Premixed insulin aspart 30 vs. premixed human insulin 30/70 twice daily: a randomized trial in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetic patients

Proteomic Changes to the Updated Discovery of Engineered Insulin and Its Analogs: Pros and Cons

The destruction of β-cells of the pancreas leads to either insulin shortage or the complete absence of insulin, which in turn causes diabetes Mellitus. For treating diabetes, many trials have been conducted since the 19th century until now. In ancient times, insulin from an animal's extract was taken to treat human beings. However, this resulted in some serious allergic reactions. Therefore, scientists and researchers have tried their best to find alternative ways for managing diabetes with progressive advancements in biotechnology. However, a lot of research trials have been conducted, and they discovered more progressed strategies and approaches to treat type I and II diabetes with satisfaction. Still, investigators are finding more appropriate ways to treat diabetes accurately. They formulated insulin analogs that mimic the naturally produced human insulin through recombinant DNA technology and devised many methods for appropriate delivery of insulin. This review will address the following questions: What is insulin preparation? How were these devised and what are the impacts (both positive and negative) of such insulin analogs against TIDM (type-I diabetes mellitus) and TIIDM (type-II diabetes mellitus)? This review article will also demonstrate approaches for the delivery of insulin analogs into the human body and some future directions for further improvement of insulin treatment.

The Effect of DPP4 Inhibitor on Glycemic Variability in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes treated with twice-daily Premixed Human Insulin

Objective

To evaluate the effect of adding DPP4 inhibitor (DPP4-i) on glycemic variability (GV) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with premixed human insulin (MHI).

Methodology

We conducted a prospective study in patients with T2DM on twice-daily MHI with or without metformin therapy. Blinded continuous glucose monitoring was performed at baseline and following 6 weeks of Vildagliptin therapy.

Results

Twelve patients with mean (SD) age of 55.8 (13.1) years and duration of disease of 14.0 (6.6) years were recruited. The addition of Vildagliptin significantly reduced GV indices (mmol/L): SD from 2.73 (IQR 2.12-3.66) to 2.11 (1.76-2.55), p=0.015; mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) 6.94(2.61) to 5.72 (1.87), p=0.018 and CV 34.05 (8.76) to 28.19 (5.36), p=0.010. In addition, % time in range (3.9-10 mmol/l) improved from 61.17 (20.50) to 79.67 (15.33)%, p=0.001; % time above range reduced from 32.92 (23.99) to 18.50 (15.62)%, p=0.016; with reduction in AUC for hyperglycemia from 1.24 (1.31) to 0.47 (0.71) mmol/day, p=0.015. Hypoglycemic events were infrequent and the reduction in time below range and AUC for hypoglycemia did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

The addition of DPP4-I to commonly prescribed twice-daily MHI in patients with T2DM improves GV and warrants further exploration.

One hundred years of insulin therapy

At the time of its first clinical application 100 years ago, insulin was presented as the cure for people with diabetes mellitus. That transpired to be an overstatement, yet insulin has proven to be the lifesaver for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and an essential therapy for many with type 2 diabetes mellitus or other forms of diabetes mellitus. Since its discovery, insulin (a molecule of only 51 amino acids) has been the subject of pharmaceutical research and development that has paved the way for other protein-based therapies. From purified animal-extracted insulin and human insulin produced by genetically modified organisms to a spectrum of insulin analogues, pharmaceutical laboratories have strived to tailor the preparations to the needs of patients. Nonetheless, overall glycaemic control often remains poor as exogenous insulin is still not able to mimic the physiological insulin profile. Circumventing subcutaneous administration and the design of analogues with profiles that mimic that of physiological insulin are ongoing areas of research. Novel concepts, such as once-weekly insulins or glucose-dependent and oral insulins, are on the horizon but their real-world effectiveness still needs to be proven. Until a true cure for type 1 diabetes mellitus is found and the therapeutic arsenal for other forms of diabetes mellitus is expanded, insulin will remain central in the treatment of many people living with diabetes mellitus.

Understanding Patients' Willingness to Pay for Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30/70 in a Pen Device for Type 2 Diabetes Treatment in an Out-of-Pocket Payment Market

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to investigate willingness to pay (WTP) for biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in India.

METHODS

A multicenter, prospective, non-interventional, preference study was conducted that assessed WTP for BIAsp 30 in an insulin pen (FlexPen^® or Penfill^® device) in patients in India with T2DM previously treated with biphasic human insulin (BHI) in vials and believed to be able to pay for treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients willing to continue to pay for BIAsp 30 after 12 weeks' treatment. Secondary endpoints included the change from baseline in treatment and device satisfaction and patient preferences for treatment attributes as assessed by a nested discrete-choice experiment.

RESULTS

Overall, 54.9% (n = 277/505) of participants were male; the mean age was 56.4 years; diabetes duration was 10.9 years; 63.8% had a body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m²; > 75% had an annual household income > 150,000 Indian rupees (INR). After 12 weeks' treatment, 96.4% of patients were willing to pay for BIAsp 30. Mean treatment and device satisfaction significantly improved from baseline (p < 0.0001). Patients were willing to pay INR3576 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2755-4398) for improved glycemic control, INR688 (95% CI 383-994) for a device upgrade (vial/syringe to an insulin pen), or INR327 (95% CI 95-560) to avoid major hypoglycemia. Patients would need to be compensated INR44 (95% CI 56-32) per minor hypoglycemic event.

CONCLUSIONS

In India, patients with T2DM previously treated with BHI were willing to pay for BIAsp 30 in an insulin pen. Furthermore, treatment and device satisfaction improved after this therapeutic switch.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03374774.

Comparison of Premixed Human Insulin 30/70 to Biphasic Aspart 30 in Well-Controlled Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring

AIM

To compare in terms of glycemic variability two premixed insulins, Premixed Human Insulin 30/70 (PHI) and Biphasic Aspart 30 (BiAsp30), using Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) and to estimate the correlation of Glycated Albumin (GA) and Fructosamine (FA) with CGM data. Patients-Data: A total of 36 well-controlled patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) underwent 7-day CGM with PHI and subsequently with BiAsp30. GA and FA were measured at the first and last day of each week of CGM.

