Findings for iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30 confirmed in groups of people with type 2 diabetes with different biomedical characteristics.

AIM: To report prespecified and post hoc analyses of the SoliMix dataset exploring the impact of baseline participant characteristics on the original SoliMix study outcomes, to enable informed treatment choices for people with different biomedical characteristics. METHODS: SoliMix (EudraCT 2017-003370-13) compared once-daily iGlarLixi (a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide) with twice-daily BIAsp 30 (30% insulin aspart and 70% insulin aspart protamine). In this analysis, the original primary outcomes of noninferiority of iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30 in terms of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change and superiority in terms of body weight change, together with change in basal insulin dose and hypoglycaemia outcomes, were investigated by baseline age, duration of diabetes, insulin dose, HbA1c level, body mass index (BMI), and renal function. RESULTS: No evidence of difference in comparative treatment effect was detected across baseline age, duration of diabetes, insulin dose, HbA1c level, BMI and renal function subgroups for any endpoint (all heterogeneity P > 0.05), except American Diabetes Association Level 2 hypoglycaemia event rate when stratified by insulin dose (P = 0.011), which may be a chance difference given multiple testing and the small numbers of Level 2 events. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment effects of iGlarLixi were consistent irrespective of baseline HbA1c, insulin dose, BMI, age, duration of diabetes and renal function, supporting the use of iGlarLixi as an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option in people with type 2 diabetes with a wide range of biomedical characteristics.

Hypoglycaemia events with iGlarLixi versus premix biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with type 2 diabetes advancing from basal insulin: An analysis of the SoliMix trial.

AIMS: To explore details of the incidence and rates of daytime and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, levels of hypoglycaemia, and relationship to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), when comparing iGlarLixi versus premixed biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in the SoliMix randomized controlled trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This exploratory analysis of SoliMix used logistic regression and negative binomial regression analyses to assess between-treatment differences in the incidence and rates of hypoglycaemia by time of day. A negative binomial model was used to derive estimated annualized hypoglycaemia rates as a function of HbA1c. RESULTS: iGlarLixi was associated with lower incidence and rates of American Diabetes Association Level 2 (<54 mg/dL [<3.0 mmol/L]) hypoglycaemia during both night and day versus BIAsp 30. Incidence and rates of Level 1 (<70 to ≥54 mg/dL [<3.9 to ≥3.0 mmol/L]) hypoglycaemia were also mostly shown to be reduced with iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30. Severe (Level 3) events were too few for analysis (n = 3). iGlarLixi was associated with lower modelled event rates of Level 2 and Level 1 hypoglycaemia over a wide range of HbA1c levels versus BIAsp 30. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that the lower HbA1c levels and weight benefit seen with iGlarLixi versus premixed BIAsp 30 in people with type 2 diabetes advancing their basal insulin therapy in the SoliMix trial are also accompanied by a lower risk of hypoglycaemia at any time of day and across a broad range of HbA1c levels.

Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp: Results of a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) versus IDegAsp, a co-formulation of basal insulin degludec 100 U/mL with rapid-acting insulin aspart. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Outcomes from eligible RCTs were compared by an indirect treatment comparison using a Bayesian framework. Subanalyses of Japanese and international trials were performed. RESULTS: Eight RCTs (duration 26-30 weeks) were included. Mean difference in HbA1c change with iGlarLixi exceeded that for IDegAsp: -0.64 (95% credible interval -1.01, -0.28) %-units (-7.0 [-11.0, -3.1] mmol/mol) for all trials, -0.39 (-0.55, -0.23) %-units (-4.3 [-6.0, -2.5] mmol/mol) for international, and -0.88 (-1.11, -0.64) %-units (-9.6 [-12.1, -7.0] mmol/mol) for Japanese trials. HbA1c target achievement (<7.0%-units [<53 mmol/mol]) was greater for iGlarLixi in all trials (odds ratio 2.50 [1.06, 5.56]) and Japanese trials (2.17 [1.27, 3.70]), but not in international trials (2.17 [0.42, 11.11]). Analyses suggesting differences in mean postmeal self-measured plasma glucose were significantly lower by 1.0-2.0 mmol/L (18-36 mg/dL) with iGlarLixi in all analyses. Bodyweight change was more favourable (1-2 kg) for iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp for all analyses (P < 0.05). Comparisons of hypoglycaemia were inconclusive owing to differences in definitions between studies. Adverse events were more frequent with iGlarLixi because of gastrointestinal intolerance. CONCLUSIONS: iGlarLixi appears to offer clinical benefit in glucose control and bodyweight change in people needing both basal and meal-time intervention.

