Italian Titration Approach Study (ITAS) with insulin glargine 300 U/mL in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes: Design and population.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Fostering patient's self-managing of basal insulin therapy could improve glucose control, by removing patient's and physician's barriers to basal insulin initiation, titration and glucose monitoring. The Italian Titration Approaches Study (ITAS) aims at demonstrating non-inferiority (<0.3% margin) in efficacy of glucose control (change in glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] after 24 weeks) by the same titration algorithm of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300), managed by the (nurse assisted) patient versus the physician, in insulin naïve patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM), uncontrolled with previous treatments. METHODS AND RESULTS: ITAS is a phase IV, 24-week, national, multicenter, open label, randomized (1:1) parallel group study. 458 patients were enrolled, 359 randomized, and 339 completed the study, in 46 Italian centers. Baseline characteristics and previous medications of the ITT population (N = 355) are reported. Mean ± SD age, T2DM duration, HbA1c, FPG and BMI were 64.0 ± 9.8 years, 11.6 ± 7.6 years, 8.79 ± 0.65%, 170.9 ± 42.3 mg/dL, and 30.3 ± 5.6 kg/m2, respectively. Vascular and metabolic disorders were most frequent (73.8% and 58.3%, respectively). More than 90% of patients were on metformin. CONCLUSION: ITAS is the first study to compare two different managers (nurse-assisted patient vs physician) of the same titration algorithm of Gla-300 in insulin naïve patients with T2DM in unsatisfactory glucose control. This study might provide novel evidence on the efficacy/effectiveness of patient-managed titration algorithm of Gla-300 in a pragmatic setting and may reduce barriers to basal insulin initiation and its titration.

New insulin glargine 300 U/ml versus glargine 100 U/ml in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs: glucose control and hypoglycaemia in a randomized controlled trial (EDITION JP 2).

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) with glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin plus oral antihyperglycaemic drug(s) [OAD(s)]. METHODS: The EDITION JP 2 study (NCT01689142) was a 6-month, multicentre, open-label, phase III study. Participants (n = 241, male 61%, mean diabetes duration 14 years, mean weight 67 kg, mean body mass index 25 kg/m(2), mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 8.02 %, mean basal insulin dose 0.24 U/kg/day) were randomized to Gla-300 or Gla-100, while continuing OAD(s). Basal insulin was titrated to target fasting self-monitored plasma glucose 4.4-5.6 mmol/l. The primary efficacy endpoint was HbA1c change over 6 months. Safety endpoints included hypoglycaemia and weight change. RESULTS: Gla-300 was non-inferior to Gla-100 for HbA1c reduction [least squares (LS) mean difference 0.10 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.08, 0.27) %]. The mean HbA1c at month 6 was 7.56 and 7.52 % with Gla-300 and Gla-100, respectively. Nocturnal confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/l) or severe hypoglycaemia risk was 38% lower with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 [relative risk 0.62 (95% CI 0.44, 0.88)]; annualized rates were 55% lower at night [rate ratio 0.45 (95% CI 0.21, 0.96)] and 36% lower at any time [24 h; rate ratio 0.64 (95% CI 0.43, 0.96)]. Severe hypoglycaemia was infrequent. A significant between-treatment difference in weight change favoured Gla-300 [LS mean difference -1.0 (95% CI -1.5, -0.5) kg; p = 0.0003]. Adverse event rates were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Japanese people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin plus OAD(s) experienced less hypoglycaemia with Gla-300 than with Gla-100, while glycaemic control did not differ.

New insulin glargine 300 U/ml versus glargine 100 U/ml in Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes using basal and mealtime insulin: glucose control and hypoglycaemia in a randomized controlled trial (EDITION JP 1).

