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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Hypoglycaemia events with iGlarLixi versus premix biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with type 2 diabetes advancing from basal insulin: An analysis of the SoliMix trial.

AIMS: To explore details of the incidence and rates of daytime and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, levels of hypoglycaemia, and relationship to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), when comparing iGlarLixi versus premixed biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in the SoliMix randomized controlled trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This exploratory analysis of SoliMix used logistic regression and negative binomial regression analyses to assess between-treatment differences in the incidence and rates of hypoglycaemia by time of day. A negative binomial model was used to derive estimated annualized hypoglycaemia rates as a function of HbA1c. RESULTS: iGlarLixi was associated with lower incidence and rates of American Diabetes Association Level 2 (<54 mg/dL [<3.0 mmol/L]) hypoglycaemia during both night and day versus BIAsp 30. Incidence and rates of Level 1 (<70 to ≥54 mg/dL [<3.9 to ≥3.0 mmol/L]) hypoglycaemia were also mostly shown to be reduced with iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30. Severe (Level 3) events were too few for analysis (n = 3). iGlarLixi was associated with lower modelled event rates of Level 2 and Level 1 hypoglycaemia over a wide range of HbA1c levels versus BIAsp 30. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that the lower HbA1c levels and weight benefit seen with iGlarLixi versus premixed BIAsp 30 in people with type 2 diabetes advancing their basal insulin therapy in the SoliMix trial are also accompanied by a lower risk of hypoglycaemia at any time of day and across a broad range of HbA1c levels.

Safety and efficacy of insulin detemir versus NPH in the treatment of diabetes during pregnancy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: To compare the safety and efficacy of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in pregnant women with diabetes. METHODS: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Google Scholar databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched from inception to December 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning adult women with singleton pregnancies, gestational or pregestational diabetes, and the need for insulin therapy. A systematic review and a meta-analysis (weighted data, random-effects model) were performed. Continuous outcomes were expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) (inverse variance method); dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI (Mantel-Haenszel method). Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 index. RESULTS: Five RCTs involving 1450 participants met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes that showed significant results in favor of insulin detemir over NPH were maternal hypoglycemic events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48-0.86, p = 0.003; I2 = 0%) and gestational age at delivery (MD 0.48, 95% CI 0.16-0.81, p = 0.003; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Insulin detemir was associated with less maternal hypoglycemic events and decreased risk for prematurity compared with NPH insulin. More research should be conducted to reach a safe conclusion about the optimal insulin regimen for women with diabetes in pregnancy.

The association of long-acting insulin analogue use versus neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin use and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events among individuals with type 2 diabetes: A population-based cohort study.

AIMS: To compare the risk of cardiovascular outcomes associated with long-acting insulin analogues versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin among patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, linked with hospitalization and vital statistics data. Patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated basal insulin treatment between 2002 and 2018 were included in the study. Exposure was defined as current use of long-acting insulin analogues or NPH insulin, defined using a time-varying approach. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; a composite endpoint of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke and cardiovascular death). We used a marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for MACE with current use of long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin, and in secondary analyses, by long-acting insulin molecule. RESULTS: Our cohort included 57 334 patients. A total of 3494 MACE occurred over a mean follow-up of 1.6 years (incidence rate 37.4, 95% CI 36.2 to 38.7 per 1000 person-years). Long-acting insulin analogues were associated with a decreased risk of MACE compared to NPH insulin (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Current use of long-acting insulin analogues is associated with a modestly reduced risk of MACE compared to current use of NPH insulin among patients with type 2 diabetes. This study could have important implications for drug plan managers and guideline-writing committees for recommendations of insulin treatment for type 2 diabetes.

Is NPH associated with fewer adverse events than analog basal insulin for adults with T2D?

NO. Insulin glargine may lead to less patient-reported, symptomatic, and nocturnal hypoglycemia, although overall, there may not be a difference in the risk for severe hypoglycemia orhypoglycemiarelated emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations (strength of recommendation [SOR]: B, systematic review of randomized controlled trials [RCTs], individual RCTs, and observational study).

