Effect of needle-free injection on psychological insulin resistance and insulin dosage in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Background and objective: Psychological insulin resistance (PIR), which refers to the reluctance of diabetic patients to use insulin, is a frequently encountered clinical issue. Needle-free injection (NFI) offers advantages in terms of expediting insulin absorption and mitigating adverse reactions related to injection. To evaluate the effects of subcutaneous injection of insulin aspart 30 with NFI on PIR and insulin dosage in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: Sixty-four patients with T2DM participated in this randomized, prospective, open, crossover study. Insulin aspart 30 was administered subcutaneously to each subject via QS-P NFI and Novo Pen 5 (NP) successively. The effects of NFI on PIR were analyzed. Differences in insulin dosage, glycemic variability, and injection safety were compared at similar levels of glycemic control. Results: After the administration of NFI, the insulin treatment attitude scale score decreased (53.7 ± 7.3 vs. 58.9 ± 10.7, p<0.001), the insulin treatment adherence questionnaire score increased (46.3 ± 4.9 vs. 43.8 ± 7.1, p<0.001), and the insulin treatment satisfaction questionnaire score increased (66.6 ± 10.5 vs. 62.4 ± 16.5, p<0.001). At the same blood glucose level, NFI required a smaller dosage of insulin aspart 30 compared with that of NP (30.42 ± 8.70 vs. 33.66 ± 9.13 U/d, p<0.001). There were no differences in glycemic variability indices (standard deviation, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion or coefficient of variation) between the two injection methods. Compared with NP, NFI did not increase the incidence of hypoglycemia (17.2% vs. 14.1%, p=0.774), and it decreased the incidence of induration (4.7% vs. 23.4%, p=0.002) and leakage (6.3% vs. 20.3%, p=0.022) while decreasing the pain visual analog scale score (2.30 ± 1.58 vs. 3.11 ± 1.40, p<0.001). Conclusion: NFI can improve PIR in patients with T2DM and be used with a smaller dose of insulin aspart 30 while maintaining the same hypoglycemic effect. Clinical trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier ChiCTR2400083658.

