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.

Clinical use of the co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart.

AIMS: To provide a review of the available data and practical use of insulin degludec with insulin aspart (IDegAsp). Premixed insulins provide basal and prandial glucose control; however, they have an intermediate-acting prandial insulin component and do not provide as effective basal coverage as true long-acting insulins, owing to the physicochemical incompatibility of their individual components, coupled with the inflexibility of adjustment. The molecular structure of the co-formulation of IDegAsp, a novel insulin preparation, allows these two molecules to coexist without affecting their individual pharmacodynamic profiles. METHODS: Clinical evidence in phase 2/3 trials of IDegAsp efficacy and safety in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM and T2DM) have been assessed and summarised. RESULTS: In people with T2DM, once- and twice-daily dosing provides similar overall glycaemic control (HbA1c ) to current modern insulins, but with lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. In prior insulin users, glycaemic control was achieved with lower or equal insulin doses vs. other basal+meal-time or premix insulin regimens. In insulin-naïve patients with T2DM, IDegAsp can be started once or twice-daily, based on individual need. People switching from more than once-daily basal or premix insulin therapy can be converted unit-to-unit to once-daily IDegAsp, although this strategy should be assessed by the physician on an individual basis. CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp offers physicians and people with T2DM a simpler insulin regimen than other available basal-bolus or premix-based insulin regimens, with stable daytime basal coverage, a lower rate of hypoglycaemia and some flexibility in injection timing compared with premix insulins.

Relationship of glycaemic control and hypoglycaemic episodes to 4-year cardiovascular outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes starting insulin.

AIMS: To examine the relationships between glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and cardiovascular (CV) events in people beginning insulin in routine clinical practice in Europe, North America and Asia in a non-interventional study, the Cardiovascular Risk Evaluation in people with Type 2 Diabetes on Insulin Therapy (CREDIT) study. METHODS: Data on 2999 people were collected prospectively over 4 years from physician reports. The primary outcome was the composite of stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) or CV-specific death. Events were blindly adjudicated. The relative hazards of CV events were described from Cox proportional hazards models incorporating patient risk factors, with updated average HbA1c as a time-dependent covariate. The relationship of severe and symptomatic hypoglycaemia (collected during the 6 months before yearly ascertainment) with CV and all-cause mortality was examined. RESULTS: A total of 147 primary events were accrued during up to 54 months of follow-up. In all, 60 CV-specific deaths, 44 non-fatal MIs and 57 non-fatal strokes occurred, totalling 161 events. There was a significant positive relationship between updated mean HbA1c and primary outcome: hazard ratio (HR) 1.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.40; p < 0.0001]. CV death [HR 1.31 (95% CI 1.10-1.57); p = 0.0027] and stroke [HR 1.36 (95% CI 1.17-1.59); p < 0.0001] were both strongly associated with HbA1c, while MI was not [HR 1.05 (95% CI 0.83-1.32)]. One or more severe hypoglycaemic episodes affected 175 participants, while 1508 participants experienced one or more symptomatic hypoglycaemic events. We found no relationship between severe/symptomatic hypoglycaemic events and CV-specific/all-cause death. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing poorer glucose control was associated with CV events; hypoglycaemia was not associated with CV-specific/all-cause death.

Plasma insulin profiles after subcutaneous injection: how close can we get to physiology in people with diabetes?

Many people with diabetes rely on insulin therapy to achieve optimal blood glucose control. A fundamental aim of such therapy is to mimic the pattern of 'normal' physiological insulin secretion, thereby controlling basal and meal-time plasma glucose and fatty acid turnover. In people without diabetes, insulin release is modulated on a time base of 3-10 min, something that is impossible to replicate without intravascular glucose sensing and insulin delivery. Overnight physiological insulin delivery by islet ß cells is unchanging, in contrast to requirements once any degree of hyperglycaemia occurs, when diurnal influences are evident. Subcutaneous pumped insulin or injected insulin analogues can approach the physiological profile, but there remains the challenge of responding to day-to-day changes in insulin sensitivity. Physiologically, meal-time insulin release begins rapidly in response to reflex activity and incretins, continuing with the rise in glucose and amino acid concentrations. This rapid response reflects the need to fill the insulin space with maximum concentration as early as 30 min after starting the meal. Current meal-time insulins, by contrast, are associated with a delay after injection before absorption begins, and a delay to peak because of tissue diffusion. While decay from peak for monomeric analogues is not dissimilar to average physiological needs, changes in meal type and, again, in day-to-day insulin sensitivity, are difficult to match. Recent and current developments in insulin depot technology are moving towards establishing flatter basal and closer-to-average physiological meal-time plasma insulin profiles. The present article discusses the ideal physiological insulin profile, how this can be met by available and future insulin therapies and devices, and the challenges faced by healthcare professionals and people with diabetes in trying to achieve an optimum plasma insulin profile.

