30 is cost effective or dominant compared with BHI 30 or insulin glargine in a number of healthcare settings. In conclusion, BIAsp 30 offers a simple and flexible option for insulin initiation and intensification that provides coverage of both fasting and prandial glucose.

Diabetes medications and body weight

Tight diabetes control sometimes comes with a price: weight gain and hypoglycemia. Two of the three major recent trials that looked at the relationship between intensive diabetes control and cardiovascular events reported significant weight gain among the intensively treated groups. There is a growing concern that the weight gain induced by most diabetes medications diminishes their clinical benefits. On the other hand, there is a claim that treating diabetes with medications that are weight neutral or induces weight loss or less weight gain while minimizing those that increase body weight may emerge as the future direction for treating overweight and obese patients with diabetes. This review clarifies the weight effect of each of the currently available diabetes medications, and explains the mechanism of action behind this effect. Despite the great variability among reviewed clinical trials, the currently available evidence is quite sufficient to demonstrate the change in body weight in association with most of the currently available medications. This review also provides some guidelines on using diabetes medications during weight management programs.

Initiating insulin therapy in elderly patients with Type 2 diabetes: efficacy and safety of lispro mix 25 vs. basal insulin combined with oral glucose-lowering agents

AIMS

To compare starter insulins in the elderly subgroup of the DURABLE trial 24-week initiation phase.

METHODS

In a post-hoc analysis of the > or = 65 years subgroup enrolled in the DURABLE trial, we compared the safety and efficacy of lispro mix 25 (LM25: lispro 25%/insulin lispro protamine suspension 75%), n = 258, vs. glargine, n = 222, added to oral glucose-lowering agents.

RESULTS

Baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) was similar (LM25 8.7 +/- 1.2, glargine 8.8 +/- 1.1%, P = 0.612). At 24-weeks, LM25 patients had lower HbA(1c) (7.0 +/- 0.9 vs. 7.3 +/- 0.9%, P < 0.001), greater HbA(1c) reduction (-1.7 +/- 1.2 vs. -1.5 +/- 1.1%, P < 0.001), and more patients reaching HbA(1c) < 7.0% (55.6 vs. 41.0%, P = 0.005). LM25 patients were on more insulin (0.40 +/- 0.19 vs. 0.33 +/- 0.19 u/kg/day, P < 0.001) and experienced more weight gain (3.6 +/- 3.6 vs. 1.8 +/- 3.2 kg, P < 0.001). Additionally, LM25-treated patients reported a higher mean overall hypoglycaemia rate than glargine patients (40.8 +/- 47.6 vs. 31.1 +/- 48.5 episodes/patient/year, P = 0.037), while nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were similar. Over 24 weeks, incidence of severe hypoglycaemia was higher for LM25 (4.3% vs. 0.9%, P = 0.018); however, by 24-week endpoint incidence was similar (0.8% vs. 0.0%P = 0.125).

CONCLUSIONS

In this elderly subgroup post-hoc analysis, LM25 demonstrated a lower endpoint HbA(1c) and a higher % of patients reaching HbA(1c) target of < 7.0%, but with more weight gain and higher rates of hypoglycaemia compared to glargine.

Use of short-acting insulin aspart in managing older people with diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus affects 5.9% of the world adult population, with older people and some ethnic groups disproportionately affected. Treatment of older people with diabetes differs in many ways from that in younger adults since the majority have type 2 disease and are at particular risk of macrovascular rather than disabling microvascular disease. Insulin therapy, the most effective of diabetes medications, can reduce any level of elevated HBA1c if used in adequate doses. However, some clinicians are often reluctant to initiate insulin therapy in older people with diabetes mainly out of their concerns about adverse reactions to insulin, particularly hypoglycemia. There is evidence suggesting that insulin aspart appears to act similarly to regular human insulin in older people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Insulin aspart can be used in the treatment of older people with diabetes, but this should be individualized. There is evidence that it improves postprandial glucose control, improves long-term metabolic control, reduces risk of major nocturnal hypoglycemia and increases patient satisfaction compared with soluble insulin.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 in the treatment of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a subgroup analysis of the PRESENT Korea NovoMixstudy

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and treatment satisfaction with biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp30) in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

The Physicians' Routine Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of NovoMix 0 Therapy Korea study was a 6-month, prospective, observational study. No study-specific interventions were involved except the collection of data. All patients with type 2 diabetes not adequately controlled on their previous therapy, and who were prescribed BIAsp30 as monotherapy, or in combination with oral hypoglycaemic agents, were eligible for the study. This subgroup analysis was based on the outcomes in patients > or years (n = 1720).

