Insulin analogs--is there a compelling case to use them? No!

Insulin's Legacy: A Century of Breakthroughs and Innovation

The clinical use of insulin to treat diabetes started just over 100 years ago. The past century has witnessed remarkable innovations in insulin therapy, evolving from animal organ extracts to bioengineered human insulins with ultra-rapid onset or prolonged action. Insulin delivery systems have also progressed to current automated insulin delivery systems. In this review, we discuss the history of insulin and the pharmacology and therapeutic indications for a variety of available insulins, especially newer analog insulins. We highlight recent advances in insulin pump therapy and review evidence on the therapeutic benefits of automated insulin delivery. As with any form of progress, there have been setbacks, and insulin has recently faced an affordability crisis. We address the challenges of insulin accessibility, along with recent progress to improve insulin affordability. Finally, we mention research on glucose-responsive insulins and hepato-preferential insulins that are likely to shape the future of insulin therapy.

Insulin Shocks

Some of the news about insulin is shocking. In the United States, people have died because they were rationing a life-saving medication discovered in the 1920s. How could this happen? Perhaps a better question is why anyone should be surprised. The insulin story both illustrates and challenges many understandings of the problems with insurance, treatment, payment, and politics in the US health care system. It particularly highlights consequences of structuring price discounts as rebates to health plans or government instead of as lower individual prices to patients. Perversely, this encourages higher list prices, which, for patients without insurance or with high cost sharing, make insulin less affordable than it would be without the rebates.

A randomized pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic trial of two regular human insulins demonstrates bioequivalence in type 1 diabetes and availability of biosimilar insulin may improve access to this medication

AIMS

To compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) effects and safety of therapeutic dosages of a regular insulin (experimental drug) produced by Bioton S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) versus Humulin® R, a regular insulin (reference drug) produced by Eli Lilly (Indianapolis, Indiana).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a single-centre, randomized, double-blinded phase 1 crossover study, we used the manual euglycaemic clamp technique to compare PK and PD profiles between single subcutaneous doses (0.3 units/kg) of the two regular insulins in participants with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) with a washout period of 14 (± 7) days between tests.

RESULTS

We evaluated 56 participants. The mean participant age and body mass index were 32.9 years and 22.9 kg/m² , respectively. The ratios (experimental/reference) of the geometric means of maximum plasma insulin concentration and for plasma insulin area under the curve (AUC) were 0.909 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.822-1.01) and 0.993 (90% CI 0.944-1.04), respectively. The ratios of the geometric means of maximum glucose infusion rate (GIR) and for GIR AUC were 0.999 (95% CI 0.912-1.09) and 1.04 (95% CI 0.962-1.12), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The experimental product regular human insulin and comparator Humulin® R are bioequivalent in patients with T1DM. Wider entry to the pharmaceutical market of affordable, biosimilar regular insulins may substantially improve access to insulin for many socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with diabetes.

Proteomic Changes to the Updated Discovery of Engineered Insulin and Its Analogs: Pros and Cons

The destruction of β-cells of the pancreas leads to either insulin shortage or the complete absence of insulin, which in turn causes diabetes Mellitus. For treating diabetes, many trials have been conducted since the 19th century until now. In ancient times, insulin from an animal's extract was taken to treat human beings. However, this resulted in some serious allergic reactions. Therefore, scientists and researchers have tried their best to find alternative ways for managing diabetes with progressive advancements in biotechnology. However, a lot of research trials have been conducted, and they discovered more progressed strategies and approaches to treat type I and II diabetes with satisfaction. Still, investigators are finding more appropriate ways to treat diabetes accurately. They formulated insulin analogs that mimic the naturally produced human insulin through recombinant DNA technology and devised many methods for appropriate delivery of insulin. This review will address the following questions: What is insulin preparation? How were these devised and what are the impacts (both positive and negative) of such insulin analogs against TIDM (type-I diabetes mellitus) and TIIDM (type-II diabetes mellitus)? This review article will also demonstrate approaches for the delivery of insulin analogs into the human body and some future directions for further improvement of insulin treatment.

