Comparison of 2 intensification regimens with rapid-acting insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by once-daily insulin detemir and oral antidiabetes drugs: the step-wise randomized study

Insulin Inertia Among People With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Qatar: The INERT-Q Study

BACKGROUND

Achieving and maintaining adequate glycaemic control is critical to reduce diabetes-related complications. Therapeutic inertia is one of the leading causes of suboptimal glycaemic control.

AIM

To assess the degree of inertia in insulin initiation and intensification in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM-2).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective longitudinal cohort study and followed DM-2 2 years before and 2 years after the start of insulin. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved glycaemic targets (HBA1c ≤ 7.5%) at 6th month, 1st year and 2nd year.

RESULTS

We included 374 predominantly male subjects (62%). The mean age was 55.3 ± 11.3 years, the mean duration of DM-2 was 12.0 ± 7.3 years, 64.4% were obese, 47.6% had a microvascular disease, and 24.3% had a macrovascular disease. The mean HBA1c at -2nd year and -1st year was 9.2 ± 2.1% and 9.3 ± 2.0%, respectively. The mean HbA1C at the time of insulin initiation was 10.4 ± 2.1%. The mean HBA1c at 6th month, 12th month and 2nd year was 8.5 ± 1.8%, 8.4 ± 1.8% and 8.5 ± 1.7%, respectively. The proportion of subjects who achieved HBA1c targets at 6th month, 12th month and 2nd year was 32.9%, 31.0% and 32.9%, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that achieving HBA1c targets at 6th month and 1st year increases the odds of achieving HBA1c targets at 2nd year (OR 4.87 [2.4-9.6] p < 0.001) and (OR 6.2 [3.2-12.0], p < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

In people with DM-2, there was an alarming delay in starting and titrating insulin. The reduction in HBA1c plateaued at 6th month. Earlier initiation and intensification of insulin therapy are critical to achieving glycaemic targets. More studies are needed to examine the causes of therapeutic inertia from physicians', patients' and systems' points of view.

Expert Group Recommendations on the Effective Use of Bolus Insulin in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Evidence suggests a major contribution of postprandial glucose (PPG) excursions to the increased risk of micro- and macro-vascular complications in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Administration of bolus insulin remains a very effective therapeutic option for PPG control. The aim of this expert group recommendation document was to provide practical and easy-to-execute guidelines for physicians on the appropriate use of bolus insulin in the management of T2DM. A panel of key opinion leaders from India reviewed and discussed the available clinical evidence and guideline recommendations on the following topics: (1) optimum control of PPG; (2) choice of bolus insulin; and (3) special situations and practical considerations. The expert panel critically analyzed the current literature and clinical practice guidelines and factored their rich clinical experience to develop a set of nine expert group recommendations for the effective use of bolus insulin. These recommendations will not only result in a more evidence-based application of bolus insulin in the clinical setting but also trigger further research and provide a valuable base for the development of future guidelines on the use of bolus insulin in the management of individuals with T2DM.

Addition of a single short-acting insulin bolus to basal insulin-supported oral therapy: a systematic review of data on the basal-plus regimen

We summarize here clinical and trial data on a once-daily administration of a single bolus to the meal with the largest expected postprandial glucose excursion (basal-plus), and comment on its clinical utility in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. A PubMed search of data published until September 2018 was taken into consideration and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Eighteen reports representing 15 studies were identified (age: 18-80 years; 50-890 patients; follow-up: 8 days to 60 weeks). Data suggest basal-plus is efficacious for improving glycemic control, with a low incidence of (severe) hypoglycemia and minor increases in bodyweight. The timing of short-acting insulin administration and use of different monitoring/titration approaches appear to have minimal impact. When compared with premixed insulin, basal-plus results in largely comparable outcomes. Compared with basal-bolus, it may result in non-inferior glycemic improvements with less weight gain, less hypoglycemia and fewer daily injections. A basal insulin/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist fixed ratio combination may offer several advantages over the basal-plus regimen, at the cost of gastrointestinal side effects. We conclude that the stepwise introduction of short-acting insulin via the basal-plus strategy represents a viable alternative to a full basal-bolus regimen and may help to overcome barriers associated with multiple injections and anticipated complexity of the insulin regimen.

Approaches to rapid acting insulin intensification in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus not achieving glycemic targets

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a growing problem in the USA, affecting 30.3 million Americans, or 9.4% of the US population. Given that T2DM is a progressive disease, intensification of rapid acting insulin (RAI) to address hyperglycaemia is often required. The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend individualizing the treatment approach to glucose control, considering factors such as age, health behaviours, comorbidities and life expectancy. There are several validated treatment algorithms in the literature, which can be helpful for providing guidance on initiation of RAI while simultaneously considering patient preferences and clinical needs during treatment intensification. This paper provides expert recommendations on prandial insulin regimens and how to use treatment algorithms to promote better glucose control through best practice guidelines. To help patients reach HbA1c targets through treatment intensification, the FullSTEP, SimpleSTEP, ExtraSTEP and AUTONOMY algorithms are discussed in this paper. KEY MESSAGES Clinical inertia should be prevented with timely intensification of therapy when HbA1c levels are greater than 7% (or rising above a patient's individual target) according to national guidelines. Increased personalization in the intensification of T2D treatment is necessary to improve HbA1c targets while addressing risk of hypoglycaemia, concern about weight gain, and overall health goals. Healthcare providers are encouraged to address glycaemic control with a variety of strategies, including prandial insulin, while developing evidence-based treatment plans on the basis of algorithms discussed in the literature.

A practical approach and algorithm for intensifying beyond basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Despite the availability of long-term data demonstrating the benefits of timely and aggressive intensification of antihyperglycaemic regimens among individuals with type 2 diabetes, intensification beyond basal insulin continues to be suboptimal and a global challenge. This review summarizes the evidence surrounding the various options of advancing glucose-lowering management beyond basal insulin and provides a practical algorithm to assist in optimizing patient care and enhancing glycaemic target achievements.

