Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (NovoMix 30) when switching from human premix insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes: subgroup analysis from the 6-month IMPROVE observational study

Real-world study of the concomitant use of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 with GLP-1 receptor agonist versus first-generation basal insulin with GLP-1 receptor agonist in type 2 diabetes

AIMS

Combining insulin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D) is common. While many studies have investigated concomitant therapy with basal insulin+GLP-1RA, few have reported on premixed insulin+GLP-1RA. We aimed to address this gap using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database in England.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching assessed glycaemic levels and other clinical outcomes in people with T2D, comparing biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) + GLP-1RA with basal insulin (insulin detemir/glargine U100) + GLP-1RA (from 2006 to 2021).

RESULTS

In total, 4770 eligible people were identified; 1511 had a BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA regimen and were propensity score-matched to an equal number receiving basal+GLP-1RA. There was no significant difference in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction between cohorts at 6 months (p = 0.15), with a decrease of -1.07 (95% CI: -1.16; -0.98) %-points (-11.7 mmol/mol [95% CI: -12.7; -10.7]) in the BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA cohort, versus -0.97 (95% CI: -1.07; -0.88) %-points (-10.6 mmol/mol [95% CI: -11.7; -9.6]) in the basal+GLP-1RA cohort. Body mass index (BMI) decreased by -0.35 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.52;-0.18) at 6 months with BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA, versus -0.72 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.90;-0.54) with basal+GLP-1RA (p = 0.003). BMI was influenced by the initiation sequence of GLP-1RA in relation to insulin (p < 0.0001). Hypoglycaemia rates were low and not significantly different between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA provides glycaemic control with no significant difference to that of propensity score-matched people receiving basal insulin+GLP-1RA, with no increase in hypoglycaemia risk or weight gain.

The Rate of Insulin use and Suboptimal Glycemic Control among Egyptian Patients with T2DM: Cohort Analysis of Eighth Wave of the International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS)

AIMS

The International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS) is an international annual survey aiming to study and characterize the current standards of care for managing DM in developing countries.

BACKGROUND

In Egypt, DM represents a substantial burden on the healthcare system, with an estimated 10.9 million patients, ranking it 10th amongst countries with the highest prevalence of DM. Previous studies showed that to maintain safety and achieve treatment goals among diabetic patients, optimal insulin therapy should be selected individually based on the patient's needs. We reported the proportion of Egyptian T2DM patients on insulin therapy who participated in the eighth wave of the IDMPS.

METHODS

The 2018 IDMPS wave consisted of cross-sectional and longitudinal phases and aimed to evaluate the proportion of T2DM who were on insulin therapy in 13 countries from four regions. In Egypt, 17 physicians agreed to participate in the present study and were required to include at least one patient.

RESULTS

A total of 180 T2DM patients were included in the cross-section phase. At the end of the ninth month of follow-up, data from 170 T2DM patients were available. A total of 39 T2DM patients (21.7%) were on insulin therapy, with a mean duration of 32.4 ± 36.6 months. More than half of the patients (n = 22; 56.4%) were on basal insulin, mainly long-acting (n = 20; 90.9%). The mean basal insulin daily dose was 0.3 ± 0.1 IU/Kg. Notably, 28.2% of the patients received insulin via vials, and 46.2% stated that they were adjusting the insulin dose by themselves. On the other hand, 60.2% of the study population was on oral antidiabetic drugs at the cross-sectional phase. Nearly 17.4% and 27% of the patients in the cross-sectional phase achieved the glycemic target per recommendations of international guidelines and the treating physicians, respectively. At the end of the longitudinal phase, the percentage of T2DM patients who achieved glycemic targets increased to 38.4% and 77.4% as per recommendations of international guidelines and the treating physicians, respectively. Overall, 38.3% of T2DM patients received diabetes education, and 28.9% were involved in an educational program provided by the physician or their clinical staff. Besides, 85.5% of T2DM patients followed their diabetes medication dosage and frequency strictly as prescribed.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of insulin use in patients with T2DM aligned with the previous studies from different countries; however, it is still inadequate to achieve the targeted glycemic control. Nearly one-third of Egyptian patients received diabetes education, highlighting the need for adopting a national educational program. Nonetheless, the level of adherence among T2DM from Egypt appears to be high.

Comparison of Premixed Human Insulin 30/70 to Biphasic Aspart 30 in Well-Controlled Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring

AIM

To compare in terms of glycemic variability two premixed insulins, Premixed Human Insulin 30/70 (PHI) and Biphasic Aspart 30 (BiAsp30), using Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) and to estimate the correlation of Glycated Albumin (GA) and Fructosamine (FA) with CGM data. Patients-Data: A total of 36 well-controlled patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) underwent 7-day CGM with PHI and subsequently with BiAsp30. GA and FA were measured at the first and last day of each week of CGM.

RESULTS

BiAsp30 was associated with lower Average Blood Glucose (ABG) during the 23:00-03:00 period (PHI: 135.08 ± 28.94 mg/dL, BiAsp30: 117.75 ± 21.24 mg/dL, p < 0.001) and the 00:00-06:00 period (PHI: 120.42 ± 23.13 mg/dL, BiAsp30: 111.17 ± 14.74 mg/dL, p = 0.008), as well as with more time below range (<70 mg/dL) (TBR) during the 23:00-03:00 period in the week (PHI: 3.65 ± 5.93%, BiAsp30: 11.12 ± 16.07%, p = 0.005). PHI was associated with lower ABG before breakfast (PHI: 111.75 ± 23.9 mg/dL, BiAsp30: 128.25 ± 35.9 mg/dL, p = 0.013). There were no differences between the two groups in ABG, Time In Range and Time Below Range during the entire 24-h period for 7 days, p = 0.502, p = 0.534, and p = 0.258 respectively, and in TBR for the 00:00-06:00 period p = 0.253. Total daily insulin requirements were higher for BiAsp30 (PHI: 47.92 ± 12.18 IU, BiAsp30: 49.58 ± 14.12 IU, p = 0.001). GA and FA correlated significantly with ABG (GA: r = 0.512, p = 0.011, FA: r = 0.555, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

In well-controlled patients with T2DM, BiAsp30 is an equally effective alternative to PHI.

Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogues Versus Regular Human Insulin: A Meta-Analysis of Effects on Glycemic Control in Patients with Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the impact of rapid-acting insulin analogues (RAIAs) and regular human insulin (RHI) on glycemic control, including long- and short-term glycemic variability as measured by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and pre- and postprandial glucose (PPG).

METHODS

PubMed was searched for studies published between 1999 and 29 June 2016. Randomised controlled trials of patients with diabetes that assessed the effects of RAIAs or RHI on glycemic control, focusing on preprandial glucose, PPG and HbA1c, were included. Only studies that reported both means and standard deviations for those outcomes were analysed; from these data, weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were generated to yield overall point estimates. The primary outcomes of the meta-analysis were the mean differences between RAIAs and RHI at the end of the study in PPG, preprandial glucose, and HbA1c.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies (n = 7452) were included. The difference in PPG between RAIA- and RHI-treated patients was significant-in favour of RAIAs-in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) [- 22.2 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 27.4, - 17.0 mg/dL; P < 0.0001] but not in those with type 2 diabetes (T2D). For preprandial glucose, there was a non-significant trend favouring RHIs in T1D; no data were available for patients with T2D. In patients with T1D, the between-group difference in end-of-treatment (EOT) HbA1c favoured RAIAs (- 0.13%; 95% CI - 0.18, - 0.08%; P < 0.0001), but was not significant in patients with T2D. The main study limitations were the small number and heterogeneity of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that RAIAs are more effective at reducing PPG and improving HbA1c than RHIs in T1D. More data are required to assess the effect of these agents on glucose control in T2D. In patients with diabetes, the risk of complications is increased by poor control of blood glucose levels and high blood glucose variability. Complications may include cardiovascular disease, eye problems and amputation. Control and variability of blood glucose levels can be evaluated using a range of measures, including (i) glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level at the end of the treatment period; (ii) change in HbA1c level during the treatment period; (iii) fasting plasma glucose level; (iv) postprandial glucose (PPG) level; (v) change in blood glucose level after a meal. PPG levels following a meal are an important measure of overall metabolic control in diabetes, and reduction of glycemic variability (GV) can be achieved via reductions in PPG. Both rapid-acting insulin analogues (RAIAs; aspart, glulisine and lispro) and regular human insulin (RHI) are widely used in the management of diabetes. Using data from 27 randomised controlled trials involving more than 7000 patients, we investigated the impact of RAIAs and RHI on measures of glycemic control and variability in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Our results show that, in patients with T1D, RAIAs are more effective than RHI at reducing PPG excursions and HbA1c. This indicates that glycemic control is better with RAIAs than with RHI. More data are required to assess the effects of RAIAs and RHI on glycemic control and variability in patients with T2D.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

In patients with diabetes, the risk of complications is increased by poor control of blood glucose levels and high blood glucose variability. Complications may include cardiovascular disease, eye problems and amputation. Control and variability of blood glucose levels can be evaluated using a range of measures, including (i) glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level at the end of the treatment period; (ii) change in HbA1c level during the treatment period; (iii) fasting plasma glucose level; (iv) postprandial glucose (PPG) level; (v) change in blood glucose level after a meal. PPG levels following a meal are an important measure of overall metabolic control in diabetes, and reduction of glycemic variability (GV) can be achieved via reductions in PPG. Both rapid-acting insulin analogues (RAIAs; aspart, glulisine and lispro) and regular human insulin (RHI) are widely used in the management of diabetes. Using data from 27 randomised controlled trials involving more than 7000 patients, we investigated the impact of RAIAs and RHI on measures of glycemic control and variability in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Our results show that, in patients with T1D, RAIAs are more effective than RHI at reducing PPG excursions and HbA1c. This indicates that glycemic control is better with RAIAs than with RHI. More data are required to assess the effects of RAIAs and RHI on glycemic control and variability in patients with T2D.

An Internal Audit of Diabetes Care for Type 2 Diabetic Patients in a Public Hospital Diabetes Clinic in Malaysia

INTRODUCTION

Earlier studies have identified a gap between guidelines and actual clinical diabetes care in Malaysia.

OBJECTIVE

We audited the quality of care for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) attending our diabetes clinic at a public hospital.

METHODS

A structured review of the outpatient clinic cards, prescriptions and laboratory results was conducted for patients attending the diabetes clinic at Sibu Hospital in October and November 2014.

RESULTS

For the total of 233 patients who were audited, the levels of fasting blood sugar, blood pressure, body mass index and fasting lipid profile were satisfactory at 99.1%, 99.6%, 92.6% and 99.6% respectively. 79.7% of the subjects had had HbA1c performed at least once over the previous six months. Only 25.8% had annual foot screening, while the eye screening rate was 71.2% and the albuminuria screening rate was 93.6%. For outcome measures, the mean (SD) HbA1c level was 9.2% (1.91%), with 13 patients (6.7%) having HbA1c less than 6.5%; 36.4% of participants achieved BP < 130/80 mmHg; and 69.4% had LDL < 2.6 mmol/L. The majority of the patients were overweight or obese (91.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the performance of diabetic care processes at our hospital was satisfactory, except for foot examination. The glycaemic and weight control among the subjects were suboptimal and warrant an optimised and comprehensive approach on the part of the management.

