Insulin degludec versus insulin detemir, both in combination with insulin aspart, in the treatment of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (EXPECT): an open‑label, multinational, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Insulin degludec (degludec) is a second-generation basal insulin with an improved pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic profile compared with first-generation basal insulins, but there are few data regarding its use during pregnancy. In this non-inferiority trial, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of degludec with insulin detemir (detemir), both in combination with insulin aspart (aspart), in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

This open-label, multinational, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial (EXPECT) was conducted at 56 sites (hospitals and medical centres) in 14 countries. Women aged at least 18 years with type 1 diabetes who were between gestational age 8 weeks (+0 days) and 13 weeks (+6 days) or planned to become pregnant were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive web response system, to degludec (100 U/mL) once daily or detemir (100 U/mL) once or twice daily, both with mealtime insulin aspart (100 U/mL), all via subcutaneous injection. Participants who were pregnant received the trial drug at randomisation, throughout pregnancy and until 28 days post-delivery (end of treatment). Participants not pregnant at randomisation initiated the trial drug before conception. The primary endpoint was the last planned HbA_1c measurement before delivery (non-inferiority margin of 0·4% for degludec vs detemir). Secondary endpoints included efficacy, maternal safety, and pregnancy outcomes. The primary endpoint was assessed in all randomly assigned participants who were pregnant during the trial. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned participants who were pregnant during the trial and exposed to at least one dose of trial drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03377699, and is now completed.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 22, 2017, and Nov 8, 2019, from 296 women screened, 225 women were randomly assigned to degludec (n=111) or detemir (n=114). Mean HbA_1c at pregnancy baseline was 6·6% (SD 0·6%; approximately 49 mmol/mol; SD 7 mmol/mol) in the degludec group and 6·5% (0·8%; approximately 48 mmol/mol; 9 mmol/mol) in the detemir group. Mean last planned HbA_1c measurement before delivery was 6·2% (SE 0·07%; approximately 45 mmol/mol; SE 0·8 mmol/mol) in the degludec group and 6·3% (SE 0·07%; approximately 46 mmol/mol; SE 0·8 mmol/mol) in the detemir group (estimated treatment difference -0·11% [95% CI -0·31 to 0·08]; -1·2 mmol/mol [95% CI: -3·4 to 0·9]; p_{non-inferiority}<0·0001), confirming non-inferiority. Compared with detemir, no additional safety issues were observed with degludec.

INTERPRETATION

In pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, degludec was found to be non-inferior to detemir.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Comparative efficacy and safety of basal insulins: A review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To provide an update on the usefulness of basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using PubMed and MEDLINE, BIOSIS, Scopus, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, and Springer Online Archives Collection until June 2021.

RESULTS

All basal insulins are similar in efficacy, with only small differences among them in terms of the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

For type 2 diabetes mellitus, all basal insulins have a similar efficacy, with some advantage of Glar-300 and Deg-100 in reducing the risk of hypoglycemia compared to Glar-100.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

People with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) need treatment with insulin for survival. Whether any particular type of (ultra-)long-acting insulin provides benefit especially regarding risk of diabetes complications and hypoglycaemia is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn) or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogue in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We explored the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Agency (EMA) web pages. We asked pharmaceutical companies, EMA and investigators for additional data and clinical study reports (CSRs). The date of the last search of all databases was 24 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 24 weeks or more comparing one (ultra-)long-acting insulin to NPH insulin or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin in people with T1DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 (RoB 2) tool and extracted data. Our main outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (QoL), severe hypoglycaemia, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke (NFMI/NFS), severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events (SAEs) and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs. Two studies were unpublished. We obtained CSRs, clinical study synopses or both as well as medical reviews from regulatory agencies on 23 studies which contributed to better analysis of risk of bias and improved data extraction. A total of 8784 participants were randomised: 2428 participants were allocated to NPH insulin, 2889 participants to insulin detemir, 2095 participants to insulin glargine and 1372 participants to insulin degludec. Eight studies contributing 21% of all participants comprised children. The duration of the intervention varied from 24 weeks to 104 weeks. Insulin degludec versus NPH insulin: we identified no studies comparing insulin degludec with NPH insulin. Insulin detemir versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): five deaths reported in two studies including adults occurred in the insulin detemir group (Peto OR 4.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.38; 9 studies, 3334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies with 870 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). There was a reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir: 171/2019 participants (8.5%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 138/1200 participants (11.5%) in the NPH insulin group experienced severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 8 studies, 3219 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.34 and 1.39. Only 1/331 participants in the insulin detemir group compared with 0/164 participants in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFMI (1 study, 495 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported NFS. A total of 165/2094 participants (7.9%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 102/1238 participants (8.2%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21; 9 studies, 3332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 70/1823 participants (3.8%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 60/1102 participants (5.4%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17; 7 studies, 2925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin was 0.01%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 8 studies, 3122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): one adult died in the NPH insulin group (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.98; 8 studies, 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 1013 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial effect or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was observed in 122/1191 participants (10.2%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 145/1159 participants (12.5%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.04; 9 studies, 2350 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a NFMI and one participant in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFS in the single study reporting this outcome (585 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 109/1131 participants (9.6%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 110/1098 participants (10.0%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.84; 8 studies, 2229 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 69/938 participants (7.4%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 83/955 participants (8.7%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; 6 studies, 1893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin was 0.02%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 9 studies, 2285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine (2 RCTs),insulin degludec versus insulin detemir (2 RCTs), insulin degludec versus insulin glargine (4 RCTs): there was no evidence of a clinically relevant difference for all main outcomes comparing (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues with each other. For all outcomes none of the comparisons indicated differences in tests of interaction for children versus adults.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin for T1DM showed lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir (moderate-certainty evidence). However, the 95% prediction interval indicated inconsistency in this finding. Both insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin did not show benefits or harms for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. For all other main outcomes with overall low risk of bias and comparing insulin analogues with each other, there was no true beneficial or harmful effect for any intervention. Data on patient-important outcomes such as QoL, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications were sparse or missing. No clinically relevant differences were found between children and adults.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Evidence that antihyperglycaemic therapy is beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. While the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) found tighter glycaemic control to be positive, other studies, such as the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, found the effects of an intensive therapy to lower blood glucose to near normal levels to be more harmful than beneficial. Study results also showed different effects for different antihyperglycaemic drugs, regardless of the achieved blood glucose levels. In consequence, firm conclusions on the effect of interventions on patient-relevant outcomes cannot be drawn from the effect of these interventions on blood glucose concentration alone. In theory, the use of newer insulin analogues may result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine U100 and U300, insulin detemir and insulin degludec) with NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin (human isophane insulin) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

For this Cochrane Review update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 5 November 2019, except Embase which was last searched 26 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 24 RCTs. Of these, 16 trials compared insulin glargine to NPH insulin and eight trials compared insulin detemir to NPH insulin. In these trials, 3419 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomised to insulin glargine and 1321 people to insulin detemir. The duration of the included trials ranged from 24 weeks to five years. For studies, comparing insulin glargine to NPH insulin, target values ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.8 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 140 mg/dL) for fasting blood glucose (FBG), from 4.4 mmol/L to 6.6 mmol/L (80 mg/dL to 120 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, when applicable. Blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target values for studies comparing insulin detemir to NPH insulin ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for FBG, less than 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) to less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and 5.8% to less than 6.4% HbA1c, when applicable. All trials had an unclear or high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Overall, insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Changes in HbA1c were comparable for long-acting insulin analogues and NPH insulin. Insulin glargine compared to NPH insulin had a risk ratio (RR) for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.06; absolute risk reduction (ARR) -1.2%, 95% CI -2.0 to 0; 14 trials, 6164 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The RR for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.09; P = 0.13; ARR -0.7%, 95% CI -1.3 to 0.2; 10 trials, 4685 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with insulin glargine reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treatment with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin found an RR for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.45 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.20; P = 0.11; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.4 to 0.4; 5 trials, 1804 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Peto odds ratio for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; P = 0.007; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.4; 5 trials, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with detemir also reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Information on patient-relevant outcomes such as death from any cause, diabetes-related complications, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects was insufficient or lacking in almost all included trials. For those outcomes for which some data were available, there were no meaningful differences between treatment with glargine or detemir and treatment with NPH. There was no clear difference between insulin-analogues and NPH insulin in terms of weight gain. The incidence of adverse events was comparable for people treated with glargine or detemir, and people treated with NPH. We found no trials comparing ultra-long-acting insulin glargine U300 or insulin degludec with NPH insulin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While the effects on HbA1c were comparable, treatment with insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Treatment with insulin detemir also reduced the incidence of serious hypoglycaemia. However, serious hypoglycaemic events were rare and the absolute risk reducing effect was low. Approximately one in 100 people treated with insulin detemir instead of NPH insulin benefited. In the studies, low blood glucose and HbA1c targets, corresponding to near normal or even non-diabetic blood glucose levels, were set. Therefore, results from the studies are only applicable to people in whom such low blood glucose concentrations are targeted. However, current guidelines recommend less-intensive blood glucose lowering for most people with type 2 diabetes in daily practice (e.g. people with cardiovascular diseases, a long history of type 2 diabetes, who are susceptible to hypoglycaemia or older people). Additionally, low-certainty evidence and trial designs that did not conform with current clinical practice meant it remains unclear if the same effects will be observed in daily clinical practice. Most trials did not report patient-relevant outcomes.

