Improved glycaemic control of thrice-daily biphasic insulin aspart compared with twice-daily biphasic human insulin; a randomized, open-label trial in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes

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.

Biphasic human insulin 30 thrice daily, is it reasonable?

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of thrice daily Biphasic Human Insulin 30 (BHI 30) versus the traditional twice-daily regimen in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. It’s a cross over single clinical study. Twenty-two diabetic patients who were already using BHI 30 in twice or thrice daily regimens with or without metformin were included. At the 1st interval; patients continued on their usual insulin regimen as twice or thrice daily injections with adjustment of insulin doses guided by their glucose readings. On the 2nd interval; patients were switched to the other regimen with the same total daily insulin dose redistributed.

Results

There was a significant decrease in HbA1c level (p < 0.05) at the end of the first 3 months of trial regardless on which regimen the patient started, but there was no significant difference in the mean HbA1c reduction in patients when they were on twice daily insulin injections (1.1 ± 1.3) versus the time they were on thrice daily insulin injections (0.8 ± 1.71), p > 0.05. On the other hand, patients had lower average blood glucose readings (mg/dl) when they were on thrice daily insulin injections (161.4 ± 62.7) compared to twice daily regimen (166.0 ± 69.5), p < 0.05.

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.

Personalized intensification of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes - does a basal-bolus regimen suit all patients?

Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) require insulin therapy. If basal insulin fails to achieve glycemic control, insulin intensification is one possible treatment intensification strategy. We summarized clinical data from randomized clinical trials designed to compare the efficacy and safety of basal-bolus and premixed insulin intensification regimens. We defined a between-group difference of ≥0.3% in end-of-study glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as clinically meaningful. A PubMed database search supplemented by author-identified papers yielded 15 trials which met selection criteria: randomized design, patients with T2DM receiving basal-bolus (bolus injection ≤3 times/day) vs. premixed (≤3 injections/day) insulin regimens, primary/major endpoint(s) HbA1c- and/or hypoglycemia-related, and trial duration ≥12 weeks. Glycemic control improved with both basal-bolus and premixed insulin regimens with - in most cases - acceptable levels of weight gain and hypoglycemia. A clinically meaningful difference between regimens in glycemic control was recorded in only four comparisons, all of which favored basal-bolus therapy. The incidence of hypoglycemia was significantly different between regimens in only three comparisons, one of which favored premixed insulin and two basal-bolus therapy. Of the four trials that reported a significant difference between regimens in bodyweight change, two favored basal-bolus therapy and two favored premixed insulin. Thus, on a population level, neither basal-bolus therapy nor premixed insulin showed a consistent advantage in terms of glycemic control, hypoglycemic risk, or bodyweight gain. It is therefore recommended that clinicians should adopt an individualized approach to insulin intensification - taking into account the benefits and risks of each treatment approach and the attitude and preferences of each patient - in the knowledge that both basal-bolus and premixed regimens may be successful.

Number-Based Approach to Insulin Taxonomy

This article describes a number-based system for the classification of insulin regimes. It utilizes a patient-centered variable (number of injections per day) and pharmacokinetic/dynamic characteristics to craft a taxonomic system that is able to incorporate all available insulin preparations and coformulations. This framework of systematics is robust enough to include various molecules that have been recently developed. It serves to enhance understanding of the subject, and facilitates the practical or clinical usage of theoretical knowledge. We propose that number-based insulin taxonomic models should be used in clinical guidelines and recommendations rather than restricting ourselves to pharmaceutical-based classifications. PubMed articles including both review articles and clinical trials published since the year 1990 were searched, to gather evidence and information on the various types of insulins available, and how they can be used, based on the number or frequency of injections prescribed per day.

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.

High-mix insulins

Premix insulins are commonly used insulin preparations, which are available in varying ratios of different molecules. These drugs contain one short- or rapid-acting, and one intermediate- or long-acting insulin. High-mix insulins are mixtures of insulins that contain 50% or more than 50% of short-acting insulin. This review describes the clinical pharmacology of high-mix insulins, including data from randomized controlled trials. It suggests various ways, in which high-mix insulin can be used, including once daily, twice daily, thrice daily, hetero-mix, and reverse regimes. The authors provide a rational framework to help diabetes care professionals, identify indications for pragmatic high-mix use.