Importance of fasting blood glucose goals in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review of the literature and a critical appraisal

Prandial insulin has been essential for the improved management of the type 1 diabetic patient. Interestingly, many studies have evaluated the addition of prandial insulin to the type 2 diabetic patients with improved control. The greatest drop in A1c with the use of various type of prandial insulins have resulted in the decrease of 1.3% in the A1c measurement. Interestingly, none of the published trials with goal of fasting blood glucose (FBG) have ever obtained the goal A1c. Since a drop in FBG of 28.7mg/dl is equal to a 1% drop in A1c, a simple approach to obtain a target A1c would be to focus on the FBG (per ADA: Average Blood Glucose = A1c (%) x 28.7 - 46.7mg/d). However, average blood glucose requires multiple measurements and may be less accurate then using just a FBG. Since prandial insulin clinical trials have only demonstrated a drop in A1c by 0.3-1.3% the use of only a FBG to help patients get to goal may be easier to teach and to obtain. It might save time and money. Our hypothesis is that if patient obtain a FBG <100 mg/dl for 2-3 months then 70% will be at an A1c goal <7.0%. After a few months of good fasting glucose control the provider can use this equation (FBG+80)/30 to estimate A1c. For example, a FBG of 130mg/dl would be (130 + 80)/30 = 7.0%; or a FBG of 190 would be (190+80)/30 =eA1c 9% (estimate of A1c). While type 1 diabetes has a very complex daily glucose pattern, the approach to type 2 diabetics on insulin could become simplified.

Strategies for implementing effective mealtime insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a growing global epidemic. Due to the progressive nature of the disease, many people with T2D require insulin at some point, most commonly a long-acting (basal) insulin to assist with 24-h control of glucose levels.

OBJECTIVE

This opinion paper provides an overview of considerations for primary care providers (PCPs) in intensifying the treatment regimen when basal insulin therapy is inadequate.

RESULTS

Control of mealtime hyperglycemia, in addition to fasting hyperglycemia, has been shown to be crucial in reaching A1c goals of <7.0%. However, initiating and optimizing mealtime insulin therapy can be challenging for both people with T2D and PCPs, due to a perceived lack of efficacy and burden of insulin treatment, causing "psychological insulin resistance" in people with T2D and clinical inertia among PCPs. Successful implementation of mealtime insulin therapy requires not only choosing appropriate treatment strategies, but also addressing patient-related behavioral and emotional barriers. Simplified treatment algorithms, combined with the use of advanced technology (devices such as insulin pens, pumps, and patches), and collaborative decision-making can help decrease barriers to effective mealtime insulin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to implement an effective basal-bolus insulin regimen in people with T2D in a way that improves glucose control while minimizing negative effects on quality-of-life, treatment satisfaction, and psychological well-being.

DEVOTE 5: Evaluating the Short-Term Cost-Utility of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in Basal-Bolus Regimens for Type 2 Diabetes in the UK

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term cost-utility of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the basal-bolus subgroup of the head-to-head cardiovascular (CV) outcome trial, DEVOTE.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted over a 2-year time horizon using a decision analytic model to compare costs in patients receiving once daily degludec or glargine U100, both as part of a basal-bolus regimen, in addition to standard care. Clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were taken exclusively from DEVOTE, whilst health-related quality of life utilities and UK-specific costs (expressed in 2016 GBP) were obtained from the literature. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service.

RESULTS

Degludec was associated with mean cost savings of GBP 28.78 per patient relative to glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk. Cost savings were driven by the reduction in risk of diabetes-related complications with degludec, which offset the higher treatment costs relative to glargine U100. Degludec was associated with a mean improvement of 0.0064 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with glargine U100, with improvements driven predominantly by lower rates of severe hypoglycemia with degludec versus glargine U100. Improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy combined with cost neutrality resulted in degludec being dominant over glargine U100. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the incremental cost-utility ratio was stable to variations in the majority of model inputs.

CONCLUSION

The present short-term modeling analysis found that for the basal-bolus subgroup of patients in DEVOTE, with a high risk of CV events, degludec was cost neutral (no additional costs) compared with glargine U100 over a 2-year time horizon in the UK setting. Furthermore, there were QALY gains with degludec, particularly due to the reduction in the risk of severe hypoglycemia.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01959529.

Evidence-based recommendations for insulin intensification strategies after basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Over the time due to progressive nature of diabetes, proactive intensification of the existing insulin therapy becomes imminent as it minimizes patients' exposure to chronic hypo/hyperglycaemia and reduces weight gain while achieving individualized glycaemic targets. This review focuses on the strength of evidence behind various options for intensification, primarily the insulins as also the GLP-1 analogues. The recommendations presented here are meant to serve as a guide for the physician managing type 2 diabetes patients requiring insulin intensification upon failing of basal insulin 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.

Faster Aspart Versus Insulin Aspart as Part of a Basal-Bolus Regimen in Inadequately Controlled Type 2 Diabetes: The onset 2 Trial

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter, double-blind, treat-to-target, phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) versus insulin aspart (IAsp) in adults with type 2 diabetes receiving basal insulin and oral antidiabetic agents. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The primary end point was HbA_1c change from baseline after 26 weeks' treatment. After an 8-week run-in to optimize basal insulin, subjects were randomized (1:1) to mealtime faster aspart (n = 345) or IAsp (n = 344), titrated using a simple daily patient-driven algorithm, plus insulin glargine U100 and metformin.

RESULTS

HbA_1c change was -1.38% (faster aspart) and -1.36% (IAsp); mean HbA_1c was 6.6% for both groups. Faster aspart demonstrated noninferiority versus IAsp in reducing HbA_1c (estimated treatment difference [ETD] [95% CI] -0.02% [-0.15; 0.10]). Both treatments improved postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) control; the PPG increment (liquid meal test) was statistically significant in favor of faster aspart after 1 h (ETD [95% CI] -0.59 mmol/L [-1.09; -0.09]; -10.63 mg/dL [-19.56; -1.69]; P = 0.0198), but not after 2-4 h. Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and overall severe/blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycemia rates (rate ratio [RR] [95% CI] 1.09 [0.88; 1.36]) were similar between treatments. Postmeal hypoglycemia (0-2 h) rates were 2.27 (faster aspart) and 1.49 (IAsp) per patient-year of exposure (RR [95% CI] 1.60 [1.13; 2.27]).

CONCLUSIONS

Faster aspart and IAsp were confirmed noninferior in a basal-bolus regimen regarding change from baseline in HbA_1c. Faster aspart improved 1-h PPG with no differences in 2-4-h PPG versus IAsp. Overall hypoglycemia rates were similar except for an increase in 0-2-h postmeal hypoglycemia with faster aspart.

Safety and efficacy of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist added to basal insulin therapy versus basal insulin with or without a rapid-acting insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes: results of a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To consolidate the evidence from randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as add-on to basal insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched the EMBASE® and NCBI PubMed (Medline) databases and relevant congress abstracts for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of GLP-1 RAs as add-on to basal insulin compared with basal insulin with or without rapid-acting insulin (RAI) through 23 May 2016. The pooled data were analyzed using a random-effects meta-analysis model. A subanalysis was performed for trials investigating basal insulin plus GLP-1 RAs versus basal insulin plus RAI.

