Insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: treatment guidelines, clinical evidence and patterns of use of basal vs premixed insulin analogues

Real-world study of the concomitant use of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 with GLP-1 receptor agonist versus first-generation basal insulin with GLP-1 receptor agonist in type 2 diabetes

AIMS

Combining insulin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D) is common. While many studies have investigated concomitant therapy with basal insulin+GLP-1RA, few have reported on premixed insulin+GLP-1RA. We aimed to address this gap using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database in England.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching assessed glycaemic levels and other clinical outcomes in people with T2D, comparing biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) + GLP-1RA with basal insulin (insulin detemir/glargine U100) + GLP-1RA (from 2006 to 2021).

RESULTS

In total, 4770 eligible people were identified; 1511 had a BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA regimen and were propensity score-matched to an equal number receiving basal+GLP-1RA. There was no significant difference in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction between cohorts at 6 months (p = 0.15), with a decrease of -1.07 (95% CI: -1.16; -0.98) %-points (-11.7 mmol/mol [95% CI: -12.7; -10.7]) in the BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA cohort, versus -0.97 (95% CI: -1.07; -0.88) %-points (-10.6 mmol/mol [95% CI: -11.7; -9.6]) in the basal+GLP-1RA cohort. Body mass index (BMI) decreased by -0.35 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.52;-0.18) at 6 months with BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA, versus -0.72 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.90;-0.54) with basal+GLP-1RA (p = 0.003). BMI was influenced by the initiation sequence of GLP-1RA in relation to insulin (p < 0.0001). Hypoglycaemia rates were low and not significantly different between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA provides glycaemic control with no significant difference to that of propensity score-matched people receiving basal insulin+GLP-1RA, with no increase in hypoglycaemia risk or weight gain.

How does diabetic peripheral neuropathy impact patients' burden of illness and the economy? A retrospective study in Beijing, China

Objective

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) causes significant illness in patients and has a negative impact on the economy. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost and quantity of anti-diabetic drugs needed by patients with or without DPN, as well as their variation trends in Beijing between 2016 and 2018.

Methods

This observational cross-sectional study used data on diabetic patients with outpatient medication records obtained from Beijing Medical Insurance from 2016 to 2018. The medications, comorbidities, diabetes-related complications, treatment strategies, and costs of drug treatment were compared between DPN patients and non-DPN patients.

Results

Of the 28,53,036 diabetic patients included in the study, 3,75,216 (13.15%) had DPN and 1,87,710 (50.03%) of the DPN patients were women. Compared with non-DPN patients, DPN patients used more mediations (4.7 ± 2.47 vs. 3.77 ± 2.32, p < 0.0001, in 2018) to treat related complications and comorbidities (2.03 ± 1.2 vs. 1.71 ± 1.05; 2.68 ± 1.93 vs. 2.06 ± 1.86, p < 0.0001, respectively, in 2018). The total annual costs of drug treatment were higher in DPN patients than in non-DPN patients (¥12583.25 ± 10671.48 vs. ¥9810.91 ± 9234.14, p < 0.0001, in 2018). The usage of DDP4i increased from 2.55 to 6.63% in non-DPN patients and from 4.45 to 10.09% in DPN patients from 2017 to 2018.

Conclusions

The number of comorbidities, diabetic complications, medications, and annual drug treatment costs were greater in DPN patients than in non-DPN patients.

The efficacy and safety of combined GLP-1RA and basal insulin therapy among inadequately controlled T2D with premixed insulin therapy

This study investigated the effect of a combination of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and basal insulin (BI) in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus previously treated with premixed insulin. The possible therapeutic benefit of the subject is mainly hoped to provide a direction for optimizing treatment options to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. A single-arm, open-label study was conducted. The antidiabetic regimen was switched to GLP-1 RA plus BI to replace previous treatment with premixed insulin in type 2 diabetes mellitus subjects. After 3 months of treatment modification, GLP-1 RA plus BI was compared for superior outcomes by continuous glucose monitoring system. There were 34 subjects at the beginning, 4 withdrew due to gastrointestinal discomfort, and finally 30 subjects completed the trial, of which 43% were male; the average age was 58 ± 9 years old, and the average duration of diabetes was 12 ± 6 years, the baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 8.6 ± 0.9 %. The initial insulin dose of premixed insulin was 61 ± 18 units, and the final insulin dose of GLP-1 RA + BI was 32 ± 12 units (P < .001). Time out of range (from 59%-42%), time-in-range (from 39%-56%) as well as glucose variability index including standard deviation also improved, mean magnitude of glycemic excursions, mean daily difference and continuous population in continuous glucose monitoring system, continuous overall net glycemic action (CONGA). Also noted was a decrease in body weight (from 70.9 kg-68.6 kg) and body mass index (all P values < .05). It provided important information for physicians to decide to modify therapeutic strategy as individualized needs.

Initiating or Switching to Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Real-World, Prospective, Non-interventional Study Across Six Countries

Introduction

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed-ratio co-formulation of insulin degludec (a basal insulin) and insulin aspart (a prandial insulin). The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) after initiating IDegAsp treatment in a real-world setting.

Methods

This 26-week, open-label, non-interventional study was conducted in Australia, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa. Data were obtained from 1102 adults with T2D initiating or switching to IDegAsp from antidiabetic treatments (including oral antidiabetic drugs, basal insulin, basal–bolus insulin, premix insulin, and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist) per local clinical practice.

Results

Compared with baseline, there was significant improvement in HbA1c at end of study (EOS, first visit within weeks 26–36; estimated change − 1.4% [95% CI − 1.51; − 1.29]; P < 0.0001 [primary outcome]). From baseline to EOS, there were significant reductions in fasting plasma glucose (− 2.7 mmol/L [95% CI − 2.98; − 2.46]; P < 0.0001), body weight (− 1.0 kg [95% CI − 1.51; − 0.52]; P < 0.0001), and basal insulin dose in insulin-experienced participants (− 2.3 units [95% CI − 3.51; − 1.01]; P < 0.001). The incidence rates of non-severe (overall and nocturnal) and severe hypoglycaemia decreased significantly (P < 0.001) between the period before baseline and before EOS.

Conclusion

In adults with T2D, initiating or switching to IDegAsp from previous antidiabetic treatment was associated with improved glycaemic control, lower basal insulin dose (in insulin-experienced participants), and lower rates of hypoglycaemia.

Trial Registration

Clinical trial registration NCT04042441.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02212-3.

