Efficacy and safety of three-times-daily versus twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with basal insulin combined with oral antidiabetic drugs

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes

Objective

To evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) vs. biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately managed on basal insulin in China.

Methods

The CORE (the Center for Outcomes Research) Diabetes Model, which has been published and verified, was used to simulate disease progression and calculate the total direct medical costs, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 30 years, from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The patient demographic information and clinical data needed for the model were gathered from a phase III treat-to-target clinical trial (NCT02762578) and other Chinese cohort studies. Medical costs on treating diabetes were calculated based on clinical trial and local sources. The diabetes management and complications costs were derived from published literature. A discounting rate of 5% was applied to both health and cost outcomes. And one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the reliability of the results.

Results

Compared with BIAsp 30, treatment with IDegAsp was associated with an incremental benefit of 0.001 LYs (12.439 vs. 12.438) and 0.280 QALYs (9.522 vs. 9.242) over a 30-year time horizon, and increased CNY (Chinese Yuan) 3,888 (390,152 vs. 386,264) for total costs. IDegAsp was cost-effective vs. BIAsp 30 therapy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CNY 13,886 per QALY gained. Results were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Compared with BIAsp 30, IDegAsp was a cost-effective treatment option for people with T2DM with inadequate glycemic management on basal insulin in China.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

Pharmacological Management of Glucose Dysregulation in Patients Treated with Second-Generation Antipsychotics

Fasting hyperglycemia, impaired glucose tolerance, prediabetes, and diabetes are frequently present in patients treated with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAPs) for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other severe mental illnesses. These drugs are known to produce weight gain, which may lead to insulin resistance, glucose intolerance, and metabolic syndrome, which constitute important risk factors for the emergence of diabetes. The aim of this review was to formulate therapeutic guidelines for the management of diabetes in patients treated with SGAPs, based on the association between SGAP-induced weight gain and glucose dysregulation. A  systematic search in PubMed from inception to March 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of diabetes or prediabetes in patients treated with SGAPs was performed. PubMed was also searched for the most recent clinical practice guidelines of interventions for co-morbid conditions associated with diabetes mellitus (DM) (arterial hypertension and dyslipidemia), lifestyle interventions and switching from high metabolic liability SGAPs to safer SGAPs. The search identified 14 RCTs in patients treated with SGAPs. Drug therapy using metformin as first-line therapy and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or perhaps sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as add-on therapy, might be preferred in these patients as well, as they favorably influence glucose metabolism and body mass index, and provide cardio-renal benefits in general to the DM population, although for the SGLT-2 inhibitors there are no RCTs in this specific patient category so far. Metformin is also useful for treatment of prediabetes. Arterial hypertension should be treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers, and statins should be used for correction of dyslipidemia. The outcome of lifestyle-changing interventions has been disappointing. Switching from clozapine, olanzapine, or quetiapine to lower cardiometabolic-risk SGAPs, like aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, lurasidone, or ziprasidone, has been recommended.

Comparison of Blood Glucose Variability Between Exenatide and Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Chinese Participants with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with Metformin Monotherapy: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

To compare blood glucose variability (GV) in Chinese participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) whose blood glucose levels are inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy after twice-daily exenatide or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp30).

METHODS

In this 16-week multicenter, randomized clinical trial, 104 participants were randomized 1:1 to receive exenatide (exenatide group) or BIAsp30 (BIAsp30 group) twice daily. All participants continued metformin treatment. The primary outcome was the change in GV as measured by a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) from baseline to 16 weeks.

RESULTS

At 16 weeks, both the Exenatide and BIAsp30 groups effectively decreased mean glucose (MG), but neither group changed the mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (MAGE), largest amplitude of glycemic excursion (LAGE), mean of daily difference (MODD), or standard deviation of blood glucose (SDBG). The decrease in 2-h post-breakfast glucose excursions was greater in the Exenatide group compared to the BIAsp30 group, with a least square (LS) mean difference [95% CI] of (1.58 [0.53, 2.63]). Exenatide also significantly reduced 2-h post-lunch glucose excursion compared to BIAsp30 (LS mean difference [95% CI], 1.19 [0.18, 2.20]). The Exenatide group had significantly reduced body weight and body mass index (BMI), while the BIAsp30 group had increased weight and had no change in BMI. Both treatments were well tolerated with no serious hypoglycemic events and with fewer identified hypoglycemic events in the Exenatide group than in the BIAsp30 group (5.77% vs. 17.31%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Although there was no difference in change of GV between Exenatide and BIAsp30, exenatide provided more improvement in postprandial glucose excursion and weight control, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia in Chinese patients with T2DM whose blood glucose was inadequately controlled with metformin. These findings may provide new options for patients who choose further hypoglycemic treatment, especially in patients with obesity who have large postprandial plasma glucose excursions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov indentifier: NCT02449603.