RESULTS

BiAsp30 was associated with lower Average Blood Glucose (ABG) during the 23:00-03:00 period (PHI: 135.08 ± 28.94 mg/dL, BiAsp30: 117.75 ± 21.24 mg/dL, p < 0.001) and the 00:00-06:00 period (PHI: 120.42 ± 23.13 mg/dL, BiAsp30: 111.17 ± 14.74 mg/dL, p = 0.008), as well as with more time below range (<70 mg/dL) (TBR) during the 23:00-03:00 period in the week (PHI: 3.65 ± 5.93%, BiAsp30: 11.12 ± 16.07%, p = 0.005). PHI was associated with lower ABG before breakfast (PHI: 111.75 ± 23.9 mg/dL, BiAsp30: 128.25 ± 35.9 mg/dL, p = 0.013). There were no differences between the two groups in ABG, Time In Range and Time Below Range during the entire 24-h period for 7 days, p = 0.502, p = 0.534, and p = 0.258 respectively, and in TBR for the 00:00-06:00 period p = 0.253. Total daily insulin requirements were higher for BiAsp30 (PHI: 47.92 ± 12.18 IU, BiAsp30: 49.58 ± 14.12 IU, p = 0.001). GA and FA correlated significantly with ABG (GA: r = 0.512, p = 0.011, FA: r = 0.555, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

In well-controlled patients with T2DM, BiAsp30 is an equally effective alternative to PHI.

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.

Effects of Insulin Lispro Mix 25 and Insulin Lispro Mix 50 on Postprandial Glucose Excursion in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Prospective, Open-Label, Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

We compared the effects of insulin lispro mix 25 (LM25) and insulin lispro mix 50 (LM50) on postprandial glucose excursion in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, investigator-initiated trial, 81 T2DM patients treated with premixed human insulin 70/30 (PHI70/30) for more than 90 days were randomly divided into two groups and received a crossover protocol of either LM25 or LM50 twice daily for 16 weeks. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was performed for 72 h at baseline and at the end of each treatment phase to evaluate glycemic excursions in the subjects.

RESULTS

The LM50 regimen resulted in significantly smaller postprandial glycemic excursions than the LM25 regimen after breakfast (1.3 ± 2.5 vs. 2.4 ± 2.6 mmol/L, P = 0.046) and dinner (1.5 ± 2.8 vs. 2.8 ± 2.4 mmol/L, P = 0.036). Glycosylated hemoglobin levels were similar for the patients on the three regimens. The percentage of patients who achieved their glycosylated hemoglobin target was significantly higher for the LM25 and LM50 regimens than for the PHI70/30 regimen, regardless of whether the target was set at 7.0% or 6.5%. The proportion of the patients who were hypoglycemic for a high percentage (> 10%) of the time was lower for the LM50 regimen than for the LM25 and PHI70/30 regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

LM50 may provide better glycemic excursion control after breakfast and dinner than LM25 in T2DM patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.chictr.org.cn # ChiCTR-TTRCC-12002516.

FUNDING

Lilly Suzhou Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Branch, China) and National Key Program of Clinical Science of China (WBYZ 2011-873).

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.

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.

Systematic literature review of use of blood glucose monitoring in phase III clinical studies of insulin analogs

BACKGROUND

Safe and effective insulin therapy for diabetes mellitus requires initial dose titration and regular adjustments based on blood glucose (BG) monitoring. Our objective was to explore the use of BG measurement in phase-III clinical studies of insulin analogs. These studies provide safety and efficacy information for regulatory authorities and are the basis for insulin analog regulatory approval.

METHODS

A systematic review of phase-III studies of rapid-acting insulin analogs (insulin lispro, insulin aspart and insulin glulisine) and pre-mixed insulin analogs (biphasic insulin aspart and insulin lispro mix) was conducted. Studies were identified using manufacturers' databases. Search for reports was performed in Medline and registry of clinical trials (clinicaltrials.gov). The European Medicines Agency was contacted to provide Clinical Study Reports.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were included. Regular BG measurements were reported in 100 % of the studies and were performed by either self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) alone in 84 %, laboratory alone in 7 %, and both SMBG and laboratory in 9 % of studies. In total, 93 % of the studies reported SMBG. Most studies (91 %) reported insulin therapy adjustments based on BG measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that BG monitoring and specifically SMBG are co-dependent technologies with insulin analogs. BG measurement is used in most phase-III registration studies for establishing safe and efficacious insulin administration and is recommended in the insulin labels. The indispensable role of SMBG in treatment of insulin-dependent patients should receive attention from health care payers to assess and reimburse SMBG along with insulin to avoid adverse events from inappropriate insulin administration and associated costs.

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.

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin 30, insulin glargine, or neutral protamine Hagedorn to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI), insulin glargine (IGlar), or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin (all ± oral glucose-lowering drugs [OGLDs]) to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with type 2 diabetes in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to determine the clinical outcome, costs, and cost-effectiveness of switching from treatment with BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 over a 30-year time horizon. A 1-year analysis was also performed based on quality-of-life data and treatment costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as a fraction of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, and cost-effectiveness was defined as ICER <3-times GDP per capita.

RESULTS

Switching treatment from BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 was associated with an increase in life expectancy of >0.7 years, reduction in all diabetes-related complications, and was considered as cost-effective or highly cost-effective in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia (BHI to BIAsp 30, 0.26 in India, 1.25 in Indonesia, 0.01 in Saudi Arabia; IGlar to BIAsp 30, -0.68 in India, -0.21 in Saudi Arabia; NPH to BIAsp 30, 0.15 in India, -0.07 in Saudi Arabia; GDP per head per annum/quality-adjusted life-year). Cost-effectiveness was maintained in the 1-year analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from treatment with BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 (all ± OGLDs) was found to be cost-effective in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia, both in the long and short term.

Science of premix insulin: where have we reached?

Diabetes is a progressive disease and by achieving and maintaining optimal glycemic control, the onset of complications can be prevented or delayed. Insulin is most effective at any stage of diabetes. Although basal-bolus therapy is the gold standard treatment, it has its own limitations such as multiple pricks, close monitoring and cost. Premixed insulin on the other hand is convenient, requires fewer injections, is a single device and delivers both the basal and bolus component till the next meal. Although premixed insulin analogs have the advantages of mealtime flexibility, compliance and better post-prandial glucose control, no significant differences have been observed in HbA1c reduction and overall hypoglycemia when compared to premixed human insulin. This review will attempt to analyze the efficacy, safety and limitations of currently available premix human insulin and premix analogs including recent advancements in the area.