Rapid-acting insulin analogues: Theory and best clinical practice in type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago, insulin preparations have improved significantly. Starting from purified animal insulins, evolving to human insulins produced by genetically modified organisms, and ultimately to insulin analogues, all in an attempt to mimic physiological insulin action profiles seen in individuals without diabetes. Achieving strict glucose control without hypoglycaemia and preventing chronic complications of diabetes while preserving quality of life remains a challenging goal, but the advent of newer ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogues may enable intensive insulin therapy without being too disruptive to daily life. Ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogues can be administered shortly before meals and give better coverage of mealtime-induced glucose excursions than conventional insulin preparations. They also increase convenience with timing of bolus dosing. In this review, we focus on the progress that has been made in rapid-acting insulins. We summarize pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, clinical trial data supporting the use of these new formulations as part of a basal-bolus regimen and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, and provide a clinical perspective to help guide healthcare professionals when and for whom to use ultra-fast-acting insulins.

A Conversation on an Effective, Straightforward, Quantitative Approach to the Outpatient Use of Insulin

For primary care providers, using insulin can present challenges that can be met by a straightforward approach using the following principles. Depending on when it is injected, each component of the insulin regimen has a maximal effect on a specific period of the 24-hour cycle (e.g., overnight, morning, afternoon, or evening). The glucose pattern in that period determines whether the dose of that component of the insulin regimen requires adjusting. Regarding which insulin types and insulin regimens to use, human insulin (NPH and regular) is as effective as analog insulins, and a two-injection intensified insulin regimen is as effective as a four-injection regimen.

100 years of Insulin: Why is Insulin So Expensive and What Can be Done to Control Its Cost?

The discovery of insulin 100 years ago and subsequent improvements in insulin formulations and delivery devices have changed the lives of people with diabetes. Unfortunately, the average price of insulin in the United States has nearly tripled over the past decade, and the high cost of insulin has become a barrier to diabetes treatment. On the 100th anniversary of insulin's discovery, this life-saving treatment is financially out of reach for as many as one-third of people with diabetes. The challenge now is to ensure that insulin is available for all people with diabetes who need it. We explore reasons for the high cost of insulin and recommend some clinical and policy interventions to improve insulin access and affordability.

Cost-effectiveness of long-acting insulin analogues vs intermediate/long-acting human insulin for type 1 diabetes: A population-based cohort followed over 10 years

AIMS

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of long-acting insulin analogues (LAIAs) vs intermediate/long-acting human insulin (ILAHI) for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

Individual-level analyses were conducted within a longitudinal population-based cohort of 540 propensity score-matched T1D patients (LAIAs, n = 270; ILAHI, n = 270) with over 10 years of follow-up using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, 2004-2013, from third-party payer and healthcare sector perspectives. The study outcomes included the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of clinical events (eg, hypoglycaemia, diabetes-related complications), medical costs, and cost per case of events prevented. Cost estimates are presented in 2013 British pounds (GBP, £).

RESULTS

The NNTs using LAIAs vs ILAHI to avoid one case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance, outpatient hypoglycaemia and any diabetes-related complications were 12, 9 and 10 for mean follow-up periods of 5.84, 6.02 and 3.62 years, respectively. From third-party payer and healthcare sector perspectives, using LAIAs instead of ILAHI saved GBP6924-GBP7116 per case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance prevented, GBP5346-GBP5508 per case of outpatient hypoglycaemia prevented, and GBP3570-GBP3680 per case of any diabetes-related complications prevented. Sensitivity analyses considering sampling uncertainty showed that using LAIAs over ILAHI yields at least a 76% probability of cost-saving for avoiding one case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance, outpatient hypoglycaemia or any diabetes-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world evidence reveals that compared with ILAHI, the greater pharmaceutical costs associated with LAIAs for patients with T1D could be substantially offset by savings from averted hypoglycaemia or diabetes-related complications.