Biosimilar insulins: guidance for data interpretation by clinicians and users.

Biosimilar insulins are approved copies of insulins outside patent protection. Advantages may include greater market competition and potential cost reduction, but clinicians and users lack a clear perspective on 'biosimilarity' for insulins. The manufacturing processes for biosimilar insulins are manufacturer-specific and, although these are reviewed by regulators there are few public data available to allow independent assessment or review of issues such as intrinsic quality or batch-to-batch variation. Preclinical measures used to assess biosimilarity, such as tissue and cellular studies of metabolic activity, physico-chemical stability and animal studies of pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity may be insufficiently sensitive to differences, and are often not formally published. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies (glucose clamps) with humans, although core assessments, have problems of precision which are relevant for accurate insulin dosing. Studies that assess clinical efficacy and safety and device compatibility are limited by current outcome measures, such as glycated haemoblobin levels and hypoglycaemia, which are insensitive to differences between insulins. To address these issues, we suggest that all comparative data are put in the public domain, and that systematic clinical studies are performed to address batch-to-batch variability, delivery devices, interchangeability in practice and long-term efficacy and safety. Despite these challenges biosimilar insulins are a welcome addition to diabetes therapy and, with a transparent approach, should provide useful benefit to insulin users.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of albiglutide versus placebo or pioglitazone over 1 year in people with type 2 diabetes currently taking metformin and glimepiride: HARMONY 5.

AIMS: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of albiglutide, a weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, when added to metformin and glimepiride in a triple therapy regimen in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This was a 156-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study. In the present paper we describe the primary results, namely those at 52 weeks. Adult participants (n = 685) were randomly assigned to albiglutide (30 mg/week), pioglitazone (30 mg/day) or placebo. If needed, blinded uptitration of albiglutide (to 50 mg/week) and pioglitazone (to 45 mg/day) was allowed. The participant's current dose of metformin (>1500 mg/day) was maintained throughout. The glimepiride dose (4 mg/day), standardized before randomization, could be decreased if persistent hypoglycaemia occurred. RESULTS: The week 52 model-adjusted difference in change of glycated haemoglobin (primary endpoint) for albiglutide versus placebo was -0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.07, -0.68]%-units (p < 0.001), and for albiglutide versus pioglitazone it was 0.25 (95% CI 0.10, 0.40)%-units; therefore, not non-inferior. In the albiglutide group only, fasting plasma glucose reduced rapidly in the first 2 weeks. Confirmed hypoglycaemia occurred in 14% of participants on albiglutide, 25% on pioglitazone and 14% on placebo. The mean (± standard error) weight change was -0.42 (±0.2) kg with albiglutide, +4.4 (±0.2) kg (p < 0.001) with pioglitazone, and -0.40 (±0.4) kg with placebo and serious adverse events occurred in 6.3, 9.0 and 6.1% of participants in the respective groups. Injection site reactions occurred in 13% of participants on albiglutide and resulted in treatment discontinuation for four participants (1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Albiglutide, as part of triple therapy, provided effective glucose-lowering and was generally well tolerated.

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.

