Successes and challenges of insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes in a managed-care setting

Continuous Glucose Monitoring with Multiple Daily Insulin Treatment: Outcome Studies

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is developing into an increasingly useful tool for glucose monitoring and therapeutic guidance in the treatment of diabetes. Multiple daily doses of insulin (MDI) is the most common method for intensive insulin treatment of type 1 diabetes and is also becoming more common in the treatment of type 2 diabetes as an increasing population with type 2 diabetes experiences progressive beta cell loss. The clinical evidence demonstrating the benefit of CGM in the outcomes of patients treated with MDI is becoming clearer, particularly with the recent completion of several randomized clinical trials addressing both type 1 and 2 diabetes. This evidence is reviewed.

Basal-bolus Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the UK: Patient Characteristics, Treatment Patterns and the Effect of Switching to Premixed Insulin

INTRODUCTION

Increasing emphasis is being placed on insulin use among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Basal-bolus (BB) therapy is regarded as the gold standard, but a high frequency of injections and the general complexity of this therapy are seen as barriers in real-world practice. Here we describe the characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with T2DM receiving BB in the UK, with specific focus on those switching to a simplified regimen of premixed insulin.

METHODS

Patients with T2DM receiving BB from 1 January 2005 were identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Characteristics were described at treatment initiation or on 1 January 2005, and treatment patterns were assessed at 12 months of follow-up. Clinical factors were compared in two groups of patients who while receiving BB had one haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement of ≥53 mmol/mol (7.0%) and remained either on BB or switched to a premixed insulin regimen.

RESULTS

Study criteria were met by 12,060 subjects (mean age 59 years; duration diabetes 12.4 years). The mean HbA1c concentration was 76 mmol/mol (9.1% of patients), and 84.0% of patients were overweight. At 12 months of follow-up, 74.5% of the patients who had started BB remained on it. While on BB, 8835 patients had a HbA1c measurement of ≥53 mmol/mol (7.0% of all patients); of these, 95.9% remained on BB and 4.1% switched to premixed insulin. Mean HbA1c levels were consistently higher for patients who switched to premixed insulin than for those who remained on BB, but the levels remained relatively unchanged over time.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of patients receiving insulin did not achieve good glycaemic control in clinical practice. A small subset with higher comorbidities and HbA1c levels switched to a simplified regimen. Little evidence was found that type of insulin therapy was associated with meaningful changes in key clinical factors over time.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and company.

Medical Care Costs Associated With Long-term Weight Maintenance Versus Weight Gain Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Weight loss is recommended for overweight patients with diabetes but avoidance of weight gain may be a more realistic goal. We calculated the 4-year economic impact of maintaining body weight versus gaining weight.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Among 8,154 patients with type 2 diabetes, we calculated weight change as the difference between the first body weight measure in 2010 and the last measure in 2013 and calculated mean glycated hemoglobin (A1C) from all measurements from 2010 to 2013. We created four analysis groups: weight change <5% and A1C <7%; weight gain ≥5% and A1C <7%; weight change <5% and A1C ≥7%; and weight gain ≥5% and A1C ≥7%. We compared change in medical costs between 2010 and 2013, adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Patients who maintained weight within 5% of baseline experienced a reduction in costs of about $400 regardless of A1C. In contrast, patients who gained ≥5% of baseline weight and had mean A1C ≥7% had an increase in costs of $1,473 (P < 0.001). Those who gained >5% of their baseline weight with mean A1C <7% had a modest increase in costs ($387, NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who gained at least 5% of their baseline body weight and did not maintain A1C <7% over 4 years experienced a 14% increase in medical costs, whereas those who maintained good glycemic control had a mean cost increase of 3.3%. However, patients who maintained weight within 5% of baseline had costs that were ∼5% lower than baseline. Avoidance of weight gain may reduce costs in the long-term.

National Variations in Comorbidities, Glycosylated Hemoglobin Reduction, and Insulin Dosage in Asian Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: The FINE-Asia Registry

INTRODUCTION

The First Basal Insulin Evaluation (FINE) Asia study was a prospective, observational registry evaluating basal insulin initiation in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by oral antihyperglycemic agents.

METHODS

The objective of this post hoc analysis was to observe and report the findings from individual participating countries. The primary endpoint was change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) from baseline to month 6 after basal insulin initiation. Secondary endpoints included change in fasting blood glucose (FBG), percent of patients achieving target HbA_1c and FBG levels, average insulin doses, and hypoglycemic events.

RESULTS

The study included 2921 patients from 11 Asian countries at baseline, 2679 (92%) of whom had evaluable data. Following initiation of basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin, glargine, or detemir), there was a significant (P < 0.001) difference in HbA_1c reduction and proportions of patients meeting HbA_1c and FBG targets (<7% and <110 mg/dL, respectively) across all country cohorts by month 6. Glycemic control also varied greatly, with 7.4% (Taiwan) to 71.5% (China) of patients reaching target HbA_1c <7% levels. Mean (±standard deviation) insulin dose increases over the 6-month period ranged from 0.5 ± 3.1 U (Pakistan) to 6.0 ± 8.6 U (Thailand). Hypoglycemia rates also varied, with 7.1% (India) to 27.3% (China) of patients experiencing one or more events.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from the FINE-Asia registry study show widely varying degrees of baseline comorbidities and glycemic control in patients among the country cohorts observed. Countries with >9 years of diabetes prior to insulin initiation had the lowest reductions in HbA_1c and proportions of patients achieving HbA_1c and FBG targets, suggesting that earlier basal insulin initiation may afford better glycemic control in these patients.