Realizing a Closed-Loop (Artificial Pancreas) System for the Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes

Recent, rapid changes in the treatment of type 1 diabetes have allowed for commercialization of an "artificial pancreas" that is better described as a closed-loop controller of insulin delivery. This review presents the current state of closed-loop control systems and expected future developments with a discussion of the human factor issues in allowing automation of glucose control. The goal of these systems is to minimize or prevent both short-term and long-term complications from diabetes and to decrease the daily burden of managing diabetes. The closed-loop systems are generally very effective and safe at night, have allowed for improved sleep, and have decreased the burden of diabetes management overnight. However, there are still significant barriers to achieving excellent daytime glucose control while simultaneously decreasing the burden of daytime diabetes management. These systems use a subcutaneous continuous glucose sensor, an algorithm that accounts for the current glucose and rate of change of the glucose, and the amount of insulin that has already been delivered to safely deliver insulin to control hyperglycemia, while minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia. The future challenge will be to allow for full closed-loop control with minimal burden on the patient during the day, alleviating meal announcements, carbohydrate counting, alerts, and maintenance. The human factors involved with interfacing with a closed-loop system and allowing the system to take control of diabetes management are significant. It is important to find a balance between enthusiasm and realistic expectations and experiences with the closed-loop system.

Challenges constraining availability and affordability of insulin in Bengaluru region (Karnataka, India): evidence from a mixed-methods study

Introduction

Considering limited global access to affordable insulin, we evaluated insulin access in public and private health sectors in Bengaluru, India.

Methods

Employing modified WHO/HAI methodology, we used mixed-methods analysis to study insulin access and factors influencing insulin supply and demand in Bengaluru in December 2017. We assessed insulin availability, price and affordability in a representative sample of 5 public-sector hospitals, 5 private-sector hospitals and 30 retail pharmacies. We obtained insulin price data from websites of government Jan Aushadhi scheme (JAS) and four online private-sector retail pharmacies. We interviewed wholesalers in April 2018 to understand insulin market dynamics.

Results

Mean availability of insulins on India's 2015 Essential Medicine List was 66.7% in the public sector, lower than private-sector retail (76.1%) and hospital pharmacies (93.3%). Among private retailers, mean availability was higher among chain (96.7%) than independent pharmacies (68.3%). Non-Indian companies supplied 67.3% products in both sectors. 79.1% products were manufactured in India, of which 60% were marketed by non-Indian companies.In private retail pharmacies, median consumer prices of human insulin cartridges and pens were 2.5 and 3.6 times, respectively, that of human insulin vials. Analogues depending on delivery device were twice as expensive as human insulin. Human insulin vials were 18.3% less expensive in JAS pharmacies than private retail pharmacies. The lowest paid unskilled worker would pay 1.4 to 9.3 days' wages for a month's supply, depending on insulin type and health sector. Wholesaler interviews suggest that challenges constraining patient insulin access include limited market competition, physicians' preference for non-Indian insulins, and the ongoing transition from human to analogue insulin. Rising popularity of online and chain pharmacies may influence insulin access.

Conclusion

Insulin availability in Bengaluru's public sector falls short of WHO's 80% target. Insulin remains unaffordable in both private and public sectors. To improve insulin availability and affordability, government should streamline insulin procurement and supply chains at different levels, mandate biosimilar prescribing, educate physicians to pursue evidence-based prescribing, and empower pharmacists with brand substitution. Patients must be encouraged to shop around for lower prices from subsidized schemes like JAS. While non-Indian companies dominate Bengaluru's insulin market, rising market competition from Indian companies may improve access.

Are newer insulins always the better option?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Since its discovery almost a century ago, there have been numerous advancements in the formulations of insulin. The newer insulin analogs have structural modifications with the goal of altering pharmacokinetics to achieve either quick onset and offset of action (mealtime bolus analogs), or a prolonged steady action (basal analogs). These analogs offer many advantages over older human insulins but are several-fold more expensive. The aim of this review is to evaluate reasons for the exorbitant price of the newer insulins, to examine the evidence regarding their clinical advantages and to make value-based prescribing recommendations.

