Intensification of insulin therapy for type 2 diabetic patients in primary care: basal-bolus regimen versus premix insulin analogs: when and for whom?

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: Insights into clinical efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, and adherence challenges

Insulin therapy plays a crucial role in the management of type 2 diabetes as the disease progresses. Over the past century, insulin formulations have undergone significant modifications and bioengineering, resulting in a diverse range of available insulin products. These products show distinct pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Consequently, various insulin regimens have em-erged for the management of type 2 diabetes, including premixed formulations and combinations of basal and bolus insulins. The utilization of different insulin regimens yields disparate clinical outcomes, adverse events, and, notably, patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs provide valuable insights from the patient's perspective, serving as a valuable mine of information for enhancing healthcare and informing clinical decisions. Adherence to insulin therapy, a critical patient-reported outcome, significantly affects clinical outcomes and is influenced by multiple factors. This review provides insights into the clinical effectiveness of various insulin preparations, PROs, and factors impacting insulin therapy adherence, with the aim of enhancing healthcare practices and informing clinical decisions for individuals with type 2 diabetes.

A prospective, multicentre, randomized, open-label comparison of a long-acting basal insulin analog glargine plus glulisine with premixed insulin in insulin naïve patients with Type 2 diabetes - A study from India

AIMS

We aimed to compare the effectiveness of Glargine plus Glulisine to premixed insulin analogue, as measured by HbA1c ≤ 7.0% in insulin naive Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) patients with elevated fasting and/or postprandial plasma glucose.

METHODS

Insulin-naive T2D patients (116 men, 84 women) on ≥ 2 oral hypoglycemic agents with inadequate glycemic control were randomized either to group 1 (insulin Glargine plus Glulisine, n = 101) or group 2 (Premixed Insulin analogue, n = 99).

RESULTS

In the intention to treat analysis, at week 24, percentage of patients with good glycaemic control (HbA1c ≤ 7.0%) was similar between the two groups (16.8% in Group 1 vs. 13.1% in Group 2, χ2 - 0.535, p = 0.47). Significant reductions in fasting and postprandial levels were observed in groups 1 and 2 at both post-baseline time points (Week 12 and 24). In group 1, reduction in HbA1c from baseline to week 12 was 0.6 ± 0.1 and 0.7 ± 0.2 at week 24, p < 0.0001 for all. In group 2, no significant change in HbA1c was observed. In group 1, 83.2% required an additional dose of glulisine and in group 2, 88.9% required an additional dose of premixed insulin. Hypoglycemic events were similar in both groups (0.12 events per person-year in group 1 and 0.13 events per person-year in group 2). Weight gain was non-significant in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Glargine plus Glulisine, though in higher dose was effective as premixed insulin in lowering HbA1c. Hypoglycemic events per person-year were similar in both groups.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of iGlarLixi Versus IDegAsp and Appropriate Price Exploration of iGlarLixi for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients in China

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination (FRC) of basal insulin glargine plus lixisenatide, have been demonstrated in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. However, no relevant economic analysis of iGlarLixi has been done in China. Thus, the primary objective of this study is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp in Chinese T2DM patients, and then back-calculate the appropriate drug price of iGlarLixi to support its pricing after listing in China.

METHODS

The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcome Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) was applied to estimate lifetime health and economic outcomes from the Chinese health-care system perspective. As no head-to-head comparison data are currently available, the baseline cohort characteristics and the initial clinical data for iGlarLixi were derived from the randomized LixiLan-L-China trial. The relative treatment effects for IDegAsp were based on an indirect treatment comparison. Due to the unavailability of iGlarLixi pricing data, the annual medication cost of iGlarLixi was assumed to be equal to that of IDegAsp at the beginning of the study. Afterwards, a break-even analysis using comparator drug price and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was performed to back-calculate the appropriate drug price of iGlarLixi. One-way sensitivity analysis, scenario analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to assess the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Based on the initial assumption of equal annual medication cost of iGlarLixi and IDegAsp, iGlarLixi was cost effective compared to IDegAsp with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) far below the WTP threshold in Chinese T2DM patients. From the back calculation for the price of iGlarLixi, the annual medication cost of iGlarLixi was $656.96 and $1075.96 to obtain an ICER of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp close to 1 × GDP and 3 × GDP, respectively. When the discount rate was changed from the base value to 8% (the most sensitive parameter to the model results in one-way sensitivity analysis), the ICER was nearly equal to 1 × GDP and 3 × GDP with the annual medication cost of iGlarLixi decreasing to $590.41 and $865.03, respectively. Thus, iGlarLixi was dominant over IDegAsp with an annual medication cost of $590.41 to $865.03. The findings were robust to one-way sensitivity analysis, PSA and scenario analysis.

CONCLUSION

This long-term cost-effectiveness analysis in Chinese T2DM patients indicates that iGlarLixi, assuming equal price to IDegAsp, is cost-effective versus IDegAsp with an ICER far below the WTP threshold. With 1 × GDP and 3 × GDP threshold set we back-calculate the appropriate annual medication cost of iGlarLixi to be $590.41 to $865.03, respectively.

Transitioning from basal-bolus or premix insulin therapy to a combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist in people with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

Two fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) are available for once-daily use in adults with type 2 diabetes. We aimed to review the clinical evidence for the efficacy and safety of changing treatment from a basal-bolus insulin (BBI) regimen or a premix insulin to these combination treatments (fixed-ratio or loose) and provide expert opinion on the practicalities of making such a change.

METHODS

Relevant clinical and trial evidence and general review articles were identified through a literature review of ProQuest (comprising BIOSIS Previews®, Current Contents® Search, Embase® and MEDLINE®) for articles published between 2009 and 2021.

RESULTS

We identified nine articles reporting the results of FRCs, and seven articles reporting results of loose combinations of basal insulin and GLP-1RAs, in people who transitioned treatment from BBI or premix regimens. In most trials, combination treatment led to improved or equivalent glycaemic control, and a reduction in body weight or BMI, versus the original regimens. Some trials reported a reduction in total insulin dose. A few trials reported reduced or unchanged hypoglycaemia rates, or increased patient satisfaction, with combination therapy where these endpoints were examined. We provide guidance on transitioning of treatment and the patient types most likely to benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

In people not achieving glycaemic control with BBI or premix insulin regimens, an FRC or loose combination of basal insulin and GLP-1RA may improve control, decrease the risk of body weight gain or hypoglycaemia and reduce the complexity of treatment.

