Efficacy and safety of insulin lispro in obese patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective metaanalysis of 7 randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who had a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 (obese) compared with patients with BMIs <30 kg/m2 (nonobese). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of predefined end-points from 7 randomized clinical trials of T2DM patients treated with insulin lispro was performed. The primary efficacy measure was to assess the noninferiority of insulin lispro in obese patients versus nonobese patients as measured by the change in hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) from baseline to Month 3 (n = 1,518), using a noninferiority margin of 0.4%. The secondary measures included overall hypoglycemia incidence and event rates and relative change in body weight. RESULTS: Mean changes in HbA1c from baseline (9.06% for obese and 8.92% for nonobese) to Month 3 were similar for obese patients (-1.03%) and nonobese (-1.02%), with a least squares (LS) mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of -0.05% (-0.17%, 0.07%; P = .384). The overall incidence of hypoglycemia (53% vs. 63%; P<.001) and rate of hypoglycemia (0.93 vs. 1.76 events per 30 days; P<.001) was significantly lower in obese patients compared with nonobese patients. The 2 BMI cohorts did not demonstrate a significant difference in mean percent changes in body weights (LS mean difference = 0.4% [-0.2%, 0.9%]; P = .202). CONCLUSION: Obese patients with T2DM treated with insulin lispro were able to achieve the same level of glycemic control as their nonobese counterparts, with some evidence supporting a reduced risk of hypoglycemia.

Durability of glycemic control with insulin lispro mix 75/25 versus insulin glargine for older patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Few studies have evaluated long-term durability of glycemic control in older patients. The aim of this study was to compare durability of glycemic control of twice-daily insulin lispro mix 75/25 (LM75/25; 75 % insulin lispro protamine suspension, 25 % insulin lispro) and once-daily insulin glargine (GL) added to oral antihyperglycemic medications in older patients (≥65 years of age). METHODS: Patients were participants in the maintenance phase of the DURABLE trial. During the initiation phase, patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to LM75/25 or GL. After 6 months, patients with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≤7.0 % advanced to the 24-month maintenance phase. The primary objective was between-group comparison of duration of maintaining the HbA1c goal in older patients (≥65 years of age). A similar analysis was conducted for older patients achieving HbA1c ≤6.5 % in the initiation phase. RESULTS: Median time of maintaining HbA1c goal was longer in LM75/25 versus GL (19.6 versus 15.4 months, p = 0.007) and more LM75/25 patients maintained goal versus GL (49.2 versus 30.4 %; p = 0.003). HbA1c reduction from baseline was greater in LM75/25 versus GL (-1.56 ± 0.10 versus -1.24 ± 0.11 %; p = 0.003). Post-meal glucose was significantly lower in LM75/25 versus GL (158.86 ± 3.42 versus 171.67 ± 4.51 mg/dL; p = 0.017). No differences were observed in overall and severe hypoglycemia. LM75/25 patients had higher daily insulin doses (0.41 ± 0.02 versus 0.32 ± 0.02 units/kg/day; p < 0.001) and more weight gain (5.47 ± 0.49 versus 3.10 ± 0.53 kg; p = 0.001). Similar results were generally obtained in older patients with HbA1c ≤6.5 %. CONCLUSIONS: In our evaluation of older patients from a larger trial, LM75/25 appeared to provide longer durability of glycemic control, as well as a greater number of patients maintaining HbA1c goal versus GL.

Efficacy and safety of insulin lispro in geriatric patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective analysis of seven randomized controlled clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Glycemic control in geriatric patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) remains clinically challenging. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of insulin lispro in patients C65 years (geriatric) to those\65 years (non-geriatric), using a metaanalysis of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT). METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of predefined endpoints from an integrated database of seven RCTs of T2DM patients treated with insulin lispro. The primary efficacy measure tested the non-inferiority of insulin lispro (geriatric vs. non-geriatric; non-inferiority margin 0.4 %) in terms of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) change from baseline to Month 3 (N = 1,525), with change from baseline to Month 6 as a supportive analysis (N = 885). Changes in HbA1c from baseline were evaluated with an analysis of covariance model. Secondary measures included incidence and rate of hypoglycemia, and incidence of cardiovascular events. RESULTS: Mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Month 3 was similar for geriatric (-0.97 %) and non-geriatric patients (-1.05 %); least-square (LS) mean difference (95 % CI) was 0.02 % (-0.11, 0.15 %; p = 0.756). Similar results were observed in patients treated up to Month 6; LS mean difference (95 % CI) was 0.07 % (-0.12, 0.26 %; p = 0.490). Decrease in HbA1c from baseline to Months 3 and 6 was non-inferior in geriatric compared with non-geriatric patients. There were no significant differences in the incidence and the rate of hypoglycemia, incidence of cardiovascular events, or other serious adverse events including malignancy, post-baseline between the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: Key measures of efficacy and safety in geriatric patients with T2DM were not significantly different from non-geriatric patients when utilizing insulin lispro. Insulin lispro may be considered a safe and efficacious therapeutic option for the management of T2DM in geriatric patients.

