Effects of Exenatide and Humalog Mix25 on Fat Distribution, Insulin Sensitivity, and β-Cell Function in Normal BMI Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Visceral Adiposity

In China, most normal BMI (body mass index of ≥18.5 to <25 kg/m²) adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) exhibit visceral adiposity. This study compared the effects of exenatide and humalog Mix25 on normal BMI patients with T2DM and visceral adiposity. A total of 95 patients were randomized to receive either exenatide or humalog Mix25 treatment for 24 weeks. Subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) were quantified by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and liver fat content (LFC) by liver proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (¹H MRS). Each patient's weight, waist circumference, BMI, blood glucose, insulin sensitivity, pancreatic β-cell function, and fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF-21) levels were measured. Data from 81 patients who completed the study (40 and 41 in the exenatide and humalog Mix25 groups, respectively) were analysed. The change in 2 h plasma blood glucose was greater in the exenatide group (P = 0.039). HOMA-IR and MBCI improved significantly after exenatide therapy (P < 0.01, P = 0.045). VAT and LFC decreased in both groups (P < 0.01 for all) but to a greater extent in the exenatide group, while SAT only decreased with exenatide therapy (P < 0.01). FGF-21 levels declined more in the exenatide group (P < 0.01), but were positively correlated with VAT in the entire cohort before (r = 0.244, P = 0.043) and after (r = 0.290, P = 0.016) the intervention. The effects of exenatide on glycaemic metabolism, insulin resistance, pancreatic β-cell function, and fat deposition support its administration to normal BMI patients with T2DM and visceral adiposity.

A randomized, open-label, multicentre, parallel-controlled study comparing the efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30 plus metformin with biphasic insulin aspart 30 monotherapy for type 2 diabetes patients inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs: The merit study

AIM

To confirm non-inferiority of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) plus metformin to BIAsp 30 in lowering glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in Chinese patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes using oral antidiabetic drugs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this 16-week, prospective, randomized, open-label, multicentre, parallel-controlled study, patients aged 18-79 years with HbA1c ≥7% were randomized to BIAsp 30 plus metformin (n = 130) or BIAsp 30 (n = 127). Initially, 500 mg metformin was administered twice daily and BIAsp 30 was administered at 0.2-0.3 U/kg/d. Changes in HbA1c % from baseline to week 16 as well as secondary and safety endpoints were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 83.66% of patients in the BIAsp 30 plus metformin (n = 110) and the BIAsp 30 (n = 105) groups completed the study. Mean (±standard deviation) change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint was -1.74 ± 1.64% and -1.32 ± 2.05% with BIAsp 30 plus metformin and BIAsp 30, respectively. Least squares mean treatment difference was -0.67% (95% CI, -1.06; -0.28). The upper limit of the 95% CI was <0.4 (non-inferiority margin). A significantly higher proportion of individuals reached HbA1c <7% with BIAsp 30 plus metformin than with BIAsp 30 (53.15% vs 35.19%; P = 0.0074). At endpoint, daily BIAsp 30 dose (P < 0.001) and weight gain were significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the BIAsp 30 plus metformin group compared with the BIAsp 30 group. No between-group differences in number of hypoglycaemic events were observed.

CONCLUSION

BIAsp 30 plus metformin was non-inferior to BIAsp 30 in safely reducing HbA1c in this study.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 treatment for people with type 2 diabetes: a budget impact analysis based in Thailand

OBJECTIVE

To assess the financial consequences of different adoption rate of Biphasic Insulin Aspart (BIAsp) 30 instead of Biphasic Human Insulin (BHI) 30 for people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in Thailand from the payer's perspective.

METHODS

The Excel-based International T2DM Budget Impact Model over a 3-year period was used. The cohort was the T2DM patients who received treatment from government hospitals under the Universal Health Coverage Scheme. Demographic, the adverse events, and the costs were derived from published studies in Thailand. Efficacy was based on meta-analysis. Adoption rates were assumed to increase each year. Net budget impact (NBI) and one-way sensitivity were analyzed.

RESULTS

Hypoglycemia costs were lower in BIAsp 30 compared with BHI 30. The NBI per year was 26,511,269 THB (771,349 USD) for year 1, 52,181,133 THB (1,518,218 USD) for year 2, and 76,189,608 THB (2,216,747 USD) for year 3. The NBI per insulin user per year was 33.45 THB (0.97 USD), 67.27 THB (1.96 USD), 101.49 THB (2.95 USD) from year 1 to year 3, respectively Conclusions: Lower rate of hypoglycemia with BIAsp 30 than those treated with BHI 30 generates cost savings resulting in significant deduction in the additional acquisition cost of BIAsp 30. Therefore, the NBI per insulin user per year has become small.

Do glycoalbumin levels preferentially reflect changes in postprandial glucose excursions?

AIMS

To evaluate whether plasma glycated albumin, which provides an integrated measure of plasma glucose levels over the preceding 2-4 weeks, better reflects changes in postprandial glucose excursions than HbA_1c .

METHODS

People with suboptimum glycaemic control on dual oral therapy were enrolled in the Treating-to-Target-in-Type 2 diabetes (4-T) trial, in which participants were randomized to the addition of once-daily basal insulin, twice-daily biphasic insulin or thrice-daily prandial insulin. Glycated albumin levels were assayed enzymatically from baseline and 1-year fasting plasma samples. We evaluated robust correlations of glycated albumin and HbA_1c both with fasting and postprandial glucose levels at these two time points, and with insulin-induced changes in the postprandial excursion.

RESULTS

Requisite data were available for 625 of the participants in the 4-T trial. Their mean (±sd) age was 62 ± 10 years and body weight was 85.8 ± 15.9 kg, and their median (interquartile range) diabetes duration was 9 (6, 13) years. Partial correlations at baseline and 1 year between postprandial glucose excursions and glycated albumin/HbA_1c , after adjusting for fasting glucose, were 0.27/0.15 and 0.22/0.18, respectively. Glycated albumin, compared with HbA_1c , explained 66% more of the variation in postprandial glucose excursions at baseline. At 1 year, postprandial glucose excursions on basal, biphasic and prandial and insulin therapy were reduced by 0.43, 0.78 and 1.88 mmol/l, respectively. These reductions were associated with changes in both glycated albumin and HbA_1c (P < 0.01), with a stronger association for glycated albumin.

CONCLUSION

Changes in glycated albumin and HbA_1c reflect changes in postprandial glucose excursions to a similar extent.

