Meta-analysis of individual patient data to assess the risk of hypoglycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes using NPH insulin or insulin glargine

Medication-Related Hospital Admissions and Emergency Department Visits in Older People with Diabetes: A Systematic Review

Limited data are available regarding adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and medication-related hospitalisations or emergency department (ED) visits in older adults with diabetes, especially since the emergence of newer antidiabetic agents. This systematic review aimed to explore the nature of hospital admissions and ED visits that are medication-related in older adults with diabetes. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies in English that reported on older adults (mean age ≥ 60 years) with diabetes admitted to the hospital or presenting to ED due to medication-related problems and published between January 2000 and October 2023 were identified using Medline, Embase, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases. Thirty-five studies were included. Medication-related hospital admissions and ED visits were all reported as episodes of hypoglycaemia and were most frequently associated with insulins and sulfonylureas. The studies indicated a decline in hypoglycaemia-related hospitalisations or ED presentations in older adults with diabetes since 2015. However, the associated medications remain the same. This finding suggests that older patients on insulin or secretagogue agents should be closely monitored to prevent potential adverse events, and newer agents should be used whenever clinically appropriate.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

Impact of Insulin Therapies on Cancer Incidence in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: A Population-Based Cohort Study in Reggio Emilia, Italy

Simple Summary

The aim of this population-based study was to assess the impact of insulin treatment on cancer incidence in subjects with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Italy. We found that insulin use was associated with a 20% excess for all sites cancer incidence among people with type 2 diabetes, while people with type 1 diabetes did not show any excess. Liver, pancreatic, bladder, and neuroendocrine cancers seem to be the sites with strongest association.

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effect of insulin on cancer incidence in type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Methods: The cohort included all 401,172 resident population aged 20–84 in December 2009 and still alive on December 2011, classified for DM status. Drug exposure was assessed for 2009–2011 and follow up was conducted from 2012 to 2016 through the cancer registry. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were computed for all sites and for the most frequent cancer sites. Results: among residents, 21,190 people had diabetes, 2282 of whom were taking insulin; 1689 cancers occurred, 180 among insulin users. The risk for all site was slightly higher in people with T2DM compared to people without DM (IRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.14–1.27), with no excess for T1DM (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45–1.19). The excess in T2DM remained when comparing with diet-only treatment. In T2DM, excess incidence was observed for liver and pancreas and for NETs: 1.76 (95% CI 1.44–2.17) and 1.37 (95% CI 0.99–1.73), respectively. For bladder, there was an excess both in T1DM (IRR 3.00, 95% CI 1.12, 8.02) and in T2DM (IRR1.27, 95% CI 1.07–1.50). Conclusions: Insulin was associated with a 20% increase in cancer incidence. The risk was higher for liver, pancreatic, bladder and neuroendocrine tumours.

Efficacy and safety of different basal and prandial insulin analogues for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

The aim of the present network meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy and safety across different long and short-acting analogs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases search (20th May, 2020) for all trials with a duration ≥24 weeks comparing an analogue with another or human insulin was performed. Indirect comparisons were performed by NMA choosing glargine U100 and human regular insulin, as the reference for long- and short-acting analogues, respectively. Primary endpoints were HbA1c at 24, 52, and 104 weeks. The weighted difference in means (WDM) and Mantel-Haenzel Odds Ratio [MH-OR] with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

Fifty trials (n = 43) and 7 for basal and prandial analogues, respectively, enrolling 25,554 and 3184 patients with type 2 and 1 diabetes, respectively, were included. At NMA, detemir was less effective than glargine U-100 at 52 weeks. A significant reduction of 24-week HbA1c (WMD [IC]: -0.10 [-0.17, -0.03]%); and risk of total (MH-OR [IC]: 0.80 [0.70, 0.91]), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (MH-OR [IC]: 0.57 [0.45, 0.73]) was observed for basal analogues versus NPH insulin. At NMA, glargine U300 and degludec were associated with a significant reduction in the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia. No significant differences across different short-acting insulin were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper supports the use of long-acting analogues, rather than NPH insulin, as basal insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, without any preferences for any individual long-acting analogue over the others. The evidence on short acting analogues is limited.

Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Since the discovery of insulin, it was the only drug available for the treatment of diabetes until the development of sulfonylureas and biguanides 50 years later. But even with the availability of oral glucose-lowering drugs, insulin supplementation was often needed to achieve good glucose control in type 2 diabetes. Insulin NPH became the basal insulin therapy of choice and adding NPH to metformin and/or sulfonylureas became the standard of care until basal insulin analogs were developed and new glucose-lowering drugs became available.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

The advantages in cost-benefit of insulin analogs and their combination with new glucose-lowering drugs are still a matter of debate. There is no general agreement on how to avoid inertia by prescribing insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes when really needed, as reflected by the diversity of recommendations in the current clinical practice guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

When necessary for this review, a systematic search of the evidence was done in PubMed and Cochrane databases.

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

Adding new oral glucose-lowering drugs to insulin such as DPP-4 inhibitors lead to a modest HbA1c reduction without weight gain and no increase in hypoglycemia. When SGLT-2 inhibitors are added instead, there is a slightly higher HbA1c reduction, but with body weight and blood pressure reduction. The downside is the increase in genital tract infections. GLP-1 receptor agonists have become the best alternative when basal insulin fails, particularly using fixed ratio combinations. Rapid-acting insulins via the inhaled route may also become an alternative for insulin supplementation and/or intensification. "Smart insulins" are under investigation and may become available for clinical use in the near future.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggressive weight loss strategies together with the new glucose-lowering drugs which do not cause hypoglycemia nor weight gain should limit the number of patients with type 2 diabetes needing insulin. Nevertheless, because of therapeutic inertia and the progressive nature of the disease, many need at least a basal insulin supplementation and insulin analogs are the best choice as they become more affordable. Fixed ratio combinations with GLP1 receptor agonists are a good choice for intensification of insulin therapy.

