Prandial-basal insulin regimens plus oral antihyperglycaemic agents to improve mealtime glycaemia: initiate and progressively advance insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes

Twenty Years of Insulin Gla-100: A Systematic Evaluation of Its Efficacy and Safety in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to present the current evidence base with respect to the initiation and intensification of insulin therapy with glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) compared to other insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled clinical trials databases was performed to identify studies published up to September 30, 2020 that compared the effects of Gla-100 to that of other insulin regimens in people with T2DM. Relevant information pertaining to the predefined outcomes of interest was extracted. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change and response rates along with overall hypoglycemia incidence were the primary efficacy and safety outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine studies (63 interventional and 16 non-interventional) in which Gla-100 was either initiated in previously insulin-naïve patients (n = 57) or used in an intensified regimen (n = 22) were identified and evaluated. In insulin-naïve patients, most studies demonstrated that Gla-100 was significantly better compared with premixed insulins and similar compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations, and other first-generation basal insulins in terms of the primary efficacy parameters. Overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with NPH, premixed, coformulation, and other first-generation basal insulins and significantly higher compared with second-generation basal insulins. In studies with intensified regimens, efficacy outcomes with Gla-100 were significantly better compared with insulin detemir (IDet); similar compared with NPH, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations; and with premixed insulins. In these studies, overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with IDet and comparable to NPH, premixed insulins, co-formulations, and second-generation basal insulins. In addition, most intensification studies also revealed a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia with Gla-100-based regimens versus NPH and premixed insulins and a significantly greater risk compared to second-generation basal insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence presented in this review suggests that Gla-100 is an effective option for both insulin initiation and intensification strategies used in the management of T2DM.

Efficacy and Safety of Basal Analog Regimens in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

This study compared basal analog (BA: glargine U100/mL and detemir) and premix (PM: human, lispro and aspart biphasic) insulin regimens in terms of their efficacy and safety in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

METHODS

Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL identified primary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ≥ 12 weeks in duration that compared BA or PM insulin regimens in adults with T2DM, with ≥ 30 patients per arm. A systematic literature review and a pairwise meta-analysis were performed using a random effects model adjusted for between-study variability. Analyses were conducted based on frequency of bolus insulin and PM injections, PM ratio and type, BA type, race, follow-up period, and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c).

RESULTS

Twenty-two primary RCTs with 9691 patients were included. The BA and PM regimens yielded similar changes in HbA1c and postprandial glucose levels, with a statistically significant reduction in fasting glucose [mean difference (MD) - 0.61 mmol/L (95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.90, - 0.32), I² = 89.6%]. The BA regimens showed significantly reduced rates of total hypoglycemia [odds ratio (OR) 0.77 (95% CI 0.64, 0.92), I² = 65.3%] and changes in body weight [MD - 0.48 kg (95% CI - 0.86, - 0.11), I² = 75.7%] compared to PM regimens. Stratification by PM type and dosing ratio demonstrated statistically significant reductions in HbA1c favoring BA compared to human [MD - 0.39% (95% CI - 0.60, - 0.18), I² = 61.8%] or 50/50-ratio [MD - 0.22% (95% CI - 0.40, - 0.04), I² = 0.0%] PM regimens. Other subgroup analyses found no difference in HbA1c change between the BA and PM regimens.

CONCLUSION

When compared to PM regimens, BA regimens yielded similar efficacies and better safety profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

FUNDING

Sanofi (Shanghai, China).

