Lifetime risk of cardiovascular-renal disease in type 2 diabetes: a population-based study in 473399 individuals

Background

Lifetime risks of cardiovascular (CV) and renal diseases are high, particularly in type 2 diabetes (T2D), but rarely studied together, and relative disease contributions are unknown. Knowledge of lifetime risk of cardiovascular-renal disease (CVRD) will better reflect disease burden in T2D.

Purpose

To investigate the lifetime risks (LTRs) of composite and individual components of major adverse reno-cardiovascular events, MARCE in T2D patients.

Method

In a population-based cohort study using national electronic health records, we studied 473399 individuals aged 45–99 years with T2D in England 2007–2018. The LTR of composite and individual components of MARCE (including CV death and CVRD: heart failure, HF; chronic kidney disease stage 3 and above, CKD; myocardial infarction, MI; stroke or peripheral artery disease, PAD) were estimated. LTRs by baseline CVRD comorbidity status were compared with individuals free from CVRD at baseline, accounting for the competing risk of death.

Results

Among T2D patients aged ≥45 years, the LTR of MARCE was 80% for individuals free from CVRD at baseline. LTR of MARCE was 97%, 93%, 98%, 89% and 91% for individuals with specific CVRD comorbidities for HF, CKD, MI, stroke and PAD, respectively at baseline. Within the CVRD-free cohort, LTR of CKD was highest at 54%, followed by CV death (41%), HF (29%), stroke (20%), MI (19%) and PAD (9%). Compared to CVRD-free, HF, MI and CKD at baseline were associated with the highest LTR of MARCE and its component diseases (Table).

Conclusion

The lifetime risk of CV disease and CKD in T2D patients is estimated to be over 60% and 50% respectively (1–3). When considered together, the LTR of MARCE is 80% in CVRD-free T2D patients, while nearly all those with T2D and HF will develop MARCE over their lifetime. Of the individual components of MARCE, LTR of CKD and HF were the highest among CVRD-free T2D patients. Preventive measures in T2D patients should be a priority in clinical practice to mitigate the burden of these complications.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): AstraZeneca

Clinical characteristics and patient treatment satisfaction with Humalog U-200 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: an observational study

Background: There are limited data on the real-world evidence of Humalog 200 units/ml KwikPen (U-200) insulin. We assessed the use of U-200 insulin in UK routine clinical practice to provide information on clinical characteristics, treatment satisfaction and short-term clinical outcomes. Methods: Nine patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated U-200 in secondary care and a further 12 identified from primary care electronic database were enrolled. A treatment satisfaction questionnaire was administered to the 19 secondary care patients. Follow-up data on clinical parameters were collected at 3 and 6 months following initial U-200 insulin administration and the data were used to assess changes in clinical outcomes from baseline. Results: Secondary care patients had a mean age 60 ± 11 years, mean HbA1c of 8.6% ± 1.3% and a mean BMI of 39.7 ± 5.3 kg/m² at baseline. Primary care database patients had a mean age 57 ± 13 years, mean HbA1c 10.3% ± 1.7 and a mean BMI 42.3 ± 3.8 kg/m². The nine participants' responses to the questionnaire suggested a high preference for U-200 over a previous mealtime insulin pen (PMIP). On average, the patients agreed that U-200 was quicker to inject, had a better controlled home blood glucose reading and less discomfort at the injection site compared to a PMIP. Patients were willing to continue with their U-200 treatment. No significant HbA1c reduction was observed at 3 months in the secondary care group (-0.5%), but marked significant reduction in HbA1c was seen at 3 months in the primary care dataset to (-2.8%; p < .0004). There was also some suggestion of weight loss in both the secondary and primary care groups. Conclusion: Humalog U-200 insulin users were comprised mainly of older patients with diabetes complications and high HbA1c levels at the time of U-200 initiation. Overall, U-200 improved patients' satisfaction with diabetes treatment and short-term metabolic outcomes.

Relationship between HbA1c and all-cause mortality in older patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: results of a large UK Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

our aim was to study the relationship between HbA1c and cardiovascular morbidity and all-cause mortality among older insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) after adjustment for multiple confounders.

METHODS

data for 4589 adults with T2D (>65 years) on insulin treatment were sourced from 532 UK General Practices via the Health Improvement Network (THIN) database. Cox proportional hazard models and Kaplan-Meier estimators were fitted to derive the hazards of all-cause mortality by HbA1c categories (<6.5, 6.5-7.4, 7.5-8.4, 8.5-9.4, 9.5-10.4, 10.5-11.4%; and 11.5% and above) after 5 years of follow-up following insulin initiation.

