A study comparing insulin lispro mix 25 with glargine plus lispro therapy in patients with Type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic control on oral anti-hyperglycaemic medication: results of the PARADIGM study

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: Insights into clinical efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, and adherence challenges

Insulin therapy plays a crucial role in the management of type 2 diabetes as the disease progresses. Over the past century, insulin formulations have undergone significant modifications and bioengineering, resulting in a diverse range of available insulin products. These products show distinct pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Consequently, various insulin regimens have em-erged for the management of type 2 diabetes, including premixed formulations and combinations of basal and bolus insulins. The utilization of different insulin regimens yields disparate clinical outcomes, adverse events, and, notably, patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs provide valuable insights from the patient's perspective, serving as a valuable mine of information for enhancing healthcare and informing clinical decisions. Adherence to insulin therapy, a critical patient-reported outcome, significantly affects clinical outcomes and is influenced by multiple factors. This review provides insights into the clinical effectiveness of various insulin preparations, PROs, and factors impacting insulin therapy adherence, with the aim of enhancing healthcare practices and informing clinical decisions for individuals with type 2 diabetes.

A prospective, multicentre, randomized, open-label comparison of a long-acting basal insulin analog glargine plus glulisine with premixed insulin in insulin naïve patients with Type 2 diabetes - A study from India

AIMS

We aimed to compare the effectiveness of Glargine plus Glulisine to premixed insulin analogue, as measured by HbA1c ≤ 7.0% in insulin naive Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) patients with elevated fasting and/or postprandial plasma glucose.

METHODS

Insulin-naive T2D patients (116 men, 84 women) on ≥ 2 oral hypoglycemic agents with inadequate glycemic control were randomized either to group 1 (insulin Glargine plus Glulisine, n = 101) or group 2 (Premixed Insulin analogue, n = 99).

RESULTS

In the intention to treat analysis, at week 24, percentage of patients with good glycaemic control (HbA1c ≤ 7.0%) was similar between the two groups (16.8% in Group 1 vs. 13.1% in Group 2, χ2 - 0.535, p = 0.47). Significant reductions in fasting and postprandial levels were observed in groups 1 and 2 at both post-baseline time points (Week 12 and 24). In group 1, reduction in HbA1c from baseline to week 12 was 0.6 ± 0.1 and 0.7 ± 0.2 at week 24, p < 0.0001 for all. In group 2, no significant change in HbA1c was observed. In group 1, 83.2% required an additional dose of glulisine and in group 2, 88.9% required an additional dose of premixed insulin. Hypoglycemic events were similar in both groups (0.12 events per person-year in group 1 and 0.13 events per person-year in group 2). Weight gain was non-significant in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Glargine plus Glulisine, though in higher dose was effective as premixed insulin in lowering HbA1c. Hypoglycemic events per person-year were similar in both groups.

Twenty Years of Insulin Gla-100: A Systematic Evaluation of Its Efficacy and Safety in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to present the current evidence base with respect to the initiation and intensification of insulin therapy with glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) compared to other insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled clinical trials databases was performed to identify studies published up to September 30, 2020 that compared the effects of Gla-100 to that of other insulin regimens in people with T2DM. Relevant information pertaining to the predefined outcomes of interest was extracted. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change and response rates along with overall hypoglycemia incidence were the primary efficacy and safety outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine studies (63 interventional and 16 non-interventional) in which Gla-100 was either initiated in previously insulin-naïve patients (n = 57) or used in an intensified regimen (n = 22) were identified and evaluated. In insulin-naïve patients, most studies demonstrated that Gla-100 was significantly better compared with premixed insulins and similar compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations, and other first-generation basal insulins in terms of the primary efficacy parameters. Overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with NPH, premixed, coformulation, and other first-generation basal insulins and significantly higher compared with second-generation basal insulins. In studies with intensified regimens, efficacy outcomes with Gla-100 were significantly better compared with insulin detemir (IDet); similar compared with NPH, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations; and with premixed insulins. In these studies, overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with IDet and comparable to NPH, premixed insulins, co-formulations, and second-generation basal insulins. In addition, most intensification studies also revealed a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia with Gla-100-based regimens versus NPH and premixed insulins and a significantly greater risk compared to second-generation basal insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence presented in this review suggests that Gla-100 is an effective option for both insulin initiation and intensification strategies used in the management of T2DM.

DIVE/DPV registries: benefits and risks of analog insulin use in individuals 75 years and older with type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

The aims of this study were to characterize insulin-treated individuals aged ≥75 years with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin analogs (BIA) or regular insulins (human insulin (HI)/neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH)) and to compare the benefits and risks.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The analysis was based on data from the DPV (Diabetes-Patienten-Verlaufsdokumentation) and DIVE (DIabetes Versorgungs-Evaluation) registries. To balance for confounders, propensity score matching for age, sex, diabetes duration, body mass index and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as covariates was performed.

