Effect of needle-free injection on psychological insulin resistance and insulin dosage in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Background and objective: Psychological insulin resistance (PIR), which refers to the reluctance of diabetic patients to use insulin, is a frequently encountered clinical issue. Needle-free injection (NFI) offers advantages in terms of expediting insulin absorption and mitigating adverse reactions related to injection. To evaluate the effects of subcutaneous injection of insulin aspart 30 with NFI on PIR and insulin dosage in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: Sixty-four patients with T2DM participated in this randomized, prospective, open, crossover study. Insulin aspart 30 was administered subcutaneously to each subject via QS-P NFI and Novo Pen 5 (NP) successively. The effects of NFI on PIR were analyzed. Differences in insulin dosage, glycemic variability, and injection safety were compared at similar levels of glycemic control. Results: After the administration of NFI, the insulin treatment attitude scale score decreased (53.7 ± 7.3 vs. 58.9 ± 10.7, p<0.001), the insulin treatment adherence questionnaire score increased (46.3 ± 4.9 vs. 43.8 ± 7.1, p<0.001), and the insulin treatment satisfaction questionnaire score increased (66.6 ± 10.5 vs. 62.4 ± 16.5, p<0.001). At the same blood glucose level, NFI required a smaller dosage of insulin aspart 30 compared with that of NP (30.42 ± 8.70 vs. 33.66 ± 9.13 U/d, p<0.001). There were no differences in glycemic variability indices (standard deviation, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion or coefficient of variation) between the two injection methods. Compared with NP, NFI did not increase the incidence of hypoglycemia (17.2% vs. 14.1%, p=0.774), and it decreased the incidence of induration (4.7% vs. 23.4%, p=0.002) and leakage (6.3% vs. 20.3%, p=0.022) while decreasing the pain visual analog scale score (2.30 ± 1.58 vs. 3.11 ± 1.40, p<0.001). Conclusion: NFI can improve PIR in patients with T2DM and be used with a smaller dose of insulin aspart 30 while maintaining the same hypoglycemic effect. Clinical trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier ChiCTR2400083658.

Safety and Efficacy of Insulins in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Continuous Enteral Nutrition.

OBJECTIVE: There is a relative lack of consensus regarding the optimal management of hyperglycemia in patients receiving continuous enteral nutrition (EN), with or without a diagnosis of diabetes. METHODS: This retrospective study examined 475 patients (303 with known diabetes) hospitalized in critical care setting units in 2019 in a single center who received continuous EN. Rates of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose levels within the target range (70-180 mg/dL) were compared between patients with and without diabetes, and among patients treated with intermediate-acting (IA) biphasic neutral protamine Hagedorn 70/30, long-acting (LA) insulin, or rapid-acting insulin only. RESULTS: Among those with type 2 diabetes mellitus, IA and LA insulin regimens were associated with a significantly higher proportion of patient-days in the target glucose range and fewer hyperglycemic days. Level 1 (<70 mg/dL) and level 2 (<54 mg/dL) hypoglycemia occurred rarely, and there were no significant differences in level 2 hypoglycemia frequency across the different insulin regimens. CONCLUSION: Administration of IA and LA insulin can be safe and effective for those receiving insulin doses for EN-related hyperglycemia.

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.

Real-World Analysis of Long-Acting and NPH-Containing Insulins on Glycemic Control.

