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.

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.

Fixed ratio dosing of pramlintide with regular insulin before a standard meal in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Amylin is co-secreted with insulin and is therefore lacking in patients with type 1 diabetes. Replacement with fixed ratio co-administration of insulin and the amylin analogue pramlintide may be superior to separate dosing. This concept was evaluated in a ratio-finding study. Patients with type 1 diabetes were enrolled in a randomized, single-masked, standard breakfast crossover study using regular human insulin injected simultaneously with pramlintide 6, 9 or 12 mcg/unit insulin or placebo. Insulin dosage was reduced by 30% from patients' usual estimates. Plasma glucose, glucagon and pramlintide and adverse events were assessed. All ratios reduced 0-3-h glucose and glucagon increments by >50%. No hypoglycaemia occurred. Adverse events were infrequent and generally mild. All pramlintide/insulin ratios markedly and safely reduced glycaemic excursions and suppressed glucagon secretion in the immediate postprandial state. Further study using one of these ratios to explore the efficacy and safety of longer-term meal-time and basal hormone replacement is warranted.

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.

Randomized, 1-year comparison of three ways to initiate and advance insulin for type 2 diabetes: twice-daily premixed insulin versus basal insulin with either basal-plus one prandial insulin or basal-bolus up to three prandial injections.

AIM: Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiate insulin therapy when other treatments fail; how best to do this is poorly defined. METHODS: People with T2DM [n = 588; glycated haemoglobin A1C (A1C) >7.0%, mean baseline 9.4%] were randomized to twice-daily premixed protamine-aspart/aspart insulin (PM - 2), once-daily insulin glargine plus zero to one prandial insulin glulisine injection (G + 1), or insulin glargine plus zero to three prandial injections (G + 3). Insulin was titrated for 60 weeks. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Discontinuation rates were 53 of the 194 (27%), 44 of the 194 (23%) and 38 of the 194 (20%), for PM - 2, G + 1 and G + 3. Glycaemic control improved in all groups (A1C 7.2 ± 1.37, 7.1 ± 1.68 and 7.0 ± 1.21% at 60 weeks; 7.5 ± 1.29, 7.2 ± 1.62 and 7.2 ± 1.63% at endpoint). G + 1 was statistically non-inferior to PM - 2 in reducing A1C. G + 3 was slightly superior to PM - 2 in attaining <7.0% at 60 weeks, but only when the analysis included Good Clinical Practice non-adherent sites. Hypoglycaemia with plasma glucose <2.8 mmol/l was more frequent with PM - 2 versus G + 1 and G + 3; [adjusted incidence: 46 (p = 0.0087) vs. 33 (p = 0.0045) and 31.5%; events per patient-year: 1.9 vs. 0.8 and 0.9, p ≤ 0.0001]. Insulin dosage and weight-gain were similar. CONCLUSION: Basal insulin plus a single prandial injection is as effective in improving glycaemic control as premixed insulin. Full basal-prandial therapy is only slightly more effective than premixed insulin. Stepwise basal-prandial regimens improve glycaemic control with less hypoglycaemia than twice-daily premixed insulin.

Greater fear of hypoglycaemia with premixed insulin than with basal-bolus insulin glargine and glulisine: patient-reported outcomes from a 60-week randomised study.

