Metabolic control and risk of hypoglycaemia during the first year of intensive insulin treatment in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis

Use of glucagon in severe hypoglycemia is scarce in most countries, and has not been expanded by new ready-to-use glucagons

Glucagon (traditional kits for intramuscular administration, Glucagon and Glucagen), although recommended as a remedy for severe hypoglycemia (SH), has been reported to be under-utilized, likely because of technical problems. The aims of this study were to evaluate the use of glucagon in persons with type 1 diabetes in several countries, and to investigate if the availability of new ready-to-use glucagons (Baqsimi, Gvoke, Zegalogue, years 2019 to 2021) has expanded the overall use of glucagon. The source of data was IQVIA-MIDAS (units of glucagon sold), while data on persons with type 1 diabetes in countries were derived from IDF Diabetes Atlas. The use of glucagon has been steady from 2014 to 2019, with a small but significant increase from 2019 to 2021, paradoxically only in countries where new ready-to-use glucagons were not available. The use of glucagon has always been ten fold greater in countries where new ready-to-use glucagons became available than in the other countries (population 108,000,000 vs 28,100,000, 480,291 vs 182,018 persons with type 1 diabetes). A significant correlation was observed in all years between units of glucagon and persons with type 1 diabetes. Availability of new ready-to-use glucagons was associated with a small increase of sales, due only to new ready-to-use glucagons themselves. The use of glucagon (any type) remains low, approximately 1/10 of persons with type 1 diabetes. We conclude that use of glucagon is scarce in most countries, and so far has not been expanded by new ready-to-use glucagons such as the ones considered in this study.

Efficacy and safety of a basal insulin + 2-3 oral antihyperglycaemic drugs regimen versus a twice-daily premixed insulin + metformin regimen after short-term intensive insulin therapy in individuals with type 2 diabetes: The multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled BEYOND-V trial

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of basal insulin glargine 100 units/ml (Gla) + 2-3 oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) with twice-daily premixed insulin aspart 70/30 (Asp30) + metformin (MET) after short-term intensive insulin therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes in China.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This open-label trial enrolled insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1c of 7.5%-11.0% (58-97 mmol/mol) despite treatment with 2-3 OADs. All participants stopped previous OADs except MET, then received short-term intensive insulin therapy during the run-in period, when those with a fasting plasma glucose of less than 7.0 mmol/L and 2-hour postprandial glucose of less than 10.0 mmol/L were randomized to Gla + MET + a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor or twice-daily Asp30 + MET. If HbA1c was more than 7.0% (>53 mmol/mol) at week 12, participants in the Gla group were added repaglinide or acarbose, at the physician's discretion, and participants in the Asp30 group continued to titrate insulin dose. The change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 was assessed in the per protocol (PP) population (primary endpoint).

RESULTS

There were 384 enrollees (192 each to Gla and Asp30); 367 were included in the PP analysis. The threshold for non-inferiority of Gla + OADs versus Asp30 + MET was met, with a least squares mean change from baseline in HbA1c of -1.72% and -1.70% (-42.2 and -42.1 mmol/mol), respectively (estimated difference -0.01%; 95% CI -0.20%, 0.17% [-0.1 mmol/mol; 95% CI -2.2, 1.9]). Achievement of HbA1c less than 7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) was comparable between the groups (60% vs. 57%). The proportion of participants with any (24% vs. 38%; P = .003), symptomatic (19% vs. 31%; P = .007) or confirmed hypoglycaemia (18% vs. 33%; P < .001) was lower in the Gla + OADs group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with Asp30 + MET, Gla + 2-3 OADs showed similar efficacy but a lower hypoglycaemia risk in Chinese individuals with type 2 diabetes who had undergone short-term intensive insulin therapy.

New Fast Acting Glucagon for Recovery from Hypoglycemia, a Life-Threatening Situation: Nasal Powder and Injected Stable Solutions

The goal of diabetes care is to achieve and maintain good glycemic control over time, so as to prevent or delay the development of micro- and macrovascular complications in type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, numerous barriers hinder the achievement of this goal, first of all the frequent episodes of hypoglycemia typical in patients treated with insulin as T1D patients, or sulphonylureas as T2D patients. The prevention strategy and treatment of hypoglycemia are important for the well-being of patients with diabetes. Hypoglycemia is strongly associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in diabetic patients, due probably to the release of inflammatory markers and prothrombotic effects triggered by hypoglycemia. Treatment of hypoglycemia is traditionally based on administration of carbohydrates or of glucagon via intramuscular (IM) or subcutaneous injection (SC). The injection of traditional glucagon is cumbersome, such that glucagon is an under-utilized drug. In 1983, it was shown for the first time that intranasal (IN) glucagon increases blood glucose levels in healthy volunteers, and in 1989-1992 that IN glucagon is similar to IM glucagon in resolving hypoglycemia in normal volunteers and in patients with diabetes, both adults and children. IN glucagon was developed in 2010 and continued in 2015; in 2019 IN glucagon obtained approval in the US, Canada, and Europe for severe hypoglycemia in children and adults. In the 2010s, two ready-to-use injectable formulations, a stable non-aqueous glucagon solution and the glucagon analog dasiglucagon, were developed, showing an efficacy similar to traditional glucagon, and approved in the US in 2020 and in 2021, respectively, for severe hypoglycemia in adults and in children. Fast-acting glucagon (nasal administration and injected solutions) appears to represent a major breakthrough in the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in insulin-treated patients with diabetes, both adults and children. It is anticipated that the availability of fast-acting glucagon will expand the use of glucagon, improve overall metabolic control, and prevent hypoglycemia-related complications, in particular cardiovascular complications and cognitive impairment.

