Basal supplementation of insulin lispro protamine suspension versus insulin glargine and detemir for type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Since the discovery of insulin, it was the only drug available for the treatment of diabetes until the development of sulfonylureas and biguanides 50 years later. But even with the availability of oral glucose-lowering drugs, insulin supplementation was often needed to achieve good glucose control in type 2 diabetes. Insulin NPH became the basal insulin therapy of choice and adding NPH to metformin and/or sulfonylureas became the standard of care until basal insulin analogs were developed and new glucose-lowering drugs became available.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

The advantages in cost-benefit of insulin analogs and their combination with new glucose-lowering drugs are still a matter of debate. There is no general agreement on how to avoid inertia by prescribing insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes when really needed, as reflected by the diversity of recommendations in the current clinical practice guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

When necessary for this review, a systematic search of the evidence was done in PubMed and Cochrane databases.

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

Adding new oral glucose-lowering drugs to insulin such as DPP-4 inhibitors lead to a modest HbA1c reduction without weight gain and no increase in hypoglycemia. When SGLT-2 inhibitors are added instead, there is a slightly higher HbA1c reduction, but with body weight and blood pressure reduction. The downside is the increase in genital tract infections. GLP-1 receptor agonists have become the best alternative when basal insulin fails, particularly using fixed ratio combinations. Rapid-acting insulins via the inhaled route may also become an alternative for insulin supplementation and/or intensification. "Smart insulins" are under investigation and may become available for clinical use in the near future.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggressive weight loss strategies together with the new glucose-lowering drugs which do not cause hypoglycemia nor weight gain should limit the number of patients with type 2 diabetes needing insulin. Nevertheless, because of therapeutic inertia and the progressive nature of the disease, many need at least a basal insulin supplementation and insulin analogs are the best choice as they become more affordable. Fixed ratio combinations with GLP1 receptor agonists are a good choice for intensification of insulin therapy.

Long-acting insulin analogues for type 1 diabetes: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The comparison between long acting insulin analogues (LAIA) and human insulin (NPH) has been investigated for decades, with many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews giving mixed results. This overlapping and contradictory evidence has increased uncertainty on coverage decisions at health systems level.

Aim

To conduct an overview of systematic reviews and update existing reviews, preparing new meta-analysis to determine whether LAIA are effective for T1D patients compared to NPH.

Methods

We identified systematic reviews of RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of LAIA glargine or detemir, compared to NPH insulin for T1D, assessing glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and hypoglycemia. Data sources included Pubmed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and hand-searching. The methodological quality of studies was independently assessed by two reviewers, using AMSTAR and Jadad scale. We found 11 eligible systematic reviews that contained a total of 25 relevant clinical trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted data.

Results

We found evidence that LAIA are efficacious compared to NPH, with estimates showing a reduction in nocturnal hypoglycemia episodes (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.57; 0.76) and A1C (95% CI 0.23; 0.12). No significance was found related to severe hypoglycemia (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.71; 1.24).

Conclusion

This study design has allowed us to carry out the most comprehensive assessment of RCTs on this subject, filling a gap in diabetes research. Our paper addresses a question that is important not only for decision makers but also for clinicians.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing efficacy and safety outcomes of insulin glargine with NPH insulin, premixed insulin preparations or with insulin detemir in type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

A variety of basal insulin preparations are used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to summarize scientific evidence on relative efficacy and safety of insulin glargine (IGlar) and other insulins in T2DM.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out in major medical databases up to December 2012. Relevant studies compared efficacy and safety of IGlar, added to oral drugs (OAD) or/and in combination with bolus insulin, with protamine insulin (NPH) or premixed insulin (MIX) in the same regimen, as well as with insulin detemir (IDet), in T2DM. Target HbA1c level without hypoglycemic events was considered the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Twenty eight RCTs involving 12,669 T2DM patients followed for 12-52 weeks were included in quantitative analysis. IGlar + OAD use was associated with higher probability of reaching target HbA1c level without hypoglycemia as compared to NPH + OAD (RR = 1.32 [1.09, 1.59]) or MIX without OAD (RR = 1.61 [1.22, 2.13]) and similar effect as IDet + OAD (RR = 1.07 [0.87, 1.33]) and MIX + OAD (RR = 1.09 [0.86, 1.38]). IGlar + OAD demonstrated significantly lower risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia as compared to NPH + OAD (RR = 0.89 [0.83, 0.96]), MIX + OAD (RR = 0.75 [0.68, 0.83]) and MIX without OAD(RR = 0.75 [0.68, 0.83]), but not with IDet + OAD (RR = 0.99 [0.90, 1.08]). In basal-bolus regimens, IGlar demonstrated similar proportion of T2DM patients achieving target HbA1c as compared to NPH (RR = 1.14 [0.91, 1.44]) but higher than MIX (RR = 1.26 [1.12, 1.42) or IDet (RR = 1.38 [1.11, 1.72]). The risk of severe hypoglycemia was lower in IGlar than in NPH (RR = 0.77 [0.63, 0.94]), with no differences in comparison with MIX (RR = 0.74 [0.46, 1.20]) and IDet (RR = 1.10 [0.54, 2.25]). IGlar + OAD has comparable safety profile to NPH, with less frequent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation than MIX + OAD (RR = 0.41 [0.22, 0.76]) and IDet + OAD (RR = 0.40 [0.24, 0.69]). Also severe adverse reactions were less common for IGlar + OAD when compared to MIX + OAD (RR = 0.71 [0.52; 0.98]).

