Effects of Exenatide and Humalog Mix25 on Fat Distribution, Insulin Sensitivity, and ß-Cell Function in Normal BMI Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Visceral Adiposity.

In China, most normal BMI (body mass index of ≥18.5 to <25 kg/m2) adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) exhibit visceral adiposity. This study compared the effects of exenatide and humalog Mix25 on normal BMI patients with T2DM and visceral adiposity. A total of 95 patients were randomized to receive either exenatide or humalog Mix25 treatment for 24 weeks. Subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) were quantified by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and liver fat content (LFC) by liver proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H MRS). Each patient's weight, waist circumference, BMI, blood glucose, insulin sensitivity, pancreatic ß-cell function, and fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF-21) levels were measured. Data from 81 patients who completed the study (40 and 41 in the exenatide and humalog Mix25 groups, respectively) were analysed. The change in 2 h plasma blood glucose was greater in the exenatide group (P = 0.039). HOMA-IR and MBCI improved significantly after exenatide therapy (P < 0.01, P = 0.045). VAT and LFC decreased in both groups (P < 0.01 for all) but to a greater extent in the exenatide group, while SAT only decreased with exenatide therapy (P < 0.01). FGF-21 levels declined more in the exenatide group (P < 0.01), but were positively correlated with VAT in the entire cohort before (r = 0.244, P = 0.043) and after (r = 0.290, P = 0.016) the intervention. The effects of exenatide on glycaemic metabolism, insulin resistance, pancreatic ß-cell function, and fat deposition support its administration to normal BMI patients with T2DM and visceral adiposity.

Biphasic human insulin 30 thrice daily, is it reasonable?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of thrice daily Biphasic Human Insulin 30 (BHI 30) versus the traditional twice-daily regimen in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. It's a cross over single clinical study. Twenty-two diabetic patients who were already using BHI 30 in twice or thrice daily regimens with or without metformin were included. At the 1st interval; patients continued on their usual insulin regimen as twice or thrice daily injections with adjustment of insulin doses guided by their glucose readings. On the 2nd interval; patients were switched to the other regimen with the same total daily insulin dose redistributed. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in HbA1c level (p < 0.05) at the end of the first 3 months of trial regardless on which regimen the patient started, but there was no significant difference in the mean HbA1c reduction in patients when they were on twice daily insulin injections (1.1 ± 1.3) versus the time they were on thrice daily insulin injections (0.8 ± 1.71), p > 0.05. On the other hand, patients had lower average blood glucose readings (mg/dl) when they were on thrice daily insulin injections (161.4 ± 62.7) compared to twice daily regimen (166.0 ± 69.5), p < 0.05.

A randomized, open-label, multicentre, parallel-controlled study comparing the efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30 plus metformin with biphasic insulin aspart 30 monotherapy for type 2 diabetes patients inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs: The merit study.

