Charitable medication distribution improves care for uninsured patients with diabetes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A randomized pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic trial of two regular human insulins demonstrates bioequivalence in type 1 diabetes and availability of biosimilar insulin may improve access to this medication.

AIMS: To compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) effects and safety of therapeutic dosages of a regular insulin (experimental drug) produced by Bioton S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) versus Humulin® R, a regular insulin (reference drug) produced by Eli Lilly (Indianapolis, Indiana). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a single-centre, randomized, double-blinded phase 1 crossover study, we used the manual euglycaemic clamp technique to compare PK and PD profiles between single subcutaneous doses (0.3 units/kg) of the two regular insulins in participants with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) with a washout period of 14 (± 7) days between tests. RESULTS: We evaluated 56 participants. The mean participant age and body mass index were 32.9 years and 22.9 kg/m2 , respectively. The ratios (experimental/reference) of the geometric means of maximum plasma insulin concentration and for plasma insulin area under the curve (AUC) were 0.909 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.822-1.01) and 0.993 (90% CI 0.944-1.04), respectively. The ratios of the geometric means of maximum glucose infusion rate (GIR) and for GIR AUC were 0.999 (95% CI 0.912-1.09) and 1.04 (95% CI 0.962-1.12), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The experimental product regular human insulin and comparator Humulin® R are bioequivalent in patients with T1DM. Wider entry to the pharmaceutical market of affordable, biosimilar regular insulins may substantially improve access to insulin for many socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with diabetes.

Insulin NPH for steroid-induced hyperglycemia: Predictors for success.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) for steroid-induced hyperglycemia and identify factors associated with achievement of euglycemia. DESIGN: Retrospective, single center, cohort analysis. SETTING: Quaternary care academic medical center. PATIENTS: Adult patients with steroid-induced hyperglycemia on combination therapy of an intermediate-acting steroid and once daily NPH. INTERVENTION: The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who achieved euglycemia on day 3 of combination therapy. Patients were divided into euglycemic and dysglycemic cohorts based on the primary outcome. Univariate analysis on baseline characteristics, NPH dose, and steroid dose based on prednisone equivalent dose (PED) was conducted to identify differences between the cohorts. Safety analysis was conducted to detect differences between the two cohorts. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 142 patients included in the primary analysis, 50 (35.2%) achieved euglycemia on day 3 of combination therapy. In univariate analysis, patients who achieved euglycemia had significantly higher median NPH dose standardized to steroid dose on day 1 (0.5 units/mg PED [25%-75% interquartile range (IQR) 0.4-0.8] vs 0.4 units/mg PED [0.2-0.8]; p = 0.046), lower median blood glucose prior to combination therapy on day 3 (111 mg/dl [96-160] vs 136 mg/dl [113-198]; p = 0.008), and lower median blood glucose 4 hours after administration of combination therapy on day 3 (147 mg/dl [116-197] vs 190 mg/dl [153-245]; p = 0.003) compared to patients who did not achieve euglycemia, respectively. Hypoglycemia and life-threatening hypoglycemia occurred at similar rates between the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Neutral protamine Hagedorn is a safe and efficacious option for acute care hospitalized patients experiencing steroid-induced hyperglycemia. More aggressive dosing initiation of NPH based on steroid dose may allow for earlier achievement of euglycemia without a difference in hypoglycemia.

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.

Detemir vs neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin for diabetes mellitus in pregnancy: a comparative effectiveness, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin detemir, being used increasingly during pregnancy, may have pharmacologic benefits compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the probability that compared with treatment with neutral protamine Hagedorn, treatment with insulin detemir reduces the risk for adverse neonatal outcome among individuals with type 2 or overt type 2 diabetes mellitus (gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosed at <20 weeks' gestation). STUDY DESIGN: We performed a multiclinic randomized controlled trial (September 2018 to January 2020), which included women with singleton gestation with type 2 or overt type 2 diabetes mellitus who sought obstetrical care at ≤21 weeks' gestation. Participants were randomized to receive either insulin detemir or neutral protamine Hagedorn by a clinic-stratified scheme. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes, including shoulder dystocia, large for gestational age, neonatal intensive care unit admission, respiratory distress (defined as the need of at least 4 hours of respiratory support with supplemental oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure or ventilation at the first 24 hours of life), or hypoglycemia. The secondary neonatal outcomes included gestational age at delivery, small for gestational age, 5-minute Apgar score of <7, lowest glucose level, need for intravenous glucose, respiratory distress syndrome, need for mechanical ventilation or continuous positive airway pressure, neonatal jaundice requiring therapy, brachial plexus injury, and hospital length of stay. The secondary maternal outcomes included hypoglycemic events, hospital admission for glucose control, hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, maternal weight gain, cesarean delivery, and postpartum complications. We used the Bayesian statistics to estimate a sample size of 108 to have >75% probability of any reduction in the primary outcome, assuming 80% power and a hypothesized effect of 33% reduction with insulin detemir. All analyses were intent to treat under a Bayesian framework with neutral priors (a priori assumed a 50:50 likelihood of either intervention being better; National Clinical Trial identifier 03620890). RESULTS: There were 108 women randomized in this trial (57 in insulin detemir and 51 in neutral protamine Hagedorn), and 103 women were available for analysis of the primary outcome (n=5 for pregnancy loss before 24 weeks' gestation). Bayesian analysis indicated an 87% posterior probability of reduced primary outcome with insulin detemir compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (posterior adjusted relative risk, 0.88; 95% credible interval, 0.61-1.12). Bayesian analyses for secondary outcomes showed consistent findings of lower adverse maternal outcomes with the use of insulin detemir vs neutral protamine Hagedorn: for example, maternal hypoglycemic events (97% probability of benefit; posterior adjusted relative risk, 0.59; 95% credible interval, 0.29-1.08) and hypertensive disorders (88% probability of benefit; posterior adjusted relative risk, 0.81; 95% credible interval, 0.54-1.16). CONCLUSION: In our comparative effectiveness trial involving individuals with type 2 or overt type 2 diabetes mellitus, use of insulin detemir resulted in lower rates of adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn.