RESULTS

Of the 2617 retrieved records, 19 randomized controlled trials enrolling 7,053 patients with T2D were included. Compared with basal insulin ± RAI, reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline (difference in means: -0.48% [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.67 to -0.30]; p < 0.0001) and weight loss (-2.60 kg [95% CI, -3.32 to -1.89]; p < 0.0001) were significantly greater with basal insulin plus GLP-1 RA. The subanalysis similarly showed significant results for change in HbA1c from baseline and for weight loss, as well as a significantly lower risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia in patients treated with basal insulin plus GLP-1 RA versus basal insulin plus RAI (odds ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.64]; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of GLP-1 RA to basal insulin provided improved glycemic control, led to weight reduction and similar hypoglycemia rates versus an intensified insulin strategy; however, symptomatic hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower when compared with a basal insulin plus RAI.

Basal insulin treatment intensification in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A comprehensive systematic review of current options

AIM

As type 2 diabetes mellitus progresses, most patients require treatment with basal insulin in combination with another agent to achieve recommended glycaemic targets. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the evidence supporting the use of the available add-on treatments [rapid-acting insulin (RAI), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors] to basal insulin.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and EBSCOhost were searched for English-language articles, and all those captured were original articles (case studies and narrative reviews were omitted). Data on study design, population demographics, interventions and outcomes were tabulated. The extracted outcome data included changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), as well as body weight and safety data.

RESULTS

A total of 88 publications were deemed relevant. All treatments reduced HbA_1c and FPG. The most pronounced reductions in PPG, an unmet need in patients not controlled by basal insulin, were seen following administration of RAIs and short-acting GLP-1 RAs, although data for this outcome are generally lacking. Body weight benefits were observed with GLP-1 RAs and SGLT-2 inhibitors. However, as only articles in English were included, the result was a possible publication bias, while the diversity of study designs and drug combinations limited comparisons between studies.

CONCLUSION

The evidence supports effectiveness of the available add-on treatments to basal insulin. However, other factors, such as potential body-weight increases, convenience/compliance and adverse events, particularly hypoglycaemia, should be considered on a patient-by-patient basis to optimalize treatment outcomes.

Titration of basal insulin or immediate addition of rapid acting insulin in patients not at target using basal insulin supported oral antidiabetic treatment - A prospective observational study in 2202 patients

AIM

Optimal treatment intensification strategies in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving basal insulin supported oral antidiabetic therapy (BOT) remain controversial. The objective of the present study was to compare outcomes of BOT-intensification by either the uptitration of long-acting insulin glargine or by the immediate addition of a rapid acting insulin analogue (RAIA).

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational, 24-week study in T2DM patients with BOT using insulin glargine and baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) between 7.0 and 8.5%. Patients were stratified by their physicians to one of the following treatment intensification strategies: Basal insulin titration to target with discretionary subsequent addition of RAIA at weeks 12 or 24 (GLAR), or immediate addition of RAIA at baseline (GLARplus).

RESULTS

A total of 3266 patients were prescreened of whom 2202 fulfilled the selection criteria. Of these, 1684 patients were documented in the GLAR group and 518 in the GLARplus group. In the GLAR group, in 91 (5.5%) and 21 patients (1.3%) RAIA was added at weeks 12 and 24, respectively. The groups displayed similar baseline characteristics; except, mean diabetes duration was slightly shorter in the GLAR group (8.7 vs. 9.4 years). During the study, insulin glargine dose was increased from 18.7 to 26.4U (plus 7.7U) in GLAR and from 24.9 to 27.3U (plus 2.4U) in GLARplus patients. Mean RAIA dose was 9.6±4.7U at the final visit. After 24 weeks, HbA1c was reduced by 0.8 and 0.9% in the GLAR and GLARplus groups, respectively (both p<0.001). An HbA1c of ≤7.0% was achieved in 49.2% of GLAR and 48.5% of GLARplus patients. In both groups, we observed improvements in cardiovascular risk factors such as lipids and blood pressure. The rates of symptomatic (1.6 vs. 1.7%) and severe (0.18 vs. 0.19%) hypoglycemic episodes were low and comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide evidence that treatment intensification in patients with type 2 diabetes not at glycemic target on BOT with insulin glargine is equally safe and effective using either long-acting insulin titration alone or the addition of a rapid-acting insulin analogue.

Insulin: Making Sense of Current Options

Newer insulin products have advanced the evolution of insulin replacement options to more accurately mimic natural insulin action. There are new, modified, and concentrated insulins; administration devices calibrated for both increased concentrations and administration accuracy to improve adherence and safety; and inhaled insulin. There are new combinations of longer-acting basal insulin and rapid-acting insulin or glucagon like protein-1 receptor agonists. Existing insulin replacement designs and methods can be updated using these tools to improve efficacy and safety. Individualized decisions to use them should be based on patient physiologic needs, self-care ability, comorbidities, and cost considerations.

Insulin Aspart in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus: 15 Years of Clinical Experience

Limiting excessive postprandial glucose excursions is an important component of good overall glycemic control in diabetes mellitus. Pharmacokinetic studies have shown that insulin aspart, which is structurally identical to regular human insulin except for the replacement of a single proline amino acid with an aspartic acid residue, has a more physiologic time-action profile (i.e., reaches a higher peak and reaches that peak sooner) than regular human insulin. As expected with this improved pharmacokinetic profile, insulin aspart demonstrates a greater glucose-lowering effect compared with regular human insulin. Numerous randomized controlled trials and a meta-analysis have also demonstrated improved postprandial control with insulin aspart compared with regular human insulin in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, as well as efficacy and safety in children, pregnant patients, hospitalized patients, and patients using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Studies have demonstrated that step-wise addition of insulin aspart is a viable intensification option for patients with type 2 diabetes failing on basal insulin. Insulin aspart has shown a good safety profile, with no evidence of increased receptor binding, mitogenicity, stimulation of anti-insulin antibodies, or hypoglycemia compared with regular human insulin. In one meta-analysis, there was evidence of a lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia compared with regular human insulin and, in a trial that specifically included patients with a history of recurrent hypoglycemia, a significantly lower rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes. The next generation of insulin aspart (faster-acting insulin aspart) is being developed with a view to further improving on these pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties.

