Results from three phase 1 trials of NNC9204-1177, a glucagon/GLP-1 receptor co-agonist: Effects on weight loss and safety in adults with overweight or obesity.

OBJECTIVE: Glucagon/glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor co-agonists may provide greater weight loss than agonists targeting the GLP-1 receptor alone. We report results from three phase 1 trials investigating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the glucagon/GLP-1 receptor co-agonist NNC9204-1177 (NN1177) for once-weekly subcutaneous use in adults with overweight or obesity. METHODS: Our focus was a 12-week, multiple ascending dose (MAD), placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in which adults (N = 99) received NN1177 (on an escalating dose regimen of 200, 600, 1300, 1900, 2800, 4200 and 6000 µg) or placebo. Two other trials also contributed to the findings reported in this article: a first human dose (FHD)/single ascending dose (SAD), placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in which adults (N = 49) received NN1177 (treatment doses of 10, 40, 120, 350, 700 and 1100 µg) or placebo, and a drug-drug interaction, open-label, single-sequence trial in which adults (N = 45) received a 4200-µg dose of NN1177, following administration of a Cooperstown 5 + 1 index cocktail. Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic endpoints were assessed. RESULTS: For the FHD/SAD and MAD trials, baseline characteristics were generally balanced across treatment cohorts. The geometric mean half-life of NN1177 at steady state was estimated at between 77 and 111 h, and clinically relevant weight loss was achieved (up to 12.6% at week 12; 4200 µg in the MAD trial). Although NN1177 appeared tolerable across trials, several unexpected treatment-related safety signals were observed; increased heart rate, decreased reticulocyte count, increased markers of inflammation (fibrinogen and C-reactive protein), increased aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, impaired glucose tolerance and reduced blood levels of some amino acids. CONCLUSION: Although treatment with NN1177 was associated with dose-dependent and clinically relevant weight loss, the observed safety signals precluded further clinical development.

Estimating and reporting treatment effects in clinical trials for weight management: using estimands to interpret effects of intercurrent events and missing data.

In the approval process for new weight management therapies, regulators typically require estimates of effect size. Usually, as with other drug evaluations, the placebo-adjusted treatment effect (i.e., the difference between weight losses with pharmacotherapy and placebo, when given as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention) is provided from data in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). At first glance, this may seem appropriate and straightforward. However, weight loss is not a simple direct drug effect, but is also mediated by other factors such as changes in diet and physical activity. Interpreting observed differences between treatment arms in weight management RCTs can be challenging; intercurrent events that occur after treatment initiation may affect the interpretation of results at the end of treatment. Utilizing estimands helps to address these uncertainties and improve transparency in clinical trial reporting by better matching the treatment-effect estimates to the scientific and/or clinical questions of interest. Estimands aim to provide an indication of trial outcomes that might be expected in the same patients under different conditions. This article reviews how intercurrent events during weight management trials can influence placebo-adjusted treatment effects, depending on how they are accounted for and how missing data are handled. The most appropriate method for statistical analysis is also discussed, including assessment of the last observation carried forward approach, and more recent methods, such as multiple imputation and mixed models for repeated measures. The use of each of these approaches, and that of estimands, is discussed in the context of the SCALE phase 3a and 3b RCTs evaluating the effect of liraglutide 3.0 mg for the treatment of obesity.

Effects of Dietary Self-Monitoring, Physical Activity, Liraglutide 3.0 mg, and Placebo on Weight Loss in the SCALE IBT Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals who enroll in intensive behavioral therapy (IBT) programs are asked to make several lifestyle changes simultaneously. However, few studies have examined the relative effects of adherence to different treatment components on weight loss. OBJECTIVE: This secondary analysis of the SCALE IBT trial assessed adherence to the medication regimen, dietary self-monitoring, and physical activity recommendations and their relative contributions to weight change in individuals with obesity who were provided with IBT combined with either liraglutide 3.0 mg or placebo. METHODS: SCALE IBT was a double-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing 56-week weight losses in individuals with obesity who received liraglutide 3.0 mg (n = 142) or placebo (n = 140), as an adjunct to IBT. Adherence to dietary self-monitoring, physical activity, and medication usage (liraglutide or placebo) were measured during the 56-week treatment period. A regression model was used to estimate the relative contribution of adherence to each treatment component to weight loss at week 56. RESULTS: The proportion of individuals who adhered to each intervention component decreased over time. Compared with non-adherence, complete adherence to dietary self-monitoring and physical activity recommendations were associated with estimated weight changes of -7.2% (95% CI -10.4 to -4.0; p < 0.0001) and -2.0% (95% CI -3.2 to -0.8; p = 0.0009), respectively. Complete adherence to liraglutide predicted an additional weight loss of -6.5% (95% CI -10.2 to -2.9; p = 0.0005) relative to individuals who did not adhere to the medication regimen, while adherence to placebo did not have a statistically significant effect on weight loss (p = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: High adherence to dietary self-monitoring and use of liraglutide 3.0 mg was associated with clinically relevant weight loss with IBT and adjunctive pharmacotherapy. The effect of adherence to physical activity was significant but smaller.