Early Postoperative Basal Insulin Therapy versus Standard of Care for the Prevention of Diabetes Mellitus after Kidney Transplantation: A Multicenter Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Post-transplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM) might be preventable. METHODS: This open-label, multicenter randomized trial compared 133 kidney transplant recipients given intermediate-acting insulin isophane for postoperative afternoon glucose ≥140 mg/dl with 130 patients given short-acting insulin for fasting glucose ≥200 mg/dl (control). The primary end point was PTDM (antidiabetic treatment or oral glucose tolerance test-derived 2 hour glucose ≥200 mg/dl) at month 12 post-transplant. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population, PTDM rates at 12 months were 12.2% and 14.7% in treatment versus control groups, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.39 to 1.76) and 13.4% versus 17.4%, respectively, at 24 months (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.49). In the per-protocol population, treatment resulted in reduced odds for PTDM at 12 months (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.01) and 24 months (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.24 to 1.20). After adjustment for polycystic kidney disease, per-protocol ORs for PTDM (treatment versus controls) were 0.21 (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.62) at 12 months and 0.35 (95% CI, 0.14 to 0.87) at 24 months. Significantly more hypoglycemic events (mostly asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic) occurred in the treatment group versus the control group. Within the treatment group, nonadherence to the insulin initiation protocol was associated with significantly higher odds for PTDM at months 12 and 24. CONCLUSIONS: At low overt PTDM incidence, the primary end point in the intention-to-treat population did not differ significantly between treatment and control groups. In the per-protocol analysis, early basal insulin therapy resulted in significantly higher hypoglycemia rates but reduced odds for overt PTDM-a significant reduction after adjustment for baseline differences-suggesting the intervention merits further study.Clinical Trial registration number: NCT03507829.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: People with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) need treatment with insulin for survival. Whether any particular type of (ultra-)long-acting insulin provides benefit especially regarding risk of diabetes complications and hypoglycaemia is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn) or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogue in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We explored the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Agency (EMA) web pages. We asked pharmaceutical companies, EMA and investigators for additional data and clinical study reports (CSRs). The date of the last search of all databases was 24 August 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 24 weeks or more comparing one (ultra-)long-acting insulin to NPH insulin or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin in people with T1DM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 (RoB 2) tool and extracted data. Our main outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (QoL), severe hypoglycaemia, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke (NFMI/NFS), severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events (SAEs) and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE instrument. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs. Two studies were unpublished. We obtained CSRs, clinical study synopses or both as well as medical reviews from regulatory agencies on 23 studies which contributed to better analysis of risk of bias and improved data extraction. A total of 8784 participants were randomised: 2428 participants were allocated to NPH insulin, 2889 participants to insulin detemir, 2095 participants to insulin glargine and 1372 participants to insulin degludec. Eight studies contributing 21% of all participants comprised children. The duration of the intervention varied from 24 weeks to 104 weeks. Insulin degludec versus NPH insulin: we identified no studies comparing insulin degludec with NPH insulin. Insulin detemir versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): five deaths reported in two studies including adults occurred in the insulin detemir group (Peto OR 4.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.38; 9 studies, 3334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies with 870 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). There was a reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir: 171/2019 participants (8.5%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 138/1200 participants (11.5%) in the NPH insulin group experienced severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 8 studies, 3219 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.34 and 1.39. Only 1/331 participants in the insulin detemir group compared with 0/164 participants in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFMI (1 study, 495 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported NFS. A total of 165/2094 participants (7.9%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 102/1238 participants (8.2%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21; 9 studies, 3332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 70/1823 participants (3.8%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 60/1102 participants (5.4%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17; 7 studies, 2925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin was 0.01%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 8 studies, 3122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): one adult died in the NPH insulin group (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.98; 8 studies, 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 1013 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial effect or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was observed in 122/1191 participants (10.2%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 145/1159 participants (12.5%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.04; 9 studies, 2350 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a NFMI and one participant in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFS in the single study reporting this outcome (585 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 109/1131 participants (9.6%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 110/1098 participants (10.0%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.84; 8 studies, 2229 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 69/938 participants (7.4%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 83/955 participants (8.7%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; 6 studies, 1893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin was 0.02%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 9 studies, 2285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine (2 RCTs),insulin degludec versus insulin detemir (2 RCTs), insulin degludec versus insulin glargine (4 RCTs): there was no evidence of a clinically relevant difference for all main outcomes comparing (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues with each other. For all outcomes none of the comparisons indicated differences in tests of interaction for children versus adults. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin for T1DM showed lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir (moderate-certainty evidence). However, the 95% prediction interval indicated inconsistency in this finding. Both insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin did not show benefits or harms for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. For all other main outcomes with overall low risk of bias and comparing insulin analogues with each other, there was no true beneficial or harmful effect for any intervention. Data on patient-important outcomes such as QoL, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications were sparse or missing. No clinically relevant differences were found between children and adults.