Impact of race/ethnicity on efficacy and safety of two starter insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes: a posthoc analysis of the DURABLE trial.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of race/ethnicity on efficacy and safety of twice-daily insulin lispro mix 75/25 (LM75/25; 75% lispro protamine suspension, 25% insulin lispro) and once daily insulin glargine (GL). DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS: More than 2,000 Patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the 24-week initiation phase of the DURABLE Trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy and safety variables at endpoint, including hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG), and hypoglycemia, in each racial/ethnic group were compared to Caucasians within treatment groups. RESULTS: Asian patients had less (LM75/25: -1.46%, P < .01; GL: -1.25%, P < .01) and Hispanic patients had greater (LM75/25: -2.17%) HbA1c reduction from baseline vs Caucasian patients (LM75/25: -1.84%; GL: -1.78%). Fewer Asian (LM75/25: 20%, P < .001; GL: 22%, P < .001) and Hispanic patients (LM75/25: 40%, P < .01) reached HbA1c target (< 7%) vs Caucasian patients (LM75/25: 53%; GL: 44%). Fasting plasma glucose was similar among groups, postprandial glucose (PPG) with GL was lower for African patients post-breakfast and post-dinner and higher for Asian patients post-lunch. Only PPG with LM75/25 was lower for Hispanic patients post-breakfast. Weight gain was lower in Asian patients (LM75/ 25). Insulin dose was higher for Asian (LM75/25 and GL) and lower for African patients (GL). Hypoglycemia rate was lower for Asian (LM75/25 and GL) and Hispanic patients (LM75/25). CONCLUSIONS: There were significant efficacy and safety differences among racial/ethnic groups in the DURABLE trial. These differences may be important in designing insulin based treatment plans.

Effects of the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide on ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus, are associated with small reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and increases in heart rate. However, findings based on clinic measurements do not adequately assess a drug's 24-hour pharmacodynamic profile. The effects of dulaglutide, a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, on BP and heart rate were investigated using ambulatory BP monitoring. Patients (n=755; 56±10 years; 81% white; 48% women), with type 2 diabetes mellitus, taking ≥1 oral antihyperglycemic medication, with a clinic BP between 90/60 and 140/90 mm Hg were randomized to dulaglutide (1.5 or 0.75 mg) or placebo subcutaneously for 26 weeks. Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed at baseline and at 4, 16, and 26 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline to week 16 in mean 24-hour SBP, a tree gatekeeping strategy compared the effects of dulaglutide to placebo. Both doses of dulaglutide were noninferior to placebo for changes in 24-hour SBP and diastolic blood pressure, and dulaglutide 1.5 mg significantly reduced SBP (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval]), -2.8 mm Hg [-4.6, -1.0]; P≤0.001). Dulaglutide 0.75 mg was noninferior to placebo (1.6 bpm; [0.3, 2.9]; P≤0.02) for 24-hour heart rate (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval]), but dulaglutide 1.5 mg was not (2.8 bpm [1.5, 4.2]). Dulaglutide 1.5 mg was associated with a reduction in 24-hour SBP and an increase in 24-hour heart rate. The mechanisms responsible for the observed effects remain to be clarified.