Newly-onset type 1 diabetes mellitus precipitated by COVID-19 in an 8-month-old infant

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is rare in infants and toddlers and is usually associated with a relatively high mortality when complicated with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). In infants, the classical symptoms of DKA are atypical and therefore many infants with DKA are mistreated for infections. We report a case of DKA precipitated by COVID-19 in an 8-month-old infant with newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus. This case is reported in view of its rarity and originality. The relation between T1DM and COVID19 infection is discussed.

A review of the NG17 recommendations for the use of basal insulin in type 1 diabetes

AIMS

To revisit the data analysis used to inform National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) NG17 guidance for initiating basal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (diabetes).

METHODS

We replicated the data, methodology and analysis used by NICE diabetes in the NG17 network meta-analysis (NMA). We expanded this data cohort to a more contemporary data set (extended 2017 NMA) and restricted the studies included to improve the robustness of the data set (restricted 2017 NMA) and in a post hoc analysis, changed the index comparator from neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin twice daily to insulin detemir twice daily.

RESULTS

The absolute changes in HbA_1c were similar to those reported in the NG17. However, all 95% credible intervals for change in HbA_1c point estimates crossed the line of null effect, except for detemir twice daily (in the NICE and extended 2017 NMAs) and NPH four times daily. In the detemir twice-daily centred post hoc analysis, the 95% credible intervals for change in HbA_1c crossed the line of null effect for all basal therapies, except NPH.

CONCLUSIONS

In NG17, comparisons of basal insulins were based solely on efficacy of glycaemic control. Many of the trials used in this analysis were treat-to-target, which minimize differences in HbA_1c . In the NMAs, statistical significance was severely undermined by the wide credible intervals. Despite these limitations, point estimates of HbA_1c were used to rank the insulins and formed the basis of NG17 guidance. This study queries whether such analyses should be used to make specific clinical recommendations.

Comparative effectiveness and harms of long-acting insulins for type 1 and type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To review evidence comparing benefits and harms of long-acting insulins in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes.

METHODS

MEDLINE and two Cochrane databases were searched during February 2018. Two authors selected studies meeting inclusion criteria and assessed their quality. Comparative studies of adult or paediatric patients with diabetes treated with insulin degludec, detemir or glargine were included. Meta-analysis was used to combine results of similar studies, and the I² statistic calculated to assess statistical heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of 2534 citations reviewed, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria. No statistically significant differences in HbA1c were seen between any two insulins or formulations. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than with glargine, including nocturnal hypoglycaemia in type 1 (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.81) and type 2 diabetes (rate ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.82), and severe hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes (relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.96). Patients with type 2 diabetes had higher rates of withdrawal because of adverse events when treated with detemir compared with glargine (relative risk 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.3). Adults taking detemir gained about 1 kg less body weight than those taking degludec (type 1) or glargine (type 2).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in glycaemic control were seen between insulin degludec, detemir and glargine. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than glargine, and patients taking detemir gained less body weight than those given degludec or glargine. In type 2 diabetes, withdrawals as a result of adverse events were more probable with detemir than glargine.

Detemir vs Glargine: Comparison of Inpatient Glycemic Control

CONTEXT

Hyperglycemia in the hospital setting is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In an attempt to cut costs, some hospitals implement policies to substitute all glargine orders with detemir.

OBJECTIVE

To examine how the substitution of glargine with detemir affects inpatient blood glucose control.

METHODS

Medical records were retrospectively analyzed to investigate the effect of a hospital formulary change at a semi-urban underserved hospital that substituted detemir for glargine on a 1:1 dosing basis. The study evaluated blood glucose control from September 6, 2015, to September 5, 2016, before substitution and from September 6, 2016, to September 5, 2017, after the substitution began. Patients were included in the study if they were older than 18 years, received glargine before admission, and had type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients were excluded if they were pregnant, did not receive long-acting insulin, or lacked regular blood glucose testing. The medical records were analyzed for mean glucose levels, hypoglycemic events, and short-acting insulin administration amounts.

RESULTS

A total of 318 patients met criteria and were included in the retrospective analysis-134 patients received detemir and 184 patients received glargine. The mean glucose levels in the morning were 133.8 mg/dL for patients receiving detemir and 145.8 mg/dL for patients receiving glargine (95% CI, 126.972-140.753; P=.013). The mean blood glucose levels in the afternoon were 171.6 mg/dL for patients receiving detemir and 172.1 mg/dL for patients receiving glargine (95% CI, 162.955-180.344; P=.938). The mean blood glucose levels in the evening were 162.5 mg/dL for patients receiving detemir and 163.3 mg/dL for patients receiving glargine (95% CI, 153.654-171.315; P=.897). The mean blood glucose levels at night were 176.1 mg/dL for patients receiving detemir and 174.7 mg/dL for patients receiving glargine (95% CI, 167.797-184.474; P=.788). No significant difference in sliding scale insulin was required between the patient groups (0.16 U/kg insulin aspart in detemir group vs 0.18 U/kg aspart in glargine; 95% CI, 0.154-0.189; P=.297). There was no significant difference between the patient groups in regard to hypoglycemic events (45% glargine vs 49% detemir; P=.59).

CONCLUSION

Substituting detemir for glargine did not adversely affect inpatients' blood glucose control.

Cost analysis of insulin degludec in comparison with insulin detemir in treatment of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in the UK

OBJECTIVE

With healthcare systems under increasing financial pressure from costs associated with diabetes care, it is important to assess which treatments provide clinical benefits and represent best value. This study evaluated the annual costs of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin detemir (IDet) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the UK.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Using data from a randomized, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial-BEGIN YOUNG 1-annual costs with degludec versus IDet in children and adolescents aged 1-17 years with T1D were estimated, as costs of these insulins and hyperglycemia with ketosis events. Analyses by age group (1-5, 6-11 and 12-17 years) and scenario (no ketosis benefit, no dose benefit, hyperglycemia with ketones >0.6 and >3.0 mmol/L and the additional costs of twice-daily IDet in 64% of patients) were also performed.

RESULTS

The mean annual cost per patient was estimated as £235.16 for degludec vs £382.91 for IDet, resulting in an annual saving of £147.75 per patient. These substantial cost savings were driven by relative reductions in the frequency of hyperglycemia with ketosis and basal insulin dose with degludec versus IDet. Annual savings in favor of degludec were observed across each age group (£122.63, £140.59 and £172.50 for 1-5, 6-11 and 12-17 years age groups, respectively). Five scenario analyses further demonstrated the robustness of the results, which included no ketosis or dose benefits in favor of degludec.

CONCLUSIONS

Degludec provides appreciable annual cost savings compared with IDet in children and adolescents with T1D in a UK setting. While a cost-effectiveness analysis could incorporate the health impact of treatment complications better than the present cost analysis, the strong generalizability of the data from this study suggests that degludec can help healthcare providers to maximize health outcomes despite increasingly stringent budgets.

