Treatment of prednisolone-induced hyperglycaemia in hospitalized patients: Insights from a randomized, controlled study

AIM

Prednisolone causes hyperglycaemia predominantly between midday and midnight. Consequently, glargine-based basal-bolus insulin regimens may under treat daytime hyperglycaemia and cause nocturnal hypoglycaemia. We investigated whether an isophane-based insulin regimen is safer and more effective than a glargine-based regimen in hospitalized patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty inpatients prescribed ≥20 mg/day prednisolone acutely with (1) finger prick blood glucose level (BGL) ≥15 mmol/L or (2) BGLs ≥10 mmol/L within the previous 24 hours were randomized to either insulin isophane or glargine before breakfast and insulin aspart before meals. The initial daily insulin dose was 0.5 U/kg bodyweight or 130% of the current daily insulin dose. Glycaemic control was assessed using a continuous glucose monitoring system.

RESULTS

On Day 1, there were no significant differences in percentage of time outside a target glucose range of 4 to 10 mmol/L (41.3% ± 5.5% vs 50.0% ± 5.7%, P  = .28), mean daily glucose (10.2 ± 0.7 vs 10.8 ± 0.8 mmol/L, P  = .57) or glucose <4 mmol/L (2.2% ± 1.1% vs 2.0% ± 1.3%, P  = .92) in patients randomized to isophane and glargine. In patients treated for 3 days, the prednisolone dose was reduced ( P  = .02) and the insulin dose was increased over time ( P  = .02), but the percentage of time outside the 4 to 10 mmol/L glucose range did not differ over time ( P  = .45) or between groups ( P  = .24).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no differences in the efficacy or safety of the isophane and glargine-based insulin regimens. We recommend an initial daily insulin dose of 0.5 units/kg bodyweight if not on insulin, a greater than 30% increase in pre-prednisolone insulin dose and larger insulin dose adjustments in patients with prednisolone-induced hyperglycaemia.

Safety and efficacy of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist added to basal insulin therapy versus basal insulin with or without a rapid-acting insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes: results of a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To consolidate the evidence from randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as add-on to basal insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched the EMBASE® and NCBI PubMed (Medline) databases and relevant congress abstracts for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of GLP-1 RAs as add-on to basal insulin compared with basal insulin with or without rapid-acting insulin (RAI) through 23 May 2016. The pooled data were analyzed using a random-effects meta-analysis model. A subanalysis was performed for trials investigating basal insulin plus GLP-1 RAs versus basal insulin plus RAI.

RESULTS

Of the 2617 retrieved records, 19 randomized controlled trials enrolling 7,053 patients with T2D were included. Compared with basal insulin ± RAI, reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline (difference in means: -0.48% [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.67 to -0.30]; p < 0.0001) and weight loss (-2.60 kg [95% CI, -3.32 to -1.89]; p < 0.0001) were significantly greater with basal insulin plus GLP-1 RA. The subanalysis similarly showed significant results for change in HbA1c from baseline and for weight loss, as well as a significantly lower risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia in patients treated with basal insulin plus GLP-1 RA versus basal insulin plus RAI (odds ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.64]; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of GLP-1 RA to basal insulin provided improved glycemic control, led to weight reduction and similar hypoglycemia rates versus an intensified insulin strategy; however, symptomatic hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower when compared with a basal insulin plus RAI.

A real-world study of treatment patterns and outcomes in US managed-care patients with type 2 Diabetes initiating injectable therapies

AIMS

Examine real-world outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating injectable therapy as part of the Initiation of New Injectable Treatment Introduced after Antidiabetic Therapy with Oral-only Regimens (INITIATOR) study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Linked insurance claims and medical record data were collected from 2 large US health insurers (April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2012) of T2DM adults initiating treatment with glargine (GLA) or liraglutide (LIRA). Baseline characteristics were examined and changes in 12-month follow-up outcomes were described for both treatment groups: HbA1c, weight change, hypoglycaemia, persistence, healthcare utilisation and costs.

RESULTS

A total of 4490 patients were included (GLA, 2116; LIRA, 2374). At baseline, GLA patients had significantly higher HbA1c vs LIRA patients (9.72% vs 8.19%; P < .001), lower likelihood of having HbA1c < 7% (7.1% vs 23.8%; P < .001), lower bodyweight (100.9 kg vs 110.9 kg, P < .001), higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score (0.88 vs 0.63; P < .001), and higher diabetes-related costs ($3492 vs $2089; P < .001), respectively. During 12-months of follow-up, treatment persistence was 64%, mean HbA1c reduction was -1.24% and weight change was + 1.17 among GLA patients, and was 49%, -0.51% and -2.74 kg, respectively, among LIRA patients. Diabetes-related costs increased significantly from baseline to follow-up for LIRA patients ($2089 vs $3258, P < .001) but not for GLA patients ($3492 vs $3550, P = .890).

CONCLUSIONS

There were clinically relevant baseline differences in both groups, suggesting that GLA and LIRA are prescribed for different patient groups, and highlighting that efficacy results from clinical trials do not always translate into real-world practice. Significant increases in healthcare costs were observed in the LIRA group, warranting further cost-effectiveness analysis.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists compared with basal insulins for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Since 2005, several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been approved to treat people with type 2 diabetes. These agents are considered for use at the same point in the treatment paradigm as basal insulins. A comprehensive comparison of these drug classes, therefore, can help inform treatment decisions. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of GLP-1 RAs compared with basal insulins.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed databases were searched. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of ≥16 weeks' duration comparing GLP-1 RAs vs basal insulins in adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antihyperglycemic drugs were included. Data on the change from baseline to 26 weeks (±10 weeks) of treatment in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and weight, as well as the proportion of patients experiencing hypoglycaemia, were extracted. Fixed-effect pairwise meta-analyses were conducted where data were available from ≥2 studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs were identified and 11 were meta-analysed. The once-weekly GLP-1 RAs, exenatide long acting release (LAR) and dulaglutide, led to greater, statistically significant mean HbA1c reductions vs basal insulins (exenatide: -0.31% [95% confidence interval -0.42, -0.19], dulaglutide: -0.39% [-0.49, -0.29]) whilst once-daily liraglutide and twice-daily exenatide did not (liraglutide: 0.06% [-0.06, 0.18], exenatide: 0.01% [-0.11, 0.13]). Mean weight reduction was seen with all GLP-1 RAs while mean weight gain was seen with basal insulins. Interpretation of the analysis of hypoglycaemia was limited by inconsistent definitions and reporting. Because of the limited number of available studies sensitivity analyses to explore heterogeneity could not be conducted.

CONCLUSIONS

Although weight reduction is seen with all GLP-1 RA's, only the once-weekly agents, exenatide LAR and dulaglutide, demonstrate significant HbA1c reductions when compared to basal insulins.

Impact of patient and treatment characteristics on glycemic control and hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes initiated to insulin glargine or NPH: A post hoc, pooled, patient-level analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The goal of this post hoc analysis was to determine key patient and treatment-related factors impacting glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) and hypoglycemia in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who were initiated to basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH] or glargine).

METHODS

Using individual patient-level data pooled from 6 treat-to-target trials, 2600 patients with type 2 diabetes on oral antidiabetic agents initiated to insulin glargine or NPH and treated for 24 to 36 weeks were analyzed.

RESULTS

Both treatments led to significant reduction in A1C levels compared with baseline, with no differences between treatment groups (mean ± standard deviation; glargine: -1.32 ± 1.2% vs NPH: -1.26 ± 1.2%; P = 0.15), with greater reduction in the BMI ≥30 kg/m group than in the BMI <30 kg/m group. Glargine reduced A1C significantly more than NPH in the BMI <30 kg/m group (-1.30 ± 1.18% vs -1.14 ± 1.22, respectively; P = 0.008), but not in the BMI ≥ 30 kg/m group (-1.37 ± 1.19 vs -1.48 ± 1.22, respectively; P = 0.18). Similar proportions of patients achieved A1C target of <7% (glargine 30.6%, NPH 29.1%; P = 0.39). Incidence of severe and severe nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly lower in glargine versus NPH-treated patients (2.0% vs 3.9%; P = 0.04, and 0.7% vs 2.1%; P = 0.002, respectively), and occurred primarily in the BMI <30 kg/m group.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of basal insulin is highly effective in lowering A1C after oral antidiabetic agent failure. Glargine decreases A1C more than NPH in nonobese patients, and reduces the risk for severe and severe nocturnal hypoglycemia versus NPH both in obese and nonobese patients, but more so in nonobese patients. Thus, it is the nonobese patients who may benefit more from initiation of basal insulin as glargine than NPH.

A meta-analysis comparing clinical effects of short- or long-acting GLP-1 receptor agonists versus insulin treatment from head-to-head studies in type 2 diabetic patients

AIMS

To study differences in clinical outcomes between initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RAs) vs insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral glucose-lowering medications (OGLM).