An Efficacy and Safety Study of Remogliflozin in Obese Indian Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients Who Were Inadequately Controlled on Insulin Glargine Plus other Oral Hypoglycemic Agents

AIMS & OBJECTIVES

The objective of this retrospective study was to investigate the efficacy of adding remogliflozin to current insulin glargine plus two oral drug i.e. metformin and teneligliptin therapy in poorly controlled Indian type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

173 study participants were initially selected from patient database who continued on their insulin glargine or received an increased dose of insulin glargine along with other OHA based therapy (Group A) and 187 were selected who had received remogliflozin (100 mg BD) (Group B) in addition to insulin glargine along with other OHA based therapy. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), total daily insulin dose, body weight, and the number of hypoglycemic events were recorded at weeks 0, 12 and 24.

RESULTS

During the study, mean values of HbA1c, FBG and P2BG were significantly reduced in both groups. Insulin requirements decreased from 45.8 ± 16.7 IU/day to 38.5 ± 13.5 IU/day at week 12 (P < 0.001) and at week 24 even further decreased to 29.5 ± 14.5 IU/Day. Twenty three patients in group B were able to cease insulin treatment altogether after 24 week treatment. It has been observed that to attain tight blood glucose control, we need to increase insulin dose in group A from 45.5 ± 16.5 IU/Day to 51.5 ± 14.5 at week 12 (P<0.01), which further increased to 53.8 ± 12.8 IU/Day at week 24 (P<0.01). Adding remogliflozin showed significant effect on blood pressure (P < 0.001) and weight reduction (P < 0.001). It has been observed that 38% patients achieved targeted HbA1c (≤7%) in group B where it was 22% in group A.

CONCLUSION

Results demonstrate that in uncontrolled T2DM patients, remogliflozin 100 mg BD can successfully lay a foundation for prolonged good glycemic control. Early addition of remogliflozin with insulin glargine plus OHAs may be an alternative compared to intensive up titration of insulin daily dose in people with uncontrolled T2DM.

Switching to Once-Daily Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart from Basal Insulin Improves Postprandial Glycemia in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

To explore the efficacy and safety of switching from once-daily basal insulin therapy to once-daily pre-meal injection insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) with respect to the glycemic control of participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

In this multicenter, open-label, prospective, randomized, parallel-group comparison trial, participants on basal insulin therapy were switched to IDegAsp (IDegAsp group; n=30) or continued basal insulin (Basal group; n=29). The primary endpoint was the superiority of IDegAsp in causing changes in the daily blood glucose profile, especially post-prandial blood glucose concentration after 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Blood glucose concentrations after dinner and before bedtime were lower in the IDegAsp group, and the improvement in blood glucose before bedtime was significantly greater in the IDegAsp group than in the Basal group at 12 weeks (-1.7±3.0 mmol/L vs. 0.3±2.1 mmol/L, P<0.05). Intriguingly, glycemic control after breakfast was not improved by IDegAsp injection before breakfast, in contrast to the favorable effect of injection before dinner on blood glucose after dinner. Glycosylated hemoglobin significantly decreased only in the IDegAsp group (58 to 55 mmol/mol, P<0.05). Changes in daily insulin dose, body mass, and recorded adverse effects, including hypoglycemia, were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

IDegAsp was more effective than basal insulin at reducing blood glucose after dinner and before bedtime, but did not increase the incidence of hypoglycemia. Switching from basal insulin to IDegAsp does not increase the burden on the patient and positively impacts glycemic control in patients with T2DM.

Intranasal versus injectable glucagon for hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Glucagon is used to resolve severe hypoglycemia in unconscious patients with diabetes, requiring third-party assistance. A few studies have shown that intranasal (IN) glucagon causes resolution of hypoglycemia in insulin-treated patients with type 1 (T1DM) diabetes. This systematic review and meta-analysis updates the comparison of the effectiveness of IN glucagon with injected intramuscular/subcutaneous (IM/SC) glucagon in treatment of hypoglycemia in T1DM.

METHODS

Controlled randomized studies were considered; eight studies, published in English, were included in a meta-analysis (random-effects model). Intervention effect (resolution of hypoglycemia) was expressed as odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals. Meta-regression was employed to correlate the effect with size of studies, age of patients, basal blood glucose levels.

RESULTS

In a total of 467 treatments in 269 patients with IN and IM/SC glucagon, the OR IN versus IM/SC was 0.61 (CI 0.13-2.82); since four of eight studies showed 100% effectiveness, a simulation was made with 1 failure for each treatment; in this simulation analysis, the OR was 0.80 (95% CI 0.28-2.32). Heterogeneity was low and not statistically significant. Publication bias was absent, and quality of papers was high. At meta-regression, no correlation was found between the effect and number of patients in each study, age of patients, basal blood glucose levels. No study formally compared IN versus IM/SC in unconscious patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicates that in conscious T1DM patients IN glucagon and IM/SC glucagon are equally effective in resolution of hypoglycemia.

Factors associated with the discontinuation of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) after initiation of insulin

Objective: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a prevalent health problem. Oral agents, with the exception of metformin, are often discontinued with the initiation of insulin. The objective was to understand the proportion of patients discontinuing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and the reasons for the decision to discontinue.Methods: A retrospective study using a health claims database investigated discontinuation of DPP-4i in adult patients on a dual therapy of metformin and DPP-4i who initiated insulin (n = 3391). An online survey administered to 406 physicians in the US examined reasons for discontinuation. Physicians surveyed included endocrinologists (34.5%), general practitioners (32.5%), internal medicine specialists (30.5%), and diabetologists (2.5%), treating a monthly average of 154 patients.Results: Among patients treated with metformin and DPP-4is who were newly prescribed insulin, 33.3 and 57.3% discontinued DPP-4i therapy within 3 and 12 months, respectively. Patients who discontinued DPP-4i therapy had higher out-of-pocket costs and a greater proportion of renal and liver disease. Top 3 responses for discontinuation included adverse events/tolerability issues (58.9%), lack of efficacy/treatment goals not being met (55.4%) and additional cost of DPP-4i with insulin (48.5%). Top 3 responses for continuing DPP-4i included meeting treatment goals (70.7%), using a lower dose of insulin (65.3%) and good tolerability (48.0%). Physician characteristics, such as physician specialty, age, gender and location impacted to some extent the reasons for treatment decisions.Conclusions: A large proportion of patients discontinue DPP-4is in the real world when initiating insulin. The impact of physician characteristics in treatment decisions highlights the need for enhanced physician training and support as new clinical data emerges and therapy options are available.

