A comparison of twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 and once-daily insulin glargine in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on basal insulin and oral therapy: a randomized, open-label study

Advancing Therapy in Suboptimally Controlled Basal Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: Clinical Outcomes With iGlarLixi Versus Premix BIAsp 30 in the SoliMix Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To directly compare the efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination, of insulin glargine 100 units/mL and the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist lixisenatide (iGlarLixi), with those of a premix insulin analog, biphasic aspart insulin 30 (30% insulin aspart and 70% insulin aspart protamine) (BIAsp 30) as treatment advancement in type 2 diabetes suboptimally controlled on basal insulin plus oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OADs).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In SoliMix, a 26-week, open-label, multicenter study, adults with suboptimally controlled basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤10%) were randomized to once-daily iGlarLixi or twice-daily BIAsp 30. Primary efficacy end points were noninferiority in HbA1c reduction (margin 0.3%) or superiority in body weight change for iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30.

RESULTS

Both primary efficacy end points were met: after 26 weeks, baseline HbA1c (8.6%) was reduced by 1.3% with iGlarLixi and 1.1% with BIAsp 30, meeting noninferiority (least squares [LS] mean difference -0.2% [97.5% CI -0.4, -0.1]; P < 0.001). iGlarLixi was also superior to BIAsp 30 for body weight change (LS mean difference -1.9 kg [95% CI -2.3, -1.4]) and percentage of participants achieving HbA1c <7% without weight gain and HbA1c <7% without weight gain and without hypoglycemia (all P < 0.001). iGlarLixi was also superior versus BIAsp 30 for HbA1c reduction (P < 0.001). Incidence and rates of American Diabetes Association level 1 and 2 hypoglycemia were lower with iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily iGlarLixi provided better glycemic control with weight benefit and less hypoglycemia than twice-daily premix BIAsp 30. iGlarLixi is a more efficacious, simpler, and well-tolerated alternative to premix BIAsp 30 in suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes requiring treatment beyond basal insulin plus OAD therapy. VIDEO 1: diacare;dc21-0393v4/F1F1f1Infographic available at https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/dc21-0393-infographic.

Insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed-ratio combination (iGlarLixi) compared with premix or addition of meal-time insulin to basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide, relative to premix insulin and other insulin options through network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing iGlarLixi, premix insulin or basal insulin (BI) in combination with meal-time insulin, in people inadequately controlled with BI. Eligible RCTs were compared using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, some open-label, involving 3538 participants, with a study duration of 24-30 weeks were included. The estimated difference in HbA1c reduction with iGlarLixi compared with premix insulin was -0.50%-units (95% credible interval: -0.93 to -0.06) with 98% probability of iGlarLixi being superior to premix. Estimates for iGlarLixi versus meal-time + BI (thrice-daily meal-time insulin + basal) and basal-plus (once-daily meal-time insulin + BI) were -0.35 (-0.89 to +0.13)%-units and -0.68 (-1.18 to -0.17)%-units with probabilities of real difference of 94% and 99%, respectively. Safety outcome analysis suggested that iGlarLixi had lower rates of both confirmed and documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia compared with premix insulin (probabilities of 85% and 93%, respectively) and lower weight gain (probability 98%).

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi showed similar or improved efficacy and safety versus other intensification choices from BI included in this study, providing a clinically relevant treatment option in people with type 2 diabetes not well controlled on BI.

Comparison of lixisenatide in combination with basal insulin vs other insulin regimens for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by basal insulin: Systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

AIMS

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of lixisenatide combined with basal insulin (BI) vs intensive premix insulin (premix), BI plus prandial insulin with the main meal (basal-plus) or progressively covering all meals (basal-bolus) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled by BI, and the long-term cost-effectiveness of lixisenatide from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1998 and 2018 were systematically searched. The clinical efficacy and safety of each treatment were compared by network meta-analysis (NMA). The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct medical costs of patients treated with different strategies.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were finally included. Lixisenatide plus BI showed a similar reduction in HbA1c from baseline compared with premix, basal-plus and basal-bolus. There were significant differences in the change of body weight in favour of lixisenatide plus BI compared with the three insulin regimens. The risk of symptomatic hypoglycaemia of lixisenatide plus BI was significantly lower compared with premix and basal-bolus. Lixisenatide plus BI was cost-effective compared with premix, basal-plus and basal-bolus with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Chinese yuan (CNY) 87 219, 48 173 and 48 670 per QALY gained, respectively, under the threshold of three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China.