Insulin lispro 25/75 and insulin lispro 50/50 as starter insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: subanalysis of the CLASSIFY randomized trial

In Japan, premixed insulins are commonly used as starter insulin for type 2 diabetes. This subpopulation analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of twice-daily LM25 (25% insulin lispro/75% insulin lispro protamine) and LM50 (50% insulin lispro/50% insulin lispro protamine) as starter insulin in Japanese subjects, and compared these results with the whole-trial populations of East Asian subjects. In this subpopulation analysis of an open-label, phase 4, randomized trial (CLASSIFY), Japanese subjects received LM25 (n = 88) or LM50 (n = 84) twice-daily for 26 weeks. The primary outcome was change from baseline at Week 26 in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Results for Japanese subjects were generally similar to those for the whole-trial population. Similar changes from baseline in HbA1c were observed for LM25 and LM50 groups (least squares [LS] mean difference [95% confidence interval] of LM25 - LM50 = 0.13 [-0.16, 0.41]%, 1.42 [-1.75, 4.48] mmol/mol, p = 0.388). More LM50-treated subjects than LM25-treated subjects achieved HbA1c targets of <7.0% (59.5% versus 43.2%; p = 0.034) or ≤6.5% (45.2% versus 28.4%; p = 0.027). The reduction in postprandial blood glucose concentrations after morning and evening meals was statistically significantly greater for LM50 than for LM25. The incidence of both hypoglycemia and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between treatment groups. Both LM25 and LM50 twice daily appear to be effective and well tolerated as starter insulin, although LM50 might be more effective for Japanese type 2 diabetes patients.

Premixed insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes: pros

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

Management of postprandial glucose: Recommended targets and treatment with biphasic insulin

Increases in glycaemia, particularly following meals, have been independently associated with diabetes complications, most notably cardiovascular disease. Control of postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) therefore plays an important role in diabetes management. International diabetes guidelines acknowledge the value of PPG monitoring yet place relatively little emphasis on PPG control. This article considers the impact of suboptimal PPG control and current recommendations with regard to management of PPG. Specific consideration is given to the role of biphasic insulins, one of the treatment options recognised by the International Diabetes Federation as preferentially lowering PPG levels.

Biphasic insulin Aspart 30 vs. NPH plus regular human insulin in type 2 diabetes patients; a cost-effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, costs, and cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with NPH plus regular human insulin (NPH/Reg) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

It was a Single-center, parallel-group, randomized, clinical trial (Trial Registration: NCT01889095). One hundred and seventy four T2DM patients with poorly controlled diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 8 % (63.9 mmol/mol)) were randomly assigned to trial arms (BIAsp 30 and NPH/Reg) and were followed up for 48 weeks. BIAsp 30 was started at an initial dose of 0.2-0.6 IU/Kg in two divided doses and was titrated according to the glycemic status of the patient. Similarly, NPH/Reg insulin was initiated at a dose of 0.2-0.6 IU/Kg with a 2:1 ratio and was subsequently titrated. Level of glycemic control, hypoglycemic events, direct and indirect costs, quality adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio have been assessed.

RESULTS

HbA1c, Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and two-hour post-prandial glucose (PPG) were improved in both groups during the study (P < 0.05 for all analyses). Lower frequencies of minor, major, and nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes were observed with BIAsp 30 (P < 0.05). Additionally, BIAsp 30 was associated with less weight gain and also higher QALYs (P < 0.05). Total medical and non-medical costs were significantly lower with BIAsp 30 as compared with NPH/Reg (930.55 ± 81.43 USD vs. 1101.24 ± 165.49 USD, P = 0.004). Moreover, BIAsp 30 showed lower ICER as a dominant alternative.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being more expensive, BIAsp 30 offers the same glycemic control as to NPH/Reg dose-dependently and also appears to cause fewer hypoglycemic events and to be more cost-effective in Iranian patients with type 2 diabetes.

Twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart provides superior fasting plasma glucose control and a reduced rate of hypoglycaemia compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 in insulin-naïve adults with Type 2 diabetes

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs. twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus who were naïve to insulin.

METHODS

In this 26-week, multinational, open-label, controlled, two-arm, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, participants [mean (± sd) age 58.9 (±8.9) years, duration of diabetes 9.5 (±5.9) years, HbA1c 68 (±8.7) mmol/mol or 8.4 (±0.8)% and BMI 31.2 (±4.2) kg/m(2) ) were randomized (1:1) to insulin degludec/insulin aspart (n = 197) or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (n = 197), administered with breakfast and the main evening meal, titrated to a self-monitored plasma glucose target > 3.9 and ≤ 5.0 mmol/l.

RESULTS

The mean HbA1c was reduced to 49 mmol/mol (6.6%) with insulin degludec/insulin aspart and 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) with biphasic insulin aspart 30. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart achieved the prespecified non-inferiority margin (estimated treatment difference 0.02%; 95% CI -0.12, 0.17). Insulin degludec/insulin aspart was superior in lowering fasting plasma glucose (estimated treatment difference -1.00 mmol/l; 95% CI -1.4, -0.6; P < 0.001) and reducing overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia at a similar overall insulin dose compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30. Similar proportions of participants in each arm experienced severe hypoglycaemia. Adverse events were equally distributed.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with previous findings, insulin degludec/insulin aspart twice daily effectively improved long-term glycaemic control, with superior reductions in FPG, and significantly less overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with Type 2 diabetes who were insulin-naïve.

Blood Glucose Fluctuations in Type 2 Diabetes Patients Treated with Multiple Daily Injections

To compare blood glucose fluctuations in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients were treated using three procedures: insulin intensive therapy which is continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), MDI3 (three injections daily), and MDI4 (four injections daily). T2DM patients were hospitalized and were randomly assigned to CSII, aspart 30-based MDI3, and glargine based MDI4. Treatments were maintained for 2-3 weeks after the glycaemic target was reached. After completing the baseline assessment, 6-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was performed before and after completion of insulin treatment. Treatment with CSII provided a greater improvement of blood glucose fluctuations than MDI (MDI3 or MDI4) therapy either in newly diagnosed or in long-standing T2DM patients. In long-standing diabetes patients, the MDI4 treatment group had significantly greater improvement of mean amplitude glycemic excursion (MAGE) than the MDI3 treatment group. However, in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes, there were no significant differences in the improvement of MAGE between MDI3 and MDI4 groups. Glargine based MDI4 therapy provided better glucose fluctuations than aspart 30-based MDI3 therapy, especially in long-standing T2DM patients, if CSII therapy was not available.

Intensifying insulin regimen after basal insulin optimization in adults with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, randomized, open-label trial comparing insulin glargine plus insulin glulisine with biphasic insulin aspart (LanScape)

AIM

To test the hypothesis that a 'basal plus' regimen--adding once-daily main-meal fast-acting insulin to basal insulin once daily--would be non-inferior to biphasic insulin twice daily as assessed by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration (predefined as ≤0.4%), but would provide superior treatment satisfaction.

METHODS

This open-label trial enrolled adults to an 8- or 12-week run-in period, during which oral therapies except metformin were stopped and insulin glargine dose was titrated. Those with fasting glucose <7 mmol/l but HbA1c >7% (53 mmol/mol) were randomized to insulin glargine/glulisine once daily (n = 170) or insulin aspart/aspart protamine 30/70 twice daily (n = 165) for 24 weeks, with dose titration to glucose targets using standardized algorithms.