METHODS

Prospective, randomized trials comparing GLP-1 RA and insulin treatment head-to-head as add-on to OGLM were identified (PubMed). Differences from baseline values were compared for HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, bodyweight, blood pressure, heartrate and lipoproteins. Proportions of patients reporting hypoglycaemic episodes were compared.

RESULTS

Of 712 publications identified, 23 describing 19 clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to insulin, GLP-1 RAs reduced HbA1c more effectively (Δ -.12%, P < .0001). Basal insulin was more effective in reducing fasting plasma glucose (Δ -1.8 mmol/L, P < .0001). GLP-1 RAs reduced bodyweight more effectively (Δ -3.71 kg; P < .0001). The proportion of patients experiencing hypoglycaemic episodes was 34% lower with GLP-1 RAs ( P < .0001), with a similar trend for severe hypoglycaemia. Systolic blood pressure was lower and heartrate was higher with GLP-1 RAs ( P < .0001). Triglycerides and LDL cholesterol were significantly lower with GLP-1 RAs. Long-acting GLP-1 RAs were better than short-acting GLP-1 RAs in reducing HbA1c and fasting glucose, but were similar regarding bodyweight.

CONCLUSIONS

Slightly better glycaemic control can be achieved by adding GLP-1 RAs to OGLM as compared to insulin treatment, with added benefits regarding bodyweight, hypoglycaemia, blood pressure and lipoproteins. These differences are in contrast to the fact that insulin is prescribed far more often than GLP-1 RAs.

Duration of action of two insulin glargine products, LY2963016 insulin glargine and Lantus insulin glargine, in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

LY2963016 (LY IGlar) and Lantus (IGlar) are insulin glargine products manufactured by distinct processes, but with identical amino acid sequences. This study compared the duration of action of LY IGlar and IGlar in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, single-dose, two-period, crossover study. Twenty subjects underwent 42-hour euglycaemic clamps after a single subcutaneous 0.3-U/kg dose of LY IGlar or IGlar. In this study, the duration of action was defined as the time required for blood glucose levels to rise consistently above a predefined cut-off of 8.3 mmol/L (150 mg/dL) from a state of euglycaemia. Blood samples were collected to measure blood glucose for pharmacodynamic (PD) evaluations.

RESULTS

End of action was reached within 42 hours in 26 of 40 clamps (13 LY IGlar and 13 IGlar). The median duration of action for all subjects was 37.1 and 40.0 hours, and the mean duration of action (calculated using only patients who reached end of action) was 23.8 and 25.5 hours for LY IGlar and IGlar, respectively. The duration of action was demonstrated to be similar between the treatments using time-to-event analysis (log-rank test of equality p = .859). Following administration of LY IGlar and IGlar, the PD parameters of maximum glucose infusion rate (R _max ) and total glucose infusion during the clamp (G _tot ) were comparable.

CONCLUSION

LY IGlar and IGlar had similar duration of action and comparable PD parameters in subjects with T1DM.

Impact of the mode of protraction of basal insulin therapies on their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and resulting clinical outcomes

Manufacturers of insulin products for diabetes therapy have long sought ways to modify the absorption rate of exogenously administered insulins in an effort to better reproduce the naturally occurring pharmacokinetics of endogenous insulin secretion. Several mechanisms of protraction have been used in pursuit of a basal insulin, for which a low injection frequency would provide tolerable and reproducible glucose control; these mechanisms have met with varying degrees of success. Before the advent of recombinant DNA technology, development focused on modifications to the formulation that increased insulin self-association, such as supplementation with zinc or the development of preformed precipitates using protamine. Indeed, NPH insulin remains widely used today despite a frequent need for a twice-daily dosing and a relatively high incidence of hypoglycaemia. The early insulin analogues used post-injection precipitation (insulin glargine U100) or dimerization and albumin binding (insulin detemir) as methods of increasing therapeutic duration. These products approached a 24-hour glucose-lowering effect with decreased variability in insulin action. Newer basal insulin analogues have used up-concentration in addition to precipitation (insulin glargine U300), and multihexamer formation in addition to albumin binding (insulin degludec), to further increase duration of action and/or decrease the day-to-day variability of the glucose-lowering profile. Clinically, the major advantage of these recent analogues has been a reduction in hypoglycaemia with similar glycated haemoglobin control when compared with earlier products. Future therapies may bring clinical benefits through hepato-preferential insulin receptor binding or very long durations of action, perhaps enabling once-weekly administration and the potential for further clinical benefits.

Real-world medication persistence and outcomes associated with basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist free-dose combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes in the US

Background

Free-dose combination treatment with basal insulin and short-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduces hyperglycemia via complementary targeting of fasting and postprandial blood glucose levels, however, in the real world, due to injection burden and clinical inertia, the full efficacy may not be able to translate into clinical and economic benefits.

Objective

The aim of the study was to evaluate treatment persistence and associated outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with a GLP-1 RA in free-dose combination with basal insulin.

Methods

Claims data were extracted on US adults with T2D with ≥1 prescription claim for both a GLP-1 RA and a basal insulin from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2013, and continuous health plan coverage for 6 months prior to (baseline) and 12 months after the index date (follow-up period). Outcomes analyzed for patients stratified by treatment persistence included glycemic control, hypoglycemia, and health care costs and resource utilization. Multivariate analyses were used to examine factors associated with persistence or hypoglycemia.

Results

The analysis included 7,320 patients, of whom 16.9% were persistent with free-dose combination treatment. The median time to treatment discontinuation was 133 days. Compared with nonpersistent patients, persistent patients had greater glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C) reductions (−0.80% vs −0.42%; P=0.032), were more likely to achieve A1C <7.0% (39% vs 22%; P<0.001), and were less likely to experience hypoglycemia (9.5% vs 6.8%; P=0.002). Persistent patients also had significantly fewer hospitalizations and shorter hospital stays. While prescription costs were significantly higher (all-cause: $14,691 vs $10,791; P<0.001; diabetes-related: $8,142 vs $5,124; P<0.001), total medical charges were significantly lower (all-cause: $28,405 vs $40,292; P=0.001; diabetes-related: $11,114 vs $15,203; P=0.003) for persistent patients compared with nonpersistent patients.

Conclusion

This retrospective claims study of US patients with T2D showed that, although persistence with concurrent GLP-1 RA and basal insulin treatment is low, improved treatment persistence is associated with greater A1C reductions and lower total medical charges.

rDNA insulin glargine U300 - a critical appraisal

BACKGROUND

As the first once-daily basal insulin analog, insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100; Lantus®) rapidly evolved into the most commonly prescribed insulin therapy worldwide. However, this insulin has clinical limitations. The approval of new basal insulin analogs in 2015 has already started to alter the prescribing landscape.

OBJECTIVE

To review the available evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of a more concentrated insulin glargine (recombinant DNA origin) injection 300 U/mL (Gla-300) compared to insulin Gla-100 in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM and T2DM).

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed and MEDLINE (using Ovid platform), Scopus, BIOSIS, and Google Scholar through June 2016. Conference proceedings of the American Diabetes Association (2015-2016) were reviewed. We also manually searched reference lists of pertinent reviews and trials.

RESULTS

A total of 6 pivotal Phase III randomized controlled trials known as the EDITION series were reviewed. All of these trials (n=3,500) were head-to-head comparisons evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of Gla-300 vs Gla-100 in a diverse population with T1DM and T2DM. These trials were of 6 months duration with a 6-month safety extension phase.

CONCLUSION

Gla-300 was as effective as Gla-100 for improving glycemic control over 6 months in all studies, with a lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia significant only in insulin-experienced patients with T2DM. Overall, patients on Gla-300 required 10%-18% more basal insulin, but with less weight gain compared with Gla-100.

Advances in Basal Insulin Therapy

Objective: To review 2 new basal insulin analogs that have been approved in the United States for use in type 1 and type 2 diabetes—insulin glargine 300 units/mL and insulin degludec 100 units/mL and 200 units/mL. Data Sources: PubMed was searched using the terms “insulin glargine 300 units/mL,” “Gla-300,” “insulin degludec,” “IDeg,” “insulin degludec 200 units/mL,” and “insulin degludec 100 units/mL” for articles published between 1995 and May 2016. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Clinical trials, meta-analyses and subanalyses were identified; review articles were excluded. Relevant citations from identified articles were also reviewed. Data Synthesis: The new basal insulins, insulin glargine 300 units/mL and insulin degludec 100 units/mL and 200 units/mL, have improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles compared to insulin glargine 100 units/mL. All demonstrate longer durations of action, beyond 24 hours, and less variability. These improved profiles translate into comparable A1C reductions and comparable, or improved, levels of hypoglycemia compared to insulin glargine 100 units/mL. Conclusions: These benefits may lead to improved glycemic control in a range of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes with true once-daily dosing.

Type 2 Diabetes, Hypoglycemia, and Basal Insulins: Ongoing Challenges

Hypoglycemia in people with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes can be a limiting factor for management and a barrier to optimizing glycemic control. Even mild episodes of hypoglycemia can affect an individual's quality of life, and fear of hypoglycemia can lead to underinsulinization. This article explores the prevalence and consequences of hypoglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes with a focus on those who use basal insulins, offering strategies for prevention and management. It also discusses the benefits and challenges associated with new basal insulins, and their potential role in reducing hypoglycemia risk.

