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.

Mixed insulin can improve control of prednisolone-induced hyperglycaemia.

BACKGROUND: Hyperglycaemia is a common side effect of prednisolone, although there are no widely accepted guidelines for the management of glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycaemia (GIH). Our institution uses mixed insulin in a pre-breakfast or pre-breakfast and pre-lunch regimen, with the rationale that this profile of insulin action matches the physiological effect of prednisolone on blood glucose levels (BGLs). AIM: Evaluate the use of the mixed insulin (NovoMix30) in a pre-breakfast or pre-breakfast and pre-lunch regimen as management for GIH in a tertiary hospital setting. METHOD: We retrospectively evaluated all inpatients coprescribed prednisolone ≥7.5 mg and NovoMix30 for at least 48 hours over a 19-month period. BGLs were evaluated with repeated-measures analysis within four time periods across the day, beginning from the day prior to NovoMix30 administration. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients were identified. NovoMix30 significantly reduced BGLs in the morning (mean 12.7 ± 4.5 vs. 9.2 ± 3.9 mmol/L, P < 0.001), afternoon (mean 13.6 ± 3.8 vs. 11.9 ± 3.8 mmol/L, P = 0.001) and evening (12.1 ± 3.8 vs. 10.8 ± 3.8 mmol/L, P = 0.01). With uptitration of insulin over 3 days, 43% of all BGLs were within the target range, compared with 23% on day 0 (P < 0.001). The final median dose of NovoMix30 was 0.15 (0.10-0.22) units/kg bodyweight, or 0.40 (0.23-0.69) units/mg of prednisolone, which is lower than our hospital guideline recommends. One overnight hypoglycaemic event was observed. CONCLUSION: Mixed insulin as a pre-breakfast or pre-breakfast and pre-lunch regimen can target the hyperglycaemic pattern induced by prednisolone and minimise overnight hypoglycaemia. However, higher doses of insulin than those used in our study are likely required for optimal BGL control.

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.

COVID-19 and diabetic ketoacidosis: A case series at an urban district hospital in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with an increased prevalence and mortality from diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) globally. With limited access to specialised care, most patients with DKA in South Africa are managed at district hospital level. This study describes the profile of patients admitted to a district hospital in South Africa with DKA and COVID-19 and examines associated risk factors encountered. METHODS: This was a case series of all patients presenting to a district hospital with DKA and COVID-19 infection between July 2020 and July 2021. Data extracted included patients' demographic profiles, biochemical results, comorbidities and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The median age of the 10 patients admitted during the study period was 39 years old (±12), six of whom were male. The hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values on admission ranged from 9.7 to 13.8. Five of the patients had pre-existing type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Four of the known DM patients were on metformin only, and one was on biphasic insulin. Three patients had other pre-existing comorbidities, two patients with hypertension and one with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Three patients demised, two of whom were hypoxic on admission. CONCLUSION: Diabetic ketoacidosis appears more commonly in COVID-19 infected patients with type 2 DM and at a young age. Suboptimal glycaemic control was associated with DKA, and hypoxia was a strong predictor for mortality. Treatment inertia was evident in the known DM group, who were on monotherapy despite persistent hyperglycaemia. Greater vigilance is required to detect ketosis in type 2 DM and intensify therapy to improve glycaemic control.

GLP-1 receptor agonist use during hospitalisation: Better glycaemic control compared to premixed insulin.

