Biphasic insulin aspart 30/70: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics compared with once-daily biphasic human insulin and Basal-bolus therapy

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of insulin aspart and glargine in type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus in Iran

PURPOSE

The higher costs of insulin analogs including short-acting insulin aspart (IAsp) and long-acting insulin glargine (IGla) have restricted their widespread uptake despite having improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and patient convenience. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IAsp versus Regular Insulin (RI) and IGla versus NPH Insulin in type 1 and 2 diabetes from the perspective of the Iranian healthcare system.

METHODS

Clinical data including HbA1c levels, hypoglycemia, weight gain, and health-related quality of life were derived from the included systematic review and meta-analysis studies. Different methods of pharmacoeconomic evaluation were used for an annual time horizon. Utility decrements for diabetes-related complications were extracted from the literature. Direct medical costs were calculated in 2022 prices. A one-way sensitivity analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

In type 1 diabetes, IAsp was associated with more costs and effects in terms of reducing HbA1c compared with RI. An incremental cost of $83 was estimated to obtain an additional 1% reduction in HbA1c per patient per year. Similarly, an incremental cost of $16 was estimated for IGla compared with NPH. In type 2 diabetes, IAsp and RI were associated with equal efficacy and safety. For IGla versus NPH, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated at $1975 per quality-adjusted life-year. The robustness of the result was confirmed through sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

Insulin analogs, IAsp and IGla, are cost-effective for type 1 diabetes versus human insulins, RI and NPH. For type 2 diabetes, IAsp is not cost-effective when compared with RI. For IGla versus NPH, however, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio seems to be within the accepted thresholds.

Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes: A phase III, open-label, 2:1 randomized, treat-to-target trial

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) twice daily, both ± metformin, in Chinese adults (N = 543) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on premixed/self-mixed or basal insulin ± metformin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a 26-week, phase III, open-label, treat-to-target, 2:1 randomized trial. Hierarchical testing was used with non-inferiority of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline to week 26 as the primary endpoint and superiority for the confirmatory secondary endpoints which were as follows: change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG); nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (12:01-5:59 am, inclusive); total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (severe or plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L with/without symptoms); body weight; and percentage of responders (HbA1c <53 mmol/mol [<7.0%]) without confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes.

RESULTS

Non-inferiority for change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c and superiority of IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily for change in FPG, nocturnal confirmed and total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes, was demonstrated. Estimated rates of nocturnal confirmed and total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes were 47% and 43% lower, respectively, with IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily. Superiority for change in body weight was not confirmed. Participants were more likely to reach the HbA1c goal of <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) without confirmed hypoglycaemia with IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily by trial end. No new safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of IDegAsp in Chinese patients with T2D was demonstrated, confirming results from international trials.

Efficacy and Safety of IDegAsp Versus BIAsp 30, Both Twice Daily, in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Post Hoc Analysis of Two Phase 3 Randomized Controlled BOOST Trials

INTRODUCTION

The majority of elderly patients (≥ 65 years of age) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) will eventually require insulin therapy, but they are particularly vulnerable to hypoglycemia and challenging to treat. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a novel co-formulation of 70% insulin degludec and 30% insulin aspart administered in a single injection, either once or twice daily with main meals.

METHODS

A combined analysis of the phase 3 BOOST INTENSIFY PREMIX I (NCT01009580) and BOOST INTENSIFY ALL (NCT01059812) trials has previously reported lower rates of hypoglycemia during the maintenance period in patients with T2DM treated with IDegAsp twice daily (BID) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) BID. This post hoc analysis examined the safety and efficacy of IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 in elderly patients from the global population of these two trials, and also from the Japanese cohort of BOOST INTENSIFY ALL.

RESULTS

Change in HbA1c was similar for IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 (p > 0.5). Compared with BIAsp 30, IDegAsp resulted in significant reductions in fasting plasma glucose (p  < 0.0001), numerically lower rates of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia (global estimated rate ratios: 0.92 [0.67; 1.26]95% confidence interval [CI], p  = 0.5980 and 0.67 [0.39; 1.18]95% CI, p  = 0.1676, respectively), and a significantly lower total daily insulin dose at end of trial (global estimated treatment difference 0.79 [0.73; 0.87]95% CI, p  < 0.0001) in elderly patients.