Insulin analogs in the treatment of type II diabetes and future perspectives

The discovery of insulin by Banting and Best marked 100 years in 2021, and it was a life-saving treatment modality for type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Insulin is a natural hormone that has been used extensively in T2DM patients since its discovery. Currently, insulin analogs are also available in different formulations for T2DM management, overcoming the limitations of human insulin with better safety and side effect profiles. The insulin analogs like the rapid-acting analogs (Aspart, lispro, glulisine), the long-acting basal analogs (Glargine, detemir), the ultra-long acting (Insulin degludec), and the premixed insulin analog formulations (75% Neutral protamine lispro, 25% lispro; 50% neutral protamine lispro, 50% lispro; 70% protamine aspart, 30% aspart) have been prepared through genetic engineering while preserving the basic insulin profile. A large number of studies have demonstrated their clinical effects on glycated hemoglobin test (HbA1c) in achieving glycemic control and thereby lowering the microvascular and macrovascular complications of T2DM with less traditional side effects of regular human insulin, mainly the risk of hypoglycemia, postprandial glycemic excursions, and weight gain. This review explores the currently available insulin analogs, their clinical implications, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), safety profile, and cost-effectiveness. We also discuss the future developments in the management of T2DM, especially the scientific advancements surrounding the novel insulin formulations, including the biosimilar insulin, and the innovative insulin delivery methods, such as oral and inhaled insulin.

Proteomic Changes to the Updated Discovery of Engineered Insulin and Its Analogs: Pros and Cons

The destruction of β-cells of the pancreas leads to either insulin shortage or the complete absence of insulin, which in turn causes diabetes Mellitus. For treating diabetes, many trials have been conducted since the 19th century until now. In ancient times, insulin from an animal's extract was taken to treat human beings. However, this resulted in some serious allergic reactions. Therefore, scientists and researchers have tried their best to find alternative ways for managing diabetes with progressive advancements in biotechnology. However, a lot of research trials have been conducted, and they discovered more progressed strategies and approaches to treat type I and II diabetes with satisfaction. Still, investigators are finding more appropriate ways to treat diabetes accurately. They formulated insulin analogs that mimic the naturally produced human insulin through recombinant DNA technology and devised many methods for appropriate delivery of insulin. This review will address the following questions: What is insulin preparation? How were these devised and what are the impacts (both positive and negative) of such insulin analogs against TIDM (type-I diabetes mellitus) and TIIDM (type-II diabetes mellitus)? This review article will also demonstrate approaches for the delivery of insulin analogs into the human body and some future directions for further improvement of insulin treatment.

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

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

Biphasic human insulin 30 thrice daily, is it reasonable?

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of thrice daily Biphasic Human Insulin 30 (BHI 30) versus the traditional twice-daily regimen in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. It’s a cross over single clinical study. Twenty-two diabetic patients who were already using BHI 30 in twice or thrice daily regimens with or without metformin were included. At the 1st interval; patients continued on their usual insulin regimen as twice or thrice daily injections with adjustment of insulin doses guided by their glucose readings. On the 2nd interval; patients were switched to the other regimen with the same total daily insulin dose redistributed.

Results

There was a significant decrease in HbA1c level (p < 0.05) at the end of the first 3 months of trial regardless on which regimen the patient started, but there was no significant difference in the mean HbA1c reduction in patients when they were on twice daily insulin injections (1.1 ± 1.3) versus the time they were on thrice daily insulin injections (0.8 ± 1.71), p > 0.05. On the other hand, patients had lower average blood glucose readings (mg/dl) when they were on thrice daily insulin injections (161.4 ± 62.7) compared to twice daily regimen (166.0 ± 69.5), p < 0.05.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a support programme for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care: an observational prospective study in Ecuador

BACKGROUND

The success of primary health care relies on the integration of empowered practitioners with cooperative patients regardless of socioeconomic status. Using resources efficiently would help to improve healthcare promotion and reduce complications of chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The importance of network support programmes relies on the fact that they allow to accurately deliver medical care by shaping a sense of community and purpose among the patients.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness of a network support programme for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

DESIGN & SETTING

A centre-based observational prospective study took place in a primary care setting in Ecuador.

METHOD

The impact of the diabetes care programme was assessed by comparing initial and final metabolic characteristics and outcomes of 593 patients with T2DM, followed-up from April 2007 to December 2017, using paired sample t-test. Electrocardiograms (ECGs), ankle-brachial indexes (ABIs), ocular fundus, and monofilament neuropathy tests were assessed with the McNemar test to evaluate complications at the beginning and end of the study.

RESULTS

Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), lipid profile, and systolic blood pressure (SBP) showed statistically significant decreases between the initial measurement (IMs) and final measurements (FMs). In the FM, significantly lower HbA1c, diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and atherogenic index were found. Despite the length of time since diagnosis, during the follow-up time, long-term micro- and macro-vascular complications, such as ocular fundus, serum creatinine, and ABI, remained unchanged throughout the period of active participation in this healthcare programme.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the feasibility of reducing plasma glucose, plasma lipids, and long-term complications in patients with T2DM by implementing a network support programme, which involves the medical team and patients themselves in an environment with limited resources.

A survey of physician experience and treatment satisfaction using fast-acting insulin aspart in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes

AIMS

This survey aimed to explore real-world physician experiences and treatment satisfaction with fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) in clinical practice across Europe and Canada.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online web-based survey was used for physicians treating people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. General practitioners and specialists, with experience using faster aspart, were interviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 191 physicians participated in the survey. Most of their patients (68% of those with T1D and 63% of those with T2D) were previously treated with another mealtime insulin before switching to faster aspart. At the time of initiating faster aspart, nearly half of patients had an HbA_1c level between 7.5% (59 mmol/mol) and 8.5% (69 mmol/mol). The main prescription drivers for faster aspart, versus other mealtime insulins, were faster onset of action, improved postprandial glucose (PPG) control, and dosing flexibility. Most physicians were more satisfied with faster aspart than other mealtime insulins regarding at-meal (66%) and post-meal (71%) dosing flexibility, improved PPG levels (66%), and onset of action (61%). Main reasons for not prescribing faster aspart included a good response to current treatment (76%) or patient reluctance to switch (57%). Overall, 12% of patients discontinued faster aspart, for reasons including concerns of hypoglycemia (17%), poor adherence (17%), and level of patient co-pay (17%). More than half of physicians had fewer concerns regarding postprandial hyperglycemia, and were more confident in their patients reaching their HbA_1c target with faster aspart than with other mealtime insulins.

LIMITATIONS

The findings of this survey are based heavily on physicians' experiences, and could therefore be subject to recall bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Reported physician and patient experiences of using faster aspart have been positive, and better PPG control and increased dosing flexibility are expected to improve glycemic management.

Practical Guidance on Effective Basal Insulin Titration for Primary Care Providers

IN BRIEF Basal insulin therapy is well established for glycemic control in patients with diabetes but often is not optimally implemented, leading to poor clinical outcomes and adherence. Primary care providers can and should work together with other members of the diabetes care team to allow for effective titration of basal insulin that involves patients and their caregivers. Adequate guidance and monitoring during the titration process can minimize some of the adverse effects caused by basal insulin administration, while improving glycemic control in a timely manner.

Switching From Pre-mixed Insulin to Regimens with Insulin Glargine in Type 2 Diabetes: A Prospective, Observational Study of Data From Adriatic Countries

INTRODUCTION

Long-acting insulin analogs such as insulin glargine may offer improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared to conventional insulin therapies. The objective of this study was to determine whether switching to insulin glargine had beneficial effects on glycemic control, weight gain, and incidence of hypoglycemia in patients with suboptimally managed T2D.

