Premixed insulin treatment for type 2 diabetes: analogue or human?

Prandial Insulins: A Person-Centered Choice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postprandial hyperglycemia, or elevated blood glucose after meals, is associated with the development and progression of various diabetes-related complications. Prandial insulins are designed to replicate the natural insulin release after meals and are highly effective in managing post-meal glucose spikes. Currently, different types of prandial insulins are available such as human regular insulin, rapid-acting analogs, ultra-rapid-acting analogs, and inhaled insulins. Knowledge about diverse landscape of prandial insulin will optimize glycemic management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Human regular insulin, identical to insulin produced by the human pancreas, has a slower onset and extended duration, potentially leading to post-meal hyperglycemia and later hypoglycemia. In contrast, rapid-acting analogs, such as lispro, aspart, and glulisine, are new insulin types with amino acid modifications that enhance their subcutaneous absorption, resulting in a faster onset and shorter action duration. Ultra-rapid analogs, like faster aspart and ultra-rapid lispro, offer even shorter onset of action, providing better meal-time flexibility. The Technosphere insulin offers an inhaled route for prandial insulin delivery. The prandial insulins can be incorporated into basal-bolus, basal plus, or prandial-only regimens or delivered through insulin pumps. Human regular insulin, aspart, lispro, and faster aspart are recommended for management of hyperglycemia during pregnancy. Ongoing research is focused on refining prandial insulin replacement and exploring newer delivery methods. The article provides a comprehensive overview of various prandial insulin options and their clinical applications in the management of diabetes.

Management of Glucocorticoid-Induced Hyperglycemia

Glucocorticoids are potent immunosuppressive and anti-inflammatory drugs used for various systemic and localized conditions. The use of glucocorticoids needs to be weighed against their adverse effect of aggravating hyperglycemia in persons with diabetes mellitus, unmask undiagnosed diabetes mellitus, or precipitate glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus appearance. Hyperglycemia is associated with poor clinical outcomes, including infection, disability after hospital discharge, prolonged hospital stay, and death. Furthermore, clear guidelines for managing glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia are lacking. Therefore, this consensus document aims to develop guidance on the management of glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia. Twenty expert endocrinologists, in a virtual meeting, discussed the evidence and practical experience of real-life management of glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia. The expert group concluded that we should be proactive in terms of diagnosis, management, and post-steroid care. Since every patient has different severity of underlying disease, clinical stratification would help understand patient profiles and determine the treatment course. Patients at home with pre-existing diabetes who are already on oral or injectable therapy can continue the same as long as they are clinically stable and eating adequately. However, depending on the degree of hyperglycemia, modification of doses may be required. Initiating basal bolus with correction regimen is recommended for patients in non-intensive care unit settings. For patients in intensive care unit, variable rate intravenous insulin infusion could be temporarily used, but under supervision of diabetes inpatient team, and patients can be transitioned to subcutaneous insulin once stable baseline assessment and continual evaluation are crucial for day-to-day decisions concerning insulin doses. Glycemic variability should be carefully monitored, and interventions to treat patients should also aim at achieving and maintaining euglycemia. Rational use of glucose-lowering drugs is recommended and treatment regimen should ensure maximum safety for both patient and provider. Glucovigilance is required as the steroids taper during transition, and insulin dosage should be reduced subsequently. Increased clinical and economic burden resulting from corticosteroid-related adverse events highlights the need for effective management. Therefore, these recommendations would help successfully manage GC-induced hyperglycemia and judiciously allocate resources.

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.

Insulin and insulin analogs as antidiabetic therapy: A perspective from clinical trials

The discovery of insulin in 1921 and the progress achieved in the ensuing century highlight the promise and challenge of biochemically modifying the molecule to achieve optimization of its delivery and therapeutic efficacy. Normal endogenous insulin secretion consists of a highly orchestrated physiologic loop wherein multiple metabolic signals trigger the pancreatic β cells to secrete the precise amount of insulin into the portal system required to maintain euglycemia. Accordingly, in the treatment of diabetes, attempting to replicate this complex physiology with exogenous insulin therapy given subcutaneously presents a clinical challenge. In this context, recombinant DNA-based technology has enabled the development of insulin analogs that have been specifically designed to confer advantageous pharmacodynamic features that can better mimic endogenous insulin secretion. In this review, we discuss the development of the most widely available insulin preparations and provide evidence-based insight into their use in clinical practice.

The Clinical Role of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart in Type 2 Diabetes: An Empirical Perspective from Experience in Australia

Treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes following failure of basal insulin commonly involves the addition of a rapid-acting insulin analogue (basal plus one or more prandial doses; multiple daily injections) or by a switch to premixed insulin. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp), comprising rapid-acting insulin aspart and ultra-long-acting insulin degludec in solution, enables both fasting and post-prandial glucose control, with some advantages over other treatment intensification options. These include straightforward dose titration, flexibility in dose timing, low injection burden, simplicity of switching and a lower risk of hypoglycaemia. In Australia, where insulin degludec on its own is not available, IDegAsp enables patients to still benefit from its ultra-long-acting properties. This review aims to provide guidance on where and how to use IDegAsp. Specifically, guidance is included on the initiation of IDegAsp in insulin-naïve patients, treatment intensification from basal insulin, switching from premixed or basal-bolus insulin to IDegAsp, up-titration from once- to twice-daily IDegAsp and the use of IDegAsp in special populations or situations.

Better glycaemic control with BioChaperone glargine lispro co-formulation than with insulin lispro Mix25 or separate glargine and lispro administrations after a test meal in people with type 2 diabetes

Because of its physico-chemical properties, insulin glargine is usually not mixable with rapid insulins. BioChaperone BC147 is a polyanionic amphiphilic polymer, solubilizing insulin glargine at neutral pH, and thus enabling stable glargine formulation with fast-acting insulin lispro (BioChaperone glargine lispro co-formulation [BC Combo]). We investigated pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints and postprandial glucose (PPG) control after administration of BC Combo (75% insulin glargine, 25% insulin lispro), insulin lispro Mix25 (LMix) and separate injections of insulins glargine (75% total dose) and lispro (25% total dose [G + L]) immediately before ingestion of a mixed meal in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), using a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy crossover study design. Participants received individualized bolus doses (mean 0.62 U/kg) of BC Combo, LMix or G + L, together with a solid mixed meal (610 kcal, 50% carbohydrate, 30% fat, 20% protein). Insulin dosages were kept constant for each study day. Thirty-nine participants with T2DM (mean ± SD age and glycated haemoglobin 60.8 ± 7.5 years and  64 ± 6 mmol/mol, respectively) were randomized. BC Combo improved the predefined primary endpoint, early PPG control, compared to LMix (incremental area under the blood glucose concentration-time curve from 0 to 2 hours after the meal [ΔAUC_BG,0-2h ] reduction of 18%; P = 0.0009) and G + L (ΔAUC_BG,0-2h reduction of 10%; P = 0.0450). The number of mealtime hypoglycaemic episodes per participant was lower with BC Combo (22 episodes in 14 participants) compared to LMix (43 episodes in 20 participants; P = 0.0028), but not significantly different from G + L (28 episodes in 19 participants; P = 0.2523). BC Combo demonstrated superior early PPG control with fewer hypoglycaemic episodes compared to LMix and superior early PPG control compared to separate G + L administrations.

