Comparison of insulin lispro mix 25 with insulin lispro mix 50 as insulin starter in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (CLASSIFY study): Subgroup analysis of a Phase 4 open-label randomized trial

A Pragmatic Study of Basal and Mid-Mixture Insulins as Starter Insulins in Chinese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Observations From Long-Term, Real-World Experience

INTRODUCTION

According to Chinese guidelines, basal insulin (BI) or premixed insulins are recommended insulin starters following the failure of oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM) in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This pragmatic study investigated the long-term effectiveness, safety, and cost of add-on BI and mid-mixture insulin analog (MMI) regimens in Chinese patients with T2D.

METHODS

This multicenter, open-label, pragmatic study randomized patients 1:1 to receive either BI or MMI with OAMs adjusted according to current standards of care. We evaluated the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline, safety parameters, and antidiabetic medication costs.

RESULTS

Change in HbA1c from baseline showed a statistically greater decrease at week 48 in the MMI group (MMI: - 2.03% [0.06] vs. BI: - 1.82% [0.06]; P < 0.05). Both groups showed decreases in fasting plasma glucose (mmol/L) (MMI: - 2.53 [0.14] vs. BI: - 3.19 [0.14]; P < 0.01) and postprandial glucose (mmol/L) (MMI: - 4.35 [0.22] vs. BI: - 4.33 [0.23]). More patients in the BI group showed increases in OAM use, while OAM use decreased in the MMI group. Both groups showed stable glycemic control with a very limited insulin dose change from week 24 to week 48. The incidence of total hypoglycemia was higher in the MMI group (MMI: 124% [30.7] vs. BI: 76% [18.5], P < 0.0001), but no incidence of severe hypoglycemia was reported in either group. Treatment costs, in terms of average daily cost and cost of glycemic control, were higher in the BI group.

CONCLUSION

In long-term real-world use, the MMI and BI groups demonstrated improved glycemic control, with the MMI group showing more significant improvement than the BI group. Hypoglycemia incidence was higher in the MMI group, with no major safety issues through week 48. MMI is likely to provide better price value than BI for the treatment of T2D in Chinese patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03018938.

Discharge pharmacotherapy for Type 2 diabetic inpatients at two hospitals of different tiers in Zhejiang Province, China

Objects

To look into the discharge pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetics admitted to two general hospitals of different ranks and inspect current real-world management of discharge pharmacology and its related factors.

Methods

Type 2 diabetics admitted to a tertiary general hospital (Ningbo Medical Treatment Centre Lihuili Hospital, LHLH) or a secondary general hospital (Simen Hospital, SMH) for intensification of their anti-diabetics were included for retrospective analysis. Patients’ demographics, clinical characteristics, admission diabetes therapy and discharge diabetes pharmacology were analyzed and compared among patients in each hospital as well as between two hospitals.

Results

391 patients from LHLH and 164 patients from SMH were included for analyzing. Compared with patients from LHLH, patients from SMH were older, more illiterate and had higher HbA1c concentrations. While there was a nearly equal split of oral anti-diabetes drugs (OADs)-only and Insulin treatment in LHLH’s discharge pharmacotherapy, insulin treatment dominated SMH’s. Basal-and-bolus insulin assumed the majority of SMH’s insulin regimens but only accounted for less than 20% of LHLH’s. The principal discrepancy in OADs-only treatment existed in the utilization of newer classes of OADs. Cost and body mass index (BMI) were the main differentiating factors among OADs-only treatments while duration, BMI and HbA1c differ among insulin treatments at LHLH. Clinical characteristics didn’t significantly differ among OADs-only treatments and HbA1c was the only differentiating factor among insulin treatments at SMH. Overall, hospital, duration, HbA1c, and vascular diseases were main factors that affect discharge pharmacology.

Conclusions

Great disparities exist in the discharge pharmacotherapy at two hospitals. Diabetes management is mostly glucose-oriented at SMH while multifactorial considerations were reflected in LHLH’s discharge pharmacotherapy. Besides differences in patients’ demographics, medication availability and diagnosis of early-stage vascular complications, lack of practical algorithm for discharge management in T2DM may be the underlying deficiency and a key part for future improvement.

The Effect of LM25 and LM50 on Hypoglycemia in Chinese T2DM Patients: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Crossover Trial

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the safety of insulin lispro Mix 25 and 50 (LM25 and LM50) in hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of a phase IV, randomized, crossover clinical trial in Chinese patients with T2DM switching from premixed human insulin 70/30 (PHI70/30) to LM25 or LM50. Eighty-one subjects received a two-stage crossover protocol of either LM25 or LM50 twice daily for 16 weeks. Habitual diet was taken, and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) was performed throughout the study period. High-carbohydrate diet (HCD), high-fat diet (HFD) and habitual diet patterns were taken, and 72 h continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was performed at the last 3 days of each treatment stage.