Drug treatments for managing cystic fibrosis-related diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation recommends both short-term and long-acting insulin therapy when cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD) has been diagnosed. Diagnosis is based on: an elevated fasting blood glucose level greater than 6.94 mmol/L (125 mg/dL); or oral glucose tolerance tests greater than 11.11 mmol/L (200 mg/dL) at two hours; or symptomatic diabetes for random glucose levels greater than 11.11 mmol/L (200 mg/dL); or glycated hemoglobin levels of at least 6.5%. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To establish the effectiveness of insulin and oral agents for managing diabetes in people with cystic fibrosis in relation to blood sugar levels, lung function and weight management. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also handsearched abstracts from pulmonary symposia and the North American Cystic Fibrosis Conferences. Date of most recent register search: 10 September 2020. We searched online trials registries; date of most recent searches: 21 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing all methods of pharmacological diabetes therapy in people with diagnosed CFRD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. Authors also used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: The searches identified 29 trials (45 references). Four included trials provide results: one short-term single-center cross-over trial (seven adults) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and no medication in adults with CFRD and normal fasting glucose; one long-term multicenter trial (61 adults with CFRD) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and placebo; one long-term multicenter trial (67 adults) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide; and one 12-week single-center cross-over trial (20 adults) comparing the long-acting insulin glargine to short-term neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Two ongoing trials of newly approved incretin mimics have been noted for possible future inclusion. Downgrading of the quality of the evidence was mainly due to risks of bias across all domains, but particularly due to concerns surrounding allocation concealment and selective reporting. There were also some concerns due to imprecision from small sample sizes and low event rates. Finally, there may be some bias due to the amounts of insulin and repaglinide given not being comparable. Data from one trial comparing insulin to placebo (39 participants) did not show any difference between groups for the primary outcomes of blood glucose levels (very low-quality evidence), lung function (low-quality evidence) or nutritional status (low-quality evidence). Similarly, no differences between groups were seen for the secondary outcomes of number of hypoglycemic episodes (low-quality evidence), secondary infection complications or quality of life (QoL). These results were mirrored in the narrative reports for the second trial in this comparison (seven participants). Data from the one-year trial comparing repaglinide to placebo (38 participants), showed no differences between groups for the primary outcomes of blood glucose levels (very low-quality evidence), lung function (low-quality evidence) and nutritional status (low-quality evidence). Also, no differences were seen between groups for the secondary outcomes of number of hypoglycemic episodes (low-quality evidence), secondary infection complications or QoL. These findings were mirrored in the narrative reports for the second trial (n = 7) in this comparison. Three trials compared insulin to repaglinide (119 participants). Data from one trial (n = 67) showed no difference in blood glucose levels at either 12 months (high-quality evidence) or 24 months; narrative reports from one trial (45 participants) reported no difference between groups, but the second trial (7 participants) reported a beneficial effect of insulin over repaglinide. Two trials (112 participants) found no difference between insulin and repaglinide in lung function or nutritional status (moderate-quality evidence). Two trials (56 participants) reported no difference in the number of hypoglycemic episodes (low-quality evidence). One trial (45 participants) reported no difference between groups in secondary infections and cystic fibrosis QoL. The single trial comparing glargine to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin did not report directly on the review's primary outcomes, but did report no differences between groups in post-prandial glucose values and weight; neither group reported infectious complications. There was no difference in episodes of hypoglycemia (very low-quality evidence) and while there was no difference reported in QoL, all participants opted to continue treatment with glargine after the trial was completed. Mortality was not reported by any trial in any comparison, but death was not given as a reason for withdrawal in any trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review has not found any conclusive evidence that any agent has a distinct advantage over another in controlling hyperglycemia or the clinical outcomes associated with CFRD. Given the treatment burden already experienced by people with cystic fibrosis, oral therapy may be a viable treatment option. While some cystic fibrosis centers use oral medications to help control diabetes, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (USA) clinical practice guidelines support the use of insulin therapy and this remains the most widely-used treatment method. Randomized controlled trials specifically related to controlling diabetes and its impact on the course of pulmonary disease process in cystic fibrosis continue to be a high priority. Specifically, investigators should evaluate adherence to different therapies and also whether there is benefit in using additional hypoglycemic agents as well as the newly approved incretin mimics. Agents that potentiate insulin action, especially agents with additional anti-inflammatory potential should also be further investigated as adjuvant therapy to insulin.

Effects of Exenatide and Humalog Mix25 on Fat Distribution, Insulin Sensitivity, and ß-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 ß-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 ß-cell function, and fat deposition support its administration to normal BMI patients with T2DM and visceral adiposity.

Biphasic human insulin 30 thrice daily, is it reasonable?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of thrice daily Biphasic Human Insulin 30 (BHI 30) versus the traditional twice-daily regimen in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. It's a cross over single clinical study. Twenty-two diabetic patients who were already using BHI 30 in twice or thrice daily regimens with or without metformin were included. At the 1st interval; patients continued on their usual insulin regimen as twice or thrice daily injections with adjustment of insulin doses guided by their glucose readings. On the 2nd interval; patients were switched to the other regimen with the same total daily insulin dose redistributed. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in HbA1c level (p < 0.05) at the end of the first 3 months of trial regardless on which regimen the patient started, but there was no significant difference in the mean HbA1c reduction in patients when they were on twice daily insulin injections (1.1 ± 1.3) versus the time they were on thrice daily insulin injections (0.8 ± 1.71), p > 0.05. On the other hand, patients had lower average blood glucose readings (mg/dl) when they were on thrice daily insulin injections (161.4 ± 62.7) compared to twice daily regimen (166.0 ± 69.5), p < 0.05.

Insulin Modulates the Immune Cell Phenotype in Pulmonary Allergic Inflammation and Increases Pulmonary Resistance in Diabetic Mice.

