Dataset Information

Comparison of Basal-Bolus and Premixed Insulin Regimens in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Premixed insulin is a commonly prescribed formulation for the outpatient management of patients with type 2 diabetes. The safety and efficacy of premixed insulin formulations in the hospital setting is not known.

Research design and methods

In a prospective, open-label trial, we randomized general medicine and surgery patients to receive a basal-bolus regimen with glargine once daily and glulisine before meals (n = 33) or premixed human insulin (30% regular insulin and 70% NPH insulin) twice daily (n = 39). Major outcomes included differences in daily blood glucose (BG) levels and frequency of hypoglycemic events (<70 mg/dL) between treatment groups.

Results

At the first prespecified interim analysis, the study was stopped early because of an increased frequency of hypoglycemia >50% in patients treated with premixed human insulin. A total of 64% of patients treated with premixed insulin experienced one or more episodes of hypoglycemia compared with 24% in the basal-bolus group (P < 0.001). There were no differences in mean daily BG level after the first day of insulin treatment (175 ± 32 vs. 179 ± 43 mg/dL, P = 0.64) between groups. A BG target between 80 and 180 mg/dL before meals was achieved in 55.9% of BG readings in the basal-bolus group and 54.3% of BG readings in the premixed insulin group (P = 0.23). There was no difference in the length of hospital stay or mortality between treatment groups.

Conclusions

Inpatient treatment with premixed human insulin resulted in similar glycemic control but in significantly higher frequency of hypoglycemia compared with treatment with basal-bolus insulin regimen in hospitalized patients with diabetes.

SUBMITTER: Bellido V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4657612 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIdentification of subgroups of patients that may benefit most from certain treatment is important because individual treatment response varies due to multiple contributing factors. The present study used the subgroup identification based on the differential effect search (SIDES) algorithm to identify subgroups with different treatment responses to insulin intensification therapies.MethodsThis was a post hoc analysis of a 24-week, multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel study comparing prandial premixed therapy (PPT) to basal-bolus therapy (BBT). Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized to PPT (insulin lispro mix 50/50 thrice daily with meals) or BBT (glargine at bedtime plus mealtime insulin lispro) insulin intensification therapies. The SIDES algorithm was used to identify the subgroups from at-goal patients [glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0% (53.0 mmol/mol) at the end of 24 weeks; n = 182] who could have benefitted from insulin intensification therapies.ResultsBaseline characteristics of overall at-goal patients were comparable between PPT and BBT groups. The SIDES algorithm identified patients with race other than Caucasian (i.e., African-American, Asian, and Hispanic) and baseline fasting blood glucose (FBG) <8.89 mmol/L as a subgroup that could respond better to PPT relative to BBT than the overall at-goal patient population. In this identified subgroup population, the HbA1c mean (standard deviation) changes from baseline to endpoint in PPT and BBT groups were -2.27 (0.88)% versus -2.05 (0.75)%; p = 0.40, respectively; while in the overall at-goal patients, the HbA1c changes were -2.17 (0.79)% versus -2.34 (1.00)%; p = 0.19, respectively.ConclusionsThe preliminary results showed that the subgroup of patients with race other than Caucasian and FBG <8.89 mmol/L may respond better to premixed intensification therapy. This result provides some preliminary information for further investigation in prospective studies.FundingEli Lilly and Company.Clinical trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov ID number: NCT00110370.

Project description:IntroductionTo date, there have been few head-to-head comparisons between semaglutide once-weekly (OW) and short-acting meal-time insulin in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with basal insulin and requiring treatment intensification. This indirect comparison evaluated the effects of these regimens on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, hypoglycaemia, and other clinically relevant outcomes.MethodsA post-hoc, unanchored, individual participant data meta-analysis was conducted on the basis of data from single treatment arms in the SUSTAIN 5 and DUAL 7 trials. Semaglutide 0.5 mg OW and 1.0 mg OW plus basal insulin were compared with an optimised (treat-to-target) basal-bolus regimen of insulin glargine and insulin aspart over 26 weeks, using regression adjustment to account for baseline differences between the trials.ResultsOver 26 weeks, semaglutide 1.0 mg OW plus basal insulin reduced mean HbA1c by significantly more than the basal-bolus regimen (treatment difference: - 0.36%; p = 0.003), while semaglutide 0.5 mg OW plus basal insulin was comparable with basal-bolus insulin (treatment difference: 0.08%, p = 0.53). Both doses of semaglutide were associated with significant weight loss relative to insulin intensification (treatment differences: 6.8-9.4 kg; p < 0.001). At both doses, semaglutide intensification required less basal insulin per day than bolus intensification, and more participants on semaglutide met HbA1c targets of < 7.0% and ≤ 6.5% without hypoglycaemia or weight gain (odds ratio [OR] for < 7.0%, 21.9; OR for ≤ 6.5%, 16.2; both p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn T2D uncontrolled by basal insulin, intensification with semaglutide 1.0 mg OW was associated with better glycaemic control, weight loss, and reduced hypoglycaemia versus a basal-bolus regimen, while limiting the treatment burden associated with frequent injections. Clinicians could consider treatment intensification with semaglutide when T2D is uncontrolled by basal insulin, especially when weight management is a priority. Effective glycaemic control coupled with weight management can alleviate the burden of diabetes-associated complications.