INTRODUCTION: Glycaemic control associates with better outcomes for hospitalised patients. Whether GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) are suitable and effective drugs for inpatients is unclear. METHODS: A retrospective, single centre, observational study using data from the electronic health record. Patients admitted using GLP-1 RA as outpatients, from 2016 to 2019, were identified. Outcomes were compared to those admitted using twice-daily (BD) mixed insulin. Capillary glucose, medication use, creatinine, and demographic data were collected. As drugs may be discontinued/not administered in hospital, days when GLP-1 RA was administered were 'GLP-1 RA active' and, for insulin, 'insulin active'. The primary comparison was rate of hypoglycaemia (<4 mmol/L) and severe hypoglycaemia (<3 mmol/L). A logistic regression model examined variables for hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: GLP-1 RA comprised n = 262 admissions and BD insulin n = 166. The 'insulin active' cohort (n = 957 patient days) had higher risk of hypoglycaemia than 'GLP-1 RA active' (n = 806 days); occurring on 14.7% of days; 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.6-17.1 versus 9.9% days; 95% CI 8.0-12.2; p = 0.002, and severe hypoglycaemia 4.0% of days (95% CI 2.8-5.4) versus 2.0% (95% CI 1.1%-3.2%; p = 0.005). Daily glucose (mean ± standard deviation) was 10.8 ± 5.2 mmol/L in insulin active versus 9.6 ± 4.7 mmol/L in GLP-1 RA active; p < 0.001. Insulin use, age, and acute admissions predicted hypoglycaemia. The odds ratio for hypoglycaemia was 2.15 times greater (95% CI, 1.14-4.08; p = 0.019) with insulin than with GLP-1 RA. CONCLUSIONS: GLP-1 RA provided better glycaemic control than BD mixed insulin and should be continued during hospitalisation unless there is a clear indication for cessation.

Improved patient-reported outcomes with iGlarLixi versus premix BIAsp 30 in people with type 2 diabetes in the SoliMix trial.

AIM: To assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the SoliMix trial, which compared the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30 in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: SoliMix (EudraCT: 2017-003370-13), a 26-week, open-label study, randomized (1:1) 887 adults with T2D and HbA1c ≥7.5%-≤10.0% (≥58-≤86 mmol/mol) on basal insulin plus oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) to once-daily iGlarLixi or twice-daily premix insulin, BIAsp 30. PROs were assessed using the Treatment-Related Impact Measure Diabetes (TRIM-D) and Global Treatment Effectiveness Evaluation (GTEE) questionnaires. RESULTS: Over 26 weeks, iGlarLixi showed greater improvement from baseline versus BIAsp 30 in total TRIM-D score (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval]: 5.08 [3.69, 6.47]; effect size: 0.32) and in each TRIM-D domain, with the greatest differences seen in diabetes management (8.47 [6.11, 10.84]) and treatment burden (6.95 [4.83, 9.07]). GTEE scores showed a greater proportion of participants and physicians rated a complete or marked improvement of diabetes control with iGlarLixi (80.5%, 82.8%) versus BIAsp 30 (63.3%, 65.1%) at week 26. Post hoc analyses showed that after adjusting for HbA1c, body weight and hypoglycaemia outcomes, iGlarLixi continued to show greater improvements in TRIM-D total scores versus BIAsp 30. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to better glycaemic control, weight benefit and less hypoglycaemia, once-daily iGlarLixi provided improved diabetes management, treatment burden and perceived effectiveness versus twice-daily premix BIAsp 30, further supporting iGlarLixi as an advanced treatment option in people with suboptimally controlled T2D on basal insulin plus OADs.

Modeling of Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Insulin Aspart and Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30/70.

This study includes modeling and simulation of insulin aspart pharmacokinetics (PK). The authors used PK data of biosimilar insulins-insulin aspart and biphasic insulin aspart 30/70-to develop a predictive population PK model for the insulins. The model was built via Monolix software, taking into account the weight-based dosing and the dose and body-weight effects on the parameters. The model-based simulations were performed using the R package mlxR for various administered doses and various ratios of insulin aspart forms for a better understanding of the insulin behavior. The optimal model was a 1-compartment model with a combination of zero- and first-order absorptions, with absorption lag for the soluble form of insulin aspart and first-order absorption for the insulin aspart protamine suspension. The assumption of identical behavior of 2 insulins at the distribution and elimination phases was made. The developed PK model was fitted successfully to the experimental data, and all fitted parameters displayed a moderate coefficient of variation. The PK model allows us to predict PK profiles for various doses and formulations of insulin aspart and can be used to improve the accuracy, safety, and ethics of novel clinical trials of insulin.

