Bioequivalence of Reference and Biosimilar Preparations of Premixed Biphasic Insulin Aspart: A Comparative Clamp Study

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 is a premixed formulation containing a soluble fraction of insulin aspart (30%) and a protamine-crystallized fraction (70%) that was developed to combine the rapid-acting and prolonged advantages of commercially available insulins. The aim of this bioequivalence study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of GP-bi-asp and Novo-bi-asp, and evaluate the pharmacodynamic (PD) properties as well as the safety of these drugs in the hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp (HEC) procedure. This was a phase 1, randomized, double-blind, 2-sequence, 2-period crossover study. Thirty-four male volunteers who met the inclusion criteria underwent the HEC procedure following a single subcutaneous injection of 0.4 IU/kg of either GP-bi-asp or Novo-bi-asp in the abdomen. After the treatment, the subjects' plasma glucose levels were monitored for 24 hours and the glucose infusion rate (GIR) was adjusted to maintain the target blood glucose level. The PD parameters were calculated using GIR values. Insulin aspart concentrations were measured in blood plasma using validated ELISA assays to evaluate the PK parameters of the investigated drugs. The 90% confidence intervals for the geometric mean ratios of PK (Cins and AUCins-T ) parameters of Gp-bi-asp and Novo-bi-asp were close to 100% and within the 80%-125% limits for establishing bioequivalence. The safety profiles of both drugs were also comparable.

The efficacy and safety of GP40081 (insulin aspart biphasic 30) compared with NovoMix® 30 in Type 2 diabetes patients

Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of insulin Aspart-Mix biosimilar candidate GP40081 (GP-Asp30) compared with NovoMix® 30 (NN-Asp30). Materials & methods: In a randomized open-label, active-controlled, 26-week non-inferiority clinical trial 264 patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily GP-Asp30 or NN-Asp30. The primary safety end point was the immune response rate. Efficacy outcomes were a mean change in HbA1c (primary), frequency of achieving a glycemic g fasting plasma glucose levels, 7-point glucose profiles, and insulin doses. Results: The immune response developed in 10/126 (8%) participants in the GP-Asp30 group and in 10/125 (8%) participants in the NN-Asp30 group (p = 1.000). The mean difference in HbA1c change between groups was 0.12 (95%CI [-0.14, 0.38]). Other secondary efficacy and safety outcomes weren't statistically different between the two groups. Conclusion: GP-Asp30 demonstrated similar safety and efficacy compared with NN-Asp30 and may be considered a biosimilar insulin.

Advancing therapy with iGlarLixi versus premix BIAsp 30 in basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: Design and baseline characteristics of the SoliMix randomized controlled trial

AIM

Premix insulin is commonly used in some regions of the world, despite the higher risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain compared with basal insulin, based on the premise that it offers a simplified insulin regimen. iGlarLixi is a once-daily titratable fixed-ratio formulation that combines basal insulin glargine 100 units/mL (iGlar) and the GLP-1 RA, lixisenatide, which offers a single-injection option for treatment intensification, with improved HbA1c reductions, similar hypoglycaemia risk and more favourable bodyweight profiles over iGlar alone. This randomized controlled study directly compares, for the first time, treatment intensification with iGlarLixi versus premix insulin analogue biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in adults with T2D inadequately controlled on basal insulin in combination with one or two oral antihyperglycaemic drugs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an open-label, active-controlled, comparative, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3b study. In total, 887 adults with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin were randomized to switch to either iGlarLixi once daily, or BIAsp 30 twice daily, for 26 weeks.

RESULTS

Overall, 887 participants were enrolled (mean age 59.8 years, 50.2% female) from 89 centres in 17 countries. At baseline, 65.6% had a duration of T2D of 10 years or longer, and the mean HbA1c at baseline was 8.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The study directly compared the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30 in people with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin and one or more oral antihyperglycaemic agents. These results provide robust clinical data that may inform clinicians in their therapeutic management of people with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin requiring additional therapy.

A Glucose-Insulin Mixture Model and Application to Short-Term Hypoglycemia Prediction in the Night Time

OBJECTIVE

Insulin-induced hypoglycemia is recognized as a critical problem for diabetic patients, especially at night. To give glucose prediction and advance warning of hypoglycemia of at least 30 minutes, various glucose-insulin models have been proposed. Recognizing the complementary nature of the models, this research proposes a Glucose-Insulin Mixture (GIM) model to predict the glucose values for hypoglycemia detection, by optimally fusing different models with its adjusted parameters to address the inter- and intra-individual variability.

METHODS

Two types of classic glucose-insulin models, the Ruan model, with single-compartment glucose kinetics, and the Hovorka model, with two-compartment glucose kinetics, are selected as two candidate models. Based on Bayesian inference, GIM is introduced with quantified contributions from the models with the associated parameters. GIM is then applied to predict the glucose values and hypoglycemia events.

RESULTS

The proposed model is validated by the nocturnal glucose data collected from 12 participants with type 1 diabetes. The GIM model has promising fitting of RMSE within 0.3465 mmol/L and predicting of RMSE within 0.5571 mmol/L. According to the literature, the hypoglycemia is defined as 3.9 mmol/L, and the GIM model shows good short-term hypoglycemia prediction performance with the data collected within the last hour (accuracy: 95.97%, precision: 91.77%, recall: 95.60%). In addition, the probability of hypoglycemia event in 30 minutes is inferred.

CONCLUSION

GIM, by fusing various glucose-insulin models via Bayesian inference, has the promise to capture glucose dynamics and predict hypoglycemia.

SIGNIFICANCE

GIM based short-term hypoglycemia prediction has potential clinical utility for timely intervention.

Switch from biphasic human insulin 30 to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Pakistani subjects

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in type 2 diabetes subjects switched from biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30) in the Pakistani subgroup of the multinational, prospective, non-interventional A1chieve study.

METHODS

Subjects who switched therapy from BHI 30 to BIAsp 30 were included in this analysis. Serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs, including major hypoglycaemia) and effectiveness parameters (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c], fasting plasma glucose [FPG], postprandial plasma glucose [PPPG], systolic blood pressure [SBP]) and body weight were evaluated at the end of 24 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 152 subjects (79 males, 73 females; mean age, 53.4 +/- 10.3 years; BMI, 28.4 +/- 5.8 kg/m2) with an average diabetes duration of 11.2 +/- 4.8 years switched therapy from BHI 30 to BIAsp 30. The mean pre-study BHI 30 dose was 0.66 +/- 0.25 IU/kg and the mean starting BIAsp 30 dose was 0.65 +/- 0.23 U/kg, titrated up to 0.77 +/- 0.22 U/kg after 24 weeks. No SADRs were reported. From baseline to Week 24, overall hypoglycaemia did not change and no major hypoglycaemia was reported at Week 24. HbA1c levels decreased significantly from 9.1 +/- 1.1% at baseline to 7.4 +/- 0.7% (57 +/- 8 mmol/mol) at Week 24 (p < 0.001). Significant improvements in FPG, post-breakfast PPPG and SBP were reported (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Switching from BHI 30 to BIAsp 30 was well tolerated and improved glucose control without an increased incidence of hypoglycaemia in this Pakistani cohort.

Initiation of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a largely primary care-based setting in Sweden

AIMS

Despite a wealth of clinical trial data supporting use of the premixed insulin analogue, biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), there is limited documentation of its use in primary care-based clinical practice.

METHODS

An observational study investigating the safety and efficacy of BIAsp 30 in routine clinical practice was conducted. Patients were followed up 3 and 6 months after initiating insulin treatment. Safety and efficacy measures were documented.

RESULTS

During the course of the study, 1154 patients were included (age range 20-95 years), of whom 89% completed the 6-month follow-up period. Mean HbA(1c) at baseline was 8.8% (73mmol/mol), and had improved to 7.2% (55mmol/mol) after 6 months of treatment. The rate of total hypoglycaemia at completion of the study was 4.1 events per patient year. Major hypoglycaemic events were rare (two in total).

CONCLUSIONS

BIAsp 30 was initiated safely and effectively in insulin-naïve patients with T2DM. The safety and efficacy profile observed in clinical trials was confirmed in this largely primary care-based setting in Sweden.

Insulin initiation and intensification: insights from new studies

Tight glycemic control is central to reducing the risk of long-term macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes and the associated morbidity and mortality. However majority of the patients do not achieve glycemic targets (HbA1c < 7%). Once insulin treatment has been initiated, each patient's regimen must be optimized and intensified to reach the target. In many guidelines, initial insulin therapy comprises a single dose of long-acting insulin or premixed insulin. Basal insulin will help to control fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level, but postprandial glucose excursions make a significant contribution to the overall daily hyperglycemia of type 2 diabetic patients. BIAsp 30 is the most prescribed analog premix and consequently has the largest evidence base in terms of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational data. It follows that BIAsp 30 is therefore the analog premix most likely to be used for insulin intensification, both from basal insulin and from BIAsp 30 regimens: OD to BID and from BID to TID.

Assessment of quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus before and after starting biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) therapy: IMPROVE study in Japan

AIMS

To evaluate treatment satisfaction before and after starting biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) in the IMPROVE study Japan using the Diabetes Medication Satisfaction (DiabMedSat) questionnaire.

METHODS

The DiabMedSat questionnaire assesses overall satisfaction with drug therapy for diabetes treatment in three domains: burden, efficacy and symptoms. Patients previously treated by oral anti-diabetic drugs in the IMPROVE study Japan answered the DiabMedSat questionnaires at baseline (week 0) and week 26 after starting BIAsp 30 treatment.

