Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with type 2 diabetes switching from basal-bolus insulin regimens in the A1chieve study

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: Insights into clinical efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, and adherence challenges

Insulin therapy plays a crucial role in the management of type 2 diabetes as the disease progresses. Over the past century, insulin formulations have undergone significant modifications and bioengineering, resulting in a diverse range of available insulin products. These products show distinct pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Consequently, various insulin regimens have em-erged for the management of type 2 diabetes, including premixed formulations and combinations of basal and bolus insulins. The utilization of different insulin regimens yields disparate clinical outcomes, adverse events, and, notably, patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs provide valuable insights from the patient's perspective, serving as a valuable mine of information for enhancing healthcare and informing clinical decisions. Adherence to insulin therapy, a critical patient-reported outcome, significantly affects clinical outcomes and is influenced by multiple factors. This review provides insights into the clinical effectiveness of various insulin preparations, PROs, and factors impacting insulin therapy adherence, with the aim of enhancing healthcare practices and informing clinical decisions for individuals with type 2 diabetes.

15 Years of Experience with Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Type 2 Diabetes

Since clinical experience with biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was reviewed in 2012 after 10 years of use worldwide, additional studies have been published that highlight new aspects, including use in real-world populations. Evidence from 35 new studies confirms and builds upon previous work indicating that BIAsp 30 continues to have pharmacodynamic and clinical advantages over biphasic human insulin (BHI 30), including in real-world practice with unselected populations of patients. BIAsp 30 has also been shown to be safe and efficacious as an add-on to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Intensification with BIAsp 30 is a safe and effective way to improve glycemic control, and titration performed by patients can achieve results that are at least comparable to those when being guided by healthcare providers. Stepwise intensification using BIAsp 30 is comparable to intensification using a basal–bolus regimen, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 provides similar glycemic control to a basal-plus regimen. Data from large observational studies, in particular, have identified patient-related characteristics that are associated with improved clinical responses, suggesting that earlier initiation and intensification of therapy is warranted. Finally, new health-economic analyses continue to confirm that BIAsp 30 is cost effective versus other therapies such as BHI 30, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), or insulin glargine in both insulin-naïve and insulin-experienced patients. After 15 years of clinical use worldwide, analysis of more recent 5-year data indicates that BIAsp 30 remains a safe, effective, and simple-to-use insulin for initiation and intensification by diabetes specialists and primary care physicians in a variety of patients with T2DM.

8. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Insulin therapy for adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a position statement of the Korean Diabetes Association, 2017

The Korean Diabetes Association (KDA) has regularly updated its Clinical Practice Guidelines. In 2017, the KDA published a position statement on the use of antihyperglycemic agents for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Growing evidence from new multinational clinical trials using novel and traditional insulin analogues has also been accumulated. Following global trends, many results of clinical trials, especially concerning the clinical efficacy and safety of insulin therapy, have been published about Korean patients with T2DM. After a systematic search of recent evidence, the KDA updated and modified its clinical practice recommendations regarding the initiation, choice, and intensification of insulin and created an insulin treatment algorithm for the first time to guide physicians caring for adult Korean patients with T2DM.

Insulin Therapy for Adult Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Position Statement of the Korean Diabetes Association, 2017

The Korean Diabetes Association (KDA) has regularly updated its Clinical Practice Guidelines. In 2017, the KDA published a position statement on the use of antihyperglycemic agents for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Growing evidence from new multinational clinical trials using novel and traditional insulin analogues has also been accumulated. Following global trends, many results of clinical trials, especially concerning the clinical efficacy and safety of insulin therapy, have been published about Korean patients with T2DM. After a systematic search of recent evidence, the KDA updated and modified its clinical practice recommendations regarding the initiation, choice, and intensification of insulin and created an insulin treatment algorithm for the first time to guide physicians caring for adult Korean patients with T2DM.

Premixed insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes: pros

Because of the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes, the need to intensify treatment to manage hyperglycemia is expanding. Premixed insulin regimens were designed to maximize patient convenience and reduce the number of daily injections required by providing both rapid-acting and intermediate-acting components in one formulation. Although the basal bolus insulin regimen is considered by many as "the golden standard" in reaching goals of glycemic control, proper use of intensified insulin regimens, such as basal bolus or premixed, will result in similar HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemic events, and weight gain. At the same number of daily insulin injections (2 shots/day), the premixed regimen is associated with a significant 0.2 % HbA1c decrease, as compared with the basal plus regimen (one shot of long-acting plus one shot of short-acting insulin). The choice of insulin regimen should consider the preferences, and resources of the individual and the family for adapting treatment to the patient needs. At last, the process of insulin initiation and intensification in type 2 diabetes must be carried out in the context of patient safety, minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, and injection burden.

Personalized intensification of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes - does a basal-bolus regimen suit all patients?

Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) require insulin therapy. If basal insulin fails to achieve glycemic control, insulin intensification is one possible treatment intensification strategy. We summarized clinical data from randomized clinical trials designed to compare the efficacy and safety of basal-bolus and premixed insulin intensification regimens. We defined a between-group difference of ≥0.3% in end-of-study glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as clinically meaningful. A PubMed database search supplemented by author-identified papers yielded 15 trials which met selection criteria: randomized design, patients with T2DM receiving basal-bolus (bolus injection ≤3 times/day) vs. premixed (≤3 injections/day) insulin regimens, primary/major endpoint(s) HbA1c- and/or hypoglycemia-related, and trial duration ≥12 weeks. Glycemic control improved with both basal-bolus and premixed insulin regimens with - in most cases - acceptable levels of weight gain and hypoglycemia. A clinically meaningful difference between regimens in glycemic control was recorded in only four comparisons, all of which favored basal-bolus therapy. The incidence of hypoglycemia was significantly different between regimens in only three comparisons, one of which favored premixed insulin and two basal-bolus therapy. Of the four trials that reported a significant difference between regimens in bodyweight change, two favored basal-bolus therapy and two favored premixed insulin. Thus, on a population level, neither basal-bolus therapy nor premixed insulin showed a consistent advantage in terms of glycemic control, hypoglycemic risk, or bodyweight gain. It is therefore recommended that clinicians should adopt an individualized approach to insulin intensification - taking into account the benefits and risks of each treatment approach and the attitude and preferences of each patient - in the knowledge that both basal-bolus and premixed regimens may be successful.

Intensification of insulin therapy with basal-bolus or premixed insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of intensified insulin regimens (basal-bolus versus premixed) on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. We conducted an electronic search until March 2015 on many electronic databases including online registries of ongoing trials. All RCTs comparing basal-bolus with premixed insulin regimens, with a duration of >12 weeks and with >30 patients per arm, were included. Investigators extracted data on study characteristics, outcome measures, and methodological quality. We found thirteen RCTs lasting 16-60 weeks and involving 5255 patients assessed for the primary endpoint (reduction of HbA1c from baseline). Meta-analysis of change in HbA1c level between basal-bolus and premixed insulin regimens resulted in a small and non-significant difference of 0.09% (95% CI -0.03 to 0.21), with substantial heterogeneity between studies (I(2) = 74.4%). There was no statistically significant difference in the event rate for overall hypoglycemia (0.16 episode/patient/year, 95%CI -2.07 to 2.3), weight change (-0.21 kg, -0.164 to 0.185), and daily insulin dose (-0.54 U/day, -2.7 to 1.6). The likelihood for reaching the HbA1c <7% was 8% higher (3-13%, I(2) = 68.8%) with the basal-bolus as compared with the premixed regimen. There is no clinically relevant difference in the efficacy of basal-bolus versus premixed insulin regimens for HbA1c decrease in type 2 diabetic patients. These findings may be helpful to adapt treatment to individual patient needs.

Drug-related risk of severe hypoglycaemia in observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) leads to multiple complications, including severe hypoglycaemia events (SHEs). SHEs can impact a patient's quality of life and compliance and may directly result in additional costs to the health care system. The aim of this review was to evaluate the risk of severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 (T1) and 2 (T2) DM as observed in everyday clinical practice for various drug regimens.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of observational (retrospective or prospective) studies in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases that covered at least 100 children or adults with T1/T2 DM. In T1 DM, basal-bolus/pre-mix insulin (human or analogue) and insulin pump were reviewed, and in T2 DM, basal-bolus/pre-mix insulin (human or analogue), oral antidiabetic drugs supported with basal insulin (human or analogue), sulfonylureas in monotherapy, and combined oral treatment were reviewed. In order to estimate SHE rates, we extracted data on the time horizon of the study, number of patients, number of SHEs, and number of patients experiencing at least one SHE. We used a random effects model to estimate the annual SHE rate. We considered the risk for other antidiabetic medications in T2 DM to be negligible and the results of our main review yielded no observational data for premixes in T1 DM so they were assessed based on relative rates taken from additional systematic reviews. The study, being a desk research, did not involve any human subjects (including human material or human data) and no ethical committee approval was asked for. For the same reason there was no need to collect informed consent for participation in the study.

RESULTS

We identified 76 observational studies encompassing 707,722.30 patient-years. The estimated annual SHE rate varied from 0.168 (95 % CI 0.123-0.237) for insulin pump up to 1.628 for biphasic human insulin in T1 DM patients, and from 0.0035 for oral antidiabetic drugs up to 0.554 (95 % CI 0.157-7.534) for basal-bolus with human insulin in T2 DM patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review indicates that SHE rates differ between patients depending on treatment regimen. However, SHEs are also driven by other factors. Proper modelling techniques are needed to use various types of information in published studies.

Practical Guidance on the Use of Premix Insulin Analogs in Initiating, Intensifying, or Switching Insulin Regimens in Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Premix insulin analogs are a well-established treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, there is a lack of simple, clear guidance on some aspects of their use. These include choosing a regimen for insulin initiation, recognizing when patients need intensification of therapy, and switching from basal-bolus to a premix insulin analog when appropriate.

METHODS

An independent expert panel formulated recommendations on the use in T2D of the premix insulin analog formulations widely available in Australasia, based on the available evidence and their own experience.

RESULTS

Results from trials in both initiation and intensification of insulin show that no single insulin or regimen is best on all endpoints, and that improved glycemic control can be expected regardless of which regimen is used. Thus, individual patient factors and preferences become more important. Guidance is presented to help the clinician choose between a premix insulin analog or basal analog for insulin initiation, and to intensify insulin therapy using premix insulin analogs. Recommendations are made on dosing, titration, the concomitant use of non-insulin glucose-lowering drugs, and other practical issues, and on the special case of switching from basal-bolus to premix insulin analog therapy.

CONCLUSION

This guidance is intended to help both general and specialist practitioners make informed choices and provide optimal care for patients with T2D. It emphasizes the importance of taking into account individual patient factors and preferences so that the choice of insulin regimen is individualized to the patient in the same way that glycemic targets are now individualized.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk Region IO A/S.