Insulin lispro versus regular insulin in children with type 1 diabetes on twice daily insulin

Management of Individuals With Diabetes at High Risk for Hypoglycemia: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

CONTEXT

Hypoglycemia in people with diabetes is common, especially in those taking medications such as insulin and sulfonylureas (SU) that place them at higher risk. Hypoglycemia is associated with distress in those with diabetes and their families, medication nonadherence, and disruption of life and work, and it leads to costly emergency department visits and hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the diabetes-specific parts of the 2009 Evaluation and Management of Adult Hypoglycemic Disorders: Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline and to address developing issues surrounding hypoglycemia in both adults and children living with diabetes. The overriding objectives are to reduce and prevent hypoglycemia.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of clinician experts, together with a patient representative, and methodologists with expertise in evidence synthesis and guideline development, identified and prioritized 10 clinical questions related to hypoglycemia in people living with diabetes. Systematic reviews were conducted to address all the questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 10 questions specific to hypoglycemia risk and prevention in people with diabetes for which 10 recommendations were made. The guideline includes conditional recommendations for use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and algorithm-driven insulin pumps in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), use of CGM for outpatients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of long-acting and rapid-acting insulin analogs, and initiation of and continuation of CGM for select inpatient populations at high risk for hypoglycemia. Strong recommendations were made for structured diabetes education programs for those at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of glucagon preparations that do not require reconstitution vs those that do for managing severe outpatient hypoglycemia for adults and children, use of real-time CGM for individuals with T1D receiving multiple daily injections, and the use of inpatient glycemic management programs leveraging electronic health record data to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations are based on the consideration of critical outcomes as well as implementation factors such as feasibility and values and preferences of people with diabetes. These recommendations can be used to inform clinical practice and health care system improvement for this important complication for people living with diabetes.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Guidelines: Management of Diabetes and High Risk of Hypoglycemia

CONTEXT

Interventions targeting hypoglycemia in people with diabetes are important for improving quality of life and reducing morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of individuals with diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia.

METHODS

We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 149 studies reporting on 43 344 patients. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and reduced the proportion of patients with hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] levels <54 mg/dL). There were no data on use of real-time CGM with algorithm-driven insulin pumps vs multiple daily injections with BG testing in people with T1D. CGM in outpatients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin and/or sulfonylureas reduced time spent with BG levels under 70 mg/dL. Initiation of CGM in hospitalized patients at high risk for hypoglycemia reduced episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 54 mg/dL and time spent under 54 mg/dL. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and lower than 54 mg/dL detected by CGM was significantly higher than point-of-care BG testing. We found no data evaluating continuation of personal CGM in the hospital. Use of an inpatient computerized glycemic management program utilizing electronic health record data was associated with fewer patients with and episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and fewer patients with severe hypoglycemia compared with standard care. Long-acting basal insulin analogs were associated with less hypoglycemia. Rapid-acting insulin analogs were associated with reduced severe hypoglycemia, though there were more patients with mild to moderate hypoglycemia. Structured diabetes education programs reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia and time below 54 mg/dL in outpatients taking insulin. Glucagon formulations not requiring reconstitution were associated with longer times to recovery from hypoglycemia, although the proportion of patients who recovered completely from hypoglycemia was not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review summarized the best available evidence about several interventions addressing hypoglycemia in people with diabetes. This evidence base will facilitate development of clinical practice guidelines by the Endocrine Society.

Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin on postprandial glucose and hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Strict glucose control using multiple doses of insulin is the standard treatment for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), but increased risk of hypoglycemia is a frequent drawback. Regular insulin in multiple doses is important for achieving strict glycemic control for T1DM, but short-acting insulin analogues may be better in reducing hypoglycemia and postprandial glucose levels.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues vs regular human insulin on hypoglycemia and postprandial glucose in patients with T1DM.

