Real-world effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide in adults with type 2 diabetes: An international, multicentre, 12-month, prospective observational study.

AIM: To assess the impact of insulin glargine (100 U/mL) and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) fixed-ratio combination therapy on the overall management of glycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), previously inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs ± basal insulin or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This 12-month, international, multicentre, prospective, observational study included patients (age ≥ 18 years) with T2D who had initiated iGlarLixi within 1 month prior to study inclusion. Data were collected at study inclusion, month 3, month 6 and month 12 from patient diaries, self-measured plasma glucose, and questionnaires. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to month 6. RESULTS: Of the 737 eligible participants (mean age: 57.8 [standard deviation: 11.2] years; male: 49%), 685 had baseline and post-baseline HbA1c data available. The least squares mean change in HbA1c from baseline to month 6 was -1.4% (standard error [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.05 [-1.5, -1.3]). The absolute change from baseline at month 12 was -1.7% ± 1.9% (95% CI: -1.9, -1.5). There were 72 hypoglycaemia events reported during the study period, with a very low incidence of severe hypoglycaemia (two participants [rate: 0.003 events per patient-year]). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world observational study shows that initiation of iGlarLixi in people with T2D inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs ± basal insulin or GLP-1 RAs improves glycaemic control with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia.

Real-world safety and effectiveness of iGlarLixi in people with type 2 diabetes who fast during Ramadan: The SoliRam observational study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of iGlarLixi in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) fasting during Ramadan. METHODS: SoliRam was a multinational, prospective, single-arm, real-world observational study conducted during Ramadan 2020 and 2021 in adults with T2D treated with iGlarLixi ≥3 months at study entry. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants experiencing ≥1 episode of severe and/or symptomatic documented hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL [<3.9 mmol/L]). RESULTS: Among the 409 eligible participants followed during Ramadan, 96.8% fasted for ≥25 days and 92.4% did not break fasting during Ramadan. Four participants broke their fast due to hypoglycemia. Minimal adjustments were seen in antihyperglycemic therapies from pre to during Ramadan. Documented symptomatic hypoglycemia was experienced by 1.0%, 2.3%, and 0.3% of participants, respectively, during the last month of pre-Ramadan, Ramadan, and first month post-Ramadan. Mean change in HbA1c from pre-to post-Ramadan periods was -0.75% (-8.2 mmol/mol), and participants with HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) increased from 7.9% pre-Ramadan to 28.6% post-Ramadan. CONCLUSIONS: iGlarLixi is an effective and well-tolerated therapy for people with T2D, including those who intend to fast during Ramadan, and is associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia; benefits were observed both during and after Ramadan.

Continuous glucose monitoring-based time-in-range using insulin glargine 300 units/ml versus insulin degludec 100 units/ml in type 1 diabetes: The head-to-head randomized controlled InRange trial.

AIM: To use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based time-in-range (TIR) as a primary efficacy endpoint to compare the second-generation basal insulin (BI) analogues insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) and insulin degludec 100 U/ml (IDeg-100) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: InRange was a 12-week, multicentre, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label study comparing glucose TIR and variability between Gla-300 and IDeg-100 using blinded 20-day CGM profiles. The inclusion criteria consisted of adults with T1D treated with multiple daily injections, using BI once daily and rapid-acting insulin analogues for at least 1 year, with an HbA1c of 7% or higher and of 10% or less at screening. RESULTS: Overall, 343 participants were randomized: 172 received Gla-300 and 171 IDeg-100. Non-inferiority (10% relative margin) of Gla-300 versus IDeg-100 was shown for the primary endpoint (percentage TIR ≥ 70 to ≤ 180 mg/dl): least squares (LS) mean (95% confidence interval) 52.74% (51.06%, 54.42%) for Gla-300 and 55.09% (53.34%, 56.84%) for IDeg-100; LS mean difference (non-inferiority): 3.16% (0.88%, 5.44%) (non-inferiority P = .0067). Non-inferiority was shown on glucose total coefficient of variation (main secondary endpoint): LS mean 39.91% (39.20%, 40.61%) and 41.22% (40.49%, 41.95%), respectively; LS mean difference (non-inferiority) -5.44% (-6.50%, -4.38%) (non-inferiority P < .0001). Superiority of Gla-300 over IDeg-100 was not shown on TIR. Occurrences of self-measured and CGM-derived hypoglycaemia were comparable between treatment groups. Safety profiles were consistent with known profiles, with no unexpected findings. CONCLUSIONS: Using clinically relevant CGM metrics, InRange shows that Gla-300 is non-inferior to IDeg-100 in people with T1D, with comparable hypoglycaemia and safety profiles.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL in People with Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Basal Insulin: The 26-Week Interventional, Single-Arm ARTEMIS-DM Study.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and safety of switching to insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled on basal insulin (BI) has been demonstrated in the North American and Western European populations; however, there is limited data from other geographical regions with different ethnicities. The ARTEMIS-DM study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Gla-300 in people with T2DM uncontrolled on BI from Asia, Latin America and Middle East Africa. METHODS: The ARTEMIS-DM was a 26-week, prospective, interventional, single-arm, phase IV study (NCT03760991). Adults with T2DM previously uncontrolled (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.5-10%) on BI were switched to Gla-300. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to 26 weeks. Key secondary endpoints were changes in HbA1c (week 12), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) and BI dose from baseline to week 26. The safety and tolerability of Gla-300 were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 372 (50% male) participants were included, with mean (standard deviation [SD]) age 60.9 (10.0) years, duration of diabetes 13.11 (7.48) years and baseline HbA1c 8.67 (0.77)% (71.22 [8.44] mmol/mol). A total of 222 (59.7%) participants were using insulin glargine 100 U/mL and 107 (28.8%) were using neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin as previous BI. There were clinically significant reductions in mean HbA1c (- 0.82%; primary endpoint), FPG and SMPG levels at week 26. With a pre-defined titration algorithm, mean Gla-300 dose increased from 27.48 U (0.35 U/kg) at baseline to 39.01 U (0.50 U/kg) at week 26. Hypoglycaemia events occurred in 20.4% of the participants; 1 (0.3%) participant had a severe hypoglycaemia event. CONCLUSION: In people with T2DM uncontrolled on previous BI, switching to Gla-300 with optimal titration guided by an algorithm was associated with improved glycaemic control and low incidence of hypoglycaemia across multiple geographic regions. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03760991.

