Addition of insulin lispro protamine suspension or insulin glargine to oral type 2 diabetes regimens: a randomized trial

Efficacy and safety of basal insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Aim

The comparative effectiveness of basal insulins has been examined in several studies. However, current treatment algorithms provide a list of options with no clear differentiation between different basal insulins as the optimal choice for initiation.

Methods

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI, and Scopus, and a reference list of retrieved studies and reviews were performed up to November 2023. We identified phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens. The primary outcomes evaluated were HbA1c reduction, weight change, and hypoglycemic events. The revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals considering the critical assumptions in the networks. The certainty of the evidence and confidence in the rankings was assessed using the GRADE minimally contextualized approach.

Results

Of 20,817 retrieved studies, 44 RCTs (23,699 participants) were eligible for inclusion in our network meta-analysis. We found no significant difference among various basal insulins (including Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH), ILPS, insulin glargine, detemir, and degludec) in reducing HbA1c. Insulin glargine, 300 U/mL (IGlar-300) was significantly associated with less weight gain (mean difference ranged from 2.9 kg to 4.1 kg) compared to other basal insulins, namely thrice-weekly insulin degludec (IDeg-3TW), insulin degludec, 100 U/mL (IDeg-100), insulin degludec, 200 U/mL (IDeg-200), NPH, and insulin detemir (IDet), but with low to very low certainty regarding most comparisons. IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 were associated with significantly lower odds of overall, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemic events than NPH and insulin lispro protamine (ILPS) (moderate to high certainty evidence). NPH was associated with the highest odds of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to others. Network meta-analysis models were robust, and findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

The efficacy of various basal insulin regimens is comparable. However, they have different safety profiles. IGlar-300 may be the best choice when weight gain is a concern. In contrast, IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 may be preferred when hypoglycemia is the primary concern.

Comparative Benefits and Harms of Basal Insulin Analogues for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Basal insulin analogues aim for protracted glycemic control with minimal adverse effects.

PURPOSE

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of basal insulin analogues for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

DATA SOURCES

Several databases from inception to April 2018 without language restrictions, ClinicalTrials.gov to April 2018, references of reviews, and meeting abstract books.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials lasting at least 12 weeks that compared efficacy (change in hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] level from baseline [primary outcome]; percentage of patients with HbA1c level <7% at end of study and change in body weight [secondary outcomes]) and safety (hypoglycemia) of basal insulin analogues.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each outcome. All authors evaluated overall confidence in the evidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-nine trials (26 195 patients) assessed 10 basal insulin analogues. Low- to very-low-quality evidence indicated that thrice-weekly degludec (Deg-3TW) was inferior to most other regimens for reducing HbA1c level, with mean differences ranging from 0.21% (vs. degludec, 100 U/mL [Deg-100]) to 0.32% (vs. glargine, 300 U/mL [Glar-300]). High- to moderate-quality evidence suggested that detemir had a favorable weight profile versus all comparators, and Glar-300 was associated with less weight gain than glargine, 100 U/mL (Glar-100); Deg-100; degludec, 200 U/mL (Deg-200); Deg-3TW; and LY2963016. Low- and very-low-quality evidence suggested that Deg-100, Deg-200, and Glar-300 were associated with lower incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia than detemir, Glar-100, LY2963016, and neutral protamine lispro (NPL). Incidence of severe hypoglycemia did not differ among regimens, except NPL, which was associated with increased risk versus Deg-100, detemir, Glar-100, and Glar-300.

LIMITATIONS

Results are based mostly on indirect comparisons. Confidence in summary estimates is low or very low due to individual-study limitations, imprecision, or inconsistency.

CONCLUSION

Low-quality evidence suggests that basal insulin analogues for T2DM do not substantially differ in their glucose-lowering effect. Low- and very-low-quality evidence suggests some regimens may be associated with lower risk for nocturnal hypoglycemia (Deg-100, Deg-200, and Glar-300) or less weight gain (detemir and Glar-300).

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42016037055).