AIM: To confirm non-inferiority of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) plus metformin to BIAsp 30 in lowering glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in Chinese patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes using oral antidiabetic drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this 16-week, prospective, randomized, open-label, multicentre, parallel-controlled study, patients aged 18-79 years with HbA1c ≥7% were randomized to BIAsp 30 plus metformin (n = 130) or BIAsp 30 (n = 127). Initially, 500 mg metformin was administered twice daily and BIAsp 30 was administered at 0.2-0.3 U/kg/d. Changes in HbA1c % from baseline to week 16 as well as secondary and safety endpoints were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 83.66% of patients in the BIAsp 30 plus metformin (n = 110) and the BIAsp 30 (n = 105) groups completed the study. Mean (±standard deviation) change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint was -1.74 ± 1.64% and -1.32 ± 2.05% with BIAsp 30 plus metformin and BIAsp 30, respectively. Least squares mean treatment difference was -0.67% (95% CI, -1.06; -0.28). The upper limit of the 95% CI was <0.4 (non-inferiority margin). A significantly higher proportion of individuals reached HbA1c <7% with BIAsp 30 plus metformin than with BIAsp 30 (53.15% vs 35.19%; P = 0.0074). At endpoint, daily BIAsp 30 dose (P < 0.001) and weight gain were significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the BIAsp 30 plus metformin group compared with the BIAsp 30 group. No between-group differences in number of hypoglycaemic events were observed. CONCLUSION: BIAsp 30 plus metformin was non-inferior to BIAsp 30 in safely reducing HbA1c in this study.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 treatment for people with type 2 diabetes: a budget impact analysis based in Thailand.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the financial consequences of different adoption rate of Biphasic Insulin Aspart (BIAsp) 30 instead of Biphasic Human Insulin (BHI) 30 for people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in Thailand from the payer's perspective. METHODS: The Excel-based International T2DM Budget Impact Model over a 3-year period was used. The cohort was the T2DM patients who received treatment from government hospitals under the Universal Health Coverage Scheme. Demographic, the adverse events, and the costs were derived from published studies in Thailand. Efficacy was based on meta-analysis. Adoption rates were assumed to increase each year. Net budget impact (NBI) and one-way sensitivity were analyzed. RESULTS: Hypoglycemia costs were lower in BIAsp 30 compared with BHI 30. The NBI per year was 26,511,269 THB (771,349 USD) for year 1, 52,181,133 THB (1,518,218 USD) for year 2, and 76,189,608 THB (2,216,747 USD) for year 3. The NBI per insulin user per year was 33.45 THB (0.97 USD), 67.27 THB (1.96 USD), 101.49 THB (2.95 USD) from year 1 to year 3, respectively Conclusions: Lower rate of hypoglycemia with BIAsp 30 than those treated with BHI 30 generates cost savings resulting in significant deduction in the additional acquisition cost of BIAsp 30. Therefore, the NBI per insulin user per year has become small.

Phase III Study on Efficacy and Safety of Triple Combination (Exenatide/Metformin/Biphasic Insulin Aspart) Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Exenatide, metformin (MET), and biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIA30) have been widely used in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); however, each of these medications has significant adverse effects, which limit their utilization. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple combination (exenatide/metformin/biphasic insulin aspart) therapy for T2DM. Two hundred patients with poorly controlled T2DM were randomly divided into the low-dose (0.5 µg exenatide, 0.05 U·kg·d BIA30, and 0.01 g MET twice daily) and normal-dose (2 µg exenatide, 0.2 U·kg·d BIA30, and 0.05 g MET twice daily) groups for 48 weeks of treatment. Of note, 82 and 90 individuals from the low-dose and normal-dose groups, respectively, completed the study. The levels of adiponectin, C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor-α, and resistin were measured. The normal-dose treatment was more effective at lowering hemoglobin A1c levels than the low-dose therapy (HbA1c changes of -2.5 ± 0.19% and -0.8 ± 0.07%, respectively) after 48 weeks. The maximum weight decrease was 0.9 kg in the low-dose group and 4.0 kg in the normal-dose group. The triple combination therapy increased the levels of insulin sensitivity and adiponectin and reduced the levels of C-reactive protein, resistin, and tumor necrosis factor-α. No significant difference in the adverse effects was found between the low-dose and normal-dose groups (P > 0.05). In conclusion, the investigated triple combination therapy for T2MD is therefore an effective and safe therapeutic strategy.

Insulin lispro 25/75 and insulin lispro 50/50 as starter insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: subanalysis of the CLASSIFY randomized trial.

In Japan, premixed insulins are commonly used as starter insulin for type 2 diabetes. This subpopulation analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of twice-daily LM25 (25% insulin lispro/75% insulin lispro protamine) and LM50 (50% insulin lispro/50% insulin lispro protamine) as starter insulin in Japanese subjects, and compared these results with the whole-trial populations of East Asian subjects. In this subpopulation analysis of an open-label, phase 4, randomized trial (CLASSIFY), Japanese subjects received LM25 (n = 88) or LM50 (n = 84) twice-daily for 26 weeks. The primary outcome was change from baseline at Week 26 in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Results for Japanese subjects were generally similar to those for the whole-trial population. Similar changes from baseline in HbA1c were observed for LM25 and LM50 groups (least squares [LS] mean difference [95% confidence interval] of LM25 - LM50 = 0.13 [-0.16, 0.41]%, 1.42 [-1.75, 4.48] mmol/mol, p = 0.388). More LM50-treated subjects than LM25-treated subjects achieved HbA1c targets of <7.0% (59.5% versus 43.2%; p = 0.034) or ≤6.5% (45.2% versus 28.4%; p = 0.027). The reduction in postprandial blood glucose concentrations after morning and evening meals was statistically significantly greater for LM50 than for LM25. The incidence of both hypoglycemia and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between treatment groups. Both LM25 and LM50 twice daily appear to be effective and well tolerated as starter insulin, although LM50 might be more effective for Japanese type 2 diabetes patients.

