Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart versus Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Yan-Li  Niu; Ye  Zhang; Zhi-Yong  Song; Chuan-Zhi  Zhao; Yun  Luo; Yan  Wang; Jing  Yuan

doi:10.18502/ijph.v53i2.14916

Yan-Li Niu Endocrinology Department, Luodian Hospital, Baoshan District of Shanghai, Shanghai, China
Ye Zhang Endocrinology Department, Luodian Hospital, Baoshan District of Shanghai, Shanghai, China
Zhi-Yong Song Endocrinology Department, Luodian Hospital, Baoshan District of Shanghai, Shanghai, China
Chuan-Zhi Zhao Endocrinology Department, Luodian Hospital, Baoshan District of Shanghai, Shanghai, China
Yun Luo Endocrinology Department, Luodian Hospital, Baoshan District of Shanghai, Shanghai, China
Yan Wang Endocrinology Department, Luodian Hospital, Baoshan District of Shanghai, Shanghai, China
Jing Yuan Emergency Department, Luodian Hospital, Baoshan District of Shanghai, Shanghai, China

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v53i2.14916

Keywords: Type 2 diabetes; Biphasic insulin aspart 30; Insulin degludec; Insulin aspart; Effectiveness; Meta-analysis; Randomised controlled trials

Abstract

Background: We systematically reviewed and analyzed the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Methods: We used computers to search the Embase, PubMed, Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Library database, and collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 in T2D patients. The research period was from the establishment of the database to May 19, 2023. We used Review Manager 5.20 statistical software for systematic meta-analysis.

Results: We included 8 RCTs with 2281 participants. IDegAsp was better to BIAsp30 in improving fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels (P<0.001) and reducing the endpoint daily average insulin dose (P<0.01). Furthermore, compared with BIAsp30, IDegAsp significantly reduced the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemic events (P<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the improvement of body weight change (P=0.99), glycosylated hemoglobin (P=0.50), the overall risk of hypoglycemic events (P=0.57) and adverse events (P=0.89) between the two groups.

Conclusion: Compared with BIAsp30, IDegAsp could significantly reduce FPG levels, insulin dosage, and the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemic events in T2D patients, without increasing the overall risk of adverse events.