RESULTS

Among 167 300 patients aged ≥75 years with type 2 diabetes (mean age, 80.3 years), 9601 subjects used insulin regimens with basal insulin (HI/NPH or BIA). Of these 8022 propensity score-matched subjects were identified. The mean diabetes duration was ~12 years and half of the patients were male. At the time of switch, patients provided with BIA experienced more dyslipidemia (89.3% vs 85.9%; p=0.002) and took a greater number of medications (4.3 vs 3.7; p<0.001) and depression was more prevalent (8.4% vs 6.5%; p=0.01). Aggregated to the most actual treatment year, BIA was associated with a higher percentage of patients using basal-supported oral therapy (42.6% vs 14.4%) and intensified conventional insulin therapy (44.3% vs 29.4%) and lower total daily insulin doses (0.24 IU/kg/day vs 0.30 IU/kg/day; p<0.001). The study did not reveal significant differences in efficacy (HbA1c 7.4% vs 7.3%; p=0.06), hospitalizations (0.7 vs 0.8 per patient-year (PY); p=0.15), length of stay (16.3 vs 16.1 days per PY; p=0.53), or rates of severe hypoglycemia (4.07 vs 4.40 per 100 PY; p=0.88), hypoglycemia with coma (3.64 vs 3.26 per 100 PY; p=0.88) and diabetic ketoacidosis (0.01 vs 0.03 per 100 PY; p=0.36).

CONCLUSION

BIA were used in more individually and patient-centered therapy regimens compared with HI/NPH in patients with a mean age of 80 years. Both groups were slightly overtreated with mean HbA1c <7.5%. The risk of severe hypoglycemia was low and independent of insulin type. Further analyses of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes are needed to provide evidence for best practice approaches in this age group.

Combination therapy with pioglitazone/exenatide improves beta-cell function and produces superior glycaemic control compared with basal/bolus insulin in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: A 3-year follow-up of the Qatar study

AIM

To examine the long-term efficacy of thiazolidinedione plus a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist versus basal-bolus insulin on glycaemic control and beta-cell function in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) on metformin plus sulphonylurea.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three hundred and thirty-one patients with poorly controlled T2D were recruited over 3 years and were followed for an additional year. Subjects received a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at baseline and at study end. After completing the baseline OGTT, subjects were randomized to receive either pioglitazone plus weekly exenatide (combination therapy) or basal/bolus insulin (insulin therapy) to maintain an HbA1c of less than 7.0%. The primary outcome of the study was the difference in HbA1c at study end between the two treatment groups.

RESULTS

Both therapies caused a robust decrease in HbA1c. However, combination therapy caused a greater decrement (-1.1%, P < .0001) than insulin therapy, and more subjects in the combination therapy group (86%) achieved the American Diabetes Association goal of glycaemic control (HbA1c < 7.0%) than those in the insulin therapy group (44%) (P < .0001). Both therapies improved insulin secretion. However, the improvement in insulin secretion with combination therapy was 2.5-fold greater (P < .001) than with insulin therapy (50%). Insulin therapy caused more weight gain and hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSION

Both combination therapy and insulin therapy effectively reduced HbA1c in poorly controlled T2D on multiple oral agents. However, combination therapy produced a greater improvement in insulin secretion and decrease in HbA1c with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia.

Efficacy and Safety of Basal Analog Regimens in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

This study compared basal analog (BA: glargine U100/mL and detemir) and premix (PM: human, lispro and aspart biphasic) insulin regimens in terms of their efficacy and safety in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

METHODS

Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL identified primary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ≥ 12 weeks in duration that compared BA or PM insulin regimens in adults with T2DM, with ≥ 30 patients per arm. A systematic literature review and a pairwise meta-analysis were performed using a random effects model adjusted for between-study variability. Analyses were conducted based on frequency of bolus insulin and PM injections, PM ratio and type, BA type, race, follow-up period, and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c).

RESULTS

Twenty-two primary RCTs with 9691 patients were included. The BA and PM regimens yielded similar changes in HbA1c and postprandial glucose levels, with a statistically significant reduction in fasting glucose [mean difference (MD) - 0.61 mmol/L (95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.90, - 0.32), I² = 89.6%]. The BA regimens showed significantly reduced rates of total hypoglycemia [odds ratio (OR) 0.77 (95% CI 0.64, 0.92), I² = 65.3%] and changes in body weight [MD - 0.48 kg (95% CI - 0.86, - 0.11), I² = 75.7%] compared to PM regimens. Stratification by PM type and dosing ratio demonstrated statistically significant reductions in HbA1c favoring BA compared to human [MD - 0.39% (95% CI - 0.60, - 0.18), I² = 61.8%] or 50/50-ratio [MD - 0.22% (95% CI - 0.40, - 0.04), I² = 0.0%] PM regimens. Other subgroup analyses found no difference in HbA1c change between the BA and PM regimens.

CONCLUSION

When compared to PM regimens, BA regimens yielded similar efficacies and better safety profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

FUNDING

Sanofi (Shanghai, China).

Blood glucose profiles in East Asian and Caucasian injection-naive patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral medication: a pooled analysis

AIM

The primary objective of this study was to compare blood glucose (BG) excursions between East Asian and Caucasian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who were injection-naive, had inadequate glycemic control with oral antihyperglycemic medications, and who required initiation with injectable therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective pooled analysis included individual patient data from completed clinical trials (Insulin lispro injection/dulaglutide development programs, first patient visit ≥1997). All included patients were ≥18 years, were East Asian or Caucasian, and had data for self-monitored BG at baseline. The primary outcome, BG excursion at baseline (least-squares mean, standard error), was compared between patient groups using an analysis of covariance with race as the fixed effect. Independent covariates included baseline body weight, baseline HbA1c, age, and duration of T2DM.