METHODS

This prospective observational study was performed on 1041 patients who were suboptimally controlled on pre-mixed insulin therapy and were switched to an insulin glargine regimen. Clinical markers of glycemic control including glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) < 7% (< 53 mmol/mol) and fasting blood glucose (FBG) levels ranging from 3.9 to 7.2 mmol/L were used for the primary outcome measures. Follow-up assessment of primary outcomes, weight gain, incidence of hypoglycemia, and patient satisfaction with the therapy was performed after three and six months of treatment.

RESULTS

Target therapeutic values of HbA1c were achieved in 9.3% and 30.2% of patients, whereas FBG target values were achieved in 25.9% and 52.3% of patients after the third and sixth month of therapy, respectively. Both the HbA1c and FBG targets were reached in 7% and 25.9% of patients at the third and sixth month of therapy, respectively. Switching to insulin glargine decreased the incidence of hypoglycemia from 49.5% to 5.2% after six months of therapy; this decrease was associated with weight loss and was well perceived by the patients.

CONCLUSION

Insulin glargine-based regimens are beneficial and safe therapeutic alternatives for T2D patients inadequately controlled with pre-mixed insulin.

FUNDING

Sanofi-Aventis Croatia d.o.o., Zagreb, Croatia.

Importance of fasting blood glucose goals in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review of the literature and a critical appraisal

Prandial insulin has been essential for the improved management of the type 1 diabetic patient. Interestingly, many studies have evaluated the addition of prandial insulin to the type 2 diabetic patients with improved control. The greatest drop in A1c with the use of various type of prandial insulins have resulted in the decrease of 1.3% in the A1c measurement. Interestingly, none of the published trials with goal of fasting blood glucose (FBG) have ever obtained the goal A1c. Since a drop in FBG of 28.7mg/dl is equal to a 1% drop in A1c, a simple approach to obtain a target A1c would be to focus on the FBG (per ADA: Average Blood Glucose = A1c (%) x 28.7 - 46.7mg/d). However, average blood glucose requires multiple measurements and may be less accurate then using just a FBG. Since prandial insulin clinical trials have only demonstrated a drop in A1c by 0.3-1.3% the use of only a FBG to help patients get to goal may be easier to teach and to obtain. It might save time and money. Our hypothesis is that if patient obtain a FBG <100 mg/dl for 2-3 months then 70% will be at an A1c goal <7.0%. After a few months of good fasting glucose control the provider can use this equation (FBG+80)/30 to estimate A1c. For example, a FBG of 130mg/dl would be (130 + 80)/30 = 7.0%; or a FBG of 190 would be (190+80)/30 =eA1c 9% (estimate of A1c). While type 1 diabetes has a very complex daily glucose pattern, the approach to type 2 diabetics on insulin could become simplified.

The co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart lowers fasting plasma glucose and rates of confirmed and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, independent of baseline glycated haemoglobin levels, disease duration or body mass index: A pooled meta-analysis of phase III studies in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate whether the proven benefits of insulin degludec (IDeg) combined with insulin aspart (IAsp), known as IDegAsp, given twice daily, extend across a wide spectrum of patients with diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a post hoc pooled analysis of 5 phase III randomized, 26-week, open-label, treat-to-target trials comparing IDegAsp twice daily (n = 1111) with one of two comparators: premixed insulin (biphasic insulin aspart 30 [BIAsp 30]) twice daily (n = 561) or IDeg once daily + IAsp (n = 136). Patient data were stratified according to baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) categories, as well as by baseline duration of diabetes or body mass index (BMI) categories.

RESULTS

We conducted a meta-analysis of 5 clinical trials: NCT01513590, NCT01009580, NCT01059812, NCT01680341 and NCT01713530. End-of-trial results were broadly consistent, with differences between IDegAsp and comparators observed in phase III trials. HbA1c results were similar for IDegAsp and the comparators in all baseline characteristic (HbA1c, duration of diabetes or BMI) and category groups (number ranges). Significantly lower FPG level was observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline characteristic and most category groups (excluding FPG <5.5 mmol/L). Significantly lower insulin doses were observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline characteristic and half of the category groups, and significantly lower rates of confirmed and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia were observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline variable and category groups.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp retains a consistent safety and efficacy profile in patients with different baseline characteristics.

Identification of barriers to insulin therapy and approaches to overcoming them

Poor glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a global problem despite the availability of numerous glucose-lowering therapies and clear guidelines for T2D management. Tackling clinical or therapeutic inertia, where the person with diabetes and/or their healthcare providers do not intensify treatment regimens despite this being appropriate, is key to improving patients' long-term outcomes. This gap between best practice and current level of care is most pronounced when considering insulin regimens, with studies showing that insulin initiation/intensification is frequently and inappropriately delayed for several years. Patient- and physician-related factors both contribute to this resistance at the stages of insulin initiation, titration and intensification, impeding achievement of optimal glycaemic control. The present review evaluates the evidence and reasons for this delay, together with available methods for facilitation of insulin initiation or intensification.

Nanotechnology based approaches for anti-diabetic drugs delivery

Nanotechnology science has been diverged its application in several fields with the advantages to operate with nanometric range of objects. Emerging field of nanotechnology has been also being approached and applied in medical biology for improved efficacy and safety. Increased success in therapeutic field has focused several approaches in the treatment of the common metabolic disorder, diabetes. The development of nanocarriers for improved delivery of different oral hypoglycemic agents compared to conventional therapies includes nanoparticles (NPs), liposomes, dendrimer, niosomes and micelles, which produces great control over the increased blood glucose level and thus becoming an eye catching and most promising technology now-a-days. Besides, embellishment of nanocarriers with several ligands makes it more targeted delivery with the protection of entrapped hypoglycaemic agents against degradation, thereby optimizing prolonged blood glucose lowering effect. Thus, nanocarriers of hypoglycemic agents provide the aim towards improved diabetes management with minimized risk of acute and chronic complications. In this review, we provide an overview on distinctive features of each nano-based drug delivery system for diabetic treatment and current NPs applications in diabetes management.

Lack of coordination between partners: investigation of Physician-Preferred and Patient-Preferred (4P) basal insulin titration algorithms in the real world

BACKGROUND

Patient-centered care is respectful to a patient's preference. All prior clinical trials on patient self-titration algorithms for basal insulin were decided by physicians. We hypothesized that patients and physicians have different preferences.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Physicians and diabetes patients were asked to choose their preferred insulin glargine self-titration algorithm among 5 algorithms. Algorithm 1, 1 U increase once daily; algorithm 2, 2 U increase every 3 days; algorithm 3, 3 U increase every 3 days; algorithm 4, titration every 3 days according to fasting blood glucose, and algorithm 5, weekly titration 2-8 U based on 3-day mean fasting blood glucose levels.