Switching from Biphasic Human Insulin to Premix Insulin Analogs: A Review of the Evidence Regarding Quality of Life and Adherence to Medication in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes is a growing public health concern. Effective use of therapies for this chronic disease is necessary to improve long-term prognosis, but treatment adherence can be difficult to promote in clinical practice, and insulin, in particular, can impact both positively and negatively on patients' quality of life (QoL). Currently, guidelines advocate for QoL as a treatment goal in its own right, with treatment decisions based on patient concerns regarding injection frequency and adverse events, as well as glycemic control. Successful insulin management ideally requires a regimen to replicate normal endogenous insulin release, and this was a key driver in the development of insulin analogs. These analogs have also been associated with lower hypoglycemia risk, lower levels of postprandial glucose excursions, better adherence, improved QoL, and higher patient satisfaction with treatment. Premixed insulin is prescribed for many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), as it combines both prandial and basal treatment, reducing the number of injections. Evidence suggests that premixed insulin analogs have advantages over conventional premixed human insulin for T2D treatment, but the objective of this review was to assess the evidence that switching from a biphasic human insulin to a biphasic insulin analog regimen improves patient QoL.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

PROGENS-HbA1c study: safety and effectiveness of premixed recombinant human insulin (Gensulin M30)

INTRODUCTION

Insulin analogues have gained widespread popularity. However, in many countries the use of these drugs is limited by their relatively high cost, so there is still a need for more cost-effective human insulin therapies. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of the premixed recombinant human insulin (rhuI) Gensulin M30 in a real-life setting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study group consisted of 4257 patients (2196 female, 2061 male) with type 2 diabetes, aged 63.7 ±9.4, with body mass index (BMI) 30.3 ±4.5 kg/m² and diabetes duration 9 ±5.5 years. All patients were treated with premixed rhuI Gensulin M30. In 91.7% of patients, insulin was used in combination with metformin. In 3.7% of patients, it was used with sulphonylureas. The patients were observed for a period of 6 months.

RESULTS

The total insulin dose on visit 1 was 36.1 ±18.7 U (0.42 ±0.22 U/kg), and by the end of the study it reached 40.3 ±18.9 U (0.48 ±0.22 U/kg). A significant, continuous decrease of the levels of glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c), along with fasting and postprandial plasma glucose, was observed during the study period. The frequency of hypoglycemia increased slightly during the study, although these figures remained low, especially with regard to severe hypoglycemic episodes (0.02 episodes/patient/year). The lowest number of hypoglycemic episodes occurred in patients treated with insulin and metformin, while the highest number of episodes was observed in patients treated with insulin alone. No weight changes were noted in the patients during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows rhuI Gensulin M30 to be effective and safe in a real-life setting.

Drug-related risk of severe hypoglycaemia in observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) leads to multiple complications, including severe hypoglycaemia events (SHEs). SHEs can impact a patient's quality of life and compliance and may directly result in additional costs to the health care system. The aim of this review was to evaluate the risk of severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 (T1) and 2 (T2) DM as observed in everyday clinical practice for various drug regimens.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of observational (retrospective or prospective) studies in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases that covered at least 100 children or adults with T1/T2 DM. In T1 DM, basal-bolus/pre-mix insulin (human or analogue) and insulin pump were reviewed, and in T2 DM, basal-bolus/pre-mix insulin (human or analogue), oral antidiabetic drugs supported with basal insulin (human or analogue), sulfonylureas in monotherapy, and combined oral treatment were reviewed. In order to estimate SHE rates, we extracted data on the time horizon of the study, number of patients, number of SHEs, and number of patients experiencing at least one SHE. We used a random effects model to estimate the annual SHE rate. We considered the risk for other antidiabetic medications in T2 DM to be negligible and the results of our main review yielded no observational data for premixes in T1 DM so they were assessed based on relative rates taken from additional systematic reviews. The study, being a desk research, did not involve any human subjects (including human material or human data) and no ethical committee approval was asked for. For the same reason there was no need to collect informed consent for participation in the study.

RESULTS

We identified 76 observational studies encompassing 707,722.30 patient-years. The estimated annual SHE rate varied from 0.168 (95 % CI 0.123-0.237) for insulin pump up to 1.628 for biphasic human insulin in T1 DM patients, and from 0.0035 for oral antidiabetic drugs up to 0.554 (95 % CI 0.157-7.534) for basal-bolus with human insulin in T2 DM patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review indicates that SHE rates differ between patients depending on treatment regimen. However, SHEs are also driven by other factors. Proper modelling techniques are needed to use various types of information in published studies.

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin 30, insulin glargine, or neutral protamine Hagedorn to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI), insulin glargine (IGlar), or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin (all ± oral glucose-lowering drugs [OGLDs]) to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with type 2 diabetes in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to determine the clinical outcome, costs, and cost-effectiveness of switching from treatment with BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 over a 30-year time horizon. A 1-year analysis was also performed based on quality-of-life data and treatment costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as a fraction of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, and cost-effectiveness was defined as ICER <3-times GDP per capita.

RESULTS

Switching treatment from BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 was associated with an increase in life expectancy of >0.7 years, reduction in all diabetes-related complications, and was considered as cost-effective or highly cost-effective in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia (BHI to BIAsp 30, 0.26 in India, 1.25 in Indonesia, 0.01 in Saudi Arabia; IGlar to BIAsp 30, -0.68 in India, -0.21 in Saudi Arabia; NPH to BIAsp 30, 0.15 in India, -0.07 in Saudi Arabia; GDP per head per annum/quality-adjusted life-year). Cost-effectiveness was maintained in the 1-year analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from treatment with BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 (all ± OGLDs) was found to be cost-effective in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia, both in the long and short term.

Clinical experience of switching from biphasic human insulin to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Indian patients with type 2 diabetes in the A1chieve study

AIM

The aim of the following study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin (BHI) to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Indian patients with type 2 diabetes as a sub-analysis of the 24-week, non-interventional A1chieve study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Indian patients switching from BHI to BIAsp 30 based on the physicians' decisions were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs), including major hypoglycemic events; secondary outcomes included changes in hypoglycemia in the 4 weeks preceding baseline and week 24 and changes from baseline to week 24 in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPPG), body weight and quality of life (QoL).