Hypoglycaemia risk with insulin glargine 300 U/mL compared with glargine 100 U/mL across different baseline fasting C-peptide levels in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis of the EDITION 3 trial.

The relationship between baseline fasting C-peptide (FCP) and glucose control was examined in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antihyperglycaemic drugs commencing basal insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) or 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in the absence of sulfonylurea/glinides. Participants with FCP measurement from the EDITION 3 trial (n = 867) were stratified according to baseline FCP (≤0.40, >0.40-1.20, >1.20 nmol/L); 11.0%, 70.9% and 18.1% contributed to each group. Glycaemic control, body weight, insulin dose and hypoglycaemia were determined at 26 weeks. Glycaemic control (HbA1c, FPG) at 26 weeks was similar in each FCP group between insulins. However, end-of-study insulin dose was greater with higher FCP for both insulins. More people with lower baseline FCP experienced hypoglycaemia with both insulins, but with numerically lower incidence for Gla-300 versus Gla-100 across all FCP groups for all definitions (time periods and levels) of hypoglycaemia. This suggests that Gla-300 might be particularly advantageous for people who are at higher risk of hypoglycaemia.

Insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed-ratio combination (iGlarLixi) compared with premix or addition of meal-time insulin to basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide, relative to premix insulin and other insulin options through network meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing iGlarLixi, premix insulin or basal insulin (BI) in combination with meal-time insulin, in people inadequately controlled with BI. Eligible RCTs were compared using Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eight RCTs, some open-label, involving 3538 participants, with a study duration of 24-30 weeks were included. The estimated difference in HbA1c reduction with iGlarLixi compared with premix insulin was -0.50%-units (95% credible interval: -0.93 to -0.06) with 98% probability of iGlarLixi being superior to premix. Estimates for iGlarLixi versus meal-time + BI (thrice-daily meal-time insulin + basal) and basal-plus (once-daily meal-time insulin + BI) were -0.35 (-0.89 to +0.13)%-units and -0.68 (-1.18 to -0.17)%-units with probabilities of real difference of 94% and 99%, respectively. Safety outcome analysis suggested that iGlarLixi had lower rates of both confirmed and documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia compared with premix insulin (probabilities of 85% and 93%, respectively) and lower weight gain (probability 98%). CONCLUSIONS: iGlarLixi showed similar or improved efficacy and safety versus other intensification choices from BI included in this study, providing a clinically relevant treatment option in people with type 2 diabetes not well controlled on BI.

Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegLira in adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison.

AIMS: To estimate the relative treatment effect between the fixed-ratio combinations iGlarLixi and IDegLira (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist with basal insulin) in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials followed by an indirect treatment comparison was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of the available fixed-ratio combinations. Main outcomes were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change and target achievement [<6.5% and <7.0% (<48 and <53 mmol/mol)], fasting plasma glucose, self-monitored plasma glucose, body weight, and incidence and rate of hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: From 4850 abstracts screened, 78 qualified for full-text article review and two randomized controlled trials were included. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two studies. The mean difference at 26 weeks between IDegLira and iGlarLixi was -0.36 (95% credible intervals -0.58, -0.14) % [-3.9 (-6.3, -1.5) mmol/mol] for HbA1c and -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4) mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose. No significant differences were found in HbA1c target attainment, preprandial or postprandial self-monitored plasma glucose, or body weight change. Formal comparisons of hypoglycaemia were limited by differences in definitions between the studies: in non-sulphonylurea users, incidence was 28% for IDegLira ('confirmed' at ≤3.1 mmol/L); for iGlarLixi, incidence was 9% ('documented symptomatic' at <3.0 mmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this indirect treatment comparison using two studies suggest iGlarLixi and IDegLira appear to offer similar benefits for HbA1c target achievement. However, the findings suggest differences in other glycaemia results and hypoglycaemia, which may reflect differences in study design and titration approaches.