RESULTS

BIAsp30 treatment was associated with significant mean reductions in haemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose and post-prandial plasma glucose levels of 1.2 +/- 1.6%, 2.3 +/- 3.5 mmol/l and 4.8 +/- 5.3 mmol/l at 6 months (p < 0.0001 for all), from baseline levels of 9.1 +/- 1.7%, 10.7 +/- 3.4 mmol/l and 16.7 +/- 5.0 mmol/l, respectively. The rate of hypoglycaemia declined from 3.02 to 1.31 episodes per patient year, between baseline and study end. The proportion of patients reporting adverse drug reactions was low (0.3 and 0.1% at 3 and 6 months, respectively). Body weight gain was mild at <0.1 kg at 3 months, and 0.3 kg at 6 months. As compared to the previous treatment, >80% of patients were rated as being either 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with BIAsp30 treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In this subanalysis of Korean elderly patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on their previous therapies, treatment with BIAsp30 offered improvements in glycaemic control and was well tolerated. Body weight gain was minimal with BIAsp30, and treatment satisfaction among these patients appeared to be high.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30: better glycemic control than with premixed human insulin 30 in obese patients with Type 2 diabetes

AIM

This 3-month study compared the effect on overall glycemic control of adding biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp30) and premixed human insulin 30/70 (BHI30) to metformin (met) in insulin-naïve, obese patients (30 males/20 females) with Type 2 diabetes (T2DM). MATERIAL/SUBJECTS: At baseline, patients had a mean age of 58.7 yr, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 9.5%, and body mass index 34+/-2 kg/m2. Patients received either twice-daily BIAsp30 (no.=20) or twice-daily BHI30 (no.=30), and continued to receive maximal doses (2000 mg) of met for the duration of the study, but sulphonylurea oral antidiabetic drugs were discontinued. Primary efficacy endpoint was the change in HbA1c in both groups at study end. Safety endpoints included hypoglycemic episodes and weight gain.

RESULTS

Both groups reduced HbA1c by end of trial: BIAsp30 + met by 2.5% [2.16-2.86%; 95% confidence interval (CI)]; BHI30 + met by 1.18% (0.98- 1.39%; 95% CI), giving a significantly better HbA1c reduction with BIAsp30 + met (1.33%; p<0.05). Post-prandial plasma glucose decreased in both groups, by 6.38 mmol/l in patients treated with BIAsp30 + met, and by 4.34 mmol/l in those treated with BHI30 + met (p<0.05). Fasting plasma glucose also decreased in both groups, with a slightly larger decrease seen in BIAsp30 patients than in BHI30 patients (7.36 mmol/l at end of study vs 7.82 mmol/l; p=ns). Subjects treated with BIAsp30 gained less weight than those receiving BHI30 (0.3+/-0.1 kg vs 1.2+/-0.4 kg). There was no significant difference in the frequency or number of hypoglycemic episodes between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding BIAsp30 to met in obese patients with T2DM results in better glycemic control and less weight gain than adding BHI30.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 treatment improves glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes in a clinical practice setting: experience from the PRESENT study

AIM

The Physicians' Routine Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of NovoMix 30 Therapy (PRESENT) study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a 6-month, prospective, multinational, multiethnic observational study involving 21 977 patients from 13 countries (India, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates). The patients were transferred to BIAsp 30 with or without oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) from prior treatment with OAD (n = 8583), insulin (n = 5942), OAD + insulin (n = 4673) or diet (i.e. treatment naive) (n = 1707). One thousand and seventy-two patients had incomplete or no information on previous treatment.

