Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

26 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Comparison of Premixed Human Insulin 30/70 to Biphasic Aspart 30 in Well-Controlled Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To compare in terms of glycemic variability two premixed insulins, Premixed Human Insulin 30/70 (PHI) and Biphasic Aspart 30 (BiAsp30), using Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) and to estimate the correlation of Glycated Albumin (GA) and Fructosamine (FA) with CGM data. Patients-Data: A total of 36 well-controlled patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) underwent 7-day CGM with PHI and subsequently with BiAsp30. GA and FA were measured at the first and last day of each week of CGM.

Results

BiAsp30 was associated with lower Average Blood Glucose (ABG) during the 23:00-03:00 period (PHI: 135.08 ± 28.94 mg/dL, BiAsp30: 117.75 ± 21.24 mg/dL, p < 0.001) and the 00:00-06:00 period (PHI: 120.42 ± 23.13 mg/dL, BiAsp30: 111.17 ± 14.74 mg/dL, p = 0.008), as well as with more time below range (<70 mg/dL) (TBR) during the 23:00-03:00 period in the week (PHI: 3.65 ± 5.93%, BiAsp30: 11.12 ± 16.07%, p = 0.005). PHI was associated with lower ABG before breakfast (PHI: 111.75 ± 23.9 mg/dL, BiAsp30: 128.25 ± 35.9 mg/dL, p = 0.013). There were no differences between the two groups in ABG, Time In Range and Time Below Range during the entire 24-h period for 7 days, p = 0.502, p = 0.534, and p = 0.258 respectively, and in TBR for the 00:00-06:00 period p = 0.253. Total daily insulin requirements were higher for BiAsp30 (PHI: 47.92 ± 12.18 IU, BiAsp30: 49.58 ± 14.12 IU, p = 0.001). GA and FA correlated significantly with ABG (GA: r = 0.512, p = 0.011, FA: r = 0.555, p = 0.005).

Conclusions

In well-controlled patients with T2DM, BiAsp30 is an equally effective alternative to PHI.

SUBMITTER: Margaritidis C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8125752 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Biphasic insulin aspart 30/70: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics compared with once-daily biphasic human insulin and Basal-bolus therapy.

Project description:OBJECTIVE Pharmacological profiles of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) once daily (OD), twice daily (b.i.d.), and three times daily (t.i.d.) were compared with other insulin regimens in two crossover glucose clamp studies of insulin-treated type 2 diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGNS AND METHODS Study 1 consisted of BIAsp 30 OD, b.i.d., and t.i.d. versus biphasic human insulin 30/70 (BHI 30), OD (n = 24). Study 2 examined BIAsp 30 t.i.d. versus basal-bolus therapy (insulin glargine OD plus insulin glulisine t.i.d.) (n = 24). Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) were investigated over 24 h. RESULTS Study 1: PK and PD were markedly different between BIAsp 30 OD and BHI 30 OD: the maximum insulin concentration and glucose infusion rate (GIR) were higher for BIAsp 30; time to maximum metabolism was 1.7 h sooner for BIAsp 30. Study 2: both regimens showed three distinct prandial-related GIR peaks. GIR 24-h area under the curve for BIAsp t.i.d. was higher than for basal-bolus therapy: 2,585.2 vs. 2,289.2 mg/kg. CONCLUSIONS BIAsp had pharmacological advantages over BHI. BIAsp t.i.d. had a similar PD profile to basal-bolus therapy.