AIM: To compare efficacy and safety of new insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) with that of insulin glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) in Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: The EDITION JP 1 study (NCT01689129) was a 6-month, multicentre, open-label, phase III study. Participants (n = 243) were randomized to Gla-300 or Gla-100 while continuing mealtime insulin. Basal insulin was titrated with the aim of achieving a fasting self-monitored plasma glucose target of 4.4-7.2 mmol/l. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) over 6 months. Safety measures included hypoglycaemia and change in body weight. RESULTS: Gla-300 was non-inferior to Gla-100 for the primary endpoint of HbA1c change over the 6-month period {least squares [LS] mean difference 0.13 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.29]}. The annualized rate of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/l) or severe hypoglycaemic events was 34 % lower with Gla-300 than with Gla-100 at night [rate ratio 0.66 (95 % CI 0.48-0.92)] and 20 % lower at any time of day [24 h; rate ratio 0.80 (95 % CI 0.65-0.98)]; this difference was most pronounced during the first 8 weeks of treatment. Severe hypoglycaemia was infrequent. The basal insulin dose increased in both groups (month 6 dose: Gla-300 0.35 U/kg/day, Gla-100 0.29 U/kg/day). A between-treatment difference in body weight change over 6 months favouring Gla-300 was observed [LS mean difference -0.6 kg (95 % CI -1.1 to -0.0); p = 0.035]. Adverse event rates were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes using basal plus mealtime insulin, less hypoglycaemia was observed with Gla-300 than with Gla-100, particularly during the night, while glycaemic control did not differ.

New insulin glargine 300 U/ml compared with glargine 100 U/ml in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes on oral glucose-lowering drugs: a randomized controlled trial (EDITION 3).

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of new insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) with that of glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes using oral glucose-lowering drugs. METHODS: The EDITION 3 study was a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group study. Participants were randomized to Gla-300 or Gla-100 once daily for 6 months, discontinuing sulphonylureas and glinides, with a dose titration aimed at achieving pre-breakfast plasma glucose concentrations of 4.4-5.6 mmol/l (80-100 mg/dl). The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to month 6. The main secondary endpoint was percentage of participants with ≥1 nocturnal confirmed [≤3.9 mmol/l (≤70 mg/dl)] or severe hypoglycaemia from week 9 to month 6. Other measures of glycaemia and hypoglycaemia, weight change and insulin dose were assessed. RESULTS: Randomized participants (n = 878) had a mean (standard deviation) age of 57.7 (10.1) years, diabetes duration 9.8 (6.4) years, body mass index 33.0 (6.7) kg/m(2) and HbA1c 8.54 (1.06) % [69.8 (11.6) mmol/mol]. HbA1c levels decreased by equivalent amounts with the two treatments; the least squares mean difference in change from baseline was 0.04 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.17] % or 0.4 (-1.0 to 1.9) mmol/mol. Numerically fewer participants reported ≥1 nocturnal confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/l) or severe hypoglycaemia from week 9 to month 6 [relative risk (RR) 0.89 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.20)] with Gla-300 versus Gla-100; a significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia with this definition was found over the 6-month treatment period [RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.99)]. No between-treatment differences in adverse events were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Gla-300 is as effective as Gla-100 in reducing HbA1c in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes, with lower hypoglycaemia risk.