Therapeutic Use of Intranasal Glucagon: Resolution of Hypoglycemia

Episodes of hypoglycemia are frequent in patients with diabetes treated with insulin or sulphonylureas. Hypoglycemia can lead to severe acute complications, and, as such, both prevention and treatment of hypoglycemia are important for the well-being of patients with diabetes. The experience of hypoglycemia also leads to fear of hypoglycemia, that in turn can limit optimal glycemic control in patients, especially with type 1 diabetes. Treatment of hypoglycemia is still based on administration of carbohydrates (oral or parenteral according to the level of consciousness) or of glucagon (intramuscular or subcutaneous injection). In 1983, it was shown for the first time that intranasal (IN) glucagon drops (with sodium glycocholate as a promoter) increase blood glucose levels in healthy volunteers. During the following decade, several authors showed the efficacy of IN glucagon (drops, powders, and sprays) to resolve hypoglycemia in normal volunteers and in patients with diabetes, both adults and children. Only in 2010, based on evaluation of patients' beliefs and patients' expectations, a canadian pharmaceutical company (Locemia Solutions, Montreal, Canada) reinitiated efforts to develop glucagon for IN administration. The project has been continued by Eli Lilly, that is seeking to obtain registration in order to make IN glucagon available to insulin users (children and adolescents) worldwide. IN glucagon is as effective as injectable glucagon, and devoid of most of the technical difficulties associated with administration of injectable glucagon. IN glucagon appears to represent a major breakthrough in the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in insulin-treated patients with diabetes, both children and adults.

Double-blind, randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of continuing or discontinuing the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin when initiating insulin glargine therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: The CompoSIT-I Study

AIMS

To compare the effects of continuing versus discontinuing sitagliptin when initiating and intensively titrating insulin glargine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible patients had inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on metformin (≥1500 mg/d) in combination with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor and/or a sulphonylurea. Those on metformin + sitagliptin were directly randomized; all others were switched to metformin + sitagliptin (discontinuing other DPP-4 inhibitors and sulphonylureas) and stabilized during a run-in period. At randomization, patients were allocated to continuing sitagliptin or discontinuing sitagliptin, with both groups initiating insulin glargine and titrating to a target fasting glucose of 4.0 to 5.6 mmol/L.

RESULTS

A total of 743 participants (mean glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 72.6 mmol/mol [8.8%], disease duration 10.8 years), were treated. After 30 weeks, the mean HbA1c and least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c were 51.4 mmol/mol (6.85%) and -20.5 mmol/mol (-1.88%) in the sitagliptin group and 56.4 mmol/mol (7.31%) and -15.5 mmol/mol (-1.42%) in the placebo group; the difference in LS mean changes from baseline HbA1c was -5.0 mmol/mol (-0.46%; P < 0.001). The percentage of participants with HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) was higher (54% vs. 35%) and the mean daily insulin dose was lower (53 vs. 61 units) in the sitagliptin group. Despite lower HbA1c, event rates and incidences of hypoglycaemia were not higher in the sitagliptin group. Adverse events overall and changes from baseline in body weight were similar between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

When initiating insulin glargine therapy, continuation of sitagliptin, compared with discontinuation, resulted in a clinically meaningful greater reduction in HbA1c without an increase in hypoglycaemia. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738879.

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.

Intranasal glucagon for hypoglycaemia in diabetic patients. An old dream is becoming reality?

In 1983 it was shown that glucagon administered intranasally (IN) was absorbed through the nasal mucosa and increased blood glucose in healthy subjects. Shortly thereafter, it was shown that IN glucagon counteracts with hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated diabetic patients. In spite of this evidence, IN glucagon was not developed by any pharmaceutical company before 2010, when renewed interest led to intensive evaluation of a possible remedy for hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated diabetic adults and children. IN glucagon is now being developed as a needle-free device that delivers glucagon powder for treatment of severe hypoglycaemia; the ease of using this device stands in stark contrast to the difficulties encountered in use of the current intramuscular glucagon emergency kits. Studies have demonstrated the efficacy, safety and ease-of-use of this IN glucagon preparation, and suggest IN glucagon as a promising alternative to injectable glucagon for treating severe hypoglycaemia in children and adults who use insulin. This would meet the unmet medical need for an easily administered glucagon preparation.

Laboratory and Benchtop Performance of a Mealtime Insulin-Delivery System

BACKGROUND

A basal bolus insulin regimen requires multiple daily insulin injections, which might discourage patient adherence. As a potential solution, a mealtime insulin-delivery system-a 3-day wearable bolus-only patch-was designed to manually administer mealtime insulin discreetly by actuating buttons through clothing, without the need for multiple needle sticks.

METHOD

Extensive functional testing of the patch included dose accuracy (from initial fill of the device to empty), pressure-vacuum leak testing, last-dose lockout and occlusion detection (safety alert features that lock the dosing buttons when no insulin is delivered), assessments of insulin drug stability, toxicological risk (including chemical testing), and system biocompatibility.

RESULTS

Dosing accuracy was 2 units ±10% (with U-100 insulin) over a range of environmental conditions, with ≥95% reliability and confidence. The fluid seal performance and the safety alert features performed with ≥95% reliability and ≥95% confidence. The system met acceptable standards for insulin (U-100 lispro and aspart) stability for its intended 3-day use, in addition to the operational requirements. The toxicological risk assessment and demonstrated biocompatibility suggested that the patch is safe for human use.