Identifying and meeting the challenges of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic illness that requires clinical recognition and treatment of the dual pathophysiologic entities of altered glycemic control and insulin resistance to reduce the risk of long-term micro- and macrovascular complications. Although insulin is one of the most effective and widely used therapeutic options in the management of diabetes, it is used by less than one-half of patients for whom it is recommended. Clinician-, patient-, and health care system-related challenges present numerous obstacles to insulin use in T2DM. Clinicians must remain informed about new insulin products, emerging technologies, and treatment options that have the potential to improve adherence to insulin therapy while optimizing glycemic control and mitigating the risks of therapy. Patient-related challenges may be overcome by actively listening to the patient’s fears and concerns regarding insulin therapy and by educating patients about the importance, rationale, and evolving role of insulin in individualized self-treatment regimens. Enlisting the services of Certified Diabetes Educators and office personnel can help in addressing patient-related challenges. Self-management of diabetes requires improved patient awareness regarding the importance of lifestyle modifications, self-monitoring, and/or continuous glucose monitoring, improved methods of insulin delivery (eg, insulin pens), and the enhanced convenience and safety provided by insulin analogs. Health care system-related challenges may be improved through control of the rising cost of insulin therapy while making it available to patients. To increase the success rate of treatment of T2DM, the 2012 position statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes focused on individualized patient care and provided clinicians with general treatment goals, implementation strategies, and tools to evaluate the quality of care.

Present status of insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes treated by general practitioners and diabetes specialists in Japan: Third report of a cross-sectional survey of 15,652 patients

Aims/Introduction:  Insulin therapy is often required to achieve good glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, some providers, particularly general practitioners (GPs), are reluctant to prescribe insulin to their patients. The aim of the present study was to clarify any differences in, as well as any problems associated with, insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes being treated by either a GP or a diabetes specialist in Japan.

Materials and Methods:  Of 15,652 patients across 721 clinics and hospitals, 15,350 were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (14,312 by GPs and 1038 by specialists). Data regarding glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels, age, height, bodyweight and treatment modality were collected for each patient.

Results:  Of the patients with type 2 diabetes, 9.1 and 22.9% had been prescribed insulin monotherapy, and 38.8 and 37.0% were also receiving insulin with an oral antidiabetic (OAD) by GPs or specialists, respectively. Diabetes specialists prescribed analog insulin more frequently than did GPs. GPs chose premixed insulin more frequently than did specialists, and this factor correlated with higher HbA_1c levels. A younger age and daily insulin dose in groups being treated by both providers were correlated with high HbA_1c levels on insulin monotherapy. Neither type of insulin nor OAD was correlated with HbA_1c on insulin plus OAD therapy.

Conclusions:  To achieve better glycemic control with insulin therapy, sufficient insulin dose and intensive treatment regimen, in addition to lifestyle interventions, might be necessary. (J Diabetes Invest, doi: 10.1111/j.2040‐1124.2012.00198.x, 2012)

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.

Clinical safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes patients switched from biphasic human insulin 30: results from the Indonesian cohort of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Indonesian type 2 diabetes patients switched from biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30) as a sub-analysis of the A₁chieve study.

METHODS

Clinical safety and effectiveness over 24 weeks was evaluated in Indonesian patients who switched from BHI 30 to BIAsp 30 at the discretion of their physician.

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients with mean age ± SD 55.6 ± 9.5 years, BMI 24.6 ± 3.8 kg/m(2), and mean diabetes duration 7.8 ± 5.7 years were included. The mean pre-study BHI 30 dose was 0.56 ± 0.25 IU/kg and the baseline BIAsp 30 dose was 0.60 ± 0.26 U/kg titrated up to 0.65 ± 0.25 U/kg by Week 24. No serious adverse drug reactions were reported throughout the study. Overall hypoglycaemia decreased from 2.18 to 0.06 events/patient-year with a significant decrease in the proportion of patients affected (p < 0.0001). No nocturnal or major hypoglycaemia was reported at Week 24. HbA1c improved from 8.8 ± 1.2% at baseline to 7.3 ± 0.8% at Week 24. A total of 45 patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% as compared to 5 patients with HbA1c <7.0% at baseline. FPG and PPPG improved significantly after 24 weeks (p < 0.001). Quality of life was positively impacted (change in visual analogue scores, 3.0 ± 11.6 points, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Switching from BHI 30 to BIAsp 30 in this Indonesian cohort was well-tolerated and improved glycaemic control with a decreased risk of hypoglycaemia.

Switching from biphasic human insulin 30 to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes is associated with improved glycaemic control and a positive safety profile: results from the A₁chieve study

AIMS

This A1chieve® study subgroup analysis examined clinical safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp30) ±OGLDs in 6323 individuals with T2D, switching from biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI30) ±OGLDs.

METHODS

A1chieve was a 24-week, international, prospective, observational, multi-centre, open-label study in individuals with T2D starting treatment with BIAsp30, insulin detemir or insulin aspart as part of routine clinical care.

RESULTS

Mean baseline (SD) dose BHI was 0.56 (0.25) IU/kg. BIAsp30 was initiated at 0.57 (0.25) U/kg; the daily dose was 0.62 (0.28)U/kg by Week 24. Switching from BHI30 to BIAsp30 was associated with significant mean reduction in HbA1c of 1.7% [-18 mmol/mol] (1.6) from a baseline of 9.1% [76 mmol/mol] (p<0.001); FPG and PPG were also significantly reduced (p<0.001). Major hypoglycaemic episodes decreased from 0.69 events/patient/year at baseline to 0.03 events/patient/year at Week 24. Minor hypoglycaemia decreased from 5.31 to 2.04 events/patient/year from baseline to study-end. Five serious adverse drug reactions (hypoglycaemia) were reported by five individuals (0.1%). Mean bodyweight increased by 0.1 (3.3)kg from baseline to 24 weeks. Improved self-reported quality of life was observed.

CONCLUSION

Switching from BHI30 to BIAsp30 in individuals with T2D is associated with improvement in glycaemic control and reduced rates of hypoglycaemia, without tolerability or safety issues.

