Safety and effectiveness of insulin aspart in type 2 diabetic patients: results from the ASEAN cohort of the A₁chieve study

Review of insulin-associated hypoglycemia and its impact on the management of diabetes in Southeast Asian countries

Although the incidence of diabetes is rising in Southeast Asia, there is limited information regarding the incidence and manifestation of insulin-associated hypoglycemia. The aim of the present review was to discuss what is currently known regarding insulin-associated hypoglycemia in Southeast Asia, including its known incidence and impact in the region, and how the Southeast Asian population with diabetes differs from other populations. We found a paucity of data regarding the incidence of hypoglycemia in Southeast Asia, which has contributed to the adoption of Western guidelines. This might not be appropriate, as Southeast Asians have a range of etiological, educational and cultural differences from Western populations with diabetes that might place them at greater risk of hypoglycemia if not managed optimally. For example, Southeast Asians with type 2 diabetes tend to be younger, with lower body mass indexes than their Western counterparts, and the management of type 2 diabetes with premixed insulin preparations is more common in Southeast Asia. Both of these factors might result in higher rates of hypoglycemia. In addition, Southeast Asians are often poorly educated about hypoglycemia and its management, including during Ramadan fasting. We conclude there is a need for more information about Southeast Asian populations with diabetes to assist with the construction of more appropriate national and regional guidelines for the management of hypoglycemia, more closely aligned to patient demographics, behaviors and treatment practices. Such bespoke guidelines might result in a greater degree of implementation and adherence within clinical practice in Southeast Asian nations.

Behaviours, thoughts and perceptions around mealtime insulin usage and wastage among people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: A cross-sectional survey study

AIMS

People with diabetes who use mealtime insulin (MTI) were surveyed about insulin wastage and injection habits when insufficient insulin remains in a disposable prefilled pen/cartridge to administer a full dose in a single injection.

METHODS

Cross-sectional, online, self-reported survey of MTI usage/wastage behaviour in 400 adults with type 1 (n=120) or type 2 (n=280) diabetes mellitus administering >20units/day of MTI via 100units/ml prefilled pens/cartridges for ⩾1month, conducted in France, Germany, Italy and UK.

RESULTS

Participants' mean±standard deviation age was 54.5±12.2years, body mass index was 29.9±7.2kg/m² and duration of MTI therapy was 8.6±7.8years. They administered 3.7±5.9 injections/day with meals, using 11.3±18.0 prefilled pens/cartridges per month. Overall, 63.5% split the dose across two prefilled pens/cartridges (i.e. administered two injections to obtain a full dose), 15.0% used just what remained in their current pen (i.e. took a lower-than-prescribed dose) and 36.3% discarded prefilled pens/cartridges still containing insulin (i.e. took full dose with new pen). The latter participants discarded a mean 5.5±8.2 prefilled pens/cartridges monthly still containing insulin, each containing 8.6±8.7 units of insulin. Participants who wasted insulin considered it frustrating, time-consuming and painful to inject twice.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients taking >20units/day MTI can find transitions between insulin pens challenging. This study highlights the need to identify ways of improving transitions between pens to make transitions easier for insulin users, which could potentially improve adherence to prescribed doses and reduce waste.

Attributes Influencing Insulin Pen Preference Among Caregivers and Patients With Diabetes Who Require Greater Than 20 Units of Mealtime Insulin

BACKGROUND

This study compared patient preference for Humalog® KwikPen™ 200 units/mL (insulin lispro; hereafter, IL 200 pen; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) versus the Humalog KwikPen 100 units/mL (insulin lispro; hereafter, IL 100 pen; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) in patients with diabetes requiring >20 units of mealtime insulin and diabetes caregivers. This study also determined which attributes had the greatest influence on pen preference selection.

METHODS

In this 2-period, crossover, simulated-use study, 106 participants were randomized to 1 of 8 sequences that varied the pen order (IL 100 pen or IL 200 pen) and dosing order (15 units = low dose or 50 units = high dose) for a total of 4 simulated injections. Participants then completed a self-administered questionnaire to select their overall preference between the 2 pens and then rated the importance of 11 pen attributes in contributing to their overall preference.