Introduction: Reports have shown that the onset of diabetes mellitus (DM) in patients previously diagnosed with asthma decreases asthmatic symptoms, whereas insulin aggravates asthma. The present study evaluated the modulatory effect of insulin on the development of allergic airway inflammation in diabetic mice. Materials and Methods: To evaluate the effects of relative insulin deficiency, an experimental model of diabetes was induced by a single dose of alloxan (50 mg/kg, i.v.). After 10 days, the mice were sensitized with ovalbumin [OVA, 20 µg and 2 mg of Al(OH)3, i.p.]. A booster immunization was performed 6 days after the first sensitization [20 µg of OVA and 2 mg of Al(OH)3, i.p.]. The OVA challenge (1 mg/mL) was performed by daily nebulization for 7 days. Diabetic animals were treated with multiple doses of neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) before each challenge with OVA. The following parameters were measured 24 h after the last challenge: (a) the levels of p38 MAP kinase, ERK 1/2 MAP kinases, JNK, STAT 3, and STAT 6 in lung homogenates; (b) the serum profiles of immunoglobulins IgE and IgG1; (c) the concentrations of cytokines (IL-4, IL-5, IL-10, IL-13, TNF-α, VEGF, TGF-ß, and IFN-γ) in lung homogenates; (d) cells recovered from the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF); (e) the profiles of immune cells in the bone marrow, lung, thymus, and spleen; and (f) pulmonary mechanics using invasive (FlexiVent) and non-invasive (BUXCO) methods. Results: Compared to non-diabetic OVA-challenged mice, OVA-challenged diabetic animals showed decreases in ERK 1 (2-fold), ERK 2 (7-fold), JNK (phosphor-54) (3-fold), JNK/SAPK (9-fold), STAT3 (4-fold), the levels of immunoglobulins, including IgE (1-fold) and IgG1 (3-fold), cytokines, including Th2 profile cytokines such as IL-4 (2-fold), IL-5 (2-fold), IL-13 (4-fold), TNF-α (2-fold), VEGF (2-fold), and TGF-ß (2-fold), inflammatory infiltrates (14-fold), T cells, NK cells, B cells and eosinophils in the bone marrow, lung, thymus and spleen, and airway hyperreactivity. STAT6 was absent, and no eosinophilia was observed in BALF. Insulin treatment restored all parameters. Conclusion: The data suggested that insulin modulates immune cell phenotypes and bronchial hyperresponsiveness in the development of allergic airway inflammation in diabetic mice.

Similar Breast Cancer Risk in Women Older Than 65 Years Initiating Glargine, Detemir, and NPH Insulins.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether initiation of insulin glargine (glargine), compared with initiation of NPH or insulin detemir (detemir), was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in women with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective new-user cohort study of female Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years initiating glargine (203,159), detemir (67,012), or NPH (47,388) from September 2006 to September 2015, with follow-up through May 2017. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for incidence of breast cancer according to ever use, cumulative duration of use, cumulative dose of insulin, length of follow-up time, and a combination of dose and length of follow-up time. RESULTS: Ever use of glargine was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer compared with NPH (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.88-1.06) or detemir (HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.92-1.05). No increased risk was seen with glargine use compared with either NPH or detemir by duration of insulin use, length of follow-up, or cumulative dose of insulin. No increased risk of breast cancer was observed in medium- or high-dose glargine users compared with low-dose users. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, glargine use was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer compared with NPH or detemir in female Medicare beneficiaries.

Comparison of Hypoglycemia and Safety Outcomes With Long-Acting Insulins Versus Insulin NPH in Pregestational and Gestational Diabetes.

Background: Current guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend insulin as the standard therapy for treatment of pregestational and gestational diabetes (PGDM and GDM). However, the guidelines do not specify which type(s) of insulin to utilize. Additionally, there are limited published data regarding safety parameters of insulin in this population. Objective: To evaluate if insulin glargine or detemir (long-acting insulin) results in less hypoglycemia, hospitalizations, or delivery complications compared with intermediate-acting insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in PGDM and GDM. Methods: This single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study included pregnant women who were 18 years or older with PGDM or GDM and received insulin therapy during pregnancy at an outpatient obstetric clinic. The primary outcome was the frequency of hypoglycemia (BG < 60 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits and hospitalizations, delivery complications, and the duration of time at glycemic targets during pregnancy. Results: A total of 63 patients were included for evaluation. There was no significant difference in the frequency of hypoglycemia between the long-acting and NPH groups (4.4 vs 6.2 events per patient, respectively; P = 0.361). Patients receiving long-acting insulin had significantly more encounters with diabetes education (10.6 vs 5.1 visits per patient, P = 0.002) and more consistently provided glucose readings at their appointments (8.3 vs 4.8, P = 0.043). There was no difference in hospitalizations or maternal and neonatal complications. Conclusion and Relevance: Long-acting insulins did not reduce the frequency of hypoglycemia compared with NPH. The results of this study confirm the need for additional investigations with larger populations.