Attitude and safety of patients with diabetes observing the Ramadan fast

AIMS

To describe the attitude of type 2 diabetes patients toward Ramadan fasting. A Secondary purpose was to describe rates of hypoglycemia during Ramadan according to type of treatment.

METHODS

A prospective, non-randomized study for 2 years. Participants with type 2 diabetes attending Dammam Diabetes Center, Saudi Arabia were stratified for fasting according to ADA recommendations. Results are presented using mean, standard deviation and percentages.

RESULTS

Total of 360 participants with type 2 diabetes. Mean ± SD glycosylated hemoglobin was 8.9 ± 2.1. More than 80% of individuals were in the ADA higher risk group however, they all fasted Ramadan. The mean non-fasting days was 2.6 days and overall rate of hypoglycaemia was 24.7%. Both parameters were directly proportionate to the risk stratification level (P-value <0.05). Despite hypoglycaemia, 29.3% continued fasting. Hypoglycemia was highest in patients treated with insulin (P-value <0.05) followed by those treated with oral agents including sulphonylurea as compared to oral agents excluding sulfonylurea (P-value = 0.002). Those who experienced hypoglycemia prior to Ramadan had the highest rate of hypoglycemia during Ramadan (53.3%) (P-value = 0.0065).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite medical advice, the vast majority of type 2 diabetes participants categorized as high risk, fasted Ramadan. Approximately one quarter of people with type 2 diabetes in our cohort experience hypoglycaemia and this was directly related to their fasting risk level. A sizeable proportion continued the fast despite hypoglycemic. Insulin therapy with or without oral agents and previous episodes of hypoglycemia before Ramadan predicted hypoglycemia risk during Ramadan. HbA1c and weight showed some clinical improvements post Ramadan fasting. This is a single center study of mostly high risk fasting patients and hence, these results should not be generalized.

Assessment the equivalence of the bioanalogue insulin lizpro biphasic 25 (Geropharm-bio, Russia) and Humalog® Mix 25 (Lilly France, France) using the euglycemic hyperinsulinum clamp method on healthy volonters

Background: Modern medicine requires use of effective antidiabetic drugs that can imitate the natural profile of insulin in the body of patients with diabetes mellitus. Examples of such preparations include biphasic insulin lispro, which is a mixture of insulin lispro ultra-short action and insulin lispro protamine suspension with prolonged effect. The clinical trials (CT) program for biosimilar insulins contains pharmacology studies: pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and clinical safety studies. Aims: To demonstrate Biphasic Insulin Lispro 25, suspension for subcutaneous administration, 100 U/ml (GEROPHARM-Bio, Russia) and Humalog Mix 25, suspension for subcutaneous administration, 100 U/ml (Lilly France, France) have comparable pharmacokinetic profiles under conditions of hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp (HEC) in healthy volunteers. Materials and methods: The study was conducted on 48 healthy men aged between 18 to 50 years. This was a double-blind, randomized, crossover study of comparative pharmacokinetics of drugs. The investigational products (IP) were administered before the clamp in a single dose of 0.4 U/kg subcutaneously in the abdominal wall. Regular blood sampling was performed during the study. The insulin concentrations in the samples were determined using an ELISA method. The results of the determination were used to calculate the PK parameters and construct the concentration-time curves. Adjust glucose infusion rates were based on blood glucose measurements. These data were used to calculate the PD parameters. Results: Our results demonstrated that Biphasic Insulin Lispro 25 and Humalog Mix 25 have comparable PK and PD profiles under conditions of HEC in healthy volunteers. The confidence intervals for the ratio of the geometric mean for Cins.max and AUCins.012 were 87.7599.90% and 83.7696.98% respectively, which were well within 80125% limits for establishing comparability. Conclusions: Biphasic Insulin Lispro 25 and Humalog Mix 25 are equivalent based on this CT applying the HEC technique in healthy volunteers.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Register identifier: ChiCTR1800015828.

The co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart lowers fasting plasma glucose and rates of confirmed and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, independent of baseline glycated haemoglobin levels, disease duration or body mass index: A pooled meta-analysis of phase III studies in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate whether the proven benefits of insulin degludec (IDeg) combined with insulin aspart (IAsp), known as IDegAsp, given twice daily, extend across a wide spectrum of patients with diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a post hoc pooled analysis of 5 phase III randomized, 26-week, open-label, treat-to-target trials comparing IDegAsp twice daily (n = 1111) with one of two comparators: premixed insulin (biphasic insulin aspart 30 [BIAsp 30]) twice daily (n = 561) or IDeg once daily + IAsp (n = 136). Patient data were stratified according to baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) categories, as well as by baseline duration of diabetes or body mass index (BMI) categories.

RESULTS

We conducted a meta-analysis of 5 clinical trials: NCT01513590, NCT01009580, NCT01059812, NCT01680341 and NCT01713530. End-of-trial results were broadly consistent, with differences between IDegAsp and comparators observed in phase III trials. HbA1c results were similar for IDegAsp and the comparators in all baseline characteristic (HbA1c, duration of diabetes or BMI) and category groups (number ranges). Significantly lower FPG level was observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline characteristic and most category groups (excluding FPG <5.5 mmol/L). Significantly lower insulin doses were observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline characteristic and half of the category groups, and significantly lower rates of confirmed and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia were observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline variable and category groups.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp retains a consistent safety and efficacy profile in patients with different baseline characteristics.

Relative Contribution of Fasting and Postprandial Blood Glucose in Overall Glycemic Control: Post Hoc Analysis of a Phase IV Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Few prospective clinical trials have investigated the role of fasting blood glucose (FBG) and/or postprandial glucose (PPG) in assessing overall glycemic control by using different insulin regimens. In the present post hoc analysis, we assessed the contribution of FBG and/or PPG in overall glycemic control in Chinese patients under insulin treatment.