GLP-1 RAs as compared to prandial insulin after failure of basal insulin in type 2 diabetes: lessons from the 4B and Get-Goal DUO 2 trials

The add-on of a prandial (short-acting) GLP-1 RA to basal insulin in subjects with T2DM who fail to control A1C on basal insulin, stems from the physiological principles of post-prandial glucose homeostasis, and it is based on evidence from clinical trials. The 4B and GetGoal DUO 2 studies are the first to establish in head-to-head comparison, the efficacy and safety of short-acting GLP-1 RAs vs prandial insulin, when added-on to basal insulin glargine. In the 4B study (exenatide 2/d vs lispro 3/d) exenatide demonstrated similar efficacy vs lispro in reducing A1C to ~7.2%. However, exenatide reduced also body weight and hypoglycemia incidence as compared to lispro. In GetGoal DUO 2, the head-to-head comparison was between lixisenatide 1/d vs glulisine either 1/d (at the main meal, basal-plus) or 3/d (basal-bolus). Like in 4B, in GetGoal DUO 2 the A1C decreased to similar values with lixisenatide or glulisine 1/d (~7.2%), or glulisine 3/d (~7.0%). Again, as in the 4B, body weight and hypoglycemia incidence were lower with lixisenatide. In both studies a similar percentage of subjects reached the A1C <7.0% on GLP-1 RA or prandial insulin. A higher percentage of subjects reported adverse events on GLP-1 RAs, primarily gastrointestinal related. The studies 4B and GetGoal DUO 2 suggest that after failure of basal insulin in T2DM, the add-on of prandial GLP-1 RA is as effective as prandial insulin in lowering A1C, with added benefits of reducing body weight and risk for hypoglycemia. In addition, the GLP-1 RA + basal insulin is a simpler therapeutic option as compared to basal-plus and basal-bolus regimens.

Association Between the Use of Long-Acting Insulin and Hypoglycemia in Nondiabetic Patients in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the association between long-acting insulin and hypoglycemia in nondiabetic surgical intensive care patients.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective cohort study evaluated glycemic control in nondiabetic critically ill surgical patients receiving long-acting insulin plus sliding scale versus those receiving sliding scale alone. Patients were matched based on sliding scale order and type of surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who experienced hypoglycemia (glucose values <70 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included comparing the distribution of glycemic events in the 2 groups and describing the proportion of patients transferred out of the intensive care unit on long-acting insulin who experienced hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty patients met the study criteria. Hypoglycemia was significantly higher in the long-acting insulin plus sliding scale group compared to those receiving sliding scale alone (17 [28.3%] patients vs 8 [13.3%] patients; P = .047). After adjusting for body mass index, renal failure, age, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, the odds of hypoglycemia were 4.1 times higher for patients receiving long-acting insulin and sliding scale compared to those receiving sliding scale alone ( P = .02). There were more hypoglycemic events (42 vs 20; P = .05) and hyperglycemic events (313 vs 135; P = .02) in the long-acting insulin group.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated higher rates of hypoglycemia associated with the utilization of long-acting insulin in nondiabetic surgical intensive care patients. Risk of hypoglycemia should be weighed against possible benefits in this population.

Randomized double-blind clinical trial comparing basal insulin peglispro and insulin glargine, in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes: IMAGINE 4

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of basal insulin peglispro (BIL) with those of insulin glargine, both in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

In this phase III, multicentre, double-blind, 26-week study, we randomized patients with T2D [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7 and <12%, on ≥1 insulin injections daily) to BIL (n = 691) or glargine (n = 678), in combination with lispro.

RESULTS

At week 26, the primary objective of non-inferiority of BIL versus glargine for HbA1c reduction was achieved (least squares mean difference -0.21%; 95% confidence interval -0.31 to -0.11%), with statistical superiority of BIL with multiplicity adjustment (p < 0.001). HbA1c at baseline was 8.4% versus 8.5% for BIL versus glargine and at 26 weeks it was 6.8% versus 7.0%. At 26 weeks, more patients reached HbA1c <7% with BIL than with glargine (63.3% vs 53.3%; p < 0.001), the nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate (≤3.9 mmol/l) was lower with BIL (0.51 vs 0.92 events/30 days; p < 0.001), but the daytime hypoglycaemia rate was higher with BIL (5.47 vs 4.53 events/30 days; p < 0.001). The total hypoglycaemia relative rate was 1.10 (p = 0.053). At 26 weeks, patients in the BIL group had lower fasting serum glucose levels, higher basal insulin dosing, with no statistically significant difference in prandial or total insulin dosing, reduced glucose variability and less weight gain (1.3 kg vs 2.2 kg) compared with the glargine group. The BIL group had higher mean triglyceride and aminotransferase levels.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2D, BIL with insulin lispro provided greater improvement in glycaemic control with less nocturnal hypoglycaemia, lower glucose variability and less weight gain compared with glargine. The daytime hypoglycaemia rate and mean triglyceride and aminotransferase levels were higher with BIL.

Randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing basal insulin peglispro and insulin glargine, in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 1 diabetes: IMAGINE 3

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of basal insulin peglispro (BIL), which has a flat pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile and a long duration of action, with insulin glargine (GL) in patients with type 1 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this phase III, 52-week, blinded study, we randomized 1114 adults with type 1 diabetes in a 3 : 2 distribution to receive either BIL (n = 664) or GL (n = 450) at bedtime, with preprandial insulin lispro, using intensive insulin management. The primary objective was to compare glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the groups at 52 weeks, with a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.

RESULTS

At 52 weeks, mean (standard error) HbA1c was 7.38 (0.03)% with BIL and 7.61 (0.04)% with GL {difference -0.22% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.32, -0.12]; p < 0.001}. At 52 weeks more BIL-treated patients reached HbA1c <7% (35% vs 26%; p < 0.001), the nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate was 47% lower (p < 0.001) and the total hypoglycaemia rate was 11% higher (p = 0.002) than in GL-treated patients, and there was no difference in severe hypoglycaemia rate. Patients receiving BIL lost weight, while those receiving GL gained weight [difference -1.8 kg (95% CI -2.3, -1.3); p < 0.001]. Treatment with BIL compared with GL at 52 weeks was associated with greater increases from baseline in levels of serum triglyceride [difference 0.19 mmol/l (95% CI 0.11, 0.26); p < 0.001] and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels [difference 6.5 IU/l (95% CI 4.1, 8.9), p < 0.001], and more frequent injection site reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 1 diabetes, treatment with BIL compared with GL for 52 weeks resulted in a lower HbA1c, more patients with HbA1c levels <7%, and reduced nocturnal hypoglycaemia, but more total hypoglycaemia and injection site reactions and higher triglyceride and ALT levels.

Add-on treatment with intermediate-acting insulin versus sliding-scale insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes or insulin resistance during cyclic glucocorticoid-containing antineoplastic chemotherapy: a randomized crossover study

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intermediate-acting insulin (IMI) titrated on body weight and glucocorticoid dose with that of short-acting sliding-scale insulin (SSI) in patients on recurrent high-dose glucocorticoid-containing chemotherapy. We enrolled 26 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or random blood glucose level >12 mmol/l in a previous cycle of chemotherapy in a randomized crossover study. In two consecutive cycles of glucocorticoid-containing chemotherapy, participants were treated with either IMI or SSI, as add-on to routine diabetes medication. We compared time spent in target range (3.9-10 mmol/l), measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and the occurrence of hypoglycaemia. IMI resulted in a higher proportion of glucose values within target range than SSI (34.4 vs 20.9%; p < 0.001). There were no severe or symptomatic hypoglycaemic events. Two participants in each group had a subclinical hypoglycaemia detected only by CGM. Once-daily IMI resulted in better glycaemic control than SSI in patients with glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycaemia during chemotherapy. Safety was not compromised as the incidence of hypoglycaemia was low and not different between both regimens.

Basal insulin peglispro: Overview of a novel long-acting insulin with reduced peripheral effect resulting in a hepato-preferential action

Basal insulin peglispro (BIL) is a novel basal insulin with a flat, prolonged activity profile. BIL has been demonstrated in a dog model, in healthy men and in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to have significant hepato-preferential action resulting from reduced peripheral activity. In the IMAGINE-Phase 3 clinical trial program, more than 6000 patients were included, of whom ~3900 received BIL. Of the 7 pivotal IMAGINE trials, 3 studies were double-blinded and 3 were in T1D patients. BIL consistently demonstrated a greater HbA1c reduction, less glycaemic variability and a clinically relevant reduction in the rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia across comparator [glargine and isophane insulin (NPH)] studies. Trials using basal/bolus regimens had higher rates of total hypoglycaemia with BIL due to higher rates of daytime hypoglycaemia. Severe hypoglycaemia rates were similar to comparator among both patients with T1D or type 2 diabetes (T2D). T1D patients lost weight compared with glargine (GL). Patients with T2D tended to gain less weight with BIL than with glargine. Compared to glargine, BIL was associated with higher liver fat, triglycerides and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, including a higher frequency of elevation of ALT ≥3 times the upper limit of normal, but without severe, acute drug-induced liver injury. Injection site reactions, primarily lipohypertrophy, were more frequent with BIL. In conclusion, BIL demonstrated better glycaemic control with reduced glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycaemia but higher triglycerides, ALT and liver fat relative to conventional comparator insulin. The hepato-preferential action of BIL with reduced peripheral activity may account for these findings.