CONCLUSIONS

Lixisenatide plus BI shows a similar HbA1c reduction compared with insulin regimens, accompanied by lower risk of hypoglycaemia and greater body weight reduction. It is a cost-effective treatment alternative for patients with T2DM inadequately controlled by BI in China.

Observational study evaluating the effectiveness of physician-targeted education for improving glycemic management of patients with type 2 diabetes (BEYOND II)

BACKGROUND

Because there has been no quality improvement initiatives targeting patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) receiving basal insulin therapy, this study evaluated the effectiveness of physician-targeted education for optimizing glycemic management in these patients in China.

METHODS

This multicenter open-label observational study conducted across China had a baseline sample survey, followed by a 6-month education program, and ended with a post-education sample survey. Education based on T2D treatment guidelines was given at Months 1 and 3, and was reinforced by self-audit every month. Each hospital enrolled 100 patients with T2D receiving basal insulin at both the baseline and post-education survey. The primary outcome was the proportion of hospitals meeting individual improvement goals. The goal setting was based on the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% in each hospital at the time of the baseline survey.

RESULTS

Overall, the individual improvement goal was achieved by 35 centers (49%). Hospitals with poor glycemic management at the baseline survey had higher possibility to improve at post-education survey. Two large sample surveys at baseline and post-education showed improved glucose management among these hospitals. A higher proportion of patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% in the post-education survey (27.2% vs 36.5%; P < 0.001) with reduced HbA1c levels (8.10% vs 7.72%; P < 0.001). Questionnaires from 723 physicians showed that confidence and practice of basal insulin use were significantly improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician-targeted education improved glycemic management of patients with T2D in 71 hospitals in China, and was more effective at hospitals with poor glycemic management at the baseline survey.

Efficacy and Safety of Basal Analog Regimens in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

This study compared basal analog (BA: glargine U100/mL and detemir) and premix (PM: human, lispro and aspart biphasic) insulin regimens in terms of their efficacy and safety in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

METHODS

Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL identified primary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ≥ 12 weeks in duration that compared BA or PM insulin regimens in adults with T2DM, with ≥ 30 patients per arm. A systematic literature review and a pairwise meta-analysis were performed using a random effects model adjusted for between-study variability. Analyses were conducted based on frequency of bolus insulin and PM injections, PM ratio and type, BA type, race, follow-up period, and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c).

RESULTS

Twenty-two primary RCTs with 9691 patients were included. The BA and PM regimens yielded similar changes in HbA1c and postprandial glucose levels, with a statistically significant reduction in fasting glucose [mean difference (MD) - 0.61 mmol/L (95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.90, - 0.32), I² = 89.6%]. The BA regimens showed significantly reduced rates of total hypoglycemia [odds ratio (OR) 0.77 (95% CI 0.64, 0.92), I² = 65.3%] and changes in body weight [MD - 0.48 kg (95% CI - 0.86, - 0.11), I² = 75.7%] compared to PM regimens. Stratification by PM type and dosing ratio demonstrated statistically significant reductions in HbA1c favoring BA compared to human [MD - 0.39% (95% CI - 0.60, - 0.18), I² = 61.8%] or 50/50-ratio [MD - 0.22% (95% CI - 0.40, - 0.04), I² = 0.0%] PM regimens. Other subgroup analyses found no difference in HbA1c change between the BA and PM regimens.

CONCLUSION

When compared to PM regimens, BA regimens yielded similar efficacies and better safety profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

FUNDING

Sanofi (Shanghai, China).

Efficacy and safety of once-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart compared with once-daily insulin glargine in participants with Type 2 diabetes: a randomized, treat-to-target study

AIMS

To investigate, in a 26-week, open-label, randomized, treat-to-target trial, the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) once daily vs insulin glargine (IGlar) once daily in adults with Type 2 diabetes, inadequately controlled on basal insulin.

METHODS

Participants were randomized (1:1) to IDegAsp once daily or IGlar once daily in combination with existing oral antidiabetic drugs. IDegAsp once daily was administered with the main evening meal or the largest meal of the day (agreed at baseline); dosing time was maintained throughout the trial. Participants titrated their insulin dose weekly to a mean pre-breakfast self-measured plasma glucose target [3.9-4.9 mmol/l (70-89 mg/dl)].