RESULTS

The frequencies of nocturnal hypoglycemia in LM50 were lower than those in LM25 under a Chinese habitual diet pattern. The related factors of hypoglycemia in patients with T2DM treated with a LM25 or LM50 regimen were the weight-based daily mean insulin dose and the type of combined oral hypoglycemic agents. Under both HCD and habitual diet patterns, the optimal cut point values of bedtime glucose predicting nocturnal hypoglycemia in LM50 were lower than those in LM25.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia in the LM50 regimen was lower than that in the LM25 regimen under the HCD pattern, and the safety range of bedtime glucose for the LM50 regimen was wider than that of the LM25 regimen in Chinese T2DM patients. Premixed insulin analogs combined with acarbose were more helpful to reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.chictr.org.cn #ChiCTR-TTRCC-12002516.

Sexual Differences in response to Mid- or Low-Premixed Insulin Analogue in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To observe whether there are sexual-related differences in response to mid- or low-premixed insulin in type 2 diabetic patients.

METHODS

This was an analysis of CGM data of a previous study. After screening, patients with longstanding T2D receive a 7-day continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy, and then subjects were randomly assigned 1 : 1 into two groups receiving Novo Mix 30 or Humalog Mix 50 regimen for a 2-day phage, followed by a 4-day cross-over period. A 4-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was performed during the cross-over period. The primary endpoint was the differences in glycemic control between male and female patients receiving mid- or low-premixed insulin therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients (52 men and 50 women) completed the study. Our data showed that male patients had significant decrease in mean glucose levels monitored by CGM after three meals during Humalog Mix 50 treatment period compared to those received Novo Mix 30 regimen (0900: 11.0 ± 2.5 vs. 12.2 ± 2.8, 1000: 9.9 ± 2.9 vs. 11.3 ± 3.1, 1200: 8.0 ± 1.9 vs. 9.1 ± 2.5, 1400: 9.2 ± 2.3 vs. 10.3 ± 2.5, and 2000: 7.3 ± 2.1 vs. 8.2 ± 2.4 mmol/L, p < 0.05, respectively). In addition, male patients receiving Novo Mix 30 experienced a significantly increased hypoglycemic duration compared to those of receiving Humalog Mix 50 (0 (0, 4.8) vs. 0 (0, 0), p < 0.05, respectively). In addition, male patients receiving Novo Mix 30 experienced a significantly increased hypoglycemic duration compared to those of receiving Humalog Mix 50 (0 (0, 4.8) vs. 0 (0, 0).

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that male patients with T2D receiving mid-premixed insulin analogue regimen may have a potential benefit of improvement in glycemic control compared to female patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ChiCTR-IPR-15007340.

Comparison of a twice daily injection of insulin aspart 50 with insulin aspart 30 in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of a twice daily injection of insulin aspart (BIAsp) 30 and BIAsp50 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) poorly controlled with oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs).

METHODS

In this 12 week prospective, randomized, parallel trial, a total of 80 T2DM patients, 59 ± 10 years old with a disease duration of 9.3 ± 6.6 years and HbA1c >7% despite large doses of metformin and sulfonylurea administration, were randomized to receive BIAsp30 (n = 40) or BIAsp50 (n = 40). The primary endpoint was a change in HbA1c at week 12.

RESULTS

The changes in HbA1c from baseline were -2.5% ± 1.0% in the BIAsp50 group and -2.5% ± 1.2% in the BIAsp30 group (p = .897). No difference was observed in the rate of HbA1c target achievement (<7.0%) between BIAsp50 (42.5%) and BIAsp30 (32.5%) (p = .495). The change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) in the BIAsp50 group was lower than that in the BIAsp30 group (p < .001), while the change in two-hour postprandial blood glucose (2hPBG) was higher and blood glucose excursion was lower in the BIAsp50 group than that in the BIAsp30 group (p < .001, p < .001). A significant improvement in HbA1c was observed with BIAsp50 in subgroups with baseline blood glucose excursion >7.8 mmol/L or 2hPBG >17.6 mmol/L compared with BIAsp30. There were no differences in hypoglycemia or body weight between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with BIAsp30, BIAsp50 showed greater efficacy in patients with baseline BG excursion >7.8 mmol/L or 2hPBG >17.6 mmol/L as well as good safety for hypoglycemia.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR-IIR-16008958.

