Insulin glargine metabolite 21(A) -Gly-human insulin (M1) is the principal component circulating in the plasma of young children with type 1 diabetes: results from the PRESCHOOL study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Insulin glargine metabolite 21(A) -Gly-human insulin (M1) is the principal component circulating in plasma of adults with type 1 diabetes. The objective of this study was to confirm this finding in young children and to rule out accumulation of parent insulin glargine. DESIGN AND METHODS: Children with type 1 diabetes from the PRESCHOOL study, aged 2-6 yr, were treated with insulin glargine for 24 wk (n = 62). Blood samples were drawn at weeks 1, 2, and 4 approximately 24 h after the last dose and analyzed for glargine, M1, and Thr(30B) -des-M1 (M2) using immunoaffinity purification and liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry. The lower limit of quantification was 33 pmol/L for all analytes. RESULTS: M1 was the principal active component circulating in plasma. Mean (SD) plasma Ctrough values were 101 (138), 80 (122), and 79 (102) pmol/L following glargine doses of 0.33 (0.02), 0.34 (0.02), and 0.38 (0.03) U/kg at weeks 1, 2, and 4, respectively. Parent insulin glargine and M2 concentrations were below the level of quantification. These results are in line with those observed in adults and indicate no accumulation of the parent compound in this patient population. CONCLUSION: In young children with type 1 diabetes, the principal component circulating in plasma after subcutaneous injection of insulin glargine is M1, the pharmacologically active component. No accumulation of the parent insulin glargine was observed. These data provide additional evidence on the safety profile of insulin glargine in young children (Clinical trial identifier: NCT00993473).

Insulin degludec in combination with bolus insulin aspart is safe and effective in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

Insulin degludec (IDeg) once-daily was compared with insulin detemir (IDet) once- or twice-daily, with prandial insulin aspart in a treat-to-target, randomized controlled trial in children 1-17 yr with type 1 diabetes, for 26 wk (n = 350), followed by a 26-wk extension (n = 280). Participants were randomized to receive either IDeg once daily at the same time each day or IDet given once or twice daily according to local labeling. Aspart was titrated according to a sliding scale or in accordance with an insulin:carbohydrate ratio and a plasma glucose correction factor. Randomization was age-stratified: 85 subjects 1-5 yr. (IDeg: 43), 138 6-11 yr (IDeg: 70) and 127 12-17 yr (IDeg: 61) were included. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between groups overall and within each stratification. Non-inferiority of IDeg vs. IDet was confirmed for HbA1c at 26 wk; estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.15% [-0.03; 0.32]95% CI . At 52 wk, HbA1c was 7.9% (IDeg) vs. 7.8% (IDet), NS; change in mean FPG was -1.29 mmol/L (IDeg) vs. +1.10 mmol/L (IDet) (ETD -1.62 mmol/L [-2.84; -0.41]95% CI , p = 0.0090) and mean basal insulin dose was 0.38 U/kg (IDeg) vs. 0.55 U/kg (IDet). The majority of IDet treated patients (64%) required twice-daily administration to achieve glycemic targets. Hypoglycemia rates did not differ significantly between IDeg and IDet, but confirmed and severe hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher with IDeg (57.7 vs. 54.1 patient-years of exposure (PYE) [NS] and 0.51 vs. 0.33, PYE [NS], respectively) although nocturnal hypoglycemia rates were numerically lower (6.0 vs. 7.6 PYE, NS). Rates of hyperglycemia with ketosis were significantly lower for IDeg vs. IDet [0.7 vs. 1.1 PYE, treatment ratio 0.41 (0.22; 0.78)95% CI , p = 0.0066]. Both treatments were well tolerated with comparable rates of adverse events. IDeg achieved equivalent long-term glycemic control, as measured by HbA1c with a significant FPG reduction at a 30% lower basal insulin dose when compared with IDet. Rates of hypoglycemia did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups; however, hyperglycemia with ketosis was significantly reduced in those treated with IDeg.

Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes (BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 1): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensive basal-bolus insulin therapy has been shown to improve glycaemic control and reduce the risk of long-term complications that are associated with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Insulin degludec is a new, ultra-longacting basal insulin. We therefore compared the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec and insulin glargine, both administered once daily with mealtime insulin aspart, in basal-bolus therapy for type 1 diabetes. METHODS: In an open-label, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial, undertaken at 79 sites (hospitals and centres) in six countries, adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA(1c)] ≤10% [86 mmol/mol]), who had been treated with basal-bolus insulin for at least 1 year, were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio, with a computer-generated blocked allocation sequence, to insulin degludec or insulin glargine without stratification by use of a central interactive response system. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of degludec to glargine, assessed as a reduction in HbA(1c) after 52 weeks, with the intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00982228. FINDINGS: Of 629 participants, 472 were randomly assigned to insulin degludec and 157 to insulin glargine; all were analysed in their respective treatment groups. At 1 year, HbA(1c) had fallen by 0·40% points (SE 0·03) and 0·39% points (0·07), respectively, with insulin degludec and insulin glargine (estimated treatment difference -0·01% points [95% CI -0·14 to 0·11]; p<0·0001 for non-inferiority testing) and 188 (40%) and 67 (43%) participants achieved a target HbA(1c) of less than 7% (<53 mmol/mol). Rates of overall confirmed hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose <3·1 mmol/L or severe) were similar in the insulin degludec and insulin glargine groups (42·54 vs 40·18 episodes per patient-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio [degludec to glargine] 1·07 [0·89 to 1·28]; p=0·48). The rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia was 25% lower with degludec than with glargine (4·41 vs 5·86 episodes per patient-year of exposure; 0·75 [0·59 to 0·96]; p=0·021). Overall serious adverse event rates (14 vs 16 events per 100 patient-years of exposure) were similar for the insulin degludec and insulin glargine groups. INTERPRETATION: Insulin degludec might be a useful basal insulin for patients with type 1 diabetes because it provides effective glycaemic control while lowering the risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia, which is a major limitation of insulin therapy. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

A randomized trial comparing the rate of hypoglycemia--assessed using continuous glucose monitoring--in 125 preschool children with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin glargine or NPH insulin (the PRESCHOOL study).

BACKGROUND: Avoidance of hypoglycemia is a key consideration in treating young children with type 1 diabetes (T1DM). KEY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate hypoglycemia with insulin glargine vs. neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in young children, using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). SUBJECTS: Children of 1 to <6 yr treated with once-daily glargine vs. once- or twice-daily NPH, with bolus insulin lispro/regular human insulin provided to all. METHODS: Twenty-four week, multicenter, randomized, open-label study. Primary endpoint was event rate of composite hypoglycemia [symptomatic hypoglycemia, low CGM excursions (<3.9 mmol/L) or low fingerstick blood glucose (FSBG; <3.9 mmol/L)]. Noninferiority of glargine vs. NPH was assessed for the primary endpoint. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-five patients (mean age, 4.2 yr) were randomized to treatment (glargine, n = 61; NPH, n = 64). At baseline, mean HbA1c was 8.0 and 8.2% with glargine and NPH, respectively. Composite hypoglycemia episodes/100 patient-yr was 1.93 for glargine and 1.69 for NPH; glargine noninferiority was not met. Events/100 patient-yr of symptomatic hypoglycemia were 0.26 for glargine vs. 0.33 for NPH; low CGM excursions 0.75 vs. 0.72; and low FSBG 1.93 vs.1.68. There was a slight difference in between-group severe/nocturnal/severe nocturnal hypoglycemia and glycemic control. All glargine-treated patients received once-daily injections; on most study days NPH-treated patients received twice-daily injections. CONCLUSIONS: While glargine noninferiority was not achieved, in young children with T1DM, there was a slight difference in hypoglycemia outcomes and glycemic control between glargine and NPH. Once-daily glargine may therefore be a feasible alternative basal insulin in young populations, in whom administering injections can be problematic.

Efficacy and Safety of Liraglutide Added to Capped Insulin Treatment in Subjects With Type 1 Diabetes: The ADJUNCT TWO Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of liraglutide added to capped insulin doses in subjects with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 26-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trial enrolling 835 subjects randomized 3:1 receiving once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide (1.8, 1.2, and 0.6 mg) or placebo added to an individually capped total daily dose of insulin. RESULTS: Mean baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (8.1% [65.0 mmol/mol]) was significantly decreased with liraglutide versus placebo at week 26 (1.8 mg: -0.33% [3.6 mmol/mol]; 1.2 mg: -0.22% [2.4 mmol/mol]; 0.6 mg: -0.23% [2.5 mmol/mol]; placebo: 0.01% [0.1 mmol/mol]). Liraglutide significantly reduced mean body weight (-5.1, -4.0, and -2.5 kg for 1.8, 1.2, and 0.6 mg, respectively) versus placebo (-0.2 kg). Significant reductions in daily insulin dose and increases in quality of life were seen with liraglutide versus placebo. There were higher rates of symptomatic hypoglycemia (21.3 vs. 16.6 events/patient/year; P = 0.03) with liraglutide 1.2 mg vs. placebo and of hyperglycemia with ketosis >1.5 mmol/L with liraglutide 1.8 mg vs. placebo (0.5 vs. 0.1 events/patient/year; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In a broad population of subjects with long-standing type 1 diabetes, liraglutide added to capped insulin reduced HbA1c, body weight, and insulin requirements but with higher rates of hypoglycemia for liraglutide 1.2 mg and hyperglycemia with ketosis for liraglutide 1.8 mg.