6(th) Annual Symposium on Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG) applications and beyond, April 25-27, 2013, Riga, Latvia

International experts in the fields of diabetes, diabetes technology, endocrinology, and pediatrics gathered for the 6(th) Annual Symposium on Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG) Applications and beyond. The aim of this meeting was to continue setting up a global network of experts in this field and provide an international platform for exchange of ideas to improve life for people with diabetes. The 2013 meeting comprised a comprehensive scientific program, parallel interactive workshops, and two keynote lectures. All these discussions were intended to help identify gaps and areas where further scientific work and clinical studies are warranted.

The use of a CoolSense device to lower pain sensation during finger pricking while measuring blood glucose in diabetes patients--a randomized placebo

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 1 diabetes and a significant portion of patients with type 2 diabetes must use subcutaneous insulin injections, in order to maintain normoglycemia and to prevent immediate and long-term complications. For these patients, testing blood glucose levels more frequently is necessary to safely achieve glycated hemoglobin targets. In the current study, the effects of a CoolSense™ device (CoolSense Medical Ltd., Tel Aviv, Israel) were examined in relieving pain caused by needle-pricking for glucose measurements in adult patients with diabetes.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

One hundred seventy-seven patients assessed the severity of pain they experienced during needle-pricking. The patients were randomly divided into an experimental group or a control group that used either a cooled CoolSense instrument or a non-cooled device, respectively. Participants were asked to rank the severity of their pain by a questionnaire developed for this study. Blood glucose levels were monitored as a control.

RESULTS

The majority of participants (58.3-71.7%; P<0.001) reported significant ache during measurements, the desire for an instrument that relieves pain, and its negative influence on their quality of life. Significant differences were indicated in pain perception between the experimental group and the control group that served as placebo, with no differences in blood glucose measurements in the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The CoolSense instrument significantly reduces subjective pain felt by patients and can therefore serve as an additional tool for clinicians to help ease the needle-pricking pain. Future study is needed in order to provide information regarding the practical use of the instrument and its effect on hyper- and hypoglycemia.

Glycemic variability in gestational diabetes mellitus and its association with β cell function

Maternal hyperglycemia in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), especially hyperglycemic excursions, is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system (CGMS) is better than intermittent self-measurements in detecting detailed glucose profiles on the magnitude and duration of glucose fluctuations. Hyperglycemia resulted from impaired β cell function. This study analyzed the characteristics of glycemic variability in GDM with 24-28 gestational weeks and its association with β cell function. Thirty GDM with 24-28 gestational weeks (GDM group) were included in this study, and 20 normal gestational women (NGW group) and 20 normal glucose regulation non-pregnant women (NGRW group) were set as controls. The three groups were monitored using the CGMS for consecutive 72 h. The parameters of glycemic variability included the standard deviation of blood glucose (SDBG), mean of continuous 24-h blood glucose (MBG), mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGEs), and mean of daily differences (MODDs). Homeostasis model assessments were applied to access the insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). The early insulinogenic index (ΔI30/ΔG30) and the area under the curve of insulin (AUCI180) derived from 75-g oral glucose tolerance test were applied to evaluate the early-phase insulin secretion and second-phase insulin secretion, respectively. After CGM, MAGE and MBG value increased progressively from NGRW, NGW to GDM group (p < 0.05); MODD and SDBG values of GDM group were all higher than those of NGRW and NGW groups (p < 0.05), but there are no differences in MODD and SDBG between NGRW and NGW groups (p > 0.05). After comparison of β cell function, ΔI30/ΔG30 decreased progressively from NGRW, NGW to GDM group (p < 0.05); HOMA-IR and AUCI180 increased progressively from NGRW, NGW to GDM group (p < 0.05). MAGE value was correlated with ΔI30/ΔG30 and HOMA-IR in GDM group (r = -0.78 and 0.65, respectively, p < 0.05). Multiple linear stepwise regression analysis showed that ΔI30/ΔG30 and HOMA-IR were the independent factors of MAGE (β = -0.61, 0.34, respectively, p < 0.05). Glycemic variability in GDM was higher than in normal pregnant women, and glycemic variability evaluated by MAGE correlates well with impaired early-phase insulin secretion in GDM. Further large-scale studies are needed to formulate treatment strategies to make up for the impaired early-phase insulin secretion and flat glycemic variability, and analyze the association between pregnancy outcomes improvement and glycemic variability remission in GDM.

Comparison of thrice daily biphasic human insulin (30/70) versus basal detemir & bolus aspart in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus - a pilot study

Background & objectives:

Conventionally, biphasic human insulin (30/70, BHI) is used twice daily for the management of patients with diabetes. However, this regimen is suboptimal to control post-lunch and/or pre-dinner hyperglycaemia in some patients. This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety of thrice-daily biphasic human insulin (30/70, BHI) versus basal detemir and bolus aspart (BB) in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods:

In this open labelled randomized pilot study, 50 patients with uncontrolled T2DM on twice-daily BHI and insulin sensitizers were randomized either to BHI thrice-daily or BB regimen. HbA1c, six point plasma glucose profile, increment in insulin dose, weight gain, hypoglycaemic episodes and cost were compared between the two treatment groups at the end of 12 wk.

