AimsTo examine patient and physician beliefs regarding insulin therapy and the degree to which patients adhere to their insulin regimens.MethodsInternet survey of 1250 physicians (600 specialists, 650 primary care physicians) who treat patients with diabetes and telephone survey of 1530 insulin-treated patients (180 with Type 1 diabetes, 1350 with Type 2 diabetes) in China, France, Japan, Germany, Spain, Turkey, the UK or the USA.ResultsOne third (33.2%) of patients reported insulin omission/non-adherence at least 1 day in the last month, with an average of 3.3 days. Three quarters (72.5%) of physicians report that their typical patient does not take their insulin as prescribed, with a mean of 4.3 days per month of basal insulin omission/non-adherence and 5.7 days per month of prandial insulin omission/non-adherence. Patients and providers indicated the same five most common reasons for insulin omission/non-adherence: too busy; travelling; skipped meals; stress/emotional problems; public embarrassment. Physicians reported low patient success at initiating insulin in a timely fashion and adjusting insulin doses. Most physicians report that many insulin-treated patients do not have adequate glucose control (87.6%) and that they would treat more aggressively if not for concern about hypoglycaemia (75.5%). Although a majority of patients (and physicians) regard insulin treatment as restrictive, more patients see insulin treatment as having positive than negative impacts on their lives.ConclusionsGlucose control is inadequate among insulin-treated patients, in part attributable to insulin omission/non-adherence and lack of dose adjustment. There is a need for insulin regimens that are less restrictive and burdensome with lower risk of hypoglycaemia.

OBJECTIVEThe requirement to inject current basal insulin analogs at a fixed time each day may complicate adherence and compromise glycemic control. This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of varying the daily injection time of insulin degludec (IDeg), an ultra-long-acting basal insulin.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThis 26-week, open-label, treat-to-target trial enrolled adults (≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes who were either insulin naïve and receiving oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) (HbA1c = 7–11%) or previously on basal insulin ± OAD(s) (HbA1c = 7–10%). Participants were randomized to 1) once-daily (OD) IDeg in a prespecified dosing schedule, creating 8–40-h intervals between injections (IDeg OD Flex; n = 229); 2) once-daily IDeg at the main evening meal (IDeg OD; n = 228); or 3) once-daily insulin glargine at the same time each day (IGlar OD; n = 230). The primary outcome was noninferiority of IDeg OD Flex to IGlar OD in HbA1c reduction after 26 weeks.RESULTSAfter 26 weeks, IDeg OD Flex, IDeg OD, and IGlar OD improved HbA1c by 1.28, 1.07, and 1.26% points, respectively (estimated treatment difference [IDeg OD Flex − IGlar OD]: 0.04% points [–0.12 to 0.20], confirming noninferiority). No statistically significant differences in overall or nocturnal hypoglycemia were found between IDeg OD Flex and IGlar OD. Comparable glycemic control and rates of hypoglycemia were seen with IDeg OD Flex and IDeg OD. Adverse event profiles were similar across groups.CONCLUSIONSThe use of extreme dosing intervals of 8–40 h demonstrates that the daily injection time of IDeg can be varied without compromising glycemic control or safety.

OBJECTIVEInsulin degludec (IDeg) is a basal insulin that forms soluble multihexamers after subcutaneous injection, resulting in an ultra-long action profile. We assessed the efficacy and safety of IDeg formulations administered once daily in combination with mealtime insulin aspart in people with type 1 diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSIn this 16-week, randomized, open-label trial, participants (mean: 45.8 years old, A1C 8.4%, fasting plasma glucose [FPG] 9.9 mmol/L, BMI 26.9 kg/m2) received subcutaneous injections of IDeg(A) (600 μmol/L; n = 59), IDeg(B) (900 μmol/L; n = 60), or insulin glargine (IGlar; n = 59), all given once daily in the evening. Insulin aspart was administered at mealtimes.RESULTSAt 16 weeks, mean A1C was comparable for IDeg(A) (7.8 ± 0.8%), IDeg(B) (8.0 ± 1.0%), and IGlar (7.6 ± 0.8%), as was FPG (8.3 ± 4.0, 8.3 ± 2.8, and 8.9 ± 3.5 mmol/L, respectively). Estimated mean rates of confirmed hypoglycemia were 28% lower for IDeg(A) compared with IGlar (rate ratio [RR]: 0.72 [95% CI 0.52–1.00]) and 10% lower for IDeg(B) compared with IGlar (RR: 0.90 [0.65–1.24]); rates of nocturnal hypoglycemia were 58% lower for IDeg(A) (RR: 0.42 [0.25–0.69]) and 29% lower for IDeg(B) (RR: 0.71 [0.44–1.16]). Mean total daily insulin dose was similar to baseline. The frequency and pattern of adverse events was similar between insulin treatments.CONCLUSIONSIn this clinical exploratory phase 2 trial in people with type 1 diabetes, IDeg is safe and well tolerated and provides comparable glycemic control to IGlar at similar doses, with reduced rates of hypoglycemia.