RESULTS

Of the 90 participants expressing an overall preference, significantly more preferred the IL 200 pen to the IL 100 pen (IL 200 pen: 80 respondents; IL 100 pen: 10 respondents; 95% confidence interval [0.81, 0.94], P < .0001). The total amount of insulin in the pen, the ease in pressing the injection button, and the amount of fluid injected were key attributes influencing IL 200 pen preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these key attributes, the IL 200 pen was significantly preferred over the IL 100 pen by patients with diabetes who require >20 daily mealtime insulin units or diabetes caregivers and may improve the injection experience for these patients.

Drug-related risk of severe hypoglycaemia in observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) leads to multiple complications, including severe hypoglycaemia events (SHEs). SHEs can impact a patient's quality of life and compliance and may directly result in additional costs to the health care system. The aim of this review was to evaluate the risk of severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 (T1) and 2 (T2) DM as observed in everyday clinical practice for various drug regimens.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of observational (retrospective or prospective) studies in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases that covered at least 100 children or adults with T1/T2 DM. In T1 DM, basal-bolus/pre-mix insulin (human or analogue) and insulin pump were reviewed, and in T2 DM, basal-bolus/pre-mix insulin (human or analogue), oral antidiabetic drugs supported with basal insulin (human or analogue), sulfonylureas in monotherapy, and combined oral treatment were reviewed. In order to estimate SHE rates, we extracted data on the time horizon of the study, number of patients, number of SHEs, and number of patients experiencing at least one SHE. We used a random effects model to estimate the annual SHE rate. We considered the risk for other antidiabetic medications in T2 DM to be negligible and the results of our main review yielded no observational data for premixes in T1 DM so they were assessed based on relative rates taken from additional systematic reviews. The study, being a desk research, did not involve any human subjects (including human material or human data) and no ethical committee approval was asked for. For the same reason there was no need to collect informed consent for participation in the study.

RESULTS

We identified 76 observational studies encompassing 707,722.30 patient-years. The estimated annual SHE rate varied from 0.168 (95 % CI 0.123-0.237) for insulin pump up to 1.628 for biphasic human insulin in T1 DM patients, and from 0.0035 for oral antidiabetic drugs up to 0.554 (95 % CI 0.157-7.534) for basal-bolus with human insulin in T2 DM patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review indicates that SHE rates differ between patients depending on treatment regimen. However, SHEs are also driven by other factors. Proper modelling techniques are needed to use various types of information in published studies.

Bioequivalence and comparative pharmacodynamics of insulin lispro 200 U/mL relative to insulin lispro (Humalog®) 100 U/mL

Insulin lispro 200 U/mL (IL200) is a new strength formulation of insulin lispro (Humalog®, IL100), developed as an option for diabetic patients on higher daily mealtime insulin doses. This phase 1, open‐label, 2‐sequence, 4‐period crossover, randomized, 8‐hour euglycemic clamp study aimed to demonstrate the bioequivalence of IL200 and IL100 after subcutaneous administration of 20 U (U) to healthy subjects (n = 38). Pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) responses were similar in both formulations. All 90%CIs for the ratios of area under the concentration‐versus‐time curve from time zero to the time of the last measurable concentration (AUC_0–tlast) and maximum observed drug concentration (C_max), as well as the total glucose infused throughout the clamp (G_tot) and the maximum glucose infusion rate (R_max), were contained within 0.80 and 1.25. Time of maximum observed drug concentration (t_max) was similar between formulations, with a median difference of 15 minutes and a 95%CI of the difference that included zero. Inter‐ and intrasubject variability estimates were similar for both formulations. Both formulations were well tolerated. IL200 was bioequivalent to IL100 after subcutaneous administration of 20‐U single doses, and PD responses were comparable between formulation strengths.