A randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of treating patients with type 2 diabetes and highly elevated HbA1c levels with basal-bolus insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist plus basal insulin: The SIMPLE study

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1RA) plus basal insulin versus basal-bolus insulin treatment in patients with very uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The SIMPLE study was a 6-month pragmatic, randomized, open-label trial testing the effectiveness of two approaches to treat patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c ≥10%. We randomized patients to detemir plus liraglutide or detemir plus aspart (before each meal). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c; changes in body weight, insulin dose, hypoglycaemia and diabetes-related quality-of-life were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

We randomized 120 participants aged 47.4 ± 9.5 years, Hispanic 40%, African American 42%, diabetes duration 10 [25th-75th percentile (6 to 15)] years, body mass index 37.2 ± 10.3 kg/m² . HbA1c decreased more with GLP1RA plus basal insulin [12.2% (95% CI 11.8% to 12.6%) to 8.1% (95% CI 7.4% to 8.7%)] compared with basal-bolus insulin [11.8% (95% CI 11.5% to 12.2%) to 8.8% (95% CI 88.1% to 9.55%)]; estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -1.1% (95% CI -2.0% to -0.1%) (non-inferiority margin 0.4% and P = .0001, superiority P = .026). Compared with basal-bolus insulin, treatment with GLP1RA plus basal insulin led to a body weight ETD of -3.7 kg (95% CI -5.8 to -1.5; P = .001), fewer patients experiencing hypoglycaemia [66.1% vs 35.2% (P = .002)], and greater improvements in general/current health perception, treatment satisfaction, and fear of hypoglycaemia, while taking a lower total daily dose of insulin [estimated treatment ratio 0.68 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.84)].

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HbA1c ≥10% treatment with GLP1RA plus basal insulin, compared with basal-bolus insulin, resulted in better glycaemic control and body weight, lower insulin dosage and hypoglycaemia, and improved quality of life. This treatment strategy is an effective and safe alternative to a basal-bolus insulin regimen.

Effect of medication adherence on clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes: analysis of the SIMPLE study

OBJECTIVE

Medication adherence is impacted by regimen complexity. The SIMPLE (Simple basal Insulin titration, Metformin Plus Liraglutide for type 2 diabetes with very Elevated HbA1c) study compared GLP1RA plus basal insulin (GLP1RA+BI) to basal-bolus insulin (BBI) regimen in participants with very uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This analysis aimed to evaluate medication adherence to GLP1RA+BI compared with BBI, the effect of adherence on clinical and patient-reported outcomes, and baseline predictors of adherence.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was an analysis of the SIMPLE study based on prespecified outcome. The study took place in pragmatic, real-world setting. A total of 120 adults with T2DM and HgbA1c≥10% were randomized to detemir plus liraglutide, or detemir plus aspart before each meal; 6-month follow-up. The main outcomes evaluated were: adherence, HgbA1c, weight, quality of life, and hypoglycemia. Adherence rate was calculated for each study medication at each follow-up visit; participants were classified as ≥80% or <80% adherent.

RESULT

A higher percentage of participants in the GLP1RA+BI compared with the BBI group had ≥80% adherence to detemir (59.3% vs 35.7%, p=0.02) as well as liraglutide versus aspart (57.4% vs 30.4%, p=0.007). Higher age was predictive of ≥80% adherence (OR per 5-year increment=1.48, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.0, p=0.01). Higher adherence led to greater improvement in HbA1c and weight in both groups. Treatment with GLP1RA+BI compared with BBI led to greater improvement in HbA1c, weight, and quality of life and lower risk of hypoglycemia even after adjusting for the difference in adherence between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence was higher with the simplified regimen of GLP1RA+BI compared with BBI. Greater adherence to the simpler regimen amplified the treatment effect on HbA1c, weight, quality of life, and risk of hypoglycemia, yet statistically significant greater benefits were noted even when adjusted for adherence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01966978.

Practice-based learning and systems-based practice: detection and treatment monitoring of generalized anxiety and depression in primary care

OBJECTIVES

Quality assurance/quality improvement projects are an important part of professional development in graduate medical education. The purpose of our quality improvement study was to evaluate whether (1) the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scale questionnaire increases detection of anxiety and (2) the Quick Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology Self Report (QIDS-SR) increases detection of depression in a primary care setting. We also aimed to determine whether monitoring patients with depression or generalized anxiety using the QIDS-SR and GAD-7 scales influences treatment changes in the primary care setting.

METHODS

Patients seen in a general internal medicine clinic between August 2008 and March 2009 were asked to fill out the QID-SR questionnaire and GAD-7 as part of a resident quality improvement project. We measured the prevalence of anxiety and depression during 6 months prior to the use of the GAD-7 and QIDS-SR instruments during the intervention period. We also compared the frequency of treatment changes initiated both 12 months prior to and during the intervention period. The aforementioned measures were performed with use of a retrospective chart review.

RESULTS

The prevalence of anxiety was 15.2% in the pre-intervention period and 33.3% in the intervention period, and the prevalence of depression was 38.9% in the prescreening period and 54.8% during the screening period (P value for both was <0.001). The change in anxiety therapy was 21.6% in the prescreening period and 62.2% in the screening period (P  =  .028). The change in depression therapy was 23.2% in the pre-intervention period and 52.1% in the intervention period (P  =  .025).

CONCLUSION

Routine screening for depression and anxiety may help clinicians detect previously undiagnosed anxiety and depression and also may facilitate identification of needed treatment changes. Further work is needed to determine whether routine screening improves patient outcomes.