Expert Opinion: Patient Selection for Premixed Insulin Formulations in Diabetes Care

Premixed insulins are an important tool for glycemic control in persons with diabetes. Equally important in diabetes care is the selection of the most appropriate insulin regimen for a particular individual at a specific time. Currently, the choice of insulin regimens for initiation or intensification of therapy is a subjective decision. In this article, we share insights, which will help in rational and objective selection of premixed formulations for initiation and intensification of insulin therapy. The glycemic status and its variations in a person help to identify the most appropriate insulin regimen and formulation for him or her. The evolution of objective glucometric indices has enabled better glycemic monitoring of individuals with diabetes. Management of diabetes has evolved from a 'glucocentric' approach to a 'patient-centered' approach; patient characteristics, needs, and preferences should be evaluated when considering premixed insulin for treatment of diabetes.Funding: Novo Nordisk, India.

Contribution of BHG and PPHG to Overall Hyperglycemia in T2DM Patients Treated with LM25 and LM50: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Crossover Trial

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the relative contribution rates of basal hyperglycemia (BHG) and postprandial hyperglycemia (PPHG) to overall hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with insulin lispro mix 25 and 50 (LM25 and LM50) as evaluated by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

METHODS

Eighty-one T2DM patients treated with premixed human insulin 70/30 (PHI70/30) were randomly divided into two groups and received a crossover protocol. In the first 16-week stage, one group received LM25 twice daily, the other group received LM50 twice daily. In the second 16-week stage, the two groups exchanged therapeutic regimen. Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) measurement and CGM were performed at enrollment and at the end of each treatment stage.

RESULTS

BHG's contribution rate increased with increasing HbA_1c (from 34.5% to 60.8%). PPHG's contribution rates in the LM50 regimen were significantly lower than those in LM25 and PHI70/30 regimens at HbA_1c levels < 7.5%. Compared with LM50, LM25 shows a significant difference in reducing HbA_1c in the subgroup with baseline HbA_1c ≥ 8.5% (ΔHbA_1c LM25 vs. LM50 - 0.6 ± 0.1% vs. 0.3 ± 0.1%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For T2DM patients treated with premixed insulin analogues, postprandial hyperglycemia played a major role in the subgroup of patients with HbA_1c < 8.5%, while fasting hyperglycemia became the major contributor to overall hyperglycemia in the subgroup of patients with HbA_1c ≥ 8.5%.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier ChiCTR-TTRCC-12002516.

FUNDING

Lilly Suzhou Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Branch, China) and National Key Program of Clinical Science of China (WBYZ2011-873).

Relative Contribution of Fasting and Postprandial Blood Glucose in Overall Glycemic Control: Post Hoc Analysis of a Phase IV Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Few prospective clinical trials have investigated the role of fasting blood glucose (FBG) and/or postprandial glucose (PPG) in assessing overall glycemic control by using different insulin regimens. In the present post hoc analysis, we assessed the contribution of FBG and/or PPG in overall glycemic control in Chinese patients under insulin treatment.

METHODS

CLASSIFY is a phase IV, randomized, open-label, 26-week, parallel-arm, treat-to-target, multinational, controlled study in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus to compare the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro mix 25 (LM25) and insulin lispro mix 50 (LM50) as starter insulins. Insulin was titrated with an aim to target pre-meal blood glucose (BG) levels at > 3.9 and ≤ 6.1 mmol/L before breakfast and dinner. The primary outcome assessed was the change in HbA1c from baseline.

RESULTS

Chinese patients contributed 38.7% (N = 156) of the total population. The majority of patients were male (52.6%). The mean (SD) body mass index was 24.54 (3.04) kg/m² and mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.54 (1.10) % at baseline. At week 26, LM50 showed a significantly greater reduction from baseline in HbA1c (- 2.03% vs - 1.55%, P < 0.001), average daily BG (- 3.21 vs - 2.34 mmol/L, P < 0.001), average post-meal BG (- 3.58 vs - 2.39 mmol/L, P < 0.001), and average prandial BG excursion (- 1.01 vs - 0.22 mmol/L, P = 0.006) than the LM25 group. The reductions in average pre-meal BG (- 2.59 vs - 2.28 mmol/L, P = 0.137) were not significantly different between the groups. The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets (< 7% or ≤ 6.5%) without nocturnal hypoglycemia or weight gain was greater (P < 0.05) with LM50 compared with LM25.

CONCLUSION

LM50 achieved better overall glycemic control than LM25 as a starter insulin in Chinese patients, which may be due to greater improvement in PPG levels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identification number: NCT01773473.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company, Shanghai, China.

Effects of Insulin Lispro Mix 25 and Insulin Lispro Mix 50 on Postprandial Glucose Excursion in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Prospective, Open-Label, Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

We compared the effects of insulin lispro mix 25 (LM25) and insulin lispro mix 50 (LM50) on postprandial glucose excursion in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, investigator-initiated trial, 81 T2DM patients treated with premixed human insulin 70/30 (PHI70/30) for more than 90 days were randomly divided into two groups and received a crossover protocol of either LM25 or LM50 twice daily for 16 weeks. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was performed for 72 h at baseline and at the end of each treatment phase to evaluate glycemic excursions in the subjects.

