Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biphasic Insulin Aspart in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

An Evidence-Based Medicine Review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Clinical Drug Investigation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The efficacy benefits of biphasic insulin aspart formulation (BIAsp 30) in patients with diabetes mellitus have been reported in several studies. BIAsp 30 has been shown to be more effective in terms of glycaemic control than standard biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30). In addition to gauging the treatment in terms of clinical evidence of benefits provided, it is also important to evaluate the strength of the evidence supporting the therapeutic improvements offered by BIAsp 30. In this paper, we evaluated the strength of the available data that relate to the use of BIAsp 30 in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes based on a comprehensive literature review. Selected publications that provided relevant data were obtained via a literature search and from the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk. These were graded in terms of the strength of the evidence they provided using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) system in the following categories: (i) twice-daily use versus basal insulin; (ii) twice-daily use versus other treatments; (iii) once-daily use; (iv) thrice-daily use; (v) use in combination with thiazolidinediones; and (vi) use in comparison with BHI 30. A total of 30 publications for BIAsp 30 were identified and graded. For the majority of categories (four out of six), the evidence supporting the use of BIAsp 30 was given an overall CEBM grade of A (highest quality); evidence supporting clinical efficacy in the other two categories (twice-daily use versus basal insulin and thrice-daily BIAsp 30 administration) was graded B.

In most of the studies examined, the efficacy of BIAsp 30 was evaluated in terms of glycaemic control (glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA1c] reduction, proportion of patients achieving HbA1c target of <6.5% or <7%, fasting blood glucose, blood glucose profile and/or prandial and postprandial glucose increments). In some studies, efficacy was further evaluated using plasma insulin and glucose infusion rates, plasma C-peptide levels, mean serum fructosamine levels, postprandial hyperlipidaemia, overall well-being, treatment satisfaction and quality of life. Safety was evaluated using physical and laboratory investigations and assessment of incidence of adverse events, including, in many of the studies reviewed, specific evaluation of those events known to be associated with antidiabetic treatment, hypoglycaemia and weight gain. Strong evidence was provided for better glycaemic control with BIAsp 30 without increases in the incidence of major hypoglycaemia or nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes. Overall, weight gain with BIAsp 30 was minimal and not significantly greater than with basal insulin or BHI 30.

Thus, we can confirm that the reported efficacy and tolerability of BIAsp 30 in the treatment of diabetes based on a variety of clinical endpoints is supported by a good body of evidence relating to its use in different dosage regimens and in comparison with other insulin treatment regimens.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Table VI
Table VII

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.

References

  1. Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, et al. Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care 2004; 27(5): 1047–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. American Diabetes Association. Type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents. Diabetes Care 2000; 23: 381–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical care Diabetes Care in diabetes. 2005; 28Suppl. 1: 4–36

    Google Scholar 

  4. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 977–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Lancet 1998; 352: 837–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ceriello A. Post-prandial hyperglycemia and diabetes complications: is it time to treat? Diabetes 2005; 54: 1–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Raskin P, Allen E, Hollander P, et al. Initiating insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: a comparison of biphasic and basal insulin analogs. Diabetes Care 2005; 28(2): 260–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Monnier L, Lapinski H, Colette C. Contributions of fasting and post-prandial plasma glucose increments to the overall diurnal hyperglycemia of type 2 diabetic patients: variations with increasing levels of HbA(1c). Diabetes Care 2003; 26(3): 881–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gaster B, Hirsch IB. The effects of improved glycemic control on complications in type 2 diabetes. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158(2): 134–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ohkubo Y, Kishikawa H, Araki E, et al. Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1995; 28(2): 103–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lean ME, Ng LL, Tennison BR. Interval between insulin injection and eating in relation to blood glucose control in adult diabetics. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 1985; 290(6462): 105–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lindholm A, Jacobsen LV. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin aspart. Clin Pharmacokinet 2001; 40: 641–59

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jacobsen LV, Sogaard B, Riis A. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a premixed formulation of soluble and protamine-retarded insulin aspart. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56(5): 399–403

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Weyer C, Heise T, Heinemann L. Insulin aspart in a 30/70 premixed formulation: pharmacodynamic properties of a rapid-acting insulin analog in stable mixture. Diabetes Care 1997; 20(10): 1612–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lai T, Leung GM, Wong VWY, et al. How evidence-based are publications in clinical ophthalmic journals? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Science 2006; 47: 1831–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dias M. Neurosurgical causes of scoliosis in patients with myelomeningocele: an evidence-based literature review. J Neurosurgery 2005; 103(1, Suppl. S): 24–35