Time-action profiles of insulin degludec in healthy dogs and its effects on glycemic control in diabetic dogs.

Insulin degludec (IDeg) is a new insulin formulation that facilitates long-term control of glucose level in humans. In this study, we investigated the effects of IDeg on glycemic control in dogs. Its time-action profiles were monitored in healthy dogs using an artificial pancreas apparatus under euglycemic conditions. At 9.0-13.5 hr post-IDeg injection, an indistinct peak of glucose level was detected. Moreover, the action of IDeg was persistent for >20 hr. Both IDeg and neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin (NPH) lowered blood glucose concentrations in diabetic dogs, but IDeg caused postprandial hyperglycemia and a somewhat lower preprandial glucose level than that caused by NPH. IDeg might be ineffective in concurrently preventing postprandial hyperglycemia and preprandial hypoglycemia in a single-agent administration.

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.

Phase III Study on Efficacy and Safety of Triple Combination (Exenatide/Metformin/Biphasic Insulin Aspart) Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Exenatide, metformin (MET), and biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIA30) have been widely used in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); however, each of these medications has significant adverse effects, which limit their utilization. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple combination (exenatide/metformin/biphasic insulin aspart) therapy for T2DM. Two hundred patients with poorly controlled T2DM were randomly divided into the low-dose (0.5 µg exenatide, 0.05 U·kg·d BIA30, and 0.01 g MET twice daily) and normal-dose (2 µg exenatide, 0.2 U·kg·d BIA30, and 0.05 g MET twice daily) groups for 48 weeks of treatment. Of note, 82 and 90 individuals from the low-dose and normal-dose groups, respectively, completed the study. The levels of adiponectin, C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor-α, and resistin were measured. The normal-dose treatment was more effective at lowering hemoglobin A1c levels than the low-dose therapy (HbA1c changes of -2.5 ± 0.19% and -0.8 ± 0.07%, respectively) after 48 weeks. The maximum weight decrease was 0.9 kg in the low-dose group and 4.0 kg in the normal-dose group. The triple combination therapy increased the levels of insulin sensitivity and adiponectin and reduced the levels of C-reactive protein, resistin, and tumor necrosis factor-α. No significant difference in the adverse effects was found between the low-dose and normal-dose groups (P > 0.05). In conclusion, the investigated triple combination therapy for T2MD is therefore an effective and safe therapeutic strategy.

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.

Different insulin concentrations in resuspended vs. unsuspended NPH insulin: Practical aspects of subcutaneous injection in patients with diabetes.

AIMS: This study measured the insulin concentration (Ins[C]) of NPH insulin in vials and cartridges from different companies after either resuspension (R+) or not (R-; in the clear/cloudy phases of unsuspended NPH). METHODS: Measurements included Ins[C] in NPH(R+) and in the clear/cloudy phases of NPH(R-), and the time needed to resuspend NPH and time for NPH(R+) to separate again into clear/cloudy parts. RESULTS: In vials of NPH(R+) (assumed to be 100%), Ins[C] in the clear phase of NPH(R-) was<1%, but 230±41% and 234±54% in the cloudy phases of Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly NPH, respectively. Likewise, in pen cartridges, Ins[C] in the clear phase of NPH(R-) was<1%, but 182±33%, 204±22% and 229±62% in the cloudy phases of Novo, Lilly and Sanofi NPH. Time needed to resuspend NPH (spent in tipping) in vials was brief with both Novo (5±1s) and Lilly NPH (6±1s), but longer with all pen cartridges (50±8s, 40±6s and 30±4s from Novo, Lilly and Sanofi, respectively; P=0.022). Time required for 50% separation into cloudy and clear parts of NPH was longer with Novo (60±7min) vs. Lilly (18±3min) in vials (P=0.021), and affected by temperature, but not by the different diameter sizes of the vials. With pen cartridges, separation into clear and cloudy parts was significantly faster than in vials (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Ins[C] in NPH preparations varies depending on their resuspension or not. Thus, subcutaneous injection of the same number of units of NPH in patients with diabetes may deliver different amounts of insulin depending on its prior NPH resuspension.