AIM: To assess the effect of initiating insulin treatment on quality of life of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in the 60-week All-to-Target trial (NCT00384085). METHODS: Patient-reported outcomes from a phase IV, multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study were analysed. Participants were randomised to: insulin glargine with up to one insulin glulisine injection (G + 1); insulin glargine with stepwise addition of up to three insulin glulisine injections (G + 3); or twice-daily premixed 70/30 insulin protamine-aspart/aspart (PM-2). Patient-reported outcome questionnaires were administered at weeks 0, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60. RESULTS: There were no between-group differences in the Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness State-Self Report (PAIS-SR) or in the EuroQoL Group Five-Dimension Self-Report Index Questionnaire (EQ-5D) from baseline to week 60; however, PAIS-SR scores improved significantly over this period in the G + 3 group (p = 0.0016) and EQ-5D scores worsened significantly in the PM-2 group (p = 0.02). Hypoglycemia Fear Survey Behaviour and Worry subscales worsened significantly for all groups, with greater deterioration being observed in the PM-2 group than in the G + 1 group (Behaviour, p = 0.0050; Worry, p = 0.0017) and G + 3 groups (Behaviour, p = 0.0105; Worry, p = 0.0016). Total scores on the Diabetes Quality of Life (DQoL) questionnaire improved more in the G + 3 group than in the PM-2 group over the study period (p = 0.0284), with all groups showing a significant improvement in DQoL score over time. CONCLUSION: Insulin glargine-based regimens showed advantages over premixed insulin in a number of patient-reported outcome measures. The potential impact on fear of hypoglycaemia may be of particular relevance when addressing the major barriers to early insulin treatment.

Options for prandial glucose management in type 2 diabetes patients using basal insulin: addition of a short-acting GLP-1 analogue versus progression to basal-bolus therapy.

Integrating patient-centered diabetes care and algorithmic medicine poses particular challenges when optimized basal insulin fails to maintain glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Multiple entwined physiological, psychosocial and systems barriers to insulin adherence are not easily studied and are not adequately considered in most treatment algorithms. Moreover, the limited number of alternatives to add-on prandial insulin therapy has hindered shared decision-making, a central feature of patient-centered care. This article considers how the addition of a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogue to basal insulin may provide new opportunities at this stage of treatment, especially for patients concerned about weight gain and risk of hypoglycaemia. A flexible framework for patient-clinician discussions is presented to encourage development of decision-support tools applicable to both specialty and primary care practice.

Influence of glucocorticoids and growth hormone on insulin sensitivity in humans.

The seminal concept proposed by Sir Harold Himsworth more than 75 years ago that a large number of patients with diabetes were 'insulin insensitive', now termed insulin resistance, has now expanded to include several endocrine syndromes, namely those of glucocorticoid excess, and growth hormone excess and deficiency. Synthetic glucocorticoids are increasingly used to treat a wide variety of chronic diseases, whereas the beneficial effects of recombinant growth hormone replacement therapy in children and adults with growth hormone deficiency have now been well-recognized for over 25 years. However, clinical and experimental studies have established that increased circulating levels of glucocorticoids and growth hormone can also lead to worsening of insulin resistance, glucose intolerance, overt diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. Improved understanding of the physiological 24-h rhythmicity of glucocorticoid and growth hormone secretion and its influence on the dawn phenomenon and the Staub-Trauggot effect has therefore led to renewed interest in studies on the mechanisms of insulin resistance induced by exogenous administration of glucocorticoids and growth hormone in humans. In this review, we describe the physiological events that result from the presence of resistance to insulin action at the level of skeletal muscle, adipose tissue, and liver, describe the known mechanisms of glucocorticoid- and growth hormone-mediated insulin resistance, and provide an update of the contributions of glucocorticoids and growth hormone to understanding the pathophysiology of insulin resistance and its effects on several endocrine syndromes.

Baseline HbA1c predicts attainment of 7.0% HbA1c target with structured titration of insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes: a patient-level analysis of 12 studies.

