You may delay, but time will not. Beta cells lost are never found again: a case for timely initiation of basal insulin in type 2 diabetes.

Since its first use just over a century ago, insulin treatment has evolved dramatically, such that the molecules are physiologic in nature, and treatment can now closely resemble the natural hormone response over 24 hours. Newer, longer-acting basal insulin analogs have provided insulin therapies with improved characteristics and, therefore, ease of use, and can readily be incorporated as part of routine treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D), but evidence suggests that insulin remains underused in people with T2D. We review the barriers to initiation of basal insulin and the education needed to address these barriers, and we provide practical pointers, supported by evidence, for primary care physicians and advanced practice providers to facilitate timely initiation of basal insulin in the people with T2D who will benefit from such treatment.

Type 2 diabetes is a complex disease. It causes increased amounts of sugar in the blood, which can cause damage to the body. Medications are given to people with type 2 diabetes to keep their blood sugar at normal levels. Unfortunately, type 2 diabetes worsens over time, so regular adjustments to medications are needed to keep blood sugar levels controlled.Basal insulin, which is a type of insulin that works over the entire day, is a key treatment for type 2 diabetes. It works best if it is started as soon as other medications (tablets or non-insulin injections) are not working to control blood sugar levels. Unfortunately, delays in starting basal insulin are common. Some healthcare professionals and people with type 2 diabetes believe insulin is difficult to use. False information on insulin is common; for example, some people with diabetes believe that their symptoms are caused by insulin treatment rather than high blood sugar.This review summarizes key information to encourage effective conversations between healthcare professionals and people with type 2 diabetes about starting basal insulin. Proactive, positive, early discussion of the benefits of basal insulin can help to: 1) address concerns, 2) set appropriate, individual treatment targets, and 3) provide practical information and training to help with injecting insulin. This will give people living with type 2 diabetes the knowledge and confidence to take an active part in managing their diabetes and overcome any barriers to using basal insulin.

An exploratory analysis of the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 units/mL versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL over a lifetime horizon using the BRAVO diabetes model.

BACKGROUND: This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). METHODS: Costs and outcomes for Gla-300 versus Gla-100 from a US healthcare payer perspective were assessed using the BRAVO diabetes model. Baseline clinical data were derived from EDITION-3, a 12-month randomized controlled trial comparing Gla-300 with Gla-100 in insulin-naïve adults with inadequately controlled T2D on OADs. Treatment costs were calculated based on doses observed in EDITION-3 and 2020 US net prices, while costs for complications were based on published literature. Lifetime costs ($US) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates; extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Lifetime medical costs were estimated to be $353,441 and $352,858 for individuals receiving Gla-300 and Gla-100 respectively; insulin costs were $52,613 and $50,818. Gla-300 was associated with a gain of 8.97 QALYs and 21.12 life-years, while Gla-100 was associated with a gain of 8.89 QALYs and 21.07 life-years. This resulted in an ICER of $7522/QALY gained for Gla-300 versus Gla-100. Thus, Gla-300 was cost-effective versus Gla-100 based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Compared with Gla-100, Gla-300 provided a net monetary benefit of $3290. Scenario and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case. CONCLUSION: Gla-300 may be a cost-effective treatment option versus Gla-100 over a lifetime horizon for insulin-naïve people in the United States with T2D inadequately controlled on OADs.

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.

Current usage of long-acting insulin analogs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin treatment is fundamental to diabetes management. Basal insulin therapy reduces intraday glycemic fluctuations upon reaching a steady state. Besides better blood glucose regulation and achieving target HbA1c values in patients, it also offers protection from diabetes complications. In this review, we aimed to compare basal-acting insulins in light of the literature. AREAS COVERED: We reviewed current evidence related to diabetes treatment with basal insulins. This includes discussions on clinical trials and meta-analyses concerning first and second-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulins. Treatment indications for long-acting basal insulins, which have shown benefits and are considered superior or comparable to others in the literature, are derived from current clinical studies and meta-analyses, which form the basis of the recommendations in this review. EXPERT OPINION: First and second-generation basal insulins do not show much superiority over each other in terms of blood glucose regulation and reaching the target HbA1c. However, second-generation basal insulins cause fewer hypoglycemic events. We recommend using the appropriate basal insulin in patient-based, individualized treatments. Basal insulin Icodec may become more widely used over time, owing to its association with less hypoglycemia and a reduction in the number of injections.