RECENT FINDINGS

The higher cost of newer insulins cannot be justified based on drug development or manufacturing costs. Compared with older insulins, newer analogs do not offer significant advantage in achieving hemoglobin A1c targets, but they reduce risk of hypoglycemia. The reductions in hypoglycemia are relatively modest and most apparent in those with type 1 diabetes, possibly because these individuals are more prone to hypoglycemia.

SUMMARY

When cost considerations are important, the older insulins (regular and NPH insulin) can be used safely and effectively for most individuals with type 2 diabetes who have a low risk of hypoglycemia.

Levels of type 1 diabetes care in children and adolescents for countries at varying resource levels

Optimal care for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes is well described in guidelines, such as those of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes. High-income countries can usually provide this, but the cost of this care is generally prohibitive for lower-income countries. Indeed, in most of these countries, very little care is provided by government health systems, resulting in high mortality, and high complications rates in those who do survive. As lower-income countries work toward establishing guidelines-based care, it is helpful to describe the levels of care that are potentially affordable, cost-effective, and result in substantially improved clinical outcomes. We have developed a levels of care concept with three tiers: "minimal care," "intermediate care," and "comprehensive (guidelines-based) care." Each tier contains levels, which describe insulin and blood glucose monitoring regimens, requirements for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing, complications screening, diabetes education, and multidisciplinary care. The literature provides various examples at each tier, including from countries where the life for a child and the changing diabetes in children programs have assisted local diabetes centres to introduce intermediate care. Intra-clinic mean HbA1c levels range from 12.0% to 14.0% (108-130 mmol/mol) for the most basic level of minimal care, 8.0% to 9.5% (64-80 mmol/mol) for intermediate care, and 6.9% to 8.5% (52-69 mmol/mol) for comprehensive care. Countries with sufficient resources should provide comprehensive care, working to ensure that it is accessible by all in need, and that resulting HbA1c levels correspond with international recommendations. All other countries should provide Intermediate care, while working toward the provision of comprehensive care.

Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin for adult, non-pregnant persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The use of short-acting insulin analogues (insulin lispro, insulin aspart, insulin glulisine) for adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues compared to regular human insulin in adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the WHO ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 31 October 2018. We placed no restrictions on the language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 24 weeks that compared short-acting insulin analogues to regular human insulin in the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes, who were not pregnant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We assessed dichotomous outcomes by risk ratios (RR), and Peto odds ratios (POR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed continuous outcomes by mean differences (MD) with 95% CI. We assessed trials for certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, randomising 2751 participants; 1388 participants were randomised to receive insulin analogues and 1363 participants to receive regular human insulin. The duration of the intervention ranged from 24 to 104 weeks, with a mean of about 41 weeks. The trial populations showed diversity in disease duration, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. None of the trials were blinded, so the risk of performance bias and detection bias, especially for subjective outcomes, such as hypoglycaemia, was high in nine of 10 trials from which we extracted data. Several trials showed inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and results.None of the included trials defined all-cause mortality as a primary outcome. Six trials provided Information on the number of participants who died during the trial, with five deaths out of 1272 participants (0.4%) in the insulin analogue groups and three deaths out of 1247 participants (0.2%) in the regular human insulin groups (Peto OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.64; P = 0.48; moderate-certainty evidence). Six trials, with 2509 participants, assessed severe hypoglycaemia differently, therefore, we could not summarise the results with a meta-analysis. Overall, the incidence of severe hypoglycaemic events was low, and none of the trials showed a clear difference between the two intervention arms (low-certainty evidence).The MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) change was -0.03% (95% CI -0.16 to 0.09; P = 0.60; 9 trials, 2608 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction ranged between -0.31% and 0.25%. The MD in the overall number of non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes per participant per month was 0.08 events (95% CI 0.00 to 0.16; P = 0.05; 7 trials, 2667 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between -0.03 and 0.19 events per participant per month. The results provided for nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes were of questionable validity. Overall, there was no clear difference between the two short-acting insulin analogues and regular human insulin. Two trials assessed health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction, but we considered the results for both outcomes to be unreliable (very low-certainty evidence).No trial was designed to investigate possible long term effects (all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications of diabetes), especially in participants with diabetes-related complications. No trial reported on socioeconomic effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis found no clear benefits of short-acting insulin analogues over regular human insulin in people with type 2 diabetes. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was poor and results on patient-relevant outcomes, like all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications and severe hypoglycaemic episodes were sparse. Long-term efficacy and safety data are needed to draw conclusions about the effects of short-acting insulin analogues on patient-relevant outcomes.