Real-Time Flash Glucose Monitoring Had Better Effects on Daily Glycemic Control Compared With Retrospective Flash Glucose Monitoring in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes on Premix Insulin Therapy.

Background and Aims: To compare the effects of real-time and retrospective flash glucose monitoring (FGM) on daily glycemic control and lifestyle in patients with type 2 diabetes on premix insulin therapy. Methods and Results: A total of 172 patients using premix insulin, with HbA1c ≥ 7.0% (56 mmol/mol), or the time below the target (TBR) ≥ 4%, or the coefficient of variation (CV) ≥36% during the screening period, were randomly assigned to retrospective FGM (n = 89) or real-time FGM group (n = 83). Another two retrospective or real-time 14-day FGMs were performed respectively, 1 month apart. Both groups received educations and medication adjustment after each FGM. Time in range (3.9~10.0 mmol/l, TIR) increased significantly after 3 months in the real-time FGM group (6.5%) compared with the retrospective FGM group (-1.1%) (p = 0.014). HbA1c decreased in both groups (both p < 0.01). Real-time FGMs increased daily exercise time compared with the retrospective group (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Real-time FGM with visible blood glucose improves daily glycemic control and diabetes self-care behaviors better than retrospective FGM in patients with type 2 diabetes on premix insulin therapy. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/NCT04847219.

Comparison of Prevailing Insulin Regimens at Different Time Periods in Hospitalized Patients: A Real-World Experience from a Tertiary Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Prevailing insulin regimens for glycemic control in hospitalized patients have changed over time. We aimed to determine whether the current basal-bolus insulin (BBI) regimen is superior to the previous insulin regimen, mainly comprising split-mixed insulin therapy. METHODS: This was a single tertiary center, retrospective observational study that included non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were treated with split-mixed insulin regimens from 2004 to 2007 (period 1) and with BBI from 2008 to 2018 (period 2). Patients from each period were analyzed after propensity score matching. The mean difference in glucose levels and the achievement of fasting and preprandial glycemic targets by day 6 of admission were assessed. The total daily insulin dose, incidence of hypoglycemia, and length of hospital stay were also evaluated. RESULTS: Among 244 patients from each period, both fasting glucose (estimated mean±standard error, 147.4±3.1 mg/dL vs. 129.4±3.2 mg/dL, P<0.001, day 6) and preprandial glucose (177.7±2.8 mg/dL vs. 152.8±2.8 mg/dL, P<0.001, day 6) were lower in period 2 than in period 1. By day 6 of hospital admission, 42.6% and 67.2% of patients achieved a preprandial glycemic target of <140 mg/dL in periods 1 and 2, respectively (relative risk, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.54 to 2.59), without an increased incidence of hypoglycemia. Length of stay was shorter in period 2 (10.23±0.26 days vs. 8.70±0.26 days, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: BBI improved glycemic control in a more efficacious manner than a split-mixed insulin regimen without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia in a hospital setting.

Composite cardiovascular risk and BMI affected comparative profiles of BIAsp 30 + metformin vs BIAsp 30 monotherapy: a MERIT post-hoc analysis.

We assessed whether comparative efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) plus metformin versus BIAsp 30 monotherapy differed for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs with different cardiovascular risk scores and different body mass indexes (BMI) by performing a post hoc analysis of the randomized controlled MERIT study. In the MERIT study, eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive BIAsp 30 plus metformin or BIAsp 30 for 16 weeks. Patients in the 2 treatment groups were classified into "low" and "high" risk subgroups based on their GloboRisk scores and into "BMI ≤ 26 kg/m2"and "BMI > 26 kg/m2" subgroups. Primary efficacy endpoint was between-treatments comparison of HbA1c changes from baseline for these 2 sets of subgroups. Between-treatments comparisons of secondary efficacy and safety endpoints were also performed. We found that BIAsp 30 plus metformin led to significantly higher percentage of high-risk patients achieving HbA1c target < 7% than BIAsp 30 monotherapy, with an overall comparable safety profile for high-risk patients. Meanwhile, for patients with BMI ≤ 26 kg/m2, compared with BIAsp 30 monotherapy, BIAsp 30 plus metformin led to significantly higher percentages of patients achieving HbA1c target (47.83% vs 28.17%, P = 0.0165) and composite target of HbA1c < 7% without hypoglycemia or weight gain (20.29% vs 6.85%, P = 0.0187) and have a slightly better safety profile. In conclusion, for T2DM patients at high CV risk or with BMI ≤ 26 kg/m2, BIAsp 30 plus metformin was preferable to BIAsp 30 monotherapy.