RESULTS

The mean scores for each domain at weeks 0 and 26, respectively, were: burden, 64.5 and 67.5 (p = 0.041); efficacy, 55.0 and 61.5 (p < 0.001); and symptoms, 70.9 and 68.1 (p = 0.049). The overall scores were 63.4 and 65.6, respectively (p = 0.079). With regard to burden, bothersome aspects were significantly improved with BIAsp 30 treatment at week 26, compared with treatment with oral anti-diabetic drugs at week 0. Major hypoglycemic episodes were very rare; most hypoglycemic events were minor and occurred during the daytime.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results indicate that BIAsp 30 does not adversely affect QOL in Japanese patients at insulin initiation.

Attainment of glycaemic goals by step-up therapy with biphasic insulin aspart-70/30 in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients

We have made step-up titration protocol with biphasic insulin aspart-70/30 (BIAsp 30), and tried to achieve glycemic goals in poorly controlled Japanese type 2 diabetic patients. We summarized all results obtained to analyze the effectiveness of our protocol. The target of glycaemic control was defined as HbA1c over 7.0 %. In our insulin initiation protocol, all patients started a once-daily injection of BIAsp 30 before the breakfast in addition to their oral hypoglycaemic agents. The patients who could not achieve the target from 12 to 16 weeks after the start of insulin treatment proceeded to twice daily insulin injection before breakfast and dinner. Next, the patients who could not achieve the target from 12 to 16 weeks after the addition of another BIAsp injection proceeded to thrice daily insulin injection before each meal a day. The results of 39 patients were analyzed, and 10.3 % of all patients achieved the target after the start of once daily injection of BIAsp 30, 41.7 % achieved in twice daily injection of BIAsp, and 51.4 % achieved in thrice daily injection of BIAsp. Daily insulin dose at the end of each treatment was 9.3±4.1 U in once daily, 17.4±6.3 U in twice daily, and 28.4±10.4 U in thrice daily. Total body weight increase by 2.0±2.6 kg. The initiation and titration protocol with BIAsp 30 improved glycaemic control, and increased the number of patients with the achievement of glycaemic goals.

Improvement of postprandial hyperglycemia and arterial stiffness upon switching from premixed human insulin 30/70 to biphasic insulin aspart 30/70

Postprandial hyperglycemia is known to be associated with increasing cardiovascular mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) reflects arterial stiffness and is more useful for predicting coronary atherosclerosis than intima-media thickness. Premixed human insulin 30/70 (BHI30) containing rapid-acting insulin has been used conventionally as a biphasic insulin. Recently, a biphasic insulin analogue preparation, biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp30), containing ultrarapid-acting insulin has been approved and expected to improve postprandial hyperglycemia. The aim of this study was to clarify the effects of switching the biphasic insulin from BHI30 to BIAsp30 on arterial stiffness in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Twenty-six type 2 diabetes mellitus patients (glycosylated hemoglobin >6.5%) who were already receiving biphasic insulin therapy with BHI30 twice daily were observed for 3 months. Afterward, BHI30 was switched to BIAsp30. At 3 months after switching, relative mobility of the peak of LDL fraction decreased significantly (from 0.3462 ± 0.041 to 0.3356 ± 0.035, P < .01); and CAVI also decreased significantly (from 9.77 ± 1.11 to 9.35 ± 1.17 m/s, P < .005). A significant negative correlation was observed between the change in CAVI and change in 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) (r = -0.3929, P < .05). A stronger correlation between change in CAVI and change in 1,5-AG was observed in the subgroup of patients whose 1,5-AG levels were elevated after switching (r = -0.6261, P < .05) compared with all subjects. These results suggest that switching biphasic insulin from BHI30 to BIAsp30 improves arterial stiffness, and the improvement of arterial stiffness may be associated with improvement of postprandial hyperglycemia.

Real-life dosage and clinical efficacy of biphasic insulin preparations in patients with type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective study used data from a primary care database to compare two insulin products in routine clinical practice for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Records were analyzed for patients with type 2 diabetes who had been initiated on biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp30) (n=632) or biphasic isophane human insulin 30 (BHI30) (n=762) and who had a glycated hemoglobin (HbA₁(c)) measurement at baseline (up to 6 months before the index date) and end of study (6-12 months after index date). Regression analyses were used to test for a statistically significant interaction between reduction in HbA₁(c) from baseline to end of study and the log-transformed average daily dose (logADD) of insulin.

RESULTS

With BIAsp30 a significantly lower dose of insulin (47.74 insulin units [IU]/day vs. 66.63 IU/day, P<0.0001) was required to obtain a similar HbA₁(c) reduction (1.71%-point vs. 1.55%-point, P=0.24). To achieve an additional reduction of 0.1 percentage points in HbA₁(c) (eg, reduction from 9% to 7.9% HbA₁(c) instead of from 9% to 8%), the dose of BIAsp30 would need to be increased by a factor of 1.15. For BHI30, a greater increase in dose would be needed to achieve the same additional HbA₁(c) reduction (dose increase by a factor of 1.74).

CONCLUSION

Clinically meaningful reductions in HbA₁(c) can be achieved at lower insulin doses with BIAsp30 treatment than with BHI30. Lower insulin doses may have important implications for medication costs.

Cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in China

BACKGROUND

The OnceMix and INITIATE studies have indicated that biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) is more effective than insulin glargine (IGlarg), in terms of glycohemoglobin reductions, in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin therapy. The cost-effectiveness of BIAsp 30 versus IGlarg in the Chinese setting is estimated here.

METHODS

The validated and peer-reviewed CORE Diabetes Model was used. The nephropathy, retinopathy, and stroke submodels were modified to incorporate available Chinese clinical data. Diabetes complication costs were derived from hospital surveys in Beijing and Chengdu. Simulated cohorts and insulin treatment effects were based on the OnceMix study for once-daily BIAsp 30 versus IGlarg and on the INITIATE study for twice-daily BIAsp 30 versus IGlarg. Life expectancy and direct medical costs were calculated. Projections were made over 30-year time horizons, with costs and life years discounted at 3% annually. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed, including adjustments to cardiovascular risk for Chinese ethnicity.

RESULTS

Once-daily BIAsp 30 increased life expectancy by 0.04 years (12.37 vs. 12.33 years) and reduced direct medical costs by Chinese Yuan (CNY) 59,710 per patient (CNY 229,911 vs. CNY 289,621 per patient) compared with IGlarg in the OnceMix-based analysis. Twice-daily BIAsp 30 increased life expectancy by 0.08 years (12.99 vs. 12.91 years) and reduced direct medical costs by CNY 107,349 per patient (CNY 303,142 vs. CNY 410,491 per patient) compared with IGlarg in the INITIATE-based analysis. Improvements in life expectancy were driven by reduced incidences of most diabetes-related complications. Cost savings were attributable to lower lifetime insulin costs for BIAsp 30 compared with IGlarg in China. Lowered cardiovascular risk for Chinese ethnicity reduced the projected clinical improvements for BIAsp 30 but increased treatment-related lifetime cost savings.

CONCLUSIONS

BIAsp 30, either once- or twice-daily, improved projected life expectancy and reduced projected costs compared with IGlarg in the Chinese setting.

Effects of twice-daily injections of premixed insulin analog on glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients

PURPOSE

Premixed insulin is effective to improve glycemic control; however, clinicians may be less likely to know which premixed insulin is appropriate for which patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of twice-daily injections of premixed insulin lispro on glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty type 2 diabetic patients, who had been treated with twice-daily injections of human protamine mixture 30/70 insulin for at least 12 months, were divided into two groups; one group whose blood glucose 2 hours after breakfast was greater than 200 mg/dL, was switched to lispro mix50, and the other group whose blood glucose 2 hours after breakfast < 200 was switched to lispro mix25.

RESULTS

Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) significantly improved in the Mix50 group from 8.3% to 7.5% (at 12 weeks; p < 0.05), and to 7.5% (at 24 weeks; p < 0.05). On the other hand, HbA1c levels in the Mix25 group were slightly decreased from 8.1% to 7.7% at 12 weeks (p < 0.05), and to 7.9% at 24 weeks (not significant). Both postprandial plasma glucose and fasting plasma glucose levels were significantly improved in the Mix50 group, but not in the Mix25 group. Overall, 95% of subjects preferred premixed lispro insulin from human insulin in the viewpoint of the timing of insulin injection by questionnaire analysis.

CONCLUSION

Switching from human protamine mixture 30/70 insulin to lispro mix50 twice-daily injection therapy in patients with high postprandial plasma glucose could improve their glycemic control and quality of life.

The IMPROVE study--a multinational, multicentre, observational study in type 2 diabetes: results from the Italian cohort

AIMS

The IMPROVE study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in type 2 diabetes patients in the routine practice. Here we present the results for patients from Italy.

METHODS

Adverse events, hypoglycaemia, glycaemic control, patient treatment satisfaction and physician resource utilisation were assessed at baseline and 26 weeks.

RESULTS

Out of the 1371 patients enrolled, 84.1% (n=1153) were receiving BIAsp 30 at baseline (in accordance with local regulations), and were included in the study. Mean HlbA, reduction was--0.63% after 26 weeks (p < 0.001); 26.5% and 13.5% of patients reached the HbA(1c) targets of < 7% and < 6.5%, respectively. Fasting and postprandial blood glucose significantly decreased; 65% of patients were using BIAsp 30 once daily and 32% twice daily at final visit. Rates of major and minor hypoglycaemic events also significantly decreased. Small weight increase was observed, and total insulin daily dose increased from 0.29 IU/kg pre-study to 0.32 IU/kg at final visit.