RESULTS

At 3 and 6 months, significant reductions from baseline were observed in the mean haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) (-1.33 and -1.81%), fasting plasma glucose (-3.02 and -3.74 mmol/l) and postprandial plasma glucose (-4.76 and -5.82 mmol/l) (p < 0.001). A significantly greater proportion of patients achieved target HbA(1c) of less than 7% at 3 months (15.3%) and 6 months (27.7%) compared with baseline (4.8%) (p < 0.001). Overall, the mean HbA(1c) at 6 months was lowered in patients regardless of prior treatment: -2.15% (OAD), -1.45% (insulin), -1.47% (OAD + insulin) and -2.35% (treatment naive). In the overall cohort, the rate of total hypoglycaemia was reduced from 5.4 events per patient-year at baseline to 2.2 events per patient-year at study end (p < 0.001). Among prior treatment subgroups, the rates of total hypoglycaemia were reduced from 2.5 to 2.1 events per patient-year in the OAD group, from 9.6 to 2.2 events per patient-year in the insulin group and from 7.6 to 2.5 events per patient-year in the OAD + insulin group but were increased from 1.0 to 1.8 events per patient-year in the treatment-naive group (p < 0.001). There were 444 adverse drug reactions (ADRs), including 13 serious ADRs: lipodystrophy (three events), symptoms of generalized hypersensitivity (two events), acute painful neuropathy (one event), worsening of diabetic retinopathy (one event), oedema (one event) and unspecified ADRs (five events).

CONCLUSION

The use of BIAsp 30 monotherapy or in combination with OADs in clinical practice was effective and safe in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus.

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.

Why and how to use insulin therapy earlier in the management of type 2 diabetes

Most patients with type 2 diabetes are inadequately controlled on their current therapy. Suboptimal glycemic control can have devastating consequences, such as retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy, and cardiovascular disease that may ultimately lead to mortality. Most patients eventually need insulin therapy, and initiating insulin earlier in the course of type 2 diabetes may lead to optimal glycemic control and prevent or delay diabetes-related complications. Although insulin therapy is the most effective method of managing hyperglycemia, it is often delayed owing to concerns about the complexity and inconvenience of treatment regimens; fear of injections, hypoglycemia or weight gain; and the time required to learn how to effectively manage insulin therapy. The development of insulin analogs, biphasic insulin analogs, and more convenient insulin delivery systems may make insulin therapy more manageable and help more patients achieve their treatment goals.

Targeting postprandial hyperglycemia

In healthy individuals, blood glucose levels in the fasting state are maintained by the continuous basal-level insulin secretion. After a meal, the rise in postprandial glucose (PPG) is controlled by the rapid pancreatic release of insulin, stimulated by both glucose and the intestinal production of the incretins glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide 1. In diabetic individuals, postprandial insulin secretion is insufficient to suppress an excessive rise in PPG. There is increasing evidence that elevated PPG exerts a more deleterious effect on the vascular system than elevation of fasting plasma glucose. In particular, individuals with normal fasting plasma glucose but impaired glucose tolerance have significantly increased risk of cardiovascular events. With the recognition of the importance of PPG and the availability of new pharmacologic options, management of diabetes will shift to greater attention to PPG levels. The prototype for such an approach is in the treatment of gestational diabetes and diabetic pregnancies where PPG is the primary target of efforts at glycemic control. These efforts have been extremely successful in improving the outlook for diabetic pregnant women. There are many approaches to reduction of PPG; dietary management and promotion of exercise are very effective. Sulfonylureas, meglitinides, metformin, thiazolidinediones, and disaccharidase inhibitors all counteract PPG elevation. The development of glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists such as exendin and dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors such as vildagliptin offers a new approach to suppression of PPG elevation. New semisynthetic insulin analogues permit a more aggressive response to postprandial glucose elevation, with lower risk of hypoglycemia, than with regular insulin. Inhaled insulin also has a rapid onset of action and offers benefits in PPG control. It is proposed that an aggressive treatment approach focusing on PPG, similar to the current standards for diabetic pregancies, be directed at individuals with diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance.

Premixed Insulin Analogues for the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus

Premixed insulin analogues, consisting of rapid-acting and intermediate-acting insulin analogues, were developed to more closely mimic physiological endogenous insulin secretion and meet the needs of patients who require both basal and prandial insulin but wish to limit the number of daily injections. There is considerable variability in onset and duration of action, as well as peak insulin levels, obtained with human insulin formulations such as premixed human insulin 70/30. To overcome these limitations, premixed insulin analogues were developed. Peak insulin levels are twice as high and reached in half the time with the rapid-acting insulin component of a premixed insulin analogue. In the US, two premixed insulin analogue formulations are currently available: insulin lispro 75/25 (75% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 25% insulin lispro) and biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 70/30; 70% insulin aspart protamine suspension and 30% insulin aspart). They are generally administered twice daily, just before breakfast and dinner. Data from various randomised trials show that both insulin lispro 75/25 and BIAsp 70/30 provide more effective postprandial control of blood glucose than premixed human insulin 70/30 or human insulin isophane suspension (NPH insulin). Longer-term glycaemic control, evaluated as changes in glycosylated haemoglobin, is comparable for premixed insulin analogues and premixed human insulin 70/30 in most studies. Three comparative, randomised trials have shown that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using premixed insulin analogues twice daily are more likely to reach glycaemic goals than those using only insulin glargine once daily. Some patients can also reach glycaemic goals with once-daily administration of a premixed insulin analogue. Although the incidence of hypoglycaemia is low, direct comparison across trials of premixed insulin analogues is difficult because of inconsistencies in reporting. Within trials, the incidence of both major (rare) and minor hypoglycaemic episodes during treatment with premixed insulin analogues is low and comparable with rates found with human insulin 70/30. Premixed insulin analogues can be safely used, and are effective and convenient for achieving overall glycaemic control in patients with diabetes. In addition, given the convenience of mealtime dose administration, compliance with insulin therapy may increase with premixed insulin analogues.

Use of antidiabetic drugs in elderly patients

The objective of this review of the literature is to analyze the results of studies including diabetic patients aged 70 years and older. Although the risk of treatment is greater in this population because of co-morbid conditions and altered renal function, information on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antidiabetic drugs remains limited. Long-term experience with sulfonylureas is sufficient to establish certain general rules of use; but for biguanides and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, problems of tolerance limit use; further data are needed on glinides and glitazones. Use of insulin or insulin analogs is frequent and prescription should be adapted to achieve an acceptable balance between the risk of hypoglycaemia and therapeutic goals.

Hypoglycaemia in elderly diabetic patients

Occurring in the elderly diabetic patients, hypoglycaemia may have serious consequences in terms of morbidity and mortality, but this severe prognosis is nowadays less frequently observed. The clinical manifestations may be somewhat different from those observed in young subjects: symptoms are less frequent, generally neurologic manifestations. The rate of severe hypoglycaemia remains low (about 1.4 episode per 100 patient-years), but increases rapidly in the very elderly and also with insulin therapy, co-morbid conditions especially renal insufficiency, and associated treatments, as well as with unawareness of symptoms. Prevention requires reinforced education for the patient and caregiver, particularly concerning diet, knowledge of signs of hypoglycaemia, and appropriate treatment. Self-monitoring of blood glucose, by the patient when possible, or by a familial or medical caregiver, should be encouraged in order to detect asymptomatic episodes of hypoglycaemia and better adapt antidiabetic treatment.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30: Literature review of adverse events associated with treatment

BACKGROUND

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30 [30% soluble, rapid-acting insulin aspart and 70% protamine-bound insulin aspart], NovoLog Mix 70/30, Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark), a premixed insulin analogue, addresses both the prandial and basal aspects of glucose regulation when used once or twice daily in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. It provides overall glycemic control similar to biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30, 30% human insulin and 70% neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH] insulin) in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to evaluate the safety profile associated with BIAsp 30 in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes versus that of comparator insulin products, including BHI 30 and biphasic insulin lispro 25 (Mix 25 [25% biphasic insulin lispro and 75% protaminated lispro], Humalog Mix 75/25, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana), together with the basal insulins, including NPH insulin and insulin glargine (Lantus, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Paris, France).

METHODS

Data from human clinical studies published in peer-reviewed journals or as conference proceedings that reported safety results in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who were treated with BIAsp 30 versus comparator insulins were evaluated. To locate the appropriate articles, a MEDLINE search was performed for all years up to February 2005, using the following key words: biphasic insulin aspart, BIAsp 30, biphasic insulin, and premixed insulin. Additional papers were identified by examining the reference lists in these papers as well as our own personal reference files. Results from 17 publications were analyzed. The analysis included >2600 patients with type 2 diabetes (mean [range] age, 58 [36-70] years; duration of diabetes, 11.8 [9-17] years; and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c], 8.6% [7.5%-9.9%]). It also included 104 patients with type 1 diabetes (mean [range] age, 44.5 [30-58] years; duration of diabetes, 16 [2-30] years; and baseline HbA1c, 8.4% [7.2%-10.4%]).