Developing, Planning and Conducting an Interim Analysis: Lessons From the DEVOTE Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes at High Risk of Cardiovascular Events).

BACKGROUND: In 2013, a randomized, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, event-driven cardiovascular outcomes trial (DEVOTE) was initiated to compare the cardiovascular safety of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of cardiovascular events. The FDA agreed that an interim analysis could form the basis for an early regulatory approval. We report here the operational model developed to support the DEVOTE interim analysis and the results. METHODS: The interim analysis model was designed to reduce the risk of any confidentiality breaches. The Data Access Management Plan comprehensively described the interim analysis operational processes and procedures to maintain the integrity of the ongoing trial while the interim analysis was conducted, submitted, and acted upon by the FDA, and also until completion of the full trial. Most importantly, those who were unblinded to the interim results were limited to a team of 14 members. RESULTS: A total of 150 first major adverse cardiovascular events were recorded at cut-off for the interim analysis. The estimated hazard ratio was 0.92 (95% CI 0.67, 1.27) and non-inferiority to glargine U100 was confirmed as the upper bound of the confidence interval was below 1.8, as prespecified. Based on these results, the FDA approved the use of degludec and degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) in the United States in 2015 before trial completion. CONCLUSIONS: The DEVOTE interim analysis succeeded as a model by which to conduct an interim analysis and submit confidential data for regulatory review and action while continuing the trial to address a primary hypothesis.

Effect of weight reductions on estimated kidney function: Post-hoc analysis of two randomized trials.

AIMS: Weight loss-induced serum creatinine reduction may increase creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) producing incorrect estimates of kidney function. We investigated whether weight changes in the SCALE program with liraglutide 3.0mg were associated with changes in serum creatinine. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of two 56-week, randomized, double-blind trials: SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes (n=3731, without type 2 diabetes [T2D], randomized [2:1] to liraglutide 3.0mg [n=2487] or placebo [n=1244]); SCALE Diabetes (n=846 with T2D, randomized [2:1:1] to liraglutide 3.0mg [n=423], 1.8mg [n=211, excluded from this analysis] or placebo [n=212]). NCT01272219/NCT01272232. RESULTS: In SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes, mean (±SD) weight loss (baseline to week 56) with liraglutide was 8.0±6.7% (2.6±6.9% with placebo); baseline creatinine with liraglutide was 76±15µmol/L and 74±15µmol/L after 56weeks (similar across treatment groups). In SCALE Diabetes, weight loss with liraglutide was 5.9±5.5% (2.0±4.3% with placebo); baseline creatinine was 79±19µmol/L (77±16µmol/L, placebo) and 79±20µmol/L after 56weeks (76±15µmol/L, placebo). No association between changes in weight and changes in serum creatinine was observed (P≥0.05, both trials, all tests). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate gradual body weight reductions observed in the SCALE program were not associated with changes in serum creatinine.

PATIENTS ACHIEVING GOOD GLYCEMIC CONTROL (HBA1c <7%) EXPERIENCE A LOWER RATE OF HYPOGLYCEMIA WITH INSULIN DEGLUDEC THAN WITH INSULIN GLARGINE: A META-ANALYSIS OF PHASE 3A TRIALS.

OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis to compare hypoglycemia rates of basal insulin degludec (IDeg) with insulin glargine (IGlar) in patients with diabetes achieving good glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] <7% at end of trial). METHODS: In a preplanned meta-analysis, patient data from 7 randomized, treat-to-target, 26- or 52-week trials in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who administered IDeg (n = 2,899) or IGlar (n = 1,431) once daily were analyzed. Using a negative binomial regression model, this meta-analysis compared hypoglycemia rates in patients achieving HbA1c <7% at end of trial with IDeg (n = 1,347) and IGlar (n = 697). RESULTS: In all trials, IDeg was noninferior to IGlar in HbA1c reduction from baseline. At end of trial, 2,044 patients (T2DM, n = 1,661; T1DM, n = 383) achieved HbA1c <7%. The overall confirmed hypoglycemia rate, defined as plasma glucose <56 mg/dL or severe hypoglycemia if requiring assistance, was significantly lower with IDeg versus IGlar (estimated rate ratio [ERR] IDeg:IGlar, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 0.98). The nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate, defined as occurring between midnight and 6:00 am, was significantly lower with IDeg (ERR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.77). In the maintenance period (16 weeks onward when average insulin dose and glycemic levels stabilized), the overall confirmed hypoglycemia rate was significantly lower (ERR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.92) and the nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate was significantly lower (ERR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.72) with IDeg versus IGlar. CONCLUSION: Patients with T1DM and T2DM achieved HbA1c <7% with significantly lower rates of overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia with IDeg versus IGlar. The lower hypoglycemia rate with IDeg was more pronounced in the maintenance period.

Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a 1-year, randomized, treat-to-target trial (BEGIN Once Long).

OBJECTIVE: To compare ultra-long-acting insulin degludec with glargine for efficacy and safety in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 1-year, parallel-group, randomized, open-label, treat-to-target trial, adults with type 2 diabetes with A1C of 7-10% taking OADs were randomized 3:1 to receive once daily degludec or glargine, both with metformin. Insulin was titrated to achieve prebreakfast plasma glucose (PG) of 3.9-4.9 mmol/L. The primary end point was confirmation of noninferiority of degludec to glargine in A1C reduction after 52 weeks in an intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: In all, 1,030 participants (mean age 59 years; baseline A1C 8.2%) were randomized (degludec 773, glargine 257). Reduction in A1C with degludec was similar (noninferior) to that with glargine (1.06 vs. 1.19%), with an estimated treatment difference of degludec to glargine of 0.09% (95% CI -0.04 to 0.22). Overall rates of confirmed hypoglycemia (PG <3.1 mmol/L or severe episodes requiring assistance) were similar, with degludec and glargine at 1.52 versus 1.85 episodes/patient-year of exposure (PYE). There were few episodes of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia in the overall population, and these occurred at a lower rate with degludec versus glargine (0.25 vs. 0.39 episodes/PYE; P = 0.038). Similar percentages of patients in both groups achieved A1C levels <7% without hypoglycemia. End-of-trial mean daily insulin doses were 0.59 and 0.60 units/kg for degludec and glargine, respectively. Adverse event rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Insulins degludec and glargine administered once daily in combination with OADs provided similar long-term glycemic control in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, with lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycemia with degludec.

Comparison of a soluble co-formulation of insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes: a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble co-formulation of insulin degludec (70%) and insulin aspart (IAsp: 30%). Here, we compare the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp, an alternative IDegAsp formulation (AF: containing 45% IAsp), and biphasic IAsp 30 (BIAsp 30). DESIGN: Sixteen-week, open-label, randomised, treat-to-target trial. METHODS: Insulin-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes (18-75 years) and a HbA1c of 7-11% were randomised to twice-daily IDegAsp (n=61), AF (n=59) or BIAsp 30 (n=62), all in combination with metformin. Insulin was administered pre-breakfast and dinner (main evening meal) and titrated to pre-breakfast and pre-dinner plasma glucose (PG) targets of 4.0-6.0 mmol/l. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c after 16 weeks was comparable for IDegAsp, AF and BIAsp 30 (6.7, 6.6 and 6.7% respectively). With IDegAsp, 67% of subjects achieved HbA1c 7.0% Without confirmed hypoglycaemia in the last 4 weeks of treatment compared with 53% (AF) and 40% (BIAsp 30). Mean fasting PG was significantly lower for IDegAsp vs BIAsp 30 (treatment difference (TD): -0.99 mmol/l (95% confidence interval: -1.68; 0.29)) and AF vs BIAsp 30 (TD: -0.88 mmol/l (-1.58; -0.18)). A significant, 58% lower rate of confirmed hypoglycaemia was found for IDegAsp vs BIAsp 30 (rate ratio (RR): 0.42 (0.23; 0.75)); rates were similar for AF vs BIAsp 30 (RR: 0.92 (0.54; 1.57)). IDegAsp and AF had numerically lower rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia vs BIAsp 30 (RR: 0.33 (0.09; 1.14) and 0.66 (0.22; 1.93) respectively). CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp provided comparable overall glycaemic control to BIAsp 30 with a significantly lower rate of hypoglycaemia.

Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes (BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 2): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Basal insulin therapy does not stop loss of ß-cell function, which is the hallmark of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and thus diabetes control inevitably deteriorates. Insulin degludec is a new, ultra-longacting basal insulin. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: In this 52 week, phase 3, open-label, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial, undertaken at 123 sites in 12 countries, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) of 7·0-10·0% after 3 months or more of any insulin regimen (with or without oral antidiabetic drugs). We randomly allocated eligible participants in a 3:1 ratio to receive once-daily subcutaneous insulin degludec or glargine, stratified by previous insulin regimen, via a central interactive response system. Basal insulin was titrated to a target plasma glucose concentration of 3·9-<5·0 mmol/L self-measured before breakfast. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of degludec to glargine measured by change in HbA(1c) from baseline to week 52 (non-inferiority limit of 0·4%) by ANOVA in the full analysis set. We assessed rates of hypoglycaemia in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00972283. FINDINGS: 744 (99%) of 755 participants randomly allocated degludec and 248 (99%) of 251 allocated glargine were included in the full analysis set (mean age 58·9 years [SD 9·3], diabetes duration 13·5 years [7·3], HbA(1c) 8·3% [0·8], and fasting plasma glucose 9·2 mmol/L [3·1]); 618 (82%) and 211 (84%) participants completed the trial. After 1 year, HbA(1c) decreased by 1·1% in the degludec group and 1·2% in the glargine group (estimated treatment difference [degludec-glargine] 0·08%, 95% CI -0·05 to 0·21), confirming non-inferiority. Rates of overall confirmed hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose <3·1 mmol/L or severe episodes requiring assistance) were lower with degludec than glargine (11·1 vs 13·6 episodes per patient-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·69 to 0·99; p=0·0359), as were rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia (1·4 vs 1·8 episodes per patient-year of exposure; 0·75, 0·58 to 0·99; p=0·0399). Rates of severe hypoglycaemia seemed similar (0·06 vs 0·05 episodes per patient-year of exposure for degludec and glargine) but were too low for assessment of differences. Rates of other adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: A policy of suboptimum diabetes control to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia and its consequences in advanced type 2 diabetes mellitus might be unwarranted with newer basal insulins such as degludec, which are associated with lower risks of hypoglycaemia than insulin glargine. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Insulin degludec, an ultra-long-acting basal insulin, once a day or three times a week versus insulin glargine once a day in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 16-week, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin degludec is a new basal insulin that forms soluble multihexamer assemblies after subcutaneous injection, resulting in an ultra-long action profile. This study aimed to assess efficacy and safety of insulin degludec injected once a day or three times a week compared with insulin glargine once a day in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes, who were inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs. METHODS: In this 16-week, randomised, open-label, parallel-group phase 2 trial, participants aged 18­75 years with type 2 diabetes and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1C)) of 7·0­11·0% were enrolled and treated at 28 clinical sites in Canada, India, South Africa, and the USA. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1:1 ratio by computer-generated block randomisation to receive insulin degludec either once a day or three times a week or insulin glargine once a day, all in combination with metformin. Investigators were masked to data until database release. The primary outcome was HbA(1C) after 16 weeks of treatment. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00611884. FINDINGS: Of 367 patients screened, 245 were eligible for inclusion. 62 participants were randomly allocated to receive insulin degludec three times a week (starting dose 20 U per injection [1 U=9 nmol]), 60 to receive insulin degludec once a day (starting dose 10 U [1 U=6 nmol]; group A), 61 to receive insulin degludec once a day (starting dose 10 U [1 U=9 nmol]; group B), and 62 to receive insulin glargine (starting dose 10 U [1 U=6 nmol]) once a day. At study end, mean HbA(1C) levels were much the same across treatment groups, at 7·3% (SD 1·1), 7·4% (1·0), 7·5% (1·1), and 7·2% (0·9), respectively. Estimated mean HbA(1C) treatment differences from insulin degludec by comparison with insulin glargine were 0·08% (95% CI ­0·23 to 0·40) for the three dose per week schedule, 0·17% (­0·15 to 0·48) for group A, and 0·28% (­0·04 to 0·59) for group B. Few participants had hypoglycaemia and the number of adverse events was much the same across groups, with no apparent treatment-specific pattern. INTERPRETATION: Insulin degludec provides comparable glycaemic control to insulin glargine without additional adverse events and might reduce dosing frequency due to its ultra-long action profile. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Insulin degludec in type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial of a new-generation ultra-long-acting insulin compared with insulin glargine.