Effects of Insulin Treatment with Glargine or Premixed Insulin Lispro Programs in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of intensive insulin therapy (premixed insulin lispro vs. insulin glargine) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and www.clinicaltrials.gov were systematically searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of patients with T2DM treated with either premixed insulin lispro or insulin glargine for a duration of 24 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 13 RCTs and 5401 patients were included in this study. In parallel trials and crossover trials, premixed insulin lispro was found to be superior to insulin glargine at reducing glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (parallel trials: weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.18%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.31 to -0.06; P = 0.004; crossover trials: WMD 0.37%; 95% CI -0.51 to -0.23; P < 0.00001). Premixed insulin lispro resulted in more weight gain than insulin glargine (parallel trials: WMD +0.64 kg; 95% CI +0.14 to +1.15; P = 0.01; crossover trials: WMD +0.74 kg; 95% CI +0.19 to +1.29; P = 0.009), and premixed insulin lispro was associated with a higher risk of hypoglycemia than insulin glargine (parallel trials: odds ratio [OR] 1.20; 95% CI 1.06-1.36; P = 0.005; crossover trials: OR 2.24; 95% CI 1.45-3.46; P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Premixed insulin lispro provides a larger reduction in HbA1c and is associated with a significantly higher risk of hypoglycemia and greater weight gain in patients with T2DM. These findings may be helpful in selecting therapy for individual subjects.

A Review of Basal-Bolus Therapy Using Insulin Glargine and Insulin Lispro in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus

Basal-bolus therapy (BBT) refers to the combination of a long-acting basal insulin with a rapid-acting insulin at mealtimes. Basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL and prandial insulin lispro have been available for many years and there is a substantial evidence base to support the efficacy and safety of these agents when they are used in BBT or basal-plus therapy for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM, T2DM). With the growing availability of alternative insulins for use in such regimens, it seems timely to review the data regarding BBT with insulin glargine 100 U/mL and insulin lispro. In patients with T1DM, BBT with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro provides similar or better glycemic control and leads to less nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to BBT using human insulin as the basal and/or prandial component, and generally provides similar glycemic control and rates of severe hypoglycemia to those achieved with insulin lispro administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Studies evaluating BBT with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro in patients with T2DM also demonstrate the efficacy and safety of these insulins. Available data suggest that BBT with insulin glargine and insulin lispro provides similar levels of efficacy and safety in pediatric and adult populations with T1DM and in adult patients and those aged more than 65 years with T2DM. These insulin preparations also appear to be safe and effective for controlling T2DM in people of different ethnicities and in patients with T1DM or T2DM and comorbidities.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Characteristics of insulin-Naïve people with type 2 diabetes who successfully respond to insulin glargine U100 after 24 weeks of treatment: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 3 randomized clinical trials

Background

To identify baseline/clinical characteristics associated with clinically meaningful responses to insulin glargine 100 U/mL (IGlar) in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

Individual participant data were pooled from 3 randomized trials to compare baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes associated with 24-week response to IGlar in combination with non-insulin antihyperglycemic agents in participants with T2DM. Responders were defined as achieving endpoint HbA1c target < 53 mmol/mol (< 7%) and/or ≥ 11 mmol/mol (≥ 1%) HbA1c reduction from baseline.

Results

Differences in baseline characteristics for responders versus nonresponders were higher HbA1c (99 vs 91 mmol/mol [9.1 vs 8.3%]; P < 0.001), higher fasting blood glucose (FBG; 10.4 vs 8.8 mmol/L [187 vs 159 mg/dL; P < 0.001), and fewer participants (94% vs 98%; P = 0.006) taking oral medications targeting postprandial blood glucose (BG). Most participants (80%) achieved one or both components of composite endpoint. 12-week response was a strong predictor of subsequent 24-week response (sensitivity, 85.9%; predictive positive value, 91.4%). At both 12 and 24 weeks, < 40% of responders and nonresponders reached target FBG ≤ 5.6 mmol/L (≤ 100 mg/dL). Responders at 24 weeks had higher incidence of hypoglycemia (total, 82.5% vs 70.4%; P < 0.001; nocturnal, 60.3% vs 50.5%; P = 0.002; documented symptomatic, 65.8% vs 55.6%; P < 0.001) than nonresponders.

