Biphasic Insulin Aspart Research Articles

Glycaemic outcomes in hospital with IDegAsp versus BIAsp30 premixed insulins.

IDegAsp (Ryzodeg70/30), a unique premixed formulation of long-acting insulin degludec and rapid-acting insulin aspart, is increasing in use. Management of IDegAsp during hospitalisation is challenging because of degludec's ultra-long duration of action. We investigated inpatient glycaemia in patients treated with IDegAsp compared to biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp30; Novomix30). We performed a retrospective observational study at two hospitals assessing inpatients with type 2 diabetes treated with IDegAsp or BIAsp30 prior to and during hospital admission. Standard inpatient glycaemic outcomes were analysed based on capillary blood glucose (BG) measurements. We assessed 88 individuals treated with IDegAsp and 88 HbA1c-matched individuals treated with BIAsp30. Patient characteristics, including insulin dose at admission, were well matched, but the IDegAsp group had less frequent twice-daily insulin dosing than the BIAsp30 group (49% vs 87%, P < 0.001). Patient-days with BG <4 mmol/L were not different (10.6% vs 9.9%, P = 0.7); however, the IDegAsp group had a higher patient-day mean BG (10.4 (SD 3.4) vs 10.0 (3.4) mmol/L, P < 0.001), and more patient-days with mean BG >10 mmol/L (48% vs 38%, P < 0.001) compared to the BIAsp30 group. Glucose was higher in the IDegAsp group in the evening (4 PM to midnight) (11.6 (SD 4.0) vs 10.9 (4.6) mmol/L, P = 0.004), but not different at other times during the day. Inpatients treated with IDegAsp compared to BIAsp30 had similar hypoglycaemia incidence, but higher hyperglycaemia incidence, potentially related to less frequent twice-daily dosing. With the increasing use of IDegAsp in the community, development of hospital management guidelines for this insulin formulation is needed.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart versus Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

We systematically reviewed and analyzed the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin as-part (IDegAsp) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We used computers to search the Embase, PubMed, Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Library database, and collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 in T2D patients. The research period was from the establishment of the database to May 19, 2023. We used Review Manager 5.20 statistical software for systematic meta-analysis. We included 8 RCTs with 2281 participants. IDegAsp was better to BIAsp30 in improving fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels (P<0.001) and reducing the endpoint daily average insulin dose (P<0.01). Furthermore, compared with BIAsp30, IDegAsp significantly reduced the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemic events (P<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the improvement of body weight change (P=0.99), glycosylated hemoglobin (P=0.50), the overall risk of hypoglycemic events (P=0.57) and adverse events (P=0.89) between the two groups. Compared with BIAsp30, IDegAsp could significantly reduce FPG levels, insulin dosage, and the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemic events in T2D patients, without increasing the overall risk of adverse events.

Real-world study of the concomitant use of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 with GLP-1 receptor agonist versus first-generation basal insulin with GLP-1 receptor agonistin type 2 diabetes.

Combining insulin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D) is common. While many studies have investigated concomitant therapy with basal insulin+GLP-1RA, few have reported on premixed insulin+GLP-1RA. We aimed to address this gap using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database in England. This retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching assessed glycaemic levels and other clinical outcomes in people with T2D, comparing biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) + GLP-1RA with basal insulin (insulin detemir/glargine U100) + GLP-1RA (from 2006 to 2021). In total, 4770 eligible people were identified; 1511 had a BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA regimen and were propensity score-matched to an equal number receiving basal+GLP-1RA. There was no significant difference in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction between cohorts at 6 months (p = 0.15), with a decrease of -1.07 (95% CI: -1.16; -0.98) %-points (-11.7 mmol/mol [95% CI: -12.7; -10.7]) in the BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA cohort, versus -0.97 (95% CI: -1.07; -0.88) %-points (-10.6 mmol/mol [95% CI: -11.7; -9.6]) in the basal+GLP-1RA cohort. Body mass index (BMI) decreased by -0.35 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.52;-0.18) at 6 months with BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA, versus -0.72 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.90;-0.54) with basal+GLP-1RA (p = 0.003). BMI was influenced by the initiation sequence of GLP-1RA in relation to insulin (p < 0.0001). Hypoglycaemia rates were low and not significantly different between cohorts. Combining BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA provides glycaemic control with no significant difference to that of propensity score-matched people receiving basal insulin+GLP-1RA, with no increase in hypoglycaemia risk or weight gain.