Use of Insulin Glargine 100 U/mL for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in East Asians: A Review

Insulin glargine (IGlar) 100 U/mL (IGlar-100) is widely used in East Asian countries for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and is the gold standard of basal insulin treatment. In this review we summarize key information about clinical experience with IGlar-100 in East Asian patients with T2DM, including findings from clinical trials and postmarketing studies. We also provide recommendations and opinions on the optimal use of IGlar-100 in this population. The findings from the studies highlighted in our review indicate that IGlar-100 can be a suitable treatment option for East Asians with T2DM, from initial therapy in combination with oral antihyperglycemic medications through to different combinations and intensification models. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

[Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in elderly patients]

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) increases markedly with age. Antidiabetic treatment and the objectives of glycaemic control in elderly patients with DM2 should be individualised according to their biopsychosocial characteristics. In elderly patients for whom the benefits of intensive antidiabetic treatment are limited, the basic objectives should be to improve the quality of life, preserve functionality and avoid adverse effects, especially hypoglycaemia. Treatment of DM2 in the elderly was the subject of a consensus document published in 2012 and endorsed by several Spanish scientific societies. Since then, new therapeutic groups and evidence have emerged that warrant an update to this consensus document. The present document focuses on the therapeutic aspects of DM2 in elderly patients, understood as being older than 75 years or frail.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in elderly patients

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) increases markedly with age. Antidiabetic treatment and the objectives of glycaemic control in elderly patients with DM2 should be individualised according to their biopsychosocial characteristics. In elderly patients for whom the benefits of intensive antidiabetic treatment are limited, the basic objectives should be to improve the quality of life, preserve functionality and avoid adverse effects, especially hypoglycaemia. Treatment of DM2 in the elderly was the subject of a consensus document published in 2012 and endorsed by several Spanish scientific societies. Since then, new therapeutic groups and evidence have emerged that warrant an update to this consensus document. The present document focuses on the therapeutic aspects of DM2 in elderly patients, understood as being older than 75 years or frail.

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus insulin glargine for Thai type 2 diabetes from a payer's perspective

AIMS

An economic evidence is a vital tool that can inform the decision to use costly insulin analogs. This study aimed to evaluate long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir (IDet) compared with insulin glargine (IGlar) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the Thai payer's perspective.

METHODS

Long-term costs and outcomes were projected using a validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model, version 8.5. Cohort characteristics, baseline risk factors, and costs of diabetes complications were derived from Thai data sources. Relative risk was derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented in 2015 US Dollars (USD). A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

IDet yielded slightly greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (8.921 vs 8.908), but incurred higher costs than IGlar (90,417.63 USD vs 66,674.03 USD), resulting in an ICER of ∼1.7 million USD per QALY. The findings were very sensitive to the cost of IDet. With a 34% reduction in the IDet cost, treatment with IDet would become cost-effective according to the Thai threshold of 4,434.59 USD per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with IDet in patients with T2DM who had uncontrolled blood glucose with oral anti-diabetic agents was not a cost-effective strategy compared with IGlar treatment in the Thai context. These findings could be generalized to other countries with a similar socioeconomics level and healthcare systems.

Patient-level meta-analysis of efficacy and hypoglycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin glargine 100U/mL or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin analysed according to concomitant oral antidiabetes therapy

AIMS

Evaluate efficacy and hypoglycaemia according to concomitant oral antidiabetes drug (OAD) in people with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin glargine 100U/mL (Gla-100) or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin once daily.

METHODS

Four studies (target fasting plasma glucose [FPG] ⩽100mg/dL [⩽5.6mmol/L]; duration ⩾24weeks) were included. Standardised data from 2091 subjects (Gla-100, n=1024; NPH insulin, n=1067) were analysed. Endpoints included glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and FPG change, glycaemic target achievement, hypoglycaemia, weight change, and insulin dose.

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c and FPG reductions were similar with Gla-100 and NPH insulin regardless of concomitant OAD (P=0.184 and P=0.553, respectively) and similar proportions of subjects achieved HbA1c <7.0% (P=0.603). There was a trend for more subjects treated with Gla-100 achieving FPG ⩽100mg/dL versus NPH insulin (relative risk [RR] 1.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-1.23]; P=0.135). Plasma glucose confirmed (<70mg/dL) overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia incidences and rates were lower with Gla-100 versus NPH insulin (overall RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.87-1.00]; P=0.041; nocturnal RR 0.73 [95% CI 0.65-0.83]; P<0.001). After 24weeks, weight gain and insulin doses were higher with Gla-100 versus NPH insulin (2.7kg vs 2.3kg, P=0.009 and 0.42U/kg vs 0.39U/kg; P=0.003, respectively). Insulin doses were higher when either insulin was added to sulfonylurea alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled results from treat-to-target trials in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes demonstrate a significantly lower overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia risk across different plasma glucose definitions with Gla-100 versus NPH insulin at similar glycaemic control. OAD therapy co-administered with Gla-100 or NPH insulin impacts glycaemic control and overall nocturnal hypoglycaemia risk.