A Smartphone-Based Application to Assist Insulin Titration in Patients Undergoing Basal Insulin-Supported Oral Antidiabetic Treatment

INTRODUCTION

INSULIA is an insulin-titration app developed for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin as part of a basal insulin-supported oral therapy (BOT). The app uses patient-logged fasting blood glucose (FBG) values and a titration plan defined by the treating physician to provide basal insulin dosing recommendations. Physicians use the web portal to monitor their patients' therapy progress and, if necessary, adjust therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the app, specifically its features, handling and impact on diabetes treatment and self-management in Germany.

METHODS

This German retrospective pilot study included physicians (diabetologists, general practitioners, and internists) and patients with type 2 diabetes who either receive or start BOT using the app. Both groups completed group-specific questionnaires between December 2018 and June 2019.

RESULTS

Overall, 10 physicians and 34 patients with type 2 diabetes completed their respective questionnaires. Physicians perceived their app-using patients to be more involved and more confident in managing their insulin therapy than patients not using the app. The majority of patients considered the app as a tool that assists with safer insulin treatment. The physicians perceived that due to the app use, FBG and HbA_1c target values were achieved more often than patients not using the app and the number and severity of hypoglycemic episodes was reduced.

CONCLUSION

The titration app seems to have a positive impact on BOT patients' FBG and HbA_1c target achievement and was highly appreciated by both physicians and patients alike.

Multinational Observational Study to Understand Insulin Treatment Intensification: Japanese Subgroup Analysis of the MOSAIc Study

INTRODUCTION

MOSAIc was a multinational, non-interventional, prospective, observational cohort study designed to provide an understanding of the specific challenges associated with intensification of initial insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We present a sub-analysis of Japanese patients from MOSAIc, with data analyzed longitudinally over 2 years, to provide insight on how T2DM treatment is intensified.

METHODS

Japanese patients with T2DM receiving any insulin therapy for at least 3 months were eligible for study inclusion. Baseline and clinical data were collected during an initial baseline visit and during four subsequent prospective visit windows (within ± 3 months) at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Treatment intensification was defined as addition of new insulin, increase in insulin dosage (1-unit change or 10% compared with the previous visit), increase in insulin injection frequency, and/or addition of non-insulin antihyperglycemic agents.

RESULTS

Of 116 Japanese patients who completed the study, 50.0% (n = 58) received treatment intensification. Baseline characteristics of patients with treatment intensification included a longer duration of diabetes, higher incidence of baseline microvascular complications, and higher HbA1c compared to those without intensification. There was no significant difference in HbA1c change from baseline between the two groups at any post-baseline visit. Insulin intensification accounted for 61.2% of treatment changes, with non-insulin-related intensification accounting for 36.2% of treatment changes. An increase in insulin dose was the most frequent treatment change (51.7%), followed by the addition of new insulin (22.4%), and an increase in insulin injection frequency (6.9%).

CONCLUSION

Real-world data from Japanese patients with T2DM who received treatment intensification showed that an increase in insulin dose and the addition of new insulin were the most frequent treatment intensification methods. HbA1c was maintained through 2 years of treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01400971, ClinicalTrials.gov.

The Effect of DPP4 Inhibitor on Glycemic Variability in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes treated with twice-daily Premixed Human Insulin

Objective

To evaluate the effect of adding DPP4 inhibitor (DPP4-i) on glycemic variability (GV) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with premixed human insulin (MHI).

Methodology

We conducted a prospective study in patients with T2DM on twice-daily MHI with or without metformin therapy. Blinded continuous glucose monitoring was performed at baseline and following 6 weeks of Vildagliptin therapy.

Results

Twelve patients with mean (SD) age of 55.8 (13.1) years and duration of disease of 14.0 (6.6) years were recruited. The addition of Vildagliptin significantly reduced GV indices (mmol/L): SD from 2.73 (IQR 2.12-3.66) to 2.11 (1.76-2.55), p=0.015; mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) 6.94(2.61) to 5.72 (1.87), p=0.018 and CV 34.05 (8.76) to 28.19 (5.36), p=0.010. In addition, % time in range (3.9-10 mmol/l) improved from 61.17 (20.50) to 79.67 (15.33)%, p=0.001; % time above range reduced from 32.92 (23.99) to 18.50 (15.62)%, p=0.016; with reduction in AUC for hyperglycemia from 1.24 (1.31) to 0.47 (0.71) mmol/day, p=0.015. Hypoglycemic events were infrequent and the reduction in time below range and AUC for hypoglycemia did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

The addition of DPP4-I to commonly prescribed twice-daily MHI in patients with T2DM improves GV and warrants further exploration.

Initiation of four basal insulins and subsequent treatment modification in people treated for type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom: Changes over the period 2003-2018

AIMS

Aim of this study is to describe changes in the utilization of basal insulins (glargine, detemir, degludec, neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH]) among individuals with type 2 diabetes between 2003 and 2018 in the United Kingdom (UK).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum, we created three study cohorts of individuals with type 2 diabetes: (1) all users of antidiabetic drugs (n = 686,170); (2) initiators of antidiabetic drugs (n = 382,247); and (3) initiators of basal insulins (n = 85,369). Trends in prescription rates were determined using Poisson regression overall and stratified by sex, cardiovascular disease history, and obesity. Crude and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CI) comparing rates of treatment change between classes of basal insulins, with an intention-to-treat exposure definition.

RESULTS

During the study period, prescription rates of insulin analogues increased in the all-user cohort from 118.3 (95% CI: 116.4, 120.2) prescriptions per 1000 person-years in 2003 to 579.4 (95% CI: 576.9, 582.0) in 2018. Prescription rates of NPH decreased from 770.5 (95% CI: 765.0, 775.3) in 2003 to 457.7 (95% CI: 455.5, 460.0) in 2018. Compared to initiators of NPH, initiators of detemir were more likely to change treatment (adjusted HR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.25, 1.37) while glargine initiators were less likely to change treatment (adjusted HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82, 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

Basal insulin prescription evolved between 2003 and 2018. Our study provides insight into the evolving use of basal insulin among individuals with type 2 diabetes in the UK.

