Insulin aspart biphasic 30/70 100units/ml suspension for injection 3ml cartridges

AIMS: To estimate the relative treatment effect of iGlarLixi (a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide) versus premixed insulin IDegAsp (insulin degludec plus insulin aspart) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who advanced from basal insulin to iGlarLixi or IDegAsp in non-Asian studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified in a systematic review by searching Embase (including congress abstracts from 2021 to 2023), MEDLINE® and CENTRAL on 10 October 2023. Treatment outcomes from non-Asian RCTs for people with T2D previously treated with basal insulin, who switched to iGlarLixi or IDegAsp, were compared using a network meta-analysis (NMA). Data analysis was performed using R, version 4.0.2. RESULTS: The NMA included four RCTs (N = 2535). The results of the NMA showed that iGlarLixi (n = 810) was associated with a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c versus IDegAsp (n = 454) (mean difference [MD]: -0.39 [95% credible interval, CrI: -0.58, -0.21] %-units). iGlarLixi was also associated with a significantly greater likelihood of achieving an HbA1c of <7.0% (risk ratio: 1.42, 95% CrI: 1.18, 1.71). A greater reduction in postprandial glucose was observed with iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp (MD: -1.38 [95% CrI: -2.15, -0.63] mmol/L). A body weight benefit that favoured iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp was documented (MD: -1.54 [95% CrI: -2.26, -0.84] kg). Hypoglycaemia evaluation was inconclusive due to definitional differences between trials. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily iGlarLixi was associated with superior blood glucose control and body weight benefit compared with IDegAsp in insulin-experienced populations with T2D in non-Asian RCTs.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background: The evidence on the effects of metformin and insulin in type 2 diabetes patients on quality of life, patient satisfaction, and cardiovascular outcomes is unclear. Methods: The 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. Discussions: This statistical analysis plan ensure the highest possible quality of the subsequent post-hoc analyses. Trial registration: of April 2008).

Abstract licence: CC BY

BACKGRUOUND: We aimed to confirm that once-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is superior to basal insulin therapy in participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) exhibiting signs of overbasalization. Additionally, we analyzed incretin profiles in relation to the benefits of IDegAsp, providing insights into the underlying mechanisms. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in participants receiving basal insulin therapy, with a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level lower than predicted from their glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Participants were randomly assigned to either IDegAsp or insulin glargine (IGlar) in a 1:1 ratio. After 20 weeks of treatment, the insulins were switched in a crossover design. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline. Incretin profiles, hypoglycemic events, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) were also analyzed (Trial registration: www.cris.nih.go.kr; KCT0004597). RESULTS: The study included 55 participants (male 40%, mean age 65 years, FPG 103 mg/dL, and HbA1c 8.3%). HbA1c significantly decreased to 7.8%±0.8% with IDegAsp, compared to 8.0%±0.7% with IGlar. The mean estimated treatment difference of changes was -0.21% points (95% confidence interval, -0.39 to -0.02; P=0.031), favoring IDegAsp. Hypoglycemic events were comparable. CGM demonstrated significantly lower glucose measures during the daytime with IDegAsp compared to IGlar, and vice versa at dawn. The HbA1c benefit of IDegAsp over IGlar was associated with a low glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) ratio at 30 minutes relative to baseline (r=0.301, P=0.040), while not with glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. CONCLUSION: The greater reduction in HbA1c achieved with IDegAsp compared to IGlar in individuals with T2DM was associated with an impaired GLP-1 response, facilitating personalized insulin therapy.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