METHODS

CLASSIFY is a phase IV, randomized, open-label, 26-week, parallel-arm, treat-to-target, multinational, controlled study in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus to compare the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro mix 25 (LM25) and insulin lispro mix 50 (LM50) as starter insulins. Insulin was titrated with an aim to target pre-meal blood glucose (BG) levels at > 3.9 and ≤ 6.1 mmol/L before breakfast and dinner. The primary outcome assessed was the change in HbA1c from baseline.

RESULTS

Chinese patients contributed 38.7% (N = 156) of the total population. The majority of patients were male (52.6%). The mean (SD) body mass index was 24.54 (3.04) kg/m² and mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.54 (1.10) % at baseline. At week 26, LM50 showed a significantly greater reduction from baseline in HbA1c (- 2.03% vs - 1.55%, P < 0.001), average daily BG (- 3.21 vs - 2.34 mmol/L, P < 0.001), average post-meal BG (- 3.58 vs - 2.39 mmol/L, P < 0.001), and average prandial BG excursion (- 1.01 vs - 0.22 mmol/L, P = 0.006) than the LM25 group. The reductions in average pre-meal BG (- 2.59 vs - 2.28 mmol/L, P = 0.137) were not significantly different between the groups. The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets (< 7% or ≤ 6.5%) without nocturnal hypoglycemia or weight gain was greater (P < 0.05) with LM50 compared with LM25.

CONCLUSION

LM50 achieved better overall glycemic control than LM25 as a starter insulin in Chinese patients, which may be due to greater improvement in PPG levels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identification number: NCT01773473.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company, Shanghai, China.

Efficacy, Safety, and Quality of Treatment Satisfaction of Premixed Human and Analogue Insulin Regimens in a Large Cohort of Type 2 Diabetic Patients: PROGENS BENEFIT Observational Study

Diabetes is a lifelong course disease, so insulin treatment has to be effective and safe, and patients should be satisfied with it. We aimed to compare efficacy, safety, and quality of treatment satisfaction of human and premixed analogue insulin among 3264 patients (53.58% women) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in a real-life environment. 2493 patients (62.77%) had been assigned to group I where before the inclusion into the study the treatment regimen has been changed from analogue to human premixed insulin and 771 patients (37.23%) to group II where the treatment with insulin analogue remained unchanged. At the end of the study, there was a reduction of HbA1c observed in both of the groups; however, Δ HbA1c was significantly higher in group 1 (-0.599 versus -0.406; P < 0.001 at visit 3 versus visit 1). The number of hypoglycemic episodes during the study observation was insignificantly reduced in both groups. Diabetes treatment satisfaction measured with DTSQ increased at the end of the study and was significantly better in group I compared to group II (P < 0.001). This observational study proved that both human and premixed analogue insulin are effective and safe, and patients are satisfied with the treatment.

A Review of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart: Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Properties and Their Implications in Clinical Use

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp; 70 % IDeg and 30 % IAsp) is a soluble combination of two individual insulin analogues in one product, designed to provide mealtime glycaemic control due to the IAsp component and basal glucose-lowering effect from the IDeg component. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of IDegAsp have been investigated in a series of clinical pharmacology studies with generally comparable designs, methodologies and patient inclusion/exclusion criteria. The glucose-lowering effect profile of IDegAsp during once-daily dosing at steady state shows distinct and clearly separated action from the prandial and basal components of IDegAsp. The IAsp component provides rapid onset and peak glucose-lowering effect followed by a flat glucose-lowering effect lasting beyond 30 h due to IDeg. During twice-daily dosing, the distinct peak effect and the flat basal effect are retained following each dose. The pharmacological properties of IDegAsp are maintained in the elderly, children, adolescents, Japanese patients and those with hepatic or renal impairment. The potential clinical benefits associated with the pharmacological properties of IDegAsp have been verified in phase III clinical trials comparing IDegAsp with three other currently available treatment options: premixed insulin, basal-bolus regimens and basal-only therapy. IDegAsp shows favourable clinical benefits compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 and is a viable alternative to basal-bolus and basal-only therapy. This review presents the results from clinical pharmacology studies conducted with IDegAsp to date, and extrapolates these results to clinical use of IDegAsp in the context of findings from the IDegAsp clinical therapeutic studies.

Influencing factors of glycemic variability in hospitalized type 2 diabetes patients with insulin therapy: A Strobe-compliant article

Previous studies have shown that glucose fluctuation is closely related to oxidative stress and diabetic complications. However, only few studies have evaluated the influencing factors of glycemic variability (GV) in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients so far.This was a cross-sectional study design. A total of 366 cases of hospitalized patients with T2D using insulin therapy, whom received continuous glucose monitoring from January 2014 to December 2016, were enrolled for this study. The evaluation variables of GV included standard deviation of blood glucose, coefficient of variation (CV%), mean amplitude of glycemic excursion, and absolute means of daily differences.In 366 T2D patients with insulin therapy, 148 were used multiple daily injections (MDI) insulin regimen; 144 were on premixed insulin injection; and 74 were treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin injection. Compared with MDI insulin regimen, patients on premixed insulin injection have less insulin dose per day, lower mean blood glucose, and better glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (all P <.05). Generalized linear model showed that family history of diabetes, duration of diabetes, higher HbA1c, and higher level of aspartate aminotransferase and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were positively associated with GV parameters. Otherwise, serum levels of C-peptide, premixed insulin injection, history of cardiovascular disease, and serum concentration of uric acid were inversely associated with GV parameters.Dysfunction of pancreatic β-cell and better insulin sensitivity were independent contributors to the fluctuation of blood glucose. Moreover, premixed insulin therapy may obtain better glucose control and lower within-day and day-to-day glucose variability for Chinese T2D patients with insulin therapy.

Glycemic control and safety in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who switched from premixed insulin to insulin glargine plus oral antidiabetics: a large, prospective, observational study

In some circumstances, the premixed insulin should be switched to alternative therapy. The effectiveness and the safety of switching from premixed insulin to insulin glargine plus oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have not been clarified and, hence, will be assessed in this study. Chinese patients with T2DM (2013 men and women aged 18-75 years) who had received premixed insulin ± OADs for ≥3 months with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤ 10% were enrolled in a prospective, observational study conducted at 53 hospitals across China. At baseline and at the discretion of the physician, patients switched from premixed insulin to insulin glargine plus OADs. Changes in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG), treatment satisfaction, and the incidence of hypoglycemia were assessed for 16 weeks. In total, 1850 patients completed the study. Mean HbA1c level for the group decreased significantly (from 7.8% ± 1.2% at week 1 to 7.0% ± 1.0% at week 16; P < .0001), and 55.2% of patients achieved HbA1c < 7% at week 16. Mean FPG and 2-hour PPG decreased significantly (-1.4 ± 2.2 and -2.1 ± 3.9 mmol/L, respectively; both P < .0001), whereas patient satisfaction improved significantly. Adverse events were reported in 18.7% of patients. Chinese patients with T2DM who switched from premixed insulin to insulin glargine plus OADs achieved significantly improved glycemic control and treatment satisfaction with a low incidence of hypoglycemia. Patients who are most likely to achieve the HbA1c target less than 7% are younger, have shorter disease duration, and have lower baseline HbA1c and FPG levels.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart compared with once-daily insulin glargine in participants with Type 2 diabetes: a randomized, treat-to-target study

AIMS

To investigate, in a 26-week, open-label, randomized, treat-to-target trial, the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) once daily vs insulin glargine (IGlar) once daily in adults with Type 2 diabetes, inadequately controlled on basal insulin.