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.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Evidence that antihyperglycaemic therapy is beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. While the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) found tighter glycaemic control to be positive, other studies, such as the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, found the effects of an intensive therapy to lower blood glucose to near normal levels to be more harmful than beneficial. Study results also showed different effects for different antihyperglycaemic drugs, regardless of the achieved blood glucose levels. In consequence, firm conclusions on the effect of interventions on patient-relevant outcomes cannot be drawn from the effect of these interventions on blood glucose concentration alone. In theory, the use of newer insulin analogues may result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine U100 and U300, insulin detemir and insulin degludec) with NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin (human isophane insulin) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: For this Cochrane Review update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 5 November 2019, except Embase which was last searched 26 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 24 RCTs. Of these, 16 trials compared insulin glargine to NPH insulin and eight trials compared insulin detemir to NPH insulin. In these trials, 3419 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomised to insulin glargine and 1321 people to insulin detemir. The duration of the included trials ranged from 24 weeks to five years. For studies, comparing insulin glargine to NPH insulin, target values ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.8 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 140 mg/dL) for fasting blood glucose (FBG), from 4.4 mmol/L to 6.6 mmol/L (80 mg/dL to 120 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, when applicable. Blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target values for studies comparing insulin detemir to NPH insulin ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for FBG, less than 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) to less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and 5.8% to less than 6.4% HbA1c, when applicable. All trials had an unclear or high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Overall, insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Changes in HbA1c were comparable for long-acting insulin analogues and NPH insulin. Insulin glargine compared to NPH insulin had a risk ratio (RR) for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.06; absolute risk reduction (ARR) -1.2%, 95% CI -2.0 to 0; 14 trials, 6164 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The RR for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.09; P = 0.13; ARR -0.7%, 95% CI -1.3 to 0.2; 10 trials, 4685 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with insulin glargine reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treatment with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin found an RR for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.45 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.20; P = 0.11; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.4 to 0.4; 5 trials, 1804 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Peto odds ratio for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; P = 0.007; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.4; 5 trials, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with detemir also reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Information on patient-relevant outcomes such as death from any cause, diabetes-related complications, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects was insufficient or lacking in almost all included trials. For those outcomes for which some data were available, there were no meaningful differences between treatment with glargine or detemir and treatment with NPH. There was no clear difference between insulin-analogues and NPH insulin in terms of weight gain. The incidence of adverse events was comparable for people treated with glargine or detemir, and people treated with NPH. We found no trials comparing ultra-long-acting insulin glargine U300 or insulin degludec with NPH insulin. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While the effects on HbA1c were comparable, treatment with insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Treatment with insulin detemir also reduced the incidence of serious hypoglycaemia. However, serious hypoglycaemic events were rare and the absolute risk reducing effect was low. Approximately one in 100 people treated with insulin detemir instead of NPH insulin benefited. In the studies, low blood glucose and HbA1c targets, corresponding to near normal or even non-diabetic blood glucose levels, were set. Therefore, results from the studies are only applicable to people in whom such low blood glucose concentrations are targeted. However, current guidelines recommend less-intensive blood glucose lowering for most people with type 2 diabetes in daily practice (e.g. people with cardiovascular diseases, a long history of type 2 diabetes, who are susceptible to hypoglycaemia or older people). Additionally, low-certainty evidence and trial designs that did not conform with current clinical practice meant it remains unclear if the same effects will be observed in daily clinical practice. Most trials did not report patient-relevant outcomes.