Comparison of insulin degludec (IDeg)/insulin Aspart (IAsp) co-formulation therapy twice-daily with free combination of GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide plus insulin degludec in Tochigi: IDEAL Trial

AIM

We compared the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart co-formulation (IDegAsp) twice-daily to a free combination of basal insulin degludec and GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide (IDeg + Lira) once-daily for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy and oral antidiabetic drugs.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients were randomly allocated at a 1:1 ratio to receive either the once-daily dual injection of IDeg + Lira (n = 24) or twice-daily single injection of IDegAsp (n = 28). The primary endpoints were as follows: HbA1c changes over 52 weeks of treatment and the percentage of participants achieving HbA1c < 7.0% at week 52.

RESULTS

After 52 weeks, HbA1c decreased by 0.3% in the IDegAsp group and by 0.7% in the IDeg + Lira group. The HbA1c reduction was greater in the IDeg + Lira group than in the IDegAsp group. 19% of patients on IDegAsp versus 40% on IDeg + Lira achieved HbA1c < 7.0%. Pre-breakfast and pre-dinner blood glucose at 52 weeks were significantly lower in the IDeg + Lira group than in the IDegAsp group. The reduction in body mass index (BMI) was greater in the IDeg + Lira group than in the IDegAsp group throughout the study period. The confirmed hypoglycaemia rates were 1.32 and 0.69 per patient/year of exposure to IDegAsp and IDeg + Lira, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy and oral antidiabetic drugs, treatment with the once-daily dual injection of IDeg + Lira compared with the twice-daily single injection of IDegAsp showed no significant difference in glycaemic control but statistically superior weight loss.

A Japanese Study Assessing Glycemic Control with Use of IDegAsp Co-formulation in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Clinical Practice: The JAGUAR Study

Introduction

The aim of this study was to evaluate the glycemic control and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) co-formulation in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a real-world clinical setting, including elderly patients (aged > 75 years).

Methods

Patients (≥ 18 years) diagnosed with T2D, previously treated with insulin were included from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Baseline data were taken at the index date, defined as the first IDegAsp prescription claim. Change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) at 12 months was estimated using a mixed model repeated measures analysis. The proportion of patients achieving target HbA_1c < 8.0% without experiencing hypoglycemia (identified by International Classification of Disease codes) was calculated at 12 months (365 ± 90 days) after baseline.

Results

Overall, 10,798 patients were included, 3940 were aged > 75 years, and 913 had baseline HbA_1c values available. Switching to IDegAsp was associated with significantly improved HbA_1c values at 12 months (− 1.23% [− 1.43, − 1.02]_95%CI, p < 0.001) versus baseline. Moreover, relative to baseline, a significantly greater proportion of patients achieved HbA_1c < 8.0% without hypoglycemia at 12 months, relative rate (RR) 1.30 [1.15, 1.45]_95%CI, p < 0.001. Results were similar for patients aged ≤ 75 years and aged > 75 years; 66% and 64% of patients, respectively, achieved HbA_1c < 8.0% without hypoglycemia at 12 months.

Conclusion

Switching from insulin to IDegAsp co-formulation was associated with significantly improved glycemic control and a reduction in hypoglycemia rate during 12 months of follow-up in Japanese patients with T2D, including those aged > 75 years.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01623-y.

A survey of physician experience and treatment satisfaction using fast-acting insulin aspart in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes

AIMS

This survey aimed to explore real-world physician experiences and treatment satisfaction with fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) in clinical practice across Europe and Canada.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online web-based survey was used for physicians treating people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. General practitioners and specialists, with experience using faster aspart, were interviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 191 physicians participated in the survey. Most of their patients (68% of those with T1D and 63% of those with T2D) were previously treated with another mealtime insulin before switching to faster aspart. At the time of initiating faster aspart, nearly half of patients had an HbA_1c level between 7.5% (59 mmol/mol) and 8.5% (69 mmol/mol). The main prescription drivers for faster aspart, versus other mealtime insulins, were faster onset of action, improved postprandial glucose (PPG) control, and dosing flexibility. Most physicians were more satisfied with faster aspart than other mealtime insulins regarding at-meal (66%) and post-meal (71%) dosing flexibility, improved PPG levels (66%), and onset of action (61%). Main reasons for not prescribing faster aspart included a good response to current treatment (76%) or patient reluctance to switch (57%). Overall, 12% of patients discontinued faster aspart, for reasons including concerns of hypoglycemia (17%), poor adherence (17%), and level of patient co-pay (17%). More than half of physicians had fewer concerns regarding postprandial hyperglycemia, and were more confident in their patients reaching their HbA_1c target with faster aspart than with other mealtime insulins.

LIMITATIONS

The findings of this survey are based heavily on physicians' experiences, and could therefore be subject to recall bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Reported physician and patient experiences of using faster aspart have been positive, and better PPG control and increased dosing flexibility are expected to improve glycemic management.

Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes: A phase III, open-label, 2:1 randomized, treat-to-target trial

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) twice daily, both ± metformin, in Chinese adults (N = 543) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on premixed/self-mixed or basal insulin ± metformin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a 26-week, phase III, open-label, treat-to-target, 2:1 randomized trial. Hierarchical testing was used with non-inferiority of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline to week 26 as the primary endpoint and superiority for the confirmatory secondary endpoints which were as follows: change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG); nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (12:01-5:59 am, inclusive); total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (severe or plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L with/without symptoms); body weight; and percentage of responders (HbA1c <53 mmol/mol [<7.0%]) without confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes.

RESULTS

Non-inferiority for change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c and superiority of IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily for change in FPG, nocturnal confirmed and total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes, was demonstrated. Estimated rates of nocturnal confirmed and total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes were 47% and 43% lower, respectively, with IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily. Superiority for change in body weight was not confirmed. Participants were more likely to reach the HbA1c goal of <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) without confirmed hypoglycaemia with IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily by trial end. No new safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of IDegAsp in Chinese patients with T2D was demonstrated, confirming results from international trials.

Clinical and economic considerations based on persistency with a novel insulin delivery device versus conventional insulin delivery in patients with type 2 diabetes: A retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

Insulin is one of the most efficacious treatments for hyperglycemia; however, adherence to insulin therapy is poor, impacting its efficacy. Thus, the objectives of this study were to determine if persistent use of a new insulin delivery option, V-Go, improved clinical outcomes and secondly compare clinical and economic outcomes between persistent use of V-Go and conventional insulin delivery (CID).