Introduction Affordability of insulin products has become a concern in the past several years as the average price of various insulin products has increased. While awaiting legislation at the federal level that would address issues leading to high insulin costs, providers may have shifted prescribing practices to prescribe the lowest-priced insulin products to achieve patients' treatment goals. Objective To compare the prevalence of hypoglycemic events between patients receiving lower-cost neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH)-containing human insulins and higher-cost long-acting insulin analogs in Medicare Part D enrollees within a management services organization, as well as assessing glycemic control and changes in body mass index. Methods This was a multicenter, retrospective study conducted at three primary care clinics. The co-primary outcomes were percent difference of documented mild and severe hypoglycemic events between individuals receiving NPH-containing human insulin and long-acting insulin. Results A total of 72 patients met inclusion criteria and were receiving NPH-containing human insulins or the long-acting insulin analogs, 15 and 57 patients, respectively. Severe hypoglycemic events occurred in 3.5% vs 0% of the long-acting insulin analog and NPH-containing human insulin group, respectively (P = 0.999). Mild hypoglycemic episodes were experienced by 31.6% versus 33.3% of long-acting insulin analog and NPH, respectively (P = 0.539). For secondary outcomes, no difference was observed in glycemic control outcomes across insulin groups. Conclusion Among Medicare Part D patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, the use of NPH-containing human insulins was not associated with an increased risk of mild or severe hypoglycemia-related episodes or reduced glycemic control compared with long-acting insulin. Study findings suggest that lower-cost, NPH-containing human insulins may be an alternative to higher-cost, long-acting insulin analogs.

Charitable medication distribution improves care for uninsured patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the impact of insulin products donated by a pharmaceutical manufacturer and dispensed by Dispensary of Hope-partnered pharmacies on medication access and treatment outcomes among uninsured patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). STUDY DESIGN: This was a pilot, single-center, retrospective observational study. METHODS: Uninsured patients with diabetes who were newly established with Ascension Medical Group clinics for the treatment of T2D were included in this study. Participants were prescribed insulin glargine, insulin isophane, or insulin isophane/insulin regular insulin therapy between March 2020 and August 2021. A retrospective chart review was conducted. Information collected included participants' hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months; change in HbA1c level; insulin prescribed; fill history; whether they had been referred to a patient assistance program; and whether they were seen by a pharmacist under a collaborative practice agreement. RESULTS: Thirty-eight participants were assessed, and 22 met criteria for the primary outcome. The mean HbA1c level decreased from 11.2% at baseline to 8.9% at 3 months and 8.8% at 6 months, resulting in a mean change in HbA1c of -2.4 percentage points (P = .033). Eleven participants (50%) had an HbA1c level of less than 9% at 6 months. The mean proportion of days covered was 76%. The mean monthly savings for insulin ranged from $183.74 (insulin isophane) to $253.84 (insulin glargine) per participant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed a significant improvement in glycemic control among participants, demonstrating the substantial impact that pharmacies partnered with charitable medication distributors such as the Dispensary of Hope can have on individuals with insulin-treated T2D.

Comparison of treatment with insulin detemir and NPH in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: glycemic control and pregnancy outcomes. A retrospective study.

PURPOSE: The objective of this retrospective study was to compare glycemic control, pregnancy outcomes, and neonatal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) treated with (a) insulin detemir and (b) insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH). METHODS: A total of 192 women with GDM were included in the analysis. Ninety-eight women received detemir, while 94 women received NPH. Data regarding medical history, glycemic control, and time and mode of delivery, as well as neonatal outcomes, were recorded. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. There were no differences with respect to the week of insulin initiation, total insulin dose, duration of insulin therapy, daily insulin dose/weight in early and late pregnancy, or the number of insulin injections per day. Maternal overall weight gain during pregnancy and weight gain per week did not differ either. The detemir group had slightly lower HbA1c levels at the end of gestation [median: det 5.2% (33 mmol/mol) vs NPH 5.4% (36 mmol/mol), p=0.035). There were no cases of hypoglycemia or allergic reactions in the two groups. There were also no differences regarding neonatal outcomes according to the available data, given that data in some cases were missing. CONCLUSION: The use of insulin detemir was found to be equally effective and safe compared to NPH in women with GDM.

Accelerated absorption of regular insulin administered via a vascularizing permeable microchamber implanted subcutaneously in diabetic Rattus norvegicus.