Insulin aspart : an evidence-based medicine review

This paper provides a review and evaluation of the published evidence relating to the efficacy, safety and ease of administration of the rapid-acting insulin analogue insulin aspart in comparison with human insulin (HI) in diabetes mellitus in the following categories: (a) in adults, (b) in children, and (c) in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). A search for publications on insulin aspart was conducted for the following databases: Cochrane, BIOSIS, EMBASE-DP and MEDLINE. Publications were examined for relevance by two independent assessors and were graded using a system developed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Overall, the evidence comparing insulin aspart with HI was of high quality, with all three categories graded as grade A evidence. Studies showed strong evidence for better glycaemic control, without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia, together with evidence supporting improved convenience and flexibility in administration of insulin aspart compared with regular HI in adult diabetic patients. Evidence from three trials in adults with type 1 diabetes showed a lower incidence of major nocturnal hypoglycaemia with insulin aspart versus regular HI. Published evidence also confirmed the more rapid action of insulin aspart versus HI, and a comparable efficacy and safety profile for both insulin types in type 1 paediatric patients. There was also strong evidence that insulin aspart is well tolerated and efficacious for CSII/pump use. Insulin aspart better mimics the physiological response to meals than regular HI, and may offer advantages in terms of glycaemic control and reduction of hypoglycaemia combined with flexibility and convenience of administration. Overall, there is a good body of evidence to support the efficacy, tolerability and ease of administration of insulin aspart in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rapid-acting insulin analogues and their clinical consequences

Postprandial glucose excursions can inhibit achievement of good glycaemic control, and possibly have a specific effect on the risk of vascular comorbidities. Rapid-acting analogues control these excursions better than human insulin because their pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) profile is closer to that of meal-time endogenous insulin secretion. Review of the findings of PK/PD studies and clinical trials suggests that the three marketed rapid-acting analogues--insulin lispro, insulin aspart and insulin glulisine--are equally efficacious and safe. In comparison with human insulin when using the same basal insulin, they provide comparable glycaemic control with a reduced risk of hypoglycaemia, although the combination of rapid-acting and basal analogues reduces glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) more than human meal-time insulin combined with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. Some studies have suggested that insulin glulisine has a slightly faster onset of action compared with insulin lispro or insulin aspart, but this has not been translated into demonstrable clinical benefit. Treatment satisfaction in patients with diabetes has been higher when therapy with a rapid-acting analogue is used instead of human insulin, perhaps due to differences in advised timing of injection. The largest benefits in efficacy, hypoglycaemia incidence, treatment satisfaction and quality of life have occurred when patients receive an all-analogue meal-time plus basal regimen as compared with an all-human insulin regimen. No new safety issues have been identified with the marketed rapid-acting analogues, and their insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor affinity and mitogenic activity are comparable to human insulin.

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.

Efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 in type 2 diabetes patients of different race or ethnicity (INITIATEplus trial)

OBJECTIVE

To determine if self-titration using biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 30) had a different impact on efficacy and safety across different racial/ethnic subgroups.

RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODS

This was an exploratory, post hoc analysis by race (White vs. Black/African-American) and ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino vs. non-Hispanic/Latino) of data from the INITIATEplus trial. Participants were treated twice-daily with BIAsp 30 over 24 weeks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00101751.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Efficacy endpoints included reductions in mean glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Safety endpoints included hypoglycemia rates (events/patient-year) and adverse events. Body weight changes were also measured.

RESULTS

Glycemic control improved by a similar extent for all demographic groups. Observed mean decreases in A1C ranged from 2.4% to 2.6% after 24 weeks' treatment. Baseline-adjusted mean A1C decreases for White vs. Black/African-American subjects were 2.56% and 2.13% (p < 0.0001), and for Hispanic/Latino vs. non-Hispanic/Latino subjects were 2.45% and 2.42% (p = 0.677), respectively. Final FPG values were similar among all groups (141-146 mg/dL [7.83-8.10 m mol/L]), and baseline-adjusted FPG decreases were not significantly different (p > 0.025) between groups. Hypoglycemia was low for White, Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino, and non-Hispanic/Latino subjects (0.08, 0.04, 0.03, and 0.07 major events/patient-year, with 0.60, 0.30, 0.37, and 0.52 minor events/patient-year, respectively). Body weight increases were 3.17 and 3.06 kg (White vs. African-American) and 2.69 and 3.19 kg (Hispanic/Latino vs. non-Hispanic/Latino). Final weight-adjusted total daily insulin doses were 0.60 U/kg for Black/African-American subjects vs. 0.78 U/kg for White subjects (p < 0.0001), and 0.71 U/kg for Hispanic/Latino subjects vs. 0.74 U/kg for non-Hispanic/Latino subjects (p = 0.42).

LIMITATIONS

The trial was not designed or powered for comparisons across racial or ethnic groups, subjects were not stratified for pre-baseline medication regimens between each race and ethnic group, and unequal subject numbers and baseline A1C disparities existed between the pairs of groups being compared.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes self-management with BIAsp 30 using an easily followed self-titration algorithm produced low hypoglycemia rates. All subgroups achieved A1C reductions >2.1% and FPG declines >82 mg/dL that were similar across groups, demonstrating that self-titration of BIAsp 30 can successfully be pursued in a primary care setting by patients who had previously failed to meet ADA A1C targets under oral antidiabetes therapy, with race or ethnicity not an obstacle to achieving better glycemic control.

Switching to biphasic insulin aspart 30/50/70 from biphasic human insulin 30/50 in patients with type 2 diabetes in normal clinical practice: observational study results

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety and efficacy of switching to biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) 30, 50 or 70 in patients with type 2 diabetes previously treated with biphasic human insulin (BHI) 30/50 (with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a 26-week, prospective, observational study conducted in Belgium and Luxembourg. Data were collected at baseline before patients switched and at 12 and 26 weeks after starting BIAsp 30, 50 or 70. Safety endpoints were incidence and rate of hypoglycemia (major, minor, nocturnal), adverse events and body-weight changes. Efficacy assessments included HbA(1c) and 7-point self-measured plasma glucose (PG) profiles. Changes from baseline were analyzed using paired t-tests.

