Practical use of insulin degludec/insulin aspart in a multinational setting: beyond the guidelines

Premixed insulin: Advantages, disadvantages, and future

Premixed insulin combines two types of insulin in a single injection. This combination streamlines dosing for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, thereby enhancing convenience. However, patients receiving premixed insulin commonly have less satisfactory blood glucose control. The fixed ratio of insulin in these formulations frequently fails to account for the nuanced demands of individualized glucose-lowering therapy. Moreover, local absorption of mixed insulin and potential systemic autoimmune responses may further compromise glycaemic control. The co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart introduces a new combination of the two insulin types within a single injection, offering a promising solution for mitigating the limitations inherent in premixed insulin.

Efficacy, safety and treatment satisfaction of transition to a regimen of insulin degludec/aspart: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of transitioning from a thrice-daily pre-mixed insulin or basal-prandial regimen to insulin deglu-dec/aspart (IDegAsp) therapy, with insufficient data from the Chinese popu-lation.

AIM

To demonstrate the efficacy, safety, and treatment satisfaction associated with the transition to IDegAsp in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

In this 12-week open-label, non-randomized, single-center, pilot study, patients with T2DM receiving thrice-daily insulin or intensive insulin treatment were transitioned to twice-daily injections of insulin IDegAsp. Insulin doses, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, fasting blood glucose (FBG), hypoglycemic events, a Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, and other parameters were assessed at baseline and 12-weeks.

RESULTS

This study included 21 participants. A marked enhancement was observed in the FBG level (P = 0.02), daily total insulin dose (P = 0.03), and overall diabetes treatment satisfaction (P < 0.01) in the participants who switched to IDegAsp. There was a decrease in HbA1c levels (7.6 ± 1.1 vs 7.4 ± 0.9, P = 0.31) and the frequency of hypoglycemic events of those who switched to IDegAsp decreased, however, there was no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

The present findings suggest that treatment with IDegAsp enhances clinical outcomes, particularly FBG levels, daily cumulative insulin dose, and overall satisfaction with diabetes treatment.

Switching from Premixed Insulin to Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Implications of a Real-World Study on Insulin Degludec Dosing

INTRODUCTION

When switching from premixed insulin to insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp), IDegAsp usually starts at the same dose as the premixed insulin according to limited clinical experience or at a dose according to clinician discretion. The dose of insulin degludec used in the real world after switching has been poorly investigated.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with type 2 diabetes who switched from premixed insulin to IDegAsp from October 2016 to December 2023. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare changes in insulin dose, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG), and postprandial blood glucose (PBG) before and after switching.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients with prior low-ratio premixed insulin and 22 with prior mid-ratio premixed insulin were included. Among the low-ratio insulin users, the total daily dose of insulin degludec (IDeg) decreased by 21.43% and 19.05% at 3 and 6 months, respectively, after switching, compared with prior basal insulin dose (both p < 0.001). Conversely, among mid-ratio insulin users, the IDeg daily dose increased by 10.71% and 32.14% at 3 and 6 months, respectively, after switching, compared with prior basal insulin dose (both p < 0.001). In all patients, HbA1c levels decreased by 0.70%, FBG decreased by 1.00 mmol/l, and PBG decreased by 1.61 mmol/l after 6 months of switching (all p < 0.05); the total daily insulin dose and injection frequency significantly decreased after switching (both p < 0.05); age and disease duration did not affect IDegAsp effects on HbA1c reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of transition to IDegAsp from premixed insulin, the dose of basal insulin in the premixed formulation can be a valuable reference for adjusting insulin degludec dose. IDegAsp is superior to premixed insulin in blood glucose control with reduced total daily dose and injection frequency. IDegAsp could be the best choice for the management of diabetes in elderly patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart versus Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

We systematically reviewed and analyzed the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin as-part (IDegAsp) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Methods

We used computers to search the Embase, PubMed, Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Library database, and collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 in T2D patients. The research period was from the establishment of the database to May 19, 2023. We used Review Manager 5.20 statistical software for systematic meta-analysis.

Results

We included 8 RCTs with 2281 participants. IDegAsp was better to BIAsp30 in improving fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels (P<0.001) and reducing the endpoint daily average insulin dose (P<0.01). Furthermore, compared with BIAsp30, IDegAsp significantly reduced the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemic events (P<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the improvement of body weight change (P=0.99), glycosylated hemoglobin (P=0.50), the overall risk of hypoglycemic events (P=0.57) and adverse events (P=0.89) between the two groups.

