Efficacy of insulin lispro in combination with NPH human insulin twice per day in patients with insulin-dependent or non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Multicenter Insulin Lispro Study Group

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Guidelines: Management of Diabetes and High Risk of Hypoglycemia

CONTEXT

Interventions targeting hypoglycemia in people with diabetes are important for improving quality of life and reducing morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of individuals with diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia.

METHODS

We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 149 studies reporting on 43 344 patients. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and reduced the proportion of patients with hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] levels <54 mg/dL). There were no data on use of real-time CGM with algorithm-driven insulin pumps vs multiple daily injections with BG testing in people with T1D. CGM in outpatients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin and/or sulfonylureas reduced time spent with BG levels under 70 mg/dL. Initiation of CGM in hospitalized patients at high risk for hypoglycemia reduced episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 54 mg/dL and time spent under 54 mg/dL. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and lower than 54 mg/dL detected by CGM was significantly higher than point-of-care BG testing. We found no data evaluating continuation of personal CGM in the hospital. Use of an inpatient computerized glycemic management program utilizing electronic health record data was associated with fewer patients with and episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and fewer patients with severe hypoglycemia compared with standard care. Long-acting basal insulin analogs were associated with less hypoglycemia. Rapid-acting insulin analogs were associated with reduced severe hypoglycemia, though there were more patients with mild to moderate hypoglycemia. Structured diabetes education programs reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia and time below 54 mg/dL in outpatients taking insulin. Glucagon formulations not requiring reconstitution were associated with longer times to recovery from hypoglycemia, although the proportion of patients who recovered completely from hypoglycemia was not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review summarized the best available evidence about several interventions addressing hypoglycemia in people with diabetes. This evidence base will facilitate development of clinical practice guidelines by the Endocrine Society.

One-hundred year evolution of prandial insulin preparations: From animal pancreas extracts to rapid-acting analogs

The first insulin preparation injected in humans in 1922 was short-acting, extracted from animal pancreas, contaminated by impurities. Ever since the insulin extracted from animal pancreas has been continuously purified, until an unlimited synthesis of regular human insulin (RHI) became possible in the '80s using the recombinant-DNA (rDNA) technique. The rDNA technique then led to the designer insulins (analogs) in the early '90s. Rapid-acting insulin analogs were developed to accelerate the slow subcutaneous (sc) absorption of RHI, thus lowering the 2-h post-prandial plasma glucose (PP-PG) and risk for late hypoglycemia as comparing with RHI. The first rapid-acting analog was lispro (in 1996), soon followed by aspart and glulisine. Rapid-acting analogs are more convenient than RHI: they improve early PP-PG, and 24-h PG and A1C as long as basal insulin is also optimized; they lower the risk of late PP hypoglycemia and they allow a shorter time-interval between injection and meal. Today rapid-acting analogs are the gold standard prandial insulins. Recently, even faster analogs have become available (faster aspart, ultra-rapid lispro) or are being studied (Biochaperone lispro), making additional gains in lowering PP-PG. Rapid-acting analogs are recommended in all those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes who need prandial insulin replacement.

Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogues Versus Regular Human Insulin: A Meta-Analysis of Effects on Glycemic Control in Patients with Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the impact of rapid-acting insulin analogues (RAIAs) and regular human insulin (RHI) on glycemic control, including long- and short-term glycemic variability as measured by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and pre- and postprandial glucose (PPG).