CONCLUSION

The results described here are consistent with those of the overall trial populations, demonstrating that IDegAsp BID is efficacious in elderly patients and suggesting that there is no need for special safety precautions.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT01009580 and NCT01059812. Plain language summary available for this article.

Differential Treatment Response to Insulin Intensification Therapy: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial Comparing Premixed and Basal-Bolus Insulin Regimens

INTRODUCTION

Identification of subgroups of patients that may benefit most from certain treatment is important because individual treatment response varies due to multiple contributing factors. The present study used the subgroup identification based on the differential effect search (SIDES) algorithm to identify subgroups with different treatment responses to insulin intensification therapies.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of a 24-week, multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel study comparing prandial premixed therapy (PPT) to basal-bolus therapy (BBT). Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized to PPT (insulin lispro mix 50/50 thrice daily with meals) or BBT (glargine at bedtime plus mealtime insulin lispro) insulin intensification therapies. The SIDES algorithm was used to identify the subgroups from at-goal patients [glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0% (53.0 mmol/mol) at the end of 24 weeks; n = 182] who could have benefitted from insulin intensification therapies.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of overall at-goal patients were comparable between PPT and BBT groups. The SIDES algorithm identified patients with race other than Caucasian (i.e., African-American, Asian, and Hispanic) and baseline fasting blood glucose (FBG) <8.89 mmol/L as a subgroup that could respond better to PPT relative to BBT than the overall at-goal patient population. In this identified subgroup population, the HbA1c mean (standard deviation) changes from baseline to endpoint in PPT and BBT groups were -2.27 (0.88)% versus -2.05 (0.75)%; p = 0.40, respectively; while in the overall at-goal patients, the HbA1c changes were -2.17 (0.79)% versus -2.34 (1.00)%; p = 0.19, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary results showed that the subgroup of patients with race other than Caucasian and FBG <8.89 mmol/L may respond better to premixed intensification therapy. This result provides some preliminary information for further investigation in prospective studies.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov ID number: NCT00110370.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 twice daily in insulin-experienced Japanese subjects with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: Subgroup analysis of a Pan-Asian, treat-to-target Phase 3 Trial

BACKGROUND

The present study was a subgroup analysis of a Pan-Asian Phase 3 open-label randomized treat-to-target trial evaluating insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) and biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Japanese subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on insulin.

METHODS

Eligible subjects (n = 178) were randomized (2: 1) to twice-daily (b.i.d.) IDegAsp or BIAsp 30 with or without metformin for 26 weeks, titrated to a blood glucose target of between 3.9 and <5.0 mmol/L. Changes in HbA_1c , the proportion of responders reaching the HbA_1c target, and changes in fasting plasma glucose, nine-point self-monitored plasma glucose profiles, and body weight were assessed.

RESULTS

At 26 weeks, the decrease in HbA_1c was similar in both groups. Fasting plasma glucose was lower with IDegAsp than BIAsp 30 (estimated treatment difference -1.50 mmol/L; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -1.98, -1.01). Overall confirmed hypoglycemia rates were similar; the nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate was lower with IDegAsp than BIAsp 30 (estimated rate ratio 0.44; 95 % CI 0.20, 0.99). No severe hypoglycemic episodes were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that IDegAsp b.i.d. improves glycemic control and, compared with BIAsp 30, lowers the rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia.

Premixed insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes: pros

Because of the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes, the need to intensify treatment to manage hyperglycemia is expanding. Premixed insulin regimens were designed to maximize patient convenience and reduce the number of daily injections required by providing both rapid-acting and intermediate-acting components in one formulation. Although the basal bolus insulin regimen is considered by many as "the golden standard" in reaching goals of glycemic control, proper use of intensified insulin regimens, such as basal bolus or premixed, will result in similar HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemic events, and weight gain. At the same number of daily insulin injections (2 shots/day), the premixed regimen is associated with a significant 0.2 % HbA1c decrease, as compared with the basal plus regimen (one shot of long-acting plus one shot of short-acting insulin). The choice of insulin regimen should consider the preferences, and resources of the individual and the family for adapting treatment to the patient needs. At last, the process of insulin initiation and intensification in type 2 diabetes must be carried out in the context of patient safety, minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, and injection burden.