Use of Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension in Pregnancy

Maternal metabolism changes substantially during pregnancy, which poses numerous challenges to physicians managing pregnancy in women with diabetes. Insulin is the agent of choice for glycemic control in pregnant women with diabetes, and the insulin analogs are particularly interesting for use in pregnancy. These agents may reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and promote a more physiological glycemic profile than regular human insulin in pregnant women with type 1 (T1D), type 2 (T2D), or gestational (GDM) diabetes. However, there have been concerns regarding potential risk for crossing the placental barrier, mitogenic stimulation, teratogenicity, and embryotoxicity. Insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS), an intermediate- to long-acting insulin, has a stable and predictable pharmacological profile, and appears to have a favorable time–action profile and produce desirable basal and postprandial glycemic control. As the binding of insulin lispro is unaffected by the protamine molecule, ILPS is likely to have the same mitogenic and immunogenic potential as insulin lispro. Insulin lispro produces similar outcomes to regular insulin in pregnant women with T1D, T2D, or GDM, does not cross the placental barrier, and is considered a useful treatment option for pregnant women with diabetes. Clinical data support the usefulness of ILPS for basal insulin coverage in non-pregnant patients with T1D or T2D, and suggest that the optimal regimen, in terms of balance between efficacy and hypoglycemic risk, is a once-daily injection, especially in patients with T2D. Available data concerning use of ILPS in pregnant women are currently derived from retrospective analyses that involved, in total, >1200 pregnant women. These analyses suggest that ILPS is at least as safe and effective as neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Thus, available experimental and clinical data suggest that ILPS once daily is a safe and effective option for the management of diabetes in pregnant women.

Funding: Eli Lilly and Company.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing efficacy and safety outcomes of insulin glargine with NPH insulin, premixed insulin preparations or with insulin detemir in type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

A variety of basal insulin preparations are used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to summarize scientific evidence on relative efficacy and safety of insulin glargine (IGlar) and other insulins in T2DM.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out in major medical databases up to December 2012. Relevant studies compared efficacy and safety of IGlar, added to oral drugs (OAD) or/and in combination with bolus insulin, with protamine insulin (NPH) or premixed insulin (MIX) in the same regimen, as well as with insulin detemir (IDet), in T2DM. Target HbA1c level without hypoglycemic events was considered the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Twenty eight RCTs involving 12,669 T2DM patients followed for 12-52 weeks were included in quantitative analysis. IGlar + OAD use was associated with higher probability of reaching target HbA1c level without hypoglycemia as compared to NPH + OAD (RR = 1.32 [1.09, 1.59]) or MIX without OAD (RR = 1.61 [1.22, 2.13]) and similar effect as IDet + OAD (RR = 1.07 [0.87, 1.33]) and MIX + OAD (RR = 1.09 [0.86, 1.38]). IGlar + OAD demonstrated significantly lower risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia as compared to NPH + OAD (RR = 0.89 [0.83, 0.96]), MIX + OAD (RR = 0.75 [0.68, 0.83]) and MIX without OAD(RR = 0.75 [0.68, 0.83]), but not with IDet + OAD (RR = 0.99 [0.90, 1.08]). In basal-bolus regimens, IGlar demonstrated similar proportion of T2DM patients achieving target HbA1c as compared to NPH (RR = 1.14 [0.91, 1.44]) but higher than MIX (RR = 1.26 [1.12, 1.42) or IDet (RR = 1.38 [1.11, 1.72]). The risk of severe hypoglycemia was lower in IGlar than in NPH (RR = 0.77 [0.63, 0.94]), with no differences in comparison with MIX (RR = 0.74 [0.46, 1.20]) and IDet (RR = 1.10 [0.54, 2.25]). IGlar + OAD has comparable safety profile to NPH, with less frequent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation than MIX + OAD (RR = 0.41 [0.22, 0.76]) and IDet + OAD (RR = 0.40 [0.24, 0.69]). Also severe adverse reactions were less common for IGlar + OAD when compared to MIX + OAD (RR = 0.71 [0.52; 0.98]).