Conclusions

Baseline characteristics associated with response were identified. The strong predictability of 12-week response suggests that the magnitude of early HbA1c reduction should be considered when assessing response to IGlar. More aggressive IGlar titration may be reasonable for nonresponders and responders who have not reached FBG and HbA1c targets, taking into account other BG timepoints.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40842-018-0059-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

FUNDING

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

Use of 50/50 Premixed Insulin Analogs in Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Clinical Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Premixed insulin analogs represent an alternative to basal or basal-bolus insulin regimens for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). "Low-mix" formulations with a low rapid-acting to long-acting analog ratio (e.g., 25/75) are commonly used, but 50/50 formulations (Mix50) may be more appropriate for some patients. We conducted a systematic literature review to assess the efficacy and safety of Mix50, compared with low-mix, basal, or basal-bolus therapy, for insulin initiation and intensification.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, LillyTrials.com, and NovoNordisk-trials.com were searched (11 or 13 Dec 2016) using terms for T2D, premixed insulin analogs, and/or Mix50. Studies (randomized, nonrandomized, or observational; English only) comparing Mix50 with other insulins (except human) and reporting key efficacy [glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting and postprandial glucose] and/or safety (hypoglycemia, weight gain) outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Narrative reviews, letters, editorials, and conference abstracts were excluded. Risk of bias in randomized trials was assessed using the Cochrane tool.

RESULTS

MEDLINE and EMBASE searches identified 716 unique studies, of which 32 met inclusion criteria. An additional three studies were identified in the other databases. All 19 randomized trials except one were open label; risk of other biases was generally low. Although not conclusive, the evidence suggests that Mix50 may provide better glycemic control (HbA1c reduction) and, particularly, postprandial glucose reduction in certain patients, such as those with high carbohydrate diets and Asian patients, than low-mix and basal therapy. Based on this evidence and our experience, we provide clinical guidance on factors to consider when deciding whether Mix50 is appropriate for individual patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Mix50 may be more suitable than low-mix therapy for certain patients. Clinicians should consider not only efficacy and safety but also patient characteristics and preferences when tailoring insulin treatment to individuals with T2D.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly.

Premixed vs basal-bolus insulin regimen in Type 2 diabetes: comparison of clinical outcomes from randomized controlled trials and real-world data

AIM

To evaluate the concordance between data derived from randomized controlled trial (RCT) and real-world estimates of HbA_1c and weight change after 24 weeks of initiation of a basal-bolus compared with a premixed insulin regimen in people with Type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Data eight RCTs were pooled after a systematic review of studies examining basal-bolus (n = 1893) or premixed (n = 1517) regimens. Real-world data were extracted from the UK primary care dataset for people on basal-bolus (n = 7483) or premixed insulin regimens (n=10 744). The mean differences between HbA_1c and weight from baseline were calculated using t-tests, while analysis of variance was used to compare the two treatment regimens. Linear regression analyses were used to determine the predictors of this change.

RESULTS

Both insulin regimens were associated with HbA_1c reductions (real-world data -0.28%; RCT data, -1.4%) and weight gain (real-world data, +0.27 kg; RCT data, +2.96 kg) but there were no significant differences between basal-bolus and premixed insulin. Discordances in the pattern of treatment response were observed, however, between real-world and RCT data for both insulin regimens. For any given baseline HbA_1c concentration, the change in HbA_1c in the RCTs was greater than in real-world conditions and for those with baseline weight above ~60 kg, RCT data showed overall weight gain in contrast to slight weight loss in the real-world population. Lastly, for both randomized controlled trial and real-world populations, while greater baseline weight was associated with reduced response to treatment, the association was much steeper in the RCT than in the real-world population. In addition, greater baseline weight was associated with greater weight reductions in both premixed insulin and basal-bolus insulin regimens, although to a lesser extent with the latter.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight specific discrepancies in the HbA_1c reduction and weight change in insulin regimen between real world versus RCT populations; with greater reduction in HbA_1c and greater increase in weight observed in the RCT population than in the real-world population. Also, the basal-bolus regimens in both real-world and RCT populations showed greater reduction in HbA_1c compared to the premix regimen (though more marked in RCTs), while the premix regimen showed greater increase in weight in real-world, as against basal-bolus in the RCT population.

Review of basal-plus insulin regimen options for simpler insulin intensification in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To identify simple insulin regimens for people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus that can be accepted and implemented earlier in primary and specialist care, taking into consideration each individual's needs and capabilities.