| S-EPMC2713630 | biostudies-literature

Project description:IntroductionThis study compared the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilar insulin aspart premix SAR341402 Mix 70/30 (SARAsp-Mix) with European-approved insulin aspart mix 70/30 - NovoMix® 30 (NN-Mix) in people with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D).MethodsThis 26-week, open-label, phase 3 trial enrolled 402 people with T1D (n = 105) or T2D (n = 297) previously treated with premix insulin, who were randomized (1:1) to SARAsp-Mix (n = 204) or NN-Mix (n = 198).ResultsAfter 26 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean [median] change in HbA1c from baseline was similar in both treatment groups (SARAsp-Mix - 0.55% [- 0.60%]; NN-Mix - 0.64% [- 0.60%]). The LS mean difference for SARAsp-Mix versus NN-Mix was 0.08%, with the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (- 0.139 to 0.303) slightly above the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%. Noninferiority of SARAsp-Mix over NN-Mix was not demonstrated in the primary intent-to-treat analysis, primarily because of one extreme outlying value impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic in the SARAsp-Mix group. Noninferiority was achieved in all secondary analyses, including prespecified per-protocol supportive and COVID-19 sensitivity analyses, as well as post hoc sensitivity analyses. Other efficacy endpoints, insulin dosages, anti-insulin aspart antibody response, hypoglycemia, and adverse events were similar between groups.ConclusionsThe totality of evidence indicates that SARAsp-Mix provides effective glycemic control with a similar safety and immunogenicity profile to NN-Mix in people with diabetes treated for 26 weeks.Trial registrationEudraCT number 2017-000092-84.

| S-EPMC9008602 | biostudies-literature

Pharmacokinetic Similarity between Biosimilar Insulin Aspart Premix SAR341402 Mix 70/30 and Originator Insulin Aspart Mix 70/30 (NovoMix 30) in Indian Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: GEMELLI M Substudy.

Project description:BackgroundWe compared the pharmacokinetic exposure, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of biosimilar insulin aspart premix SAR341402 Mix 70/30 (SARAsp-Mix) with its originator NovoMix® 30 insulin aspart mix (NN-Mix) in adults with type 2 diabetes.MethodsThis was a randomized, open-label, parallel-group, substudy of the phase 3 GEMELLI M trial performed in three Indian centres. Totally 13 Indian participants previously treated with premix insulin received a single subcutaneous 0.3 U/kg dose of each treatment and underwent pharmacokinetic sampling for 16 h after dosing. Participants were then treated for 26 weeks as per the main GEMELLI M trial with efficacy, safety and immunogenicity compared between groups.ResultsThe extent of exposure (area under the plasma concentration-time curve and maximum insulin aspart concentration) to SAR341402 insulin aspart in SARAsp-Mix and to insulin aspart in NN-Mix was similar following single doses of the allocated treatment. After 26 weeks, the mean ± SD [median] change in HbA1c from baseline was similar in both treatment groups (SARAsp-Mix -0.38% ± 1.54 [-1.00%]; NN-Mix -0.18% ± 1.97 [-0.80%]). Other efficacy endpoints, insulin dosages, anti-insulin aspart antibody response, hypoglycemia and adverse events were similar between groups.ConclusionsOur results support the findings from previous studies, that SARAsp-Mix has a similar pharmacokinetic profile to NN-Mix and provides effective glycemic control with similar safety and immunogenicity profile in Indian adults with type 2 diabetes.