CONCLUSION

For the majority of examined efficacy and safety outcomes, IGlar use in T2DM patients was superior or non-inferior to the alternative insulin treatment options.

Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension versus insulin glargine once daily added to oral antihyperglycaemic medications and exenatide in type 2 diabetes: a prospective randomized open-label trial

AIMS

To compare efficacy and safety of two, once-daily basal insulin formulations [insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) vs. insulin glargine (glargine)] added to oral antihyperglycaemic medications (OAMs) and exenatide BID in suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients.

METHODS

This 24-week, open-label, multicentre trial randomized patients to bedtime ILPS (n = 171) or glargine (n = 168). Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine was assessed by comparing the upper limit of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 24 (adjusted for baseline HbA1c) with non-inferiority margin 0.4%.

RESULTS

Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine was demonstrated: least-squares mean between-treatment difference (ILPS minus glargine) (95% CI) was 0.22% (0.06, 0.38). Mean HbA1c reduction was less for ILPS- versus glargine-treated patients (-1.16 ± 0.84 vs. -1.40 ± 0.97%, p = 0.008). Endpoint HbA1c < 7.0% was achieved by 53.7% (ILPS) and 61.7% (glargine) (p = NS). Overall hypoglycaemia rates (p = NS) and severe hypoglycaemia incidence (p = NS) were similar. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate was higher in patients treated with ILPS versus glargine (p = 0.004). Weight gain was similar between groups (ILPS: 0.27 ± 3.38 kg; glargine: 0.66 ± 3.93 kg, p = NS). Endpoint total insulin doses were lower in patients treated with ILPS versus glargine (0.30 ± 0.17 vs. 0.37 ± 0.17 IU/kg/day, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ILPS was non-inferior to glargine for HbA1c change over 24 weeks, but was associated with less HbA1c reduction and more nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treat-to-target basal insulin therapy improves glycaemic control and is associated with minimal weight gain when added to OAMs and exenatide BID for suboptimally controlled T2D.

Basal supplementation of insulin lispro protamine suspension versus insulin glargine and detemir for type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

We compared the effect of insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) with that of insulin glargine and insulin detemir, all given as basal supplementation, in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted an electronic search until February 2012, including online registries of ongoing trials and abstract books. All randomized controlled trials comparing ILPS with insulin glargine or detemir with a duration of ≥12 weeks were included.

RESULTS

We found four trials lasting 24-36 weeks involving 1,336 persons: three studies compared ILPS with glargine, and one trial compared ILPS with detemir. There was no significant difference in change in HbA(1c) level between ILPS and comparators, in the proportion of patients achieving the HbA(1c) goals of ≤6.5 or <7%, in weight change, or in daily insulin doses. There was no difference in overall hypoglycemia, but nocturnal hypoglycemia occurred significantly more with ILPS than with comparator insulins (mean difference 0.099 events/patient/30 days [95% CI 0.03-0.17]). In a prespecified sensitivity analysis comparing data obtained in patients who remained on their once-daily insulin regimen, not significantly different event rates for nocturnal hypoglycemia were observed between ILPS and comparator insulins (0.063 [-0.007 to 0.13]), and ILPS was associated with lower insulin dose (0.07 units/kg/day [0.05-0.09]).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference between ILPS and insulin glargine or detemir for targeting hyperglycemia, but nocturnal hypoglycemia occurred more frequently with ILPS than with comparator insulins. Nocturnal hypoglycemia was not significantly different in people who injected insulin once daily.