RESULTS

we observed a U-shaped relationship between all-cause mortality and HbA1c, with the lowest risk seen in the HbA1c range of 6.5-7.4% and marked increased in risk with HbA1c > 11%. The highest mortality risks of 31 and 40% were significantly associated with the lowest (<6.5%) and highest (11.5% and above) HbA1c categories: aHR: 1.31; (95%CI: 1.10-1.56; P = 0.002) and aHR: 1.40; (95%CI: 1.01-1.96; P = 0.039), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

both low and high HbA1c were associated with increased all-cause mortality, among older patients with insulin-treated T2D. This cohort study supports the need for individualisation of care and suggests better outcomes with HbA1c levels around 6.5-7.4% and markedly excess risk with HbA1c > 11.

Effect of adding GLP-1RA on mortality, cardiovascular events, and metabolic outcomes among insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: A large retrospective UK cohort study

BACKGROUND

Combining a GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) with insulin is often an effective treatment strategy for overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), but little is known about the longer-term effects on cardiovascular and mortality outcomes in routine clinical practice in the United Kingdom. We therefore compared the times to a major nonfatal cardiovascular (CV) event and all-cause mortality among overweight patients with T2D treated with insulin alone versus insulin+GLP-1RA in a large UK database.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 18,227 patients with insulin-treated T2D from UK General Practices using The Health Improvement Network database. The 5-year risk of mortality and a 3-point composite of all-cause mortality and nonfatal CV outcomes (myocardial infarction or stroke) was compared between a propensity score-matched cohort of those on insulin alone (n=1,793) and insulin+GLP-1RA (n=1,793), irrespective of other diabetes therapies, providing a total of 12,682 person-years of follow-up. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the hazard ratios of the outcomes.

RESULTS

Hemoglobin A1c reduction was similar between both groups (-0.42 vs -0.33%, P=.089 at 12 months). Overall, 3-point composite events of all-cause mortality and CV events (major adverse cardiovascular even) were 98 versus 55 for the insulin alone versus insulin+GLP-1RA groups, respectively (14.7 vs 9.2 per 1,000 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.98; P=.038). Corresponding composite nonfatal CV events were 33 versus 28 (6.0 vs 5.6 per 1,000 person-years; aHR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.41-1.42; P=.393), whereas all-cause mortality events were 49 versus 13 (6.9 vs 2.0 per 1,000 person-years; aHR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.17-0.73; P=.005).

CONCLUSION

Based on a large UK cohort in routine clinical practice, adding a GLP-1RA to insulin therapy is associated with a reduction in risk of composite CV events and all-cause mortality but a nonsignificant higher risk of hospitalization for heart failure in overweight patients with T2D.

Association between insulin-induced weight change and CVD mortality: Evidence from a historic cohort study of 18,814 patients in UK primary care

BACKGROUND

This study explores the association of insulin-induced weight (wt) gain on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) following insulin initiation using real-world data.

METHODS

A historical cohort study was performed in 18,814 adults with insulin-treated T2D derived from the UK The Health Improvement Network database. Based on the average weight change of 5 kg, 1 year postinsulin initiation, patients were grouped into 5 categories (>5 kg wt loss; 1.0-5.0 kg wt loss; no wt change; 1.0-5.0 kg wt gain; >5.0 kg wt gain) and followed-up for 5 years. Cox proportional hazard models and Kaplan-Meier estimators were fitted to estimate the hazards of a 3-point composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality between categories.

RESULTS

The median age was 62.8 (IQR: 52.3-71.8) years, HbA_1c : 8.6% (IQR: 7.4-9.8) and mean BMI: 31.8 (6.5) kg/m² . The 5 year probability of survival differed significantly within the wt-change categories (log-rank test P value = .0005). Only 1963 composite events occurred. Compared with the weight-neutral group, the risk of composite events was 31% greater in the >5 kg wt-loss group (aHR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.68), the same in the 1.0 to 5.0 kg wt-gain category, but nonsignificantly increased in the 1.0 to 5.0 kg wt loss (15%) and >5.0 kg wt gain (13%) categories, respectively. In the obese subgroup, this risk was 50% (aHR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.08-2.08) more in the >5 kg weight-loss group compared with the weight-neutral group.