(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.

Comparison of Analogue insulin with other insulins in patients with type 1 diabetes in Ahmedabad, Western India: A Rretrospective study.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Type of insulin is prescribed according to the glycaemic status of the patient, affordability, and preference of the patient. Analogues are considered to be the good therapeutic treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes, as they closely mimic physiological insulin kinetics and minimize the risk of hypoglycemia as compared to other insulin formulations. In this study, we aimed to assess the effectiveness of different insulin regimen (analogue insulins, regular insulins, and NPH insulins) in patients with type 1 diabetes in Ahmedabad, western India. METHOD: A retrospective study was carried out on patients with type 1 diabetes aged below 18 years. They were categorized into three groups as per their insulin regimen-on analogues, on regular insulin and on premix insulin. Their mean HbA1c was extracted from the database in order to know the effectiveness of their respective insulin regimen. Only those patients were studied who had undergone HbA1c from January 2018 to January 2020, who were regular in their visit to the clinic (>3 visits/year in past 2 years), were on stable insulin regimen and had absence of lipodystrophy.Outcome was analyzed based on glycosylated hemoglobin concentration. Because of retrospective nature of the analysis, accurate capture of hypoglycemia data was not possible. RESULTS: .450 patients were studied and out of that 180 were on analogue insulin, 210 were on regular insulin and, 60 patients were on premix insulin. Mean duration of diabetes 7.7 years, 8.2 years and 8.5 years, respectively. The mean Hba1c value in the corresponding insulin regimen was 9.37%, 9.3%, and 9.7% respectively. The difference in HbA1C values was statistically not significant. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in HbA1c levels with the use of any three insulin regimens in patients with type 1 diabetes. Further prospective studies are required in a controlled manner in Indian patients to corroborate these preliminary findings and also compute the risk of hypoglycaemia.

Study rationale and design of the EANITIATE study (EmpAgliflozin compared to NPH Insulin for sTeroId diAbeTEs) - a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial of safety and efficacy of treatment with empagliflozin compared with NPH-insulin in patients with newly onset diabetes following initiation of glucocorticoid treatment.

BACKGROUND: A well-known metabolic side effect from treatment with glucocorticoids is glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus (GIDM). Guidelines on the management of GIDM in hospitalized patients (in the non-critical care setting), recommend initiation of insulin therapy. The scientific basis and evidence for superiority of insulin therapy over other glucose lowering therapies is however poor and associated with episodes of both hypo- and hyperglycaemia. There is an unmet need for an easier, safe and convenient therapy for glucocorticoid-induced diabetes. METHODS: EANITIATE is a Danish, open, prospective, multicenter, randomized (1:1), parallel group study in patients with new-onset diabetes following treatment with glucocorticoids (> 20 mg equivalent prednisolone dose/day) with blinded endpoint evaluation (PROBE design). Included patients are randomized to either a Sodium-Glucose-Cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or neutral protamin Hagedorn (NPH) insulin and followed for 30 days. Blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) will provide data for the primary endpoint (mean daily blood glucose) and on glucose fluctuations in the two treatment arms. Secondary endpoints are patient related outcomes, hypoglycaemia, means and measures of variation for all values and for time specific glucose values. This is a non-inferiority study with the intent to demonstrate that treatment with empagliflozin is not inferior to treatment with NPH insulin when it comes to glycemic control and side effects. DISCUSSION: This novel approach to management of glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia has not been tested before and if SGLT2 inhibition with empaglifozin compared to NPH-insulin is a safe, effective and resource sparing treatment for GIDM, it has the potential to improve the situation for affected patients and have health economic benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu no.: 2018-002640-82. Prospectively registered November 20th. 2018. Date of first patient enrolled: June 4th. 2019. This protocol article is based on the EANITATE protocol version 1.3, dated 29. January 2018.

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.

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

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

Comparison of 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.