Chronic kidney outcomes associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists versus long-acting insulins among type 2 diabetes patients requiring intensive glycemic control: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) versus long-acting insulins (LAIs) on preventing progressive chronic kidney outcomes is uncertain for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients requiring intensive glycemic control. This study aimed to evaluate comparative effectiveness of GLP-1RA versus LAI therapies on progressive chronic kidney outcomes among patients having poor glycemic control and requiring these injectable glucose-lowering agents (GLAs). METHODS: 7279 propensity-score-matched pairs of newly stable GLP-1RA and LAI users in 2013-2018 were identified from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database and followed until death or 12/31/2019 (intention-to-treat). Subdistributional hazard model was utilized to assess the comparative effectiveness on a composite renal outcome (i.e., renal insufficiency [eGFR < 15 mL/min/1.73 m2], dialysis-dependent end-stage renal disease [ESRD], or renal death) and its individual components. Sensitivity analyses with the as-treated scenario, PS weighting, high-dimensional PS techniques, using cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) as positive control outcomes, and interaction testing were performed. RESULTS: In primary analyses, subdistribution hazard ratios (95% CIs) for initiating GLP-1RAs versus LAIs for the composite renal outcome, renal insufficiency, dialysis-dependent ESRD, and renal death were 0.39 (0.30-0.51), 0.43 (0.32-0.57), 0.29 (0.20-0.43), and 0.28 (0.15-0.51), respectively. Sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the primary findings. CVD history and the medication possession ratio of prior oral GLAs possessed modification effects on GLP-1RA-associated kidney outcomes. CONCLUSION: Using GLP-1RAs versus LAIs was associated with kidney benefits in T2D patients requiring intensive glycemic control and potentially at high risk of kidney progression. GLP-1RAs should be prioritized to patients with CVDs or adherence to prior oral GLAs to maximize kidney benefits.

In type 2 diabetes, weekly basal insulin Fc was noninferior to daily insulin degludec for HbA1c at 26 wk.

SOURCE CITATION: Bue-Valleskey JM, Kazda CM, Ma C, et al. Once-weekly basal insulin Fc demonstrated similar glycemic control to once-daily insulin degludec in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a phase 2 randomized control trial. Diabetes Care. 2023;46:1060-1067. 36944059.

Current Status of Weekly Insulin Analogs and Their Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Evaluation by the Euglycemic Clamp Technique.

Diabetes mellitus represents a significant global health threat characterized by hyperglycemia caused by inadequate insulin secretion and/or insulin resistance. Exogenous insulin supplements had been recognized as a crucial treatment for achieving successful glycemic control in patients with Type 1 and most patients with Type 2 diabetes. Over the past century, substantial progress has been made in the development of novel insulin formulations, including the super-fast-acting and long-acting basal insulin analogs, of which the latter is indispensable for the management of nocturnal fasting and intraprandial blood glucose within the normal physiological range. Recently, combining chemical and genetic engineering with drug optimization have resulted in a formidable evolution in ultra-long-acting weekly insulin. Here, the current state of once-weekly insulin analogs and the euglycemic clamp technique used in the early clinical development to elucidate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of this type of novel weekly insulin analogs were systematically overviewed.

pH-Responsive Hexa-Histidine Metal Assembly (HmA) with Enhanced Biocatalytic Cascades as the Vehicle for Glucose-Mediated Long-Acting Insulin Delivery.

Diabetes has been listed as one of the three major diseases that endanger human health. Accurately injecting insulin (Ins) depending on the level of blood glucose (LBG) is the standard treatment, especially controlling LBG in the long-term by a single injection. Herein, the pH-responsive hexa-histidine metal assembly (HmA) encapsulated with enzymes (GOx and CAT) and Ins (HmA@GCI) is engineered as the vehicle for glucose-mediated insulin delivery. HmA not only shows high proteins loading efficiency, but also well retained proteins activity and protect proteins from protease damage. Within HmA, the biocatalytic activities of enzymes and the efficiency of the cascade reaction between GOx and CAT are enhanced, leading to a super response to the change of LBG with insulin release and efficient clearance of harmful byproducts of GOx (H2 O2 ). In the treatment of diabetic mice, HmA@GCI reduces LBG to normal in half an hour and maintains for more than 5 days by a single subcutaneous injection, and nearly 24 days with four consecutive injections. During the test period, no symptoms of hypoglycemia and toxicity to tissues and organs are observed. These results indicate that HmA@GCI is a safe and long-acting hypoglycemic agent with prospective clinical application.

Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec vs Once-Daily Insulin Degludec in Adults With Insulin-Naive Type 2 Diabetes: The ONWARDS 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Once-weekly insulin icodec could provide a simpler dosing alternative to daily basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec vs once-daily insulin degludec in people with insulin-naive type 2 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-masked, noninferiority, treat-to-target, phase 3a trial conducted from March 2021 to June 2022 at 92 sites in 11 countries in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with any noninsulin glucose-lowering agents with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7%-11% (53-97 mmol/mol). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either once-weekly icodec and once-daily placebo (icodec group; n = 294) or once-daily degludec and once-weekly placebo (degludec group; n = 294). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 (noninferiority margin, 0.3% percentage points). Secondary end points included change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to week 26, mean weekly insulin dose during the last 2 weeks of treatment, body weight change from baseline to week 26, and number of level 2 (clinically significant; glucose level <54 mg/dL) and level 3 (severe; requiring external assistance for recovery) hypoglycemic episodes. Results: Among 588 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 58 [10] years; 219 [37%] women), 564 (96%) completed the trial. Mean HbA1c level decreased from 8.6% (observed) to 7.0% (estimated) at 26 weeks in the icodec group and from 8.5% (observed) to 7.2% (estimated) in the degludec group (estimated treatment difference [ETD], -0.2 [95% CI, -0.3 to -0.1] percentage points), confirming noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .002). There were no significant differences between the icodec and degludec groups for fasting plasma glucose change from baseline to week 26 (ETD, 0 [95% CI, -6 to 5] mg/dL; P = .90), mean weekly insulin dose during the last 2 weeks of treatment, or body weight change from baseline to week 26 (2.8 kg vs 2.3 kg; ETD, 0.46 [95% CI, -0.19 to 1.10] kg; P = .17). Combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher in the icodec group than the degludec group from week 0 to 31 (0.31 vs 0.15 events per patient-year exposure; P = .11) and statistically higher in the icodec group from week 0 to 26 (0.35 vs 0.12 events per patient-year exposure; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with insulin-naive type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec demonstrated superior HbA1c reduction to once-daily degludec after 26 weeks of treatment, with no difference in weight change and a higher rate of combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemic events in the context of less than 1 event per patient-year exposure in both groups. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04795531.

Weekly Icodec versus Daily Glargine U100 in Type 2 Diabetes without Previous Insulin.

BACKGROUND: Insulin icodec is an investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue for diabetes management. METHODS: We conducted a 78-week randomized, open-label, treat-to-target phase 3a trial (including a 52-week main phase and a 26-week extension phase, plus a 5-week follow-up period) involving adults with type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin level, 7 to 11%) who had not previously received insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly insulin icodec or once-daily insulin glargine U100. The primary end point was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 52; the confirmatory secondary end point was the percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter) in weeks 48 to 52. Hypoglycemic episodes (from baseline to weeks 52 and 83) were recorded. RESULTS: Each group included 492 participants. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The mean reduction in the glycated hemoglobin level at 52 weeks was greater with icodec than with glargine U100 (from 8.50% to 6.93% with icodec [mean change, -1.55 percentage points] and from 8.44% to 7.12% with glargine U100 [mean change, -1.35 percentage points]); the estimated between-group difference (-0.19 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.36 to -0.03) confirmed the noninferiority (P<0.001) and superiority (P = 0.02) of icodec. The percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter was significantly higher with icodec than with glargine U100 (71.9% vs. 66.9%; estimated between-group difference, 4.27 percentage points [95% CI, 1.92 to 6.62]; P<0.001), which confirmed superiority. Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were 0.30 events per person-year of exposure with icodec and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure with glargine U100 at week 52 (estimated rate ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.75) and 0.30 and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure, respectively, at week 83 (estimated rate ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic control was significantly better with once-weekly insulin icodec than with once-daily insulin glargine U100. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; ONWARDS 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04460885.).

