Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension versus insulin glargine once daily added to oral antihyperglycaemic medications and exenatide in type 2 diabetes: a prospective randomized open-label trial

Efficacy and safety of basal insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Aim

The comparative effectiveness of basal insulins has been examined in several studies. However, current treatment algorithms provide a list of options with no clear differentiation between different basal insulins as the optimal choice for initiation.

Methods

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI, and Scopus, and a reference list of retrieved studies and reviews were performed up to November 2023. We identified phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens. The primary outcomes evaluated were HbA1c reduction, weight change, and hypoglycemic events. The revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals considering the critical assumptions in the networks. The certainty of the evidence and confidence in the rankings was assessed using the GRADE minimally contextualized approach.

Results

Of 20,817 retrieved studies, 44 RCTs (23,699 participants) were eligible for inclusion in our network meta-analysis. We found no significant difference among various basal insulins (including Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH), ILPS, insulin glargine, detemir, and degludec) in reducing HbA1c. Insulin glargine, 300 U/mL (IGlar-300) was significantly associated with less weight gain (mean difference ranged from 2.9 kg to 4.1 kg) compared to other basal insulins, namely thrice-weekly insulin degludec (IDeg-3TW), insulin degludec, 100 U/mL (IDeg-100), insulin degludec, 200 U/mL (IDeg-200), NPH, and insulin detemir (IDet), but with low to very low certainty regarding most comparisons. IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 were associated with significantly lower odds of overall, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemic events than NPH and insulin lispro protamine (ILPS) (moderate to high certainty evidence). NPH was associated with the highest odds of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to others. Network meta-analysis models were robust, and findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

The efficacy of various basal insulin regimens is comparable. However, they have different safety profiles. IGlar-300 may be the best choice when weight gain is a concern. In contrast, IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 may be preferred when hypoglycemia is the primary concern.

Role of Glucose-Lowering Medications in Erectile Dysfunction

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a long-term complication of type 2 diabetes (T2D) widely known to affect the quality of life. Several aspects of altered metabolism in individuals with T2D may help to compromise the penile vasculature structure and functions, thus exacerbating the imbalance between smooth muscle contractility and relaxation. Among these, advanced glycation end-products and reactive oxygen species derived from a hyperglycaemic state are known to accelerate endothelial dysfunction by lowering nitric oxide bioavailability, the essential stimulus of relaxation. Although several studies have explained the pathogenetic mechanisms involved in the generation of erectile failure, few studies to date have described the efficacy of glucose-lowering medications in the restoration of normal sexual activity. Herein, we will present current knowledge about the main starters of the pathophysiology of diabetic ED and explore the role of different anti-diabetes therapies in the potential remission of ED, highlighting specific pathways whose activation or inhibition could be fundamental for sexual care in a diabetes setting.

Rationale for Timely Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Within the Framework of Individualised Treatment: 2020 Update

Type 2 diabetes is characterised by chronic hyperglycaemia and variable degrees of insulin deficiency and resistance. Hyperglycaemia and elevated fatty acids exert harmful effects on β-cell function, regeneration and apoptosis (gluco-lipotoxicity). Furthermore, chronic hyperglycaemia triggers a vicious cycle of insulin resistance, low-grade inflammation and a cascade of pro-atherogenic processes. Thus, timely near to normal glucose control is of utmost importance in the management of type 2 diabetes and prevention of micro- and macroangiopathy. The majority of patients are multimorbid and obese, with critical comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Recently published guidelines therefore recommend patient-centred risk/benefit-balanced use of oral glucose-lowering drugs or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, or switching to insulin with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) out of target. This article covers the indications of early insulin treatment to prevent diabetes-related complications, particularly in subgroups with severe insulin deficit, and to achieve recovery of residual β-cell function. Furthermore, the individualised, risk/benefit-balanced, timely initiation of insulin as second and third option is analysed. Timely insulin initiation may prevent diabetes progression, reduce diabetes-related complications and has less serious adverse effects. Basal insulin is the preferred option in most clinical situations with consequences of undertreatment of chronic hyperglycaemia.

Comparative Benefits and Harms of Basal Insulin Analogues for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Basal insulin analogues aim for protracted glycemic control with minimal adverse effects.

PURPOSE

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of basal insulin analogues for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

DATA SOURCES

Several databases from inception to April 2018 without language restrictions, ClinicalTrials.gov to April 2018, references of reviews, and meeting abstract books.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials lasting at least 12 weeks that compared efficacy (change in hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] level from baseline [primary outcome]; percentage of patients with HbA1c level <7% at end of study and change in body weight [secondary outcomes]) and safety (hypoglycemia) of basal insulin analogues.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each outcome. All authors evaluated overall confidence in the evidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-nine trials (26 195 patients) assessed 10 basal insulin analogues. Low- to very-low-quality evidence indicated that thrice-weekly degludec (Deg-3TW) was inferior to most other regimens for reducing HbA1c level, with mean differences ranging from 0.21% (vs. degludec, 100 U/mL [Deg-100]) to 0.32% (vs. glargine, 300 U/mL [Glar-300]). High- to moderate-quality evidence suggested that detemir had a favorable weight profile versus all comparators, and Glar-300 was associated with less weight gain than glargine, 100 U/mL (Glar-100); Deg-100; degludec, 200 U/mL (Deg-200); Deg-3TW; and LY2963016. Low- and very-low-quality evidence suggested that Deg-100, Deg-200, and Glar-300 were associated with lower incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia than detemir, Glar-100, LY2963016, and neutral protamine lispro (NPL). Incidence of severe hypoglycemia did not differ among regimens, except NPL, which was associated with increased risk versus Deg-100, detemir, Glar-100, and Glar-300.