The Predictable Results and Experience in Diabetes through Intensification and Control to Target: An International Variability Evaluation 303 (PREDICTIVE 303) Study (n = 5604) evaluated the effectiveness of insulin detemir, a long-acting basal insulin analogue, using a simplified patient self-adjusted dosing algorithm (303 Algorithm group) compared with standard-of-care physician-driven adjustments (Standard-of-care group) in a predominantly primary care setting, over a period of 6 months. Insulin detemir was to be started once-daily as add-on therapy to any other glucose-lowering regimens or as a replacement of prestudy basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Investigator sites rather than individual patients were randomized to either the 303 Algorithm group or the Standard-of-care group. Patients from the 303 Algorithm group sites were instructed to adjust their insulin detemir dose every 3 days based on the mean of three 'adjusted' fasting plasma glucose (aFPG) values (capillary blood glucose calibrated to equivalent plasma glucose values) using a simple algorithm: mean aFPG < 80 mg/dl (<4.4 mmol/l), reduce dose by 3 U; aFPG between 80 and 110 mg/dl (4.4-6.1 mmol/l), no change; and aFPG > 110 mg/dl (>1.1 mmol/l), increase dose by 3 U. The insulin detemir dose for patients in the Standard-of-care group was adjusted by the investigator according to the standard of care. Mean A1C decreased from 8.5% at baseline to 7.9% at 26 weeks for the 303 Algorithm group and from 8.5 to 8.0% for the Standard-of-care group (p = 0.0106 for difference in A1C reduction between the two groups). Mean FPG values decreased from 175 mg/dl (9.7 mmol/l) at baseline to 141 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/l) for the 303 Algorithm group and decreased from 174 mg/dl (9.7 mmol/l) to 152 mg/dl (8.4 mmol/l) for the Standard-of-care group (p < 0.0001 for difference in FPG reduction between the two groups). Mean body weight remained the same at 26 weeks in both groups (change from baseline 0.1 and -0.2 kg for the 303 Algorithm group and the Standard-of-care group respectively). At 26 weeks, 91% of the patients in the 303 Algorithm group and 85% of the patients in the Standard-of-care group remained on once-daily insulin detemir administration. The rates of overall hypoglycaemia (events/patient/year) decreased significantly from baseline in both groups [from 9.05 to 6.44 for the 303 Algorithm group (p = 0.0039) and from 9.53 to 4.95 for the Standard-of-care group (p < 0.0001)]. Major hypoglycaemic events were rare in both groups (0.26 events/patient/year for the 303 Algorithm group and 0.20 events/patient/year for the Standard-of-care group; p = 0.2395). In conclusion, patients in the 303 Algorithm group achieved comparable glycaemic control with higher rate of hypoglycaemia as compared with patients in the Standard-of-care group, possibly because of more aggressive insulin dose adjustments. The vast majority of the patients in both groups were effectively treated with once-daily insulin detemir therapy. The use of insulin detemir in this predominantly p...