RESULTS

IDegAsp once daily was non-inferior to IGlar once daily in reducing HbA_1c after 26 weeks [mean estimated treatment difference IDegAsp once daily - IGlar once daily: -0.03% (95% CI -0.20, 0.14)]. The evening meal glucose increment was significantly lower with IDegAsp once daily vs IGlar once daily [estimated treatment difference IDegAsp once daily - IGlar once daily: -1.32 mmol/l (95% CI -1.93, -0.72); P < 0.05]. The overall confirmed hypoglycaemia rate was higher with IDegAsp once daily (estimated rate ratio 1.43; 95% CI 1.07, 1.92; P < 0.05). The rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia did not significantly differ between the IDegAsp and IGlar groups [estimated rate ratio 0.80 (95% CI 0.49, 1.30); not significant].

CONCLUSIONS

In participants with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin, IDegAsp once daily improved glycaemic control and was non-inferior to IGlar once daily. IDegAsp led to higher rates of overall hypoglycaemia than IGlar, with no significant difference in rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

Efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart and biphasic insulin lispro mix in patients with type 2 diabetes: A review of the literature

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) represents an escalating burden worldwide, particularly in China and India. Compared with Caucasians, Asian people with diabetes have lower body mass index, increased visceral adiposity, and postprandial glucose (PPG)/insulin resistance. Since postprandial hyperglycemia contributes significantly to total glycemic burden and is associated with heightened cardiovascular risk, targeting PPG early in T2D is paramount. Premixed insulin regimens are widely used in Asia due to their convenience and effectiveness. Data from randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with biphasic insulin lispro mix (LM 25/50) and versus other insulin therapies or oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in T2D demonstrated that BIAsp 30 and LM 25/50 were associated with similar or greater improvements in glycemic control versus comparator regimens, such as basal-bolus insulin, in insulin-naÏve, and prior insulin users. Studies directly comparing BIAsp 30 and LM 25 provided conflicting glycemic control results. Safety data generally showed increased hypoglycemia and weight gain with premixed insulins versus basal-bolus insulin or OADs. However, large observational trials documented improvements in glycated hemoglobin, PPG, and hypoglycemia with BIAsp 30 in multi-ethnic patient populations. In summary, this literature review demonstrates that premixed insulin regimens are an appropriate and effective treatment choice in T2D.

Safety and efficacy of insulin glargine 300 u/mL compared with other basal insulin therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of a concentrated formulation of insulin glargine (Gla-300) with other basal insulin therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

DESIGN

This was a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised clinical trials of basal insulin therapy in T2DM identified via a systematic literature review of Cochrane library databases, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and PsycINFO.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Changes in HbA1c (%) and body weight, and rates of nocturnal and documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia were assessed.

RESULTS

41 studies were included; 25 studies comprised the main analysis population: patients on basal insulin-supported oral therapy (BOT). Change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was comparable between Gla-300 and detemir (difference: -0.08; 95% credible interval (CrI): -0.40 to 0.24), neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH; 0.01; -0.28 to 0.32), degludec (-0.12; -0.42 to 0.20) and premixed insulin (0.26; -0.04 to 0.58). Change in body weight was comparable between Gla-300 and detemir (0.69; -0.31 to 1.71), NPH (-0.76; -1.75 to 0.21) and degludec (-0.63; -1.63 to 0.35), but significantly lower compared with premixed insulin (-1.83; -2.85 to -0.75). Gla-300 was associated with a significantly lower nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate versus NPH (risk ratio: 0.18; 95% CrI: 0.05 to 0.55) and premixed insulin (0.36; 0.14 to 0.94); no significant differences were noted in Gla-300 versus detemir (0.52; 0.19 to 1.36) and degludec (0.66; 0.28 to 1.50). Differences in documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia rates of Gla-300 versus detemir (0.63; 0.19 to 2.00), NPH (0.66; 0.27 to 1.49) and degludec (0.55; 0.23 to 1.34) were not significant. Extensive sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

NMA comparisons are useful in the absence of direct randomised controlled data. This NMA suggests that Gla-300 is also associated with a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared with NPH and premixed insulin, with glycaemic control comparable to available basal insulin comparators.