RESULTS

Eleven (5.2%) out of 210 physicians and 180 (90.9%) out of 198 patients preferred algorithm 1 (χ²=300.4, p=0.000). In contrast, 195 (92.9%) physicians and 18 (9.1%) patients preferred algorithm 2 (χ²=286.6, p=0.000). In addition, 4 (1.9%) physicians but no patients preferred algorithm 3 (χ²=2.099, p=0.124). Neither physicians nor patients chose algorithms 4 or 5. Most physicians preferred algorithm 2 since it is recommended by guidelines, but most patients preferred algorithm 1 for its simplicity.

CONCLUSION

Patients had different preferences compared with physicians. Attention should be given to patients' preferences to increase adherence and improve glycemic control.

How Can a Good Idea Fail? Basal Insulin Peglispro [LY2605541] for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Lack of control in diabetic patients has stimulated the development of new insulin analogues. One of these was basal insulin peglispro (BIL) or LY2605541; it had a large hydrodynamic size, flat pharmacokinetic profile, half life of 2-3 days and acted preferably in the liver.

METHODS

We reviewed the recent literature examining the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy and safety of BIL treatment in type 2 diabetes patients.

RESULTS

The pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic outline of BIL seemed to have an advantage over neutral protamine Hagedorn and glargine insulins. Recently, phase 3 studies suggested BIL was superior to glargine in reducing glucose levels in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in addition to causing less weight gain. It showed a different hypoglycaemia rate profile depending on the study population, with less nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared to glargine. Unfortunately, it caused higher transaminase and triglyceride levels, which led the company to discontinue development. The decision came after it had been analysed by the regulatory authorities and other external experts concerning the worse liver profile data from the IMAGINE trials.

CONCLUSIONS

BIL was an adequate basal insulin analogue with interesting specific properties. Unfortunately the disadvantages as shown in the lipid values and liver function tests led to its failure.

Twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart provides superior fasting plasma glucose control and a reduced rate of hypoglycaemia compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 in insulin-naïve adults with Type 2 diabetes

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs. twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus who were naïve to insulin.

METHODS

In this 26-week, multinational, open-label, controlled, two-arm, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, participants [mean (± sd) age 58.9 (±8.9) years, duration of diabetes 9.5 (±5.9) years, HbA1c 68 (±8.7) mmol/mol or 8.4 (±0.8)% and BMI 31.2 (±4.2) kg/m(2) ) were randomized (1:1) to insulin degludec/insulin aspart (n = 197) or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (n = 197), administered with breakfast and the main evening meal, titrated to a self-monitored plasma glucose target > 3.9 and ≤ 5.0 mmol/l.

RESULTS

The mean HbA1c was reduced to 49 mmol/mol (6.6%) with insulin degludec/insulin aspart and 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) with biphasic insulin aspart 30. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart achieved the prespecified non-inferiority margin (estimated treatment difference 0.02%; 95% CI -0.12, 0.17). Insulin degludec/insulin aspart was superior in lowering fasting plasma glucose (estimated treatment difference -1.00 mmol/l; 95% CI -1.4, -0.6; P < 0.001) and reducing overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia at a similar overall insulin dose compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30. Similar proportions of participants in each arm experienced severe hypoglycaemia. Adverse events were equally distributed.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with previous findings, insulin degludec/insulin aspart twice daily effectively improved long-term glycaemic control, with superior reductions in FPG, and significantly less overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with Type 2 diabetes who were insulin-naïve.

Clinical inertia with regard to intensifying therapy in people with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin

AIM

To investigate whether clinical inertia, the failure to intensify treatment regimens when required, exists in people with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study involving patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink database between January 2004 and December 2011, with follow-up until December 2013.

RESULTS

A total of 11 696 patients were included in the analysis. Among all patients, 36.5% had their treatment intensified during the study period; of these, the treatment of 50.0, 42.5 and 7.4% was intensified with bolus or premix insulin or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, respectively. The median time from initiation of basal insulin to treatment intensification was 4.3 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.1, 4.6]. Among patients clinically eligible for treatment intensification [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol)], 30.9% had their treatment regimen intensified. The median time to intensification in this group was 3.7 years (95% CI 3.4, 4.0). Increasing age, duration of diabetes, oral antihyperglycaemic agent usage and Charlson comorbidity index score were associated with a significant delay in the time to intensification (p < 0.05). Among patients with HbA1c ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol), 32.1% stopped basal insulin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies should be developed to increase the number of patients undergoing therapy intensification and to reduce the delay in intensifying therapy for suitable patients on basal insulin. Initiatives to support patients continuing on insulin are also required.

The role of Toujeo®, insulin glargine U-300, in the treatment of diabetes mellitus

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to educate nurse practitioners about the role of Toujeo®, insulin glargine U-300 (Gla-300), which is a new option for the treatment of diabetes mellitus.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using MEDLINE with the key terms: insulin glargine 300, Toujeo, Gla-300, and EDITION for clinical trial data. Other resources included package inserts, drug information websites, and the World Health Organization (WHO).

CONCLUSIONS

Gla-300 appears to be a safe and effective option for basal insulin therapy. In clinical trials, it was shown to be equally efficacious as Gla-100 with fewer episodes of hypoglycemia and slightly less weight gain, and subjects receiving Gla-300 required approximately 10 units more basal insulin to obtain the same hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as subjects receiving Gla-100.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This new basal therapy option represents a potential advantage for patients who require higher doses of insulin because of the higher concentration of Gla-300. The lower incidence of hypoglycemia and more predictable pharmacokinetics could offer a significant therapeutic benefit in difficult-to-control patients with diabetes mellitus. The biggest disadvantage of this product is the slightly higher insulin dosage that is required to improve and/or maintain patients' HbA1c.

Effects of biphasic, basal-bolus or basal insulin analogue treatments on carotid intima-media thickness in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the randomised Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy (CIMT) trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of 3 insulin analogue regimens on change in carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Investigator-initiated, randomised, placebo-controlled trial with a 2 × 3 factorial design, conducted at 8 hospitals in Denmark.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Participants with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 7.5% (≥ 58 mmol/mol), body mass index >25 kg/m(2)) were, in addition to metformin versus placebo, randomised to 18 months open-label biphasic insulin aspart 1-3 times daily (n=137) versus insulin aspart 3 times daily in combination with insulin detemir once daily (n=138) versus insulin detemir alone once daily (n=137), aiming at HbA1c ≤ 7.0% (≤ 53 mmol/mol).

OUTCOMES

Primary outcome was change in mean carotid IMT (a marker of subclinical cardiovascular disease). HbA1c, insulin dose, weight, and hypoglycaemic and serious adverse events were other prespecified outcomes.

