Physician perceptions of GLP-1 receptor agonists in the UK.

Objectives Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been used to treat type 2 diabetes for almost a decade, and new treatments in this class have recently been introduced. The purpose of this study was to examine perceptions of GLP-1 receptor agonists among physicians who treat patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK. Methods A total of 670 physicians (226 diabetes specialists; 444 general practice [GP] physicians) completed a survey in 2014. Results Almost all physicians had prescribed GLP-1 receptor agonists (95.4% total sample; 99.1% specialists; 93.5% GP), most frequently to patients whose glucose levels are not adequately controlled with oral medications (85.9% of physicians) and obese/overweight patients (83.7%). Physicians' most common reasons for prescribing a GLP-1 receptor agonist were: associated with weight loss (65.8%), good efficacy (55.7%), less hypoglycemia risk than insulin (55.2%), not associated with weight gain (34.5%), and better efficacy than oral medications (32.7%). Factors that most commonly cause hesitation when prescribing this class were: not considered first line therapy according to guidelines (56.9%), injectable administration (44.6%), cost (36.7%), gastrointestinal side effects (33.4%), and risk of pancreatitis (26.7%). Almost all specialists (99.1%) believed they had sufficient knowledge to prescribe a GLP-1 receptor agonist, compared with 76.1% of GPs. Conclusions Results highlight the widespread use of GLP-1 receptor agonists for treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK. However, almost a quarter of GPs reported that they do not have enough knowledge to prescribe GLP-1s, suggesting a need for increased dissemination of information to targeted groups of physicians. Study limitations were that the generalizability of the clinician sample is unknown; survey questions required clinicians to select answers from multiple response options rather than generating the responses themselves; and responses to this survey conducted in 2014 do not reflect perceptions of the most recently introduced GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Association of blood glucose levels with in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission in patients undergoing invasive cardiovascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the association of mean and maximum blood glucose (BG) levels with in-hospital mortality and 30-day hospital readmission among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) undergoing invasive cardiovascular (CV) surgery. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The retrospective database analysis consisted of data from 3132 patients from 17 hospitals who underwent an invasive CV surgery during 1/2000-12/2006. Patients with hyperglycemia were identified based on serum BG levels recorded from 12 hours prior to and 24 hours after ICU admission. Separate logistic regression models were used to examine the association of mean and maximum BG levels to in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission, adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities and laboratory values. RESULTS: The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for in-hospital mortality was 1.07 (95% CI: 1.01-1.12; p < .001) for every 0.56-mmol/L increase in mean BG, and OR = 1.06 (95% CI: 1.03-1.08, p < .001) for every 0.56-mmol/L increase in maximum BG. Mean BG was not associated with 30-day readmission while maximum BG had a borderline association: OR = 1.02 (95% CI: 1.00-1.03, p = .06). LIMITATION: The results are not generalizable to all cardiovascular surgical patients since only those undergoing invasive procedures were included in the study. CONCLUSIONS: Higher mean and maximum BG levels were associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality but not with 30-day readmission. Further research is needed to identify optimal BG targets and the effects of avoiding extreme hyperglycemia on patient outcomes.

Insulin and GLP-1 analog combinations in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a critical review.

INTRODUCTION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been used in clinical management of type 2 diabetes since 2005. Currently approved agents were initially developed and approved for combination therapy with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). The potential for combined use with insulin has garnered increasing attention due to the potential to reduce side effects associated with insulin therapy and improve glycemic control. AREAS COVERED: We reviewed published and other publicly released data from controlled and uncontrolled studies that included subjects treated with insulin/GLP-1 analog combination therapy. The currently available guidance for clinical practice when combining insulin and GLP-1 analogs was also summarized. EXPERT OPINION: Limited data currently available from placebo-controlled trials support the use of exenatide twice daily or liraglutide once daily in combination with basal insulin and metformin in subjects with type 2 diabetes unable to attain treatment goals. Several randomized controlled trials are currently studying combinations of insulin with various GLP-1 analogs. Additional guidance on the clinical use of these combinations will likely be forthcoming once these studies are reported. Insulin/GLP-1 analog combinations will require optimization of blood glucose monitoring strategies and delivery systems to decrease the risk of administration errors and reduce the potential complexity of these regimens.