AIMS: To determine whether baseline characteristics, especially haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), predict the likelihood of reaching HbA1c ≤ 7.0% or the risk of experiencing hypoglycaemia after the addition of insulin glargine to oral therapy in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Pooled patient-level data from 12 prospective, randomized, controlled studies that used insulin glargine in a treat-to-target titration regimen seeking fasting glucose levels ≤5.5 mmol/l (100 mg/dl) were analysed. Baseline characteristics were evaluated by logistic regression models as predictors of reaching a target HbA1c ≤ 7.0% or experiencing confirmed hypoglycaemia. The effect of prior glycaemic control was further explored by analysis of categorical ranges of baseline HbA1c. RESULTS: Of 2312 participants, 95% completed 24 weeks of treatment. Lower HbA1c at baseline was independently associated with reaching HbA1c target [adjusted odds ratio (OR) for 1% difference: 0.538, p < 0.0001] and also with likelihood of experiencing confirmed hypoglycaemic events (adjusted OR: 0.835, p < 0.0001) at week 24. In an unadjusted analysis by baseline HbA1c range, the strong association between baseline control and attaining target HbA1c was confirmed (75% with baseline HbA1c < 8.0%, 60% with baseline HbA1c ≥ 8.0 and <9.0% and 38% with baseline HbA1c ≥ 9.0% attained HbA1c ≤ 7.0%). The incidence of hypoglycaemia confirmed <3.9 mmol/l (70 mg/dl) was higher in the lower baseline HbA1c ranges but severe hypoglycaemia was infrequent at all baseline HbA1c levels. CONCLUSIONS: Systematically titrated insulin glargine, added to oral agents, was effective over a wide range of baseline HbA1c. Lower baseline HbA1c was the best clinical predictor of achieving HbA1c ≤ 7.0% and also associated with higher risk of glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia. Severe hypoglycaemia was infrequent using this treatment approach.

Clinical predictors of risk of hypoglycaemia during addition and titration of insulin glargine for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: Addition and titration of basal insulin is usually effective in improving glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes, but fear of hypoglycaemia remains a barrier. Ability to predict which patients might be at greatest risk of hypoglycaemia might facilitate individualization of treatment and improve safety. The aim of this study was to obtain information about clinical characteristics which might predict risk of hypoglycaemia during initiation of basal insulin. METHODS: Patient-level data from 2251 participants in 11 studies in which insulin glargine was started and titrated using similar treat-to-target methods was pooled and analysed with logistic regression models. RESULTS: Participants had mean age 58 years, diabetes duration 8.9 years, body mass index 31.0 and baseline A1c 8.8%. They attained mean A1c 7.1% during 6 months of treatment with final mean glargine dosage 0.44 units/kg. Symptomatic hypoglycaemia occurred in 52%, glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia (blood glucose <50 mg/dl) in 17%, repeated glucose-confirmed events in 7% and severe hypoglycaemia in 1.5%. Independent predictors of glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia were younger age, lower body mass index, use of a sulphonylurea in addition to metformin, lower attained A1c and lower dosage of glargine. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm low rates of clinically important hypoglycaemia using this method, and suggest that higher risk of hypoglycaemia may be suspected when patients needing insulin are younger, less obese and taking metformin and a sulphonylurea, and especially when A1c levels ≤7.0% are attained with glargine dosage ≤0.4 units/kg.

Initial Experiences with Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities in Patients Receiving Aducanumab Following Accelerated Approval.

Aducanumab is the first FDA-approved amyloid-lowering immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease. There is little real-world data to guide management of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), a potentially serious side-effect which requires surveillance with magnetic resonance imaging. We report our experiences in managing ARIA in patients receiving aducanumab at the Butler Hospital Memory and Aging Program during the year following FDA approval. We followed the Appropriate Use Recommendations for aducanumab to guide patient selection, detection, and management of ARIA (1). ARIA-E occurred in 6 out of 24 participants treated; all APOE-ε4 carriers. Treatment was discontinued in 4 cases of moderate-severe ARIA-E, temporarily held in 1 moderate case, and dosed through in 1 mild case (mean duration = 3 months, range, 1-6 months). No participants required hospitalization or high dose corticosteroids. Participants on anticoagulation were excluded and no macrohemorrhages occurred. These data support the measured approaches to treatment outlined in the Appropriate Use Recommendations.

