Ease of Use of the Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL Pen Injector in Insulin-Naïve People With Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) contains the same active ingredient as glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100), and provides the same number of units in one-third of the volume. The SoloSTAR® injector pen has been modified to ensure accurate administration of this reduced volume and to improve user experience. METHODS: Insulin- and pen-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) inadequately controlled with oral antihyperglycemic drugs, who had glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of 7.0-11.0 % (53-97 mmol/mol) were studied. They received once-daily Gla-300 in this 4-week, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study (NCT02227212). Ease of use/ease of learning (the primary endpoint), glycemic control, safety, and reliability of the disposable (prefilled) Gla-300 injector pen (secondary endpoints) were evaluated. RESULTS: At week 4, 95.0% of 40 participating subjects assessed the pen as excellent/good and none as poor/very poor; 97.5% would recommend it to others. Total Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire scores were stable throughout the study. Mean (SD) fasting plasma glucose levels decreased from 166.1 (35.0) mg/dL at baseline to 124.2 (41.1) mg/dL at week 4. No product technical complaints (PTCs) or adverse events (AEs) related to PTCs were reported. The number of subjects experiencing hypoglycemic events of any kind and the incidence of AEs were low. No serious AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The Gla-300 injector pen is easy to use and easy to learn to use, with demonstrable reliability and high degrees of acceptance and treatment satisfaction. Once-daily Gla-300 basal insulin treatment was well tolerated and effective in pen- and insulin-naïve adult T2DM subjects.

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.

Accuracy evaluation of five blood glucose monitoring systems obtained from the pharmacy: a European multicenter study with 453 subjects.

BACKGROUND: This multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the performance of five recently introduced blood glucose (BG) monitoring (BGM) devices under daily routine conditions in comparison with the YSI (Yellow Springs, OH) 2300 Stat Plus glucose analyzer. METHODS: Five hundred one diabetes patients with experience in self-monitoring of BG were randomized to use three of five different BGM devices (FreeStyle Lite® [Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Alameda, CA], FreeStyle Freedom Lite [Abbott Diabetes Care], OneTouch® UltraEasy® [LifeScan Inc., Milpitas, CA], Accu-Chek® Aviva [Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany], and Contour® [Bayer Vital GmbH, Leverkusen, Germany]) in a daily routine setting. All devices and strips were purchased from local regular distribution sources (pharmacies, four strip lots per device). The patients performed the finger prick and the glucose measurement on their own. In parallel, a healthcare professional performed the glucose assessment with the reference method (YSI 2300 Stat Plus). The primary objective was the comparison of the mean absolute relative differences (MARD). Secondary objectives were compliance with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) accuracy criteria under these routine conditions and Clarke and Parkes Error Grid analyses. RESULTS: MARD ranged from 4.9% (FreeStyle Lite) to 9.7% (OneTouch UltraEasy). The ISO 15197:2003 requirements were fulfilled by the FreeStyle Lite (98.8%), FreeStyle Freedom Lite (97.5%), and Accu-Chek Aviva (97.0%), but not by the Contour (92.4%) and OneTouch UltraEasy (91.1%). The number of values in Zone A of the Clarke Error Grid analysis was highest for the FreeStyle Lite (98.8%) and lowest for the OneTouch Ultra Easy (90.4%). CONCLUSIONS: FreeStyle Lite, FreeStyle Freedom Lite, and Accu-Chek Aviva performed very well in this study with devices and strips purchased through regular distribution channels, with the FreeStyle Lite achieving the lowest MARD in this investigation.