Different effects of basal insulin peglispro and insulin glargine on liver enzymes and liver fat content in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To compare effects of basal insulin peglispro (BIL), a hepatopreferential insulin, to insulin glargine (glargine) on aminotransferases and liver fat content (LFC) in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (T1D, T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from two Phase 2 and five Phase 3 randomized trials comparing BIL and glargine in 1709 T1D and 3662 T2D patients were integrated for analysis of liver laboratory tests. LFC, measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at baseline, 26 and 52 weeks, was analyzed in 182 T1D patients, 176 insulin-naïve T2D patients and 163 T2D patients previously treated with basal insulin.

RESULTS

Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increased in patients treated with BIL, was higher than in glargine-treated patients at 4-78 weeks (difference at 52 weeks in both T1D and T2D: 7 international units/litre (IU/L), P < .001), and decreased after discontinuation of BIL. More BIL patients had ALT ≥3× upper limit of normal (ULN) than glargine. No patient had ALT ≥3× ULN with bilirubin ≥2× ULN that was considered causally related to BIL. In insulin-naїve T2D patients, LFC decreased with glargine but was unchanged with BIL. In T1D and T2D patients previously treated with basal insulin, LFC was unchanged with glargine but increased with BIL. In all three populations, LFC was higher after treatment with BIL vs glargine (difference at 52 weeks: 2.2% to 5.3%, all P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to glargine, patients treated with BIL had higher ALT and LFC at 52-78 weeks. No severe drug-induced liver injury was apparent with BIL treatment for up to 78 weeks.

A randomized clinical trial comparing basal insulin peglispro and insulin glargine, in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 1 diabetes: IMAGINE 1

AIMS

The primary objective was to demonstrate that basal insulin peglispro (BIL) was non-inferior compared with insulin glargine (GL) for haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at 26 weeks with a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

IMAGINE 1 was a Phase 3, open-label, parallel-arm study conducted in nine countries. Adults with type 1 diabetes (n = 455) were randomized (2:1) to bedtime BIL or GL in combination with prandial insulin lispro for 78 weeks, with a primary endpoint of 26 weeks. An electronic diary facilitated data capture and insulin dosing calculations for intensive insulin management.

RESULTS

At 26 weeks, mean HbA1c was 7.06% ± 0.04% and 7.43% ± 0.06% for patients assigned to BIL (N = 295) and GL (N = 160), respectively (difference -0.37% [95% CI: -0.50 to -0.23], P < .001); more patients on BIL achieved HbA1c <7% (44.9% vs 27.5%, P < .001). Compared with GL, patients using BIL lost weight, with lower fasting serum glucose and between-day fasting blood glucose variability, and 36% less nocturnal hypoglycemia, 29% more total hypoglycemia and more severe hypoglycemia. Total and prandial insulin doses were lower with BIL; basal insulin doses were higher. Alanine aminotransferase increased with BIL, with more patients having elevations ≥3 × ULN. BIL treatment was associated with more frequent injection site reactions and an increase from baseline in serum triglycerides.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 1 diabetes, treatment with BIL compared to GL for 26 weeks was associated with lower HbA1c, less nocturnal hypoglycemia, lower glucose variability and weight loss. Increases in total and severe hypoglycemia, triglycerides, aminotransferases and injection site reactions were also noted.

Reduced peripheral activity leading to hepato-preferential action of basal insulin peglispro compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

Basal insulin peglispro (BIL), a novel PEGylated basal insulin with a large hydrodynamic size, has a delayed absorption and reduced clearance that prolongs the duration of action. The current study compared the effects of BIL and insulin glargine (GL) on endogenous glucose production (EGP), glucose disposal rate (GDR) and lipolysis in patients with type 1 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a randomized, open-label, four-period, crossover study. Patients received intravenous infusions of BIL and GL, each at two dose levels selected for partial and maximal suppression of EGP, during an 8 to 10 h euglycemic clamp procedure with d-[3-³ H] glucose.

RESULTS

Following correction for equivalent human insulin concentrations (EHIC), low-dose GL infusion resulted in similar EGP at the end of the clamp compared to low-dose BIL infusion (GL/BIL ratio of 1.03) but a higher GDR (GL/BIL ratio of 2.42), indicating similar hepatic activity but attenuated peripheral activity of BIL. Consistent with this, the EHIC-corrected GDR/EGP at the end of the clamp was 1.72-fold greater for GL than BIL following low-dose administration. At the lower dose of BIL and GL (concentrations in the therapeutic range), BIL produced less suppression of lipolysis compared with GL as indicated by free fatty acid and glycerol levels at the end of the clamp.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with GL, BIL restored the hepato-peripheral insulin action gradient seen in normal physiology via its peripherally restricted action on target tissues related to carbohydrate and lipid metabolism.

Real-World Data Collection Regarding Titration Algorithms for Insulin Glargine in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The primary objective of this study was to collect data regarding the effectiveness of different dose titration algorithms (TAs) for optimization or initiation of basal insulin supported oral therapy (BOT) in patients with type 2 diabetes. A total of 50 patients were enrolled in this trial (17 women, 33 men, age 63 ± 8 years, HbA1c 7.9 ± 0.8%). The investigator decided on an individual basis to apply any of 4 standard TAs: standard (S: fasting glucose target 90-130 mg/dL, n = 39), standard-fast titration (S-FT: 90-130 mg/dL, larger dose increments at FBG < 180 mg/dl, n = 1), less tight (LT: 110-150 mg/dL, n = 5), and tight (T: 70-100 mg/dL, n = 5). During the next 30 days daily contacts were used to adapt the insulin dose. The majority of all patients (70%) achieved a stable insulin glargine dose within 5 ± 6 days after initiation of the dose titration. HbA1c improved from 7.9 ± 0.8% to 7.5 ± 0.7% (P < .001). In total, 1300 dose decisions were made (1192 according to the TA and 108 by the physicians independently from the TA in 29 patients [58% of study population]). Reasons for TA-overruling dosing decisions were hypoglycemic events (14 mild/4 moderate) in 9 patients. In the majority of these cases (89.8%), the physician recommended continuation of the previous dose or a higher dose. The majority of FBG values were within the respective target range after 4 weeks. In conclusion, the insulin glargine TAs delivered safe dose recommendations with a low risk of hypoglycemia, which successfully led to a stable dose in the vast majority of patients.

Pragmatic use of insulin degludec/insulin aspart co-formulation: A multinational consensus statement

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a modern coformulation of ultra-long-acting basal insulin degludec, with rapid-acting insulin aspart. IDegAsp provides effective, safe, well-tolerated glycemic control, with a low risk of hypoglycemia while allowing flexibility in meal patterns and timing of administration. This consensus statement describes a pragmatic framework to identify patients who may benefit from IDegAsp therapy. It highlights the utility of IDegAsp in type 2 diabetic patients who are insulin-naive, suboptimally controlled on basal or premixed insulin, or dissatisfied with basal-bolus regimens. It also describes potential IDegAsp usage in type 1 diabetic patients.

Combination therapies in the management of type 2 diabetes: the use of insulin degludec/liraglutide

The global burden of type 2 diabetes is estimated to currently affect over 350 million people worldwide and is anticipated to continue increasing over the next 20 years. Current treatment guidelines recommend the choice of pharmacotherapy based upon patient-specific parameters, with combination therapy for patients with a hemoglobin A1c level ≥9%. A new combination therapy of insulin degludec + liraglutide provides a long-acting basal insulin with a glucagon-like peptide agonist. In clinical trials, this combination product has reduced hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose more than the individual agents alone. Further advantages observed with this combination include weight loss and decrease in hypoglycemia compared to basal insulin alone.

New insulin glargine 300 U/ml versus glargine 100 U/ml in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs: glucose control and hypoglycaemia in a randomized controlled trial (EDITION JP 2)

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) with glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin plus oral antihyperglycaemic drug(s) [OAD(s)].

METHODS

The EDITION JP 2 study (NCT01689142) was a 6-month, multicentre, open-label, phase III study. Participants (n = 241, male 61%, mean diabetes duration 14 years, mean weight 67 kg, mean body mass index 25 kg/m(2), mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 8.02 %, mean basal insulin dose 0.24 U/kg/day) were randomized to Gla-300 or Gla-100, while continuing OAD(s). Basal insulin was titrated to target fasting self-monitored plasma glucose 4.4-5.6 mmol/l. The primary efficacy endpoint was HbA1c change over 6 months. Safety endpoints included hypoglycaemia and weight change.