Switching to once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in individuals with basal-bolus insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 4): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin icodec (icodec) is a basal insulin analogue suitable for once-weekly dosing. ONWARDS 4 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec compared with once-daily insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen. METHODS: In this 26-week, phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial, adults from 80 sites (outpatient clinics and hospital departments) across nine countries (Belgium, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, and the USA) with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·0-10·0%) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-weekly icodec or once-daily glargine U100 combined with 2-4 daily bolus insulin aspart injections. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 (non-inferiority margin of 0·3 percentage points). The primary outcome was evaluated in the full analysis set (ie, all randomly assigned participants). Safety outcomes were evaluated in the safety analysis set (ie, all participants randomly assigned who received at least one dose of trial product). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04880850. FINDINGS: Between May 14 and Oct 29, 2021, 746 participants were screened for eligibility, of whom 582 (78%) were randomly assigned (291 [50%] to icodec treatment and 291 [50%] to glargine U100 treatment). Participants had a mean duration of type 2 diabetes of 17·1 years (SD 8·4). At week 26, estimated mean change in HbA1c was -1·16 percentage points in the icodec group (baseline 8·29%) and -1·18 percentage points in the glargine U100 group (baseline 8·31%), showing non-inferiority for icodec versus glargine U100 (estimated treatment difference 0·02 percentage points [95% CI -0·11 to 0·15], p<0·0001). Overall, 171 (59%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 167 (57%) of 291 participants in the glargine U100 group had an adverse event. 35 serious adverse events were reported in 22 (8%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 33 serious adverse events were reported in 25 (9%) of 291 participants receiving glargine U100. Overall, combined level 2 and level 3 hypoglycaemia rates were similar between treatment groups. No new safety concerns were identified for icodec. INTERPRETATION: In people with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen, once-weekly icodec showed similar improvements in glycaemic control, with fewer basal insulin injections, lower bolus insulin dose, and with no increase in hypoglycaemic rates compared with once-daily glargine U100. Key strengths of this trial include the use of masked continous glucose monitoring; the high trial completion rate; and the inclusion of a large, diverse, and multinational population. Limitations include the relatively short trial duration and the open-label design. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

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.

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

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

Systemic Anti-Inflammatory Therapy Aided by Curcumin-Laden Double-Headed Nanoparticles Combined with Injectable Long-Acting Insulin in a Rodent Model of Diabetes Eye Disease.

Therapeutic interventions that counter emerging targets in diabetes eye diseases are lacking. We hypothesize that a combination therapy targeting inflammation and hyperglycemia can prevent diabetic eye diseases. Here, we report a multipronged approach to prevent diabetic cataracts and retinopathy by combining orally bioavailable curcumin-laden double-headed (two molecules of gambogic acid conjugated to terminal carboxyl groups of poly(d,l-lactide-co-glycolide)) nanoparticles and injectable basal insulin. The combination treatment led to a significant delay in the progression of diabetic cataracts and retinopathy, improving liver function and peripheral glucose homeostasis. We found a concurrent reduction in lens aggregate protein, AGEs, and increased mitochondrial ATP production. Importantly, inhibition of Piezo1 protected against hyperglycemia-induced retinal vascular damage suggesting possible involvement of Piezo1 in the regulation of retinal phototransduction. Histologic evaluation of murine small intestines revealed that chronic administration of curcumin-laden double-headed nanoparticles was well tolerated, circumventing the fear of nanoparticle toxicity. These findings establish the potential of anti-inflammatory and anti-hyperglycemic combination therapy for the prevention of diabetic cataracts and retinopathy.