RESULTS

For HbA1c, the basal plus regimen was non-inferior to biphasic insulin (least squares mean difference, 0.21%, upper 97.5% confidence limit 0.38%) meeting the predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. Treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version and Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire total scores) significantly favoured basal plus. No difference was observed between the basal plus and the biphasic insulin groups in responders (HbA1c <7%, 20.6 vs 27.9%; p = 0.12), weight gain (2.06 vs 2.50 kg; p = 0.2), diabetes-specific quality of life (Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life average weighted impact (AWI) score) and generic health status (five-dimension European Quality of Life questionnaire). Overall hypoglycaemia rates were similar between groups (15.3 vs 18.2 events/patient-year; p = 0.22); nocturnal hypoglycaemia was higher with the basal plus regimen (5.7 vs 3.6 events/patient-year; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

In long-standing type 2 diabetes with suboptimal glycaemia despite oral therapies and basal insulin, the basal plus regimen was non-inferior to biphasic insulin for biomedical outcomes, with a similar overall hypoglycaemia rate but more nocturnal events.

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.

[The predictive factors of good glycaemic control in Chinese patients receiving biphasic insulin as part 30: a subgroup analyses from the A1 chieve study]

OBJECTIVE

To identify the baseline factors associated with achievement of glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) < 7.0% in Chinese patients receiving biphasic insulin as part 30 (BIAsp 30), who were previously inadequately controlled with oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs).

METHODS

A1 chieve was a multinational, prospective, open-label, 24-week non-interventional study in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin analogues in 28 countries. The patients were enrolled to take BIAsp 30 according to physician's clinical judgments, who was also responsible for the treatment regimen and dosage adjustment. Primary safety endpoints were the incidence of serious drug adverse reactions (SADRs) including serious hypoglycaemia. Major efficacy endpoints were change in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2h post-prandial plasma glucose (2 hPG) from baseline. Relationships between baseline predictive baseline factors and achievement of HbA1c < 7.0% after treatment were examined using multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

In China, 4 100 patients initiated BIAsp 30 [54.2% males, age (56.2 ± 13.6) years]. No SADRs were reported. Mean HbA1c was reduced from (9.3 ± 2.1)% to (7.0 ± 1.0)%; FPG was reduced from (10.2 ± 3.3) mmol/L to (6.8 ± 1.3) mmol/L. Changes in 2 hPG after breakfast, lunch and dinner were (-5.6 ± 4.7), (-4.9 ± 4.3) and (-4.2 ± 4.1) mmol/L, respectively (all P < 0.001). The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c < 7.0% increased from 9.7% at baseline to 54.2% at week 24. Multivariate analysis revealed a negative relationship between baseline HbA1c, FPG, 2 hPG and HbA1c < 7.0% after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Chinese subgroup of the A1 chieve study, lower baseline HbA1c, FPG, 2 hPG were predictive factors for achieving HbA1c < 7.0% after 24-week treatment of BIAsp 30, indicating that the earlier initiation of BIAsp 30 in patients poorly controlled with OADs, the more helpful for them to achieve treatment target.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart produces a dose-proportional glucose-lowering effect in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To evaluate the pharmacodynamic dose-response relationship of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp), a novel, soluble co-formulation of the ultra-long-acting basal insulin, insulin degludec (IDeg), with the rapid-acting prandial insulin (IAsp), across different doses in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM).

METHODS

This was a randomized, single-centre, double-blind, four-period, incomplete block, crossover trial. A cohort of 33 people with T1DM received single doses (0.4, 0.6 or 0.8 U/kg) of IDegAsp or the comparator, biphasic insulin aspart 30, in a randomized sequence of four treatment periods, each separated by a washout of 13-21 days. Pharmacodynamic response was assessed using a 26-h euglycaemic glucose clamp, with blood glucose stabilized at a target of 5.5 mmol/l (100 mg/dl).

RESULTS

A rapid onset of action and a distinct peak attributable to IAsp was observed in the glucose infusion rate (GIR) profile, followed by a separate, flat and stable basal glucose-lowering effect attributable to the IDeg component. The mean area under the GIR curve over 24 h (AUC(GIR,0-24 h)), and the mean maximum GIR (GIR(max)) increased with increasing dose level of IDegAsp. A dose-response relationship for IDegAsp was demonstrated for AUC(GIR,0-24 h) and GIR(max), indicating dose proportionality. A dose-concentration relationship was also observed for both the basal and bolus components of IDegAsp.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp has a clear dose-response relationship, indicating the clinical potential for straightforward titration according to individual patient needs.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LIMITATIONS

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

The SimpleMix study with biphasic insulin aspart 30: a randomized controlled trial investigating patient-driven titration versus investigator-driven titration

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to confirm the efficacy, through non-inferiority, of patient-driven versus investigator-driven titration of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in terms of glycemic control assessed by HbA1c change.

METHODS

SimpleMix was a 20 week, open-label, randomized, two-armed, parallel-group, multicenter study in five countries (Argentina, China, India, Poland, and the UK). Patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized into either patient-driven or investigator-driven BIAsp 30 titration groups.

RESULTS

Non-inferiority of patient-driven vs. investigator-driven titration based on change in HbA1c from baseline to week 20 could not be demonstrated. Mean (SE) estimated change from baseline to week 20 was -0.72 (0.08)% in the patient-driven group and -0.97 (0.08)% in the investigator-driven group; estimated difference 0.25% (95% CI: 0.04; 0.46). Estimated mean change (SE) in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to week 20 was similar between groups: -0.94 (0.21) mmol/L for patient-driven and -1.07 (0.22) mmol/L for investigator-driven (difference non-significant). Both treatment arms were well tolerated, and hypoglycemic episode rates were similar between groups, with a rate ratio of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.54; 1.09; p = 0.143) for all hypoglycemic episodes and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.42; 1.43; p = 0.417) for nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-inferiority of patient-driven versus investigator-driven titration with regard to change from baseline to end-of-treatment HbA1c could not be confirmed. It is possible that a clinic visit 12 weeks after intensification of treatment with BIAsp 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately treated with basal insulin may benefit patient-driven titration of BIAsp 30. A limitation of the study was the relatively small number of patients recruited in each country, which does not allow country-specific analyses to be performed. Overall, treatment with BIAsp 30 was well tolerated in both treatment groups.

Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with type 2 diabetes switching from basal-bolus insulin regimens in the A1chieve study

AIMS

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 allows fewer daily injections versus basal-bolus insulin regimens, which may improve adherence and treatment outcome. This sub-analysis of the observational A1chieve study assessed clinical safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with type 2 diabetes previously receiving basal-bolus insulin regimens.

METHODS

A1chieve was an international, open-label, 24-week study in people with type 2 diabetes starting/switching to biphasic insulin aspart 30, insulin detemir or insulin aspart. This sub-analysis assessed patients switching from insulin glargine- or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin-based basal-bolus insulin regimens to biphasic insulin aspart 30.