Real-world study of ethnic differences in glycaemic control and clinical characteristics among insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes initiating biphasic insulin aspart 30/70: A retrospective, observational cohort study in England.

This study investigated the ethnic differences in glycaemic levels and clinical characteristics among insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in primary practice in England. Retrospective, observational cohort study utilizing data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database, including White, South Asian, Black and Chinese insulin-naïve adults with T2D, initiating BIAsp 30. The index date was that of the first BIAsp 30 prescription. Endpoints included change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body mass index (BMI) 6 months post index. In total, 11 186 eligible people were selected (9443 White, 1116 South Asian, 594 Black, 33 Chinese). HbA1c decreased across all subgroups 6 months post index: estimated %-point changes [95% CI of -2.32 (-2.36; -2.28) (White); -1.91 (-2.02; -1.80) (South Asian); -2.55 (-2.69; -2.40) (Black); and -2.64 (-3.24; -2.04) (Chinese)]. The BMI increased modestly 6 months post index in all subgroups [estimated changes (95% CI) kg/m2 : White, 0.92 (0.86; 0.99); South Asian, 0.60 (0.41; 0.78); Black, 1.41 (1.16; 1.65); and Chinese, 0.32 (-0.67; 1.30)]. In the overall population, hypoglycaemic event rates increased from 0.92 events per 100 patient-years before the index to 3.37 events per 100 patient-years post index; event numbers were too low to be analysed by subgroup. Among insulin-naïve people with T2D initiating BIAsp 30, clinically meaningful HbA1c reductions in all ethnicities were observed. Some ethnic groups had larger reductions than others, but differences were small. In all groups, small BMI increases were seen, with small differences observed between groups. Hypoglycaemia rates were low.

Quality of life, patient satisfaction, and cardiovascular outcomes of the randomised 2 x 3 factorial Copenhagen insulin and Metformin therapy (CIMT) trial – A detailed statistical analysis plan

BackgroundThe evidence on the effects of metformin and insulin in type 2 diabetes patients on quality of life, patient satisfaction, and cardiovascular outcomes is unclear. MethodsThe Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy (CIMT) trial is an investigator-initiated multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial with a 2 × 3 factorial design conducted at eight hospitals in Denmark. Participants with type 2 diabetes were randomised to metformin (n = 206) versus placebo (n = 206); in combination with open-label biphasic insulin aspart one to three times daily (n = 137) versus insulin aspart three times daily in combination with insulin detemir once daily (n = 138) versus insulin detemir once daily (n = 137).We present a detailed description of the methodology and statistical analysis of the clinical CIMT outcomes including a detailed description of tests of the assumptions behind the statistical analyses. The outcomes are quality of life (Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)), Diabetes Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (assessed at entry and 18 months after randomisation) and cardiovascular outcomes including time to a composite of either myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral amputation, coronary revascularisation, peripheral revascularisation, or death. DiscussionsThis statistical analysis plan ensure the highest possible quality of the subsequent post-hoc analyses. Trial registrationThe protocol was approved by the Regional Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics (H-D-2007-112), the Danish Medicines Agency (EudraCT: 2007-006665-33 CIMT), and registered within ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00657943, 8th of April 2008).

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes.

To evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) vs. biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately managed on basal insulin in China. The CORE (the Center for Outcomes Research) Diabetes Model, which has been published and verified, was used to simulate disease progression and calculate the total direct medical costs, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 30 years, from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The patient demographic information and clinical data needed for the model were gathered from a phase III treat-to-target clinical trial (NCT02762578) and other Chinese cohort studies. Medical costs on treating diabetes were calculated based on clinical trial and local sources. The diabetes management and complications costs were derived from published literature. A discounting rate of 5% was applied to both health and cost outcomes. And one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the reliability of the results. Compared with BIAsp 30, treatment with IDegAsp was associated with an incremental benefit of 0.001 LYs (12.439 vs. 12.438) and 0.280 QALYs (9.522 vs. 9.242) over a 30-year time horizon, and increased CNY (Chinese Yuan) 3,888 (390,152 vs. 386,264) for total costs. IDegAsp was cost-effective vs. BIAsp 30 therapy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CNY 13,886 per QALY gained. Results were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses. Compared with BIAsp 30, IDegAsp was a cost-effective treatment option for people with T2DM with inadequate glycemic management on basal insulin in China.

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

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

PKPD Modeling and Simulations to Support Biosimilar Development of Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30.

This paper presents an analysis of data from a comparative study of biosimilarity in terms of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in healthy volunteers using a hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp for reference and test biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30). As a result of the study, one of the secondary pharmacodynamic (PD) endpoints did not satisfy the classical criterion of 80%-125% (the lower limit for PD parameter area under the glucose infusion rate-time curve [ ] turned out to be 79.5%). The main hypothesis explaining this result is that the sample size is insufficient to conduct a PD test with 90% statistical power, since the sample size has been calculated based on the coefficient of variation (CV) of pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters. To test this hypothesis, population PKPD (popPKPD) modeling and subsequent simulations of the required number of PD profiles were used. Two popPKPD models were constructed (a one-compartment double simultaneous absorption model for PK and an effect compartment Emax model for PD) to describe the PKPD data of reference and test insulins. As a result, using real data along with model-based simulation data, a biosimilarity test for PD was performed, and the lower limit for became 82.6%, while the CV decreased from 31.7% to 24.1%. Thus, popPKPD modeling and simulations have been shown to be effective in interpreting and supporting the results of clinical biosimilarity trials.

Cost-Effectiveness of iGlarLixi Versus Premix BIAsp 30 in People with Type 2 Diabetes Suboptimally Controlled by Basal Insulin in the US.

IntroductionMany people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) experience suboptimal glycemic control and require therapy advancement. This cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare iGlarLixi (insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide) versus BIAsp 30 (biphasic insulin aspart 30) in people with T2DM suboptimally controlled with basal insulin.MethodsThe IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes for people with T2DM from a US healthcare payer perspective. Initial clinical data were based on the phase 3 randomized, open-label, active-controlled SoliMix clinical study, which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily iGlarLixi with twice-daily BIAsp 30. Lifetime costs (US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30 was estimated; the willingness-to-pay threshold was considered to be $50,000. A subgroup analysis considered people with T2DM aged ≥ 65 years.ResultsEstimated QALYs gained were slightly higher with iGlarLixi compared with BIAsp 30 (9.3 vs. 9.2), with lower costs for iGlarLixi ($117,854 vs. $120,109); the ICER for iGlarLixi was therefore considered dominant over BIAsp 30 in the base case. Key drivers for cost savings were the higher dose and twice-daily administration for BIAsp 30 versus once-daily administration for iGlarLixi. The robustness of the base-case results was confirmed by sensitivity and scenario analyses. Results were similar in a subgroup of people with T2DM aged ≥ 65 years.ConclusionIn people with T2DM with suboptimal glycemic control on basal insulin, iGlarLixi confers improved QALYs and reduced costs compared with BIAsp 30.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13300-022-01300-5.

Cost-Effectiveness of iGlarLixi Versus Premix BIAsp 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Suboptimally Controlled by Basal Insulin in the UK.