RESULTS

Overall, 1976 patients (mean ± standard deviation age, 55.1 ± 10.6 years and diabetes duration, 10.1 ± 5.3 years) on a mean pre-study BHI dose of 0.44 ± 0.18 U/kg were included. The mean BIAsp 30 dose was 0.43 ± 0.17 U/kg at baseline and 0.44 ± 0.17 U/kg at week 24. No SADRs were reported. The proportion of patients reporting overall hypoglycemic events reduced significantly from baseline to week 24 (15.0% vs. 2.9%, P < 0.0001). The mean HbA1c level improved significantly from 9.1 ± 1.4% at baseline to 7.5 ± 1.0% at week 24, along with improvements in FPG, post-breakfast PPPG and QoL (P < 0.001). The mean body weight decreased from 69.3 ± 10.8 kg at baseline to 69.1 ± 10.4 kg at week 24 (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Switching from BHI to BIAsp 30 therapy was well-tolerated and was associated with improved glycemic control.

Safety and efficacy of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes patients switched from either biphasic or basal human insulin: results from the Gulf cohort of the A1 chieve study

AIM

The 24-week, international, non-interventional A1 chieve study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes (T2D) in different countries. This sub-analysis reports results for T2D patients who switched from either biphasic human insulin (BHI) or human neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in the Gulf cohort.

METHODS

Gulf patients with T2D who switched to BIAsp 30 from either BHI or NPH insulin were included. Safety and efficacy measurements were made by the physicians as part of routine clinical care.

RESULTS

A total of 1486 patients switched from BHI to BIAsp 30 (BIP group) and 232 patients switched from NPH insulin to BIAsp 30 (NEU group). Baseline glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA₁c ) was poor in patients in the BIP and NEU groups (mean value ± SD: 9.4 ± 1.8% and 9.7 ± 1.5%, respectively). Significant reductions in the proportion of patients reporting hypoglycaemia (overall, major, minor and nocturnal) were noted in the BIP group after 24 weeks of BIAsp 30 therapy (p < 0.001). No major hypoglycaemic events were reported at Week 24 in the NEU group. In both groups, the mean HbA1c , fasting plasma glucose and postprandial plasma glucose improved significantly after 24 weeks of BIAsp 30 therapy (p < 0.001). The mean body weight, lipid parameters and systolic blood pressure also improved significantly in both groups (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

BIAsp 30 therapy enhanced glycaemic control over 24 weeks and was well-tolerated in T2D patients poorly controlled on prestudy BHI or NPH insulin.

Exploring insulin analogue safety and effectiveness in a Maghrebian cohort with type 2 diabetes: results from the A₁chieve study

AIM

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of insulin analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) from Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia that formed the Maghrebian cohort of the 24-week, non-interventional A₁chieve study.

METHODS

Patients starting biphasic insulin aspart, insulin detemir and insulin aspart, alone or in combination, were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs), including major hypoglycaemic events. Secondary outcomes included hypoglycaemia, glycated haemoglobin A₁c (HbA₁c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPPG), systolic blood pressure (SBP), body weight and lipids. Quality of life (QoL) was evaluated using the EQ-5D questionnaire.

RESULTS

Overall, 3720 patients with a mean age of 58.6 years, body mass index of 27.7 kg/m(2) and diabetes duration of 11.5 years were enrolled. Pre-study, insulin-experienced patients had a mean ± SD dose of 0.54 ± 0.27 U/kg. In the entire cohort, the mean dose was 0.42 ± 0.27 U/kg at baseline, titrated to 0.55 ± 0.30 U/kg by Week 24. Twenty-six SADRs were reported during the study. There was a significant decrease in the proportion of patients reporting overall hypoglycaemia from baseline to Week 24 (18.3% to 13.8%, p < 0.0001). The mean HbA₁c improved significantly from 9.5 ± 1.8% to 7.9 ± 1.4% (p < 0.001). The mean FPG, PPPG, SBP, total cholesterol and QoL also improved significantly (all p < 0.001), while the mean body weight increased by 0.9 ± 3.9 kg (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Insulin analogue therapy was well-tolerated and was associated with improved glycaemic control.

Initiating or switching to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes patients from Algeria: a sub-analysis of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To determine the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Algerian patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin or switching from prior insulin therapy.

METHODS

Insulin-naive and insulin-experienced patients, including prior basal insulin users, starting BIAsp 30 were evaluated in this sub-analysis of the 24-week, open-label, non-interventional A₁chieve study. Clinical safety and effectiveness was evaluated as a part of routine clinical care.

RESULTS

A total of 134 insulin-naive patients initiating BIAsp 30 at a mean dose of 0.44 ± 0.23 U/kg and 283 insulin-experienced patients, including 129 prior basal insulin users, switching from a mean pre-study insulin dose of 0.51 ± 0.23 U/kg to BIAsp 30 (0.54 ± 0.20 U/kg) were evaluated. At Week 24, the average BIAsp 30 dose was 0.60 ± 0.25 U/kg and 0.66 ± 0.24 U/kg in insulin-naive and insulin-experienced patients, respectively. No serious adverse drug reactions were reported. From baseline to Week 24, the proportion of patients experiencing overall hypoglycaemia increased in the insulin-naive group (p = 0.0067) and no significant changes were reported in the insulin-experienced group including prior basal insulin users. Glucose control improved significantly in the insulin-experienced group (p < 0.001) and appeared to improve in the insulin-naive patients and prior basal insulin users as well. Body weight increased significantly in all patients (p < 0.001). Quality of life was positively impacted after 24 weeks of BIAsp 30 therapy.

CONCLUSION

Initiating or switching to BIAsp 30 therapy in this Algerian cohort was well-tolerated and significantly improved glucose control.