RESULTS

1024 patients were included. At 24 weeks, glycated haemoglobin and fasting plasma glucose were significantly reduced from baseline in both cohorts (all p<0.001). The proportion reporting any hypoglycaemia, major hypoglycaemia or nocturnal hypoglycaemia was significantly reduced after 24 weeks (all p<0.05). No serious adverse drug reactions were reported. Both cohorts had significantly improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

24 weeks after switching from basal-bolus insulin regimens to biphasic insulin aspart 30, glycaemic control and HRQoL were significantly improved, and hypoglycaemia was significantly reduced. This suggests that people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal-bolus insulin regimens can consider biphasic insulin aspart 30.

Durability of glycemic control with insulin lispro mix 75/25 versus insulin glargine for older patients with type 2 diabetes

Background and Aims

Few studies have evaluated long-term durability of glycemic control in older patients. The aim of this study was to compare durability of glycemic control of twice-daily insulin lispro mix 75/25 (LM75/25; 75 % insulin lispro protamine suspension, 25 % insulin lispro) and once-daily insulin glargine (GL) added to oral antihyperglycemic medications in older patients (≥65 years of age).

Methods

Patients were participants in the maintenance phase of the DURABLE trial. During the initiation phase, patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to LM75/25 or GL. After 6 months, patients with hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) ≤7.0 % advanced to the 24-month maintenance phase. The primary objective was between-group comparison of duration of maintaining the HbA_1c goal in older patients (≥65 years of age). A similar analysis was conducted for older patients achieving HbA_1c ≤6.5 % in the initiation phase.

Results

Median time of maintaining HbA_1c goal was longer in LM75/25 versus GL (19.6 versus 15.4 months, p = 0.007) and more LM75/25 patients maintained goal versus GL (49.2 versus 30.4 %; p = 0.003). HbA_1c reduction from baseline was greater in LM75/25 versus GL (−1.56 ± 0.10 versus −1.24 ± 0.11 %; p = 0.003). Post-meal glucose was significantly lower in LM75/25 versus GL (158.86 ± 3.42 versus 171.67 ± 4.51 mg/dL; p = 0.017). No differences were observed in overall and severe hypoglycemia. LM75/25 patients had higher daily insulin doses (0.41 ± 0.02 versus 0.32 ± 0.02 units/kg/day; p < 0.001) and more weight gain (5.47 ± 0.49 versus 3.10 ± 0.53 kg; p = 0.001). Similar results were generally obtained in older patients with HbA_1c ≤6.5 %.

Conclusions

In our evaluation of older patients from a larger trial, LM75/25 appeared to provide longer durability of glycemic control, as well as a greater number of patients maintaining HbA_1c goal versus GL.

A pilot study to examine the tolerability and device preference in type 1 diabetes of insulin aspart administered by InsuJet compared with subcutaneous injection

BACKGROUND

Jet injectors allow needle-free insulin delivery. The study objective was to compare the tolerability and device preference of subcutaneous insulin aspart delivery by jet injector (InsuJet™; European Pharma Group, Schiphol-Rijk, The Netherlands) with pen injection in an open-label, randomized, crossover pilot study.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Ten participants with type 1 diabetes underwent two meal tolerance tests 1 week apart. Plasma glucose and serum insulin levels were sampled from 10 min preceding to 240 min after insulin aspart administration by InsuJet or FlexPen(®) (Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals Pty. Ltd., Baulkham Hills, NSW, Australia). Insulin dose was calculated using participants' insulin-to-carbohydrate ratios. Immediately after insulin administration, participants drank 500 mL of Ensure(®) (Abbott Australasia Pty. Ltd., Botany, NSW, Australia) (providing 2,240 kJ of energy, 18.6 g of protein, 96 g of carbohydrate, and 3 g of fat).

RESULTS

In this small pilot study, the devices were similar in glucose excursion (median [quartile 1, quartile 3], InsuJet vs. FlexPen, 9.4 [4.8, 12.8] vs. 8.1 [5.4, 10.6] mmol/L; P=0.43), in the area under the glucose concentration-time curve for 0-240 min corrected for baseline glucose level (InsuJet vs. FlexPen, 1,230 [623, 2,012] vs. 1,175 [91, 1,774] mmol · min/L; P=0.4), and in insulin absorption over the 240-min period. Devices were similar for participant preference and relative injection pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous jet injection of aspart insulin was well tolerated.

A comparison of biphasic insulin aspart and insulin glargine administered with oral antidiabetic drugs in type 2 diabetes mellitus--a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

It is uncertain whether the addition of biphasic insulin analogues to oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) is as effective and safe as basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We performed a systematic review to compare glycaemic control and selected clinical outcomes in T2DM patients inadequately controlled with OADs whose treatment was intensified by adding biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) or insulin glargine (IGlar).

METHODS

The analysis included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified by a systematic literature search in medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and other sources) up to March 2013. Studies met the inclusion criteria if they compared BIAsp 30 vs. IGlar added to at least one OAD in T2DM patients. Trials applying different OADs in both treatment arms were also included. Results were presented as weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Five trials, including a total number of 1758 patients followed up from 24 to 28 weeks, were identified. Quantitative synthesis demonstrated that BIAsp 30 reduced HbA1c level more efficiently than IGlar [5 RCTs; WMD (95% CI): -0.21% (-0.35%, -0.08%)]. Differences were observed in favour of BIAsp for lower mean prandial glucose increment [3 RCTs; WMD (95% CI): -14.70 mg/dl (-20.09, -9.31)]; no difference was observed for fasting plasma glucose [3 RCTs; WMD (95% CI): 7.09 mg/dl (-15.76, 29.94)]. We found no evidence for higher risk of overall [2 RCTs; 63% vs. 51%; OR = 1.77 (0.91; 3.44)] and severe hypoglycaemic episodes [4 RCTs; 0.98% vs. 1.12%; OR (95% CI) = 0.88 (0.31, 2.53)] in the BIAsp 30 group as compared with IGlar group. Twice-daily administration of BIAsp 30 resulted in larger weight gain [2 RCTs; WMD (95% CI) = 1.78 kg (1.04; 2.52)].

CONCLUSIONS

BIAsp 30 added to OAD therapy results in a better glycaemic control as compared with IGlar in T2DM patients. BIAsp 30 use is associated with slightly larger weight gain but no rise in risk of severe hypoglycaemic episodes.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 improved glycemic control in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on oral glucose-lowering drugs: a subgroup analysis of the A₁chieve study

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and safety of initiating biphasic insulin aspart 30 in patients who were poorly controlled on oral glucose-lowering drugs were studied in randomized controlled trials, while results from clinical practice remain limited. This subgroup analysis was to provide such findings from a large-scale non-interventional study.

METHODS

A1chieve was a multinational, prospective, open-label, non-interventional, 24-week study in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin analogues in 28 countries across Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America. After physician had taken the decision to use this insulin, any patient with type 2 diabetes who was not treated with or who had started the study insulin within 4 weeks before inclusion was eligible. Patients were treated with study insulin alone or in combination with oral glucose-lowering drugs. Data on adverse drug reactions, hypoglycemia and glycemic control were collected at baseline, week 12 and 24. This is a report of a Chinese subgroup analysis from the A1chieve study.