Rate of hypoglycemia in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes can be predicted from glycemic variability data

BACKGROUND

We set out to study the relationship between different measures of glycemic variability and the rate of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Data were pooled from three 24-week insulin trials including patients on twice-daily (BID) insulin lispro mix 75/25 (75% insulin lispro protamine suspension, 25% insulin lispro) (n=805), daily (QD) insulin glargine (n=1,019), insulin lispro protamine suspension (n=353) (QD or BID), and insulin detemir (n=166) (QD or BID), all with continuation of prestudy oral antihyperglycemic medications. Glycemic variability measures were derived from seven-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean (±SD) age was 56.9±9.7 years, duration of type 2 diabetes was 9.5±6.1 years, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was 8.9±1.1%, and 51.9% were male. Intra-day glucose coefficient of variation (CV), fasting blood glucose, intra-day minimum glucose and inter-day glucose CV at 24 weeks, and intra-day glucose CV at baseline were significantly correlated with the rate of hypoglycemia events between Weeks 12 to 24 (P<0.05 for all measures).

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-day and inter-day glycemic variability is significantly associated with the risk of hypoglycemia in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes, even after adjusting for mean glucose and HbA1c. The intra-day glycemic variability before starting insulin is significantly associated with the risk of hypoglycemia during insulin treatment, which points at treatment- and patient-related factors mediating this relationship.

Effects of dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, on HbA(1c), body weight, and hypoglycemia risk in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on pioglitazone monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To examine the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, added on to pioglitazone in type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on pioglitazone.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Treatment-naive patients or those receiving metformin, sulfonylurea, or thiazolidinedione entered a 10-week pioglitazone dose-optimization period with only pioglitazone. They were then randomized, along with patients previously receiving pioglitazone ≥30 mg, to 48 weeks of double-blind dapagliflozin 5 (n = 141) or 10 mg (n = 140) or placebo (n = 139) every day plus open-label pioglitazone. The primary objective compared HbA(1c) change from baseline with dapagliflozin plus pioglitazone versus placebo plus pioglitazone at week 24. Primary analysis was based on ANCOVA model using last observation carried forward; all remaining analyses used repeated-measures analysis.

RESULTS

At week 24, the mean reduction from baseline in HbA(1c) was -0.42% for placebo versus -0.82 and -0.97% for dapagliflozin 5 and 10 mg groups, respectively (P = 0.0007 and P < 0.0001 versus placebo). Patients receiving pioglitazone alone had greater weight gain (3 kg) than those receiving dapagliflozin plus pioglitazone (0.7-1.4 kg) at week 48. Through 48 weeks: hypoglycemia was rare; more events suggestive of genital infection were reported with dapagliflozin (8.6-9.2%) than placebo (2.9%); events suggestive of urinary tract infection showed no clear drug effect (5.0-8.5% for dapagliflozin and 7.9% for placebo); dapagliflozin plus pioglitazone groups had less edema (2.1-4.3%) compared with placebo plus pioglitazone (6.5%); and congestive heart failure and fractures were rare.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on pioglitazone, the addition of dapagliflozin further reduced HbA(1c) levels and mitigated the pioglitazone-related weight gain without increasing hypoglycemia risk.

Efficacy and safety of insulin lispro protamine suspension as basal supplementation in patients with type 2 diabetes

The three currently marketed long-acting insulin analogs, glargine, detemir and insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS), represent the most significant advances in basal insulin supplementation since the 1940s and 1950s and the introduction of the intermediate-acting NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin. As injection of NPH insulin lacks chronic maintenance of a steady-state low-level basal insulin during fasting periods, which can also expose patients to unpredictable nocturnal hypoglycemia, long-acting insulin analogs have been developed to overcome this important limitation of NPH insulin. ILPS is a protamine-based, intermediate-acting insulin formulation of the short-acting analog insulin lispro: its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics are quite similar to the other basal insulin analogs glargine and detemir. In recent head-to-head randomized controlled trials of insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes, ILPS achieved similar glycemic control compared with glargine or detemir. ILPS administered once daily is an effective and safe way to maintain a steady-state low-level basal insulin during night time, not dissimilar from that currently obtained with a one-day glargine or detemir administration.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension versus insulin glargine once daily in basal-bolus therapies with insulin lispro in type 2 diabetes patients: a prospective randomized open-label trial

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) versus insulin glargine once daily in a basal-bolus regimen in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.