A propensity score matched comparison of different insulin regimens 1 year after beginning insulin in people with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To compare using propensity score analysis the outcome of beginning insulin therapy with basal, premix, mealtime + basal or mealtime insulin on the basis of data from 3031 people from the observational CREDIT (Cardiovascular Risk Evaluation in People with Type 2 Diabetes on Insulin Therapy) study. This approach overcomes likely confounding in baseline and unknown characteristics common to observational studies. METHODS: Efficacy and safety outcomes were collected at baseline and at 1 year in previously insulin-naïve people. Propensity score matched groups using all available baseline data were defined to compare outcomes by pairs of insulin regimens. RESULTS: From 2659 people with available data, propensity score matches were achieved for 686 people starting premix or basal insulin, 542 starting basal + mealtime or premix insulin and 400 starting basal or basal + mealtime. HbA1c reduction did not differ between the three pairs of insulin regimens. However, the relative risk of overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia was lower (p = 0.010 to p < 0.001) with basal or basal + mealtime compared with premix insulin, and for nocturnal (p = 0.021) but not overall hypoglycaemia for basal compared to basal + mealtime insulin. Body weight increase was less for basal versus premix insulin [-1.3 (95% CI -2.1, -0.6) kg, p < 0.001] or versus basal + mealtime insulin [-1.4 (-2.5, -0.3) kg, p = 0.016], but did not differ between basal + mealtime and premix. Smaller groups matching mealtime insulin had some residual mismatching of HbA1c. CONCLUSION: Comparing insulin regimens between individuals matched by propensity scores indicated differences in hypoglycaemia and body weight change, despite similar HbA1c reductions. Our findings are consistent with those from randomized controlled trials.

Primary-care observational database study of the efficacy of GLP-1 receptor agonists and insulin in the UK.

AIMS: We investigated use and efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in UK practice. METHODS: People starting a GLP-1 receptor agonist (exenatide, liraglutide) or insulin (glargine, detemir, NPH) after a regimen of two or three oral glucose-lowering agents were identified from The Health Information Network observational primary care database (2007-2011). Mean change in HbA1c and body weight were compared at 1 year between cohorts, adjusting for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of GLP-1 receptor agonist (n = 1123) vs. insulin (n = 1842) users were HbA1c 78 vs. 84 mmol/mol (9.3 vs. 9.8%) and BMI 38.2 vs. 30.9 kg/m². The GLP-1 receptor agonist cohort was younger, had shorter diabetes duration and follow-up, less microvascular disease and heart failure, higher estimated glomerular filtration rate and more use of oral glucose-lowering agents. Lower HbA1c reduction on GLP-1 receptor agonist [7 vs. 13 mmol/mol (0.6 vs. 1.2%) (n = 366 vs. 892)] was not statistically significant [adjusted mean difference -1.4 (95% CI -4.1, 1.2) mmol/mol], except in the highest HbA1c quintile [>96 mmol/mol (>10.9%); adjusted mean difference -17.8 (-28.6, -7.0) mmol/mol]. GLP-1 receptor agonist users lost weight [-4.5 vs. +1.5 kg; adjusted mean difference 4.7 (3.7, 5.8) kg; n = 335 vs. 634]. A UK 6-month target reduction for GLP-1 receptor agonists of 11 mmol/mol (1.0%) HbA1c and 3% weight was reached by 24.9% of those continuing treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Those starting GLP-1 receptor agonists are heavier with better glycaemic control than those starting basal insulin. Subsequently, they have improved weight change, with similar HbA1c reduction unless baseline HbA1c is very high. The UK 6-month GLP-1 receptor agonist target is usually not reached.

Factors influencing initial choice of insulin therapy in a large international non-interventional study of people with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To use baseline characteristics of the Cardiovascular Risk Evaluation in people with type 2 Diabetes on Insulin Therapy study population to identify factors that could explain the choice of insulin therapy when beginning insulin. METHODS: The source, non-interventional, longitudinal, long-term study involves 314 centres in 12 countries in five regions. People were enrolled having started any insulin regimen in the previous 12 months. To identify factors associated with the choice of insulin regimen, multivariable backward logistic regression was performed on eligible physician and participant explanatory variables. RESULTS: Participants (N = 3031) had mean age 62 years, diabetes duration 11 years, body mass index 29.3 kg/m² and an HbA1c of 9.5%. Participants in Japan had less hypertension, smoked more and used fewer concomitant medications than those of other regions. Only physician location (rural or urban) influenced the choice of insulin in Japan. In the other four-regions-combined, physician location, specialty, sex and practice type influenced choice of insulin as did participant location, baseline HbA1c, use of glucose-lowering therapies and prior insulin secretagogue use. CONCLUSION: Choice of initial insulin regimen was influenced by several physician and participant characteristics in Canada and Europe, but only by physician location in Japan.