RESULTS

Totally, 4 100 patients constituted this subgroup. No serious adverse drug reactions were reported. Rates of total, major, nocturnal hypoglycemic events (events/patient per year) were 1.47, 0.10, 0.31 at baseline and 1.35, 0.00, 0.22 at week 24, respectively. Glycemic control was improved as measured by hemoglobin A1c (mean 9.3% to 7.0%, reduction -2.3%), fasting plasma glucose (mean 10.2 to 6.8 mmol/L, reduction -3.5 mmol/L) and postprandial plasma glucose (mean 14.4 to 8.8 mmol/L, reduction -5.6 mmol/L), all P < 0.001. Change in mean body weight was +0.3 kg (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this subgroup analysis of the A1chieve study, biphasic insulin aspart 30 improved glycemic control with low risk of hypoglycemia.

The optimal morning:evening ratio in total dose of twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue in poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes: a 24-week multi-centre prospective, randomized controlled, open-labelled clinical study

AIMS

Biphasic insulin analogues are widely used in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus suboptimally controlled on oral anti-diabetic drugs. Several topics in this area remain controversial, including how to divide the daily dose of biphasic insulin analogue. We aimed to determine the optimal dosing ratio of twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue and to compare the glycaemic efficacy among groups of patients using different initial dosing ratios of biphasic insulin analogue.

METHODS

A total of 100 poorly controlled insulin-naive subjects with Type 2 diabetes [HbA1c ≥ 58 mmol/mol, (7.5%)] on oral anti-diabetic drugs were randomized into three groups according to initial morning:evening dosing ratio (group I, 50:50; group II, 55:45; group III, 60:40) of twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue (biphasic insulin aspart 70/30, biphasic insulin aspart 30). The primary outcome measure was the difference in pre-breakfast to pre-dinner dose ratio at the end of the study.

RESULTS

Twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue showed a significant improvement in glycaemic control [HbA1c from 70 mmol/mol (8.6%) to 60 mmol/mol (7.6%)] after 24 weeks regardless of the initial dose ratio given. Despite the similar efficacy and safety profiles among three groups, morning dose was significantly increased (from 50:50 to 55:45-60:40) in group I after 24 weeks. However, there was no significant change in splitting ratio in groups II and III (with higher morning dose) over the 24-week treatment period.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that initiating twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue on regimens with a higher dose before breakfast than before dinner (i.e. ratio approximately 55:45 to 60:40) might be more appropriate in Korean subjects with Type 2 diabetes.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes in non-western nations: results from a regional comparative multinational observational study (A(1)chieve)

BACKGROUND

A1chieve(®) (Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsværd, Denmark) was a prospective, multicenter, noninterventional study in 66,726 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in 28 countries beginning biphasic insulin aspart 30 (aspart premix), insulin detemir, or insulin aspart in routine clinical care.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A subgroup of 27,594 insulin-naive people began therapy with aspart premix with or without oral agents. Safety and effectiveness data were taken from clinic records at baseline and after 24 weeks. Seven regional country groupings were prespecified.

RESULTS

Mean final insulin dose ranged from 0.68±0.26 U/kg/day (Middle East/Gulf) to 0.38±0.14 U/kg/day (South Asia). The baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level varied from 10.5±2.0% (Latin America) to 9.2±1.3% (South Asia), with reductions from -2.9±2.1% (Latin America) to -1.9±1.3% (South Asia). The proportion of people reaching an HbA1c level of <7.0% was highest in China (56%) and lowest in North Africa (22%). Fasting plasma glucose level reductions were from -6.4±5.3 mmol/L (Latin America) to -3.6±2.6 mmol/L (South Asia). Most people began aspart premix twice daily, varying from 91% (North Africa) to 70% (Latin America). Improvement in HbA1c increased with baseline dose frequency (once daily, -1.5±1.4%; twice daily, -2.2±1.6%; three times daily, -2.9±2.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin-naive people with T2DM beginning aspart premix insulin in routine clinical practice in non-western nations had clinically useful improvements in blood glucose control after 24 weeks in all seven regions. Improvements from baseline for glucose control variables were greater than cross-regional differences in those variables at 24 weeks.

Do high fasting glucose levels suggest nocturnal hypoglycaemia? The Somogyi effect-more fiction than fact?

AIMS

The Somogyi effect postulates that nocturnal hypoglycaemia causes fasting hyperglycaemia attributable to counter-regulatory hormone release. Although most published evidence has failed to support this hypothesis, this concept remains firmly embedded in clinical practice and often prevents patients and professionals from optimizing overnight insulin. Previous observational data found lower fasting glucose was associated with nocturnal hypoglycaemia, but did not assess the probability of infrequent individual episodes of rebound hypoglycaemia. We analysed continuous glucose monitoring data to explore its prevalence.

METHODS

We analysed data from 89 patients with Type 1 diabetes who participated in the UK Hypoglycaemia study. We compared fasting capillary glucose following nights with and without nocturnal hypoglycaemia (sensor glucose < 3.5 mmol/l).

RESULTS

Fasting capillary blood glucose was lower after nights with hypoglycaemia than without [5.5 (3.0) vs. 14.5 (4.5) mmol/l, P < 0.0001], and was lower on nights with more severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia [5.5 (3.0) vs. 8.2 (2.3) mmol/l; P = 0.018 on nights with nadir sensor glucose of < 2.2 mmol/l vs. 3.5 mmol/l]. There were only two instances of fasting capillary blood glucose > 10 mmol/l after nocturnal hypoglycaemia, both after likely treatment of the episode. When fasting capillary blood glucose is < 5 mmol/l, there was evidence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia on 94% of nights.

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that, in clinical practice, the Somogyi effect is rare. Fasting capillary blood glucose ≤ 5 mmol/l appears an important indicator of preceding silent nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

Initiating or switching to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes patients from Algeria: a sub-analysis of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To determine the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Algerian patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin or switching from prior insulin therapy.

METHODS

Insulin-naive and insulin-experienced patients, including prior basal insulin users, starting BIAsp 30 were evaluated in this sub-analysis of the 24-week, open-label, non-interventional A₁chieve study. Clinical safety and effectiveness was evaluated as a part of routine clinical care.

