Intensifying insulin treatment: options, practical issues, and the role of the nurse practitioner

Insulin Initiation and Titration in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Insulin initiation and titration can be challenging for many primary care providers who are involved in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Despite the introduction of advanced insulin analogs and improvements in insulin delivery devices, many patients with type 2 diabetes continue to experience suboptimal glycemic control. With an increasing number of treatment options available, type 2 diabetes management is moving away from a "one-size-fits-all" approach and toward individualized treatment regimens based on particular patient needs. Given this, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, and certified diabetes educators are becoming increasingly valuable resources in busy primary care practices.

Impact of lixisenatide dose range on clinical outcomes with fixed-ratio combination iGlarLixi in patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the lixisenatide dose range delivered by the iGlarLixi SoloSTAR pen (5-20 µg), alone or in fixed-ratio combination with insulin glargine (iGlar; iGlarLixi).

METHODS

Data from three clinical studies were analyzed to assess lixisenatide efficacy and safety: a phase 2a trial assessing gastric emptying effects (ACT6011); a phase 2b dose-ranging trial (DRI6012); and a randomized controlled phase 3 trial comparing iGlarLixi with its components of iGlar and lixisenatide (LixiLan-O). Efficacy metrics included glycated hemoglobin A_1c (A1C), post-prandial glucose (PPG) values following a standardized breakfast, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and weight change. Occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse events was also assessed.

RESULTS

ACT6011: lixisenatide doses from 5-20 μg once daily (QD) suppressed PPG; maximal reductions in mean PPG area under the curve were achieved with doses ≥12.5 µg QD, but doses as low as 5 μg achieved 44% of maximal reduction. DRI6012: lixisenatide doses 5-20 μg QD resulted in significant, dose-dependent decreases in A1C, percentage of patients achieving A1C <7.0%, and 2-h PPG levels; doses of 20 μg achieved complete suppression of PPG. LixiLan-O: iGlarLixi decreased 2-h PPG across the entire dose range. Lixisenatide dose was unrelated to reductions in FPG with iGlarLixi. Similar reductions in A1C were seen with iGlarLixi across all lixisenatide doses.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates the clinical benefit of lixisenatide alone or in the formulation of iGlarLixi over the entire dose range of lixisenatide contained in iGlarLixi (5-20 µg), supporting the selection of the lixisenatide dose range delivered by the iGlarLixi SoloSTAR pen.

Improved glycaemic control and lower hypoglycaemia risk with reduced prior oral antidiabetes drug therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin glargine 300 U/mL

AIMS

Data from the EDITION 3 randomized study and the Clinformatics claims database were analysed to determine whether insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) could provide insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) with reductions in prior OAD therapy without compromising glycaemic control, and while preserving its known low incidence of hypoglycaemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100).

METHODS

Patient-level data from EDITION 3 and de-identified data from the Clinformatics real-world claims database were analysed.

RESULTS

At baseline, 70% of patients in EDITION 3 were on a background of ≥2 OADs. Among the 435 and 437 patients who initiated basal insulin with Gla-300 and Gla-100, respectively, at Month 6, 336 (77%) and 338 (77%) were using ≤1 OAD. Adding Gla-300 or Gla-100 similarly allowed for a reduction in background OAD medication in the Clinformatics dataset (N = 6430), such that, at 6 months postbasal insulin initiation, 14% of patients were no longer taking any OADs. In the analysis of the EDITION 3 study, reduction in OAD burden did not compromise glycaemic benefit, and the low incidence of hypoglycaemia associated with Gla-300 compared with Gla-100 was also preserved. Documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia (blood glucose ≤70 mg/dL) occurred in 30.5% vs 41.0% of patients treated with Gla-300 and Gla-100, respectively (P = 0.0442).

CONCLUSION

Patients with T2D who initiate basal insulin with Gla-300 could potentially reduce their prior OAD use without compromising glycaemic control and with less hypoglycaemia than with Gla-100.

Future prospect of insulin inhalation for diabetic patients: The case of Afrezza versus Exubera

The current review was designed to compare between the insulin inhalation systems Exubera and Afrezza and to investigate the reasons why Exubera was unsuccessful, when Afrezza maker is expecting their product to be felicitous. In January 2006, Pfizer secured FDA and EC approval for the first of its kind, regular insulin through Exubera inhaler device for the management of types 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) in adults. The product was no longer available to the market after less than two years from its approval triggering a setback for competitive new inhalable insulins that were already in various clinical development phases. In contrary, MannKind Corporation started developing its ultra-rapid-acting insulin Afrezza in a bold bid, probably by managing the issues in which Exubera was not successful. Afrezza has been marketed since February, 2015 by Sanofi after getting FDA approval in June 2014. The results from this systematic review indicate the effectiveness of insulin inhalation products, particularly for patients initiating insulin therapy. Pharmaceutical companies should capitalize on the information available from insulin inhalation to produce competitive products that are able to match the bioavailability of subcutaneous (SC) insulin injection and to deal with the single insulin unit increments and basal insulin requirements in some diabetic patients or extending the horizon to inhalable drug products with completely different drug entities for other indications.

