MEALTIME BOLUS INSULIN DOSE TIMING IN CHILDREN WITH TYPE 1 DIABETES: REAL-LIFE DATA FROM A TERTIARY CARE CENTRE IN NORTHERN INDIA.

Context: Mealtime insulin bolus is traditionally administered before meals in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Controlled studies on the use of pre-and postprandial insulin bolus have shown variable results. There are no real-world studies on postprandial bolusing of insulin in young children with T1D. Methods: Children with T1D aged <7 years were grouped into preprandial (Group 1) or postprandial (Group 2) groups according to the practice of prandial insulin use. Their retrospective data on mean glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), hypoglycemic events, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) episodes were compared. Results: Forty-four children (mean age 4.1±1.3 years, range 2-7 years) with mean diabetes duration of 2.0±0.7 years (range, 1-4 years) were identified; 23 (52.3%) belonged to Group 1 and 21 (47.7%) to Group 2. There were no differences in the mean HbA1c levels, mean hypoglycemic events, and DKA episodes between the two groups during a mean follow-up duration of two years. Conclusion: Young children with T1D administered insulin bolus during or immediately after meals showed similar long-term glycemic control and diabetes-related adverse event profile compared to the premeal timing of insulin bolus. Larger real-world studies are needed on flexible insulin bolus timing in young children with T1D.

What Really Matters?: How Insulin Dose, Timing, and Distribution Relate to Meal Composition in Free-Living People with Type 1 Diabetes.

Optimizing postprandial glucose control in persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is challenging. We hypothesized that in free-living individuals, meal composition (high and low glycemic index [HGI and LGI], high and low fat [HF and LF]) may impact insulin requirements. Adults (N = 25) with T1D using open-loop insulin and continuous glucose monitoring were provided a meal-tagging app and prepackaged meals with defined macronutrient content. Data from 463 meals were analyzed. LGI meals required significantly more insulin than HGI meals (P = 0.01). Furthermore, the mean (±standard deviation) carbohydrate-to-insulin ratio (CIR) was significantly different overall among the LGI-LF (5.5 ± 3.4), LGI-HF (4.5 ± 3.8), HGI-LF (7.6 ± 5.1), and HGI-HF (8.7 ± 5.8) meals (P = 0.001). The risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia is associated with daytime hypoglycemia and amount of insulin administered prior to the evening and exercise. This exploratory study designed to examine the impact of different meal types on insulin dosing requirements in free-living adults with T1D emphasizes the need for individualized adjustment of the CIR depending on meal composition.

The Burden and Impacts of Mealtime Insulin from the Perspective of People with Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: While there have been continued advances in insulin treatment for diabetes since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago, some unmet needs still remain, including those related to mealtime insulin (MTI). The objective of this study was to explore the impacts related to MTI and the relative burden of the impacts on people with diabetes. METHODS: This study was conducted across two phases, namely, a qualitative and quantitative phase. People with type 1 and 2 diabetes using MTI in the USA and UK were recruited for the study. The qualitative phase involved 30 interviews to explore the impacts associated with MTI. Based on the results of the qualitative phase, a list of impacts was developed to evaluate the importance of MTI impacts using best-worst scaling. RESULTS: A total of 30 participants completed interviews, and 336 completed the quantitative phase. Participants described a range of impacts associated with MTI, including psychological (72.0%), social (63.0%), work/school (53.8%), and sleep (51.7%). Impacts for the quantitative phase were categorized under the following domains: diabetes distress, diabetes management, work productivity, and social. The three most burdensome impacts were related to diabetes distress, but the diabetes management domain contributed more than diabetes distress to the relative burden. There were minor differences in the relative importance of impacts by diabetes type, diabetes duration, and experience with continuous glucose monitoring. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that people with diabetes using MTI still have an array of unmet needs, including those related to the management of their diabetes and the emotional distress of having diabetes. These findings may be useful for healthcare provider (HCP)-patient interactions to ensure HCPs are allowing patients an opportunity to discuss their experiences with MTI.

Gaps Remain for Achieving HbA1c Targets for People with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes Using Insulin: Results from NHANES 2009-2020.