RESULTS

Of 592 patients analyzed, 72% switched to twice-daily BIAsp and 20% to three-times daily BIAsp. Upon switching, 27% of patients received intensified treatment (i.e., more daily doses than with their previous BHI). At all three data-collection points, approximately two-thirds of patients were taking BIAsp 30 and approximately one-third were taking BIAsp 50; very few patients took BIAsp 70. Mean total daily insulin dose increased significantly from baseline (51.2 U) to 26 weeks (54.3 U) and mean time of intake before meals changed from 17 minutes for BHI to ∼3 minutes with BIAsp. Incidence of hypoglycemia did not change during the study (baseline: 30.7%, week 26: 29.2%). HbA(1c) improved significantly from baseline (7.9 %) to weeks 12 and 26 (7.6% and 7.5%, respectively; p < 0.001). Mean PG profiles also showed significant improvements. As this is an observational study, some limitations should be considered such as the absence of a control group and a possible bias of increased medical attention.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes can switch safely from BHI to BIAsp therapy, even if they receive intensified treatment, and they have no problems changing the timing of their insulin injections.

Intensifying insulin therapy with insulin analog premixes: transitioning from basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Because of the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes, basal insulin alone may not be able to provide sufficient glycemic control over the long term, and thus insulin regimens will typically need to be intensified--especially for controlling postprandial glucose excursions. In patients with type 2 diabetes requiring more intensive intervention, insulin analog premix formulations can offer a simple, effective, and convenient option for tighter management of hyperglycemia in lieu of a traditional basal-bolus regimen.

The impact of initiating biphasic human insulin 30 therapy in type 2 diabetes patients after failure of oral antidiabetes drugs

BACKGROUND

The present study evaluated the efficacy of biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30) in type 2 diabetes patients who had failed in therapy with two or more oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs).

METHODS

This open-label, nonrandomized, 4-month, multicenter, clinical observational study was conducted in Shanghai, China. A total of 660 insulin-naive type 2 diabetes patients with poor glycemic control (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c] ≥7.5%), despite treatment with two or more OADs for more than 6 months, were recruited and received BHI 30 monotherapy or BHI 30 plus OAD(s) (metformin only, α-glucosidase inhibitor only, or both).

RESULTS

Among the 660 subjects, 644 completed the 4-month study. At the end of the study, the median level of HbA1c decreased by 2.0% (from 9.1% to 7.0%) in the BHI 30 monotherapy group and also 2.0% (from 9.5% to 7.3%) in the BHI 30 plus OAD group. More patients achieved the HbA1c <7.0% target in the BHI 30 monotherapy group than in the BHI 30 plus OAD(s) group (47.9% vs. 35.3%, P=0.002). Compared with the expenses of the prior treatment strategy, the median daily cost decreased by 39.8% (4.5 yuan, Chinese RMB) at the end point in the BHI 30 monotherapy group but increased by 20.0% (2.2 yuan) in the BHI 30 plus OAD(s) group (P<0.0001). Moreover, patients in the BHI 30 plus OAD(s) group had fewer minor hypoglycemic episodes than in the BHI 30 monotherapy group (mean of 1.06 vs. 2.77 per patient per year, P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term BHI 30 therapy can improve glycemic control in insulin-naive type 2 diabetes patients after failure of two or more OADs. With higher baseline glucose level, the BHI 30 plus OAD(s) group had lower pharmacoeconomic efficacy than the BHI 30 monotherapy group despite having fewer hypoglycemia events.

Insulins: past, present, and future

This article highlights selected milestones in insulin discovery and its continued development as a pivotal therapy for diabetes. The last 90 years have witnessed tremendous progress in insulin therapy, from the initial crude, yet life-saving, animal insulin extracts to novel human insulin analogues. Although the complete physiologic replacement of insulin is inherently difficult to achieve with open-loop subcutaneously administered insulin, the continued development of improved injectable insulin formulations with superior pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics will enhance glucose control, and represents important clinical advances in the treatment of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Uncovering undetected hypoglycemic events

Hypoglycemia is the rate-limiting factor that often prevents patients with diabetes from safely and effectively achieving their glycemic goals. Recent studies have reported that severe hypoglycemia is associated with a significant increase in the adjusted risks of major macrovascular events, major microvascular events, and mortality. Minor hypoglycemic episodes can also have serious implications for patient health, psychological well being, and adherence to treatment regimens. Hypoglycemic events can impact the health economics of the patient, their employer, and third-party payers. Insulin treatment is a key predictor of hypoglycemia, with one large population-based study reporting an overall prevalence of 7.1% (type 1 diabetes mellitus) and 7.3% (type 2 diabetes mellitus) in insulin-treated patients, compared with 0.8% in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with an oral sulfonylurea. Patients with type 1 diabetes typically experience symptomatic hypoglycemia on average twice weekly and severe hypoglycemia once annually. The progressive loss of islet cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes results in a higher risk of both symptomatic and unrecognized hypoglycemia over time. Patients with diabetes who become hypoglycemic are also more susceptible to developing defective counter-regulation, also known as hypoglycemia awareness autonomic failure, which is life-threatening and must be aggressively addressed. In patients unable to recognize hypoglycemia symptoms, frequent home monitoring or use of continuous glucose sensors are critical. Primary care physicians play a key role in the prevention and management of hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes, particularly in those requiring intensive insulin therapy, yet physicians are often unaware of the multitude of consequences of hypoglycemia or how to deal with them. Careful monitoring, adherence to guidelines, and use of optimal treatment combinations are all important steps toward improving care in patients with diabetes. The most important goals are for primary care physicians to recognize that every patient treated with antihyperglycemic medications is at risk of iatrogenic hypoglycemia and to ask patients about hypoglycemia at every visit.

An observational non-interventional study of people with diabetes beginning or changed to insulin analogue therapy in non-Western countries: the A1chieve study

AIM

The aim of A(1)chieve was to remedy the deficit of data on the efficacy and safety of insulin analogues in routine clinical care in less well-resourced/newly developed countries.

METHODS

A non-interventional, 6-month, observational study of 66,726 people with type 2 diabetes, both insulin users and non-insulin users, started on insulin detemir, insulin aspart or biphasic insulin aspart in 28 countries across four continents.