Comparable efficacy and safety of insulin glulisine and insulin lispro when given as part of a Basal-bolus insulin regimen in a 26-week trial in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy and safety of insulin glulisine with insulin lispro as part of a basal-bolus regimen in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Overall, 572 children and adolescents (4-17 years old) using insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin as basal insulin were enrolled in a 26-week, multicenter, open, centrally randomized, parallel-group, noninferiority study. Subjects were randomized to receive glulisine (n = 277) or lispro (n= 295) 0-15 min premeal. RESULTS: Baseline-to-endpoint hemoglobin A1c changes were similar between the two insulins: adjusted mean change (glulisine vs. lispro), 0.10% versus 0.16%; between-treatment difference (glulisine-lispro), &minsu;0.06, 95% confidence interval (-0.24; 0.12); and prespecified noninferiority margin, 0.4%. Overall, for all age groups together, the percentage of patients achieving American Diabetes Association age-specific A1c targets at endpoint was significantly higher (P = 0.039) with glulisine (38.4%) versus lispro (32.0%). From Month 4 to endpoint, both "all" and "severe" symptomatic hypoglycemia rates were similar (3.10 vs. 2.91 and 0.06 vs. 0.07 events/patient-month, respectively). Frequency and type of adverse events, serious adverse events, or hypoglycemia reported as serious adverse events were similar between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Glulisine was as effective as lispro in baseline-to-endpoint A1c change, and both treatments were similarly well tolerated.

No effect of the altered peptide ligand NBI-6024 on beta-cell residual function and insulin needs in new-onset type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized, four-arm, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging phase 2 trial was conducted to determine whether repeated subcutaneous injections of the altered peptide ligand, NBI-6024, designed to inhibit autoreactive T-cells, improves beta-cell function in patients with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 188 patients, aged 10-35 years, with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes were randomly assigned for a treatment consisting of the subcutaneous administration of placebo or 1, 0.5, or 0.1 mg NBI-6024 at baseline, weeks 2 and 4, and then monthly until month 24. Fasting, peak, and area under the curve (AUC) C-peptide concentrations during a 2-h mixed-meal tolerance test were measured at 3-month intervals during treatment. Immune function parameters (islet antibodies and CD4 and CD8 T-cells) were also studied. RESULTS: The mean peak C-peptide concentration at 24 months after study entry showed no significant difference between the groups treated with 0.1 mg (0.59 pmol/ml), 0.5 mg (0.57 pmol/ml), and 1.0 mg NBI-6024 (0.48 pmol/ml) and the placebo group (0.54 pmol/ml). Fasting, stimulated peak, and AUC C-peptide concentrations declined linearly in all groups by approximately 60% over the 24-month treatment period. The average daily insulin needs at month 24 were also comparable between the four groups. No treatment-related changes in islet antibodies and T cell numbers were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with altered peptide ligand NBI-6024 at repeated doses of 0.1, 0.5, or 1.0 mg did not improve or maintain beta-cell function.

Biphasic insulin aspart vs. human insulin in adolescents with type 1 diabetes on multiple daily insulin injections.

The aim was to compare clinical efficacy and safety of two treatment regimens: biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) injected at all three meals plus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin at bedtime vs. a human insulin regimen, premixed human insulin at breakfast and soluble insulin at lunch and dinner and NPH at bedtime. A total of 167 adolescents (80 males and 87 females) with type 1 diabetes was included in the trial (multinational, randomized, open-label, and parallel group). Each subject received either of two treatment regimens for a 4-month period. BIAsp was injected immediately before main meals, human insulin products 30 min before meals, and NPH at night. Glycemic control was monitored by eight-point evaluations (after 6 and 16 wks) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (after 2, 6, and 16 wks). Safety evaluations included adverse events and incidence of hypoglycemic episodes. HbA1c (mean+/- SD) after 4 months on BIAsp (9.39+/- 0.14) was not significantly different from that with human insulin (9.30+/- 0.15). The average postprandial glucose increment in the BIAsp group was about half the increment in the human insulin group; the difference not statistically significant. The body mass index (BMI) increased in both groups, but significantly (p=0.005) less in the BIAsp group. However, in males on BIAsp, the BMI decreased compared with those on human insulin (p=0.007). No significant group differences were found for the rate of hypoglycemic episodes. We concluded that the BIAsp regimen was associated with similar glycemic control and similar incidence of hypoglycemic episodes as human insulin. However, the BIAsp regimen caused a significantly smaller increase in BMI, particularly in males, compared with the human insulin regimen.