AimsTo evaluate short‐ and long‐term glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia incidence in insulin‐naïve patients ≥30 years of age with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) initiating basal insulin (BI) with or without oral anti‐hyperglycaemic drugs (OADs).MethodsThis was an observational, retrospective longitudinal analysis of electronic medical records from 5 European countries and the USA. A multivariable logistic regression model assessed baseline and short‐term (0‐3 months post BI initiation) factors associated with long‐term (3‐24 months) glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia.ResultsOverall, 40 627 patients were included; 20.9% and 27.8% achieved the general HbA1c target of ≤7% at 3 and 24 months post BI initiation, respectively. Failure to achieve HbA1c ≤7% at 3 months was associated with increased risk of failing to achieve target at 24 months (odds ratio [OR], 3.70 [95% CI, 3.41‐4.00]). Over 24 months, 8.9% of patients experienced a recorded hypoglycaemic event. Hypoglycaemia during the initial 3‐month period was associated with longer‐term risk of these events over the ensuing 3 to 24 months (OR, 5.71 [95% CI, 4.67‐6.99]).ConclusionsInitiating BI with or without OADs is associated with short‐ and long‐term suboptimal glycaemic control; the majority of patients fail to achieve HbA1c target ≤7% in the first 3 months, or after 2 years of BI treatment. Treatment response and hypoglycaemia incidence by 3 months post BI initiation are associated with longer‐term glycaemic control and hypoglycaemic risk, respectively. These results support the need for early anti‐hyperglycaemic interventions that more effectively control blood glucose levels without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia.

The results of this large-scale study suggest that insulin omission/non-adherence is common and associated with several modifiable risk factors (including practical barriers, injection difficulties, lifestyle burden and regimen inflexibility). Additional efforts to address these risk factors might reduce the frequency of insulin omission/non-adherence and lead to improved clinical outcomes.

Introduction The LIGHTNING study applied conventional and advanced analytic approaches to model, predict, and compare hypoglycemia rates of people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) with those on first-generation (insulin glargine 100 U/ml [Gla-100]; insulin detemir [IDet]) or second-generation (insulin degludec [IDeg]) basal-insulin (BI) analogs, utilizing a large real-world database. Methods Data were collected between 1 January 2007 and 31 March 2017 from the Optum Humedica US electronic health records [EHR] database. Patient-treatments, the period during which a patient used a specific BI, were analyzed for patients who switched from a prior BI or those who newly initiated BI therapy. Data were analyzed using two approaches: propensity score matching (PSM) and a predictive modeling approach using machine learning. Results A total of 831,456 patients with T2DM receiving BI were included from the EHR data set. Following selection, 198,198 patient-treatments were available for predictive modeling. The analysis showed that rates of severe hypoglycemia (using a modified definition) were approximately 50% lower with Gla-300 than with Gla-100 or IDet in insulin-naïve individuals, and 30% lower versus IDet in BI switchers (all p < 0.05). Similar rates of severe hypoglycemia were predicted for Gla-300 and IDeg, regardless of prior insulin experience. Similar results to those observed in the overall cohorts were seen in analyses across subgroups at a particularly high risk of hypoglycemia. PSM (performed on 157,573 patient-treatments) revealed comparable reductions in HbA 1c with Gla-300 versus first- and second-generation BI analogs, alongside lower rates of severe hypoglycemia with Gla-300 versus first-generation BI analogs ( p < 0.05) and similar rates versus IDeg in insulin-naïve and BI-switcher cohorts. Conclusions Based on real-world data, predicted rates of severe hypoglycemia with Gla-300 tended to be lower versus first-generation BI analogs and similar versus IDeg in a wide spectrum of patients with T2DM. Funding Sanofi, Paris, France. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-019-0568-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to identify patient beliefs as well as clinical realities about insulin that may be barriers to type 2 diabetes patients initiating insulin treatment when recommended by their physician. This information was then used to develop a clinically relevant, cross-culturally valid patient education tool with the goal of providing unbiased, medically informative statements addressing these barriers.MethodsThirteen focus groups were conducted in five countries (Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands, UK, and USA) to collect qualitative data on attitudes about insulin therapy from type 2 diabetes patients aged 18 or older whose physician had recommended initiating insulin treatment in the past 6 months (n = 87). Additionally, a panel of four clinical experts was interviewed to ascertain obstacles they experience in initiating insulin with their patients.ResultsOn the basis of the interview data, the ten questions that asked about the most important barriers were generated. The clinical expert panel then generated clinically accurate and unbiased responses addressing these concerns, and the educational tool “Questions about Starting Insulin: Information on the Myths, Misconceptions and Clinical Realities about Insulin” was drafted. The draft tool was pilot tested in a group of patients and finalized.ConclusionsPatient misconceptions, as well as some clinical realities, about insulin treatment and diabetes can influence the decision to initiate insulin treatment and ultimately impact disease management. The educational tool developed through this study was designed to help patients who are deciding whether or not to initiate insulin therapy as recommended by their physician, and facilitate patient–health-care provider interactions.