Association of Initiation of Basal Insulin Analogs vs Neutral Protamine Hagedorn Insulin With Hypoglycemia-Related Emergency Department Visits or Hospital Admissions and With Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

IMPORTANCE

In clinical trials of patients with type 2 diabetes, long-acting insulin analogs modestly reduced the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia compared with human neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, but cost 2 to 10 times more. Outcomes in clinical practice may differ from trial results.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rates of hypoglycemia-related emergency department (ED) visits or hospital admissions associated with initiation of long-acting insulin analogs vs human NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective observational study using data from Kaiser Permanente of Northern California from January 1, 2006, through September 30, 2015. Patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated a long-acting insulin analog or NPH insulin were included and censored at death, loss of health plan coverage, change in insulin treatment, or study end on September 30, 2015.

EXPOSURE

Initiation of basal insulin analogs (glargine or detemir) vs NPH insulin.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the time to a hypoglycemia-related ED visit or hospital admission and the secondary outcome was the change in hemoglobin A1c level within 1 year of insulin initiation.

RESULTS

There were 25 489 patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated basal insulin therapy (mean age, 60.2 [SD, 11.8] years; 51.9% white; 46.8% female). During a mean follow-up of 1.7 years, there were 39 hypoglycemia-related ED visits or hospital admissions among 1928 patients who initiated insulin analogs (11.9 events [95% CI, 8.1 to 15.6] per 1000 person-years) compared with 354 hypoglycemia-related ED visits or hospital admissions among 23 561 patients who initiated NPH insulin (8.8 events [95% CI, 7.9 to 9.8] per 1000 person-years) (between-group difference, 3.1 events [95% CI, -1.5 to 7.7] per 1000 person-years; P = .07). Among 4428 patients matched by propensity score, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.16 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.78) for hypoglycemia-related ED visits or hospital admissions associated with insulin analog use. Within 1 year of insulin initiation, hemoglobin A1c level decreased from 9.4% (95% CI, 9.3% to 9.5%) to 8.2% (95% CI, 8.1% to 8.2%) after initiation of insulin analogs and from 9.4% (95% CI, 9.3% to 9.5%) to 7.9% (95% CI, 7.9% to 8.0%) after initiation of NPH insulin (adjusted difference-in-differences for glycemic control, -0.22% [95% CI, -0.09% to -0.37%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with type 2 diabetes, initiation of a basal insulin analog compared with NPH insulin was not associated with a reduced risk of hypoglycemia-related ED visits or hospital admissions or with improved glycemic control. These findings suggest that the use of basal insulin analogs in usual practice settings may not be associated with clinical advantages for these outcomes.

Relationship between treatment persistence and A1C trends among patients with type 2 diabetes newly initiating basal insulin

This study examines the relationship between glycated haemoglobin (A1C) levels and treatment persistence with, or time to discontinuation of, basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) newly initiating insulin. Claims data were extracted from the Optum Clinformatics database from January 2010 to June 2015. Adult patients with T2D initiating insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) or insulin detemir (DET) with ≥1 A1C measurement during 12-month baseline and 18-month follow-up periods were included. Patients with a refill gap of >90 days were considered non-persistent; otherwise, patients were considered persistent with insulin. The main outcome was A1C, measured closest to the end of each quarter during the follow-up period. A total of 3993 of 109 934 patients met the inclusion criteria (43.0% persistent; 57.0% non-persistent). Persistent patients were older (54.7 vs 52.7 years; P < .001), were more likely to be male (59.4% vs 54.4%; P = .002), and had significantly lower mean unadjusted A1C values at 18 months (8.26% vs 8.60%; P < .001) and quarterly. Only 43.0% of adults initiating basal insulin persisted with treatment for 18 months, with earlier discontinuation associated with higher A1C.

Role of omalizumab in insulin hypersensitivity: a case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Insulin allergy is a rare yet severe side effect of exogenous insulin use. Management typically involves use of alternative antihyperglycaemic agents, symptom control with antihistamines, use of different insulin formulations, and induction of tolerance with incremental doses of insulin. This treatment regimen is not always successful, and the use of omalizumab, an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, has been used to induce tolerance to insulin.

CASE REPORT

G.M. is a 62-year-old man with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. His condition was not optimized on oral agents, and insulin therapy was required. G.M. had anaphylaxis to insulin NPH, and subsequent skin-prick testing was positive to insulin aspart, insulin NPH, insulin glulisine, insulin detemir, regular insulin, insulin glargine 100 units/ml and insulin glargine 300 units/ml. He received incremental doses of several insulin formulations; however, he experienced diffuse urticaria preventing optimal glycaemic control. Three successful cases have been described in the literature of omalizumab inducing tolerance to exogenous insulin; therefore, G.M. was started on omalizumab. He subsequently tolerated treatment doses of insulin glulisine and insulin detemir with no allergic reactions and with improvement in glycaemic control.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first described case of allergy to insulin glargine 300 units/ml and reiterates the potential use of omalizumab in insulin allergy. Further research is warranted to determine if omalizumab should be considered standard of care in difficult-to-treat insulin hypersensitivity.

Glycemic Control in Adult Type 1 Diabetes Patients with Insulin Glargine, Insulin Detemir, or Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion in Daily Practice

BACKGROUNDS

This study aims to compare glycemic control of persons with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections (MDI) with insulin glargine versus insulin detemir or with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in daily practice.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

All adult individuals with type 1 diabetes (n = 1053) were identified from the electronic patient database in North Karelia, Finland. The persons' individual data for insulin treatment, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and hemoglobin A_1c (HbA1c) measurements during the year 2014 were obtained from medical records. Persons using long-acting insulin analogs or CSII were included in the analyses (n = 1004).

RESULTS

Altogether, 47.7% used glargine, 43.9% used detemir, and 8.4% used CSII. The mean HbA1c was lower in the CSII group (63 mmol/mol [7.9%]) compared with the glargine group (66 mmol/mol [8.2%]) or the detemir group (67 mmol/mol [8.3%]). The overall rate of DKA was 5.1% per year. The rate of DKA was higher in the detemir group compared with the glargine group (6.3% per year vs. 3.8% per year, respectively, P < 0.049). In logistic regression analyses, the higher rate of DKA with detemir use was explained by HbA1c.

CONCLUSIONS

In daily practice, the glycemic control of type 1 diabetes patients with MDI was similar regardless of basal insulin, glargine, or detemir, whereas CSII allowed better glycemic control than MDI. The rate of DKA was higher with detemir than with glargine, but this is likely related to higher HbA1c rather than insulin regimen.

Efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart in comparison with insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes (onset 1): A 52-week, randomized, treat-to-target, phase III trial

AIMS

To compare the safety and efficacy of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) with conventional insulin aspart (IAsp) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

onset 1 was a randomized, multicentre, treat-to-target, phase III, 52-week (initial 26 weeks + additional 26 weeks) trial conducted at 165 sites across 9 countries. Adults with T1D were randomly allocated to double-blind mealtime faster aspart or IAsp, each with once- or twice-daily insulin detemir. The primary endpoint, change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline after the initial 26 weeks, has been reported previously. In the present paper, we report data from the full 52-week study period.

RESULTS

Between August 2013 and June 2015, 381 participants were assigned to double-blind faster aspart and 380 participants to IAsp. After 52 weeks, estimated mean changes from baseline in HbA1c levels were -0.08% (faster aspart) and +0.01% (IAsp); estimated treatment difference significantly favoured faster aspart (-0.10% [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.19;-0.00]; P = .0424). Changes from baseline in 1-hour postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) increment (meal test; faster aspart -1.05 mmol/L; IAsp -0.14 mmol/L) also significantly favoured faster aspart (estimated treatment difference -0.91 mmol/L [95% CI -1.40;-0.43]; -16.48 mg/dL [95% CI -25.17;-7.80]; P = .0002). There was no difference in overall severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes or treatment-emergent adverse events between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

At 52 weeks, overall glycaemic control had significantly improved with faster aspart vs IAsp, consistent with the 26-week study findings. Achieving an insulin profile closer to physiological insulin secretion with faster aspart translates into lower PPG and HbA1c levels compared with those achieved with IAsp in people with T1D.

Long-acting insulin analogues for type 1 diabetes: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The comparison between long acting insulin analogues (LAIA) and human insulin (NPH) has been investigated for decades, with many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews giving mixed results. This overlapping and contradictory evidence has increased uncertainty on coverage decisions at health systems level.

Aim

To conduct an overview of systematic reviews and update existing reviews, preparing new meta-analysis to determine whether LAIA are effective for T1D patients compared to NPH.