Predictors of achieving HbA(1c) <7% and no hypoglycaemia 6 months after initiation of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes in the IMPROVE study

BACKGROUND

Early initiation of insulin therapy has widely been associated with numerous benefits, including improved glycaemic control and reduced long-term risk of developing microvascular diseases. Biphasic insulins offer a convenient option for insulin initiation, addressing both basal and postprandial insulin requirements with one injection, making them relatively simple for patients to dose. Development of biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) has further offered improved postprandial glycaemic control and lower rates of nocturnal and major hypoglycaemia than biphasic human insulin.

METHODS

The safety and efficacy of the 30/70 rapid-acting/intermediate-acting formulation of BIAsp (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes was examined in the IMPROVE study, a 26-week, international, observational trial. In this subanalysis, baseline clinical factors that predicted treatment success, defined as HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) without experiencing hypoglycaemia after 26 weeks on BIAsp 30 therapy, were assessed.

RESULTS

The composite endpoint was defined for 44,010 (77%) patients from the total cohort of 57,478, and 28,696 of these were included in the statistical examination. The results of the analysis suggest that those with lower baseline HbA1c of ≤8% (≤64 mmol/mol), shorter duration of diabetes at baseline (<5 years) and no incidence of major hypoglycaemia at 13 weeks, or minor hypoglycaemia at 4 weeks, before the beginning of the trial were more likely to achieve treatment success.

CONCLUSION

Lower baseline HbA1c, shorter duration of diabetes and no incidence of hypoglycaemia up to 13 weeks prior to initiation are predictors of achieving HbA1c <7% without hypoglycaemia with a BIAsp 30 regimen. These results suggest that it is easier to reach target without hypoglycaemia with BIAsp 30 when prescribed earlier. As this was an observational study, lack of control groups or randomisation, as well as varying clinical practices in study countries, potentially introduced bias.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00659282.

Safety and efficacy of modern insulin analogues

BACKGROUND

A1chieve® was a noninterventional study evaluating the clinical safety and efficacy of biphasic insulin aspart 30, insulin detemir, and insulin aspart.

METHODS

Korean type 2 diabetes patients who have not been treated with the study insulin or have started it within 4 weeks before enrollment were eligible for the study. The patient selection and the choice of regimen were at the discretion of the physician. The safety and efficacy information was collected from the subjects at baseline, week 12, and week 24. The number of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs) was the primary endpoint. The changes of clinical diabetic markers at week 12 and/or at week 24 compared to baseline were the secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Out of 4,058 exposed patients, 3,003 completed the study. During the study period, three SADRs were reported in three patients (0.1%). No major hypoglycemic episodes were observed and the rate of minor hypoglycemic episodes marginally decreased during 24 weeks (from 2.77 to 2.42 events per patient-year). The overall quality of life score improved (from 66.7±15.9 to 72.5±13.5) while the mean body weight was slightly increased (0.6±3.0 kg). The 24-week reductions in glycated hemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose and postprandial plasma glucose were 1.6%±2.2%, 2.5±4.7 mmol/L, and 4.0±6.4 mmol/L, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The studied regimens showed improvements in glycemic control with low incidence of SADRs, including no incidence of major hypoglycemic episodes in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes.

Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in a Bangladeshi subgroup of type 2 diabetic patients switched from biphasic human insulin 30: a sub-analysis of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To determine the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) therapy in Bangladeshi type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients switched from biphasic human insulin (BHI) as a sub-analysis of the A₁chieve study.

METHODS

Bangladeshi patients switched from BHI to BIAsp 30 at the discretion of their physicians were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs), including major hypoglycaemia. Secondary outcomes comprised changes from baseline to Week 24 in the number of hypoglycaemic events, glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPPG), systolic blood pressure and body weight. Quality of life (QoL) was evaluated at baseline and Week 24 using the EQ-5D questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 82 patients (mean age ± SD: 52.3 ± 12.2 years; body mass index: 25.6 ± 3.3 kg/m(2)) with a mean diabetes duration of 9.5 ± 5.5 years and mean duration on insulin of 2.5 ± 2.4 years were included. The mean BIAsp 30 dose was 0.49 ± 0.20 U/kg at baseline and 0.47 ± 0.17 U/kg at Week 24. No SADRs were reported. No events of hypoglycaemia (overall, major, minor or nocturnal) were reported at Week 24. Mean HbA1c, FPG and PPPG levels improved by -2.5 ± 1.3%, -65.0 ± 31.8 mg/dL and -119.3 ± 48.7 mg/dL, respectively, over 24 weeks. QoL also improved (mean change from baseline: +28.5 ± 12.9 points).

CONCLUSION

Switching from BHI to BIAsp 30 therapy improved blood glucose control and was well-tolerated in this Bangladeshi subgroup.

Switching from biphasic human insulin to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes: results from the ASEAN subgroup of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in ASEAN type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients switched from biphasic human insulin (BHI) in the non-interventional 24-week A₁chieve study.

METHODS

Indonesian, Malaysian, Filipino and Singaporean patients switched from BHI to BIAsp 30 at their physicians' discretion were included. The incidence of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs), including major hypoglycaemia was the primary endpoint. Changes in hypoglycaemia, glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPPG), lipids, body weight and systolic blood pressure were also evaluated. Quality of life (QoL) was measured using the EQ-5D questionnaire.