CONCLUSIONS

In Italy, BIAsp 30 in the routine care improved glycaemic control and reduced hypoglycaemia; however, there was little intensification and titration. This may partly explain the relatively small improvement in glycaemic control in Italy compared with other countries in the IMPROVE study.

The safety and efficacy of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Iranians with type 2 diabetes: an open-label, non-randomised, multi-centre observational study--the Iran subgroup of the IMPROVE™ study

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the clinical profile of BIAsp 30 (30% soluble insulin aspart, 70% protamine-crystallized insulin aspart) (NovoMix®)30) in type 2 diabetes patients in routine clinical practice in Iran.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

IMPROVE™ was a 26-week, multinational, open-label, non-randomized study in patients with type 2 diabetes. The safety and efficacy of BIAsp 30 were assessed at baseline and at 13 and 26 weeks. The titration of BIAsp30 was at the physician's discretion.

RESULTS

In Iran, 478 patients (47% male) previously treated with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) (N = 159, 33.3%) and/or insulin other than BIAsp30 (N = 317, 66.3%) or a few who were treatment-naïve (N = 2, 0.4%) participated in the study. After 26 weeks of treatment with BIAsp 30, the rate of reported major hypoglycaemic episodes was reduced by 88.1% from baseline (baseline v. Week 26: 0.303 v. 0.037 episodes/pt-year; p < 0.001). No significant differences in minor hypoglycaemic episodes between baseline and Week 26 were found. Glycaemic control was significantly improved from baseline to Week 26 with a mean HbA(₁c) reduction of 1.2 +/- 1.9%. Patients' quality of life as measured by the DiabMedSat questionnaire significantly improved from baseline (58.1) to the end of the study (75.4, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

BIAsp 30 therapy appeared safe and effective and improved quality of life in Iranian patients with type 2 diabetes after 26 weeks of treatment.

Comparison of Humalog Mix 50 with human insulin Mix 30 in type 2 diabetes patients during Ramadan

AIMS

To compare hypoglycaemic events, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and changes in body weight in Muslim patients with Type 2 diabetes receiving Humalog Mix 50 and human Mixtard 30 twice daily during Ramadan fasting.

METHODS

Data were collected from Muslim patients with Type 2 diabetes attending primary care practices in North-West London, who were on Mixtard 30 insulin twice daily before Ramadan. Group 1 had their evening insulin changed to Humalog Mix 50 (n = 26) 2 weeks before Ramadan, i.e. taking Mixtard 30 at predawn meal and Humalog Mix 50 at the sunset meal during Ramadan. As the major proportion of the daily caloric intake was consumed at the sunset meal, the rationale of switching the evening dose from human Mixtard 30 to Humalog Mix 50 was to provide more rapid-acting insulin that has shorter time of onset and peak time for the large evening meal to improve the postprandial glucose control without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Group 2 continued on Mixtard 30 twice daily (n = 26). All patients received structured education about how to identify and manage hypoglycaemia during Ramadan.

RESULTS

Group 1 had a mean HbA1c reduction of 0.48% (p = 0.0001) before and after Ramadan, whereas group 2 had a mean HbA1c increase of 0.28% (p = 0.007). Group 1 was associated with a small reduction of 0.04 (p = 0.81) in the mean number of hypoglycaemic events during Ramadan compared with before Ramadan, whereas group 2 was associated with an increase of 0.15 (p = 0.43), although these differences between the groups were not statistically significant following adjustment for baseline factors [LSM difference between groups = 0.135, p = 0.36, 95% confidence limits (-0.16, 0.43)].

CONCLUSION

Changing to humalog Mix 50 during Ramadan resulted in improvement in glycaemic control without increasing the incidence of hypoglycaemia.

Initiation with once-daily BIAsp 30 results in superior outcome compared to insulin glargine in Asians with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by oral anti-diabetic drugs

We compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 30) and insulin glargine in Asian subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs). In a 26-week, open-labelled, randomised, parallel-group, multinational, multicentre, treat-to-target trial, 155 insulin-naïve Asian subjects were treated with either BIAsp 30 or insulin glargine, both in combination with metformin and glimepiride. Change in HbA(1c) at end of treatment with BIAsp 30 was superior to insulin glargine (BIAsp 30-glargine=-0.36%, 95% CI [-0.64; -0.07], p=0.015). Mean self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG) at bedtime was significantly lower with BIAsp 30 than insulin glargine (7.98+/-0.34 mmol/L vs. 9.16+/-0.33 mmol/L, p=0.0078). Incidences of minor and daytime hypoglycaemia were higher with BIAsp 30 than those with glargine, but the difference did not reach the statistical significance. No difference was seen in nocturnal hypoglycaemia. The incidence of adverse events was comparable between treatments, with low incidence of serious adverse events and major hypoglycaemia. Mean body weight increased slightly in both groups. In insulin-naïve Asian subjects with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled with OADs, once-daily BIAsp 30 is superior to insulin glargine.

Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

To review the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) compared to other insulin regimens in the treatment of type 2 diabetes based on published literature.

METHODS

The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and EconLit and a selection of congress/meeting databases were systematically searched using combinations of search terms designed to identify publications describing cost-effectiveness analyses of BIAsp 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes. Searches were limited to studies in humans, and published in the English language between January 1999 and July 2009. All records were screened for inclusion in the review.

RESULTS

Seven published cost-effectiveness analyses and ten abstracts were identified. One was a health technology assessment from the UK, which evaluated cost-effectiveness using the UKPDS Outcomes Model and meta-analysis of published clinical trials and concluded that premixed insulin analogs were unlikely to be cost-effective versus insulin glargine or biphasic human insulin. In all other studies the cost-effectiveness of BIAsp 30 versus other insulin regimens was assessed using the validated CORE Diabetes Model and outcomes from either the INITIATE randomized controlled trial, or the PRESENT or IMPROVE observational studies. However, notable limitations include the fact that all cost-effectiveness analyses to date have been performed using a single model and that a number of these are based on data from observational studies rather than randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, long-term clinical and economic outcomes were reported for several countries: UK, US, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Poland, South Africa, South Korea and China. BIAsp 30 was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy in all countries. Estimates of direct costs varied according to country and comparator, but incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the US and UK were USD 46 533 and GBP 6951 per quality-adjusted life year gained for BIAsp 30 versus insulin glargine.

CONCLUSIONS

Although cost-effectiveness data on BIAsp 30 are scarce the majority of the analyses identified in this review suggest that BIAsp 30 is likely to be cost-effective compared to insulin glargine and biphasic human insulin across a wide range of settings, and under certain circumstances would be a dominant treatment option.

Switching from human insulin to biphasic insulin aspart 30 treatment gets more patients with type 2 diabetes to reach target glycosylated hemoglobin < 7%: the results from the China cohort of the PRESENT study

BACKGROUND

The clinical importance of glycaemic control in patients with diabetes has been well established. This study aimed to explore twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) for insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had poor glycaemic control with human insulins (HIs). We use data from a Chinese cohort of the PRESENT study.

METHODS

In the 3-month study, Chinese subjects with T2DM started insulin therapy with BIAsp 30 in routine care. Glycaemic control was measured by glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1C)), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and posting plasma glucose (PPG). The safety assessment included hypoglycaemia and other adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 1989 subjects previously treated with His were switched to BIAsp 30 for 3-month treatment. Mean HbA(1C), FPG and PPG were significantly improved after the therapy. The overall rate of hypoglycaemia decreased at the end of the trial except for the patients previously treated with long-acting insulin. Most of the events were minor and diurnal hypoglycaemia. Only one serious adverse drug reaction (SADR), a local hypersensitivity, was reported. The majority of the patients (> or = 96.7%) and physicians (> or = 84.7%) were either satisfied or very satisfied with the treatment using BIAsp 30 compared with previous HI therapy.

CONCLUSION

The BIAsp 30 treatment improved both glycaemic control and patients' satisfaction without increasing hypoglycaemia in T2DM subjects inadequately controlled by His.

The A1chieve study: a 60 000-person, global, prospective, observational study of basal, meal-time, and biphasic insulin analogs in daily clinical practice

While evidenced-based guidelines promote glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) targets <7.0% in order to reduce the long-term risk of diabetic complications, many individuals with type 2 diabetes do not achieve these targets. Fear of hypoglycemia provides a major barrier to improving blood glucose control as a result of delayed insulin initiation and failure to appropriately titrate insulin following initiation. Modern insulin analogs were designed to achieve improved blood glucose control with similar hypoglycemic risk compared with non-analog insulins (or similar blood glucose control with reduced hypoglycemic risk). While this has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials, there is a need to confirm these findings in an everyday clinical setting. The A(1)chieve study will evaluate adverse events and effectiveness of premix (biphasic insulin aspart 30 [NovoMix 30]), basal (insulin detemir [Levemir]), and meal-time (insulin aspart [NovoRapid]) insulin analogs in people with type 2 diabetes in near-routine clinical practice. A(1)chieve is an international, prospective, multi-center, open-label, non-interventional, 24-week study of people with type 2 diabetes using an insulin analog. The study will recruit 60 000 people from 30 countries across four continents (Asia, Africa, South America, and Europe). The primary aim of the study is to assess the adverse event profile of the study insulins in routine clinical practice, including rates of hypoglycemia. In addition, effectiveness (HbA(1c), fasting plasma glucose, and postprandial plasma glucose) and patient quality of life outcomes will be measured. Comprehensive epidemiological data will be collected at baseline, including recent plasma glucose results and hypoglycemic episodes, prevalence of diabetes-related complications, and measures of current standards of care. Thus, A(1)chieve should provide important information about how insulin analogs perform in daily clinical practice.