Methods

We identified systematic reviews of RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of LAIA glargine or detemir, compared to NPH insulin for T1D, assessing glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and hypoglycemia. Data sources included Pubmed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and hand-searching. The methodological quality of studies was independently assessed by two reviewers, using AMSTAR and Jadad scale. We found 11 eligible systematic reviews that contained a total of 25 relevant clinical trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted data.

Results

We found evidence that LAIA are efficacious compared to NPH, with estimates showing a reduction in nocturnal hypoglycemia episodes (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.57; 0.76) and A1C (95% CI 0.23; 0.12). No significance was found related to severe hypoglycemia (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.71; 1.24).

Conclusion

This study design has allowed us to carry out the most comprehensive assessment of RCTs on this subject, filling a gap in diabetes research. Our paper addresses a question that is important not only for decision makers but also for clinicians.

BENEFITS OF EARLY SCREENING AND PROPER TREATMENT IN PATIENT WITH SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTORS FOR GESTATIONAL DIABETES MELLITUS (CASE REPORT)

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) occurs in 2-9% of all pregnancies. Evidence suggests that the use of insulin in treating hyperglycemia in GDM patients reduces the risk of perinatal morbidity. Pregnancy is an exciting time in a woman's life. However, once patient is diagnosed with GDM, she will be managed more intensively. GDM is managed using diet and exercise but one in six women with GDM requires insulin. A 35-year-old woman at the 14th gestational week of her tenth pregnancy was seen for routine prenatal care. She had the history of nine consecutive spontaneous abortions. Patient was hospitalized and based on the revealed glucose values insulin therapy was initiated with long-acting insulin analogue - Levemir and rapid-acting insulin analogue - NovoRapid. Patient's diabetes was compensated on insulin therapy. Follow-ups were planned at intervals of 1-2 weeks depending on the glucose levels. This is the case report of a GDM in a high-risk patient. She's at the 21st gestational weeks and has passed "delicate weeks". At her 21st week of gestation patient's glucose levels are compensated on insulin therapy and she is feeling well. In this unusual case report, no insulin therapy had been started during previous pregnancies, so we managed to achieve a good glycemic control with insulin treatment. This could be one of the factors that could help a normal pregnancy and delivery. The discussion should be focusing on early screening and proper treatment for GDM.

Effect of Insulin Analogs on Frequency of Non-Severe Hypoglycemia in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Prone to Severe Hypoglycemia: Much Higher Rates Detected by Continuous Glucose Monitoring than by Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose-The HypoAna Trial

BACKGROUND

Hypoglycemia is an increasingly important endpoint in clinical diabetes trials. The assessment of hypoglycemia should therefore be as complete as possible. Blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides an improved opportunity to capture asymptomatic and nocturnal events. Here we report results from the HypoAna trial comparing all-analog-insulin therapy (aspart/detemir) with all-human-insulin therapy (neutral protamine Hagedorn/regular) on non-severe hypoglycemia (symptomatic and asymptomatic hypoglycemia) as assessed by blinded CGM and compared with data obtained by self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 1 diabetes and recurrent severe hypoglycemia.

METHODS

Fifty-three patients completed a substudy of 4 × 3 days of blinded CGM. CGM traces were reviewed for hypoglycemic events lasting 15 min or longer.

RESULTS

At the threshold ≤3.9 mmol/L, the per-protocol analysis demonstrated a 40% rate reduction (95% confidence interval [CI] 20%-60%; P = 0.002) in nocturnal non-severe hypoglycemia during analog treatment, mainly due to a 40% rate reduction (95% CI 0%-70%; P = 0.03) of nocturnal asymptomatic hypoglycemia. Similar nonsignificant trends were seen at the glucose threshold ≤3.0 mmol/L. Overall CGM-detected that nocturnal asymptomatic hypoglycemia ≤3.9 mmol/L was ∼17 times more frequent than SMBG-detected episodes (52 vs. 3 events/patient-year). This translates into a time needed to treat one patient with insulin analogs to prevent one episode that is 34 times shorter using CGM data than SMBG data (1.4 vs. 47 weeks).

CONCLUSIONS

Capturing hypoglycemic events by the conventional method of SMBG in patients with impaired awareness reveals only a limited number of events. Blinded CGM can provide more complete data, particularly in terms of asymptomatic and nocturnal events.

Observational Registry of Basal Insulin Treatment in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in China: Safety and Hypoglycemia Predictors

BACKGROUND

The Observational Registry of Basal Insulin Treatment (ORBIT) study evaluated the safety of basal insulin (BI) in real-world settings in China.

METHODS

We analyzed 9002 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with oral hypoglycemic agents from 8 geographic regions and 2 hospital tiers in China who initiated and maintained BI treatment. Body weight and hypoglycemic episodes were recorded at baseline and 3 and 6 months. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded at 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

Age, gender, inpatient/outpatient status, body mass index, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at baseline and at the end of study, T2D duration, microvascular complications, BI type, combination with insulin secretagogues, self-monitoring of blood glucose frequency, and insulin dosage, all predicted hypoglycemia. BI use generally did not induce significant weight gain (0.02 kg); weight gain with insulin detemir (-0.30 kg) was less than that with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin (0.20 kg) or insulin glargine (0.05 kg). Overall, general hypoglycemia incidence (5.6% vs. 7.7%) and annual event rate (1.6 vs. 1.8) were similar before and after BI initiation, whereas a slight decrease was noted in severe hypoglycemia incidence (0.6%-0.3%) and frequency (0.05-0.03 events/patient-year). The general hypoglycemia rate was lowest with insulin glargine, whereas there was no significant difference in severe hypoglycemia among the three BI groups. Overall, 3.5% of patients had at least one SAE during the study. Most SAEs were found to be unrelated to BI treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world BI use, particularly insulin detemir and glargine, was associated with only slight weight gain and low hypoglycemia risk in patients with T2D in China.

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus insulin glargine for Thai type 2 diabetes from a payer's perspective

AIMS

An economic evidence is a vital tool that can inform the decision to use costly insulin analogs. This study aimed to evaluate long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir (IDet) compared with insulin glargine (IGlar) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the Thai payer's perspective.

METHODS

Long-term costs and outcomes were projected using a validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model, version 8.5. Cohort characteristics, baseline risk factors, and costs of diabetes complications were derived from Thai data sources. Relative risk was derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented in 2015 US Dollars (USD). A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

IDet yielded slightly greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (8.921 vs 8.908), but incurred higher costs than IGlar (90,417.63 USD vs 66,674.03 USD), resulting in an ICER of ∼1.7 million USD per QALY. The findings were very sensitive to the cost of IDet. With a 34% reduction in the IDet cost, treatment with IDet would become cost-effective according to the Thai threshold of 4,434.59 USD per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with IDet in patients with T2DM who had uncontrolled blood glucose with oral anti-diabetic agents was not a cost-effective strategy compared with IGlar treatment in the Thai context. These findings could be generalized to other countries with a similar socioeconomics level and healthcare systems.

COMPARISON OF EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF GLARGINE AND DETEMIR INSULIN IN THE MANAGEMENT OF INPATIENT HYPERGLYCEMIA AND DIABETES

OBJECTIVE

Glargine and detemir insulin are the two most commonly prescribed basal insulin analogues for the ambulatory and inpatient management of diabetes. The efficacy and safety of basal insulin analogues in the hospital setting has not been established.

METHODS

This observational study compared differences in glycemic control and outcomes in non-intensive care unit patients with blood glucose (BG) >140 mg/dL who were treated with glargine or detemir, between January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2015, in two academic centers.

RESULTS

Among 6,245 medical and surgical patients with hyperglycemia, 5,749 received one or more doses of glargine, and 496 patients received detemir during the hospital stay. There were no differences in the mean daily BG (glargine, 182 ± 46 mg/dL vs. detemir, 180 ± 44 mg/dL; P = .70). There were no differences in mortality, hospital complications, or re-admissions between groups (all, P>.05). After adjusting for potential confounders, there was no statistically significant difference in hypoglycemia rates between treatment groups. Patients treated with detemir required higher total daily basal insulin doses (0.27 ± 0.16 units/kg/day vs. 0.22 ± 0.15 units/kg/day; P<.001). Glargine-treated patients had statistically longer length of stay; however, this difference may not be clinically relevant (6.8 ± 7.4 days vs. 6.0 ± 6.3 days; P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that treatment with glargine and detemir results in similar inpatient glycemic control in general medicine and surgery patients. Detemir treatment was associated with higher daily basal insulin dose and number of injections. A prospective randomized study is needed to confirm these findings.

