Insulin degludec improves long-term glycaemic control similarly to insulin glargine but with fewer hypoglycaemic episodes in patients with advanced type 2 diabetes on basal-bolus insulin therapy.

The aim of the present study was to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of insulin degludec with those of insulin glargine in patients with advanced type 2 diabetes (T2D) over 78 weeks (the 52-week main trial and a 26-week extension). Patients were randomized to once-daily insulin degludec or insulin glargine, with mealtime insulin aspart ± metformin ± pioglitazone, and titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose values of 3.9-4.9 mmol/l (70-88 mg/dl). After 78 weeks, the overall rate of hypoglycaemia was 24% lower (p = 0.011) and the rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was 31% lower (p = 0.016) with insulin degludec in the extension trial set, while both groups of patients achieved similar glycaemic control. Rates of adverse events and total insulin doses were similar for both groups in the safety analysis set. During 18 months of treatment, insulin degludec + mealtime insulin aspart ± oral antidiabetic drugs in patients with T2D improves glycaemic control similarly, but confers lower risks of overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia than with insulin glargine treatment.

Will the next generation of basal insulins offer clinical advantages?

The 21st century has seen the arrival of several insulin analogue products and the refinement of insulin regimens, with widespread advocacy of continuous titration algorithms and earlier initiation of supplementary insulin therapy (predominantly using basal insulins) in type 2 diabetes. Nevertheless, many insulin-treated diabetes patients remain in poor glycaemic control. This might reflect insufficient titration effort or lax adherence, but these issues could in some cases result from concerns about hypoglycaemia. Certainly there is scope for improving the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) profile of basal insulin, and three new products offer this prospect. Insulin degludec, now in clinical use, and PEGylated insulin lispro, in development, have greatly extended action profiles that result from two very different, but unique, mechanisms. With once-daily dosing, these insulins produce stable PK/PD profiles at steady state, associated with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia. The feasibility of varied daily dose timing has also been confirmed with insulin degludec. High strength formulations of insulin glargine and insulin degludec offer the prospect of a reduced injection number/volume in high dose users, and in the case of glargine, the PK/PD profile might also be favourably modified. This review considers critically the clinical evidence and expectations we should have for these new basal insulins.

Treat-to-target trials: uses, interpretation and review of concepts.

Treat-to-target trial designs compare investigational insulins with a standard insulin. Treat-to-target trials force-titrate insulin dosages to achieve a prespecified treatment goal. With comparable glycaemic control, comparisons of safety endpoints such as hypoglycaemia can be made to establish the risk-benefit profile of the new insulin. Glargine versus NPH showed comparable A1C reductions; however, A1C <7% without associated nocturnal hypoglycaemia was reached in more patients on glargine and overall hypoglycaemia was lower. Detemir versus glargine showed non-inferiority between the groups; however, with less weight gain and more injection site reactions with detemir. Detemir/aspart versus glargine/aspart showed non-inferiority between the treatments, however, with less weight gain in the detemir group but comparable risk of hypoglycaemia. Degludec in combination with aspart versus glargine/aspart showed comparable A1C reductions. However, degludec-treated patients had less overall hypoglycaemia and less nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Because insulin titrations are guided by goal attainment with each treatment, treat-to-target trials enable clinicians to determine differences in non-glycaemic treatment effects, such as rates of hypoglycaemia and weight gain, at the same level of glycaemic control.

Effect of insulin degludec versus sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic agents.