METHODS

Three hundred eighty-three insulin-treated patients were randomized to either ILPS plus lispro or glargine plus lispro in this open-label 24-week European study. Insulin doses were titrated to predefined blood glucose (BG) targets. Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine was assessed by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the change of HbA1c from baseline to week 24 (adjusted for country and baseline HbA1c) with the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. Secondary endpoints included HbA1c categories, BG profiles, insulin doses, hypoglycaemic episodes, adverse events and vital signs.

RESULTS

Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine in the change of HbA1c from baseline was shown: least-square mean between-treatment difference (95% CI) was 0.1% (-0.11; 0.31). Mean changes at week 24 were -1.05% (ILPS) and -1.20% (glargine). HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 21.7 versus 29.4% of patients. Mean basal/mealtime insulin doses at week 24 were 29.6/36.2 IU/day (ILPS) versus 32.8/42.2 IU/day (glargine); the difference was not statistically significant for total dose (p = 0.7). In both groups, 56.1/25.7% versus 63.6/19.3% of patients experienced any/nocturnal hypoglycaemia (p = 0.2 for both). No relevant differences were noted in any other variables.

CONCLUSIONS

A basal-bolus regimen with ILPS once daily resulted in non-inferior glycaemic control compared to a similar regimen with glargine, without statistically significant or clinically relevant differences in hypoglycaemia. ILPS-based regimens can be considered an alternative to basal-bolus regimens with glargine for T2DM patients.

Basal insulin treatment in type 2 diabetes

Insulin glargine is the first 24-h recombinant DNA insulin analog introduced to the market. Substitution of glycine for asparagine and addition of two arginine residues raise the isoelectric point of insulin glargine and result in microprecipitates, delaying absorption from subcutaneous tissue. This delayed absorption result in fairly flat 24-h insulin concentration profiles with no discernible peak. Large, multicenter, randomized, controlled trials in patients with type 2 diabetes show that although NPH insulin and insulin glargine are equally effective in lowering glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) and fasting blood glucose, there is a clear advantage of insulin glargine over NPH insulin in reducing nocturnal and overall hypoglycemia. Lower risk of hypoglycemia with glargine was also consistently demonstrated by trials comparing insulin glargine and premixed analog insulins. These studies also showed greater reduction in A1c with twice-daily premixed insulins compared with glargine, when insulin glargine was administered without mealtime insulin coverage. Insulin glargine was also compared with another insulin analog, insulin detemir. Trials showed that both insulin analogs are equally effective in lowering A1c and have comparable risk of hypoglycemia. Trials comparing insulin glargine with glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists showed comparable significant reductions in A1c with both regimens. Insulin glargine is well tolerated, has low immunogenicity, reduced risks for acute myocardial infarction, and a lower risk of hypoglycemia compared with NPH insulin in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Relationship of baseline HbA1c, HbA1c change and HbA1c target of < 7% with insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIM

We performed a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes utilising a least-squared regression model in order to assess the relationship between baseline HbA1c, the magnitude of HbA1c decrease and attainment of HbA1c target of < 7%.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials involving insulin regimens (basal, prandial, biphasic and basal-bolus) were identified through electronic searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library) through September 2010. We included any study arm of RCTs if they were at least 12 weeks in duration; the number of patients in any arm was more than 30 and reported the baseline HbA1c and change from baseline HbA1c.

RESULTS

We found 87 studies, with a total of 135 arms, and 38,803 patients. The weighted R(2) values for the overall analysis assessing the association between baseline HbA1c and absolute change in HbA1c or the proportion of patients at target were 0.485 (p < 0.001) and 0.146 (p < 0.001), respectively. Subanalyses of insulin regimens for the association between basal HbA1c and absolute decrease of HbA1c produced weighted R(2), which were significant for all insulin regimens with the highest association for basal-bolus (R(2) = 0.719, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The strong positive relationship between baseline HbA1c and the magnitude of HbA1c change we found in RCTs using insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes should be considered when assessing the clinical efficacy of insulin therapies.