Effectiveness of SB4 Transition from Originator Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Subgroup Analysis from the BENEFIT Study.

Objectives: The pan-European BENEFIT study of patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who transitioned from reference etanercept to SB4 found no clinically meaningful changes in disease control after transition. The analysis aims to illustrate the peculiarities of the Italian cohort of patients compared with the whole population to provide a more real-life approach to the data for the Italian rheumatologists, ruling out possible local confounding factors. Methods: A prospective study for up to 6 months following transition was conducted. Outcome measures of interest include clinical characteristics at time of transition and disease activity scores (Disease Activity Score-28 [DAS28] for RA, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] for axSpA) over time and safety. Results: One-hundred and eleven subjects (out of the 557 in total enrolled in the study) were derived from 8 Italian sites, including 79 with RA and 32 with axSpA. In both cohorts, the efficacy was maintained at 3 months and 6 months from the transition to the biosimilar with no significant change in mean DAS28 and BASDAI scores: at the end of the 6 months of observation the mean DAS28 and BASDAI was similar to baseline (confidence interval [CI] -0.22, 0.22), while the mean variation of the BASDAI was -0.14. Of note, 100.0% (95% CI 89.1, 100.0) in the axSpA and 90.8% (95% CI 81.5, 95.5) in the RA cohort of patients continued to receive SB4 at month 6 (binary variable with 95% Clopper-Pearson CI). Conclusions: Italian patients with stable RA or axSpA who transitioned from originator Etanercept to SB4 maintained clinical response at 6 months post-transition. Both the cohorts are representative of typical patients with long-standing established diagnoses. Most of the patients transitioned to the same dose regimen of biosimilar as that received for the originator, and the regimen remained unchanged at 6 months, supporting the effectiveness of the transition.

Patient Preferences and Health State Utilities Associated with Mealtime Insulin Concentrations Among Patients with Diabetes in Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Standard concentration (100 units/mL) mealtime insulin is frequently used to treat patients with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). A more concentrated version of the medication (200 units/mL) has been available in Italy since 2016. This concentrated version is bioequivalent to the standard version and delivers the same amount of medication but in half the volume of liquid. The purpose of this study was to examine patient preferences and estimate health state utilities associated with standard and concentrated rapid-acting mealtime analog insulin. METHODS: Participants with T1D and T2D in Italy valued two health states in time trade-off interviews. The descriptions of diabetes and treatment in the two health states were identical, differing only in terms of insulin concentration (e.g., half as much liquid for the same dose, less effort needed to press the injection button, and fewer injection pens required with concentrated insulin). To ensure participants understood the health states, they were shown a short video illustrating the differences between concentrations. RESULTS: A total of 217 participants completed the interviews (49.8% male; mean age 56.1 years; 109 from Milan; 108 from Rome; 12.0% T1D; 88.0% T2D). When asked which health state they preferred, 98.2% responded the concentrated version, 0.9% said the standard version, and 0.9% had no preference. Mean [standard deviation (SD)] utilities rounded to three decimals were 0.892 (0.099) for the concentrated version and 0.884 (0.101) for the standard version. The mean (SD; p value) utility difference between the standard and concentrated rapid-acting insulin was 0.007 (0.019; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study provide insight into patient preferences associated with concentration of rapid-acting insulin. Although the difference in utility is small, patients consistently preferred the concentrated formulation over the standard insulin, and for some patients this difference had an impact on utility valuations. These results suggest that the concentration of rapid-acting insulin should be considered because it could affect treatment preference and quality of life. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

A Review of Basal-Bolus Therapy Using Insulin Glargine and Insulin Lispro in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus.

Basal-bolus therapy (BBT) refers to the combination of a long-acting basal insulin with a rapid-acting insulin at mealtimes. Basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL and prandial insulin lispro have been available for many years and there is a substantial evidence base to support the efficacy and safety of these agents when they are used in BBT or basal-plus therapy for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM, T2DM). With the growing availability of alternative insulins for use in such regimens, it seems timely to review the data regarding BBT with insulin glargine 100 U/mL and insulin lispro. In patients with T1DM, BBT with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro provides similar or better glycemic control and leads to less nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to BBT using human insulin as the basal and/or prandial component, and generally provides similar glycemic control and rates of severe hypoglycemia to those achieved with insulin lispro administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Studies evaluating BBT with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro in patients with T2DM also demonstrate the efficacy and safety of these insulins. Available data suggest that BBT with insulin glargine and insulin lispro provides similar levels of efficacy and safety in pediatric and adult populations with T1DM and in adult patients and those aged more than 65 years with T2DM. These insulin preparations also appear to be safe and effective for controlling T2DM in people of different ethnicities and in patients with T1DM or T2DM and comorbidities. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Use of Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension in Pregnancy.