RESULTS

A total of 134 insulin-naive patients initiating BIAsp 30 at a mean dose of 0.44 ± 0.23 U/kg and 283 insulin-experienced patients, including 129 prior basal insulin users, switching from a mean pre-study insulin dose of 0.51 ± 0.23 U/kg to BIAsp 30 (0.54 ± 0.20 U/kg) were evaluated. At Week 24, the average BIAsp 30 dose was 0.60 ± 0.25 U/kg and 0.66 ± 0.24 U/kg in insulin-naive and insulin-experienced patients, respectively. No serious adverse drug reactions were reported. From baseline to Week 24, the proportion of patients experiencing overall hypoglycaemia increased in the insulin-naive group (p = 0.0067) and no significant changes were reported in the insulin-experienced group including prior basal insulin users. Glucose control improved significantly in the insulin-experienced group (p < 0.001) and appeared to improve in the insulin-naive patients and prior basal insulin users as well. Body weight increased significantly in all patients (p < 0.001). Quality of life was positively impacted after 24 weeks of BIAsp 30 therapy.

CONCLUSION

Initiating or switching to BIAsp 30 therapy in this Algerian cohort was well-tolerated and significantly improved glucose control.

Criteria influencing the choice of starting insulin regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice: baseline data from the Algerian cohort of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To examine the criteria that may influence physicians' choice of starting insulin in type 2 diabetes patients in routine practice in Algeria as a sub-analysis of the A₁chieve study.

METHODS

A₁chieve was a 24-week international, prospective, non-interventional study conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30), insulin detemir (IDet), or insulin aspart alone or in combination, in real-life clinical settings. We report an analysis of baseline data from insulin-naive patients initiating basal or premix insulin from the Algeria cohort (n = 1494). Demographic and anthropometric data, blood glucose control at inclusion, microvascular complications, and pre-study therapy was compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 772 insulin-naive patients initiating therapy with IDet or BIAsp 30 were included in this analysis: IDet: 638 (83%), BIAsp 30: 134 (17%). Most IDet-group patients initiated once-daily therapy (n = 636; 99.7%); conversely, most BIAsp 30-group patients started twice-daily therapy (n = 104; 77.6%). Baseline factors influencing regimen choice were microvascular complications (odds ratio [95% CI], yes/no: 0.73 [0.55, 0.98]; p = 0.034) and HbA1c at baseline (%, odds ratio [95% CI] 0.82 [0.72, 0.94]; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

In routine practice, physicians in Algeria are more likely to prescribe basal insulin at initiation of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes. The prescription of a premix insulin therapy correlated with poor glycaemic control and the incidence of microvascular complications.

Hypoglycemia observed during continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated by subcutaneous insulin injection

BACKGROUND

The relationship between hypoglycemia and the dose of insulin used in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus was investigated by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 83 CGM studies were performed in 70 outpatients with type 2 diabetes receiving treatment by subcutaneous insulin injection.

RESULTS

The total dose of insulin, bolus insulin dose, and basal insulin dose used in the subjects were 32±18 units, 19±13 units, and 13±8 units, respectively. The proportion of time in the hypoglycemic range (blood glucose<3.9 mmol/L) during CGM was positively correlated with the bolus insulin ratio (bolus/total insulin dose, r=0.22, P=0.04), although it was not associated with the total dose of insulin or the hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level. It was negatively correlated with the mean blood glucose (r=-0.38, P<0.01), whereas it was not associated with the SD or the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE). The proportion of time in the hypoglycemic range was significantly greater in the subjects with a bolus insulin ratio of ≥0.6 (3.2±4.4%, n=42) than a ratio of <0.6 (1.2±3.0%, n=41), although the HbA1c level, total dose of insulin, mean blood glucose, SD, and MAGE were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

An excessive dose of bolus insulin might increase the duration of hypoglycemia, independently from the HbA1c levels, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving subcutaneous insulin injection.

Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (Biasp 30) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the pakistani population: results from the A1chieve study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the safety and effectiveness of treatment with the insulin analogue, biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30), in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in a subgroup of a Pakistani population from the A1chieve study.

METHODS

A1chieve was a 24-week, international, prospective, multicentre, open label, observational, non-interventional study designed to evaluate the safety and clinical effectiveness of 66,726 people with T2DM who were initiated with basal insulin detemir, fast actinginsulin aspart, and BIAsp 30 (30% soluble insulin aspart, 70% protamine-crystallized insulin aspart). The study was conducted in 28 countries across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. Here, we report data from a subgroup of 762 people with T2DM from the Pakistani cohort (insulin naïve and insulin users) who were treated withpremix insulin (BIAsp 30) +/- oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).

RESULTS

The decrease in HbAlc at week 24 was statistically significant in the entire cohort, the insulin naïve, and insulin users (1.7 +/- 1.1%, 1.8 +/- 1.3% and 1.7 +/- 0.9%, respectively, p<0.001 for all).There was a statistically significant decrease in the mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) from baseline toweek 24 in the entire cohort, in the insulin naïve and in the insulin users with BIAsp 30 treatment (p<0.001 for all).No major hypoglycaemic events were reported during the entire study period. There was a statistically significant decrease in the systolic blood pressure (SBP) in all groups (p<0.001). The improvement in the quality of life score (QoL)was statistically significant in all groups (p<0.001 for all).

CONCLUSION

BIAsp 30 treatment appeared to be well tolerated and effective as indicated byimproved glycaemiccontrol and QoL in people with T2DM in the Pakistani population after 24 weeks.

Comparison of a soluble co-formulation of insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes: a randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble co-formulation of insulin degludec (70%) and insulin aspart (IAsp: 30%). Here, we compare the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp, an alternative IDegAsp formulation (AF: containing 45% IAsp), and biphasic IAsp 30 (BIAsp 30).

DESIGN

Sixteen-week, open-label, randomised, treat-to-target trial.

METHODS

Insulin-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes (18-75 years) and a HbA1c of 7-11% were randomised to twice-daily IDegAsp (n=61), AF (n=59) or BIAsp 30 (n=62), all in combination with metformin. Insulin was administered pre-breakfast and dinner (main evening meal) and titrated to pre-breakfast and pre-dinner plasma glucose (PG) targets of 4.0-6.0 mmol/l.

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c after 16 weeks was comparable for IDegAsp, AF and BIAsp 30 (6.7, 6.6 and 6.7% respectively). With IDegAsp, 67% of subjects achieved HbA1c 7.0% Without confirmed hypoglycaemia in the last 4 weeks of treatment compared with 53% (AF) and 40% (BIAsp 30). Mean fasting PG was significantly lower for IDegAsp vs BIAsp 30 (treatment difference (TD): -0.99 mmol/l (95% confidence interval: -1.68; 0.29)) and AF vs BIAsp 30 (TD: -0.88 mmol/l (-1.58; -0.18)). A significant, 58% lower rate of confirmed hypoglycaemia was found for IDegAsp vs BIAsp 30 (rate ratio (RR): 0.42 (0.23; 0.75)); rates were similar for AF vs BIAsp 30 (RR: 0.92 (0.54; 1.57)). IDegAsp and AF had numerically lower rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia vs BIAsp 30 (RR: 0.33 (0.09; 1.14) and 0.66 (0.22; 1.93) respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp provided comparable overall glycaemic control to BIAsp 30 with a significantly lower rate of hypoglycaemia.