CONCLUSIONS

Benchtop performance showed that the bolus-only patch is a safe, accurate, and reliable device for mealtime insulin delivery.

Strategies for implementing effective mealtime insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a growing global epidemic. Due to the progressive nature of the disease, many people with T2D require insulin at some point, most commonly a long-acting (basal) insulin to assist with 24-h control of glucose levels.

OBJECTIVE

This opinion paper provides an overview of considerations for primary care providers (PCPs) in intensifying the treatment regimen when basal insulin therapy is inadequate.

RESULTS

Control of mealtime hyperglycemia, in addition to fasting hyperglycemia, has been shown to be crucial in reaching A1c goals of <7.0%. However, initiating and optimizing mealtime insulin therapy can be challenging for both people with T2D and PCPs, due to a perceived lack of efficacy and burden of insulin treatment, causing "psychological insulin resistance" in people with T2D and clinical inertia among PCPs. Successful implementation of mealtime insulin therapy requires not only choosing appropriate treatment strategies, but also addressing patient-related behavioral and emotional barriers. Simplified treatment algorithms, combined with the use of advanced technology (devices such as insulin pens, pumps, and patches), and collaborative decision-making can help decrease barriers to effective mealtime insulin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to implement an effective basal-bolus insulin regimen in people with T2D in a way that improves glucose control while minimizing negative effects on quality-of-life, treatment satisfaction, and psychological well-being.

The burden of severe hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes

AIMS

More than 29 million people in the US have type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a chronic metabolic disorder characterized by a progressive deterioration of glucose control, which eventually requires insulin. Abnormally low levels of blood glucose, a feared side-effect of insulin treatment, may cause severe hypoglycemia (SHO), leading to emergency department (ED) admission, hospitalization, and long-term complications; these, in turn, drive up the costs of T2DM. This study's objective was to estimate the prevalence and costs of SHO-related hospitalizations and their additional longer-term impacts on patients with T2DM using insulin.

METHODS

Using Truven MarketScan claims, we identified adult T2DM patients using basal and basal-bolus insulin regimens who were hospitalized for SHO (inpatient SHO patients) during 2010-2015. Two comparison groups were defined: those with outpatient SHO-related encounters only, including ED visits without hospitalization (outpatient SHO patients), and those with no SHO- or acute hyperglycemia-related events (comparison patients). Lengths of stay and SHO-related hospitalization costs were estimated, and propensity score and inverse probability weighting methods were used to adjust for baseline differences across the groups to evaluate longer-term impacts.

RESULTS

We identified 66,179 patients using basal and 81,876 patients using basal-bolus insulin, of which ∼1.1% (basal) to 3.2% (basal-bolus) experienced at least one SHO-related hospitalization. Among those who experienced SHO (i.e. those in the inpatient and outpatient SHO groups), 27% (basal) and 40% (basal-bolus) experienced at least one SHO-related hospitalization. One-third of basal and about one-quarter of basal-bolus patients were admitted directly to the hospital; the remainder were first assessed or treated in the ED. Inpatient SHO patients using basal insulin stayed in the hospital, including time in the ED, for 2.8 days and incurred $6896 in costs; patients using basal-bolus insulin stayed in the hospital for 2.6 days and incurred costs of $5802. Forty-to-fifty percent of inpatient SHO patients were hospitalized again for SHO. Inpatient SHO patients using basal insulin incurred significantly higher monthly costs after their initial SHO-related hospitalization than patients in the other two groups ($2935 vs $1819 and $1638), corresponding to 61% and 79% higher monthly costs; patients using basal-bolus insulin also incurred significantly higher monthly costs than patients in the other groups ($3606 vs $2731 and $2607), corresponding to 32% and 38% higher monthly costs.

LIMITATIONS

These analyses excluded patients who did not seek ED or hospital care when faced with SHO; events may have been miscoded; and we were not able to account for clinical characteristics associated with SHO, such as insulin dose and duration of diabetes, or unmeasured confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

The burden associated with SHO is not negligible. Nearly one in three patients using only basal insulin and one in four patients using basal-bolus regimens who experienced SHO were hospitalized at least once due to SHO. Not only did those patients incur the costs of their SHO hospitalization, but they also incurred at least $1,116 (62%) and $875 (70%) more per month than outpatient SHO or comparison patients. Reducing SHO events can help decrease the burden associated with SHO among patients with T2DM.

Observational Registry of Basal Insulin Treatment in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in China: Safety and Hypoglycemia Predictors

BACKGROUND

The Observational Registry of Basal Insulin Treatment (ORBIT) study evaluated the safety of basal insulin (BI) in real-world settings in China.

METHODS

We analyzed 9002 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with oral hypoglycemic agents from 8 geographic regions and 2 hospital tiers in China who initiated and maintained BI treatment. Body weight and hypoglycemic episodes were recorded at baseline and 3 and 6 months. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded at 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

Age, gender, inpatient/outpatient status, body mass index, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at baseline and at the end of study, T2D duration, microvascular complications, BI type, combination with insulin secretagogues, self-monitoring of blood glucose frequency, and insulin dosage, all predicted hypoglycemia. BI use generally did not induce significant weight gain (0.02 kg); weight gain with insulin detemir (-0.30 kg) was less than that with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin (0.20 kg) or insulin glargine (0.05 kg). Overall, general hypoglycemia incidence (5.6% vs. 7.7%) and annual event rate (1.6 vs. 1.8) were similar before and after BI initiation, whereas a slight decrease was noted in severe hypoglycemia incidence (0.6%-0.3%) and frequency (0.05-0.03 events/patient-year). The general hypoglycemia rate was lowest with insulin glargine, whereas there was no significant difference in severe hypoglycemia among the three BI groups. Overall, 3.5% of patients had at least one SAE during the study. Most SAEs were found to be unrelated to BI treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world BI use, particularly insulin detemir and glargine, was associated with only slight weight gain and low hypoglycemia risk in patients with T2D in China.