IntroductioniGlarLixi is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise in addition to metformin (with or without sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors) to improve glycemic control in adults with insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D). A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare iGlarLixi with premix biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with T2D suboptimally controlled with basal insulin (BI).MethodsThe IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes for people with T2D from a UK health care perspective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000. Initial clinical data were based on the phase 3 randomized, open-label, active-controlled SoliMix clinical trial which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily iGlarLixi with that of twice-daily BIAsp 30. Costs associated with management and complications and utilities values were derived from published sources. Lifetime costs (in £GBP) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted; extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsEstimated QALYs gained were slightly higher with iGlarLixi (8.9 vs. 8.8) compared with premix BIAsp 30, at a higher cost (£23,204 vs. £21,961). The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY was £13,598. Treatment acquisition was the main driver of cost differences (iGlarLixi, £11,750; premix BIAsp 30, £10,395). Costs associated with management and complications were generally similar between comparators.ConclusioniGlarLixi provides improved QALY outcomes at an acceptable cost compared with premix BIAsp 30, with an ICER below the threshold generally considered acceptable by UK authorities. In people with T2D, iGlarLixi is a simple, cost-effective option for advancing therapy of BI, with fewer daily injections than premix BIAsp 30.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13300-022-01267-3.

Modeling of Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Insulin Aspart and Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30/70.

This study includes modeling and simulation of insulin aspart pharmacokinetics (PK). The authors used PK data of biosimilar insulins-insulin aspart and biphasic insulin aspart 30/70-to develop a predictive population PK model for the insulins. The model was built via Monolix software, taking into account the weight-based dosing and the dose and body-weight effects on the parameters. The model-based simulations were performed using the R package mlxR for various administered doses and various ratios of insulin aspart forms for a better understanding of the insulin behavior. The optimal model was a 1-compartment model with a combination of zero- and first-order absorptions, with absorption lag for the soluble form of insulin aspart and first-order absorption for the insulin aspart protamine suspension. The assumption of identical behavior of 2 insulins at the distribution and elimination phases was made. The developed PK model was fitted successfully to the experimental data, and all fitted parameters displayed a moderate coefficient of variation. The PK model allows us to predict PK profiles for various doses and formulations of insulin aspart and can be used to improve the accuracy, safety, and ethics of novel clinical trials of insulin.

The first and only combination of basal and prandial insulin analogs degludec and aspart: the position of Russian endocrinologists

Insulin therapy for diabetes mellitus is the most effective way to control glycemia with the progression of the disease and the ineffectiveness of other sugar-lowering drugs. At the same time, the existing limitations of traditional insulin preparations, along with increasing attention to the individualized treatment of this disease, are pushing developers to create drugs that most closely reproduce the effect of natural human insulin. In this regard, the appearance of a combination of insulin analogs, the action profile of which practically imitates insulin secretion by a healthy pancreas, presents new possibilities in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Insulin degludec / insulin aspart (IDegAsp, Ryzodeg®, Novo Nordisk, Denmark) is the first and only soluble combination preparation containing 70% of the ultra-long-acting insulin analogue degludec and 30% of the ultra-short-acting insulin analogue aspart in one injection, which meets the need for both basal and prandial insulin. The combined drug has nothing in common with traditional mixed insulin preparations (both human and analog) and provides doctors and patients with significant advantages over the latter. The article presents the position of Russian experts-diabetologists with extensive experience in the use of IDegAsp regarding the role and place of the drug in real clinical practice. Data from real clinical practice confirm that IDegAsp is a reasonable choice for starting and intensifying insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus when basal and prandial glycemic control is required. The use of the drug is most appropriate in patients who are on basal, biphasic, basal-plus/basal-bolus regimens and who do not achieve the goals of glycemic control during prior therapy. One of the leading reasons for choosing IDegAsp may also be a lower risk of developing hypoglycemia compared to insulin analogues of previous generations — biphasic insulin aspart and basal insulin glargine 100 U/ml. In addition, IDegAsp is a simple, flexible and safe insulin therapy for patients on premix therapy and basal-plus/basis-bolus regimens who require basal and prandial glycemic control. IDegAsp is a simple, flexible and safe insulin therapy. The greatest benefit of this drug use can be obtained by patients for whom adherence to a complex therapy regimen is difficult (the elderly, with cognitive impairment, after a stroke, with dementia), as well as patients who have an active lifestyle, accompanied by irregular food intake. It is important to note that since January 1, 2021, there is no need for a decision by a special medical commission to prescribe (IDegAsp) Ryzodeg®. This fact, as well as a significant price reduction at the end of 2020, opens up broader prospects for using the drug in the routine practice of a Russian endocrinologist.