RESULTS

Baseline HbA(1c) (±SD) was poor: 9.5 ± 1.8%. At 6 months, improvement was -2.1 ± 1.7% in the entire cohort, and -2.2 ± 1.7% and -1.8 ± 1.7% for prior non-insulin users and insulin users. All three analogue therapies gave similar results, again independently of prior insulin use, but also from seven pre-specified country groupings. Overall, hypoglycaemia did not increase in those new to insulin, and fell in those switching insulins. There was no change in body weight (-0.1 ± 3.7 kg), while lipid profile and systolic blood pressure (-6.3 ± 17.1 mmHg) were improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Beginning insulin analogue therapy in people with type 2 diabetes and poor blood glucose control is associated with marked improvements in diverse aspects of vascular risk factor profile without evidence of clinically significant safety or tolerability problems.

Efficacy and safety comparison of rapid-acting insulin aspart and regular human insulin in the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Insulin aspart (IAsp) is one of the three rapid-acting insulin analogues (RAAs) registered for the treatment of diabetes. However, there is an ongoing debate concerning the efficacy and safety of RAAs. For this reason, a systematic review-based study was performed to compare clinical outcomes of treatment with IAsp and regular human insulin (RHI) as well as biphasic insulin aspart and premixed human insulin in type 1 and type 2 diabetes (T1DM, T2DM) patients.

METHODS

Relevant articles were identified by a systematic search through the electronic medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) up to July 2009.

RESULTS

A total of 28 trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including 17 studies of T1DM, 10 of T2DM and one study of both. For T1DM, pooled data for HbA(1c) (13 studies) demonstrated lower levels with IAsp than with RHI (WMD=-0.11%; 95% CI: -0.16 to -0.06). In addition, meta-analysis revealed statistically significant differences in favour of IAsp for postprandial glucose (PPG) after breakfast, lunch and dinner, but not for fasting glucose (FG). The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire evaluating treatment flexibility showed IAsp benefits compared with RHI (WMD=0.31; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.47). Safety analyses (three studies) showed a significant reduction in nocturnal hypoglycaemia risk with IAsp (RR=0.67; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.83), and no difference in severe hypoglycaemias and a slight increase in any hypoglycaemic episodes with RAAs (RR=1.06; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.10). For T2DM, a meta-analysis of nine studies revealed no significant differences between IAsp and RHI in HbA(1c) (WMD=-0.04%; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.03), whereas PPG was significantly lower in the IAsp group (WMD=-1.18 mmol/L; 95% CI: -1.88 to -0.47). No studies of treatment satisfaction or quality of life were identified.

CONCLUSION

Analyses based on a systematic review showed that treatment with IAsp in T1DM patients resulted in moderately better metabolic control and treatment satisfaction than RHI. In T2DM patients, meta-analysis showed improvement in PPG, but not in any other outcomes.

Improved glycaemic control with reduced hypoglycaemic episodes and without weight gain using long-term modern premixed insulins in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

The primary goal of the study was to evaluate retrospectively efficacy of long-term modern premixed insulin (MPI) administration. The secondary aims were to monitor weight gain, hypoglycaemia and compliance during MPI therapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

One hundred and fifteen outpatients with type 2 diabetes (64 male patients, 51 female patients; mean age 62.4±12.2 years; mean duration of diabetes 10±8 years; mean weight 84.3±14.8 kg) were included in this study. Patients were prescribed one of three MPIs thrice-daily: biphasic insulin lispro 25, biphasic insulin lispro 50, or biphasic insulin aspart 30. Metformin was combined with MPI in 81 patients. Data prior to and during MPI treatment were retrieved from computerised patient medical files.

RESULTS

After a mean treatment period of 2.9±0.9 years, mean A1C levels and fasting blood glucose decreased from 8.7±1.4% and 193±59 mg/dl to 7.3±1.1% and 141±41 mg/dl (p<0.001 for both), respectively. Thirty-six per cent of the cohort achieved target A1C level of ≤7%. Serum triglycerides decreased from 183±109 mg/dl to 151±76 mg/dl (p<0.001). Weight did not change during MPI treatment. Frequency of minor hypoglycaemic episodes decreased significantly during MPI administration. No major hypoglycaemic event was reported. Number of incompliant patients decreased significantly from 39 to 25 (p=0.001) during MPI treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Modern premixed insulins represent an effective and safe long-term therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Specifically, the regimen of thrice-daily injections combined with metformin is a viable treatment option.

A new look at established therapies: practical tools for optimizing insulin use

PURPOSE

Current evidence shows early initiation of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) improves glycemic control, responsiveness to subsequent oral antidiabetic therapies, beta-cell function, and possible cardiovascular outcomes. The American Diabetes Association (ADA)/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2008 algorithm introduces insulin therapy earlier in the treatment of T2DM with prompt intensification to achieve therapeutic goals. Agent selection and insulin regimens are based on patient A1C levels and willingness to monitor blood glucose, use of previous medications, blood glucose patterns, diet, and lifestyle. Practical considerations offered for diabetes educators and clinicians include creating strategies for early initiation of insulin, addressing patients' psychosocial barriers and quality of life concerns, understanding pharmacokinetic properties of insulin formulations, selecting appropriate therapy and patient-based regimens, and intensifying therapy to achieve glycemic control.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes education, including intentional curriculum design, for patients with T2DM who are initiating or intensifying insulin therapy, addresses patient barriers to care, reduces the burden of treatment, improves adherence to treatment protocols, and helps optimize clinical outcomes.

IMPROVE™ observational study of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus

The IMPROVE™ study is the largest observational study of therapy in Type 2 diabetes mellitus to date. It is a multinational study investigating the safety and efficacy of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in the routine management of patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Five published reports on this study have provided baseline demographic information for patients receiving BIAsp 30 in eight countries, information on the safety and efficacy outcomes for those patients and analyses of three subgroups of patients who were insulin-naive, receiving basal insulin or receiving biphasic human insulin before the start of the study. These subanalyses provided information on the optimal prescribing and dosing strategies when starting treatment with BIAsp 30 in these groups of patients in normal clinical practice. The study extends the results from clinical trials of BIAsp 30 and confirms its benefits in routine care, in a large, global, heterogeneous patient population.