RESULTS

Gla-300 was non-inferior to Gla-100 for HbA1c reduction [least squares (LS) mean difference 0.10 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.08, 0.27) %]. The mean HbA1c at month 6 was 7.56 and 7.52 % with Gla-300 and Gla-100, respectively. Nocturnal confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/l) or severe hypoglycaemia risk was 38% lower with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 [relative risk 0.62 (95% CI 0.44, 0.88)]; annualized rates were 55% lower at night [rate ratio 0.45 (95% CI 0.21, 0.96)] and 36% lower at any time [24 h; rate ratio 0.64 (95% CI 0.43, 0.96)]. Severe hypoglycaemia was infrequent. A significant between-treatment difference in weight change favoured Gla-300 [LS mean difference -1.0 (95% CI -1.5, -0.5) kg; p = 0.0003]. Adverse event rates were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Japanese people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin plus OAD(s) experienced less hypoglycaemia with Gla-300 than with Gla-100, while glycaemic control did not differ.

New insulin glargine 300 U/ml versus glargine 100 U/ml in Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes using basal and mealtime insulin: glucose control and hypoglycaemia in a randomized controlled trial (EDITION JP 1)

AIM

To compare efficacy and safety of new insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) with that of insulin glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) in Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

The EDITION JP 1 study (NCT01689129) was a 6-month, multicentre, open-label, phase III study. Participants (n = 243) were randomized to Gla-300 or Gla-100 while continuing mealtime insulin. Basal insulin was titrated with the aim of achieving a fasting self-monitored plasma glucose target of 4.4-7.2 mmol/l. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) over 6 months. Safety measures included hypoglycaemia and change in body weight.

RESULTS

Gla-300 was non-inferior to Gla-100 for the primary endpoint of HbA1c change over the 6-month period {least squares [LS] mean difference 0.13 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.29]}. The annualized rate of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/l) or severe hypoglycaemic events was 34 % lower with Gla-300 than with Gla-100 at night [rate ratio 0.66 (95 % CI 0.48-0.92)] and 20 % lower at any time of day [24 h; rate ratio 0.80 (95 % CI 0.65-0.98)]; this difference was most pronounced during the first 8 weeks of treatment. Severe hypoglycaemia was infrequent. The basal insulin dose increased in both groups (month 6 dose: Gla-300 0.35 U/kg/day, Gla-100 0.29 U/kg/day). A between-treatment difference in body weight change over 6 months favouring Gla-300 was observed [LS mean difference -0.6 kg (95 % CI -1.1 to -0.0); p = 0.035]. Adverse event rates were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes using basal plus mealtime insulin, less hypoglycaemia was observed with Gla-300 than with Gla-100, particularly during the night, while glycaemic control did not differ.

IDegAsp (insulin degludec + insulin aspart) for the management of type 2 diabetes: current status

The co-formulation insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) contains insulin degludec (IDeg), a basal insulin, and the rapid-acting insulin aspart (IAsp). Its unique pharmacodynamic profile provides a stable basal insulin action over a 24-h period due to the flat, ultra-long effect of IDeg, combined with prandial control from IAsp, which is unaffected by the basal component. IDegAsp provides a distinct mealtime insulin peak effect and reduces the likelihood of postprandial glucose excursions. The phase 2 and 3 clinical trial program demonstrates that IDegAsp provides effective glycemic control with lower rates of hypoglycemia compared with the current standard of care for insulins. Compared with premixed insulin formulations, IDegAsp allows mealtime flexibility, enabling the time of injection to be adjusted to a different meal(s) on a daily basis to suit changing needs, and has the potential to improve adherence rates. IDegAsp offers a promising new insulin strategy for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Steady state is reached within 2-3 days of once-daily administration of degludec, a basal insulin with an ultralong duration of action

BACKGROUND

Various factors influence the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of insulin analogs. The aim of the present study was to determine time to steady state of insulin degludec (IDeg), a basal insulin analog with an ultralong duration of action, after once-daily subcutaneous administration in subjects of varying age, diabetes type, and ethnicity.

METHODS

Time to steady state was analyzed in 195 subjects across five Phase I randomized single-center double-blind studies: three in subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1DM), including one in elderly subjects, and two in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), including one with African American and Hispanic/Latino subpopulations. Subjects received once-daily IDeg (100 U/mL, s.c.) at doses of 0.4-0.8 U/kg for 6-12 days. Time to clinical steady state was measured from first dose until the serum IDeg trough concentration exceeded 90% of the final plateau level. The IDeg concentrations were log-transformed and analyzed using a mixed-effects model with time from first dose and dose level (where applicable) as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.

RESULTS

Steady state serum IDeg concentrations were reached after 2-3 days in all subjects. In trials with multiple dose levels, time to steady state was independent of dose level in T1DM (P = 0.51) and T2DM (P = 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Serum IDeg concentrations reached steady state within 2-3 days of once-daily subcutaneous administration in all subjects with T1DM or T2DM, including elderly and African American and Hispanic/Latino subjects. At steady state, serum IDeg concentrations were unchanged from day to day.

Benefits of combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide are independent of baseline glycated haemoglobin level and duration of type 2 diabetes

AIM

To evaluate, using post hoc analyses, whether the novel combination of a basal insulin, insulin degludec, and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, liraglutide (IDegLira), was consistently effective in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), regardless of the stage of T2D progression.

METHODS

Using data from the DUAL I extension [insulin-naïve patients uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), n = 1660, 52 weeks] and DUAL II (patients uncontrolled on basal insulin plus OADs, n = 398, 26 weeks) randomized trials, the efficacy of IDegLira was investigated with regard to measures of disease progression stage including baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), disease duration and previous insulin dose.

RESULTS

Across four categories of baseline HbA1c (≤7.5-9.0%), HbA1c reductions were significantly greater with IDegLira (1.1-2.5%) compared with IDeg or liraglutide alone in DUAL I. In DUAL II, HbA1c reductions were significantly greater with IDegLira (0.9-2.5%) than with IDeg in all but the lowest HbA1c category. In DUAL I, insulin dose and hypoglycaemia rate were lower across all baseline HbA1c categories for IDegLira versus IDeg, while hypoglycaemia was higher with IDegLira than liraglutide, irrespective of baseline HbA1c. In DUAL II, insulin dose and hypoglycaemia rate were similar with IDegLira and IDeg (maximum dose limited to 50 U) independent of baseline HbA1c. The reduction in HbA1c with IDegLira was independent of disease duration and previous insulin dose but varied depending on pre-trial OAD treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegLira effectively lowered HbA1c across a range of measures, implying suitability for patients with either early or advanced T2D.

Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia with new insulin glargine 300 U/ml versus insulin glargine 100 U/ml in people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs: the EDITION 2 randomized 12-month trial including 6-month extension

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of new insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) with insulin glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) over 12 months of treatment in people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs).

METHODS

EDITION 2 (NCT01499095) was a randomized, 6-month, multicentre, open-label, two-arm, phase IIIa study investigating once-daily Gla-300 versus Gla-100, plus OADs (excluding sulphonylureas), with a 6-month safety extension.

RESULTS

Similar numbers of participants in each group completed 12 months of treatment [Gla-300, 315 participants (78%); Gla-100, 314 participants (77%)]. The reduction in glycated haemoglobin was maintained for 12 months with both treatments: least squares (LS) mean (standard error) change from baseline -0.55 (0.06)% for Gla-300 and -0.50 (0.06)% for Gla-100; LS mean difference -0.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.22 to 0.10)%]. A significant relative reduction of 37% in the annualized rate of nocturnal confirmed [≤3.9 mmol/l (≤70 mg/dl)] or severe hypoglycaemia was observed with Gla-300 compared with Gla-100: rate ratio 0.63 [(95% CI 0.42-0.96); p = 0.031], and fewer participants experienced ≥1 event [relative risk 0.84 (95% CI 0.71-0.99)]. Severe hypoglycaemia was infrequent. Weight gain was significantly lower with Gla-300 than Gla-100 [LS mean difference -0.7 (95% CI -1.3 to -0.2) kg; p = 0.009]. Both treatments were well tolerated with a similar pattern of adverse events (incidence of 69 and 60% in the Gla-300 and Gla-100 groups).

CONCLUSIONS

In people with type 2 diabetes treated with Gla-300 or Gla-100, and non-sulphonylurea OADs, glycaemic control was sustained over 12 months, with less nocturnal hypoglycaemia in the Gla-300 group.

