Efficacy and safety of stepwise introduction of insulin lispro mix 50 in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by oral therapy

Use of 50/50 Premixed Insulin Analogs in Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Clinical Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Premixed insulin analogs represent an alternative to basal or basal-bolus insulin regimens for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). "Low-mix" formulations with a low rapid-acting to long-acting analog ratio (e.g., 25/75) are commonly used, but 50/50 formulations (Mix50) may be more appropriate for some patients. We conducted a systematic literature review to assess the efficacy and safety of Mix50, compared with low-mix, basal, or basal-bolus therapy, for insulin initiation and intensification.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, LillyTrials.com, and NovoNordisk-trials.com were searched (11 or 13 Dec 2016) using terms for T2D, premixed insulin analogs, and/or Mix50. Studies (randomized, nonrandomized, or observational; English only) comparing Mix50 with other insulins (except human) and reporting key efficacy [glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting and postprandial glucose] and/or safety (hypoglycemia, weight gain) outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Narrative reviews, letters, editorials, and conference abstracts were excluded. Risk of bias in randomized trials was assessed using the Cochrane tool.

RESULTS

MEDLINE and EMBASE searches identified 716 unique studies, of which 32 met inclusion criteria. An additional three studies were identified in the other databases. All 19 randomized trials except one were open label; risk of other biases was generally low. Although not conclusive, the evidence suggests that Mix50 may provide better glycemic control (HbA1c reduction) and, particularly, postprandial glucose reduction in certain patients, such as those with high carbohydrate diets and Asian patients, than low-mix and basal therapy. Based on this evidence and our experience, we provide clinical guidance on factors to consider when deciding whether Mix50 is appropriate for individual patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Mix50 may be more suitable than low-mix therapy for certain patients. Clinicians should consider not only efficacy and safety but also patient characteristics and preferences when tailoring insulin treatment to individuals with T2D.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly.

Drug-related risk of severe hypoglycaemia in observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) leads to multiple complications, including severe hypoglycaemia events (SHEs). SHEs can impact a patient's quality of life and compliance and may directly result in additional costs to the health care system. The aim of this review was to evaluate the risk of severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 (T1) and 2 (T2) DM as observed in everyday clinical practice for various drug regimens.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of observational (retrospective or prospective) studies in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases that covered at least 100 children or adults with T1/T2 DM. In T1 DM, basal-bolus/pre-mix insulin (human or analogue) and insulin pump were reviewed, and in T2 DM, basal-bolus/pre-mix insulin (human or analogue), oral antidiabetic drugs supported with basal insulin (human or analogue), sulfonylureas in monotherapy, and combined oral treatment were reviewed. In order to estimate SHE rates, we extracted data on the time horizon of the study, number of patients, number of SHEs, and number of patients experiencing at least one SHE. We used a random effects model to estimate the annual SHE rate. We considered the risk for other antidiabetic medications in T2 DM to be negligible and the results of our main review yielded no observational data for premixes in T1 DM so they were assessed based on relative rates taken from additional systematic reviews. The study, being a desk research, did not involve any human subjects (including human material or human data) and no ethical committee approval was asked for. For the same reason there was no need to collect informed consent for participation in the study.

RESULTS

We identified 76 observational studies encompassing 707,722.30 patient-years. The estimated annual SHE rate varied from 0.168 (95 % CI 0.123-0.237) for insulin pump up to 1.628 for biphasic human insulin in T1 DM patients, and from 0.0035 for oral antidiabetic drugs up to 0.554 (95 % CI 0.157-7.534) for basal-bolus with human insulin in T2 DM patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review indicates that SHE rates differ between patients depending on treatment regimen. However, SHEs are also driven by other factors. Proper modelling techniques are needed to use various types of information in published studies.

High-mix insulins

Premix insulins are commonly used insulin preparations, which are available in varying ratios of different molecules. These drugs contain one short- or rapid-acting, and one intermediate- or long-acting insulin. High-mix insulins are mixtures of insulins that contain 50% or more than 50% of short-acting insulin. This review describes the clinical pharmacology of high-mix insulins, including data from randomized controlled trials. It suggests various ways, in which high-mix insulin can be used, including once daily, twice daily, thrice daily, hetero-mix, and reverse regimes. The authors provide a rational framework to help diabetes care professionals, identify indications for pragmatic high-mix use.

Effects of switching from prandial premixed insulin therapy to basal plus two times bolus insulin therapy on glycemic control and quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background

The effects of switching from prandial premixed insulin therapy (PPT) injected three times a day to basal plus two times bolus insulin therapy (B2B) on glycemic control and quality of life were investigated in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Methods

The clinical course was prospectively observed during the first 16 weeks after switching to B2B (insulin glargine plus insulin glulisine before breakfast and dinner) in 27 subjects previously treated with PPT using 50/50 premixed insulin. The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) was administered at the start and end of the study.

Results

The glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) level (8.3%±1.8% to 8.2%±1.1%) and the DTSQ score did not change between the start and end of the study. An improvement in HbA_1c level was found in nine (33%) subjects. The change in HbA_1c showed a significant negative correlation with baseline HbA_1c, and was significantly better in patients with a baseline HbA_1c >8.0% than in those with an HbA_1c ≤8.0% (−0.9±2.0 versus 0.3±0.6, respectively, P=0.02). The change in DTSQ score representing treatment satisfaction was significantly greater in patients whose HbA_1c level was improved than in those in whom it was not (2.7±3.6 versus −0.8±3.5, P=0.04).

Conclusion

B2B was noninferior to PPT with regard to HbA_1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. B2B should be considered particularly for subjects whose glycemic control is poor despite PPT.