AIM: The efficacy and safety of insulin degludec (IDeg), a new basal insulin with an ultra-long duration of action, was compared to sitagliptin (Sita) in a 26-week, open-label trial. METHODS: Insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes [n = 458, age: 56 years, diabetes duration: 7.7 years, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c): 8.9% (74 mmol/mol)] were randomized (1 : 1) to once-daily IDeg or Sita (100 mg orally) as add-on to stable treatment with 1 or 2 oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). RESULTS: Superiority of IDeg to Sita in improving HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was confirmed [estimated treatment difference (ETD) IDeg-Sita for HbA1c: -0.43%-points [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61; -0.24, p < 0.0001] and for FPG: -2.17 mmol/l (95% CI: -2.59; -1.74, p < 0.0001)]. HbA1c < 7% (<53 mmol/mol) was achieved by 41% (IDeg) versus 28% (Sita) of patients, estimated odds ratio IDeg/Sita: 1.60 (95% CI: 1.04; 2.47, p = 0.034). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia between IDeg and Sita [0.52 vs. 0.30 episodes/patient-year, estimated rate ratio (ERR): IDeg/Sita: 1.93 (95% CI: 0.90; 4.10, p = 0.09)]. Rates of overall confirmed hypoglycaemia were higher with IDeg than with Sita [3.1 vs. 1.3 episodes/patient-year, ERR IDeg/Sita: 3.81 (95% CI: 2.40; 6.05, p < 0.0001)]. IDeg was associated with a greater change in body weight than Sita [ETD IDeg-Sita: 2.75 kg (95% CI: 1.97; 3.54, p < 0.0001)]. The overall rates of adverse events were low and similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients unable to achieve good glycaemic control on OAD(s), treatment intensification with IDeg offers an effective, well-tolerated alternative to the addition of a second or third OAD.

Methods to enhance delivery of prandial insulin and basal-prandial insulin.

Most physicians are comfortable with initiating basal insulin replacement therapy in their patients with type 2 diabetes who are no longer meeting treatment goals with oral antidiabetic agents. What is more challenging is what to do when treatment goals are no longer being met despite adequate titration of basal insulin. Both fasting plasma glucose and postprandial glucose contribute to hemoglobin A1C levels. Addressing postprandial glucose levels can be accomplished by several approaches. Traditionally this has meant moving to basal bolus insulin, which is considered the gold standard. Premixed insulin may also be used. Data is also emerging for basal "plus" strategies, that is, incremental addition of prandial insulin injections. Newer approaches also reviewed in this article included premixed formulations containing ultra-long acting basal insulin with rapid-acting insulin analogs, inhaled insulin and insulin jet injectors, as well as the use of incretin-based therapies.

Liraglutide in oral antidiabetic drug combination therapy.

The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide is indicated as an add-on to oral antidiabetic drug regimens in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Herein, the results of clinical trials assessing the efficacy, safety and tolerability of liraglutide when used in combination with either one or two oral antidiabetic therapies are summarised, then contrasted with the effects of exenatide and dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP-4) inhibitors. GLP-1 receptor agonists lead to effective glycaemic control when used as combination therapy with either one or two oral antidiabetic agents, and may confer overall benefits in weight loss and blood pressure in some subjects. These agents are well tolerated; the most commonly reported adverse effect is mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal symptoms, which are usually transient. Rates of hypoglycaemia in these trials were low, although higher rates were noted when combined with a sulphonylurea. While further study will be required, GLP-1 receptor agonists may offer important advantages over other diabetic therapies, including DPP-4 inhibitors.

Non-glycaemic effects mediated via GLP-1 receptor agonists and the potential for exploiting these for therapeutic benefit: focus on liraglutide.

The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) liraglutide and exenatide can improve glycaemic control by stimulating insulin release through pancreatic ß-cells in a glucose-dependent manner. GLP-1 receptors are not restricted to the pancreas; therefore, GLP-1 RAs cause additional non-glycaemic effects. Preclinical and clinical trial data suggest a multitude of additional beneficial effects related to GLP-1 RA therapy, including improvements in ß-cell function, systolic blood pressure and body weight. These effects are of a particular advantage to patients with type 2 diabetes, as most are affected by ß-cell dysfunction, obesity and hypertension. Transient gastrointestinal adverse events, such as nausea and diarrhoea, are also common. To improve gastrointestinal tolerability, an incremental dosing approach is used with liraglutide and exenatide twice daily. A potential protective role for GLP-1 RAs in the cardiovascular and central nervous systems has been suggested from animal studies and short-term clinical trials. These effects and other safety aspects of GLP-1 therapy are currently being investigated in ongoing long-term clinical studies.

Obesity and type 2 diabetes: which patients are at risk?