Impact of the mode of protraction of basal insulin therapies on their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and resulting clinical outcomes

Manufacturers of insulin products for diabetes therapy have long sought ways to modify the absorption rate of exogenously administered insulins in an effort to better reproduce the naturally occurring pharmacokinetics of endogenous insulin secretion. Several mechanisms of protraction have been used in pursuit of a basal insulin, for which a low injection frequency would provide tolerable and reproducible glucose control; these mechanisms have met with varying degrees of success. Before the advent of recombinant DNA technology, development focused on modifications to the formulation that increased insulin self-association, such as supplementation with zinc or the development of preformed precipitates using protamine. Indeed, NPH insulin remains widely used today despite a frequent need for a twice-daily dosing and a relatively high incidence of hypoglycaemia. The early insulin analogues used post-injection precipitation (insulin glargine U100) or dimerization and albumin binding (insulin detemir) as methods of increasing therapeutic duration. These products approached a 24-hour glucose-lowering effect with decreased variability in insulin action. Newer basal insulin analogues have used up-concentration in addition to precipitation (insulin glargine U300), and multihexamer formation in addition to albumin binding (insulin degludec), to further increase duration of action and/or decrease the day-to-day variability of the glucose-lowering profile. Clinically, the major advantage of these recent analogues has been a reduction in hypoglycaemia with similar glycated haemoglobin control when compared with earlier products. Future therapies may bring clinical benefits through hepato-preferential insulin receptor binding or very long durations of action, perhaps enabling once-weekly administration and the potential for further clinical benefits.

Insulin: Making Sense of Current Options

Newer insulin products have advanced the evolution of insulin replacement options to more accurately mimic natural insulin action. There are new, modified, and concentrated insulins; administration devices calibrated for both increased concentrations and administration accuracy to improve adherence and safety; and inhaled insulin. There are new combinations of longer-acting basal insulin and rapid-acting insulin or glucagon like protein-1 receptor agonists. Existing insulin replacement designs and methods can be updated using these tools to improve efficacy and safety. Individualized decisions to use them should be based on patient physiologic needs, self-care ability, comorbidities, and cost considerations.

Update on the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

To achieve good metabolic control in diabetes and keep long term, a combination of changes in lifestyle and pharmacological treatment is necessary. Achieving near-normal glycated hemoglobin significantly, decreases risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications. At present there are different treatments, both oral and injectable, available for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Treatment algorithms designed to reduce the development or progression of the complications of diabetes emphasizes the need for good glycaemic control. The aim of this review is to perform an update on the benefits and limitations of different drugs, both current and future, for the treatment of T2DM. Initial intervention should focus on lifestyle changes. Moreover, changes in lifestyle have proven to be beneficial, but for many patients is a complication keep long term. Physicians should be familiar with the different types of existing drugs for the treatment of diabetes and select the most effective, safe and better tolerated by patients. Metformin remains the first choice of treatment for most patients. Other alternative or second-line treatment options should be individualized depending on the characteristics of each patient. This article reviews the treatments available for patients with T2DM, with an emphasis on agents introduced within the last decade.

The past, present, and future of basal insulins

Insulin production by the pancreas follows a basic pattern where basal levels of insulin are secreted during fasting periods, with prandial increases in insulin associated with food ingestion. The aim of insulin therapy in patients with diabetes is to match the endogenous pattern of insulin secretion as closely as possible without causing hypoglycaemia. There are several optimal pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of long-acting basal insulins that can help to achieve this aim, namely, as follows: activity that is flat and as free of peaks as possible, a duration of action of ≥24-h, and as little day-to-day variation as possible. The long-acting basal insulins are a fundamental therapy for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and those that are currently available have many benefits; however, the development of even longer-acting insulins and improved insulin delivery techniques may lead to better glycemic control for patients in the future. Established long-acting basal insulins available in the United States and Europe include insulin glargine 100 units/mL and insulin detemir, both of which exhibit similar glycemic control to that of the intermediate-acting neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin, but with a reduction in hypoglycaemia. Newer insulin products available include new insulin glargine 300 units/mL (United States and Europe) and the ultra-long-acting insulin degludec (Europe) with basal insulin peglispro currently in development. These new insulins demonstrate different pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles and longer durations of action (>24 h) compared with insulin glargine 100 units/mL, which may lead to potential benefits. The introduction of biosimilar insulins may also broaden access to insulins by reducing treatment costs. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

CONSENSUS STATEMENT BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE TYPE 2 DIABETES MANAGEMENT ALGORITHM--2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document represents the official position of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology. Where there were no randomized controlled trials or specific U.S. FDA labeling for issues in clinical practice, the participating clinical experts utilized their judgment and experience. Every effort was made to achieve consensus among the committee members. Position statements are meant to provide guidance, but they are not to be considered prescriptive for any individual patient and cannot replace the judgment of a clinician.

Predictors of early discontinuation of basal insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes in primary care

AIMS

To identify patient-related characteristics and other impact factors predicting early discontinuation of basal insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes in primary care.

METHODS

A total of 4837 patients who started basal insulin therapy (glargine: n=3175; NPH: n=1662) in 1072 general and internal medicine practices throughout Germany were retrospectively analyzed (Disease Analyser Database: 01/2008-03/2014). Early discontinuation was defined as switching back to oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) therapy within 90 days after first basal insulin prescription (index date, ID). Patient records were assessed 365 days prior and post ID. Logistic regression models were used to adjust for age, sex, diabetes duration, diabetologist care, disease management program participation, HbA1c, and comorbidity.