In Type 1 diabetes patients, even ultra-rapid acting insulins injected subcutaneously reach peak concentrations in 45 minutes or longer. The lag time between dosing and peak concentration, as well as intra- and inter-subject variability, render prandial glucose control and dose consistency difficult. We postulated that insulin absorption from subcutaneously implantable vascularizing microchambers would be significantly faster than conventional subcutaneous injection. Male athymic nude R. norvegicus rendered diabetic with streptozotocin were implanted with vascularizing microchambers (single chamber; 1.5 cm2 surface area per side; nominal volume, 22.5 µl). Plasma insulin was assayed after a single dose (1.5 U/kg) of diluted insulin human (Humulin®R U-100), injected subcutaneously or via microchamber. Microchambers were also implanted in additional animals and retrieved at intervals for histologic assessment of vascularity. Following conventional subcutaneous injection, the mean peak insulin concentration was 22.7 (SD 14.2) minutes. By contrast, when identical doses of insulin were injected via subcutaneous microchamber 28 days after implantation, the mean peak insulin time was shortened to 7.50 (SD 4.52) minutes. Peak insulin concentrations were similar by either route; however, inter-subject variability was reduced when insulin was administered via microchamber. Histologic examination of tissue surrounding microchambers showed mature vascularization on days 21 and 40 post-implantation. Implantable vascularizing microchambers of similar design may prove clinically useful for insulin dosing, either intermittently by needle, or continuously by pump including in "closed loop" systems, such as the artificial pancreas.

Real-world study of ethnic differences in glycaemic control and clinical characteristics among insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes initiating biphasic insulin aspart 30/70: A retrospective, observational cohort study in England.

AIMS: This study investigated the ethnic differences in glycaemic levels and clinical characteristics among insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in primary practice in England. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective, observational cohort study utilizing data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database, including White, South Asian, Black and Chinese insulin-naïve adults with T2D, initiating BIAsp 30. The index date was that of the first BIAsp 30 prescription. Endpoints included change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body mass index (BMI) 6 months post index. RESULTS: In total, 11 186 eligible people were selected (9443 White, 1116 South Asian, 594 Black, 33 Chinese). HbA1c decreased across all subgroups 6 months post index: estimated %-point changes [95% CI of -2.32 (-2.36; -2.28) (White); -1.91 (-2.02; -1.80) (South Asian); -2.55 (-2.69; -2.40) (Black); and -2.64 (-3.24; -2.04) (Chinese)]. The BMI increased modestly 6 months post index in all subgroups [estimated changes (95% CI) kg/m2 : White, 0.92 (0.86; 0.99); South Asian, 0.60 (0.41; 0.78); Black, 1.41 (1.16; 1.65); and Chinese, 0.32 (-0.67; 1.30)]. In the overall population, hypoglycaemic event rates increased from 0.92 events per 100 patient-years before the index to 3.37 events per 100 patient-years post index; event numbers were too low to be analysed by subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Among insulin-naïve people with T2D initiating BIAsp 30, clinically meaningful HbA1c reductions in all ethnicities were observed. Some ethnic groups had larger reductions than others, but differences were small. In all groups, small BMI increases were seen, with small differences observed between groups. Hypoglycaemia rates were low.

Long-acting insulin analogues and the risk of diabetic retinopathy among patients with type 2 diabetes: A population-based cohort study.

AIM: To determine whether the use of long-acting insulin analogues is associated with an increased risk of incident diabetic retinopathy (DR) among patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, this retrospective, population-based cohort study included patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated a long-acting insulin analogue (glargine, detemir, degludec) or Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. The primary outcome was incident DR. We used Cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incident DR with insulin analogues versus NPH insulin. RESULTS: There were 66 280 new users of long-acting insulin analogues and 66 173 new users of NPH insulin. The incidence rate of DR was 101.7 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 98.7-104.8) for insulin analogues and 93.2 (95% CI, 90.0-96.5) per 1000 person-years for NPH insulin. Compared with the current use of NPH insulin, insulin analogues were not associated with the risk of incident DR (HR 1.04, 95% CI, 0.99-1.09). The adjusted HRs were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.66-1.07) for proliferative DR and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.97-1.08) for non-proliferative DR. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with NPH insulin, long-acting insulin analogues were not associated with the risk of incident DR among patients with type 2 diabetes. This finding provides important reassurance regarding the safety of long-acting insulin analogues with respect to incident DR.