Is Insulin Therapy Safe?

BACKGROUND: After 98 years of insulin therapy, issues of safety remain of concern. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: Uncertainty has been expressed variously in regard of arterial cell wall proliferation, promotion of proliferative retinopathy, promotion of tumor growth, and for pregnancy. Immunological issues have been little studied since the advent of highly purified insulins in the 1970s. A specific topic is whether hypoglycemia, severe or otherwise, might promote cardiac thrombotic or dysrhythmic events. DATA SOURCES: A literature review in these areas is difficult because nearly all clinical trials with insulin refer to adverse events. However, the specific topics aforementioned allow for some informed literature searching supplemented by finger-searching of published articles, notably in connection with the insulin analogues. THERAPEUTIC UNDERSTANDINGS: Safety data for pregnancy are weak because of power problems, but there are no signals for added maternal or fetal risk. Clinical-outcome trials that assess insulin against other glucose-lowering therapies or with significantly different insulin preparations in different arms are few and are sometimes conducted at modest dosage but fail to suggest promotion of arterial disease. Concern over growth-promoting activity of insulin glargine turned out to be ill-founded when the circulating moiety after injection was noted to have a lower IGF-1:insulin activity than human insulin, and a direct study of retinopathy progression or meta-analysis of malignancy incidence failed to show signals of concern. It does seem that severe hypoglycemia can cause death in some people with type 1 diabetes, although the tissue mechanism is unknown, but reducing severe hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes does not protect against arterial events. Both symptomatic and severe hypoglycemia can however be reduced by use of more recently marketed insulin analogues, and this improves tolerability if not safety. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, although insulin therapy clearly gives health benefits, the evidence for long-term harm is absent or weak.

Cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering medications: an update.

Three further cardiovascular (CV) outcome studies of glucose-lowering drugs (linagliptin, albiglutide and dapagliflozin) have recently been published, adding to the twelve earlier within-class studies. The linagliptin study (CARMELINA) recruited people with renal disease as well as prior CV events and confirms the overall CV safety (and other safety) of the dipeptidylpeptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, with no heart failure risk associated with this agent. However, taken together with the findings from two previous studies of DPP4 inhibitors (sitagliptin and saxagliptin), the three DPP4 inhibitor CV outcome trials (CVOTs) have highlighted a safety signal regarding risk of pancreatitis. Like CARMELINA, the albiglutide study (Harmony Outcome) had a very high CV event rate. Despite being a short duration study, albiglutide showed strong superiority for reduction in the major adverse CV events (MACE) composite in people with extant cardiovascular disease (CVD), in line with the earlier studies on the GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) liraglutide and semaglutide. Positive effects can be detected for all these medications from before 12 months and continue for the whole study duration. No new safety issues for albiglutide are identified and the lack of a pancreatitis or a pancreatic cancer signal for this class is now clear. For the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, the DECLARE-TIMI 58 study (of dapagliflozin) clearly indicates strong protection for heart failure in those with CVD, and probably in those with no prior CVD. There is also strong protection against renal decline with dapagliflozin, with similar risk estimates in DECLARE as previously reported for empagliflozin and canagliflozin. However, findings for MACE outcomes with dapagliflozin are not concordant with the empagliflozin and canagliflozin studies, and are not convincingly superior across class and for the longer term. Care is required when prescribing the SGLT2 inhibitor class of medications to people with foot vascular issues or prior amputation, and to insulin users in regard of ketoacidosis. In summary, taking into account the findings from these new studies, it is suggested that a GLP-1RA should be offered to all people with CVD and type 2 diabetes, and SGLT2 inhibitors should be prescribed for those at high risk of heart failure or with progressive decline in eGFR. DPP4 inhibitors are a safe choice within the glucose-lowering stepped algorithm.