METHODS

A retrospective review of an outpatient clinic's records was performed. Patients initiating V-Go with documented persistent use of V-Go or resumed persistent use of CID after short-term V-Go use were included (≥5 months of persistency). Baseline data and a total of two post-V-Go or CID initiation visits were examined for clinical and economic outcomes. Cost-effectiveness of each therapy was calculated by dividing the mean cost difference (baseline to office visit 2) by the mean change in A1c (baseline to office visit 2).

RESULTS

V-Go persistent patients had a significant decrease in A1c (-1.42; p < 0.001). Between baseline and office visit two, they required less insulin units/day and units/kg and had significantly lower A1c, insulin units/day, insulin units/kg, and 30-day insulin costs than CID patients. V-Go persistent patients had a lower incremental cost by $695.61 per 1% change in A1c compared to CID persistent patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of a new insulin delivery option resulted in improved clinical outcomes compared to CID and was more cost-effective. Clinicians and health plans should consider the use of new insulin delivery options for the management of patients with diabetes on insulin therapy to promote persistence.

The co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart lowers fasting plasma glucose and rates of confirmed and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, independent of baseline glycated haemoglobin levels, disease duration or body mass index: A pooled meta-analysis of phase III studies in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate whether the proven benefits of insulin degludec (IDeg) combined with insulin aspart (IAsp), known as IDegAsp, given twice daily, extend across a wide spectrum of patients with diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a post hoc pooled analysis of 5 phase III randomized, 26-week, open-label, treat-to-target trials comparing IDegAsp twice daily (n = 1111) with one of two comparators: premixed insulin (biphasic insulin aspart 30 [BIAsp 30]) twice daily (n = 561) or IDeg once daily + IAsp (n = 136). Patient data were stratified according to baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) categories, as well as by baseline duration of diabetes or body mass index (BMI) categories.

RESULTS

We conducted a meta-analysis of 5 clinical trials: NCT01513590, NCT01009580, NCT01059812, NCT01680341 and NCT01713530. End-of-trial results were broadly consistent, with differences between IDegAsp and comparators observed in phase III trials. HbA1c results were similar for IDegAsp and the comparators in all baseline characteristic (HbA1c, duration of diabetes or BMI) and category groups (number ranges). Significantly lower FPG level was observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline characteristic and most category groups (excluding FPG <5.5 mmol/L). Significantly lower insulin doses were observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline characteristic and half of the category groups, and significantly lower rates of confirmed and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia were observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline variable and category groups.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp retains a consistent safety and efficacy profile in patients with different baseline characteristics.

Relative Contribution of Fasting and Postprandial Blood Glucose in Overall Glycemic Control: Post Hoc Analysis of a Phase IV Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Few prospective clinical trials have investigated the role of fasting blood glucose (FBG) and/or postprandial glucose (PPG) in assessing overall glycemic control by using different insulin regimens. In the present post hoc analysis, we assessed the contribution of FBG and/or PPG in overall glycemic control in Chinese patients under insulin treatment.

METHODS

CLASSIFY is a phase IV, randomized, open-label, 26-week, parallel-arm, treat-to-target, multinational, controlled study in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus to compare the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro mix 25 (LM25) and insulin lispro mix 50 (LM50) as starter insulins. Insulin was titrated with an aim to target pre-meal blood glucose (BG) levels at > 3.9 and ≤ 6.1 mmol/L before breakfast and dinner. The primary outcome assessed was the change in HbA1c from baseline.

RESULTS

Chinese patients contributed 38.7% (N = 156) of the total population. The majority of patients were male (52.6%). The mean (SD) body mass index was 24.54 (3.04) kg/m² and mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.54 (1.10) % at baseline. At week 26, LM50 showed a significantly greater reduction from baseline in HbA1c (- 2.03% vs - 1.55%, P < 0.001), average daily BG (- 3.21 vs - 2.34 mmol/L, P < 0.001), average post-meal BG (- 3.58 vs - 2.39 mmol/L, P < 0.001), and average prandial BG excursion (- 1.01 vs - 0.22 mmol/L, P = 0.006) than the LM25 group. The reductions in average pre-meal BG (- 2.59 vs - 2.28 mmol/L, P = 0.137) were not significantly different between the groups. The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets (< 7% or ≤ 6.5%) without nocturnal hypoglycemia or weight gain was greater (P < 0.05) with LM50 compared with LM25.

CONCLUSION

LM50 achieved better overall glycemic control than LM25 as a starter insulin in Chinese patients, which may be due to greater improvement in PPG levels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identification number: NCT01773473.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company, Shanghai, China.

Relevant patient characteristics for guiding tailored integrated diabetes primary care: a systematic review

Aim

To identify which patient-related effect modifiers influence the outcomes of integrated care programs for type 2 diabetes in primary care.

Background

Integrated care is a widespread management strategy for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. However, most integrated care programs are not tailored to patients’ needs, preferences and abilities. There is increasing consensus that such a patient-centered approach could improve the management of type 2 diabetes. Thus far, it remains unclear which patient-related effect modifiers should guide such an approach.

Methods

PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched for empirical studies published after 1998. A systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines.

Findings

In total, 23 out of 1015 studies were included. A total of 21 studies measured the effects of integrated diabetes care programs on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and three on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure and health-care utilization. In total, 49 patient characteristics were assessed as potential effect modifiers with HbA1c as an outcome, of which 46 were person or health-related and only three were context-related. Younger age, insulin therapy and longer disease duration were associated with higher HbA1c levels in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Higher baseline HbA1c was associated with higher HbA1c at follow-up in longitudinal studies. Information on context- and person-related characteristics was limited, but is necessary to help identify the care needs of individual patients and implement an effective integrated type 2 diabetes tailored care program.

A Review of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart: Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Properties and Their Implications in Clinical Use

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp; 70 % IDeg and 30 % IAsp) is a soluble combination of two individual insulin analogues in one product, designed to provide mealtime glycaemic control due to the IAsp component and basal glucose-lowering effect from the IDeg component. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of IDegAsp have been investigated in a series of clinical pharmacology studies with generally comparable designs, methodologies and patient inclusion/exclusion criteria. The glucose-lowering effect profile of IDegAsp during once-daily dosing at steady state shows distinct and clearly separated action from the prandial and basal components of IDegAsp. The IAsp component provides rapid onset and peak glucose-lowering effect followed by a flat glucose-lowering effect lasting beyond 30 h due to IDeg. During twice-daily dosing, the distinct peak effect and the flat basal effect are retained following each dose. The pharmacological properties of IDegAsp are maintained in the elderly, children, adolescents, Japanese patients and those with hepatic or renal impairment. The potential clinical benefits associated with the pharmacological properties of IDegAsp have been verified in phase III clinical trials comparing IDegAsp with three other currently available treatment options: premixed insulin, basal-bolus regimens and basal-only therapy. IDegAsp shows favourable clinical benefits compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 and is a viable alternative to basal-bolus and basal-only therapy. This review presents the results from clinical pharmacology studies conducted with IDegAsp to date, and extrapolates these results to clinical use of IDegAsp in the context of findings from the IDegAsp clinical therapeutic studies.