An estimated 72.5 million American adults are obese, and the growing US obesity epidemic is responsible for substantial increase in morbidity and mortality, as well as increased health care costs. Obesity results from a combination of personal and societal factors, but is often viewed as a character flaw rather than a medical condition. This leads to stigma and discrimination towards obese individuals and decreases the likelihood of effective intervention. Conditions related to obesity are increasingly common, such as metabolic syndrome, impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), all of which indicate high risk for type 2 diabetes (T2DM). This paper reviews the progression from obesity to diabetes, identifying physiological changes that occur along this path as well as opportunities for patient identification and disease prevention. Patients with prediabetes (defined as having IFG, IGT or both) and/or metabolic syndrome require interventions designed to preserve insulin sensitivity and ß-cell function, both of which start to deteriorate prior to T2DM diagnosis. Lifestyle modification, including both healthy eating choices and increased physical activity, is essential for weight management and diabetes prevention. Although sustained weight loss is often considered by patients and physicians as being impossible to achieve, effective interventions do exist. Specifically, the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) and programs modelled along its parameters have shown repeated successes, even with long-term maintenance. Recent setbacks in the development of medications for weight loss further stress the importance of lifestyle management. By viewing obesity as a metabolic disorder rather than a personal weakness, we can work with patients to address this increasingly prevalent condition and improve long-term health outcomes.

Weight loss with liraglutide, a once-daily human glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue for type 2 diabetes treatment as monotherapy or added to metformin, is primarily as a result of a reduction in fat tissue.

AIM: The effect on body composition of liraglutide, a once-daily human glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue, as monotherapy or added to metformin was examined in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: These were randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trials of 26 [Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes-2 (LEAD-2)] and 52 weeks (LEAD-3). Patients with T2D, aged 18-80 years, body mass index (BMI) < or =40 kg/m(2) (LEAD-2), < or =45 kg/m(2) (LEAD-3) and HbA1c 7.0-11.0% were included. Patients were randomized to liraglutide 1.8, 1.2 or 0.6 mg/day, placebo or glimepiride 4 mg/day, all combined with metformin 1.5-2 g/day in LEAD-2 and to liraglutide 1.8, 1.2 or glimepiride 8 mg/day in LEAD-3. LEAD-2/3: total lean body tissue, fat tissue and fat percentage were measured. LEAD-2: adipose tissue area and hepatic steatosis were assessed. RESULTS: LEAD-2: fat percentage with liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg/metformin was significantly reduced vs. glimepiride/metformin (p < 0.05) but not vs. placebo. Visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue areas were reduced from baseline in all liraglutide/metformin arms. Except with liraglutide 0.6 mg/metformin, reductions were significantly different vs. changes seen with glimepiride (p < 0.05) but not with placebo. Liver-to-spleen attenuation ratio increased with liraglutide 1.8 mg/metformin possibly indicating reduced hepatic steatosis. LEAD-3: reductions in fat mass and fat percentage with liraglutide monotherapy were significantly different vs. increases with glimepiride (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Liraglutide (monotherapy or added to metformin) significantly reduced fat mass and fat percentage vs. glimepiride in patients with T2D.

Effects of vildagliptin on glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with a sulphonylurea.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin vs. placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who are inadequately controlled [haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) 7.5 to 11%] with prior sulphonylurea (SU) monotherapy. METHODS: This 24-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessed the effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin (50 mg given once or twice daily) vs. placebo added to glimepiride (4 mg once daily) in 515 patients with T2DM. Adjusted mean changes from baseline to end-point (AMDelta) in HbA(1c), fasting plasma glucose, fasting lipids and body weight were compared by analysis of covariance. RESULTS: The between-group difference (vildagliptin - placebo) in AMDelta HbA(1c) was -0.6 +/- 0.1% in patients receiving vildagliptin 50 mg daily and -0.7 +/- 0.1% in those receiving 100 mg daily (p < 0.001 vs. placebo for both). Greater efficacy was seen in patients > or =65 years of age (-0.7 +/- 0.1% and -0.8 +/- 0.2% for 50 and 100 mg daily respectively) and in patients with baseline HbA(1c) > 9% (Delta = -1.0 +/- 0.2% and -0.9 +/- 0.2% for 50 and 100 mg daily respectively). Relative to placebo, patients receiving vildagliptin also had improvements in beta-cell function and postprandial glucose, with small changes in fasting lipids and body weight. The incidences of adverse events (AEs) (67.1, 66.3 and 64.2%) and serious AEs (2.9, 2.4 and 5.1%) were similar in patients receiving 50 mg vildagliptin, 100 mg vildagliptin or placebo respectively. The incidence of hypoglycaemic events was low but slightly higher in the group receiving vildagliptin 100 mg (3.6%) than in the group receiving vildagliptin 50 mg (1.2%) or placebo (0.6%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with prior SU monotherapy, addition of vildagliptin (50 or 100 mg daily) to glimepiride (4 mg once daily) improves glycaemic control and is well tolerated. Addition of vildagliptin 50 mg daily to SU monotherapy may be a particularly attractive therapy in elderly patients.