RESULTS

Within 3 months after ID, 202 (6.8%) of glargine patients switched back to OAD (NPH: 130 (8.5%); p<0.05). In multivariable logistic regression, predictors of early basal insulin discontinuation were ≥1 documented hypoglycemia before ID (adjusted Odds ratio; 95% CI: 2.20; 1.27-3.82), diagnosed depression (1.31; 1.01-1.70) and referrals to specialists within 90 days after ID (2.06; 1.61-2.63). Diabetologist care (0.57; 0.36-0.89) and glargine treatment (vs. NPH: 0.78; 0.61-0.98) were related to a lower odds of having early insulin discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than 10% of type 2 diabetes patients switched back to oral antidiabetic drugs within 90 days after start of basal insulin therapy. In particular, patients with baseline depression and frequent or severe hypoglycemia have a higher likelihood for early discontinuation of basal insulin, whereas use of insulin glargine and diabetologist care are related to an increased chance of continuous insulin treatment.

Safety and efficacy of insulin glargine 300 u/mL compared with other basal insulin therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of a concentrated formulation of insulin glargine (Gla-300) with other basal insulin therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

DESIGN

This was a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised clinical trials of basal insulin therapy in T2DM identified via a systematic literature review of Cochrane library databases, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and PsycINFO.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Changes in HbA1c (%) and body weight, and rates of nocturnal and documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia were assessed.

RESULTS

41 studies were included; 25 studies comprised the main analysis population: patients on basal insulin-supported oral therapy (BOT). Change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was comparable between Gla-300 and detemir (difference: -0.08; 95% credible interval (CrI): -0.40 to 0.24), neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH; 0.01; -0.28 to 0.32), degludec (-0.12; -0.42 to 0.20) and premixed insulin (0.26; -0.04 to 0.58). Change in body weight was comparable between Gla-300 and detemir (0.69; -0.31 to 1.71), NPH (-0.76; -1.75 to 0.21) and degludec (-0.63; -1.63 to 0.35), but significantly lower compared with premixed insulin (-1.83; -2.85 to -0.75). Gla-300 was associated with a significantly lower nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate versus NPH (risk ratio: 0.18; 95% CrI: 0.05 to 0.55) and premixed insulin (0.36; 0.14 to 0.94); no significant differences were noted in Gla-300 versus detemir (0.52; 0.19 to 1.36) and degludec (0.66; 0.28 to 1.50). Differences in documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia rates of Gla-300 versus detemir (0.63; 0.19 to 2.00), NPH (0.66; 0.27 to 1.49) and degludec (0.55; 0.23 to 1.34) were not significant. Extensive sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

NMA comparisons are useful in the absence of direct randomised controlled data. This NMA suggests that Gla-300 is also associated with a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared with NPH and premixed insulin, with glycaemic control comparable to available basal insulin comparators.

Head-to-head comparison of intensive lifestyle intervention (U-TURN) versus conventional multifactorial care in patients with type 2 diabetes: protocol and rationale for an assessor-blinded, parallel group and randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

Current pharmacological therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are challenged by lack of sustainability and borderline firm evidence of real long-term health benefits. Accordingly, lifestyle intervention remains the corner stone in the management of T2D. However, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the optimal intervention programmes in T2D ensuring both compliance as well as long-term health outcomes. Our objective is to assess the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention (the U-TURN intervention) on glycaemic control in patients with T2D. Our hypothesis is that intensive lifestyle changes are equally effective as standard diabetes care, including pharmacological treatment in maintaining glycaemic control (ie, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)) in patients with T2D. Furthermore, we expect that intensive lifestyle changes will decrease the need for antidiabetic medications.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study is an assessor-blinded, parallel group and a 1-year randomised trial. The primary outcome is change in glycaemic control (HbA1c), with the key secondary outcome being reductions in antidiabetic medication. Participants will be patients with T2D (T2D duration <10 years) without complications who are randomised into an intensive lifestyle intervention (U-TURN) or a standard care intervention in a 2:1 fashion. Both groups will be exposed to the same standardised, blinded, target-driven pharmacological treatment and can thus maintain, increase, reduce or discontinue the pharmacological treatment. The decision is based on the standardised algorithm. The U-TURN intervention consists of increased training and basal physical activity level, and an antidiabetic diet including an intended weight loss. The standard care group as well as the U-TURN group is offered individual diabetes management counselling on top of the pharmacological treatment.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Scientific Ethical Committee at the Capital Region of Denmark (H-1-2014-114). Positive, negative or inconclusive findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02417012.

[Differential characteristics of type 2 diabetes in the elderly. Role of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors]

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus increases with age, reaching rates around 30% in those over 75 years. The type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly has different pathophysiological and clinical characteristics from those of the younger diabetic patient. Some differential aspects in this population are the lower life expectancy and the frequent comorbidity, frailty and associated disability. Avoiding hypoglycemia is a therapeutic priority, given their increased risk of severe hypoglycemia. It is a situation in which the benefits of intensive glycemic control are virtually non-existent, thus prevention of side effects of treatments becomes a priority. Therefore, the goals of glycemic control should be less stringent than in the general population (glycated hemoglobin>7%), and the drugs of choice should be those with a low risk of side effects (especially hypoglycemia) and well tolerated. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (iDPP4) are particularly useful in this age group, either as a second drug added to metformin monotherapy, or as first line when metformin is contraindicated or not tolerated. In this article the evidence available on the efficacy and tolerance of different pharmacological options available in population over 70 years is reviewed.

A cost comparison of long-acting insulin analogs vs NPH insulin-based treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes using routinely collected primary care data from the UK

AIM

The aim of this analysis was to investigate total healthcare costs, HbA1c, and weight changes over a 36-month period in patients with type 2 diabetes initiated on NPH or long-acting insulin analogs.