Commencing insulin glargine 100 U/mL therapy in individuals with type 2 diabetes: Determinants of achievement of HbA1c goal less than 7.0.

AIMS: To identify factors associated with achievement of glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target at 24 weeks after commencing basal insulin therapy in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post-hoc pooled analysis of 16 randomized, treat-to-target trials involving individuals with T2DM inadequately controlled with oral anti-hyperglycaemic drugs (n = 3415) initiated on once-daily insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100). Clinical outcomes were assessed by HbA1c response at 24 weeks and individuals were classified as "good responders" with HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) or as "poor responders" with HbA1c ≥7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol). Univariable and multivariable stepwise logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictive factors for attaining HbA1c <7.0%. RESULTS: Lower levels of baseline HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and post-prandial plasma glucose (PPG), higher body mass index (BMI), shorter diabetes duration and male sex were associated with a good glycaemic response, but not age or baseline C-peptide levels. Gla-100 dose (U/kg) was highest in the poor-responder group, which had the fewest hypoglycaemia episodes. Univariable analysis for achievement of HbA1c <7.0% confirmed these observations. Multivariable analysis retained baseline HbA1c, body weight, BMI, sex, 2-hours PPG and diabetes duration as predictors of a good response. Continued use of sulfonylureas, hypoglycaemia and change in body weight were indicative of poor response. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline HbA1c was the strongest determinant for achieving target HbA1c <7.0% by supplementary Gla-100 therapy, while sex and BMI were also useful indicators. However, age and C-peptide levels at baseline did not predict glycaemic response to the introduction of basal insulin.

Clinical correlates of hypoglycaemia over 4 years in people with type 2 diabetes starting insulin: An analysis from the CREDIT study.

AIM: To identify factors associated with documented symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia over 4 years in people with type 2 diabetes starting insulin therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CREDIT, a prospective international observational study, collected data over 4 years on people starting any insulin in 314 centres; 2729 and 2271 people had hypoglycaemia data during the last 6 months of years 1 and 4, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was used to select the characteristics associated with documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia, and the model was tested against severe hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: The proportions of participants reporting ≥1 non-severe event were 18.5% and 16.6% in years 1 and 4; the corresponding proportions of those achieving a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) were 24.6% and 18.3%, and 16.5% and 16.2% of those who did not. For severe hypoglycaemia, the proportions were 3.0% and 4.6% of people reaching target vs 1.5% and 1.1% of those not reaching target. Multivariable analysis showed that, for documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia at both years 1 and 4, baseline lower body mass index and more physical activity were predictors, and lower HbA1c was an explanatory variable in the respective year. Models for documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia predicted severe hypoglycaemia. Insulin regimen was a univariate explanatory variable, and was not retained in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Hypoglycaemia occurred at significant rates, but was stable over 4 years despite increased insulin doses. The association with insulin regimen and with oral agent use declined over that time. Associated predictors and explanatory variables for documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia conformed to clinical impressions and could be extended to severe hypoglycaemia. Better achieved HbA1c was associated with a higher risk of hypoglycaemia.

Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia during 12 months of randomized treatment with insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus glargine 100 U/mL in people with type 1 diabetes (EDITION 4).

