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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy of a New Protocol of Premixed 70/30 Human Insulin in Haitian Youth with Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Controlling insulin-treated diabetes is challenging in low-resource settings where only Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH), regular (R) and premixed insulin formulations are available, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) supplies are scarce and food insecurity is common. We examined the impact of a treatment protocol that includes sliding scale-based 70/30 insulin adjustments in Haiti. METHODS: Thirty young patients aged 11-28 years with diabetes treated with premixed 70/30 insulin twice daily were included in the study. The participants performed one or two daily self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) tests and attended our diabetes clinic monthly. They were randomized to two treatment groups, with one group remaining on the 70/30 insulin formulation (group 70 [G70]) and the other group switching to self-mixed NPH + R (group NR [GNR]). Sliding scales for insulin correction doses and meal insulin doses were designed based on the total daily insulin dose (TDD), carbohydrate ratio and insulin sensitivity factor. SMBG tests and insulin were administered before the morning and evening meals. The frequency of visits to the diabetes clinic was increased to biweekly during a 14-week follow-up. RESULTS: Fifteen patients of each group were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics, increase in total daily dose and number of missed SMBG tests and skipped meals at 14 weeks did not differ between the two groups. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) decreased from 9.5% (interquartile range [IQR] 8.8, 10.5) (80.3 mmol/mol) to 8.0% (IQR 7.1%, 9.0%) (63.9 mmol/mol) in G70 (p = 0.01), and from 10.6% (IQR 8.1,% 13.1)% (92.4 mmol/mol) to 9.0% (IQR 7.6%, 9.6%) (74.9 mmol/mol) in GNR (p = 0.10), with no significant between-group difference in reductions (p = 0.12). No serious acute complications were reported. Stopping the use of sliding scales and resuming monthly visits increased HbA1c to values not significantly different from baseline in both groups after 15 weeks. CONCLUSION: The use of sliding scales adjusted for missed SMBG tests and skipped meals, and frequent clinic visits that focus on patient self-management education significantly improved glycemic control in the patients with youth-onset diabetes in our study treated with premixed 70/30 human insulin in a low-resource setting.

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.

Insulin Management of Patients with Inadequately Controlled Type 2 Diabetes Admitted to Hospital: Titration Patterns and Frequency of Hypoglycemia as Results of a Prospective Observational Study (Hospital Study).

INTRODUCTION: Despite the continuously growing number of therapeutic options for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) including insulins, a large percentage of patients fail to achieve HbA1c targets. Several real-world studies focused on patients with T2DM receiving insulin treatment in outpatient settings were conducted, but information about real-world in-hospital insulin management is lacking. The aim of this study was to describe the management of insulin therapy with a focus on basal-bolus and premixed insulin regimens in patients with T2DM under routine in-hospital medical practice in the Czech Republic. METHODS: This non-interventional prospective study was conducted from June 2014 to December 2017 in 22 centers in the Czech Republic under routine clinical practice conditions. Adult patients admitted to hospital with metabolically uncontrolled T2DM [HbA1c ≥ 60 mmol/mol; > 7.6% Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)] and there treated with basal-bolus and premixed insulin regimens were documented during hospitalization. RESULTS: Overall, 369 patients with T2DM (54.7% male, mean age 64.44 ± 13.84 years, BMI 31.10 ± 6.00 kg/m2, duration of diabetes 8.11 ± 9.93 years, HbA1c 95.90 ± 24.38 mmol/mol, length of stay was 7.94 ± 4.53 days) were included. The percentage of glucose values under 10 mmol/l at time of randomization (the group with basal-bolus insulin regimen vs. the premix insulin regimen group) was 24.2% vs. 33.5% (p = 0.053), at time of first insulin dose adjustment it was 43.1% vs. 50.0% (p = 0.330), and 1 day before hospital discharge it was 61.7% vs. 61.4% (p = 0.107). A hypoglycemic event occurred in a total of 15 patients in the basal-bolus regimen group, and no hypoglycemic event occurred in the premixed insulin regimen group. CONCLUSION: In-hospital insulin management regarding basal-bolus and premixed insulin regimens is safe and in concordance with current international recommendations.

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.

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.

Injectable combination therapies for the management of diabetes: an Indian perspective.