RESULTS

Caucasian (n = 6779) and East Asian (n = 1638) patients from 21 trials were included. BG excursions were significantly higher for East Asian than Caucasian patients at breakfast (4.03 [0.075] vs 2.59 [0.045] mmol/L), lunch (3.37 [0.080] vs 1.43 [0.049] mmol/L), and dinner (3.16 [0.080] vs 1.74 [0.047] mmol/L) (P < 0.001 adjusted analyses). Similar findings were observed for the unadjusted analyses. At each time point, postprandial BG was significantly higher for East Asian than Caucasian patients (with adjusted and unadjusted analyses).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that BG excursion and postprandial BG are higher among East Asian patients with T2DM than Caucasian patients. In addition, these findings may help clinicians select appropriate treatments for East Asian patients with T2DM who require injection therapy.

A Review of Basal-Bolus Therapy Using Insulin Glargine and Insulin Lispro in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus

Basal-bolus therapy (BBT) refers to the combination of a long-acting basal insulin with a rapid-acting insulin at mealtimes. Basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL and prandial insulin lispro have been available for many years and there is a substantial evidence base to support the efficacy and safety of these agents when they are used in BBT or basal-plus therapy for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM, T2DM). With the growing availability of alternative insulins for use in such regimens, it seems timely to review the data regarding BBT with insulin glargine 100 U/mL and insulin lispro. In patients with T1DM, BBT with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro provides similar or better glycemic control and leads to less nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to BBT using human insulin as the basal and/or prandial component, and generally provides similar glycemic control and rates of severe hypoglycemia to those achieved with insulin lispro administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Studies evaluating BBT with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro in patients with T2DM also demonstrate the efficacy and safety of these insulins. Available data suggest that BBT with insulin glargine and insulin lispro provides similar levels of efficacy and safety in pediatric and adult populations with T1DM and in adult patients and those aged more than 65 years with T2DM. These insulin preparations also appear to be safe and effective for controlling T2DM in people of different ethnicities and in patients with T1DM or T2DM and comorbidities.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

FUNDING

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

A 32-Week Randomized Comparison of Stepwise Insulin Intensification of Biphasic Insulin Aspart (BIAsp 30) Versus Basal-Bolus Therapy in Insulin-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

This 32-week, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multinational trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of stepwise insulin intensification of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) relative to stepwise intensification of a basal-bolus regimen in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who continued pretrial treatment with metformin and sulfonylurea.

METHODS

Adults with T2D were randomized into one of two treatment arms for 32 weeks: (1) BIAsp 30 once daily (OD), with the possibility of stepwise treatment intensification up to BIAsp 30 three times daily (TID); (2) insulin glargine OD, with the possibility of stepwise treatment intensification with insulin aspart up to TID. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA_1c after 32 weeks.

RESULTS

After 32 weeks, the estimated mean change in HbA_1c from baseline was statistically significantly lower in the BIAsp 30 arm (- 1.18%) versus basal-bolus (- 1.36%) [estimated treatment difference 0.18%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.01; 0.36; p < 0.05]. The proportion of patients with HbA_1c below 7.0% was statistically significantly lower with BIAsp 30 (42.9%) compared with basal-bolus (56.9%) (odds ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.37; 0.89; p = 0.01). The overall rate of severe or blood glucose (BG)-confirmed hypoglycemic events was numerically lower for BIAsp 30 compared with basal-bolus, and a statistically significantly lower rate in nocturnal severe or BG-confirmed hypoglycemia in the BIAsp 30 arm relative to basal-bolus was observed: estimated rate ratio 0.32 (95% CI 0.13; 0.79), p = 0.0131. The proportion of patients with adverse events was similar in both treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Insulin intensification with BIAsp 30 and basal-bolus showed an improvement in glycemic control; the change in HbA_1c was statistically significantly lower for BIAsp 30 compared to basal-bolus. Basal-bolus treatment was accompanied by a numerically, and statistically significantly, higher rate of overall and nocturnal severe or BG-confirmed hypoglycemia, respectively, compared with BIAsp 30.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02453685.

Baseline factors associated with better response to insulin lispro low mixture or insulin glargine: A post hoc analysis of the DURABLE study

AIMS

To identify baseline characteristics associated with better efficacy and safety responses to twice-daily insulin lispro low mixture (LM) or once-daily insulin glargine (IG) in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This post hoc analysis of the DURABLE study used the gradient-boosting method to generate hypothetical outcomes with the alternative treatment to assigned study drug to evaluate the potential additional benefit of one insulin over the other in association with influential baseline covariates in the same patient. The magnitude of additional benefit was further quantified by the generalized linear model and recursive partitioning regression tree method.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics with the highest relative influence on 24-week outcomes in the overall population (LM, n = 1045; IG, n = 1046) were: for HbA1c change: fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (29.31%), age (28.57%); for reaching target HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol): weight (22.41%); for weight change: weight (18.54%); for FPG: FPG (43.66%), age (20.8%); for 30-day hypoglycemia: FPG (57.09%), weight (10.1%). LM showed superiority over IG for HbA1c reduction and reaching HbA1c <7% overall, with clinically significant differences in HbA1c reduction (>0.4%) in some subpopulations. IG was superior over LM in most patients for less weight gain and hypoglycemia and lower FPG.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in magnitude of response to twice-daily LM and once-daily IG in association with baseline characteristics of insulin-naïve patients with T2D were found. Future real-world studies using these statistical methods could help identify patients who respond better to certain insulin regimens to help guide clinicians in treatment decisions.