The basal insulin dose; a lesson from prolonged fasting in young individuals with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The insulin requirement for type 1 diabetes during prolonged fasting is unclear. In order to define this for clinical purposes, we investigated the total insulin dose associated with successful completion of a 25 h religious fast.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Questionnaires were filled in during telephone interviews performed before and after 88 fasts in 57 young individuals with type 1 diabetes (age 20.4 ± 5.3, range: 12.3-31.2 yr). Duration of their diabetes was 8.7 ± 6.1 yr (range: 0.5-21.8) and latest HbA1c was 8.5 ± 1.9% (5.7-13.7). Twenty-eight patients fasted using multiple daily injections (MDI) and 30 were on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), including one who fasted in both categories. Subjects were instructed either to act as they had done for previous successful fasts or, for first-time fasts, to inject half their daily basal insulin injection or halve their basal CSII rate throughout the fast. The total daily insulin dose associated with successful completion of the fast was determined.

RESULTS

Among those who completed the fast, average total insulin was 0.19 ± 0.16 U/kg, patients who discontinued their fast took on average 0.34 ± 0.15 U/kg. Seven MDI patients and 12 CSII patients terminated their fast early, mostly for mild hypoglycemia. No severe hypoglycemia or other serious adverse event occurred during any of the fasts.

CONCLUSIONS

Fasting for 25 h is safe and can be undertaken in individuals with type 1 diabetes. The recommended total daily dose is 0.2 U/kg/day. This recommendation may possibly be used for other situations in which abstention from oral intake is required.

Comparison of basal insulin therapies with regard to the risk of acute myocardial infarction in patients with type 2 diabetes: an observational cohort study

AIMS

To assess the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with long-acting insulin analogues in comparison with other basal insulin therapy.

METHODS

We used German insurance claims data from the years 2004-2009 to conduct a study in a retrospective cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes. Naïve insulin users were defined as patients who had an insulin-free history before the first prescription of long-acting analogue insulin, human NPH insulin or premixed insulin and who were pretreated with oral antidiabetic drugs. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of AMI and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using sex-stratified Cox models. Propensity-score-matched analyses were conducted as sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 21,501 new insulin users. Patients treated with premixed insulin were older than patients treated with analogue or NPH insulin (mean age 70.7 vs. 64.1 and 61.6 years, respectively) and had more comorbidities. Regarding the risk of AMI, adjusted HRs showed no statistically significant difference between NPH and analogue insulin (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.74-1.19), but a higher risk for premixed than for analogue insulin (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.58). Contrary to the primary analysis, the propensity-score-matched analysis did not show an increased risk for premixed insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to a former database study, no difference was observed for the risk of AMI between long-acting analogue and NPH insulin in this study. Neither long-acting analogue insulin nor premixed insulin appears to be associated with AMI in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Weight-sparing effect of insulin detemir: a consequence of central nervous system-mediated reduced energy intake?

Insulin therapy is often associated with adverse weight gain. This is attributable, at least in part, to changes in energy balance and insulin's anabolic effects. Adverse weight gain increases the risk of poor macrovascular outcomes in people with diabetes and should therefore be mitigated if possible. Clinical studies have shown that insulin detemir, a basal insulin analogue, exerts a unique weight-sparing effect compared with other basal insulins. To understand this property, several hypotheses have been proposed. These explore the interplay of efferent and afferent signals between the muscles, brain, liver, renal and adipose tissues in response to insulin detemir and comparator basal insulins. The following models have been proposed: insulin detemir may reduce food intake through direct or indirect effects on the central nervous system (CNS); it may have favourable actions on hepatic glucose metabolism through a selective effect on the liver, or it may influence fluid homeostasis through renal effects. Studies have consistently shown that insulin detemir reduces energy intake, and moreover, it is clear that this shift in energy balance is not a consequence of reduced hypoglycaemia. CNS effects may be mediated by direct action, by indirect stimulation by peripheral mediators and/or via a more physiological counter-regulatory response to insulin through restoration of the hepatic-peripheral insulin gradient. Although the precise mechanism remains unclear, it is likely that the weight-sparing effect of insulin detemir can be explained by a combination of mechanisms. The evidence for each hypothesis is considered in this review.

U300 Insulin Glargine: A Novel Basal Insulin for Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: To review clinical efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300), a novel high-concentration basal insulin. Data Sources: A MEDLINE search was performed to identify relevant articles published 1960 through February 2015 using the search term glargine 300. Published abstracts from conference proceedings of the American Diabetes Association 74th Scientific Sessions were identified. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Human studies that evaluated pharmacokinetics, efficacy, or safety of Gla-300 were included. Data Synthesis: Six trials investigated efficacy and safety of Gla-300; 3 of 6 trials were available in abstract form only. The EDITION group of trials compared Gla-300 to insulin glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in several populations. These included subjects with type 1 diabetes continuing mealtime insulin and subjects with type 2 diabetes on basal and mealtime insulin, basal insulin and oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), and with no prior insulin use. Three studies were multinational including 2 studies exclusive to Japanese participants. Each clinical trial was an open-label, multicenter, randomized study with 6 to 12 months of follow-up. Gla-300 demonstrated similar reductions in HbA1c compared to Gla-100. Basal insulin requirements increased by 11% to 17% with Gla-300 without excessive weight gain. Rates of overall hypoglycemia were similar with Gla-300 compared to Gla-100; however, 16% to 38% less nocturnal hypoglycemia was observed in type 2 clinical trials. Conclusions: Gla-300 in combination with mealtime insulin or OADs has shown comparable glycemic control with higher insulin dose requirements versus Gla-100, and may induce less hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Can a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide help Type 2 diabetes patients to optimize glycemic control across the day?

'IDegLira' combines insulin degludec (IDeg) with the glucagon-like peptide-1 analog liraglutide (Lira) at a ratio of 1 unit IDeg to 0.036 mg Lira. The two components have complementary therapeutic actions for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes. Studies have shown that combinations of basal insulin with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists can be clinically successful, lowering elevated blood glucose with a low risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. IDegLira is being assessed in a series of studies (two already published), which provide insights into its clinical utility in previously insulin-naive patients and those failing to achieve good glycemic control on a basal-only insulin regimen. This article critically examines the available data to assess the product's likely clinical profile.

One-year sustained glycaemic control and less hypoglycaemia with new insulin glargine 300 U/ml compared with 100 U/ml in people with type 2 diabetes using basal plus meal-time insulin: the EDITION 1 12-month randomized trial, including 6-month extension

AIMS

To evaluate the maintenance of efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) versus glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using basal plus meal-time insulin for 12 months in the EDITION 1 trial.

METHODS

EDITION 1 was a multicentre, randomized, open-label, two-arm, phase IIIa study. Participants completing the initial 6-month treatment period continued to receive Gla-300 or Gla-100, as previously randomized, once daily for a further 6-month open-label extension phase. Changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose concentrations, insulin dose, hypoglycaemic events and body weight were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 807 participants enrolled in the initial phase, 89% (359/404) assigned to Gla-300 and 88% (355/403) assigned to Gla-100 completed 12 months. Glycaemic control was sustained in both groups (mean HbA1c: Gla-300, 7.24%; Gla-100, 7.42%), with more sustained HbA1c reduction for Gla-300 at 12 months: least squares mean difference Gla-300 vs Gla-100: HbA1c -0.17 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.30 to -0.05]%. The mean daily basal insulin dose at 12 months was 1.03 U/kg for Gla-300 and 0.90 U/kg for Gla-100. Lower percentages of participants had ≥1 confirmed [≤3.9 mmol/l (≤70 mg/dl)] or severe hypoglycaemic event with Gla-300 than Gla-100 at any time of day [24 h; 86 vs 92%; relative risk 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.99)] and during the night [54 vs 65%; relative risk 0.84 (95% CI 0.75-0.94)], while the annualized rates of such hypoglycaemic events were similar. No between-treatment differences in adverse events were apparent.

CONCLUSION

During 12 months of treatment of T2DM requiring basal and meal-time insulin, glycaemic control was better sustained and fewer individuals reported hypoglycaemia with Gla-300 than with Gla-100. The mean basal insulin dose was higher with Gla-300 compared with Gla-100, but total numbers of hypoglycaemic events and overall tolerability did not differ between treatments.

Patient-level meta-analysis of the EDITION 1, 2 and 3 studies: glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia with new insulin glargine 300 U/ml versus glargine 100 U/ml in people with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To conduct a patient-level meta-analysis of the EDITION 1, 2 and 3 studies, which compared the efficacy and safety of new insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) with insulin glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on basal and mealtime insulin, basal insulin and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs, or no prior insulin, respectively.

METHODS

The EDITION studies were multicentre, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase IIIa studies, with similar designs and endpoints. A patient-level meta-analysis of the studies enabled these endpoints to be examined over 6 months in a large population with T2DM (Gla-300, n = 1247; Gla-100, n = 1249).