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rapid-acting insulin analogues and their clinical consequences.

Postprandial glucose excursions can inhibit achievement of good glycaemic control, and possibly have a specific effect on the risk of vascular comorbidities. Rapid-acting analogues control these excursions better than human insulin because their pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) profile is closer to that of meal-time endogenous insulin secretion. Review of the findings of PK/PD studies and clinical trials suggests that the three marketed rapid-acting analogues--insulin lispro, insulin aspart and insulin glulisine--are equally efficacious and safe. In comparison with human insulin when using the same basal insulin, they provide comparable glycaemic control with a reduced risk of hypoglycaemia, although the combination of rapid-acting and basal analogues reduces glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) more than human meal-time insulin combined with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. Some studies have suggested that insulin glulisine has a slightly faster onset of action compared with insulin lispro or insulin aspart, but this has not been translated into demonstrable clinical benefit. Treatment satisfaction in patients with diabetes has been higher when therapy with a rapid-acting analogue is used instead of human insulin, perhaps due to differences in advised timing of injection. The largest benefits in efficacy, hypoglycaemia incidence, treatment satisfaction and quality of life have occurred when patients receive an all-analogue meal-time plus basal regimen as compared with an all-human insulin regimen. No new safety issues have been identified with the marketed rapid-acting analogues, and their insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor affinity and mitogenic activity are comparable to human insulin.

Improved health status with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in people with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: The efficacy and safety of insulin degludec (degludec), a new-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulin, was compared with insulin glargine (glargine) in people with Type 1 diabetes mellitus in a 16-week, open-label, randomized trial. Health status, an important aspect of effective diabetes management, was also assessed. METHODS: Degludec (n = 59) or glargine (n = 59) were injected once daily, with insulin aspart at mealtimes. Health status assessment utilized the validated Short Form 36 Health Survey, version 2, which has two summary component scores for mental and physical well-being, each comprising four domains. RESULTS: At study end, HbA(1c) reductions were comparable between groups, but confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia was significantly less frequent with degludec [relative rate 0.42 (95% CI 0.25-0.69)], and overall hypoglycaemia numerically less frequent [relative rate 0.72 (95% CI 0.52-1.00)]. After 16 weeks, a significant improvement in Short Form 36 Health Survey mental component score of +3.01 (95% CI 0.32-5.70) was obtained for degludec against glargine, attributable to significant differences in the social functioning [+8.04 (95% CI 1.89-14.18)] and mental health domains [+2.46 (95% CI 0.10-4.82)]. For mental component score, Cohen's effect size was 0.42, indicating a small-to-medium clinically meaningful difference. The physical component score [+0.66 (95% CI -2.30 to 3.62)] and remaining domains were not significantly different between degludec and glargine. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of comparable overall glycaemic control with glargine, degludec improved mental well-being as measured using the mental component score of the Short Form 36 Health Survey. The improvements in overall mental component score and the underlying social functioning and mental health domains with degludec compared with glargine may relate to the observed reduction in hypoglycaemic events.