RESULTS

Carotid IMT change did not differ between groups (biphasic -0.009 mm (95% CI -0.022 to 0.004), aspart+detemir 0.000 mm (95% CI -0.013 to 0.013), detemir -0.012 mm (95% CI -0.025 to 0.000)). HbA1c was more reduced with biphasic (-1.0% (95% CI -1.2 to -0.8)) compared with the aspart+detemir (-0.4% (95% CI -0.6 to -0.3)) and detemir (-0.3% (95% CI -0.4 to -0.1)) groups (p<0.001). Weight gain was higher in the biphasic (3.3 kg (95% CI 2.7 to 4.0) and aspart+detemir (3.2 kg (95% CI 2.6 to 3.9)) compared with the detemir group (1.9 kg (95% CI 1.3 to 2.6)). Insulin dose was higher with detemir (1.6 IU/kg/day (95% CI 1.4 to 1.8)) compared with biphasic (1.0 IU/kg/day (95% CI 0.9 to 1.1)) and aspart+detemir (1.1 IU/kg/day (95% CI 1.0 to 1.3)) (p<0.001). Number of participants with severe hypoglycaemia and serious adverse events did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid IMT change did not differ between 3 insulin regimens despite differences in HbA1c, weight gain and insulin doses. The trial only reached 46% of planned sample size and lack of power may therefore have affected our results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00657943.

Insulin degludec and insulin aspart: novel insulins for the management of diabetes mellitus

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus require insulin as disease progresses to attain or maintain glycaemic targets. Basal insulin is commonly prescribed initially, alone or with one or more rapid-acting prandial insulin doses, to limit mealtime glucose excursions (a basal-bolus regimen). Both patients and physicians must balance the advantages of improved glycaemic control with the risk of hypoglycaemia and increasing regimen complexity. The rapid-acting insulin analogues (insulin aspart, insulin lispro and insulin glulisine) all have similar pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics and clinical efficacy/safety profiles. However, there are important differences in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of basal insulins (insulin glargine, insulin detemir and insulin degludec). Insulin degludec is an ultra-long-acting insulin analogue with a flat and stable glucose-lowering profile, a duration of action exceeding 30 h and less inter-patient variation in glucose-lowering effect than insulin glargine. In particular, the chemical properties of insulin degludec have allowed the development of a soluble co-formulation with prandial insulin aspart (insulin degludec/insulin aspart) that provides basal insulin coverage for at least 24 h with additional mealtime insulin for one or two meals depending on dose frequency. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies have shown that the distinct, long basal glucose-lowering action of insulin degludec and the prandial glucose-lowering effect of insulin aspart are maintained in the co-formulation. Evidence from pivotal phase III clinical trials indicates that insulin degludec/insulin aspart translate into sustained glycaemic control with less hypoglycaemia and the potential for a simpler insulin regimen with fewer daily injections.

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.

PEGylated insulin Lispro (LY2605541): clinical overview of a new long-acting basal insulin analog in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus

Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin with an intermediate action profile has been in use for many years for the treatment of Type 1 diabetes and as an option for Type 2 diabetes. It is efficacious in reducing blood sugars, but shows substantial variability and risk of hypoglycemia. Basal insulin analogs have been developed in recent years to overcome these issues. Three basal insulin analogs are currently in the market in Europe. PEGylated insulin lispro is a new second-generation basal insulin analog which most likely will undergo review in 2016 by the US FDA and EMA in Europe for possible approval for marketing. Phase III trials are finalized, but not yet published. Phase II studies suggest antiglycemic efficacy, possible with a preferential hepato-specific action, a low rate of hypoglycemia, minor weight loss and acceptable tolerability. The benefit-risk profile needs, however, to be established.

Evolution of insulin: from human to analog

The development of insulin analogs has made improved treatment of type 2 diabetes possible. In this article, structural alterations, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, clinical end points, and safety issues are reviewed for the currently available basal insulins, rapid-acting insulins, and premixes. The flatter activity profiles of insulin glargine and insulin detemir translate into good clinical efficacy with a lower risk of hypoglycemia relative to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Weight gain is consistently lower with insulin detemir than with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Insulin degludec, licensed in Europe and Japan but not yet in the United States, has a mean half-life of 25.4 hours, a duration of action of >42 hours, and low variability. In trials in type 2 diabetes, rates of nocturnal hypoglycemia were lower with insulin degludec than with insulin glargine, and more flexible; once-daily dose timing was shown to be possible. Insulin lispro, insulin aspart, and insulin glulisine are rapidly absorbed after injection and thus provide better coverage of the post-prandial glucose surge compared with human insulin. Trials and meta-analyses show that reductions in glycated hemoglobin are similar and control of postprandial glucose is better with the rapid-acting analogs versus human insulin. Convenience is greater for patients because the analogs can be injected just before a meal. In premix or biphasic insulins, a proportion of the rapid-acting analog is protaminated, providing both rapid-acting and intermediate-acting components in one formulation, thus reducing the number of injections required. Alterations to human insulin have resulted in improvements in safety, efficacy, tolerability, and convenience for patients.

Comparison of insulin degludec/insulin aspart and biphasic insulin aspart 30 in uncontrolled, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a phase 3a, randomized, treat-to-target trial

OBJECTIVE

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is the first combination of a basal insulin with an ultralong duration of action, and a rapid-acting insulin in a single injection. This trial compared IDegAsp with biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with once- or twice-daily (OD or BID) pre- or self-mixed insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this 26-week, randomized, open-label, multinational, treat-to-target trial, participants (mean age 58.7 years, duration of diabetes 13 years, BMI 29.3 kg/m(2), and HbA1c 8.4% [68 mmol/mol]) were exposed (1:1) to BID injections of IDegAsp (n = 224) or BIAsp 30 (n = 222), administered with breakfast and the main evening meal and dose titrated to a self-measured premeal plasma glucose (PG) target of 4.0-5.0 mmol/L.

RESULTS

After 26 weeks, mean HbA1c was 7.1% (54 mmol/mol) for both groups, with IDegAsp achieving the prespecified noninferiority margin for mean change in HbA1c (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0.03% points [95% CI -0.18 to 0.13]). Treatment with IDegAsp was superior in lowering fasting PG (ETD -1.14 mmol/L [95% CI -1.53 to -0.76], P < 0.001) and had a significantly lower final mean daily insulin dose (estimated rate ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.83-0.96], P = 0.002). Fewer confirmed, nocturnal confirmed, and severe hypoglycemia episodes were reported for IDegAsp compared with BIAsp 30.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp BID effectively improves HbA1c and fasting PG levels with fewer hypoglycemia episodes versus BIAsp 30 in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes previously treated with once- or twice-daily pre- or self-mixed insulin.

Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with type 2 diabetes switching from basal-bolus insulin regimens in the A1chieve study

AIMS

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 allows fewer daily injections versus basal-bolus insulin regimens, which may improve adherence and treatment outcome. This sub-analysis of the observational A1chieve study assessed clinical safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with type 2 diabetes previously receiving basal-bolus insulin regimens.

METHODS

A1chieve was an international, open-label, 24-week study in people with type 2 diabetes starting/switching to biphasic insulin aspart 30, insulin detemir or insulin aspart. This sub-analysis assessed patients switching from insulin glargine- or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin-based basal-bolus insulin regimens to biphasic insulin aspart 30.