RESULTS

For the 465 patients included (mean ± SD age: 56 ± 10.3 years, diabetes duration: 9.7 ± 7.1 years, baseline HbA1c: 9.4 ± 1.8%), the mean pre-study BHI dose was 0.62 ± 0.28 IU/kg and 63.4% were dosing BHI twice daily (bid). The mean baseline BIAsp 30 dose was 0.65 ± 0.27 U/kg, titrated up to 0.71 ± 0.28 U/kg over 24 weeks, and most patients continued bid dosing. No SADRs or major hypoglycaemic episodes were reported. The proportion of patients reporting overall hypoglycaemia decreased significantly from 10.8% at baseline to 3.4% at Week 24 (p < 0.0001). Significant improvements in glycaemic control were noted (HbA1c: -1.4 ± 1.7%, FPG: -56.7 ± 72.5 mg/dL, post-breakfast PPPG: -84.8 ± 82.8 mg/dL, p < 0.001). Mean QoL improved by +6.6 ± 14.6 points (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

BIAsp 30 was well-tolerated and significantly increased glycaemic control in this ASEAN subgroup poorly controlled on BHI.

Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes patients switched from biphasic human insulin 30: results from the Filipino cohort of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Filipino patients with type 2 diabetes previously treated with biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30).

METHODS

Safety and effectiveness outcomes were measured in all patients switching from BHI 30 to BIAsp 30 in the Filipino cohort of the 24-week, multinational, prospective, non-interventional A₁chieve study.

RESULTS

A total of 111 Filipino patients (mean age ± SD, 57.4 ± 12.8 years; BMI, 25.8 ± 5.6 kg/m(2)) with mean diabetes duration of 9.9 ± 7.1 years switched therapy from BHI 30 to BIAsp 30. The mean pre-study BHI 30 dose was 0.65 ± 0.28 IU/kg and the baseline BIAsp 30 dose was 0.65 ± 0.26 U/kg titrated up to 0.70 ± 0.26 U/kg by Week 24. No serious adverse drug reactions were reported. Overall hypoglycaemia was reduced from 5.62 to 1.98 events/patient-year. Minor and nocturnal hypoglycaemia decreased and no major hypoglycaemia was reported at Week 24. Glucose control improved from baseline to Week 24 (HbA1c, -2.2 ± 2.1% [24 ± 23 mmol/mol]; FPG, -72.0 ± 71.8 mg/dL; PPPG, -145.5 ± 125.4 mg/dL). A total of 24 patients achieved HbA1c levels <7.0% at Week 24 compared to 6 patients reporting this target at baseline. Quality of life was positively impacted at Week 24 (change in visual analogue scores, 15.3 ± 16.9 points).

CONCLUSION

Switching from BHI 30 to BIAsp 30 improved glycaemic control without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia.

Clinical safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes patients switched from biphasic human insulin 30: results from the Indonesian cohort of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Indonesian type 2 diabetes patients switched from biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30) as a sub-analysis of the A₁chieve study.

METHODS

Clinical safety and effectiveness over 24 weeks was evaluated in Indonesian patients who switched from BHI 30 to BIAsp 30 at the discretion of their physician.

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients with mean age ± SD 55.6 ± 9.5 years, BMI 24.6 ± 3.8 kg/m(2), and mean diabetes duration 7.8 ± 5.7 years were included. The mean pre-study BHI 30 dose was 0.56 ± 0.25 IU/kg and the baseline BIAsp 30 dose was 0.60 ± 0.26 U/kg titrated up to 0.65 ± 0.25 U/kg by Week 24. No serious adverse drug reactions were reported throughout the study. Overall hypoglycaemia decreased from 2.18 to 0.06 events/patient-year with a significant decrease in the proportion of patients affected (p < 0.0001). No nocturnal or major hypoglycaemia was reported at Week 24. HbA1c improved from 8.8 ± 1.2% at baseline to 7.3 ± 0.8% at Week 24. A total of 45 patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% as compared to 5 patients with HbA1c <7.0% at baseline. FPG and PPPG improved significantly after 24 weeks (p < 0.001). Quality of life was positively impacted (change in visual analogue scores, 3.0 ± 11.6 points, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Switching from BHI 30 to BIAsp 30 in this Indonesian cohort was well-tolerated and improved glycaemic control with a decreased risk of hypoglycaemia.

Predictors of postprandial blood glucose response to biphasic insulin analogue therapy

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) has been shown in randomised controlled trials and the IMPROVE™ observational study to reduce postprandial blood glucose (PPBG) - thought to be an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. We used multivariate regression analysis to identify predictors of PPBG reduction in the IMPROVE™ study. A total of 52,419 type 2 diabetes patients were enrolled in the IMPROVE™ study (pre-study therapy subgroups: no pharmaceutical therapy, n = 8966; oral antidiabetic drugs [OADs] only, n = 33,797; insulin ± OADs, n = 9568; missing information on pre-study therapy, n = 88). Mean change from baseline in PPBG (mean of three meals) in the global cohort was -6.3 mmol/L; reductions in subgroups were: no pharmaceutical therapy, -8.8 mmol/L; OADs only, -6.0 mmol/L; insulin ± OADs, -5.1 mmol/L. High baseline PPBG was consistently and strongly predictive of PPBG response; lower baseline HbA1c and body mass index, greater age and shorter diabetes duration were also significant predictors of PPBG change. The novel findings from this study indicate that most patients can be expected to achieve a PPBG response with BIAsp 30 irrespective of baseline characteristics or previous therapy with an expected larger PPBG reduction when baseline PPBG is higher.

Switching from biphasic human insulin 30 to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes is associated with improved glycaemic control and a positive safety profile: results from the A₁chieve study

AIMS

This A1chieve® study subgroup analysis examined clinical safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp30) ±OGLDs in 6323 individuals with T2D, switching from biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI30) ±OGLDs.

METHODS

A1chieve was a 24-week, international, prospective, observational, multi-centre, open-label study in individuals with T2D starting treatment with BIAsp30, insulin detemir or insulin aspart as part of routine clinical care.