Patient-level meta-analysis of the EDITION 1, 2 and 3 studies: glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia with new insulin glargine 300 U/ml versus glargine 100 U/ml in people with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To conduct a patient-level meta-analysis of the EDITION 1, 2 and 3 studies, which compared the efficacy and safety of new insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) with insulin glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on basal and mealtime insulin, basal insulin and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs, or no prior insulin, respectively. METHODS: The EDITION studies were multicentre, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase IIIa studies, with similar designs and endpoints. A patient-level meta-analysis of the studies enabled these endpoints to be examined over 6 months in a large population with T2DM (Gla-300, n = 1247; Gla-100, n = 1249). RESULTS: No significant study-by-treatment interactions across studies were found, enabling them to be pooled. The mean change in glycated haemoglobin was comparable for Gla-300 and Gla-100 [each -1.02 (standard error 0.03)%; least squares (LS) mean difference 0.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.08 to 0.07)%]. Annualized rates of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/l) or severe hypoglycaemia were lower with Gla-300 than with Gla-100 during the night (31% difference in rate ratio over 6 months) and at any time (24 h, 14% difference). Consistent reductions were observed in percentage of participants with ≥1 hypoglycaemic event. Severe hypoglycaemia at any time (24 h) was rare (Gla-300: 2.3%; Gla-100: 2.6%). Weight gain was low (<1 kg) in both groups, with less gain with Gla-300 [LS mean difference -0.28 kg (95% CI -0.55 to -0.01); p = 0.039]. Both treatments were well tolerated, with similar rates of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Gla-300 provides comparable glycaemic control to Gla-100 in a large population with a broad clinical spectrum of T2DM, with consistently less hypoglycaemia at any time of day and less nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia with new insulin glargine 300 U/ml versus insulin glargine 100 U/ml in people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs: the EDITION 2 randomized 12-month trial including 6-month extension.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of new insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) with insulin glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) over 12 months of treatment in people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs). METHODS: EDITION 2 (NCT01499095) was a randomized, 6-month, multicentre, open-label, two-arm, phase IIIa study investigating once-daily Gla-300 versus Gla-100, plus OADs (excluding sulphonylureas), with a 6-month safety extension. RESULTS: Similar numbers of participants in each group completed 12 months of treatment [Gla-300, 315 participants (78%); Gla-100, 314 participants (77%)]. The reduction in glycated haemoglobin was maintained for 12 months with both treatments: least squares (LS) mean (standard error) change from baseline -0.55 (0.06)% for Gla-300 and -0.50 (0.06)% for Gla-100; LS mean difference -0.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.22 to 0.10)%]. A significant relative reduction of 37% in the annualized rate of nocturnal confirmed [≤3.9 mmol/l (≤70 mg/dl)] or severe hypoglycaemia was observed with Gla-300 compared with Gla-100: rate ratio 0.63 [(95% CI 0.42-0.96); p = 0.031], and fewer participants experienced ≥1 event [relative risk 0.84 (95% CI 0.71-0.99)]. Severe hypoglycaemia was infrequent. Weight gain was significantly lower with Gla-300 than Gla-100 [LS mean difference -0.7 (95% CI -1.3 to -0.2) kg; p = 0.009]. Both treatments were well tolerated with a similar pattern of adverse events (incidence of 69 and 60% in the Gla-300 and Gla-100 groups). CONCLUSIONS: In people with type 2 diabetes treated with Gla-300 or Gla-100, and non-sulphonylurea OADs, glycaemic control was sustained over 12 months, with less nocturnal hypoglycaemia in the Gla-300 group.

One-year sustained glycaemic control and less hypoglycaemia with new insulin glargine 300 U/ml compared with 100 U/ml in people with type 2 diabetes using basal plus meal-time insulin: the EDITION 1 12-month randomized trial, including 6-month extension.

AIMS: To evaluate the maintenance of efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) versus glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using basal plus meal-time insulin for 12 months in the EDITION 1 trial. METHODS: EDITION 1 was a multicentre, randomized, open-label, two-arm, phase IIIa study. Participants completing the initial 6-month treatment period continued to receive Gla-300 or Gla-100, as previously randomized, once daily for a further 6-month open-label extension phase. Changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose concentrations, insulin dose, hypoglycaemic events and body weight were assessed. RESULTS: Of 807 participants enrolled in the initial phase, 89% (359/404) assigned to Gla-300 and 88% (355/403) assigned to Gla-100 completed 12 months. Glycaemic control was sustained in both groups (mean HbA1c: Gla-300, 7.24%; Gla-100, 7.42%), with more sustained HbA1c reduction for Gla-300 at 12 months: least squares mean difference Gla-300 vs Gla-100: HbA1c -0.17 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.30 to -0.05]%. The mean daily basal insulin dose at 12 months was 1.03 U/kg for Gla-300 and 0.90 U/kg for Gla-100. Lower percentages of participants had ≥1 confirmed [≤3.9 mmol/l (≤70 mg/dl)] or severe hypoglycaemic event with Gla-300 than Gla-100 at any time of day [24 h; 86 vs 92%; relative risk 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.99)] and during the night [54 vs 65%; relative risk 0.84 (95% CI 0.75-0.94)], while the annualized rates of such hypoglycaemic events were similar. No between-treatment differences in adverse events were apparent. CONCLUSION: During 12 months of treatment of T2DM requiring basal and meal-time insulin, glycaemic control was better sustained and fewer individuals reported hypoglycaemia with Gla-300 than with Gla-100. The mean basal insulin dose was higher with Gla-300 compared with Gla-100, but total numbers of hypoglycaemic events and overall tolerability did not differ between treatments.