Design, history and results of the Thiazolidinedione Intervention with vitamin D Evaluation (TIDE) randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE: Conflicting data regarding cardiovascular effects of thiazolidinediones (TZDs) and extra-skeletal effects of vitamin D supported the need for a definitive trial. The Thiazolidinedione Intervention with vitamin D Evaluation (TIDE) trial aimed to assess the effects of TZDs (rosiglitazone and pioglitazone) on cardiovascular outcomes and the effects of vitamin D (cholecalciferol) on cancers and mortality. METHODS: A large multicentre 3 × 2 factorial double-blind placebo-controlled randomised trial recruited from outpatient primary care and specialty clinics in 33 countries. From June 2009 to July 2010, 1,332 people with type 2 diabetes and other cardiovascular risk factors aged ≥ 50 years whose HbA(1c) was 6.5-9.5% (48-80 mmol/mol) when using two or fewer glucose-lowering drugs were randomised by a central computer system to placebo (n = 541), rosiglitazone 4-8 mg/day (n = 399) or pioglitazone 30-45 mg/day (n = 392); 1,221 participants were randomised to placebo (n = 614) or vitamin D 1,000 IU/day (n = 607). Participants and all study personnel were blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome for the TZD arm was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death, and for the vitamin D arm it was cancer or all-cause death. All randomised participants were included in the primary analysis. RESULTS: From the study design, 16,000 people were to be followed for approximately 5.5 years. However, the trial was stopped prematurely because of regulatory concerns after a mean of 162 days without consideration of the accrued data. In the TZD arm, the cardiovascular outcome occurred in five participants (0.9%) in the placebo groups and three participants (0.4%) in the TZD groups (two allocated to pioglitazone, one to rosiglitazone). In the vitamin D arm, the primary outcome occurred in three participants (0.5%) in the placebo group and in two participants (0.3%) receiving vitamin D. Adverse events were comparable in all groups. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Uncertainty persists regarding the clinically relevant risks and benefits of TZDs and vitamin D because of the early cancellation of this comprehensive trial.

Effects of initiation and titration of a single pre-prandial dose of insulin glulisine while continuing titrated insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes: a 6-month 'proof-of-concept' study.

AIM: Stepwise intensification of insulin treatment to match the progressive decline of endogenous insulin secretion has been shown to be an effective management strategy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The efficacy of initiating and titrating a single bolus dose of insulin glulisine to baseline insulin glargine plus oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHAs) was investigated. METHODS: This was a 6-month, parallel-group, randomized, open-label, Phase IV study conducted in the US, UK and Russia. People with T2DM (HbA(1c) 7.5-9.5%) using any basal insulin underwent a 3-month run-in period on insulin glargine titrated to optimize fasting blood glucose (BG) control. Those with HbA(1c) >7.0% were randomized to either continue prior therapy (n = 57) or to add a single dose of insulin glulisine (n = 49) immediately prior to the main meal for a further 3 months. Two different titration algorithms were employed for the bolus dose, targeting 2-h postprandial BG ≤135 mg/dL (≤7.5 mmol/l; Russia and UK) or pre-meal/bedtime BG 100-120 mg/dl (5.5-6.7 mmol/l; US). RESULTS: HbA(1c) and fasting plasma glucose levels decreased during the run-in period. In the 3 months after randomization, more participants in the basal-plus-bolus group reached HbA(1c) <7.0% than the basal-only control group (22.4 vs. 8.8%; p < 0.05), with significantly greater reduction of HbA(1c) (-0.37 vs. -0.11%; p = 0.0290). Rates of hypoglycaemia and mean weight change were comparable between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In people with T2DM inadequately controlled on basal insulin plus OHAs, adding a single injection of insulin glulisine prior to the main meal significantly improves glucose control without undesired side effects.

Assessment of hypoglycaemia during basal insulin therapy: Temporal distribution and risk of events using a predefined or an expanded definition of nocturnal events.