Role of incretin-based therapies and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors as adjuncts to insulin therapy in Type 2 diabetes, with special reference to IDegLira

The progressive nature of Type 2 diabetes necessitates treatment intensification over time in order to maintain glycaemic control, with many patients ultimately requiring insulin therapy. While insulin has unlimited potential efficacy, its initiation is often delayed and improvements in glycaemic control are typically accompanied by weight gain and an increased risk of hypoglycaemia, particularly as HbA1c approaches and falls below target levels. This may account for the sub-optimal control often achieved after insulin initiation. Combining insulin with antihyperglycaemic therapies that have a low risk of hypoglycaemia and are weight-neutral or result in weight loss is a therapeutic strategy with the potential to improve Type 2 diabetes management. Although the effects differ with each individual class of therapy, clinical trials have shown that adding a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor or sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor to insulin regimens can offer a significant reduction in HbA1c without substantially increasing hypoglycaemia risk, or weight. The evidence and merit of each approach are reviewed in this paper. Once-daily co-formulations of a basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist have been developed (insulin degludec/liraglutide) or are under development (lixisenatide/insulin glargine). Insulin degludec/liraglutide phase III trials and a lixisenatide/insulin glargine phase II trial have shown robust HbA1c reductions, with weight loss and a low risk of hypoglycaemia. With insulin degludec/liraglutide now approved in Europe, an important consideration will be the types of patients who may benefit most from a fixed-ratio combination; this is discussed in the present review, and we also take a look toward future developments in the field.

IDegLira: Redefining insulin optimisation using a single injection in patients with type 2 diabetes

In type 2 diabetes (T2D), treatment is optimised to minimise hyperglycaemia and the risk of microvascular complications. While there are a number of effective treatments, intensive treatment is associated with negative side effects such as increased hypoglycaemia and weight gain. With complementary modes of action, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and a basal insulin in combination offer an alternative to basal-bolus therapy in T2D. This review describes the rationale behind this treatment combination and presents clinical data available for IDegLira, the first basal insulin (insulin degludec) and GLP-1RA (liraglutide) co-formulation available in one pen for a single injection daily.

Efficacy and safety of a premixed versus a basal-plus insulin regimen as intensification for type 2 diabetes by timing of the main meal

OBJECTIVE

To describe the efficacy and safety of premixed insulin lispro protamine suspension 75%/insulin lispro solution 25% (LM25) twice daily (bid) versus basal insulin glargine plus prandial insulin lispro (IGL), both once daily, according to main meal timing.

METHODS

Data were obtained post hoc from a 24 week, randomized, open-label study comparing LM25 and IGL as insulin intensification in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with once daily basal insulin glargine plus metformin and/or pioglitazone (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01175824). Patients administered LM25 bid before breakfast and the evening meal, insulin glargine at bedtime and insulin lispro before the day's main meal (meal with the highest 2 hour postprandial glucose level during screening). Patients were grouped by main meal. Changes in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and bodyweight were summarized using likelihood-based mixed models; hypoglycemia incidence was compared between treatments using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Overall, 476 patients (LM25, n = 236; IGL, n = 240) were randomized. In all main meal groups, with both insulin regimens, mean HbA1c significantly decreased from baseline to 24 weeks (p < 0.0001). Patients whose main meal was in the evening had a greater bodyweight increase with LM25 than with IGL (p = 0.015), and a smaller proportion of these patients experienced total (p = 0.027) and nocturnal (p = 0.006) hypoglycemia with LM25 compared with IGL. Patients whose main meal was lunch experienced more nocturnal hypoglycemia with LM25 than with IGL (p = 0.030). Study limitations include that this was a post hoc analysis and no assessments ensured that: SMBG results determined timing of the main meal, each patient's main meal remained unchanged throughout the study, or patients administered insulin lispro with that meal.

CONCLUSIONS

Glycemic control improved in patients receiving either LM25 or IGL, irrespective of main meal timing. Both regimens can be used in patients with inadequate glycemic control who are in need of insulin intensification.

CLINICAL AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF INSULIN DELIVERY WITH V-GO(®) DISPOSABLE INSULIN DELIVERY DEVICE VERSUS MULTIPLE DAILY INJECTIONS IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES INADEQUATELY CONTROLLED ON BASAL INSULIN

OBJECTIVE

To compare two methods of delivering intensified insulin therapy (IIT) in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin ± concomitant antihyperglycemic agents in a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

Data for this retrospective study were obtained using electronic medical records from a large multicenter diabetes system. Records were queried to identify patients transitioned to V-Go(®) disposable insulin delivery device (V-Go) or multiple daily injections (MDI) using an insulin pen to add prandial insulin when A1C was >7% on basal insulin therapy. The primary endpoint was the difference in A1C change using follow-up A1C results.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients were evaluated (56 V-Go, 60 MDI). Both groups experienced significant glycemic improvement from similar mean baselines. By 27 weeks, A1C least squares mean change from baseline was -1.98% (-21.6 mmol/mol) with V-Go and -1.34% (-14.6 mmol/mol) with MDI, for a treatment difference of -0.64% (-7.0 mmol/mol; P = .020). Patients using V-Go administered less mean ± SD insulin compared to patients using MDI, 56 ± 17 units/day versus 78 ± 40 units/day (P<.001), respectively. Diabetes-related direct pharmacy costs were lower with V-Go, and the cost inferential from baseline per 1% reduction in A1C was significantly less with V-Go ($118.84 ± $158.55 per patient/month compared to $217.16 ± $251.66 per patient/month with MDI; P = .013).

CONCLUSION

Progression to IIT resulted in significant glycemic improvement. Insulin delivery with V-Go was associated with a greater reduction in A1C, required less insulin, and proved more cost-effective than administering IIT with MDI.

ABBREVIATIONS

A1C = glycated hemoglobin ANCOVA = analysis of covariance CI = confidence interval CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion FPG = fasting plasma glucose IIT = intensified insulin therapy LSM = least squares mean MDI = multiple daily injections T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus TDD = total daily dose.

How much is too much? Outcomes in patients using high-dose insulin glargine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) do not achieve glycaemic control targets on basal insulin regimens. This analysis investigated characteristics, clinical outcomes and impact of concomitant oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) in patients with T2DM treated with high-dose insulin glargine.

