BackgroundConflicting results have been reported on the efficacy of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) compared to basal insulin in type 2 diabetes. We investigated the effects of changing basal insulin to IDegAsp on glycemic control and sought to identify factors related to those effects.MethodsIn this retrospective study of patients from three referral hospitals, patients with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels less than 11.0% were enrolled. Basal insulin was replaced with IDegAsp, and data were analyzed from 3 months before to 3 months after the replacement.ResultsEighty patients were recruited (52.5% male; mean age, 67.0±9.8 years; mean duration of diabetes, 18.9±8.5 years; mean HbA1c, 8.7%±1.0%). HbA1c levels increased during 3 months of basal insulin use, but significantly decreased after changing to IDegAsp (8.28%±1.10%, P=0.0001). The reduction was significant at 6 months in 35 patients whose longer-term data were available. Patients with a measured fasting plasma glucose (m-FPG) lower than their predicted FPG (p-FPG) by regression from HbA1c showed a significant HbA1c reduction caused by the change to IDegAsp, even without a significantly increased insulin dose. However, patients whose m-FPG was higher than their p-FPG did not experience a significant HbA1c reduction, despite a significantly increased insulin dose. Furthermore, the HbA1c reduction caused by IDegAsp was significant in patients with low fasting C-peptide levels and high insulin doses.ConclusionWe observed a significant glucose-lowering effect by replacing basal insulin with IDegAsp, especially in patients with a lower m-FPG than p-FPG.

Compared with amlodipine, fimasartan increased late-phase glucose-stimulated insulin secretion in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. This finding suggests that ARBs would be more beneficial in such patients compared with other classes of anti-hypertensives.

Aims/Introduction The benefits of once‐daily insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) compared with basal insulin in type 2 diabetes patients have not been established. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective observational study. From a basal insulin cohort from three referral hospitals, patients were enrolled who initiated once‐daily IDegAsp. A control group maintaining basal insulin was selected by propensity score matching. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) changes over a period of 6 months and associated clinical factors were evaluated. Results The IDegAsp group and the control group comprised of 87 patients, respectively. Baseline HbA1c was comparable between the two groups (8.7 ± 0.9 vs 8.6 ± 0.9%, mean and standard deviation). After 6 months with matched insulin doses, HbA1c in the IDegAsp group was lower than that in the control group (8.1 ± 1.0 vs 8.4 ± 1.1%, P = 0.029). Among baseline variables, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and fasting C‐peptide in the IDegAsp were lower than that in the control (FPG 124.2 ± 38.4 vs 148.0 ± 50.6 mg/dL, P < 0.001). Considering that the lower FPG despite the comparable HbA1c could be related with the efficacy of IDegAsp, subgroup analysis was carried out according to a ratio of FPG‐to‐estimated average glucose, which is calculated from HbA1c. When compared with each control group, the superiority of IDegAsp in the reduction of HbA1c was significant only in the patients with a lower FPG‐to‐estimated average glucose ratio (0.49 ± 0.09), but not in those with a higher FPG‐to‐estimated average glucose ratio (0.79 ± 0.20). Conclusions We observed that IDegAsp was more effective than basal insulin in patients with an FPG lower than predicted by HbA1c, which might be related with insulin deficiency and postprandial hyperglycemia in patients on basal insulin therapy.