OBJECTIVE: Insulin degludec (IDeg) is a basal insulin that forms soluble multihexamers after subcutaneous injection, resulting in an ultra-long action profile. We assessed the efficacy and safety of IDeg formulations administered once daily in combination with mealtime insulin aspart in people with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 16-week, randomized, open-label trial, participants (mean: 45.8 years old, A1C 8.4%, fasting plasma glucose [FPG] 9.9 mmol/L, BMI 26.9 kg/m(2)) received subcutaneous injections of IDeg(A) (600 µmol/L; n = 59), IDeg(B) (900 µmol/L; n = 60), or insulin glargine (IGlar; n = 59), all given once daily in the evening. Insulin aspart was administered at mealtimes. RESULTS At 16 weeks, mean A1C was comparable for IDeg(A) (7.8 ± 0.8%), IDeg(B) (8.0 ± 1.0%), and IGlar (7.6 ± 0.8%), as was FPG (8.3 ± 4.0, 8.3 ± 2.8, and 8.9 ± 3.5 mmol/L, respectively). Estimated mean rates of confirmed hypoglycemia were 28% lower for IDeg(A) compared with IGlar (rate ratio [RR]: 0.72 [95% CI 0.52-1.00]) and 10% lower for IDeg(B) compared with IGlar (RR: 0.90 [0.65-1.24]); rates of nocturnal hypoglycemia were 58% lower for IDeg(A) (RR: 0.42 [0.25-0.69]) and 29% lower for IDeg(B) (RR: 0.71 [0.44-1.16]). Mean total daily insulin dose was similar to baseline. The frequency and pattern of adverse events was similar between insulin treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical exploratory phase 2 trial in people with type 1 diabetes, IDeg is safe and well tolerated and provides comparable glycemic control to IGlar at similar doses, with reduced rates of hypoglycemia.

Insulin detemir is characterized by a more reproducible pharmacokinetic profile than insulin glargine in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: results from a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

Insulin detemir (detemir) has previously been shown to be associated with lower within-subject variability compared with other basal insulin preparations in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). This randomized, double-blind, crossover trial compared the within-subject variability of detemir and insulin glargine (glargine) in pharmacokinetic properties in children and adolescents with T1DM. The trial enrolled 32 children and adolescents (19 girls and 13 boys; mean +/- SD: age 13 +/- 2.5 yr and T1DM duration 6.3 +/- 3.0 yr) with a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7.9 +/- 1.0%. Participants were randomized to a specific treatment sequence in which a dose of 0.4 U/kg of detemir and glargine was injected subcutaneously 24 h apart at each of two dosing visits. Insulin concentrations were measured at frequent intervals for a period of 16-h post-dosing. Detemir showed statistically significantly less within-subject variability compared with glargine with a 3.1-fold and 2.9-fold lower coefficient of variation (CV, %) for the area under the concentration-time curve [AUC((0-16) (h))] and the maximum concentration (C(max)), respectively. Separate analyses demonstrated a 2.5-fold and 2.9-fold lower CV (%) with detemir in children (8-12 yr) and a 4-fold and 3.8-fold lower CV (%) with detemir in adolescents (13-17 yr). No safety concerns were raised during the trial. In conclusion, within-subject variability in pharmacokinetic properties was significantly lower for detemir than for glargine in children and adolescents with T1DM. This indicates a less variable absorption with detemir, which is expected to be associated with a more predictable therapeutic effect also in this population.