AIMS: Insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) offers a flatter pharmacodynamic profile than insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100). We have compared these insulins over 1 year in people with type 1 diabetes (T1DM). METHODS: EDITION 4 was a 6-month, multicentre, randomized, open-label phase 3 study. People with T1DM who completed the 6 months continued randomized Gla-300 or Gla-100 once daily, morning or evening, for a further 6 months. RESULTS: Among 549 participants randomized, 444 completed the 12-month study period (Gla-300, 80%; Gla-100, 82%). Mean HbA1c decreased similarly from baseline to month 12 in the 2 treatment groups (difference, 0.02 [95% CI, -0.13 to 0.17]) %-units [0.2 (-1.5 to 1.9) mmol/mol]), to a mean of 7.86 %-units (62.4 mmol/mol) in both groups. For morning vs evening injection, there was no difference in HbA1c change over 12 months for Gla-100, but a significantly larger decrease in HbA1c was observed in the Gla-300 morning group than in the Gla-300 evening group (difference, -0.25 [-0.47 to -0.04] %-units [-2.7 (-5.2 to -0.4) mmol/mol]). Mean glucose from the 8-point SMPG profiles decreased from baseline, and was similar between the 2 treatment groups. Basal insulin dose was 20% higher with Gla-300 than with Gla-100, while hypoglycaemia event rates, analysed at night, over 24 hours, or according to different glycaemic thresholds, did not differ between treatment groups, regardless of injection time. Adverse event profiles did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In T1DM, Gla-300 provides glucose control comparable to that of Gla-100, and can be given at any time of day.

Efficacy and safety of MK-1293 insulin glargine compared with originator insulin glargine (Lantus) in type 1 diabetes: A randomized, open-label clinical trial.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of MK-1293 insulin glargine (Mk-Gla; 100 U/mL) with originator insulin glargine, Lantus (Sa-Gla), in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This phase 3, randomized, active-controlled, open-label, 52-week study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02059161) enrolled 508 people with T1DM (HbA1c ≤11.0%; 97 mmol/mol) taking basal and prandial insulin. Participants were randomized 1:1 to once-daily Mk-Gla (n = 245) or Sa-Gla (n = 263). Dose titration of basal insulin was by a pre-breakfast plasma glucose dosing algorithm. The primary efficacy objective was assessment of the non-inferiority of HbA1c change from baseline (margin of 0.40% [4.4 mmol/mol]) for Mk-Gla compared with Sa-Gla over 24 weeks. The primary safety objective was assessment of anti-insulin antibody development over 24 weeks. RESULTS: The least squares (LS) mean HbA1c change from baseline at week 24 was -0.62 (95% CI -0.79, -0.45)% (-6.8 [-8.7, -4.9] mmol/mol) and -0.66 (-0.82, -0.50)% (-7.2 [-9.0, -5.4] mmol/mol) for Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla. The LS mean HbA1c difference was 0.04 (-0.11, 0.19)% (0.4 [-1.2, 2.0] mmol/mol) for Mk-Gla minus Sa-Gla, meeting the primary and secondary objective criteria for non-inferiority and equivalence. Week 24 mean insulin glargine dose for Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla was 0.46 and 0.48 U/kg, respectively. Similarity of HbA1c response and basal insulin dose trajectory persisted over the 52 weeks. Safety and tolerability, including anti-insulin antibody responses, hypoglycaemia, adverse events and body weight, were similar between insulins over the 52-week study duration. CONCLUSIONS: Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla exhibited similar efficacy and safety over 52 weeks in people with T1DM. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02059161.

Efficacy and safety of MK-1293 insulin glargine compared with originator insulin glargine (Lantus) in type 2 diabetes: A randomized, open-label clinical trial.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of MK-1293 insulin glargine (Mk-Gla) and Lantus (Sa-Gla) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Phase 3, randomized, active-controlled, open-label, 24-week clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02059187) enrolled 531 participants with T2DM (HbA1c ≤11.0%) either eligible for or currently taking basal insulin (≥10 U/day). Participants were randomized 1:1 to once-daily Mk-Gla (n = 263) or Sa-Gla (n = 263). Titration of insulin was guided by a fasting plasma glucose (FPG)-based dosing algorithm. The primary efficacy objective was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of change from baseline in HbA1c (margin of 0.40% [4.4 mmol/mol]) with Mk-Gla versus Sa-Gla after 24 weeks. The primary safety objective was anti-insulin antibody development after 24 weeks. RESULTS: For Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla, the least squares (LS) mean HbA1c change from baseline (95% CI) was -1.28 (-1.41, -1.15)% (-14.0 [-15.4, -12.6] mmol/mol) and -1.30 (-1.43, -1.18)% (-14.2 [-15.6, -12.8] mmol/mol). The LS mean HbA1c difference (Mk-Gla minus Sa-Gla) was 0.03 (-0.12, 0.18)% (0.3 [-1.4, 1.9] mmol/mol), meeting non-inferiority and equivalence (secondary objective) criteria. Insulin doses, FPG, and seven-point plasma glucose profiles were similar between groups. Safety and tolerability, including anti-insulin antibody responses, hypoglycaemia, adverse events and body weight, were similar between insulins. The efficacy and safety of Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla were similar both in participants who were insulin-treated or insulin-naïve at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla demonstrated similar efficacy and safety over 24 weeks of treatment in people with T2DM.

