Once-weekly dulaglutide versus bedtime insulin glargine, both in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-4): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: For patients with type 2 diabetes who do not achieve target glycaemic control with conventional insulin treatment, advancing to a basal-bolus insulin regimen is often recommended. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide with that of insulin glargine, both combined with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We did this 52 week, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial at 105 study sites in 15 countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with conventional insulin treatment were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence with an interactive voice-response system, to receive once-weekly dulaglutide 1·5 mg, dulaglutide 0·75 mg, or daily bedtime glargine. Randomisation was stratified by country and metformin use. Participants and study investigators were not masked to treatment allocation, but were unaware of dulaglutide dose assignment. The primary outcome was a change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 26, with a 0·4% non-inferiority margin. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01191268. FINDINGS: Between Dec 9, 2010, and Sept 21, 2012, we randomly assigned 884 patients to receive dulaglutide 1·5 mg (n=295), dulaglutide 0·75 mg (n=293), or glargine (n=296). At 26 weeks, the adjusted mean change in HbA1c was greater in patients receiving dulaglutide 1·5 mg (-1·64% [95% CI -1·78 to -1·50], -17·93 mmol/mol [-19·44 to -16·42]) and dulaglutide 0·75 mg (-1·59% [-1·73 to -1·45], -17·38 mmol/mol [-18·89 to -15·87]) than in those receiving glargine (-1·41% [-1·55 to -1·27], -15·41 mmol/mol [-16·92 to -13·90]). The adjusted mean difference versus glargine was -0·22% (95% CI -0·38 to -0·07, -2·40 mmol/mol [-4·15 to -0·77]; p=0·005) for dulaglutide 1·5 mg and -0·17% (-0·33 to -0·02, -1·86 mmol/mol [-3·61 to -0·22]; p=0·015) for dulaglutide 0·75 mg. Five (<1%) patients died after randomisation because of septicaemia (n=1 in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group); pneumonia (n=1 in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group); cardiogenic shock; ventricular fibrillation; and an unknown cause (n=3 in the glargine group). We recorded serious adverse events in 27 (9%) patients in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group, 44 (15%) patients in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group, and 54 (18%) patients in the glargine group. The most frequent adverse events, arising more often with dulaglutide than glargine, were nausea, diarrhoea, and vomiting. INTERPRETATION: Dulaglutide in combination with lispro resulted in a significantly greater improvement in glycaemic control than did glargine and represents a new treatment option for patients unable to achieve glycaemic targets with conventional insulin treatment. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Once-weekly dulaglutide versus once-daily liraglutide in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-6): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Dulaglutide and liraglutide, both glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, improve glycaemic control and reduce weight in patients with type 2 diabetes. In a head-to-head trial, we compared the safety and efficacy of once-weekly dulaglutide with that of once-daily liraglutide in metformin-treated patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We did a phase 3, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study at 62 sites in nine countries between June 20, 2012, and Nov 25, 2013. Patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes receiving metformin (≥1500 mg/day), aged 18 years or older, with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7·0% or greater (≥53 mmol/mol) and 10·0% or lower (≤86 mmol/mol), and body-mass index 45 kg/m(2) or lower were randomly assigned to receive once-weekly dulaglutide (1·5 mg) or once-daily liraglutide (1·8 mg). Randomisation was done according to a computer-generated random sequence with an interactive voice response system. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was non-inferiority (margin 0·4%) of dulaglutide compared with liraglutide for change in HbA1c (least-squares mean change from baseline) at 26 weeks. Safety data were collected for a further 4 weeks' follow-up. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01624259. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 599 patients to receive once-weekly dulaglutide (299 patients) or once-daily liraglutide (300 patients). 269 participants in each group completed treatment at week 26. Least-squares mean reduction in HbA1c was -1·42% (SE 0·05) in the dulaglutide group and -1·36% (0·05) in the liraglutide group. Mean treatment difference in HbA1c was -0·06% (95% CI -0·19 to 0·07, pnon-inferiority<0·0001) between the two groups. The most common gastrointestinal adverse events were nausea (61 [20%] in dulaglutide group vs 54 [18%] in liraglutide group), diarrhoea (36 [12%] vs 36 [12%]), dyspepsia (24 [8%] vs 18 [6%]), and vomiting (21 [7%] vs 25 [8%]), with similar rates of study or study drug discontinuation because of adverse events between the two groups (18 [6%] in each group). The hypoglycaemia rate was 0·34 (SE 1·44) and 0·52 (3·01) events per patient per year, respectively, and no severe hypoglycaemia was reported. INTERPRETATION: Once-weekly dulaglutide is non-inferior to once-daily liraglutide for least-squares mean reduction in HbA1c, with a similar safety and tolerability profile. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Continuous subcutaneous infusion of insulin lispro in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive review of insulin lispro administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in children and adolescents. METHODS: We performed PubMed literature searches to identify clinical studies of insulin lispro administered via CSII within pediatric and adolescent populations. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies involving 2521 pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus met inclusion criteria. Of these, 10 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 6 of which compared insulin lispro CSII with multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy. We identified 7 additional prospective, nonrandomized studies and 9 retrospective studies. Within the RCTs, endpoint hemoglobin A1c levels ranged from 6.3% to 8.5% for insulin lispro CSII therapy and from 6.2% to 8.7% for those trials with MDI comparator arms. In those trials that compared insulin lispro CSII with MDI, the endpoint hemoglobin A1c achieved with insulin lispro was similar or improved compared with observations in the MDI treatment arm. In the RCTs, severe hypoglycemia rates of 0.1 to 0.3 episodes/patient per year were reported for insulin lispro CSII therapy; those trials with MDI comparator arms reported relatively similar severe hypoglycemia rates (0.1 to 0.5 episodes/patient per year). Events of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) were rare. Where reported, insulin lispro CSII and MDI therapy demonstrated a similar occurrence of DKA and incidence of severe hypoglycemia. Prospective and retrospective studies demonstrated results similar to the RCT findings. CONCLUSIONS: In 26 studies of more than 2500 pediatric and adolescent patients with type 1 diabetes, with more than 1000 patients specifically receiving insulin lispro CSII, insulin lispro CSII therapy consistently demonstrated similar or improved efficacy and safety vs studied comparators.