Comparison of thrice-daily premixed insulin (insulin lispro premix) with basal-bolus (insulin glargine once-daily plus thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro) therapy in east Asian patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled with twice-daily premixed insulin: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Unlike in western countries, premixed insulin is widely used as the starter insulin in Asian patients instead of basal insulin. The use of basal-bolus therapy as an intensification regimen is not common in Asia despite poor glycaemic control after starting insulin therapy. An alternative insulin intensification regimen with a similar efficacy and safety profile to basal-bolus therapy, but of higher convenience, is urgently needed. The efficacy and safety of insulin lispro mix thrice-daily was compared with basal-bolus therapy in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes who were insufficiently controlled on twice-daily premixed insulin.

METHODS

This open-label, randomised, active comparator-controlled, parallel-group trial was done at 24 centres in China, Taiwan, and South Korea. Patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled on twice-daily premixed insulin were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either insulin lispro mix (mix 50 before breakfast and lunch plus mix 25 before dinner) or basal-bolus therapy (insulin glargine at bedtime plus prandial insulin lispro thrice-daily) for 24 weeks. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random sequence and was stratified by country or region and baseline HbA1c. Treatment assignments were masked from the study team assessing outcomes but not from investigators and patients. The primary outcome was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24 in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Analysis was by modified intention to treat, with the per-protocol population used as a supportive analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01175811.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 7, 2011, and Nov 7, 2012, 402 patients were enrolled (199 in the premix group, 203 in the basal-bolus group) and 399 were included in the primary analysis (197 in the premix group, 202 in the basal-bolus group). HbA1c change at week 24 was -1.1% for both treatment groups. The least squares mean difference between groups in HbA1c change from baseline was 0% (95% CI -0.1 to 0.2). Insulin lispro mix was non-inferior to basal-bolus therapy based on the prespecified margin of 0.4%. The frequency of adverse events, and the incidences and 30-day rates of nocturnal and overall hypoglycaemia were comparable between groups. No severe hypoglycaemia was reported.

INTERPRETATION

A premixed insulin lispro regimen thrice-daily was non-inferior to basal-bolus therapy in terms of overall glycaemic control and thus could be an option for intensified insulin regimen in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled with twice-daily premixed insulin.

Confusion Regarding Duration of Insulin Action: A Potential Source for Major Insulin Dose Errors by Bolus Calculators

People with diabetes on insulin pumps often use a bolus calculator (BC) to obtain insulin dose recommendations. After the first bolus of the day, residual insulin activity, called bolus insulin on board (BOB), must be correctly accounted for to reduce the size of subsequent boluses and minimize the insulin stacking that would otherwise occur. Critical to achieving this calculation is having an appropriate duration of insulin action (DIA) setting in the BC. Unfortunately, the widespread use of inappropriately short DIAs may be causing unrecognized "stacking" of insulin that leads to unexplained hypoglycemic events. Currently, there is no widely accepted definition or value of the DIA for use in a BC. Various shortcomings regarding the selection of an appropriate DIA setting have led to considerable confusion among clinicians and insulin pump users about this important concept. Traditional pharmacological studies used to determine the pharmacodynamic (PD) properties of rapid-acting insulins create a misleading impression that insulin action times (IATs) in daily life vary from 3 to 5 hours and cause IATs to appear more variable than they actually are. These IAT time ranges are not appropriate for use as the DIA time value required to obtain an accurate bolus recommendation from a BC. We highlight the problems that arise when an inappropriately short DIA leads to excessive bolus recommendations, provide a research protocol to accurately measure DIA, and suggest appropriate DIA time recommendations for use in current clinical practice.