METHODS

PubMed was searched for studies published between 1999 and 29 June 2016. Randomised controlled trials of patients with diabetes that assessed the effects of RAIAs or RHI on glycemic control, focusing on preprandial glucose, PPG and HbA1c, were included. Only studies that reported both means and standard deviations for those outcomes were analysed; from these data, weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were generated to yield overall point estimates. The primary outcomes of the meta-analysis were the mean differences between RAIAs and RHI at the end of the study in PPG, preprandial glucose, and HbA1c.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies (n = 7452) were included. The difference in PPG between RAIA- and RHI-treated patients was significant-in favour of RAIAs-in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) [- 22.2 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 27.4, - 17.0 mg/dL; P < 0.0001] but not in those with type 2 diabetes (T2D). For preprandial glucose, there was a non-significant trend favouring RHIs in T1D; no data were available for patients with T2D. In patients with T1D, the between-group difference in end-of-treatment (EOT) HbA1c favoured RAIAs (- 0.13%; 95% CI - 0.18, - 0.08%; P < 0.0001), but was not significant in patients with T2D. The main study limitations were the small number and heterogeneity of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that RAIAs are more effective at reducing PPG and improving HbA1c than RHIs in T1D. More data are required to assess the effect of these agents on glucose control in T2D. In patients with diabetes, the risk of complications is increased by poor control of blood glucose levels and high blood glucose variability. Complications may include cardiovascular disease, eye problems and amputation. Control and variability of blood glucose levels can be evaluated using a range of measures, including (i) glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level at the end of the treatment period; (ii) change in HbA1c level during the treatment period; (iii) fasting plasma glucose level; (iv) postprandial glucose (PPG) level; (v) change in blood glucose level after a meal. PPG levels following a meal are an important measure of overall metabolic control in diabetes, and reduction of glycemic variability (GV) can be achieved via reductions in PPG. Both rapid-acting insulin analogues (RAIAs; aspart, glulisine and lispro) and regular human insulin (RHI) are widely used in the management of diabetes. Using data from 27 randomised controlled trials involving more than 7000 patients, we investigated the impact of RAIAs and RHI on measures of glycemic control and variability in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Our results show that, in patients with T1D, RAIAs are more effective than RHI at reducing PPG excursions and HbA1c. This indicates that glycemic control is better with RAIAs than with RHI. More data are required to assess the effects of RAIAs and RHI on glycemic control and variability in patients with T2D.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

In patients with diabetes, the risk of complications is increased by poor control of blood glucose levels and high blood glucose variability. Complications may include cardiovascular disease, eye problems and amputation. Control and variability of blood glucose levels can be evaluated using a range of measures, including (i) glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level at the end of the treatment period; (ii) change in HbA1c level during the treatment period; (iii) fasting plasma glucose level; (iv) postprandial glucose (PPG) level; (v) change in blood glucose level after a meal. PPG levels following a meal are an important measure of overall metabolic control in diabetes, and reduction of glycemic variability (GV) can be achieved via reductions in PPG. Both rapid-acting insulin analogues (RAIAs; aspart, glulisine and lispro) and regular human insulin (RHI) are widely used in the management of diabetes. Using data from 27 randomised controlled trials involving more than 7000 patients, we investigated the impact of RAIAs and RHI on measures of glycemic control and variability in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Our results show that, in patients with T1D, RAIAs are more effective than RHI at reducing PPG excursions and HbA1c. This indicates that glycemic control is better with RAIAs than with RHI. More data are required to assess the effects of RAIAs and RHI on glycemic control and variability in patients with T2D.

Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin for adult, non-pregnant persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The use of short-acting insulin analogues (insulin lispro, insulin aspart, insulin glulisine) for adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues compared to regular human insulin in adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the WHO ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 31 October 2018. We placed no restrictions on the language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 24 weeks that compared short-acting insulin analogues to regular human insulin in the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes, who were not pregnant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We assessed dichotomous outcomes by risk ratios (RR), and Peto odds ratios (POR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed continuous outcomes by mean differences (MD) with 95% CI. We assessed trials for certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, randomising 2751 participants; 1388 participants were randomised to receive insulin analogues and 1363 participants to receive regular human insulin. The duration of the intervention ranged from 24 to 104 weeks, with a mean of about 41 weeks. The trial populations showed diversity in disease duration, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. None of the trials were blinded, so the risk of performance bias and detection bias, especially for subjective outcomes, such as hypoglycaemia, was high in nine of 10 trials from which we extracted data. Several trials showed inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and results.None of the included trials defined all-cause mortality as a primary outcome. Six trials provided Information on the number of participants who died during the trial, with five deaths out of 1272 participants (0.4%) in the insulin analogue groups and three deaths out of 1247 participants (0.2%) in the regular human insulin groups (Peto OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.64; P = 0.48; moderate-certainty evidence). Six trials, with 2509 participants, assessed severe hypoglycaemia differently, therefore, we could not summarise the results with a meta-analysis. Overall, the incidence of severe hypoglycaemic events was low, and none of the trials showed a clear difference between the two intervention arms (low-certainty evidence).The MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) change was -0.03% (95% CI -0.16 to 0.09; P = 0.60; 9 trials, 2608 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction ranged between -0.31% and 0.25%. The MD in the overall number of non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes per participant per month was 0.08 events (95% CI 0.00 to 0.16; P = 0.05; 7 trials, 2667 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between -0.03 and 0.19 events per participant per month. The results provided for nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes were of questionable validity. Overall, there was no clear difference between the two short-acting insulin analogues and regular human insulin. Two trials assessed health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction, but we considered the results for both outcomes to be unreliable (very low-certainty evidence).No trial was designed to investigate possible long term effects (all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications of diabetes), especially in participants with diabetes-related complications. No trial reported on socioeconomic effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis found no clear benefits of short-acting insulin analogues over regular human insulin in people with type 2 diabetes. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was poor and results on patient-relevant outcomes, like all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications and severe hypoglycaemic episodes were sparse. Long-term efficacy and safety data are needed to draw conclusions about the effects of short-acting insulin analogues on patient-relevant outcomes.