RESULTS

1024 patients were included. At 24 weeks, glycated haemoglobin and fasting plasma glucose were significantly reduced from baseline in both cohorts (all p<0.001). The proportion reporting any hypoglycaemia, major hypoglycaemia or nocturnal hypoglycaemia was significantly reduced after 24 weeks (all p<0.05). No serious adverse drug reactions were reported. Both cohorts had significantly improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

24 weeks after switching from basal-bolus insulin regimens to biphasic insulin aspart 30, glycaemic control and HRQoL were significantly improved, and hypoglycaemia was significantly reduced. This suggests that people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal-bolus insulin regimens can consider biphasic insulin aspart 30.

Will the next generation of basal insulins offer clinical advantages?

The 21st century has seen the arrival of several insulin analogue products and the refinement of insulin regimens, with widespread advocacy of continuous titration algorithms and earlier initiation of supplementary insulin therapy (predominantly using basal insulins) in type 2 diabetes. Nevertheless, many insulin-treated diabetes patients remain in poor glycaemic control. This might reflect insufficient titration effort or lax adherence, but these issues could in some cases result from concerns about hypoglycaemia. Certainly there is scope for improving the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) profile of basal insulin, and three new products offer this prospect. Insulin degludec, now in clinical use, and PEGylated insulin lispro, in development, have greatly extended action profiles that result from two very different, but unique, mechanisms. With once-daily dosing, these insulins produce stable PK/PD profiles at steady state, associated with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia. The feasibility of varied daily dose timing has also been confirmed with insulin degludec. High strength formulations of insulin glargine and insulin degludec offer the prospect of a reduced injection number/volume in high dose users, and in the case of glargine, the PK/PD profile might also be favourably modified. This review considers critically the clinical evidence and expectations we should have for these new basal insulins.

Distinct Prandial and Basal Glucose-Lowering Effects of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart (IDegAsp) at Steady State in Subjects with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION/AIM

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble co-formulation of long-acting and short-acting insulin analogs. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the pharmacodynamic response of once-daily IDegAsp dosing in patients with type 1 diabetes. Pharmacokinetic response, as well as safety and tolerability, were assessed as secondary objectives.

METHODOLOGY

This was a single-center, open-label, single-arm study. Twenty-two subjects received once-daily insulin degludec (IDeg) (0.42 U/kg) for five consecutive days [with separate bolus insulin aspart (IAsp) as needed for safety and glycemic control], to achieve clinical steady state of the basal component. On Day 6, they received a single injection of IDegAsp (0.6 U/kg, comprising 0.42 U/kg IDeg and 0.18 U/kg IAsp). Pharmacodynamic response was assessed using a 30-h euglycemic glucose clamp, with blood glucose stabilized at a target of 5.5 mmol/L.

RESULTS

The glucose infusion rate profile showed a rapid onset of action and a distinct peak due to IAsp, followed by a separate, flat and stable basal glucose-lowering effect due to the IDeg component. Modeling data suggested that the pharmacodynamic profile of IDegAsp was retained with twice-daily dosing (allowing for coverage of two main meals daily). IDegAsp was well tolerated and no safety issues were identified in this trial.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the IAsp component of IDegAsp has a fast onset of appearance and a peak covering the prandial phase, while the IDeg component has a flat and an evenly distributed pharmacokinetic profile over 24 h. IDegAsp is the first co-formulation of a basal insulin analog with an ultra-long duration of action and a mealtime insulin analog in a single soluble injection. These properties translate into clinically relevant benefits, including improved glycemic control and reduction in hypoglycemia.

Initiation and gradual intensification of premixed insulin lispro therapy versus Basal {+/-} mealtime insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes eating light breakfasts

OBJECTIVE

We compared two strategies initiating and intensifying insulin treatment and tested for noninferiority of premixed insulin to basal ± mealtime insulin analog in patients eating light breakfasts.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This randomized, open-label, 48-week study compared two algorithms. Up to three injections of insulin lispro mix 25 and/or insulin lispro mix 50 (premix; premixed insulin lispro) or basal insulin glargine plus up to three injections of insulin lispro (basal+; glargine + insulin lispro) were used in type 2 diabetic patients uncontrolled with oral antihyperglycemic medication and consuming <15% daily calories at breakfast. The hypothesis was to test noninferiority of premix to basal+ for glycemic control measured by HbA1c after 48 weeks, assessed using ANCOVA with a 0.4% margin.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 344; 176 [51%] females; mean [SD] age 54.3 [8.8] years; BMI 29.4 [4.6] kg/m(2); baseline HbA1c 9.02 [0.97]%) were randomized to premix (n = 171) or basal+ (n = 173). In the per-protocol analysis (n = 230), least squares means (95% CI) end point HbA1c were 7.40% (7.15-7.65) and 7.55% (7.27-7.82) in respective arms. Between-treatment difference was -0.14% (-0.42 to 0.13), with noninferiority met. Significantly more patients in premix achieved HbA1c targets of <7.0% compared with basal+ (48.2 vs. 36.2%; P = 0.024). Self-monitored blood glucose profiles, body weight changes, total insulin doses, and overall hypoglycemia (65 vs. 60%) were similar in premix and basal+ (P = 0.494), except nocturnal episodes (34.3 vs. 23.7%; P = 0.018) were more common in premix.

CONCLUSIONS

Both intensive insulin strategies improved glycemic control; however, final HbA1c levels were seen above those achieved in previous treat-to-target trials, likely due to the inadequate insulin titrations and probably due to the complexity of tested insulin regimens. A higher percentage of patients achieved target HbA1c <7% with multiple premixed insulins, but this treatment resulted in more nocturnal hypoglycemia than a basal-bolus regimen.

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.

Treatment intensification with stepwise addition of prandial insulin aspart boluses compared with full basal-bolus therapy (FullSTEP Study): a randomised, treat-to-target clinical trial

BACKGROUND

We compared stepwise addition of bolus insulin with a full basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin plus oral antidiabetic drugs.

METHODS

The FullSTEP study was a phase 4, 32-week, randomised, open-label, two-arm, parallel-group, multinational, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial done at 150 sites across seven countries to assess the effectiveness of a stepwise dosing approach versus a basal-bolus regimen. In this trial, 401 patients (mean age 59·8 years [SD 9·3]; HbA1c 7·9% [63 mmol/mol]; mean diabetes duration 12·6 years [SD 8·0]) were block randomised (ratio 1:1) to receive either stepwise treatment or full basal-bolus treatment. Patients in the basal-bolus group received insulin aspart before every meal throughout the trial. Patients in the stepwise group received one bolus dose with the largest meal, with additional insulin aspart doses before the next largest meal added to their regimen at 11 weeks and 22 weeks if HbA1c remained at 7% or higher. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of stepwise addition of bolus insulin versus complete basal-bolus therapy, as assessed by change in HbA1c from baseline to 32 weeks (non-inferiority margin of 0·4%). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01165684.