Premixed vs basal-bolus insulin regimen in Type 2 diabetes: comparison of clinical outcomes from randomized controlled trials and real-world data

AIM

To evaluate the concordance between data derived from randomized controlled trial (RCT) and real-world estimates of HbA_1c and weight change after 24 weeks of initiation of a basal-bolus compared with a premixed insulin regimen in people with Type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Data eight RCTs were pooled after a systematic review of studies examining basal-bolus (n = 1893) or premixed (n = 1517) regimens. Real-world data were extracted from the UK primary care dataset for people on basal-bolus (n = 7483) or premixed insulin regimens (n=10 744). The mean differences between HbA_1c and weight from baseline were calculated using t-tests, while analysis of variance was used to compare the two treatment regimens. Linear regression analyses were used to determine the predictors of this change.

RESULTS

Both insulin regimens were associated with HbA_1c reductions (real-world data -0.28%; RCT data, -1.4%) and weight gain (real-world data, +0.27 kg; RCT data, +2.96 kg) but there were no significant differences between basal-bolus and premixed insulin. Discordances in the pattern of treatment response were observed, however, between real-world and RCT data for both insulin regimens. For any given baseline HbA_1c concentration, the change in HbA_1c in the RCTs was greater than in real-world conditions and for those with baseline weight above ~60 kg, RCT data showed overall weight gain in contrast to slight weight loss in the real-world population. Lastly, for both randomized controlled trial and real-world populations, while greater baseline weight was associated with reduced response to treatment, the association was much steeper in the RCT than in the real-world population. In addition, greater baseline weight was associated with greater weight reductions in both premixed insulin and basal-bolus insulin regimens, although to a lesser extent with the latter.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight specific discrepancies in the HbA_1c reduction and weight change in insulin regimen between real world versus RCT populations; with greater reduction in HbA_1c and greater increase in weight observed in the RCT population than in the real-world population. Also, the basal-bolus regimens in both real-world and RCT populations showed greater reduction in HbA_1c compared to the premix regimen (though more marked in RCTs), while the premix regimen showed greater increase in weight in real-world, as against basal-bolus in the RCT population.

Review of basal-plus insulin regimen options for simpler insulin intensification in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To identify simple insulin regimens for people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus that can be accepted and implemented earlier in primary and specialist care, taking into consideration each individual's needs and capabilities.

METHODS

Using randomized clinical trials identified by a search of the PubMed database, as well as systematic reviews, meta-analyses and proof-of-concept studies, this review addresses topics of interest related to the progressive intensification of a basal insulin regimen to a basal-plus regimen (one basal insulin injection plus stepwise addition of one to three preprandial short-acting insulin injections/day) vs a basal-bolus regimen (basal insulin plus three short-acting insulin injections per day) in people with Type 2 diabetes. The review explores approaches that can be used to define the meal for first prandial injection with basal-plus regimens, differences among insulin titration algorithms, and the importance of self-motivation and autonomy in achieving optimum glycaemic control.

RESULTS

A basal-plus regimen can provide glycaemic control equivalent to that obtained with a full basal-bolus regimen, with fewer injections of prandial insulin. The first critical step is to optimize basal insulin dosing to reach a fasting glucose concentration of ~6.7 mmol/l; this allows ~40% of patients with baseline HbA_1c >75 mmol/mol (9%) to be controlled with only one basal insulin injection per day.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with a basal-bolus regimen, a basal-plus insulin regimen is as effective but more practical, and has the best chance of acceptance and success in the real world.

Association between mild and severe hypoglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin

AIMS

Primary objective: Identify risk factors associated with severe hypoglycemia (SH) and investigate the association between mild hypoglycemia and SH in people with type 2 diabetes starting insulin. Secondary objectives: Investigate the association of demographics and clinical factors with SH incidence.

METHODS

Integrated trial database data were obtained for 3 randomized controlled trials that included insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes initiating basal (insulin glargine) versus biphasic (insulin lispro mixture) insulin. Standard definitions were used for SH; mild hypoglycemia was defined as all non-SH. Cox regression identified risk factors associated with SH and the correlation between SH and mild hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Data were pooled (N=2931). During 24-48weeks' treatment, 2127 (72.6%) participants experienced ≥1 mild hypoglycemic event but no SH (mean mild hypoglycemia rate=2.33/month). 56 participants (1.9%) experienced ≥1 SH event plus mild hypoglycemia (mean mild hypoglycemia rate=3.95/month); 748 participants (25.5%) had no hypoglycemia. Among factors tested, only mild hypoglycemia rate/month was associated with SH. SH risk was higher (HR=4.24; 95%CI=2.57-6.99;p<0.0001) for participants experiencing multiple mild hypoglycemic events/month compared with those experiencing ≤1 mild hypoglycemic event/month.

CONCLUSIONS

Mild hypoglycemia may predict the first SH event, which is important because SH is a strong and consistent risk factor for morbidity/mortality.

Observational Registry of Basal Insulin Treatment (ORBIT) in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with oral antihyperglycaemic drugs: Real-life use of basal insulin in China

AIMS

To examine treatment patterns following basal insulin (BI) introduction in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients under real-world conditions across China.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Overall, 18 995 patients inadequately controlled (HbA1c ≥ 53 mmol/mol [7%]) with oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) and willing to receive BI treatment were registered at 209 hospitals and followed at baseline (visit 1), 3 months (visit 2) and 6 months (visit 3). Type of BI was initiated at physicians' discretion.