METHODS

Using randomized clinical trials identified by a search of the PubMed database, as well as systematic reviews, meta-analyses and proof-of-concept studies, this review addresses topics of interest related to the progressive intensification of a basal insulin regimen to a basal-plus regimen (one basal insulin injection plus stepwise addition of one to three preprandial short-acting insulin injections/day) vs a basal-bolus regimen (basal insulin plus three short-acting insulin injections per day) in people with Type 2 diabetes. The review explores approaches that can be used to define the meal for first prandial injection with basal-plus regimens, differences among insulin titration algorithms, and the importance of self-motivation and autonomy in achieving optimum glycaemic control.

RESULTS

A basal-plus regimen can provide glycaemic control equivalent to that obtained with a full basal-bolus regimen, with fewer injections of prandial insulin. The first critical step is to optimize basal insulin dosing to reach a fasting glucose concentration of ~6.7 mmol/l; this allows ~40% of patients with baseline HbA1c >75 mmol/mol (9%) to be controlled with only one basal insulin injection per day.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with a basal-bolus regimen, a basal-plus insulin regimen is as effective but more practical, and has the best chance of acceptance and success in the real world.

Observational Registry of Basal Insulin Treatment (ORBIT) in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with oral antihyperglycaemic drugs: Real-life use of basal insulin in China

AIMS

To examine treatment patterns following basal insulin (BI) introduction in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients under real-world conditions across China.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Overall, 18 995 patients inadequately controlled (HbA1c ≥ 53 mmol/mol [7%]) with oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) and willing to receive BI treatment were registered at 209 hospitals and followed at baseline (visit 1), 3 months (visit 2) and 6 months (visit 3). Type of BI was initiated at physicians' discretion.

RESULTS

Retention with BI therapy at 6 months was 75.6%. Use of long-acting BI predominated, with insulin glargine accounting for 71%, detemir 13% and Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin 16%. Over 70% of long-acting users maintained the same initial BI at visit 3, while 40% of NPH users switched treatment and 24.4% of participants initiated BI with prandial insulin. The initial mean (± SD) dose of BI and total insulin was 0.18 ± 0.07 and 0.25 ± 0.19 IU/kg, respectively, with a mean increase of daily dose by 0.03 and 0.02 IU/kg after 6 months, respectively. Only 56.6% of insulin users reported dose titration at visit 3. Mean HbA1c was 81 mmol/mol (9.6%) at baseline and 57 mmol/mol (7.4%) at 6 months. The frequency of hypoglycaemia was 1.61 and 2.07 episodes/patient-year at baseline and 6 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world clinical settings, add-on BI therapy in T2DM patients is associated with significant improvement in glycaemic control without overtly compromising safety related to hypoglycaemia and weight gain. Evolution of insulin treatment regimens varied among patients, but dose titration was suboptimal. More active BI dose titration might further improve glycaemic outcome in patients receiving BI therapy.

VIDEO ABSTRACT

A free Video Abstract to accompany this article is available at https://vimeo.com/212655959.

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.

Efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart and biphasic insulin lispro mix in patients with type 2 diabetes: A review of the literature

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) represents an escalating burden worldwide, particularly in China and India. Compared with Caucasians, Asian people with diabetes have lower body mass index, increased visceral adiposity, and postprandial glucose (PPG)/insulin resistance. Since postprandial hyperglycemia contributes significantly to total glycemic burden and is associated with heightened cardiovascular risk, targeting PPG early in T2D is paramount. Premixed insulin regimens are widely used in Asia due to their convenience and effectiveness. Data from randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with biphasic insulin lispro mix (LM 25/50) and versus other insulin therapies or oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in T2D demonstrated that BIAsp 30 and LM 25/50 were associated with similar or greater improvements in glycemic control versus comparator regimens, such as basal-bolus insulin, in insulin-naÏve, and prior insulin users. Studies directly comparing BIAsp 30 and LM 25 provided conflicting glycemic control results. Safety data generally showed increased hypoglycemia and weight gain with premixed insulins versus basal-bolus insulin or OADs. However, large observational trials documented improvements in glycated hemoglobin, PPG, and hypoglycemia with BIAsp 30 in multi-ethnic patient populations. In summary, this literature review demonstrates that premixed insulin regimens are an appropriate and effective treatment choice in T2D.