Safety and effectiveness of a biosimilar biphasic insulin in the management of diabetes mellitus during routine clinical practice in Asian patients.

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilar insulins have the potential to increase access to treatment among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), reduce treatment costs, and expand market competition. There are no published studies evaluating the performance of biosimilar insulins in routine clinical practice in Asia. This study assessed the safety and effectiveness of biphasic isophane insulin injection in Malaysian DM patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this open label, single-arm, observational, post marketing study, patients received biphasic isophane insulin injection as per the Prescribing Information; and were assessed for safety (adverse events including hypoglycaemia), effectiveness (glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA1c]; fasting blood sugar, [FBS]; and patient's condition by patient and physician) over a period of 24 weeks. RESULTS: Adult male and female diabetes patients (N=119; type 2 DM, n=117) with a mean (SD) diabetes duration of 13 years were included. No new safety signals have been identified. Significant reduction in HbA1c was observed at weeks 12 and 24 (mean [SD] - baseline: 9.6% [1.9]; Week 12: 9.0% [1.7] and at Week 24: 9.1% [1.7]; p < 0.001). There were 10 serious and 9 non-serious adverse events reported in the study. Expected mild events included hypoglycaemia and injection site pruritus. However, the majority of the adverse events were non-study drug related events. No deaths were reported during the study. DISCUSSION: Biphasic isophane insulin injection was well tolerated with no new safety concerns. It was found effective in post- marketing studies conducted in routine clinical settings when administered in DM patients in this study.

Achieving safer Ramadan fasting by keeping flexible glycemic targets during the day and tighter targets during the night in insulin treated people with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To observe the effect of keeping flexible glycemic targets during fasting and tighter targets during non-fasting hours in insulin-treated people with type 2 diabetes during Ramadan. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted at Baqai Institute of Diabetology and Endocrinology in 2014. People with T2DM on split mixed insulin therapy were recruited. The pre-Ramadan education given and insulin doses were adjusted before Ramadan. 24-hour telephonic helpline service was provided to achieve pre-determined glycemic targets and minimize complications. RESULTS: A total of 54 people with T2DM with a mean age of 54.65 ± 9.32 years were recruited. Mean glucose levels achieved were 183.50 ± 30.91 mg/dl and 179.20 ± 36.27 mg/dl during the day and night respectively. Mean HbA1c (p-value < 0.0001) and serum creatinine (p-value 0.0010) significantly improved at the end of Ramadan. 0.6% episodes of hypoglycemia including one major hypoglycemia while 30% of episodes of hyperglycemia were recorded. No hospitalization needed. CONCLUSION: By keeping flexible glycemic targets during the day and tighter targets during the night, safe fasting was feasible with significant improvement in overall glycemic control without significant major complications.