Modulation of insulin dose titration using a hypoglycaemia-sensitive algorithm: insulin glargine versus neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To examine whether insulin glargine can lead to better control of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) than that achieved by neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, using a protocol designed to limit nocturnal hypoglycaemia. METHODS: The present study, the Least One Oral Antidiabetic Drug Treatment (LANCELOT) Study, was a 36-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-arm study conducted in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and South America. Participants were randomized (1:1) to begin glargine or NPH, on background of metformin with glimepiride. Weekly insulin titration aimed to achieve median prebreakfast and nocturnal plasma glucose levels ≤5.5 mmol/l, while limiting values ≤4.4 mmol/l. RESULTS: The efficacy population (n = 701) had a mean age of 57 years, a mean body mass index of 29.8 kg/m², a mean duration of diabetes of 9.2 years and a mean HbA1c level of 8.2% (66 mmol/mol). At treatment end, HbA1c values and the proportion of participants with HbA1c <7.0 % (<53 mmol/mol) were not significantly different for glargine [7.1 % (54 mmol/mol) and 50.3%] versus NPH [7.2 % (55 mmol/mol) and 44.3%]. The rate of symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemia, confirmed by plasma glucose ≤3.9 or ≤3.1 mmol/l, was 29 and 48% less with glargine than with NPH insulin. Other outcomes were similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: Insulin glargine was not superior to NPH insulin in improving glycaemic control. The insulin dosing algorithm was not sufficient to equalize nocturnal hypoglycaemia between the two insulins. This study confirms, in a globally heterogeneous population, the reduction achieved in nocturnal hypoglycaemia while attaining good glycaemic control with insulin glargine compared with NPH, even when titrating basal insulin to prevent nocturnal hypoglycaemia rather than treating according to normal fasting glucose levels.

Efficacy and safety of lixisenatide once daily vs. placebo in people with Type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled on metformin (GetGoal-F1).

AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of one- and two-step dose-increase regimens of lixisenatide once daily in participants with Type 2 diabetes mellitus insufficiently controlled with metformin. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multi-centre study enrolling participants with Type 2 diabetes (n = 484) treated with metformin. Participants were randomized to receive either lixisenatide in a one-step dose increase or a two-step dose increase vs. placebo for 24 weeks, followed by a ≥ 52-week variable double blind period. Primary outcome was HbA1c reduction at week 24. RESULTS: Lixisenatide one-/two-step once daily significantly improved HbA1c at week 24 compared with placebo (P < 0.0001) and allowed more participants to achieve HbA1c < 53 mmol/mol (< 7.0%) (P ≤ 0.0005). Improvements were observed in fasting plasma glucose (-0.5/-0.6 vs. +0.1 mmol/l; P < 0.001) and body weight (-2.6/-2.7 vs. -1.6 kg; P < 0.005). At week 24, adverse events were reported by 67.7/70.8/65.6% of participants treated with lixisenatide one-/two-step/placebo, respectively--nausea and vomiting being reported most frequently. Symptomatic hypoglycaemia occurred in 1.9/2.5% of participants on one-/two-step lixisenatide and 0.6% with placebo, with no severe episodes. Lixisenatide continued to be efficacious and well tolerated during the variable double-blind extension period of at least 52 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Lixisenatide one- or two-step dose-increase regimens significantly improved glycaemic control and decreased body weight over 24 weeks and during a long-term extension period without increasing hypoglycaemia. The study confirmed that tolerability in the one-step group was at least similar to the two-step dose increase, with nausea/vomiting and hypoglycaemia frequency being lower in the one-step regimen.