| S-EPMC9519840 | biostudies-literature

A Randomized Trial of Step-up Treatment with Premixed Insulin Lispro-50/50 vs. Aspart-70/30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Project description:IntroductionWhen insulin treatment is started in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), there are many regimens that control serum glucose levels to a normal range. Basal-bolus insulin therapy is one of the most effective treatments for improving glycemic control to prevent the progression of diabetic microvascular complications. This study was conducted to determine whether step-up insulin treatment with premixed insulin aspart-30/70 (BIAsp 30) or lispro-50/50 (Mix50) in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus could achieve better glycemic control.MethodsIn this open label study, 72 insulin-naïve patients with poorly controlled T2DM (HbA1c ≥8.4%), who had been taking oral antidiabetic drugs for at least 12 months, were randomized to receive BIAsp 30 or Mix50 therapy. Patients started treatment of a pre-dinner injection of each type of insulin (Step 1). At 16 ± 2 weeks, a pre-breakfast injection of each type of insulin was added if HbA1c exceeded 7.4% (step 2). If patients had still not achieved HbA1c <7.4% after an additional 16 ± 2 weeks, a pre-lunch insulin injection was added (step 3). Hypoglycemic episodes were also recorded.ResultsThe cumulative percentages of subjects who achieved HbA1c <7.4% were 36.1% (13/36) for both Mix50 and BIAsp 30 in step 1, 62.9% (23/36) for BIAsp 30 and 52.8% (19/36) for Mix50 in step 2, and 66.7% (24/36) in BIAsp 30 and 72.2% (26/36) in Mix50 in step 3. The achievement rates of HbA1c <7.4% were not statistically different between the two groups. A total of ten hypoglycemic episodes occurred in this study. However, there were no severe hypoglycemic episodes. All cases recovered by taking glucose and drinking juice.ConclusionMix50 step-up treatment has a clinical effect in achieving good glycemic control equal to that of BIAsp 30 treatment.

| S-EPMC4269650 | biostudies-literature

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs biphasic insulin aspart 30 twice daily in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized controlled trial.

Project description:AIMS/INTRODUCTION:Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble combination of insulin degludec (70%) and insulin aspart (30%). The present exploratory trial investigated the safety of switching unit-to-unit from twice-daily basal or pre-mix insulin to twice-daily IDegAsp in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS:In this 6-week, open-label, parallel-group, controlled trial, 66 participants were randomized (1:1) to receive either IDegAsp or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) twice daily at the same total daily dose as pre-trial insulin. During the trial, insulin doses were adjusted according to a pre-specified algorithm to achieve pre-breakfast and pre-dinner plasma glucose of 4.4-7.2 mmol/L. RESULTS:No severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of confirmed hypoglycemia (rate ratio IDegAsp/BIAsp 30: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.31-1.30) and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia (rate ratio: 0.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.10-2.38) for IDegAsp vs BIAsp 30. The hypoglycemia rate for IDegAsp was constant over the 6 weeks of treatment. IDegAsp and BIAsp 30 were both safe and well tolerated. Reduction in fasting plasma glucose was statistically significantly greater for IDegAsp than for BIAsp 30 (estimated treatment difference, IDegAsp-BIAsp 30: -1.6 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval: -2.4 to -0.8). The apparent decrease in mean postprandial plasma glucose increment (IDegAsp: 4.2-3.8 mmol/L; BIAsp 30: 4.5-2.8 mmol/L) was not statistically significantly different between treatments (estimated treatment difference: 1.0 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval: -0.1 to 2.2). CONCLUSIONS:Switching unit-to-unit from basal or pre-mix insulin to IDegAsp seems not to be associated with any concerns related to hypoglycemia or general safety in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

| S-EPMC5334300 | biostudies-literature

Twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart provides superior fasting plasma glucose control and a reduced rate of hypoglycaemia compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 in insulin-naive adults with Type 2 diabetes.

Project description:AimTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs. twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus who were naïve to insulin.MethodsIn this 26-week, multinational, open-label, controlled, two-arm, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, participants [mean (± sd) age 58.9 (±8.9) years, duration of diabetes 9.5 (±5.9) years, HbA1c 68 (±8.7) mmol/mol or 8.4 (±0.8)% and BMI 31.2 (±4.2) kg/m(2) ) were randomized (1:1) to insulin degludec/insulin aspart (n = 197) or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (n = 197), administered with breakfast and the main evening meal, titrated to a self-monitored plasma glucose target > 3.9 and ≤ 5.0 mmol/l.ResultsThe mean HbA1c was reduced to 49 mmol/mol (6.6%) with insulin degludec/insulin aspart and 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) with biphasic insulin aspart 30. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart achieved the prespecified non-inferiority margin (estimated treatment difference 0.02%; 95% CI -0.12, 0.17). Insulin degludec/insulin aspart was superior in lowering fasting plasma glucose (estimated treatment difference -1.00 mmol/l; 95% CI -1.4, -0.6; P < 0.001) and reducing overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia at a similar overall insulin dose compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30. Similar proportions of participants in each arm experienced severe hypoglycaemia. Adverse events were equally distributed.ConclusionsConsistent with previous findings, insulin degludec/insulin aspart twice daily effectively improved long-term glycaemic control, with superior reductions in FPG, and significantly less overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with Type 2 diabetes who were insulin-naïve.

