Durability of glycemic control with insulin lispro mix 75/25 versus insulin glargine for older patients with type 2 diabetes

Suitable Use of Injectable Agents to Overcome Hypoglycemia Risk, Barriers, and Clinical Inertia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in older adults requires a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between the disease (medical) and the functional, psychological/cognitive, and social geriatric domains, to individualize both glycemic targets and therapeutic approaches. Prevention of hypoglycemia is a major priority that should be addressed as soon as its presence or risk is detected, adjusting the target and therapeutics accordingly. Nonetheless, treatment intensification should not be neglected when applicable, consistent with recommendations from organizations such as the American Geriatrics Society and the American Diabetes Association, to reduce not only long-term macrovascular and microvascular complications (individualization), but also short-term complications from hyperglycemia (polyuria, volume depletion, urinary incontinence). Such complications can negatively impact the physical and cognitive function of older adults, worsen their quality of life, and additionally affect their families and society. We emphasize individualization, utilizing the multiple classes of antihyperglycemic agents available. Metformin remains as first-line therapy, and additional agents offer advantages and disadvantages that ought to be considered when developing a patient-centric plan of care. For selected cases, injectable therapies such as long-acting basal insulin analogs and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists can offer advantages to counter hypoglycemia risk, patient-related barriers, and clinical inertia. Furthermore, some injectable agents could potentially simplify regimens while providing safe and effective glycemic control. In this review, we discuss the use of injectable therapies for selected community-dwelling older adults, barriers to transition to injectable therapy, and measures aimed at removing these barriers and assisting physicians and their teams to transition older patients to injectable therapies when appropriate.

Diabetes Treatment in the Elderly: Incorporating Geriatrics, Technology, and Functional Medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current approach to diabetes in the elderly incorporates components from the comprehensive geriatric approach. The most updated guidelines from the American Diabetes Association reflect influence from the consensus made in 2012 with the American Geriatrics Society. Notably, the framework included the evaluation for geriatric syndromes (falls and urinary incontinence), functional and cognitive abilities. The goal for this review is to provide an updated summary of treatment strategies for community-dwelling older adults. We identified the need to expand our approach by addressing innovative approaches and scientific concepts from telemedicine, functional medicine, and geriatrics.

RECENT FINDINGS

Findings on cardiovascular protection with sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) and some glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) support their use for older patients with diabetes. However, careful consideration for agent selection must incorporate the presence of geriatric issues, such as geriatric syndromes, or functional and cognitive decline, as they could increase the risk and impact adverse reactions. Telemedicine interventions can improve communication and connection between older patients and their providers, and improve glycemic control. Functional medicine concepts can offer additional adjuvant strategies to support the therapeutic interventions and management of diabetes in the elderly. A systematic review confirmed the efficacy and safety of metformin as first-line therapy of type 2 diabetes in the older adult, but multiple reports highlighted the risk for vitamin B12 deficiency. Randomized controlled trials showed the efficacy and safety of antihyperglycemic agents in the elderly, including some with longer duration and lesser risk for hypoglycemia. Randomized clinical trials showed cardiovascular protection with SGLT-2i (empagliflozin, canagliflozin) and GLP-1RA (liraglutide, semaglutide). The most current guidelines recommend addressing for geriatric syndromes, physical and cognitive function in the elderly, in order to individualize targets and therapeutic strategies. Clinicians managing diabetes in the elderly can play a major role for the early detection and evaluation of geriatric issues in their patients. Telemedicine interventions improve glycemic control, and certain functional medicine strategies could be adjuvant interventions to reduce inflammation and stress, but more studies focused on the elderly population are needed.

Effects of Insulin Treatment with Glargine or Premixed Insulin Lispro Programs in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of intensive insulin therapy (premixed insulin lispro vs. insulin glargine) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and www.clinicaltrials.gov were systematically searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of patients with T2DM treated with either premixed insulin lispro or insulin glargine for a duration of 24 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 13 RCTs and 5401 patients were included in this study. In parallel trials and crossover trials, premixed insulin lispro was found to be superior to insulin glargine at reducing glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (parallel trials: weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.18%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.31 to -0.06; P = 0.004; crossover trials: WMD 0.37%; 95% CI -0.51 to -0.23; P < 0.00001). Premixed insulin lispro resulted in more weight gain than insulin glargine (parallel trials: WMD +0.64 kg; 95% CI +0.14 to +1.15; P = 0.01; crossover trials: WMD +0.74 kg; 95% CI +0.19 to +1.29; P = 0.009), and premixed insulin lispro was associated with a higher risk of hypoglycemia than insulin glargine (parallel trials: odds ratio [OR] 1.20; 95% CI 1.06-1.36; P = 0.005; crossover trials: OR 2.24; 95% CI 1.45-3.46; P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Premixed insulin lispro provides a larger reduction in HbA1c and is associated with a significantly higher risk of hypoglycemia and greater weight gain in patients with T2DM. These findings may be helpful in selecting therapy for individual subjects.

Comparison of insulin intensification strategies with insulin lispro low mixture twice daily versus basal insulin glargine and prandial insulin lispro once daily in East Asian and Caucasian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

This analysis evaluated efficacy and safety of insulin lispro low mixture (LM25) twice daily (breakfast and dinner) versus basal insulin glargine (bedtime) plus prandial insulin lispro (IGL) once daily before the largest meal in East Asian (EA) and Caucasian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who failed to reach glycemic targets on basal insulin glargine with metformin and/or pioglitazone.

METHODS

Included patients had an HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤10.5% and fasting plasma glucose ≤6.7 mmol/L. Primary outcome was HbA1c change at 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Baseline mean HbA1c was numerically similar between groups in EA (n = 79) and Caucasian (n = 278) patients. Mean (± SD) HbA1c decreased significantly from baseline to 24 weeks for LM25 and IGL in both subpopulations (EA: -1.32 ± 0.96% and -0.89 ± 0.96%; Caucasian: -1.24 ± 0.98% and -1.04 ± 0.97; all P < 0.0001). The respective proportions reaching HbA1c ≤7.0% at Week 24 in the LM25 and IGL groups were 33.3% and 22.9% (EA) and 37.2% and 34.1% (Caucasian). Mean (± SD) rates of hypoglycemia per 30 days in the LM25 and IGL groups were 0.74 ± 1.16 and 1.22 ± 1.36 (EA) and 1.38 ± 2.04 and 1.65 ± 2.43 (Caucasian). Mean (± SD) weight gain changes in the LM25 and IGL groups were 0.62 ± 2.78 and 0.51 ± 2.63 kg (EA) and 1.77 ± 2.91 and 0.67 ± 3.09 kg (Caucasian).

CONCLUSIONS

Both strategies improved glycemic control in a small group of EA and Caucasian patients not adequately controlled on insulin glargine plus metformin and/or pioglitazone.