Conclusion

Compared with BIAsp30, IDegAsp could significantly reduce FPG levels, insulin dosage, and the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemic events in T2D patients, without increasing the overall risk of adverse events.

Injectable systems for long-lasting insulin therapy

Insulin therapy is the mainstay to treat diabetes characterizedd by hyperglycemia. However, its short half-life of only 4-6 min limits its effectiveness in treating chronic diabetes. Advances in recombinant DNA technology and protein engineering have led to several insulin analogue products that have up to 42 h of glycemic control. However, these insulin analogues still require once- or twice-daily injections for optimal glycemic control and have poor patient compliance and adherence issues. To achieve insulin release for more than one day, different injectable delivery systems including microspheres, in situ forming depots, nanoparticles and composite systems have been developed. Several of these delivery systems have advanced to clinical trials for once-weekly insulin injection. This review comprehensively summarizes the developments of injectable insulin analogs and delivery systems covering the whole field of injectable long-lasting insulin technologies from prototype design, preclinical studies, clinical trials to marketed products for the treatment of diabetes.

Insulin Therapy for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus: A Narrative Review of Innovative Treatment Strategies

The discovery of insulin was presented to the international medical community on May 3, 1922. Since then, insulin has become one of the most effective pharmacological agents used to treat type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, the initiation and intensification of insulin therapy is often delayed in people living with type 2 diabetes due to numerous challenges associated with daily subcutaneous administration. Reducing the frequency of injections, using insulin pens instead of syringes and vials, simplifying treatment regimens, or administering insulin through alternative routes may help improve adherence to and persistence with insulin therapy among people living with diabetes. As the world commemorates the centennial of the commercialization of insulin, the aims of this article are to provide an overview of insulin therapy and to summarize clinically significant findings from phase 3 clinical trials evaluating less frequent dosing of insulin and the non-injectable administration of insulin.

Intensification of Insulin Treatment With Insulin Degludec/Aspart in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A 2-Year Real-World Experience

AIM

To evaluate the effects of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) coformulation as an intensification of insulin treatment for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a long term real-world clinical setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective non-interventional study, included 210 patients with T2D who to IDegAsp coformulation from prior insulin treatment in a tertiary endocrinology center between September 2017 and December 2019. The baseline data was taken as the index date and defined as the first IDegAsp prescription claim. Previous insulin treatment modalities, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and body weight were recorded, respectively at the 3^rd, 6^th, 12^th, and 24^th months of the IDegAsp treatment.

RESULTS

Out of the total 210 patients, 166 patients under insulin treatment switched to twice-daily IDegAsp treatment, 35 patients switched to once daily IDegAsp and twice premeal short-acting insulin regimen as a modified basal-bolus (BB) treatment, and nine patients commenced with once-daily IDegAsp treatment. HbA1c decreased from 9.2% ± 1.9% to 8.2% ± 1.6% in 6 months, 8.2% ± 1.7% in the first year, and 8.1% ± 1.6% in the second year of the therapy (p< 0.001). FPG decreased from 209.0 ± 85.0 mg/dL to 147.0 ± 62.6 mg/dL in the second year (p< 0.001). The required total daily dose of insulin increased in the second year of IDegAsp treatment compared to baseline. However, there was a borderline significance increase in IDegAsp requirement for the whole group at the two-year follow-up (p = 0.05). Patients who were administered twice daily IDegAsp injections required more total insulin in the first and second years due to added premeal short-acting insulin injections (p < 0.05). The frequency of patients with HbA1c < 7% was 31.8% in first year and 35.8% in second year under IDegAsp treatment.Insulin dose was de-escalated in 28.5% of the patients under BB treatment, while 15% under twice-daily IDegAsp required increased BB treatment.

CONCLUSION

Intensification of insulin treatment with IDegAsp coformulation improved glycemic control in patients with T2D. The total daily insulin requirement increased but the IDegAsp requirement lightly increased at the two-year follow-up. Patients under BB treatment required de-escalation of insulin treatment.