Project description:IntroductionBasal-bolus (BB) and premixed insulin regimens may lower fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), but are complex to use and associated with weight gain and hypoglycaemia. Although randomized controlled trials and prospective observational studies in insulin-naïve Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) initiating these regimens have been conducted, real-world data are lacking. This study describes the characteristics of patients initiating these regimens in routine clinical practice and identifies the course and outcomes of therapy in the year following initiation.MethodsAdults with T2D initiating BB or premixed regimens following OAD therapies held in a Japanese electronic medical record database were identified (2010-2019). Subcohorts were determined by treatment changes during ≤ 12 months of follow-up (no change, intensified, switched, discontinued). Outcomes included change in glycated haemoglobin levels (HbA1c), probability of first reaching HbA1c < 7% (stratified by baseline OAD number, HbA1c and age), and hypoglycaemia incidence.ResultsThe main cohorts comprised 1315 BB and 1195 premixed therapy initiators. Most individuals (67.9%) initiated BB as inpatients; 50.8% switched at a mean of 47.6 days. Mean HbA1c lowering was - 2.5% for BB and - 1.4% for premixed regimens (no change cohorts). Overall, a greater proportion achieved HbA1c < 7% if they were (at baseline) taking fewer OADs, in a lower HbA1c category, and aged ≥ 65 years. Hypoglycaemia incidence (< 70 mg/dl) was higher with BB than premixed regimens and lower in patients aged < 65 years.ConclusionGreater HbA1c reductions, but a higher incidence of hypoglycaemia, were reported with BB versus premixed regimens, while both cohorts demonstrated clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c during follow-up. After initiation, most premixed regimens remained unchanged, whereas switches from BB to less intensive regimens were numerous, in accordance with the use of BB for a limited duration to improve FPG and PPG control.

Project description:IntroductionThis 32-week, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multinational trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of stepwise insulin intensification of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) relative to stepwise intensification of a basal-bolus regimen in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who continued pretrial treatment with metformin and sulfonylurea.MethodsAdults with T2D were randomized into one of two treatment arms for 32 weeks: (1) BIAsp 30 once daily (OD), with the possibility of stepwise treatment intensification up to BIAsp 30 three times daily (TID); (2) insulin glargine OD, with the possibility of stepwise treatment intensification with insulin aspart up to TID. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks.ResultsAfter 32 weeks, the estimated mean change in HbA1c from baseline was statistically significantly lower in the BIAsp 30 arm (- 1.18%) versus basal-bolus (- 1.36%) [estimated treatment difference 0.18%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.01; 0.36; p < 0.05]. The proportion of patients with HbA1c below 7.0% was statistically significantly lower with BIAsp 30 (42.9%) compared with basal-bolus (56.9%) (odds ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.37; 0.89; p = 0.01). The overall rate of severe or blood glucose (BG)-confirmed hypoglycemic events was numerically lower for BIAsp 30 compared with basal-bolus, and a statistically significantly lower rate in nocturnal severe or BG-confirmed hypoglycemia in the BIAsp 30 arm relative to basal-bolus was observed: estimated rate ratio 0.32 (95% CI 0.13; 0.79), p = 0.0131. The proportion of patients with adverse events was similar in both treatment arms.ConclusionInsulin intensification with BIAsp 30 and basal-bolus showed an improvement in glycemic control; the change in HbA1c was statistically significantly lower for BIAsp 30 compared to basal-bolus. Basal-bolus treatment was accompanied by a numerically, and statistically significantly, higher rate of overall and nocturnal severe or BG-confirmed hypoglycemia, respectively, compared with BIAsp 30.FundingNovo Nordisk A/S.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02453685.

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term cost-utility of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the basal-bolus subgroup of the head-to-head cardiovascular (CV) outcome trial, DEVOTE.MethodsA cost-utility analysis was conducted over a 2-year time horizon using a decision analytic model to compare costs in patients receiving once daily degludec or glargine U100, both as part of a basal-bolus regimen, in addition to standard care. Clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were taken exclusively from DEVOTE, whilst health-related quality of life utilities and UK-specific costs (expressed in 2016 GBP) were obtained from the literature. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service.ResultsDegludec was associated with mean cost savings of GBP 28.78 per patient relative to glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk. Cost savings were driven by the reduction in risk of diabetes-related complications with degludec, which offset the higher treatment costs relative to glargine U100. Degludec was associated with a mean improvement of 0.0064 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with glargine U100, with improvements driven predominantly by lower rates of severe hypoglycemia with degludec versus glargine U100. Improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy combined with cost neutrality resulted in degludec being dominant over glargine U100. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the incremental cost-utility ratio was stable to variations in the majority of model inputs.ConclusionThe present short-term modeling analysis found that for the basal-bolus subgroup of patients in DEVOTE, with a high risk of CV events, degludec was cost neutral (no additional costs) compared with glargine U100 over a 2-year time horizon in the UK setting. Furthermore, there were QALY gains with degludec, particularly due to the reduction in the risk of severe hypoglycemia.FundingNovo Nordisk A/S.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01959529.