Premixed insulin aspart 30 (Biasp 30) vs. premixed human insulin 30 (BHI 30) in gestational diabetes mellitus--a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to compare premixed insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) vs premixed human insulin 30 (BHI 30) on efficacy, safety, fetal and perinatal outcomes in pregnancies associated with gestational diabetes mellitus [GDM]. This was the first randomized study to use pre mixed insulin analogue [BIAsp] in GDM.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 76 GDM women assigned to BIAsp 30 (group A) and an equal number to BHI 30 (group B).

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the age, BMI, gestational weeks and glycemic level at entry between the group A and group B women (p > 0.05). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in glycemic control or insulin dose (p > 0.05) before confinement. The frequency of birth weight of new born above 90 percentile was 6.8% in Group 1 and 9.2% in Group 2. The proportion of macrosomia was higher in Group 2 when compared to Group 1, however the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.819).

CONCLUSION

BIAsp was safe during pregnancy and pregnant women found it convenient due to meal time dosing. Fetal outcome using BIAsp was also comparable with BHI 30.

Cost-effectiveness of switching to biphasic insulin aspart from human premix insulin in a US setting

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching to biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) from human premix insulin for type 2 diabetes patients in the United States (US) setting.

METHODS

The previously published and validated IMS Core Diabetes Model was used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) and costs over 30 years. Patient characteristics and treatment effects were based on Canadian patients included the IMPROVE observational study (n = 311). Mean glycohaemoglobin (HbA(1c)) was 8.4%, duration of diabetes 16 years and prevalence of complications high at baseline. Simulations were conducted from the perspective of a third-party payer, with costs accounted in 2008 US dollars ($).

RESULTS

BIAsp 30 was projected to improve life expectancy by 0.202 years and QALE by 0.301 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), due to a reduced incidence of most diabetes-related complications. BIAsp 30 was associated with increased lifetime direct medical costs ($76,517 vs. 67,518) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,870 per QALY gained. Long-term outcomes were sensitive to the impact of BIAsp 30 on hypoglycaemia and changes in HbA(1c).

CONCLUSIONS

BIAsp 30 may represent a cost-effective treatment option in the US setting for advanced type 2 diabetes patients experiencing poor glycaemic control or hypoglycaemia on human premix insulin.

LIMITATIONS

The application of treatment effect data derived from a Canadian cohort to the US setting was a limitation of the cost-effectiveness analysis. The findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis are not applicable to insulin-naïve diabetes patients.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 as insulin initiation or replacement therapy: the China cohort of the IMPROVE study

AIMS

To explore safety and efficacy of BIAsp 30 as initiation or replacement therapy in routine clinical practice in patients with poorly controlled diabetes in the Chinese cohort of the IMPROVE study.

METHODS

In the 26-week, non-interventional, observational study, Chinese subjects with diabetes started BIAsp 30 treatment in routine care. Data from patients' diaries and medical records were transferred to CRFs by participating physicians.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00659282.

RESULTS

Of the 21,729 subjects enrolled (mean age 54.0 years, BMI 24.6 kg/m 2 , diabetes duration 4.86 years), 32.3% were treatment-naïve, 59.3% were from oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) only and 8.1% were from insulin +/- OADs. Overall, mean HbA(1c) and FBG decreased by 2.82% and 5 mmol/L, respectively. In the subgroups, changes were: -3.27% and -6.06 mmol/L (treatment-naïve), -2.57% and -4.54 mmol/L (OADs only), -2.96% and 3.51 mmol/L (insulin +/- OADs) all p < 0.05. HbA(1c) < 7% was achieved by 71.4% of patients. Only 0.1% of subjects reported major hypoglycaemia and 73 SADRs were observed without significant difference compared to those at baseline. Body weight did not change significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of previous treatments, insulin initiation or replacement with BIAsp 30 improved glycaemic control without increasing major hypoglycaemia or weight gain in Chinese patients with diabetes.

Once-daily initiation with biphasic insulin aspart 30 versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral drugs: an open-label, multinational RCT

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 30) and insulin glargine, administered once daily in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral anti-diabetic drugs.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this 26-week, open-labeled, randomized, parallel-group, multinational, treat-to-target trial, 480 insulin-naïve subjects were randomized to receive either BIAsp 30 before dinner or insulin glargine at bedtime, both in combination with metformin and glimepiride.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00469092, ClinicalTrials.gov.

RESULTS

A total of 433 subjects completed the trial. Estimated mean reduction in HbA(1c) from baseline to end of treatment was -1.41% with BIAsp 30 and -1.25% with insulin glargine (BIAsp 30 - insulin glargine = -0.16%, 95% CI [-0.30; -0.02], p = 0.029). At the end of treatment, mean HbA(1c) was 7.1% and 7.3% for BIAsp 30 and insulin glargine, respectively. Significantly lower plasma glucose levels were observed with BIAsp 30 post-dinner (BIAsp 30 - insulin glargine = -0.52 mmol/L, 95% CI [-1.02; -0.03], p = 0.04) and at bedtime (BIAsp 30 - insulin glargine = -0.78 mmol/L, 95% CI [-1.25; -0.31], p < 0.01). The relative risk (RR) of experiencing a nocturnal hypoglycemic episode (00:00-06.00 a.m.) was significantly higher with BIAsp 30 than with insulin glargine (1.1 versus 0.5 episodes/year, RR = 2.41, 95% CI [1.34; 4.34], p = 0.003), but overall hypoglycemia rates were low. There were three major hypoglycemic episodes in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to HbA(1c), BIAsp 30 fulfilled the statistical criteria for non-inferiority and superiority to insulin glargine and, according to pre-defined criteria, the improvements in HbA(1c) are considered clinically equivalent. Subjects had an increased risk of minor nocturnal hypoglycemia with BIAsp 30. There were no differences in treatment satisfaction between the two groups.

Cost-effectiveness of switching to biphasic insulin aspart 30 from human insulin in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes in South Korea

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of switching patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus from human insulin (HI) to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in South Korea.

METHODS

A published and validated diabetes computer simulation model (the IMS CORE Diabetes Model) was used to evaluate the long-term clinical and economic outcomes associated with switching to BIAsp 30, using treatment effects from the South Korean subgroup of the Physician's Routine Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of NovoMix 30 Therapy study and cost data collected through primary research. Outcomes included life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, incidence of complications, direct medical costs, and cost-effectiveness. Analyses were performed from a third-party payer perspective over a 30-year time horizon. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 5% per annum. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Switching patients uncontrolled on HI to BIAsp 30 was projected to increase discounted mean life expectancy by 0.15 +/- 0.18 years per patient (8.62 +/- 0.13 years vs. 8.47 +/- 0.13 years) and improve discounted mean quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.30 +/- 0.12 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient (5.68 +/- 0.09 QALYs vs. 5.38 +/- 0.09 QALYs). Conversion to BIAsp 30 was associated with a mean increase in direct costs of South Korean Won (KRW) 1,777,323 +/- 359,209 over patient lifetimes. BIAsp 30 was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of KRW5,916,758 per QALY gained versus HI.

CONCLUSION

Switching patients uncontrolled on HI to BIAsp 30 was projected to improve life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy. This analysis suggests that BIAsp 30 could be a cost-effective treatment option in type 2 diabetes patients poorly controlled on HI in South Korea.

Practical guidance on intensification of insulin therapy with BIAsp 30: a consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Basal insulin and premix insulin are commonly prescribed first-line insulin therapies for patients failing to maintain glycaemic control on oral therapy. When control on these insulins starts to drift, premix analogues, such as biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30), are a simple and effective tool for intensification as they can be injected up to three-times daily (TID). However, at present, international recommendations for intensification of insulin therapy using premix analogues are limited and specific guidance on dosing is not available for many scenarios.

METHODS

In October 2008, an international expert panel met to review the current guidelines for insulin intensification with BIAsp 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes, with the aim of developing practical guidance for general and specialist practitioners.

RESULTS

Simple treatment algorithms have been developed for (i) patients on basal insulin (human or analogue) once daily or twice daily (BID) who need intensification to BIAsp 30 BID, and (ii) patients on BIAsp 30 once daily or BID who can be intensified to BIAsp 30 BID or TID. As well as these algorithms, specific guidance has been provided on dose transfer (from basal insulin to BIAsp 30), dose split (when intensifying from once daily to BID), and combination oral therapies. In addition, a guide to dose titration is included.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines presented here should enable general or specialist practitioners to use BIAsp 30 to intensify the insulin therapy of patients failing on basal insulin or BIAsp 30 once or twice daily.

Improved glycaemic control with BIAsp 30 in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes patients inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetics: subgroup analysis from the IMPROVE study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this subanalysis of the IMPROVE study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of initiating biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in type 2 diabetes patients uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).

METHODS

IMPROVE is a 26-week, open-label, non-randomised, international observational study in type 2 diabetes patients prescribed BIAsp 30 in routine clinical practice. The total cohort comprised 52 419 patients from various pre-study therapies. Here results from the subgroup of previously insulin-naïve patients are reported. Changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting blood glucose (FBG), postprandial blood glucose (PPBG), weight, dose, proportion of patients achieving HbA(1c) < 7.0%, and rates of major and minor hypoglycaemic events were recorded. Treatment satisfaction was assessed using a validated questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 29 160 insulin-naïve patients were included; mean age 55.6 years, diabetes duration 7.3 years, baseline HbA(1c) 9.24%. Significant reductions were seen for HbA(1c) (-2.12%; p < 0.0001), FBG (-4.07 mmol/L; p < 0.0001) and PPBG after all meals (mean: -5.27 mmol/L; p < 0.0001); 39.2% of patients achieved HbA(1c) < 7.0% without hypoglycaemia. Better glycaemic control was seen in patients treated with BIAsp 30 twice-daily (BID) both at baseline and final visit, or BID at baseline and three-times daily at final visit, compared with other regimens. The rate of major hypoglycaemic events decreased significantly, while the rate of minor hypoglycaemic events increased. Better glycaemic control and a lower rate of minor hypoglycaemia were observed in patients using BIAsp 30 without OADs than with OADs. There was no clinically relevant change in weight (-0.07 kg; p < 0.0001). At final visit, 59.7% of patients were extremely/very satisfied with treatment, compared with 10.2% at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

This open-label, non-randomised, observational study demonstrated that initiating insulin therapy with BIAsp 30 significantly improved glycaemic control in insulin-naïve patients previously poorly controlled on OADs. The rate of major hypoglycaemia was reduced and treatment satisfaction increased after initiation of BIAsp 30. Furthermore, better glycaemic control was achieved with BIAsp 30 without OAD compared to with OAD.