Hypoglycemia Event Rates: A Comparison Between Real-World Data and Randomized Controlled Trial Populations in Insulin-Treated Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Hypoglycemia is the most common adverse effect of diabetes therapy, particularly insulin treatment. Hypoglycemia is associated with considerable clinical and economic burden, and may be under-reported. The aim of this study was to com pare the frequency of hypoglycemic events reported in real-world settings with those reported in clinical trials.

METHODS

We conducted a structured literature review in PubMed to identify hypoglycemic event rates in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from real-world data (RWD) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The search was restricted to English language, full-text publications from 2010 onwards, reporting on treatment of T1DM or T2DM with basal only, basal-bolus, or premix insulin.

RESULTS

The final dataset included 30 studies (11 RWD studies and 19 RCTs). Six studies (RWD, n = 2; RCT, n = 4) reported hypoglycemia event rates in people with T1DM. For all reported categories of hypoglycemia (severe, non-severe, and nocturnal), rates were consistently higher in RWD studies compared with RCTs. Twenty-five studies (RWD, n = 10; RCT, n = 15) reported hypoglycemia event rates in people with insulin-treated T2DM. For T2DM basal-oral therapy; the highest rates were observed in RWD studies, although there was an overlap with RCT rates. For basal-bolus therapy, there was considerable between-study variability but higher rates of severe and non-severe hypoglycemia were generally observed in RWD studies. For T2DM premix insulin, reported rates of hypoglycemia in RWD studies and RCTs were similar.

CONCLUSION

We found that higher rates of hypoglycemia are observed in real-world settings compared with clinical trial settings, although there is a large degree of overlap. Due to the inherent constraints of RCTs, they are likely to underestimate the burden of hypoglycemia in clinical practice. Further, high-quality RWD are needed to determine a more accurate incidence of hypoglycemia in clinical practice.

Intensification of insulin therapy with basal-bolus or premixed insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of intensified insulin regimens (basal-bolus versus premixed) on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. We conducted an electronic search until March 2015 on many electronic databases including online registries of ongoing trials. All RCTs comparing basal-bolus with premixed insulin regimens, with a duration of >12 weeks and with >30 patients per arm, were included. Investigators extracted data on study characteristics, outcome measures, and methodological quality. We found thirteen RCTs lasting 16-60 weeks and involving 5255 patients assessed for the primary endpoint (reduction of HbA1c from baseline). Meta-analysis of change in HbA1c level between basal-bolus and premixed insulin regimens resulted in a small and non-significant difference of 0.09% (95% CI -0.03 to 0.21), with substantial heterogeneity between studies (I(2) = 74.4%). There was no statistically significant difference in the event rate for overall hypoglycemia (0.16 episode/patient/year, 95%CI -2.07 to 2.3), weight change (-0.21 kg, -0.164 to 0.185), and daily insulin dose (-0.54 U/day, -2.7 to 1.6). The likelihood for reaching the HbA1c <7% was 8% higher (3-13%, I(2) = 68.8%) with the basal-bolus as compared with the premixed regimen. There is no clinically relevant difference in the efficacy of basal-bolus versus premixed insulin regimens for HbA1c decrease in type 2 diabetic patients. These findings may be helpful to adapt treatment to individual patient needs.

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.

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.

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.