Continuous glucose monitoring with Humalog Mix 25 versus Humalog Mix 50, twice daily: a comparative pilot study -results from the Jikei-EValuation of insulin Lispro mixture on pharmacodynamics and glycemic VariancE (J-EVOLVE) study

Objective

To evaluate glycemic variability associated with two different premixed insulin analogue formulations when used in a twice-daily regimen.

Patients and Methods

Subjects comprised type 2 diabetic patients aged 20-79 years, treated with twice daily premixed insulin or insulin analogue formulations. All subjects were hospitalized for 6 days and randomized to receive either Humalog Mix 25 (Mix 25) or Humalog Mix 50 (Mix 50). They were then crossed over to the other arm between day 3 and day 4 of the study. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was performed on all subjects to examine the differences in glycemic variability.

Results

Eleven type 2 diabetic patients were enrolled. No significant difference was found in 24-hour mean glucose values and their SDs, pre-meal glucose values, increases from pre-meal to peak glucose values, or time to peak glucose levels between either group. However, the mean glucose values observed during 0-8 hrs were significantly lower with Mix 25 compared to Mix 50 (128 vs. 147 mg/dL; p = 0.024).

Conclusions

The twice-daily Mix 25 regimen provided superior overnight glycemic control compared to the Mix 50 regimen in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. However, both twice-daily regimens with either Mix 25 or Mix 50 provided inadequate post-lunch glycemic control.

Trial Registration

Current Controlled Trials UMIN000001327

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: insulin analogue mix 50, a potential role in reducing postprandial hyperglycaemia and cardiovascular disease

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Postprandial hyperglycaemia is becoming topical, with studies suggesting a link to cardiovascular disease. Recently, a number of new therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have become available.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This review looks at the evidence for the potential role of insulin analogue mix 50 to reduce postprandial hyperglycaemia and cardiovascular disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Medline and Embase databases were searched using the MeSH terms to identify relevant studies from 1980 to 2009. Both original articles and reviews were extracted. Published reference lists were also examined. MeSH terms used for literature searching: human insulins, insulin analogues, insulin analogue mix 50, glycaemia, postprandial glucose, fasting glucose, type 2 diabetes, type 1 diabetes, cardiovascular disease.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The reader is presented with evidence discussing the importance of postprandial hyperglycaemia and studies comparing different insulin regimes and in particular insulin analogue mix 50 and its potential to reduce postprandial glucose surges and reduce cardiovascular disease.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGE

Insulin analogue mix 50 is a viable therapeutic option in a sub-group of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Mid- and high-ratio premix insulin analogues: potential treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes in need of greater postprandial blood glucose control

Some patients with type 2 diabetes continue to have high postprandial blood glucose levels on twice-daily regimens of 'low-ratio' premix insulin formulations (up to 30% rapid-acting, with 70% protracted insulin). These patients require intensified insulin therapy, which can be provided by a twice- or thrice-daily regimen of mid-ratio (50% rapid-acting and 50% protaminated intermediate-acting insulin - human or analogue) or high-ratio (70% rapid-acting and 30% protaminated insulin - analogue only) premix insulin. Alternatively, a third daily injection of low-ratio premix insulin can be added to the regimen, with the option of incorporating one or more injections of mid- or high-ratio premix as required, and as an alternative to basal-bolus therapy. How these mid- and high-ratio formulations differ from the low-ratio premix insulins is reviewed here, with the aim of identifying the role of these formulations in diabetes management. Glucose clamp studies have shown that premix analogues give serum insulin levels proportional to their percentage of rapid-acting uncomplexed insulin: the higher the proportion, the greater the maximum level reached. Other pharmacokinetic parameters were not always significantly different between the mid- and high-ratio formulations. In clinical trials, postprandial plasma glucose and glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA(1c)) levels were significantly reduced with thrice-daily mid- /high-ratio premix analogue when compared with twice-daily low-ratio biphasic human insulin (BHI) 30/70 or once-daily insulin glargine. Moreover, glycaemic control with mid-/high-ratio premix analogue was found to be similar to that with a basal-bolus therapy. Mid- and high-ratio premix regimens are generally well tolerated. The frequency of minor hypoglycaemia was reportedly higher with mid- /high-ratio premix analogues than with BHI 30, but nocturnal hypoglycaemia was less frequent. Although there is little evidence that clinical outcomes with mid-ratio premix analogues are different from those with high-ratio, they are useful additions to the low-ratio formulations for the management of diabetes, and addressing postprandial hyperglycaemia in particular.

Comparison between a basal-bolus and a premixed insulin regimen in individuals with type 2 diabetes-results of the GINGER study

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of an intensified insulin regimen, using insulin glargine (glargine) once daily and pre-meal insulin glulisine (glulisine) (basal-bolus), with a conventional therapy, using premixed insulin (premix) twice daily.

METHODS

This 52-week, open-label, randomized, multinational, multicentre trial included 310 subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on premix, with or without metformin, who were randomized to a basal-bolus regimen with glargine and glulisine (n = 153; mean +/- s.d. age 60.2 +/- 7.5 years; HbA1c 8.6 +/- 0.8%; weight 87.0 +/- 15.1 kg; T2D duration 12.8 +/- 5.8 years) or twice-daily premix (n = 157; age 60.9 +/- 7.8 years; HbA1c 8.5 +/- 0.9%; weight 84.3 +/- 15.0 kg; T2D duration 12.5 +/- 6.8 years). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint.

RESULTS

Mean decrease in baseline-to-endpoint HbA1c for basal-bolus vs. premix was -1.31 vs. -0.80% (difference: -0.476%; 95% Cl: -0.714, -0.238; p = 0.0001, ancova). More subjects reached HbA1c < or = 7.0% in the basal-bolus group than in the premix group [68 (46.6%) vs. 43 (27.9%); p = 0.0004], while they also experienced significantly lower mean +/- s.d. daytime (-2.7 +/- 2.3 vs. -2.3 +/- 2.5 mmol/l; p = 0.0033) and postprandial (-3.1 +/- 2.6 vs. -2.5 +/- 2.8 mmol/l; p < 0.0001) blood glucose. Endpoint daily insulin doses were 98.0 +/- 48.7 vs. 91.3 +/- 44.3 IU (p = 0.2104); mean weight gain was +3.6 +/- 4.0 vs. +2.2 +/- 4.5 kg (p = 0.0073). Mean number of overall hypoglycaemic events with basal-bolus and premix was 13.99 and 18.54 events/patient year, respectively (difference: -3.90; 95% CI: -10.40, 2.60; p = 0.2385).