A comparison of duration of first prescribed insulin therapy in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: We investigated whether differences in duration of first insulin use in type 2 diabetes remain after adjustment for potential confounders, and what factors are associated with longer use. METHODS: People prescribed a first insulin (2000-2007) after 2-3 non-insulin glucose lowering treatments (OGLD) were identified from the THIN UK primary care database and grouped by insulin, detemir (n=165), glargine (n=1011) or NPH (n=420). Time from beginning insulin to the prescription of another insulin type or a glucagon-like peptide was compared between insulins in a Cox model adjusting for: demographics, HbA1c, history of vascular complications and cardiovascular risk factors. The strength of association between duration of use and these variables was investigated. RESULTS: The adjusted hazard ratios compared to glargine for treatment change were 1.58 (95% CI 1.25, 2.00) for detemir and 1.49 (1.25, 1.78) for NPH. Lower mean treatment HbA(1c) correlated with longer time to a different insulin regimen (Spearman rank correlation -0.30, p<0.01) as were continuing OGLDs, older age, longer time from diagnosis, lower body mass index, lower HbA(1c), and no heart failure at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: People who began treatment with glargine and those with better on-treatment HbA(1c) remained on their first insulin for longer than those who began detemir or NPH.

A comparison of intermediate and long-acting insulins in people with type 2 diabetes starting insulin: an observational database study.

AIMS: Insulin is normally added to oral glucose-lowering drugs in people with type 2 diabetes when glycaemic control becomes suboptimal. We evaluated outcomes in people starting insulin therapy with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), detemir, glargine or premixed insulins. METHODS: Insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes (n = 8009), ≥ 35 years old, HbA(1c) ≥ 6.5% and begun on NPH (n = 1463), detemir (n = 357), glargine (n = 2197) or premix (n = 3992), were identified from a UK database of primary care records (The Health Improvement Network). Unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted analyses were conducted, with persistence of insulin therapy assessed by survival analysis. RESULTS: In the study population (n = 4337), baseline HbA(1c) was 9.5 ± 1.6%, falling to 8.4 ± 1.5% over 12 months (change -1.1 ± 1.8%, p < 0.001). Compared with NPH, people taking detemir, glargine and premix had an adjusted reduction in HbA(1c) from baseline, of 0.00% (p = 0.99), 0.19% (p < 0.001) and 0.03% (p = 0.51). Body weight increased by 2.8 kg overall (p < 0.001), and by 2.3, 1.7, 1.9, and 3.3 kg on NPH, detemir, glargine and premix (p < 0.001 for all groups); insulin dose at 12 months was 0.70 (overall), 0.64, 0.61, 0.56 and 0.76 U/kg/day. After 36 months, 57% of people on NPH, 67% on glargine and 83% on premix remained on their initially prescribed insulin. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: In routine clinical practice, people with type 2 diabetes commenced on NPH experienced a modest disadvantage in glycaemic control after 12 months compared with other insulins. When comparing the insulins, glargine achieved best HbA(1c) reduction, while premix showed greatest weight gain and the highest dose requirement, but had the best persistence of therapy.

Meta-analysis of individual patient data to assess the risk of hypoglycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes using NPH insulin or insulin glargine.

AIM: To estimate absolute and relative incidence rates of hypoglycaemia when using once-daily evening or morning regimens of insulin glargine (glargine) versus once-daily evening NPH insulin (NPH) using individual patient data (IPD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials with accessible IPD and including white European people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) using glargine or NPH once-daily (with oral glucose-lowering drugs) were identified. Two study pools were analysed: evening glargine versus evening NPH (pool 1); and morning glargine versus evening NPH (pool 2). The number-needed-to-treat to avoid hypoglycaemia was calculated for glargine versus NPH. RESULTS: In study pool 1 (n = 2711), the risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was approximately halved with glargine compared with NPH [odds ratios (OR): 0.44-0.52, p < 0.001-0.047]. This led to a significant reduction in anytime risk of symptomatic hypoglycaemia [plasma glucose (PG) <3.9 mmol/l, OR: 0.64, p = 0.018; PG <2.0 mmol/l, OR: 0.51, p < 0.001]. In study pool 2 (n = 470), although a strong numerical reduction in all types of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed (OR: 0.16-0.64), statistical significance was reached only for symptomatic hypoglycaemia with PG <3.9 mmol/l (p < 0.001). Eight (pool 1) or five (pool 2) people with T2DM needed to use glargine rather than NPH to avoid one person from experiencing a nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemic event within a median of about 25 weeks of starting insulin. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of open-label studies provides confidence that reductions of around 50% of risk for nocturnal hypoglycaemia can be achieved with using glargine instead of NPH.