    Google Scholar 

  17. Haycox A. Insulin aspart: an evidence-based medicine review. Clin Drug Invest 2004; 24(12): 695–717

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Livingston G, Johnston K, Katona C, et al. Systematic review of psychological approaches to the management of neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia. Am J Psych 2005; 162(11): 1996–2021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine 2005. Frequently asked questions [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cebm.net/levels_faq.asp [Accessed 2005 Dec 15]

  20. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2002; 25Suppl. 1: S33–49

    Google Scholar 

  21. Moses A, Raskin P, Hu P, et al. Serum 1,5-anhydroglucitol as a marker of glycemic control in subjects receiving twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BiAsp 70/30) vs. once-daily Insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus on oral antidiabetic agents [abstract no. 951194]. American Diabetes Association: 65th Annual Scientific Sessions, San Diego (CA) June 10–14, 2005

  22. Luzio S, Dunseath G, Peter R, et al. Comparison of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of biphasic insulin aspart and insulin glargine in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2006; 49(6): 1163–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Christiansen JS, Vaz JA, Metelko Z, et al. Twice daily biphasic insulin aspart improves post-prandial glycaemic control more effectively than twice daily NPH insulin, with low risk of hypoglycaemia, in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2003; 5(6): 446–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Brod M, Cobden D, Lammert M, et al. Examining correlates of treatment satisfaction for injectable insulin in type 2 diabetes: lessons learned from a clinical trial comparing biphasic and basal analogues. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007; 5: 8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ligthelm R. Number of daily insulin injections required does not affect patient well being [abstract no. 951123]. American Diabetes Association: 65th Annual Scientific Sessions, San Diego (CA) June 10–14, 2005

  26. Kann P, Wascher T, Zackova V, et al. Starting insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 plus metformin versus once-daily insulin glargine plus glimepiride. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2006; 114: 527–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Garber A, Wahlen J, Wahl T, et al. Attainment of glycaemic goals in type 2 diabetes with once-, twice- or thrice-daily dosing with biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (the 1-2-3 study). Diabetes Obes Metab 2006; 8(1): 58–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kvapil M. Biphasic insulin aspart 30 plus metformin: an effective combination in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2006; 8(1): 39–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Wan Mohamad W. Adding NovoLog Mix 70/30 once or twice daily is more efficacious than optimizing oral treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2005; 54Suppl. 1: A510

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ushakova O, Sokolovskaya V, Morozova A, et al. Biphasic insulin aspart 30 (NovoLog Mix 70/30), a premix analogue, is an effective and well tolerated starter insulin in type 2 diabetes [abstract no. 951909]. American Diabetes Association: 65th Annual Scientific Sessions, San Diego (CA) June 10–14, 2005

  31. Niskanen L, Jensen LE, Rastam J, et al. 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. Clin Ther 2004; 26(4): 531–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kilo C, Mezitis N, Jain R, et al. Starting patients with type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy using once-daily injections of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30, biphasic human insulin 70/30, or NPH insulin in combination with metformin. J Diabetes Complications 2003; 17(6): 307–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lund SS, Tarnow L, Pedersen OB, et al. Effect of BIAsp 30 (NovoLog Mix 70/30) in combination with oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHA) on glycaemic control in non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes [abstract no. 951226]. American Diabetes Association: 65th Annual Scientific Sessions, San Diego (CA) June 10–14, 2005}

  34. Kabadi UM, Kabadi M. Comparative efficacy of glimepiride and/or metformin with insulin in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2006; 72(3): 265–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Raz I, Stranks S, Filipczak R, et al. In inadequately controlled patients with type 2 diabetes, biphasic insulin aspart 30 combined with pioglitazone provides better glycaemic control than biphasic insulin aspart 30 monotherapy or pioglitazone/ sulphonylurea combination. Diabetologia 2003; 46Suppl. 2: A8

    Google Scholar 

  36. Raz I, Stranks S, Filipczak R, et al. Efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30 combined with pioglitazone in type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on glibenclamide (glyburide) monotherapy or combination therapy: an 18-week, randomizes, open-label study. Clin Ther 2005; 27(9): 1432–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Raz I, Mouritzen U, Vaz J, et al. Addition of biphasic insulin aspart 30 to rosiglitazone in type 2 diabetes mellitus that is poorly controlled with glibenclamide monotherapy. Clin Ther 2003; 25(12): 3109–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Iwamoto Y. A randomised, multicentre trial of biphasic insulin aspart versus biphasic human insulin in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2003; 46Suppl. 2: A 270