FINDINGS

The study was started on Oct 27, 2010, and completed on April 25, 2012. After 32 weeks, HbA1c change from baseline was -0·98% (95% CI -1·09 to -0·87) for the stepwise group and -1·12% (-1·23 to -1·00) for the basal-bolus group; mean treatment difference 0·14 (95% CI -0·02 to 0·30), non-significant (p=0·0876). Fewer hypoglycaemic episodes occurred in the stepwise group than in the basal-bolus group (rate ratio 0·58 [95% CI 0·45 to 0·75]; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events did not differ between the two treatment groups. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse event were nasopharyngitis, influenza, diarrhoea, headache, peripheral oedema, and wrong drug given. Three participants died: two before randomisation and one in the basal-bolus group (due to severe acute myocardial infarction and respiratory tract inflammation).

INTERPRETATION

Stepwise prandial insulin intensification provides glycaemic control non-inferior to a full basal-bolus regimen after 32 weeks, with significantly lower hypoglycaemia risk and better patient satisfaction.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Effect of once-daily insulin detemir on oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) use in patients with type 2 diabetes

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

There are acknowledged benefits to continuing metformin when initiating insulin, but there appears to be growing concern over the role of sulphonylureas and thiazolidinediones when used in combination with insulin. This analysis investigates the effects of continuing or discontinuing oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) following the initiation of once-daily insulin detemir.

METHODS

SOLVE is a 24-week, multinational observational study of insulin detemir initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with one or more OADs.

RESULTS

In the total cohort (n = 17 374), there were significant improvements in HbA1c (-1·3%, 95% CI -1·34; -1·27%) and weight (-0·6 kg, 95% CI -0·65; -0·47 kg), with an increase in the incidence rate of minor hypoglycaemia (+0·256 events ppy, P < 0·001), but not severe hypoglycaemia (-0·038 events ppy, P < 0·001). Study participants had information on OAD use either prior to (n = 17 086) or during insulin initiation (n = 16 346). HbA1c reductions were significantly greater in patients continuing treatment with metformin (-1·3% vs. -1·1%, P < 0·01), thiazolidinediones (-1·3% vs. -1·0%, P < 0·01) and DPP-IV inhibitors (-1·3% vs. -0·9%, P < 0·001). Final insulin doses were significantly greater in patients discontinuing treatment with sulphonylureas (0·29 vs. 0·26 IU/kg, P < 0·001), glinides (0·28 vs. 0·26 IU/kg, P < 0·01), thiazolidinediones (0·31 vs. 0·26 IU/kg, P < 0·001) and DPP-IV inhibitors (0·35 vs. 0·29 IU/kg, P < 0·001) compared with patients continuing these respective agents. All patient subgroups had a mean weight loss irrespective of OAD continuation, apart from those continuing thiazolidinediones (+0·2 kg). The largest improvements in weight were seen following the withdrawal of sulphonylureas and thiazolidinediones (-1·1 and -1·1 kg, respectively).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Discontinuation (or switching) of OADs at the time of insulin initiation appears to be governed principally by concerns about hypoglycaemia and weight. HbA1c improvements were smaller in patients discontinuing OADs at the time of insulin initiation and may be associated with insufficient insulin titration.

Prevalence of diabetes complications in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and its association with baseline characteristics in the multinational A1chieve study

BACKGROUND

Current International Diabetes Federation guidelines recommend a target HbA1c <7.0%, but many people with diabetes worldwide find this difficult to achieve, increasing their risk of developing complications. This publication examines the prevalence of diabetes complications and its association with baseline characteristics in people with type 2 diabetes who participated in the A1chieve study.

METHODS

A1chieve was a 24-week, multinational, open-label, observational study of 66,726 people with type 2 diabetes who had begun using biphasic insulin aspart 30, insulin aspart, or insulin detemir in routine clinical care. Participants were enrolled from 28 countries across four continents (Asia, Africa, Europe and South America). Baseline measurements of disease characteristics included: glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting (FPG) and post-prandial plasma glucose (PPG), high- and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (H- or LDL-C), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and body mass index (BMI). Data on complications and use of vascular disease preventative drugs were collected.

RESULTS

Complication rates were high (27.2% had macrovascular complications and 53.5% had microvascular complications), particularly in Russia, and use of vascular disease preventative drugs was lower than expected. Age, BMI, diabetes duration, LDL-C, and SBP were positively associated, and HDL-C negatively associated, with macro- and microvascular complications (all p < 0.05). HbA1c and FPG were negatively associated with macrovascular complications (both p < 0.05), which may be linked to the cross-sectional study design.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest a worldwide failure to achieve glycaemic targets. Better diabetes management with earlier initiation and optimisation of insulin regimens (e.g., with insulin analogues in the A1chieve population) may reduce the prevalence of vascular complications, improve the lives of people with diabetes and reduce the burden on healthcare systems.

Common standards of basal insulin titration in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus has become a worldwide major health problem, and the number of people affected is steadily increasing. Thus, not all patients suffering from the disease can be treated by specialized diabetes centers or outpatient clinics, but by primary care physicians. The latter, however, might have time constraints and have to deal with many kinds of diseases or with multimorbid patients, so their focus is not so much on lowering high blood glucose values. Thus, the physicians, as well as the patients themselves, are often reluctant to initiate and adjust insulin therapy, although basal insulin therapy is considered the appropriate strategy after oral antidiabetic drug failure, according to the latest international guidelines. A substantial number of clinical studies have shown that insulin initiation and optimization can be managed successfully by using titration algorithms-even in cases where patients themselves are the drivers of insulin titration. Nevertheless, tools and strategies are needed to facilitate this process in the daily life of both primary health care professionals and patients with diabetes.

Treatment outcomes after initiation of exenatide twice daily or insulin in clinical practice: 12-month results from CHOICE in six European countries

OBJECTIVE

The CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy (CHOICE) study assessed time to, and reasons for, significant treatment change after patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) initiated their first injectable glucose-lowering therapy (exenatide twice daily [BID] or insulin) in routine clinical practice, and these patients' clinical outcomes, in six European countries. This paper reports interim data from the first 12 months of the study.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

CHOICE (NCT00635492) is a prospective, noninterventional, observational study. Clinical data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy and after approximately 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Of 2497 patients enrolled in CHOICE, 1096 in the exenatide BID and 1239 in the insulin cohorts had ≥1 post-baseline assessment and were included in this analysis. Overall, 32.2% of the exenatide BID cohort and 29.1% of the insulin cohort (Kaplan-Meier estimates) had significant treatment change during the first 12 months, most commonly discontinuing injectable therapy or adding new T2DM therapy, respectively. Glycemic control improved in both cohorts, but weight loss occurred only in the exenatide BID cohort (mean change -3.3 kg). Hypoglycemia occurred in 13.2% of the exenatide BID cohort and 28.6% of the insulin cohort (82.8% and 55.6% of these patients, respectively, received sulfonylureas). The post hoc endpoint of glycated hemoglobin < 7%, no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia was attained at 12 months by 24.3% and 10.3% of patients who had data at 12 months and who were receiving exenatide BID and insulin, respectively.