RESULTS

Mean baseline (SD) dose BHI was 0.56 (0.25) IU/kg. BIAsp30 was initiated at 0.57 (0.25) U/kg; the daily dose was 0.62 (0.28)U/kg by Week 24. Switching from BHI30 to BIAsp30 was associated with significant mean reduction in HbA1c of 1.7% [-18 mmol/mol] (1.6) from a baseline of 9.1% [76 mmol/mol] (p<0.001); FPG and PPG were also significantly reduced (p<0.001). Major hypoglycaemic episodes decreased from 0.69 events/patient/year at baseline to 0.03 events/patient/year at Week 24. Minor hypoglycaemia decreased from 5.31 to 2.04 events/patient/year from baseline to study-end. Five serious adverse drug reactions (hypoglycaemia) were reported by five individuals (0.1%). Mean bodyweight increased by 0.1 (3.3)kg from baseline to 24 weeks. Improved self-reported quality of life was observed.

CONCLUSION

Switching from BHI30 to BIAsp30 in individuals with T2D is associated with improvement in glycaemic control and reduced rates of hypoglycaemia, without tolerability or safety issues.

Resource utilisation and clinical data before and after switching between short-acting human insulin and rapid-acting insulin analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes: the SWING study

AIM

SWING was a prospective, observational study conducted in nine European countries primarily to assess direct treatment costs when switching from short-acting human insulins to rapid-acting insulin analogues (H-A) or vice versa (A-H) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Data were collected at a baseline visit (time of switch) and at approximately 3, 6 and 12 months post-switch.

RESULTS

In total, 2389 patients switched from H-A (n=2203) or A-H (n=186); another 603 were enrolled but ineligible. Mean (SD) direct diabetes-related costs (pro-rated to account for variable visit schedules) were €548.7 (865.8) 6 months prior to switch, €625.6 (1474.9) at 0-6 months and €568.6 (590.7) 6-12 months following switch for H-A, and €544.5 (421.0), €481.0 (301.5) and €461.6 (335.0) for A-H, respectively. Mean (SD) HbA(1c) decreased over 12 months by 1.08 (1.53)% units H-A and 1.17 (1.45)% units A-H. A small decline in hypoglycaemia occurred over time, but there were no clinically meaningful changes in mean PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

There were small changes in mean direct diabetes-related costs (following adjustment for time interval) in patients switching in either direction. Improvements in mean HbA(1c) and incidence of hypoglycaemia cannot necessarily be attributed to therapeutic switch.

Ten years of experience with biphasic insulin aspart 30: from drug development to the latest clinical findings

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) includes 30% soluble rapid-acting insulin aspart (IAsp) along with an intermediate-acting 70% protaminated IAsp that provides coverage of prandial and basal insulin in a single injection. As BIAsp 30 has been available internationally for 10 years, this review provides a comprehensive overview of the discovery of BIAsp 30, its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile, safety and efficacy outcomes from the clinical trial programme, 'real-life' clinical insights provided by observational study data, and cost effectiveness and quality-of-life information. These studies have demonstrated that BIAsp 30 once or twice daily is an appropriate option for insulin initiation. BIAsp 30 also provides a switch option in patients on biphasic human insulin (BHI). Switching from BHI to BIAsp 30 is associated with improved postprandial glucose (PPG) and reduced nocturnal and major hypoglycaemia, although daytime hypoglycaemia is higher with BIAsp 30. Intensification of BIAsp 30 can be achieved by increasing the number of daily doses up to three times daily with meals. Therefore, BIAsp 30 provides an intensification option for individuals who are not achieving control with basal insulin and would prefer the simplicity of a single biphasic insulin instead of progressing to a basal-bolus approach. BIAsp 30 has a simple dose-titration algorithm, which enables patients to effectively self-titrate their insulin dose. Cost-effectiveness analyses have demonstrated that BIAsp 30 is cost effective or dominant compared with BHI 30 or insulin glargine in a number of healthcare settings. In conclusion, BIAsp 30 offers a simple and flexible option for insulin initiation and intensification that provides coverage of both fasting and prandial glucose.

Switching to biphasic insulin aspart 30/50/70 from biphasic human insulin 30/50 in patients with type 2 diabetes in normal clinical practice: observational study results

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety and efficacy of switching to biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) 30, 50 or 70 in patients with type 2 diabetes previously treated with biphasic human insulin (BHI) 30/50 (with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a 26-week, prospective, observational study conducted in Belgium and Luxembourg. Data were collected at baseline before patients switched and at 12 and 26 weeks after starting BIAsp 30, 50 or 70. Safety endpoints were incidence and rate of hypoglycemia (major, minor, nocturnal), adverse events and body-weight changes. Efficacy assessments included HbA(1c) and 7-point self-measured plasma glucose (PG) profiles. Changes from baseline were analyzed using paired t-tests.

RESULTS

Of 592 patients analyzed, 72% switched to twice-daily BIAsp and 20% to three-times daily BIAsp. Upon switching, 27% of patients received intensified treatment (i.e., more daily doses than with their previous BHI). At all three data-collection points, approximately two-thirds of patients were taking BIAsp 30 and approximately one-third were taking BIAsp 50; very few patients took BIAsp 70. Mean total daily insulin dose increased significantly from baseline (51.2 U) to 26 weeks (54.3 U) and mean time of intake before meals changed from 17 minutes for BHI to ∼3 minutes with BIAsp. Incidence of hypoglycemia did not change during the study (baseline: 30.7%, week 26: 29.2%). HbA(1c) improved significantly from baseline (7.9 %) to weeks 12 and 26 (7.6% and 7.5%, respectively; p < 0.001). Mean PG profiles also showed significant improvements. As this is an observational study, some limitations should be considered such as the absence of a control group and a possible bias of increased medical attention.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes can switch safely from BHI to BIAsp therapy, even if they receive intensified treatment, and they have no problems changing the timing of their insulin injections.