Maternal metabolism changes substantially during pregnancy, which poses numerous challenges to physicians managing pregnancy in women with diabetes. Insulin is the agent of choice for glycemic control in pregnant women with diabetes, and the insulin analogs are particularly interesting for use in pregnancy. These agents may reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and promote a more physiological glycemic profile than regular human insulin in pregnant women with type 1 (T1D), type 2 (T2D), or gestational (GDM) diabetes. However, there have been concerns regarding potential risk for crossing the placental barrier, mitogenic stimulation, teratogenicity, and embryotoxicity. Insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS), an intermediate- to long-acting insulin, has a stable and predictable pharmacological profile, and appears to have a favorable time-action profile and produce desirable basal and postprandial glycemic control. As the binding of insulin lispro is unaffected by the protamine molecule, ILPS is likely to have the same mitogenic and immunogenic potential as insulin lispro. Insulin lispro produces similar outcomes to regular insulin in pregnant women with T1D, T2D, or GDM, does not cross the placental barrier, and is considered a useful treatment option for pregnant women with diabetes. Clinical data support the usefulness of ILPS for basal insulin coverage in non-pregnant patients with T1D or T2D, and suggest that the optimal regimen, in terms of balance between efficacy and hypoglycemic risk, is a once-daily injection, especially in patients with T2D. Available data concerning use of ILPS in pregnant women are currently derived from retrospective analyses that involved, in total, >1200 pregnant women. These analyses suggest that ILPS is at least as safe and effective as neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Thus, available experimental and clinical data suggest that ILPS once daily is a safe and effective option for the management of diabetes in pregnant women.

Fit and motivated: outcome predictors in patients starting a program for lifestyle change.

BACKGROUND: In previous pilot studies we have demonstrated that the Treatment Motivation and Readiness Test (TRE-MORE) is capable of predicting the outcome of obesity therapy and that a higher muscle mass (MM) is associated with a greater weight loss. Purposes of the present study were: to confirm the predictive value of TRE-MORE scores and MM, using a standardized non-pharmacologic intervention for weight loss; to explore the relationship between TRE-MORE and MM; to discriminate predictors of attendance from predictors of final therapeutic success. METHODS: A consecutive series of 331 patients was enrolled and addressed to a standardized treatment protocol. RESULTS: Mean weight loss at 6 months was -5.03%. Among participants, 48.7% lost at least 5% initial body weight after 6 months and had significantly higher TRE-MORE total scores and MM. Weight loss was significantly associated with baseline MM, TRE-MORE-3, and a lower number of previous diets. Significantly lower TRE-MORE-3 scores were associated with drop-out. CONCLUSION: The present study confirms that therapeutic success is predicted by TRE-MORE scores and, independently from these, by estimated MM (after adjustment for BMI). TRE-MORE total score is a predictor of failure, but not of attendance, whereas drop-out patients showed a lower score only in TREMORE-3 subscale which investigates lifestyle habits.

Insulin lispro protamine suspension in the treatment of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of published data.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) is a protamine-based insulin lispro formulation that allows 24-h coverage while limiting the number of daily injections. ILPS was developed to be the basal insulin component of premixed biphasic formulations with insulin lispro, i.e., the lispro/ILPS 25/75 and 50/50 mixed compounds, but has recently also been marketed as a basal insulin analog formulation, with an indication for the therapy of diabetic patients. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews the available literature on pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD), efficacy and safety of ILPS administered as basal insulin, or in premixed biphasic formulations, in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. EXPERT OPINION: The results of this review suggest that ILPS may be associated with a favorable time-action profile, basal and postprandial glycemic control, and efficacy in terms of rates of patients reaching glycosylated hemoglobin targets; an increased risk of hypoglycemic episodes, compared to other basal insulins, seems to be related to the percentage of patients upgrading from once- to twice-daily injections. This increased risk might be linked with the concomitant use of insulin secretagogues in patients on higher daily dosages and is generally not observed in patients using one injection of ILPS a day. Thus, ILPS can be considered a valid option both as basal insulin and as basal component of the actual premixed formulations of lispro for the therapy of diabetic patients.

The use of insulin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients with diabetes sometimes present comorbidities that increase the risk of other common geriatric syndromes. In such patients, treatment with insulin is usually started when full doses of oral hypoglycemic agents are no longer adequate to achieve acceptable glycemic control. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews the available literature on the use of insulin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. The aims are to gain information on: the benefits and risks of initiating insulin treatment, the efficacy and safety of different types of insulin and the most appropriate initial dosing and titration regimens. Thirteen published trials have evaluated the effects of different insulin regimens in the management of elderly subjects with type 2 diabetes but, given that older people are generally excluded in clinical studies with insulin, only three published reports on subgroup analyses are limited to elderly patients. EXPERT OPINION: The available literature shows that the addition of insulin to current oral treatments is generally safe and effective in improving metabolic control, with a low risk for hypoglycemia. Further research is needed to better understand the most appropriate insulin regimens necessary to achieve glycemic goals while appropriately addressing the risk of hypoglycemia.