Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension and insulin detemir in basal-bolus therapy in patients with Type 1 diabetes

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

People with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) need treatment with insulin for survival. Whether any particular type of (ultra-)long-acting insulin provides benefit especially regarding risk of diabetes complications and hypoglycaemia is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn) or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogue in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We explored the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Agency (EMA) web pages. We asked pharmaceutical companies, EMA and investigators for additional data and clinical study reports (CSRs). The date of the last search of all databases was 24 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 24 weeks or more comparing one (ultra-)long-acting insulin to NPH insulin or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin in people with T1DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 (RoB 2) tool and extracted data. Our main outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (QoL), severe hypoglycaemia, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke (NFMI/NFS), severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events (SAEs) and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs. Two studies were unpublished. We obtained CSRs, clinical study synopses or both as well as medical reviews from regulatory agencies on 23 studies which contributed to better analysis of risk of bias and improved data extraction. A total of 8784 participants were randomised: 2428 participants were allocated to NPH insulin, 2889 participants to insulin detemir, 2095 participants to insulin glargine and 1372 participants to insulin degludec. Eight studies contributing 21% of all participants comprised children. The duration of the intervention varied from 24 weeks to 104 weeks. Insulin degludec versus NPH insulin: we identified no studies comparing insulin degludec with NPH insulin. Insulin detemir versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): five deaths reported in two studies including adults occurred in the insulin detemir group (Peto OR 4.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.38; 9 studies, 3334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies with 870 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). There was a reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir: 171/2019 participants (8.5%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 138/1200 participants (11.5%) in the NPH insulin group experienced severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 8 studies, 3219 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.34 and 1.39. Only 1/331 participants in the insulin detemir group compared with 0/164 participants in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFMI (1 study, 495 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported NFS. A total of 165/2094 participants (7.9%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 102/1238 participants (8.2%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21; 9 studies, 3332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 70/1823 participants (3.8%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 60/1102 participants (5.4%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17; 7 studies, 2925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin was 0.01%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 8 studies, 3122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): one adult died in the NPH insulin group (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.98; 8 studies, 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 1013 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial effect or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was observed in 122/1191 participants (10.2%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 145/1159 participants (12.5%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.04; 9 studies, 2350 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a NFMI and one participant in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFS in the single study reporting this outcome (585 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 109/1131 participants (9.6%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 110/1098 participants (10.0%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.84; 8 studies, 2229 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 69/938 participants (7.4%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 83/955 participants (8.7%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; 6 studies, 1893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin was 0.02%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 9 studies, 2285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine (2 RCTs),insulin degludec versus insulin detemir (2 RCTs), insulin degludec versus insulin glargine (4 RCTs): there was no evidence of a clinically relevant difference for all main outcomes comparing (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues with each other. For all outcomes none of the comparisons indicated differences in tests of interaction for children versus adults.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin for T1DM showed lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir (moderate-certainty evidence). However, the 95% prediction interval indicated inconsistency in this finding. Both insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin did not show benefits or harms for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. For all other main outcomes with overall low risk of bias and comparing insulin analogues with each other, there was no true beneficial or harmful effect for any intervention. Data on patient-important outcomes such as QoL, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications were sparse or missing. No clinically relevant differences were found between children and adults.

Insulin Lispro with Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion is Safe and Effective in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Trial of Insulin Lispro Versus Insulin Aspart

OBJECTIVE

This study provides clinical information regarding the use of insulin lispro versus insulin aspart in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D).

METHODS

After a 2-week lead-in period, 122 subjects treated with CSII therapy were randomized to 32 weeks of treatment during 2 separate 16-week treatment periods (TPs) with crossover beginning with insulin lispro (n = 60) or insulin aspart (n = 62). Glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), total daily insulin dose, and weight were recorded at the end of TP1 and TP2. Adverse events (AEs) and hypoglycemic events (overall, documented symptomatic, nocturnal, or severe) were recorded throughout the TPs. Data were analyzed using statistical methods that accounted for repeated measurements.

RESULTS

A total of 107 subjects completed the study; 7 discontinued in TP1 and 8 discontinued in TP2. Insulin lispro was noninferior to insulin aspart in endpoint (weeks 16 and 32) HbA1c over TP1 and TP2 combined. Total daily insulin dose, weight change, and incidence and rates of hypoglycemia were not statistically significantly different between treatments. One case of severe hypoglycemia and 1 of diabetic ketoacidosis was observed with insulin aspart. One case of severe infusion site abscess was noted with insulin lispro. Overall, both insulin lispro and insulin aspart were well tolerated with similar AEs reported.