A double-blind, randomized, dose-response study investigating the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of the long-acting insulin analog detemir.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the pharmacodynamic profile and duration of action for five subcutaneous doses of insulin detemir (0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, and 1.6 units/kg; 1 unit = 24 nmol) and one subcutaneous dose of NPH insulin (0.3 IU/kg; 1 IU = 6 nmol). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This single-center, randomized, double-blind, six-period, crossover study was carried out as a 24-h isoglycemic clamp (7.2 mmol/l) in 12 type 1 diabetic patients. RESULTS: Duration of action for insulin detemir was dose dependent and varied from 5.7, to 12.1, to 19.9, to 22.7, to 23.2 h for 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, and 1.6 units/kg, respectively. Interpolation of the dose-response relationships for AUC(GIR) (area under the glucose infusion rate curve) revealed that a detemir dose of 0.29 units/kg would provide the same effect as 0.3 IU/kg NPH but has a longer duration of action (16.9 vs. 12.7 h, respectively). Lower between-subject variability was observed for insulin detemir on duration of action (0.4 units/kg insulin detemir vs. 0.3 IU/kg NPH, P < 0.05) and GIR(max) (maximal glucose infusion rate) (0.2 and 0.4 units/kg insulin detemir vs. 0.3 IU/kg NPH, both P < 0.05). Assessment of endogenous glucose production (EGP) and peripheral glucose uptake (PGU) resulted in an AOC(EGP) (area over the EGP curve) of 636 mg/kg (95% CI 279-879) vs. 584 (323-846) and an AUC(PGU) (area under the PGU curve) of 173 (47-316) vs. 328 (39-617) for 0.29 units/kg detemir vs. 0.3 IU/kg NPH, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that insulin detemir provides a flat and protracted pharmacodynamic profile.

Lower within-subject variability of insulin detemir in comparison to NPH insulin and insulin glargine in people with type 1 diabetes.

The aim of this randomized double-blind study was to compare the within-subject variability of the glucose-lowering effect of a novel insulin analog, insulin detemir, with that of insulin glargine and NPH insulin in people with type 1 diabetes. Fifty-four subjects (32 males and 22 females, age 38 +/- 10 years [mean +/- SD], BMI 24 +/- 2 kg/m(2), HbA(1c) 7.5 +/- 1.2%, diabetes duration 18 +/- 9 years) participated in this parallel group comparison. Each subject received four single subcutaneous doses of 0.4 units/kg of either insulin detemir (n = 18), insulin glargine (n = 16), or human NPH insulin (n = 17) under euglycemic glucose clamp conditions (target blood glucose concentration 5.5 mmol/l) on four identical study days. The pharmacodynamic (glucose infusion rates [GIRs]) and pharmacokinetic (serum concentrations of insulin detemir, human insulin, and insulin glargine) properties of the basal insulin preparations were recorded for 24 h postdosing. Insulin detemir was associated with significantly less within-subject variability than both NPH insulin and insulin glargine, as assessed by the coefficient of variation (CV) for the pharmacodynamic end points studied [GIR-AUC((0-12 h)) 27% (detemir) vs. 59% (NPH) vs. 46% (glargine); GIR-AUC((0-24 h)) 27 vs. 68 vs. 48%; GIR(max) 23 vs. 46 vs. 36%; P < 0.001 for all comparisons]. Insulin detemir also provided less within-subject variability in the pharmacokinetic end points: maximal concentration (C(max)) 18 vs. 24 vs. 34%; INS-AUC((0- infinity )) 14 vs. 28 vs. 33%. The results suggest that insulin detemir has a significantly more predictable glucose-lowering effect than both NPH insulin and insulin glargine.

[Will publication of quality indicators in the health service improve the quality? International experiences and Danish perspectives]. / Fører offentliggørelse af kvalitetsmålinger i sundhedsvaesenet til bedre kvalitet? Internationale erfaringer og danske perspektiver.

It is well known that publication of hospital quality indicators may lead to improving of treatments. But the publication can also have some negative side effects: Focus may shift to the evaluated areas at the expense of non-evaluated areas. The most ill patients may be sorted out and high risk patients may be transferred to other hospitals or discharged in order to avoid their dying during hospitalisation and improve statistics. Overestimation of patient risk in order to improve relative treatment outcome. Increasing flow of patients to hospitals with high scores on quality indicators may cause imbalance between activities and budgets and hence longer waiting times and reduced quality of treatment. Negative publicity due to low scores on quality indicators may lead to under-utilisation of hospital capacity, patient and staff insecurity and staff wastage. Thus, publication of quality indicators may improve quality within the health sector, but it is very important to recognise potential pitfalls and negative side effects.