METHODS

Electronic patient data from 479 general practices in the UK (THIN database) were examined for new users of glargine (n = 794), detemir (n = 252), or NPH insulin (n = 430). Annualized healthcare costs and clinical outcomes in years 1, 2, and 3 following insulin initiation were quantified and compared with baseline, using ANOVA and linear regression models.

RESULTS

A significant difference (p < 0.05) in total healthcare costs increases at year 1 vs baseline was observed between glargine and detemir, detemir and NPH, but not between glargine and NPH (increase: +£486, +£635, and +£420 for glargine, detemir, and NPH users, respectively). However, increases by year 3 were not significantly different between the insulins. A propensity score analysis comparing analog and NPH insulin showed that, following insulin initiation, increases in costs were higher with insulin analogs at year one (+£220), but this difference decreased over time in each year following insulin initiation (+£168 and +£146, respectively, for years 2 and 3). HbA1c reductions were not significantly different between the groups at all time points. Differences in weight gain between glargine and NPH were statistically significant at year 1 (0.87 kg vs 1.11 kg) and year 3 (1.15 kg vs 1.57 kg), but other estimates of between-group differences in weight gain were non-significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Following insulin initiation, the difference in healthcare costs of long-acting analogs compared to NPH insulin was transient. By year 3, the cost differences were not significantly different between the two cohorts, driven by an observed reduction in the cost of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in the analog group and an increase in the cost of bolus insulin in the NPH group.

Modulation of insulin dose titration using a hypoglycaemia-sensitive algorithm: insulin glargine versus neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To examine whether insulin glargine can lead to better control of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) than that achieved by neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, using a protocol designed to limit nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

The present study, the Least One Oral Antidiabetic Drug Treatment (LANCELOT) Study, was a 36-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-arm study conducted in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and South America. Participants were randomized (1:1) to begin glargine or NPH, on background of metformin with glimepiride. Weekly insulin titration aimed to achieve median prebreakfast and nocturnal plasma glucose levels ≤5.5 mmol/l, while limiting values ≤4.4 mmol/l.

RESULTS

The efficacy population (n = 701) had a mean age of 57 years, a mean body mass index of 29.8 kg/m², a mean duration of diabetes of 9.2 years and a mean HbA1c level of 8.2% (66 mmol/mol). At treatment end, HbA1c values and the proportion of participants with HbA1c <7.0 % (<53 mmol/mol) were not significantly different for glargine [7.1 % (54 mmol/mol) and 50.3%] versus NPH [7.2 % (55 mmol/mol) and 44.3%]. The rate of symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemia, confirmed by plasma glucose ≤3.9 or ≤3.1 mmol/l, was 29 and 48% less with glargine than with NPH insulin. Other outcomes were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Insulin glargine was not superior to NPH insulin in improving glycaemic control. The insulin dosing algorithm was not sufficient to equalize nocturnal hypoglycaemia between the two insulins. This study confirms, in a globally heterogeneous population, the reduction achieved in nocturnal hypoglycaemia while attaining good glycaemic control with insulin glargine compared with NPH, even when titrating basal insulin to prevent nocturnal hypoglycaemia rather than treating according to normal fasting glucose levels.

Modern basal insulin analogs: An incomplete story

The currently available basal insulin does not completely mimic the endogenous insulin secretion. This has continued to promote the search for ideal basal insulin. The newer basal insulin have primarily focused on increasing the duration of action, reducing variability, and reducing the incidence of hypoglycemia, particularly nocturnal. However, the changing criteria of hypoglycemia within a short span of a few years along with the surprising introduction of major cardiac events as another outcome measure has not only clouded the assessment of basal insulin but has also polarized opinion worldwide about the utility of the newer basal insulin. A critical review of both the pre and post FDA analysis of all the basal insulin in this article attempts to clear some of the confusion surrounding the issues of hypoglycemia and glycemic control. This article also discusses all the trials and meta-analysis done on all the current basal insulin available along with their head-to-head comparison with particular attention to glycemic control and hypoglycemic events including severe and nocturnal hypoglycemia. This in-depth analysis hopes to provide a clear interpretation of the various analyses available in literature at this point of time thereby acting as an excellent guide to the readers in choosing the most appropriate basal insulin for their patient.

Challenges associated with insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Despite advances in treatment for type 2 diabetes in recent decades, many patients are failing to achieve adequate glycemic control. Poor glycemic control has been shown to have a detrimental effect on patients' health and well-being, and to have significant negative financial implications for both patients and healthcare systems. Insulin therapy has been proven to significantly reduce glycated hemoglobin levels; however, both patients and physicians can be reluctant to initiate insulin therapy. Research shows that both patient and provider factors contribute to a delay in initiation of insulin therapy. This review discusses the most common barriers contributing to this delay with potential solutions to overcome them.

Reduced risk of hypoglycemia with once-daily glargine versus twice-daily NPH and number needed to harm with NPH to demonstrate the risk of one additional hypoglycemic event in type 2 diabetes: Evidence from a long-term controlled trial

AIMS

This analysis evaluated HbA1c-adjusted hypoglycemia risk with glargine versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) over a 5-year study in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Clinical significance was assessed using number needed to harm (NNH) to demonstrate the risk of one additional patient experiencing at least one hypoglycemic event.