METHODS

Patient-level data were pooled from 15 randomised, treat-to-target trials in patients with T2DM treated with insulin glargine ± OADs for ≥ 24 weeks. Data were stratified according to whether patients exceeded three insulin dose cut-off levels (> 0.5, > 0.7 and > 1.0 IU/kg). End-points included glycated haemoglobin A1c (A1C), fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and overall, nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

Data from 2837 insulin-naïve patients were analysed. Patients with insulin titrated beyond the three doses investigated had significantly higher baseline A1C levels and were younger, with shorter diabetes duration than those at/below cut-offs (p < 0.05 for all cut-offs); they also had greater weight gain (p < 0.001 for the > 0.5 and > 0.7 IU/kg cut-offs) than those who did not exceed the cut-offs, regardless of concomitant OAD. Patients on concomitant metformin alone had higher insulin doses at Week 24, but achieved greater reductions in A1C, less weight gain and lower hypoglycaemia rates than patients on a concomitant sulfonylurea or metformin plus a sulfonylurea, regardless of whether cut-offs were exceeded.

CONCLUSION

In patients with T2DM, increasing basal insulin doses above 0.5 IU/kg may not improve glycaemic control; treatment strategies targeting postprandial glucose control should be considered for such patients.

Clinical considerations for insulin pharmacotherapy in ambulatory care, part two: review of primary literature and an evidence-based approach for treatment

IN BRIEF This article reinforces the dosing guidance from the package inserts of available insulin products and supplemental information provided by the manufacturers of insulin products. It reviews and evaluates pertinent primary literature detailing algorithms for the initiation and titration of insulin therapy that have helped to shape current clinical practice guidelines. The article discusses the clinical applicability of the evidence on insulin pharmacotherapy and offers recommendations for initiation and titration of various insulin products for insulin-requiring people with type 2 diabetes in the ambulatory care setting.

Similar glucose control with basal-bolus regimen of insulin detemir plus insulin aspart and thrice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: Results of a 50-week randomized clinical trial of stepwise insulin intensification

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of 50-week treatment with stepwise insulin intensification of basal-bolus insulin analogues [insulin detemir (IDet) and aspart (IAsp)] versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp30) in insulin-naive type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients not controlled by oral glucose-lowering drugs (OGLDs).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this open-label multicentre, multinational, randomized, parallel-arm treat-to-target trial, 403 insulin-naive patients with T2DM in four African countries were randomized to either an IDet+IAsp (n = 200) or BIAsp1-2-3 (n = 203) treatment group. Stepwise insulin intensification was performed at the end of 14, 26 and 38 weeks, depending on HbA1c values. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 50 weeks of treatment. Safety variables were hypoglycaemia incidence, occurrence of adverse events and weight gain.

RESULTS

Non-inferiority of the IDet+IAsp versus BIAsp1-2-3 treatment regimen was demonstrated by their similar HbA1c levels at the end of trial (IDet+IAsp: baseline 8.6%, 50 weeks 7.4%; BIAsp1-2-3: baseline 8.7%, 50 weeks 7.3%; full analysis set difference: 0.1% [95% CI: -0.1, 0.3]; per protocol: 0.2% [95% CI: -0.1, 0.4]). At week 50, 40.3 and 44.9% of patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% with IDet+IAsp and BIAsp1-2-3, respectively. The rate of overall hypoglycaemia during the trial was also similar in both groups (IDet+IAsp: 9.4 events/patient-year; BIAsp1-2-3: 9.8 events/patient-year).

CONCLUSION

Insulin initiation and intensification using IDet+IAsp was not inferior to BIAsp1-2-3 in insulin-naive patients with T2DM not controlled by OGLDs. Both regimens led to similar reductions in HbA1c values after 50 weeks of treatment.

Individualizing insulin therapy in the management of type 2 diabetes

It is recognized that reducing hyperglycemia early on in disease progression has long-term benefits for patients with diabetes. Insulin therapy has greater potential to reduce hyperglycemia than other therapies; however, there is often a significant delay in insulin initiation and intensification. Insulin replacement therapy in type 2 diabetes should no longer be viewed as the treatment of last resort. With the development of modern insulin analogs, the field has evolved. Large clinical trials have improved our understanding of the potential benefits and risks associated with intensive glycemic control in different patient populations and highlighted the need for individualization of glycemic targets and treatment strategies. Current treatment guidelines recognize the important role of insulin therapy both early on and throughout the progression of type 2 diabetes.

New insulin glargine 300 units/mL versus glargine 100 units/mL in people with type 2 diabetes using basal and mealtime insulin: glucose control and hypoglycemia in a 6-month randomized controlled trial (EDITION 1)

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of new insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) with glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in people with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin (≥42 units/day) plus mealtime insulin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

EDITION 1 (NCT01499082) was a 6-month, multinational, open-label, parallel-group study. Adults with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 7.0-10.0% (53-86 mmol/mol) were randomized to Gla-300 or Gla-100 once daily with dose titration seeking fasting plasma glucose 4.4-5.6 mmol/L. Primary end point was HbA1c change from baseline; main secondary end point was percentage of participants with one or more confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L) or severe nocturnal hypoglycemia from week 9 to month 6.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 807) had mean age 60 years, diabetes duration 16 years, BMI 36.6 kg/m(2), and HbA1c 8.15% (65.6 mmol/mol). HbA1c reduction was equivalent between regimens; least squares mean difference -0.00% (95% CI -0.11 to 0.11) (-0.00 mmol/mol [-1.2 to 1.2]). Fewer participants reported one or more confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L) or severe nocturnal hypoglycemic events between week 9 and month 6 with Gla-300 (36 vs. 46% with Gla-100; relative risk 0.79 [95% CI 0.67-0.93]; P < 0.005); nocturnal hypoglycemia incidence and event rates were also lower with Gla-300 in the first 8 weeks of treatment. No between-treatment differences in tolerability or safety were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Gla-300 controls HbA1c as well as Gla-100 for people with type 2 diabetes treated with basal and mealtime insulin but with consistently less risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Management of Type 2 Diabetes - Methods for Addition of Prandial to Basal Insulin

As glycaemic control deteriorates with the progression of type 2 diabetes, treatment guidelines advocate starting basal insulin therapy, and then progressing to a basal-bolus regimen as needed. Nevertheless, although timely intensification of therapy is important to minimise the risk of diabetic complications, considerable clinical inertia exists, not only in the initiation of insulin but also in the progression to multiple-dose insulin regimens. One barrier has been the lack of guidance about how to make the transition from basal-only to basal-bolus insulin therapy. In this review, we discuss how data from the recent FullSTEP study, along with other randomised studies, will help to bridge this gap. Prandial boluses can be added to basal insulin in a stepwise manner, using a straightforward, patient-led dose titration approach and simple estimation of which meal to add the initial prandial bolus to. Reducing the complexity of progression to multiple-dose insulin regimens and empowering patients will lessen the burden on clinicians, improve treatment satisfaction and facilitate timely implementation of treatment guidelines.

