Comparison of Premixed Human Insulin 30/70 to Biphasic Aspart 30 in Well-Controlled Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring

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.

Glycaemia in low-premixed insulin analogue type 2 diabetes patients in a real-world setting: are the CGM targets met?

BACKGROUND

There are insufficient data on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in nonintensive insulin therapy patients. Using CGM and the recommended CGM targets, we wanted to evaluate low-premix insulin analogue therapy (biphasic aspart/NovoMix 30 and biphasic lispro 25/Humalog Mix 25) in real-world type 2 diabetes patients for glycaemic efficacy and especially hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

The prospective observational study was performed on 35 patients who were treated with a low-premixed insulin. We used the Dexcom G6 system for CGM (9.6 ± 1 days) to measure the clinically relevant CGM parameters: glycaemic variability (%CV), TBR (time below range) < 3.0 mmol/l = 54 mg/dl (level 2 hypoglycaemia), TBR 3.0-3.8 (= 54-69 mg/dl), TIR (time in range) 3.9-10-0 mmol/l (70-180 mg/dl), TAR (time above range) 10-13.9 mmol/l (180-250 mg/dl) and TAR > 13.9 mmol/l (250 mg/dl). We also assessed clinical and demographic characteristics, laboratory HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, peak postprandial glucose values, and the percentage of hypoglycaemia between 00:00 and 06:00.

RESULTS

In our patients, the average ± SD age was 70.4 ± 9.2 years, diabetes duration 17.4 ± 7.1 years, 51% were females, average daily insulin dose was 46.4 units (80% received biphasic aspart). The average ± SD TIR was 62.1 ± 12.2%, TBR < 3.0 mmol/l 0.8 ± 2.0%, TBR 3.0-3.8 mmol/l 1.5 ± 1.5%, TAR 10-13.9 mmol/l 29.2 ± 12.4%, TAR > 13.9 mmol/l 6.4 ± 7.2% and %CV 29.9 ± 7.1%. The average time in hypoglycemia was 33.1 min daily in our patients (11.5 min in the level 2 range). In the older/high-risk population, the TBR/TIR/TAR/level 2 TAR targets were met in 40/80/77/80%, respectively. For the general T2D people, level 2 TBR/TBR/TIR/TAR/level 2 TAR would be met in 74/83/34/77/49%. Average fasting blood glucose was 8.0 ± 2.5 mmol/l (144 ± 45 mg/dl), BMI 31.3 ± 5.1 kg/m2, daily insulin dose 46.4 ± 12.1 units, HbA1c 57.4 ± 5.4 mmol/mol (7.4 ± 0.7%). The glycaemic variability goal was met in 80% (with 66% meeting the lower 33% CV goal). 17 ± 12% of hypoglycaemia was nocturnal. People with TBR > 4% were significantly older.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of our type 2 diabetes patients, treated with low-premixed insulin, did not meet the recommended TBR target for older/high-risk patients while meeting the TIR and TAR targets. Nevertheless, the time spent in (total and nocturnal) hypoglycemia was short. The study indicates that the general type 2 diabetes population targets would mostly be met for TBR and %CV in our patients but not the TIR and TAR targets. CGM appears to be a useful clinical tool in these patients.

Assessment of Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemia and Inter-Day Glucose Variability Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring among Diabetic Patients on Chronic Hemodialysis

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) facilitates the assessment of short-term glucose variability and identification of acute excursions of hyper- and hypo-glycemia. Among 37 diabetic hemodialysis patients who underwent 7-day CGM with the iPRO2 device (Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, CA, USA), we explored the accuracy of glycated albumin (GA) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in assessing glycemic control, using CGM-derived metrics as the reference standard. In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) in diagnosing a time in the target glucose range of 70–180 mg/dL (TIR^70–180) in <50% of readings was higher for GA (AUC: 0.878; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.728–0.962) as compared to HbA1c (AUC: 0.682; 95% CI: 0.508–0.825) (p < 0.01). The accuracy of GA (AUC: 0.939; 95% CI: 0.808–0.991) in detecting a time above the target glucose range > 250 mg/dL (TAR^>250) in >10% of readings did not differ from that of HbA1c (AUC: 0.854; 95% CI: 0.699–0.948) (p = 0.16). GA (AUC: 0.712; 95% CI: 0.539–0.848) and HbA1c (AUC: 0.740; 95% CI: 0.570–0.870) had a similarly lower efficiency in detecting a time below target glucose range < 70 mg/dL (TBR^<70) in >1% of readings (p = 0.71). Although the mean glucose levels were similar, the coefficient of variation of glucose recordings (39.2 ± 17.3% vs. 32.0 ± 7.8%, p < 0.001) and TBR^<70 (median (range): 5.6% (0, 25.8) vs. 2.8% (0, 17.9)) were higher during the dialysis-on than during the dialysis-off day. In conclusion, the present study shows that among diabetic hemodialysis patients, GA had higher accuracy than HbA1c in detecting a 7-day CGM-derived TIR^70–180 < 50%. However, both biomarkers provided an imprecise reflection of acute excursions of hypoglycemia and inter-day glucose variability.