RESULTS

Retention with BI therapy at 6 months was 75.6%. Use of long-acting BI predominated, with insulin glargine accounting for 71%, detemir 13% and Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin 16%. Over 70% of long-acting users maintained the same initial BI at visit 3, while 40% of NPH users switched treatment and 24.4% of participants initiated BI with prandial insulin. The initial mean (± SD) dose of BI and total insulin was 0.18 ± 0.07 and 0.25 ± 0.19 IU/kg, respectively, with a mean increase of daily dose by 0.03 and 0.02 IU/kg after 6 months, respectively. Only 56.6% of insulin users reported dose titration at visit 3. Mean HbA1c was 81 mmol/mol (9.6%) at baseline and 57 mmol/mol (7.4%) at 6 months. The frequency of hypoglycaemia was 1.61 and 2.07 episodes/patient-year at baseline and 6 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world clinical settings, add-on BI therapy in T2DM patients is associated with significant improvement in glycaemic control without overtly compromising safety related to hypoglycaemia and weight gain. Evolution of insulin treatment regimens varied among patients, but dose titration was suboptimal. More active BI dose titration might further improve glycaemic outcome in patients receiving BI therapy.

VIDEO ABSTRACT

A free Video Abstract to accompany this article is available at https://vimeo.com/212655959.

Combination Therapy With Exenatide Plus Pioglitazone Versus Basal/Bolus Insulin in Patients With Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes on Sulfonylurea Plus Metformin: The Qatar Study

OBJECTIVE

The Qatar Study was designed to examine the efficacy of combination therapy with exenatide plus pioglitazone versus basal/bolus insulin in patients with long-standing poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on metformin plus a sulfonylurea.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study randomized 231 patients with poorly controlled (HbA_1c >7.5%, 58 mmol/mol) T2DM on a sulfonylurea plus metformin to receive 1) pioglitazone plus weekly exenatide (combination therapy) or 2) basal plus prandial insulin (insulin therapy) to maintain HbA_1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol).

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 12 months, combination therapy caused a robust decrease in HbA_1c from 10.0 ± 0.6% (86 ± 5.2 mmol/mol) at baseline to 6.1 ± 0.1% (43 ± 0.7 mmol/mol) compared with 7.1 ± 0.1% (54 ± 0.8 mmol/mol) in subjects receiving insulin therapy. Combination therapy was effective in lowering the HbA_1c independent of sex, ethnicity, BMI, or baseline HbA_1c. Subjects in the insulin therapy group experienced significantly greater weight gain and a threefold higher rate of hypoglycemia than patients in the combination therapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination exenatide/pioglitazone therapy is a very effective and safe therapeutic option in patients with long-standing poorly controlled T2DM on metformin plus a sulfonylurea.

Factors associated with reaching or not reaching target HbA1c after initiation of basal or premixed insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To evaluate factors associated with reaching or not reaching target glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels by analysing the respective contributions of fasting hyperglycaemia (FHG), also referred to as basal hyperglycaemia, vs postprandial hyperglycaemia (PHG) before and after initiation of a basal or premixed insulin regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis of insulin-naïve patients in the DURABLE study randomised to receive either insulin glargine or insulin lispro mix 25 evaluated the percentages of patients achieving a target HbA_1c of <7.0% (<53mmol/mol) per baseline HbA_1c quartiles, and the effect of each insulin regimen on the relative contributions of PHG and FHG to overall hyperglycaemia.

RESULTS

Patients had comparable demographic characteristics and similar HbA_1c and FHG values at baseline in each HbA_1c quartile regardless of whether they reached the target HbA_1c. The higher the HbA_1c quartile, the greater was the decrease in HbA_1c, but also the smaller the percentage of patients achieving the target HbA_1c. HbA_1c and FHG decreased more in patients reaching the target, resulting in significantly lower values at endpoint in all baseline HbA_1c quartiles with either insulin treatment. Patients not achieving the target HbA_1c had slightly higher insulin doses, but lower total hypoglycaemia rates.

CONCLUSION

Smaller decreases in FHG were associated with not reaching the target HbA_1c, suggesting a need to increase basal or premixed insulin doses to achieve targeted fasting plasma glucose and improve patient response before introducing more intensive prandial insulin regimens.

Management of postprandial glucose: Recommended targets and treatment with biphasic insulin

Increases in glycaemia, particularly following meals, have been independently associated with diabetes complications, most notably cardiovascular disease. Control of postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) therefore plays an important role in diabetes management. International diabetes guidelines acknowledge the value of PPG monitoring yet place relatively little emphasis on PPG control. This article considers the impact of suboptimal PPG control and current recommendations with regard to management of PPG. Specific consideration is given to the role of biphasic insulins, one of the treatment options recognised by the International Diabetes Federation as preferentially lowering PPG levels.

Premixed Insulin Analogue Compared with Basal-Plus Regimen for Inpatient Glycemic Control

BACKGROUND

No previous studies have investigated the use of a premixed insulin analogue in a hospital setting.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of treatment with premixed insulin analogue (insulin lispro mix 75/25, LM75/25) with the basal-plus regimen with insulin glargine in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients with T2D and glucose >140 mg/dL on admission was performed. A total of 54 patients were randomized to receive insulin LM75/25 or glargine. In both groups, a correction dose of lispro was administered before meals. Insulin dose was adjusted to obtain a mean blood glucose (BG) between 100 and 140 mg/dL.

RESULTS

Improvement in the mean BG after the first day of treatment was similar in both groups (P = 0.470). Glycemic control at the end of follow-up was similar between the group with insulin LM75/25 (131.3 ± 28.4 mg/dL) and insulin glargine (143.8 ± 32.5 mg/dL, P = 0.153). The aim of a BG concentration of <140 mg/dL was obtained in 72% of the patients in the premixed insulin analogue group and 56% of patients in the basal-plus group (P = 0.239). There was no difference in the frequency of hypoglycemia between groups (7 vs. 10, P = 0.529).