ABBREVIATIONS

BG = blood glucose BMI = body mass index CI = confidence interval eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin ICD-9 = International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision ICU = intensive care unit IQR = interquartile range LOS = length-of-stay OR = odd ratio.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of different basal insulins in a real-world setting

AIMS

To compare glucose control and safety of different basal insulin therapies (BI, including Insulin NPH, glargine and detemir) in real-world clinical settings based on a large-scale registry study.

METHODS

In this multi-center 6-month prospective observational study, patients with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 7%) who were uncontrolled by oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) and were willing to initiate BI therapy were enrolled from 209 hospitals within 8 regions of China. Type and dose of BI were at the physician's discretion and the patients' willingness. Interviews were conducted at 0 months (visit 1), 3 months (visit 2) and 6 months (visit 3). Outcomes included change in HbA1c, hypoglycemia rate and body weight from baseline at 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 16 341 and 9002 subjects were involved in Intention-To-Treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. After PS regression adjustment, ITT analysis showed that reduction in HbA1c in glargine (2.2% ± 2.1%) and detemir groups (2.2% ± 2.1%) was higher than that in the NPH group (2.0% ± 2.2%) (P < .01). The detemir group had the lowest weight gain (-0.1 ± 2.9 kg) compared with the glargine (+0.1 ± 3.0 kg) and NPH (+0.3 ± 3.1 kg) groups (P < .05). The glargine group had the lowest rate of minor hypoglycaemia, while there was no difference in severe hypoglycaemia among the 3 groups. The results observed in PP analyses were consistent with those in ITT analysis.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world clinical setting in China, treatment with long-acting insulin analogues was associated with better glycaemic control, as well as less hypoglycaemia and weight gain than treatment with NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes patients. However, the clinical relevance of these observations must be interpreted with caution.

Prediction of excessive weight gain in insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Weight gain is an ongoing challenge when initiating insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, if prediction of insulin-associated weight gain was possible on an individual level, targeted initiatives could be implemented to reduce weight gain. The aim of the present study was to identify predictors of weight gain in insulin-treated patients with T2DM.

METHODS

In all, 412 individuals with T2DM were, in addition to metformin or placebo, randomized into 18-month treatment groups with three different insulin analog treatment regimens (biphasic, aspart, detemir). Participants with excessive weight gain were defined as the group with weight gain in the 4th quartile (>6.2 kg).We developed a pattern classification method to predict individuals prone to excessive weight gain.

RESULTS

Over the 18-month treatment period, median weight gain among all 412 patients was 2.4 kg (95% prediction interval [PI] -5.6, 12.4 kg), whereas median weight gain for those in the upper 4th quartile (n = 103) was 8.9 kg (95% PI 6.3, 15.2 kg). No clinical baseline data were strong predictors of excessive weight gain. However, the weight gain during the first 3 months of the trial and the subsequent dose of insulin yielded a useful predictor for weight gain at the 18-month follow-up. Combining these two predictors into a prediction model with other clinical available information produced a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.80.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a prediction model that could help identify a substantial proportion of individuals with T2DM prone to large weight gain during insulin therapy.

Different insulin types and regimens for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes

BACKGROUND

Insulin requirements may change during pregnancy, and the optimal treatment for pre-existing diabetes is unclear. There are several insulin regimens (e.g. via syringe, pen) and types of insulin (e.g. fast-acting insulin, human insulin).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different insulin types and different insulin regimens in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 October 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (17 October 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 17 October 2016), and the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different insulin types and regimens in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.We had planned to include cluster-RCTs, but none were identified. We excluded quasi-randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials. We included studies published in abstract form and contacted the authors for further details when applicable. Conference abstracts were superseded by full publications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted data extraction, assessed risk of bias, and checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

The findings in this review were based on very low-quality evidence, from single, small sample sized trial estimates, with wide confidence intervals (CI), some of which crossed the line of no effect; many of the prespecified outcomes were not reported. Therefore, they should be interpreted with caution. We included five trials that included 554 women and babies (four open-label, multi-centre, two-arm trials; one single centre, four-arm RCT). All five trials were at a high or unclear risk of bias due to lack of blinding, unclear methods of randomisation, and selective reporting of outcomes. Pooling of data from the trials was not possible, as each trial looked at a different comparison.1. One trial (N = 33 women) compared Lispro insulin with regular insulin and provided very low-quality evidence for the outcomes. There were seven episodes of pre-eclampsia in the Lispro group and nine in the regular insulin group, with no clear difference between the two groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.30). There were five caesarean sections in the Lispro group and nine in the regular insulin group, with no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.39). There were no cases of fetal anomaly in the Lispro group and one in the regular insulin group, with no clear difference between the groups (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.08). Macrosomia, perinatal deaths, episodes of birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, and fracture, and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.2. One trial (N = 42 women) compared human insulin to animal insulin, and provided very low-quality evidence for the outcomes. There were no cases of macrosomia in the human insulin group and two in the animal insulin group, with no clear difference between the groups (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.30). Perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy and fracture and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.3. One trial (N = 93 women) compared pre-mixed insulin (70 NPH/30 REG) to self-mixed, split-dose insulin and provided very low-quality evidence to support the outcomes. Two cases of macrosomia were reported in the pre-mixed insulin group and four in the self-mixed insulin group, with no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54). There were seven cases of caesarean section (for cephalo-pelvic disproportion) in the pre-mixed insulin group and 12 in the self-mixed insulin group, with no clear difference between groups (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.32). Perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, or fracture and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.4. In the same trial (N = 93 women), insulin injected with a Novolin pen was compared to insulin injected with a conventional needle (syringe), which provided very low-quality evidence to support the outcomes. There was one case of macrosomia in the pen group and five in the needle group, with no clear difference between the different insulin regimens (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.76). There were five deliveries by caesarean section in the pen group compared with 14 in the needle group; women were less likely to deliver via caesarean section when insulin was injected with a pen compared to a conventional needle (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.97). Perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, or fracture, and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.5. One trial (N = 223 women) comparing insulin Aspart with human insulin reported none of the review's primary outcomes: macrosomia, perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia. nerve palsy, or fracture, or the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity.6. One trial (N = 162 women) compared insulin Detemir with NPH insulin, and supported the outcomes with very low-quality evidence. There were three cases of major fetal anomalies in the insulin Detemir group and one in the NPH insulin group, with no clear difference between the groups (RR 3.15, 95% CI 0.33 to 29.67). Macrosomia, perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, or fracture and the composite outcome of neonatal morbidity were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With limited evidence and no meta-analyses, as each trial looked at a different comparison, no firm conclusions could be made about different insulin types and regimens in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or 2 diabetes. Further research is warranted to determine who has an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. This would include larger trials, incorporating adequate randomisation and blinding, and key outcomes that include macrosomia, pregnancy loss, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, fetal anomalies, and birth trauma.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists compared with basal insulins for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Since 2005, several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been approved to treat people with type 2 diabetes. These agents are considered for use at the same point in the treatment paradigm as basal insulins. A comprehensive comparison of these drug classes, therefore, can help inform treatment decisions. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of GLP-1 RAs compared with basal insulins.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed databases were searched. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of ≥16 weeks' duration comparing GLP-1 RAs vs basal insulins in adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antihyperglycemic drugs were included. Data on the change from baseline to 26 weeks (±10 weeks) of treatment in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and weight, as well as the proportion of patients experiencing hypoglycaemia, were extracted. Fixed-effect pairwise meta-analyses were conducted where data were available from ≥2 studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs were identified and 11 were meta-analysed. The once-weekly GLP-1 RAs, exenatide long acting release (LAR) and dulaglutide, led to greater, statistically significant mean HbA1c reductions vs basal insulins (exenatide: -0.31% [95% confidence interval -0.42, -0.19], dulaglutide: -0.39% [-0.49, -0.29]) whilst once-daily liraglutide and twice-daily exenatide did not (liraglutide: 0.06% [-0.06, 0.18], exenatide: 0.01% [-0.11, 0.13]). Mean weight reduction was seen with all GLP-1 RAs while mean weight gain was seen with basal insulins. Interpretation of the analysis of hypoglycaemia was limited by inconsistent definitions and reporting. Because of the limited number of available studies sensitivity analyses to explore heterogeneity could not be conducted.