Correlates of basal insulin persistence among insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes: results from a multinational survey

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

People with T2DM who initiate basal insulin therapy often stop therapy temporarily or permanently soon after initiation. This study analyzes the reasons for and correlates of stopping and restarting basal insulin therapy among people with T2DM.

METHODS

An online survey was completed by 942 insulin-naïve adults with self-reported T2DM from Brazil, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, UK, and US. Respondents had initiated basal insulin therapy within the 3-24 months before survey participation and met criteria for one of three persistence groups: continuers had no gaps of ≥7 days in basal insulin treatment; interrupters had at least one gap in insulin therapy of ≥7 days within the first 6 months after initiation and had since restarted basal insulin; and discontinuers stopped using basal insulin within the first 6 months after initiation and had not restarted.

RESULTS

Physician recommendations and cost were strongly implicated in patients stopping and not resuming insulin therapy. Continuous persistence was lower for patients with more worries about insulin initiation, greater difficulties and weight gain while using insulin, and higher for those using pens and perceiving their diabetes as severe. Repeated interruption of insulin therapy was associated with hyperglycemia and treatment burden while using insulin. Resumption and perceived likelihood of resumption were associated with hyperglycemia upon insulin cessation. Perceived likelihood of resumption among discontinuers was associated with perceived benefits of insulin.

CONCLUSION

Better understanding of the risk factors for patient cessation and resumption of basal insulin therapy may help healthcare providers improve persistence with therapy.

Review of basal-plus insulin regimen options for simpler insulin intensification in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To identify simple insulin regimens for people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus that can be accepted and implemented earlier in primary and specialist care, taking into consideration each individual's needs and capabilities.

METHODS

Using randomized clinical trials identified by a search of the PubMed database, as well as systematic reviews, meta-analyses and proof-of-concept studies, this review addresses topics of interest related to the progressive intensification of a basal insulin regimen to a basal-plus regimen (one basal insulin injection plus stepwise addition of one to three preprandial short-acting insulin injections/day) vs a basal-bolus regimen (basal insulin plus three short-acting insulin injections per day) in people with Type 2 diabetes. The review explores approaches that can be used to define the meal for first prandial injection with basal-plus regimens, differences among insulin titration algorithms, and the importance of self-motivation and autonomy in achieving optimum glycaemic control.

RESULTS

A basal-plus regimen can provide glycaemic control equivalent to that obtained with a full basal-bolus regimen, with fewer injections of prandial insulin. The first critical step is to optimize basal insulin dosing to reach a fasting glucose concentration of ~6.7 mmol/l; this allows ~40% of patients with baseline HbA1c >75 mmol/mol (9%) to be controlled with only one basal insulin injection per day.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with a basal-bolus regimen, a basal-plus insulin regimen is as effective but more practical, and has the best chance of acceptance and success in the real world.

Differential Treatment Response to Insulin Intensification Therapy: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial Comparing Premixed and Basal-Bolus Insulin Regimens

INTRODUCTION

Identification of subgroups of patients that may benefit most from certain treatment is important because individual treatment response varies due to multiple contributing factors. The present study used the subgroup identification based on the differential effect search (SIDES) algorithm to identify subgroups with different treatment responses to insulin intensification therapies.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of a 24-week, multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel study comparing prandial premixed therapy (PPT) to basal-bolus therapy (BBT). Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized to PPT (insulin lispro mix 50/50 thrice daily with meals) or BBT (glargine at bedtime plus mealtime insulin lispro) insulin intensification therapies. The SIDES algorithm was used to identify the subgroups from at-goal patients [glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0% (53.0 mmol/mol) at the end of 24 weeks; n = 182] who could have benefitted from insulin intensification therapies.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of overall at-goal patients were comparable between PPT and BBT groups. The SIDES algorithm identified patients with race other than Caucasian (i.e., African-American, Asian, and Hispanic) and baseline fasting blood glucose (FBG) <8.89 mmol/L as a subgroup that could respond better to PPT relative to BBT than the overall at-goal patient population. In this identified subgroup population, the HbA1c mean (standard deviation) changes from baseline to endpoint in PPT and BBT groups were -2.27 (0.88)% versus -2.05 (0.75)%; p = 0.40, respectively; while in the overall at-goal patients, the HbA1c changes were -2.17 (0.79)% versus -2.34 (1.00)%; p = 0.19, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary results showed that the subgroup of patients with race other than Caucasian and FBG <8.89 mmol/L may respond better to premixed intensification therapy. This result provides some preliminary information for further investigation in prospective studies.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov ID number: NCT00110370.

Insulin lispro 25/75 and insulin lispro 50/50 as starter insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: subanalysis of the CLASSIFY randomized trial

In Japan, premixed insulins are commonly used as starter insulin for type 2 diabetes. This subpopulation analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of twice-daily LM25 (25% insulin lispro/75% insulin lispro protamine) and LM50 (50% insulin lispro/50% insulin lispro protamine) as starter insulin in Japanese subjects, and compared these results with the whole-trial populations of East Asian subjects. In this subpopulation analysis of an open-label, phase 4, randomized trial (CLASSIFY), Japanese subjects received LM25 (n = 88) or LM50 (n = 84) twice-daily for 26 weeks. The primary outcome was change from baseline at Week 26 in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Results for Japanese subjects were generally similar to those for the whole-trial population. Similar changes from baseline in HbA1c were observed for LM25 and LM50 groups (least squares [LS] mean difference [95% confidence interval] of LM25 - LM50 = 0.13 [-0.16, 0.41]%, 1.42 [-1.75, 4.48] mmol/mol, p = 0.388). More LM50-treated subjects than LM25-treated subjects achieved HbA1c targets of <7.0% (59.5% versus 43.2%; p = 0.034) or ≤6.5% (45.2% versus 28.4%; p = 0.027). The reduction in postprandial blood glucose concentrations after morning and evening meals was statistically significantly greater for LM50 than for LM25. The incidence of both hypoglycemia and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between treatment groups. Both LM25 and LM50 twice daily appear to be effective and well tolerated as starter insulin, although LM50 might be more effective for Japanese type 2 diabetes patients.