Switching from Neutral Protamine Hagedorn Insulin to Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL Improves Glycaemic Control and Reduces Hypoglycaemia Risk: Results of a Multicentre, Prospective, Observational Study.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and is an important public health issue. A significant proportion of insulin-treated patients with T2DM do not reach target glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) values, which ultimately increases their risk of long-term microvascular and macrovascular complications. One potential option to improve diabetes control in these patients may be the use of new insulin formulations including second-generation basal insulin analogues such as insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300). Several published randomised controlled trials have assessed the clinical effectiveness of Gla-300, mostly versus insulin glargine 100 U/mL as well as insulin degludec. However, there is limited information about the real-world effectiveness of Gla-300 when patients are transitioned directly from neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) human basal insulin. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Gla-300, defined as the percentage of participants with an HbA1c reduction of ≥0.5%, 6 months after switching from NPH insulin, in participants with T2DM. Secondary objectives included the safety assessment based on the percentage of patients experiencing ≥1 episodes and the number of hypoglycaemic episodes by category: severe, symptomatic, symptomatic confirmed, diurnal or nocturnal, change in body weight, and insulin dose. A total of 469 participants completed the 6-month observation period. Mean baseline HbA1c was 9.19%. The percentage of participants with a ≥0.5% improvement in HbA1c from baseline was 71.7% at 6 months. Mean HbA1c decreased at 3 and 6 months by 0.77% (±0.98) and 1.01% (±1.12), respectively (p < 0.00001 versus baseline), while fasting glycaemia decreased by 32 mg/dL and 37 mg/dL, respectively (p < 0.00001 versus baseline). There were moderate increases in the doses of both Gla-300 and, if used, short-acting insulins during the 6 months of observation. The percentage of participants with ≥1 hypoglycaemia event during the preceding 4 weeks decreased significantly from baseline to 3 and 6 months, as did the proportion with symptomatic hypoglycaemia at night (p < 0.00001 versus baseline). No participants had severe hypoglycaemia after a switch to Gla-300. Body mass, waist and hip circumferences, and waist : hip ratio did not change significantly. In conclusion, this large, prospective, observational study demonstrated that switching from NPH insulin to Gla-300 resulted in a significant improvement in HbA1c, with only a moderate increase in insulin dose, a decreased risk of hypoglycaemia, and no increase in body weight.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine hagedorn insulin in treatment of diabetes during pregnancy: a randomized, controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir (IDet) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin used in pregnant women with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized study was conducted in diabetic pregnant women (n=240) (including 132 with pregestational diabetes and 108 with gestational diabetes). All patients were randomly divided into two groups: IDet group (n=120) treated with IDet plus short acting insulin Novolin-R before three meals (RRR-IDet plan), and NPH group treated with NPH plus Novolin-R before three meals (RRR-NPH plan). Patients were enrolled during 12-28 gestation weeks and followed up until delivery. RESULTS: Basal characteristics, such as age, enrollment gestational weeks, average HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) were similar between two groups. After 1 week of treatment, the FPG of IDet group were significantly lower than NPH group (p<0.05) and the time required to reach the targeted blood glucose level was significantly shorter (p<0.001). After 3 months of treatment, the HbA1c level in the two groups was normalized but there was no significant difference in HbA1c level. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between the two therapeutic approaches; however, the incidence of hypoglycemia in IDet group was remarkably lower than that of NPH group (p<0.05). The adverse drug reactions were rare and similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of gestational diabetes, both RRR-IDet plan and RRR-NPH plan were reported to control blood glucose effectively. Compared with NPH, IDet could control blood glucose and reached the targets faster and more effectively, thus reducing the number of insulin injections and the incidence of hypoglycemia in pregnant women without increasing adverse birth outcomes. Therefore, for pregnant women with gestational diabetes, who require insulin therapy, IDet would be an ideal basal insulin being worthy of promotion in clinical settings.

