Treatment satisfaction and quality-of-life between type 2 diabetes patients initiating long- vs. intermediate-acting basal insulin therapy in combination with oral hypoglycemic agents--a randomized, prospective, crossover, open clinical trial

Effectiveness, safety, initial optimal dose, and optimal maintenance dose range of basal insulin regimens for type 2 diabetes: A systematic review with meta-analysis

AIMS

To investigate the effectiveness, safety, optimal starting dose, optimal maintenance dose range, and target fasting plasma glucose of five basal insulins in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to February 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was adopted. The registration ID is CRD42022319078 in PROSPERO.

RESULTS

Among 11 163 citations retrieved, 35 publications met the planned criteria. From meta-analyses and network meta-analyses, we found that when injecting basal insulin regimens at bedtime, the optimal choice in order of most to least effective might be glargine U-300 or degludec U-100, glargine U-100 or detemir, followed by neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH). Injecting glargine U-100 in the morning may be more effective (ie, more patients archiving glycated hemoglobin < 7.0%) and lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than injecting it at bedtime. The optimal starting dose for the initiation of any basal insulins can be 0.10-0.20 U/kg/day. There is no eligible evidence to investigate the optimal maintenance dose for basal insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The five basal insulins are effective for the target population. Glargine U-300, degludec U-100, glargine U-100, and detemir lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than NPH without compromising glycemic control.

Long-acting insulin in a public health system: analysis of compliance with clinical protocol in public pharmacies

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic disease marked by elevated blood glucose levels. Controlling DM involves adequate diet, physical exercises, medicines and monitoring the blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. This was a retrospective study of the process of dispensing long-acting insulin analogues to users with diabetes (types 1 and 2) who were registered at high-cost public pharmacies in public health system in a southeast state of Brazil, that sought to evaluate the fulfillment of the criteria of all the clinical protocol to provide these analogs. Of the 987 users registered in the health service, 315 met the inclusion criteria for the study. The evaluation of the dispensing processes of the long-acting insulin analogues revealed that the inclusion, exclusion, and suspension criteria of the protocol related with these insulin analogues were in some extend only partially fulfilled. Additionally, there was no difference between the initial and final fasting glycemic and HbA1c levels. It is concluded that the established criteria for dispensing long-acting insulin analogues were partly fulfilled by pharmacies, compromising the rational use of these analogues. It can directly impact the cost of maintaining the public health service and users' health.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Evidence that antihyperglycaemic therapy is beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. While the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) found tighter glycaemic control to be positive, other studies, such as the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, found the effects of an intensive therapy to lower blood glucose to near normal levels to be more harmful than beneficial. Study results also showed different effects for different antihyperglycaemic drugs, regardless of the achieved blood glucose levels. In consequence, firm conclusions on the effect of interventions on patient-relevant outcomes cannot be drawn from the effect of these interventions on blood glucose concentration alone. In theory, the use of newer insulin analogues may result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine U100 and U300, insulin detemir and insulin degludec) with NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin (human isophane insulin) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