Lixisenatide, a novel GLP-1 receptor agonist: efficacy, safety and clinical implications for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Recent advances in therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have led to the development of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), which, unlike insulin and sulphonylurea, are effective, with a low risk of hypoglycaemia. Lixisenatide is recommended as a once-daily GLP-1 RA for the treatment of T2DM. In persons with T2DM, lixisenatide 20 µg once-daily given by bolus subcutaneous injection improves insulin secretion and suppresses glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner. Compared with the longer-acting GLP-1 RA liraglutide, lixisenatide achieved a significantly greater reduction in postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) during a standardized test breakfast in persons with T2DM otherwise insufficiently controlled on metformin alone. This is primarily due to the greater inhibition of gastric motility by lixisenatide compared with liraglutide. The efficacy and safety of lixisenatide was evaluated across a spectrum of T2DM in a series of phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trials known as the GetGoal programme. Lixisenatide monotherapy or as add-on to oral antidiabetic agents or basal insulin achieved significant reductions in glycated haemoglobin, PPG and fasting plasma glucose, with either weight loss or no weight gain. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal and transient in nature. Lixisenatide provides an easy, once-daily, single-dose, add-on treatment to oral antidiabetic agents or basal insulin for the management of T2DM, with little or no increased risk of hypoglycaemia and a potential beneficial effect on body weight.

A direct comparison of long- and short-acting GLP-1 receptor agonists (taspoglutide once weekly and exenatide twice daily) on postprandial metabolism after 24 weeks of treatment.

AIMS: T-emerge 2 was a randomized, open-label, 24-week trial comparing subcutaneous taspoglutide 10 mg weekly (Taspo10), taspoglutide 20 mg weekly (Taspo20; titrated after 4 weeks of Taspo10), with exenatide 10 mcg BID (Exe; after 4 weeks of Exe 5 mcg) in patients inadequately controlled on metformin, a thiazolidinedione, or both. T-emerge 2 showed that once-weekly Taspo provided better glycaemic control than Exe. This report focuses on a subset of T-emerge 2 participants undergoing a standardized liquid meal comparing Taspo to Exe, which has been previously shown to lower postprandial glucose. METHODS: Meal tolerance tests (MTT) were performed at baseline and at week 24 in a subset of Taspo10, Taspo20 and Exe patients (n = 42, 39 and 67, respectively). Blood samples for glucose, insulin, glucagon and C-peptide were obtained before and after (30, 60, 90, 120 and 180 min) ingestion of a standardized liquid meal. RESULTS: The 2-h postprandial, mean 0-3 h and iAUC0-3 h glucose during the MTT was reduced to a similar extent in all groups and the time profile of the postprandial glucose showed a similar pattern. Taspo10 and Taspo20, but not Exe, significantly increased insulin from baseline (both mean and iAUC0-3 h). Although changes from baseline in C-peptide were not significant within any treatment group, the mean change from baseline (both mean 0-3 h and iAUC0-3 h) was significantly increased in Taspo10 vs. Exe. Mean glucagon showed significant decreases in all groups. CONCLUSION: Taspoglutide and Exe improved postprandial glucose tolerance to a similar extent but possibly with different intimate mechanisms.