Methodology of a reevaluation of cardiovascular outcomes in the RECORD trial: study design and conduct.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, after regulatory review of rosiglitazone licensing, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested a reevaluation of cardiovascular end points in the RECORD trial. METHODS: Automated screening of the original clinical trial database and manual case report form review were performed to identify all potential cardiovascular and noncardiovascular deaths, and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke events. Search techniques were used to find participants lost to follow-up, and sites were queried for additional source documents. Suspected events underwent blinded adjudication using both original RECORD end point definitions and new FDA end point definitions, before analysis by the Duke Clinical Research Institute. RESULTS: The reevaluation effort included an additional 328 person-years of follow-up. Automated screening identified 396 suspected deaths, 2,052 suspected MIs, and 468 suspected strokes. Manual review of documents by Duke Clinical Research Institute clinical events classification (CEC) coordinators identified an additional 31 suspected deaths, 49 suspected MIs, and 28 suspected strokes. There were 127 CEC queries issued requesting additional information on suspected deaths; 43 were closed with no site response, 61 were closed with a response that no additional data were available, and additional data were received for 23. Seventy CEC queries were issued requesting additional information for suspected MI and stroke events; 31 were closed with no site response, 20 were closed with a response that no additional data were available, and 19 resulted in additional data. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive procedures were used for rigorous event reascertainment and readjudication in a previously completed open-label, global clinical trial. These procedures used in this unique situation were consistent with other common approaches in the field, were enhanced to address the FDA concerns about the original RECORD trial results, and could be considered by clinical trialists designing event readjudication protocols for drug development programs that have been completed.

Results of a reevaluation of cardiovascular outcomes in the RECORD trial.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required a reevaluation of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in the RECORD trial. This provided an opportunity to assess the implications of event adjudication by 2 groups and quantify the differences as well as to use new FDA end point definitions in development. METHODS: Original data were used to systematically identify all potential deaths, myocardial infarctions (MIs), and strokes. Site investigators were approached for additional source documents and information about participants lost to follow-up. Suspected events were adjudicated using standard procedures, and the results were compared with the original trial outcomes. RESULTS: Follow-up for mortality was 25,833 person-years, including an additional 328 person-years identified during the reevaluation effort. A total of 184 CV or unknown-cause deaths (88 rosiglitazone, 96 metformin/sulfonylurea), 128 participants with an MI (68 rosiglitazone, 60 metformin/sulfonylurea), and 113 participants with a stroke (50 rosiglitazone, 63 metformin/sulfonylurea) were included. The hazard ratio (HR) for rosiglitazone versus metformin/sulfonylurea for the end point of CV (or unknown cause) death, MI, or stroke was 0.95 (95% CI 0.78-1.17) compared with 0.93 (95% CI 0.74-1.15) for the original RECORD results. Treatment comparisons for MI (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80-1.59) and mortality (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68-1.08) were also the same compared with the original RECORD results. Sensitivity analyses were also consistent with the original RECORD results. Analyses using the FDA definitions showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Only a modest number of additional person-years of follow-up were ascertained from this reevaluation of CV end points in RECORD. Observed HRs and CIs from these analyses using the original RECORD or new FDA end point definitions showed similar treatment effects of rosiglitazone compared with the original RECORD results.