Evidence-based clinical use of insulin premixtures

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

Switching from biphasic human insulin to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes: results from the ASEAN subgroup of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in ASEAN type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients switched from biphasic human insulin (BHI) in the non-interventional 24-week A₁chieve study.

METHODS

Indonesian, Malaysian, Filipino and Singaporean patients switched from BHI to BIAsp 30 at their physicians' discretion were included. The incidence of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs), including major hypoglycaemia was the primary endpoint. Changes in hypoglycaemia, glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPPG), lipids, body weight and systolic blood pressure were also evaluated. Quality of life (QoL) was measured using the EQ-5D questionnaire.

RESULTS

For the 465 patients included (mean ± SD age: 56 ± 10.3 years, diabetes duration: 9.7 ± 7.1 years, baseline HbA1c: 9.4 ± 1.8%), the mean pre-study BHI dose was 0.62 ± 0.28 IU/kg and 63.4% were dosing BHI twice daily (bid). The mean baseline BIAsp 30 dose was 0.65 ± 0.27 U/kg, titrated up to 0.71 ± 0.28 U/kg over 24 weeks, and most patients continued bid dosing. No SADRs or major hypoglycaemic episodes were reported. The proportion of patients reporting overall hypoglycaemia decreased significantly from 10.8% at baseline to 3.4% at Week 24 (p < 0.0001). Significant improvements in glycaemic control were noted (HbA1c: -1.4 ± 1.7%, FPG: -56.7 ± 72.5 mg/dL, post-breakfast PPPG: -84.8 ± 82.8 mg/dL, p < 0.001). Mean QoL improved by +6.6 ± 14.6 points (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

BIAsp 30 was well-tolerated and significantly increased glycaemic control in this ASEAN subgroup poorly controlled on BHI.

Insulin aspart has a shorter duration of action than human insulin over a wide dose-range

AIMS

Regular human insulin (RHI) at high doses shows prolongation of its duration of action potentially leading to late postprandial hypoglycaemia. This study compared late metabolic activity (4-12 and 6-12 h post-dosing) and duration of action (time to reach late half-maximal activity) over a range of doses between insulin aspart (IAsp) and RHI.

METHODS

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of subcutaneous IAsp and RHI (6, 12 and 24 (I)U) were compared in 16 healthy subjects in this double-blind, randomized, six-way crossover glucose clamp study.

RESULTS

With increasing doses of both insulins, metabolic activity, insulin exposure, maximum metabolic effect and maximum serum insulin concentration increased linearly. Late metabolic activity was lower for IAsp than RHI at all doses, reaching statistical significance (p < 0.05) for 12 and 24 (I)U. Likewise, IAsp had a shorter duration of action at all doses (p < 0.01) and reached time to 80% of total metabolic activity earlier at doses of 12 and 24 (I)U (p < 0.05). IAsp, compared with RHI, showed a higher maximum metabolic effect at 12 and 24 (I)U (p < 0.0001) and a stronger early metabolic activity for all three doses (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

IAsp showed a shorter duration of action and, particularly with doses of 12 and 24 (I)U, less late metabolic activity than RHI. These properties might contribute to the lower incidence of hypoglycaemia observed with IAsp versus RHI in clinical trials as lower late metabolic activity should decrease the risk of late postprandial hypoglycaemia.

Ten years of experience with biphasic insulin aspart 30: from drug development to the latest clinical findings