Preadmission glycemic control and changes to diabetes mellitus treatment regimen after hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment patterns associated with diabetes medication regimen changes after hospitalization on the basis on preadmission hemoglobin A1c levels. METHODS: In this retrospective database analysis, patients with a diabetes diagnosis, hospitalization, and documented hemoglobin A1c level within the 90 days leading up to hospital admission were identified in an administrative claims database. Treatment regimens were assessed before and after hospitalization. The proportion of patients who had progression, reduction, or no change in therapy was compared across hemoglobin A1c subgroups: hemoglobin A1c <7.0%, hemoglobin A1c 7.0%-7.9%, and hemoglobin A1c ≥8.0%. RESULTS: Four hundred patients were included (192 in hemoglobin A1c <7.0% group, 94 in hemoglobin A1c 7.0%-7.9% group, and 114 in hemoglobin A1c ≥8.0% group). Demographically, hemoglobin A1c subgroups did not differ significantly (mean age, 57 years; 47.5% male). With respect to therapeutic regimen overall, 28%, 24%, and 48% of patients experienced progression, reduction, and no change, respectively. Across hemoglobin A1c subgroups, 37.7% of patients in the hemoglobin A1c ≥8.0% subgroup had therapy progression compared with 26% and 20.2% in the hemoglobin A1c <7.0% and hemoglobin A1c 7.0%-7.9% subgroups, respectively (P = .032 and P = .006, respectively). Within the progression category, progression via insulin initiation was significantly higher in the hemoglobin A1c ≥8.0% subgroup (55.8%) than in the hemoglobin A1c <7.0% subgroup (16%, P<.001), but not significantly higher than in the hemoglobin A1c 7.0%-7.9% subgroup (36.8%, P = .084). In the hemoglobin A1c ≥8.0% subgroup, a lower percentage of patients, 35.1%, experienced no therapy change than in both the hemoglobin A1c <7.0% subgroup (52.6%) and the hemoglobin A1c 7.0%-7.9% subgroup (54.3%) (P = .003 and P = .006, respectively). There was no difference between subgroups in reduction of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: A higher proportion of patients with a hemoglobin A1c level ≥8.0% had progression of their antidiabetes therapy after hospitalization and fewer patients had no change in therapy than those in lower hemoglobin A1c subgroups. These data suggest that clinicians may be using hemoglobin A1c measurements to guide discharge planning treatment decisions.