Step-up therapy with biphasic insulin aspart-70/30--Sapporo 1-2-3 study

The effectiveness of BIAsp 30 step-up therapy in achieving glycemic control in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus was investigated. Study subjects were 99 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus aged over 20 years who were judged to require insulin therapy due to poor glucose control (HbA1c level of > or =7.5%). BIAsp 30 dosage was determined by the patient's attending physician; coadministration of hypotensive agents and antilipemic agents was permitted, but OAD coadministration was limited to patients already receiving such drugs at the start of the study. Patients who did not achieve HbA1c <6.5% after 16+/-5 weeks with QD (Phase 1) were stepped up to BID (Phase 2). If patients still had not achieved HbA1c <6.5% after 16+/-5 weeks with BID, they were stepped up to TID (Phase 3). 55 of the 99 enrolled subjects completed the study and the rates of achievement of HbA1c <6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% were 45.5% and 74.5%, respectively. Of all registered subjects, 5.1% (5/99) achieved HbA1c <6.5% in QD, 19.5% (16/82) in BID, and 20.6% (7/34) in TID. Statistically significant reductions in HbA1c levels were recorded at the conclusion of each phase, with no incidents requiring intervention, indicating that BIAsp 30 step-up therapy is a safe, simple therapy that can be useful in achieving better glycemic control for Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

An exploratory study of the effect of using high-mix biphasic insulin aspart in people with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To compare blood glucose control when using biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) three times a day (using 70/30 high-mix before breakfast and lunch), with biphasic human insulin (BHI, 30/70) twice daily in adults with type 2 diabetes already treated with insulin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a 60-day, open-label, crossover study, people with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes [n = 38, baseline haemoglobin A1c 8.3 +/- 0.9 (s.d.) %] were randomized to BIAsp three times a day before meals, as BIAsp 70 (70% insulin aspart and 30% protamine-complexed insulin aspart) before breakfast and lunch and BIAsp 30 (30/70 free and protamine-complexed insulin aspart) before dinner, or to human premix insulin (BHI) 30/70 twice a day before meals. A 24-h in-patient plasma glucose profile was performed at the end of each 30-day treatment period. The total daily insulin dose of BIAsp regimen was 110% of BHI and the doses were not changed during the study.

RESULTS

There was no difference between BIAsp and BHI in geometric weighted average serum glucose over 24 h [7.3 vs. 7.7 mmol/l, BIAsp/BHI ratio 0.95 (95% CI 0.88-1.02), not significant (NS)], but daytime geometric weighted average glucose concentration was significantly lower with the BIAsp regimen than with BHI [8.3 vs. 9.2 mmol/l, BIAsp/BHI ratio 0.90 (0.84-0.98), p = 0.014]. The mealtime serum glucose excursion was also lower with BIAsp than with BHI with statistically significant differences at lunchtime [difference -4.9 (-7.0 to -2.7) mmol/l, p = 0.000); the difference in glucose excursions above 7.0 mmol/l was also significant [-5.8 (-8.3 to -3.2) mmol/l, p = 0.000). The proportion of participants experiencing confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes was similar between regimens (42 vs. 43%, NS).

CONCLUSIONS

An insulin regimen using high-mix BIAsp (BIAsp 70) before breakfast and lunch and BIAsp 30 before dinner can achieve lower blood glucose levels during the day through reduced mealtime glucose excursions in particular at lunchtime than a twice-daily premix regimen.

Quality of life as a key indicator of patient satisfaction and treatment compliance in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the IMPROVE study: a multicentre, open label, non-randomised, observational trial

Diabetes is a debilitating chronic illness having multiple impacts on physical and mental well-being of patients. When treating chronic conditions like diabetes, psychosocial aspects and quality of life (QoL) have to be considered; however, these receive less attention due to various reasons. Patients with diabetic complications have increased levels of depression and decreased QoL This necessitates evaluating QoL of patient which now is used as a primary or secondary end point in clinical trials eg, Diab-MedSat QoL questionnaire used in diabetes. At some point all diabetic patients may require insulin to control hyperglycaemia and disease progression. The traditional insulin syringe and needle delivery system has been the principal barrier in the treatment of diabetes as it was not well accepted among the patients due to various reasons. A success over this approach has been pen like devices like FlexPen and Novopen3 which are becoming more popular than the conventional syringe-and-needles as they have several advantages like, easy to carry, use, maintain and also reduces administrative errors ensuring accurate doses are delivered. The objective of IMPROVE study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart (NovoMix 30) in normal clinical practice conditions, in India. This is an open label, non-randomised, non-interventional, observational, safety and effectiveness study in approximately 17,995 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A cohort of Indian patients (n = 349) from all 4 geographical locations (North, West, East and South of India) were administered QoL instrument Diab-MedSat at baseline and 346 patients at final visit (n = 346) to assess their satisfaction with the treatment they received. The results were included in the final statistical analysis as additional outcome variables. The Diab-MedSat Novo Nordisk June 2004 English (UK) version is used. The Diab-MedSat has 21 items that need to be answered and it is scored as an overall score (all 21 items) as well as three subscale scores regarding burden (11 items), symptoms (5 items), efficacy (5 items). The complete analysis took into account all 21 items of Diab-MedSat questionnaire with their subscales. Analyses of the cohort showed higher patient satisfaction among the patients administered Diab-MedSat questionnaire from baseline (n = 349) to final visit (n = 346). The mean of overall score was 52.33 (baseline visit) versus 79.03 (final visit). The difference in the overall score and sub parameters like burden, symptoms and efficacy between the baseline and final visits were statistically significant (p-value < 0.001). The mean value of difference in overall score between the baseline visit and final visit was 26.73 +/- 20.83; while the difference for burden, symptoms and efficacy were respectively 27.86 +/- 20.81, 19.75 +/- 20.94 and 32.87 +/- 28.08. A fairly clear picture emerged that the use of biphasic insulin aspart resulted in improved QoL of the patients substantially. This is demonstrated in the results for all the parameters that were used like symptoms, efficacy and burden. The overall number of extremely satisfied patients had increased from 5.4% in the baseline visit to 91% in the final visit. This unambiguously proves that the satisfaction of patients on biphasic insulin aspart (NovoMix 30) is beyond question.

Three different premixed combinations of biphasic insulin aspart - comparison of the efficacy and safety in a randomized controlled clinical trial in subjects with type 2 diabetes

AIM

To evaluate clinical efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) 30 twice daily (b.i.d.) vs. BIAsp 50 or BIAsp 70 (high-mix regimens) thrice daily (t.i.d.) all in combination with metformin in a 36-week clinical trial in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Efficacy measurements included haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) and eight-point plasma glucose (PG); safety included adverse events (AEs) and hypoglycaemic episodes. The three treatment groups (approximately 200 subjects in each group) were well matched regarding sex ratio, ethnicity, age and body mass index.

RESULTS

After 12 weeks, 43% and 54% in the BIAsp 50 and 70 groups, respectively, switched their dinner insulin to BIAsp 30. Both high-mix regimens were non-inferior to BIAsp 30 b.i.d., as measured by change in HbA(1c), and the BIAsp %50 regimen was superior. The odds for meeting the American Diabetes Association and The American Association of Clinícal Endocrinologist HbA(1c) targets of <7% and < or =6.5%, respectively, were significantly higher with the BIAsp 50 regimen than with BIAsp 30. A significantly lower PG level was achieved from lunch until 02:00 hours with both high-mix regimens compared with BIAsp 30 b.i.d. AEs were mild or moderate with all three regimens. Frequency of hypoglycaemic episodes was comparable for the BIAsp 50 and the BIAsp 30 b.i.d. regimens but was significantly higher with BIAsp 70 t.i.d.

CONCLUSIONS

Glycaemic control improved with BIAsp 50 t.i.d. without higher incidence of hypoglycaemia compared with BIAsp 30 b.i.d.; with BIAsp 70 t.i.d. lower PG levels from lunch to 02.00 hours, but more hypoglycaemic episodes were obtained compared with BIAsp 30 b.i.d.

Intensification to biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30, NovoMix 30) can improve glycaemic control in patients treated with basal insulins: a subgroup analysis of the IMPROVE observational study

AIMS

The international IMPROVE observational study investigated the safety profile and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in the routine treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. We present analyses for the subgroup of patients who switched from basal insulin to BIAsp 30.

METHODS

Patients in routine care who started insulin therapy with or switched to BIAsp 30 from existing insulin regimens were eligible for this 26-week study. This analysis includes only patients previously treated with basal insulin. Outcomes including adverse events, hypoglycaemic events and glycaemic profile were recorded from patients' notes, recall and diaries.