CONCLUSION

Insulin lispro and insulin aspart performed similarly after 16 weeks of treatment, with noninferiority for HbA1c and no significant difference in parameters measured. These findings indicate that insulin lispro and insulin aspart can both be used safely and effectively in patients with T2D using CSII.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of insulin lispro in geriatric patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective analysis of seven randomized controlled clinical trials

Background and Aims

Glycemic control in geriatric patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) remains clinically challenging. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of insulin lispro in patients ≥65 years (geriatric) to those <65 years (non-geriatric), using a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT).

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis of predefined endpoints from an integrated database of seven RCTs of T2DM patients treated with insulin lispro. The primary efficacy measure tested the non-inferiority of insulin lispro (geriatric vs. non-geriatric; non-inferiority margin 0.4 %) in terms of hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) change from baseline to Month 3 (N = 1,525), with change from baseline to Month 6 as a supportive analysis (N = 885). Changes in HbA_1c from baseline were evaluated with an analysis of covariance model. Secondary measures included incidence and rate of hypoglycemia, and incidence of cardiovascular events.

Results

Mean change in HbA_1c from baseline to Month 3 was similar for geriatric (−0.97 %) and non-geriatric patients (−1.05 %); least-square (LS) mean difference (95 % CI) was 0.02 % (−0.11, 0.15 %; p = 0.756). Similar results were observed in patients treated up to Month 6; LS mean difference (95 % CI) was 0.07 % (−0.12, 0.26 %; p = 0.490). Decrease in HbA_1c from baseline to Months 3 and 6 was non-inferior in geriatric compared with non-geriatric patients. There were no significant differences in the incidence and the rate of hypoglycemia, incidence of cardiovascular events, or other serious adverse events including malignancy, post-baseline between the two cohorts.

Conclusion

Key measures of efficacy and safety in geriatric patients with T2DM were not significantly different from non-geriatric patients when utilizing insulin lispro. Insulin lispro may be considered a safe and efficacious therapeutic option for the management of T2DM in geriatric patients.

Insulin detemir: a review of its use in the management of diabetes mellitus

Insulin detemir (Levemir®) is a long-acting insulin analogue indicated for use as basal insulin therapy in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. The protracted action of insulin detemir is explained by increased self-association and reversible binding to albumin, which slows its systemic absorption from the injection site. In glucose-clamp studies, less within-patient variability in glucose-lowering effect was seen with insulin detemir than with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin or insulin glargine in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes. The beneficial effect of insulin detemir on glycaemic control was shown in numerous randomized, open-label, multicentre trials, including when used as basal-bolus therapy in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes and as basal therapy in addition to oral antidiabetic drugs in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes. In terms of glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)).[primary endpoint in most trials], insulin detemir was generally at least as effective as NPH insulin, insulin glargine or insulin lispro protamine suspension in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, and at least as effective as biphasic insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes. Less within-patient variability in blood glucose was also generally seen with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes. Significantly less weight gain was generally seen with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes or with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin, insulin glargine, insulin lispro protamine suspension or biphasic insulin aspart (in one study) in patients with type 2 diabetes (i.e. insulin detemir generally had a weight-sparing effect). The addition of insulin detemir to liraglutide plus metformin improved glycaemic control in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control, although a significantly greater reduction in bodyweight was seen in patients receiving liraglutide plus metformin than in those receiving add-on therapy with insulin detemir. Results of two trials in patients aged 2-16 or 6-17 years (and a subgroup analysis in children aged 2-5 years) indicate that a basal-bolus insulin regimen incorporating insulin detemir appears to be a suitable option for use in paediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Less within-patient variation in self-measured fasting plasma glucose was seen with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin in one of the studies. Insulin detemir was noninferior to NPH insulin in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes in terms of the HbA(1c) value achieved at 36 gestational weeks. In addition, maternal and neonatal outcomes with insulin detemir were similar to those seen with NPH insulin. Subcutaneous insulin detemir was generally well tolerated in the treatment of patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, including in paediatric patients and pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. The majority of adverse events, including serious adverse events, reported in insulin detemir recipients were not considered to be related to the study drug. Insulin detemir was generally associated with a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia than NPH insulin in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, particularly nocturnal minor hypoglycaemia. In conclusion, insulin detemir is a useful option for use as basal insulin therapy in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes.

Future of newer basal insulin

Basal insulin have been developed over the years. In recent times newer analogues have been added to the armanentarium for diabetes therapy. This review specifically reviews the current status of different basal insulins.

Insulins: past, present, and future

This article highlights selected milestones in insulin discovery and its continued development as a pivotal therapy for diabetes. The last 90 years have witnessed tremendous progress in insulin therapy, from the initial crude, yet life-saving, animal insulin extracts to novel human insulin analogues. Although the complete physiologic replacement of insulin is inherently difficult to achieve with open-loop subcutaneously administered insulin, the continued development of improved injectable insulin formulations with superior pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics will enhance glucose control, and represents important clinical advances in the treatment of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

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.