Composite cardiovascular risk and BMI affected comparative profiles of BIAsp 30\u2009+\u2009metformin 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.

Understanding Patients' Willingness to Pay for Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30/70 in a Pen Device for Type 2 Diabetes Treatment in an Out-of-Pocket Payment Market.

ObjectiveOur objective was to investigate willingness to pay (WTP) for biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in India.MethodsA multicenter, prospective, non-interventional, preference study was conducted that assessed WTP for BIAsp 30 in an insulin pen (FlexPen® or Penfill® device) in patients in India with T2DM previously treated with biphasic human insulin (BHI) in vials and believed to be able to pay for treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients willing to continue to pay for BIAsp 30 after 12 weeks’ treatment. Secondary endpoints included the change from baseline in treatment and device satisfaction and patient preferences for treatment attributes as assessed by a nested discrete-choice experiment.ResultsOverall, 54.9% (n = 277/505) of participants were male; the mean age was 56.4 years; diabetes duration was 10.9 years; 63.8% had a body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2; > 75% had an annual household income > 150,000 Indian rupees (INR). After 12 weeks’ treatment, 96.4% of patients were willing to pay for BIAsp 30. Mean treatment and device satisfaction significantly improved from baseline (p < 0.0001). Patients were willing to pay INR3576 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2755–4398) for improved glycemic control, INR688 (95% CI 383–994) for a device upgrade (vial/syringe to an insulin pen), or INR327 (95% CI 95–560) to avoid major hypoglycemia. Patients would need to be compensated INR44 (95% CI 56–32) per minor hypoglycemic event.ConclusionsIn India, patients with T2DM previously treated with BHI were willing to pay for BIAsp 30 in an insulin pen. Furthermore, treatment and device satisfaction improved after this therapeutic switch.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03374774.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-020-00246-3.

Comparison of Blood Glucose Variability Between Exenatide and Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Chinese Participants with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with Metformin Monotherapy: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Trial.

IntroductionTo compare blood glucose variability (GV) in Chinese participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) whose blood glucose levels are inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy after twice-daily exenatide or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp30).MethodsIn this 16-week multicenter, randomized clinical trial, 104 participants were randomized 1:1 to receive exenatide (exenatide group) or BIAsp30 (BIAsp30 group) twice daily. All participants continued metformin treatment. The primary outcome was the change in GV as measured by a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) from baseline to 16 weeks.ResultsAt 16 weeks, both the Exenatide and BIAsp30 groups effectively decreased mean glucose (MG), but neither group changed the mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (MAGE), largest amplitude of glycemic excursion (LAGE), mean of daily difference (MODD), or standard deviation of blood glucose (SDBG). The decrease in 2-h post-breakfast glucose excursions was greater in the Exenatide group compared to the BIAsp30 group, with a least square (LS) mean difference [95% CI] of (1.58 [0.53, 2.63]). Exenatide also significantly reduced 2-h post-lunch glucose excursion compared to BIAsp30 (LS mean difference [95% CI], 1.19 [0.18, 2.20]). The Exenatide group had significantly reduced body weight and body mass index (BMI), while the BIAsp30 group had increased weight and had no change in BMI. Both treatments were well tolerated with no serious hypoglycemic events and with fewer identified hypoglycemic events in the Exenatide group than in the BIAsp30 group (5.77% vs. 17.31%, P < 0.01).ConclusionAlthough there was no difference in change of GV between Exenatide and BIAsp30, exenatide provided more improvement in postprandial glucose excursion and weight control, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia in Chinese patients with T2DM whose blood glucose was inadequately controlled with metformin. These findings may provide new options for patients who choose further hypoglycemic treatment, especially in patients with obesity who have large postprandial plasma glucose excursions.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov indentifier: NCT02449603.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-020-00904-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparative study of the usefulness of a novel insulin therapy in Japanese patients with Type 2 diabetes for concomitant use of an oral antidiabetic agent with twice-daily dosing either of insulin aspart, biphasic insulin aspart-30, or insulin detemir: Two times Insulin injection Combined with oral therapy Efficacy Study (TWICE study).