Potential for use of 1,5-anhydroglucitol when initiating insulin therapy in people with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal control with oral antidiabetic drugs.

Endpoint HbA(1c) <7.0% was achieved by 80 (73.4%) lispro mix 25 (LM25)-treated patients and 67 (60.9%) glargine-treated patients (p=0.027) with baseline 1,5 anhydroglucitol (1,5AG) below median and 75 (70.8%) LM25-treated patients and 72 (63.7%) glargine-treated patients (p=0.238) with 1,5AG≥median, suggesting, 1,5AG may offer therapeutic insight when starting insulin therapy.

Concomitant oral antihyperglycemic agent use and associated treatment outcomes after initiation of insulin therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin lispro mix 75/25 (75% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 25% lispro) or insulin glargine therapy, stratified by baseline oral antihyperglycemic agent (OHA) use. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of 6-month data from the DURABLE clinical trial, which enrolled patients with hemoglobin A1c (A1C) levels >7.0% treated with 2 or more OHAs (metformin, sulfonylurea, and thiazolidinedione), and randomly assigned them to treatment with twice-daily insulin lispro 75/25 or once-daily glargine. RESULTS: In both insulin treatment groups, metformin/thiazolidinedione-treated patients had significantly greater improvement in A1C levels (-2.19% to -2.36%), lower end point A1C values, and lower rates of occurrence of hypoglycemia in comparison with metformin/sulfonylurea-treated patients (all P<.05). Patients treated with sulfonylurea/thiazolidinedione or metformin/sulfonylurea/thiazolidinedione did not differ significantly from metformin/sulfonylurea-treated patients in A1C change (-1.56% to -1.84%) or rates of occurrence of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: In these post hoc analyses, patients with type 2 diabetes initiating premixed or basal insulin therapy and treated concomitantly with the OHA combination of metformin/thiazolidinedione at baseline demonstrated significantly greater A1C improvement with less hypoglycemia in comparison with patients treated with metformin/sulfonylurea.

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.

The nuts and bolts of subcutaneous insulin therapy in non-critical care hospital settings.

In non-critical care settings, patients with hyperglycemia experience increased morbidity and mortality. Despite an increased recognition of the importance of treating inpatient hyperglycemia, many patients are still not adequately controlled. Insulin offers flexibility to address varying glucose levels and therefore is the preferred therapy to achieve recommended targets and manage hyperglycemia. Traditional sliding-scale insulin regimens often ineffectively control blood glucose levels as they are unable to mimic physiologic insulin secretion. Basal-bolus insulin regimens are recognized as a more effective way to correct hyperglycemia in non-critical care settings and a systematic glycemic control program is necessary to address hyperglycemia while minimizing hypoglycemia. Critical components of these programs include addressing barriers to glycemic control, understanding varying needs of different types of patients, and developing standardized subcutaneous insulin orders to achieve target glucose levels. This article provides strategies for using insulin in non-critical care settings to facilitate glycemic control.