CONCLUSION

Insulin-induced weight gain did not translate to adverse cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in patients with T2D. These data provide reassurance on the cardiovascular safety of insulin patients with T2D.

Premixed vs basal-bolus insulin regimen in Type 2 diabetes: comparison of clinical outcomes from randomized controlled trials and real-world data

AIM

To evaluate the concordance between data derived from randomized controlled trial (RCT) and real-world estimates of HbA_1c and weight change after 24 weeks of initiation of a basal-bolus compared with a premixed insulin regimen in people with Type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Data eight RCTs were pooled after a systematic review of studies examining basal-bolus (n = 1893) or premixed (n = 1517) regimens. Real-world data were extracted from the UK primary care dataset for people on basal-bolus (n = 7483) or premixed insulin regimens (n=10 744). The mean differences between HbA_1c and weight from baseline were calculated using t-tests, while analysis of variance was used to compare the two treatment regimens. Linear regression analyses were used to determine the predictors of this change.

RESULTS

Both insulin regimens were associated with HbA_1c reductions (real-world data -0.28%; RCT data, -1.4%) and weight gain (real-world data, +0.27 kg; RCT data, +2.96 kg) but there were no significant differences between basal-bolus and premixed insulin. Discordances in the pattern of treatment response were observed, however, between real-world and RCT data for both insulin regimens. For any given baseline HbA_1c concentration, the change in HbA_1c in the RCTs was greater than in real-world conditions and for those with baseline weight above ~60 kg, RCT data showed overall weight gain in contrast to slight weight loss in the real-world population. Lastly, for both randomized controlled trial and real-world populations, while greater baseline weight was associated with reduced response to treatment, the association was much steeper in the RCT than in the real-world population. In addition, greater baseline weight was associated with greater weight reductions in both premixed insulin and basal-bolus insulin regimens, although to a lesser extent with the latter.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight specific discrepancies in the HbA_1c reduction and weight change in insulin regimen between real world versus RCT populations; with greater reduction in HbA_1c and greater increase in weight observed in the RCT population than in the real-world population. Also, the basal-bolus regimens in both real-world and RCT populations showed greater reduction in HbA_1c compared to the premix regimen (though more marked in RCTs), while the premix regimen showed greater increase in weight in real-world, as against basal-bolus in the RCT population.

Effects of background statin therapy on glycemic response and cardiovascular events following initiation of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: a large UK cohort study

Aim

Statins may increase the risk of new-onset diabetes and adversely affect glycaemic control, but their effects on the glycemic response and mortality outcomes following commencement of insulin therapy in patients with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) are unclear.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 12,725 insulin initiators with T2D using The Health Improvement Network (THIN) UK database. Changes in HbA1c at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months, and the 5-year risk of mortality and (3-point) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), were compared between prior users (n = 10,682) and non-users (n = 2043) of statin therapy who were newly commenced on insulin treatment. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the hazard ratios of the different outcomes.

Results

Mean age of the cohort was 58.7 ± 14.0 years (51% male) and mean baseline HbA1c was 8.7 ± 1.8%. A greater initial reduction in HbA1c was observed following insulin initiation in the non-users of statins compared with the users, which was significant in the short term (−0.34% vs −0.26% at 6 months; mean diff = −0.09%, p = 0.004) but not in the long term: −0.31% versus −0.35% at 3 years (mean diff = 0.05%, p = 0.344). CV events (3-point MACE) were 878 versus 217 in statin users versus non-users (20.7 vs 30.9 per 1000 person-years; adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) 1.36 (95% CI 1.15–1.62; p < 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis of individual statins, HbA1c was higher throughout the study duration with all statins relative to non-users of statin therapy (p < 0.05). The aHRs for 3-point MACE for atorvastatin, simvastatin, rosuvastatin and pravastatin were 0.82 (95% CI 0.68–0.98), 0.67 (0.55–0.82), 0.56 (0.39–0.81) and 0.78 (0.60–1.01), respectively.

Conclusions

Following initiation of insulin therapy in patients with T2D in routine care, concurrent use of a statin was associated with less good glycaemic control in the short-term but a much lower risk of major adverse CV events.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12933-017-0587-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison of cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes on insulin versus non-insulin glucose-lowering therapies (GLTs): A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

To compare the cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes of Insulin versus non-insulin glucose lowering therapy (GLT).