Biphasic vs basal bolus insulin regimen in Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

We aim to evaluate the effects of biphasic insulin compared with a basal bolus insulin regimen on glycaemic control, total daily insulin requirements, risk of hypoglycaemia, weight and quality of life in patients with diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for studies up to November 2013. Interventions that lasted for more than four weeks and were reported in English were considered for the review. Meta-analysis was performed on eligible studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trial studies, involving 4384 patients, were included. Greater HbA1c reductions were seen with basal-bolus compared with biphasic insulin regimens, between-treatment weighted mean difference (WMD) for baseline-to-endpoint changes in HbA1c was -0.2% (95% CI: -0.36 to -0.03) [-2.2 (-3.9, -0.3) mmol/mol]. In non-insulin naïve (n = 8) patients with Type 2 diabetes, HbA1c reduction was greater in the basal bolus group; WMD = -0.22% (95% CI: -0.42 to -0.02) [-2.4 (-4.6, -0.2) mmol/mol], but in insulin naïve patients (n = 5), HbA1c was equivalent between the two regimens; WMD (-0.15% (95% CI: -0.52 to 0.22) [-1.6 (-5.7, 2.4) mmol/mol]. Total daily insulin requirements and weight were increased with both regimens, whereas hypoglycaemia rates were comparable between the two regimens. Greater HbA1c reduction was observed in the basal bolus group compared with the biphasic regimen at the expense of higher daily insulin requirements and weight gain, but with no greater risk of hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Biphasic and basal bolus regimens were equally effective in reducing HbA1c in insulin naïve patients with Type 2 diabetes and both regimens are equally effective for initiating insulin in Type 2 diabetes.

Clinical considerations for insulin pharmacotherapy in ambulatory care, part two: review of primary literature and an evidence-based approach for treatment

IN BRIEF This article reinforces the dosing guidance from the package inserts of available insulin products and supplemental information provided by the manufacturers of insulin products. It reviews and evaluates pertinent primary literature detailing algorithms for the initiation and titration of insulin therapy that have helped to shape current clinical practice guidelines. The article discusses the clinical applicability of the evidence on insulin pharmacotherapy and offers recommendations for initiation and titration of various insulin products for insulin-requiring people with type 2 diabetes in the ambulatory care setting.

Effects of switching from prandial premixed insulin therapy to basal plus two times bolus insulin therapy on glycemic control and quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background

The effects of switching from prandial premixed insulin therapy (PPT) injected three times a day to basal plus two times bolus insulin therapy (B2B) on glycemic control and quality of life were investigated in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Methods

The clinical course was prospectively observed during the first 16 weeks after switching to B2B (insulin glargine plus insulin glulisine before breakfast and dinner) in 27 subjects previously treated with PPT using 50/50 premixed insulin. The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) was administered at the start and end of the study.

Results

The glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) level (8.3%±1.8% to 8.2%±1.1%) and the DTSQ score did not change between the start and end of the study. An improvement in HbA_1c level was found in nine (33%) subjects. The change in HbA_1c showed a significant negative correlation with baseline HbA_1c, and was significantly better in patients with a baseline HbA_1c >8.0% than in those with an HbA_1c ≤8.0% (−0.9±2.0 versus 0.3±0.6, respectively, P=0.02). The change in DTSQ score representing treatment satisfaction was significantly greater in patients whose HbA_1c level was improved than in those in whom it was not (2.7±3.6 versus −0.8±3.5, P=0.04).

Conclusion

B2B was noninferior to PPT with regard to HbA_1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. B2B should be considered particularly for subjects whose glycemic control is poor despite PPT.

Role of premixed insulin analogues in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a narrative review

Because of the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), insulin therapy will eventually become necessary in most patients. Recent evidence suggests that maintaining optimal glycemic control by early insulin therapy can reduce the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications in patients with T2DM. The present review focuses on relevant clinical evidence supporting the use of premixed insulin analogues in T2DM when intensifying therapy, and as starter insulins in insulin-naïve patients. Our aim is to provide relevant facts and clinical evidence useful in the decision-making process of treatment selection and individualized treatment goal setting to obtain sustained blood glucose control.