METHODS

Participants were randomized (1:1) to IDegAsp once daily or IGlar once daily in combination with existing oral antidiabetic drugs. IDegAsp once daily was administered with the main evening meal or the largest meal of the day (agreed at baseline); dosing time was maintained throughout the trial. Participants titrated their insulin dose weekly to a mean pre-breakfast self-measured plasma glucose target [3.9-4.9 mmol/l (70-89 mg/dl)].

RESULTS

IDegAsp once daily was non-inferior to IGlar once daily in reducing HbA_1c after 26 weeks [mean estimated treatment difference IDegAsp once daily - IGlar once daily: -0.03% (95% CI -0.20, 0.14)]. The evening meal glucose increment was significantly lower with IDegAsp once daily vs IGlar once daily [estimated treatment difference IDegAsp once daily - IGlar once daily: -1.32 mmol/l (95% CI -1.93, -0.72); P < 0.05]. The overall confirmed hypoglycaemia rate was higher with IDegAsp once daily (estimated rate ratio 1.43; 95% CI 1.07, 1.92; P < 0.05). The rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia did not significantly differ between the IDegAsp and IGlar groups [estimated rate ratio 0.80 (95% CI 0.49, 1.30); not significant].

CONCLUSIONS

In participants with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin, IDegAsp once daily improved glycaemic control and was non-inferior to IGlar once daily. IDegAsp led to higher rates of overall hypoglycaemia than IGlar, with no significant difference in rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

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

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

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Initiation and Intensification Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes Management: A Comparison of Basal Plus and Premix Regimens

The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes (T2D) often results in the need for initiation and subsequent intensification of insulin treatment to achieve glycemic control. The aim of this review is to examine published clinical evidence that has directly compared two recommended treatment approaches in patients with T2D: (1) a 'basal plus' regimen, whereby 1-2 injections of prandial insulin are added to basal insulin; or (2) the use of once- or twice-daily premix insulin analogs, which contain both basal and prandial insulin in a single injection. Broadly, the available evidence suggests that both basal plus and premix regimens are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety when used for insulin initiation in insulin-naïve patients and intensification in patients who have failed on basal insulin; instances of greater glycemic control are observed with premix insulin; however, these are often accompanied by increases in hypoglycemia and/or weight relative to basal plus treatment, and results should be interpreted within the context of total insulin doses used. Relatively low numbers of patients achieved glycemic control when both regimens were used for insulin intensification following failure of basal insulin, suggesting that a full basal-bolus regimen and/or the use of different treatments is clinically indicated in certain patients. In summary, the current review argues that both basal plus and premix insulin regimens are relatively efficacious and safe options for patients with T2D during both insulin initiation in insulin-naïve patients and intensification in patients who have failed on basal insulin. This emphasizes the important role of patient-centered factors in clinical decision-making.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Clinical use of the co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart

AIMS

To provide a review of the available data and practical use of insulin degludec with insulin aspart (IDegAsp). Premixed insulins provide basal and prandial glucose control; however, they have an intermediate-acting prandial insulin component and do not provide as effective basal coverage as true long-acting insulins, owing to the physicochemical incompatibility of their individual components, coupled with the inflexibility of adjustment. The molecular structure of the co-formulation of IDegAsp, a novel insulin preparation, allows these two molecules to coexist without affecting their individual pharmacodynamic profiles.

METHODS

Clinical evidence in phase 2/3 trials of IDegAsp efficacy and safety in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM and T2DM) have been assessed and summarised.

RESULTS

In people with T2DM, once- and twice-daily dosing provides similar overall glycaemic control (HbA1c ) to current modern insulins, but with lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. In prior insulin users, glycaemic control was achieved with lower or equal insulin doses vs. other basal+meal-time or premix insulin regimens. In insulin-naïve patients with T2DM, IDegAsp can be started once or twice-daily, based on individual need. People switching from more than once-daily basal or premix insulin therapy can be converted unit-to-unit to once-daily IDegAsp, although this strategy should be assessed by the physician on an individual basis.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp offers physicians and people with T2DM a simpler insulin regimen than other available basal-bolus or premix-based insulin regimens, with stable daytime basal coverage, a lower rate of hypoglycaemia and some flexibility in injection timing compared with premix insulins.

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.

IDegAsp (insulin degludec + insulin aspart) for the management of type 2 diabetes: current status

The co-formulation insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) contains insulin degludec (IDeg), a basal insulin, and the rapid-acting insulin aspart (IAsp). Its unique pharmacodynamic profile provides a stable basal insulin action over a 24-h period due to the flat, ultra-long effect of IDeg, combined with prandial control from IAsp, which is unaffected by the basal component. IDegAsp provides a distinct mealtime insulin peak effect and reduces the likelihood of postprandial glucose excursions. The phase 2 and 3 clinical trial program demonstrates that IDegAsp provides effective glycemic control with lower rates of hypoglycemia compared with the current standard of care for insulins. Compared with premixed insulin formulations, IDegAsp allows mealtime flexibility, enabling the time of injection to be adjusted to a different meal(s) on a daily basis to suit changing needs, and has the potential to improve adherence rates. IDegAsp offers a promising new insulin strategy for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Treatment intensification with an insulin degludec (IDeg)/insulin aspart (IAsp) co-formulation twice daily compared with basal IDeg and prandial IAsp in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled phase III trial

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of two insulin intensification strategies for patients with type 2 diabetes previously treated with basal insulin--insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin aspart (IAsp)--administered as a co-formulation (IDegAsp) or as a basal-bolus regimen (IDeg and IAsp in separate injections).

METHODS

This 26-week, open-label, treat-to-target, phase IIIb, non-inferiority trial randomized patients (1 : 1) to IDegAsp twice daily with main meals (n = 138; IDegAsp group) or IDeg once daily and IAsp 2-4 times daily (n = 136; IDeg+IAsp group).