    Google Scholar 

  39. Boehm BO, Vaz JA, Brondsted L, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes. Eur J Intern Med 2004; 15(8): 496–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Yamada S, Tamada T, Suzuki R. Premixed 70/30 insulin aspart suspension improves insulin therapy related QOL in comparison with premixed 70/30 Human insulin. Diabetes 2005; 54Suppl. 1: A119

    Google Scholar 

  41. McSorley PT, Bell PM, Jacobsen LV, et al. Twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 versus biphasic human insulin 30: a double-blind crossover study in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther 2002; 24(4): 530–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Hermansen K, Colombo M, Storgaard H, et al. Improved postprandial glycemic control with biphasic insulin aspart relative to biphasic insulin lispro and biphasic human insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002; 25(5): 883–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Kapitza C, Rave K, Ostrowski K, et al. Reduced post-prandial glycaemic excursion with biphasic insulin aspart 30 injected immediately before a meal. Diabet Med 2004; 21(5): 500–1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. McNally P, Dean J, Morris A, et al. Using continuous glucose monitoring to measure the frequency of low glucose values when using biphasic insulin aspart 30 compared with biphasic human insulin 30: a double-blind crossover study in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. In press

  45. Lammert M, Palmer A, Roze S, et al. Decreased rates of major hypoglycaemic events lead to improved long term cost effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 versus biphasic human insulin 30 in type 2 diabetic subjects in Danish, Finnish, German, Norwegian, Spanish, Swedish and UK settings. Value Health 2004; 7(6): 649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Schmoelzer I, de Campo A, Pressl H, et al. Biphasic insulin aspart compared to biphasic human Insulin reduces post-prandial hyperlipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2005; 113: 176–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Ray JA, Valentine WJ, Roze S, et al. Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes patients failing oral agents: cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 vs. insulin glargine in the US. Diabetes Obes Metab 2007; 9(1), 103–113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Valentine WJ, Palmer AJ, Lammert M, et al. Long-term clinical and cost outcomes of treatment with biphasic insulin aspart 30/ 70 versus insulin glargine in insulin naive type 2 diabetes patients: cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK setting. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21(12): 2063–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Minshall ME, Roze S, Palmer AJ, et al. Treating diabetes to accepted standards of care: a 10-year projection of the estimated economic and health impact in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States. Clin Ther 2005; 27(6): 940–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Yki-Jarvinen H, Kauppila M, Kujansuu E, et al. Comparison of insulin regimens in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1992; 327(20): 1426–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Yki-Jarvinen H, Ryysy L, Nikkila K, et al. Comparison of bedtime insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130(5): 389–96

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Huang A, Raskin P. Thiazolidinediones and insulin: rationale for use and role of combination therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Treat Endocrinol 2005; 4: 205–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Raskin P, Rendell M, Riddle MC, et al. A randomized trial of rosiglitazone therapy in patients with inadequately controlled insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2001; 24(7): 1226–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Rosenstock J, Einhorn D, Hershon K, et al. Efficacy and safety of pioglitazone in type 2 diabetes: a randomised, placebo-controlled study in patients receiving stable insulin therapy. Int J Clin Pract 2002; 56(4): 251–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Dormandy JA, Charbonnel B, Eckland DJ, et al. Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366(9493): 1279–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. De Grauw WJ, van de Lisdonk EH, van Gerwen WH, et al. Insulin therapy in poorly controlled type 2 diabetic patients: does it affect quality of life? Br J Gen Pract 2001; 51(468): 527–32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Chapman TM, Noble S, Goa KL. Insulin aspart: a review of its use in the management of type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus. Drugs 2002; 62(13): 1945–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was received from Novo Nordisk for the preparation of this article. Prof. Gough has lectured for and received honoraria from Novo Nordisk. He has also received honoraria from Elli Lilly, sanofi-aventis, Pfizer, GSK and Takeda for similar work. Dr Tibladi has served as a consultant to NovoNordisk for which he has received honoraria and has been on their speaker’s bureau for which he has received honoraria. He is on other speakers’ bureaus as well including sanofi-aventis, Glaxo, Merck and Novartis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Sciences Institute of Biomedical Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B152TT, UK

    S. C. L. Gough

  2. Queens Diabetes and Endocrinology Associates, Flushing, New York, USA

    J. Tibaldi

Authors
  1. S. C. L. Gough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Tibaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gough, S.C.L., Tibaldi, J. Biphasic Insulin Aspart in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Clin. Drug Investig. 27, 299–324 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-200727050-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-200727050-00002

Keywords

Search

Navigation