Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Clin Ther. 2004 Apr;26(4):531-40.

Randomized, multinational, open-label, 2-period, crossover comparison of biphasic insulin aspart 30 and biphasic insulin lispro 25 and pen devices in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Author information

1
Department of Medicine, Kuopio University Hospital, Building No. 5, PO Box 1777, 70211 Kuopio, Finland. leo.niskanen@kuh.fi

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (30% soluble insulin aspart and 70% protaminated insulin aspart [BIAsp 30]) and biphasic insulin lispro 25 (25% soluble insulin lispro and 75% neutral protamine lispro [Mix25]) used in a BID injection regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Also assessed was patients' preference for pen device--the NovoMix 30 FlexPen /NovoLog Mix 70/30 FlexPen (FlexPen) versus the Humalog Mix25 Pen/Humalog Mix75/25 Pen (Humalog Pen).

METHODS:

Patients with type 2 DM receiving current insulin treatment were randomized to a multinational, multicenter, open-label, 2-period, crossover comparison of BIAsp 30 and Mix25. Efficacy (by analyses of variance) and safety profiles were assessed after 12 weeks of treatment. Patients' preference for pen device was assessed by questionnaires.

RESULTS:

A total of 137 patients were randomized to treatment; 4 were withdrawn during the 2-week run-in treatment with biphasic human insulin 30. The mean (SD) characteristics of the remaining 133 patients (79 men, 54 women) were as follows: age, 62.3 (9.2) years; body mass index, 28.1 (3.9) kg/m(2); and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), 8.5% (1.1). Glycemic control was assessed by the measurement of HbA(1c) after 12 weeks of treatment. Treatment with BIAsp 30 was noninferior to treatment with Mix25 (upper limit of 90% CI for estimated difference [BIAsp 30 - Mix25] was <0.4%). Self-monitored blood glucose levels were comparable (P = NS). Adverse-event profiles were similar between treatments, as was the incidence of hypoglycemic episodes (0.69 episode/mo with BIAsp 30 and 0.62 episode/mo with Mix25, P = 0.292). For all device features assessed, the FlexPen consistently received higher scores (all P < 0.005). A total of 9.0% of patients experienced problems with the FlexPen, compared with 32.4% with the Humalog Pen (P < 0.001). Furthermore, 74.6% preferred to continue using the FlexPen, whereas 14.3% preferred the Humalog Pen (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

In this study, glycemic control with BIAsp 30 and Mix25 was found to be comparable in these patients with type 2 DM. Safety profiles were similar for both regimens. Patients preferred and experienced fewer problems with the FlexPen than the Humalog Pen.

PMID:
15189750
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center