Expert Panel Guidance and Narrative Review of Treatment Simplification of Complex Insulin Regimens to Improve Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes

Given the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes (T2D), most individuals with the disease will ultimately undergo treatment intensification. This usually involves the stepwise addition of a new glucose-lowering agent or switching to a more complex insulin regimen. However, complex treatment regimens can result in an increased risk of hypoglycaemia and high treatment burden, which may impact negatively on both therapeutic adherence and overall quality of life. Individuals with good glycaemic control may also be overtreated with unnecessarily complex regimens. Treatment simplification aims to reduce individual treatment burden, without compromising therapeutic effectiveness or safety. Despite data showing that simplifying therapy can achieve good glycaemic control without negatively impacting on treatment efficacy or safety, it is not always implemented in clinical practice. Current clinical guidelines focus on treatment intensification, rather than simplification. Where simplification is recommended, clear guidance is lacking and mostly focused on treatment of the elderly. An expert, multidisciplinary panel evaluated the current treatment landscape with respect to guidance, published evidence, recommendations and approaches regarding simplification of complex insulin regimens. This article outlines the benefits of treatment simplification and provides practical recommendations on simplifying complex insulin treatment strategies in people with T2D using illustrative cases.

New Horizons: Next-Generation Insulin Analogues: Structural Principles and Clinical Goals

Design of "first-generation" insulin analogues over the past 3 decades has provided pharmaceutical formulations with tailored pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties. Application of a molecular tool kit-integrating protein sequence, chemical modification, and formulation-has thus led to improved prandial and basal formulations for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Although PK/PD changes were modest in relation to prior formulations of human and animal insulins, significant clinical advantages in efficacy (mean glycemia) and safety (rates of hypoglycemia) were obtained. Continuing innovation is providing further improvements to achieve ultrarapid and ultrabasal analogue formulations in an effort to reduce glycemic variability and optimize time in range. Beyond such PK/PD metrics, next-generation insulin analogues seek to exploit therapeutic mechanisms: glucose-responsive ("smart") analogues, pathway-specific ("biased") analogues, and organ-targeted analogues. Smart insulin analogues and delivery systems promise to mitigate hypoglycemic risk, a critical barrier to glycemic control, whereas biased and organ-targeted insulin analogues may better recapitulate physiologic hormonal regulation. In each therapeutic class considerations of cost and stability will affect use and global distribution. This review highlights structural principles underlying next-generation design efforts, their respective biological rationale, and potential clinical applications.

Postprandial Glucose Excursions in Asian Versus Non-Asian Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Analysis of Baseline Data from Phase 3 Randomised Controlled Trials of IDegAsp

INTRODUCTION

Increased postprandial glucose (PPG) is associated with high glycated haemoglobin levels and is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. The aim of this study was to compare PPG increments in Asian versus non-Asian adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), who were insulin-naïve or insulin-experienced, from the phase 3 insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) clinical trials.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of data from 13 phase 3, randomised, parallel-group, open-label IDegAsp trials in patients with T2D. The pooled baseline clinical data were analysed for insulin-naïve and insulin-experienced groups; and each group was split into subgroups of Asian and non-Asian patients, respectively, and analysed accordingly. Baseline self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) values at breakfast, lunch and the evening meal (before and 90 min after each meal) were used to assess PPG increments. The estimated differences in baseline SMBG increment between the Asian and non-Asian subgroups were analysed.

RESULTS

Clinical data from 4750 participants (insulin-naïve, n = 1495; insulin-experienced, n = 3255) were evaluated. In the insulin-naïve group, the postprandial SMBG increment was significantly greater in the Asian versus the non-Asian subgroup at breakfast (estimated difference 28.67 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval [CI] 18.35, 38.99; p < 0.0001), lunch (17.34 mg/dL, 95% CI 6.47, 28.21; p = 0.0018) and the evening meal (16.19 mg/dL, 95% CI 5.04, 27.34; p = 0.0045). In the insulin-experienced group, the postprandial SMBG increment was significantly greater in the Asian versus non-Asian subgroup at breakfast (estimated difference 13.81 mg/dL, 95% CI 9.19, 18.44; p < 0.0001) and lunch (29.18 mg/dL, 95% CI 24.22, 34.14; p < 0.0001), but not significantly different at the evening meal.

CONCLUSION

In this post hoc analysis, baseline PPG increments were significantly greater in Asian participants with T2D than in their non-Asian counterparts at all mealtimes, with the exception of the evening meal in insulin-experienced participants. Asian adults with T2D may benefit from the use of regimens that control PPG excursions.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBERS

NCT02762578, NCT01814137, NCT01513590, NCT01009580, NCT01713530, NCT02648217, NCT01045447, NCT01365507, NCT01045707, NCT01272193, NCT01059812, NCT01680341, NCT02906917.