Identifying and meeting the challenges of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic illness that requires clinical recognition and treatment of the dual pathophysiologic entities of altered glycemic control and insulin resistance to reduce the risk of long-term micro- and macrovascular complications. Although insulin is one of the most effective and widely used therapeutic options in the management of diabetes, it is used by less than one-half of patients for whom it is recommended. Clinician-, patient-, and health care system-related challenges present numerous obstacles to insulin use in T2DM. Clinicians must remain informed about new insulin products, emerging technologies, and treatment options that have the potential to improve adherence to insulin therapy while optimizing glycemic control and mitigating the risks of therapy. Patient-related challenges may be overcome by actively listening to the patient’s fears and concerns regarding insulin therapy and by educating patients about the importance, rationale, and evolving role of insulin in individualized self-treatment regimens. Enlisting the services of Certified Diabetes Educators and office personnel can help in addressing patient-related challenges. Self-management of diabetes requires improved patient awareness regarding the importance of lifestyle modifications, self-monitoring, and/or continuous glucose monitoring, improved methods of insulin delivery (eg, insulin pens), and the enhanced convenience and safety provided by insulin analogs. Health care system-related challenges may be improved through control of the rising cost of insulin therapy while making it available to patients. To increase the success rate of treatment of T2DM, the 2012 position statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes focused on individualized patient care and provided clinicians with general treatment goals, implementation strategies, and tools to evaluate the quality of care.

A comparison of adding liraglutide versus a single daily dose of insulin aspart to insulin degludec in subjects with type 2 diabetes (BEGIN: VICTOZA ADD-ON)

AIM

Two treatment strategies were compared in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on basal insulin requiring intensification: addition of once-daily (OD) liraglutide (Lira) or OD insulin aspart (IAsp) with largest meal.

METHODS

Subjects completing 104 weeks (52-week main trial BEGIN ONCE-LONG + 52-week extension) on insulin degludec (IDeg) OD + metformin with HbA1c ≥ 7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol) were randomized to IDeg+Lira [n = 88, mean HbA1c: 7.7% (61 mmol/mol)] or IDeg+IAsp (n = 89, mean HbA1c: 7.7%) for 26 weeks, continuing metformin. Subjects completing 104 weeks with HbA1c <7.0% continued IDeg + metformin in a third, non-randomized arm (n = 236).

RESULTS

IDeg+Lira reduced HbA1c (-0.74%-points) significantly more than IDeg+IAsp (-0.39%-points); estimated treatment difference (ETD) (IDeg+Lira-IDeg+IAsp) -0.32%-points (95% CI -0.53; -0.12); p = 0.0024. More IDeg+Lira (49.4%) than IDeg+IAsp (7.2%) subjects achieved HbA1c <7.0% without confirmed hypoglycaemia [plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/l (<56 mg/dl) or severe hypoglycaemia) and without weight gain; estimated odds ratio (IDeg+Lira/IDeg+IAsp) 13.79 (95% CI 5.24; 36.28); p < 0.0001. IDeg+Lira subjects had significantly less confirmed and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia, and significantly greater weight loss (-2.8 kg) versus IDeg+IAsp (+0.9 kg); ETD (IDeg+Lira-IDeg+IAsp) -3.75 kg (95% CI -4.70; -2.79); p < 0.0001. Other than more gastrointestinal side effects with IDeg+Lira, no safety differences occurred. Durability of IDeg was established in the non-randomized arm, as mean HbA1c remained <7.0% [mean 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) at end-of-trial].

CONCLUSIONS

IDeg+Lira improved long-term glycaemic control, with weight loss and less hypoglycaemia versus adding a single daily dose of IAsp in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with IDeg + metformin.

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.

Initiation and gradual intensification of premixed insulin lispro therapy versus Basal {+/-} mealtime insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes eating light breakfasts

OBJECTIVE

We compared two strategies initiating and intensifying insulin treatment and tested for noninferiority of premixed insulin to basal ± mealtime insulin analog in patients eating light breakfasts.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This randomized, open-label, 48-week study compared two algorithms. Up to three injections of insulin lispro mix 25 and/or insulin lispro mix 50 (premix; premixed insulin lispro) or basal insulin glargine plus up to three injections of insulin lispro (basal+; glargine + insulin lispro) were used in type 2 diabetic patients uncontrolled with oral antihyperglycemic medication and consuming <15% daily calories at breakfast. The hypothesis was to test noninferiority of premix to basal+ for glycemic control measured by HbA1c after 48 weeks, assessed using ANCOVA with a 0.4% margin.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 344; 176 [51%] females; mean [SD] age 54.3 [8.8] years; BMI 29.4 [4.6] kg/m(2); baseline HbA1c 9.02 [0.97]%) were randomized to premix (n = 171) or basal+ (n = 173). In the per-protocol analysis (n = 230), least squares means (95% CI) end point HbA1c were 7.40% (7.15-7.65) and 7.55% (7.27-7.82) in respective arms. Between-treatment difference was -0.14% (-0.42 to 0.13), with noninferiority met. Significantly more patients in premix achieved HbA1c targets of <7.0% compared with basal+ (48.2 vs. 36.2%; P = 0.024). Self-monitored blood glucose profiles, body weight changes, total insulin doses, and overall hypoglycemia (65 vs. 60%) were similar in premix and basal+ (P = 0.494), except nocturnal episodes (34.3 vs. 23.7%; P = 0.018) were more common in premix.

CONCLUSIONS

Both intensive insulin strategies improved glycemic control; however, final HbA1c levels were seen above those achieved in previous treat-to-target trials, likely due to the inadequate insulin titrations and probably due to the complexity of tested insulin regimens. A higher percentage of patients achieved target HbA1c <7% with multiple premixed insulins, but this treatment resulted in more nocturnal hypoglycemia than a basal-bolus regimen.

Treatment intensification with stepwise addition of prandial insulin aspart boluses compared with full basal-bolus therapy (FullSTEP Study): a randomised, treat-to-target clinical trial

BACKGROUND

We compared stepwise addition of bolus insulin with a full basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin plus oral antidiabetic drugs.

METHODS

The FullSTEP study was a phase 4, 32-week, randomised, open-label, two-arm, parallel-group, multinational, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial done at 150 sites across seven countries to assess the effectiveness of a stepwise dosing approach versus a basal-bolus regimen. In this trial, 401 patients (mean age 59·8 years [SD 9·3]; HbA1c 7·9% [63 mmol/mol]; mean diabetes duration 12·6 years [SD 8·0]) were block randomised (ratio 1:1) to receive either stepwise treatment or full basal-bolus treatment. Patients in the basal-bolus group received insulin aspart before every meal throughout the trial. Patients in the stepwise group received one bolus dose with the largest meal, with additional insulin aspart doses before the next largest meal added to their regimen at 11 weeks and 22 weeks if HbA1c remained at 7% or higher. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of stepwise addition of bolus insulin versus complete basal-bolus therapy, as assessed by change in HbA1c from baseline to 32 weeks (non-inferiority margin of 0·4%). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01165684.

