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.

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.

Clinical relevance of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of insulin degludec (100, 200 U/mL) and insulin glargine (100, 300 U/mL) - a review of evidence and clinical interpretation.

AIM: Second-generation basal insulin analogues (e.g. insulin degludec, insulin glargine 300 U/mL), were designed to further extend the duration of insulin action and reduce within-day and day-to-day variability, and consequently hypoglycaemia risk, versus earlier long-acting basal insulins. This review examines the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics of insulin degludec (100, 200 U/mL) and insulin glargine (100, 300 U/mL), and their influence on clinical outcomes. METHODS: Available pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic publications comparing insulin degludec and insulin glargine were reviewed. RESULTS: Both insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/mL have more prolonged and stable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles than the earlier basal insulin analogue, insulin glargine 100 U/mL. Insulin glargine 300 U/mL (0.4 U/kg, morning) showed a more stable pharmacodynamic profile (20% lower within-day variability [P = 0.047]) and more even 24-h distribution (over each 6-h quartile) than insulin degludec 100 U/mL, whereas the supratherapeutic 0.6 U/kg dose demonstrated a similar, albeit non-significant, trend. In contrast, a second clamp study indicated lower day-to-day variability in the 24-h glucose-lowering effect (variance ratio 3.70, P < 0.0001), and more even dosing over each 6-h quartile, with insulin degludec 200 U/mL versus insulin glargine 300 U/mL (0.4 U/kg, evening). Methodological differences and differences in bioequivalence that may explain these discrepancies are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with earlier insulin analogues, second-generation basal insulins have improved pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles that translate into clinical benefits, primarily reduced nocturnal-hypoglycaemia risk. Additional head-to-head comparisons of insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/mL at bioequivalent doses, utilising continuous glucose monitoring and/or real-world evidence, are required to elucidate the differences in their pharmacological and clinical profiles.

Different insulin concentrations in resuspended vs. unsuspended NPH insulin: Practical aspects of subcutaneous injection in patients with diabetes.

AIMS: This study measured the insulin concentration (Ins[C]) of NPH insulin in vials and cartridges from different companies after either resuspension (R+) or not (R-; in the clear/cloudy phases of unsuspended NPH). METHODS: Measurements included Ins[C] in NPH(R+) and in the clear/cloudy phases of NPH(R-), and the time needed to resuspend NPH and time for NPH(R+) to separate again into clear/cloudy parts. RESULTS: In vials of NPH(R+) (assumed to be 100%), Ins[C] in the clear phase of NPH(R-) was<1%, but 230±41% and 234±54% in the cloudy phases of Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly NPH, respectively. Likewise, in pen cartridges, Ins[C] in the clear phase of NPH(R-) was<1%, but 182±33%, 204±22% and 229±62% in the cloudy phases of Novo, Lilly and Sanofi NPH. Time needed to resuspend NPH (spent in tipping) in vials was brief with both Novo (5±1s) and Lilly NPH (6±1s), but longer with all pen cartridges (50±8s, 40±6s and 30±4s from Novo, Lilly and Sanofi, respectively; P=0.022). Time required for 50% separation into cloudy and clear parts of NPH was longer with Novo (60±7min) vs. Lilly (18±3min) in vials (P=0.021), and affected by temperature, but not by the different diameter sizes of the vials. With pen cartridges, separation into clear and cloudy parts was significantly faster than in vials (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Ins[C] in NPH preparations varies depending on their resuspension or not. Thus, subcutaneous injection of the same number of units of NPH in patients with diabetes may deliver different amounts of insulin depending on its prior NPH resuspension.

Morning administration of 0.4U/kg/day insulin glargine 300U/mL provides less fluctuating 24-hour pharmacodynamics and more even pharmacokinetic profiles compared with insulin degludec 100U/mL in type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To compare steady state pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles of insulin glargine 300U/mL (Gla-300) with insulin degludec 100U/mL (Deg-100) in people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This single-centre, randomized, double-blind crossover euglycaemic clamp study included two parallel cohorts with fixed once-daily morning dose regimens. For both insulins participants received 0.4 (n=24) or 0.6U/kg/day (n=24), before breakfast, for 8 days prior to the clamp. The main endpoint was within-day variability (fluctuation) of the smoothed glucose infusion rate (GIR) over 24 hours (GIR-smFL0-24). RESULTS: Gla-300 provided 20% less fluctuation of steady state glucose infusion rate profiles than Deg-100 over 24 hours at 0.4U/kg/day (GIR-smFL0-24 treatment ratio 0.80 [90% confidence interval: 0.66 to 0.96], P=0.047), while at the dose of 0.6U/kg/day the difference between insulins was not statistically significant (treatment ratio 0.96 [0.83 to 1.11], P=0.603). Serum insulin concentrations appeared more evenly distributed with both dose levels of Gla-300 versus the same doses of Deg-100, as assessed by relative 6-hour fractions of the area under the curve within 24 hours. Both insulins provided exposure and activity until 30 hours (end of clamp). CONCLUSION: Gla-300 provides less fluctuating steady state pharmacodynamic profiles (i.e. lower within-day variability) and more evenly distributed pharmacokinetic profiles, compared with Deg-100 in a once-daily morning dosing regimen of 0.4U/kg/day.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

GLP-1 RAs as compared to prandial insulin after failure of basal insulin in type 2 diabetes: lessons from the 4B and Get-Goal DUO 2 trials.

The add-on of a prandial (short-acting) GLP-1 RA to basal insulin in subjects with T2DM who fail to control A1C on basal insulin, stems from the physiological principles of post-prandial glucose homeostasis, and it is based on evidence from clinical trials. The 4B and GetGoal DUO 2 studies are the first to establish in head-to-head comparison, the efficacy and safety of short-acting GLP-1 RAs vs prandial insulin, when added-on to basal insulin glargine. In the 4B study (exenatide 2/d vs lispro 3/d) exenatide demonstrated similar efficacy vs lispro in reducing A1C to ~7.2%. However, exenatide reduced also body weight and hypoglycemia incidence as compared to lispro. In GetGoal DUO 2, the head-to-head comparison was between lixisenatide 1/d vs glulisine either 1/d (at the main meal, basal-plus) or 3/d (basal-bolus). Like in 4B, in GetGoal DUO 2 the A1C decreased to similar values with lixisenatide or glulisine 1/d (~7.2%), or glulisine 3/d (~7.0%). Again, as in the 4B, body weight and hypoglycemia incidence were lower with lixisenatide. In both studies a similar percentage of subjects reached the A1C <7.0% on GLP-1 RA or prandial insulin. A higher percentage of subjects reported adverse events on GLP-1 RAs, primarily gastrointestinal related. The studies 4B and GetGoal DUO 2 suggest that after failure of basal insulin in T2DM, the add-on of prandial GLP-1 RA is as effective as prandial insulin in lowering A1C, with added benefits of reducing body weight and risk for hypoglycemia. In addition, the GLP-1 RA + basal insulin is a simpler therapeutic option as compared to basal-plus and basal-bolus regimens.

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.