CONCLUSION

For the majority of examined efficacy and safety outcomes, IGlar use in T2DM patients was superior or non-inferior to the alternative insulin treatment options.

Trends in the prescription of antidiabetic medications from 2009 to 2012 in a general practice of Southern Italy: a population-based study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prescribing pattern of antidiabetic drugs (AD) in a general practice of Southern Italy from 2009 to 2012, with focus on behaviour prescribing changes.

METHODS

This retrospective, drug utilization study was conducted using administrative databases of the Local Health Unit of Caserta (Southern Italy) including about 1 million citizens. The standardized prevalence of AD use was calculated within each study year. A sample cohort of 78,789 subjects with at least one prescription of AD was identified during the study period.

RESULTS

There was an overall increase of the proportion of the patients treated with monotherapy, which was significant for insulin monotherapy (from 11.2 to 14.6%, p<0.001). The proportion of patients treated with metformin remained stable (from 68.3% to 67.8%, p=0.076), while those receiving sulfonylurea dropped from 18.4% to 12.5% (p<0.001); GLP-1 analogues and DPP-4 inhibitors showed the greatest increase (from 1.2% to 6.6%, p<0.001). In the whole sample of 25,148 new AD users, metformin was the most commonly prescribed drug in monotherapy (41.9%), while insulin ranked second (13.3%).

CONCLUSION

This study shows a rising trend of AD monotherapy, with sulfonylureas and incretins showing the more negative and positive trend, respectively.

Treatment satisfaction and glycemic control in young Type 1 diabetic patients in transition from pediatric health care: CSII versus MDI

To evaluate whether continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) may have any advantage over multiple daily injections (MDI) on glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in young patients with Type 1 diabetes in transition to an adult diabetes center. The study population consisted of 125 patients on MDI; 38 out of the 43 patients considered eligible for CSII completed the study and the 82 remaining on MDI served as control group. Glycemic control and treatment satisfaction [diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire (DTSQ)] were evaluated in all patients at baseline and after 12 weeks. At baseline, the two groups were well matched for demographic characteristics and glycemic control. DTSQ score was lower in CSII group (21.1 ± 8.8 vs. 25.1 ± 7.1, P = 0.011). After 12 weeks, a similar decrease in HbA1C was observed in both groups [difference -0.3 % (95 % CI-0.6 to 0.1, P = 0.847)]. Mean amplitude glucose excursions,blood glucose standard deviation, and overall hypoglycemia were significantly reduced in CSII group. DTSQ overall score increased in CSII and decreased in MDI (difference between groups = 9.9, 95 % CI 8.0-12.0, P<0.001), while perceived hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia decreased in CSII compared with MDI (difference:-2.5 and -2.0, respectively, P<0.001 for both). Among young Type 1 diabetic patients in transition from Pediatrics,CSII showed a similar efficacy in reducing HbA1c compared with MDI, with less hypoglycemia and glycemic excursions, and was better in improving overall treatment satisfaction and the rate of perceived hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia.

Managing hyperglycemia in patients with Cushing's disease treated with pasireotide: medical expert recommendations

To recommend an approach to monitoring and treating hyperglycemia in pasireotide-treated patients with Cushing's disease, a severe clinical condition caused by a pituitary adenoma hypersecreting adrenocorticotropic hormone. Advisory Board meeting of ten European experts in pituitary disease and diabetes mellitus in Munich, Germany, on February 23, 2012, to obtain expert recommendations. Cushing's disease presents a number of management challenges. Pasireotide, a novel agent for the treatment of Cushing's disease with proven biochemical and clinical efficacy, improves outcomes and expands treatment options. Clinical trials have shown that the pasireotide adverse event profile is similar to that of other somatostatin analogs, except for a higher frequency of hyperglycemia. Mechanistic studies in healthy volunteers suggest that pasireotide-associated hyperglycemia is due to reduced secretion of glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, and insulin; however, it is associated with intact postprandial glucagon secretion. Individual patients' results demonstrate effective hyperglycemia management by following standard guidelines for the treatment of diabetes mellitus with individual adaptation to the specific underlying pathophysiology, i.e., preferential use of GLP-1 based-medications. Patients on pasireotide treatment should be monitored for changes in glucose metabolism and hyperglycemia. Diabetes mellitus should be managed by initiation of medical therapy with metformin and staged treatment intensification with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, with a switch to a GLP-1 receptor agonist and initiation of insulin, as required, to achieve and maintain glycemic control. Further research into hyperglycemia following pasireotide treatment will help refine the optimal strategy in Cushing's disease.