[Cost-effectiveness of treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in México]. / Costo-efectividad del tratamiento de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en México.

Background: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (DM2) is a public health and socioeconomic problem, generating direct medical costs for its treatment. Objective: To analyze the cost-effectiveness of monotherapy and bitherapy treatments in patients with DM2. Methods: Cost-effectiveness, observational, ambispective, cross-sectional and analytical analysis of files in a first level medical unit. The data in the cost matrix was executed with the Office Excel 2010 program; the most prescribed drug was identified and compared with monotherapy and bitherapy. Results: The annual direct medical costs of the total population were drug cost $118,561.70MN, hospitalization cost $243,756.00MN, consultation cost $327,414.00MN and clinical trial cost $2416.79MN, obtaining an annual total of $692,148.58MN. metformin was the most indicated in monotherapy (88.4%) and as standard therapy it has higher cost-effectiveness compared to glibenclamide. In bitherapy it was metformin/glibenclamide (35.7%) versus the therapeutics of metformin/NPH insulin, metformin/insulin glargine and metformin/dapagliflozin, which had a better cost-effective result, with an incremental cost effectiveness of -$1,128,428.50MN, -$34,365.00 MN, -$119,848.97MN respectively. Conclusions: Metformin presented a better cost-effectiveness ratio in monotherapy, while in bitherapy it was the metformin/NPH insulin association.

Introducción: La Diabetes Mellitus tipo 2 (DM2) es un problema de salud pública y socioeconómico, tanto por su alta incidencia como por la generación de los costos médicos directos para su tratamiento. Objetivo: Analizar el costo-efectividad de los tratamientos en monoterapia y biterapia en pacientes con DM2. Métodos: Análisis costo-efectividad, observacional, ambispectivo, transversal y analítico. Análisis de expedientes en una unidad médica de primer nivel. Se ejecutaron los datos en la matriz de costos con el programa Office Excel 2010; se identificó el fármaco más prescrito, se comparó con monoterapia y biterapia. Resultados: Los costos médicos directos anuales del total de la población fueron: costo del medicamento $118,561.70MN, costo por hospitalización $243,756.00MN, costo por consultas $ 327,414.00MN y costo por estudios clínicos $2416.79MN, obteniendo un total anual de $692,148.58MN. La metformina fue la más indicada en monoterapia (88.4%) y como terapéutica estándar tiene mayor costo-efectividad comparada con la glibenclamida. En biterapia fue metformina/glibenclamida (35.7%) versus las terapéuticas de metformina/insulina NPH, metformina/insulina glargina y metformina/dapagliflozina, las cuales tuvieron un resultando más costo-efectivo, con un costo efectividad incremental de -$1,128,428.50MN, -$34,365.00MN, -$119,848.97MN respectivamente. Conclusiones: La metformina presento mejor relación costo efectividad en monoterapia, mientras que en biterapia fue la asociación metformina/Insulina NPH.

Effectiveness, safety, initial optimal dose, and optimal maintenance dose range of basal insulin regimens for type 2 diabetes: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

AIMS: To investigate the effectiveness, safety, optimal starting dose, optimal maintenance dose range, and target fasting plasma glucose of five basal insulins in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to February 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was adopted. The registration ID is CRD42022319078 in PROSPERO. RESULTS: Among 11 163 citations retrieved, 35 publications met the planned criteria. From meta-analyses and network meta-analyses, we found that when injecting basal insulin regimens at bedtime, the optimal choice in order of most to least effective might be glargine U-300 or degludec U-100, glargine U-100 or detemir, followed by neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH). Injecting glargine U-100 in the morning may be more effective (ie, more patients archiving glycated hemoglobin < 7.0%) and lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than injecting it at bedtime. The optimal starting dose for the initiation of any basal insulins can be 0.10-0.20 U/kg/day. There is no eligible evidence to investigate the optimal maintenance dose for basal insulins. CONCLUSIONS: The five basal insulins are effective for the target population. Glargine U-300, degludec U-100, glargine U-100, and detemir lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than NPH without compromising glycemic control.