Vildagliptin in combination with pioglitazone improves glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes failing thiazolidinedione monotherapy: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin in combination with the thiazolidinedione (TZD) pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: This was a 24-week, multicentre, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study comparing the effects of vildagliptin (50 or 100 mg daily) with placebo as an add-on therapy to pioglitazone (45 mg daily) in 463 patients with T2DM inadequately controlled by prior TZD monotherapy. Between-treatment comparisons of efficacy parameters were made by analysis of covariance model. RESULTS: The adjusted mean change (AM Delta) in haemoglobin A(1c) from baseline to endpoint was -0.8 +/- 0.1% (p = 0.001 vs. placebo) and -1.0 +/- 0.1% (p < 0.001 vs. placebo), respectively, in patients receiving vildagliptin 50 or 100 mg daily. Relative to baseline, vildagliptin added to pioglitazone also reduced fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (AM Delta FPG =-0.8 +/- 0.2 mmol/l and -1.1 +/- 0.2 mmol/l; not significant (NS) vs. placebo) and postprandial glucose (PPG) [AM Delta PPG =-1.9 +/- 0.6 mmol/l and -2.6 +/- 0.6 mmol/l (p = 0.008 vs. placebo)] for 50 and 100 mg daily respectively. Relative to placebo, both doses of vildagliptin significantly increased the insulin secretory rate/glucose by more than threefold. The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 55.5, 50.0 and 48.7% in patients receiving vildagliptin 50 mg, 100 mg daily or placebo respectively. Serious AEs were experienced by 6.8, 1.3 and 5.7% of patients receiving vildagliptin 50 mg, 100 mg daily or placebo respectively. Mild hypoglycaemia was reported by 0, 0.6 and 1.9% of patients, respectively, receiving vildagliptin 50 mg, 100 mg daily or placebo. CONCLUSION: Vildagliptin is effective and well tolerated when added to a maximum dose of pioglitazone, without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia.

Attainment of glycaemic goals in type 2 diabetes with once-, twice-, or thrice-daily dosing with biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (The 1-2-3 study).

AIM: This observational study in patients with type 2 diabetes failing oral agent therapy with or without basal insulin was conducted to assess whether addition and self-titration of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 30) could achieve American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE)/International Diabetes Federation (IDF) and American Diabetes Association (ADA) glycemic targets (HbA(1c)< or =6.5 and <7%). METHODS: Enrolled patients (n = 100, HbA(1c)> or =7.5 and < or =10%) were > or =18 years of age, had diabetes > or =12 months and had received a stable antidiabetic regimen for at least 3 months [minimum of two oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) or at least one OAD plus once-daily basal insulin < or =60 U]. Patients discontinued prior basal insulin and added one injection of BIAsp 30 (12 U or 70-100% of prior basal insulin dose within 15 min of dinner initiation). Patients self-titrated their BIAsp 30 dose with investigator guidance every 3 or 4 days to achieve pre-breakfast fasting blood glucose (FBG) of 80-110 mg/dl. At 16 weeks, a pre-breakfast injection of 6 U of BIAsp 30 was added if week 15 HbA(1c) exceeded 6.5%; the added dose was titrated to achieve pre-dinner BG of 80-110 mg/dl. After an additional 16 weeks, 3 U of pre-lunch BIAsp 30 was added if HbA(1c) exceeded 6.5%. This added dose was adjusted based on 2-h post-lunch BG to achieve postprandial glucose of 100-140 mg/dl. Subjects achieving an HbA(1c)< or =6.5% at 15 and 31 weeks completed the study at weeks 16 and 32 respectively. RESULTS: Addition of once-daily BIAsp 30 before dinner enabled 21% of the patients to achieve AACE and IDF targets (HbA(1c)< or =6.5%) and 41% to achieve ADA targets (HbA(1c) <7%). With two daily injections of BIAsp 30, these glycaemic goals were achieved by 52 and 70% of subjects. With three daily BIAsp 30 injections, 60% of patients achieved HbA(1c)< or =6.5%, and 77% achieved HbA(1c) <7.0%. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical trial demonstrates that initiation of once-daily BIAsp 30 to type 2 diabetes patients poorly controlled on various OAD regimens was an effective treatment approach for achieving glycaemic goals. Additional patients safely achieved these goals by increasing the number of BIAsp 30 injections from one to two, and then, if uncontrolled, from two to three doses per day. Eventually, most patients previously uncontrolled on OADs with or without basal insulin were controlled by the addition and vigorous titration of BIAsp 30 to oral agent therapy.

