Non-glycemic effects of insulin therapy: a comparison between insulin aspart and regular human insulin during two consecutive meals in patients with type 2 diabetes

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.

Safety and effectiveness of insulin aspart in type 2 diabetic patients: results from the ASEAN cohort of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To examine the clinical safety and effectiveness of insulin aspart (IAsp) therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients from the ASEAN cohort of the international, 24-week, non-interventional A₁chieve study.

METHODS

T2D patients from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore, who started IAsp therapy with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs, were included. The primary endpoint was the incidence of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs), including major hypoglycaemic events. Secondary endpoints 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 assessed using the EQ-5D questionnaire.

RESULTS

Overall, 312 T2D patients (222 insulin-naive and 90 insulin-experienced) with a mean ± SD age of 56.6 ± 11.2 years, BMI of 24.2 ± 3.9 kg/m(2) and diabetes duration of 7.0 ± 5.7 years were included. The mean daily IAsp dose was 0.51 ± 0.31 U/kg at baseline titrated up to 0.60 ± 0.29 U/kg at Week 24. No SADRs or major hypoglycaemic events were reported in the entire subgroup. The proportion of patients who reported overall hypoglycaemia decreased from baseline to Week 24 (7.1% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.0001). The mean HbA1c improved from 9.5 ± 1.6% at baseline to 7.6 ± 1.3% after 24 weeks (p < 0.001). The mean FPG, post-breakfast PPPG and SBP also improved (p < 0.001). Health-related QoL scores increased in the entire subgroup (mean increase: 9.8 ± 14.6 points, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Starting IAsp therapy was well-tolerated and was associated with significantly improved overall glycaemic control in the ASEAN cohort.

Lower incidence of recorded cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes using insulin aspart vs. those on human regular insulin: observational evidence from general practices

AIMS

Insulin aspart has a higher ability to treat postprandial glucose than regular human insulin, which may have favourable cardiovascular effects. The aim was to collect and compare the incidence of recorded macro- and microvascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes with insulin aspart or regular human insulin in general practices.

METHODS

Computerized data from 3154 aspart and 3154 regular insulin users throughout Germany (Disease Analyzer, January 2000 to July 2011) were analysed after matching for age (60 ± 10 years), sex (men: 57%), health insurance (private: 5.8%) and diabetes treatment period in practice (2.2 ± 2.5 years). Hazard ratios (HR; Cox regression) for macro- or microvascular outcomes (follow-up: 3.5 years) were further adjusted for diabetologist care, practice region, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, co-medication (basal insulin, oral antidiabetics, antihypertensives, lipid-lowering agents and antithrombotic drugs), previous treatment with rapid-acting insulins, hypoglycaemia and the Charlson co-morbidity score. Furthermore, adjustment was carried out for baseline microvascular complications when analysing macrovascular outcomes and vice versa.

RESULTS

Overall, the risk of combined macrovascular outcomes was 15% lower for insulin aspart users (p = 0.01). For insulin aspart there was also a decreased risk incident stroke [HR: 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.74], myocardial infarction (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.54-0.88) and peripheral vascular disease (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.69-0.93). For microvascular complications (retinopathy, neuropathy and nephropathy), no significant differences were observed (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.87-1.06).

CONCLUSION

Use of the rapid-acting insulin analogue aspart was associated with a reduced incidence of macrovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes in general practices. It is important to confirm this finding in a randomized controlled trial.