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

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

A comparison of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin aspart, biphasic insulin aspart 70, biphasic insulin aspart 50, and human insulin: a randomized, quadruple crossover study

BACKGROUND

We compared the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of insulin aspart, biphasic insulin aspart 70 (BIAsp70) and 50 (BIAsp50) (containing 70% and 50% rapid-acting insulin aspart, respectively), and soluble human insulin under experimental conditions.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

In this randomized, four-period crossover study, 19 type 1 diabetes patients received subcutaneous injections of identical doses (0.2 U/kg) of insulin aspart, BIAsp70, or BIAsp50 immediately before a standardized meal or human insulin 30 min before meal. Plasma glucose and serum insulin were measured for 12 h postprandially.

RESULTS

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of human insulin differed from those of insulin aspart, BIAsp70, and BIAsp50. The three different aspart preparations had easily distinguishable features with regard to onset and duration of action. Insulin aspart preparations were, on average, absorbed twice as fast as human insulin. In the initial phases (0-4 h and 0-6 h), the insulin area under the concentration-time curve (AUC(ins)) was significantly higher during insulin aspart treatment compared with the others, whereas insulin aspart had a significantly lower AUC(ins) over the last 6 h (P<0.05). BIAsp70 and BIAsp50 provided insulin coverage comparable to that of human insulin over the last 6 h. Insulin aspart had the most pronounced onset of action and the shortest duration. Comparing with insulin aspart and BIAsp70, BIAsp50 revealed a closer treatment ratio to human insulin on pharmacodynamic end points.

CONCLUSIONS

BIAsp70 and BIAsp50 injected immediately before a meal are at least as effective as human insulin injected 30 min earlier in controlling postprandial glycemic excursions. BIAsp50 showed the greatest similarity to human insulin with regard to pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles.

Higher morning to evening ratio in total dose of twice-daily biphasic insulin analog might be effective in achieving glucose control in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study are to investigate not only the glucose-lowering effectiveness of twice-daily premixed insulin lispro 25 (Humalog(®) Mix25(™), Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN), but also the optimal divided ratio of total Mix25 dose in Korean patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, we retrieved data for subjects who were on intensive insulin therapy with twice-daily Mix25 regimen for at least 24 weeks. Changes of hemoglobin A1c (HbA(1c)) and other clinical and laboratory parameters were evaluated. Two groups were defined according to dose ratio of pre-breakfast to pre-dinner insulin at 24 weeks: Group I, pre-breakfast:pre-dinner insulin dose ratio=50:50; Group II, ratio=53:47-75:25.

RESULTS

In total, 143 subjects were ultimately analyzed in this study. Twice-daily Mix25 significantly improved HbA(1c) levels from 10.1% to 7.7%, and 34% of patients had reached the target glycemic goal (HbA(1c)<7%) after 24 weeks. Compared with Group I, a significant reduction in HbA(1c) (Group I vs. Group II, -1.9±0.3% vs. -2.8±0.3%, P=0.02) and a larger proportion of subjects with HbA(1c)<7% (23.2% vs. 46.7%, P=0.01) were observed in subjects in Group II. Among clinical and laboratory factors, duration of diabetes (odd ratios [OR]=0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-0.99, P=0.04) and history of sulfonylurea use (OR=0.27, 95% CI 0.10-0.72, P=0.01) were independently associated with achieving target HbA(1c) levels less than 7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Twice-daily Mix25 is an effective option for Korean subjects with type 2 diabetes having uncontrolled hyperglycemia. A higher pre-breakfast/pre-dinner dose ratio (53:47-75:25) might be taken into consideration as an initial protocol to accomplish better glycemic control in twice-daily Mix25.

Switching to biphasic insulin aspart 30/50/70 from biphasic human insulin 30/50 in patients with type 2 diabetes in normal clinical practice: observational study results

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety and efficacy of switching to biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) 30, 50 or 70 in patients with type 2 diabetes previously treated with biphasic human insulin (BHI) 30/50 (with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a 26-week, prospective, observational study conducted in Belgium and Luxembourg. Data were collected at baseline before patients switched and at 12 and 26 weeks after starting BIAsp 30, 50 or 70. Safety endpoints were incidence and rate of hypoglycemia (major, minor, nocturnal), adverse events and body-weight changes. Efficacy assessments included HbA(1c) and 7-point self-measured plasma glucose (PG) profiles. Changes from baseline were analyzed using paired t-tests.

RESULTS

Of 592 patients analyzed, 72% switched to twice-daily BIAsp and 20% to three-times daily BIAsp. Upon switching, 27% of patients received intensified treatment (i.e., more daily doses than with their previous BHI). At all three data-collection points, approximately two-thirds of patients were taking BIAsp 30 and approximately one-third were taking BIAsp 50; very few patients took BIAsp 70. Mean total daily insulin dose increased significantly from baseline (51.2 U) to 26 weeks (54.3 U) and mean time of intake before meals changed from 17 minutes for BHI to ∼3 minutes with BIAsp. Incidence of hypoglycemia did not change during the study (baseline: 30.7%, week 26: 29.2%). HbA(1c) improved significantly from baseline (7.9 %) to weeks 12 and 26 (7.6% and 7.5%, respectively; p < 0.001). Mean PG profiles also showed significant improvements. As this is an observational study, some limitations should be considered such as the absence of a control group and a possible bias of increased medical attention.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes can switch safely from BHI to BIAsp therapy, even if they receive intensified treatment, and they have no problems changing the timing of their insulin injections.

The impact of initiating biphasic human insulin 30 therapy in type 2 diabetes patients after failure of oral antidiabetes drugs

BACKGROUND

The present study evaluated the efficacy of biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30) in type 2 diabetes patients who had failed in therapy with two or more oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs).

METHODS

This open-label, nonrandomized, 4-month, multicenter, clinical observational study was conducted in Shanghai, China. A total of 660 insulin-naive type 2 diabetes patients with poor glycemic control (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c] ≥7.5%), despite treatment with two or more OADs for more than 6 months, were recruited and received BHI 30 monotherapy or BHI 30 plus OAD(s) (metformin only, α-glucosidase inhibitor only, or both).

RESULTS

Among the 660 subjects, 644 completed the 4-month study. At the end of the study, the median level of HbA1c decreased by 2.0% (from 9.1% to 7.0%) in the BHI 30 monotherapy group and also 2.0% (from 9.5% to 7.3%) in the BHI 30 plus OAD group. More patients achieved the HbA1c <7.0% target in the BHI 30 monotherapy group than in the BHI 30 plus OAD(s) group (47.9% vs. 35.3%, P=0.002). Compared with the expenses of the prior treatment strategy, the median daily cost decreased by 39.8% (4.5 yuan, Chinese RMB) at the end point in the BHI 30 monotherapy group but increased by 20.0% (2.2 yuan) in the BHI 30 plus OAD(s) group (P<0.0001). Moreover, patients in the BHI 30 plus OAD(s) group had fewer minor hypoglycemic episodes than in the BHI 30 monotherapy group (mean of 1.06 vs. 2.77 per patient per year, P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term BHI 30 therapy can improve glycemic control in insulin-naive type 2 diabetes patients after failure of two or more OADs. With higher baseline glucose level, the BHI 30 plus OAD(s) group had lower pharmacoeconomic efficacy than the BHI 30 monotherapy group despite having fewer hypoglycemia events.