Physical characteristics that predict final basal insulin dose in type 2 diabetes mellitus, with a special focus on BMI.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The possibility to predict final insulin dose based on patient's characteristics would allow for efficient titration for patients with higher dose needs. The primary aim of this post-hoc analysis of the L2T3 study was to determine predictors for final dose. Specifically, we focused on the relationship between BMI and dose. The secondary aims were to investigate (i) the predictive value of BMI and age on final dose and (ii) the possibility to tailor the starting dose of insulin based on BMI and age. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed two stepwise regression analyses, one using all baseline characteristics, and one using physical characteristics and FPG which can be assessed "at the bedside" only. Furthermore, median [min, max] final doses of groups stratified according to BMI and age were calculated. BMI clearly correlated with final dose in IU (Pearson correlation 0.42 [0.37; 0.48], p < 0.001). Characteristics which can be assessed "at the bedside" that predict high final dose were allocation to detemir, absence or discontinuation of insulin secretagogues, high BMI, low age, male gender and high FPG. Final dose varied among strata (BMI ≥30 kg/m(2): 64 IU; BMI <30 kg/m(2): 38 IU, p < 0.001 and age <59 years: 52 IU; age ≥59 years: 44 IU, p < 0.001). All groups stratified for both BMI and age showed similarly low minimal final dose (5-17 IU). CONCLUSION: Our data showed a high predictive value of BMI on final dose. However, it does not seem possible to tailor starting dose based on BMI and age.

Glargine metabolism over 24 h following its subcutaneous injection in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a dose-response study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: After subcutaneous injection insulin glargine is rapidly metabolized to M1 and M2. In vitro, both M1 and M2 have metabolic effects and bind to IGF-1R similarly to human insulin, whereas glargine exhibits a higher affinity for the IGF-1R and greater mitogenetic effects. The present study was specifically designed to establish the dose-response metabolism of glargine over 24 h following s.c. injection in T2DM subjects on long-term use of glargine. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ten subjects with T2DM were studied during 24 h after s.c. injection of 0.4 (therapeutic) and 0.8 (high dose) U/kg of glargine on two separate occasions during euglycaemic clamps (cross-over design). Glargine, M1 and M2 over 24 h period were determined in appropriately processed plasma samples by a specific liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay. Plasma M1 concentration (AUC0-24 h) was detected in all subjects and increased by increasing the glargine dose from therapeutic to high dose (p = 0.008). Glargine was detectable in 6 (therapeutic dose) and 9 (high dose) out of the 10 subjects and also increased by increasing the dose (p = 0.031). However, glargine concentration (AUC0-24 h--high dose) represented at most only 9.7% (4.6-15%) of the total amount of insulin measured in the blood. M2 was not detected at all. CONCLUSION: In T2DM people on long-term use of insulin glargine, even with higher doses (0.8 U/kg), glargine is nearly totally metabolized to the active metabolite M1. Glargine is often detectable in plasma, but its concentration remains well below that needed in vitro to potentiate IGF-1R binding and mitogenesis.

Diabetes and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The potential of an increased risk of breast cancer in women with diabetes has been the subject of a great deal of recent research. METHODS: A meta-analysis was undertaken using a random effects model to investigate the association between diabetes and breast cancer risk. RESULTS: Thirty-nine independent risk estimates were available from observational epidemiological studies. The summary relative risk (SRR) for breast cancer in women with diabetes was 1.27 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-1.39) with no evidence of publication bias. Prospective studies showed a lower risk (SRR 1.23 (95% CI, 1.12-1.35)) than retrospective studies (SRR 1.36 (95% CI, 1.13-1.63)). Type 1 diabetes, or diabetes in pre-menopausal women, were not associated with risk of breast cancer (SRR 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.35) and SRR 0.86 (95% CI, 0.66-1.12), respectively). Studies adjusting for body mass index (BMI) showed lower estimates (SRR 1.16 (95% CI, 1.08-1.24)) as compared with those studies that were not adjusted for BMI (SRR 1.33 (95% CI, 1.18-1.51)). CONCLUSION: The risk of breast cancer in women with type 2 diabetes is increased by 27%, a figure that decreased to 16% after adjustment for BMI. No increased risk was seen for women at pre-menopausal ages or with type 1 diabetes.

Early insulin treatment in type 2 diabetes: ORIGINal sin or valuable choice as ORIGINal treatment? An open debate on the ORIGIN study results.