METHODS

We included randomised control trials (RCTs) which randomised patients aged >18years with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) to insulin vs non-insulin GLT. We used risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI) to analyse the treatment effects of dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (with 95% CI) for continuous outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs with 19,300 participants. There was no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality and CV events between the groups (RR=1.01; 95%CI: 0.96-1.06; p=0.69). In 16 trials, insulin showed greater efficacy in glycaemic control (mean diff=-0.20; 95%CI: -0.28 to -0.11) but the proportion achieving HbA1c level of either ⩽7.0% or 7.4% (53 or 57mmol/mol) was similar in both (OR=1.55; 95%CI=0.92-2.62). The non-insulin group had a significant reduction in weight (mean diff=-3.41; 95%CI: -4.50 to -2.32) and an increase in the proportion of adverse events (54.7% vs 45.3%, p=0.044), but the insulin group showed an (RR=1.90; 95%CI: 1.44-2.51) increased risk of hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality and adverse cardiovascular (CV) events between Insulin and non-insulin GLTs. Insulin was associated with superior reduction in HbA1c; least reduction in weight and higher risk of hypoglycaemia. Both showed similar proportion of patients achieving HbA1c target. Non-insulin GLTs were associated with a higher risk in reported adverse drug events.

DPP-4 inhibitor therapy and bone fractures in people with Type 2 diabetes - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Fracture risk is higher in older adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Oral glucose-lowering medications have different effects on bone metabolism. The purpose of this study is to appraise the evidence from literature and determine the effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor on the risk of developing bone fractures.

METHODS

Using Boolean search terms, the search strategy combined synonyms of 'fracture' and 'DPP-4 inhibitor'. Comprehensive electronic databases which include EMBASE, MEDLINE, the EMA and the WHO ICTRP databases were searched for randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies which compared a DPP-4 inhibitor with an active comparator or placebo amongst patients with T2DM. Meta-analysis was performed to compare DPP-4 inhibitor with either an active comparator or a placebo. The outcome measure was the presence or absence of fracture.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5061 records relating to fractures and DPP-4 inhibitor, from which 51 eligible RCTs were selected for meta-analysis (N=36,402). Thirty-seven (37) studies compared DPP-4 inhibitor with placebo (n=23,974), while fourteen (14) studies (n=12,428) compared DPP-4 inhibitor with an active comparator. The mean age of patients was 57.5±5.4years, the average glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was 8.2%, while the average BMI was 30±2kg/m(2). Overall, there was no significant association of fracture events with the use of DPP-4 inhibitor when compared with placebo (OR; 0.82, 95% CI 0.57-1.16, P=0.9) or when DPP-4 inhibitor was compared against an active comparator (OR; 1.59, 95% CI 0.91-2.80, P=0.9).

CONCLUSION

This study offers a larger, up-to-date review of the subject. The meta-analysis showed that there was no significant association between DPP-4 inhibitor use and the incidence of fractures.

Determinants of Glycemic Response to Add-On Therapy with a Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using a United Kingdom Primary Care Database

BACKGROUND

Apart from baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), little is known about clinical parameters that affect glycemic response to a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor when used in routine clinical practice. We aimed to use a large primary care database to assess the variability in response to a DPP4 inhibitor when used as add-on therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on 25,386 patients with type 2 diabetes, newly treated with a DPP4 inhibitor (2007-2013), were sourced from a United Kingdom general practice database via the Health Improvement Network database. Baseline clinical parameters of patients (n = 13,525) for whom a DPP4 inhibitor was added because of suboptimal glucose control (HbA1c >7%) were compared with 12-month follow-up data. An optimum response to the DPP4 inhibitor was defined as an HbA1c level of <7.0% at 12 months. Descriptive analyses and unadjusted comparisons using χ(2) and t tests were carried out to ascertain glycemic and body weight responses to treatment intensification with a DPP4 inhibitor. Predictor of response analyses were performed using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,708 (13%) of our study population achieved an HbA1c level of <7%. Intensification with a DPP4 inhibitor was associated with significant reductions in HbA1c (-0.5%), body weight (-0.9 kg), and total cholesterol (-0.1 mmol/L) (P < 0.001). Independent predictors of achieving optimal HbA1c target of <7% included the use of metformin (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.18-3.04) and use of metformin plus sulfonylurea (1.42; 95% CI, 1.21-1.68) as opposed to no use. The independent predictors of suboptimal glucose control included a higher baseline HbA1c level (OR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.61-0.68) (i.e., 1% increase in HbA1c was associated with a 36% reduced likelihood of response), longer diabetes duration (per every year increase) (OR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88), and intensification therapy below 9 months compared with 9-12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant variability in glycemic response to a DPP4 inhibitor in routine practice. The best effect is achieved as add-on to metformin and metformin plus sulfonylurea, but responses are significantly lower with increased diabetes duration and among patients with high HbA1c levels at baseline.