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) includes 30% soluble rapid-acting insulin aspart (IAsp) along with an intermediate-acting 70% protaminated IAsp that provides coverage of prandial and basal insulin in a single injection. As BIAsp 30 has been available internationally for 10 years, this review provides a comprehensive overview of the discovery of BIAsp 30, its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile, safety and efficacy outcomes from the clinical trial programme, 'real-life' clinical insights provided by observational study data, and cost effectiveness and quality-of-life information. These studies have demonstrated that BIAsp 30 once or twice daily is an appropriate option for insulin initiation. BIAsp 30 also provides a switch option in patients on biphasic human insulin (BHI). Switching from BHI to BIAsp 30 is associated with improved postprandial glucose (PPG) and reduced nocturnal and major hypoglycaemia, although daytime hypoglycaemia is higher with BIAsp 30. Intensification of BIAsp 30 can be achieved by increasing the number of daily doses up to three times daily with meals. Therefore, BIAsp 30 provides an intensification option for individuals who are not achieving control with basal insulin and would prefer the simplicity of a single biphasic insulin instead of progressing to a basal-bolus approach. BIAsp 30 has a simple dose-titration algorithm, which enables patients to effectively self-titrate their insulin dose. Cost-effectiveness analyses have demonstrated that BIAsp 30 is cost effective or dominant compared with BHI 30 or insulin glargine in a number of healthcare settings. In conclusion, BIAsp 30 offers a simple and flexible option for insulin initiation and intensification that provides coverage of both fasting and prandial glucose.

Premixed insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) versus premixed human insulin 30 (BHI 30) in gestational diabetes mellitus: a randomized open-label controlled study

A randomized, open-label, parallel study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of premixed insulin aspart 30 (biphasic insulin aspart [BIAsp] 30) in managing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). A total of 323 women with GDM registered at a single center in India were randomly assigned to receive 6 U of either BIAsp 30 (Group A) or premixed human insulin (biphasic human insulin [BHI] 30; Group B) in a 1:1 ratio. Subjects performed home glucose monitoring and visited their care provider twice a month. The primary outcome was the degree of neonatal macrosomia (neonatal birth weight >90th percentile). Groups A and B were demographically comparable at study entry. Before labor onset, Groups A and B achieved similar degrees of fasting plasma glucose and postprandial plasma glucose control (92.97 ± 14.44 vs. 95.43 ± 18.96 and 127.59 ± 28.99 vs. 126.98 ± 29.89, respectively; both p = NS). Neonatal macrosomia frequency was 6.3% in Group A and 6.9% in Group B; however, this difference was not statistically significant. By last visit, the required insulin dose was significantly lower for Group A than Group B (19.83 ± 15.75 IU vs. 26.34 ± 23.15 IU, respectively; p = 0.006). BIAsp 30 was noninferior to BHI 30, producing comparable fetal outcomes when administered during pregnancy. Based on final doses, BIAsp 30 may offer greater treat-to-target potential for pregnant women.

Evolution of insulin development: focus on key parameters

INTRODUCTION

Although insulin products and treatment strategies have improved significantly, clinical challenges still exist. Meeting glycemic goals while minimizing glucose variability and hypoglycemia is of utmost importance when considering existing insulin therapies and designing investigational insulin treatments.

METHODS

A PubMed search identified relevant, peer-reviewed articles related to the evolution of insulin development for this nonsystematic review. Search terms included "animal insulin," "synthetic insulin," "regular human insulin," "insulin lispro," "insulin aspart," "insulin glulisine," "insulin glargine," "insulin detemir," "insulin degludec," "biphasic human insulin," "insulin premixes," "ultra-long acting," "oral insulin," and "inhaled insulin."

RESULTS

While the discovery of animal insulin significantly decreased mortality rates from diabetes, issues with availability and large variability between batches led to difficulty in determining proper doses and, subsequently, challenges in achieving glycemic control and avoiding hypoglycemia. The development of synthetic insulin created a more readily available supply, but hypoglycemia still persisted. Recombinant DNA technology solved insulin production problems and allowed for the development of better retarding agents, but pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles still did not mimic natural insulin. Insulin premixes offered improved glycemic control, decreased intrapatient variability versus self-mixing, and required fewer injections per day; however, patient adherence remained a problem due to the need to inject 30-60 minutes before a meal for optimal control. This prompted the development of rapid-acting insulin analogs that could be injected right before a meal and long-acting insulin analogs with flatter time-action profiles.

CONCLUSION

Despite advances in insulin development, a need to provide more physiologic basal insulin coverage and reduce hypoglycemic risk in patients with diabetes remains. Newer insulin analogs and more convenient routes of insulin delivery have shown promising safety and efficacy results. Many patients with diabetes have not reached glycemic goals on currently available insulins. Additional studies are necessary to tailor optimal insulin delivery strategies to specific subsets of diabetes patients.