Basal Insulin Regimens for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost-Utility Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of basal insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus in England. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted in accordance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case. The UK National Health Service and personal and social services perspective was used and a 3.5% discount rate was applied for both costs and outcomes. Relative effectiveness estimates were based on a systematic review of published trials and a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used, in which net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. A wide range of sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Insulin detemir (twice daily) [iDet (bid)] had the highest mean QALY gain (11.09 QALYs) and NMB (£181,456) per patient over the model time horizon. Compared with the lowest cost strategy (insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn once daily), it had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £7844/QALY gained. Insulin glargine (od) [iGlarg (od)] and iDet (od) were ranked as second and third, with NMBs of £180,893 and £180,423, respectively. iDet (bid) remained the most cost-effective treatment in all the sensitivity analyses performed except when high doses were assumed (>30% increment compared with other regimens), where iGlarg (od) ranked first. CONCLUSIONS: iDet (bid) is the most cost-effective regimen, providing the highest QALY gain and NMB. iGlarg (od) and iDet (od) are possible options for those for whom the iDet (bid) regimen is not acceptable or does not achieve required glycemic control.

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.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of different basal insulins in a real-world setting.

AIMS: To compare glucose control and safety of different basal insulin therapies (BI, including Insulin NPH, glargine and detemir) in real-world clinical settings based on a large-scale registry study. METHODS: In this multi-center 6-month prospective observational study, patients with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 7%) who were uncontrolled by oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) and were willing to initiate BI therapy were enrolled from 209 hospitals within 8 regions of China. Type and dose of BI were at the physician's discretion and the patients' willingness. Interviews were conducted at 0 months (visit 1), 3 months (visit 2) and 6 months (visit 3). Outcomes included change in HbA1c, hypoglycemia rate and body weight from baseline at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 16 341 and 9002 subjects were involved in Intention-To-Treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. After PS regression adjustment, ITT analysis showed that reduction in HbA1c in glargine (2.2% ± 2.1%) and detemir groups (2.2% ± 2.1%) was higher than that in the NPH group (2.0% ± 2.2%) (P < .01). The detemir group had the lowest weight gain (-0.1 ± 2.9 kg) compared with the glargine (+0.1 ± 3.0 kg) and NPH (+0.3 ± 3.1 kg) groups (P < .05). The glargine group had the lowest rate of minor hypoglycaemia, while there was no difference in severe hypoglycaemia among the 3 groups. The results observed in PP analyses were consistent with those in ITT analysis. CONCLUSION: In a real-world clinical setting in China, treatment with long-acting insulin analogues was associated with better glycaemic control, as well as less hypoglycaemia and weight gain than treatment with NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes patients. However, the clinical relevance of these observations must be interpreted with caution.

Improved treatment satisfaction in patients with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin glargine 100U/mL versus neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin: An exploration of key predictors from two randomized controlled trials.

AIM: Investigate contributors to treatment satisfaction in type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: Post-hoc analysis using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (DTSQs) in 771 T1D patients from two 28-week trials comparing once-daily insulin glargine 100U/mL (Gla-100) with once- or twice-daily NPH neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. RESULTS: Gla-100 was associated with a significant improvement in treatment satisfaction versus NPH (overall population adjusted mean [standard error] DTSQs change from baseline: +1.13 [0.30] versus -0.04 [0.31]; p=0.006). In the overall population, treatment satisfaction improvement with all insulin regimens was related to less frequent severe hypoglycemia (coefficient-0.077; p=0.040) and HbA1c reduction (-0.066; p=0.082). By treatment regimen, relationships between treatment satisfaction and these outcomes approached or attained statistical significance for NPH insulin, but not Gla-100. In the overall population, predictors of treatment satisfaction improvement included: Gla-100 treatment (estimate 1.17, p=0.006), lower baseline DTSQs (-0.57, p<0.001), study (-1.01, p=0.019), lower severe hypoglycemia rate (0.17, p=0.012), and higher baseline HbA1c (0.44, p=0.014). By treatment regimen, these predictors remained significant for NPH insulin. CONCLUSIONS: Gla-100 resulted in a significant improvement in treatment satisfaction versus NPH insulin, independent of baseline disease characteristics and clinical outcomes.

