Effectiveness, safety, initial optimal dose, and optimal maintenance dose range of basal insulin regimens for type 2 diabetes: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

AIMS: To investigate the effectiveness, safety, optimal starting dose, optimal maintenance dose range, and target fasting plasma glucose of five basal insulins in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to February 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was adopted. The registration ID is CRD42022319078 in PROSPERO. RESULTS: Among 11 163 citations retrieved, 35 publications met the planned criteria. From meta-analyses and network meta-analyses, we found that when injecting basal insulin regimens at bedtime, the optimal choice in order of most to least effective might be glargine U-300 or degludec U-100, glargine U-100 or detemir, followed by neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH). Injecting glargine U-100 in the morning may be more effective (ie, more patients archiving glycated hemoglobin < 7.0%) and lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than injecting it at bedtime. The optimal starting dose for the initiation of any basal insulins can be 0.10-0.20 U/kg/day. There is no eligible evidence to investigate the optimal maintenance dose for basal insulins. CONCLUSIONS: The five basal insulins are effective for the target population. Glargine U-300, degludec U-100, glargine U-100, and detemir lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than NPH without compromising glycemic control.

Use of basal insulin in the management of adults with type 2 diabetes: An Asia-Pacific evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

The objective of this study was to provide recommendations regarding effectiveness, safety, optimal starting dose, optimal maintenance dose range, and target fasting plasma glucose of five basal insulins (glargine U-300, degludec U-100, glargine U-100, detemir, and insulin protamine Hagedorn) in insulin-naïve adult patients with type 2 diabetes in the Asia-Pacific region. Based on evidence from a systematic review, we developed an Asia-Pacific clinical practice guideline through comprehensive internal review and external review processes. We set up and used clinical thresholds of trivial, small, moderate, and large effects for different critical and important outcomes in the overall certainty of evidence assessment and balancing the magnitude of intervention effects when making recommendations, following GRADE methods (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). The AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation) and RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) guideline reporting checklists were complied with. After the second-round vote by the working group members, all the recommendations and qualifying statements reached over 75% agreement rates. Among 44 contacted external reviewers, we received 33 clinicians' and one patient's comments. The overall response rate was 77%. To solve the four research questions, we made two strong recommendations, six conditional recommendations, and two qualifying statements. Although the intended users of this guideline focused on clinicians in the Asia-Pacific region, the eligible evidence was based on recent English publications. We believe that the recommendations and the clinical thresholds set up in the guideline can be references for clinicians who take care of patients with type 2 diabetes worldwide.

Screening, diagnosis and management of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy in clinical practice: International expert consensus recommendations.

Diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) affects around one third of people with diabetes and accounts for considerable morbidity, increased risk of mortality, reduced quality of life, and increased health care costs resulting particularly from neuropathic pain and foot ulcers. Painful DSPN is encountered in 13-26% of diabetes patients, while up to 50% of patients with DSPN may be asymptomatic. Unfortunately, DSPN still remains inadequately diagnosed and treated. Herein we provide international expert consensus recommendations and algorithms for screening, diagnosis, and treatment of DSPN in clinical practice derived from a Delphi process. Typical neuropathic symptoms include pain, paresthesias, and numbness particularly in the feet and calves. Clinical diagnosis of DSPN is based on neuropathic symptoms and signs (deficits). Management of DSPN includes three cornerstones: (1) lifestyle modification, optimal diabetes treatment aimed at near-normoglycemia, and multifactorial cardiovascular risk intervention, (2) pathogenetically oriented pharmacotherapy (e.g. α-lipoic acid and benfotiamine), and (3) symptomatic treatment of neuropathic pain including analgesic pharmacotherapy (antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioids, capsaicin 8% patch and combinations, if required) and non-pharmacological options. Considering the individual risk profile, pain management should not only aim at pain relief, but also allow for improvement in quality of sleep, functionality, and general quality of life.

Current concepts in the management of diabetic polyneuropathy.

Diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) is encountered in approximately one-third of people with diabetes. This, in turn, might markedly impoverish their quality of life, mainly owing to neuropathic pain and foot ulcerations. Painful DSPN might be as frequent as 25% in diabetes patients. Symptoms as a result of DSPN typically comprise pain, paresthesia and numbness in the distal lower limbs. Asymptomatic DSPN might reach 50% among patients with this condition. Unfortunately, DSPN is still not adequately diagnosed and treated. Its management has three priorities: (i) lifestyle improvement, near-normoglycemia and multifactorial cardiovascular risk intervention; (ii) pathogenesis-oriented pharmacotherapy; and (iii) symptomatic alleviation of pain. Intensive diabetes therapy showed evidence for favorable effects on the incidence and deterioration of DSPN in type 1 diabetes, but not type 2 diabetes. Among pathogenesis-oriented treatments, α-lipoic acid, actovegin, benfotiamine and epalrestat are currently authorized to treat DSPN in several countries. Symptomatic therapy uses analgesics, notably antidepressants, opioids and anticonvulsants, reducing pain by ≥50% in approximately 50% of individuals, but might be limited, particularly by central nervous system-related adverse events. Local treatment with the capsaicin 8% patch might offer an alternative. In addition to pain relief, therapy should improve sleep, mobility and quality of life. In conclusion, multimodal treatment of DSPN should consider the individual risk profile, pathogenetic treatment and pain management using pharmacotherapy (combinations, if required), as well as non-pharmacological options.