Review of insulin-associated hypoglycemia and its impact on the management of diabetes in Southeast Asian countries

Although the incidence of diabetes is rising in Southeast Asia, there is limited information regarding the incidence and manifestation of insulin-associated hypoglycemia. The aim of the present review was to discuss what is currently known regarding insulin-associated hypoglycemia in Southeast Asia, including its known incidence and impact in the region, and how the Southeast Asian population with diabetes differs from other populations. We found a paucity of data regarding the incidence of hypoglycemia in Southeast Asia, which has contributed to the adoption of Western guidelines. This might not be appropriate, as Southeast Asians have a range of etiological, educational and cultural differences from Western populations with diabetes that might place them at greater risk of hypoglycemia if not managed optimally. For example, Southeast Asians with type 2 diabetes tend to be younger, with lower body mass indexes than their Western counterparts, and the management of type 2 diabetes with premixed insulin preparations is more common in Southeast Asia. Both of these factors might result in higher rates of hypoglycemia. In addition, Southeast Asians are often poorly educated about hypoglycemia and its management, including during Ramadan fasting. We conclude there is a need for more information about Southeast Asian populations with diabetes to assist with the construction of more appropriate national and regional guidelines for the management of hypoglycemia, more closely aligned to patient demographics, behaviors and treatment practices. Such bespoke guidelines might result in a greater degree of implementation and adherence within clinical practice in Southeast Asian nations.

Impact of patient and treatment characteristics on glycemic control and hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes initiated to insulin glargine or NPH: A post hoc, pooled, patient-level analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The goal of this post hoc analysis was to determine key patient and treatment-related factors impacting glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) and hypoglycemia in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who were initiated to basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH] or glargine).

METHODS

Using individual patient-level data pooled from 6 treat-to-target trials, 2600 patients with type 2 diabetes on oral antidiabetic agents initiated to insulin glargine or NPH and treated for 24 to 36 weeks were analyzed.

RESULTS

Both treatments led to significant reduction in A1C levels compared with baseline, with no differences between treatment groups (mean ± standard deviation; glargine: -1.32 ± 1.2% vs NPH: -1.26 ± 1.2%; P = 0.15), with greater reduction in the BMI ≥30 kg/m group than in the BMI <30 kg/m group. Glargine reduced A1C significantly more than NPH in the BMI <30 kg/m group (-1.30 ± 1.18% vs -1.14 ± 1.22, respectively; P = 0.008), but not in the BMI ≥ 30 kg/m group (-1.37 ± 1.19 vs -1.48 ± 1.22, respectively; P = 0.18). Similar proportions of patients achieved A1C target of <7% (glargine 30.6%, NPH 29.1%; P = 0.39). Incidence of severe and severe nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly lower in glargine versus NPH-treated patients (2.0% vs 3.9%; P = 0.04, and 0.7% vs 2.1%; P = 0.002, respectively), and occurred primarily in the BMI <30 kg/m group.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of basal insulin is highly effective in lowering A1C after oral antidiabetic agent failure. Glargine decreases A1C more than NPH in nonobese patients, and reduces the risk for severe and severe nocturnal hypoglycemia versus NPH both in obese and nonobese patients, but more so in nonobese patients. Thus, it is the nonobese patients who may benefit more from initiation of basal insulin as glargine than NPH.

Initiation and Intensification Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes Management: A Comparison of Basal Plus and Premix Regimens

The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes (T2D) often results in the need for initiation and subsequent intensification of insulin treatment to achieve glycemic control. The aim of this review is to examine published clinical evidence that has directly compared two recommended treatment approaches in patients with T2D: (1) a 'basal plus' regimen, whereby 1-2 injections of prandial insulin are added to basal insulin; or (2) the use of once- or twice-daily premix insulin analogs, which contain both basal and prandial insulin in a single injection. Broadly, the available evidence suggests that both basal plus and premix regimens are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety when used for insulin initiation in insulin-naïve patients and intensification in patients who have failed on basal insulin; instances of greater glycemic control are observed with premix insulin; however, these are often accompanied by increases in hypoglycemia and/or weight relative to basal plus treatment, and results should be interpreted within the context of total insulin doses used. Relatively low numbers of patients achieved glycemic control when both regimens were used for insulin intensification following failure of basal insulin, suggesting that a full basal-bolus regimen and/or the use of different treatments is clinically indicated in certain patients. In summary, the current review argues that both basal plus and premix insulin regimens are relatively efficacious and safe options for patients with T2D during both insulin initiation in insulin-naïve patients and intensification in patients who have failed on basal insulin. This emphasizes the important role of patient-centered factors in clinical decision-making.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Comparison of cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes on insulin versus non-insulin glucose-lowering therapies (GLTs): A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

To compare the cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes of Insulin versus non-insulin glucose lowering therapy (GLT).

METHODS

We included randomised control trials (RCTs) which randomised patients aged >18years with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) to insulin vs non-insulin GLT. We used risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI) to analyse the treatment effects of dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (with 95% CI) for continuous outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs with 19,300 participants. There was no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality and CV events between the groups (RR=1.01; 95%CI: 0.96-1.06; p=0.69). In 16 trials, insulin showed greater efficacy in glycaemic control (mean diff=-0.20; 95%CI: -0.28 to -0.11) but the proportion achieving HbA1c level of either ⩽7.0% or 7.4% (53 or 57mmol/mol) was similar in both (OR=1.55; 95%CI=0.92-2.62). The non-insulin group had a significant reduction in weight (mean diff=-3.41; 95%CI: -4.50 to -2.32) and an increase in the proportion of adverse events (54.7% vs 45.3%, p=0.044), but the insulin group showed an (RR=1.90; 95%CI: 1.44-2.51) increased risk of hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality and adverse cardiovascular (CV) events between Insulin and non-insulin GLTs. Insulin was associated with superior reduction in HbA1c; least reduction in weight and higher risk of hypoglycaemia. Both showed similar proportion of patients achieving HbA1c target. Non-insulin GLTs were associated with a higher risk in reported adverse drug events.