Do glycoalbumin levels preferentially reflect changes in postprandial glucose excursions?

AIMS: To evaluate whether plasma glycated albumin, which provides an integrated measure of plasma glucose levels over the preceding 2-4 weeks, better reflects changes in postprandial glucose excursions than HbA1c . METHODS: People with suboptimum glycaemic control on dual oral therapy were enrolled in the Treating-to-Target-in-Type 2 diabetes (4-T) trial, in which participants were randomized to the addition of once-daily basal insulin, twice-daily biphasic insulin or thrice-daily prandial insulin. Glycated albumin levels were assayed enzymatically from baseline and 1-year fasting plasma samples. We evaluated robust correlations of glycated albumin and HbA1c both with fasting and postprandial glucose levels at these two time points, and with insulin-induced changes in the postprandial excursion. RESULTS: Requisite data were available for 625 of the participants in the 4-T trial. Their mean (±sd) age was 62 ± 10 years and body weight was 85.8 ± 15.9 kg, and their median (interquartile range) diabetes duration was 9 (6, 13) years. Partial correlations at baseline and 1 year between postprandial glucose excursions and glycated albumin/HbA1c , after adjusting for fasting glucose, were 0.27/0.15 and 0.22/0.18, respectively. Glycated albumin, compared with HbA1c , explained 66% more of the variation in postprandial glucose excursions at baseline. At 1 year, postprandial glucose excursions on basal, biphasic and prandial and insulin therapy were reduced by 0.43, 0.78 and 1.88 mmol/l, respectively. These reductions were associated with changes in both glycated albumin and HbA1c (P < 0.01), with a stronger association for glycated albumin. CONCLUSION: Changes in glycated albumin and HbA1c reflect changes in postprandial glucose excursions to a similar extent.

Premixed insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes: pros.

Because of the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes, the need to intensify treatment to manage hyperglycemia is expanding. Premixed insulin regimens were designed to maximize patient convenience and reduce the number of daily injections required by providing both rapid-acting and intermediate-acting components in one formulation. Although the basal bolus insulin regimen is considered by many as "the golden standard" in reaching goals of glycemic control, proper use of intensified insulin regimens, such as basal bolus or premixed, will result in similar HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemic events, and weight gain. At the same number of daily insulin injections (2 shots/day), the premixed regimen is associated with a significant 0.2 % HbA1c decrease, as compared with the basal plus regimen (one shot of long-acting plus one shot of short-acting insulin). The choice of insulin regimen should consider the preferences, and resources of the individual and the family for adapting treatment to the patient needs. At last, the process of insulin initiation and intensification in type 2 diabetes must be carried out in the context of patient safety, minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, and injection burden.

Management of postprandial glucose: Recommended targets and treatment with biphasic insulin.

Increases in glycaemia, particularly following meals, have been independently associated with diabetes complications, most notably cardiovascular disease. Control of postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) therefore plays an important role in diabetes management. International diabetes guidelines acknowledge the value of PPG monitoring yet place relatively little emphasis on PPG control. This article considers the impact of suboptimal PPG control and current recommendations with regard to management of PPG. Specific consideration is given to the role of biphasic insulins, one of the treatment options recognised by the International Diabetes Federation as preferentially lowering PPG levels.