Glycemic Control During Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Versus Multiple Daily Insulin Injections in Type 2 Diabetes: Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis and Meta-regression of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare glycemic control during continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) in people with type 2 diabetes to identify patient characteristics that determine those best treated by CSII.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were selected comparing HbA_1c during CSII versus MDI in people with type 2 diabetes. Data sources included Cochrane database and Ovid Medline. We explored patient-level determinants of final HbA_1c level and insulin dose using Bayesian meta-regression models of individual patient data and summary effects using two-step meta-analysis. Hypoglycemia data were unavailable.

RESULTS

Five trials were identified, with 287 patients randomized to receive MDI and 303 to receive CSII. Baseline HbA_1c was the best determinant of final HbA_1c: HbA_1c difference (%) = 1.575 - (0.216 [95% credible interval 0.371-0.043] × baseline HbA_1c) for all trials, but with largest effect in the trial with prerandomization optimization of control. Baseline insulin dose was best predictor of final insulin dose: insulin dose difference (units/kg) = 0.1245 - (0.382 [0.510-0.254] × baseline insulin dose). Overall HbA_1c difference was -0.40% (-0.86 to 0.05 [-4.4 mmol/mol (-9.4 to 0.6)]). Overall insulin dose was reduced by -0.25 units/kg (-0.31 to -0.19) (26% reduction on CSII), and by -24.0 units/day (-30.6 to -17.5). Mean weight did not differ between treatments (0.08 kg [-0.33 to 0.48]).

CONCLUSIONS

CSII achieves better glycemic control than MDI in people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, with ∼26% reduction in insulin requirements and no weight change. The best effect is in those worst controlled and with the highest insulin dose at baseline.

Therapeutic molecules against type 2 diabetes: What we have and what are we expecting?

World Health Organization (WHO) has identified diabetes as one of the fastest growing non-communicable diseases with 422 million patients around the world in 2014. Diabetes, a metabolic disease, is characterized primarily by hyperglycemia which results in various macrovascular and microvascular complications like cardiovascular disease and neuropathies which can significantly deteriorate the quality of life. The body either does not manufactures enough insulin (type 1 diabetes or T1DM) or becomes insensitive to physiologically secreted insulin or both (type 2 diabetes or T2DM). The majority of the diabetic population is affected by type 2 diabetes. Currently, hyperglycemia is treated by a broad range of molecules such as biguanides, sulfonylurea, insulin, thiazolidinediones, incretin mimetics, and DPP-4 inhibitors exerting different mechanisms. However, new drug classes have indeed come in the market such as SGLT-2 inhibitors and other are in the experimental stages such as GPR 40 agonists, GSK-3 inhibitors, GK activators and GPR21 inhibitors which definitely could be anticipated as safe and effective for diabetes therapy. This article reviews the general approach to currently approved therapies for type 2 diabetes and focusing on novel approaches that could be a panacea and might be useful in the future for diabetes patients.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart once daily in Type 2 diabetes: a comparison of simple or stepwise titration algorithms (BOOST® : SIMPLE USE)

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of two titration algorithms for insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) administered once daily with metformin in participants with insulin-naïve Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

This open-label, parallel-group, 26-week, multicentre, treat-to-target trial, randomly allocated participants (1:1) to two titration arms. The Simple algorithm titrated IDegAsp twice weekly based on a single pre-breakfast self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) measurement. The Stepwise algorithm titrated IDegAsp once weekly based on the lowest of three consecutive pre-breakfast SMPG measurements. In both groups, IDegAsp once daily was titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose values of 4.0-5.0 mmol/l. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA_1c (%) after 26 weeks.

RESULTS

Change in HbA_1c at Week 26 was IDegAsp_Simple -14.6 mmol/mol (-1.3%) (to 52.4 mmol/mol; 6.9%) and IDegAsp_Stepwise -11.9 mmol/mol (-1.1%) (to 54.7 mmol/mol; 7.2%). The estimated between-group treatment difference was -1.97 mmol/mol [95% confidence interval (CI) -4.1, 0.2] (-0.2%, 95% CI -0.4, 0.02), confirming the non-inferiority of IDegAsp_Simple to IDegAsp_Stepwise (non-inferiority limit of ≤ 0.4%). Mean reduction in fasting plasma glucose and 8-point SMPG profiles were similar between groups. Rates of confirmed hypoglycaemia were lower for IDegAsp_Stepwise [2.1 per patient years of exposure (PYE)] vs. IDegAsp_Simple (3.3 PYE) (estimated rate ratio IDegAsp_Simple /IDegAsp_Stepwise 1.8; 95% CI 1.1, 2.9). Nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were similar between groups. No severe hypoglycaemic events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In participants with insulin-naïve Type 2 diabetes mellitus, the IDegAsp_Simple titration algorithm improved HbA_1c levels as effectively as a Stepwise titration algorithm. Hypoglycaemia rates were lower in the Stepwise arm.

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.

Premixed insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes: pros

Because of the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes, the need to intensify treatment to manage hyperglycemia is expanding. Premixed insulin regimens were designed to maximize patient convenience and reduce the number of daily injections required by providing both rapid-acting and intermediate-acting components in one formulation. Although the basal bolus insulin regimen is considered by many as "the golden standard" in reaching goals of glycemic control, proper use of intensified insulin regimens, such as basal bolus or premixed, will result in similar HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemic events, and weight gain. At the same number of daily insulin injections (2 shots/day), the premixed regimen is associated with a significant 0.2 % HbA1c decrease, as compared with the basal plus regimen (one shot of long-acting plus one shot of short-acting insulin). The choice of insulin regimen should consider the preferences, and resources of the individual and the family for adapting treatment to the patient needs. At last, the process of insulin initiation and intensification in type 2 diabetes must be carried out in the context of patient safety, minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, and injection burden.