METHODS

Individual patient-level data for symptomatic documented hypoglycemia and HbA1c values from a 5-year randomized study comparing once-daily glargine (n=513) with twice-daily NPH (n=504) were analyzed. Symptomatic hypoglycemia was categorized according to concurrent self-monitoring blood glucose levels and need for assistance. Hypoglycemic events per patient-year as a function of HbA1c were fitted by negative binomial regression using treatment and HbA1c at endpoint as independent variables. An estimate of NNH was derived from logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The cumulative number of symptomatic hypoglycemia events was consistently lower with glargine compared with NPH over 5years. Compared with twice-daily NPH, once-daily glargine treatment resulted in significantly lower adjusted odds ratios (OR) for all daytime hypoglycemia (OR 0.74; p=0.030) and any severe event (OR 0.64; p=0.035), representing a 26% and 36% reduction in the odds of daytime and severe hypoglycemia, respectively. Our model predicts that, if 25 patients were treated with NPH instead of glargine, then one additional patient would experience at least one severe hypoglycemic event.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of long-term insulin treatment confirms findings from short-term studies and demonstrates that glargine provides sustained, clinically meaningful reductions in risk of hypoglycemia compared with NPH in patients with T2DM.

Metabolic effects of Basal or premixed insulin treatment in 5077 insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes patients: registry-based observational study in clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the clinical effects associated with premixed insulin (PM) and basal insulin [insulin NPH (NPH), insulin glargine (IG), insulin detemir (ID)], in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cohort study based on data from the Swedish National Diabetes Register, including 5,077 patients, resident in the Western region of Sweden. Patients were included between 1 July 2006 and 31 December 2009 and followed for 12 months. Changes in HbA1c, body mass index (BMI) and required insulin doses were compared between the different insulin types. Covariance adjustments were performed to adjust for differences between the groups.

RESULTS

NPH, IG, ID and PM were all associated with significant reductions in HbA1c, mean ± standard deviation ranged between 6.6 ± 17.4 mmol/mol (IG) and 8.9 ± 17.7 mmol/mol (NPH), during the 12 months of follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in the magnitude of HbA1c reduction between the insulin types. PM required 59% higher and ID 25% higher insulin doses to achieve a similar HbA1c reduction as NPH. PM was associated with a significantly greater increase in BMI compared with NPH (p = 0.016), while IG and ID did not differ significantly from NPH. The number of patients experiencing severe hypoglycemia was low, but highest in patients treated with PM (p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

NPH, IG, ID and PM were found to be equally effective in lowering HbA1c in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical care in Sweden. The effects on weight, dose and treatment persistence support the recommendation of NPH or IG as first and second choices in this group of patients requiring initiation of insulin treatment.

Complementary Approaches to Improving Glucose Control-Insulin and Incretins: Patient Case Studies in Action

PURPOSE

The use of insulin and incretin-based therapies together has recently emerged as a new therapeutic option for patients with type 2 diabetes. This approach can be used across the continuum of diabetes and is supported by clinical trial evidence. To illustrate how these data may apply to clinical care, this supplement uses patient case studies to provide clinical context for diabetes educators. Relevant medical literature was searched and cited. Search terms included insulin, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, hypoglycemia, and weight gain.

CONCLUSION

Insulin remains the most potent glucose-lowering agent available for the treatment of type 2 diabetes but has limitations, primarily of hypoglycemia and secondarily of weight gain. The addition of incretin-based therapies complements the glucose-lowering potential of basal insulin, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia, potentially allowing for lower doses of insulin and without increasing weight gain (DPP-4 inhibitors) or possibly with weight loss (GLP-1 receptor agonists). Incretin-based therapies offer advantages over prandial insulin to address postprandial hyperglycemia.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus in elderly institutionalized patients

A 93-year-old woman is admitted to a conventional hospital ward for an acute respiratory infection. The patient has type 2 diabetes mellitus of approximately 15 years evolution and has no other associated comorbidities, except for progressive dependence due to senescence and a previous hospitalization for pneumonia 6 months ago. She is currently in an assisted-living residence. A recent laboratory test revealed an HbA1c level of 7.8%, with a serum creatinine level of 1.3mg/dl (MDRD, 45ml/min). Her standard treatment consists of 5mg of glibenclamide a day and 850mg of metformin every 12hours. What regimen should we follow once she is hospitalized? Does she require any change in her treatment at discharge?

The effect of glargine versus glimepiride on pancreatic β-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on metformin monotherapy: open-label, randomized, controlled study

The aim of present study is to assess whether if basal insulin, glargine, could improve insulin secretory function of β-cells compared with glimepiride when metformin alone was failed. This was an open-label and multi-center study for 52 weeks in Korean patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes by metformin monotherapy. Subjects were randomized to glargine or glimepiride groups (n = 38 vs. 36, respectively). The primary endpoint was to compare changes in c-peptide via glucagon test after 48 weeks. Glycemic efficacy and safety endpoints (glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), HOMA-B, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), lipid profiles, and hypoglycemic events) were also checked. The mean disease duration of all subjects was 88.2 months. Changes in C-peptide was no significant different between groups (P = 0.73), even though insulin secretion was not worsened in both groups at the endpoint. Glargine was not superior to glimepiride in other β-cell function indexes such as HOMA-B (P = 0.28). HbA1c and FPG reduced significantly in each groups but not different between two groups. Although, severe hypoglycemia did not occur, symptomatic hypoglycemia was more frequent in glimepiride group (P = 0.01). Insulin glargine was as effective as glimepiride in controlling hyperglycemia and maintaining β-cell function in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes during 48 weeks study period, after failure of metformin monotherapy. Hypoglycemic profile was favorable in the insulin glargine group and less weight gain was observed in the glimepiride group. Our results suggest that glargine and glimepiride can be considered after failure of metformin monotherapy.