Results:

Mean HbA_lc (±SD) decreased from 9.0±0.9 per cent at randomization to 7.9±0.8 per cent in BHI (P<0.001) and from 9.4±1.3 to 8.2±1.0 per cent in BB regimen (P<0.001) after 12 wk of treatment. The mean (±SEM) weight gain in patients in the BHI regimen was 1.5±0.33 kg compared to 1.4±0.34 kg in the BB regimen. Insulin dose increment at 12 wk was significantly more in the BB regimen 0.46±0.32 U/kg/day compared to 0.15±0.21 U/kg/day in the BHI regimen (P<0.001). The incidence of major as well as minor hypoglycaemic episodes was not different in both the regimen. The BB regimen was more expensive than the BHI regimen (P<0.001).

Interpretation & conclusions:

The thrice daily biphasic human insulin regimen is non-inferior to the basal bolus insulin analogue regimen in terms efficacy and safety in patients with poorly controlled T2DM. However, these data require further substantiation in large long term prospective studies.

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.

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Health care providers and patients have lots of choice to treat type 2 diabetes, but the blood glucose improvement is limited. The one therapy with unlimited potential (at least theoretically) is insulin. Many studies show that glucose control is achievable with insulin safely in most patients with type 2 diabetes. Effective diabetes management at the primary care or specialty level requires a belief in the importance of insulin therapy in uncontrolled patients with type 2 diabetes. This review details the theories, observed outcomes, and how-tos regarding insulin use in type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy of Thrice-daily versus Twice-daily Insulin Regimens on Glycohemoglobin (Hb A1c) in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To improve glycemic control and prevent late complications, the patient and diabetes team need to adjust insulin therapy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of thrice-daily versus twice-daily insulin regimens on HbA1c for type 1 diabetes mellitus by a randomized controlled trial in Hamedan, west of Iran.

METHODS

The study included 125 patients under 19 years of age with type 1 diabetes mellitus over a 3-month period. All patients with glycohemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥8% were followed prospectively and randomized into two trial and control groups. The control group received conventional two insulin injections per day: a mixture of short-acting (regular) + intermediated acting (NPH) insulins pre-breakfast (twice daily), and the trial group was treated by an extra dose of regular insulin before lunch (three times daily). Main outcome measure was HbA1c at baseline and at the end of 3 months. The mean blood glucose level and number of hypoglycemia were recorded. All patients underwent monthly intervals follow up for assessing their home blood glucose records and insulin adjustment.

RESULTS

Overall, 100 patients completed the study protocol. 52% were females, mean ±SD of age of 12.91 ± 3.9 years. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics including age, gender, pubertal stage, adherence to diet, duration of disease and total daily insulin dose (p>0.05). There was a significant decrease individually in both groups in HbA1c level (p<0.05), but there was no significant difference in HbA1c reduction in patients on twice-daily insulin injections and those on thrice-daily insulin injection groups (1.12 ± 2.12 and 0.98±2.1% respectively, p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with twice daily insulin, a therapeutic regimen involving the addition of one dose regular insulin before lunch caused no significant change in the overall glycemic control of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Our results emphasize that further efforts for near normoglycemia should be focused upon education of patients in terms of frequent outpatient visits, more blood glucose monitoring and attention to insulin adjustments.

Intensifying existing premix therapy (BIAsp 30) with BIAsp 50 and BIAsp 70: A consensus statement

In 2009, consensus guidelines were published on intensification of insulin therapy using the premix analog biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) 30 in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, based on the recommendations of an international, independent expert panel. The guidelines included recommendations and titration algorithms for intensification from basal insulin once (OD) or twice daily (BID) to BIAsp 30 BID, from OD BIAsp 30 to BID, and from BID BIAsp 30 to three times daily (TID). Building on these recommendations, the objective was to develop similar, simple and effective guidelines for intensification switch from a BIAsp 30 to a mid-/high-ratio premix regimen for the vast majority of patients with type 2 diabetes. A panel of independent experts with extensive clinical experience in premix analog therapy met in October 2009 to review the therapeutic role of mid- and high-ratio premixes (BIAsp 50 and 70, respectively). The panel outlined a series of algorithms for intensifying BIAsp 30 BID and TID with mid-/high-ratio premixes, along with practical suggestions relating to intensification for individual patients. A simple tool to aid dose adjustment was also developed. The guidelines suggested here should assist physicians in introducing mid-/high-ratio premixes to optimize the insulin therapy of patients with type 2 diabetes who are failing to achieve glycemic targets on a BIAsp 30 BID or TID regimen.