INTRODUCTION: Glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is an important measure to assess glycemic control and predict diabetes complications. However, there is limited information on trends in HbA1c among people with diabetes (PwDs) who use insulin. The aim of this study was to describe trends in HbA1c among PwDs who use insulin by diabetes type and insulin regimen. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 2009-2020). PwDs were classified into three cohorts: type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), type 2 diabetes mellitus using mealtime insulin (T2DM-MTI), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using basal-only insulin (T2DM basal-only). Trends in HbA1c over time were assessed using regression analysis after adjusting for age, gender, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c values aggregated over 2009-2020 were 8.0% (T1DM), 8.6% (T2DM-MTI), and 8.6% (T2DM basal-only). The American Diabetes Association-recommended target of HbA1c of < 7% was achieved by 25.2% of people in the T1DM and T2DM-MTI groups each and by 12.3% of people in the T2DM basal-only group. Over time, an upward trend was observed in the percentage of people achieving HbA1c < 7% in the T2DM basal-only group. The percentage of PwDs achieving individualized HbA1c targets was 27.0%, 12.4%, and 16.1% for the T1DM, T2DM-MTI, and T2DM basal-only groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study using NHANES data suggests that approximately 25% of PwDs achieve glycemic targets. This study highlights the need for improved therapies to better manage glycemic targets in PwDs.

Comparing Patch vs Pen Bolus Insulin Delivery in Type 2 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics and Profiles.

OBJECTIVE: CeQur Simplicity™ (CeQur, Marlborough, MA) is a 3-day insulin delivery patch designed to meet mealtime insulin requirements. A recently reported 48-week, randomized, multicenter, interventional trial compared efficacy, safety and self-reported outcomes in 278 adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin therapy who initiated and managed mealtime insulin therapy with a patch pump versus insulin pen. We assessed changes in key glycemic metrics among a subset of patients who wore a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device. METHODS: Study participants (patch, n = 49; pen, n = 48) wore a CGM device in masked setting during the baseline period and prior to week 24. Glycemic control was assessed using international consensus guidelines for percentage of Time In Range (%TIR: >70% at 70-180 mg/dL), Time Below Range (%TBR: <4% at <70 mg/dL; <1% at <54 mg/dL), and Time Above Range (%TAR: <25% at >180 mg/dL; <5% at >250 mg/dL). RESULTS: Both the patch and pen groups achieved recommended targets in %TIR (74.1% ± 18.7%, 75.2 ± 16.1%, respectively) and marked reductions in %TAR >180 mg/dL (21.1% ± 19.9%, 19.7% ± 17.5%, respectively) but with increased %TBR <70 mg/dL (4.7% ± 5.2%, 5.1 ± 5.8, respectively), all P < .0001. No significant between-group differences in glycemic improvements or adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: CGM confirmed that the patch or pen can be used to safely initiate and optimize basal-bolus therapy using a simple insulin adjustment algorithm with SMBG. Preference data suggest that use of the patch vs pen may enhance treatment adherence.

Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Insulin Aspart Biosimilar SAR341402 Compared with Originator Insulin Aspart in Adults with Diabetes (GEMELLI 1): A Subgroup Analysis by Prior Type of Mealtime Insulin.

INTRODUCTION: The biosimilar SAR341402 insulin aspart (SAR-Asp) was compared to its originator NovoLog®/NovoRapid® insulin aspart (NN-Asp) in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes switching from different rapid-acting insulin analogs. METHODS: This phase 3, randomized, open-label, multinational, 52-week study (GEMELLI 1) enrolled participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (n = 597). At randomization, participants transitioned from NovoLog/NovoRapid (n = 380) or Humalog®/Liprolog® (n = 217) to equivalent (1:1) doses (or a dose at the discretion of the investigator) of either SAR-Asp or NN-Asp (1:1 randomization). Participants were treated with multiple daily injections in combination with insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Lantus®). In this subgroup analysis, efficacy measures (change in hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c], insulin dose [total, basal and mealtime]), and safety outcomes (hypoglycemia incidence, adverse events, anti-insulin aspart antibodies) of SAR-Asp were compared with those of NN-Asp separately according to the participants' prestudy mealtime insulin. RESULTS: At week 26 (primary efficacy endpoint), change in HbA1c was similar between SAR-Asp and NN-Asp in those participants pre-treated with NovoLog/NovoRapid (least squares [LS] mean difference - 0.04%, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.182 to 0.106%) or Humalog/Liprolog (LS mean difference - 0.15%, 95% CI - 0.336 to 0.043%) (P value for treatment by subgroup interaction = 0.36). This HbA1c response persisted over the 52 weeks of the study similarly for both treatments within each subgroup. In both subgroups, changes in insulin doses were similar between treatments over 26 weeks and 52 weeks, as were the incidences of severe or any hypoglycemia, adverse events (including hypersensitivity and injection site reactions), and anti-insulin aspart antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy and safety (including immunogenicity) profiles of SAR-Asp are similar to those of NN-Asp over 52 weeks in adults with diabetes irrespective of prior type of mealtime insulin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03211858.

Satisfaction, Preference and Injection Habits of Switching to 200 Units/ml Insulin Lispro Pen from 100 Units/ml: A Patient Survey in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: The study was designed to assess patient satisfaction, preferences and injection habits for patients using insulin lispro 200 units/ml pen (IL200) compared to their previously used disposable 100 units/ml mealtime insulin pen ("MTI-100 pen") in Germany. METHODS: A site-based, cross-sectional study involving a self-reported survey and medical record extraction in patients with diabetes currently using IL200 for between 3 and 12 months and had previously used any disposable MTI-100 pen. RESULTS: Of 114 patients included, 83.3% were satisfied with IL200 and 3.5% were dissatisfied; 70.2% preferred IL200 over their previous MTI-100 pen and 4.4% preferred their previous MTI-100 pen. The main reasons for IL200 preference were the amount of insulin the pen carries, longer use before discarding, number of non-empty pens discarded, injection volume and frequency replacing pens. Patients discarded (median) 4 IL200 pens per month with 5.3% discarding more than 10 units in their last pen. When insufficient insulin remained to complete a dose, 74.6% injected the remainder and completed with a new pen, 19.3% discarded the pen with remaining insulin, 7.0% saved it for future use and 1.8% left the dose incomplete. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction and preference for IL200 was high in this sample of patients using IL200 for 3-12 months. Reasons were consistent with IL200 features, explaining the better patient experience and potential resource saving transitioning from a disposable MTI-100 pen.

Cross-sectional survey in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes to understand mealtime insulin unmet needs in Japan: The MINUTES-J study.

AIMS: This study was conducted to evaluate existing burden and unmet needs related to mealtime insulin (MTI) injection timing among adult Japanese patients with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes. It also aimed to evaluate if a novel MTI could reduce this burden. METHODS: This study comprised of a qualitative pilot study facilitating development of an online survey; followed by an online quantitative survey involving T1D, young T2D (yT2D) and elderly T2D (eT2D) patients to assess burden of current MTI timings in Japan. RESULTS: Overall, 38% patients (amongst T1D, yT2D and eT2D groups) reported injecting MTI just before start or during meal in the past month. Experiencing lower glucose level/hypoglycemic condition before the meal and forgetting were the main reasons for injecting during/after meal in T1D and T2D patients respectively. Patients reported moderate-to-severe burden in multiple aspects of their lives, associated with current MTI timing. Most patients perceived that this burden would remain the same if a faster acting MTI was available. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial burden reported by Japanese patients regarding the current MTI timings suggests the need for new MTI products that could achieve optimal post-prandial glucose control at different timings to meet patients' needs in Japan.

An assessment of physician reasons for prescribing Insulin Lispro 200 units/ml in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: To understand physicians' reasons for prescribing Insulin Lispro 200 units/ml (IL200) and their experience with IL200 treatment in Germany. METHODS: The survey consisted of 28 questions on physician's profile, average IL200 patients' characteristics and rationales for prescribing IL200. Questions were rated on a scale of 0 ('not at all important'/'strongly disagree') to 4 ('absolutely important'/'strongly agree'). RESULTS: The surveyed physicians had a mean (SD) experience of 18.1 (7.0) years managing diabetes, consulted an average of 226.8 patients with diabetes/month and prescribed IL200 to 56.1% of their patients on mealtime insulin (MTI). About 80.0% of IL200 patients had type 2 diabetes mellitus, were overweight/obese, and received >20 units/day of MTI. More than 70.0% of physicians rated patient's insulin dose, pattern of self-measured glucose levels, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (clinical); adherence, hypoglycemia knowledge, motivation to improve lifestyle, desire to reduce injection volume and emotional struggle with controlling HbA1c (behavioral) as 'very important'/'absolutely important' factors when prescribing IL200. CONCLUSION: Physicians considered IL200 a promising treatment option that reduces the injection burden for patients on MTI. Physicians adopted a patient-centered perspective by aligning IL200 prescribing decisions with each patient's medical needs and non-clinical preferences, with an aim to encourage treatment adherence through resorting to IL200's advantageous attributes.

Implementation of Basal-Bolus Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Bolus Insulin Delivery Using an Insulin Patch with an Insulin Pen.

Background: Barriers to mealtime insulin include complexity, fear of injections, and lifestyle interference. This multicenter, randomized controlled trial evaluated efficacy, safety, and self-reported outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes, inadequately controlled on basal insulin, initiating and managing mealtime insulin with a wearable patch versus an insulin pen. Methods: Adults with type 2 diabetes (n = 278, age: 59.2 ± 8.9 years), were randomized to patch (n = 139) versus pen (n = 139) for 48 weeks, with crossover at week 44. Baseline insulin was divided 1:1 basal: bolus. Using a pattern-control logbook, subjects adjusted basal and bolus insulin weekly using fasting and premeal glucose targets. Results: Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change (least squares mean ± standard error) from baseline to week 24 (primary endpoint) improved (P < 0.0001) in both arms, -1.7% ± 0.1% and -1.6% ± 0.1% for patch and pen (-18.6 ± 1.1 and -17.5 ± 1.1 mmol/mol), and was maintained at 44 weeks. The coefficient of variation of 7-point self-monitoring blood glucose decreased more (P = 0.02) from baseline to week 44 for patch versus pen. There were no differences in adverse events, including hypoglycemia (three severe episodes per arm), and changes in weight and insulin doses. Subject-reported treatment satisfaction, quality of life, experience ratings at week 24, and device preferences at week 48 significantly favored the patch. Most health care providers preferred patch for mealtime insulin. Conclusions: Bolus insulin delivered by patch and pen using an algorithm-based weekly insulin dose titration significantly improved HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes, with improved subject and health care provider experience and preference for the patch.

Real-world clinical responses in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus adding exenatide BID (EBID) or mealtime insulin to basal insulin: a retrospective study using electronic medical record data.

AIM: Exenatide twice daily (EBID) and mealtime insulin are effective add-on therapies to basal insulin for type 2 diabetes patients in clinical trials. This study used electronic medical record (EMR) data to evaluate analogous real-world clinical responses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients initiating EBID or mealtime insulin as add-on to basal insulin during January 2008-March 2013 were identified in a US EMR database. EBID patients were propensity score matched 1:1 to mealtime insulin patients. Cohorts were followed for 12 months before (baseline) and 6 months after the index. A1C, hypoglycemic events, change in weight, and other clinical measures were evaluated by A1C attainment level (<6.5, < 7, < 7.5, <8, <9%) and baseline A1C. RESULTS: In total, 1249 EBID patients were matched to 1249 mealtime insulin patients. During follow-up, the percentage reaching A1C levels was similar for EBID vs mealtime insulin cohorts for all attainment levels (<7%: 27.8% vs 24.2%; < 9%: 79.7% vs 79.2%; p = NS). The percentage reaching A1C < 7% was similar for both cohorts with different baseline A1C. EBID patients had less hypoglycemia at all attainment levels (3.1% vs 11.1% [<6.5%]; 2.5% vs 4.7% [<9%]; all p < .03) and more weight loss (-9.0 vs -3.2 lb [<6.5%]; -3.4 vs +0.8 lb [<9%]; all p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: EBID added to basal insulin was as effective in a real-world setting as mealtime insulin added to basal insulin in reducing A1C, with less weight gain and less hypoglycemia for a wide range of A1C attainment levels and baseline values.

Laboratory and Benchtop Performance of a Mealtime Insulin-Delivery System.

BACKGROUND: A basal bolus insulin regimen requires multiple daily insulin injections, which might discourage patient adherence. As a potential solution, a mealtime insulin-delivery system-a 3-day wearable bolus-only patch-was designed to manually administer mealtime insulin discreetly by actuating buttons through clothing, without the need for multiple needle sticks. METHOD: Extensive functional testing of the patch included dose accuracy (from initial fill of the device to empty), pressure-vacuum leak testing, last-dose lockout and occlusion detection (safety alert features that lock the dosing buttons when no insulin is delivered), assessments of insulin drug stability, toxicological risk (including chemical testing), and system biocompatibility. RESULTS: Dosing accuracy was 2 units ±10% (with U-100 insulin) over a range of environmental conditions, with ≥95% reliability and confidence. The fluid seal performance and the safety alert features performed with ≥95% reliability and ≥95% confidence. The system met acceptable standards for insulin (U-100 lispro and aspart) stability for its intended 3-day use, in addition to the operational requirements. The toxicological risk assessment and demonstrated biocompatibility suggested that the patch is safe for human use. CONCLUSIONS: Benchtop performance showed that the bolus-only patch is a safe, accurate, and reliable device for mealtime insulin delivery.

Behaviours, thoughts and perceptions around mealtime insulin usage and wastage among people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: A cross-sectional survey study.

AIMS: People with diabetes who use mealtime insulin (MTI) were surveyed about insulin wastage and injection habits when insufficient insulin remains in a disposable prefilled pen/cartridge to administer a full dose in a single injection. METHODS: Cross-sectional, online, self-reported survey of MTI usage/wastage behaviour in 400 adults with type 1 (n=120) or type 2 (n=280) diabetes mellitus administering >20units/day of MTI via 100units/ml prefilled pens/cartridges for ⩾1month, conducted in France, Germany, Italy and UK. RESULTS: Participants' mean±standard deviation age was 54.5±12.2years, body mass index was 29.9±7.2kg/m2 and duration of MTI therapy was 8.6±7.8years. They administered 3.7±5.9 injections/day with meals, using 11.3±18.0 prefilled pens/cartridges per month. Overall, 63.5% split the dose across two prefilled pens/cartridges (i.e. administered two injections to obtain a full dose), 15.0% used just what remained in their current pen (i.e. took a lower-than-prescribed dose) and 36.3% discarded prefilled pens/cartridges still containing insulin (i.e. took full dose with new pen). The latter participants discarded a mean 5.5±8.2 prefilled pens/cartridges monthly still containing insulin, each containing 8.6±8.7 units of insulin. Participants who wasted insulin considered it frustrating, time-consuming and painful to inject twice. CONCLUSIONS: Patients taking >20units/day MTI can find transitions between insulin pens challenging. This study highlights the need to identify ways of improving transitions between pens to make transitions easier for insulin users, which could potentially improve adherence to prescribed doses and reduce waste.

IDegAsp (insulin degludec + insulin aspart) for the management of type 2 diabetes: current status.

The co-formulation insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) contains insulin degludec (IDeg), a basal insulin, and the rapid-acting insulin aspart (IAsp). Its unique pharmacodynamic profile provides a stable basal insulin action over a 24-h period due to the flat, ultra-long effect of IDeg, combined with prandial control from IAsp, which is unaffected by the basal component. IDegAsp provides a distinct mealtime insulin peak effect and reduces the likelihood of postprandial glucose excursions. The phase 2 and 3 clinical trial program demonstrates that IDegAsp provides effective glycemic control with lower rates of hypoglycemia compared with the current standard of care for insulins. Compared with premixed insulin formulations, IDegAsp allows mealtime flexibility, enabling the time of injection to be adjusted to a different meal(s) on a daily basis to suit changing needs, and has the potential to improve adherence rates. IDegAsp offers a promising new insulin strategy for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.