The DURAbility of Basal versus Lispro mix 75/25 insulin Efficacy (DURABLE) trial: comparing the durability of lispro mix 75/25 and glargine.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the durability of glycemic control of twice-daily insulin lispro mix 75/25 (LM75/25: 75% insulin lispro protamine suspension/25% lispro) and once-daily insulin glargine, added to oral antihyperglycemic drugs in type 2 diabetes patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: During the initiation phase, patients were randomized to LM75/25 or glargine. After 6 months, patients with A1C ≤ 7.0% advanced to the maintenance phase for ≤ 24 months. The primary objective was the between-group comparison of duration of maintaining the A1C goal. RESULTS: Of 900 patients receiving LM75/25 and 918 patients receiving glargine who completed initiation, 473 and 419, respectively, had A1C ≤ 7.0% and continued into maintenance. Baseline characteristics except age were similar in this group. Median time of maintaining the A1C goal was 16.8 months for LM75/25 (95% CI 14.0-19.7) and 14.4 months for glargine (95% CI 13.4-16.8; P = 0.040). A1C goal was maintained in 202 LM75/25-treated patients (43%) and in 147 glargine-treated patients (35%; P = 0.006). No differences were observed in overall, nocturnal, or severe hypoglycemia. LM75/25 patients had higher total daily insulin dose (0.45 ± 0.21 vs. 0.37 ± 0.21 units/kg/day) and more weight gain (5.4 ± 5.8 vs. 3.7 ± 5.6 kg) from baseline. Patients taking LM75/25 and glargine with lower baseline A1C levels were more likely to maintain the A1C goal (P = 0.043 and P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A modestly longer durability of glycemic control was achieved with LM75/25 compared with glargine. Patients with lower baseline A1C levels were more likely to maintain the goal, supporting the concept of earlier insulin initiation.

Effects of insulin initiation on patient-reported outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: results from the durable trial.

AIM: To examine changes in patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on oral agents who initiated insulin (insulin lispro mix 25/75 [LM25] or insulin glargine) in the DURABLE trial (n=580). METHODS: Subjects completed generic and diabetes-specific health-related quality-of-life measures (RAND-36 and Diabetes-39) and a symptom assessment measure (DSC-Revised) at baseline and 6 months post insulin initiation. Mean score change was evaluated. Effect size (ES; Cohen's d) and analysis of covariance were used to examine extent and significance of change both within and between treatment groups. RESULTS: Subject characteristics were mean age 57 years, males 59%, duration of diabetes 9.6 years, and baseline HbA1c 8.9%. In the total sample, significant (P<0.01) improvements (with small ES) were observed in four of eight RAND-36 subscales (ES range: 0.13-0.24), three of five Diabetes-39 subscales (ES range: 0.09-0.34), and five of eight DSC-Revised subscales (ES range: 0.15-0.38). While significance of within-group changes varied by treatment, only one subscale (physical functioning for LM25) showed deterioration. The changes were not significantly different (P>0.01) between regimens for any subscales. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that insulin initiation improves selective PRO in patients with poorly controlled T2DM.

DURAbility of basal versus lispro mix 75/25 insulin efficacy (DURABLE) trial 24-week results: safety and efficacy of insulin lispro mix 75/25 versus insulin glargine added to oral antihyperglycemic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of two starter insulin regimens to achieve glycemic control in a large, ethnically diverse population with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: During the initiation phase of the DURABLE trial, patients were randomized to a twice-daily lispro mix 75/25 (LM75/25; 75% lispro protamine suspension, 25% lispro) (n = 1,045) or daily glargine (GL) (n = 1,046) with continuation of prestudy oral antihyperglycemic drugs. RESULTS: Baseline A1C was similar (LM75/25: 9.1 +/- 1.3%; GL: 9.0 +/- 1.2%; P = 0.414). At 24 weeks, LM75/25 patients had lower A1C than GL patients (7.2 +/- 1.1 vs. 7.3 +/- 1.1%, P = 0.005), greater A1C reduction (-1.8 +/- 1.3 vs. -1.7 +/- 1.3%, P = 0.005), and higher percentage reaching A1C target <7.0% (47.5 vs. 40.3%, P < 0.001). LM75/25 was associated with higher insulin dose (0.47 +/- 0.23 vs. 0.40 +/- 0.23 units x kg(-1) x day(-1), P < 0.001) and more weight gain (3.6 +/- 4.0 vs. 2.5 +/- 4.0 kg, P < 0.0001). LM75/25 patients had a higher overall hypoglycemia rate than GL patients (28.0 +/- 41.6 vs. 23.1 +/- 40.7 episodes x pt(-1) x year(-1), P = 0.007) but lower nocturnal hypoglycemia rate (8.9 +/- 19.3 vs. 11.4 +/- 25.3 episodes x pt(-1) x year(-1), P = 0.009). Severe hypoglycemia rates were low in both groups (LM75/25: 0.10 +/- 1.6 vs. GL: 0.03 +/- 0.3 episodes x pt(-1) x year(-1), P = 0.167). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with GL, LM75/25 resulted in slightly lower A1C at 24 weeks and a moderately higher percentage reaching A1C target <7.0%. Patients receiving LM75/25 experienced more weight gain and higher rates of overall hypoglycemia but lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycemia. Durability of regimens will be evaluated in the following 2-year maintenance phase.