Insulin resistance syndrome. A review.

Insulin is a hormone and a growth factor that elicits a myriad variety of metabolic and mitogenic cellular actions. Insulin resistance (IR) could occur with any of the effects of insulin, even though it usually refers to its ability to stimulate glucose uptake in insulin-sensitive peripheral tissues such as fat and muscle. IR as it applies to the glucose-insulin relationship is distinctly different from the clinical concept of an IR syndrome, which applies to a cluster of metabolic disorders (type 2 diabetes mellitus [T2DM], central obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, increased prothrombotic and antifibrinolytic factors/ hypercoagulability and a predilection for heart disease). The rising obesity epidemic portends great significance, as it is associated with a high prevalence of IR. We review the etiopathogenesis of IR, the clinical spectrum, and review the clinical data on the management of IR.

Metformin and vascular protection: a diabetologist's view.

The diabetologist's short-term priority is often to gain rapid control of severe and symptomatic hyperglycaemia, with the longer term objective of preventing or delaying the onset of the debilitating and life-threatening complications that result from continued poor glycaemic control. Indeed, guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes are centred firmly on measures of glycaemic control, based on evidence from the landmark UK Prospective Diabetes Study and Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Nevertheless, we must remember that most type 2 diabetic patients ultimately die from a cardiovascular cause. A comprehensive approach is needed, where effective control of blood glucose takes place alongside aggressive management of cardiovascular risk factors. A substantial database of clinical evidence, including the ground-breaking UK Prospective Diabetes Study, underpins the place of metformin both as an effective oral antihyperglycaemic agent and for reducing the risk of morbid cardiovascular events.

Fenofibrate lowers abdominal and skeletal adiposity and improves insulin sensitivity in OLETF rats.

The effect of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-alpha activators on the liver is well established, but the other effects on muscle and adipose tissue about lipid metabolism and insulin sensitivity are not clear. We investigated whether PPAR-alpha activation affects adiposity of skeletal muscle as well as adipose tissue and improves insulin sensitivity in spontaneous type 2 diabetes model, Otsuka Long-Evans Tokushima Fatty (OLETF) rats. Thirty-three weeks of aged, 20 male OLETF rats were divided into two groups. Control group (n=10) was fed with chow and treatment group (n=10) with chow contained fenofibrate for 7 weeks. At the age of 40 weeks, all rats were examined with MRI, intravenous glucose tolerance test, and then sacrificed for measurement of fat mass and RNA analyses. The total fat (the sum of subcutaneous, mesenteric, epididymal, and retroperitoneal fat pads) measured by dissection was significantly reduced in treatment group. The signal intensity of muscular adiposity was significantly decreased in treatment group. The mRNA levels of FAT/CD36 and mitochondrial carnitine palmitoyltransferase I (M-CPT I) in liver were remarkably increased. Fasting plasma insulin and leptin levels, insulin response after intravenous glucose loading and homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance (HOMA(IR)) index were lowered in treatment group. Fenofibrate increase mitochondrial fatty acid beta-oxidation in liver but not in skeletal muscle and lower the plasma levels of triglyceride and free fatty acid. It might result in reduction of adiposity of truncal adipose tissue and skeletal muscle. We suggest that reduction of adiposity in trunk and skeletal muscle might improve insulin sensitivity.