Factors associated with reaching or not reaching target HbA1c after initiation of basal or premixed insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To evaluate factors associated with reaching or not reaching target glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels by analysing the respective contributions of fasting hyperglycaemia (FHG), also referred to as basal hyperglycaemia, vs postprandial hyperglycaemia (PHG) before and after initiation of a basal or premixed insulin regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis of insulin-naïve patients in the DURABLE study randomised to receive either insulin glargine or insulin lispro mix 25 evaluated the percentages of patients achieving a target HbA_1c of <7.0% (<53mmol/mol) per baseline HbA_1c quartiles, and the effect of each insulin regimen on the relative contributions of PHG and FHG to overall hyperglycaemia.

RESULTS

Patients had comparable demographic characteristics and similar HbA_1c and FHG values at baseline in each HbA_1c quartile regardless of whether they reached the target HbA_1c. The higher the HbA_1c quartile, the greater was the decrease in HbA_1c, but also the smaller the percentage of patients achieving the target HbA_1c. HbA_1c and FHG decreased more in patients reaching the target, resulting in significantly lower values at endpoint in all baseline HbA_1c quartiles with either insulin treatment. Patients not achieving the target HbA_1c had slightly higher insulin doses, but lower total hypoglycaemia rates.

CONCLUSION

Smaller decreases in FHG were associated with not reaching the target HbA_1c, suggesting a need to increase basal or premixed insulin doses to achieve targeted fasting plasma glucose and improve patient response before introducing more intensive prandial insulin regimens.

Initiation and Intensification Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes Management: A Comparison of Basal Plus and Premix Regimens

The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes (T2D) often results in the need for initiation and subsequent intensification of insulin treatment to achieve glycemic control. The aim of this review is to examine published clinical evidence that has directly compared two recommended treatment approaches in patients with T2D: (1) a 'basal plus' regimen, whereby 1-2 injections of prandial insulin are added to basal insulin; or (2) the use of once- or twice-daily premix insulin analogs, which contain both basal and prandial insulin in a single injection. Broadly, the available evidence suggests that both basal plus and premix regimens are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety when used for insulin initiation in insulin-naïve patients and intensification in patients who have failed on basal insulin; instances of greater glycemic control are observed with premix insulin; however, these are often accompanied by increases in hypoglycemia and/or weight relative to basal plus treatment, and results should be interpreted within the context of total insulin doses used. Relatively low numbers of patients achieved glycemic control when both regimens were used for insulin intensification following failure of basal insulin, suggesting that a full basal-bolus regimen and/or the use of different treatments is clinically indicated in certain patients. In summary, the current review argues that both basal plus and premix insulin regimens are relatively efficacious and safe options for patients with T2D during both insulin initiation in insulin-naïve patients and intensification in patients who have failed on basal insulin. This emphasizes the important role of patient-centered factors in clinical decision-making.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Clinical use of the co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart

AIMS

To provide a review of the available data and practical use of insulin degludec with insulin aspart (IDegAsp). Premixed insulins provide basal and prandial glucose control; however, they have an intermediate-acting prandial insulin component and do not provide as effective basal coverage as true long-acting insulins, owing to the physicochemical incompatibility of their individual components, coupled with the inflexibility of adjustment. The molecular structure of the co-formulation of IDegAsp, a novel insulin preparation, allows these two molecules to coexist without affecting their individual pharmacodynamic profiles.

METHODS

Clinical evidence in phase 2/3 trials of IDegAsp efficacy and safety in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM and T2DM) have been assessed and summarised.

RESULTS

In people with T2DM, once- and twice-daily dosing provides similar overall glycaemic control (HbA1c ) to current modern insulins, but with lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. In prior insulin users, glycaemic control was achieved with lower or equal insulin doses vs. other basal+meal-time or premix insulin regimens. In insulin-naïve patients with T2DM, IDegAsp can be started once or twice-daily, based on individual need. People switching from more than once-daily basal or premix insulin therapy can be converted unit-to-unit to once-daily IDegAsp, although this strategy should be assessed by the physician on an individual basis.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp offers physicians and people with T2DM a simpler insulin regimen than other available basal-bolus or premix-based insulin regimens, with stable daytime basal coverage, a lower rate of hypoglycaemia and some flexibility in injection timing compared with premix insulins.

Clinical inertia with regard to intensifying therapy in people with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin

AIM

To investigate whether clinical inertia, the failure to intensify treatment regimens when required, exists in people with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study involving patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink database between January 2004 and December 2011, with follow-up until December 2013.

RESULTS

A total of 11 696 patients were included in the analysis. Among all patients, 36.5% had their treatment intensified during the study period; of these, the treatment of 50.0, 42.5 and 7.4% was intensified with bolus or premix insulin or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, respectively. The median time from initiation of basal insulin to treatment intensification was 4.3 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.1, 4.6]. Among patients clinically eligible for treatment intensification [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol)], 30.9% had their treatment regimen intensified. The median time to intensification in this group was 3.7 years (95% CI 3.4, 4.0). Increasing age, duration of diabetes, oral antihyperglycaemic agent usage and Charlson comorbidity index score were associated with a significant delay in the time to intensification (p < 0.05). Among patients with HbA1c ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol), 32.1% stopped basal insulin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies should be developed to increase the number of patients undergoing therapy intensification and to reduce the delay in intensifying therapy for suitable patients on basal insulin. Initiatives to support patients continuing on insulin are also required.

Treatment intensification with an insulin degludec (IDeg)/insulin aspart (IAsp) co-formulation twice daily compared with basal IDeg and prandial IAsp in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled phase III trial

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of two insulin intensification strategies for patients with type 2 diabetes previously treated with basal insulin--insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin aspart (IAsp)--administered as a co-formulation (IDegAsp) or as a basal-bolus regimen (IDeg and IAsp in separate injections).

METHODS

This 26-week, open-label, treat-to-target, phase IIIb, non-inferiority trial randomized patients (1 : 1) to IDegAsp twice daily with main meals (n = 138; IDegAsp group) or IDeg once daily and IAsp 2-4 times daily (n = 136; IDeg+IAsp group).