For this Cochrane Review update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 5 November 2019, except Embase which was last searched 26 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 24 RCTs. Of these, 16 trials compared insulin glargine to NPH insulin and eight trials compared insulin detemir to NPH insulin. In these trials, 3419 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomised to insulin glargine and 1321 people to insulin detemir. The duration of the included trials ranged from 24 weeks to five years. For studies, comparing insulin glargine to NPH insulin, target values ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.8 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 140 mg/dL) for fasting blood glucose (FBG), from 4.4 mmol/L to 6.6 mmol/L (80 mg/dL to 120 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, when applicable. Blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target values for studies comparing insulin detemir to NPH insulin ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for FBG, less than 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) to less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and 5.8% to less than 6.4% HbA1c, when applicable. All trials had an unclear or high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Overall, insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Changes in HbA1c were comparable for long-acting insulin analogues and NPH insulin. Insulin glargine compared to NPH insulin had a risk ratio (RR) for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.06; absolute risk reduction (ARR) -1.2%, 95% CI -2.0 to 0; 14 trials, 6164 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The RR for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.09; P = 0.13; ARR -0.7%, 95% CI -1.3 to 0.2; 10 trials, 4685 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with insulin glargine reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treatment with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin found an RR for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.45 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.20; P = 0.11; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.4 to 0.4; 5 trials, 1804 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Peto odds ratio for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; P = 0.007; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.4; 5 trials, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with detemir also reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Information on patient-relevant outcomes such as death from any cause, diabetes-related complications, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects was insufficient or lacking in almost all included trials. For those outcomes for which some data were available, there were no meaningful differences between treatment with glargine or detemir and treatment with NPH. There was no clear difference between insulin-analogues and NPH insulin in terms of weight gain. The incidence of adverse events was comparable for people treated with glargine or detemir, and people treated with NPH. We found no trials comparing ultra-long-acting insulin glargine U300 or insulin degludec with NPH insulin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While the effects on HbA1c were comparable, treatment with insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Treatment with insulin detemir also reduced the incidence of serious hypoglycaemia. However, serious hypoglycaemic events were rare and the absolute risk reducing effect was low. Approximately one in 100 people treated with insulin detemir instead of NPH insulin benefited. In the studies, low blood glucose and HbA1c targets, corresponding to near normal or even non-diabetic blood glucose levels, were set. Therefore, results from the studies are only applicable to people in whom such low blood glucose concentrations are targeted. However, current guidelines recommend less-intensive blood glucose lowering for most people with type 2 diabetes in daily practice (e.g. people with cardiovascular diseases, a long history of type 2 diabetes, who are susceptible to hypoglycaemia or older people). Additionally, low-certainty evidence and trial designs that did not conform with current clinical practice meant it remains unclear if the same effects will be observed in daily clinical practice. Most trials did not report patient-relevant outcomes.

Quality of life of Latin-American individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Diabetes mellitus is a serious public health problem that causes a decrease in the patients' quality of life. The present study was aimed to analyze the quality of life of patients with diabetes mellitus in Latin-American population through a systematic review, using the two instruments of greater validity and reliability at international level, SF-36 and WHOQOL.

METHODS

We performed extensive searches in Redalyc, SciELO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. To delimit our search, we only included countries that are members of the Latin American Association of Diabetes. We identified 2168 articles, where 35 were considered relevant for this systematic review.

RESULTS

Our results showed that patients that regularly receive guidance and treatment to control the diabetes, showed better quality of life; in contrast, patients with foot ulcers or comorbidities showed the worse quality of life.

CONCLUSION

The current literature analysis suggests that this disease greatly influences in the quality of life of the patients.

Nanomedical Relevance of the Intermolecular Interaction Dynamics-Examples from Lysozymes and Insulins

Insulin and lysozyme share the common features of being prone to aggregate and having biomedical importance. Encapsulating lysozyme and insulin in micellar nanoparticles probably would prevent aggregation and facilitate oral drug delivery. Despite the vivid structural knowledge of lysozyme and insulin, the environment-dependent oligomerization (dimer, trimer, and multimer) and associated structural dynamics remain elusive. The knowledge of the intra- and intermolecular interaction profiles has cardinal importance for the design of encapsulation protocols. We have employed various biophysical methods such as NMR spectroscopy, X-ray crystallography, Thioflavin T fluorescence, and atomic force microscopy in conjugation with molecular modeling to improve the understanding of interaction dynamics during homo-oligomerization of lysozyme (human and hen egg) and insulin (porcine, human, and glargine). The results obtained depict the atomistic intra- and intermolecular interaction details of the homo-oligomerization and confirm the propensity to form fibrils. Taken together, the data accumulated and knowledge gained will further facilitate nanoparticle design and production with insulin or lysozyme-related protein encapsulation.

A Randomized Trial of Insulin Glargine plus Oral Hypoglycemic Agents versus Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion to Treat Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes

AIMS

Basal insulin plus oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) has not been investigated for early intensive antihyperglycemic treatment in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. This study is aimed at comparing the short-term (over a period of 12 days) effects of basal insulin glargine plus OHAs and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) on glycemic control and beta-cell function in this setting.