Review of Insulin Therapy

The objective of this article is to review the different types of insulin and to explain some of the different dosing regimens that are used. Articles were obtained via a MEDLINE search and product package inserts. There is no one insulin therapy that is best for all patients. Type 1 diabetes patients require insulin therapy tomaintain life. Studies support intensive insulin dosing in these patients to obtain an A1C of less than 7.0%. Insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes patients may be a little less clear. Long-acting insulin in combination with an oral agentmay be just as effective as insulin alone, and in patients who fail oral therapy, a simple insulin regimen is preferred over a complex one.

Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Short-acting insulin analogue use for people with diabetes is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out the electronic searches through Ovid simultaneously searching the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R) (1946 to 14 April 2015), EMBASE (1988 to 2015, week 15), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; March 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the European (EU) Clinical Trials register (both March 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 24 weeks that compared short-acting insulin analogues with regular human insulins in the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes who were not pregnant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias, and resolved differences by consensus. We graded overall study quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument. We used random-effects models for the main analyses and presented the results as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria including 2693 participants. The duration of interventions ranged from 24 to 52 weeks with a mean of about 37 weeks. The participants showed some diversity, mainly with regard to diabetes duration and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The majority of the trials were carried out in the 1990s and participants were recruited from Europe, North America, Africa and Asia. None of the trials was carried out in a blinded manner so that the risk of performance bias, especially for subjective outcomes such as hypoglycaemia, was present in all of the trials. Furthermore, several trials showed inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and results.The mean difference (MD) in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was -0.15% (95% CI -0.2% to -0.1%; P value < 0.00001; 2608 participants; 9 trials; low quality evidence) in favour of insulin analogues. The comparison of the risk of severe hypoglycaemia between the two treatment groups showed an OR of 0.89 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.12; P value = 0.31; 2459 participants; 7 trials; very low quality evidence). For overall hypoglycaemia, also taking into account mild forms of hypoglycaemia, the data were generally of low quality, but also did not indicate substantial group differences. Regarding nocturnal severe hypoglycaemic episodes, two trials reported statistically significant effects in favour of the insulin analogue, insulin aspart. However, due to inconsistent reporting in publications and trial reports, the validity of the result remains questionable.We also found no clear evidence for a substantial effect of insulin analogues on health-related quality of life. However, there were few results only based on subgroups of the trial populations. None of the trials reported substantial effects regarding weight gain or any other adverse events. No trial was designed to investigate possible long-term effects (such as all-cause mortality, diabetic complications), in particular in people with diabetes related complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short-acting insulin analogues on blood glucose control in people with type 1 diabetes. To make conclusions about the effect of short acting insulin analogues on long-term patient-relevant outcomes, long-term efficacy and safety data are needed.

Optimizing insulin therapy in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: optimal dosing and timing in the outpatient setting

Management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes is continually evolving, and among these evolving therapies is administration of insulin in its various forms. The insulin regimen needs to be tailored to each individual, not only to maximize compliance and glycemic control but also to minimize hypoglycemia and weight gain.

An estimation of the long-term clinical and economic benefits of insulin lispro in Type 1 diabetes in the UK

AIMS

To determine the long-term health economic benefits associated with lispro vs. regular human insulin (RHI) in UK Type 1 diabetic (T1DM) patients using the previously published and validated CORE Diabetes Model.

METHODS

A literature review designed to capture clinical benefits associated with lispro and T1DM cohort characteristics specific to UK was undertaken. Clinical benefits were derived from a Cochrane meta-analysis. The estimated difference (weighted mean) in glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) was -0.1% (95% confidence interval -0.2 to 0.0%) for lispro vs. RHI. Severe hypoglycaemia rates for lispro and RHI were 21.8 and 46.1 events per 100 patient years, respectively. Costs and disutilities were accounted for severe hypoglycaemia rates. All costs were accounted in 2007 poundUK from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, lispro was projected to be dominant compared with RHI. Lispro was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) of approximately 0.10 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) vs. RHI (7.60 vs. 7.50 QALYs). Lifetime direct medical costs per patient were lower with lispro treatment, pound70 576 vs. pound72 529. Severe hypoglycaemia rates were the key driver in terms of differences in QALE and lifetime costs. Sensitivity analyses with assumptions around time horizon, discounting rates and benefits in terms of glycaemic control or hypoglycaemic event rates revealed that lispro remained dominant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that lispro is likely to improve QALE, reduce frequency of diabetes-related complications and lifetime medical costs compared with RHI.