RESULTS

Of the 748 patients included (age 59.7+/-11.8 years, diabetes duration 11.4+/-7.3 years, baseline HbA1c 9.1+/-1.6%), 497 were previously using human neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin and 245 analogue basal insulin. Overall, major and minor hypoglycaemia rates decreased from baseline to final visit (major: 0.171 to 0.011; minor: 9.70 to 5.89 events/patient-year) and were similar between the subgroups. HbA1c and fasting blood glucose were significantly reduced from baseline (NPH prestudy: -1.6%, -2.4 mmol/l; analogue basal prestudy: -1.8%, -2.4 mmol/l), as was postprandial blood glucose, with 33.8% of patients achieving the HbA1c target < 7% without hypoglycaemia. Insulin dose increased slightly from prestudy (0.33+/-0.21 U/kg), baseline (0.40+/-0.20 U/kg) to final visit (0.52+/-0.26 U/kg); most patients (76%) followed a twice-daily regimen at final visit. Body weight did not change significantly and treatment satisfaction increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulins may improve their glycaemic control by intensification to BIAsp 30 therapy.

Self-titration of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 improves glycaemic control and allows easy intensification in a Dutch clinical practice

AIMS

This 18-month study assessed the improvement in glycaemic control and proportion of patients reaching glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) targets with biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in clinical practice.

METHODS

Type-2 diabetes patients failing on oral antidiabetic drugs (n=90) or existing insulin regimens (n=59) started or switched to BIAsp 30. Thiazolidinediones were stopped, metformin was continued. BIAsp 30 was given once daily (n=41), twice daily (n=96), or three times daily (n=12). Patients were taught self-monitoring and self-titration using an algorithm, adding daily doses of BIAsp 30 when necessary.

RESULTS

Mean baseline HbA(1c) was 8.4%, weight 85.4 kg, and age 57.9 years. All patients experienced significant reductions in HbA(1c) (mean 1.9%+/-0.1), fasting plasma glucose (mean 2.8 mmol/l), and post-prandial glycaemia (mean 2.9 mmol/l); 91% of patients achieved HbA(1c)<7% and 52% achieved HbA(1c) < or=6.5%. No major or nocturnal hypoglycaemia were reported; 15% of patients reported minor hypoglycaemia. Insulin-naïve patients gained mean 2.7 kg; patients who switched from another insulin lost weight (mean -0.6kg).

CONCLUSION

The results from this study from routine care suggest that BIAsp 30 may allow a large proportion of type-2 diabetes patients (90%) to improve glycaemic control and reach target HbA(1c)<7%, using self-titration.

Study rationale and design of the CIMT trial: the Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have an increased mortality rate primarily because of macrovascular disease. Where T2DM patients cannot be managed sufficiently through diet, exercise and peroral antidiabetic drugs, that is when haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is above 7.0%, it is yet unknown whether a combination of metformin and insulin analogues is superior to insulin analogues alone. Nor is it known which insulin analogue regimen is the optimal.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this trial is to evaluate the effect of an 18-month treatment with metformin vs. placebo in combination with one of three insulin analogue regimens, the primary outcome measure being carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) in T2DM patients.

DESIGN

A randomized, stratified, multicentre trial having a 2 x 3 factorial design. The metformin part is double masked and placebo controlled. The insulin treatment is open. The intervention period is 18 months.

PATIENT POPULATION

Nine hundred and fifty patients with T2DM and HbA1c > or = 7.5% on treatment with oral hypoglycaemic agents or on insulin treatment and deemed able, by the investigator, to manage once-daily insulin therapy with a long-acting insulin analogue.

RANDOMIZATION

Central randomization stratified for age (above 65 years), previous insulin treatment and treatment centre.

INTERVENTIONS

Metformin 1 g x two times daily vs. placebo (approximately 475 patients vs. 475 patients) in combination with insulin detemir before bedtime (approximately 315 patients) or biphasic insulin aspart 30 before dinner with the possibility to increase to two or three injections daily (approximately 315 patients) or insulin aspart before the main meals (three times daily) and insulin detemir before bedtime (approximately 315 patients). Intervention follows a treat-to-target principle in all six arms aiming for an HbA1c < or = 7.0%.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure is the change in CIMT from baseline to 18 months. Secondary outcome measures comprises the composite outcome of death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke or amputation assessed by an adjudication committee blinded to intervention, other cardiovascular clinical outcomes, average postprandial glucose increment from 0 to 18 months, hypoglycaemia and any inadvertent medical episodes. In addition, change in plaque formation in the carotids, HbA1c, cardiovascular biomarkers, body composition, progression of microvascular complications and quality of life will be assessed as tertiary outcome measures. TIME SCHEDULE: Patient enrolment started May 2008. Follow-up is expected to finish in March 2011.

CONCLUSION

CIMT is designed to provide evidence as to whether metformin is advantageous even during insulin treatment and to provide evidence regarding which insulin analogue regimen is most advantageous with regard to cardiovascular disease.

Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (NovoMix 30) when switching from human premix insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes: subgroup analysis from the 6-month IMPROVE observational study

AIMS

IMPROVE is an open-label, multinational, non-randomised, 26-week observational study designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in routine clinical practice. Here, we report data for patients switching to BIAsp 30 from human premixed insulin.

METHODS

Patients (n = 3856) with type 2 diabetes previously receiving human premixed insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs were eligible for inclusion. Demographic data, efficacy end-points (HbA(1c), fasting blood glucose and postprandial blood glucose) and safety end-points (serious adverse drug reactions, hypoglycaemia and adverse events) were collected at baseline and final visit. A subgroup analysis of mean dose change was also undertaken.

RESULTS

Switching patients to BIAsp 30 resulted in significant improvements in glycaemic control combined with a reduced risk of hypoglycaemia. Patients who reached the HbA(1c) target (< 7%) had shorter diabetes duration, lower HbA(1c) at baseline and needed less insulin. Over 30% of patients were able to reach this target without experiencing hypoglycaemia over the 26-week period. Compared with asymmetric dose switching, unit-for-unit switching resulted in the highest proportion of patients reaching HbA(1c) target and incurred the least amount of dose titration.

CONCLUSIONS

A unit-for-unit switch is the most effective as well as the simplest approach when transferring patients from biphasic human insulin 30 to BIAsp 30.

Initiating insulin therapy with, or switching existing insulin therapy to, biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (NovoMix 30) in routine care: safety and effectiveness in patients with type 2 diabetes in the IMPROVE observational study

AIMS

The IMPROVE observational study evaluated the safety profile and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine practice in 11 countries.

METHODS

Patients who initiated insulin therapy with, or switched existing insulin therapy to, BIAsp 30 in routine care were eligible for this 26-week, non-interventional observational study. Data on adverse events, hypoglycaemia and glycaemic parameters were obtained from patients' diaries and medical notes. Questionnaire-based patient treatment satisfaction was also measured. We report global results and, uniquely for a diabetes observational study, country-specific data.

RESULTS

A total of 52,419 patients were enrolled from three prestudy treatment groups: no pharmaceutical therapy (n = 8966, diabetes duration 2.0 years, baseline HbA1c 9.9%), oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) only (n = 33,797, diabetes duration 7.4 years, baseline HbA1c 9.2%) and insulin +/- OADs (n = 9568, diabetes duration 10.4 years, baseline HbA1c 9.3%). At final visit, HbA1c, fasting and postprandial blood glucose were significantly reduced from baseline in all subgroups (no pharmaceutical therapy: -3.1%, -5.9 and -9.0 mmol/l, respectively; OADs-only: -2.1%, -4.1 and -6.1 mmol/l; insulin +/- OADs: -2.0%, -3.3 and -5.1 mmol/l). Major hypoglycaemia rates decreased in all subgroups; minor hypoglycaemia increased in the insulin-naïve groups. There was no mean weight gain across subgroups. Across all countries, glycaemic parameters and major hypoglycaemia were reduced; weight increases were seen in some countries. Treatment satisfaction increased in all subgroups and countries following BIAsp 30 therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating insulin with, or switching insulin therapy to, BIAsp 30 in routine care resulted in improved glycaemic control, reduced major hypoglycaemia and greater treatment satisfaction.

Baseline characteristics of the Indian cohort from the IMPROVE study: a multinational, observational study of biphasic insulin aspart 30 treatment for type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The IMPROVE study is an openlabel, nonrandomized, observational study aimed at determining the safety and efficacy of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) treatment in subjects with type 2 diabetes from 11 countries. Here, we report the baseline data of the Indian cohort.

METHODS

All subjects with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin and considered suitable for BIAsp 30 therapy based on their physician's clinical judgment were eligible to enter the study. The data recorded at baseline included demographic characteristics, detailed medical histories, physician-cited reasons for starting BIAsp 30 treatment, and the chosen dosage regimens.

RESULTS

The Indian cohort included 17,995 subjects with diabetes. Poor glycemic control (glycated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)], 8.7%-9.6%) was observed at baseline in all four geographical zones (North, South, East, and West) and prestudy treatment groups (no therapy, only oral antidiabetic drug [OAD], OAD +/- insulin, and OAD +/- insulin +/- BIAsp 30). Prevalence of both micro- and macrovascular complications was high, also reflecting poor glycemic control. Improving HbA(1c) and fasting and postprandial blood glucose levels were the most common reasons for starting BIAsp 30 therapy. The subjects were prescribed a mean BIAsp 30 dose of approximately 24 IU, and a twice-daily regimen was employed in almost 80% of subjects.

CONCLUSION

The baseline results of the IMPROVE study Indian cohort confirm the poor glycemic control and the delayed initiation and/or inadequacy of treatment in subjects with type 2 diabetes. These results also highlight the need for timely and appropriately intensive insulin-based therapy.