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart versus Insulin Glargine (U100) for 52 Weeks in Insulin-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

The efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) once daily (OD) compared with insulin glargine U100 (IGlar) OD over 52 weeks in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was investigated.

Methods

In this open-label, parallel-group treat-to-target trial, participants were randomized (1:1) to receive IDegAsp OD (breakfast, n = 266) or IGlar OD (as per label, n = 264). Participants then entered a 26-week extension phase (IDegAsp OD, n = 192; IGlar OD, n = 221). The primary endpoint was change from baseline to Week 26 in HbA_1c.

Results

After 26 and 52 weeks, mean HbA_1c decreased to similar levels in both groups. After 52 weeks, the mean estimated treatment difference was –0.08% (–0.26, 0.09 95%CI), confirming the non-inferiority of IDegAsp OD versus IGlar OD evaluated at Week 26. After 52 weeks, there was a similar reduction in mean fasting plasma glucose in both treatment groups. The rate of confirmed hypoglycemic episodes was 86% higher (p < 0.0001) whereas the rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia was 75% lower (p < 0.0001) for IDegAsp versus IGlar.

Conclusion

Nocturnal-confirmed hypoglycemia was higher with IGlar whereas overall and diurnal hypoglycemia were higher with IDegAsp dosed at breakfast. These results highlight the importance of administration of IDegAsp with the main meal of the day, tailored to the individual patient’s needs.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01045707 [core]) and NCT01169766 [ext]

Differences in self-monitored, blood glucose test strip utilization by therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To determine whether blood glucose test strip (BGTS) utilization in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with the type of diabetes therapy, classified according to hypoglycemic risk.

METHODS

A retrospective, longitudinal (2006-2012) study of Canadian private drug plans (PDP) and Ontario Public Drug Programs (OPDP) prescription claims was conducted. Analyses were restricted to patients with T2D with or without a claim for BGTS. Daily BGTS utilization (TS/patient/day) was evaluated by diabetes therapy classified by hypoglycemic risk. Multivariate analyses were conducted to identify determinants of BGTS utilization.

RESULTS

The T2D cohort comprised 5,759,591 observations from 1,949,129 claimants. Mean BGTS utilization was 0.84 TS/patient/day and differed between PDP and OPDP (0.66 vs. 1.00). Daily utilization was greatest in patients receiving therapy associated with a pre-defined high risk of hypoglycemia [insulin: basal + bolus (2.16), premixed (1.65), basal (1.16), other insulin regimens (2.13), and sulfonylureas (0.74)] versus non-sulfonylurea non-insulin-based regimens (0.52). For non-insulin therapy, BGTS utilization was greater for patients on multiple non-insulin therapies versus monotherapy (0.74 vs. 0.53 TS/patient/day). In multivariate analyses, drivers for BGTS utilization included insulin use, previous BGTS use, and female gender. Previous diabetes therapy and duration of therapy were negatively correlated with BGTS utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

BGTS utilization varies depending on the type of therapy used to treat T2D according to hypoglycemic risk. Decision making regarding BGTS needs to account for robust analyses of current utilization and its value in those settings, including in patients not receiving diabetes therapy and the prevalence of circumstances conducive to more intensive monitoring.

Insulin glargine compared with premixed insulin for management of insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes patients uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs: the open-label, randomized GALAPAGOS study

AIMS

Demonstrate superiority of insulin glargine (±glulisine) strategy versus premixed insulin strategy for percentage of patients reaching HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) at study end without any documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (bloof glucose [BG] ≤3.1 mmol/L) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients failing oral agents.

METHODS

This 24-week, open-label, multinational trial randomized patients to glargine OD or premix OD or BID, continuing metformin ± insulin secretagogue (IS). Second premix injection could be added any time; glulisine could be added with main meal in glargine OD patients with HbA1c ≥7% and fasting blood glucose (FBG) <7 mmol/L at week 12. IS was stopped with any second injection. Insulin titration targeted FBG ≤5.6 mmol/L.

RESULTS

Modified intent-to-treat population comprised 923 patients (glargine, 462; premix, 461). Baseline characteristics were similar (mean T2DM duration: 9 years; HbA1c: 8.7% (72 mmol/mol); FBG: 10.4 mmol/L). Primary endpoint was achieved by 33.2% of glargine (±glulisine) and 31.4% of premix patients. Superiority was not demonstrated, but non-inferiority was (pre-specified margin: 25% of premix rate). More patients using premix achieved target (52.6% vs. 43.2%, p=0.005); symptomatic hypoglycemia was less with glargine (1.17 vs. 2.93 events/patient-year).

CONCLUSIONS

Glargine (±glulisine) and premix strategies resulted in similar percentages of well-controlled patients without hypoglycemia, with more patients achieving target HbA1c with premix whereas overall symptomatic hypoglycemia was less with glargine.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing efficacy and safety outcomes of insulin glargine with NPH insulin, premixed insulin preparations or with insulin detemir in type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