Cost-effectiveness of once daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide compared to bolus insulin both in combination with basal insulin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes in Norway

BACKGROUND

Lixisenatide is a potent, selective and short-acting once daily prandial glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist which lowers glycohemoglobin and body weight by clinically significant amounts in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin, with limited risk of hypoglycemia.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of lixisenatide versus bolus insulin, both in combination with basal insulin, in patients with type 2 diabetes in Norway.

METHODS

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model, a non-product-specific and validated simulation model, was used to make clinical and cost projections. Transition probabilities, risk adjustments and the progression of complication risk factors were derived from the UK Prospective Diabetes Study, supplemented with Norwegian data. Patients were assumed to receive combination treatment with basal insulin, lixisenatide or bolus insulin therapy for 3 years, followed by intensification of a basal-bolus insulin regimen for their remaining lifetime. Simulated healthcare costs, taken from the public payer perspective, were derived from microcosting and diagnosis related groups, discounted at 4% per annum and reported in Norwegian krone (NOK). Productivity costs were also captured based on extractions from the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration. Health state utilities were derived from a systematic literature review. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Lixisenatide in combination with basal insulin was associated with increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and reduced lifetime healthcare costs compared to bolus insulin in combination with basal insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes, and can be considered dominant. The net monetary benefit of lixisenatide versus bolus insulin was NOK 39,369 per patient. Results were sensitive to discounting, the application of excess body weight associated disutility and uncertainty surrounding the changes in HbA1c.

CONCLUSIONS

Lixisenatide may be considered an economically efficient therapy in combination with basal insulin in the Norwegian setting, due to cost savings, weight loss and associated gains in health-related quality of life.

Achieving glycaemic targets with basal insulin in T2DM by individualizing treatment

Insulin therapy is an effective method for reducing blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and most patients with T2DM eventually require insulin replacement to attain and preserve satisfactory glycaemic control. All patients with T2DM should be considered as potential candidates for intensive insulin treatment; however, there are certain considerations regarding replacement therapy for different types of people and special populations, such as patients with multiple comorbidities, adolescents, pregnant women and the elderly. Lowering HbA1c levels in isolation without assessing the patient as a whole is becoming redundant. HbA1c targets should be individualized to the specific patient, and insulin treatment ought to be customized accordingly. There are several questions that need to be taken into account when considering adding insulin therapy to other oral antidiabetic agents, for example, for whom and when insulin therapy is indicated and which basal insulin should be utilized. Potential barriers exist related to patients, providers and health-care systems that can delay the start of insulin therapy, and every effort should be made to identify and address these obstacles.

Optimal therapy of type 2 diabetes: a controversial challenge

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the most common chronic disorders in older adults and the number of elderly diabetic subjects is growing worldwide. Nonetheless, the diagnosis of T2DM in elderly population is often missed or delayed until an acute metabolic emergency occurs. Accumulating evidence suggests that both aging and environmental factors contribute to the high prevalence of diabetes in the elderly. Clinical management of T2DM in elderly subjects presents unique challenges because of the multifaceted geriatric scenario. Diabetes significantly lowers the chances of "successful" aging, notably it increases functional limitations and impairs quality of life. In this regard, older diabetic patients have a high burden of comorbidities, diabetes-related complications, physical disability, cognitive impairment and malnutrition, and they are more susceptible to the complications of dysglycemia and polypharmacy. Several national and international organizations have delivered guidelines to implement optimal therapy in older diabetic patients based on individualized treatment goals. This means appreciation of the heterogeneity of the disease as generated by life expectancy, functional reserve, social support, as well as personal preference. This paper will review current treatments for achieving glycemic targets in elderly diabetic patients, and discuss the potential role of emerging treatments in this patient population.

A comparison of biphasic insulin aspart and insulin glargine administered with oral antidiabetic drugs in type 2 diabetes mellitus--a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

It is uncertain whether the addition of biphasic insulin analogues to oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) is as effective and safe as basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We performed a systematic review to compare glycaemic control and selected clinical outcomes in T2DM patients inadequately controlled with OADs whose treatment was intensified by adding biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) or insulin glargine (IGlar).