RESULTS

After 26 weeks, the mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level was 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) for the IDegAsp group and 6.8% (51 mmol/mol) for the IDeg+IAsp group (Δ%HbA1c from baseline -1.31 and -1.50%, respectively). The non-inferiority of IDegAsp versus IDeg+IAsp was not confirmed for mean change in HbA1c [estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04, 0.41; p = non-significant]. No significant differences were observed in the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% (56.5 and 59.6%, respectively). IDegAsp treatment resulted in a significantly lower total daily insulin dose, a smaller change in body weight, numerically lower rates of confirmed hypoglycaemia (self-reported plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/l; rate ratio 0.81; p = non-significant), and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (rate ratio 0.80; p = non-significant) versus IDeg+IAsp. Patient-reported outcome scores for social functioning were significantly higher for IDegAsp versus IDeg+IAsp (ETD 2.2; 95% CI 0.3, 4.1; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both intensification strategies effectively improved glycaemic control. Although non-inferiority was not confirmed, there were no significant differences between the groups that could affect clinical utility.

Comparison of Basal-Bolus and Premixed Insulin Regimens in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Premixed insulin is a commonly prescribed formulation for the outpatient management of patients with type 2 diabetes. The safety and efficacy of premixed insulin formulations in the hospital setting is not known.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a prospective, open-label trial, we randomized general medicine and surgery patients to receive a basal-bolus regimen with glargine once daily and glulisine before meals (n = 33) or premixed human insulin (30% regular insulin and 70% NPH insulin) twice daily (n = 39). Major outcomes included differences in daily blood glucose (BG) levels and frequency of hypoglycemic events (<70 mg/dL) between treatment groups.

RESULTS

At the first prespecified interim analysis, the study was stopped early because of an increased frequency of hypoglycemia >50% in patients treated with premixed human insulin. A total of 64% of patients treated with premixed insulin experienced one or more episodes of hypoglycemia compared with 24% in the basal-bolus group (P < 0.001). There were no differences in mean daily BG level after the first day of insulin treatment (175 ± 32 vs. 179 ± 43 mg/dL, P = 0.64) between groups. A BG target between 80 and 180 mg/dL before meals was achieved in 55.9% of BG readings in the basal-bolus group and 54.3% of BG readings in the premixed insulin group (P = 0.23). There was no difference in the length of hospital stay or mortality between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient treatment with premixed human insulin resulted in similar glycemic control but in significantly higher frequency of hypoglycemia compared with treatment with basal-bolus insulin regimen in hospitalized patients with diabetes.

Recommendations for management of diabetes during Ramadan: update 2015

Since the first ADA working group report on the recommendations for management of diabetes during Ramadan in 2005 and our update in 2010, we received many inquiries asking for regular updates on information regarding education, nutritional habits and new oral and injectable agents that may be useful for the management of patients with diabetes during Ramadan. Patients can be stratified into their risk of hypoglycemia and/or complications prior to the start of the fasting period of Ramadan. Those at high risk of hypoglycemia and with multiple diabetic complications should be advised against prolonged fasting. Even in the lower hypoglycemia risk group, adverse effects may still occur. In order to minimize adverse side effects during fasting in patients with diabetes and improve or maintain glucose control, education and discussion of glucose monitoring and treatment regimens should occur several weeks prior to Ramadan. Agents such as metformin, thiazolidinediones and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors appear to be safe and do not need dose adjustment. Most sulfonylureas may not be used safely during Ramadan except with extreme caution; besides, older agents, such as chlorpropamide or glyburide, should not be used. Reduction of the dosage of sulfonylurea is needed depending on the degree of control prior to fasting. Misconceptions and local habits should be addressed and dealt with in any educational intervention and therapeutic planning with patients with diabetes. In this regard, efforts are still needed for controlled prospective studies in the field of efficacy and safety of the different interventions during the Ramadan Fast.

Clinical experience of switching from biphasic human insulin to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Indian patients with type 2 diabetes in the A1chieve study

AIM

The aim of the following study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin (BHI) to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Indian patients with type 2 diabetes as a sub-analysis of the 24-week, non-interventional A1chieve study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Indian patients switching from BHI to BIAsp 30 based on the physicians' decisions were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs), including major hypoglycemic events; secondary outcomes included changes in hypoglycemia in the 4 weeks preceding baseline and week 24 and changes from baseline to week 24 in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPPG), body weight and quality of life (QoL).

RESULTS

Overall, 1976 patients (mean ± standard deviation age, 55.1 ± 10.6 years and diabetes duration, 10.1 ± 5.3 years) on a mean pre-study BHI dose of 0.44 ± 0.18 U/kg were included. The mean BIAsp 30 dose was 0.43 ± 0.17 U/kg at baseline and 0.44 ± 0.17 U/kg at week 24. No SADRs were reported. The proportion of patients reporting overall hypoglycemic events reduced significantly from baseline to week 24 (15.0% vs. 2.9%, P < 0.0001). The mean HbA1c level improved significantly from 9.1 ± 1.4% at baseline to 7.5 ± 1.0% at week 24, along with improvements in FPG, post-breakfast PPPG and QoL (P < 0.001). The mean body weight decreased from 69.3 ± 10.8 kg at baseline to 69.1 ± 10.4 kg at week 24 (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Switching from BHI to BIAsp 30 therapy was well-tolerated and was associated with improved glycemic control.

Comparison of insulin degludec/insulin aspart and biphasic insulin aspart 30 in uncontrolled, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a phase 3a, randomized, treat-to-target trial

OBJECTIVE

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is the first combination of a basal insulin with an ultralong duration of action, and a rapid-acting insulin in a single injection. This trial compared IDegAsp with biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with once- or twice-daily (OD or BID) pre- or self-mixed insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this 26-week, randomized, open-label, multinational, treat-to-target trial, participants (mean age 58.7 years, duration of diabetes 13 years, BMI 29.3 kg/m(2), and HbA1c 8.4% [68 mmol/mol]) were exposed (1:1) to BID injections of IDegAsp (n = 224) or BIAsp 30 (n = 222), administered with breakfast and the main evening meal and dose titrated to a self-measured premeal plasma glucose (PG) target of 4.0-5.0 mmol/L.

RESULTS

After 26 weeks, mean HbA1c was 7.1% (54 mmol/mol) for both groups, with IDegAsp achieving the prespecified noninferiority margin for mean change in HbA1c (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0.03% points [95% CI -0.18 to 0.13]). Treatment with IDegAsp was superior in lowering fasting PG (ETD -1.14 mmol/L [95% CI -1.53 to -0.76], P < 0.001) and had a significantly lower final mean daily insulin dose (estimated rate ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.83-0.96], P = 0.002). Fewer confirmed, nocturnal confirmed, and severe hypoglycemia episodes were reported for IDegAsp compared with BIAsp 30.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp BID effectively improves HbA1c and fasting PG levels with fewer hypoglycemia episodes versus BIAsp 30 in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes previously treated with once- or twice-daily pre- or self-mixed insulin.