Hypoglycemia with insulin in post-transplant diabetes mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: To prevent hypoglycemic episodes, the management of insulin therapy against post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) is important. We compared glargine (long-acting insulin) versus NPH isophane (intermediate-acting insulin) as an armamentarium against PTDM. Indeed, the study evaluated PTDM patients with hypoglycemic episodes treated with isophane or glargine. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We evaluated a total number of 231 living-donor renal transplant recipients with PTDM of age ≥ 18 years admitted to the hospital between January 2017 and September 2021. However, patients taking hypoglycemic agents before transplantation were excluded from this study. Out of 231 patients, 52 (22.15%) suffered from PTDM out of whom 26 were treated with glargine or isophane. RESULTS: After applying exclusion criteria, out of 52 PTDM patients 23 were included in the study: 13 PTDM patients were treated with glargine, whereas 10 PTDM patients with isophane. Our analysis revealed 12 episodes of hypoglycemia in glargine-treated PTDM patients compared to 3 in isophane-treated PTDM patients (p = 0.056). Clinically, 9 out of 15 hypoglycemic episodes were nocturnal (60%). Furthermore, no other risk factors were observed in our study population. Detailed analysis showed that both groups had equivalent doses of immunosuppressants and oral hypoglycemic agents. The odds ratio for hypoglycemia in the group treated with isophane compared to that treated with glargine was 0.224 (95% CI, 0.032-1.559). Glargine users recorded significantly lower blood sugar levels before lunch, dinner and at bedtime with p-values of 0.001, 0.009 and 0.001 respectively. A better hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level was seen in the glargine vs. isophane group (6.98 ± 0.52 vs. 7.45 ± 0.49, p-value 0.03). CONCLUSION: The study shows better blood sugar control with long-acting insulin analog, glargine, than with intermediate-actin analog, isophane. Overall, a higher number of hypoglycemic episodes was nocturnal. Long term safety of long-acting insulin analogs needs to be further studied.

Comparison of regular with NPH insulin vs. premix insulin in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in a resources-limited setting: a retrospective data analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Few studies addressed the efficacy of human insulin regimens (mostly premix insulin) used in many low-and-middle income countries on glycemic control of children and adolescents with diabetes. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of the premix insulin on the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in comparison to the regular with NPH insulin scheme. METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out from January 2020 to September 2022 on patients with type 1 diabetes aged below 18 years followed in Burkina Life For A Child program. They were categorized into three groups, on regular with NPH insulin (Group A), on premix insulin (Group B) and on regular with premix insulin (Group C). Outcome was analyzed based on HbA1c level. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients with a mean age of 15.38 ± 2.26 years and the sex ratio (M/W) 0.94 were studied. There were 14 in Group A, 20 in Group B, and 34 patients in Group C. The mean HbA1c value in the corresponding insulin regimen was 12.8 ± 1.39%, 9.87 ± 2.18%, and 10.66 ± 2.1%, respectively. Glycemic control was better in Groups B and C than Group A (p<0.05) but there was no difference between groups B and C. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the use of premix insulin gives a better glycemic control than NPH insulin. However, further prospective study of these insulin regimens with a strengthening education strategy and glycemic control by continuous glucose monitoring and HbA1c is required to corroborate these preliminary findings.

Gestão de riscos como melhoria para a aquisição e distribuição de insulinas pelo SUS / Risk management as an improvement for the acquisition and distribution of insulins by SUS

Objetivo: identificar a melhoria por meio da gestão de risco aplicada aos processos de aquisição e distribuição de insulinas humanas NPH. Método: O estudo foi realizado por etapas: em 1º momento foram realizadas reuniões (Brainstorming) e em 2º momento foi elaborado um formulário eletrônico em forma de questionário sendo mostrado os "eventos" de riscos com os pesos inerentes à probabilidade e ao impacto que geraram o risco inerente aos processos de aquisição e distribuição de insulinas humanas NPH e Regular pelo Ministério da Saúde. Resultados: Considerando os processos houve maior incidência de riscos médios. Não foi apontado risco muito baixo, não foi identificado risco extremo e foram apresentados apenas 02 (dois) riscos altos. Conclusão: A gestão de risco do referido estudo é uma ferramenta de melhoria para os processos de aquisição e distribuição de insulinas humanas NPH e Regular pelo Ministério da Saúde.(AU)