CONCLUSION

Results of this trial indicate that the use of a premixed insulin analogue is as effective and safe as the basal-plus regimen to achieve glycemic control.

Personalized intensification of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes - does a basal-bolus regimen suit all patients?

Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) require insulin therapy. If basal insulin fails to achieve glycemic control, insulin intensification is one possible treatment intensification strategy. We summarized clinical data from randomized clinical trials designed to compare the efficacy and safety of basal-bolus and premixed insulin intensification regimens. We defined a between-group difference of ≥0.3% in end-of-study glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as clinically meaningful. A PubMed database search supplemented by author-identified papers yielded 15 trials which met selection criteria: randomized design, patients with T2DM receiving basal-bolus (bolus injection ≤3 times/day) vs. premixed (≤3 injections/day) insulin regimens, primary/major endpoint(s) HbA1c- and/or hypoglycemia-related, and trial duration ≥12 weeks. Glycemic control improved with both basal-bolus and premixed insulin regimens with - in most cases - acceptable levels of weight gain and hypoglycemia. A clinically meaningful difference between regimens in glycemic control was recorded in only four comparisons, all of which favored basal-bolus therapy. The incidence of hypoglycemia was significantly different between regimens in only three comparisons, one of which favored premixed insulin and two basal-bolus therapy. Of the four trials that reported a significant difference between regimens in bodyweight change, two favored basal-bolus therapy and two favored premixed insulin. Thus, on a population level, neither basal-bolus therapy nor premixed insulin showed a consistent advantage in terms of glycemic control, hypoglycemic risk, or bodyweight gain. It is therefore recommended that clinicians should adopt an individualized approach to insulin intensification - taking into account the benefits and risks of each treatment approach and the attitude and preferences of each patient - in the knowledge that both basal-bolus and premixed regimens may be successful.

Efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart and biphasic insulin lispro mix in patients with type 2 diabetes: A review of the literature

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) represents an escalating burden worldwide, particularly in China and India. Compared with Caucasians, Asian people with diabetes have lower body mass index, increased visceral adiposity, and postprandial glucose (PPG)/insulin resistance. Since postprandial hyperglycemia contributes significantly to total glycemic burden and is associated with heightened cardiovascular risk, targeting PPG early in T2D is paramount. Premixed insulin regimens are widely used in Asia due to their convenience and effectiveness. Data from randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with biphasic insulin lispro mix (LM 25/50) and versus other insulin therapies or oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in T2D demonstrated that BIAsp 30 and LM 25/50 were associated with similar or greater improvements in glycemic control versus comparator regimens, such as basal-bolus insulin, in insulin-naÏve, and prior insulin users. Studies directly comparing BIAsp 30 and LM 25 provided conflicting glycemic control results. Safety data generally showed increased hypoglycemia and weight gain with premixed insulins versus basal-bolus insulin or OADs. However, large observational trials documented improvements in glycated hemoglobin, PPG, and hypoglycemia with BIAsp 30 in multi-ethnic patient populations. In summary, this literature review demonstrates that premixed insulin regimens are an appropriate and effective treatment choice in T2D.

Hypoglycemia Event Rates: A Comparison Between Real-World Data and Randomized Controlled Trial Populations in Insulin-Treated Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Hypoglycemia is the most common adverse effect of diabetes therapy, particularly insulin treatment. Hypoglycemia is associated with considerable clinical and economic burden, and may be under-reported. The aim of this study was to com pare the frequency of hypoglycemic events reported in real-world settings with those reported in clinical trials.

METHODS

We conducted a structured literature review in PubMed to identify hypoglycemic event rates in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from real-world data (RWD) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The search was restricted to English language, full-text publications from 2010 onwards, reporting on treatment of T1DM or T2DM with basal only, basal-bolus, or premix insulin.

RESULTS

The final dataset included 30 studies (11 RWD studies and 19 RCTs). Six studies (RWD, n = 2; RCT, n = 4) reported hypoglycemia event rates in people with T1DM. For all reported categories of hypoglycemia (severe, non-severe, and nocturnal), rates were consistently higher in RWD studies compared with RCTs. Twenty-five studies (RWD, n = 10; RCT, n = 15) reported hypoglycemia event rates in people with insulin-treated T2DM. For T2DM basal-oral therapy; the highest rates were observed in RWD studies, although there was an overlap with RCT rates. For basal-bolus therapy, there was considerable between-study variability but higher rates of severe and non-severe hypoglycemia were generally observed in RWD studies. For T2DM premix insulin, reported rates of hypoglycemia in RWD studies and RCTs were similar.

CONCLUSION

We found that higher rates of hypoglycemia are observed in real-world settings compared with clinical trial settings, although there is a large degree of overlap. Due to the inherent constraints of RCTs, they are likely to underestimate the burden of hypoglycemia in clinical practice. Further, high-quality RWD are needed to determine a more accurate incidence of hypoglycemia in clinical practice.