Similar Breast Cancer Risk in Women Older Than 65 Years Initiating Glargine, Detemir, and NPH Insulins.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether initiation of insulin glargine (glargine), compared with initiation of NPH or insulin detemir (detemir), was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in women with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective new-user cohort study of female Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years initiating glargine (203,159), detemir (67,012), or NPH (47,388) from September 2006 to September 2015, with follow-up through May 2017. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for incidence of breast cancer according to ever use, cumulative duration of use, cumulative dose of insulin, length of follow-up time, and a combination of dose and length of follow-up time. RESULTS: Ever use of glargine was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer compared with NPH (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.88-1.06) or detemir (HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.92-1.05). No increased risk was seen with glargine use compared with either NPH or detemir by duration of insulin use, length of follow-up, or cumulative dose of insulin. No increased risk of breast cancer was observed in medium- or high-dose glargine users compared with low-dose users. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, glargine use was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer compared with NPH or detemir in female Medicare beneficiaries.

Comparison of Hypoglycemia and Safety Outcomes With Long-Acting Insulins Versus Insulin NPH in Pregestational and Gestational Diabetes.

Background: Current guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend insulin as the standard therapy for treatment of pregestational and gestational diabetes (PGDM and GDM). However, the guidelines do not specify which type(s) of insulin to utilize. Additionally, there are limited published data regarding safety parameters of insulin in this population. Objective: To evaluate if insulin glargine or detemir (long-acting insulin) results in less hypoglycemia, hospitalizations, or delivery complications compared with intermediate-acting insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in PGDM and GDM. Methods: This single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study included pregnant women who were 18 years or older with PGDM or GDM and received insulin therapy during pregnancy at an outpatient obstetric clinic. The primary outcome was the frequency of hypoglycemia (BG < 60 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits and hospitalizations, delivery complications, and the duration of time at glycemic targets during pregnancy. Results: A total of 63 patients were included for evaluation. There was no significant difference in the frequency of hypoglycemia between the long-acting and NPH groups (4.4 vs 6.2 events per patient, respectively; P = 0.361). Patients receiving long-acting insulin had significantly more encounters with diabetes education (10.6 vs 5.1 visits per patient, P = 0.002) and more consistently provided glucose readings at their appointments (8.3 vs 4.8, P = 0.043). There was no difference in hospitalizations or maternal and neonatal complications. Conclusion and Relevance: Long-acting insulins did not reduce the frequency of hypoglycemia compared with NPH. The results of this study confirm the need for additional investigations with larger populations.

Basal Insulin Analogs versus Neutral Protamine Hagedorn for Type 2 Diabetics.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether basal insulin analogs reduce the rate of composite neonatal morbidity compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of women with T2DM and singleton pregnancy at a single tertiary center. Primary outcome was a composite neonatal morbidity of any of the following: shoulder dystocia, large for gestational age, neonatal intensive care unit admission, neonatal hypoglycemia, or respiratory distress syndrome. Secondary outcomes were rates of maternal hypoglycemic events, hypertensive disorders, preterm birth, and primary cesarean delivery. Adjusted relative risk (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Of 233 women with T2DM that met the inclusion criteria, 114 (49%) were treated with basal insulin analogs and 119 (51%) with NPH. The rate of composite neonatal morbidity was similar between groups (73 vs. 60%; aRR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.92-1.51). There were no differences in the rates of maternal adverse outcomes between the groups. Basal insulin analog was associated with a lower rate of primary cesarean delivery as compared with NPH (21 vs. 36%; aRR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.25-0.78). CONCLUSION: Among pregnant women with T2DM managed with either basal or NPH insulin regimen, the rates of composite neonatal morbidity and maternal complications were similar.

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.