Objective: to identify improvement through risk management applied to the acquisition and distribution processes of NPH human insulins. Method: The study was carried out in stages: in the 1st moment, meetings were held (Brainstorming) and in the 2nd moment, an electronic form was elaborated in the form of a questionnaire, showing the risk "events" with the weights inherent to the probability and impact they generated the risk inherent in the acquisition and distribution processes of NPH and Regular human insulins by the Ministry of Health. Results: Considering the processes, there was a higher incidence of medium risks. No very low risk was indicated, no extreme risk was identified and only 02 (two) high risks were presented. Conclusion: The risk management of the aforementioned study is an improvement tool for the processes of acquisition and distribution of NPH and Regular human insulins by the Ministry of Health.(AU)

Long-term field study of lispro and neutral protamine Hagedorn insulins treatment in dogs with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The long-term clinical and biofhemical effects of basal-bolus insulin treatment with lispro and NPH in dogs with diabetes mellitus are undocumented. OBJECTIVES: To perform a prospective pilot field study of the long-term effects of lispro and NPH on clinical signs and serum fructosamine concentrations (SFC) in dogs with diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Twelve dogs received combined lispro and NPH insulins treatment twice a day and were examined every 2 weeks for 2 months (visits 1-4), and every 4 weeks for up to 4 additional months (visits 5-8). Clinical signs and SFC were recorded at each visit. Polyuria and polydipsia (PU/PD) were scored as absent (0) or present (1). RESULTS: Median (range) PU/PD scores of combined visits 5-8 (0, 0-1) were significantly lower than median scores of combined visits 1-4 (1, 0-1, p = 0.03) and at enrolment (1, 0-1, p = 0.045). Median (range) SFC of combined visits 5-8 (512 mmol/L, 401-974 mmol/L) was significantly lower than SFC of combined visits 1-4 (578 mmol/L, 302-996 mmol/L, p = 0.002) and at enrolment (662 mmol/L, 450-990 mmol/L, p = 0.03). Lispro insulin dose was significantly and negatively, albeit weakly, correlated with SFC concentration during visits 1 through 8 (r = -0.3, p = 0.013). Median duration of follow up was 6 months (range 0.5-6) and most dogs (8, 66.7%) were followed for 6 months. Four dogs withdrew from the study within 0.5-5 months because of documented or suspected hypoglycaemia, short NPH duration or sudden unexplained death. Hypoglycaemia was noted in 6 dogs. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term lispro and NPH combination therapy may improve clinical and biochemical control of some diabetic dogs with comorbidities. Risk of hypoglycaemia should be addressed with close monitoring.

The efficacy of insulin degludec and insulin glargine over NPH insulin among toddlers and preschoolers with type 1 diabetes using glycemic variability and time in range.