A variety of basal insulin preparations are used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to summarize scientific evidence on relative efficacy and safety of insulin glargine (IGlar) and other insulins in T2DM.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out in major medical databases up to December 2012. Relevant studies compared efficacy and safety of IGlar, added to oral drugs (OAD) or/and in combination with bolus insulin, with protamine insulin (NPH) or premixed insulin (MIX) in the same regimen, as well as with insulin detemir (IDet), in T2DM. Target HbA1c level without hypoglycemic events was considered the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Twenty eight RCTs involving 12,669 T2DM patients followed for 12-52 weeks were included in quantitative analysis. IGlar + OAD use was associated with higher probability of reaching target HbA1c level without hypoglycemia as compared to NPH + OAD (RR = 1.32 [1.09, 1.59]) or MIX without OAD (RR = 1.61 [1.22, 2.13]) and similar effect as IDet + OAD (RR = 1.07 [0.87, 1.33]) and MIX + OAD (RR = 1.09 [0.86, 1.38]). IGlar + OAD demonstrated significantly lower risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia as compared to NPH + OAD (RR = 0.89 [0.83, 0.96]), MIX + OAD (RR = 0.75 [0.68, 0.83]) and MIX without OAD(RR = 0.75 [0.68, 0.83]), but not with IDet + OAD (RR = 0.99 [0.90, 1.08]). In basal-bolus regimens, IGlar demonstrated similar proportion of T2DM patients achieving target HbA1c as compared to NPH (RR = 1.14 [0.91, 1.44]) but higher than MIX (RR = 1.26 [1.12, 1.42) or IDet (RR = 1.38 [1.11, 1.72]). The risk of severe hypoglycemia was lower in IGlar than in NPH (RR = 0.77 [0.63, 0.94]), with no differences in comparison with MIX (RR = 0.74 [0.46, 1.20]) and IDet (RR = 1.10 [0.54, 2.25]). IGlar + OAD has comparable safety profile to NPH, with less frequent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation than MIX + OAD (RR = 0.41 [0.22, 0.76]) and IDet + OAD (RR = 0.40 [0.24, 0.69]). Also severe adverse reactions were less common for IGlar + OAD when compared to MIX + OAD (RR = 0.71 [0.52; 0.98]).

CONCLUSION

For the majority of examined efficacy and safety outcomes, IGlar use in T2DM patients was superior or non-inferior to the alternative insulin treatment options.

A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Co-Administration of Sitagliptin with Intensively Titrated Insulin Glargine

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to assess the effect of sitagliptin on insulin dose in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes who titrate basal insulin to a target fasting glucose level after initiating sitagliptin.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 24-week clinical trial in which treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg/day or placebo was administered concurrently with insulin glargine titration, targeting a fasting glucose of 4.0-5.6 mmol/L (72-100 mg/dL). The trial randomized 660 patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control on insulin, with or without metformin (≥1500 mg/day) or sulfonylurea, for ≥10 weeks. Patients could remain on metformin but not sulfonylurea after randomization.

RESULTS

The increase from baseline in the daily dose of insulin was less in the sitagliptin group (N = 329) compared to placebo (N = 329) (between group difference = -4.7 IU [95% confidence interval [CI] -8.3, -1.2]; p = 0.009). Patients in the sitagliptin group had lower glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels after 24 weeks (between-group difference of -0.4% [95% CI -0.6, -0.3; -4.9 mmol/mol (95% CI -6.6, -3.2)]; p < 0.001), and more patients in the sitagliptin group reached the HbA1c goal of <7.0% (53 mmol/mol), with a between-group difference of 17.3% (95% CI 10.4%, 24.1%; p < 0.001). Fewer patients in the sitagliptin group experienced an adverse event of hypoglycemia (between-group difference = -15.5%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Administration of sitagliptin prior to intensive titration of basal insulin glargine reduces the insulin dose requirement while providing superior glycemic control and less hypoglycemia, compared to an insulin-only regimen.

FUNDING

Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

A model of mild hypoglycemia

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact associated with mild hypoglycemia among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in the United States and to identify risk factors among different subpopulations.

METHODS

We performed a literature search to gather available data allowing estimation of rates of mild hypoglycemia. Because risk factors are interdependent, risk factors included in the model were based on those reported within multivariate analyses or judged to be biologically plausible by the medical community. Based on literature search results, we built a mathematical model predicting the rates of mild hypoglycemia in individual patients as a function of the patient's antidiabetic medications, hemoglobin A1c levels, duration of diabetes, kidney function, and body mass index.

RESULTS

We estimated an overall average rate of mild hypoglycemia among US patients with T2DM of 2.2 ± 0.8 events per person per year. Patients taking oral antidiabetic medications only had an average rate of 1.9 ± 0.8 events per person per year. The average rate for all patients taking insulin, including those combining it with other antidiabetic medications, was 4.9 ± 2.0 events per person per year. Mild hypoglycemia rates increased with age, with 80-year-old patients experiencing 1.5 times the risk of 40-year-old patients. Based on published values for direct and indirect medical costs for mild hypoglycemia events, we determined that the economic impact in the US of mild hypoglycemic events is approximately $900 million per year, roughly equal to that of severe hypoglycemic events. One of the key limitations to our model is that it applies to the US population under standard medical care and not to clinical trials and does not include certain known risk factors such as rigorous exercise.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the benefit versus risk of glycemic control and hypoglycemia is fundamental to the successful management of patients with T2DM. Our validated hypoglycemia model is an important step in addressing this issue and may be helpful to researchers, clinicians, and payers to determine the patients who are at the highest risk for hypoglycemia, whether a patient is experiencing events at 'higher-than-expected' rates, and the corresponding economic burden.

Cost-utility analysis of glucagon-like Peptide-1 agonists compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors or neutral protamine hagedorn Basal insulin as add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes in sweden

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess the costs and benefits of three alternative second-line treatment strategies for Swedish patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who fail to reach glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤ 7% with metformin treatment alone: glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin.