A comparison of biphasic insulin aspart and insulin glargine administered with oral antidiabetic drugs in type 2 diabetes mellitus--a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

It is uncertain whether the addition of biphasic insulin analogues to oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) is as effective and safe as basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We performed a systematic review to compare glycaemic control and selected clinical outcomes in T2DM patients inadequately controlled with OADs whose treatment was intensified by adding biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) or insulin glargine (IGlar).

METHODS

The analysis included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified by a systematic literature search in medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and other sources) up to March 2013. Studies met the inclusion criteria if they compared BIAsp 30 vs. IGlar added to at least one OAD in T2DM patients. Trials applying different OADs in both treatment arms were also included. Results were presented as weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Five trials, including a total number of 1758 patients followed up from 24 to 28 weeks, were identified. Quantitative synthesis demonstrated that BIAsp 30 reduced HbA1c level more efficiently than IGlar [5 RCTs; WMD (95% CI): -0.21% (-0.35%, -0.08%)]. Differences were observed in favour of BIAsp for lower mean prandial glucose increment [3 RCTs; WMD (95% CI): -14.70 mg/dl (-20.09, -9.31)]; no difference was observed for fasting plasma glucose [3 RCTs; WMD (95% CI): 7.09 mg/dl (-15.76, 29.94)]. We found no evidence for higher risk of overall [2 RCTs; 63% vs. 51%; OR = 1.77 (0.91; 3.44)] and severe hypoglycaemic episodes [4 RCTs; 0.98% vs. 1.12%; OR (95% CI) = 0.88 (0.31, 2.53)] in the BIAsp 30 group as compared with IGlar group. Twice-daily administration of BIAsp 30 resulted in larger weight gain [2 RCTs; WMD (95% CI) = 1.78 kg (1.04; 2.52)].

CONCLUSIONS

BIAsp 30 added to OAD therapy results in a better glycaemic control as compared with IGlar in T2DM patients. BIAsp 30 use is associated with slightly larger weight gain but no rise in risk of severe hypoglycaemic episodes.

Switching from biphasic human insulin to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes: results from the ASEAN subgroup of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in ASEAN type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients switched from biphasic human insulin (BHI) in the non-interventional 24-week A₁chieve study.

METHODS

Indonesian, Malaysian, Filipino and Singaporean patients switched from BHI to BIAsp 30 at their physicians' discretion were included. The incidence of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs), including major hypoglycaemia was the primary endpoint. Changes in hypoglycaemia, glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPPG), lipids, body weight and systolic blood pressure were also evaluated. Quality of life (QoL) was measured using the EQ-5D questionnaire.

RESULTS

For the 465 patients included (mean ± SD age: 56 ± 10.3 years, diabetes duration: 9.7 ± 7.1 years, baseline HbA1c: 9.4 ± 1.8%), the mean pre-study BHI dose was 0.62 ± 0.28 IU/kg and 63.4% were dosing BHI twice daily (bid). The mean baseline BIAsp 30 dose was 0.65 ± 0.27 U/kg, titrated up to 0.71 ± 0.28 U/kg over 24 weeks, and most patients continued bid dosing. No SADRs or major hypoglycaemic episodes were reported. The proportion of patients reporting overall hypoglycaemia decreased significantly from 10.8% at baseline to 3.4% at Week 24 (p < 0.0001). Significant improvements in glycaemic control were noted (HbA1c: -1.4 ± 1.7%, FPG: -56.7 ± 72.5 mg/dL, post-breakfast PPPG: -84.8 ± 82.8 mg/dL, p < 0.001). Mean QoL improved by +6.6 ± 14.6 points (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

BIAsp 30 was well-tolerated and significantly increased glycaemic control in this ASEAN subgroup poorly controlled on BHI.

Physicians' perceptions of a national consensus guideline on insulin therapy: Data from the IMPACT study

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness and impact of the Indian insulin guideline in clinical practice was evaluated by the Improving Management Practices and Clinical Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes (IMPACT) Study. The study also evaluated the participating physicians' perceptions on the use of IIG versus RCP for management of diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This 26 week multicenter, open label, randomized, prospective study aimed to evaluate effectiveness of Indian insulin guideline (IIG) versus routine clinical practice (RCP) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

RESULTS

Out of 426 physicians who completed the physicians' perception questionnaire, 189 (44.4%) felt that it was "easy" to initiate insulin in their patients using IIG. Cost of therapy (52.3%), followed by poor adherence (40.3%), and lack of motivation among physicians (40.4%) were the most important reasons cited for delay in initiation of insulin therapy. Two hundred and thirty three (54.7%) physicians felt that insulin titration was made "easy" in their patients using IIG, while 104 (24.4%) had a neutral approach. A total of 222 physicians (52.1%) felt it was "convenient" applying IIG in their practice, and 239 (67.8%) physicians felt "satisfied" with using IIG for achieving the targeted HbA1c <7%. One hundred and seventy seven (41.5%) physicians felt that there was scope for improving the IIG further by simplifying and revising the titration charts [117 (27.5%)].

CONCLUSION

Primary care physicians in India have perceived the IIG to be easy algorithm to initiate and titrate insulin therapy. These results will encourage the use and facilitate future revision of the guideline.

A study comparing insulin lispro mix 25 with glargine plus lispro therapy in patients with Type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic control on oral anti-hyperglycaemic medication: results of the PARADIGM study

AIMS

To test the hypothesis that initiation and intensification with 25% insulin lispro, 75% insulin lispro protamine suspension (LM25), is non-inferior to initiation and intensification with glargine + insulin lispro therapy on change from baseline in HbA(1c).

METHODS

In this randomized, non-inferiority (margin of 0.4%), parallel, prospective, multi-country, 48-week, open-label study, patients (n = 426) with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral anti-hyperglycaemic medications were assigned to either initiating therapy with one daily LM25 injection, progressing up to three daily injections (full analysis set n = 211; per protocol set n = 177) or initiating therapy with one daily glargine injection and progressing up to three daily insulin lispro injections (full analysis set n = 212; per protocol set n = 184).

RESULTS

LM25 therapy was found to be non-inferior to glargine + insulin lispro therapy by study end (upper limit of 95% CI < 0.4), with a least-squares mean difference (95% CI) in HbA(1c) (LM25 minus glargine + insulin lispro) of -0.4 mmol/mol (95% CI -2.7 to 1.9); -0.04% (95% CI -0.25 to 0.17). No statistically significant differences between treatment groups were found in the percentage of patients achieving HbA(1c) targets or postprandial blood glucose levels. The increase in insulin dose, number of injections and weight change during the course of the study were similar in both groups. Patients in both groups experienced similar hypoglycaemia rates and safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral anti-hyperglycaemic medications, glycaemic control when initiating and intensifying with LM25 therapy was found to be non-inferior to treatment with glargine + insulin lispro therapy.