RESULTS

No significant study-by-treatment interactions across studies were found, enabling them to be pooled. The mean change in glycated haemoglobin was comparable for Gla-300 and Gla-100 [each -1.02 (standard error 0.03)%; least squares (LS) mean difference 0.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.08 to 0.07)%]. Annualized rates of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/l) or severe hypoglycaemia were lower with Gla-300 than with Gla-100 during the night (31% difference in rate ratio over 6 months) and at any time (24 h, 14% difference). Consistent reductions were observed in percentage of participants with ≥1 hypoglycaemic event. Severe hypoglycaemia at any time (24 h) was rare (Gla-300: 2.3%; Gla-100: 2.6%). Weight gain was low (<1 kg) in both groups, with less gain with Gla-300 [LS mean difference -0.28 kg (95% CI -0.55 to -0.01); p = 0.039]. Both treatments were well tolerated, with similar rates of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Gla-300 provides comparable glycaemic control to Gla-100 in a large population with a broad clinical spectrum of T2DM, with consistently less hypoglycaemia at any time of day and less nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

Medications for type 2 diabetes: how will we be treating patients in 50 years?

The past 50 years have seen the development of many new options for treating and preventing type 2 diabetes. Despite this success, the individual and societal burden of the disease continues unabated. Thus, the next 50 years will be critical if we are going to quell the major non-communicable disease of our time. The knowledge we will gain in the next few years from clinical studies will inform treatment guidelines with regard to which agents to use in whom and whether more aggressive approaches can slow the development of hyperglycaemia in those at high risk. Beyond that, we anticipate identification of novel targets and techniques for therapeutic intervention. These advances will lead to more personalised approaches to treatment. Most importantly, we will need to focus our political and economic efforts on enhancing and implementing public health approaches aimed at prevention of diabetes and its co-morbidities. This is one of a series of commentaries under the banner '50 years forward', giving personal opinions on future perspectives in diabetes, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Diabetologia (1965-2015).

Cardiovascular effects of basal insulins

Basal insulin is an important component of treatment for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. One of the principal aims of treatment in patients with diabetes is the prevention of diabetic complications, including cardiovascular disease. There is some evidence, although controversial, that attainment of good glycemic control reduces long-term cardiovascular risk in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the potential cardiovascular safety of the different available preparations of basal insulin. Current basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH], or isophane) and basal insulin analogs (glargine, detemir, and the more recent degludec) differ essentially by various measures of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects in the bloodstream, presence and persistence of peak action, and within-subject variability in the glucose-lowering response. The currently available data show that basal insulin analogs have a lower risk of hypoglycemia than NPH human insulin, in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, then excluding additional harmful effects on the cardiovascular system mediated by activation of the adrenergic system. Given that no biological rationale for a possible difference in cardiovascular effect of basal insulins has been proposed so far, available meta-analyses of publicly disclosed randomized controlled trials do not show any signal of increased risk of major cardiovascular events between the different basal insulin analogs. However, the number of available cardiovascular events in these trials is very small, preventing any clear-cut conclusion. The results of an ongoing clinical trial comparing glargine and degludec with regard to cardiovascular safety will provide definitive evidence.

Misled by the Morning "Fasting" Plasma Glucose

Because of its ease and simplicity of its measurement, the morning fasting plasma glucose (FPG), has been as used a surrogate marker for the entire basal day when titrating once-nightly basal insulin. Common in obese insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes, late and large evening meals elevate the FPG. This has led to dosing of basal insulin well beyond the basal requirements and contributes to hypoglycemia and weight gain seen with this therapy. It is recommended that during basal insulin titration, the evening meal be limited and hypoglycemia be monitored early in the morning, that bewitching time when the "peakless" basal insulin's action is peaking and the predawn phenomenon insulin sensitivity is higher.

Early discontinuation and related treatment costs after initiation of Basal insulin in type 2 diabetes patients: a German primary care database analysis

AIMS

The aim was to compare early discontinuation and related treatment costs in type 2 diabetes in primary care after initiation of insulin glargine or human basal insulin (NPH).

METHODS

Overall, 2765 glargine and 1554 NPH patients from 1072 general practices were analyzed (Disease Analyser). Early discontinuation was defined as switching to a different basal insulin or another insulin treatment regimen within 90 days after first basal insulin prescription (index date, ID). Treatment costs were assessed 365 days prior and post ID in both groups. Propensity score matching and linear regression was used to adjust cost differences (post vs prior ID: discontinued vs continued patients) for age, sex, diabetes duration, antidiabetic comedication, diabetologist care, disease management program participation, costs before ID, and Charlson Comorbidity Index.

RESULTS

Within 3 months after ID, 13% of glargine patients switched to other insulin treatment regimens (NPH: 18%; P < .05). After propensity score matching, adjusted cost differences in 146 discontinued versus 1342 continued glargine patients were calculated (NPH: 146 vs 1342). Diabetes-related prescription costs were lower among persistent glargine patients compared to persistent NPH patients (EUR-49 [19]; P = .0109). Mean cost difference for diabetes-related prescriptions was lower among those who persisted on glargine compared to those who switched to other treatment regimens (EUR-74 [42], P = .0780).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment persistence within 3 months after basal insulin initiation was significantly higher under insulin glargine compared to NPH. Diabetes-related prescription costs were significantly lower among patients who adhered to insulin glargine compared to persistent NPH patients.

Effects of basal insulin application on serum visfatin and adiponectin levels in type 2 diabetes

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of basal insulin application on the serum visfatin and adiponectin (APN) levels of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A total of 200 patients with T2DM, who were diagnosed in The Third People's Hospital of Jinan (glycosylated hemoglobin ≥7%), were randomly divided into treatment and control groups. The patients used only oral hypoglycemic drugs and had never received insulin therapy. In the treatment group, basal insulin was administered in combination with the original application of oral hypoglycemic drugs, whereas the control group maintained the original use of oral hypoglycemic drugs or took other oral hypoglycemic agents. The body mass index and fasting blood glucose, postprandial blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin, visfatin, APN and blood lipid levels of the patients were examined prior to the treatment and six months later. The drug and insulin doses in the treatment group were adjusted according to the patients' blood glucose, which allowed the fasting and postprandial blood glucose levels to attain the standards. The fasting and postprandial blood glucose levels in the control group also achieved the standards. It was found that the six-month application of basal insulin could significantly decrease the glycosylated hemoglobin and significantly increase the serum APN levels; the serum visfatin levels, however, remained unchanged. The immediate application of basal insulin could facilitate the attainment of glycosylated hemoglobin standards in T2DM and could increase the plasma APN levels, preventing diabetic vascular complications.

Patterns of postprandial hyperglycemia after basal insulin therapy: individual and regional differences

BACKGROUND

Treatment of postprandial hyperglycemia could be needed when basal insulin added to oral therapy does not maintain glycated haemoglobin (HbA1C ) targets in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Knowing individual and regional patterns of postprandial hyperglycemia in this setting might improve therapeutic decisions.

METHODS

Patient-level self-monitored blood glucose data were pooled from six studies of insulin glargine for patients with HbA1C  ≥ 7.0% after 24 weeks. Percentages of participants with highest daily postprandial blood glucose and greatest postprandial increments after each of the three daily meals were calculated and compared between four geographical regions; USA, Canada, Germany, and other European countries.

RESULTS

For 494 participants (mean age 60.1 years, diabetes duration 9.6 years, and BMI 29.8 kg/m(2) ), mean endpoint HbA1C was 7.8%. On insulin glargine treatment, highest postprandial blood glucose most often occurred post-dinner (44% of participants) and greatest postprandial increments post-breakfast (46% of participants) in all regions. Participants with greatest postprandial increments post-breakfast were older and experienced less HbA1C improvement with insulin glargine than those with greatest postprandial increments after other meals. Post-breakfast and post-dinner postprandial blood glucose was higher in the USA and Canada versus Germany, and in the USA versus Other European countries (all p < 0.05). Postprandial increments after dinner were greater in the USA versus all other regions.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, highest postprandial blood glucose follows dinner and greatest postprandial increments follow breakfast. Variations in patient characteristics and eating patterns might underlie differences both within and between regions. Awareness of regional differences and evaluation of an individual's typical eating pattern might facilitate appropriate prandial therapy.

Is insulin the most effective injectable antihyperglycaemic therapy?

AIMS

The recent type 2 diabetes American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (ADA/EASD) position statement suggested insulin is the most effective glucose-lowering therapy, especially when glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) is very high. However, randomized studies comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) exenatide once-weekly [OW; DURATION-3 (Diabetes therapy Utilization: Researching changes in A1c, weight, and other factors Through Intervention with exenatide ONce-Weekly)] and liraglutide once-daily [OD; LEAD-5 (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes)] with insulin glargine documented greater HbA1c reduction with GLP-1RAs, from baseline HbA1c ∼8.3% (67 mmol/mol). This post hoc analysis of DURATION-3 and LEAD-5 examined changes in HbA1c, fasting glucose and weight with exenatide OW or liraglutide and glargine, by baseline HbA1c quartile.

METHODS

Descriptive statistics were provided for change in HbA1c, fasting glucose, weight, and insulin dose, and subjects (%) achieving HbA1c <7.0%, by baseline HbA1c quartile. Inferential statistical analysis on the effect of baseline HbA1c quartile was performed for change in HbA1c. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to evaluate similarity in change in HbA1c across HbA1c quartiles.