The Open Insulin Project: A Case Study for 'Biohacked' Medicines

New innovation ecosystems are emerging that challenge the complex intellectual property and regulatory landscape surrounding drug development in the United States (US). A prime example is an initiative known as the Open Insulin Project. The goal of the project is to sidestep patents and enable generic manufacturers to produce cheaper insulin. However, the US regulatory environment, not patent exclusivity, is the main barrier to insulin affordability. If the Open Insulin Project succeeds in releasing an open protocol for insulin manufacturing, follow-on work could enable a number of new insulin production ecosystems, including 'home-brewed' insulin. Regulators will need to consider how to proceed in a future where commercial pharmaceuticals remain unaffordable, but patients are empowered to produce drugs for their personal use.

Prescription patterns and costs of antidiabetic medications in a large group of patients

AIMS

To determine the prescription patterns of antidiabetic medications and the variables associated with their use in a Colombian population.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study using a systematized database of approximately 3.5 million affiliates of the Colombian Health System. Patients of both genders and all ages treated uninterruptedly with antidiabetic medications for three months (June-August 2015) were included. A database was designed that included sociodemographic, pharmacological, comedication, and cost variables.

RESULTS

A total of 47,532 patients were identified; the mean age was 65.5 years, and 56.3% were women. Among the patients, 56.2% (n=26,691) received medication as monotherapy. The most prescribed medications were metformin, 81.3% (n=38,664), insulins, 33.3% (n=15,848), and sulfonylureas, 21.8% (n=10,370). Among the patients, 92.8% received comedications, including antihypertensives (79.7%), hypolipemiants (65.5%), antiplatelet drugs (56.3%), analgesics (33.9%), antiulcerants (33.1%), and thyroid hormone (17.3%). The cost per 1000 inhabitants/day was $1.21 USD for metformin, $3.89 USD for insulins, and $0.02 USD for glibenclamide.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, rational prescription habits predominated, however in some cases an overuse of comedications (such as antiulcer drugs) and a large group of patients with high cost formulations were observed. Subsequent effectiveness and cost-benefit analyzes are required.

Recent Updates on Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Management for Clinicians

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is a chronic autoimmune condition that requires life-long administration of insulin. Optimal management of T1DM entails a good knowledge and understanding of this condition both by the physician and the patient. Recent introduction of novel insulin preparations, technological advances in insulin delivery and glucose monitoring, such as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring and improved understanding of the detrimental effects of hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia offer new opportunities and perspectives in T1DM management. Evidence from clinical trials suggests an important role of structured patient education. Our efforts should be aimed at improved metabolic control with concomitant reduction of hypoglycaemia. Despite recent advances, these goals are not easy to achieve and can put significant pressure on people with T1DM. The approach of physicians should therefore be maximally supportive. In this review, we provide an overview of the recent advances in T1DM management focusing on novel insulin preparations, ways of insulin administration and glucose monitoring and the role of metformin or sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in T1DM management. We then discuss our current understanding of the effects of hypoglycaemia on human body and strategies aimed at mitigating the risks associated with hypoglycaemia.