METHODS

Searches were run on the electronic databases MEDLINE, Cochrane-CENTRAL, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, LILACS, and DARE for RCTs published until August 2017. To be included in the study, the RCTs had to cover a minimum period of 4 weeks and had to assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues vs regular human insulin on hypoglycemia and postprandial glucose levels in patients with T1DM. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the quality of the selected studies. The primary outcomes analyzed were hypoglycemia (total episodes, nocturnal hypoglycemia, and severe hypoglycemia) and postprandial glucose (at all times, after breakfast, after lunch, and after dinner). Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and quality of life were considered secondary outcomes. The risk of bias of each RCT was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias table, while the quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADEpro software. The pooled mean difference in the number of hypoglycemic episodes and postprandial glucose between short-acting insulin analogues vs. regular human insulin was calculated using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Of the 2897 articles retrieved, 22 (6235 patients) were included. Short-acting insulin analogues were associated with a decrease in total hypoglycemic episodes (risk rate 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-0.99; 6235 patients; I² = 81%), nocturnal hypoglycemia (risk rate 0.55, 95% CI 0.40-0.76, 1995 patients, I² = 84%), and severe hypoglycemia (risk rate 0.68, 95% CI 0.60-0.77; 5945 patients, I² = 0%); and with lower postprandial glucose levels (mean difference/MD - 19.44 mg/dL; 95% CI - 21.49 to - 17.39; 5031 patients, I² = 69%) and lower HbA1c (MD - 0,13%; IC 95% - 0.16 to - 0.10; 5204 patients; I² = 73%) levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-acting insulin analogues are superior to regular human insulin in T1DM patients for the following outcomes: total hypoglycemic episodes, nocturnal hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, postprandial glucose, and HbA1c.

Efficacy and Safety of Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogs in Special Populations with Type 1 Diabetes or Gestational Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

To assess the efficacy and safety of three available rapid-acting insulin analogs (insulins lispro, aspart and glulisine, respectively) in pregnant women, children/adolescents and people using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Reviews were searched electronically, and their bibliographies examined to identify suitable studies for review and inclusion in a meta-analysis. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that reported data on relevant clinical outcomes. A different reviewer abstracted data for each of the three subpopulations, and one reviewer abstracted data for all three. Any differences were resolved by consensus or by consulting a fourth reviewer.

RESULTS

In people on CSII, rapid-acting insulin analogs lowered postprandial plasma glucose post-breakfast to a greater extent than did regular human insulin (RHI) (mean difference: - 1.63 mmol/L [95% confidence interval - 1.71; - 1.54]), with a comparable risk of hypoglycemia and a trend for lower glycated hemoglobin. In the pediatric population, glycemic control was similar with rapid-acting insulin analogs and RHI, with no safety concerns. Meta-analysis indicated severe hypoglycemic events were comparable for rapid-acting insulin analogs versus RHI (risk difference: 0.00 [95% confidence interval - 0.01; 0.01]). In the pregnancy group, insulin lispro and insulin aspart were safe and effective for both mother and fetus, with glycemic control being at least as good as with RHI. There were no data on insulin glulisine during pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

Rapid-acting insulin analogs appear generally safe and effective in these special populations; however, additional trials would be helpful.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S.

20 Years of insulin lispro in pediatric type 1 diabetes: a review of available evidence

BACKGROUND

Insulin lispro, the first rapid-acting insulin analog, was developed 20 years ago and has been studied in multiple situations and various populations.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on the use of insulin lispro in children, adolescents, and young adults.

PATIENTS

Children, adolescents, and young adults with type-1-diabetes.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-two relevant publications, identified by a systematic (MEDLINE) and manual literature search, were reviewed.

RESULTS

Multiple daily injection (MDI) treatment with insulin lispro or other rapid-acting insulins, mainly using neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin as the basal component, was associated with reduced postprandial glucose excursions, similar or improved HbA1c levels, and similar or reduced risks of severe hypoglycemia when compared with regular human insulin across all age-groups. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII)-treatment with insulin lispro also showed similar or improved glycemic control vs. MDI- or other CSII-regimens across all age-groups, without increasing the rate of severe hypoglycemia. The other two more recently developed rapid-acting insulins (aspart, glulisine) demonstrated non-inferiority to lispro on HbA1c. Long-term observational studies and real-life experience indicate that the increasing use of optimized MDI- and CSII-regimens with insulin lispro was associated with improvements in overall glycemic control.

CONCLUSIONS

For almost 20 years, rapid-acting insulins, in particular insulin lispro as the first-in-class, have contributed to broadening the treatment options for the unique needs of pediatric patients with type-1-diabetes across all age-groups, and have enabled more physiological insulin administration. Now widely used, they have allowed pediatric patients to safely reach better glycemic control, with more flexibility in their daily lives.