Addition of exenatide BID to insulin glargine: a post-hoc analysis of the effect on glycemia and weight across a range of insulin titration

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In a 30 week, double-blind, randomized, controlled Phase 3 study in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, the addition of fixed-dose exenatide twice daily (BID) to titrated insulin glargine resulted in significant glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) lowering and weight loss without increased hypoglycemia risk versus titrated insulin glargine alone. Because individualized insulin titration contributed to these results, this post-hoc analysis examined the results in the context of the degree of insulin titration that occurred.

METHODS

Subjects on pre-existing insulin glargine (with or without oral antidiabetes agents) were randomized to placebo (n = 123) or exenatide BID (n = 138; 5 µg for 4 weeks, then 10 µg ongoing). Insulin glargine was titrated in both arms per the Treat-to-Target algorithm. Tertiles (T1, T2, T3) were based on change in insulin dose from baseline to endpoint. Change in HbA(1c), hypoglycemia risk, and weight gain were assessed per insulin dose tertile.

RESULTS

The population comprised adult patients (mean age = 59 y) with type 2 diabetes and an HbA(1c) level between 7.0% and 10.5% (mean HbA(1c) = 8.4%). Insulin titration ranged from modest reductions in T1 to substantial increases in T3. Greater improvements in HbA1c were demonstrated with exenatide BID versus placebo in all tertiles (statistically significant in T2 and T3). With exenatide BID, more subjects achieved HbA(1c) <7.0% vs. placebo: T1, 44% vs. 29% (P = not significant); T2, 65% vs. 26%; T3, 54% vs. 29% (P < 0.05 for T2 and T3). Incidence of hypoglycemia was numerically lower with exenatide BID in all tertiles. Adjunctive exenatide BID was associated with statistically significantly greater weight loss (T1, T2) or mitigation of weight gain (T3) compared with placebo. Rates of nausea (42% vs. 8%), diarrhea (18% vs. 7%), and vomiting (18% vs. 4%) were higher with exenatide BID than with placebo and did not vary by tertile.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of fixed-dose exenatide BID to optimized insulin glargine, regardless of the extent of insulin titration, significantly improved glycemia without increasing hypoglycemia risk, while mitigating insulin-induced weight gain in this post-hoc analysis.

A Patient-level Analysis of Efficacy and Hypoglycaemia Outcomes Across Treat-to-target Trials with Insulin Glargine Added to Oral Antidiabetes Agents in People with Type 2 Diabetes

Background: A better understanding of hypoglycaemia risk when insulin is used in combination with one or more oral antidiabetes agents may assist in the treatment decision-making process for the clinician and address concerns regarding hypoglycaemia when initiating or intensifying insulin therapy. The objective of this study was to analyse efficacy and hypoglycaemia outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin glargine (IG) with metformin (MET), sulphonylurea (SU) or MET+SU. Methods: Patient-level data were pooled from 15 randomised, treat-to-target trials (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] targets <5.6 mmol/l) with a duration >24 weeks. Efficacy outcomes included glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c), FPG and HbA_1c target achievement. Overall hypoglycaemia events were assessed by a confirmed PG value of <3.9, <3.1 and <2.8 mmol/l or assistance required; daytime, nocturnal (00:01-05:59 AM); and severe (assistance required or with confirmed PG <2.0 mmol/l). Results: Overall, 2,837 IG patients were analysed, with either MET (634), SU (906) or MET+SU (1,297) as background oral antidiabetes agents. Endpoint HbA_1c in IG+MET and IG+MET+SU-treated patients was significantly lower than in IG+SU-treated patients (adjusted difference -0.32 %; p=0.0001 and -0.33 %; p=0.0002, respectively). Fewer patients achieved endpoint HbA_1c <7.0 % with IG+SU (32 %) versus IG+MET (57 %) or IG+MET+SU (49 %). IG+SU and IG+MET+SU led to significant increases in overall, daytime and nocturnal hypoglycaemia versus IG+MET; severe hypoglycaemia was rare. Weight gain was lowest in IG+MET patients (adjusted difference -1.51 kg versus IG+SU; p<0.0001; -0.78 kg versus IG+MET+SU; p=0.0037) despite higher insulin doses (0.51 U/kg versus 0.43 and 0.42 U/kg, respectively). Conclusions: Better glycaemic goal achievement and reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain were observed with IG+MET versus IG+SU and IG+MET+SU, albeit with an increased insulin dose requirement.