CONCLUSIONS

An intensified basal-bolus regimen using glargine/glulisine results in a significantly superior glycaemic control vs. premix therapy in a population with long-standing insulin-treated T2D, with no increase in the rates of hypoglycaemia.

Cost-effectiveness of switching to biphasic insulin aspart from human premix insulin in a US setting

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching to biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) from human premix insulin for type 2 diabetes patients in the United States (US) setting.

METHODS

The previously published and validated IMS Core Diabetes Model was used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) and costs over 30 years. Patient characteristics and treatment effects were based on Canadian patients included the IMPROVE observational study (n = 311). Mean glycohaemoglobin (HbA(1c)) was 8.4%, duration of diabetes 16 years and prevalence of complications high at baseline. Simulations were conducted from the perspective of a third-party payer, with costs accounted in 2008 US dollars ($).

RESULTS

BIAsp 30 was projected to improve life expectancy by 0.202 years and QALE by 0.301 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), due to a reduced incidence of most diabetes-related complications. BIAsp 30 was associated with increased lifetime direct medical costs ($76,517 vs. 67,518) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,870 per QALY gained. Long-term outcomes were sensitive to the impact of BIAsp 30 on hypoglycaemia and changes in HbA(1c).

CONCLUSIONS

BIAsp 30 may represent a cost-effective treatment option in the US setting for advanced type 2 diabetes patients experiencing poor glycaemic control or hypoglycaemia on human premix insulin.

LIMITATIONS

The application of treatment effect data derived from a Canadian cohort to the US setting was a limitation of the cost-effectiveness analysis. The findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis are not applicable to insulin-naïve diabetes patients.

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.

Improvement in glycemic control, cardiovascular risk factors and anthropometric data in type 2 diabetic patients after the switch from biphasic human insulin to biphasic premix analog insulin aspart

A nagyszámú 2-es típusú diabeteses beteg bevonásával végzett, hosszú távú vizsgálatok eredményei egyértelműen bizonyították, hogy a tartósan jó anyagcserehelyzettel megelőzhetők a késői (micro- és macrovascularis) szövődmények. Jelen felmérésben a szerzők beavatkozással nem járó, úgynevezett obszervációs vizsgálat során Magyarország 50 cukorbeteg-szakellátó helyén 2007–2008-ban humán premix készítményről analóg premix inzulinra [bifázisos aszpart inzulin (BIAsp) – NovoMix® 30] átállított betegek adatait elemzik retrospektív módon. Az analízisbe bevont 2898 beteg átlagéletkora 66,20 ± 10,10 év, a diagnózistól eltelt idő az esetek 43%-ában több mint 10 év volt. A NovoMix® 30-kezelés hatodik hónapjának végén a HbA 1c jelentős, statisztikailag szignifikáns javulását észlelték: a kiinduláskor mért 9,10 ± 1,44%-os szint 7,62 ± 1,00%-ra csökkent ( p < 0,001). A lipidprofil is előnyösen változott (bár a célértéket az esetek többségében nem sikerült elérni). A szisztolés és diasztolés vérnyomás átlaga alacsonyabb lett, a testsúly 84,2 ± 14,9 kg-ról 82,6 ± 13,9 kg-ra ( p < 0,01) csökkent. Mindez a kiinduláshoz képest alacsonyabb napi inzulinadag (49,0 ± 17,4 IE versus 48,4 ± 17,6 IE, p < 0,001) és a hypoglykaemiás epizódok előfordulásának szignifikáns csökkenése mellett alakult ki. Az eredmények igazolták, hogy NovoMix® 30-kezeléssel a szénhidrát-anyagcsere jelentősen javul, ami részben az alacsonyabb HbA 1c -szintben és a célértéket elérők szignifikánsan magasabb számában, másrészt a ritkábban előforduló hypoglykaemiás reakciókban nyilvánult meg. Az egyéb cardiovascularis tényezők szignifikáns javulása szintén fontos eredmény, de ennek magyarázata egyelőre hiányzik, és kontrollált, prospektív tanulmányok elvégzését igényli.

An exploratory study of the effect of using high-mix biphasic insulin aspart in people with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To compare blood glucose control when using biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) three times a day (using 70/30 high-mix before breakfast and lunch), with biphasic human insulin (BHI, 30/70) twice daily in adults with type 2 diabetes already treated with insulin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a 60-day, open-label, crossover study, people with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes [n = 38, baseline haemoglobin A1c 8.3 +/- 0.9 (s.d.) %] were randomized to BIAsp three times a day before meals, as BIAsp 70 (70% insulin aspart and 30% protamine-complexed insulin aspart) before breakfast and lunch and BIAsp 30 (30/70 free and protamine-complexed insulin aspart) before dinner, or to human premix insulin (BHI) 30/70 twice a day before meals. A 24-h in-patient plasma glucose profile was performed at the end of each 30-day treatment period. The total daily insulin dose of BIAsp regimen was 110% of BHI and the doses were not changed during the study.

RESULTS

There was no difference between BIAsp and BHI in geometric weighted average serum glucose over 24 h [7.3 vs. 7.7 mmol/l, BIAsp/BHI ratio 0.95 (95% CI 0.88-1.02), not significant (NS)], but daytime geometric weighted average glucose concentration was significantly lower with the BIAsp regimen than with BHI [8.3 vs. 9.2 mmol/l, BIAsp/BHI ratio 0.90 (0.84-0.98), p = 0.014]. The mealtime serum glucose excursion was also lower with BIAsp than with BHI with statistically significant differences at lunchtime [difference -4.9 (-7.0 to -2.7) mmol/l, p = 0.000); the difference in glucose excursions above 7.0 mmol/l was also significant [-5.8 (-8.3 to -3.2) mmol/l, p = 0.000). The proportion of participants experiencing confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes was similar between regimens (42 vs. 43%, NS).

CONCLUSIONS

An insulin regimen using high-mix BIAsp (BIAsp 70) before breakfast and lunch and BIAsp 30 before dinner can achieve lower blood glucose levels during the day through reduced mealtime glucose excursions in particular at lunchtime than a twice-daily premix regimen.