Diversity in diabetes: the role of insulin aspart

Diabetes management is changing not only with novel treatments but also in patient demography. This presents clinical challenges and influences our view of diabetes therapies. Insulin analogues have been developed to overcome some of the limitations of traditional human insulins, with the aim of providing a more physiological pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile. The rapid-acting insulin analogue insulin aspart has been investigated in many clinical trials over the past 10 years and the aim of this review is to present the insulin aspart clinical trial data from across the spectrum of patients with diabetes. Five studies have looked at insulin aspart use (including continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion) in children and adolescents, where the analogue was as effective and well tolerated as soluble human insulin. One large-scale, randomized, controlled trial in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes observed trends towards a reduction in major hypoglycaemia, fewer preterm deliveries and lower birthweight with insulin aspart compared with soluble human insulin. Two 6-month, randomized, controlled, multicentre, multinational, parallel-group, open-label trials reported significant reductions in haemoglobin A(1c) and major nocturnal hypoglycaemia with insulin aspart compared with soluble human insulins in patients with type 1 diabetes. There are fewer data involving insulin analogue use in hospitals and in elderly patients with diabetes, but some recent studies have investigated insulin aspart in the emergency department, intensive/non-intensive care setting and in a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study in patients aged ≥ 65 years. In summary, the evidence would suggest that insulin aspart is suitable for use in a variety of patients with diabetes.

Comparable efficacy and safety of insulin glulisine and insulin lispro when given as part of a Basal-bolus insulin regimen in a 26-week trial in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

We compared the efficacy and safety of insulin glulisine with insulin lispro as part of a basal-bolus regimen in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Overall, 572 children and adolescents (4-17 years old) using insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin as basal insulin were enrolled in a 26-week, multicenter, open, centrally randomized, parallel-group, noninferiority study. Subjects were randomized to receive glulisine (n = 277) or lispro (n= 295) 0-15 min premeal.

RESULTS

Baseline-to-endpoint hemoglobin A1c changes were similar between the two insulins: adjusted mean change (glulisine vs. lispro), 0.10% versus 0.16%; between-treatment difference (glulisine-lispro), &minsu;0.06, 95% confidence interval (-0.24; 0.12); and prespecified noninferiority margin, 0.4%. Overall, for all age groups together, the percentage of patients achieving American Diabetes Association age-specific A1c targets at endpoint was significantly higher (P = 0.039) with glulisine (38.4%) versus lispro (32.0%). From Month 4 to endpoint, both "all" and "severe" symptomatic hypoglycemia rates were similar (3.10 vs. 2.91 and 0.06 vs. 0.07 events/patient-month, respectively). Frequency and type of adverse events, serious adverse events, or hypoglycemia reported as serious adverse events were similar between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Glulisine was as effective as lispro in baseline-to-endpoint A1c change, and both treatments were similarly well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of insulin analogues for the management of diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although insulin analogues are commonly prescribed for the management of diabetes mellitus, there is uncertainty regarding their optimal use. We conducted meta-analyses to compare the outcomes of insulin analogues with conventional insulins in the treatment of type 1, type 2 and gestational diabetes.

METHODS

We updated 2 earlier systematic reviews of the efficacy and safety of rapid-and long-acting insulin analogues. We searched electronic databases, conference proceedings and "grey literature" up to April 2007 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared insulin analogues with conventional insulins. Study populations of interest were people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (adult and pediatric) and women with gestational diabetes.

RESULTS

We included 68 randomized controlled trials in the analysis of rapid-acting insulin analogues and 49 in the analysis of long-acting insulin analogues. Most of the studies were of short to medium duration and of low quality. In terms of hemoglobin A1c, we found minimal differences between rapid-acting insulin analogues and regular human insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin lispro: -0.09%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.16% to -0.02%; for insulin aspart: -0.13%, 95% CI -0.20% to -0.07%). We observed similar outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin lispro: -0.03%, 95% CI -0.12% to -0.06%; for insulin aspart: -0.09%, 95% CI -0.21% to 0.04%). Differences between long-acting insulin analogues and neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in terms of hemoglobin A1c were marginal among adults with type 1 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin glargine: -0.11%, 95% CI -0.21% to -0.02%; for insulin detemir: -0.06%, 95% CI -0.13% to 0.02%) and among adults with type 2 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin glargine: -0.05%, 95% CI -0.13% to 0.04%; for insulin detemir: 0.13%, 95% CI 0.03% to 0.22%). Benefits in terms of reduced hypoglycemia were inconsistent. There were insufficient data to determine whether insulin analogues are better than conventional insulins in reducing long-term diabetes-related complications or death.

INTERPRETATION

Rapid-and long-acting insulin analogues offer little benefit relative to conventional insulins in terms of glycemic control or reduced hypoglycemia. Long-term, high-quality studies are needed to determine whether insulin analogues reduce the risk of long-term complications of diabetes.

