Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart versus Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: We systematically reviewed and analyzed the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin as-part (IDegAsp) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: We used computers to search the Embase, PubMed, Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Library database, and collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 in T2D patients. The research period was from the establishment of the database to May 19, 2023. We used Review Manager 5.20 statistical software for systematic meta-analysis. Results: We included 8 RCTs with 2281 participants. IDegAsp was better to BIAsp30 in improving fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels (P<0.001) and reducing the endpoint daily average insulin dose (P<0.01). Furthermore, compared with BIAsp30, IDegAsp significantly reduced the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemic events (P<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the improvement of body weight change (P=0.99), glycosylated hemoglobin (P=0.50), the overall risk of hypoglycemic events (P=0.57) and adverse events (P=0.89) between the two groups. Conclusion: Compared with BIAsp30, IDegAsp could significantly reduce FPG levels, insulin dosage, and the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemic events in T2D patients, without increasing the overall risk of adverse events.

Real-world study of the concomitant use of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 with GLP-1 receptor agonist versus first-generation basal insulin with GLP-1 receptor agonist in type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Combining insulin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D) is common. While many studies have investigated concomitant therapy with basal insulin+GLP-1RA, few have reported on premixed insulin+GLP-1RA. We aimed to address this gap using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database in England. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching assessed glycaemic levels and other clinical outcomes in people with T2D, comparing biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) + GLP-1RA with basal insulin (insulin detemir/glargine U100) + GLP-1RA (from 2006 to 2021). RESULTS: In total, 4770 eligible people were identified; 1511 had a BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA regimen and were propensity score-matched to an equal number receiving basal+GLP-1RA. There was no significant difference in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction between cohorts at 6 months (p = 0.15), with a decrease of -1.07 (95% CI: -1.16; -0.98) %-points (-11.7 mmol/mol [95% CI: -12.7; -10.7]) in the BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA cohort, versus -0.97 (95% CI: -1.07; -0.88) %-points (-10.6 mmol/mol [95% CI: -11.7; -9.6]) in the basal+GLP-1RA cohort. Body mass index (BMI) decreased by -0.35 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.52;-0.18) at 6 months with BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA, versus -0.72 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.90;-0.54) with basal+GLP-1RA (p = 0.003). BMI was influenced by the initiation sequence of GLP-1RA in relation to insulin (p < 0.0001). Hypoglycaemia rates were low and not significantly different between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Combining BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA provides glycaemic control with no significant difference to that of propensity score-matched people receiving basal insulin+GLP-1RA, with no increase in hypoglycaemia risk or weight gain.

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

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

Optimizing The Daily Units Of Insulin; Insulin Degludec Aspart Versus Premixed Insulin Aspart In The Standard Of Care Regimen For Type 2 Diabetics.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of Insulin Degludec Aspart on daily insulin dose in comparison with premixed insulin aspart. METHODS: It was a Quasi-Experimental study conducted in the Department of Pharmacology, Army Medical College, National University of Medical Sciences, Rawalpindi and the Department of Medicine, Pak Emirates Military Hospital, Rawalpindi. One hundred and twenty participants with documented type 2 diabetes, taking premixed insulin aspart therapy were enrolled in the study. Sixty participants were substituted with insulin degludec aspart from premixed insulin aspart. Daily units of insulin were recorded for 12 weeks and compared for both groups. SPSS version 26 was used for analysing the study results. RESULTS: Participants of the insulin degludec aspart group showed a significant reduction in the daily insulin dose compared to the premixed insulin aspart group. Fifty-two units per day were administered in the participants of the premixed insulin aspart patients while insulin degludec aspart participants received 40 units of median daily insulin dose (p-value<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Insulin degludec aspart proved superior to premixed insulin aspart in a reduction in the daily dose of insulin with insulin degludec aspart.

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes.

Objective: To evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) vs. biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately managed on basal insulin in China. Methods: The CORE (the Center for Outcomes Research) Diabetes Model, which has been published and verified, was used to simulate disease progression and calculate the total direct medical costs, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 30 years, from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The patient demographic information and clinical data needed for the model were gathered from a phase III treat-to-target clinical trial (NCT02762578) and other Chinese cohort studies. Medical costs on treating diabetes were calculated based on clinical trial and local sources. The diabetes management and complications costs were derived from published literature. A discounting rate of 5% was applied to both health and cost outcomes. And one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the reliability of the results. Results: Compared with BIAsp 30, treatment with IDegAsp was associated with an incremental benefit of 0.001 LYs (12.439 vs. 12.438) and 0.280 QALYs (9.522 vs. 9.242) over a 30-year time horizon, and increased CNY (Chinese Yuan) 3,888 (390,152 vs. 386,264) for total costs. IDegAsp was cost-effective vs. BIAsp 30 therapy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CNY 13,886 per QALY gained. Results were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Compared with BIAsp 30, IDegAsp was a cost-effective treatment option for people with T2DM with inadequate glycemic management on basal insulin in China.

Comparison of Blood Glucose Variability Between Exenatide and Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Chinese Participants with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with Metformin Monotherapy: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: To compare blood glucose variability (GV) in Chinese participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) whose blood glucose levels are inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy after twice-daily exenatide or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp30). METHODS: In this 16-week multicenter, randomized clinical trial, 104 participants were randomized 1:1 to receive exenatide (exenatide group) or BIAsp30 (BIAsp30 group) twice daily. All participants continued metformin treatment. The primary outcome was the change in GV as measured by a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) from baseline to 16 weeks. RESULTS: At 16 weeks, both the Exenatide and BIAsp30 groups effectively decreased mean glucose (MG), but neither group changed the mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (MAGE), largest amplitude of glycemic excursion (LAGE), mean of daily difference (MODD), or standard deviation of blood glucose (SDBG). The decrease in 2-h post-breakfast glucose excursions was greater in the Exenatide group compared to the BIAsp30 group, with a least square (LS) mean difference [95% CI] of (1.58 [0.53, 2.63]). Exenatide also significantly reduced 2-h post-lunch glucose excursion compared to BIAsp30 (LS mean difference [95% CI], 1.19 [0.18, 2.20]). The Exenatide group had significantly reduced body weight and body mass index (BMI), while the BIAsp30 group had increased weight and had no change in BMI. Both treatments were well tolerated with no serious hypoglycemic events and with fewer identified hypoglycemic events in the Exenatide group than in the BIAsp30 group (5.77% vs. 17.31%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Although there was no difference in change of GV between Exenatide and BIAsp30, exenatide provided more improvement in postprandial glucose excursion and weight control, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia in Chinese patients with T2DM whose blood glucose was inadequately controlled with metformin. These findings may provide new options for patients who choose further hypoglycemic treatment, especially in patients with obesity who have large postprandial plasma glucose excursions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov indentifier: NCT02449603.

Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes: A phase III, open-label, 2:1 randomized, treat-to-target trial.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) twice daily, both ± metformin, in Chinese adults (N = 543) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on premixed/self-mixed or basal insulin ± metformin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a 26-week, phase III, open-label, treat-to-target, 2:1 randomized trial. Hierarchical testing was used with non-inferiority of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline to week 26 as the primary endpoint and superiority for the confirmatory secondary endpoints which were as follows: change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG); nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (12:01-5:59 am, inclusive); total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (severe or plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L with/without symptoms); body weight; and percentage of responders (HbA1c <53 mmol/mol [<7.0%]) without confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes. RESULTS: Non-inferiority for change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c and superiority of IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily for change in FPG, nocturnal confirmed and total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes, was demonstrated. Estimated rates of nocturnal confirmed and total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes were 47% and 43% lower, respectively, with IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily. Superiority for change in body weight was not confirmed. Participants were more likely to reach the HbA1c goal of <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) without confirmed hypoglycaemia with IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily by trial end. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of IDegAsp in Chinese patients with T2D was demonstrated, confirming results from international trials.

Original paper: Efficacy and safety analysis of insulin degludec/insulin aspart compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30: A phase 3, multicentre, international, open-label, randomised, treat-to-target trial in patients with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) and biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) before, during and after Ramadan in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who fasted during Ramadan. METHODS: In this multinational, randomised, treat-to-target trial, patients with T2DM who intended to fast and were on basal, pre- or self-mixed insulin ±â€¯oral antidiabetic drugs for ≥90 days were randomised (1:1) to IDegAsp twice daily (BID) or BIAsp 30 BID. Treatment period included pre-Ramadan treatment initiation (with insulin titration for 8-20 weeks), Ramadan (4 weeks) and post-Ramadan (4 weeks). Insulin doses were reduced by 30-50% for the pre-dawn meal (suhur) on the first day of Ramadan, and readjusted to the pre-Ramadan levels at the end of Ramadan. Hypoglycaemia was analysed as overall (severe or plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L [56 mg/dL]), nocturnal (00:01-05:59) or severe (requiring assistance of another person). RESULTS: During the treatment period, IDegAsp (n = 131) had significantly lower overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates with similar glycaemic efficacy, versus BIAsp 30 (n = 132). During Ramadan, despite achieving significantly lower pre-iftar (meal at sunset) self-measured plasma glucose (estimated treatment difference: -0.54 mmol/L [-1.02; -0.07]95% CI, p = .0247; post hoc) with similar overall glycaemic efficacy, IDegAsp showed significantly lower overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates versus BIAsp 30. CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp is a suitable therapeutic agent for patients who need insulin for sustained glucose control before, during and after Ramadan fasting, with a significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia, versus BIAsp 30, an existing premixed insulin analogue.

A crossover study of the combination therapy of metformin and exenatide or biphasic insulin aspart 30 in overweight or obese patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The aim of the present study was to explore the effects of various combinations of exenatide, metformin (MET) and biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIA30) on type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Two hundred overweight or obese patients newly diagnosed with T2DM were evenly randomized into two groups: A (twice daily for all: Phase I, 5 µg exenatide + 0.5 g MET for 4 weeks, then 10 µg exenatide + 0.5 g MET for 8 weeks; Phase II, 0.5 g MET for 12 weeks; Phase III, 0.3-0.4 U/kg/day BIA30 + 0.5 g MET for 12 weeks) and B (Phases I, II, III matched the phases III, II and I in group A). In groups A and B a significant decrease and increase, respectively, in glycated hemoglobin (HbAlc) and body mass index (BMI) was noted during Phase I. A 3.2±0.4-kg decrease in body weight in group A and a 2.6±0.3-kg increase in group B was observed. In Phase II, HbAlc was significantly increased in both groups (P<0.05). In Phase III, the BMI was increased in group A and reduced in group B (P<0.05). There was a 3.8±0.4-kg weight decrease in group B and 4.2±0.5-kg increase in group A (P<0.05). The combination of exenatide and MET promoted weight loss, glycemic control, ß-cell function index, C peptide and adiponectin levels. These results suggested that the combination of exenatide and MET is better than the combination of BIA and MET for the therapy of overweight or obese patients newly diagnosed with T2DM.

An RCT Investigating Patient-Driven Versus Physician-Driven Titration of BIAsp 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled Using NPH Insulin.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to confirm the efficacy of patient-driven titration of BIAsp 30 in terms of glycemic control, by comparing it to physician-driven titration of BIAsp 30, in patients with type 2 diabetes in North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. METHODS: A 20-week, open-label, randomized, two-armed, parallel-group, multicenter study in Egypt, Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam. Patients (n = 155) with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled using neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin were randomized to either patient-driven or physician-driven BIAsp 30 titration. RESULTS: The noninferiority of patient-driven compared to physician-driven titration with respect to the reduction in HbA1c was confirmed. The estimated mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 20 was -1.27% in the patient-driven arm and -1.04% in the physician-driven arm, with an estimated treatment difference of -0.23% (95% confidence interval: -0.54; 0.08). After 20 weeks of treatment, the proportions of patients achieving the target of HbA1c <7.5% were similar between titration arms; the proportions of patients achieving the target of ≤6.5% were also similar. Both titration algorithms were well tolerated, and hypoglycemic episode rates were similar in both arms. CONCLUSION: Patient-driven titration of BIAsp 30 can be as effective and safe as physician-driven titration in non-Western populations. Overall, the switch from NPH insulin to BIAsp 30 was well tolerated in both titration arms and led to improved glycemic control. A limitation of the study was the relatively small number of patients recruited in each country. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01589653. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark.

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.

Efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart and biphasic insulin lispro mix in patients with type 2 diabetes: A review of the literature.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) represents an escalating burden worldwide, particularly in China and India. Compared with Caucasians, Asian people with diabetes have lower body mass index, increased visceral adiposity, and postprandial glucose (PPG)/insulin resistance. Since postprandial hyperglycemia contributes significantly to total glycemic burden and is associated with heightened cardiovascular risk, targeting PPG early in T2D is paramount. Premixed insulin regimens are widely used in Asia due to their convenience and effectiveness. Data from randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with biphasic insulin lispro mix (LM 25/50) and versus other insulin therapies or oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in T2D demonstrated that BIAsp 30 and LM 25/50 were associated with similar or greater improvements in glycemic control versus comparator regimens, such as basal-bolus insulin, in insulin-naÏve, and prior insulin users. Studies directly comparing BIAsp 30 and LM 25 provided conflicting glycemic control results. Safety data generally showed increased hypoglycemia and weight gain with premixed insulins versus basal-bolus insulin or OADs. However, large observational trials documented improvements in glycated hemoglobin, PPG, and hypoglycemia with BIAsp 30 in multi-ethnic patient populations. In summary, this literature review demonstrates that premixed insulin regimens are an appropriate and effective treatment choice in T2D.

Subject-driven titration of biphasic insulin aspart 30 twice daily is non-inferior to investigator-driven titration in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with premixed human insulin: A randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter trial.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: The present study was to compare the efficacy and safety of subject-driven and investigator-driven titration of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) twice daily (BID). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this 20-week, randomized, open-label, two-group parallel, multicenter trial, Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by premixed/self-mixed human insulin were randomized 1:1 to subject-driven or investigator-driven titration of BIAsp 30 BID, in combination with metformin and/or α-glucosidase inhibitors. Dose adjustment was decided by patients in the subject-driven group after training, and by investigators in the investigator-driven group. RESULTS: Eligible adults (n = 344) were randomized in the study. The estimated glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction was 14.5 mmol/mol (1.33%) in the subject-driven group and 14.3 mmol/mol (1.31%) in the investigator-driven group. Non-inferiority of subject-titration vs investigator-titration in reducing HbA1c was confirmed, with estimated treatment difference -0.26 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval -2.05, 1.53) (-0.02%, 95% confidence interval -0.19, 0.14). Fasting plasma glucose, postprandial glucose increment and self-measured plasma glucose were improved in both groups without statistically significant differences. One severe hypoglycemic event was experienced by one subject in each group. A similar rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia (events/patient-year) was reported in the subject-driven (1.10) and investigator-driven (1.32) groups. There were 64.5 and 58.1% patients achieving HbA1c <53.0 mmol/mol (7.0%), and 51.2 and 45.9% patients achieving the HbA1c target without confirmed hypoglycemia throughout the trial in the subject-driven and investigator-driven groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Subject-titration of BIAsp 30 BID was as efficacious and well-tolerated as investigator-titration. The present study supported patients to self-titrate BIAsp 30 BID under physicians' supervision.

Lower rates of hypoglycemia during maintenance treatment with insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30: a combined analysis of two Phase 3a studies in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble coformulation of the basal analog insulin degludec and the rapid-acting prandial insulin aspart in a single injection. The present combined analysis of two Phase 3a trials compared the incidence of hypoglycemia in participants treated twice daily with IDegAsp or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30). METHODS: Hypoglycemia data were analyzed from two similarly designed randomized controlled open-label treat-to-target Phase 3a clinical trials of adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Participants were treated twice daily with IDegAsp or BIAsp 30, with breakfast and their main evening meal. RESULTS: Over 26 weeks, the rates of overall confirmed, nocturnal confirmed and severe hypoglycemic events were 19%, 57%, and 39% lower, respectively, with IDegAsp (n = 504) than BIAsp 30 (n = 364); estimated rate ratios were 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67, 0.98; P = 0.0341), 0.43 (95% CI 0.31, 0.59; P = 0.0001), and 0.61 (95% CI 0.26, 1.45; P = NS). The between-treatment differences were more pronounced during the maintenance period (≥16 weeks); compared with BIAsp 30, rates of overall confirmed, nocturnal confirmed and severe hypoglycemic events with IDegAsp were 0.69 (95% CI 0.55, 0.87; -31%; P = 0.0015); 0.38 (95% CI 0.25, 0.58; -62%; P < 0.0001), and 0.16 (95% CI 0.04, 0.59; -84%; P = 0.0061), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BIAsp 30 twice daily, IDegAsp twice daily provided similar improvements in glycemic control with a lower risk of hypoglycemia, particularly nocturnal hypoglycemia, in subjects with T2D previously treated with insulin.

Practical Guidance on the Use of Premix Insulin Analogs in Initiating, Intensifying, or Switching Insulin Regimens in Type 2 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Premix insulin analogs are a well-established treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, there is a lack of simple, clear guidance on some aspects of their use. These include choosing a regimen for insulin initiation, recognizing when patients need intensification of therapy, and switching from basal-bolus to a premix insulin analog when appropriate. METHODS: An independent expert panel formulated recommendations on the use in T2D of the premix insulin analog formulations widely available in Australasia, based on the available evidence and their own experience. RESULTS: Results from trials in both initiation and intensification of insulin show that no single insulin or regimen is best on all endpoints, and that improved glycemic control can be expected regardless of which regimen is used. Thus, individual patient factors and preferences become more important. Guidance is presented to help the clinician choose between a premix insulin analog or basal analog for insulin initiation, and to intensify insulin therapy using premix insulin analogs. Recommendations are made on dosing, titration, the concomitant use of non-insulin glucose-lowering drugs, and other practical issues, and on the special case of switching from basal-bolus to premix insulin analog therapy. CONCLUSION: This guidance is intended to help both general and specialist practitioners make informed choices and provide optimal care for patients with T2D. It emphasizes the importance of taking into account individual patient factors and preferences so that the choice of insulin regimen is individualized to the patient in the same way that glycemic targets are now individualized. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk Region IO A/S.

Clinical experience of switching from biphasic human insulin to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Indian patients with type 2 diabetes in the A1chieve study.

AIM: The aim of the following study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin (BHI) to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Indian patients with type 2 diabetes as a sub-analysis of the 24-week, non-interventional A1chieve study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Indian patients switching from BHI to BIAsp 30 based on the physicians' decisions were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs), including major hypoglycemic events; secondary outcomes included changes in hypoglycemia in the 4 weeks preceding baseline and week 24 and changes from baseline to week 24 in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPPG), body weight and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: Overall, 1976 patients (mean ± standard deviation age, 55.1 ± 10.6 years and diabetes duration, 10.1 ± 5.3 years) on a mean pre-study BHI dose of 0.44 ± 0.18 U/kg were included. The mean BIAsp 30 dose was 0.43 ± 0.17 U/kg at baseline and 0.44 ± 0.17 U/kg at week 24. No SADRs were reported. The proportion of patients reporting overall hypoglycemic events reduced significantly from baseline to week 24 (15.0% vs. 2.9%, P < 0.0001). The mean HbA1c level improved significantly from 9.1 ± 1.4% at baseline to 7.5 ± 1.0% at week 24, along with improvements in FPG, post-breakfast PPPG and QoL (P < 0.001). The mean body weight decreased from 69.3 ± 10.8 kg at baseline to 69.1 ± 10.4 kg at week 24 (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Switching from BHI to BIAsp 30 therapy was well-tolerated and was associated with improved glycemic control.

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin 30, insulin glargine, or neutral protamine Hagedorn to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI), insulin glargine (IGlar), or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin (all ± oral glucose-lowering drugs [OGLDs]) to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with type 2 diabetes in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to determine the clinical outcome, costs, and cost-effectiveness of switching from treatment with BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 over a 30-year time horizon. A 1-year analysis was also performed based on quality-of-life data and treatment costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as a fraction of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, and cost-effectiveness was defined as ICER <3-times GDP per capita. RESULTS: Switching treatment from BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 was associated with an increase in life expectancy of >0.7 years, reduction in all diabetes-related complications, and was considered as cost-effective or highly cost-effective in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia (BHI to BIAsp 30, 0.26 in India, 1.25 in Indonesia, 0.01 in Saudi Arabia; IGlar to BIAsp 30, -0.68 in India, -0.21 in Saudi Arabia; NPH to BIAsp 30, 0.15 in India, -0.07 in Saudi Arabia; GDP per head per annum/quality-adjusted life-year). Cost-effectiveness was maintained in the 1-year analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from treatment with BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 (all ± OGLDs) was found to be cost-effective in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia, both in the long and short term.

Similar glucose control with basal-bolus regimen of insulin detemir plus insulin aspart and thrice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: Results of a 50-week randomized clinical trial of stepwise insulin intensification.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of 50-week treatment with stepwise insulin intensification of basal-bolus insulin analogues [insulin detemir (IDet) and aspart (IAsp)] versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp30) in insulin-naive type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients not controlled by oral glucose-lowering drugs (OGLDs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this open-label multicentre, multinational, randomized, parallel-arm treat-to-target trial, 403 insulin-naive patients with T2DM in four African countries were randomized to either an IDet+IAsp (n = 200) or BIAsp1-2-3 (n = 203) treatment group. Stepwise insulin intensification was performed at the end of 14, 26 and 38 weeks, depending on HbA1c values. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 50 weeks of treatment. Safety variables were hypoglycaemia incidence, occurrence of adverse events and weight gain. RESULTS: Non-inferiority of the IDet+IAsp versus BIAsp1-2-3 treatment regimen was demonstrated by their similar HbA1c levels at the end of trial (IDet+IAsp: baseline 8.6%, 50 weeks 7.4%; BIAsp1-2-3: baseline 8.7%, 50 weeks 7.3%; full analysis set difference: 0.1% [95% CI: -0.1, 0.3]; per protocol: 0.2% [95% CI: -0.1, 0.4]). At week 50, 40.3 and 44.9% of patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% with IDet+IAsp and BIAsp1-2-3, respectively. The rate of overall hypoglycaemia during the trial was also similar in both groups (IDet+IAsp: 9.4 events/patient-year; BIAsp1-2-3: 9.8 events/patient-year). CONCLUSION: Insulin initiation and intensification using IDet+IAsp was not inferior to BIAsp1-2-3 in insulin-naive patients with T2DM not controlled by OGLDs. Both regimens led to similar reductions in HbA1c values after 50 weeks of treatment.

An analysis of the short- and long-term cost-effectiveness of starting biphasic insulin aspart 30 in insulin-naïve people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.

AIM: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of starting insulin therapy with biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering drugs in Saudi Arabia, India, Indonesia, and Algeria. METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to evaluate economic outcomes associated with starting BIAsp 30, using baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes from the A(1)chieve study. Time horizons of 1 and 30 years were applied, with country-specific costs for complications, therapies, and background mortality. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in local currencies, USD, and fractions of local GDP per capita (GDPc). Cost-effectiveness was pre-defined using the World Health Organization definition of <3.0 times GDPc. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the primary 30-year analyses, starting BIAsp 30 was associated with a projected increase in life expectancy of >1 year and was highly cost-effective, with ICERs of -0.03 (Saudi Arabia), 0.25 (India), 0.48 (India), 0.47 (Indonesia), and 0.46 (Algeria) GDPc/QALY. The relative risk of developing selected complications was reduced in all countries. Sensitivity analyses including cost of self-monitoring, treatment costs, and deterioration of glucose control with time showed the results to be robust. In a 1-year analysis, ICER per QALY gained was still cost-effective or highly cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Starting BIAsp 30 in people with type 2 diabetes in the A(1)chieve study was found to be cost-effective across all country settings at 1- and 30-year time horizons, and usefully increased predicted life expectancy.