METHODS

An open-label parallel-group study. Newly diagnosed hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥11.1 mmol/L or glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥9% (75 mmol/mol) were randomized to CSII or insulin glargine in combination with metformin and gliclazide. The primary outcome measure was the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE), and secondary endpoints included time to reach glycemic control target (FPG < 7 mmol/L and 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose < 10 mmol/L), markers of β-cell function, and hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Subjects in the CSII (n = 35) and basal insulin plus OHA (n = 33) groups had a similar significant reduction from baseline to end of treatment in glycated albumin (-6.44 ± 3.23% and- 6.42 ± 3.56%, P = 0.970). Groups A and B have comparable time to glycemic control (3.6 ± 1.2 days and 4.0 ± 1.4 days), MAGE (3.40 ± 1.40 mmol/L vs. 3.16 ± 1.38 mmol/L; p = 0.484), and 24-hour mean blood glucose (7.49 ± 0.96 mmol/L vs. 7.02 ± 1.03 mmol/L). Changes in the C-peptide reactivity index, the secretory unit of islet in transplantation index, and insulin secretion-sensitivity index-2 indicated a greater β-cell function improvement with basal insulin plus OHAs versus CSII.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term insulin glargine plus OHAs may be an alternative to CSII for initial intensive therapy in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.

Assessing quality of life in diabetes: II - Deconstructing measures into a simple framework

A growing number of instruments measuring diabetes-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) have been identified in previous systematic reviews, the most recent being published in 2008. The purpose of this paper is report on an updated systematic review of diabetes-specific HRQOL measures highlighting the time period 2006-2016; to deconstruct existing diabetes-specific HRQOL measures into a simple framework for evaluating the goodness-of-fit between specific research needs and instrument characteristics; and to present core characteristics of measures not yet reported in other reviews to further facilitate scale selection. Using the databases Medline, Pubmed, CINAHL, OVID Embase, and PsycINFO, we identified 20 diabetes-specific HRQOL measures that met our inclusion criteria. For each measure, we extracted eight core characteristics for our measurement selection framework. These characteristics include target population (type 1 vs. type 2), number and type of HRQOL dimensions measured and scored, type of score and calculation algorithm, sensitivity to change data reported in subsequent studies, number of survey items, approximate time length to complete, number of studies using the instrument in the past 10years, and specific languages instruments is translated. This report provides a way to compare and contrast existing diabetes-specific HRQOL measures to aid in appropriate scale selection and utilization.

Correlation between parameters of self-monitoring of blood glucose and the perception of health-related quality of life in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate how different parameters of short-term glycemic control would correlate with the perception of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A total of 50 T1D patients aged 18 to 50 years were evaluated with the questionnaires Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale and Diabetes Quality of Life (DQOL) measure after 30 days of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Glycemic control was evaluated using glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), mean glucose levels (MGL) in the prior month's data from SMBG (Accu-Check 360o), number of hypoglycemic episodes (< 70 mg/dL and < 50 mg/dL), and glycemic variability (GV).

RESULTS

PAID correlated positively with MGL (r = 0.52; p < 0.001) and HbA1c (r = 0.36; p < 0.0097), but not with GV (r = 0.17; p = 0.23) or number of hypoglycemic episodes (r = 0.15; p = 0.17 for glucose < 70 mg/dL and r = 0.02; p = 0.85 for glucose < 50 mg/dL). After multiple linear regression, only MGL remained independently related to PAID scores. DQOL scores had a positive correlation with MGL (r = 0.45; p = 0.001), but not with HbA1c (r = 0.23; p = 0.09), GV (r = 0.20; p = 0.16), or number of hypoglycemic episodes (r = 0.06 p = 0.68).

CONCLUSION

In T1D patients, MGL, but not HbA1c or number hypoglycemic episodes, was the glycemic control parameter that best correlated with short-term perception of HRQoL.

Recombinant Human Insulins - Clinical Efficacy and Safety in Diabetes Therapy

Insulin replacement therapy is the standard of care for patients with type 1 and advanced type 2 diabetes mellitus. Porcine and bovine pancreatic tissue was the source of the hormone for many years, followed by semisynthetic human insulin obtained by modification of animal insulin. With the development of recombinant DNA technology, recombinant (biosynthetic) human insulin became available in large amounts by biosynthesis in microorganisms (Escherichia coli, yeast) providing reliable supplies of the hormone worldwide at affordable costs. The purity and pharmaceutical quality of recombinant human insulin was demonstrated to be superior to animal and semisynthetic insulin and patients with diabetes could be safely and effectively transferred from animal or semisynthetic human insulin to recombinant human insulin with no change expected in insulin dose. The decision for change remains a clinical objective, follow-up after any change of insulin product is recommended to confirm clinical efficacy. This review provides a summary and retrospective assessment of early clinical studies with recombinant insulins (Insuman®, Humulin®, Novolin®).