RESULTS

Hypoglycemia occurred in 43% to 57% of patients receiving BIAsp 30 versus 32% to 57% of patients receiving BHI 30 and 28% of patients receiving NPH insulin. Major hypoglycemic events were uncommon in most studies; but when they did occur, they were reported less frequently in patients receiving BIAsp 30 (2%-8% of patients) than in patients receiving BHI 30 (2%-14% of patients). Furthermore, patients treated with BIAsp 30 were at lower risk of experiencing minor nocturnal hypoglycemia than patients receiving comparator insulin; in 1 study, the relative risk (BIAsp 30 vs BHI 30) was calculated to be 0.63 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.09). The adverse event (AE) profile, weight gain during treatment, and formation of cross-reactive antibodies were not different between BIAsp 30 and BHI 30. AEs were reported in 36% to 90% of patients receiving BIAsp 30, 38% to 88% of patients receiving BHI 30, and 51% of patients receiving Mix 25. The use of oral antidiabetic drugs in combination with BIAsp 30 did not alter the safety profile of BIAsp 30.

CONCLUSION

The flexible and convenient treatment regimen offered by BIAsp 30, together with its ability to improve postprandial glucose control, is associated with a safety profile comparable to that of BHI 30 and NPH insulin, with a lower risk of major and nocturnal hypoglycemic events.

Efficacy of biphasic insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that 39% of people with diabetes worldwide who use insulin are prescribed premixes, largely because of the practical advantages of addressing both prandial and basal insulin needs with a single product. Rapid-acting premixed insulin analogues such as biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30 [30% soluble insulin aspart and 70% protamine-crystallized insulin aspart], NovoLog Mix 70/30, Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) have been developed recently to overcome the pharmacokinetic limitations of regular human insulin used in the most commonly prescribed premix, biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30, 30% human insulin and 70% neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH] insulin). It would be expected that these pharmacokinetic improvements would enhance clinical performance. However, the efficacy of BIAsp 30 compared with other common treatment regimens has not yet been systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to review current data on the efficacy of BIAsp 30 in comparison with other treatment strategies in type 2 diabetes, including oral antidiabetic drugs (eg, metformin, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, thiazolidinediones), conventional insulins (eg, BHI 30, NPH insulin), and other analogue insulins (eg, insulin glargine, biphasic insulin lispro 25 [Mix 25, 25% biphasic insulin lispro and 75% protaminated lispro]). The focus will be on comparative efficacy (ie, postprandial glucose [PPG], blood glucose profiles, and glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c]).

METHODS

We identified human clinical studies published through February 2005 involving BIAsp 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes by performing a MEDLINE search (key words: biphasic insulin aspart, BIAsp 30, biphasic insulin, and premixed insulin). Additional papers were identified by assessing (1) the reference lists in these studies, (2) published conference proceedings, and (3) our reference files. A total of 21 relevant papers were retrieved: 13 were published as full manuscripts, 1 as a short communication, 5 as abstracts, and 1 as a poster. One paper is currently in press. Novo Nordisk supplied data from an unpublished trial (Study 1536, 2004), as well as data from a trial published in abstract form only (Study 1269, 2002).

RESULTS

A regimen of BIAsp 30 BID, at breakfast and dinner, provides improved PPG control compared with BHI 30 BID, NPH BID, and insulin glargine OD for patients with type 2 diabetes. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) with BIAsp 30 was not significantly different from FPG with insulin glargine; however, FPG was higher with BIAsp 30 than with NPH. BIAsp 30 prevented excessive PPG excursions whether it was injected at the beginning of a meal or < or =15 minutes after starting a meal. BIAsp 30 was not associated with an increased risk of major hypoglycemia compared with other insulin regimens used in the studies reviewed. The incidence of minor hypoglycemic events with BIAsp 30 varied across studies but occurred with frequency or risk similar to BHI 30, Mix 25, or NPH. Treat-to-target trials reported that BIAsp 30 can be used to intensify insulin therapy and to reach the glycemic target recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ie, HbA1c <7.0%). One study reported a greater lowering of postprandial triglyceride levels with BIAsp 30 than with BHI 30.

CONCLUSIONS

BIAsp 30 BID can reduce PPG levels to a greater extent than other common treatment regimens, including basal insulin OD. Using BIAsp 30, even once daily, may allow some patients to reach glycemic targets with a degree of convenience and tolerability that may not be achievable with other treatment regimens.