METHODS

A previously developed cohort model for T2DM was applied over a 35-year time horizon. Data on T2DM patients on metformin monotherapy with HbA1c > 7% were collected from the Swedish National Diabetes Register. Treatment effects were taken from published studies. Costs and effects were discounted at 3% per annum, and the analysis was conducted from a societal perspective. The robustness of the results was evaluated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Treatment with GLP-1 agonists was associated with a discounted incremental benefit of 0.10 and 0.25 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and higher discounted costs of Swedish Krona (SEK) 34,865 and SEK 40,802 compared with DPP-4 inhibitors and NPH insulin, respectively. Assuming willingness-to-pay (WTP) of SEK 500,000 per QALY, treatment strategy with GLP-1 agonists was a cost-effective option with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of SEK 353,172 and SEK 160,618 per QALY gained versus DPP-4 inhibitors and NPH insulin, respectively. The results were most sensitive to incidence rate of moderate/major hypoglycemia and disutilities associated with insulin treatment, body mass index (BMI), and hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

Assuming a WTP of SEK 500,000 per QALY, treatment strategy with GLP-1 agonists is a cost-effective strategy in comparison to DPP-4 inhibitors and NPH insulin among T2DM patients inadequately controlled with metformin alone in a Swedish setting.

Management of Type 2 Diabetes - Methods for Addition of Prandial to Basal Insulin

As glycaemic control deteriorates with the progression of type 2 diabetes, treatment guidelines advocate starting basal insulin therapy, and then progressing to a basal-bolus regimen as needed. Nevertheless, although timely intensification of therapy is important to minimise the risk of diabetic complications, considerable clinical inertia exists, not only in the initiation of insulin but also in the progression to multiple-dose insulin regimens. One barrier has been the lack of guidance about how to make the transition from basal-only to basal-bolus insulin therapy. In this review, we discuss how data from the recent FullSTEP study, along with other randomised studies, will help to bridge this gap. Prandial boluses can be added to basal insulin in a stepwise manner, using a straightforward, patient-led dose titration approach and simple estimation of which meal to add the initial prandial bolus to. Reducing the complexity of progression to multiple-dose insulin regimens and empowering patients will lessen the burden on clinicians, improve treatment satisfaction and facilitate timely implementation of treatment guidelines.

The treatment of type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

5% to 8% of adults have type 2 diabetes, a disease that is usually asymptomatic at first. The goals of management are timely diagnosis and the prevention of complications.

METHODS

Selective review of the literature, including guidelines from Germany and abroad.

RESULTS

High caloric intake and lack of exercise are the main contributing causes of type 2 diabetes and the principal targets of intervention. If lifestyle changes do not yield adequate improvement, then drug treatment should be initiated (or intensified) and managed on the basis of the HbA1c fraction. Guidelines recommend an HbA1c target range of 6.5% to 7.5%; the individual target value should be chosen in consideration of patient-specific factors and established in collaboration with the patient. Metformin is recommended for initial drug treatment. If metformin is contraindicated, poorly tolerated, or inadequately effective, many therapeutic alternatives and supplements are available. Clinical trials have shown that sulfonylureas and insulin are beneficial with respect to patient-relevant endpoints, but comparable data from clinical trials are not yet available for any other antidiabetic drug (except metformin). For individual patients, other drugs may have advantages such as a lower risk of hypoglycemia, less weight gain, oral administration, and/or applicability in the setting of renal insufficiency. The treatment is individually oriented, depending on the patient's age, disease stage, body weight, comorbidities, work situation, adherence, and personal priorities. Combining more than two antidiabetic drugs is not recommended.

CONCLUSION

Although there are many treatment options, individualized long-term treatment still presents a challenge in many cases.

Real-world comparative outcomes of US type 2 diabetes patients initiating analog basal insulin therapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who initiated insulin glargine or insulin detemir.

METHODS

Retrospective data were analyzed from the US General Electric Centricity electronic medical records (EMR) database from patients (≥18 years old) with T2DM initiating insulin glargine or detemir between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010. Included patients had EMR data for ≥6 months prior to (baseline) and ≥12 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first insulin prescription), and at least one OAD and/or GLP-1 receptor agonist prescription order during baseline, but no previous insulin prescription. Patients were matched on baseline characteristics 5:1, insulin glargine to detemir, to ameliorate selection bias. Outcomes assessed were persistence with insulin therapy, glycemic control, hypoglycemia, body weight, and body mass index over follow-up.

RESULTS

Insulin glargine and detemir groups were similar in terms of gender (51.0% and 51.5% female, P = 0.7356), age (57.8 and 57.4 years, P = 0.3368), A1C (9.4% and 9.4%, P = 0.6642), and body weight (101.9 kg and 102.4 kg, P = 0.4920) at baseline. During follow-up, patients initiating insulin glargine were more persistent (80.1% vs 67.8%, P < 0.0001) and had a greater change in A1C (-1.11% vs -0.96%, P = 0.0479). Percentage change in weight (0.91% and 0.65%, P = 0.2734) and hypoglycemia prevalence (3.6% vs 4.1%, P = 0.4338) were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this real-world EMR analysis suggest that among T2DM patients, initiating insulin treatment with insulin glargine may be associated with better treatment persistence and glycemic control, with similar prevalence of hypoglycemia and weight change, compared with initiating with insulin detemir. This study is limited by the retrospective nature of the data collection using EMRs and inability to confirm accuracy and completeness of data by secondary chart review.

Insulin therapy and cancer in type 2 diabetes

Despite the availability of many other agents, insulin is widely used as a treatment for type 2 diabetes. In vitro, insulin stimulates the growth of cancer cells, through the interaction with insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) receptors and its own receptors. In observational surveys on type 2 diabetes, insulin therapy is associated with an increased incidence of several forms of cancer, although it is difficult to discriminate the effect of confounders from that of insulin itself. Randomized trials do not confirm the increased risk associated with insulin therapy, although they do not allow to rule out some negative effects on specific forms of cancer, at least at higher doses. Among insulin analogues, glargine has a higher affinity for the IGF-1 receptor and a greater mitogenic potency in vitro than human insulin, but it is extensively metabolized in vitro to products with low IGF-1 receptor affinity. Overall, epidemiological studies suggest a possible increase of risk with glargine, with respect to human insulin, only at high doses and for some forms of cancer (i.e., breast). Data from clinical trials do not confirm, but are still insufficient to totally exclude, such increased risk. However, beneficial effects of insulin outweigh potential cancer risks.