Evolution of insulin development: focus on key parameters

INTRODUCTION

Although insulin products and treatment strategies have improved significantly, clinical challenges still exist. Meeting glycemic goals while minimizing glucose variability and hypoglycemia is of utmost importance when considering existing insulin therapies and designing investigational insulin treatments.

METHODS

A PubMed search identified relevant, peer-reviewed articles related to the evolution of insulin development for this nonsystematic review. Search terms included "animal insulin," "synthetic insulin," "regular human insulin," "insulin lispro," "insulin aspart," "insulin glulisine," "insulin glargine," "insulin detemir," "insulin degludec," "biphasic human insulin," "insulin premixes," "ultra-long acting," "oral insulin," and "inhaled insulin."

RESULTS

While the discovery of animal insulin significantly decreased mortality rates from diabetes, issues with availability and large variability between batches led to difficulty in determining proper doses and, subsequently, challenges in achieving glycemic control and avoiding hypoglycemia. The development of synthetic insulin created a more readily available supply, but hypoglycemia still persisted. Recombinant DNA technology solved insulin production problems and allowed for the development of better retarding agents, but pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles still did not mimic natural insulin. Insulin premixes offered improved glycemic control, decreased intrapatient variability versus self-mixing, and required fewer injections per day; however, patient adherence remained a problem due to the need to inject 30-60 minutes before a meal for optimal control. This prompted the development of rapid-acting insulin analogs that could be injected right before a meal and long-acting insulin analogs with flatter time-action profiles.

CONCLUSION

Despite advances in insulin development, a need to provide more physiologic basal insulin coverage and reduce hypoglycemic risk in patients with diabetes remains. Newer insulin analogs and more convenient routes of insulin delivery have shown promising safety and efficacy results. Many patients with diabetes have not reached glycemic goals on currently available insulins. Additional studies are necessary to tailor optimal insulin delivery strategies to specific subsets of diabetes patients.

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.

Intensifying treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: adding insulin

Treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is typically initiated with a combination of lifestyle modification and oral drugs. This treatment provides sustained glycemic control in some patients, but many others require administration of insulin as their disease progresses and pancreatic β cells are lost. One of the most important points in long-term care for patients with type 2 diabetes is the transition to insulin therapy. Health care professionals must choose the most appropriate insulin preparations for management of patients with type 2 diabetes who cannot achieve treatment goals by using other therapies. These include basal, premixed, and basal-bolus insulin regimens. In addition, there are multiple approaches to initiation of insulin treatment, including addition of basal insulin to oral drugs, switching patients to a premixed insulin formulation, or basal-bolus treatment. The pharmacist can play a key role in the transition to insulin therapy by providing education and assisting in day-to-day management of patients with type 2 diabetes who require insulin for intensification of treatment.

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.

Insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: treatment guidelines, clinical evidence and patterns of use of basal vs premixed insulin analogues

This review addresses the apparent disconnect between international guideline recommendations, real-life clinical practice and the results of clinical trials, with regard to the initiation of insulin using basal (long-acting) or premixed insulin analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). English language guidelines vary considerably with respect to recommended glycaemic targets, the selection of human vs analogue insulin, and choice of insulin regimen. Randomised trials directly comparing insulin initiation between basal and premixed analogues are scarce, and hard endpoint outcome data are inadequate. The evidence presented suggests that a major component of the HbA1c not being attained in every day clinical practice may be a result of factors that are not adequately addressed in forced titration trials of highly motivated patients, including failure to comply with complex treatment and monitoring regimens. Enforced intensification of unrealistic complex treatment regimens and glycaemic targets may theoretically worsen the psychological well-being in some patients. More simple and sustainable treatment regimens and guidelines are urgently needed. As for the use of insulin in T2D, there is limited evidence to convincingly support that initiation of insulin using basal insulin analogues is superior to initiation using premixed insulin analogues. While awaiting improved clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness data, practical guidance from national and international diabetes organisations should consider more carefully the importance of: i) being clear and consistent; and ii) the early implementation of sustainable and cost-effective insulin treatment regimens with an emphasis on optimising treatment ease of use and patient compliance.

Insulin lispro protamine suspension in the treatment of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of published data

INTRODUCTION

Insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) is a protamine-based insulin lispro formulation that allows 24-h coverage while limiting the number of daily injections. ILPS was developed to be the basal insulin component of premixed biphasic formulations with insulin lispro, i.e., the lispro/ILPS 25/75 and 50/50 mixed compounds, but has recently also been marketed as a basal insulin analog formulation, with an indication for the therapy of diabetic patients.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the available literature on pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD), efficacy and safety of ILPS administered as basal insulin, or in premixed biphasic formulations, in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

EXPERT OPINION

The results of this review suggest that ILPS may be associated with a favorable time-action profile, basal and postprandial glycemic control, and efficacy in terms of rates of patients reaching glycosylated hemoglobin targets; an increased risk of hypoglycemic episodes, compared to other basal insulins, seems to be related to the percentage of patients upgrading from once- to twice-daily injections. This increased risk might be linked with the concomitant use of insulin secretagogues in patients on higher daily dosages and is generally not observed in patients using one injection of ILPS a day. Thus, ILPS can be considered a valid option both as basal insulin and as basal component of the actual premixed formulations of lispro for the therapy of diabetic patients.

Efficacy and tolerability of self-titrated biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 in patients aged >65 years with type 2 diabetes: an exploratory post hoc subanalysis of the INITIATEplus trial

BACKGROUND

The Initiation of Insulin to reach A1C Target (INITIATEplus) trial studied the effect of self-titrating biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BiAsp 30) twice daily during 24 weeks in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes who were poorly controlled by oral medication, and originally randomized according to frequency of dietary counseling interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 30, NovoLog Mix 70/30) in INITIATEplus patients ≤65 versus >65 years old, irrespective of dietary counseling frequency, and to test the hypothesis that self-titrating BIAsp 30 in patients >65 years old could be well-tolerated and effective in this age group.

METHODS

An exploratory post hoc subanalysis, using standard statistical methods, was performed on patients stratified according to age. Data collected from 3492 patients in the intent-to-treat population who were ≤65 years old and 716 patients who were >65 years old compared glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and plasma glucose changes from baseline. Hypoglycemia rates and adverse event (AE) incidence were compared for the tolerability population of 4007 patients ≤65 years old and 805 patients >65 years old.