RESULTS

The LM50 regimen resulted in significantly smaller postprandial glycemic excursions than the LM25 regimen after breakfast (1.3 ± 2.5 vs. 2.4 ± 2.6 mmol/L, P = 0.046) and dinner (1.5 ± 2.8 vs. 2.8 ± 2.4 mmol/L, P = 0.036). Glycosylated hemoglobin levels were similar for the patients on the three regimens. The percentage of patients who achieved their glycosylated hemoglobin target was significantly higher for the LM25 and LM50 regimens than for the PHI70/30 regimen, regardless of whether the target was set at 7.0% or 6.5%. The proportion of the patients who were hypoglycemic for a high percentage (> 10%) of the time was lower for the LM50 regimen than for the LM25 and PHI70/30 regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

LM50 may provide better glycemic excursion control after breakfast and dinner than LM25 in T2DM patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.chictr.org.cn # ChiCTR-TTRCC-12002516.

FUNDING

Lilly Suzhou Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Branch, China) and National Key Program of Clinical Science of China (WBYZ 2011-873).

Use of 50/50 Premixed Insulin Analogs in Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Clinical Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Premixed insulin analogs represent an alternative to basal or basal-bolus insulin regimens for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). "Low-mix" formulations with a low rapid-acting to long-acting analog ratio (e.g., 25/75) are commonly used, but 50/50 formulations (Mix50) may be more appropriate for some patients. We conducted a systematic literature review to assess the efficacy and safety of Mix50, compared with low-mix, basal, or basal-bolus therapy, for insulin initiation and intensification.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, LillyTrials.com, and NovoNordisk-trials.com were searched (11 or 13 Dec 2016) using terms for T2D, premixed insulin analogs, and/or Mix50. Studies (randomized, nonrandomized, or observational; English only) comparing Mix50 with other insulins (except human) and reporting key efficacy [glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting and postprandial glucose] and/or safety (hypoglycemia, weight gain) outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Narrative reviews, letters, editorials, and conference abstracts were excluded. Risk of bias in randomized trials was assessed using the Cochrane tool.

RESULTS

MEDLINE and EMBASE searches identified 716 unique studies, of which 32 met inclusion criteria. An additional three studies were identified in the other databases. All 19 randomized trials except one were open label; risk of other biases was generally low. Although not conclusive, the evidence suggests that Mix50 may provide better glycemic control (HbA1c reduction) and, particularly, postprandial glucose reduction in certain patients, such as those with high carbohydrate diets and Asian patients, than low-mix and basal therapy. Based on this evidence and our experience, we provide clinical guidance on factors to consider when deciding whether Mix50 is appropriate for individual patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Mix50 may be more suitable than low-mix therapy for certain patients. Clinicians should consider not only efficacy and safety but also patient characteristics and preferences when tailoring insulin treatment to individuals with T2D.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly.

Insulin lispro 25/75 and insulin lispro 50/50 as starter insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: subanalysis of the CLASSIFY randomized trial

In Japan, premixed insulins are commonly used as starter insulin for type 2 diabetes. This subpopulation analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of twice-daily LM25 (25% insulin lispro/75% insulin lispro protamine) and LM50 (50% insulin lispro/50% insulin lispro protamine) as starter insulin in Japanese subjects, and compared these results with the whole-trial populations of East Asian subjects. In this subpopulation analysis of an open-label, phase 4, randomized trial (CLASSIFY), Japanese subjects received LM25 (n = 88) or LM50 (n = 84) twice-daily for 26 weeks. The primary outcome was change from baseline at Week 26 in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Results for Japanese subjects were generally similar to those for the whole-trial population. Similar changes from baseline in HbA1c were observed for LM25 and LM50 groups (least squares [LS] mean difference [95% confidence interval] of LM25 - LM50 = 0.13 [-0.16, 0.41]%, 1.42 [-1.75, 4.48] mmol/mol, p = 0.388). More LM50-treated subjects than LM25-treated subjects achieved HbA1c targets of <7.0% (59.5% versus 43.2%; p = 0.034) or ≤6.5% (45.2% versus 28.4%; p = 0.027). The reduction in postprandial blood glucose concentrations after morning and evening meals was statistically significantly greater for LM50 than for LM25. The incidence of both hypoglycemia and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between treatment groups. Both LM25 and LM50 twice daily appear to be effective and well tolerated as starter insulin, although LM50 might be more effective for Japanese type 2 diabetes patients.