Randomized, open-label, parallel-group evaluations of basal-bolus therapy versus insulin lispro premixed therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus failing to achieve control with starter insulin treatment and continuing oral antihyperglycemic drugs: a noninferiority intensification substudy of the DURABLE trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin glargine and lispro mix 75/25 (75% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 25% insulin lispro injection [LM75/25]) represent 2 common starter insulin regimen classes: basal and premixed. After initiation of starter insulin therapy, if patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) are unable to achieve a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level <7.0%, insulin intensification may be indicated. The DURABLE (Assessing Durability of Basal Versus Lispro Mix 75/25 Insulin Efficacy) trial was designed to compare initiating insulin therapy with analogue basal insulin versus premixed analogue insulin in patients unable to achieve good glycemic control while taking multiple oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OADs). OBJECTIVE: To provide objective information about insulin intensification, the DURABLE trial also included a substudy evaluating a systematic approach to advancing insulin therapy in those patients who did not achieve glycemic control with their initial insulin regimen. This substudy, the results of which are reported here, tested the hypothesis that advancing insulin therapy with premixed insulin is noninferior to basal-bolus therapy (BBT) in patients with type 2 DM unable to achieve an HbA1c level < or = 7.0% after 6 months of starter insulin therapy. METHODS: In the main DURABLE study, 2091 patients (age range, 30-80 years) with type 2 DM and HbA1c values >7.0% receiving > or = 2 OADs were randomized to receive insulin glargine (n = 1046) or LM75/25 (n = 1045), both in combination with prestudy OADs. After 6 months, patients with HbA1c levels >7.0% could enter this intensification substudy; OADs except sulfonylureas were continued. Patients originally receiving insulin glargine were enrolled in intensification arm A and were randomized to receive BBT (insulin glargine once daily plus mealtime insulin lispro TID) or LM75/25 BID. Patients originally receiving LM75/25 were enrolled in intensification arm B and randomized to receive BBT or mealtime 50% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 50% insulin lispro injection (LM50/50) TID. Insulin doses were adjusted based on preprandial plasma glucose levels. The primary end point was noninferiority of premixed therapy versus BBT with respect to end-point HbA1c. Secondary end points included change in HbA1c and weight, percentage of patients reaching HbA1c target levels, total daily insulin dose, and rates of hypoglycemia. The safety profile was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 475 patients in the insulin glargine + OAD arm of the main study who had HbA1c levels >7.0% at 6 months, 399 (84%) entered intensification arm A. The mean age was 57 years, 53% of the patients were male, and mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.0% (1.0%) at baseline. Of those patients, 199 were randomly assigned to receive BBT and 200 were assigned to receive LM75/25. Of the 411 patients in the LM75/25 + OAD arm of the main study who had an HbA1c level >7.0% at 6 months, 345 (84%) entered intensification arm B. The mean age was 55 years, 51% of the patients were male, and mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.0% (0.9%) at baseline. Of those patients, 171 were randomly assigned to receive BBT and 174 were assigned to receive LM50/50. At end point, noninferiority of LM75/25 or LM50/50 to BBT was supported, with a 95% CI of -0.10 to 0.37 and -0.25 to 0.25, respectively. At 6 months, HbA1c did not differ significantly from baseline in any group. Regardless of treatment group, <20% of patients achieved an HbA1c level <7.0%. There were no significant differences between groups in total daily insulin dose, weight gain, incidence or rate of hypoglycemia, or incidence of serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: No group had significant improvement from baseline in HbA1c. Our study results suggest that premixed therapy, dosed 2 times per day (LM75/25) or 3 times per day (LM50/50), was noninferior to BBT (4 injections/d) in this population of adult patients with type 2 DM previously uncontrolled with OADs plus basal insulin or twice-daily premixed insulin. Clinical-Trials.gov identifier: NCT00279201.

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.

Racial and ethnic differences in mean plasma glucose, hemoglobin A1c, and 1,5-anhydroglucitol in over 2000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

CONTENT: Recent studies have reported hemoglobin A(1c) (A1c) differences across racial/ethnic groups. Our diverse population allows for further investigation of potential differences in measurements of glycemia. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to describe and explore baseline racial/ethnic differences in self-monitored plasma glucose profiles, A1c, and 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) in patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the Assessing DURAbility of Basal vs. Lispro Mix 75/25 Insulin Efficacy trial. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS: The trial enrolled 2094 patients with type 2 diabetes, ages 30-80 yr, from 11 countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimated mean plasma glucose (MPG), A1c, and 1,5-AG were compared among racial/ethnic groups before and after adjusting for factors affecting glycemia: age, sex, duration of diabetes, body mass index, and MPG. RESULTS: Baseline estimated MPG +/- sd was 220.0 +/- 82.0 mg/dl, mean A1c was 9.0 +/- 1.3%, and 1,5-AG was 5.0 +/- 4.1microg/ml. Estimated MPG did not differ between Caucasian and non-Caucasian groups. A1c was higher in Hispanics (9.4 +/- 1.4%; P < 0.001), Asians (9.2 +/- 1.4%; P < 0.01), and patients of other racial/ethnic groups (9.7 +/- 1.5%; P < 0.001) compared with Caucasians (8.9 +/- 1.2%). Paradoxically, 1,5-AG was higher for Asian (5.7 +/- 4.6 microg/ml) and African patients (6.2 +/- 5.4 microg/ml) vs. Caucasians (4.9 +/- 3.9 microg/ml) (P < 0.01). After adjusting for factors affecting glycemia, A1c was higher (all P

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.