Basal insulin analogues in the management of diabetes mellitus: What progress have we made?

Insulin remains the most effective and consistent means of controlling blood glucose levels in diabetes. Since 1946, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) has been the predominant basal insulin in clinical use. However, absorption is variable due to the need for resuspension and the time-action profile (peak activity 4-6 h after subcutaneous administration) confers an increased propensity for between-meal and nocturnal hypoglycaemia. In the 1980s, recombinant DNA technology enabled modifications to the insulin molecule resulting in the soluble long-acting insulin analogues, glargine and detemir. Both exhibit a lower risk of hypoglycaemia compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn due to improved time-action profiles and reduced day-to-day glucose variability. Glargine is indicated for administration once daily and detemir once or twice daily. Degludec is the latest prolonged-acting insulin which forms long subcutaneous multi-hexamers that delay absorption. Recent phase III trials in type 1 and type 2 diabetes show that degludec was non-inferior to comparators (predominantly glargine) with a minimal although inconsistent reduction in overall hypoglycaemia and a small absolute difference in nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Newer developmental agents include LY2605541 and glargine U300. LY2605541 comprises insulin lispro combined with polyethylene glycol, thereby increasing its hydrodynamic size and retarding absorption from the subcutaneous tissue. Glargine U300 is a new formulation of glargine resulting in a flatter and more prolonged time-action profile than its predecessor. This article reviews recent advances in basal insulin analogues, including a critical appraisal of the degludec trials.

Impact of diabetes duration on hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin glargine or NPH insulin

AIM

To compare the impact of diabetes duration on hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with insulin glargine or NPH insulin.

METHODS

A pooled analysis of 24-week patient level data from randomized controlled studies comparing once-daily insulin glargine with once-daily NPH insulin in insulin-naïve adult patients with T2DM was performed, stratifying patients into quartiles by duration of diabetes: <5.8 years; 5.8 to <9.2 years; 9.2 to <14 years and ≥14 years. Daytime and nocturnal hypoglycaemia events were evaluated.

RESULTS

Data from 2330 patients in four randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis; 1258 treated with insulin glargine and 1072 with NPH insulin. The rates of daytime hypoglycaemia were similar for insulin glargine and NPH insulin, irrespective of disease duration. Patients with longer T2DM duration treated with glargine experienced greater glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reductions. Rates of severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia and nocturnal hypoglycaemia [self-monitored blood glucose < 70 mg/dl (3.89 mmol/l) and < 50 mg/dl (2.78 mmol/l)] were all significantly and positively correlated with the duration of diabetes for patients treated with NPH insulin but not with insulin glargine. Despite improvements in HbA1c, rates of symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemia were significantly lower with insulin glargine than with NPH insulin in patients with longer T2DM duration.

CONCLUSION

There is a lower risk for nocturnal hypoglycaemia with insulin glargine than with NPH insulin. When considering diabetes duration, insulin glargine (compared to NPH insulin) may be particularly beneficial in patients with a longer duration of T2DM.

Neuronal damage and cognitive impairment associated with hypoglycemia: An integrated view

The aim of the present review is to offer a current perspective about the consequences of hypoglycemia and its impact on the diabetic disorder due to the increasing incidence of diabetes around the world. The main consequence of insulin treatment in type 1 diabetic patients is the occurrence of repetitive periods of hypoglycemia and even episodes of severe hypoglycemia leading to coma. In the latter, selective neuronal death is observed in brain vulnerable regions both in humans and animal models, such as the cortex and the hippocampus. Cognitive damage subsequent to hypoglycemic coma has been associated with neuronal death in the hippocampus. The mechanisms implicated in selective damage are not completely understood but many factors have been identified including excitotoxicity, oxidative stress, zinc release, PARP-1 activation and mitochondrial dysfunction. Importantly, the diabetic condition aggravates neuronal damage and cognitive failure induced by hypoglycemia. In the absence of coma prolonged and severe hypoglycemia leads to increased oxidative stress and discrete neuronal death mainly in the cerebral cortex. The mechanisms responsible for cell damage in this condition are still unknown. Recurrent moderate hypoglycemia is far more common in diabetic patients than severe hypoglycemia and currently important efforts are being done in order to elucidate the relationship between cognitive deficits and recurrent hypoglycemia in diabetics. Human studies suggest impaired performance mainly in memory and attention tasks in healthy and diabetic individuals under the hypoglycemic condition. Only scarce neuronal death has been observed under moderate repetitive hypoglycemia but studies suggest that impaired hippocampal synaptic function might be one of the causes of cognitive failure. Recent studies have also implicated altered mitochondrial function and mitochondrial oxidative stress.

Evaluation of insulin use and value for money in type 2 diabetes in the United kingdom

INTRODUCTION

It is unclear as to whether human or long-acting analog insulins represent the most efficient use of health and non-healthcare resources in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the value for money relationship associated with the use of these insulins in the UK setting.

METHODS

A literature search was performed for studies reporting expenditure associated with the use of human and analog insulins. Data from this review informed a budget impact assessment model. Costs were converted to a common currency and results are reported in 2011 British pounds sterling (GBP) values.

RESULTS

Annual diabetes-related medication expenditure and patients total expenditure associated with the management of T2DM were estimated to be £397 million and £3,901 million, respectively. Substitution of human insulin for analog insulins was associated with a drug acquisition cost saving of between £5 million and £23 million each year. Overall, though, total expenditure increased significantly with increased use of human insulin by £34 million to £136 million each year depending on the degree of substitution.

