A comparison of the safety and effectiveness of insulin aspart with other bolus insulins in women with pre-existing Type 1 diabetes during pregnancy: A post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort study.

AIMS: The safety and efficacy of insulin analogue insulin aspart (IAsp) have been demonstrated in a randomised clinical trial in pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes (T1D), and IAsp is widely used during pregnancy. The aim of this study was to assess glycaemic control and safety of IAsp versus other bolus insulins in Type 1 diabetic pregnancy in a real-world setting. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort study of 1840 pregnant women with T1D, treated with IAsp (n = 1434) or other bolus insulins (n = 406) in the Diabetes Pregnancy Registry. The primary (composite) outcome was the proportion of pregnancies resulting in major congenital malformations or perinatal or neonatal death. Secondary outcomes included all HbA1c values measured immediately before and during pregnancy and major hypoglycaemia, as well as abortion, pre-eclampsia, pre-term delivery, large for gestational age at birth, stillbirth and fetal malformations. RESULTS: There were no significant differences found in any of the pregnancy outcomes between treatment with IAsp and other bolus insulins in either the crude or propensity score-adjusted analyses. However, maternal HbA1c was lower in the IAsp group at the end of the third trimester (adjusted difference, -0.16% point [95% CI -0.28;-0.05]; -1.8 mmol/mol [95% CI -3.1;-0.6]; p = 0.0046). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in safety or pregnancy outcomes were demonstrated when comparing treatment with IAsp versus other bolus insulins in women with T1D during pregnancy. The observed improvement in HbA1c with IAsp in late pregnancy should be confirmed in other studies.

Perspectives and Behaviors of People with Diabetes toward Time in Range and Glucose Control in Diabetes Management: An Online Survey.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed experiences, attitudes, and behaviors of people with diabetes (PwD) regarding diabetes self-management and glucose control, and their level of awareness, knowledge, and attitudes toward time in range (TIR). METHODS: This quantitative survey was conducted using an online questionnaire across seven countries. Respondents were PwD classified into three subgroups: type 1 (T1), type 2 insulin (T2 insulin), and type 2 not on insulin (T2 N/insulin). RESULTS: Respondents included 621 people in the T1, 780 people in the T2 insulin, and 735 people in the T2 N/insulin subgroups. Awareness of TIR was low, particularly in the T2 N/insulin subgroup (T1 53%, T2 insulin 29%, T2 N/insulin 9%). Despite a lower current use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) among the T2 insulin and T2 N/insulin participants (38% and 9%, respectively), versus T1 participants (64%), most (> 70%) were positive toward utilizing new tools and measures to self-manage blood glucose. Recommendations from their healthcare professionals (HCPs) were cited as a strong motivator to try new measures for analyzing glucose levels. The main barriers cited were limited access to CGM and lack of understanding of TIR benefits. Cost was the main reason given by ≥ 40% of respondents for stopping CGM use. CONCLUSIONS: There is an unmet need in diabetes management, and TIR and CGM offer a potential solution. PwD are motivated to manage their blood glucose levels and are positive toward utilizing new tools and measures to achieve this goal. HCPs play a pivotal role in informing and guiding PwD on new measures for analyzing glucose.

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.