The potential for the use of insulin lispro in pregnancy complicated by diabetes

The target of improved perinatal outcome in diabetic pregnancies may be achieved by new insulin preparations that more closely mirror the physiological response of insulin and not exclusively the traditional means of strict adherence to diet and frequent blood glucose testing.No insulin preparation has been systematically tested in pregnancy; it is a responsibility of all clinicians who look after pregnant diabetic women to record the outcomes of IL-treated pregnancies. More data is needed before this preparation can be either recommended in pregnancy or alternatively avoided.

Efficacy and safety of insulin analogues for the management of diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although insulin analogues are commonly prescribed for the management of diabetes mellitus, there is uncertainty regarding their optimal use. We conducted meta-analyses to compare the outcomes of insulin analogues with conventional insulins in the treatment of type 1, type 2 and gestational diabetes.

METHODS

We updated 2 earlier systematic reviews of the efficacy and safety of rapid-and long-acting insulin analogues. We searched electronic databases, conference proceedings and "grey literature" up to April 2007 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared insulin analogues with conventional insulins. Study populations of interest were people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (adult and pediatric) and women with gestational diabetes.

RESULTS

We included 68 randomized controlled trials in the analysis of rapid-acting insulin analogues and 49 in the analysis of long-acting insulin analogues. Most of the studies were of short to medium duration and of low quality. In terms of hemoglobin A1c, we found minimal differences between rapid-acting insulin analogues and regular human insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin lispro: -0.09%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.16% to -0.02%; for insulin aspart: -0.13%, 95% CI -0.20% to -0.07%). We observed similar outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin lispro: -0.03%, 95% CI -0.12% to -0.06%; for insulin aspart: -0.09%, 95% CI -0.21% to 0.04%). Differences between long-acting insulin analogues and neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in terms of hemoglobin A1c were marginal among adults with type 1 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin glargine: -0.11%, 95% CI -0.21% to -0.02%; for insulin detemir: -0.06%, 95% CI -0.13% to 0.02%) and among adults with type 2 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin glargine: -0.05%, 95% CI -0.13% to 0.04%; for insulin detemir: 0.13%, 95% CI 0.03% to 0.22%). Benefits in terms of reduced hypoglycemia were inconsistent. There were insufficient data to determine whether insulin analogues are better than conventional insulins in reducing long-term diabetes-related complications or death.

INTERPRETATION

Rapid-and long-acting insulin analogues offer little benefit relative to conventional insulins in terms of glycemic control or reduced hypoglycemia. Long-term, high-quality studies are needed to determine whether insulin analogues reduce the risk of long-term complications of diabetes.

Defining the role of insulin lispro in the management of postprandial hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The role of postprandial hyperglycaemia in contributing to the risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications in patients with diabetes mellitus is being increasingly recognized. In type 2 diabetes, there is a progressive shift in the relative contributions of postprandial and fasting hyperglycaemia to the overall glycaemic control as the disease progresses. For patients with fairly good glycaemic control (glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA(1c)] <8.5%), postprandial hyperglycaemia makes a relatively greater contribution to the overall glycaemic load than fasting hyperglycaemia, but in patients with poorer control, the relative contribution of the two states to the overall glycaemic load is reversed. This finding, coupled with epidemiological evidence that elevated postprandial glucose concentration is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), and is associated with a greater CVD risk than elevated fasting glucose, points to the need to monitor and target postprandial glucose, as well as fasting glucose and HbA(1c) levels, when optimizing insulin therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. When insulin therapy becomes necessary in patients with type 2 diabetes who can no longer be controlled with oral antihyperglycaemic therapy, use of short-acting insulin analogues with a rapid onset of action and capable of controlling postprandial glycaemic excursions when injected immediately before a meal, has advantages over regular human insulin in that they provide a more favourable time-action profile that mimics normal physiological insulin secretion. Among the available rapid-acting insulin analogues, insulin lispro has been shown to reduce postprandial glucose concentrations to a significantly greater degree than regular human insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Moreover, premixed combinations of insulin lispro with the longer acting analogue neutral insulin lispro protamine suspension in 25% : 75% or 50% : 50% combinations are significantly more effective in lowering postprandial blood glucose concentrations than premixed regular human insulin plus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) 30% : 70%. The premixed insulin lispro combinations offer the advantage of fewer daily injections than intensive insulin therapy, and the convenience of not having to mix insulin preparations manually. Although it has yet to be conclusively established that targeting postprandial hyperglycaemia reduces CVD risk, the potential benefits of improved postprandial and interprandial hyperglycaemia favour the use of newer insulin analogues, such as insulin lispro and insulin lispro mixes, over conventional insulin therapy, whenever insulin therapy becomes necessary in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Insulin Lispro