CONCLUSIONS

On the face of it, analog insulins are more expensive, prompting questions about potential cost savings to health services in the UK from direct substitution to the less expensive human preparation. The current analysis illustrates that the increased use of human insulin and decreased use of analog insulin would, however, increase the overall net societal cost of managing insulin-treated patients with T2DM. Governments and decision makers should consider that total healthcare expenditure would not necessarily fall when decisions are based solely on the use of cheaper products.

A comparison of health-related quality of life (health utility) between insulin degludec and insulin glargine: a meta-analysis of phase 3 trials

AIM

To evaluate health-related quality of life (health utility) scores in patients with diabetes receiving insulin degludec (IDeg) or insulin glargine (IGlar).

METHODS

Patient-level data from six, randomized, controlled, open-label, multicentre, confirmatory, treat-to-target trials of 26- or 52 weeks' duration were pooled in this analysis. The Short Form 36 (SF-36) version-2 health questionnaire was completed by patients at baseline and end-of-trial. SF-36 scores for 4001 individual patients were then mapped onto the EuroQol-5D health utility scale, which has a range from -0.59 (a state worse than death) to 1.00 (perfect health).

RESULTS

IDeg treatment exhibited a significant improvement in health status of 0.005 (CI: 0.0006; 0.009) points compared with IGlar (p < 0.024). Gender, region, trial and age also had a significant influence on estimated utility scores as did baseline utility scores, p < 0.05. Prior to the removal of interaction variables a difference of 0.008 points was observed, p < 0.045. Previous insulin treatment did not have an impact on the final outcome.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that IDeg is associated with a modest, but statistically significant, improvement in health utility compared with IGlar in patients with diabetes.

Common standards of basal insulin titration in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus has become a worldwide major health problem, and the number of people affected is steadily increasing. Thus, not all patients suffering from the disease can be treated by specialized diabetes centers or outpatient clinics, but by primary care physicians. The latter, however, might have time constraints and have to deal with many kinds of diseases or with multimorbid patients, so their focus is not so much on lowering high blood glucose values. Thus, the physicians, as well as the patients themselves, are often reluctant to initiate and adjust insulin therapy, although basal insulin therapy is considered the appropriate strategy after oral antidiabetic drug failure, according to the latest international guidelines. A substantial number of clinical studies have shown that insulin initiation and optimization can be managed successfully by using titration algorithms-even in cases where patients themselves are the drivers of insulin titration. Nevertheless, tools and strategies are needed to facilitate this process in the daily life of both primary health care professionals and patients with diabetes.

Defective counterregulation and hypoglycemia unawareness in diabetes: mechanisms and emerging treatments

For people with diabetes, hypoglycemia remains the limiting factor in achieving glycemic control. This article reviews recent advances in how the brain senses and responds to hypoglycemia. Novel mechanisms by which individuals with insulin-treated diabetes develop hypoglycemia unawareness and impaired counterregulatory responses are outlined. Prevention strategies for reducing the incidence of hypoglycemia are discussed.

The need for better insulin therapy

Insulin replacement therapy corrects a core defect of diabetes pathophysiology. Since its introduction as a therapeutic modality almost 100 years ago, insulin therapy has undergone remarkable changes in purity and ability to provide more physiologic control of blood glucose levels. With glucose-lowering potential limited only by risks of hypoglycaemia, which remains the major limitation in our ability to achieve glycaemic goals, insulin replacement therapy remains a cornerstone of therapy. Major progress in reducing the risks of hypoglycemia has occurred with the development of insulin analogs. This review article briefly chronicles the evolution of insulin replacement strategies, highlighting both challenges in pharmaceutical development and patient acceptance, underscoring achievements, as well as denoting what improvements are still needed.

Insulin degludec improves health-related quality of life (SF-36® ) compared with insulin glargine in people with Type 2 diabetes starting on basal insulin: a meta-analysis of phase 3a trials

AIM

To compare the effect of insulin degludec and insulin glargine on health-related quality of life in patients with Type 2 diabetes starting on insulin therapy.

METHODS

Patient-level data from three open-label, randomized, treat-to-target trials of 26 or 52 weeks' duration were pooled using a weighted analysis in conjunction with a fixed-effects model. Insulin-naive patients received either insulin degludec (n = 1290) or insulin glargine (n = 632) once daily, in combination with oral anti-diabetic drugs. Glycaemic control was assessed via HbA(1c) and fasting plasma glucose concentrations. Rates of hypoglycaemia, defined as plasma glucose < 3.1 mmol/l (< 56 mg/dl), were recorded. Health-related quality of life was evaluated using the 36-item Short Form (SF-36(®) ) version 2 questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed using a generalized linear model with treatment, trial, anti-diabetic therapy at baseline, gender, region and age as explanatory variables.

RESULTS

Insulin degludec was confirmed as non-inferior to insulin glargine based on HbA(1c) concentrations. In each trial comprising the meta-analysis, fasting plasma glucose and confirmed overall and nocturnal (00.01-05.59 h) hypoglycaemia were all numerically or significantly lower with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine. At endpoint, the overall physical health component score was significantly higher (better) with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine [+0.66 (95% CI 0.04-1.28)], largely attributable to a difference [+1.10 (95% CI 0.22-1.98)] in the bodily pain domain score. In the mental domains, vitality was significantly higher with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine [+0.81 (95% CI 0.01-1.59)].

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with insulin glargine, insulin degludec leads to improvements in both mental and physical health status for patients with Type 2 diabetes initiating insulin therapy.