CONCLUSION

About 30% of patients in CHOICE changed treatment in the first 12 months after initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide BID or insulin). Overall, both cohorts achieved improved glycemic control, which was accompanied by a mean weight loss in the exenatide BID cohort.

Clinical experience with insulin detemir: results from the Indonesian cohort of the international A₁chieve study

AIM

To determine the safety and efficacy of insulin detemir in Indonesian patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) as a sub-analysis of the 24-week, prospective, multinational, non-interventional A₁chieve study.

METHODS

This study included 477 Indonesian T2D patients starting insulin detemir at the discretion of their physicians. Safety and efficacy was measured in routine clinical practice at baseline, interim (around 12 weeks from baseline) and final (around 24 weeks from baseline) visit.

RESULTS

At baseline the mean age, duration of diabetes and mean BMI were 55.3 ± 8.5 years, 5.9 ± 4.0 years and 24 ± 3.6 kg/m(2), respectively. Of these patients, 78% were insulin-naive and 22% were prior insulin users. Glycaemic control was poor at baseline. After 24 weeks, significant reductions were observed in mean HbA1c (2.2%, p < 0.001), fasting plasma glucose (90.0 mg/dL, p < 0.001) and postprandial plasma glucose (115.4 mg/dL, p < 0.001) levels, in the entire cohort. Similar significant reductions were also seen in insulin-naive patients and prior insulin users. In the entire cohort, 32.5% patients achieved HbA1c levels <7.0% while 32.0% insulin-naive patients and 33.9% prior insulin users achieved this target after 24 weeks. No hypoglycaemic events were reported in the entire cohort. Modest increase in body weight was noted in the insulin-naive group, while mean body weight decreased in prior insulin users after 24 weeks of insulin detemir therapy.

CONCLUSION

This sub-analysis suggests that insulin detemir can be a safe and effective option for initiating insulin therapy in people with T2D in Indonesia.

Stepwise intensification of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes management--exploring the concept of the basal-plus approach in clinical practice

Basal insulin provides an effective method for initiating insulin therapy in people with Type 2 diabetes, resulting in significant improvements in glycaemic control, lower rates of hypoglycaemia and less weight gain than either prandial or premixed insulin regimens. However, the progressive nature of Type 2 diabetes and the inability of basal insulin to correct excessive postprandial glucose excursions mean that insulin therapy will eventually need to be intensified, typically by adding prandial insulin as part of a basal-bolus or premixed insulin regimen. The aim of this review is to summarize recent clinical evidence for a staged 'basal-plus' strategy for insulin intensification where one, two or three prandial insulin injections are added to basal insulin according to individual need. In the early stages of insulin therapy, most individuals seem to achieve favourable glycaemic control with basal insulin alone, or in combination with a single prandial insulin injection. The addition of a single prandial insulin injection at the largest meal is well tolerated and associated with significant improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), low rates of hypoglycaemia and limited weight gain. More people achieve recommended HbA(1c) targets with a basal-plus strategy, compared with twice-daily premixed insulin therapy, with lower rates of hypoglycaemia. The data indicate that a step-by-step approach with the basal-plus strategy is a promising alternative method of insulin intensification that allows for individualization of treatment and may delay progression to a full basal-bolus insulin replacement therapy for many individuals.

Adequate prescribing of medication does not necessarily translate into good control of diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Patients with diabetes mellitus in Lithuania have access to almost all the latest blood glucose-lowering drugs available in the rest of the world. This study evaluated the effects of prescribing of treatment (oral medications, insulin, or both) in Lithuanian patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes and poor blood glucose control.

METHODS

The relevant information was obtained from specialized questionnaires completed by 26 consulting endocrinologists in Lithuania between October 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008. The study cohort comprised 865 randomly selected patients with diabetes mellitus and a glycosylated (HbA1c) level ≥7%. In total, there were 95 patients with type 1 diabetes and 770 with type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

Linear regression for patients with type 1 diabetes revealed a weak trend towards higher doses of insulin reflecting lower HbA1c values. The mean dose of insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes before an endocrinology consultation was 57.1 ± 15.7 U/day (0.8 ± 0.2 U/kg), which increased significantly to 63.3 ± 16.5 U/day (0.9 ± 0.2 U/kg) after an endocrinology consultation (P < 0.05). Treatment prescribed for patients with type 2 diabetes depended on the duration of disease. Earlier treatment recommended for 68% of patients with type 2 diabetes was subsequently changed by the endocrinologist. Linear regression showed that the insulin dose prescribed before a specialist consultation as well as that recommended by an endocrinologist was significantly correlated with body mass index.

CONCLUSION

Appropriate prescribing of blood glucose-lowering drugs does not always translate into good metabolic control of diabetes mellitus. The mean HbA1c was 8.5% ± 1.3% in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral drugs alone versus 9.0% ± 1.3% in those treated with insulin alone.

Comparison of a soluble co-formulation of insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes: a randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble co-formulation of insulin degludec (70%) and insulin aspart (IAsp: 30%). Here, we compare the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp, an alternative IDegAsp formulation (AF: containing 45% IAsp), and biphasic IAsp 30 (BIAsp 30).

DESIGN

Sixteen-week, open-label, randomised, treat-to-target trial.

METHODS

Insulin-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes (18-75 years) and a HbA1c of 7-11% were randomised to twice-daily IDegAsp (n=61), AF (n=59) or BIAsp 30 (n=62), all in combination with metformin. Insulin was administered pre-breakfast and dinner (main evening meal) and titrated to pre-breakfast and pre-dinner plasma glucose (PG) targets of 4.0-6.0 mmol/l.

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c after 16 weeks was comparable for IDegAsp, AF and BIAsp 30 (6.7, 6.6 and 6.7% respectively). With IDegAsp, 67% of subjects achieved HbA1c 7.0% Without confirmed hypoglycaemia in the last 4 weeks of treatment compared with 53% (AF) and 40% (BIAsp 30). Mean fasting PG was significantly lower for IDegAsp vs BIAsp 30 (treatment difference (TD): -0.99 mmol/l (95% confidence interval: -1.68; 0.29)) and AF vs BIAsp 30 (TD: -0.88 mmol/l (-1.58; -0.18)). A significant, 58% lower rate of confirmed hypoglycaemia was found for IDegAsp vs BIAsp 30 (rate ratio (RR): 0.42 (0.23; 0.75)); rates were similar for AF vs BIAsp 30 (RR: 0.92 (0.54; 1.57)). IDegAsp and AF had numerically lower rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia vs BIAsp 30 (RR: 0.33 (0.09; 1.14) and 0.66 (0.22; 1.93) respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp provided comparable overall glycaemic control to BIAsp 30 with a significantly lower rate of hypoglycaemia.