AIM: To describe in type 2 diabetes the 24-hour distribution of hypoglycaemia and compare the frequency of nocturnal events based on a predefined nocturnal window or an expanded interval, using illustrative data for two insulin glargine formulations. METHODS: Temporal distribution of hypoglycaemic events was assessed descriptively and by profile using participant-level data from three randomized trials comparing insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and 100 U/mL (Gla-100). Risk of hypoglycaemia and annualized event rates were compared for the predefined nocturnal interval (00:00 to 05:59h) and an expanded window (22:00h to the pre-breakfast glucose measurement). RESULTS: Confirmed (≤3.9mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemic events were reported most frequently between 06:00 and 10:00 h with both insulins. Nearly threefold more events were identified using the expanded nocturnal interval. Risk of ≥1 nocturnal event was 25% lower with Gla-300 than Gla-100 with the predefined, and 16% lower with the expanded interval; annualized event rates were 31% and 24% lower with the predefined and expanded window, respectively. The between-insulin difference in number of nocturnal events depended markedly on the chosen nocturnal interval (556 vs. 1145 fewer events with Gla-300 using the predefined vs. expanded interval). CONCLUSIONS: The predefined 00:00-05:59h nocturnal interval excluded many hypoglycaemic events occurring during the actual overnight interval. While Gla-300 reduced hypoglycaemic events versus Gla-100 (regardless of the interval considered), the results obtained using the expanded window better reflect the clinical experience of people treated with basal insulin.

Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia with insulin glargine 300 U/mL compared with glargine 100 U/mL in Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin plus oral anti-hyperglycaemic drugs (EDITION JP 2 randomised 12-month trial including 6-month extension).

AIMS: To compare insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) with glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in Japanese adults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes on basal insulin and oral anti-hyperglycaemic drugs over 12 months. METHODS: EDITION JP 2 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Following a 6-month treatment period, participants continued receiving previously assigned once daily Gla-300 or Gla-100, plus oral anti-hyperglycaemic drugs, in a 6-month extension period. Glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia and adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: The 12-month completion rate was 88% for Gla-300 and 96% for Gla-100, with comparable reasons for discontinuation. Mean HbA1c decrease from baseline to month 12 was 0.3% in both groups. Annualised rates of confirmed (≤3.9mmol/L [≤70mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia were lower with Gla-300 than Gla-100 (nocturnal [00:00-05:59h]: rate ratio 0.41; 95% confidence interval: 0.18 to 0.92; anytime [24h]: rate ratio 0.64; 95% confidence interval: 0.44 to 0.94). Cumulative number of hypoglycaemic events was lower with Gla-300 than Gla-100. Adverse event profiles were comparable between treatments. CONCLUSION: Over 12 months, Gla-300-treated participants achieved sustained glycaemic control and experienced less hypoglycaemia, particularly at night, versus Gla-100, supporting 6-month results.

Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia with insulin glargine 300U/mL versus insulin glargine 100U/mL in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes: 12-month results from the EDITION 3 trial.

AIM: To explore if efficacy and safety findings for insulin glargine 300U/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin glargine 100U/mL (Gla-100), observed over 6 months in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes, are maintained after 12 months. METHODS: EDITION 3 was a phase 3a, randomized, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target study of once-daily Gla-300 versus Gla-100 (target fasting self-monitored plasma glucose, 4.4-5.6mmol/L [80-100mg/dL]). Participants completing the initial 6-month treatment phase continued their previously allocated basal insulin. RESULTS: Of 878 participants randomized, 337/439 (77%) and 314/439 (72%) assigned to Gla-300 and Gla-100, respectively, completed 12 months of treatment. Improved glycaemic control was sustained until 12 months in both treatment groups, with similar reductions in HbA1c from baseline to month 12 (difference: -0.08 [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.23 to 0.07] % or -0.9 [-2.5 to 0.8] mmol/mol). Relative risk of experiencing≥1 confirmed (≤3.9mmol/L [≤70mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemic event with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.69 to 1.07) at night and 0.92 (0.82 to 1.03) at any time of day. For events with a glycaemic threshold of<3.0mmol/L (<54mg/dL) these numbers were 0.76 (0.49 to 1.19) and 0.66 (0.50 to 0.88). A similar pattern was seen for documented symptomatic events. No between-group differences in adverse events were identified. CONCLUSION: Over 12 months, Gla-300 treatment was as effective as Gla-100 in reducing HbA1c in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes, with lower overall risk of hypoglycaemia at the<3.0mmol/L threshold.