Sexual Differences in response to Mid- or Low-Premixed Insulin Analogue in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To observe whether there are sexual-related differences in response to mid- or low-premixed insulin in type 2 diabetic patients. METHODS: This was an analysis of CGM data of a previous study. After screening, patients with longstanding T2D receive a 7-day continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy, and then subjects were randomly assigned 1 : 1 into two groups receiving Novo Mix 30 or Humalog Mix 50 regimen for a 2-day phage, followed by a 4-day cross-over period. A 4-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was performed during the cross-over period. The primary endpoint was the differences in glycemic control between male and female patients receiving mid- or low-premixed insulin therapy. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients (52 men and 50 women) completed the study. Our data showed that male patients had significant decrease in mean glucose levels monitored by CGM after three meals during Humalog Mix 50 treatment period compared to those received Novo Mix 30 regimen (0900: 11.0 ± 2.5 vs. 12.2 ± 2.8, 1000: 9.9 ± 2.9 vs. 11.3 ± 3.1, 1200: 8.0 ± 1.9 vs. 9.1 ± 2.5, 1400: 9.2 ± 2.3 vs. 10.3 ± 2.5, and 2000: 7.3 ± 2.1 vs. 8.2 ± 2.4 mmol/L, p < 0.05, respectively). In addition, male patients receiving Novo Mix 30 experienced a significantly increased hypoglycemic duration compared to those of receiving Humalog Mix 50 (0 (0, 4.8) vs. 0 (0, 0), p < 0.05, respectively). In addition, male patients receiving Novo Mix 30 experienced a significantly increased hypoglycemic duration compared to those of receiving Humalog Mix 50 (0 (0, 4.8) vs. 0 (0, 0). CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that male patients with T2D receiving mid-premixed insulin analogue regimen may have a potential benefit of improvement in glycemic control compared to female patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ChiCTR-IPR-15007340.

Comparison of analog insulin mix 50:50 with human insulin mix 30:70 in persons with type 2 diabetes during Ramadan.

AIM OF THE STUDY: To test if changing the Iftar insulin to a 50:50 mixed analog insulin from a 30:70 human insulin at the same total dose leads to improvement in the postprandial blood glucose (taken as after the main meal). Since the intermediate acting insulin dose is effectively lowered, the pre-Suhur blood glucose is also tested to see if this rises. METHODS: The Iftar human 30:70 mixed insulin is substituted for a 50:50 one using insulin lispro protamine suspension and 50% insulin lispro (Humalog® Mix50/50™), whilst maintaining the same total dose. The participants were also changed to 75% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 25% insulin lispro (Humalog® Mix75/25™) at the same pre-Ramadan dose for their Suhur injection (Experimental group). A similar number of controls continued their 30:70 mixed human insulin at the same dose during Ramadan (Control group). Pre-Ramadan and during Ramadan fasting and postprandial (3 hours) and pre-Suhur blood glucose (BG) are tested in 20 subjects and 20 controls by the patients using home glucose meters. Hypoglycaemia, defined as a BG of ≤ 70 mg%, was tested for by the patients and noted if they experience symptoms of it. Severe hypoglycaemia occurred if the patient needed assistance for recovery. No insulin dose adjustments are made in either group and any other anti-diabetic treatment was continued. Pre- and post-Ramadan HbA1 c and body weight are measured. The number of days fasted and baseline characteristics are age, gender, and duration of diabetes are also noted. Differences between groups in parameters were assessed using ANCOVA to adjust for pre-Ramadan values of age, gender, and duration of diabetes. RESULTS: All the participants fasted for at least 29 days. The 2 groups were not significantly different at baseline. During Ramadan, mean postprandial BG in the Experimental group was lower by 21.1 mg% (1.2 mmol/l) (95% CI 12.6, 29.7; P < 0.001). Similarly, after Ramadan mean HbA1 c in the Experimental group was lower by 0.4% (95% CI 0.1%, 0.8%; P = 0.01). No significant differences between the groups were detected in mean bodyweight after Ramadan (P = 0.86) or mean fasting BG during Ramadan (P = 0.07). There was no difference in incidence of hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from human insulin mix 30:70 to analog insulin mix 50:50 results in better post main meal control in Ramadan, without affecting HbA1c, or increasing the incidence of hypoglycaemia.