Diabetes mellitus is characterised by an elevated blood glucose concentration. Over the last two decades, a plethora of new agents have emerged to help treat the condition, of which several classes of agent have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In addition, there have been several developments in the pharmacology of insulin, improving the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin analogues to better mimic physiological insulin concentrations in the liver, skeletal muscle, and other tissues. Furthermore, the technologies used to deliver insulin and measure glucose have improved; for example, in the UK, hybrid closed loop systems are now the standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. This review focuses on insulin and insulin delivery. We consider the history of insulin development and the pharmacology of newer insulin analogues. We also describe the novel technologies available and the considerations that need to be made by anaesthetists, surgeons, and other members of the perioperative team when looking after someone with diabetes mellitus on these insulins, or using these devices, to ensure safe care and the avoidance of complications.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a prevalent condition that requires careful management in the perioperative setting to reduce surgical risks and optimize patient outcomes. The preoperative care of diabetic patients is complex because glucose control must be balanced with minimizing hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic events during surgery. A variety of diabetic medications such as insulin, dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, and biguanides such as metformin present unique challenges and considerations due to their different mechanisms, benefits, and potential adverse effects. In recent years, professional organizations have developed recommendations on the perioperative management of these therapies, although there remain some variations in guidelines related to medication cessation and dosage adjustments. Standardized protocols in preoperative DM care remain a topic of interest to ensure consistent and safe practices across healthcare settings, and further collaborative research efforts could provide clarity and consensus in managing this diverse patient population. Objective: The objective of this study was to provide an overview of guidelines and practices to support healthcare professionals in delivering improved preoperative care for diabetic patients. This initiative aims to enhance surgical outcomes and minimize the occurrence of complications. Methods: This is a comparative review that provides a systematic comparison of the similarities and differences in the guidelines and recommendations of three professional organizations along with Hamad Medical Corporation. All guidelines were from official websites including Hamad Medical Corporation. Conclusion: Although the reviewed guidelines for the preoperative care of diabetes patients share some similarities, there are also a number of differences due to outdated data and expert opinions, and therefore differ in practices around the world. While the key elements are agreed upon, more research and global collaboration are needed to create consistent guidelines and improve patient outcomes.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Since clinical experience with biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was reviewed in 2012 after 10 years of use worldwide, additional studies have been published that highlight new aspects, including use in real-world populations. Evidence from 35 new studies confirms and builds upon previous work indicating that BIAsp 30 continues to have pharmacodynamic and clinical advantages over biphasic human insulin (BHI 30), including in real-world practice with unselected populations of patients. BIAsp 30 has also been shown to be safe and efficacious as an add-on to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Intensification with BIAsp 30 is a safe and effective way to improve glycemic control, and titration performed by patients can achieve results that are at least comparable to those when being guided by healthcare providers. Stepwise intensification using BIAsp 30 is comparable to intensification using a basal-bolus regimen, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 provides similar glycemic control to a basal-plus regimen. Data from large observational studies, in particular, have identified patient-related characteristics that are associated with improved clinical responses, suggesting that earlier initiation and intensification of therapy is warranted. Finally, new health-economic analyses continue to confirm that BIAsp 30 is cost effective versus other therapies such as BHI 30, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), or insulin glargine in both insulin-naïve and insulin-experienced patients. After 15 years of clinical use worldwide, analysis of more recent 5-year data indicates that BIAsp 30 remains a safe, effective, and simple-to-use insulin for initiation and intensification by diabetes specialists and primary care physicians in a variety of patients with T2DM.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) represents an escalating burden worldwide, particularly in China and India. Compared with Caucasians, Asian people with diabetes have lower body mass index, increased visceral adiposity, and postprandial glucose (PPG)/insulin resistance. Since postprandial hyperglycemia contributes significantly to total glycemic burden and is associated with heightened cardiovascular risk, targeting PPG early in T2D is paramount. Premixed insulin regimens are widely used in Asia due to their convenience and effectiveness. Data from randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with biphasic insulin lispro mix (LM 25/50) and versus other insulin therapies or oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in T2D demonstrated that BIAsp 30 and LM 25/50 were associated with similar or greater improvements in glycemic control versus comparator regimens, such as basal-bolus insulin, in insulin-naÏve, and prior insulin users. Studies directly comparing BIAsp 30 and LM 25 provided conflicting glycemic control results. Safety data generally showed increased hypoglycemia and weight gain with premixed insulins versus basal-bolus insulin or OADs. However, large observational trials documented improvements in glycated hemoglobin, PPG, and hypoglycemia with BIAsp 30 in multi-ethnic patient populations. In summary, this literature review demonstrates that premixed insulin regimens are an appropriate and effective treatment choice in T2D.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-SA