CONCLUSIONS

Although weight reduction is seen with all GLP-1 RA's, only the once-weekly agents, exenatide LAR and dulaglutide, demonstrate significant HbA1c reductions when compared to basal insulins.

Effect of basal insulin therapy on vascular endothelial function and adipokine profiles in people with Type 2 diabetes

AIM

To compare the effects of the basal insulin analogues glargine and detemir on endothelial function and adipocytokine levels in people with Type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We studied 32 people with Type 2 diabetes whose blood glucose control was unsatisfactory while receiving only oral hypoglycaemic drugs. Participants were randomized to either insulin glargine or detemir for 24 weeks and then crossed over to the other treatment without a washout period. Flow-mediated vasodilatation, adipocytokine levels (plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and leptin/adiponectin ratio), and fasting ghrelin levels were monitored.

RESULTS

HbA_1c levels were significantly decreased by both basal insulin therapies. Body weight was significantly increased by glargine but not by detemir. The proportion of flow-mediated vasodilatation was significantly increased by detemir but not glargine (glargine: from 5.17 ± 0.69 to 5.94 ± 0.83%; detemir: from 4.89 ± 0.78 to 7.92 ± 0.69%). Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 level was significantly decreased by only detemir (glargine: from 16.4 ± 1.8 to 17.3 ± 2.1; detemir: from 19.2 ± 2.8 to 16.0 ± 1.6 ng/ml). The leptin/adiponectin ratio was significantly increased only by glargine. Acyl ghrelin level was significantly decreased by glargine but not detemir.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the effect on endothelial function and adipocytokine profiles may differ between glargine and detemir in people with diabetes (Trial registration ID: UMIN000004973).

New insulin glargine 300 U/ml versus glargine 100 U/ml in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs: glucose control and hypoglycaemia in a randomized controlled trial (EDITION JP 2)

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) with glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin plus oral antihyperglycaemic drug(s) [OAD(s)].

METHODS

The EDITION JP 2 study (NCT01689142) was a 6-month, multicentre, open-label, phase III study. Participants (n = 241, male 61%, mean diabetes duration 14 years, mean weight 67 kg, mean body mass index 25 kg/m(2), mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 8.02 %, mean basal insulin dose 0.24 U/kg/day) were randomized to Gla-300 or Gla-100, while continuing OAD(s). Basal insulin was titrated to target fasting self-monitored plasma glucose 4.4-5.6 mmol/l. The primary efficacy endpoint was HbA1c change over 6 months. Safety endpoints included hypoglycaemia and weight change.

RESULTS

Gla-300 was non-inferior to Gla-100 for HbA1c reduction [least squares (LS) mean difference 0.10 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.08, 0.27) %]. The mean HbA1c at month 6 was 7.56 and 7.52 % with Gla-300 and Gla-100, respectively. Nocturnal confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/l) or severe hypoglycaemia risk was 38% lower with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 [relative risk 0.62 (95% CI 0.44, 0.88)]; annualized rates were 55% lower at night [rate ratio 0.45 (95% CI 0.21, 0.96)] and 36% lower at any time [24 h; rate ratio 0.64 (95% CI 0.43, 0.96)]. Severe hypoglycaemia was infrequent. A significant between-treatment difference in weight change favoured Gla-300 [LS mean difference -1.0 (95% CI -1.5, -0.5) kg; p = 0.0003]. Adverse event rates were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Japanese people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin plus OAD(s) experienced less hypoglycaemia with Gla-300 than with Gla-100, while glycaemic control did not differ.

New insulin glargine 300 U/ml versus glargine 100 U/ml in Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes using basal and mealtime insulin: glucose control and hypoglycaemia in a randomized controlled trial (EDITION JP 1)

AIM

To compare efficacy and safety of new insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) with that of insulin glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) in Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

The EDITION JP 1 study (NCT01689129) was a 6-month, multicentre, open-label, phase III study. Participants (n = 243) were randomized to Gla-300 or Gla-100 while continuing mealtime insulin. Basal insulin was titrated with the aim of achieving a fasting self-monitored plasma glucose target of 4.4-7.2 mmol/l. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) over 6 months. Safety measures included hypoglycaemia and change in body weight.

RESULTS

Gla-300 was non-inferior to Gla-100 for the primary endpoint of HbA1c change over the 6-month period {least squares [LS] mean difference 0.13 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.29]}. The annualized rate of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/l) or severe hypoglycaemic events was 34 % lower with Gla-300 than with Gla-100 at night [rate ratio 0.66 (95 % CI 0.48-0.92)] and 20 % lower at any time of day [24 h; rate ratio 0.80 (95 % CI 0.65-0.98)]; this difference was most pronounced during the first 8 weeks of treatment. Severe hypoglycaemia was infrequent. The basal insulin dose increased in both groups (month 6 dose: Gla-300 0.35 U/kg/day, Gla-100 0.29 U/kg/day). A between-treatment difference in body weight change over 6 months favouring Gla-300 was observed [LS mean difference -0.6 kg (95 % CI -1.1 to -0.0); p = 0.035]. Adverse event rates were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes using basal plus mealtime insulin, less hypoglycaemia was observed with Gla-300 than with Gla-100, particularly during the night, while glycaemic control did not differ.

Algorithm that delivers an individualized rapid-acting insulin dose after morning resistance exercise counters post-exercise hyperglycaemia in people with Type 1 diabetes

AIMS

To develop an algorithm that delivers an individualized dose of rapid-acting insulin after morning resistance exercise to counter post-exercise hyperglycaemia in individuals with Type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Eight people with Type 1 diabetes, aged 34 ± 7 years with HbA1c concentrations 72 ± 12 mmol/mol (8.7 ± 1.1%), attended our laboratory on two separate mornings after fasting, having taken their usual basal insulin the previous evening. These people performed a resistance exercise session comprising six exercises for two sets of 10 repetitions at 60% of the maximum amount of force that was generated in one maximal contraction (60% 1RM). In a randomized and counterbalanced order, the participants were administered an individualized dose of rapid-acting insulin (2 ± 1 units, range 0-4 units) immediately after resistance exercise (insulin session) by means of an algorithm or were not administered this (no-insulin session). Venous blood glucose concentrations were measured for 125 min after resistance exercise. Data (mean ± sem values) were analysed using anova (P ≤ 0.05).

RESULTS

Participants had immediate post-resistance exercise hyperglycaemia (insulin session 13.0 ± 1.6 vs. no-insulin session 12.7 ± 1.5 mmol/l; P = 0.834). The decline in blood glucose concentration between peak and 125 min after exercise was greater in the insulin exercise session than in the no-insulin session (3.3 ± 1.0 vs. 1.3 ± 0.4 mmol/l: P = 0.015). There were no episodes of hypoglycaemia (blood glucose <3.9 mmol/l).

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of rapid-acting insulin according to an individualized algorithm reduced the hyperglycaemia associated with morning resistance exercise without causing hypoglycaemia in the 2 h post-exercise period in people with Type 1 diabetes.

Severe hypoglycaemia in adults with insulin-treated diabetes: impact on healthcare resources

AIMS

To assess resource utilization associated with severe hypoglycaemia across three insulin regimens in a large phase 3a clinical programme involving people with Type 1 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin, people with Type 2 diabetes treated with multiple daily injections and people with Type 2 diabetes treated with basal-oral therapy.

METHODS

Data relating to severe hypoglycaemia events (defined as episodes requiring external assistance) from the insulin degludec and insulin degludec/insulin aspart programme (15 trials) were analysed using descriptive statistics. Comparators included insulin glargine, biphasic insulin aspart, insulin detemir and sitagliptin. Mealtime insulin aspart was used in some regimens. This analysis used the serious adverse events records, which documented the use of ambulance/emergency teams, a hospital/emergency room visit ≤ 24 h, or a hospital visit > 24 h.

RESULTS

In total, 536 severe hypoglycaemia events were analysed, of which 157 (29.3%) involved an ambulance/emergency team, 64 (11.9%) led to hospital/emergency room attendance of ≤ 24 h and 36 (6.7%) required hospital admission (> 24 h). Although there were fewer events in people with Type 2 diabetes compared with Type 1 diabetes, once a severe episode occurred, the tendency to utilize healthcare resources was higher in Type 2 diabetes vs. Type 1 diabetes. A higher proportion (47.6%) in the basal-oral therapy group required hospital treatment for > 24 h versus the Type 1 diabetes (5.0%) and Type 2 diabetes multiple daily injections (5.3%) groups.