| S-EPMC5063147 | biostudies-literature

Intensification to biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30, NovoMix 30) can improve glycaemic control in patients treated with basal insulins: a subgroup analysis of the IMPROVE observational study.

Project description:AIMS:The international IMPROVE observational study investigated the safety profile and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in the routine treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. We present analyses for the subgroup of patients who switched from basal insulin to BIAsp 30. METHODS:Patients in routine care who started insulin therapy with or switched to BIAsp 30 from existing insulin regimens were eligible for this 26-week study. This analysis includes only patients previously treated with basal insulin. Outcomes including adverse events, hypoglycaemic events and glycaemic profile were recorded from patients' notes, recall and diaries. RESULTS:Of the 748 patients included (age 59.7+/-11.8 years, diabetes duration 11.4+/-7.3 years, baseline HbA1c 9.1+/-1.6%), 497 were previously using human neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin and 245 analogue basal insulin. Overall, major and minor hypoglycaemia rates decreased from baseline to final visit (major: 0.171 to 0.011; minor: 9.70 to 5.89 events/patient-year) and were similar between the subgroups. HbA1c and fasting blood glucose were significantly reduced from baseline (NPH prestudy: -1.6%, -2.4 mmol/l; analogue basal prestudy: -1.8%, -2.4 mmol/l), as was postprandial blood glucose, with 33.8% of patients achieving the HbA1c target < 7% without hypoglycaemia. Insulin dose increased slightly from prestudy (0.33+/-0.21 U/kg), baseline (0.40+/-0.20 U/kg) to final visit (0.52+/-0.26 U/kg); most patients (76%) followed a twice-daily regimen at final visit. Body weight did not change significantly and treatment satisfaction increased. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulins may improve their glycaemic control by intensification to BIAsp 30 therapy.

| S-EPMC2734926 | biostudies-literature

Comparison of a soluble co-formulation of insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes: a randomised trial.

Project description:ObjectiveInsulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble co-formulation of insulin degludec (70%) and insulin aspart (IAsp: 30%). Here, we compare the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp, an alternative IDegAsp formulation (AF: containing 45% IAsp), and biphasic IAsp 30 (BIAsp 30).DesignSixteen-week, open-label, randomised, treat-to-target trial.MethodsInsulin-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes (18-75 years) and a HbA1c of 7-11% were randomised to twice-daily IDegAsp (n=61), AF (n=59) or BIAsp 30 (n=62), all in combination with metformin. Insulin was administered pre-breakfast and dinner (main evening meal) and titrated to pre-breakfast and pre-dinner plasma glucose (PG) targets of 4.0-6.0 mmol/l.ResultsMean HbA1c after 16 weeks was comparable for IDegAsp, AF and BIAsp 30 (6.7, 6.6 and 6.7% respectively). With IDegAsp, 67% of subjects achieved HbA1c 7.0% Without confirmed hypoglycaemia in the last 4 weeks of treatment compared with 53% (AF) and 40% (BIAsp 30). Mean fasting PG was significantly lower for IDegAsp vs BIAsp 30 (treatment difference (TD): -0.99 mmol/l (95% confidence interval: -1.68; 0.29)) and AF vs BIAsp 30 (TD: -0.88 mmol/l (-1.58; -0.18)). A significant, 58% lower rate of confirmed hypoglycaemia was found for IDegAsp vs BIAsp 30 (rate ratio (RR): 0.42 (0.23; 0.75)); rates were similar for AF vs BIAsp 30 (RR: 0.92 (0.54; 1.57)). IDegAsp and AF had numerically lower rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia vs BIAsp 30 (RR: 0.33 (0.09; 1.14) and 0.66 (0.22; 1.93) respectively).ConclusionsIDegAsp provided comparable overall glycaemic control to BIAsp 30 with a significantly lower rate of hypoglycaemia.