LIMITATIONS

Results are based mostly on indirect comparisons. Confidence in summary estimates is low or very low due to individual-study limitations, imprecision, or inconsistency.

CONCLUSION

Low-quality evidence suggests that basal insulin analogues for T2DM do not substantially differ in their glucose-lowering effect. Low- and very-low-quality evidence suggests some regimens may be associated with lower risk for nocturnal hypoglycemia (Deg-100, Deg-200, and Glar-300) or less weight gain (detemir and Glar-300).

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42016037055).

An Algorithm for Generating Individualized Treatment Decision Trees and Random Forests

With new treatments and novel technology available, precision medicine has become a key topic in the new era of healthcare. Traditional statistical methods for precision medicine focus on subgroup discovery through identifying interactions between a few markers and treatment regimes. However, given the large scale and high dimensionality of modern data sets, it is difficult to detect the interactions between treatment and high dimensional covariates. Recently, novel approaches have emerged that seek to directly estimate individualized treatment rules (ITR) via maximizing the expected clinical reward by using, for example, support vector machines (SVM) or decision trees. The latter enjoys great popularity in clinical practice due to its interpretability. In this paper, we propose a new reward function and a novel decision tree algorithm to directly maximize rewards. We further improve a single tree decision rule by an ensemble decision tree algorithm, ITR random forests. Our final decision rule is an average over single decision trees and it is a soft probability rather than a hard choice. Depending on how strong the treatment recommendation is, physicians can make decisions based on our model along with their own judgment and experience. Performance of ITR forest and tree methods is assessed through simulations along with applications to a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 1385 patients with diabetes and an EMR cohort of 5177 patients with diabetes. ITR forest and tree methods are implemented using statistical software R (https://github.com/kdoub5ha/ITR.Forest).

Efficacy and safety of insulin-GLP-1 receptor agonists combination in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Attaining optimal glycemic targets in patients with type 2 diabetes is often hard and compromised by the shortcomings of the several treatments. Areas covered: When glycemic levels are not adequately controlled, an association of GLP-1 receptor agonists and insulin therapy can be adopted. In order to assess the benefit/risk profile of this combination therapy, a literature search of randomized clinical trials was performed.Eighteen trials matched the inclusion criteria. In 10 studies, GLP-1 receptor agonists were added on to an existing regimen, whereas insulin added to an existing GLP-1 receptor agonists regimen occurred in 2 studies. Six studies compared GLP-1 receptor agonists with short acting insulin as a treatment strategy to intensify basal insulin therapy. Expert opinion: Clinical trials herein reviewed demonstrated the safety and the efficacy of combining GLP-1 receptor agonists with basal insulin, with most studies showing equal or slightly superior efficacy, as compared with the addition of prandial insulin, associated with weight loss and less hypoglycemia.

Use of Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension in Pregnancy

Maternal metabolism changes substantially during pregnancy, which poses numerous challenges to physicians managing pregnancy in women with diabetes. Insulin is the agent of choice for glycemic control in pregnant women with diabetes, and the insulin analogs are particularly interesting for use in pregnancy. These agents may reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and promote a more physiological glycemic profile than regular human insulin in pregnant women with type 1 (T1D), type 2 (T2D), or gestational (GDM) diabetes. However, there have been concerns regarding potential risk for crossing the placental barrier, mitogenic stimulation, teratogenicity, and embryotoxicity. Insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS), an intermediate- to long-acting insulin, has a stable and predictable pharmacological profile, and appears to have a favorable time–action profile and produce desirable basal and postprandial glycemic control. As the binding of insulin lispro is unaffected by the protamine molecule, ILPS is likely to have the same mitogenic and immunogenic potential as insulin lispro. Insulin lispro produces similar outcomes to regular insulin in pregnant women with T1D, T2D, or GDM, does not cross the placental barrier, and is considered a useful treatment option for pregnant women with diabetes. Clinical data support the usefulness of ILPS for basal insulin coverage in non-pregnant patients with T1D or T2D, and suggest that the optimal regimen, in terms of balance between efficacy and hypoglycemic risk, is a once-daily injection, especially in patients with T2D. Available data concerning use of ILPS in pregnant women are currently derived from retrospective analyses that involved, in total, >1200 pregnant women. These analyses suggest that ILPS is at least as safe and effective as neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Thus, available experimental and clinical data suggest that ILPS once daily is a safe and effective option for the management of diabetes in pregnant women.

Funding: Eli Lilly and Company.

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.