Efficacy, Safety, and Quality of Treatment Satisfaction of Premixed Human and Analogue Insulin Regimens in a Large Cohort of Type 2 Diabetic Patients: PROGENS BENEFIT Observational Study

Diabetes is a lifelong course disease, so insulin treatment has to be effective and safe, and patients should be satisfied with it. We aimed to compare efficacy, safety, and quality of treatment satisfaction of human and premixed analogue insulin among 3264 patients (53.58% women) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in a real-life environment. 2493 patients (62.77%) had been assigned to group I where before the inclusion into the study the treatment regimen has been changed from analogue to human premixed insulin and 771 patients (37.23%) to group II where the treatment with insulin analogue remained unchanged. At the end of the study, there was a reduction of HbA1c observed in both of the groups; however, Δ HbA1c was significantly higher in group 1 (-0.599 versus -0.406; P < 0.001 at visit 3 versus visit 1). The number of hypoglycemic episodes during the study observation was insignificantly reduced in both groups. Diabetes treatment satisfaction measured with DTSQ increased at the end of the study and was significantly better in group I compared to group II (P < 0.001). This observational study proved that both human and premixed analogue insulin are effective and safe, and patients are satisfied with the treatment.

Why Are Diabetes Medications So Expensive and What Can Be Done to Control Their Cost?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purposes of this study were to describe how medication prices are established, to explain why antihyperglycemic medications have become so expensive, to show trends in expenditures for antihyperglycemic medications, and to highlight strategies to control expenditures in the USA.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the U.S., pharmaceutical manufacturers set the prices for new products. Between 2002 and 2012, expenditures for antihyperglycemic medications increased from $10 billion to $22 billion. This increase was primarily driven by expenditures for insulin which increased sixfold. The increase in insulin expenditures may be attributed to several factors: the shift from inexpensive beef and pork insulins to more expensive genetically engineered human insulins and insulin analogs, dramatic price increases for the available insulins, physician prescribing practices, policies that limit payers' abilities to negotiate prices, and nontransparent negotiation of rebates and discounts. The costs of antihyperglycemic medications, especially insulin, have become a barrier to diabetes treatment. While clinical interventions to shift physician prescribing practices towards lower cost drugs may provide some relief, we will ultimately need policy interventions such as more stringent requirements for patent exclusivity, greater transparency in medication pricing, greater opportunities for price negotiation, and outcomes-based pricing models to control the costs of antihyperglycemic medications.

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.

Basal insulin peglispro versus insulin glargine in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes: IMAGINE 2 randomized trial

AIMS

To compare, in a double-blind, randomized, multi-national study, 52- or 78-week treatment with basal insulin peglispro or insulin glargine, added to pre-study oral antihyperglycaemic medications, in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The primary outcome was non-inferiority of peglispro to glargine with regard to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction (margin = 0.4%). Six gated secondary objectives with statistical multiplicity adjustments focused on other measures of glycaemic control and safety. Liver fat content was measured using MRI, in a subset of patients.

RESULTS

Peglispro was non-inferior to glargine in HbA1c reduction [least-squares (LS) mean difference: -0.29%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.40, -0.19], and had a lower nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate [relative rate 0.74 (95% CI 0.60, 0.91); p = .005), more patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% without nocturnal hypoglycaemia [odds ratio (OR) 2.15 (95% CI 1.60, 2.89); p < .001], greater HbA1c reduction (p < .001), and more patients achieving HbA1c<7.0% [OR 1.97 (95% CI 1.57, 2.47); p < .001]. Total hypoglycaemia rate and fasting serum glucose did not achieve statistical superiority. At 52 weeks, peglispro-treated patients had higher triglyceride (1.9 vs 1.7 mmol/L). alanine transaminase (34 vs 27 IU/L), and aspartate transaminase levels (27 vs 24 IU/L). LS mean liver fat content was unchanged with peglispro at 52 weeks but decreased 3.1% with glargine [difference: 2.6% (0.9, 4.2); p = .002]. More peglispro-treated patients experienced adverse injection site reactions (3.5% vs 0.6%, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with glargine at 52 weeks, peglispro resulted in a statistically superior reduction in HbA1c, more patients achieving HbA1c targets, less nocturnal hypoglycaemia, no improvement in total hypoglycaemia, higher triglyceride levels, higher aminotransferase levels, and more injection site reactions.