CONCLUSION

This analysis suggests that severe hypoglycaemia events often result in emergency/ambulance calls and hospital treatment, incurring a substantial health economic burden, and were associated with all insulin regimens.

A patient centred approach to basal insulin choice for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Basal insulins are first line injectable therapy by all international guidelines. Basal insulins can be used alone, in combination with metformin, dual or triple oral therapy, glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists, or prandial insulin. However, all basal insulins are not similar. This article proposes objective parameters, and suggests a simple checklist, using history, physical examination, and investigations, to help choose the appropriate preparation, viz degludec, detemir, glargine or NPH insulin, for persons requiring basal insulin.

Effects of biphasic, basal-bolus or basal insulin analogue treatments on carotid intima-media thickness in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the randomised Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy (CIMT) trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of 3 insulin analogue regimens on change in carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Investigator-initiated, randomised, placebo-controlled trial with a 2 × 3 factorial design, conducted at 8 hospitals in Denmark.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Participants with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 7.5% (≥ 58 mmol/mol), body mass index >25 kg/m(2)) were, in addition to metformin versus placebo, randomised to 18 months open-label biphasic insulin aspart 1-3 times daily (n=137) versus insulin aspart 3 times daily in combination with insulin detemir once daily (n=138) versus insulin detemir alone once daily (n=137), aiming at HbA1c ≤ 7.0% (≤ 53 mmol/mol).

OUTCOMES

Primary outcome was change in mean carotid IMT (a marker of subclinical cardiovascular disease). HbA1c, insulin dose, weight, and hypoglycaemic and serious adverse events were other prespecified outcomes.

RESULTS

Carotid IMT change did not differ between groups (biphasic -0.009 mm (95% CI -0.022 to 0.004), aspart+detemir 0.000 mm (95% CI -0.013 to 0.013), detemir -0.012 mm (95% CI -0.025 to 0.000)). HbA1c was more reduced with biphasic (-1.0% (95% CI -1.2 to -0.8)) compared with the aspart+detemir (-0.4% (95% CI -0.6 to -0.3)) and detemir (-0.3% (95% CI -0.4 to -0.1)) groups (p<0.001). Weight gain was higher in the biphasic (3.3 kg (95% CI 2.7 to 4.0) and aspart+detemir (3.2 kg (95% CI 2.6 to 3.9)) compared with the detemir group (1.9 kg (95% CI 1.3 to 2.6)). Insulin dose was higher with detemir (1.6 IU/kg/day (95% CI 1.4 to 1.8)) compared with biphasic (1.0 IU/kg/day (95% CI 0.9 to 1.1)) and aspart+detemir (1.1 IU/kg/day (95% CI 1.0 to 1.3)) (p<0.001). Number of participants with severe hypoglycaemia and serious adverse events did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid IMT change did not differ between 3 insulin regimens despite differences in HbA1c, weight gain and insulin doses. The trial only reached 46% of planned sample size and lack of power may therefore have affected our results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00657943.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Detemir and Insulin Glargine in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Trial

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies comparing insulin detemir versus insulin glargine showed conflicting results, and included only outpatients. This study compared the two insulin analogs once daily in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

A total of 55 patients aged 18-80 years with hyperglycemia admitted to the endocrinology wards were screened between June 2014 and February 2015. Forty-two enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive either insulin detemir followed by insulin glargine once daily (n = 21), or vice versa (n = 21). The two insulin analogs were titrated 0.1 U/kg once daily based on fasting blood glucose (FBG). After achieving FBG <7.8 mmol/L (the first period), subjects were switched from one analog to the other (the second period) with no change in the dose. The second period lasted for 3 days. When hypoglycemia occurred in the second period, the observation was discontinued. Six-point blood glucose including FBG, 2 h after breakfast, lunch, dinner, bedtime, and at 3:00 am was tested every day. The glucose profiles of the final days in the two periods were compared.

RESULTS

At the end of the first period, days for achieving FBG target (4.0 ± 0.5 days vs. 3.3 ± 0.4 days, t = 1.079, P = 0.286) and total daily dose (30.1 ± 2.4 U vs. 30.1 ± 2.9 U, t = 0.002, P = 0.999) between insulin detemir and insulin glargine were similar. There was no significant difference in the 24-h glucose control between the two analogs. No hypoglycemia occurred with both analogs in the first period. However, in the second period, when insulin glargine was switched to insulin detemir, two, three and, one patients had hypoglycemia events on day 1, day 2 and day 3 of the second period, respectively. One patient had severe hypoglycemia on day 1.

CONCLUSION

When both basal insulin analogs were given once daily in T2D, insulin detemir achieved similar efficacy to insulin glargine. On the other hand, there may be differences in action of the compared basal insulins. Further studies with larger patient samples are necessary to support evidence and reveal possible mechanisms.

Identification of predictors of response to basal insulin and DPP4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes failing to other therapies

AIM

Basal insulin and DPP4 inhibitors are both possible options in patients with type 2 diabetes failing to oral drugs. The identification of clinical predictors of success with either one of the two approaches could be of help in personalizing therapy.

METHODS

The retrospective study was performed on a consecutive series of patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 1,002) failing to at least one oral agent, who had been prescribed either basal insulin or DPP4 inhibitors in the previous 2 years, with a duration of follow-up of at least 6 months. Clinical predictors of success after 6 months from the beginning of second-line treatment were identified in the cohort.

RESULTS

Among patients receiving a prescription of basal insulin, the proportion of therapeutic success at 6 months was 26.5 %. At multivariate analysis, a higher age and BMI, and a lower duration of diabetes were associated with success, as well as treatment with acarbose; conversely, a history of ischemic heart disease was associated with failure. Prescription of DPP4 inhibitors produced a therapeutic success in 24.8 % of cases. At multivariate analysis, success was associated with a lower baseline HbA1c and duration of diabetes, and a higher BMI and comorbidity; in addition, a lower success rate was found in women after adjusting for other confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

The present data support the view that insulin treatment is preferable in patients with severe hyperglycemia, failing to one or more drugs, whereas DPP4 inhibitors appear to be more useful in those with comorbid conditions.

Body Composition and Epicardial Fat in Type 2 Diabetes Patients Following Insulin Detemir Versus Insulin Glargine Initiation

The aim of the study was to compare body composition and epicardial fat thickness changes in insulin-naïve inadequately controlled patients with type 2 diabetes following basal insulin initiation with detemir vs. glargine. Six-month, open-label, interventional randomized pilot study was conducted. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and echocardiography were used to estimate the body composition and epicardial fat thickness respectively. Thirty-six patients in the detemir group and 20 in the glargine group completed the study. Study groups baseline characteristics were comparable. At 6 months, for similar glycemic control, those on detemir significantly gained less total weight (0.6±2.5 vs. 4.2±4.1 kg, p=0.004), total fat mass (0.9±2.2 vs. 2.9±2.4 kg, p=0.02), and truncal fat mass (0.8±1.5 vs. 2.1±1.7 kg, p=0.02), with a loss in truncal lean mass (- 0.8±1.9 kg vs. 0.3±1.7 kg; p=0.02). EFT significantly decreased from baseline in both group (detemir - 1.7±0.52-mm, glargine - 1.1±1.6-mm; p<0.05, without significant difference inter-groups). Within the detemir group, epicardial fat thickness change correlated with truncal fat and total fat mass changes (r=0.65, p=0.06 and r=0.60, p=0.07). In conclusion, detemir resulted in less fat mass gain, a trend for a more pronounced epicardial fat thickness reduction when compared with glargine.

Safety and effectiveness of insulin detemir in combination with oral antidiabetic agents in an outpatient specialist setting: results of the Italian SOLVE™ observational study

AIM

The addition of basal insulin to oral antidiabetics (OADs) is described by a large number of guidelines and commonly used in clinical practice as a way to start insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in order to maximize compliance and minimise the impact of side effects (mainly hypoglycemia and body weight increase).