Are analogue insulins superior to human insulin in clinical practice?

Insulin analogues were designed to provide more physiologic pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties compared with human insulin. This article examines the literature over a 2-year period, focusing on studies directly comparing analogue and human insulin in controlled clinical trials and large observational studies documenting the introduction of, or change to, analogue insulin in clinical practice. Findings indicate that analogues provide objective benefits that include improved glycemic control, lower risk of hypoglycemia, lower glucose variability, and (for insulin detemir) reduced weight gain. Recent data with analogues also explore their safety and efficacy in special patient groups such as children and adolescents. These data complement increasing evidence that analogues offer improved acceptability and accessibility to people with diabetes.

Obesity does not influence the unique pharmacological properties of different biphasic insulin aspart preparations in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIM

To investigate the influence of obesity in type 2 diabetic patients upon pharmacological properties of different biphasic preparations of insulin aspart.

METHODS

A total of 75 type 2 diabetic patients were stratified according to their body mass index (BMI) into 40 non-obese (BMI 23-28 kg/m(2)) and 35 obese (BMI 30-35 kg/m(2)) subjects. The trial was a double-blinded crossover study. In two periods of 4 weeks each the patients received subcutaneous injections of biphasic insulin aspart 50 (BIAsp 50) or biphasic insulin aspart 70 (BIAsp 70) thrice daily in random order. Insulin doses were titrated individually. At the end of each period 24-h serum profiles of insulin aspart, C-peptide and glucose were recorded. The primary endpoint was the area under the curve of serum glucose concentration during 24 h (AUC(Glu)(0-24 h)).

RESULTS

The insulin concentration profiles of BIAsp 50 and 70 were as expected according to the content of protamine-bound insulin aspart (50 and 30% respectively). AUC(Glu(0-24 h)) BIAsp 50/BIAsp 70 ratios were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.90-1.05, p = 0.49) for non-obese and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.92-1.05, p = 0.55) for obese. Fasting serum glucose (FSG) BIAsp 50/BIAsp 70 ratios were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.84-0.96, p = 0.002) for non-obese and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.84-0.97, p = 0.006) for obese. During both treatment regimens the frequency of minor hypoglycaemic episodes was highest for the non-obese group.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the two preparations of biphasic insulin aspart were different; however, they were not influenced by the degree of obesity in type 2 diabetic patients.

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.

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.

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of different formulations of biphasic insulin aspart: a randomized, glucose clamp, crossover study

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes patients on premixed insulin are commonly prescribed biphasic insulin with low prandial insulin content, such as biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) 30, comprising 30% insulin aspart (IAsp). The new formulations BIAsp 50 and BIAsp 70 contain 50% and 70% soluble IAsp, respectively. We compared the pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of BIAsp 30, 50, and 70 and IAsp in a glucose clamp trial.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, crossover study at a clinical research institute, 32 type 1 diabetes patients on basal-bolus therapy each underwent four glucose clamps (clamp level 5 mmol/L, duration 28 h post-dosing [12 h for IAsp]) and received a single dose of 0.4 U/kg BIAsp 30, 50, or 70 and IAsp. Main PD/PK outcome parameters measured were early- and late-phase glucose disposal (area under the curve of glucose infusion rate [AUC(GIR)]), nonesterified fatty acid concentrations, and IAsp concentrations.

RESULTS

With increasing proportions of soluble IAsp, the insulin formulations showed significantly higher early metabolic activity (ratio of AUC(GIR) 0-6 h: BIAsp 50/BIAsp 30 = 1.28 [P < 0.001], BIAsp 70/BIAsp 50 = 1.18 [P < 0.001), IAsp/BIAsp 70 = 1.15 [P < 0.01]) and lower late metabolic activity (ratio of AUC(GIR) 12-28 h: BIAsp 50/BIAsp 30 = 0.17 [P < 0.01], BIAsp 70/BIAsp 50 = 0.21 [P < 0.05]). Likewise, early IAsp levels were significantly greater and late PK concentrations were significantly lower with increasing proportion of soluble IAsp.

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant differences between the early and late PD and PK effects among BIAsp 30, 50, and 70 and IAsp that should allow tailored treatment with the convenience of prandial and basal insulin in each injection.