Initiation and gradual intensification of premixed insulin lispro therapy versus Basal {+/-} mealtime insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes eating light breakfasts

OBJECTIVE

We compared two strategies initiating and intensifying insulin treatment and tested for noninferiority of premixed insulin to basal ± mealtime insulin analog in patients eating light breakfasts.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This randomized, open-label, 48-week study compared two algorithms. Up to three injections of insulin lispro mix 25 and/or insulin lispro mix 50 (premix; premixed insulin lispro) or basal insulin glargine plus up to three injections of insulin lispro (basal+; glargine + insulin lispro) were used in type 2 diabetic patients uncontrolled with oral antihyperglycemic medication and consuming <15% daily calories at breakfast. The hypothesis was to test noninferiority of premix to basal+ for glycemic control measured by HbA1c after 48 weeks, assessed using ANCOVA with a 0.4% margin.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 344; 176 [51%] females; mean [SD] age 54.3 [8.8] years; BMI 29.4 [4.6] kg/m(2); baseline HbA1c 9.02 [0.97]%) were randomized to premix (n = 171) or basal+ (n = 173). In the per-protocol analysis (n = 230), least squares means (95% CI) end point HbA1c were 7.40% (7.15-7.65) and 7.55% (7.27-7.82) in respective arms. Between-treatment difference was -0.14% (-0.42 to 0.13), with noninferiority met. Significantly more patients in premix achieved HbA1c targets of <7.0% compared with basal+ (48.2 vs. 36.2%; P = 0.024). Self-monitored blood glucose profiles, body weight changes, total insulin doses, and overall hypoglycemia (65 vs. 60%) were similar in premix and basal+ (P = 0.494), except nocturnal episodes (34.3 vs. 23.7%; P = 0.018) were more common in premix.

CONCLUSIONS

Both intensive insulin strategies improved glycemic control; however, final HbA1c levels were seen above those achieved in previous treat-to-target trials, likely due to the inadequate insulin titrations and probably due to the complexity of tested insulin regimens. A higher percentage of patients achieved target HbA1c <7% with multiple premixed insulins, but this treatment resulted in more nocturnal hypoglycemia than a basal-bolus regimen.

Evidence-based clinical use of insulin premixtures

Brazil is expected to have 19.6 million patients with diabetes by the year 2030. A key concept in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is establishing individualized glycemic goals based on each patient's clinical characteristics, which impact the choice of antihyperglycemic therapy. Targets for glycemic control, including fasting blood glucose, postprandial blood glucose, and glycated hemoglobin (A1C), are often not reached solely with antihyperglycemic therapy, and insulin therapy is often required. Basal insulin is considered an initial strategy; however, premixed insulins are convenient and are equally or more effective, especially for patients who require both basal and prandial control but desire a more simplified strategy involving fewer daily injections than a basal-bolus regimen. Most physicians are reluctant to transition patients to insulin treatment due to inappropriate assumptions and insufficient information. We conducted a nonsystematic review in PubMed and identified the most relevant and recently published articles that compared the use of premixed insulin versus basal insulin analogues used alone or in combination with rapid-acting insulin analogues before meals in patients with T2DM. These studies suggest that premixed insulin analogues are equally or more effective in reducing A1C compared to basal insulin analogues alone in spite of the small increase in the risk of nonsevere hypoglycemic events and nonclinically significant weight gain. Premixed insulin analogues can be used in insulin-naïve patients, in patients already on basal insulin therapy, and those using basal-bolus therapy who are noncompliant with blood glucose self-monitoring and titration of multiple insulin doses. We additionally provide practical aspects related to titration for the specific premixed insulin analogue formulations commercially available in Brazil.

Expectations about insulin therapy, perceived insulin-delivery system social acceptability, and insulin treatment satisfaction contribute to decreases in insulin therapy self-efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes after 36 weeks insulin therapy

BACKGROUND

Self-efficacy plays a critical role in diabetes self-care. Herein we explore factors contributing to decreased insulin therapy self-efficacy in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating and managing insulin therapy over 36 weeks.

METHODS

The study was conducted within an international, randomized clinical trial comparing two insulin therapies administered by insulin pen in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with oral antihyperglycemic medications. Patients completed the Self-Efficacy about Insulin Therapy Questionnaire (SEITQ) at baseline and endpoint. Patients also completed patient-reported measures assessing expectations about insulin therapy at baseline and perceptions about insulin therapy and insulin-delivery system (IDS) satisfaction at endpoint. Baseline and endpoint SEITQ scores were compared. Using prespecified criteria, patients were classified as having "decreased" or "no change/improved" insulin self-efficacy. Demographic, clinical, and patient-reported variables were entered into a logistic regression model with decreased insulin self-efficacy (yes or no) as the dependent variable.