METHODS

SOLVE™ was a 24-week international observational study conducted in 10 countries (including Italy) for the evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of once-daily insulin detemir as add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) already treated with one or more OADs. The Italian arm of the Solve™ Study aimed to evaluate the safety and the effectiveness of once-daily insulin detemir in combination with OAD agents for the treatment of patients with T2DM in the Italian outpatient specialist setting. The primary endpoint was to assess the incidence of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs) including in the specific major hypoglycemic events during 24 weeks of once-daily insulin detemir treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 4625 patients were enrolled in the study by 223 Italian centres for diabetes care. At baseline the mean (±SD) demographic characteristics of the patients were: age 66.5 (±10.0) years, duration of diabetes 13.25 (±8.14) years, weight 78.95 (±15.86) kg and BMI 29.5 (±5.0) kg/m2. At the end of the study, 3 SADRs (of which 2 were major hypoglycemia) were reported in 2 patients (<0.1%). The percentage of patients with at least 1 minor hypoglycemic event during the 4 weeks preceding insulin initiation was 3.6%. Following insulin initiation, 5.7% (as recorded at baseline visit) had at least 1 minor hypoglycemic event, which decreased slightly by the end of the study compared to baseline (4.8%). In addition, before insulin initiation the mean (±SD) glycemic control values were: fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 11.43 (±3.2) mmol/L and HbA1c 9.16% (±1.46). At the end of the study, HbA1c was reduced by 1.35% (±1.57) (P<0.001), FPG was reduced by 3.34 mmol/L (P<0.001) and the percentage of patients with HbA1c<7% was 21.9%. A mean reduction of 0.52 kg of body weight (P<0.001) was observed compared to before insulin initiation; the body weight reduction was more pronounced in patients with higher BMI before insulin initiation (-1.0 kg for 30<BMI<35; -2.1 kg for BMI<35).

CONCLUSION

In the Italian outpatient setting, once-daily insulin detemir as add-on therapy to OADs was associated with a favourable tolerability profile. The improvement of the glycemic control after initiation with insulin detemir was clinically significant and did not cause an increase in body weight or hypoglycemia.

Effect of a new insulin treatment regimen on glycaemic control and quality of life of Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus during Ramadan fast - an open label, controlled, multicentre, cluster randomised study

We performed a non-inferiority trial comparing insulin detemir (Levemir) and biphasic insulin (NovoMix70) to standard care during Ramadan fast in insulin treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. This was an open label, controlled, multicentre, cluster randomised non-inferiority study. Insulin treated T2DM patients from 12 randomly selected primary clinics received Levemir and NovoMix 70 (intervention, n = 127) or standard care according to the American Diabetes Association recommendations (control, n = 118). Insulin dose (intervention) was 60% of the usual, of this 40% was dosed as Levemir at sunrise and 60% as NovoMix 70 before dinner. Insulin was titrated according to daily 4 point self-measured blood glucose (4P-SMBG) levels. The primary outcome was the difference in mean daily 4P-SMBG during days 23-30 of treatment. Mean age was 60.1 (SD 8.9) and 59.4 (SD 10.1) years in the intervention and control respectively. Mean HbA1c was 8.38% (68 mmol/mol) (SD 0.96) and 8.45% (69 mmol/mol) (SD 1.08). Mean BMI was 32.99 (SD 7.05) and 33.08 (SD 7.24), respectively. The intervention was non-inferior to standard care as assessed by mean 4P-SMBG during days 23-30 of treatment [155 (SD 30.76) mg% and 159 (SD 33.24) mg% respectively, p = 0.269]. Adverse event rate was significantly lower in the intervention group [0.04 (SD 0.06) vs. 0.07 (SD 0.11), p = 0.010]. In particular, hypoglycaemia event rate was lower in the intervention group [0.00 (SD 0.01) vs. 0.01 (SD 0.03), p ≤ 0.001]. To conclude, treatment with Levemir and NovoMix 70 was non-inferior to standard care in this heterogeneous group of patients and was associated with less adverse events.

Glucose-lowering effect and glycaemic variability of insulin glargine, insulin detemir and insulin lispro protamine in people with type 1 diabetes

AIM

To compare, using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system, the effect on glycaemic variability of insulin glargine, detemir and lispro protamine.

METHODS

A total of 49 white people with type 1 diabetes, not well controlled by three times daily insulin lispro, taken for at least 2 months before study and on a stable dose, were enrolled. The study participants were randomized to add insulin glargine, detemir or lispro protamine, once daily, in the evening. We used a CGM system, the iPro Digital Recorder (Medtronic MiniMed, Northridge, CA, USA) for 1 week. Glycaemic control was assessed according to mean blood glucose values, the area under the glucose curve above 3.9 mmol/l (AUC(>3.9)) or above 10.0 mmol/l (AUC(>10.0)), and the percentage of time spent with glucose values >3.9 or >10.0 mmol/l. Intraday glycaemic variability was assessed using standard deviation (s.d.) values, the mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions and continuous overlapping of net glycaemic action. Day-to-day glycaemic variability was assessed using the mean of daily differences.

RESULTS

The s.d. was found to be significantly lower with insulin lispro protamine and glargine compared with insulin detemir. AUC(>3.9) was higher and AUC(>10.0) was lower with insulin lispro protamine and glargine compared with detemir. The mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions and continuous overlapping net glycaemic action values were lower with insulin lispro protamine and glargine compared with detemir. In addition, the mean of daily differences was significantly lower with insulin lispro protamine and glargine compared with detemir. Fewer hypoglycaemic events were recorded during the night-time with insulin lispro protamine compared with glargine and detemir.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that insulin lispro protamine and glargine are more effective than detemir in reducing glycaemic variability and improving glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes. Insulin lispro protamine seems to lead to fewer hypoglycaemic events than other insulin regimens.

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of starting insulin detemir in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

There is limited evidence with respect to the cost-effectiveness of starting insulin in people with diabetes outside the 'western' world. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of starting basal insulin treatment with insulin detemir in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering drugs (OGLDs) in Mexico, South Korea, India, Indonesia, and Algeria.

METHODS

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical and cost outcomes over a 30-year time horizon. Clinical outcomes, baseline characteristics and health state utility data were taken from the A1chieve study. A 1-year analysis was also conducted based on treatment costs and quality-of-life data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as a fraction of GDP per capita, and WHO-CHOICE recommendations (ICER < 3.0) used to define cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Starting insulin detemir was associated with a projected increase in life expectancy (≥1 year) and was considered cost-effective in all of the studied populations with ICERs of -0.02 (Mexico), 0.00 (South Korea), 0.48 (India), 0.12 (Indonesia), and 0.88 (Algeria) GDP/quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was maintained after conducting sensitivity analyses in the 30-year and 1-year analyses. A projected increase in treatment costs was partially offset by a reduction in complications. The difference in overall costs between insulin detemir and OGLDs alone was USD518, 1431, 3510, 15, and 5219, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Changes in clinical outcomes associated with starting insulin detemir in insulin-naïve individuals with T2D resulted in health gains that made the intervention cost-effective in five countries with distinct healthcare resources.

The glycemic efficacies of insulin analogue regimens according to baseline glycemic status in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes: sub-analysis from the A(1)chieve(®) study

AIMS

In this study, we compared the glucose-lowering effectiveness of insulin analogues and their combination according to baseline glycemic status in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) from the A1 chieve(®) study conducted in Korea.

METHODS

This sub-analysis from the A1 chieve(®) study was a 24-week prospective, multicenter, non-interventional, open-labelled study. Of the 4058 patients, 3074 patients who had their HbA1c level measured at baseline were included in this sub-analysis. We classified patients into three groups according to baseline HbA1c levels: group I (HbA1c  < 7.5%), group II (7.5% ≤ HbA1c  < 9.0%) and group III (HbA1c  ≥ 9.0%).

RESULTS

Patients in group I showed no significant HbA1c reduction with any insulin regimens (detemir, aspart, detemir and aspart or biphasic aspart 30 (Novo Nordisk A/S, DK-2880 Bagsvaerd, Denmark) after 24 weeks of treatment. In group II, although HbA1c was decreased for all insulin regimens, there was no difference in mean HbA1c reduction among the four insulin regimens. In patients with a high baseline HbA1c level (group III), mean HbA1c reduction was the greatest in patients on a basal-bolus regimen (detemir and aspart, -3.50%) and lowest in patients on a bolus regimen (aspart, -1.81%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For optimal glycaemic control, a basal-bolus regimen may be adequate for Korean patients with poorly controlled T2D (HbA1c  ≥ 9.0%).