Optimizing glycemic control without risking hypoglycemia is crucial in toddlers and preschoolers with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to avoid cognitive impairment later in life. Hence, this study aims to compare glycemic parameters among toddlers and preschoolers with T1D in relation to different basal insulins. Sixty toddlers and preschoolers with T1D with mean age of 3.53 ± 1.17 years (range, 2-6) and mean diabetes duration of 9.37 ± 1.85 months were randomly assigned into three equal groups; group A received insulin degludec, group B received insulin glargine, and group C were on NPH. At baseline, the three groups were matched regarding clinical and laboratory parameters (p > 0.05). They were followed up at 3 and 6 months for insulin daily dose (IDD), hypoglycemia and severe-hypoglycemia frequency, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). At the study endpoint, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was assessed in a random sample of 10 patients from each group. The mean time in range (TIR) of the studied cohort was 55.07 ± 24.05%, and their mean coefficient of variation (CV) was 42.82 ± 11.69%. The TIR was significantly higher in the degludec group (69.36 ± 18.54) and the glargine group (55.43 ± 26.51) than the NPH group (32.56 ± 9.11), p < 0.001. Meanwhile, the CV was significantly lower in the degludec group (35.12 ± 6.47) than the gargine (44.1 ± 13.13) and the NPH (53.8 ± 7.54) groups, p < 0.001. The insulin degludec and glargine groups had significantly lower HbA1c (p = 0.002), hypoglycemia (p = 0.006), severe hypoglycemia (p = 0.029), and IDD (p = 0.015) than the NPH group. CONCLUSION: Insulin degludec and glargine resulted in better HbA1c and TIR with reduced hypoglycemia and IDD than NPH among toddlers and preschoolers with T1D. Moreover, CV was lowest in the insulin degludec group. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Insulin therapy is the mainstay of T1D management. • Optimal insulin therapy for young children with T1D should provide effective glycemic. WHAT IS NEW: • Insulin degludec and insulin glargine have better efficacy than NPH insulin among toddlers and preschoolers with T1D in the term of significantly lower coefficient of variation, HbA1c and IDD and significantly higher time in range. • Insulin degludec and insulin glargine have better safety in the term of less hypoglycemia and severe hypoglycemia episodes than NPH insulin among toddlers and preschoolers with T1D.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of Biocon's biosimilar insulin N with US-licensed Humulin® N formulation in healthy subjects: Results from the RHINE-2 (Recombinant Human INsulin Equivalence-2) study.

AIM: To establish the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) equivalence of proposed biosimilar Insulin N (Biocon's Insulin-N; Biocon Biologics Ltd., Bangalore, India) and US-licensed Humulin® N (Humulin-N; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA) in healthy subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a phase-1, single-centre, double-blind, randomized, three-period, six-sequence, partially replicated, crossover, 24-h euglycaemic clamp study. Overall, 90 healthy subjects were randomized, of whom 85 completed the study. The subjects received either two single doses of Biocon's Insulin-N and a single dose of Humulin-N or two single doses of Humulin-N and a single dose of Biocon's Insulin-N subcutaneously at a dose of 0.4 IU/kg. The primary PK endpoints were the area under the insulin concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUCins.0-24h ) and the maximum insulin concentration (Cins.max ). The primary PD endpoints were the area under the glucose infusion rate (GIR) curve from 0 to 24 h (AUCGIR.0-24h ) and the maximum GIR (GIRmax ). RESULTS: Biocon's Insulin-N was found to be equivalent to Humulin-N for the primary PK (geometric 90% confidence interval for the least squares mean ratio: AUCins.0-24h , 100.98%-115.66% and Cins.max , 95.91%-110.16%) and PD endpoints (intra-subject variability ≥0.294; 95% upper confidence interval [(µT - µR)2 - θσ2 WR] <0; point estimates of geometric least squares mean ratio: AUCGIR.0-24h , 104.61% and GIRmax , 100.81%). The safety profile of Biocon's Insulin-N was similar to that of Humulin-N, and no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: PK and PD equivalence was shown between Biocon's Insulin-N and Humulin-N in healthy subjects, and both treatments were well tolerated and considered safe.

Insulinas análogas de ação prolongada comparadas à insulina NPH para tratamento de diabetes mellitus tipo 2 em adultos: revisão rápida / Long-acting basal insulin analogues compared to nph insulin for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: rapid review

Tecnologia: Insulinas análogas de liberação prolongada versus insulina NPH (protamina neutra de Hagedorn). Indicação: Tratamento de adultos com diabetes mellitus tipo 2. Pergunta: Há diferenças de efeito nos principais desfechos de eficácia e segurança entre insulinas análogas de liberação prolongada versus insulina NPH no tratamento de pacientes com DM2? Métodos: Revisão rápida de evidências (overview) de revisões sistemáticas, com levantamento bibliográfico realizado na base de dados PUBMED, utilizando estratégia estruturada de busca. A qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas foi avaliada com AMSTAR-2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Resultados: Foi selecionada e incluída uma revisão sistemática. Conclusão: As insulinas análogas (glargina e detemir) não demonstraram superioridade nos desfechos de eficácia e segurança quando comparadas à insulina NPH, não demonstraram redução significativa em relação à mortalidade por todas as causas e complicações secundárias ao DM2. Quando comparadas à insulina NPH, foi observado redução na hipoglicemia confirmada e hipoglicemia noturna a favor das insulinas análogas e na hipoglicemia grave a favor da insulina detemir