Examining and interpreting responsiveness of the Diabetes Medication Satisfaction measure

OBJECTIVE

Treatment satisfaction (TS) is an important patient reported outcome (PRO) in diabetes as it is correlated with outcomes necessary for optimal treatment (e.g., compliance, self-management behaviour). The objective of this study was to examine the responsiveness of the DiabMedSat, a disease-specific PRO measure, assessing Overall, Burden, Efficacy and Symptom TS.

METHODS

The DiabMedSat was included in an open label, observational study of the safety and efficacy of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (NovoMix 30) in routine practice with type 2 diabetes. Responsiveness analyses, examining both internal and external responsiveness, were conducted and minimally important differences (MID) assessed.

RESULTS

In 18,817 patients, all TS scores significantly improved after 26 weeks of treatment (p<0.001). The effect sizes for these changes were above 0.5 indicating that the ability to detect change was moderate-to-large in size. Significant differences were found for all TS scores comparing patients who met their HbA(1c) goal, who improved but did not meet goal and who did not improve (p<0.01), and for patients who experienced a minor hypoglycaemic event and those who did not (p<0.001). DiabMedSat scores were able to detect changes in patients' own global rating of satisfaction (MID ranging from 5.3 to 11.7) and in physician-rated satisfaction with patients' HbA(1c) improvement (MID ranging from 5.3 to 10.2).

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of an observational study, the DiabMedSat has been shown to be highly responsive to change and can be considered as an acceptable PRO measure for TS in diabetes.

Addition of biphasic insulin aspart 30 to optimized metformin and pioglitazone treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: The ACTION Study (Achieving Control Through Insulin plus Oral ageNts)

AIM

Efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30, 30% short-acting and 70% intermediate-acting insulin aspart) added to an optimized treatment of metformin and pioglitazone (met/pio) were compared with treatment with optimized met/pio in type 2 diabetes patients.

METHODS

This randomized, 34-week, parallel-group study enrolled insulin-naive, type 2 diabetes patients (HbA(1c) 7.5-12.0%) previously using two oral antidiabetic (OAD) agents. During an 8-week run-in period, treatment was changed to met/pio and doses were adjusted up to 2500 mg/day and 30 or 45 mg/day respectively. Subjects either continued met/pio alone or added BIAsp 30 initiated at 6 units twice daily and titrated to target plasma glucose (PG) (4.4-6.1 mmol/l).

RESULTS

At end-of-study, subjects treated with BIAsp 30+met/pio (n = 93) had a mean (+/-s.d.) HbA(1c) reduction significantly greater than treatment with met/pio (n = 88) (1.5% +/- 1.1 vs. 0.2% +/- 0.9, p < 0.0001 between groups). Subjects treated with BIAsp 30+met/pio were more likely to reach The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and European Association for the Study of Diabetes/American Diabetes Association HbA(1c) targets of < or =6.5 and <7.0%, respectively, than with met/pio only (HbA(1c)< or =6.5%: 59 vs. 12%; HbA(1c) <7.0%: 76 vs. 24%). At end-of-study, self-monitored glucose profile values at all eight daily time points were significantly less for the BIAsp 30+met/pio group compared with the met/pio group, and minor hypoglycaemia (defined as PG < 3.1 mmol/l) was more frequent (8.3 vs. 0.1 events/year, p < 0.001). Both groups gained weight during treatment (BIAsp 30+met/pio, 4.6 +/- 4.3 kg; met/pio, 0.8 +/- 3.2 kg; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Addition of insulin in type 2 patients treated with met/pio is an effective way to achieve glycaemic targets. Treatment with BIAsp 30+met/pio achieved significantly greater reduction in HbA(1c), as compared with met/pio alone. In patients with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled by 2 OADs, more achieved glycaemic targets using BIAsp 30+met/pio than using met/pio alone.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 in the treatment of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a subgroup analysis of the PRESENT Korea NovoMixstudy

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and treatment satisfaction with biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp30) in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

The Physicians' Routine Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of NovoMix 0 Therapy Korea study was a 6-month, prospective, observational study. No study-specific interventions were involved except the collection of data. All patients with type 2 diabetes not adequately controlled on their previous therapy, and who were prescribed BIAsp30 as monotherapy, or in combination with oral hypoglycaemic agents, were eligible for the study. This subgroup analysis was based on the outcomes in patients > or years (n = 1720).

RESULTS

BIAsp30 treatment was associated with significant mean reductions in haemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose and post-prandial plasma glucose levels of 1.2 +/- 1.6%, 2.3 +/- 3.5 mmol/l and 4.8 +/- 5.3 mmol/l at 6 months (p < 0.0001 for all), from baseline levels of 9.1 +/- 1.7%, 10.7 +/- 3.4 mmol/l and 16.7 +/- 5.0 mmol/l, respectively. The rate of hypoglycaemia declined from 3.02 to 1.31 episodes per patient year, between baseline and study end. The proportion of patients reporting adverse drug reactions was low (0.3 and 0.1% at 3 and 6 months, respectively). Body weight gain was mild at <0.1 kg at 3 months, and 0.3 kg at 6 months. As compared to the previous treatment, >80% of patients were rated as being either 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with BIAsp30 treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In this subanalysis of Korean elderly patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on their previous therapies, treatment with BIAsp30 offered improvements in glycaemic control and was well tolerated. Body weight gain was minimal with BIAsp30, and treatment satisfaction among these patients appeared to be high.

Efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 versus exenatide in subjects with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin and a sulfonylurea

OBJECTIVE

To compare safety and efficacy of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 30) with exenatide in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not achieving glycemic targets with metformin and sulfonylurea in a randomized, open-label, 24-week trial.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Subjects (N = 372, T2DM > 6 months, age > or = 18 and < or = 80 years, HbA1c > or = 8%, insulin naive not achieving glycaemic targets, receiving metformin and sulfonylurea) were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive either BIAsp 30 QD (12 U before supper); BIAsp 30 BID (12 U divided equally between pre-breakfast and pre-supper); or exenatide (5 microg BID for 4 weeks and 10 microg BID thereafter). Efficacy (HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose [FPG]) and safety (adverse events and hypoglycemic episodes) were assessed.

RESULTS

Glycemic control achieved with both BIAsp 30 BID and BIAsp 30 QD was superior to that with exenatide (BIAsp 30 BID-exenatide: HbA1c difference -0.91% [95% CI: -1.23 to -0.59%] and BIAsp 30 QD-exenatide: difference: -0.67% [95% CI: -0.99 to -0.34%]). At the end of the study, more subjects achieved HbA1c < 7% and < or = 6.5% in the BIAsp 30 BID group than in the exenatide group (HbA1c < 7%: 37% vs. 20%, p = 0.0060; HbA1c < or = 6.5%: 25% vs. 8%, p = 0.0004, respectively). Combined hypoglycemic episodes (major, minor, symptoms only) were reported by 56%, 61%, and 29% of the subjects in the BIAsp 30 QD, BIAsp 30 BID, and exenatide groups, respectively. Weight gain was observed in the BIAsp 30 group (BIAsp 30 QD: 2.85 kg, BIAsp 30 BID: 4.08 kg) and weight loss was observed in the exenatide group (-1.96 kg). Nausea or vomiting was responsible for discontinuation of seven subjects in the exenatide group and one subject in the BIAsp 30 BID group.

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly more T2DM patients (poorly controlled with combination metformin/sulfonylurea) achieved glycemic goals when treated with BIAsp 30 than with exenatide. The high baseline HbA1c values (approximately 10.2%) and the long duration of diabetes (approximately 9 years) suggests that some subjects may have been in an advanced stage of their diabetes and may not have had sufficient beta-cell function for a GLP-1 mimetic to be effective. The insulin-treated groups had more minor hypoglycemic events and weight gain but less gastrointestinal side-effects. In summary, BIAsp 30 was more efficacious in helping patients with high baseline HbA1c achieve glycemic goals.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00097877.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30: better glycemic control than with premixed human insulin 30 in obese patients with Type 2 diabetes

AIM

This 3-month study compared the effect on overall glycemic control of adding biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp30) and premixed human insulin 30/70 (BHI30) to metformin (met) in insulin-naïve, obese patients (30 males/20 females) with Type 2 diabetes (T2DM). MATERIAL/SUBJECTS: At baseline, patients had a mean age of 58.7 yr, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 9.5%, and body mass index 34+/-2 kg/m2. Patients received either twice-daily BIAsp30 (no.=20) or twice-daily BHI30 (no.=30), and continued to receive maximal doses (2000 mg) of met for the duration of the study, but sulphonylurea oral antidiabetic drugs were discontinued. Primary efficacy endpoint was the change in HbA1c in both groups at study end. Safety endpoints included hypoglycemic episodes and weight gain.

RESULTS

Both groups reduced HbA1c by end of trial: BIAsp30 + met by 2.5% [2.16-2.86%; 95% confidence interval (CI)]; BHI30 + met by 1.18% (0.98- 1.39%; 95% CI), giving a significantly better HbA1c reduction with BIAsp30 + met (1.33%; p<0.05). Post-prandial plasma glucose decreased in both groups, by 6.38 mmol/l in patients treated with BIAsp30 + met, and by 4.34 mmol/l in those treated with BHI30 + met (p<0.05). Fasting plasma glucose also decreased in both groups, with a slightly larger decrease seen in BIAsp30 patients than in BHI30 patients (7.36 mmol/l at end of study vs 7.82 mmol/l; p=ns). Subjects treated with BIAsp30 gained less weight than those receiving BHI30 (0.3+/-0.1 kg vs 1.2+/-0.4 kg). There was no significant difference in the frequency or number of hypoglycemic episodes between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding BIAsp30 to met in obese patients with T2DM results in better glycemic control and less weight gain than adding BHI30.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 treatment improves glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes in a clinical practice setting: Chinese PRESENT study

AIM

PRESENT (Physicians' Routine Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of NovoMix 30 Therapy) is the largest, multinational, open-labelled, uncontrolled and completed observational study of the efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) treatment in clinical practice. We present results of 3 months of treatment in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were inadequately controlled on current treatment.