Efficacy and safety of three-times-daily versus twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with basal insulin combined with oral antidiabetic drugs.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) administered three times daily (TID) vs. twice daily (BID), plus metformin, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on basal insulin ± 1 oral antidiabetic drug (OAD). METHODS: Randomised, multinational, open-label, treat-to-target trial. Subjects inadequately controlled (HbA1c 7.5-10.0%) on basal insulin and metformin ±â€¯1 OAD were randomised to BIAsp30 TID (n = 220) or BIAsp30 BID (n = 217). Primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Most (400/437, 91.5%) subjects completed the trial. The majority (276/400 [69.0%]) were from the China region. After 24 weeks, HbA1c decreased comparably in both BIAsp 30 groups (-1.7% vs. -1.6% [-19 vs. -18 mmol/mol], for TID and BID dosing, respectively; estimated treatment difference: -0.09% [-0.23; 0.06]95% CI, -1 mmol/mol [-3; 1], p = 0.26). Safety profiles, including number of subjects experiencing hypoglycaemia, were similar. CONCLUSIONS: BIAsp 30 administered either TID or BID with metformin was a safe and effective option when intensifying treatment after failure of basal insulin and OADs in patients with T2DM. Adding a third injection at lunchtime may be preferable if HbA1c remains above target, if the lunchtime meal is the largest meal of the day, or if persistent postprandial hyperglycaemia after lunch is observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02582242.

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.

15 Years of Experience with Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Type 2 Diabetes.

Since clinical experience with biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was reviewed in 2012 after 10 years of use worldwide, additional studies have been published that highlight new aspects, including use in real-world populations. Evidence from 35 new studies confirms and builds upon previous work indicating that BIAsp 30 continues to have pharmacodynamic and clinical advantages over biphasic human insulin (BHI 30), including in real-world practice with unselected populations of patients. BIAsp 30 has also been shown to be safe and efficacious as an add-on to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Intensification with BIAsp 30 is a safe and effective way to improve glycemic control, and titration performed by patients can achieve results that are at least comparable to those when being guided by healthcare providers. Stepwise intensification using BIAsp 30 is comparable to intensification using a basal-bolus regimen, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 provides similar glycemic control to a basal-plus regimen. Data from large observational studies, in particular, have identified patient-related characteristics that are associated with improved clinical responses, suggesting that earlier initiation and intensification of therapy is warranted. Finally, new health-economic analyses continue to confirm that BIAsp 30 is cost effective versus other therapies such as BHI 30, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), or insulin glargine in both insulin-naïve and insulin-experienced patients. After 15 years of clinical use worldwide, analysis of more recent 5-year data indicates that BIAsp 30 remains a safe, effective, and simple-to-use insulin for initiation and intensification by diabetes specialists and primary care physicians in a variety of patients with T2DM.

Real-life glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin therapy: A prospective, longitudinal cohort study (Diabetes Distress and Care Registry at Tenri [DDCRT 9]).

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: We investigated the association between four insulin regimens, and increase in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and insulin dose in a real-life clinical setting because there are no data about them among insulin regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants included 757 patients with type 2 diabetes having been treated with insulin therapy for more than 1 year. The four insulin regimens were regimen 1 (long-acting insulin, once daily), regimen 2 (biphasic insulin, twice daily), regimen 3 (biphasic insulin, three times daily) and regimen 4 (basal-bolus therapy). Main outcomes were increases in HbA1c levels >0.5% and increases in daily insulin units after 1 year. We carried out multivariable analyses to examine differences in glycemic control and insulin dose with adjustment for possible confounders. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c level and duration of insulin therapy were 7.8% and 11.3 years, respectively. HbA1c levels increased by >0.5% at follow up in 22.8, 24.9, 20.7, and 29.3% of participants using regimen 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, with no significant differences between groups. Daily insulin doses increased in 62.3, 68.8, 65.3 and 38.6% of patients, respectively (P < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis showed that patients who received regimen 4 had significantly lower odds of requiring future insulin dose increases than those who had received regimen 2 (adjusted odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.41; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Many patients receiving insulin therapy showed increases in HbA1c levels and insulin doses 1 year later. The smallest increase in insulin dose was observed in the basal-bolus therapy group compared with other regimens.