Technology: Long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin). Indication: Treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Question: Are there effect differences in key efficacy and safety outcomes between long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin in the treatment of DM2 patients? Methods: Rapid review of evidence (overview) of systematic reviews, with a bibliographic survey carried out in the PUBMED database, using a structured search strategy. The methodological quality of systematic reviews was assessed with AMSTAR-2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Results: A systematic review was selected and included. Conclusion: Analog insulins (glargine and detemir) did not demonstrate superiority in efficacy and safety outcomes when compared to NPH insulin, did not demonstrate a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and complications secondary to DM2. When compared to NPH insulin, a reduction in confirmed hypoglycemia and nocturnal hypoglycemia in favor of analogue insulins and in severe hypoglycemia in favor of insulin detemir was observed

The efficacy and safety of GP40081 (insulin aspart biphasic 30) compared with NovoMix® 30 in Type 2 diabetes patients.

Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of insulin Aspart-Mix biosimilar candidate GP40081 (GP-Asp30) compared with NovoMix® 30 (NN-Asp30). Materials & methods: In a randomized open-label, active-controlled, 26-week non-inferiority clinical trial 264 patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily GP-Asp30 or NN-Asp30. The primary safety end point was the immune response rate. Efficacy outcomes were a mean change in HbA1c (primary), frequency of achieving a glycemic g fasting plasma glucose levels, 7-point glucose profiles, and insulin doses. Results: The immune response developed in 10/126 (8%) participants in the GP-Asp30 group and in 10/125 (8%) participants in the NN-Asp30 group (p = 1.000). The mean difference in HbA1c change between groups was 0.12 (95%CI [-0.14, 0.38]). Other secondary efficacy and safety outcomes weren't statistically different between the two groups. Conclusion: GP-Asp30 demonstrated similar safety and efficacy compared with NN-Asp30 and may be considered a biosimilar insulin.

Comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes: an individual patient data network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). DESIGN: Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2015. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with T1DM assessing glycosylated haemoglobin (A1c) and severe hypoglycaemia in long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We requested IPD from authors and funders. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We conducted a random-effects model, and specifically a one-stage IPD-NMA for those studies providing IPD and a two-stage IPD-NMA to incorporate those studies not providing IPD. RESULTS: We included 28 RCTs plus one companion report, after screening 6680 titles/abstracts and 205 full-text articles. Of the 28 RCTs, 27 studies provided data for the NMA with 7394 participants, of which 12 RCTs had IPD on 4943 participants. The IPD-NMA for A1c suggested that glargine once daily (mean difference [MD]=-0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.48 to -0.14) and detemir once daily (MD=-0.25, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.09) were superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) once daily. NPH once/two times per day improved A1c compared with NPH once daily (MD=-0.30, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.11). Results regarding complications in severe hypoglycaemia should be considered with great caution due to inconsistency in the evidence network. Accounting for missing data, there was no evidence of inconsistency and long-acting insulin regimens ranked higher regarding reducing severe hypoglycaemia compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens (two-stage NMA: glargine two times per day SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve)=89%, detemir once daily SUCRA=77%; one-stage NMA: detemir once daily/two times per day SUCRA=85%). Using multiple imputations and IPD only, complications in severe hypoglycaemia increased with diabetes-related comorbidities (regression coefficient: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.03). CONCLUSIONS: Long-acting insulin regimens reduced A1c compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens and were associated with lower severe hypoglycaemia. Of the observed differences, only glargine once daily achieved a clinically significant reduction of 0.30%. Results should be interpreted with caution due to very low quality of evidence. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015023511.