Insulin aspart : an evidence-based medicine review

Use of fast-acting insulin aspart in insulin pump therapy in clinical practice

Fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is a novel formulation of insulin aspart (IAsp) containing the additional excipients niacinamide and L-arginine. The improved pharmacological profile and greater early glucose-lowering action of faster aspart compared with IAsp suggests that faster aspart may be advantageous for people with diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). The recent onset 5 trial was the first to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an ultra-fast-acting insulin in CSII therapy in a large number of participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Non-inferiority of faster aspart to IAsp in terms of change from baseline in HbA1c was confirmed, with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of 0.09% (95% CI, 0.01; 0.17; P < 0.001 for non-inferiority [0.4% margin]). Faster aspart was superior to IAsp in terms of change from baseline in 1-hour post-prandial glucose (PPG) increment after a meal test (ETD [95% CI], -0.91 mmol/L [-1.43; -0.39]; P = 0.001), with statistically significant improvements also at 30 minutes and 2 hours. The overall rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia was not statistically significantly different between treatments, with an estimated rate ratio of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.85; 1.16). A numerical imbalance in severe hypoglycaemic episodes between faster aspart and IAsp was seen in the treatment (21 vs 7) and the 4-week run-in periods (4 vs 0). Experience from clinical practice indicates that all pump settings should be reviewed when initiating faster aspart with CSII, and that the use of continuous glucose monitoring or flash glucose monitoring, along with a good understanding of meal content and bolus type, may also facilitate optimal use. This review summarizes the available clinical evidence for faster aspart administered via CSII and highlights practical considerations based on clinical experience that may help healthcare providers and individuals with T1D successfully initiate and adjust faster aspart with CSII.

Counter-regulatory hormone responses to spontaneous hypoglycaemia during treatment with insulin Aspart or human soluble insulin: a double-blinded randomized cross-over study

AIMS

To compare insulin Aspart and human insulin with respect to glycaemic control, hypoglycaemic frequency and counter-regulatory responses to spontaneous hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

Glycaemic control, hypoglycaemic frequency, p-insulin concentrations, insulin dosages and patients' satisfaction were examined in a randomized, double-blinded cross-over study for two periods of 8 weeks. Sixteen patients with type 1 diabetes were subjected to three daily injections of human soluble insulin or Aspart in addition to Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin twice daily. Each intervention period was followed by hospitalization where episodes of spontaneous hypoglycaemia and counter-regulatory hormone responses were evaluated from frequently obtained blood samples.

RESULTS

No difference between soluble insulin and insulin Aspart was found regarding HbA1c (7.0 ± 0.2 vs. 7.0 ± 0.2%, ns), hypoglycaemic frequency (1.1 ± 0.2 vs. 0.9 ± 0.1 events per patient per week, ns), nocturnal hypoglycaemia, severe hypoglycaemic events, dosages of bolus insulin (31.8 ± 0.4 vs. 30.0 ± 0.6 IU day(-1), ns), or NPH insulin (26.7 ± 1.8 vs. 26.0 ± 1.7 IU day(-1) , ns) or in patients satisfaction (ns). Modest differences existed in the counter-regulatory responses regarding growth hormone, glucagon and ghrelin whereas no differences were found in relation to free fatty acid, cortisol, insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF-II and IGF-binding proteins 1 and 2. Treatment with insulin Aspart resulted in well-defined peaks in serum insulin concentrations as compared with more blunted insulin peaks using human soluble insulin.

CONCLUSION

Although insulin Aspart treatment was associated with clear postprandial insulin peaks, no improvement in glycaemic control was obtained and no difference in the hypoglycaemic frequency was observed. However, insulin Aspart elicited a slightly different physiological response to spontaneous hypoglycaemia compared with human insulin.

Insulin analogues: action profiles beyond glycaemic control

A variety of studies have documented significant improvements in the treatment of type 1 and 2 diabetes after the introduction of artificial insulins. This review gives an overview of insulin analogues which are currently approved for therapeutical use. Clinical data regarding the efficiency to control blood glucose level as well as improving HbA1c level in comparison to conventional insulin preparations in type 1 and 2 diabetic patients are summarized. Furthermore, special features of insulin analogues regarding their signalling properties are discussed with focus on the proliferative effects of insulin glargine as well as some recent data of insulin detemir.

Biphasic Insulin Aspart in Type??2??Diabetes Mellitus

The efficacy benefits of biphasic insulin aspart formulation (BIAsp 30) in patients with diabetes mellitus have been reported in several studies. BIAsp 30 has been shown to be more effective in terms of glycaemic control than standard biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30). In addition to gauging the treatment in terms of clinical evidence of benefits provided, it is also important to evaluate the strength of the evidence supporting the therapeutic improvements offered by BIAsp 30. In this paper, we evaluated the strength of the available data that relate to the use of BIAsp 30 in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes based on a comprehensive literature review. Selected publications that provided relevant data were obtained via a literature search and from the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk. These were graded in terms of the strength of the evidence they provided using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) system in the following categories: (i) twice-daily use versus basal insulin; (ii) twice-daily use versus other treatments; (iii) once-daily use; (iv) thrice-daily use; (v) use in combination with thiazolidinediones; and (vi) use in comparison with BHI 30. A total of 30 publications for BIAsp 30 were identified and graded. For the majority of categories (four out of six), the evidence supporting the use of BIAsp 30 was given an overall CEBM grade of A (highest quality); evidence supporting clinical efficacy in the other two categories (twice-daily use versus basal insulin and thrice-daily BIAsp 30 administration) was graded B. In most of the studies examined, the efficacy of BIAsp 30 was evaluated in terms of glycaemic control (glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA(1c)] reduction, proportion of patients achieving HbA(1c) target of <6.5% or <7%, fasting blood glucose, blood glucose profile and/or prandial and postprandial glucose increments). In some studies, efficacy was further evaluated using plasma insulin and glucose infusion rates, plasma C-peptide levels, mean serum fructosamine levels, postprandial hyperlipidaemia, overall well-being, treatment satisfaction and quality of life. Safety was evaluated using physical and laboratory investigations and assessment of incidence of adverse events, including, in many of the studies reviewed, specific evaluation of those events known to be associated with antidiabetic treatment, hypoglycaemia and weight gain. Strong evidence was provided for better glycaemic control with BIAsp 30 without increases in the incidence of major hypoglycaemia or nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes. Overall, weight gain with BIAsp 30 was minimal and not significantly greater than with basal insulin or BHI 30. Thus, we can confirm that the reported efficacy and tolerability of BIAsp 30 in the treatment of diabetes based on a variety of clinical endpoints is supported by a good body of evidence relating to its use in different dosage regimens and in comparison with other insulin treatment regimens.

Use of antidiabetic drugs in elderly patients

The objective of this review of the literature is to analyze the results of studies including diabetic patients aged 70 years and older. Although the risk of treatment is greater in this population because of co-morbid conditions and altered renal function, information on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antidiabetic drugs remains limited. Long-term experience with sulfonylureas is sufficient to establish certain general rules of use; but for biguanides and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, problems of tolerance limit use; further data are needed on glinides and glitazones. Use of insulin or insulin analogs is frequent and prescription should be adapted to achieve an acceptable balance between the risk of hypoglycaemia and therapeutic goals.