Intensification of insulin therapy with basal-bolus or premixed insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of intensified insulin regimens (basal-bolus versus premixed) on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. We conducted an electronic search until March 2015 on many electronic databases including online registries of ongoing trials. All RCTs comparing basal-bolus with premixed insulin regimens, with a duration of >12 weeks and with >30 patients per arm, were included. Investigators extracted data on study characteristics, outcome measures, and methodological quality. We found thirteen RCTs lasting 16-60 weeks and involving 5255 patients assessed for the primary endpoint (reduction of HbA1c from baseline). Meta-analysis of change in HbA1c level between basal-bolus and premixed insulin regimens resulted in a small and non-significant difference of 0.09% (95% CI -0.03 to 0.21), with substantial heterogeneity between studies (I(2) = 74.4%). There was no statistically significant difference in the event rate for overall hypoglycemia (0.16 episode/patient/year, 95%CI -2.07 to 2.3), weight change (-0.21 kg, -0.164 to 0.185), and daily insulin dose (-0.54 U/day, -2.7 to 1.6). The likelihood for reaching the HbA1c <7% was 8% higher (3-13%, I(2) = 68.8%) with the basal-bolus as compared with the premixed regimen. There is no clinically relevant difference in the efficacy of basal-bolus versus premixed insulin regimens for HbA1c decrease in type 2 diabetic patients. These findings may be helpful to adapt treatment to individual patient needs.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of two starting insulin regimens in non-Asian, Asian Indian, and East Asian patients with type 2 diabetes: a post hoc analysis of the PARADIGM study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro mix 25 (25% insulin lispro and 75% insulin lispro protamine suspension [LM25]) or insulin glargine plus insulin lispro (G+L) in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes from different racial/ethnic groups.

METHODS

Three subgroups from the PARADIGM study were analyzed post hoc: non-Asian (n=130), Asian Indian (n=106), and East Asian (n=89).

RESULTS

All subgroups recorded glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reductions: non-Asian (LM25, -2.07%; G+L, -2.05%), Asian Indian (LM25, -1.75%; G+L, -1.60%), and East Asian (LM25, -2.03%; G+L, -1.76%); end point HbA1c values were higher in Asian Indians and East Asians than in non-Asians. Fewer Asian Indians (LM25, 43.2%; G+L, 29.2%) and East Asians (LM25, 37.5%; G+L, 36.1%) reached HbA1c <7% versus non-Asians (LM25, 51.7%; G+L, 48.1%); differences were not significant (P=0.12 and P=0.06, respectively). The mean total daily insulin dose (U/kg) for non-Asians was 0.67 (LM25) and 0.61 (G+L), for Asian Indians was 0.91 (LM25) and 0.90 (G+L), and for East Asians was 0.53 (LM25) and 0.59 (G+L). The ratio of mealtime to total insulin dose in the G+L arm for non-Asians was 0.19±0.23, for Asian Indians was 0.33±0.25, and for East Asians was 0.34±0.27. Overall incidence (%) of hypoglycemia in non-Asians was 94.1 (LM25) and 91.8 (G+L), in Asian Indians was 90.4 (LM25) and 88.5 (G+L), and in East Asians was 69.8 (LM25) and 77.3 (G+L).

CONCLUSION

Asian Indians showed least improvement in glycemic HbA1c reduction despite greater insulin use. East Asians and non-Asians achieved similar HbA1c reduction in the LM25 arm with a lower rate of hypoglycemia. Asians required more mealtime insulin coverage than non-Asians. This study added important insight into the effect of ethnicity on insulin treatment outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Number-Based Approach to Insulin Taxonomy

This article describes a number-based system for the classification of insulin regimes. It utilizes a patient-centered variable (number of injections per day) and pharmacokinetic/dynamic characteristics to craft a taxonomic system that is able to incorporate all available insulin preparations and coformulations. This framework of systematics is robust enough to include various molecules that have been recently developed. It serves to enhance understanding of the subject, and facilitates the practical or clinical usage of theoretical knowledge. We propose that number-based insulin taxonomic models should be used in clinical guidelines and recommendations rather than restricting ourselves to pharmaceutical-based classifications. PubMed articles including both review articles and clinical trials published since the year 1990 were searched, to gather evidence and information on the various types of insulins available, and how they can be used, based on the number or frequency of injections prescribed per day.

Practical Guidance on the Use of Premix Insulin Analogs in Initiating, Intensifying, or Switching Insulin Regimens in Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Premix insulin analogs are a well-established treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, there is a lack of simple, clear guidance on some aspects of their use. These include choosing a regimen for insulin initiation, recognizing when patients need intensification of therapy, and switching from basal-bolus to a premix insulin analog when appropriate.

METHODS

An independent expert panel formulated recommendations on the use in T2D of the premix insulin analog formulations widely available in Australasia, based on the available evidence and their own experience.

RESULTS

Results from trials in both initiation and intensification of insulin show that no single insulin or regimen is best on all endpoints, and that improved glycemic control can be expected regardless of which regimen is used. Thus, individual patient factors and preferences become more important. Guidance is presented to help the clinician choose between a premix insulin analog or basal analog for insulin initiation, and to intensify insulin therapy using premix insulin analogs. Recommendations are made on dosing, titration, the concomitant use of non-insulin glucose-lowering drugs, and other practical issues, and on the special case of switching from basal-bolus to premix insulin analog therapy.

CONCLUSION

This guidance is intended to help both general and specialist practitioners make informed choices and provide optimal care for patients with T2D. It emphasizes the importance of taking into account individual patient factors and preferences so that the choice of insulin regimen is individualized to the patient in the same way that glycemic targets are now individualized.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk Region IO A/S.

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.

