Comparative evaluation of biphasic insulin with metformin and triple oral hypoglycemic agents (OHA) in type 2 diabetes patients

Introduction

The prevalence of secondary failure to oral hypoglycemic agents among type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients ranges from 30 to 60%. The alternative approaches to overcome this issue are either switching to triple oral hypoglycemic agents (OHA) or intensifying the regimen by adding insulin.

Objective

To compare the glycemic control achieved with biphasic insulin plus metformin and triple OHA in T2DM patients who were not adequately controlled with two OHA regimen.

Methods

A qualitative prospective study was conducted at Asir diabetes center, Abha, KSA. Poorly controlled T2DM patients with two OHA for at least 1 year with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) >7.0% were included. Subjects were divided into group I (a third OHA was added to the existing two OHA regimen) and group II (switched over to Biphasic insulin and metformin). At baseline and 3-month intervals, level of HbA1C, Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG), Postprandial Plasma Glucose (PPG), Blood Pressure (BP), lipid profile and hypoglycemic episodes were obtained and evaluated for one year.

Results

41.1% of patients were in group I and 58.9% were in group II. At the end of the study, there was a significant reduction in HbA1c in group II subjects comparing to group I (8.18 ± 1.32 vs 8.79 ± 1.81, p = 0.0238). FPG and PPG were improved also in group II. The mean body weight increased from baseline in group II is +4.48 kg and decreased from baseline in group I (−0.46 kg). 11.3% from group I and 23.7% from group II reported hypoglycaemic incidences.

Conclusion

Biphasic insulin and metformin regimen could be an appropriate therapeutic option for achieving good glycemic control compared with triple OHA in patients with two OHA failure.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

FUNDING

Eli Lilly.

The study of once- and twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with sitagliptin, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 without sitagliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on sitagliptin and metformin-The Sit2Mix trial

AIMS

Investigate efficacy and tolerability of intensifying diabetes treatment with once- or twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) added to sitagliptin, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 without sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on sitagliptin.

METHODS

Open-label, three-arm, 24-week trial; 582 insulin-naïve patients were randomized to twice-daily BIAsp 30+sitagliptin (BIAsp BID+Sit), once-daily BIAsp 30+sitagliptin (BIAsp QD+Sit) or twice-daily BIAsp 30 without sitagliptin (BIAsp BID), all with metformin.

RESULTS

After 24 weeks, HbA1c reduction (%) was superior with BIAsp BID+Sit vs. BIAsp QD+Sit (BIAsp BID+Sit minus BIAsp QD+Sit difference: -0.36 [95% CI -0.54; -0.17], P<0.001) and BIAsp BID (BIAsp BID minus BIAsp BID+Sit difference: 0.24 [0.06; 0.43], P=0.01). Observed final HbA1c values were 6.9%, 7.2% and 7.1% (baseline 8.4%), and 59.8%, 46.5% and 49.7% of patients achieved HbA1c <7.0%, respectively. Confirmed hypoglycaemia was lower with BIAsp QD+Sit vs. BIAsp BID (P=0.015); rate: 1.17 (BIAsp QD+Sit), 1.50 (BIAsp BID+Sit) and 2.24 (BIAsp BID) episodes/patient-year. Difference in bodyweight change favoured BIAsp QD+Sit vs. both BID groups (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding BIAsp 30 to patients with T2D poorly controlled with sitagliptin and metformin is efficacious and well tolerated; however, while BIAsp BID+Sit showed superior glycaemic control, BIAsp QD+Sit had a lower rate of hypoglycaemia and showed no weight gain.