It is common to treat type 2 diabetes by regular injections of insulin. We compared the efficacy and safety of twice-daily administration of short-acting, premixed, and long-acting insulins. This was a multi-center, randomized, open-label, 52-week study. Patients were randomized to administer twice daily short-acting analog insulin (Aspart) plus a sulfonylurea (SU), premixed 70/30 analog insulin (Mix), or long-acting insulin (Detemir) plus a glinide derivative. Twelve (mean baseline HbA1c 9.86±1.71%), eight (9.24±1.14%), and eight (11.26±1.81%) patients were treated with Aspart, Mix, or Detemir, respectively, for 52 weeks. After 12 weeks, the reductions in HbA1c were similar in the groups. A further significant reduction in HbA1c occurred between weeks 12 and 52 in the Detemir, but not the Aspart or Mix groups. After 52 weeks, the target of an HbA1c <7.4% was achieved in 16.7% of the Aspart group, 37.5% of the Mix group, and 12.5% of the Detemir group (no significant differences among the three groups by χ2 analysis). The mean changes from baseline in blood glucose concentration measured after breakfast, and before and after dinner, were also similar in each group. Early and meaningful reductions in HbA1c were achieved by twice-daily administration of a premix, aspart plus an SU, and detemir plus a glinide, without severe hypoglycemia or an increase in body mass. However, the target HbA1c was achieved in relatively few participants, perhaps due to an insufficient dose of insulin or the small study size.

A novel treatment of hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia induced by insulin antibodies with alkali administration: a case report

BackgroundInsulin autoimmune syndrome is a rare cause of hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia characterized by autoantibodies to human insulin without previous insulin use. We report a case of a patient with hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia possibly caused by insulin antibodies induced by insulin analogs and a novel therapeutic measure for this condition.Case presentationAn 84-year-old Japanese man with a 28-year history of type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, treated with biphasic insulin aspart 30, experienced persistent early morning hypoglycemia with daytime hyperglycemia. Despite discontinuation of biphasic insulin aspart 30, the condition persisted even after the patient ate small, frequent meals. Sodium bicarbonate was administered to correct the chronic metabolic acidosis, which then rectified the early morning glucose level.ConclusionsWe believe this to be the first published case of a therapeutic approach to the treatment of hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia associated with insulin antibodies that factors in blood pH and the correction of acidosis using sodium bicarbonate, which physicians could consider.

Efficacy and safety of three-times-daily versus twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with basal insulin combined with oral antidiabetic drugs

AimsTo compare the efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) administered three times daily (TID) vs. twice daily (BID), plus metformin, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on basal insulin ± 1 oral antidiabetic drug (OAD). MethodsRandomised, multinational, open-label, treat-to-target trial. Subjects inadequately controlled (HbA1c 7.5–10.0%) on basal insulin and metformin ± 1 OAD were randomised to BIAsp30 TID (n = 220) or BIAsp30 BID (n = 217). Primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment. ResultsMost (400/437, 91.5%) subjects completed the trial. The majority (276/400 [69.0%]) were from the China region. After 24 weeks, HbA1c decreased comparably in both BIAsp 30 groups (−1.7% vs. −1.6% [–19 vs. –18 mmol/mol], for TID and BID dosing, respectively; estimated treatment difference: –0.09% [−0.23; 0.06]95% CI, –1 mmol/mol [−3; 1], p = 0.26). Safety profiles, including number of subjects experiencing hypoglycaemia, were similar. ConclusionsBIAsp 30 administered either TID or BID with metformin was a safe and effective option when intensifying treatment after failure of basal insulin and OADs in patients with T2DM. Adding a third injection at lunchtime may be preferable if HbA1c remains above target, if the lunchtime meal is the largest meal of the day, or if persistent postprandial hyperglycaemia after lunch is observed.Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02582242.