Insulin lispro, alone (Humalog) or as premixture (Humalog Mix25 or Humalog Mix50) is indicated for the treatment of hyperglycaemia in diabetes mellitus in many countries worldwide. It is a recombinant human insulin analogue and, except for the transposition of two amino acids, is identical to endogenous human insulin. Insulin lispro has a faster onset of action and shorter duration of activity than regular human insulin, and the time-action profile of insulin lispro mimics that of the physiological response of endogenous human insulin to food intake. In diabetic patients, from young children to the elderly, it has demonstrated postprandial blood glucose control similar to or better than that achieved with regular human insulin, without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia. In some trials, the risk of hypoglycaemia, including nocturnal episodes, was less in insulin lispro recipients than in regular human insulin recipients. Insulin lispro alone, or as a premixture with the longer-acting insulin neutral protamine lispro, can be administered immediately before or after meals. This convenient and flexible injection schedule may enable patients, including those with a non-routine lifestyle or unpredictable eating or exercising habits, to achieve the tight glycaemic control required to minimise long-term complications of diabetes and contributes to patient satisfaction with treatment.

Short acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin in patients with diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Short acting insulin analogue use for diabetic patients is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of short acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE, EMBASE until September 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 4 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial selection and evaluation of study quality was done independently by two reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Altogether 8274 participants took part in 49 randomised controlled studies. Most studies were of poor methodological quality. In patients with type 1 diabetes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) of HbA1c was -0.1% (95% CI: -0.2 to -0.1) in favour of insulin analogue, whereas in patients with type 2 diabetes the WMD was 0.0% (95% CI: -0.1 to 0.0). In subgroup analyses of different types of interventions in type 1 diabetic patients, the WMD in HbA1c was -0.2% (95% CI: -0.3 to -0.1) in favour of insulin analogue in studies using continuous subcutaneous insulin injections (CSII), whereas for conventional intensified insulin therapy (IIT) studies the WMD in HbA1c was -0.1% (95% CI: -0.1 to 0.0). The WMD of the overall mean hypoglycaemic episodes per patient per month was -0.2 (95% CI: -1.1 to 0.7) and -0.2 (95% CI: -0.5 to 0.1) for analogues in comparison to regular insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, respectively. For studies in type 1 diabetes patients the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia ranged from 0 to 247.3 (median 21.8) episodes per 100 person-years for insulin analogues and from 0 to 544 (median 46.1) for regular insulin, in type 2 the incidence ranged from 0 to 30.3 (median 0.3) episodes per 100 person-years for insulin analogues and from 0 to 50.4 (median 1.4) for regular insulin. No study was designed to investigate possible long term effects (e.g. mortality, diabetic complications), in particular in patients with diabetes related complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.

A randomized multicentre trial of insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin in people with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

To compare insulin glargine with NPH human insulin for basal insulin supply in adults with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

People with type 1 diabetes (n = 585), aged 17-77 years, were randomized to insulin glargine once daily at bedtime or NPH insulin either once- (at bedtime) or twice-daily (in the morning and at bedtime) according to their prior treatment regimen and followed for 28 weeks in an open-label, multicentre study. Both groups continued with pre-meal unmodified human insulin.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the two insulins in change in glycated haemoglobin from baseline to endpoint (insulin glargine 0.21 +/- 0.05% (mean +/- standard error), NPH insulin 0.10 +/- 0.05%). At endpoint, self-monitored fasting blood glucose (FBG) had decreased similarly in each group (insulin glargine -1.17 +/- 0.12 mmol/L, NPH insulin -0.89 +/- 0.12 mmol/L; p = 0.07). However, people on >1 basal insulin injection per day prior to the study had a clinically relevant decrease in FBG on insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (insulin glargine -1.38 +/- 0.15 mmol/L, NPH insulin -0.72 +/- 0.15 mmol/L; p < 0.01). No significant differences in the number of people reporting >or=1 hypoglycaemic episode were found between the two groups, including severe and nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Insulin glargine was well tolerated, with a similar rate of local injection and systemic adverse events versus NPH insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

A single, bedtime, subcutaneous dose of insulin glargine provided a level of glycaemic control at least as effective as NPH insulin, without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia.