Starting or switching to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, observational, primary care study conducted in Finland

AIMS

Assess safety and glycaemic control in patients initiating insulin with, or switching from basal insulin to, biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in primary care in Finland.

METHODS

A non-randomised, non-interventional, open-label, 26-week study of type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients prescribed BIAsp 30 by their physician, who determined starting dose, titration and injection frequency.

RESULTS

496 patients provided safety data (insulin-naïve n=197; prior insulin n=299 [84.9% received NPH insulin]). Three patients (0.6%) reported four SADRs (three hypoglycaemia, one hypoglycaemia with unconsciousness). HbA1c was significantly (p<0.0001) reduced after 26 weeks' BIAsp 30 therapy (final dose): insulin-naïve -1.4% (44.4 IU); prior insulin -1.1% (77.4 IU). HbA1c<7.0% was achieved by 10% of insulin-naïve patients at baseline and 51% at 26-week follow-up. In the prior insulin group, 7% and 30% of patients had HbA1c<7.0% at baseline and 26 weeks, respectively. Minor hypoglycaemia increased significantly from baseline to study end: insulin-naïve 0.66-6.45 events/patient/year (p<0.0001); prior insulin 5.11-8.58 events/patient/year (p<0.05). Weight increased by 1.0 kg (insulin-naïve) and 1.3 kg (previous insulin).

CONCLUSION

BIAsp 30, initiated and titrated in T2D patients in primary care in Finland, showed a good safety profile and significantly improved glycaemic control.

[Comparison on the efficacy of biphasic insulin aspart 30 and premixed human insulin 30/70 through continuous glucose monitoring system]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the blood glucose levels and variability of premixed insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) with human insulin premix (BHI 30) used in a twice a day injection regimen in elderly type 2 diabetes patients.

METHODS

52 cases of inadequate glycemia controlled by oral anti-diabetic drugs were randomly divided into two groups, treated on a twice-daily regimen with BIAsp 30 (n = 26) and BHI 30 (n = 26) respectively. After achieving the target goal, a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) was used to compare the blood glucose levels, blood glucose fluctuant coefficient (BGFC), postprandial glucose excursion (PPGE), and occurrence of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

BIAsp 30 was as effective as BHI 30 in control glycaemia. Detected by CGMS, there was no statistical differences in blood glucose levels among pre-three main meals, post-lunch and the mean blood glucose (MBG) (all P > 0.05). The BGFC levels were significantly lower in the BIAsp 30 group than in the BHI 30 group [(1.69 ± 0.42) mmol/L vs. (2.07 ± 0.51) mmol/L, t = -3.013, P < 0.01]. The blood glucose increment over breakfast, dinner and the percentage of time at hyperglycaemia (BG > 11.1 mmol/L) were lower in the BIAsp 30 group than in the BHI 30 group [(2.89 ± 1.32) mmol/L vs. (3.83 ± 1.18) mmol/L, t = -2.705, P < 0.01; (2.69 ± 1.37) mmol/L vs. (3.55 ± 1.40) mmol/L, t = -2.232, P < 0.05; (6.21 ± 6.04)% vs. (10.01 ± 6.80)%, t = -2.132, P < 0.05]. The frequency of hypoglycemia was lower in the BIAsp 30 group than in the BHI 30 group, but there was no statistical difference (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Pre-meal injection of BIAsp 30 in a twice-daily regimen could significantly improve the control of postprandial glucose level and reduce the overall glucose excursions so as to lower the risk of hypoglycaemia when compared to BHI 30.

Improved glycaemic control with reduced hypoglycaemic episodes and without weight gain using long-term modern premixed insulins in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

The primary goal of the study was to evaluate retrospectively efficacy of long-term modern premixed insulin (MPI) administration. The secondary aims were to monitor weight gain, hypoglycaemia and compliance during MPI therapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

One hundred and fifteen outpatients with type 2 diabetes (64 male patients, 51 female patients; mean age 62.4±12.2 years; mean duration of diabetes 10±8 years; mean weight 84.3±14.8 kg) were included in this study. Patients were prescribed one of three MPIs thrice-daily: biphasic insulin lispro 25, biphasic insulin lispro 50, or biphasic insulin aspart 30. Metformin was combined with MPI in 81 patients. Data prior to and during MPI treatment were retrieved from computerised patient medical files.

RESULTS

After a mean treatment period of 2.9±0.9 years, mean A1C levels and fasting blood glucose decreased from 8.7±1.4% and 193±59 mg/dl to 7.3±1.1% and 141±41 mg/dl (p<0.001 for both), respectively. Thirty-six per cent of the cohort achieved target A1C level of ≤7%. Serum triglycerides decreased from 183±109 mg/dl to 151±76 mg/dl (p<0.001). Weight did not change during MPI treatment. Frequency of minor hypoglycaemic episodes decreased significantly during MPI administration. No major hypoglycaemic event was reported. Number of incompliant patients decreased significantly from 39 to 25 (p=0.001) during MPI treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Modern premixed insulins represent an effective and safe long-term therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Specifically, the regimen of thrice-daily injections combined with metformin is a viable treatment option.

Decreased active GLP-1 response following large test meal in patients with type 1 diabetes using bolus insulin analogues

Postprandial plasma immunoreactive active glucagon-like peptide-1 (p-active GLP-1) levels in type 1 diabetic patients who did not use bolus insulin responded normally following ingestion of test meal, while a small response of p-active GLP-1 levels was seen in type 2 diabetic patients. To determine whether p-active GLP-1 levels are affected by ingestion of test meal in type 1 diabetic Japanese patients who used bolus rapid-acting insulin analogues, plasma glucose (PG), serum immunoreactive insulin (s-IRI), serum immunoreactive C-peptide (s-CPR), and p-active GLP-1 levels were measured 0, 30, and 60 min after ingestion of test meal in Japanese patients without diabetic complications (n=10, group 1) and control subjects with normal glucose tolerance (n=15, group 2). HbA1c levels were also measured in these groups. The patients in group 1 were treated with multiple daily injections or CSII using injections of bolus rapid-acting insulin analogues before ingestion of test meal. There was no significant difference in mean of sex, age, or BMI between groups. Means of HbA1c, basal and postprandial PG, and postprandial s-IRI levels with integrated areas under curves (0-60 min) (AUC) in group 1 were significantly higher than those in group 2. Means of basal and postprandial s-CPR, and postprandial p-active GLP-1 levels with AUCs were significantly lower in group 1 than in group 2. These results indicated that postprandial p-active GLP-1 levels following ingestion of test meal in type 1 diabetic Japanese patients using bolus rapid-acting insulin analogues were decreased relative to those in controls.