Insulin degludec/insulin aspart once daily in Type 2 diabetes: a comparison of simple or stepwise titration algorithms (BOOST® : SIMPLE USE).

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of two titration algorithms for insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) administered once daily with metformin in participants with insulin-naïve Type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This open-label, parallel-group, 26-week, multicentre, treat-to-target trial, randomly allocated participants (1:1) to two titration arms. The Simple algorithm titrated IDegAsp twice weekly based on a single pre-breakfast self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) measurement. The Stepwise algorithm titrated IDegAsp once weekly based on the lowest of three consecutive pre-breakfast SMPG measurements. In both groups, IDegAsp once daily was titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose values of 4.0-5.0 mmol/l. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 26 weeks. RESULTS: Change in HbA1c at Week 26 was IDegAspSimple -14.6 mmol/mol (-1.3%) (to 52.4 mmol/mol; 6.9%) and IDegAspStepwise -11.9 mmol/mol (-1.1%) (to 54.7 mmol/mol; 7.2%). The estimated between-group treatment difference was -1.97 mmol/mol [95% confidence interval (CI) -4.1, 0.2] (-0.2%, 95% CI -0.4, 0.02), confirming the non-inferiority of IDegAspSimple to IDegAspStepwise (non-inferiority limit of ≤ 0.4%). Mean reduction in fasting plasma glucose and 8-point SMPG profiles were similar between groups. Rates of confirmed hypoglycaemia were lower for IDegAspStepwise [2.1 per patient years of exposure (PYE)] vs. IDegAspSimple (3.3 PYE) (estimated rate ratio IDegAspSimple /IDegAspStepwise 1.8; 95% CI 1.1, 2.9). Nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were similar between groups. No severe hypoglycaemic events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with insulin-naïve Type 2 diabetes mellitus, the IDegAspSimple titration algorithm improved HbA1c levels as effectively as a Stepwise titration algorithm. Hypoglycaemia rates were lower in the Stepwise arm.

Predictors of ischaemic heart disease in a Malaysian population with the metabolic syndrome.

AIMS: Cardiovascular disease is the foremost cause of mortality in Malaysia but little is known about the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome and its associations with other known cardiovascular risk markers. We undertook a population-based study to examine these. METHODS: For the study, 4341 subjects were selected using a multistage stratified sampling method. Subjects were interviewed for personal and past medical history. Biomedical markers and anthropometric indices were measured. The metabolic syndrome was defined using the harmonized criteria. The associations between the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk markers, including high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, microalbuminuria and HbA(1c) were examined. RESULTS: The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome was 42.5%. Subjects with the metabolic syndrome are significantly more likely to have higher BMI (> 25 kg/m(2)), HbA(1c) [≥ 42 mmol/mol (6.0%)], LDL (≥ 2.6 mmol/l), elevated albumin:creatinine ratio (> 2.5 µg/mmol creatinine for men, 3.5 µg/mmol creatinine for women) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (> 3 mg/l); odds ratio 5.48, 6.14, 1.44, 3.68 and 1.84, respectively, P < 0.001. The presence of an elevated albumin:creatinine ratio and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein are strong predictors for the presence of a higher number of positive criteria of the metabolic syndrome. HbA(1c) > 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) is associated with increased relative risk of elevated albumin:creatinine ratio, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and LDL (relative risk 3.10, 2.46 and 1.65 respectively, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed the high prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in Malaysia. Our study revealed a strong relationship between risk markers of elevated BMI, HbA(1c), LDL, albumin:creatinine ratio and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein with the presence of the metabolic syndrome, putting them at a statistically high risk for cardiovascular mortality.

Liraglutide, a once-daily human GLP-1 analogue, added to a sulphonylurea over 26 weeks produces greater improvements in glycaemic and weight control compared with adding rosiglitazone or placebo in subjects with Type 2 diabetes (LEAD-1 SU).