METHODS

The analysis included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified by a systematic literature search in medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and other sources) up to March 2013. Studies met the inclusion criteria if they compared BIAsp 30 vs. IGlar added to at least one OAD in T2DM patients. Trials applying different OADs in both treatment arms were also included. Results were presented as weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Five trials, including a total number of 1758 patients followed up from 24 to 28 weeks, were identified. Quantitative synthesis demonstrated that BIAsp 30 reduced HbA1c level more efficiently than IGlar [5 RCTs; WMD (95% CI): -0.21% (-0.35%, -0.08%)]. Differences were observed in favour of BIAsp for lower mean prandial glucose increment [3 RCTs; WMD (95% CI): -14.70 mg/dl (-20.09, -9.31)]; no difference was observed for fasting plasma glucose [3 RCTs; WMD (95% CI): 7.09 mg/dl (-15.76, 29.94)]. We found no evidence for higher risk of overall [2 RCTs; 63% vs. 51%; OR = 1.77 (0.91; 3.44)] and severe hypoglycaemic episodes [4 RCTs; 0.98% vs. 1.12%; OR (95% CI) = 0.88 (0.31, 2.53)] in the BIAsp 30 group as compared with IGlar group. Twice-daily administration of BIAsp 30 resulted in larger weight gain [2 RCTs; WMD (95% CI) = 1.78 kg (1.04; 2.52)].

CONCLUSIONS

BIAsp 30 added to OAD therapy results in a better glycaemic control as compared with IGlar in T2DM patients. BIAsp 30 use is associated with slightly larger weight gain but no rise in risk of severe hypoglycaemic episodes.

Evidence-based clinical use of insulin premixtures

Brazil is expected to have 19.6 million patients with diabetes by the year 2030. A key concept in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is establishing individualized glycemic goals based on each patient's clinical characteristics, which impact the choice of antihyperglycemic therapy. Targets for glycemic control, including fasting blood glucose, postprandial blood glucose, and glycated hemoglobin (A1C), are often not reached solely with antihyperglycemic therapy, and insulin therapy is often required. Basal insulin is considered an initial strategy; however, premixed insulins are convenient and are equally or more effective, especially for patients who require both basal and prandial control but desire a more simplified strategy involving fewer daily injections than a basal-bolus regimen. Most physicians are reluctant to transition patients to insulin treatment due to inappropriate assumptions and insufficient information. We conducted a nonsystematic review in PubMed and identified the most relevant and recently published articles that compared the use of premixed insulin versus basal insulin analogues used alone or in combination with rapid-acting insulin analogues before meals in patients with T2DM. These studies suggest that premixed insulin analogues are equally or more effective in reducing A1C compared to basal insulin analogues alone in spite of the small increase in the risk of nonsevere hypoglycemic events and nonclinically significant weight gain. Premixed insulin analogues can be used in insulin-naïve patients, in patients already on basal insulin therapy, and those using basal-bolus therapy who are noncompliant with blood glucose self-monitoring and titration of multiple insulin doses. We additionally provide practical aspects related to titration for the specific premixed insulin analogue formulations commercially available in Brazil.

Initiating or switching to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes patients from Algeria: a sub-analysis of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To determine the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Algerian patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin or switching from prior insulin therapy.

METHODS

Insulin-naive and insulin-experienced patients, including prior basal insulin users, starting BIAsp 30 were evaluated in this sub-analysis of the 24-week, open-label, non-interventional A₁chieve study. Clinical safety and effectiveness was evaluated as a part of routine clinical care.

RESULTS

A total of 134 insulin-naive patients initiating BIAsp 30 at a mean dose of 0.44 ± 0.23 U/kg and 283 insulin-experienced patients, including 129 prior basal insulin users, switching from a mean pre-study insulin dose of 0.51 ± 0.23 U/kg to BIAsp 30 (0.54 ± 0.20 U/kg) were evaluated. At Week 24, the average BIAsp 30 dose was 0.60 ± 0.25 U/kg and 0.66 ± 0.24 U/kg in insulin-naive and insulin-experienced patients, respectively. No serious adverse drug reactions were reported. From baseline to Week 24, the proportion of patients experiencing overall hypoglycaemia increased in the insulin-naive group (p = 0.0067) and no significant changes were reported in the insulin-experienced group including prior basal insulin users. Glucose control improved significantly in the insulin-experienced group (p < 0.001) and appeared to improve in the insulin-naive patients and prior basal insulin users as well. Body weight increased significantly in all patients (p < 0.001). Quality of life was positively impacted after 24 weeks of BIAsp 30 therapy.