Efficacy and Safety of IDegAsp Versus BIAsp 30, Both Twice Daily, in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Post Hoc Analysis of Two Phase 3 Randomized Controlled BOOST Trials.

IntroductionThe majority of elderly patients (≥ 65 years of age) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) will eventually require insulin therapy, but they are particularly vulnerable to hypoglycemia and challenging to treat. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a novel co-formulation of 70% insulin degludec and 30% insulin aspart administered in a single injection, either once or twice daily with main meals.MethodsA combined analysis of the phase 3 BOOST INTENSIFY PREMIX I (NCT01009580) and BOOST INTENSIFY ALL (NCT01059812) trials has previously reported lower rates of hypoglycemia during the maintenance period in patients with T2DM treated with IDegAsp twice daily (BID) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) BID. This post hoc analysis examined the safety and efficacy of IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 in elderly patients from the global population of these two trials, and also from the Japanese cohort of BOOST INTENSIFY ALL.ResultsChange in HbA1c was similar for IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 (p > 0.5). Compared with BIAsp 30, IDegAsp resulted in significant reductions in fasting plasma glucose (p < 0.0001), numerically lower rates of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia (global estimated rate ratios: 0.92 [0.67; 1.26]95% confidence interval [CI], p = 0.5980 and 0.67 [0.39; 1.18]95% CI, p = 0.1676, respectively), and a significantly lower total daily insulin dose at end of trial (global estimated treatment difference 0.79 [0.73; 0.87]95% CI, p < 0.0001) in elderly patients.ConclusionThe results described here are consistent with those of the overall trial populations, demonstrating that IDegAsp BID is efficacious in elderly patients and suggesting that there is no need for special safety precautions.FundingNovo Nordisk.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT01009580 and NCT01059812.Plain Language SummaryPlain language summary available for this article.

Efficacy and Safety of Biphasic Insulin Aspart Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with T2DM—A Real-World Study

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart during first 2 to 8 days of hospital admission of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) for non-glycemia related medical ailments. Methods: An open-label, non-randomized, observational, single-center study in patients with T2DM aged between 18 and 70 years at a tertiary multispecialty hospital in India. T2DM patients with capillary blood glucose (BG) between 70 mg/dl to 400 mg/dl at admission, requiring subcutaneous biphasic insulin aspart were included in this study. Insulin dosage was individualized as per the clinician’s judgement considering the clinical status, HbA1c and other co-morbidities. The primary endpoint was mean capillary BG levels at fasting, prelunch, predinner and at midnight during day 2 to day 8 of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were frequency and severity of hypoglycemic episodes. Appropriate statistics were applied at 2-tailed p ≤0.significance. Results: Total 2T2DM patients were included in this study. Median age was 57 years, 66.3% male and 33.7% female. Mean duration of T2DM was 9.9 years, HbA1c 7.3%, BMI 25.9 kg/m2 and hospital stay 8.9 days. The mean (SD) BG at admission was 208.5 (82.9) mg/dL and after usage of Biphasic Insulin Aspart 188.2 (45.3) mg/dL. Mean capillary BG levels at fasting, prelunch, predinner, and at midnight were 166.9 (46.7) mg/dL, 201.0 (58.8) mg/dL, 203.9 (60.1) mg/dL, and 179.0 (48.7) mg/dL respectively. BG readings that met the target BG range (140-180 mg/dL) levels were 34.6%. During the study 5.9% of patient’s experienced hypoglycemic event of which 2% were severe requiring intravenous dextrose and 3.9% were mild. There was a significant difference in BG reduction correlating with BMI, HbA1c (p =0.05). Conclusions: Treatment with biphasic insulin aspart is observed to be effective in achieving optimal BG levels, is well-tolerated with low hypoglycemic events in patients admitted in hospital for non-glycemia related medical ailments. Disclosure R.S. Erukulapati: None. A. Yerramilli: None. V. Kancherla: None. G.S. Sreelalitha: None. A. Poojari: None. F.Z. Khan: None. K. Chappidi: None.