Comparing effects of insulin analogues and human insulin on nocturnal glycaemia in hypoglycaemia-prone people with Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To assess the difference between analogue and human insulin with regard to nocturnal glucose profiles and risk of hypoglycaemia in people with recurrent severe hypoglycaemia. METHODS: A total of 72 people [46 men, mean ± sd age 54 ± 12 years, mean ± sd HbA1c 65 ± 12 mmol/mol (8.1 ± 1.1%), mean ± sd duration of diabetes 30 ± 14 years], who participated in a 2-year randomized, crossover trial of basal-bolus therapy with insulin detemir/insulin aspart or human NPH insulin/human regular insulin (the HypoAna trial) were studied for 2 nights during each treatment. Venous blood was drawn hourly during sleep. Primary endpoints were nocturnal glucose profiles and occurrence of hypoglycaemia (blood glucose ≤ 3.9 mmol/l). RESULTS: During insulin analogue treatment, the mean nocturnal plasma glucose level was significantly higher than during treatment with human insulin (10.6 vs 8.1 mmol/l). The fasting plasma glucose level was similar between the treatments. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia was registered during 41/101 nights (41%) in the human insulin arm and 19/117 nights (16%) in the insulin analogue arm, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.26 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.45; P < 0.0001) with insulin analogue. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with insulin analogue reduces the occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia assessed by nocturnal glucose profiles in people with Type 1 diabetes prone to severe hypoglycaemia. Nocturnal glucose profiles provide a more comprehensive assessment of clinical benefit of insulin regimens as compared to conventional recording of hypoglycaemia.

Treatment of prednisolone-induced hyperglycaemia in hospitalized patients: Insights from a randomized, controlled study.

AIM: Prednisolone causes hyperglycaemia predominantly between midday and midnight. Consequently, glargine-based basal-bolus insulin regimens may under treat daytime hyperglycaemia and cause nocturnal hypoglycaemia. We investigated whether an isophane-based insulin regimen is safer and more effective than a glargine-based regimen in hospitalized patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty inpatients prescribed ≥20 mg/day prednisolone acutely with (1) finger prick blood glucose level (BGL) ≥15 mmol/L or (2) BGLs ≥10 mmol/L within the previous 24 hours were randomized to either insulin isophane or glargine before breakfast and insulin aspart before meals. The initial daily insulin dose was 0.5 U/kg bodyweight or 130% of the current daily insulin dose. Glycaemic control was assessed using a continuous glucose monitoring system. RESULTS: On Day 1, there were no significant differences in percentage of time outside a target glucose range of 4 to 10 mmol/L (41.3% ± 5.5% vs 50.0% ± 5.7%, P = .28), mean daily glucose (10.2 ± 0.7 vs 10.8 ± 0.8 mmol/L, P = .57) or glucose <4 mmol/L (2.2% ± 1.1% vs 2.0% ± 1.3%, P = .92) in patients randomized to isophane and glargine. In patients treated for 3 days, the prednisolone dose was reduced ( P = .02) and the insulin dose was increased over time ( P = .02), but the percentage of time outside the 4 to 10 mmol/L glucose range did not differ over time ( P = .45) or between groups ( P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in the efficacy or safety of the isophane and glargine-based insulin regimens. We recommend an initial daily insulin dose of 0.5 units/kg bodyweight if not on insulin, a greater than 30% increase in pre-prednisolone insulin dose and larger insulin dose adjustments in patients with prednisolone-induced hyperglycaemia.