Biphasic insulin Aspart 30 vs. NPH plus regular human insulin in type 2 diabetes patients; a cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, costs, and cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with NPH plus regular human insulin (NPH/Reg) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: It was a Single-center, parallel-group, randomized, clinical trial (Trial Registration: NCT01889095). One hundred and seventy four T2DM patients with poorly controlled diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 8 % (63.9 mmol/mol)) were randomly assigned to trial arms (BIAsp 30 and NPH/Reg) and were followed up for 48 weeks. BIAsp 30 was started at an initial dose of 0.2-0.6 IU/Kg in two divided doses and was titrated according to the glycemic status of the patient. Similarly, NPH/Reg insulin was initiated at a dose of 0.2-0.6 IU/Kg with a 2:1 ratio and was subsequently titrated. Level of glycemic control, hypoglycemic events, direct and indirect costs, quality adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio have been assessed. RESULTS: HbA1c, Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and two-hour post-prandial glucose (PPG) were improved in both groups during the study (P < 0.05 for all analyses). Lower frequencies of minor, major, and nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes were observed with BIAsp 30 (P < 0.05). Additionally, BIAsp 30 was associated with less weight gain and also higher QALYs (P < 0.05). Total medical and non-medical costs were significantly lower with BIAsp 30 as compared with NPH/Reg (930.55 ± 81.43 USD vs. 1101.24 ± 165.49 USD, P = 0.004). Moreover, BIAsp 30 showed lower ICER as a dominant alternative. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being more expensive, BIAsp 30 offers the same glycemic control as to NPH/Reg dose-dependently and also appears to cause fewer hypoglycemic events and to be more cost-effective in Iranian patients with type 2 diabetes.

Blood Glucose Fluctuations in Type 2 Diabetes Patients Treated with Multiple Daily Injections.

To compare blood glucose fluctuations in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients were treated using three procedures: insulin intensive therapy which is continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), MDI3 (three injections daily), and MDI4 (four injections daily). T2DM patients were hospitalized and were randomly assigned to CSII, aspart 30-based MDI3, and glargine based MDI4. Treatments were maintained for 2-3 weeks after the glycaemic target was reached. After completing the baseline assessment, 6-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was performed before and after completion of insulin treatment. Treatment with CSII provided a greater improvement of blood glucose fluctuations than MDI (MDI3 or MDI4) therapy either in newly diagnosed or in long-standing T2DM patients. In long-standing diabetes patients, the MDI4 treatment group had significantly greater improvement of mean amplitude glycemic excursion (MAGE) than the MDI3 treatment group. However, in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes, there were no significant differences in the improvement of MAGE between MDI3 and MDI4 groups. Glargine based MDI4 therapy provided better glucose fluctuations than aspart 30-based MDI3 therapy, especially in long-standing T2DM patients, if CSII therapy was not available.

Subject-driven titration of biphasic insulin aspart 30 twice daily is non-inferior to investigator-driven titration in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with premixed human insulin: A randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter trial.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: The present study was to compare the efficacy and safety of subject-driven and investigator-driven titration of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) twice daily (BID). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this 20-week, randomized, open-label, two-group parallel, multicenter trial, Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by premixed/self-mixed human insulin were randomized 1:1 to subject-driven or investigator-driven titration of BIAsp 30 BID, in combination with metformin and/or α-glucosidase inhibitors. Dose adjustment was decided by patients in the subject-driven group after training, and by investigators in the investigator-driven group. RESULTS: Eligible adults (n = 344) were randomized in the study. The estimated glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction was 14.5 mmol/mol (1.33%) in the subject-driven group and 14.3 mmol/mol (1.31%) in the investigator-driven group. Non-inferiority of subject-titration vs investigator-titration in reducing HbA1c was confirmed, with estimated treatment difference -0.26 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval -2.05, 1.53) (-0.02%, 95% confidence interval -0.19, 0.14). Fasting plasma glucose, postprandial glucose increment and self-measured plasma glucose were improved in both groups without statistically significant differences. One severe hypoglycemic event was experienced by one subject in each group. A similar rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia (events/patient-year) was reported in the subject-driven (1.10) and investigator-driven (1.32) groups. There were 64.5 and 58.1% patients achieving HbA1c <53.0 mmol/mol (7.0%), and 51.2 and 45.9% patients achieving the HbA1c target without confirmed hypoglycemia throughout the trial in the subject-driven and investigator-driven groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Subject-titration of BIAsp 30 BID was as efficacious and well-tolerated as investigator-titration. The present study supported patients to self-titrate BIAsp 30 BID under physicians' supervision.

Twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart provides superior fasting plasma glucose control and a reduced rate of hypoglycaemia compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 in insulin-naïve adults with Type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs. twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus who were naïve to insulin. METHODS: In this 26-week, multinational, open-label, controlled, two-arm, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, participants [mean (± sd) age 58.9 (±8.9) years, duration of diabetes 9.5 (±5.9) years, HbA1c 68 (±8.7) mmol/mol or 8.4 (±0.8)% and BMI 31.2 (±4.2) kg/m(2) ) were randomized (1:1) to insulin degludec/insulin aspart (n = 197) or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (n = 197), administered with breakfast and the main evening meal, titrated to a self-monitored plasma glucose target > 3.9 and ≤ 5.0 mmol/l. RESULTS: The mean HbA1c was reduced to 49 mmol/mol (6.6%) with insulin degludec/insulin aspart and 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) with biphasic insulin aspart 30. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart achieved the prespecified non-inferiority margin (estimated treatment difference 0.02%; 95% CI -0.12, 0.17). Insulin degludec/insulin aspart was superior in lowering fasting plasma glucose (estimated treatment difference -1.00 mmol/l; 95% CI -1.4, -0.6; P < 0.001) and reducing overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia at a similar overall insulin dose compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30. Similar proportions of participants in each arm experienced severe hypoglycaemia. Adverse events were equally distributed. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous findings, insulin degludec/insulin aspart twice daily effectively improved long-term glycaemic control, with superior reductions in FPG, and significantly less overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with Type 2 diabetes who were insulin-naïve.

[The predictive factors of good glycaemic control in Chinese patients receiving biphasic insulin as part 30: a subgroup analyses from the A1 chieve study].

OBJECTIVE: To identify the baseline factors associated with achievement of glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) < 7.0% in Chinese patients receiving biphasic insulin as part 30 (BIAsp 30), who were previously inadequately controlled with oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs). METHODS: A1 chieve was a multinational, prospective, open-label, 24-week non-interventional study in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin analogues in 28 countries. The patients were enrolled to take BIAsp 30 according to physician's clinical judgments, who was also responsible for the treatment regimen and dosage adjustment. Primary safety endpoints were the incidence of serious drug adverse reactions (SADRs) including serious hypoglycaemia. Major efficacy endpoints were change in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2h post-prandial plasma glucose (2 hPG) from baseline. Relationships between baseline predictive baseline factors and achievement of HbA1c < 7.0% after treatment were examined using multivariate analysis. RESULTS: In China, 4 100 patients initiated BIAsp 30 [54.2% males, age (56.2 ± 13.6) years]. No SADRs were reported. Mean HbA1c was reduced from (9.3 ± 2.1)% to (7.0 ± 1.0)%; FPG was reduced from (10.2 ± 3.3) mmol/L to (6.8 ± 1.3) mmol/L. Changes in 2 hPG after breakfast, lunch and dinner were (-5.6 ± 4.7), (-4.9 ± 4.3) and (-4.2 ± 4.1) mmol/L, respectively (all P < 0.001). The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c < 7.0% increased from 9.7% at baseline to 54.2% at week 24. Multivariate analysis revealed a negative relationship between baseline HbA1c, FPG, 2 hPG and HbA1c < 7.0% after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In the Chinese subgroup of the A1 chieve study, lower baseline HbA1c, FPG, 2 hPG were predictive factors for achieving HbA1c < 7.0% after 24-week treatment of BIAsp 30, indicating that the earlier initiation of BIAsp 30 in patients poorly controlled with OADs, the more helpful for them to achieve treatment target.

Intensifying insulin regimen after basal insulin optimization in adults with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, randomized, open-label trial comparing insulin glargine plus insulin glulisine with biphasic insulin aspart (LanScape).