FINDINGS

The study was started on Oct 27, 2010, and completed on April 25, 2012. After 32 weeks, HbA1c change from baseline was -0·98% (95% CI -1·09 to -0·87) for the stepwise group and -1·12% (-1·23 to -1·00) for the basal-bolus group; mean treatment difference 0·14 (95% CI -0·02 to 0·30), non-significant (p=0·0876). Fewer hypoglycaemic episodes occurred in the stepwise group than in the basal-bolus group (rate ratio 0·58 [95% CI 0·45 to 0·75]; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events did not differ between the two treatment groups. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse event were nasopharyngitis, influenza, diarrhoea, headache, peripheral oedema, and wrong drug given. Three participants died: two before randomisation and one in the basal-bolus group (due to severe acute myocardial infarction and respiratory tract inflammation).

INTERPRETATION

Stepwise prandial insulin intensification provides glycaemic control non-inferior to a full basal-bolus regimen after 32 weeks, with significantly lower hypoglycaemia risk and better patient satisfaction.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in different age-groups: a1chieve sub-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Effective management of type 2 diabetes requires sustained glycemic control over many years, which can be particularly challenging for elderly people. This sub-analysis of the A1chieve study evaluated the clinical safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in 3 age-groups (≤40, >40-65, and >65 years) of previously insulin-experienced and insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A1chieve was an international, multicenter, prospective, open-label, non-interventional, 24-week study in people with type 2 diabetes who had been receiving anti-diabetes medication before starting, or switching to, therapy with biphasic insulin aspart 30, insulin detemir or insulin aspart (alone or in combination) in routine clinical practice. This sub-analysis evaluated clinical safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (±oral glucose-lowering drugs) in different age-groups.

RESULTS

Data on 40,122 participants were included. In all age-groups, the proportion of participants experiencing any hypoglycemia, major hypoglycemia or nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly reduced from baseline, except for the following in insulin-naïve patients: a significant increase in any hypoglycemia in patients aged >65 years; no change in any hypoglycemia, major hypoglycemia, and nocturnal hypoglycemia in patients aged >40-65, ≤40, and >65 years, respectively. Significant improvements at 24 weeks vs. baseline were observed in insulin-experienced and insulin-naïve participants for: glycated hemoglobin (change from baseline ranged from -1.8% to -2.4%); fasting plasma glucose (from -3.0 to -4.3 mmol/l); post-breakfast post-prandial plasma glucose (from -4.1 to -6.5 mmol/l); and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Sixteen serious adverse drug reactions were reported.

CONCLUSION

After 24-week treatment with biphasic insulin aspart 30, all age-groups of insulin-experienced and insulin-naïve patients experienced significantly improved glycemic control and HRQoL; incidence of hypoglycemia was generally reduced. The tolerability and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 may benefit all age-groups.

Intensifying insulin therapy: what options are available to patients with type 2 diabetes?

The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes (T2D) requires practitioners to periodically evaluate patients and intensify therapy when glycemic targets become unattainable with their current treatment regimen. Traditional first- and second-line antidiabetic agents such as metformin and the sulfonylureas do not prevent the characteristic decline in beta-cell function associated with T2D; insulin replacement therapy can therefore quickly become a necessity in some patients. Basal insulin initiation provides an excellent platform to which rapid-acting prandial insulin doses can easily be added, potentially in a stepwise manner, as disease progresses. Premix insulin regimens are another effective intensification option following basal insulin initiation, but are most effective in insulin-naïve patients. The use of insulin in combination with modern T2D agents, such as the incretin-based therapies, has the potential to improve glycemic control while limiting insulin-associated weight gain and hypoglycemia. Further clinical data and approval are required before practitioners can fully endorse this novel approach.

Adding once-daily lixisenatide for type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with newly initiated and continuously titrated basal insulin glargine: a 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study (GetGoal-Duo 1)

OBJECTIVE

When oral therapy for type 2 diabetes is ineffective, adding basal insulin improves glycemic control. However, when glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) remains elevated because of postprandial hyperglycemia, the next therapeutic step is controversial. We examined the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide in patients with HbA1c still elevated after initiation of insulin glargine.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This double-blind, parallel-group trial enrolled patients with HbA1c 7-10% despite oral therapy. Insulin glargine was added and systematically titrated during a 12-week run-in, after which candidates with fasting glucose ≤ 7.8 mmol/L and HbA1c 7-9% were randomized to lixisenatide 20 µg or placebo for 24 weeks while insulin titration continued. The primary end point was HbA1c change after randomization.

RESULTS

The randomized population (n = 446) had mean diabetes duration of 9.2 years, BMI 31.8 kg/m(2), and daily glargine dosage of 44 units. HbA1c had decreased during run-in from 8.6 to 7.6%; adding lixisenatide further reduced HbA1c by 0.71 vs. 0.40% with placebo (least squares mean difference, -0.32%; 95% CI, -0.46 to -0.17; P < 0.0001). More participants attained HbA1c <7% with lixisenatide (56 vs. 39%; P < 0.0001). Lixisenatide reduced plasma glucose 2 h after a standardized breakfast (difference vs. placebo -3.2 mmol/L; P < 0.0001) and had a favorable effect on body weight (difference vs. placebo -0.89 kg; P = 0.0012). Nausea, vomiting, and symptomatic hypoglycemia <3.3 mmol/L were more common with lixisenatide.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding lixisenatide to insulin glargine improved overall and postprandial hyperglycemia and deserves consideration as an alternative to prandial insulin for patients not reaching HbA1c goals with recently initiated basal insulin.

Insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes

Insulin therapy provides effective glycemic control in patients with diabetes who have deficient beta-cell function and insulin secretion. Subjects with type 2 diabetes not adequately controlled on oral agents or incretin therapies can initiate basal insulin replacement to correct fasting hyperglycemia. While all basal insulin preparations have similar efficacy in lowering fasting plasma glucose and improving A1C, the newer basal insulin analogs are associated with a lower risk of hypoglycemia than NPH insulin. Patients whose A1C levels remain above goal despite adequate basal insulin replacement need to evaluate and correct post-prandial hyperglycemia. With progressive beta-cell deficiency, rapid-acting insulin preparations can be introduced before one or more meals and titrated to achieve post-prandial glycemic control. For many patients requiring full basal/bolus insulin replacement, a strategy of fixed prandial insulin doses can yield acceptable glycemic control when compared to a more sophisticated approach utilizing carbohydrate counting and matching to insulin. Concentrated insulin preparations such as U-500 have also been of value in patients with resistant type 2 diabetes. Regardless of the type of insulin replacement used, the blood glucose lowering effects of insulin need to be carefully balanced with the increasing risk of hypoglycemia, and the weight gain associated with insulin intensification.

Stepwise intensification of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes management--exploring the concept of the basal-plus approach in clinical practice

Basal insulin provides an effective method for initiating insulin therapy in people with Type 2 diabetes, resulting in significant improvements in glycaemic control, lower rates of hypoglycaemia and less weight gain than either prandial or premixed insulin regimens. However, the progressive nature of Type 2 diabetes and the inability of basal insulin to correct excessive postprandial glucose excursions mean that insulin therapy will eventually need to be intensified, typically by adding prandial insulin as part of a basal-bolus or premixed insulin regimen. The aim of this review is to summarize recent clinical evidence for a staged 'basal-plus' strategy for insulin intensification where one, two or three prandial insulin injections are added to basal insulin according to individual need. In the early stages of insulin therapy, most individuals seem to achieve favourable glycaemic control with basal insulin alone, or in combination with a single prandial insulin injection. The addition of a single prandial insulin injection at the largest meal is well tolerated and associated with significant improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), low rates of hypoglycaemia and limited weight gain. More people achieve recommended HbA(1c) targets with a basal-plus strategy, compared with twice-daily premixed insulin therapy, with lower rates of hypoglycaemia. The data indicate that a step-by-step approach with the basal-plus strategy is a promising alternative method of insulin intensification that allows for individualization of treatment and may delay progression to a full basal-bolus insulin replacement therapy for many individuals.

Methods to enhance delivery of prandial insulin and basal-prandial insulin

Most physicians are comfortable with initiating basal insulin replacement therapy in their patients with type 2 diabetes who are no longer meeting treatment goals with oral antidiabetic agents. What is more challenging is what to do when treatment goals are no longer being met despite adequate titration of basal insulin. Both fasting plasma glucose and postprandial glucose contribute to hemoglobin A1C levels. Addressing postprandial glucose levels can be accomplished by several approaches. Traditionally this has meant moving to basal bolus insulin, which is considered the gold standard. Premixed insulin may also be used. Data is also emerging for basal "plus" strategies, that is, incremental addition of prandial insulin injections. Newer approaches also reviewed in this article included premixed formulations containing ultra-long acting basal insulin with rapid-acting insulin analogs, inhaled insulin and insulin jet injectors, as well as the use of incretin-based therapies.

The A1 chieve study - an observational non-interventional study of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating or switched to insulin analogue therapy: subgroup analysis of the Gulf population

AIM

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of insulin analogues (insulin aspart, insulin detemir and biphasic insulin aspart 30, alone or in combination) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in routine clinical practice in the Gulf as a subgroup of the A(1) chieve multi-national study.

METHODS

A total of 10,704 T2DM Gulf patients with uncontrolled T2DM on oral antidiabetics ± insulins other than insulin aspart, insulin detemir or biphasic insulin aspart 30, who initiated or switched to study insulins were included and followed up for 24 weeks in the context of the A(1) chieve study.

RESULTS

Baseline HbA(1c) (± SD) was poor: 9.7 ± 1.7%. At Week 24, an improvement in HbA(1c) of -2.3 ± 1.6% was observed in the entire cohort, and -2.4 ± 1.5% and -2.1 ± 1.7% for insulin-naïve patients and prior insulin users respectively. Overall, rates of hypoglycaemia increased in those new to insulin therapy, whereas a reduction was observed in those switching from other insulins. A marginal reduction in body weight (-0.8 ± 4.4 kg) was noted in the entire cohort, whereas the overall lipid profile and systolic blood pressure (-6.2 ± 15.3 mmHg) improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating or switching to insulin analogues was well tolerated and resulted in significant improvements in glycaemic control in T2DM patients in the Gulf.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin as add-on therapy on glycemic control and blood glucose fluctuation in Japanese type 2 diabetes subjects ongoing with multiple daily insulin injections therapy

To assess the efficacy and safety of adding sitagliptin, an oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with multiple daily insulin injections therapy (MDI). HbA1c, 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG), body mass index (BMI), insulin doses, six-point self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG) profiles were assessed before, after 12 weeks, and after 24 weeks of MDI with 50 mg/day of sitagliptin in 40 subjects with type 2 diabetes. Safety endpoints included hypoglycemia and any adverse events. HbA1c significantly decreased during the first 12 weeks ( -0.64±0.60%), and was sustained over 24 weeks ( -0.69±0.85%). 1,5-AG increased significantly from 7.5±4.5 μg/mL at baseline to 9.6±5.5 μg/mL after 24 weeks. The bolus insulin dose at 12 weeks was decreased, and the mean plasma glucose, the SD of daily glucose, M-value, and the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) also decreased significantly as compared with baseline values. BMI and frequency of hypoglycemia were not changed significantly. Univariate linear regression analyses revealed that % change in HbA1c was significantly associated with BMI, and % changes in the indexes of glycemic instability (SD of daily glucose and MAGE) were significantly associated with age. In conclusion, adding sitagliptin to MDI significantly improved glycemic control and decreased the daily glucose fluctuation in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with MDI, without weight gain or an increase in the incidence of hypoglycemia. This trial was registered with UMIN (no. UMIN000010157).

Intensification of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: an algorithm for basal-bolus therapy

The incidence of diabetes mellitus is projected to continue to increase worldwide over the next 20 years leading to increased costs in the management of the disease and its associated co-morbidities. Insulin replacement is one of many treatment options that can help to bring about near normoglycemia in the patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Glycemic control as close to normoglycemia as possible can help to reduce the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications, yet less than one-half of patients with T2DM achieve glycemic targets as recommended by practice guidelines. The purpose of this review is to provide guidance to primary care physicians for the initiation and intensification of basal-bolus insulin therapy in patients with T2DM. Two treatment algorithms that can be both patient- and physician-driven are proposed: a stepwise approach and a multiple daily injections approach. Evidence shaping the two approaches will be discussed alongside management issues that surround the patient treated with insulin: hypoglycemia, weight gain, patient education, and quality of life.

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.