CONCLUSION

Initiating or switching to BIAsp 30 therapy in this Algerian cohort was well-tolerated and significantly improved glucose control.

Intensifying insulin treatment: options, practical issues, and the role of the nurse practitioner

PURPOSE

Failure to achieve and maintain glycemic targets in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a major clinical issue. Effectively combating the barriers that postpone timely intensification, and educating patients on available treatment options, are key roles of the nurse practitioner. This article summarizes practical considerations in the management of T2D at this stage.

DATA SOURCES

Published guidelines for the management of T2D, primary and review articles, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prescribing information.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients receiving insulin therapy not achieving targets despite dose titration, a change in insulin regimen may be necessary to achieve clinical targets while minimizing hypoglycemia and weight gain. Whichever strategy is initiated first must be tailored to the individual and include on-going monitoring to manage both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. In addition to considerations of glycemic control, the timing and method of insulin intensification will depend on patient willingness, overall health status, meal patterns and routines, and risk of hypoglycemia. Common patient barriers to insulin intensification include regimen complexity and increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Support and education on available treatment regimens are key to achieve a comfort level with intensifying insulin therapy that will lead to improved treatment adherence.

Ten years of experience with biphasic insulin aspart 30: from drug development to the latest clinical findings

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) includes 30% soluble rapid-acting insulin aspart (IAsp) along with an intermediate-acting 70% protaminated IAsp that provides coverage of prandial and basal insulin in a single injection. As BIAsp 30 has been available internationally for 10 years, this review provides a comprehensive overview of the discovery of BIAsp 30, its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile, safety and efficacy outcomes from the clinical trial programme, 'real-life' clinical insights provided by observational study data, and cost effectiveness and quality-of-life information. These studies have demonstrated that BIAsp 30 once or twice daily is an appropriate option for insulin initiation. BIAsp 30 also provides a switch option in patients on biphasic human insulin (BHI). Switching from BHI to BIAsp 30 is associated with improved postprandial glucose (PPG) and reduced nocturnal and major hypoglycaemia, although daytime hypoglycaemia is higher with BIAsp 30. Intensification of BIAsp 30 can be achieved by increasing the number of daily doses up to three times daily with meals. Therefore, BIAsp 30 provides an intensification option for individuals who are not achieving control with basal insulin and would prefer the simplicity of a single biphasic insulin instead of progressing to a basal-bolus approach. BIAsp 30 has a simple dose-titration algorithm, which enables patients to effectively self-titrate their insulin dose. Cost-effectiveness analyses have demonstrated that BIAsp 30 is cost effective or dominant compared with BHI 30 or insulin glargine in a number of healthcare settings. In conclusion, BIAsp 30 offers a simple and flexible option for insulin initiation and intensification that provides coverage of both fasting and prandial glucose.

Basal insulin treatment in type 2 diabetes

Insulin glargine is the first 24-h recombinant DNA insulin analog introduced to the market. Substitution of glycine for asparagine and addition of two arginine residues raise the isoelectric point of insulin glargine and result in microprecipitates, delaying absorption from subcutaneous tissue. This delayed absorption result in fairly flat 24-h insulin concentration profiles with no discernible peak. Large, multicenter, randomized, controlled trials in patients with type 2 diabetes show that although NPH insulin and insulin glargine are equally effective in lowering glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) and fasting blood glucose, there is a clear advantage of insulin glargine over NPH insulin in reducing nocturnal and overall hypoglycemia. Lower risk of hypoglycemia with glargine was also consistently demonstrated by trials comparing insulin glargine and premixed analog insulins. These studies also showed greater reduction in A1c with twice-daily premixed insulins compared with glargine, when insulin glargine was administered without mealtime insulin coverage. Insulin glargine was also compared with another insulin analog, insulin detemir. Trials showed that both insulin analogs are equally effective in lowering A1c and have comparable risk of hypoglycemia. Trials comparing insulin glargine with glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists showed comparable significant reductions in A1c with both regimens. Insulin glargine is well tolerated, has low immunogenicity, reduced risks for acute myocardial infarction, and a lower risk of hypoglycemia compared with NPH insulin in individuals with type 2 diabetes.