Low fasting glucose-to-estimated average glucose ratio was associated with superior response to insulin degludec/aspart compared with basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

The benefits of once-daily insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) compared with basal insulin in type 2 diabetes patients have not been established.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study. From a basal insulin cohort from three referral hospitals, patients were enrolled who initiated once-daily IDegAsp. A control group maintaining basal insulin was selected by propensity score matching. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) changes over a period of 6 months and associated clinical factors were evaluated.

RESULTS

The IDegAsp group and the control group comprised of 87 patients, respectively. Baseline HbA1c was comparable between the two groups (8.7 ± 0.9 vs 8.6 ± 0.9%, mean and standard deviation). After 6 months with matched insulin doses, HbA1c in the IDegAsp group was lower than that in the control group (8.1 ± 1.0 vs 8.4 ± 1.1%, P = 0.029). Among baseline variables, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and fasting C-peptide in the IDegAsp were lower than that in the control (FPG 124.2 ± 38.4 vs 148.0 ± 50.6 mg/dL, P < 0.001). Considering that the lower FPG despite the comparable HbA1c could be related with the efficacy of IDegAsp, subgroup analysis was carried out according to a ratio of FPG-to-estimated average glucose, which is calculated from HbA1c. When compared with each control group, the superiority of IDegAsp in the reduction of HbA1c was significant only in the patients with a lower FPG-to-estimated average glucose ratio (0.49 ± 0.09), but not in those with a higher FPG-to-estimated average glucose ratio (0.79 ± 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that IDegAsp was more effective than basal insulin in patients with an FPG lower than predicted by HbA1c, which might be related with insulin deficiency and postprandial hyperglycemia in patients on basal insulin therapy.

Use of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus: Expert Panel Recommendations on Appropriate Practice Patterns

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed-ratio co-formulation of insulin degludec (IDeg), which provides long-lasting basal insulin coverage, and insulin aspart (IAsp), which targets post-prandial glucose. This expert panel aimed to provide a practical and implementable guidance document to assist clinicians in prescribing IDegAsp in the diabetes management with respect to different patient populations including children and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) as well as pregnant, elderly and hospitalized patients and varying practice patterns (insulin-naive, insulin-treated, switching from basal, basal bolus and premix regimens). The experts recommended that IDegAsp can be used in insulin-naive T2D patients with poor glycemic control (HbA1c >8.5%) despite optimal oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) as well as in insulin-treated T2D patients by switching from basal insulin, basal-bolus therapy or premixed insulins in relation to lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia, fewer injections and lower intraday glycemic variability, respectively. The experts considered the use of IDegAsp in children with T2D as a basal bolus alternative rather than as an alternative to basal insulin after metformin failure, use of IDegAsp in adult T1D patients as a simplified basal bolus regimen with lesser nocturnal hypoglycemia, fewer injections and better fasting plasma glucose control and in children with T1D as an alternative insulin regimen with fewer injection to increase treatment adherence. The proposed expert opinion provides practical information on use of IDegAsp in different patient populations and practice patterns to assist clinicians, which seems to compensate the need for easily implementable guidance on this novel insulin regimen.

Practical use of insulin degludec/insulin aspart in a multinational setting: beyond the guidelines

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed-ratio co-formulation of insulin degludec, which provides long-lasting basal insulin coverage, and insulin aspart, which targets postprandial glycaemia. This review provides expert opinion on the practical clinical use of IDegAsp, including: dose timings relative to meals, when and how to intensify treatment from once-daily (OD) to twice-daily (BID) dose adjustments, and use in special populations (including hospitalized patients). IDegAsp could be considered as one among the choices for initiating insulin treatment, preferential to starting on basal insulin alone, particularly for people with severe hyperglycaemia and/or when postprandial hyperglycaemia is a major concern. The recommended starting dose of IDegAsp is 10 units with the most carbohydrate-rich meal(s), followed by individualized dose adjustments. Insulin doses should be titrated once weekly in two-unit steps, guided by individualized fasting plasma glucose targets and based on patient goals, preferences and hypoglycaemia risk. Options for intensification from IDegAsp OD are discussed, which should be guided by HbA1c, prandial glucose levels, meal patterns and patient preferences. Recommendations for switching to IDegAsp from basal insulin, premixed insulins OD/BID, and basal-plus/basal-bolus regimens are discussed. IDegAsp can be co-administered with other antihyperglycaemic drugs; however, sulphonylureas frequently need to be discontinued or the dose reduced, and the IDegAsp dose may need to be decreased when sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are added. Considerations around the initiation or continuation of IDegAsp in hospitalized individuals are discussed, as well as in those undergoing medical procedures.