The development of new basal insulins: is there any clinical advantage with their use in type 2 diabetes?

INTRODUCTION

The basal insulin products currently on market do not optimally mimic endogenous insulin secretion. These unmet clinical needs have fueled the development of new basal insulin analogues for improving their pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics profile.

AREAS COVERED

We review the recent literature investigating the efficacy and safety of new basal insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes, as in the USA, insulin utilization accounted for 26% of treatment visits for these patients in 2012. Insulin degludec is a desB30 insulin acylated at the LysB29 residue with a glutamate linker and 16-carbon fatty diacyl side chain. Insulin lispro has been PEGylated at lysine B28, via a urethane bond, which increases the hydrodynamic size of the molecule and reduces its absorption and clearance following subcutaneous administration. Glargine U300 represents a new high-strength glargine formulation (300 U/ml): once injected, U300 forms a compact subcutaneous depot with a smaller surface area to produce a more gradual and prolonged release. Both PEG-lispro and glargine U300 are not yet on the market.

EXPERT OPINION

Ultra-long acting and high-strength formulations of new basal analogues have the potential for less glycemic variability, less (nocturnal) hypoglycemia and weight-loss advantage for PEG-lispro. However, these new basal insulin analogues need to be monitored closely for adverse signals.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes therapy--focus on alogliptin

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex and progressive disease that is showing an apparently unstoppable increase worldwide. Although there is general agreement on the first-line use of metformin in most patients with type 2 diabetes, the ideal drug sequence after metformin failure is an area of increasing uncertainty. New treatment strategies target pancreatic islet dysfunction, in particular gut-derived incretin hormones. Inhibition of the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) slows degradation of endogenous glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and thereby enhances and prolongs the action of the endogenous incretin hormones. The five available DPP-4 inhibitors, also known as 'gliptins' (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, alogliptin), are small molecules used orally with similar overall clinical efficacy and safety profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes. The main differences between the five gliptins on the market include: potency, target selectivity, oral bioavailability, long or short half-life, high or low binding to plasma proteins, metabolism, presence of active or inactive metabolites, excretion routes, dosage adjustment for renal and liver insufficiency, and potential drug-drug interactions. On average, treatment with gliptins is expected to produce a mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) decrease of 0.5%-0.8%, with about 40% of diabetic subjects at target for the HbA1c goal <7%. There are very few studies comparing DPP-4 inhibitors. Alogliptin as monotherapy or added to metformin, pioglitazone, glibenclamide, voglibose, or insulin therapy significantly improves glycemic control compared with placebo in adult or elderly patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. In the EXAMINE trial, alogliptin is being compared with placebo on cardiovascular outcomes in approximately 5,400 patients with type 2 diabetes. In clinical studies, DPP-4 inhibitors were generally safe and well tolerated. However, there are limited data on their tolerability, due to their relatively recent marketing approval. Alogliptin will be used most when avoidance of hypoglycemic events is paramount, such as in patients with congestive heart failure, renal failure, and liver disease, and in the elderly.

Real-world outcomes of US employees with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin: a comparative retrospective database study

OBJECTIVES

To compare real-world outcomes of initiating insulin glargine (GLA) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin among employees with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had both employer-sponsored health insurance and short-tem-disability coverages.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters/Health and Productivity Management Databases 2003-2009.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult employees with T2DM who were previously treated with oral antidiabetic drugs and/or glucagon-like-peptide 1 receptor agonists and initiated GLA or NPH were included if they were continuously enrolled in healthcare and short-term-disability coverages for 3 months before (baseline) and 1 year after (follow-up) initiation. Treatment selection bias was addressed by 2:1 propensity score matching. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using different matching ratios.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes during 1-year follow-up were measured and compared: insulin treatment persistence and adherence; hypoglycaemia rates and daily average consumption of insulin; total and diabetes-specific healthcare resource utilisation and costs and loss in productivity, as measured by short-term disability, and the associated costs.

RESULTS

A total of 534 patients were matched and analysed (GLA: 356; NPH 178) with no significant differences in baseline characteristics. GLA patients were more persistent and adherent (both p<0.05), had lower rates of hospitalisation (23% vs 31.4%; p=0.036) and endocrinologist visits (19.1% vs 26.9%; p=0.038), similar hypoglycaemia rates (both 4.4%; p=1.0), higher diabetes drug costs ($2031 vs $1522; p<0.001), but similar total healthcare costs ($14 550 vs $16 093; p=0.448) and total diabetes-related healthcare costs ($4686 vs $5604; p=0.416). Short-term disability days and costs were numerically lower in the GLA cohort (16.0 vs 24.5 days; p=0.086 and $2824 vs $4363; p=0.081, respectively). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin GLA results in better persistence and adherence, compared with NPH insulin, with no overall cost disadvantages. Better persistence and adherence may lead to long-term health benefits for employees with T2DM.