Ten-Year Trends in the Morbidity of Diabetes Mellitus and Antidiabetic Drug Utilization in Croatia: A Study Based on Routinely Collected Data

Objectives. To investigate trends of diabetes mellitus (DM) morbidity and antidiabetic drug utilization in Croatian primary health care (PHC) from 2005 to 2014. Method. Routinely collected morbidity data from all PHC units, presented in Croatian health-statistics yearbooks, were retrieved. Data on drug utilization were retrieved from the Annual Reports of the Croatian Agency for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices (ATC/DDD, antidiabetic, A10). Results. Total morbidity increased by 33.3% and DM increased by 65.6%, mostly in patients over age 65 (from 50% to 57%). Estimated DM prevalence in adults increased from 3.9% to 6.4%. Increased morbidity was followed by an even higher increase in drug utilization (120%). Metformin was first, with a constant increase (from 18% to 39%), followed by glimepiride, while glibenclamide use decreased. Total utilization of insulin increased even more, mostly for aspart (600%) and newly introduced glargine and detemir, while human insulin usage sharply decreased. Spending also increased, mostly for aspart (from 21% to 61% of total). Conclusions. Increased DM is followed by a higher increase in antidiabetic drug utilization; this trend will continue in the future. In Croatian PHC, metformin has primacy along with insulin analogues.

Pharmacologic Therapy of Type 2 Diabetes

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is a common condition. Treatment of diabetes and related complications can be complex. In addition to lifestyle changes, medications play an important role in controlling patients' blood glucose levels and preventing complications. From an individual and societal standpoint, it is also an expensive disease. Medical spending attributed to diabetes per individual is significant. With appropriate therapy, patients can lead full, healthy lives with the disease, so making informed decisions regarding pharmacotherapy for T2DM is clearly of great importance.

Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Short-acting insulin analogue use for people with diabetes is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out the electronic searches through Ovid simultaneously searching the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R) (1946 to 14 April 2015), EMBASE (1988 to 2015, week 15), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; March 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the European (EU) Clinical Trials register (both March 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 24 weeks that compared short-acting insulin analogues with regular human insulins in the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes who were not pregnant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias, and resolved differences by consensus. We graded overall study quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument. We used random-effects models for the main analyses and presented the results as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria including 2693 participants. The duration of interventions ranged from 24 to 52 weeks with a mean of about 37 weeks. The participants showed some diversity, mainly with regard to diabetes duration and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The majority of the trials were carried out in the 1990s and participants were recruited from Europe, North America, Africa and Asia. None of the trials was carried out in a blinded manner so that the risk of performance bias, especially for subjective outcomes such as hypoglycaemia, was present in all of the trials. Furthermore, several trials showed inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and results.The mean difference (MD) in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was -0.15% (95% CI -0.2% to -0.1%; P value < 0.00001; 2608 participants; 9 trials; low quality evidence) in favour of insulin analogues. The comparison of the risk of severe hypoglycaemia between the two treatment groups showed an OR of 0.89 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.12; P value = 0.31; 2459 participants; 7 trials; very low quality evidence). For overall hypoglycaemia, also taking into account mild forms of hypoglycaemia, the data were generally of low quality, but also did not indicate substantial group differences. Regarding nocturnal severe hypoglycaemic episodes, two trials reported statistically significant effects in favour of the insulin analogue, insulin aspart. However, due to inconsistent reporting in publications and trial reports, the validity of the result remains questionable.We also found no clear evidence for a substantial effect of insulin analogues on health-related quality of life. However, there were few results only based on subgroups of the trial populations. None of the trials reported substantial effects regarding weight gain or any other adverse events. No trial was designed to investigate possible long-term effects (such as all-cause mortality, diabetic complications), in particular in people with diabetes related complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short-acting insulin analogues on blood glucose control in people with type 1 diabetes. To make conclusions about the effect of short acting insulin analogues on long-term patient-relevant outcomes, long-term efficacy and safety data are needed.