Insulin biobetters and biosimilars in clinical practice.

Insulin injections have never been an entirely satisfactory therapy, and as a result a continuing 'biobetter' technological cascade has driven changes in purity and manufacture, in structure and excipients, and in administration devices. The resulting deck of insulin preparations has to be matched by health-care teams and users with individual need. This latter is itself a complex ranging from ambulatory care in type 1 and type 2 diabetes, the topic generally addressed by guidelines and funding advice, to in-patient care and the newly diagnosed, plus secondary diabetes with very different effects on insulin need, through to co-morbidities and medications interfering with glucose metabolism. In this article the match of different clinical scenarios to the available insulins is discussed in the context of available evidence, quality guidelines, and diabetes best practice. Additionally the role of biosimilars of the insulin analogues is addressed, their limited but useful price advantage, and the management consequences of substitution for the originator product.

Understanding Biosimilar Insulins - Development, Manufacturing, and Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: A wave of expiring patents for first-generation insulin analogues has created opportunities in the global insulin market for highly similar versions of these products, biosimilar insulins. Biologics are generally large, complex molecules produced through biotechnology in a living system, such as a microorganism, plant cell, or animal cell. Since manufacturing processes of biologics vary, biosimilars cannot be exact copies of their reference product but must exhibit a high degree of functional and structural similarity. Biosimilarity is proven by analytical approaches in comparative assessments, preclinical cell-based and animal studies, as well as clinical studies in humans facilitating the accumulation of evidence across all assessments. The approval of biosimilars follows detailed regulatory pathways derived from those of their reference products and established by agencies such as the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Regulatory authorities impose requirements to ensure that biosimilars meet high standards of quality, safety, and efficacy and are highly similar to their reference product. PURPOSE: This review aims to aid clinical understanding of the high standards of development, manufacturing, and regulation of biosimilar insulins. METHODS: Recent relevant studies indexed by PubMed and regulatory documents were included. CONCLUSIONS: Driven by price competition, the emergence of biosimilar insulins may help expand global access to current insulin analogues. To maximize the impact of the advantage for falling retail costs of biosimilar insulins compared with that of reference insulins, healthcare professionals and insulin users must gain further awareness and confidence.

Macrovascular and microvascular outcomes after beginning of insulin versus additional oral glucose-lowering therapy in people with type 2 diabetes: an observational study.

PURPOSE: In type 2 diabetes, the optimal stage to introduce insulin can be unclear. We compared the incidence of subsequent vascular disease between treatment regimens, that is, adding another oral glucose-lowering drug (OGLD) versus starting insulin treatment. METHODS: People with poor control on OGLDs who intensified treatment (2000-2007) were grouped by number of baseline OGLDs. Two composite endpoints, of macrovascular disease (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome and stroke) and of microvascular disease (peripheral neuropathy, nephropathy or retinopathy), together with HbA(1c) and weight change over a year, were compared in those beginning insulin versus an additional OGLD. All data came from The Health Information Network UK primary care database. RESULTS: After exclusions, 14,904 people intensified treatment from one OGLD, 7231 from two and 978 from three, 9, 41 and 90%, respectively, started insulin. Average follow-up was 3.5 years. The adjusted hazard ratios for macrovascular events, OGLD versus insulin, were 0.53 (95%CI 0.42, 0.69) from one baseline treatment, 0.85 (0.70 1.04) from two and 1.07 (0.50, 2.30) from three, with no difference in risk of microvascular disease in any comparison. Mean body weight increased, and mean HbA(1c) fell across groups; the only significant adjusted comparison was greater weight increase when commencing insulin from one OGLD. CONCLUSIONS: Starting insulin rather than adding another OGLD to double or triple oral therapy did not significantly increase the incidence of vascular events. Beginning insulin from one OGLD was uncommon. More incident macrovascular disease in this group may be caused by residual confounding.