Important differences in the durability of glycaemic response among second-line treatment options when added to metformin in type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study

IMPORTANCE

There is limited information about the durability of glycaemic control when different oral glucose-lowering therapies (GLTs) are used as add-on treatments to metformin (MET) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

OBJECTIVE

To compare time to treatment failure between different classes of oral GLT when used as second line (add-on) treatments to MET monotherapy at HbA1c ≥ 7.5%.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study on 20,070 patients who were newly treated with a sulphonylurea (SU), dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor or thiazolidinedione (TZD) following MET therapy failure (2007-2014). Patients' data was sourced from UK General Practices via The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database. The risk of dual therapy failure was compared between three treatment groups: MET + SU (reference group, n = 15,508), MET + DPP-4 inhibitor (n = 3,080) and MET + TZD (n = 1,482). Follow-up was until treatment substitution or intensification with a 3rd GLT, or for up to 5 years (totalling 46,430 person-years). Propensity score weighting and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were employed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Risk of dual therapy failure was compared between treatment groups while adjusting for baseline covariates.

RESULTS

Unadjusted survival analysis showed the incidence of dual therapy failure at 1 year was 15% with SU, 23% with DPP-4 inhibitor and 8% with TZD. Corresponding failure rates at 2 years were 26, 38 and 12%, respectively. Adjusted multivariate models showed that, compared to the SU group, adding a DPP-4 inhibitor was associated with an increased risk of treatment failure (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR, 1.58; 95% CI: 1.48-1.68), while adding a TZD was associated with a reduced hazard (aHR, 0.45; 95% CI: 0.41-0.50). Baseline parameters associated with an increased hazard of intensification included HbA1c, diabetes duration, gender, smoking status and the use of statins.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In routine clinical practice, adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to MET is associated with an increased, earlier requirement for treatment intensification compared to adding an SU or TZD. Adding a TZD to MET resulted in the most durable glycaemic response. Key messages The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has suggested that the durability of glycaemic response after treatment intensification is best investigated using well-designed long-term observational studies. In routine clinical practice, among patients with T2DM receiving a second line glucose lowering treatment as add-on to MET, the addition of a Thiazolidinediones is associated with the most durable glycaemic response, followed by a Sulfonylurea and then a DPP-4 inhibitor. Factors associated with earlier dual therapy failure included concomitant use of statin therapy, being female, a smoker, those with longer diabetes duration and higher baseline HbA1c levels. The addition of a Thiazolidinediones was associated with significant weight gain (1.8 kg, p < 0.001), while add-on DPP-4 inhibitor produced a significant weight reduction (-1.8 kg, p < 0.001). A very small reduction in body weight was observed with the SU (-0.2 kg, p < 0.001).

Comparative Efficacy of Adding Sitagliptin to Metformin, Sulfonylurea or Dual Therapy: A Propensity Score-Weighted Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of co-administering sitagliptin to patients with inadequate glycemic control following treatment with metformin (MET), sulfonylurea (SU), or MET + SU.

METHODS

A cohort of 25,386 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1C] >53 mmol/mol or 7%), newly treated with sitagliptin between 2007 and 2013, was sourced from UK general practices via The Health Improvement Network database. Among these, eligible patients were segregated into three groups: MET (n = 3364), SU (n = 509), or MET + SU therapy (n = 5929). The relative efficacy of sitagliptin added to SU or MET + SU compared with sitagliptin added to MET monotherapy was assessed with regards to HbA1c and body weight changes from baseline up to 52 weeks. The glycemic efficacy was a measure of average treatment effects obtained from multivariable linear regression models and propensity score-matching analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 9802 patients were included in the study. Overall, addition of sitagliptin 100 mg once daily resulted in 5.5 mmol/mol (0.5%) HbA1c reduction (P < 0.001) and 0.8 kg weight reduction at 1 year (P < 0.001). Efficacy was similar across the treatment groups, but in patients with baseline HbA1c ≥9% adding sitagliptin to MET + SU produced a significantly smaller reduction in HbA1c when compared to the reference group MET (MET + SU vs. MET only: -0.5% vs. -0.7%, P < 0.001). The mean HbA1c reduction from baseline within this subgroup of patients was not significantly different between SU and MET monotherapies (-0.8% vs. -0.7%, respectively, P = 0.4). Across treatment groups, HbA1c reductions with add-on sitagliptin occurred after 24 weeks of treatment with a peak reduction occurring between 36 and 48 weeks, and receded after week 48.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world general practice setting, sitagliptin was effective in patients with suboptimal glycemic control with MET, SU or dual therapy, maximum between 36 and 48 weeks, but in patients with HbA1c of >9% receiving MET + SU therapy, adding sitagliptin, as a third agent, conferred minimal benefit.