Management of patients with type 2 diabetes and multiple chronic conditions: A Delphi consensus of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine

AIMS

To develop consensus-based recommendations for the management of chronic complex patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using a two round Delphi technique.

METHODS

Experts from the Diabetes and Obesity Working Group (DOWG) of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI) reviewed MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS and Cochrane Library databases up to September 2014 to gather information on organization and health care management, stratification of therapeutic targets and therapeutic approach for glucose control in chronic complex patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A list of 6 recommendations was created and rated by a panel of 75 experts from the DOWG by email (first round) and by open discussion (second round). A written document was produced and sent back to DOWG experts for clarification purposes.

RESULTS

A high degree of consensus was achieved for all recommendations summarized as 1) there is a need to redesign and test new health care programs for chronic complex patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus; 2) therapeutic targets in patients with short life expectancy should be individualized in accordance to their personal, clinical and social characteristics; 3) patients with chronic complex conditions and type 2 diabetes mellitus should be stratified by hypoglycemia risk; 4) age and specific comorbidities should guide the objectives for glucose control; 5) the risk of hypoglycemia should be a key factor when choosing a treatment; and 6) basal insulin analogs compared to human insulin are cost-effective options.

CONCLUSION

The assessment and recommendations provided herein represent our best professional judgment based on current data and clinical experience.

Valuing technology: A qualitative interview study with physicians about insulin pump therapy for children with type 1 diabetes

Insulin pumps for children with type 1 diabetes have been broadly adopted despite equivocal evidence about comparative effectiveness. To understand why and inform policy related to public funding for new technologies, we explored how physicians interpret the value of pumps. We conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews with 16 physicians from a pediatric diabetes network in Ontario, Canada, and analyzed the data using interpretive description. Respondents recognized that pumps fell short of expectations because they required hard work, as well as family and school support. Yet, pumps were valued for their status as new technologies and as a promising step in developing future technology. In addition, they were valued for their role within a therapeutic relationship, given the context of chronic childhood disease. These findings identify the types of beliefs that influence the adoption and diffusion of technologies. Some beliefs bear on hopes for new technology that may inappropriately hasten adoption, creating excess cost with little benefit. On the other hand, some beliefs identify potential benefits that are not captured in effectiveness studies, but may warrant consideration in resource allocation decisions. Still others suggest the need for remediation, such as those bearing on disparity in pump use by socioeconomic status. Understanding how technologies are valued can help stakeholders decide how to address such beliefs and expectations in funding decisions and implementation protocols.

New forms of insulin and insulin therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Insulin is a common treatment option for many patients with type 2 diabetes, and is generally used late in the natural history of the disease. Its injectable delivery mode, propensity for weight gain and hypoglycaemia, and the paucity of trials assessing the risk-to-safety ratio of early insulin use are major shortcomings associated with its use in patients with type 2 diabetes. Development of new insulins-such as insulin analogues, including long-acting and short-acting insulins-now provide alternative treatment options to human insulin. These novel insulin formulations and innovative insulin delivery methods, such as oral or inhaled insulin, have been developed with the aim to reduce insulin-associated hypoglycaemia, lower intraindividual pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability, and improve imitation of physiological insulin release. Availability of newer glucose-lowering drugs (such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors) also offers the opportunity for combination treatment; the results of the first trials in this area of research suggest that such treatment might lead to use of reduced insulin doses, less weight gain, and fewer hypoglycaemic episodes than insulin treatment alone. These and future developments will hopefully offer better opportunities for individualisation of insulin treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes.