The efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes suboptimally controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs: The Soli-D randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) with premixed insulin, insulin degludec plus insulin aspart (IDegAsp), in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) suboptimally controlled with oral antidiabetic drug(s) (OADs). METHODS: In Soli-D, a 24-week, multicentre, open-label, study, insulin-naïve adults were randomized 1:1 to once-daily injections of iGlarLixi (n = 291) or IDegAsp (n = 291), with continued metformin ± sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline to week 24. Key secondary endpoints included superiority in HbA1c change and body weight (BW) change at week 24. Hypoglycaemia rates were also assessed. RESULTS: At week 24, iGlarLixi showed non-inferiority and superiority over IDegAsp in HbA1c reduction (least squares [LS] mean difference: -0.20 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -0.33, -0.07]; P < .001 for non-inferiority; [97.5% CI: -0.35, -0.05]; P = .003 for superiority). iGlarLixi decreased BW and IDegAsp increased BW from baseline to week 24, with a statistically significant LS mean difference of -1.49 kg in favour of iGlarLixi (97.5% CI: -2.32, -0.66; P < .001). Event rates (per person-year) for American Diabetes Association (ADA) Level 1, 2 or 3 hypoglycaemia were lower for iGlarLixi (1.90) versus IDegAsp (2.72) (relative risk: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.98). No ADA Level 3 hypoglycaemia or unexpected safety findings were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In Chinese people with T2D suboptimally controlled with OADs, once-daily iGlarLixi provided better glycaemic control with BW benefit and lower hypoglycaemia event rates versus IDegAsp.

Efficacy and safety of a basal insulin + 2-3 oral antihyperglycaemic drugs regimen versus a twice-daily premixed insulin + metformin regimen after short-term intensive insulin therapy in individuals with type 2 diabetes: The multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled BEYOND-V trial.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of basal insulin glargine 100 units/ml (Gla) + 2-3 oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) with twice-daily premixed insulin aspart 70/30 (Asp30) + metformin (MET) after short-term intensive insulin therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes in China. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label trial enrolled insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1c of 7.5%-11.0% (58-97 mmol/mol) despite treatment with 2-3 OADs. All participants stopped previous OADs except MET, then received short-term intensive insulin therapy during the run-in period, when those with a fasting plasma glucose of less than 7.0 mmol/L and 2-hour postprandial glucose of less than 10.0 mmol/L were randomized to Gla + MET + a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor or twice-daily Asp30 + MET. If HbA1c was more than 7.0% (>53 mmol/mol) at week 12, participants in the Gla group were added repaglinide or acarbose, at the physician's discretion, and participants in the Asp30 group continued to titrate insulin dose. The change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 was assessed in the per protocol (PP) population (primary endpoint). RESULTS: There were 384 enrollees (192 each to Gla and Asp30); 367 were included in the PP analysis. The threshold for non-inferiority of Gla + OADs versus Asp30 + MET was met, with a least squares mean change from baseline in HbA1c of -1.72% and -1.70% (-42.2 and -42.1 mmol/mol), respectively (estimated difference -0.01%; 95% CI -0.20%, 0.17% [-0.1 mmol/mol; 95% CI -2.2, 1.9]). Achievement of HbA1c less than 7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) was comparable between the groups (60% vs. 57%). The proportion of participants with any (24% vs. 38%; P = .003), symptomatic (19% vs. 31%; P = .007) or confirmed hypoglycaemia (18% vs. 33%; P < .001) was lower in the Gla + OADs group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Asp30 + MET, Gla + 2-3 OADs showed similar efficacy but a lower hypoglycaemia risk in Chinese individuals with type 2 diabetes who had undergone short-term intensive insulin therapy.

Glycemic control and safety in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who switched from premixed insulin to insulin glargine plus oral antidiabetics: a large, prospective, observational study.

In some circumstances, the premixed insulin should be switched to alternative therapy. The effectiveness and the safety of switching from premixed insulin to insulin glargine plus oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have not been clarified and, hence, will be assessed in this study. Chinese patients with T2DM (2013 men and women aged 18-75 years) who had received premixed insulin ± OADs for ≥3 months with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤ 10% were enrolled in a prospective, observational study conducted at 53 hospitals across China. At baseline and at the discretion of the physician, patients switched from premixed insulin to insulin glargine plus OADs. Changes in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG), treatment satisfaction, and the incidence of hypoglycemia were assessed for 16 weeks. In total, 1850 patients completed the study. Mean HbA1c level for the group decreased significantly (from 7.8% ± 1.2% at week 1 to 7.0% ± 1.0% at week 16; P < .0001), and 55.2% of patients achieved HbA1c < 7% at week 16. Mean FPG and 2-hour PPG decreased significantly (-1.4 ± 2.2 and -2.1 ± 3.9 mmol/L, respectively; both P < .0001), whereas patient satisfaction improved significantly. Adverse events were reported in 18.7% of patients. Chinese patients with T2DM who switched from premixed insulin to insulin glargine plus OADs achieved significantly improved glycemic control and treatment satisfaction with a low incidence of hypoglycemia. Patients who are most likely to achieve the HbA1c target less than 7% are younger, have shorter disease duration, and have lower baseline HbA1c and FPG levels.

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.

The gluco-phenotype.

This article describes the concept of gluco-phenotype, i.e., the clinical and biochemical attributes, which allow characterization of the glycaemic status, understanding of the etio-pathogenesis of dysglycaemia, and planning of therapeutic strategies, in an individual. It emphasizes the need to take a detailed history, conduct a comprehensive physical examination, and assess various glycaemic parameters, including fasting glucose, postprandial glucose, and HbA1c, while planning diabetes management.

Glargine insulin/gliclazide MR combination therapy is more effective than premixed insulin monotherapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily insulin glargine plus gliclazide modified release combination therapy versus twice-daily premixed insulin monotherapy in Chinese type 2 diabetic patients insufficiently controlled by oral antidiabetic agents. METHODS: In a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial, patients with poor glycaemic control (fasting plasma glucose ≥ 7.0 mmol/L and 7.5% < haemoglobin A1c ≤ 10%) on oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized to the treatment groups for combination therapy (n = 52) or monotherapy (n = 53). Continuous glucose monitoring was carried out over two 72-h periods, at the beginning and the end of the study, and the data were used to calculate the 24-h mean blood glucose, mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions, standard deviation of blood glucose, and the mean of daily differences. RESULTS: The mean haemoglobin A1c decrease from baseline to study end was significant for both treatment groups (combination therapy: -1.23 ± 0.92%; insulin monotherapy: -1.02 ± 1.04%); moreover, the combination therapy group showed a significantly more robust haemoglobin A1c decrease (p = 0.0308). Both therapies significantly reduced the 24-h mean blood glucose (both, p < 0.001), but neither produced a significant effect on glycaemic variability, calculated as mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions, standard deviation of blood glucose, and mean of daily differences. In addition, the effects on rates of hypoglycaemic episodes were similar between the two therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic agents attained greater benefit from once-daily insulin glargine plus gliclazide modified release regimen than from a twice-daily premixed insulin regimen.

Insulin in ramadan.

Many people with diabetes, both type 1 and type 2, require insulin for maintainance of glycaemic control and health. Most of these people can observe the Ramadan fast, provided appropriate dosage adjustments are made, and basic rules of safety followed. This article describes modifications and precautions that are needed while prescribing insulin during Ramadan.

A prospective, multicentre, randomized, open-label comparison of a long-acting basal insulin analog glargine plus glulisine with premixed insulin in insulin naïve patients with Type 2 diabetes - A study from India.

AIMS: We aimed to compare the effectiveness of Glargine plus Glulisine to premixed insulin analogue, as measured by HbA1c ≤ 7.0% in insulin naive Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) patients with elevated fasting and/or postprandial plasma glucose. METHODS: Insulin-naive T2D patients (116 men, 84 women) on ≥ 2 oral hypoglycemic agents with inadequate glycemic control were randomized either to group 1 (insulin Glargine plus Glulisine, n = 101) or group 2 (Premixed Insulin analogue, n = 99). RESULTS: In the intention to treat analysis, at week 24, percentage of patients with good glycaemic control (HbA1c ≤ 7.0%) was similar between the two groups (16.8% in Group 1 vs. 13.1% in Group 2, χ2 - 0.535, p = 0.47). Significant reductions in fasting and postprandial levels were observed in groups 1 and 2 at both post-baseline time points (Week 12 and 24). In group 1, reduction in HbA1c from baseline to week 12 was 0.6 ± 0.1 and 0.7 ± 0.2 at week 24, p < 0.0001 for all. In group 2, no significant change in HbA1c was observed. In group 1, 83.2% required an additional dose of glulisine and in group 2, 88.9% required an additional dose of premixed insulin. Hypoglycemic events were similar in both groups (0.12 events per person-year in group 1 and 0.13 events per person-year in group 2). Weight gain was non-significant in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Glargine plus Glulisine, though in higher dose was effective as premixed insulin in lowering HbA1c. Hypoglycemic events per person-year were similar in both groups.

Diabetes-related outcomes with basal-bolus vs. premixed insulin among veterans with type 2 diabetes: A single institutional retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare diabetes (DM)-related outcomes between basal-bolus (BB) and premixed (PM) insulin regimens. METHODS: Retrospective chart review including veterans with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), ≥18 years old with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥8%. Outcomes were assessed after one year of BB or PM insulin therapy. Data were analyzed using Chi-square/Fisher exact tests and logistic regression. RESULTS: Out of 140 enrolled subjects (70 BB and 70 PM), 94% were males with average age and duration of DM of 65.7 ± 10.1 and 12.9 ± 9 years, respectively. The BB and PM groups were similar in age, gender distribution, HbA1c, body mass index (BMI) and DM duration at baseline. Following 1 year of treatment, there was no significant difference between the groups for change in HbA1c (-1.9 ± 1.8 vs -2.1 ± 1.9%, p = 0.3) or hypoglycemia rate (30% vs 21.4%, p = 0.3), respectively. There was similar increase in average BMI in both groups (0.84 ± 3.1 for BB vs 0.4 ± 2.2 kg/m2 for PM, p = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences for glycemic control, hypoglycemia rate or BMI between the BB or PM insulin groups. These results suggest PM insulin is equally effective and safe as BB insulin.

Effects of mulberry twig alkaloids(Sangzhi alkaloids) and metformin on blood glucose fluctuations in combination with premixed insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes.

Introduction: We aimed to evaluated the effect of premixed insulin (Ins), premixed insulin combined with metformin (Ins+Met) or mulberry twig alkaloids(Ins+SZ-A) on blood glucose fluctuations in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) using continuous glucose monitors (CGM). Methods: Thirty patients with T2DM and poor blood glucose control using drugs were evaluated for eligibility during the screening period. Subsequently, their original hypoglycemic drugs were discontinued during the lead-in period, and after receiving Ins intensive treatment for 2 weeks, they were randomly assigned to receive either Ins, Ins+Met, or Ins+SZ-A treatment for the following 12 weeks. The main efficacy endpoint comprised changes in their CGM indicators changes (mean blood glucose level [MBG], standard deviation of blood glucose [SDBG], mean amplitude of glycemic excursions [MAGE], postprandial glucose excursions [PPGE], the largest amplitude of glycemic excursions [LAGE], mean of daily difference [MODD], time in range between 3.9-10.0 mmol/L [TIR] and area under the curve for each meal [AUCpp]) during the screening, lead-in, and after 12-week treatment period. Changes in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG), 1-h postprandial blood glucose (1h-PBG), 2-h postprandial blood glucose (2h-PBG), fasting blood lipids and postprandial blood lipids were also measured at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment. Results: The CGM indicators of the three groups during the lead-in period all showed significant improvements compared to the screening period (P<0.05). Compared with those in the lead-in period, all of the CGM indicators improved in the the Ins+Met and Ins+SZ-A groups after 12 weeks of treatment (P<0.05), except for MODD. After 12-week treatment, compared with the Ins group, Ins+Met and Ins+SZ-A groups showed improved MBG, SDBG, TIR, breakfast AUCpp,lunch AUCpp, HbA1c, FBG, 1h-PBG, fasting blood lipid and postprandial blood lipid indicators (P<0.05). Further, the LAGE, PPGE, MAGE, dinner AUCpp and 2h-PBG levels of the Ins+SZ-A group were significantly lower than those of the Ins+Met and Ins groups (P<0.05). Conclusion: Our findings highlight the efficacy of combination therapy (Ins+SZ-A or Ins+Met) in improving blood glucose fluctuations, as well as blood glucose and lipid levels. Ins+SZ-A reduces postprandial blood glucose fluctuations more than Ins+Met and Ins groups. Trial registration number: ISRCTN20835488.

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.

Glycaemia in low-premixed insulin analogue type 2 diabetes patients in a real-world setting: are the CGM targets met?

BACKGROUND: There are insufficient data on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in nonintensive insulin therapy patients. Using CGM and the recommended CGM targets, we wanted to evaluate low-premix insulin analogue therapy (biphasic aspart/NovoMix 30 and biphasic lispro 25/Humalog Mix 25) in real-world type 2 diabetes patients for glycaemic efficacy and especially hypoglycaemia. METHODS: The prospective observational study was performed on 35 patients who were treated with a low-premixed insulin. We used the Dexcom G6 system for CGM (9.6 ± 1 days) to measure the clinically relevant CGM parameters: glycaemic variability (%CV), TBR (time below range) < 3.0 mmol/l = 54 mg/dl (level 2 hypoglycaemia), TBR 3.0-3.8 (= 54-69 mg/dl), TIR (time in range) 3.9-10-0 mmol/l (70-180 mg/dl), TAR (time above range) 10-13.9 mmol/l (180-250 mg/dl) and TAR > 13.9 mmol/l (250 mg/dl). We also assessed clinical and demographic characteristics, laboratory HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, peak postprandial glucose values, and the percentage of hypoglycaemia between 00:00 and 06:00. RESULTS: In our patients, the average ± SD age was 70.4 ± 9.2 years, diabetes duration 17.4 ± 7.1 years, 51% were females, average daily insulin dose was 46.4 units (80% received biphasic aspart). The average ± SD TIR was 62.1 ± 12.2%, TBR < 3.0 mmol/l 0.8 ± 2.0%, TBR 3.0-3.8 mmol/l 1.5 ± 1.5%, TAR 10-13.9 mmol/l 29.2 ± 12.4%, TAR > 13.9 mmol/l 6.4 ± 7.2% and %CV 29.9 ± 7.1%. The average time in hypoglycemia was 33.1 min daily in our patients (11.5 min in the level 2 range). In the older/high-risk population, the TBR/TIR/TAR/level 2 TAR targets were met in 40/80/77/80%, respectively. For the general T2D people, level 2 TBR/TBR/TIR/TAR/level 2 TAR would be met in 74/83/34/77/49%. Average fasting blood glucose was 8.0 ± 2.5 mmol/l (144 ± 45 mg/dl), BMI 31.3 ± 5.1 kg/m2, daily insulin dose 46.4 ± 12.1 units, HbA1c 57.4 ± 5.4 mmol/mol (7.4 ± 0.7%). The glycaemic variability goal was met in 80% (with 66% meeting the lower 33% CV goal). 17 ± 12% of hypoglycaemia was nocturnal. People with TBR > 4% were significantly older. CONCLUSIONS: Most of our type 2 diabetes patients, treated with low-premixed insulin, did not meet the recommended TBR target for older/high-risk patients while meeting the TIR and TAR targets. Nevertheless, the time spent in (total and nocturnal) hypoglycemia was short. The study indicates that the general type 2 diabetes population targets would mostly be met for TBR and %CV in our patients but not the TIR and TAR targets. CGM appears to be a useful clinical tool in these patients.

Twenty Years of Insulin Gla-100: A Systematic Evaluation of Its Efficacy and Safety in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review aims to present the current evidence base with respect to the initiation and intensification of insulin therapy with glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) compared to other insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled clinical trials databases was performed to identify studies published up to September 30, 2020 that compared the effects of Gla-100 to that of other insulin regimens in people with T2DM. Relevant information pertaining to the predefined outcomes of interest was extracted. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change and response rates along with overall hypoglycemia incidence were the primary efficacy and safety outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Seventy-nine studies (63 interventional and 16 non-interventional) in which Gla-100 was either initiated in previously insulin-naïve patients (n = 57) or used in an intensified regimen (n = 22) were identified and evaluated. In insulin-naïve patients, most studies demonstrated that Gla-100 was significantly better compared with premixed insulins and similar compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations, and other first-generation basal insulins in terms of the primary efficacy parameters. Overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with NPH, premixed, coformulation, and other first-generation basal insulins and significantly higher compared with second-generation basal insulins. In studies with intensified regimens, efficacy outcomes with Gla-100 were significantly better compared with insulin detemir (IDet); similar compared with NPH, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations; and with premixed insulins. In these studies, overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with IDet and comparable to NPH, premixed insulins, co-formulations, and second-generation basal insulins. In addition, most intensification studies also revealed a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia with Gla-100-based regimens versus NPH and premixed insulins and a significantly greater risk compared to second-generation basal insulins. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence presented in this review suggests that Gla-100 is an effective option for both insulin initiation and intensification strategies used in the management of T2DM.

Predictors of HbA1c reduction and hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus individuals switching from premixed to basal insulin: an exploratory analysis of optimization study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who are more likely to benefit from switching to basal insulin (BI) treatment from premixed insulin. METHODS: This secondary analysis included data from a previously published study (Optimization: NCT00693771) which was a single-arm, multicenter, 16 weeks, phase IV study. The analysis included participants with T2DM inadequately controlled with premixed insulin plus oral hypoglycemic drugs (OADs) who switched to BI plus OADs. RESULTS: Among the 297 participants included for analysis, subjects with fasting C-peptide (FCP)>1.2 nmol/L group showed a trend for greater reduction in HbA1c [Least square mean difference (LSMD), -0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.98 to -0.21; p = 0.003] and FPG (LSMD, -1.36; 95% CI, -2.20 to -0.53; p = 0.002) than those with FCP ≤ 0.4 nmol/L. The baseline insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) dose increased significantly in 0.4 to ≤ 1.2 nmol/L group with LS mean difference (SE) of 0.16 (0.01) U/kg/day (p = 0.008) compared to FCP ≤ 0.4 nmol/L group. When combined with Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) score, participants with a C-peptide level of 0.4 to ≤1.2 nmol/L (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 1.08 to 15.22; p = 0.039) had significantly higher odds of achieving HbA1c <7%. The number of participants experiencing documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia (≤3.9 mmol/L) was higher in the FCP ≤0.4 nmol/L group compared to those in 0.4 to ≤1.2 nmol/L FCP group at any time of the day (31.6 vs. 17.1%) and during night (00:00 ∼ 05:59) (17.1 vs. 7.5%). CONCLUSION: The findings from this study proposed that FCP is an important biomarker to identify T2DM participants who experience improved glucose control without compromising on hypoglycemia levels during switch from premixed insulin to BI. Participants especially with FCP levels >1.2 nmol/L may respond better in terms of HbA1c reduction without increased hypoglycemia risk compared to those with lower FCP values.

Basal Insulin Reduces Glucose Variability and Hypoglycaemia Compared to Premixed Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Study Based on Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems.

Aims: To examine the glycaemic variability and safety of basal and premixed insulin by using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. Methods: 393 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with basal or premixed insulin for more than 3 months were enrolled. Patients were classified into a basal insulin group or premixed insulin group according to their insulin regimens. CGMs were used for 72 h with their previous hypoglycaemic regimen unchanged. The following glycaemic parameters were calculated for each 24 h using CGM data. Results: Despite similar HbA1c and fasting C-peptide concentrations, glycaemic variability (GV), including the mean amplitude of glycaemic excursion (MAGE), standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV), and the time below range (TBR) were significantly lower in the basal insulin group than these in the premixed insulin group. Night-time hypoglycaemia was lower in the basal insulin group than that in the premixed insulin group (p<0.01). Among participants with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) < 7%, the GV and TBR were higher in the premixed insulin group than that in the basal insulin group. Conclusion: Compared with basal insulin, the patients who use premixed insulin had higher GV, smaller TIR and an increased incidence of hypoglycaemia. For patients who use premixed insulin and with HbA1c < 7%, more attention needs to be given to hypoglycaemic events and asymptomatic hypoglycaemia. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03566472.

Effects of basal and premixed insulin on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients based on multicenter prospective real-world data.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the different efficacies of glycemic control between basal and premixed insulin in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) when non-insulin medications fail to reach treatment targets. METHODS: This was a prospective, large-scale, real-world study at 10 diabetes centers in China. Between June 2017 and June 2021, we enrolled 1104 T2DM participants initiated with either once-daily basal insulin or twice-daily premixed insulin when the glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) control target was not met after at least two non-insulin agents were administered. A Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for multiple influencing factors was performed to compare the different effects of basal and premixed insulin on reaching the HbA1c control target. RESULTS: At baseline, basal insulin (57.3%) was prescribed more frequently than premixed insulin (42.7%). Patients with a higher body mass index (BMI) or higher HbA1c levels were more likely to receive premixed insulin than basal insulin (both p < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 12.0 months, compared to those with premixed insulin, the hazard ratio for reaching the HbA1c target to those with basal insulin was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.92-1.31; p = 0.29) after adjustment, and less weight gain was observed in those with basal insulin than with premixed insulin (percentage change of BMI from baseline -0.37[5.50]% vs 3.40[6.73]%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, once-daily basal insulin was more frequently prescribed and had similar glycemic control effects but less weight gain compared with twice-daily premixed insulin when used as initiation therapy for those in whom glycemic control with non-insulin medications failed.

Comparison of Premixed Human Insulin 30/70 to Biphasic Aspart 30 in Well-Controlled Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

AIM: To compare in terms of glycemic variability two premixed insulins, Premixed Human Insulin 30/70 (PHI) and Biphasic Aspart 30 (BiAsp30), using Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) and to estimate the correlation of Glycated Albumin (GA) and Fructosamine (FA) with CGM data. Patients-Data: A total of 36 well-controlled patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) underwent 7-day CGM with PHI and subsequently with BiAsp30. GA and FA were measured at the first and last day of each week of CGM. RESULTS: BiAsp30 was associated with lower Average Blood Glucose (ABG) during the 23:00-03:00 period (PHI: 135.08 ± 28.94 mg/dL, BiAsp30: 117.75 ± 21.24 mg/dL, p < 0.001) and the 00:00-06:00 period (PHI: 120.42 ± 23.13 mg/dL, BiAsp30: 111.17 ± 14.74 mg/dL, p = 0.008), as well as with more time below range (<70 mg/dL) (TBR) during the 23:00-03:00 period in the week (PHI: 3.65 ± 5.93%, BiAsp30: 11.12 ± 16.07%, p = 0.005). PHI was associated with lower ABG before breakfast (PHI: 111.75 ± 23.9 mg/dL, BiAsp30: 128.25 ± 35.9 mg/dL, p = 0.013). There were no differences between the two groups in ABG, Time In Range and Time Below Range during the entire 24-h period for 7 days, p = 0.502, p = 0.534, and p = 0.258 respectively, and in TBR for the 00:00-06:00 period p = 0.253. Total daily insulin requirements were higher for BiAsp30 (PHI: 47.92 ± 12.18 IU, BiAsp30: 49.58 ± 14.12 IU, p = 0.001). GA and FA correlated significantly with ABG (GA: r = 0.512, p = 0.011, FA: r = 0.555, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In well-controlled patients with T2DM, BiAsp30 is an equally effective alternative to PHI.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart Compared with a Conventional Premixed Insulin or Basal Insulin: A Meta-Analysis.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a novel co-formulation of 70% insulin degludec and 30% insulin aspart. The present meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp compared with a conventional premixed insulin or basal insulin. We extracted data from citation databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, since inception to 2021. We calculated the mean differences for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-measured mean glucose, and postprandial glucose (PPG) and odds ratios for confirmed hypoglycemia events. Compared with twice-daily conventional premixed insulin, twice-daily IDegAsp showed a similar effect on changes in HbA1c, but it significantly reduced FPG and self-measured mean glucose levels. Furthermore, compared to once-daily basal insulin, once-daily IDegAsp had a similar effect on changes in HbA1c, but it significantly reduced self-measured mean glucose and PPG levels. The risk of overall confirmed hypoglycemia was similar between treatments; however, the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia events was significantly lower with IDegAsp than with conventional premixed insulin and basal insulin. Thus, IDegAsp was more effective than conventional premixed insulin and basal insulin at reducing blood glucose with fewer nocturnal hypoglycemia events.

A Pragmatic Study of Basal and Mid-Mixture Insulins as Starter Insulins in Chinese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Observations From Long-Term, Real-World Experience.

INTRODUCTION: According to Chinese guidelines, basal insulin (BI) or premixed insulins are recommended insulin starters following the failure of oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM) in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This pragmatic study investigated the long-term effectiveness, safety, and cost of add-on BI and mid-mixture insulin analog (MMI) regimens in Chinese patients with T2D. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, pragmatic study randomized patients 1:1 to receive either BI or MMI with OAMs adjusted according to current standards of care. We evaluated the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline, safety parameters, and antidiabetic medication costs. RESULTS: Change in HbA1c from baseline showed a statistically greater decrease at week 48 in the MMI group (MMI: - 2.03% [0.06] vs. BI: - 1.82% [0.06]; P < 0.05). Both groups showed decreases in fasting plasma glucose (mmol/L) (MMI: - 2.53 [0.14] vs. BI: - 3.19 [0.14]; P < 0.01) and postprandial glucose (mmol/L) (MMI: - 4.35 [0.22] vs. BI: - 4.33 [0.23]). More patients in the BI group showed increases in OAM use, while OAM use decreased in the MMI group. Both groups showed stable glycemic control with a very limited insulin dose change from week 24 to week 48. The incidence of total hypoglycemia was higher in the MMI group (MMI: 124% [30.7] vs. BI: 76% [18.5], P < 0.0001), but no incidence of severe hypoglycemia was reported in either group. Treatment costs, in terms of average daily cost and cost of glycemic control, were higher in the BI group. CONCLUSION: In long-term real-world use, the MMI and BI groups demonstrated improved glycemic control, with the MMI group showing more significant improvement than the BI group. Hypoglycemia incidence was higher in the MMI group, with no major safety issues through week 48. MMI is likely to provide better price value than BI for the treatment of T2D in Chinese patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03018938.

A Real-World, Observational Study of the Initiation, Use, and Effectiveness of Basal-Bolus or Premixed Insulin in Japanese People with Type 2 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Basal-bolus (BB) and premixed insulin regimens may lower fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), but are complex to use and associated with weight gain and hypoglycaemia. Although randomized controlled trials and prospective observational studies in insulin-naïve Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) initiating these regimens have been conducted, real-world data are lacking. This study describes the characteristics of patients initiating these regimens in routine clinical practice and identifies the course and outcomes of therapy in the year following initiation. METHODS: Adults with T2D initiating BB or premixed regimens following OAD therapies held in a Japanese electronic medical record database were identified (2010-2019). Subcohorts were determined by treatment changes during ≤ 12 months of follow-up (no change, intensified, switched, discontinued). Outcomes included change in glycated haemoglobin levels (HbA1c), probability of first reaching HbA1c < 7% (stratified by baseline OAD number, HbA1c and age), and hypoglycaemia incidence. RESULTS: The main cohorts comprised 1315 BB and 1195 premixed therapy initiators. Most individuals (67.9%) initiated BB as inpatients; 50.8% switched at a mean of 47.6 days. Mean HbA1c lowering was - 2.5% for BB and - 1.4% for premixed regimens (no change cohorts). Overall, a greater proportion achieved HbA1c < 7% if they were (at baseline) taking fewer OADs, in a lower HbA1c category, and aged ≥ 65 years. Hypoglycaemia incidence (< 70 mg/dl) was higher with BB than premixed regimens and lower in patients aged < 65 years. CONCLUSION: Greater HbA1c reductions, but a higher incidence of hypoglycaemia, were reported with BB versus premixed regimens, while both cohorts demonstrated clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c during follow-up. After initiation, most premixed regimens remained unchanged, whereas switches from BB to less intensive regimens were numerous, in accordance with the use of BB for a limited duration to improve FPG and PPG control.