Insulin Fact Sheet in Type 1 and 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Trends of Antidiabetic Medication Use in Insulin Users with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: 2002 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the trends of insulin use among Korean patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Changes in prescription of antidiabetic medications in T2DM patients taking insulin therapy were evaluated. METHODS: We analyzed data from the National Health Insurance Service database in Korea to evaluate the prevalence of insulin users and trends of insulin use in T1DM and T2DM patients from January 2002 to December 2019. We also investigated numbers and types of antidiabetic medications in insulin users with T2DM. RESULTS: The overall total number of insulin users increased from 2002 to 2019, reaching 348,254 for T2DM and 20,287 for T1DM in 2019 compared with 109,974 for T2DM and 34,972 for T1DM in 2002. The proportion of patients using basal analogs and short acting analogs have increased and those using human insulin, premixed insulin, or biphasic human insulin have decreased (rapid acting analogs: 71.85% and 24.12% in T1DM and T2DM, respectively, in 2019; basal analogs: 76.75% and 75.09% in T1DM and T2DM, respectively, in 2019). The use of other antidiabetic medication in addition to insulin increased for T2DM, especially in dual therapy, reaching up to 52.35% in 2019 compared with 16.72% in 2002. CONCLUSION: The proportion of the patients using basal or rapid acting analogs increased among all insulin users in both T1DM and T2DM patients. Among patients with T2DM, the proportion of patients using antidiabetic medications in addition to insulin was significantly increased compared to those who used insulin alone.

Subcutaneous fast-acting insulin analogues, alone or in combination with long-acting insulin, versus intravenous regular insulin infusion in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis: protocol for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is traditionally managed using intravenous regular insulin infusion (RII) in intensive care unit (ICU)/high dependency unit (HDU). Subcutaneous fast-acting insulin analogues (FAIAs) may help to manage DKA outside ICU/HDU. Furthermore, combining subcutaneous long-acting insulin (LAI) with subcutaneous FAIAs may accelerate ketoacidosis resolution. The latest (2016) Cochrane review was inconclusive regarding subcutaneous FAIAs versus intravenous RII in DKA. It was limited by small sample sizes, unclear risk of bias (RoB) in primary trials and did not examine subcutaneous FAIAs with subcutaneous LAI versus intravenous RII in DKA. We report the protocol for an updated meta-analysis on the safety and benefits of subcutaneous FAIAs with/without subcutaneous LAI versus intravenous RII in DKA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library, from inception until December 2022, without language restrictions, for randomised trials on subcutaneous FAIAs with/without subcutaneous LAI versus intravenous RII in DKA. We also search ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu and reference lists of included trials. Primary outcomes include all-cause in-hospital mortality, time to DKA resolution, in-hospital DKA recurrence and hospital readmission for DKA post-discharge. Secondary outcomes include resource utilisation and patient satisfaction. Safety outcomes include important complications of DKA and insulin. Reviewers will extract data, assess overall RoB and quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. We will assess statistical heterogeneity by visually inspecting forest plots and the I2 statistic. We will synthesise data using the random-effects model. Predefined subgroup analyses are: mild versus moderate versus severe DKA; age <20 vs ≥20 years; pregnant versus non-pregnant; infective versus non-infective DKA precipitating cause; subcutaneous FAIAs alone versus subcutaneous FAIAs and subcutaneous LAI; and high versus low overall RoB. We will also perform trial sequential analysis for primary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics board approval is not required. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022369518.

Clinical Evidence and Practice-Based Guidelines on the Utility of Basal Insulin Combined Oral Therapy (Metformin and Glimepiride) in the Current Era.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Basal insulin combined oral therapy consisting of insulin and oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) is recommended for type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on OADs. There is a lack of clear evidence and recommendations on the combined use of basal insulin analogues to more than one OADs (glimepiride plus metformin) in effective control of glycemic parameters and its safety in terms of reduced hypoglycemic events, weight gain and cardiovascular risk. In this context, a group of clinical experts discussed the utility of basal insulin combined oral therapy with metformin and glimepiride in the current era. METHODS: The clinical experts discussed and provided their inputs virtually. The expert panel included clinical experts comprising endocrinologists and diabetologists from India and Nepal. RESULTS: The panel thoroughly reviewed existing literature on the subject and proposed clinical evidence and practice-based guidelines. CONCLUSION: These current clinical practice guidelines highlight the efficacy and safety of basal insulin combination therapy with various available basal insulins including neutral protamine hagedorn, detemir, glargine and degludec in addition to metformin and glimepiride therapy.