Introduction: This review focuses on currently available injectable combination therapies (ICTs) for managing diabetes.Areas covered: References were identified through searches of PubMed, Medline, and Embase for articles published till July 2019 using terms 'insulin' [MeSH Terms] OR 'glucagon like peptide 1 analogue' [All Fields] OR 'combination therapy' [All Fields] 'combination insulin therapy' [All Fields] OR 'combination GLP1 analogue therapy' [All Fields] OR 'premixed insulin' [All Fields].Expert opinion: Currently, there are nine types of ICTs for diabetes available. ICTs are classified on the basis of whether they are combinations of conventional human insulin, human insulin analogs, insulin coformulations, and insulin glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and have a subtle difference in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. ICTs have been consistently demonstrated to play a major role in improving glycemic control. In a different meta-analysis involving patients assessed for glycemic control as the primary endpoint, no significant difference was noted with regard to HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemia, weight change, and daily insulin dose in patients on basal-bolus regimen, as compared to ICTs. All international guidelines recommend ICTs for treatment intensification.ICTs provide more flexibility to the treating doctor in fine-tuning the insulin/GLP-1RA regimen and have the advantages of reducing daily needle-prick count and better long-term compliance.

The Effect of LM25 and LM50 on Hypoglycemia in Chinese T2DM Patients: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Crossover Trial.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the safety of insulin lispro Mix 25 and 50 (LM25 and LM50) in hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a phase IV, randomized, crossover clinical trial in Chinese patients with T2DM switching from premixed human insulin 70/30 (PHI70/30) to LM25 or LM50. Eighty-one subjects received a two-stage crossover protocol of either LM25 or LM50 twice daily for 16 weeks. Habitual diet was taken, and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) was performed throughout the study period. High-carbohydrate diet (HCD), high-fat diet (HFD) and habitual diet patterns were taken, and 72 h continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was performed at the last 3 days of each treatment stage. RESULTS: The frequencies of nocturnal hypoglycemia in LM50 were lower than those in LM25 under a Chinese habitual diet pattern. The related factors of hypoglycemia in patients with T2DM treated with a LM25 or LM50 regimen were the weight-based daily mean insulin dose and the type of combined oral hypoglycemic agents. Under both HCD and habitual diet patterns, the optimal cut point values of bedtime glucose predicting nocturnal hypoglycemia in LM50 were lower than those in LM25. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia in the LM50 regimen was lower than that in the LM25 regimen under the HCD pattern, and the safety range of bedtime glucose for the LM50 regimen was wider than that of the LM25 regimen in Chinese T2DM patients. Premixed insulin analogs combined with acarbose were more helpful to reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.chictr.org.cn #ChiCTR-TTRCC-12002516.

The effect of premixed insulin to blood glucose concentration in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Background One of the therapies used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) disease is combination insulin which consists of rapid-acting insulin and intermediate-acting insulin (premixed). This study aimed to examine the profile of premixed insulin related to blood glucose concentration and to identify the drug interactions due to the combination of premixed insulin with other drugs taken by T2DM patients. Methods This study was a prospective observational study with cross-sectional data that were analyzed descriptively. The respondents invited were T2DM patients with or without complication or comorbid disease who received premixed insulin with or without a combination of oral antidiabetic therapy in the Outpatient Unit of Universitas Airlangga Hospital, Surabaya. The research instruments used are data sheet, patient medical record, and fasting and postprandial blood glucose concentration. Results A total of 118 patients received premixed insulin therapy, but only 80 patients were included in the inclusion criteria. Based on types of insulin, the combination of 30% aspart and 70% protamine aspart was used by 91.25% T2DM patients, and a combination of 25% insulin lispro and 75% protamine lispro was used by 8.75% T2DM patients. There were 30.3% of patients who could achieve the target of 80-130 mg/dL in fasting blood glucose concentrations, and 35.1% of patients achieved the target of ≤180 mg/dL in postprandial blood glucose concentration. Drug interactions may occur in patients who use premixed insulin with glimepiride, lisinopril, fenofibrate, candesartan, irbesartan, and gemfibrozil. Conclusions In this study, premixed insulin have not reached the target of fasting and postprandial blood glucose concentrations in most patients.