Understanding heterogeneity in response to antidiabetes treatment: a post hoc analysis using SIDES, a subgroup identification algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Treatment response in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) varies because of different genotypic and phenotypic characteristics. Results of clinical trials are based largely on aggregated estimates of treatment effect rather than individualized outcomes. This research assessed heterogeneity and differential treatment response using the subgroup identification based on differential effect search (SIDES) algorithm with data from a large multinational study. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the DURABLE trial, a randomized, open-label, two-arm, parallel study. The trial enrolled 2091 insulin-naïve T2DM patients aged 30 to 80 years. Patients received twice-daily insulin lispro mix 75/25 (LM75/25) or once-daily insulin glargine (insulin glargine). The SIDES methodology was used to find subgroups where the treatment effect was substantially different from what was observed in the full population of the clinical trial. A subgroup identification tool implementing the SIDES algorithm was used to examine data for 1092 patients (584 LM75/25 and 508 insulin glargine), achieving at-goal 12- or 24-week glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C) (≤7.0%). RESULTS: The overall at-goal population treatment difference (A1C reduction) was not clinically meaningful, but a clinically meaningful difference was observed (A1C reduction 2.31% ± 0.06% LM75/25 versus 2.01% ± 0.07% insulin glargine; p = .001) in patients with a baseline fasting insulin level >11.4 µIU/ml and age ≤56 years. CONCLUSION: The observation that younger patients with higher levels of fasting insulin may benefit from a regimen that includes short-acting insulin targeting postprandial glycemia helps explain the heterogeneity in response and warrants further investigation.

Ethnic differences in glycemic markers in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have reported hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) differences across ethnic groups that could limit its use in clinical practice. The authors of the A1C-Derived Average Glucose study have advocated to report HbA1c in estimated average glucose (AG) equivalents. The aim of this study was to assess the relationships between HbA1c and the mean of three 7-point self-monitored blood glucose (BG) profiles, and to assess whether estimated AG is an accurate measure of glycemia in different ethnic groups. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated 1,879 participants with type 2 diabetes in the DURABLE trial who were 30 to 80 years of age, from 11 countries, and, according to self-reported ethnic origin, were Caucasian, of African descent (black), Asian, or Hispanic. We performed logistic regression of the relationship between the mean self-monitored BG and HbA1c, and estimated AG, according to ethnic background. RESULTS: Baseline mean (SD) HbA1c was 9.0% (1.3) (75 [SD, 14] mmol/mol), and mean self-monitored BG was 12.1 mmol/L (3.1) (217 [SD, 55] mg/dL). In the clinically relevant HbA1c range of 7.0-9.0% (53-75 mmol/mol), non-Caucasian ethnic groups had 0.2-0.5% (2-6 mmol/mol) higher HbA1c compared with Caucasians for a given BG level. At the mean self-monitored BG levels≤11.6 mmol/L, estimated AG overestimated the actual average BG; at levels>11.6 mmol/L, estimated AG underestimated the actual BG levels. CONCLUSIONS: For a given degree of glycemia, HbA1c levels vary among different ethnic groups. Ethnicity needs to be taken into account when using HbA1c to assess glycemic control or to set glycemic targets. Estimated AG is not a reliable marker for mean glycemia and therefore is of limited clinical value.

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.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of high-dose human regular U-500 insulin versus human regular U-100 insulin in healthy obese subjects.

OBJECTIVE: Human regular U-500 (U-500R) insulin (500 units/mL) is increasingly being used clinically, yet its pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) have not been well studied. Therefore, we compared PK and PD of clinically relevant doses of U-500R with the same doses of human regular U-100 (U-100R) insulin (100 units/mL). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a single-site, randomized, double-blind, crossover euglycemic clamp study. Single subcutaneous injections of 50- and 100-unit doses of U-500R and U-100R were administered to 24 healthy obese subjects. RESULTS: Both overall insulin exposure (area under the serum insulin concentration versus time curve from zero to return to baseline [AUC(0-)(t)(')]) and overall effect (total glucose infused during a clamp) were similar between formulations at both 50- and 100-unit doses (90% [CI] of ratios contained within [0.80, 1.25]). However, peak concentration and effect were significantly lower for U-500R at both doses (P < 0.05). Both formulations produced relatively long durations of action (18.3 to 21.5 h). Time-to-peak concentration and time to maximum effect were significantly longer for U-500R than U-100R at the 100-unit dose (P < 0.05). Time variables reflective of duration of action (late tR(max50), tR(last)) were prolonged for U-500R versus U-100R at both doses (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall exposure to and action of U-500R insulin after subcutaneous injection were no different from those of U-100R insulin. For U-500R, peaks of concentration and action profiles were blunted and the effect after the peak was prolonged. These findings may help guide therapy with U-500R insulin for highly insulin-resistant patients with diabetes.

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.