RESULTS

Baseline and endpoint SEITQ data were available for 450 insulin-naïve T2DM patients (mean age 59 years; 53% female; 57% Caucasian; mean baseline HbA1c 9.4%; 80.0 mmol/mol). Insulin therapy self-efficacy improved from baseline to endpoint (74.0 vs 77.5; P<0.001). Logistic regression analysis indicated that lower IDS satisfaction (P<0.0001), lower IDS social acceptability (P=0.004), and more positive expectations of insulin therapy (P<0.0001) were associated with decreased insulin self-efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

A candid discussion between clinicians and their insulin-naïve T2DM patients about the benefits and challenges of insulin therapy may prevent unrealistic expectations that could potentially undermine insulin self-efficacy.

Clinical outcomes after 24 months of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes in five countries: results from the TREAT study

OBJECTIVE

To assess factors associated with insulin regimens at initiation, changes in treatment and metabolic control over 2 years of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes in five countries.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

TREAT was a prospective, 24 month, observational study in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin in clinical practice. Patient characteristics were collected at baseline and metabolic outcomes at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after initiation.

RESULTS

A total of 985 patients were enrolled, 886 assessed at baseline and 734 (82.8%) at 24 months. Baseline characteristics varied between countries: 52.8% of patients were men; mean age was 60.4 years; body mass index, 29.7 kg/m²; time since diagnosis, 10.1 years; HbA1c, 9.6%. Less than 25% of patients met ADA/IDF targets for blood pressure/LDL cholesterol. Overall, 50.1% of patients were initiated on long/intermediate insulin, 39.3% on mixture and 7.8% on basal-bolus; distribution varied between countries. Patients on long/intermediate were more likely to have lower baseline HbA1c and be intensified to other regimens (19.4%). No oral antidiabetic medication was used for 16.4% initiating on long/intermediate, 47.4% on mixture and 62.3% with basal-bolus. Overall, mean HbA1c decreased from 9.6% to 7.6%, with little difference between regimens at endpoint. The percentage of patients with hypoglycaemia was highest at 6 months and with basal-bolus.

LIMITATIONS

Sites were not selected at random. Drop-out of patients prior to 24 months may have introduced a bias that favoured responders.

CONCLUSIONS

Mean baseline HbA1c was high, indicating delayed initiation of insulin treatment. Blood pressure and lipids were suboptimally controlled. Insulin regimens varied between countries, changed little and resulted in similar HbA1c levels after 24 months.

Efficacy and safety of stepwise introduction of insulin lispro mix 50 in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by oral therapy

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of stepwise introduction of insulin lispro mix 50 (LM50) from once to 3 times daily in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by oral therapy. This was a multicenter, open-label, non-randomized trial consisting of three 16-week periods (48 weeks total); all patients were given once-daily injections of LM50 in Period 1. The regimen was intensified to twice daily in Period 2, and 3 times daily in Period 3 if HbA1c was ≥ 6.9% before the start of the period. A total of 135 patients were enrolled, and 116 patients completed the study. Main baseline characteristics of enrolled patients were a mean age of 60.3 years, mean diabetes duration of 11.4 years, mean BMI of 25.2 kg/m(2), and mean HbA1c of 8.71%. The percentages of patients who achieved HbA1c levels <6.9% and <7.4% at endpoint were 18.5% (25/135 patients) and 52.6% (71/135 patients), respectively. Mean HbA1c decreased significantly from 8.70% to 7.44% (p<0.001). The incidence of hypoglycemic episodes over the treatment periods was 65.9% (89/135 patients); severe hypoglycemia occurred in 2.2% (3/135 patients). There were no other clinically significant safety issues related to the study drug. Stepwise introduction of LM50 from once to 3 times daily can be a safe, effective, and simple therapy for Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by oral therapy.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.