AIM: To test the hypothesis that a 'basal plus' regimen--adding once-daily main-meal fast-acting insulin to basal insulin once daily--would be non-inferior to biphasic insulin twice daily as assessed by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration (predefined as ≤0.4%), but would provide superior treatment satisfaction. METHODS: This open-label trial enrolled adults to an 8- or 12-week run-in period, during which oral therapies except metformin were stopped and insulin glargine dose was titrated. Those with fasting glucose <7 mmol/l but HbA1c >7% (53 mmol/mol) were randomized to insulin glargine/glulisine once daily (n = 170) or insulin aspart/aspart protamine 30/70 twice daily (n = 165) for 24 weeks, with dose titration to glucose targets using standardized algorithms. RESULTS: For HbA1c, the basal plus regimen was non-inferior to biphasic insulin (least squares mean difference, 0.21%, upper 97.5% confidence limit 0.38%) meeting the predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. Treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version and Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire total scores) significantly favoured basal plus. No difference was observed between the basal plus and the biphasic insulin groups in responders (HbA1c <7%, 20.6 vs 27.9%; p = 0.12), weight gain (2.06 vs 2.50 kg; p = 0.2), diabetes-specific quality of life (Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life average weighted impact (AWI) score) and generic health status (five-dimension European Quality of Life questionnaire). Overall hypoglycaemia rates were similar between groups (15.3 vs 18.2 events/patient-year; p = 0.22); nocturnal hypoglycaemia was higher with the basal plus regimen (5.7 vs 3.6 events/patient-year; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In long-standing type 2 diabetes with suboptimal glycaemia despite oral therapies and basal insulin, the basal plus regimen was non-inferior to biphasic insulin for biomedical outcomes, with a similar overall hypoglycaemia rate but more nocturnal events.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart produces a dose-proportional glucose-lowering effect in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: To evaluate the pharmacodynamic dose-response relationship of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp), a novel, soluble co-formulation of the ultra-long-acting basal insulin, insulin degludec (IDeg), with the rapid-acting prandial insulin (IAsp), across different doses in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM). METHODS: This was a randomized, single-centre, double-blind, four-period, incomplete block, crossover trial. A cohort of 33 people with T1DM received single doses (0.4, 0.6 or 0.8 U/kg) of IDegAsp or the comparator, biphasic insulin aspart 30, in a randomized sequence of four treatment periods, each separated by a washout of 13-21 days. Pharmacodynamic response was assessed using a 26-h euglycaemic glucose clamp, with blood glucose stabilized at a target of 5.5 mmol/l (100 mg/dl). RESULTS: A rapid onset of action and a distinct peak attributable to IAsp was observed in the glucose infusion rate (GIR) profile, followed by a separate, flat and stable basal glucose-lowering effect attributable to the IDeg component. The mean area under the GIR curve over 24 h (AUC(GIR,0-24 h)), and the mean maximum GIR (GIR(max)) increased with increasing dose level of IDegAsp. A dose-response relationship for IDegAsp was demonstrated for AUC(GIR,0-24 h) and GIR(max), indicating dose proportionality. A dose-concentration relationship was also observed for both the basal and bolus components of IDegAsp. CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp has a clear dose-response relationship, indicating the clinical potential for straightforward titration according to individual patient needs.

Biphasic vs basal bolus insulin regimen in Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: We aim to evaluate the effects of biphasic insulin compared with a basal bolus insulin regimen on glycaemic control, total daily insulin requirements, risk of hypoglycaemia, weight and quality of life in patients with diabetes mellitus. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for studies up to November 2013. Interventions that lasted for more than four weeks and were reported in English were considered for the review. Meta-analysis was performed on eligible studies. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized controlled trial studies, involving 4384 patients, were included. Greater HbA1c reductions were seen with basal-bolus compared with biphasic insulin regimens, between-treatment weighted mean difference (WMD) for baseline-to-endpoint changes in HbA1c was -0.2% (95% CI: -0.36 to -0.03) [-2.2 (-3.9, -0.3) mmol/mol]. In non-insulin naïve (n = 8) patients with Type 2 diabetes, HbA1c reduction was greater in the basal bolus group; WMD = -0.22% (95% CI: -0.42 to -0.02) [-2.4 (-4.6, -0.2) mmol/mol], but in insulin naïve patients (n = 5), HbA1c was equivalent between the two regimens; WMD (-0.15% (95% CI: -0.52 to 0.22) [-1.6 (-5.7, 2.4) mmol/mol]. Total daily insulin requirements and weight were increased with both regimens, whereas hypoglycaemia rates were comparable between the two regimens. Greater HbA1c reduction was observed in the basal bolus group compared with the biphasic regimen at the expense of higher daily insulin requirements and weight gain, but with no greater risk of hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Biphasic and basal bolus regimens were equally effective in reducing HbA1c in insulin naïve patients with Type 2 diabetes and both regimens are equally effective for initiating insulin in Type 2 diabetes.