Intensifying insulin therapy with insulin analog premixes: transitioning from basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Because of the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes, basal insulin alone may not be able to provide sufficient glycemic control over the long term, and thus insulin regimens will typically need to be intensified--especially for controlling postprandial glucose excursions. In patients with type 2 diabetes requiring more intensive intervention, insulin analog premix formulations can offer a simple, effective, and convenient option for tighter management of hyperglycemia in lieu of a traditional basal-bolus regimen.

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Health care providers and patients have lots of choice to treat type 2 diabetes, but the blood glucose improvement is limited. The one therapy with unlimited potential (at least theoretically) is insulin. Many studies show that glucose control is achievable with insulin safely in most patients with type 2 diabetes. Effective diabetes management at the primary care or specialty level requires a belief in the importance of insulin therapy in uncontrolled patients with type 2 diabetes. This review details the theories, observed outcomes, and how-tos regarding insulin use in type 2 diabetes.

A review of modern insulin analogue pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles in type 2 diabetes: improvements and limitations

Insulin analogues have been engineered to enhance desired molecular properties without altering immunogenicity. The majority of insulin pharmacology studies are conducted in healthy volunteers and patients with type 1 diabetes. At present, there are more patients with type 2 than type 1 diabetes receiving insulin treatment. As the responsibility for initiating insulin therapy in these patients continues to shift to primary care, it will be important for general practitioners to understand the different pharmacological properties of insulin preparations in patients with type 2 diabetes, so that treatment can be adapted to meet patients' physiological and lifestyle requirements. The purpose of this review is to summarize pharmacological studies of insulin analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes. Faster onset of action of rapid acting insulin analogues has improved postprandial glycaemic control. Biphasic insulin analogues are associated with a lower incidence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared with human biphasic preparations and allow for intensification from once to twice or thrice daily dosing. More predictable glycaemic-lowering profiles of the insulin analogues have also led to reductions in nocturnal hypoglycaemia, particularly comparing long-acting insulin analogues with protaminated human insulin. Enhancing insulin self-association and reversible binding with albumin has led to further reductions in variability. However, improvements can still be made. Effective once daily clinical dosing of long-acting insulin analogues is not possible in all patients. In addition, the protaminated component of biphasic insulin analogues do not provide the duration of action or profile for physiological basal insulin replacement and neither insulin glargine nor insulin detemir are suitable for mixing with other insulin analogues as this would substantially alter their pharmacokinetic properties. Enhancing the pharmacological predictability and extending the duration of action could simplify insulin titration and further reduce the incidence of hypoglycaemia.

Bioavailability and variability of biphasic insulin mixtures

Absorption of subcutaneously administered insulin is associated with considerable variability. Some of this variability was quantitatively explained for both soluble insulin and insulin suspensions in a recent contribution to this journal (Søeborg et al., 2009). In the present article, the absorption kinetics for mixtures of insulins is described. This requires that the bioavailability of the different insulins is considered. A short review of insulin bioavailability and a description of the subcutaneous depot thus precede the presentation of possible mechanisms associated with subcutaneous insulin degradation. Soluble insulins are assumed to be degraded enzymatically in the subcutaneous tissue. Suspended insulin crystals form condensed heaps that are assumed to be degraded from their surface by invading macrophages. It is demonstrated how the shape of the heaps affects the absorption kinetics. Variations in heap formation thus explain some of the additional variability associated with suspended insulins (e.g. NPH insulins) compared to soluble insulins. The heap model also describes how increasing concentrations of suspended insulins lead to decreasing bioavailability and lower values of Cmax. Together, the findings constitute a comprehensive, quantitative description of insulin absorption after subcutaneous administration. The model considers different concentrations and doses of soluble insulin, including rapid acting insulin analogues, insulin suspensions and biphasic insulin mixtures. The results can be used in both the development of novel insulin products and in the planning of the treatment of insulin dependent diabetic patients.