RESULTS

Baseline-adjusted HbA(1c) changes for patients ≤65 versus >65 years old were -2.38% versus -2.73% (P < 0.0001), with final HbA(1c) achieving 7.55% and 7.06%, respectively. Thirty-nine percent of patients ≤65 years old achieved HbA(1c) ≤7% compared with 51% of patients >65 years old. Baseline-adjusted fasting plasma glucose decreases were greater for the >65 year old population (85.2 vs 91.2 mg/dL; P = 0.004; ≤65 vs >65 years old, respectively). Minor hypoglycemia was reported in 9.7% and 7.7% of patients ≤65 versus >65 years old, respectively (0.52 vs 0.41 episodes per patient per year [ppy]; P = 0.01). Major hypoglycemia occurred in 1.5% and 3.1% of patients (0.05 vs 0.14 episodes ppy, ≤65 vs >65 years old, respectively; P < 0.0001). Nocturnal major hypoglycemia was reported for 0.4% and 0.6% of patients (P = 0.0028), whereas nocturnal minor hypoglycemia was reported for 3.8% and 2.6% (P = 0.007) of patients ≤65 and >65 years old, respectively. AEs were reported for 24% and 28% of patients ≤65 and >65 years old, respectively, serious AEs were reported for 4% and 9% of patients, respectively, and AE-related withdrawals were reported for 1.3% and 2% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-titrated biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 was found to be well-tolerated and effective in type 2 diabetes patients >65 years old, as well as in patients ≤65 years old. HbA(1c) and fasting plasma glucose decreases were significantly (P < 0.05) higher for patients >65 years old versus patients ≤65 years old. Tolerability was indicated by major and minor hypoglycemia rates at or below <0.5 episodes ppy in both age groups. Overall rates of AE and serious AEs were higher among patients > 65 years; withdrawals related to AEs were 2% compared with 1.3% in the younger age group.

Evaluation of the weight-increasing effects of biphasic analog and regular NPH insulin mixtures in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Weight gain is a significant problem in diabetic patients in terms of worsening glycemic control, increasing diabetic and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and contributing to social and psychological problems. In the present study, we evaluated the effects of a biphasic analog and regular NPH insulin mixtures on weight gain in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) over 1 year.

METHODS

Group I consisted of 71 patients (29 men and 42 women) being treated with analog mixtures (insulin lispro 75/25 mix and biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 mix) twice daily; Group II consisted of 69 patients (23 men and 46 women) being treated with a regular insulin mixture (70/30) twice daily. Starting weight, body mass index, HbA1c, and hypoglycemic episodes were evaluated after 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS

Weight gain in Group I at 6 and 12 months was 1.41 ± 2.70 and 2.08 ± 3.74 kg, respectively. In Group II, weight gain at 6 and 12 months was 1.5 ± 3.0 and 2.29 ± 3.85 kg, respectively. Intragroup comparisons indicated that, for both groups, weight gain at 6 and 12 months differed significantly from the starting weight. However, no significant differences in weight gain were found between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The weight-increasing effects of an analog mixture of insulin and the NPH regular mixture of insulin appear to be similar. This should be taken into account when determining the type of insulin to use in treating T2DM patients.

Comparison of Humalog Mix 50 with human insulin Mix 30 in type 2 diabetes patients during Ramadan

AIMS

To compare hypoglycaemic events, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and changes in body weight in Muslim patients with Type 2 diabetes receiving Humalog Mix 50 and human Mixtard 30 twice daily during Ramadan fasting.

METHODS

Data were collected from Muslim patients with Type 2 diabetes attending primary care practices in North-West London, who were on Mixtard 30 insulin twice daily before Ramadan. Group 1 had their evening insulin changed to Humalog Mix 50 (n = 26) 2 weeks before Ramadan, i.e. taking Mixtard 30 at predawn meal and Humalog Mix 50 at the sunset meal during Ramadan. As the major proportion of the daily caloric intake was consumed at the sunset meal, the rationale of switching the evening dose from human Mixtard 30 to Humalog Mix 50 was to provide more rapid-acting insulin that has shorter time of onset and peak time for the large evening meal to improve the postprandial glucose control without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Group 2 continued on Mixtard 30 twice daily (n = 26). All patients received structured education about how to identify and manage hypoglycaemia during Ramadan.

RESULTS

Group 1 had a mean HbA1c reduction of 0.48% (p = 0.0001) before and after Ramadan, whereas group 2 had a mean HbA1c increase of 0.28% (p = 0.007). Group 1 was associated with a small reduction of 0.04 (p = 0.81) in the mean number of hypoglycaemic events during Ramadan compared with before Ramadan, whereas group 2 was associated with an increase of 0.15 (p = 0.43), although these differences between the groups were not statistically significant following adjustment for baseline factors [LSM difference between groups = 0.135, p = 0.36, 95% confidence limits (-0.16, 0.43)].

CONCLUSION

Changing to humalog Mix 50 during Ramadan resulted in improvement in glycaemic control without increasing the incidence of hypoglycaemia.

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.

Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

To review the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) compared to other insulin regimens in the treatment of type 2 diabetes based on published literature.

METHODS

The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and EconLit and a selection of congress/meeting databases were systematically searched using combinations of search terms designed to identify publications describing cost-effectiveness analyses of BIAsp 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes. Searches were limited to studies in humans, and published in the English language between January 1999 and July 2009. All records were screened for inclusion in the review.

RESULTS

Seven published cost-effectiveness analyses and ten abstracts were identified. One was a health technology assessment from the UK, which evaluated cost-effectiveness using the UKPDS Outcomes Model and meta-analysis of published clinical trials and concluded that premixed insulin analogs were unlikely to be cost-effective versus insulin glargine or biphasic human insulin. In all other studies the cost-effectiveness of BIAsp 30 versus other insulin regimens was assessed using the validated CORE Diabetes Model and outcomes from either the INITIATE randomized controlled trial, or the PRESENT or IMPROVE observational studies. However, notable limitations include the fact that all cost-effectiveness analyses to date have been performed using a single model and that a number of these are based on data from observational studies rather than randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, long-term clinical and economic outcomes were reported for several countries: UK, US, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Poland, South Africa, South Korea and China. BIAsp 30 was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy in all countries. Estimates of direct costs varied according to country and comparator, but incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the US and UK were USD 46 533 and GBP 6951 per quality-adjusted life year gained for BIAsp 30 versus insulin glargine.

CONCLUSIONS

Although cost-effectiveness data on BIAsp 30 are scarce the majority of the analyses identified in this review suggest that BIAsp 30 is likely to be cost-effective compared to insulin glargine and biphasic human insulin across a wide range of settings, and under certain circumstances would be a dominant treatment option.