New forms of insulin and insulin therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Insulin is a common treatment option for many patients with type 2 diabetes, and is generally used late in the natural history of the disease. Its injectable delivery mode, propensity for weight gain and hypoglycaemia, and the paucity of trials assessing the risk-to-safety ratio of early insulin use are major shortcomings associated with its use in patients with type 2 diabetes. Development of new insulins-such as insulin analogues, including long-acting and short-acting insulins-now provide alternative treatment options to human insulin. These novel insulin formulations and innovative insulin delivery methods, such as oral or inhaled insulin, have been developed with the aim to reduce insulin-associated hypoglycaemia, lower intraindividual pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability, and improve imitation of physiological insulin release. Availability of newer glucose-lowering drugs (such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors) also offers the opportunity for combination treatment; the results of the first trials in this area of research suggest that such treatment might lead to use of reduced insulin doses, less weight gain, and fewer hypoglycaemic episodes than insulin treatment alone. These and future developments will hopefully offer better opportunities for individualisation of insulin treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Biphasic vs basal bolus insulin regimen in Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

We aim to evaluate the effects of biphasic insulin compared with a basal bolus insulin regimen on glycaemic control, total daily insulin requirements, risk of hypoglycaemia, weight and quality of life in patients with diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for studies up to November 2013. Interventions that lasted for more than four weeks and were reported in English were considered for the review. Meta-analysis was performed on eligible studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trial studies, involving 4384 patients, were included. Greater HbA1c reductions were seen with basal-bolus compared with biphasic insulin regimens, between-treatment weighted mean difference (WMD) for baseline-to-endpoint changes in HbA1c was -0.2% (95% CI: -0.36 to -0.03) [-2.2 (-3.9, -0.3) mmol/mol]. In non-insulin naïve (n = 8) patients with Type 2 diabetes, HbA1c reduction was greater in the basal bolus group; WMD = -0.22% (95% CI: -0.42 to -0.02) [-2.4 (-4.6, -0.2) mmol/mol], but in insulin naïve patients (n = 5), HbA1c was equivalent between the two regimens; WMD (-0.15% (95% CI: -0.52 to 0.22) [-1.6 (-5.7, 2.4) mmol/mol]. Total daily insulin requirements and weight were increased with both regimens, whereas hypoglycaemia rates were comparable between the two regimens. Greater HbA1c reduction was observed in the basal bolus group compared with the biphasic regimen at the expense of higher daily insulin requirements and weight gain, but with no greater risk of hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Biphasic and basal bolus regimens were equally effective in reducing HbA1c in insulin naïve patients with Type 2 diabetes and both regimens are equally effective for initiating insulin in Type 2 diabetes.

Similar glucose control with basal-bolus regimen of insulin detemir plus insulin aspart and thrice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: Results of a 50-week randomized clinical trial of stepwise insulin intensification

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of 50-week treatment with stepwise insulin intensification of basal-bolus insulin analogues [insulin detemir (IDet) and aspart (IAsp)] versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp30) in insulin-naive type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients not controlled by oral glucose-lowering drugs (OGLDs).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this open-label multicentre, multinational, randomized, parallel-arm treat-to-target trial, 403 insulin-naive patients with T2DM in four African countries were randomized to either an IDet+IAsp (n = 200) or BIAsp1-2-3 (n = 203) treatment group. Stepwise insulin intensification was performed at the end of 14, 26 and 38 weeks, depending on HbA1c values. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 50 weeks of treatment. Safety variables were hypoglycaemia incidence, occurrence of adverse events and weight gain.

RESULTS

Non-inferiority of the IDet+IAsp versus BIAsp1-2-3 treatment regimen was demonstrated by their similar HbA1c levels at the end of trial (IDet+IAsp: baseline 8.6%, 50 weeks 7.4%; BIAsp1-2-3: baseline 8.7%, 50 weeks 7.3%; full analysis set difference: 0.1% [95% CI: -0.1, 0.3]; per protocol: 0.2% [95% CI: -0.1, 0.4]). At week 50, 40.3 and 44.9% of patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% with IDet+IAsp and BIAsp1-2-3, respectively. The rate of overall hypoglycaemia during the trial was also similar in both groups (IDet+IAsp: 9.4 events/patient-year; BIAsp1-2-3: 9.8 events/patient-year).

CONCLUSION

Insulin initiation and intensification using IDet+IAsp was not inferior to BIAsp1-2-3 in insulin-naive patients with T2DM not controlled by OGLDs. Both regimens led to similar reductions in HbA1c values after 50 weeks of treatment.

Evidence-based clinical use of insulin premixtures

Brazil is expected to have 19.6 million patients with diabetes by the year 2030. A key concept in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is establishing individualized glycemic goals based on each patient's clinical characteristics, which impact the choice of antihyperglycemic therapy. Targets for glycemic control, including fasting blood glucose, postprandial blood glucose, and glycated hemoglobin (A1C), are often not reached solely with antihyperglycemic therapy, and insulin therapy is often required. Basal insulin is considered an initial strategy; however, premixed insulins are convenient and are equally or more effective, especially for patients who require both basal and prandial control but desire a more simplified strategy involving fewer daily injections than a basal-bolus regimen. Most physicians are reluctant to transition patients to insulin treatment due to inappropriate assumptions and insufficient information. We conducted a nonsystematic review in PubMed and identified the most relevant and recently published articles that compared the use of premixed insulin versus basal insulin analogues used alone or in combination with rapid-acting insulin analogues before meals in patients with T2DM. These studies suggest that premixed insulin analogues are equally or more effective in reducing A1C compared to basal insulin analogues alone in spite of the small increase in the risk of nonsevere hypoglycemic events and nonclinically significant weight gain. Premixed insulin analogues can be used in insulin-naïve patients, in patients already on basal insulin therapy, and those using basal-bolus therapy who are noncompliant with blood glucose self-monitoring and titration of multiple insulin doses. We additionally provide practical aspects related to titration for the specific premixed insulin analogue formulations commercially available in Brazil.