Intensifying treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: adding insulin

Treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is typically initiated with a combination of lifestyle modification and oral drugs. This treatment provides sustained glycemic control in some patients, but many others require administration of insulin as their disease progresses and pancreatic β cells are lost. One of the most important points in long-term care for patients with type 2 diabetes is the transition to insulin therapy. Health care professionals must choose the most appropriate insulin preparations for management of patients with type 2 diabetes who cannot achieve treatment goals by using other therapies. These include basal, premixed, and basal-bolus insulin regimens. In addition, there are multiple approaches to initiation of insulin treatment, including addition of basal insulin to oral drugs, switching patients to a premixed insulin formulation, or basal-bolus treatment. The pharmacist can play a key role in the transition to insulin therapy by providing education and assisting in day-to-day management of patients with type 2 diabetes who require insulin for intensification of treatment.

Insulin analogs versus human insulin in type 2 diabetes

Oral hypoglycaemic agents become less effective as beta cell function declines. Thus many patients with type 2 diabetes will ultimately require treatment with insulin. There are two main approaches to starting insulin: (a) as a basal supplement with an intermediate to long-acting preparation (NPH, glargine or detemir) plus oral agents; (b) as a premixed insulin regimen. Almost all the studies have shown similar glucose control with both NPH and the new insulin analogs. Further analyses between these insulins have documented significant reductions in hypoglycaemia especially at night with the insulin analogs. The weight gain is an important issue in patients with diabetes. It appears that insulin detemir studies have reported weight neutrality or less weigh gain or even weight loss. However, most insulin glargine studies have reported a weight gain. On the other hand insulin analogs have the important disadvantage of high cost. It is important to take in to account all the above factors such as cost, weight gain, number of insulin injections and hypoglycaemia while prescribing insulin.

Insulin analogues: how observational studies provide key insights into management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this commentary was to evaluate the current evidence regarding the use of synthetic insulin analogues in the 'real-world' clinic setting for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Relevant publications were searched on PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials Google Scholar, NLM Gateway, Science Direct, Web of Science and OVID for the period of January 2007 to June 2010. Articles were included if they (a) provided specific study results on the use of insulin analogues in T2DM and (b) gave sufficiently clear methodology details to establish treatment strategies, diagnosis and diagnostic criteria using an observational study (OS) design.

RESULTS

Twenty one articles specifically addressing both type 2 diabetes management and the use of synthetic insulin analogues were identified. Results from recently published OS in patients with T2DM have shown, in the patient populations tested, the effective initiation, optimization and switch to use of insulin analogues in routine clinical settings (day-to-day common practice), with a good safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

OS can provide clinicians with additional insights into the management of T2DM patients in their practices. However, the selection and initiation of insulin analogue regimens should be tailored to the individual patient and be one that the physician is comfortable using.

IMPROVE™ observational study of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus

The IMPROVE™ study is the largest observational study of therapy in Type 2 diabetes mellitus to date. It is a multinational study investigating the safety and efficacy of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in the routine management of patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Five published reports on this study have provided baseline demographic information for patients receiving BIAsp 30 in eight countries, information on the safety and efficacy outcomes for those patients and analyses of three subgroups of patients who were insulin-naive, receiving basal insulin or receiving biphasic human insulin before the start of the study. These subanalyses provided information on the optimal prescribing and dosing strategies when starting treatment with BIAsp 30 in these groups of patients in normal clinical practice. The study extends the results from clinical trials of BIAsp 30 and confirms its benefits in routine care, in a large, global, heterogeneous patient population.

Are analogue insulins superior to human insulin in clinical practice?

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

Cost-effectiveness of switching to biphasic insulin aspart from human premix insulin in a US setting

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching to biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) from human premix insulin for type 2 diabetes patients in the United States (US) setting.

METHODS

The previously published and validated IMS Core Diabetes Model was used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) and costs over 30 years. Patient characteristics and treatment effects were based on Canadian patients included the IMPROVE observational study (n = 311). Mean glycohaemoglobin (HbA(1c)) was 8.4%, duration of diabetes 16 years and prevalence of complications high at baseline. Simulations were conducted from the perspective of a third-party payer, with costs accounted in 2008 US dollars ($).

RESULTS

BIAsp 30 was projected to improve life expectancy by 0.202 years and QALE by 0.301 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), due to a reduced incidence of most diabetes-related complications. BIAsp 30 was associated with increased lifetime direct medical costs ($76,517 vs. 67,518) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,870 per QALY gained. Long-term outcomes were sensitive to the impact of BIAsp 30 on hypoglycaemia and changes in HbA(1c).

CONCLUSIONS

BIAsp 30 may represent a cost-effective treatment option in the US setting for advanced type 2 diabetes patients experiencing poor glycaemic control or hypoglycaemia on human premix insulin.

LIMITATIONS

The application of treatment effect data derived from a Canadian cohort to the US setting was a limitation of the cost-effectiveness analysis. The findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis are not applicable to insulin-naïve diabetes patients.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes

The pharmacological advantages of the rapid-acting analog, insulin aspart, over human insulin have contributed to the widespread prescription of the premix, biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30), in type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). This article reviews the available literature on the pharmacology, efficacy and safety of BIAsp 30 in T1DM and T2DM from an online search of the PubMed database. Following injection, BIAsp 30 reaches higher plasma insulin levels more quickly than human premix or basal insulin, giving effective reduction of postprandial hyperglycemia. In T1DM patients, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that HbA(1c) reduction is similar, but postprandial glycemic control is better, with BIAsp 30 than with human insulin regimens. In T2DM patients, lowering of HbA(1c) and postprandial hyperglycemia with BIAsp 30 compare favorably with optimized oral antidiabetes drug treatment, insulin glargine, and, in obese patients, human premix. An increase in minor hypoglycemia with BIAsp 30 relative to basal insulin has been reported in T2DM patients, but major and nocturnal hypoglycemia rates are generally low. Findings from RCTs in T2DM patients are supported by large observational studies. In summary, BIAsp 30 once to three times daily represents a simple and effective tool for the modern management of diabetes.