RESULTS

At 26 weeks, in both studies, HbA1c reduction, and proportion of subjects reaching HbA1c <7.0%, were similar or numerically greater with the GLP-1RAs than glargine for all baseline HbA1c quartiles. Fasting glucose reduction was similar or numerically greater with glargine. Weight decreased with both GLP-1RAs across all quartiles; subjects taking glargine gained weight, more at higher baseline HbA1c. Adverse events were uncommon although gastrointestinal events occurred more frequently with GLP-1RAs.

CONCLUSIONS

HbA1c reduction with the GLP-1RAs appears at least equivalent to that with basal insulin, irrespective of baseline HbA1c. This suggests that liraglutide and exenatide OW may be appropriate alternatives to basal insulin in type 2 diabetes, including when baseline HbA1c is very high (≥9.0%).

Glycemic control after initiating basal insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a primary care database analysis

BACKGROUND

When target glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels are not reached, basal insulin therapy should be considered in type 2 diabetes. The objective of this report was to describe the predictors of glycemic control (strict criterion: HbA1c ≤6.5%) during the first year after initiating basal insulin therapy in primary care.

METHODS

The study applied a retrospective approach using a nationwide database in Germany (Disease Analyzer, IMS Health, January 2008 to December 2011, including 1,024 general and internal medicine practices). Potential predictors of glycemic control considered were age, sex, duration of diabetes, type of basal insulin, comedication with short-acting insulin, baseline HbA1c, previous oral antidiabetic drugs, diabetologist care, private health insurance, macrovascular and microvascular comorbidity, and concomitant medication. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted with glycemic control as the dependent variable.

RESULTS

A total of 4,062 type 2 diabetes patients started basal insulin (mean age 66 years, males 53%, diabetes duration 4.8 years, mean HbA1c 8.8%), of whom 295 (7.2%) achieved an HbA1c ≤6.5% during the one-year follow-up. Factors positively associated with HbA1c ≤6.5% in logistic regression were male sex (odds ratio 1.59, 95% confidence interval 1.23-2.04), insulin glargine (reference neutral protamine Hagedorn; odds ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.88), short-acting insulin (odds ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.76), and prior treatment with metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and diuretics. Lipid-lowering drugs were associated with a lower odds of reaching the glycemic target.

CONCLUSION

Few type 2 diabetes patients (7%) reached the glycemic target (HbA1c ≤6.5%) after one year of basal insulin therapy. Achievement of the glycemic target was associated with type of basal insulin, additional short-acting insulins, previous antidiabetic medication, and other comedication, eg, diuretics or lipid-lowering drugs.

Indirect comparison of lixisenatide versus neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin as add-on to metformin and sulphonylurea in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Objective: There is currently a lack of evidence from direct comparisons of treatment outcomes with lixisenatide versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH)-insulin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with suboptimal glycaemic control with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Hence, the current analysis indirectly compared available evidence on the risk of hypoglycaemia and weight change between lixisenatide and NPH-insulin based on randomized controlled trial (RCT) data with exenatide, insulin glargine and placebo as common references.

Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane database and clinical registries identified English- and German-language articles published from January 1980 to October 2012 reporting data from RCTs. Only publications of trials that reported outcomes from 24 to 30 weeks comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists or basal insulin versus another antidiabetic agent or placebo were included. Hypoglycaemia, patients at glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) target and discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) were treated as binary variables, with risk ratios and odds ratios (ORs) calculated. HbA_1c and body weight were treated as continuous variables with difference in mean change from baseline (MD) calculated. Meta-analyses were performed with random effects models and indirect comparisons were performed according to Bucher’s method.

Results: Seven RCTs (n=3,301 patients) comparing the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide, exenatide, insulin glargine and NPH-insulin with different antidiabetic treatments in adult patients with T2DM were included in the final analysis. In the adjusted indirect comparison, there was a significant difference in symptomatic hypoglycaemia (OR = 0.38; 95% CI = [0.17, 0.85]) and in confirmed hypoglycaemia (OR = 0.46; 95% CI = [0.22, 0.96]) favouring lixisenatide over NPH-insulin and comparable changes in HbA_1c from baseline (MD = 0.07%; 95% CI = [–0.26%, 0.41%]). In contrast to NPH-insulin, there was a significant reduction in body weight with lixisenatide (MD = –3.62 kg; 95% CI = [–5.86 kg, –1.38 kg]) at study completion. The number of discontinuations due to AEs numerically favoured NPH-insulin over lixisenatide (OR = 2.64; 95% CI = [0.25, 27.96]), with a broad confidence interval.

Conclusions: Lixisenatide treatment was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and a greater weight loss compared with NPH-insulin. Glycaemic control with lixisenatide treatment was comparable with NPH-insulin. These data suggest that lixisenatide is a beneficial treatment option for T2DM patients with inadequate glycaemic control on OADs, and is associated with reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain.

Basal insulin combined incretin mimetic therapy with glucagon-like protein 1 receptor agonists as an upcoming option in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a practical guide to decision making

The combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like protein 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is a new intriguing therapeutic option for patients with type 2 diabetes. In our daily practice we abbreviate this therapeutic concept with the term BIT (basal insulin combined incretin mimetic therapy) in a certain analogy to BOT (basal insulin supported oral therapy). In most cases BIT is indeed an extension of BOT, if fasting, prandial or postprandial blood glucose values have not reached the target range. In our paper we discuss special features of combinations of short- or prandial-acting and long- or continuous-acting GLP-1 RAs like exenatide, lixisenatide and liraglutide with basal insulin in relation to different glycemic targets. Overall it seems appropriate to use a short-acting GLP-1 RA if, after the near normalization of fasting blood glucose with BOT, the prandial or postprandial values are elevated. A long-acting GLP-1 RA might well be given, if fasting blood glucose values are the problem. Based on pathophysiological findings, recent clinical studies and our experience with BIT and BOT as well as BOTplus we developed chart-supported algorithms for decision making, including features and conditions of patients. The development of these practical tools was guided by the need for a more individualized antidiabetic therapy and the availability of the new BIT principle.

Insulin degludec, a long-acting once-daily basal analogue for type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus

Here, we discuss certain practical issues related to use of insulin degludec, a new long-acting basal insulin analogue. Degludec provides uniform ("peakless") action that extends over more than 24 hours and is highly consistent from dose to dose. Like the 2 previously available basal analogues (detemir and glargine), degludec is expected to simplify dose adjustment and enable patients to reach their glycemic targets with reduced risk of hypoglycemia. Phase 3 clinical trials involving type 1 and type 2 diabetes have demonstrated that degludec was noninferior to glargine in allowing patients to reach a target glycated hemoglobin (A1C) of 7%, and nocturnal hypoglycemia occurred significantly less frequently with degludec. In addition, when dosing intervals vary substantially from day to day, degludec continues to be effective and to maintain a low rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia. Degludec thus has the potential to reduce risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia, to enhance the flexibility of the dosing schedule and to improve patient and caregiver confidence in the stability of glycemic control. A dedicated injector, the FlexTouch prefilled pen, containing degludec 200 units/mL, will be recommended for most patients with type 2 diabetes. Degludec will also be available as 100 units/mL cartridges, to be used in the NovoPen 4 by patients requiring smaller basal insulin doses, including most patients with type 1 diabetes.

Lower risk of hypoglycaemia and greater odds for weight loss with initiation of insulin detemir compared with insulin glargine in Turkish patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: local results of a multinational observational study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of insulin initiation with once-daily insulin detemir (IDet) or insulin glargine (IGlar) in real-life clinical practice in Turkish patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This was a 24-week multinational observational study of insulin initiation in patients with T2DM.

RESULTS

The Turkish cohort (n = 2886) included 2395 patients treated with IDet and 491 with IGlar. The change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from the pre-insulin levels was -2.21% [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.32, -2.09] in the IDet group and -1.88% [95% CI -2.17, -1.59] in the IGlar group at the final visit. The incidence rate of minor hypoglycaemia increased in both groups from the pre-insulin to the final visit (+0.66 and +2.23 events per patient year in the IDet and IGlar groups, respectively). Weight change in the IDet group was -0.23 kg [95% CI -0.49, 0.02 kg], and +1.55 kg [95% CI 1.11, 2.00 kg] in the IGlar group. Regression analysis with adjustment for previously identified confounders (age, gender, duration of diabetes, body mass index, previous history of hypoglycaemia, microvascular disease, number and change in oral anti-diabetic drug therapy, HbA1c at baseline and insulin dose) identified an independent effect of insulin type (IDet versus IGlar) with a risk of at least one episode of hypoglycaemia (odds ratio (OR): 0.33 [95% CI 0.21, 0.52], p <0.0001), and weight loss ≥1 kg (OR: 1.75 [95% CI 1.18, 2.59], p = 0.005), but not on HbA1c (+0.05% [95% CI -0.15, 0.25%], p = 0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of basal insulin analogues, IDet and IGlar, were associated with clinically significant glycaemic improvements. A lower risk of minor hypoglycaemia and greater odds of weight loss ≥1 kg was observed with IDet compared with IGlar.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00825643 and NCT00740519.