AIM: To compare the effects of combining liraglutide (0.6, 1.2 or 1.8 mg/day) or rosiglitazone 4 mg/day (all n >or= 228) or placebo (n = 114) with glimepiride (2-4 mg/day) on glycaemic control, body weight and safety in Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In total, 1041 adults (mean +/- sd), age 56 +/- 10 years, weight 82 +/- 17 kg and glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) 8.4 +/- 1.0% at 116 sites in 21 countries were stratified based on previous oral glucose-lowering mono : combination therapies (30 : 70%) to participate in a five-arm, 26-week, double-dummy, randomized study. RESULTS: Liraglutide (1.2 or 1.8 mg) produced greater reductions in HbA(1c) from baseline, (-1.1%, baseline 8.5%) compared with placebo (+0.2%, P < 0.0001, baseline 8.4%) or rosiglitazone (-0.4%, P < 0.0001, baseline 8.4%) when added to glimepiride. Liraglutide 0.6 mg was less effective (-0.6%, baseline 8.4%). Fasting plasma glucose decreased by week 2, with a 1.6 mmol/l decrease from baseline at week 26 with liraglutide 1.2 mg (baseline 9.8 mmol/l) or 1.8 mg (baseline 9.7 mmol/l) compared with a 0.9 mmol/l increase (placebo, P < 0.0001, baseline 9.5 mmol/l) or 1.0 mmol/l decrease (rosiglitazone, P < 0.006, baseline 9.9 mmol/l). Decreases in postprandial plasma glucose from baseline were greater with liraglutide 1.2 or 1.8 mg [-2.5 to -2.7 mmol/l (baseline 12.9 mmol/l for both)] compared with placebo (-0.4 mmol/l, P < 0.0001, baseline 12.7 mmol/l) or rosiglitazone (-1.8 mmol/l, P < 0.05, baseline 13.0 mmol/l). Changes in body weight with liraglutide 1.8 mg (-0.2 kg, baseline 83.0 kg), 1.2 mg (+0.3 kg, baseline 80.0 kg) or placebo (-0.1 kg, baseline 81.9 kg) were less than with rosiglitazone (+2.1 kg, P < 0.0001, baseline 80.6 kg). Main adverse events for all treatments were minor hypoglycaemia (< 10%), nausea (< 11%), vomiting (< 5%) and diarrhoea (< 8%). CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide added to glimepiride was well tolerated and provided improved glycaemic control and favourable weight profile.

Adding biphasic insulin aspart 30 once or twice daily is more efficacious than optimizing oral antidiabetic treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp30; NovoMix 30) to existing oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) vs. optimizing OADs in a subgroup of Western Pacific patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral monotherapy or oral combination therapy. METHODS: This 26-week, multi-centre, open-labelled, randomized, two-arm parallel trial consisted of a 2-week screening period, followed by 24 weeks of treatment. Subjects randomized to BIAsp30 treatment (n = 129) received BIAsp30 once daily (o.d.) at dinnertime between Week 2 and Week 14, and those not reaching treatment targets were switched to twice daily (b.i.d.) BIAsp30 at Week 14 (n = 50). Subjects randomized to the OAD-only arm (n = 63) continued with their previous OAD treatment and, in an attempt to reach treatment goals, the dose was optimized (but OAD unchanged) in accordance to local treatment practice and labelling. RESULTS: Significantly greater reductions in HbA(1c) over Weeks 0-13 with BIAsp30 (o.d.) vs. OAD-only treatment (1.16 vs. 0.58%; p < 0.001), and over Weeks 0-26, with BIAsp30 (o.d.) and BIAsp30 (b.i.d.) treatments vs. OAD-only treatment (1.24 vs. 1.34 vs. 0.67%; p < 0.01). Hypoglycaemic episodes were reported in 54% of the patients in BIAsp30 (o.d. and b.i.d. pooled) and 30% of the patients in OAD-only group. All episodes were minor or symptomatic, except for one in each treatment group, which was major. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating BIAsp30 treatment is a safe and more effective way to improve glycaemic control in Western Pacific patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral monotherapy or oral combination therapy compared with optimizing oral combination therapy alone. In patients not reaching treatment target on BIAsp30 (o.d.), treatment with BIAsp30 (b.i.d.) should be considered.