Meta-analysis of short-acting insulin analogues in adult patients with type 1 diabetes: continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus injection therapy

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

This study aimed to compare the effect of treatment with short-acting insulin (SAI) analogues versus structurally unchanged short-acting insulin (regular insulin) on glycaemic control and on the risk of hypoglycaemic episodes in type 1 diabetic patients using different insulin treatment strategies.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of 27 randomised controlled trials that compared the effect of SAI analogues with regular insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. The treatments were administered either via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or by conventional intensified insulin therapy (IIT) with short-acting insulin injections before meals and basal insulin administered once or twice daily in most cases.

RESULTS

HbA(1)c levels were reported for 20 studies. For studies using CSII, the weighted mean difference between values obtained using SAI analogues and regular insulin was -0.19% (95% CI: -0.27 to -0.12), whereas the corresponding value for injection studies was -0.08% (95% CI: -0.15 to -0.02). For the analysis of overall hypoglycaemia, we used the results from nine studies that reported the mean frequency of hypoglycaemic episodes per patient per month. For studies using CSII, the standardised mean difference between SAI analogues and regular insulin was -0.07 (95% CI: -0.43 to 0.28), whereas for IIT studies the corresponding value was -0.04 (95% CI: -0.24 to 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Taking into consideration the low quality of the trials included, we can conclude that use of a short-acting insulin analogue in CSII therapy provides a small, but statistically significant improvement in glycaemic control compared with regular insulin. An even smaller effect was obtained with the use of ITT. The rate of overall hypoglycaemic episodes was not significantly reduced with short-acting insulin analogues in either injection regimen.

Short acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin in patients with diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

In short acting insulin analogues the dissociation of hexamers is facilitated, achieving peak plasma concentrations about twice as high and within approximately half the time compared to regular human insulin. According to these properties this profile resembles the shape of non-diabetic patients more than that of regular human insulins. Despite this theoretical superiority of short acting insulin analogues over regular human insulin, the risk-benefit ratio of short acting insulin analogues in the treatment of diabetic patients is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of treatment with short acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A highly sensitive search for randomised controlled trials combined with key terms for identifying studies on short acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin was performed using the Cochrane Library (issue 4, 2003), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Date of last search was December 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with diabetic patients of all ages that compared short acting insulin analogues to regular human insulin. Intervention duration had to be at least 4 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial selection as well as evaluation of study quality was done by two independent reviewers. The quality of reporting of each trial was assessed according to a modification of the quality criteria as specified by Schulz and Jadad.

MAIN RESULTS

Altogether 7933 participants took part in 42 randomised controlled studies. Most studies were of poor methodological quality. In patients with type 1 diabetes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) of HbA1c was estimated to be -0.1% (95% CI: -0.2% to -0.1%) in favour of insulin analogue, whereas in patients with type 2 diabetes the WMD was estimated to be 0.0% (95% CI: -0.1% to 0.1%). In subgroup analyses of different types of interventions in type 1 diabetic patients, the WMD in HbA1c was -0.2% (95% CI: -0.3% to -0.1%) in favour of insulin analogue in studies using continuous subcutaneous insulin injections (CSII) whereas for conventional intensified insulin therapy (IIT) studies the WMD in HbA1c was -0.1% (95% CI: -0.2% to -0.0%). The WMD of the overall mean hypoglycaemic episodes per patient per month was -0.2 (95% CI: -1.2 to 0.9) and -0.2 (95%CI: -0.5 to 0.1) for analogues in comparison to regular insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, respectively. For studies in type 1 diabetic patients the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia ranged from 0 to 247.3 (median 20.3) episodes per 100 person-years for insulin analogues and from 0 to 544 (median 37.2) for regular insulin, in type 2 the incidence ranged from 0 to 30.3 (median 0.6) episodes per 100 person-years for insulin analogues and from 0 to 50.4 (median 2.8) for regular insulin. No study was designed to investigate possible long term effects (e.g. mortality, diabetic complications), in particular in patients with diabetes related complications.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. Due to fears of potentially carcinogenic and proliferative effects, most studies to date have excluded patients with advanced diabetic complications. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients who use short acting insulin analogues. Furthermore, we need well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.

Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin lispro mixtures

Rapid-acting insulin analogues such as insulin lispro and insulin aspart produce a more physiological profile of insulin activity than does conventional regular human insulin because of their unique pharmacokinetics. These insulin analogues are absorbed rapidly from the subcutaneous injection site, resulting in a better matching of the appearance of insulin in the circulation with nutrient absorption from the intestine. In addition, they are shorter-acting than regular human insulin, thus decreasing the risk of late postprandial hypoglycaemia due to inappropriate hyperinsulinaemia. Because self-prepared mixtures of these rapid-acting insulin analogues with longer-acting insulins such as neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin have been shown to be clinically useful, and because manufactured fixed-ratio mixtures of regular human insulin and NPH already represent a large proportion of insulin use, manufactured fixed-ratio mixtures of insulin lispro and a sustained-release insulin known as NPL have been developed (insulin lispro mixtures). NPL is a protamine-based insulin lispro formulation with pharmacokinetics and glucodynamics comparable to those of human NPH insulin. NPL was developed for use within insulin lispro mixtures because an exchange between soluble insulin lispro and protamine-bound human insulin within human NPH precludes prolonged storage of mixtures of these insulins. An insulin lispro mixture consisting of 25% insulin lispro and 75% NPL is now commercially available. This preparation is intended primarily as an alternative to human insulin 30/70, which is commonly used within a twice-daily injection regimen. A mixture containing 50% insulin lispro and 50% NPL is also available. The rapid activity of insulin lispro is maintained within insulin lispro mixtures, allowing injection just prior to a meal, a convenience that is not available with commercial mixtures of regular human insulin and human NPH insulin, which should be injected 30 to 45 minutes prior to meals. As with insulin lispro itself, the rapid action of insulin lispro within the insulin lispro mixtures also results in a smaller increase in blood glucose levels after meals than with comparable human insulin mixtures. In addition, data from two studies have shown that when Mix25 is injected prior to the evening meal the incidence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia is decreased in comparison with the same dose of human insulin 30/70. The combined rapid and prolonged insulin activity provided by insulin lispro mixtures has been defined both in healthy subjects without diabetes and in patients with diabetes.

Insulin lispro: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in diabetes mellitus

Insulin lispro is a recombinant insulin analogue with transposed amino acids (proline and lysine) at positions 28 and 29 near the C-terminus of the B-chain. The most prominent practical advantage of insulin lispro over human soluble insulin lies in its very rapid onset of action. This property allows it to be injected immediately before meals and minimises the demands made on patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, and those with type 2 disease who require insulin, by the ongoing need for careful meal planning and timing. Numerous clinical studies have shown significant improvements in postprandial glycaemic control, with some evidence of reduced rates of severe or nocturnal hypoglycaemia, relative to conventional human insulin in patients receiving lispro-based insulins. Quality-of-life studies show consistent preferences by patients for and increased treatment satisfaction with insulin lispro over human soluble insulin, particularly with variations of the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. Willingness of patients and taxpayers to pay additional costs for insulin lispro or a premixed lispro-based formulation over conventional human insulins, and cost benefits favouring formulary inclusion, have been shown in well designed studies carried out in Australia and Canada. Spanish data suggest cost effectiveness in terms of episodes of severe hypoglycaemia avoided, and preliminary German resource utilisation data indicate cost savings related to reduced hospitalisation and general practice costs, with insulin lispro relative to human soluble insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin lispro and premixed formulations of lispro-based insulins offer quality-of-life improvements relative to conventional human insulins in patients with diabetes mellitus. Participants in well designed studies have expressed a preference for lispro-based insulins and have been shown to be willing to pay for the advantages they offer, and current cost-benefit data favour the inclusion of these insulins in formularies and their reimbursement by third party payers. Further research into the pharmacoeconomic implications of insulin lispro use in the long term is needed, particularly with respect to effects on indirect costs and those associated with complications of diabetes mellitus.

[Role and modalities of insulin treatment in type 2 diabetics]

INTRODUCTION

The natural history of type 2 diabetes mellitus is characterized by an inescapable and gradual worsening of a decrease in insulin secretion. Thus after several years of progress, less than half of type 2 diabetic patients have good glycemic control. This explains the increase in insulin prescription to type 2 diabetic patients in France in recent years. This work's objective is to take into account recent publication data to clarify the status of and adjustments in insulin therapy.

CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND KEY POINTS

The benefit of insulin treatment-mediated glycemic control optimization on microvascular complications is now proven. However, there is still controversy concerning macrovascular complications. Hypoglycemic risk in type 2 diabetic patients is limited and the main problem with insulin treatment is weight gain. Following failure with treatment by tablets, the most suitable treatment in terms of metabolic improvement, weight gain limitation and treatment adhesion is to add an intermediate insulin injection at bedtime. The next step remains several injections a day, with metformine addition if possible.