Diabetes is ultimately the result of relative or absolute insulin deficiency; insulin should therefore represent its "natural" treatment, from the very moment of diagnosis, or even earlier, such as any other hormonal deficiency. Insulin treatment, however, has been accused of the worst crimes, including that of fostering obesity, insulin resistance, atherosclerosis, and, lately, cancer. Are these charges real? Does insulin treatment truly carry in its nature the original sin of causing such terrible consequences? This unresolvable, past and present dispute has had important effects on our clinical behavior in insulin initiation in the management of Type 2 diabetes, and we all hoped that a specifically designed trial could help us on this controversy. The ORIGIN (Outcome Reduction with an Initial Glargine Intervention) trial aimed to establish whether an initial insulin treatment with glargine, as compared with standard treatments, was able to delay the onset of cardiovascular disease. Although the trial appeared negative, several viewpoints came out, alimenting the debate on how to analyze results from the ORIGIN trial and, ultimately, on the role of early insulin treatment in type 2 diabetes. In these pages we invited two experienced scientists to freely argument their interpretation of the trial, aiming to help our understanding of the consequences of the ORIGIN trial on insulin therapy.

Comparative pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics of subcutaneous insulin glulisine and insulin aspart prior to a standard meal in obese subjects with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: A multinational, randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover trial to compare the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of bolus, subcutaneously administered insulin glulisine (glulisine) and insulin aspart (aspart) in insulin-naÏve, obese subjects with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Thirty subjects [9/21 females/males; mean ± SD age: 60.7 ± 7.7 years; body mass index (BMI): 33.5 ± 3.3 kg/m(2) ; duration of diabetes: 6.8 ± 4.6 years; HbA1c: 7.1 ± 0.8%] were included in the analysis. They fasted overnight and then received a 0.2 U/kg subcutaneous dose of glulisine or aspart 2 min before starting a standardized test meal, 7 days apart, according to a randomization schedule. Blood samples were taken every 15 min, starting 20 min before the meal and ending 6 h postprandially. RESULTS: The area under the absolute glucose concentration-time curve between 0 and 1 h after insulin injection and maximal glucose concentration was significantly lower with glulisine than with aspart (p = 0.0455 and 0.0337, respectively). However, for the total study period, plasma glucose concentration was similar for glulisine and aspart. Peak insulin concentration was significantly higher for glulisine than for insulin aspart (p < 0.0001). Hypoglycaemic events (≤ 70 mg/dl with or without symptoms) occurred in 13 and 16 subjects treated with glulisine and aspart, respectively, but there were no cases of severe hypoglycaemia requiring intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Glulisine was associated with lower glucose levels during the first hour after a standard meal; the remaining glucose profiles were otherwise equivalent, with higher insulin levels observed throughout the study period.

Similar glycaemic control and risk of hypoglycaemia with patient- versus physician-managed titration of insulin glargine 300 U/mL across subgroups of patients with T2DM: a post hoc analysis of ITAS.

AIMS: The Italian Titration Approach Study (ITAS) demonstrated comparable HbA1c reductions and similarly low hypoglycaemia risk at 6 months in poorly controlled, insulin-naïve adults with T2DM who initiated self- or physician-titrated insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in the absence of sulphonylurea/glinide. The association of patient characteristics with glycaemic and hypoglycaemic outcomes was assessed. METHODS: This post hoc analysis investigated whether baseline patient characteristics and previous antihyperglycaemic drugs were associated with HbA1c change and hypoglycaemia risk in patient- versus physician-managed Gla-300 titration. RESULTS: HbA1c change, incidence of hypoglycaemia (any type) and nocturnal rates were comparable between patient- and physician-managed arms in all subgroups. Hypoglycaemia rates across subgroups (0.03 to 3.52 events per patient-year) were generally as low as observed in the full ITAS population. Small increases in rates of 00:00-pre-breakfast and anytime hypoglycaemia were observed in the ≤ 10-year diabetes duration subgroup in the patient- versus physician-managed arm (heterogeneity of effect; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Comparably fair glycaemic control and similarly low hypoglycaemia risk were achieved in almost all patient subgroups with patient- versus physician-led Gla-300 titration. These results reinforce efficacy and safety of Gla-300 self-titration across a range of phenotypes of insulin-naïve people with T2DM. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2015-001167-39.

Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia risk with insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus glargine 100 U/mL: A patient-level meta-analysis examining older and younger adults with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: Older people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are at an increased risk of hypoglycaemia and its consequences. However, efficacy and safety data for basal insulin therapy are limited in these individuals. This patient-level meta-analysis assessed the treatment effects of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in people with T2DM ≥ 65 years old. METHODS: Data were pooled for patients randomised to receive Gla-300 or Gla-100 in the Phase 3a, treat-to-target EDITION 1, 2 and 3 trials. Glycaemic efficacy, hypoglycaemia, changes in body weight and insulin dosage and adverse events were examined over 6 months' treatment with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 for participants aged ≥ 65 and < 65 years. RESULTS: Of 2496 participants randomised, 662 were ≥ 65 years (Gla-300, n = 329; Gla-100, n = 333). Glycaemic control was comparable for Gla-300 and Gla-100 in participants ≥ 65 years (LS mean [95% CI] difference in HbA1c change from baseline to month 6: 0.00 [-0.14 to 0.15] %; 0.00 [-1.53 to 1.64] mmol/mol) and < 65 years (0.00 [-0.09 to 0.08] %; 0.00 [-0.98 to 0.87] mmol/mol). Fewer participants receiving Gla-300 versus Gla-100 experienced nocturnal confirmed (≤ 3.9 mmol/L [≤ 70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia (relative risk: ≥ 65 years: 0.70 [0.57 to 0.85]; < 65 years: 0.77 [0.68 to 0.87]). Annualised rates of nocturnal confirmed or severe hypoglycaemia were lower with Gla-300 than Gla-100 for both age groups. CONCLUSION: Gla-300 was associated with a reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia versus Gla-100, accompanied by comparable glycaemic improvement, for people aged ≥ 65 and < 65 years with T2DM.

Lower fasting blood glucose, glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycaemia with glargine vs NPH basal insulin in subjects with Type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To compare switching from NPH insulin (NPH) to insulin glargine (glargine) with continuing NPH for changes in fasting blood glucose (FBG) in patients with Type 1 diabetes on basal-bolus therapy with insulin lispro as bolus insulin. Secondary objectives included self-monitoring blood glucose, mean daily blood glucose (MDBG) and mean amplitude glucose excursion (MAGE) values alongside changes in HbA(1c) and safety profiles. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a 30-week, parallel, open-label, multicentre study. Seven-point profiles were used to calculate MDBG and MAGE. Hypoglycaemia and adverse events were recorded by participants. FBG improved significantly with both glargine (baseline-endpoint change: -28.0 mg/dL; 95% CI: -37.3, -18.7 mg/dL; p<0.001) and NPH (-9.8 mg/dL; 95% CI: -19.1, -0.5 mg/dL; p=0.0374). The improvement was significantly greater with glargine than NPH (mean difference: -18.2 mg/dL; 95% CI: -31.3, -5.2 mg/dL; p=0.0064). MDBG (-10.1 mg/dL; 95% CI: -18.1, -2.1 mg/dL; p=0.0126) and MAGE (-20.0 mg/dL; 95% CI: -34.5, -5.9 mg/dL; p=0.0056) decreased significantly with glargine, but not NPH although endpoint values were no different with the two insulins. Baseline to endpoint change in HbA(1c) was similar (-0.56 vs -0.56%) with no differences at endpoint. Overall hypoglycaemia was no different, but glargine reduced nocturnal hypoglycaemia ("serious episodes" with BG < 42 mg/dl, p=0.006) whereas NPH did not (p=0.123), although endpoint values were no different. CONCLUSION: Switching from NPH to glargine is well tolerated and results into lower FBG, and lower glucose variability while reducing nocturnal hypoglycaemia. These data provide a rationale for more aggressive titration to target with glargine in Type 1 diabetes.