FUNDING

This study was funded by Sanofi.

Trends in insulin initiation and treatment intensification among patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Many patients with type 2 diabetes eventually require insulin, yet little is known about the patterns and quality of pharmacologic care received following insulin initiation. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend that insulin secretagogues such as sulfonylureas be discontinued at the time of insulin initiation to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia, and that treatment be intensified if HbA1c levels remain above-target 3 months after insulin initiation.

OBJECTIVE

To describe pharmacologic treatment patterns over time among adults initiating insulin and/or intensifying insulin treatment.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SUBJECTS

A large commercially insured population of adult patients without recorded type 1 diabetes who initiated insulin.

MAIN MEASURES

We evaluated changes in non-insulin antidiabetic medication use during the 120 days immediately following insulin initiation, rates of increase in insulin dose and/or dosing frequency during the 270 days following an insulin initiation treatment period of 90 days, and rates of insulin discontinuation.

KEY RESULTS

Seven thousand, nine hundred and thirty-two patients initiated insulin during 2003-2008, with the majority (61 %) initiating basal insulin only. Metformin (55 %), sulfonylureas (39 %), and thiazolidinediones (30 %) were commonly used prior to insulin initiation. Metformin was continued by 64 % of patients following mixed or mealtime insulin initiation; the continuation rate was nearly as high for sulfonylureas (58 %). Insulin dose and/or dosing frequency increased among 22.9 % of patients. Insulin was discontinued by 27 % of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence of substantial departures from guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy. Insulin secretagogues were frequently co-prescribed with insulin. The majority of patients had no evidence of treatment intensification following insulin initiation, although this finding is difficult to interpret without HbA1c levels. While each patient's care should be individualized, our data suggest that the quality of care following insulin initiation can be improved.

Initial management of severe hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes: an observational study

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and severe hyperglycemia, but this recommendation lacks sufficient evidence and poses practical challenges. It is unclear whether non-insulin treatments are effective in this setting. The objective of this study was to describe treatment strategies of T2D patients with severe hyperglycemia and identify which initial treatments, interventions, or patient characteristics correlated with successful glucose lowering.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 114 patients with T2D and a glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) ≥12%. Changes in A1C were compared between patients started on non-insulin medications versus insulin-based regimens. Regression analysis was performed to assess predictors of success in achieving A1C ≤9% within 1 year. The main outcomes measures were change in A1C from baseline and predictors of success in achieving A1C ≤9% within 1 year.

RESULTS

At baseline, 43 patients (37.7%) started one or more non-insulin medications; 71 (62.3%) started insulin. Fifty-eight patients (50.8%) achieved an A1C ≤9%. Predictors of success were newly diagnosed T2D, certified diabetes educator (CDE) visits, and less time to follow-up A1C; insulin therapy was not. Change in A1C was significantly better in the non-insulin cohort compared to the insulin cohort (-4.5% vs. -2.8%, p = 0.001). Newly diagnosed patients were less likely to start insulin therapy (20.8% vs. 73.3%, p < 0.001), less likely to use insulin at any point (29.2% vs 81.1%, p < 0.001), and more likely to achieve an A1C ≤9% compared to patients with established T2D (87.5% vs 41.1%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Insulin therapy was used in roughly two-thirds of patients with severe hyperglycemia, but did not result in better glycemic control compared to non-insulin regimens. Rapid follow-up, more CDE visits, and a new diabetes diagnosis were predictors of successful glucose lowering. Patients with T2D and severe hyperglycemia, particularly those newly diagnosed, may be managed with non-insulin therapy.

Glycemic response and attainment of A1C goals following newly initiated insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To identify the characteristics associated with glycemic response to newly initiated insulin therapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We identified 1,139 type 2 diabetic patients who initiated insulin therapy between 1 January 2009 and 30 June 2010. Outcomes of interest were the proportion of patients achieving A1C <7% and mean change in A1C within 3-9 months.

RESULTS

Mean A1C at insulin initiation was 8.2 vs. 9.2% among those who did and did not attain A1C <7% (P < 0.001). Within a mean of 5 months, 464 (40.7%) patients attained A1C <7%. In multivariable analyses controlling for insulin regimen, dose, and oral agent use, preinsulin A1C was responsible for nearly all the explained variance in A1C change. Each one percentage point of preinsulin A1C reduced the probability of attaining <7% by 26% (odds ratio 0.74 [95% CI 0.68-0.80]).

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin initiation at lower levels of A1C improves goal attainment and independently increases glycemic response.