Comparison of insulin glargine and liraglutide added to oral agents in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To compare safety and efficacy of insulin glargine and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: This randomized, multinational, open-label trial included subjects treated for T2DM with metformin ± sulphonylurea, who had glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of 7.5-12%. Subjects were assigned to 24 weeks of insulin glargine, titrated to target fasting plasma glucose of 4.0-5.5 mmol/L or liraglutide, escalated to the highest approved clinical dose of 1.8 mg daily. The trial was powered to detect superiority of glargine over liraglutide in percentage of people reaching HbA1c <7%. RESULTS: The mean [standard deviation (s.d.)] age of the participants was 57 (9) years, the duration of diabetes was 9 (6) years, body mass index was 31.9 (4.2) kg/m(2) and HbA1c level was 9.0 (1.1)%. Equal numbers (n = 489) were allocated to glargine and liraglutide. Similar numbers of subjects in both groups attained an HbA1c level of <7% (48.4 vs. 45.9%); therefore, superiority of glargine over liraglutide was not observed (p = 0.44). Subjects treated with glargine had greater reductions of HbA1c [-1.94% (0.05) and -1.79% (0.05); p = 0.019] and fasting plasma glucose [6.2 (1.6) and 7.9 (2.2) mmol/L; p < 0.001] than those receiving liraglutide. The liraglutide group reported a greater number of gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events (p < 0.001). The mean (s.d.) weight change was +2.0 (4.0) kg for glargine and -3.0 (3.6) kg for liraglutide (p < 0.001). Symptomatic hypoglycaemia was more common with glargine (p < 0.001). A greater number of subjects in the liraglutide arm withdrew as a result of adverse events (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Adding either insulin glargine or liraglutide to subjects with poorly controlled T2DM reduces HbA1c substantially, with nearly half of subjects reaching target levels of 7%.

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.

Safety results from OCAPI: a European Observational Cohort Study of insulin glulisine-treated children aged 6-12 years with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Data on the safety of insulin glulisine for type 1 diabetes are limited in paediatric populations. The European post-marketing Observational prospective Cohort study of children with type 1 diabetes treated with APIDRA(®) (OCAPI) study evaluated the safety of insulin glulisine in children aged 6-12 years in real-life clinical practice, with a particular focus on the 6-8 years age group. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: OCAPI was an international, multicentre, observational, non-interventional, prospective cohort study, in which 94 participants with type 1 diabetes (6-8 years age group: n=31; 9-12 years age group: n=63) received insulin glulisine for 6 months under normal, local conditions. The primary objective was the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in all participants. RESULTS: Overall incidence of severe hypoglycaemia was 6.6 events per 100 persons/year (7.2 and 6.3 events per 100 persons/year in the 6-8 and 9-12 years age groups, respectively). 12 participants (all aged 9-12 years) experienced transient injection-site reactions. No systematic hypersensitivity reactions were reported. Only 1 participant (9-12 years age group) experienced a serious class-effect risk possibly related to insulin glulisine (severe hypoglycaemia requiring an Emergency Department visit). Glycated haemoglobin levels did not change markedly throughout the study, and were inversely proportional to the risk of hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin glulisine has a good safety profile in children with type 1 diabetes aged 6-12 years, with generally low rates of severe hypoglycaemia and few adverse reactions. These results are encouraging for its use in paediatric populations.