METHODS

Patients received BIAsp 30 treatment with or without oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Patients were categorized according to their treatment prior to entering the study: drug-naive (n = 3697), OAD (n = 4754), insulin (n = 2392) or OAD + insulin (n = 817).

RESULTS

At 3 months, significant reductions from baseline were observed in the mean haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) (-2.24 +/- 1.67, -2.04 +/- 1.57, -1.82 +/- 1.49 and -1.86 +/- 1.61%), fasting plasma glucose (-3.93 +/- 3.12, -3.51 +/- 2.55, -2.99 +/- 2.93 and -3.38 +/- 3.16 mmol/l) and postprandial plasma glucose (-7.09 +/- 4.92, -6.51 +/- 4.02, -5.20 +/- 4.31 and -5.50 +/- 4.32 mmol/l) in the drug-naive, OAD, insulin and insulin + OAD groups respectively (p < 0.001). The proportions of patients in each group achieving target HbA(1c) of less than 7% were higher at 3 months (49.5, 51.8, 51.0 and 48.3%) compared with baseline (3.2, 4.2, 7.1 and 8.3%). The rates of hypoglycaemic episodes (events per patient-year) were lower at the end of the study in all the groups compared with baseline. Hypoglycaemic episodes were mostly minor and diurnal in nature. A total of 151 adverse drug reactions were reported, of which five were serious adverse drug reaction (SADRs). These SADRs were all symptoms of local hypersensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of BIAsp 30 monotherapy or in combination with OADs in clinical practice was efficacious and safe in Chinese patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.

Comparison of insulin analogue regimens in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the PREFER Study: a randomized controlled trial

AIMS

Insulin analogues are widely used but few data exist comparing different analogue regimens. We compared two such regimens in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled by oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) with or without basal insulin.

METHODS

In a 26-week multinational, multicentre, randomized treat-to-target trial, OADs were discontinued and subjects randomized to analogue basal-bolus therapy (insulin detemir once daily and insulin aspart mealtimes) or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (30% rapid-acting insulin aspart), twice daily. Insulin was titrated to targets for fasting, predinner and postprandial plasma glucose (PG), as appropriate.

RESULTS

Of 719 subjects, 92% completed the study; 58% achieved haemoglobin fraction A(1c) (HbA(1c)) < or =7.0%, with reductions of 1.56% (to 6.96%) with basal-bolus therapy and 1.23% (to 7.17%) with biphasic insulin aspart. Reduction with basal-bolus therapy was superior in the overall population by 0.23% (p = 0.0052), with no difference between regimens in insulin-naive patients. Major hypoglycaemia occurred in five basal-bolus patients (0.9%) and in no patients with biphasic insulin aspart. Incidence of minor hypoglycaemia was similar in both groups. All insulin doses increased during titration, with increase in lunchtime insulin aspart dose and equal distribution of breakfast and dinner biphasic insulin aspart doses. Insulin detemir remained once daily in 87% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Modern insulin analogue regimens, adjusted to PG targets, enable a majority of people with T2DM to reach HbA(1c)< or =7.0% after failure of OADs and OAD-basal insulin therapy. Insulin-treated patients may benefit more from transfer to analogue basal-bolus therapy, while insulin-naive individuals benefit equally well from the more convenient biphasic analogue regimen.

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of different formulations of biphasic insulin aspart: a randomized, glucose clamp, crossover study

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes patients on premixed insulin are commonly prescribed biphasic insulin with low prandial insulin content, such as biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) 30, comprising 30% insulin aspart (IAsp). The new formulations BIAsp 50 and BIAsp 70 contain 50% and 70% soluble IAsp, respectively. We compared the pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of BIAsp 30, 50, and 70 and IAsp in a glucose clamp trial.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, crossover study at a clinical research institute, 32 type 1 diabetes patients on basal-bolus therapy each underwent four glucose clamps (clamp level 5 mmol/L, duration 28 h post-dosing [12 h for IAsp]) and received a single dose of 0.4 U/kg BIAsp 30, 50, or 70 and IAsp. Main PD/PK outcome parameters measured were early- and late-phase glucose disposal (area under the curve of glucose infusion rate [AUC(GIR)]), nonesterified fatty acid concentrations, and IAsp concentrations.

RESULTS

With increasing proportions of soluble IAsp, the insulin formulations showed significantly higher early metabolic activity (ratio of AUC(GIR) 0-6 h: BIAsp 50/BIAsp 30 = 1.28 [P < 0.001], BIAsp 70/BIAsp 50 = 1.18 [P < 0.001), IAsp/BIAsp 70 = 1.15 [P < 0.01]) and lower late metabolic activity (ratio of AUC(GIR) 12-28 h: BIAsp 50/BIAsp 30 = 0.17 [P < 0.01], BIAsp 70/BIAsp 50 = 0.21 [P < 0.05]). Likewise, early IAsp levels were significantly greater and late PK concentrations were significantly lower with increasing proportion of soluble IAsp.

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant differences between the early and late PD and PK effects among BIAsp 30, 50, and 70 and IAsp that should allow tailored treatment with the convenience of prandial and basal insulin in each injection.

Efficacy, safety and acceptability of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Indian patients with type 2 diabetes: results from the PRESENT study

AIM

The Physicians' Routine Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of NovoMix 30 Therapy (PRESENT) study was done to assess the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in routine clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, multicentric, multinational, observational study in type 2 diabetes patients. The patients were transferred to BIAsp 30 with or without oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). We present the results of 6 months of treatment in the Indian cohort (n = 3559) with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were inadequately controlled on current treatment.

RESULTS

At three and six months, significant reductions from baseline were observed in the mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) (-1.32% and -1.94%), fasting plasma glucose (-56.16 mg/dl and -75.24 mg/dl) and post-prandial plasma glucose (-88.74 mg/dl and -119.16 mg/dl) (p < 0.001). A significantly greater proportion of patients achieved target HbAlc of less than 7% at six months (31.1%), compared with baseline (3.1%), of which 70.4% did not report hypoglycaemia. The rate of total hypoglycaemia was reduced from 3.1 events per patient-year at baseline to 1.5 events per patient-year at end of the study. Episodes were mostly minor and diurnal. Except for two serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported by one patient at 3 months, there were no reports of ADRs during the treatment period. More than 95% of patients and doctors were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with BIAsp 30 treatment, compared to previous treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of BIAsp 30 monotherapy or in combination with OADs in clinical practice was effective and safe in poorly controlled Indian type 2 diabetes patients. Both patients and doctors showed a high degree of treatment satisfaction.

The IMPROVE study--a multinational, observational study in type 2 diabetes: data from the Polish cohort

INTRODUCTION

Observational studies are valuable tools for assessing the applicability of results from randomised controlled trials to broader patient populations. They are especially important in chronic diseases such as diabetes, as they can provide a comprehensive picture of the safety and effectiveness of a particular therapy across cultures and phenotypes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes who required insulin and whose physician had decided to initiate biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) were eligible. A total of 4117 type 2 diabetic patients were recruited to the study in Poland, and 809 primary and secondary care physicians were involved. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of BIAsp 30 treatment in type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.

RESULTS

Baseline glycaemic control was poor in the Polish cohort enrolled in the IMPROVE(TM) study, with a mean HbA(1c) value of 9.0 +/- 1.7%. A very high proportion of patients were thus at risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications. A twice-daily regimen for the start of BIAsp 30 therapy was the most common choice, including 72.2% of patients at baseline. HbA(1c) was significantly reduced by 1.66% for the total cohort and by 3.07% and 1.55% in the pre-study no-therapy or oral antidiabetic drug group respectively (p < 0.001). The rates (episodes per subject year) of overall major hypoglycaemia were 0.012 and 0.12 at follow-up and final visits respectively. For minor hypoglycaemia rates of 5.12 per subject per year at follow-up visit and 4.54 episodes per subject per year at final visit were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

BIAsp 30 appears to be an effective and flexible treatment approach and can be safely intensified to achieve glycaemic control in a majority of patients with type 2 diabetes.

The IMPROVE study--a multinational, observational study in type 2 diabetes: baseline characteristics from eight national cohorts

AIMS

The IMPROVE study is a multinational, open-label, non-randomised, 26-week observational study assessing the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) treatment in type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice. The principal aims of this report were to characterise the baseline population and physicians' treatment decisions.

METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes who required insulin and whose physician had decided to initiate BIAsp 30 were eligible. At baseline, demographic data and detailed medical histories were collected and physicians recorded their reasons for starting BIAsp 30, the glycaemic targets set and the regimens chosen.

RESULTS

Data from 51,286 patients were included in analyses. Baseline glycaemic control was poor in all eight countries in the present analysis and in all prestudy treatment groups [no therapy, oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) only, insulin with or without OADs], and the rates of vascular complications were high. Although the management of each of the three main measures of glycaemic control were key reasons for starting BIAsp 30, target-setting for postprandial glucose levels was variable. A twice-daily regimen was used to start BIAsp 30 therapy for 80% or more of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The IMPROVE baseline data reaffirm the global nature of poor glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes and echo the concerns that initiation of therapy, particularly insulin, is commonly delayed in clinical practice. Although postprandial glucose control was a key driver for physicians' choice of BIAsp 30, this was not consistently reflected in the targets set.