Clinical use and efficacy of biphasic insulin lispro 50/50 in people with insulin treated diabetes - a nationwide evaluation of clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the metabolic effects of biphasic insulin lispro 50/50 in routine clinical practice. A total of 229 patients who were ≥18 years old with diabetes, newly treated with biphasic insulin lispro 50/50, were sourced from six secondary care services in England. METHODS: Detailed clinical parameters were compared at baseline, and 3 and 6 months post-initiation. Responders was defined as those with HbA1c <7.5% (58 mmol/mol) and/or an HbA1c reduction of >1% (11 mmol/mol) at 6 months. RESULTS: HbA1c showed significant reduction: -0.93% (-10 mmol/mol) and -1.2% (-13 mmol/mol) at 3 and 6 months respectively, while no significant change was noted for all the other parameters. When analyzed according to frequencies of injections/day, the greatest reduction was observed with the three times a day regimen (-1.0% [-11.0 mmol/mol] and -1.3% [-14.6 mmol/mol] at 3 and 6 months respectively). HbA1c reduction was greatest in the group who previously received a basal-bolus insulin regimen: (-0.8% [-9.0 mmol/mol] and -1.5% [-16.2 mmol/mol] at 3 and 6 months respectively). Reduction in weight was observed at 3 months (-1.8 kg ± 4.3) only for those who were previously on a basal-bolus insulin regimen. Insulin doses increased following conversion to biphasic insulin lispro 50/50, irrespective of the types of insulin used prior to biphasic insulin lispro 50/50, but this was not associated with weight gain. The independent predictors of response to biphasic insulin lispro 50/50 were baseline HbA1c, Caucasian, presence of nephropathy, prior use of basal-bolus insulin and prior use of other premixed combination. CONCLUSION: Biphasic insulin lispro 50/50 is therefore an effective therapeutic option for achieving glycemic control in patients with suboptimal HbA1c levels, especially among those who were previously on a basal-bolus insulin regimen and those who received it three times daily, with a neutral effect on weight parameters. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study of routine clinical practice and is therefore limited by allocation bias and some missing data. Information on rates of hypoglycemia and quality of life are not available.

The study of once- and twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with sitagliptin, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 without sitagliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on sitagliptin and metformin-The Sit2Mix trial.

AIMS: Investigate efficacy and tolerability of intensifying diabetes treatment with once- or twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) added to sitagliptin, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 without sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on sitagliptin. METHODS: Open-label, three-arm, 24-week trial; 582 insulin-naïve patients were randomized to twice-daily BIAsp 30+sitagliptin (BIAsp BID+Sit), once-daily BIAsp 30+sitagliptin (BIAsp QD+Sit) or twice-daily BIAsp 30 without sitagliptin (BIAsp BID), all with metformin. RESULTS: After 24 weeks, HbA1c reduction (%) was superior with BIAsp BID+Sit vs. BIAsp QD+Sit (BIAsp BID+Sit minus BIAsp QD+Sit difference: -0.36 [95% CI -0.54; -0.17], P<0.001) and BIAsp BID (BIAsp BID minus BIAsp BID+Sit difference: 0.24 [0.06; 0.43], P=0.01). Observed final HbA1c values were 6.9%, 7.2% and 7.1% (baseline 8.4%), and 59.8%, 46.5% and 49.7% of patients achieved HbA1c <7.0%, respectively. Confirmed hypoglycaemia was lower with BIAsp QD+Sit vs. BIAsp BID (P=0.015); rate: 1.17 (BIAsp QD+Sit), 1.50 (BIAsp BID+Sit) and 2.24 (BIAsp BID) episodes/patient-year. Difference in bodyweight change favoured BIAsp QD+Sit vs. both BID groups (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adding BIAsp 30 to patients with T2D poorly controlled with sitagliptin and metformin is efficacious and well tolerated; however, while BIAsp BID+Sit showed superior glycaemic control, BIAsp QD+Sit had a lower rate of hypoglycaemia and showed no weight gain.