| S-EPMC3400040 | biostudies-literature

28-week, randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group phase III trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 70 thrice-daily injections vs twice-daily injections of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Project description:Aims/Introduction:? An insulin analogue formulation with a 7:3 ratio of rapid-acting and intermediate-acting fractions, biphasic insulin aspart 70 (BIAsp70) was developed to supplement basal insulin between meals and mimic the physiological pattern of postprandial insulin secretion.? We carried out a randomized, open-label study to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of BIAsp70 and an insulin analogue formulation with a 3:7 ratio of rapid-acting and intermediate-acting fractions (BIAsp30) in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Patients were randomized and received either thrice-daily BIAsp70 (n?=?145) or twice-daily BIAsp30 (n?=?144) for 28?weeks. The primary end-point was glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) after 16?weeks of treatment.? Non-inferiority of BIAsp70 vs BIAsp30 was confirmed and superiority was established with a between-group difference (BIAsp70-BIAsp30) in HbA1c after 16?weeks of treatment of -0.35% (95% CI: -0.51 to -0.19; P?<?0.0001 for superiority). The mean postprandial glucose increment (19.96 vs 54.35?mg/dL; P?<?0.0001) and M-value (12.99 vs 17.94; P?<?0.0001) at 16?weeks were smaller in the BIAsp70 group than in the BIAsp30 group, and were maintained at 28?weeks. Pre-breakfast glucose (157.9 vs 140.7?mg/dL), total insulin dose (46.8 vs 38.1?U/day) and weight gain (+1.94 vs 1.23?kg) at week 28 were greater in the BIAsp70 group. Incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly lower with BIAsp70 vs BIAsp30 (1.23 vs 3.21?events/subject year; P?=?0.0002) at week 28.? Thrice-daily BIAsp70 was superior to twice-daily BIAsp30 in terms of HbA1c change, with less variation in daytime plasma glucose profiles. BIAsp70 was well tolerated, with a lower incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia vs BIAsp30. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (no. NCT00318786). (J Diabetes Invest, doi: 10.1111/j.2040-1124.2010.00015.x, 2010).

| S-EPMC4008024 | biostudies-literature

Exenatide twice daily versus premixed insulin aspart 70/30 in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized 26-week study on glycemic control and hypoglycemia.

Project description:ObjectiveHypoglycemia causes recurrent morbidity in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study evaluated if exenatide twice daily (BID) was noninferior to premixed insulin aspart 70/30 BID (PIA) for glycemic control and associated with less hypoglycemia.Research design and methodsIn this open-label study, metformin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes were randomized to 26-week treatment with exenatide BID (4 weeks 5 μg, then 10 μg) or PIA.ResultsExenatide BID (n = 181) was noninferior to PIA (n = 173) for A1C control (least squares [LS] mean change -1.0 vs. -1.14%; difference [95% CI] 0.14 [-0.003 to 0.291]) and associated with a lower risk for hypoglycemia (8.0 vs. 20.5%, P < 0.05). LS mean weight decreased by 4.1 kg and increased by 1.0 kg with PIA (P < 0.001). A total of 39.2 vs. 20.8% of patients reached the composite end point of A1C <7.0%, no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia (P < 0.001; post hoc analysis).ConclusionsIn metformin-treated patients, exenatide BID was noninferior to PIA for glycemic control but superior for hypoglycemia and weight control.

| S-EPMC3041190 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data