Biphasic vs basal bolus insulin regimen in Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

We aim to evaluate the effects of biphasic insulin compared with a basal bolus insulin regimen on glycaemic control, total daily insulin requirements, risk of hypoglycaemia, weight and quality of life in patients with diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for studies up to November 2013. Interventions that lasted for more than four weeks and were reported in English were considered for the review. Meta-analysis was performed on eligible studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trial studies, involving 4384 patients, were included. Greater HbA1c reductions were seen with basal-bolus compared with biphasic insulin regimens, between-treatment weighted mean difference (WMD) for baseline-to-endpoint changes in HbA1c was -0.2% (95% CI: -0.36 to -0.03) [-2.2 (-3.9, -0.3) mmol/mol]. In non-insulin naïve (n = 8) patients with Type 2 diabetes, HbA1c reduction was greater in the basal bolus group; WMD = -0.22% (95% CI: -0.42 to -0.02) [-2.4 (-4.6, -0.2) mmol/mol], but in insulin naïve patients (n = 5), HbA1c was equivalent between the two regimens; WMD (-0.15% (95% CI: -0.52 to 0.22) [-1.6 (-5.7, 2.4) mmol/mol]. Total daily insulin requirements and weight were increased with both regimens, whereas hypoglycaemia rates were comparable between the two regimens. Greater HbA1c reduction was observed in the basal bolus group compared with the biphasic regimen at the expense of higher daily insulin requirements and weight gain, but with no greater risk of hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Biphasic and basal bolus regimens were equally effective in reducing HbA1c in insulin naïve patients with Type 2 diabetes and both regimens are equally effective for initiating insulin in Type 2 diabetes.

Clinical use and efficacy of biphasic insulin lispro 50/50 in people with insulin treated diabetes - a nationwide evaluation of clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate the metabolic effects of biphasic insulin lispro 50/50 in routine clinical practice. A total of 229 patients who were ≥18 years old with diabetes, newly treated with biphasic insulin lispro 50/50, were sourced from six secondary care services in England.

METHODS

Detailed clinical parameters were compared at baseline, and 3 and 6 months post-initiation. Responders was defined as those with HbA1c <7.5% (58 mmol/mol) and/or an HbA1c reduction of >1% (11 mmol/mol) at 6 months.

RESULTS

HbA1c showed significant reduction: -0.93% (-10 mmol/mol) and -1.2% (-13 mmol/mol) at 3 and 6 months respectively, while no significant change was noted for all the other parameters. When analyzed according to frequencies of injections/day, the greatest reduction was observed with the three times a day regimen (-1.0% [-11.0 mmol/mol] and -1.3% [-14.6 mmol/mol] at 3 and 6 months respectively). HbA1c reduction was greatest in the group who previously received a basal-bolus insulin regimen: (-0.8% [-9.0 mmol/mol] and -1.5% [-16.2 mmol/mol] at 3 and 6 months respectively). Reduction in weight was observed at 3 months (-1.8 kg ± 4.3) only for those who were previously on a basal-bolus insulin regimen. Insulin doses increased following conversion to biphasic insulin lispro 50/50, irrespective of the types of insulin used prior to biphasic insulin lispro 50/50, but this was not associated with weight gain. The independent predictors of response to biphasic insulin lispro 50/50 were baseline HbA1c, Caucasian, presence of nephropathy, prior use of basal-bolus insulin and prior use of other premixed combination.