Paediatric diabetes: achieving practical, effective insulin therapy in type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Both type 1 and type 2 diabetes can occur in children and adolescents. Type 1 diabetes is the most common chronic disease in children in the developed countries and the number of adolescents with type 2 diabetes is rising as a consequence of the obesity epidemic. As they grow, children and adolescents with diabetes have special and changing needs; these must be recognized and addressed as there are major physiological, medical, psychological, social and emotional differences in adults with diabetes. Glycaemic control is important to prevent or delay long-term complications also in the paediatric age group. This goal is often achieved using insulin. However, practical issues associated with insulin use in paediatric patients include attainment of target glycaemic levels without increased risk of hypoglycaemia, hormone-driven fluctuations in insulin requirements, and the psychological and social impacts of weight gain and puberty. This article reviews the advances that are helping to overcome these issues and enable paediatric patients to achieve their treatment goals.

CONCLUSION

Advanced insulin formulations, particularly insulin analogues, tailored insulin regimens and delivery systems combined with age-appropriate education, patient/carer involvement and ongoing support from the wider diabetes team will assist in the effective management of diabetes among children and adolescents.

Insulin Lispro

Insulin lispro, alone (Humalog) or as premixture (Humalog Mix25 or Humalog Mix50) is indicated for the treatment of hyperglycaemia in diabetes mellitus in many countries worldwide. It is a recombinant human insulin analogue and, except for the transposition of two amino acids, is identical to endogenous human insulin. Insulin lispro has a faster onset of action and shorter duration of activity than regular human insulin, and the time-action profile of insulin lispro mimics that of the physiological response of endogenous human insulin to food intake. In diabetic patients, from young children to the elderly, it has demonstrated postprandial blood glucose control similar to or better than that achieved with regular human insulin, without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia. In some trials, the risk of hypoglycaemia, including nocturnal episodes, was less in insulin lispro recipients than in regular human insulin recipients. Insulin lispro alone, or as a premixture with the longer-acting insulin neutral protamine lispro, can be administered immediately before or after meals. This convenient and flexible injection schedule may enable patients, including those with a non-routine lifestyle or unpredictable eating or exercising habits, to achieve the tight glycaemic control required to minimise long-term complications of diabetes and contributes to patient satisfaction with treatment.

Contemporary Australian outcomes in childhood and adolescent type 1 diabetes: 10 years post the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial

The reporting of the results of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial in 1993 has led to a major reappraisal of management practices and outcomes in type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents. A considerable body of outcome data has been generated from Australia in this post-Diabetes Control and Complications Trial era relating to incidence, metabolic control, growth, hypoglycaemia, microvascular and macrovascular complications, cognition, behaviour and quality of life. These data are important in planning future management strategies and resource allocation and as a basis for future research.

How well do rapid-acting insulins work in obese individuals?

Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions worldwide and most individuals with type 2 diabetes are obese. Therefore, there is a pressing need to carefully evaluate the impact of obesity on the efficacy of all diabetes therapies. Previously, obesity has been shown to adversely affect the efficacy of oral antidiabetic drugs; however, less is known about the impact of obesity on the properties of insulin and its analogues. As patients near target HbA1c, the more postprandial hyperglycaemia contributes to overall glycaemic control; thus, mealtime insulin, often supplied by a rapid-acting insulin analogue (RAI), becomes of increasing importance. As glycaemic targets set by professional bodies become lower and poor glycaemic control becomes increasingly less acceptable, earlier addition of RAIs to patients' treatment regimens may be required to meet these targets. However, in clinical practice, multiple barriers have challenged the acceptance and effective use of insulin therapy, including concern that it may cause weight gain. RAIs should ideally maintain their rapid-acting pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles, irrespective of subcutaneous body fat, skin thickness and body mass index, in order to effectively meet intensive treatment goals. For example, initial PK/PD data with insulin glulisine in obese individuals suggest that this RAI may maintain its rapid-acting profile better than insulin lispro in the first 2 hours post-injection. However, data are preliminary and a thorough analysis of the impact of obesity on all RAIs in type 2 diabetes is warranted. This review focuses on the potential impact of obesity on RAIs and presents an overview of investigations in this area.

Insulin analogues in children and teens with type 1 diabetes: advantages and caveats

This article reviews the advantages to and caveats of the use of newer insulin formulations (insulin analogues) and regimens in children and teens who have type 1 diabetes, their affect on glycemic control, frequency of hypoglycemic events, daily insulin requirements, and adverse affects such as excessive weight gain, which provides a further major challenge in adolescents. We also address briefly the use of adjunctive agents in the treatment of type 1 diabetes in children and teens.