FUTURE PROSPECTS AND PROJECTS

Therapeutic treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus may become an earlier start of insulin therapy to preserve the remaining pancreatic insulin reserve. The role of brief and long-lasting insulin analogues, as well as inhaled insulin, which will soon be available, should be specified.

Insulin analogues and management of diabetes mellitus

The introduction of insulin analogues, of which insulin lispro is the prototype, marks a very important milestone in the management of patients with diabetes mellitus. It differs from regular human insulin in its quicker onset and shorter duration of action. In various clinical trials, insulin lispro was found to be superior to regular human insulin in controlling postprandial hyperglycemia without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. It improved the quality of life of diabetic patients by providing more flexibility to meal plans. Recently, another short acting insulin analogue called insulin aspart has been tried in clinical studies with benefits similar to insulin lispro. The turn of the millennium is now witnessing the development of long acting insulin analogues like insulin glargine, which can provide continuous low-level basal insulin concentrations similar to natural settings. In this review, we discuss the potential of insulin analogues in the modern management of diabetes with emphasis on insulin lispro.

Factors associated with nocturnal hypoglycaemia among patients with type 2 diabetes new to insulin therapy: experience with insulin lispro

AIM

To identify factors associated with nocturnal hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes who were new (< 2 months therapy) to insulin therapy.

METHODS

A randomised, multicentre, 12-month parallel open-label study compared the clinical safety and efficacy of insulin lispro with regular human insulin. A cohort of North American patients completed a health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaire which included questions related to the Health Beliefs Model (HBM). Measurements of hypoglycaemia rate and short-and long-term glucose control assessed clinical safety and efficacy. Three hundred and sixty-five type 2 diabetic patients were enrolled in the study, and 195 North American patients completed the HRQOL questionnaire.

RESULTS

After adjustment for demographic and psychological factors, the study population demonstrated lower nocturnal hypoglycaemia risk with insulin lispro. Higher nocturnal hypoglycaemia risk was associated with reduced body mass index (b.m.i.), lower age, and basal ultralente insulin therapy. The associated hypoglycaemia risk was lower with increased alcohol consumption. Patients who completed the HRQOL survey demonstrated higher risk for nocturnal hypoglycaemia if they: (1) had more troublesome hyperglycaemia symptoms in the week before starting insulin; (2) were more confident in their ability to control their diabetes; or (3) thought that diabetes control did not offer a clear health benefit. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia risk was inversely associated with fear of hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Type 2 diabetic patients new to insulin therapy demonstrated lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia with insulin lispro. Practitioners should consider patient characteristics and psychological factors that may predispose type 2 diabetes patients to nocturnal hypoglycaemia when initiating insulin therapy.

Improved postprandial blood glucose control and reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia during treatment with two novel insulin lispro-protamine formulations, insulin lispro mix25 and insulin lispro mix50. Mix50 Study Group

The objective of this 6-month, open-label, randomized, two-period crossover study was to compare glycemic control when patients were treated with (1) 2 manufactured premixed insulin formulations containing insulin lispro and a novel insulin lispro-protamine formulation, neutral protamine lispro (NPL), and (2) 2 manufactured premixed human insulin formulations, human insulin 50/50 and human insulin 30/70. One hundred individuals, 37 with type 1 diabetes mellitus (12 females, 25 males; mean age, 39.4 years; mean body mass index [BMI], 24.8; mean duration of diabetes, 12.9 years) and 63 with type 2 diabetes mellitus (33 females, 30 males; mean age, 59.0 years; mean BMI, 28.4; mean duration of diabetes, 12.6 years), were treated with insulin lispro mixtures. Insulin lispro Mix50 (50% insulin lispro/50% NPL) and human insulin 50/50 (50% regular insulin/50% neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH] insulin) were administered before breakfast; insulin lispro Mix25 (25% insulin lispro/75% NPL) and human insulin 30/70 (30% regular insulin/70% NPH) were administered before dinner. Blood glucose (BG), hypoglycemic episodes (hypoglycemic signs or symptoms or BG <3.0 mmol/L), insulin dose and timing of dose before meals, and hemoglobin A1c were measured. Mean doses of insulin lispro and human insulin mixtures were similar overall and for both diabetes subgroups. However, compared with human insulin mixtures, twice-daily administration of insulin lispro mixtures resulted in improved postprandial glycemic control, similar overall glycemic control, and less nocturnal hypoglycemia, as well as offering the convenience of dosing closer to meals.