CONCLUSION

Biphasic insulin lispro 50/50 is therefore an effective therapeutic option for achieving glycemic control in patients with suboptimal HbA1c levels, especially among those who were previously on a basal-bolus insulin regimen and those who received it three times daily, with a neutral effect on weight parameters.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study of routine clinical practice and is therefore limited by allocation bias and some missing data. Information on rates of hypoglycemia and quality of life are not available.

Obesity independently predicts responders to biphasic insulin 50/50 (Humalog Mix50 and Insuman Comb 50) following conversion from other insulin regimens: a retrospective cohort study

AIMS

This study aims to examine the metabolic effects of intensification or initiation of insulin treatment with biphasic insulin 50/50, and determine the predictors of responders or non-responders to biphasic insulin 50/50.

METHODS

A cohort of 2183 patients ≥18 years with diabetes, newly treated with biphasic insulin 50/50 between January 2000 and May 2012, were sourced from UK General Practices via The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database. Baseline clinical parameters of 1267 patients with suboptimal glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) >7.5% (>58 mmol/mol) who had received background insulin regimens for at least 6 months preceding biphasic insulin 50/50 were compared against 12-month outcome data. Responders were defined as those with HbA1c <7.5% (58 mmol/mol) and/or HbA1c reduction of ≥1% (10.9 mmol/mol) at 12 months. Comparative analyses were carried out on subgroups of 237 patients initiating insulin therapy with biphasic insulin 50/50, and between users of the Humalog Mix50 (HM50) versus Insuman Comb 50 (IC50). Associations were examined using t tests and multivariate logistic regression techniques.

RESULTS

The overall mean HbA1c reduction at 12 months as a result of intensification and initiation with biphasic insulin 50/50 was 0.5% (5.5 mmol/mol) and 1.6% (17.5 mmol/mol), respectively. Adjusted ORs show obesity (body mass index >30 kg/m(2)), treatment duration for ≥9 months, and baseline HbA1c are independent determinants of responders. In addition, stratified for baseline HbA1c levels, HM50 was associated with better HbA1c outcome compared with IC50.

CONCLUSIONS

biphasic insulin 50/50 is effective for achieving glycemic control in suboptimal HbA1c levels, especially among obese patients with insulin-treated diabetes. Stratified for baseline HbA1c, HM50 was associated with improved HbA1c outcome compared with IC50.

Care in specialist medical and mental health unit compared with standard care for older people with cognitive impairment admitted to general hospital: randomised controlled trial (NIHR TEAM trial)

OBJECTIVE

To develop and evaluate a best practice model of general hospital acute medical care for older people with cognitive impairment.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial, adapted to take account of constraints imposed by a busy acute medical admission system.

SETTING

Large acute general hospital in the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

600 patients aged over 65 admitted for acute medical care, identified as "confused" on admission.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised to a specialist medical and mental health unit, designed to deliver best practice care for people with delirium or dementia, or to standard care (acute geriatric or general medical wards). Features of the specialist unit included joint staffing by medical and mental health professionals; enhanced staff training in delirium, dementia, and person centred dementia care; provision of organised purposeful activity; environmental modification to meet the needs of those with cognitive impairment; delirium prevention; and a proactive and inclusive approach to family carers.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

number of days spent at home over the 90 days after randomisation.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

structured non-participant observations to ascertain patients' experiences; satisfaction of family carers with hospital care. When possible, outcome assessment was blind to allocation.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in days spent at home between the specialist unit and standard care groups (median 51 v 45 days, 95% confidence interval for difference -12 to 24; P=0.3). Median index hospital stay was 11 versus 11 days, mortality 22% versus 25% (-9% to 4%), readmission 32% versus 35% (-10% to 5%), and new admission to care home 20% versus 28% (-16% to 0) for the specialist unit and standard care groups, respectively. Patients returning home spent a median of 70.5 versus 71.0 days at home (-6.0 to 6.5). Patients on the specialist unit spent significantly more time with positive mood or engagement (79% v 68%, 2% to 20%; P=0.03) and experienced more staff interactions that met emotional and psychological needs (median 4 v 1 per observation; P<0.001). More family carers were satisfied with care (overall 91% v 83%, 2% to 15%; P=0.004), and severe dissatisfaction was reduced (5% v 10%, -10% to 0%; P=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Specialist care for people with delirium and dementia improved the experience of patients and satisfaction of carers, but there were no convincing benefits in health status or service use. Patients' experience and carers' satisfaction might be more appropriate measures of success for frail older people approaching the end of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials NCT01136148.