RESULTS

After 26 weeks, the mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level was 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) for the IDegAsp group and 6.8% (51 mmol/mol) for the IDeg+IAsp group (Δ%HbA1c from baseline -1.31 and -1.50%, respectively). The non-inferiority of IDegAsp versus IDeg+IAsp was not confirmed for mean change in HbA1c [estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04, 0.41; p = non-significant]. No significant differences were observed in the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% (56.5 and 59.6%, respectively). IDegAsp treatment resulted in a significantly lower total daily insulin dose, a smaller change in body weight, numerically lower rates of confirmed hypoglycaemia (self-reported plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/l; rate ratio 0.81; p = non-significant), and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (rate ratio 0.80; p = non-significant) versus IDeg+IAsp. Patient-reported outcome scores for social functioning were significantly higher for IDegAsp versus IDeg+IAsp (ETD 2.2; 95% CI 0.3, 4.1; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both intensification strategies effectively improved glycaemic control. Although non-inferiority was not confirmed, there were no significant differences between the groups that could affect clinical utility.

Intensification of insulin therapy with basal-bolus or premixed insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of intensified insulin regimens (basal-bolus versus premixed) on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. We conducted an electronic search until March 2015 on many electronic databases including online registries of ongoing trials. All RCTs comparing basal-bolus with premixed insulin regimens, with a duration of >12 weeks and with >30 patients per arm, were included. Investigators extracted data on study characteristics, outcome measures, and methodological quality. We found thirteen RCTs lasting 16-60 weeks and involving 5255 patients assessed for the primary endpoint (reduction of HbA1c from baseline). Meta-analysis of change in HbA1c level between basal-bolus and premixed insulin regimens resulted in a small and non-significant difference of 0.09% (95% CI -0.03 to 0.21), with substantial heterogeneity between studies (I(2) = 74.4%). There was no statistically significant difference in the event rate for overall hypoglycemia (0.16 episode/patient/year, 95%CI -2.07 to 2.3), weight change (-0.21 kg, -0.164 to 0.185), and daily insulin dose (-0.54 U/day, -2.7 to 1.6). The likelihood for reaching the HbA1c <7% was 8% higher (3-13%, I(2) = 68.8%) with the basal-bolus as compared with the premixed regimen. There is no clinically relevant difference in the efficacy of basal-bolus versus premixed insulin regimens for HbA1c decrease in type 2 diabetic patients. These findings may be helpful to adapt treatment to individual patient needs.

Total costs of basal or premixed insulin treatment in 5077 insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes patients: register-based observational study in clinical practice

Background

To investigate the costs of treatment with basal insulin (insulin NPH [NPH], insulin glargine [IG], insulin determir [IG]), and premixed insulin (PM) in routine clinical care.

Methods

Cohort study based on data from the Swedish National Diabetes Register, including 5077 insulin-naïve men and women with type 2 diabetes, resident in a distinct geographical region of Sweden. Patients were included between 1 July 2006 and 31 December 2009 and followed for 12 months. All drug- and healthcare-related costs, stratified by diabetes-related or non-diabetes care contacts, were quantified and compared to baseline.

Results

Initiation of insulin treatment generally entails increased diabetes-related health care contacts and treatment costs, and decrease in health care costs. The median changes in costs were generally smaller than the mean changes, reflecting great variations between patients. The treatment costs were higher for IG, ID and PM compared with NPH, although higher age, history cardiovascular disease and diabetes complications as well as higher diabetes-related and other treatment costs were independent predictors. Overall, only PM (but not IG or ID) were associated with higher diabetes-related health care costs, although these were also independently predicted by cardiovascular morbidity and markers of complicated diabetes.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the initiation of insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes in clinical practice leads to increased health care contacts, overall and treatment costs, but also generally results in a decrease in health care costs. The diabetes-related treatment cost was lowest using NPH insulin but only premixed insulin was associated with higher diabetes-related health care costs than NPH.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40842-015-0017-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Practical Guidance on the Use of Premix Insulin Analogs in Initiating, Intensifying, or Switching Insulin Regimens in Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Premix insulin analogs are a well-established treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, there is a lack of simple, clear guidance on some aspects of their use. These include choosing a regimen for insulin initiation, recognizing when patients need intensification of therapy, and switching from basal-bolus to a premix insulin analog when appropriate.

METHODS

An independent expert panel formulated recommendations on the use in T2D of the premix insulin analog formulations widely available in Australasia, based on the available evidence and their own experience.

RESULTS

Results from trials in both initiation and intensification of insulin show that no single insulin or regimen is best on all endpoints, and that improved glycemic control can be expected regardless of which regimen is used. Thus, individual patient factors and preferences become more important. Guidance is presented to help the clinician choose between a premix insulin analog or basal analog for insulin initiation, and to intensify insulin therapy using premix insulin analogs. Recommendations are made on dosing, titration, the concomitant use of non-insulin glucose-lowering drugs, and other practical issues, and on the special case of switching from basal-bolus to premix insulin analog therapy.

CONCLUSION

This guidance is intended to help both general and specialist practitioners make informed choices and provide optimal care for patients with T2D. It emphasizes the importance of taking into account individual patient factors and preferences so that the choice of insulin regimen is individualized to the patient in the same way that glycemic targets are now individualized.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk Region IO A/S.

Postprandial Dysmetabolism and Oxidative Stress in Type 2 Diabetes: Pathogenetic Mechanisms and Therapeutic Strategies

Postprandial dysmetabolism in type 2 diabetes (T2D) is known to impact the progression and evolution of this complex disease process. However, the underlying pathogenetic mechanisms still require full elucidation to provide guidance for disease prevention and treatment. This review focuses on the marked redox changes and inflammatory stimuli provoked by the spike in blood glucose and lipids in T2D individuals after meals. All the causes of exacerbated postprandial oxidative stress in T2D were analyzed, also considering the consequence of enhanced inflammation on vascular damage. Based on this in-depth analysis, current strategies of prevention and pharmacologic management of T2D were critically reexamined with particular emphasis on their potential redox-related rationale.

Science of premix insulin: where have we reached?

Diabetes is a progressive disease and by achieving and maintaining optimal glycemic control, the onset of complications can be prevented or delayed. Insulin is most effective at any stage of diabetes. Although basal-bolus therapy is the gold standard treatment, it has its own limitations such as multiple pricks, close monitoring and cost. Premixed insulin on the other hand is convenient, requires fewer injections, is a single device and delivers both the basal and bolus component till the next meal. Although premixed insulin analogs have the advantages of mealtime flexibility, compliance and better post-prandial glucose control, no significant differences have been observed in HbA1c reduction and overall hypoglycemia when compared to premixed human insulin. This review will attempt to analyze the efficacy, safety and limitations of currently available premix human insulin and premix analogs including recent advancements in the area.