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL in Insulin-Naïve People with Type 2 Diabetes: the ATOS Study.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical benefits of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) have been confirmed in randomised clinical trials (EDITION programme and BRIGHT) and real-world studies in the USA and Western Europe. ATOS evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of Gla-300 in wider geographic regions (Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe). METHODS: This prospective observational, international study enrolled adults (≥ 18 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled [haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) > 7% to ≤ 11%] on one or more oral anti-hyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) who had been advised by their treating physician to add Gla-300 to their existing treatment. The primary endpoint was achievement of a pre-defined individualised HbA1c target at month 6. RESULTS: Of the 4550 participants included, 4422 (51.8% female) were eligible for assessment. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 57.2 ± 10.8 years, duration of diabetes was 10.2 ± 6.2 years and baseline HbA1c was 9.28 ± 1.0%. The proportion of participants reaching their individualised glycaemic target was 25.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 23.8-26.6%] at month 6 and 44.5% (95% CI 42.9-46.1%) at month 12. At months 6 and 12, reductions were observed in HbA1c (-1.50% and -1.87%) and fasting plasma glucose (-3.42 and -3.94 mmol/L). Hypoglycaemia incidence was low, and body weight change was minimal. Adverse events were reported in 283 (6.4%) participants, with 57 (1.3%) experiencing serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, initiation of Gla-300 in people with T2DM uncontrolled on OADs resulted in improved glycaemic control and low rates of hypoglycaemia with minimal weight change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT03703869.

The SAGE study: Global observational analysis of glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia and diabetes management in T1DM.

AIMS: To describe glycaemic control and diabetes management in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1DM), in a real-life global setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study of Adults' GlycEmia (SAGE) was a multinational, multicentre, single visit, noninterventional, cross-sectional study in adult patients with T1DM. Data were collected at a single visit, analysed according to predefined age groups (26-44, 45-64 and ≥65 years) and reported across different regions. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving HbA1c  less than 7.0 % in each age group. Secondary endpoints included incidence of hypoglycaemia, severe hypoglycaemia and severe hyperglycaemia leading to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and therapeutic management of T1DM. RESULTS: Of 3903 included participants, 3858 (98.8%) were eligible for the study. Overall, 24.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22.9-25.6) of participants achieved the glycaemic target of HbA1c  less than 7.0 %, with more participants achieving this target in the 26-44 years group (27.6% [95% CI: 25.5-29.8]). Target achievement was highest in Eastern and Western Europe, and lowest in the Middle East. The incidence of hypoglycaemia and of severe hyperglycaemia leading to DKA tended to decrease with age, and varied across regions. Age and regional differences were observed in therapeutic management, including types of device/insulin usage, frequency of insulin dose adjustment and technology usage. CONCLUSIONS: Glycaemic control remains poor in adults with T1DM globally. Several areas of treatment may be optimised to improve outcomes, including supporting patient self-management of insulin therapy, increasing use of technologies such as CGM, and greater provision of healthcare support.

Correction to: InRange: Comparison of the Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues Glargine 300 U/mL and Degludec 100 U/mL in Persons with Type 1 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Study Design.

In the original publication, the timing of baseline CGM assessment was incorrectly stated.

Correction to: InRange: Comparison of the Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues Glargine 300 U/mL and Degludec 100 U/mL in Persons with Type 1 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Study Design.

In the original publication, the timing of baseline CGM assessment was incorrectly stated in the text in two instances; it is correct in Fig. 1.

Real-world safety and effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 U/mL in participants with type 2 diabetes who fast during Ramadan: The observational ORION study.

AIMS: ORION evaluated the safety and effectiveness of Gla-300 in insulin-treated people with T2DM before, during and after Ramadan, in a real-world setting. METHODS: This prospective, observational study across 11 countries included participants with T2DM treated with Gla-300 in pre-Ramadan, Ramadan and post-Ramadan periods. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants experiencing ≥1 event of severe and/or symptomatic documented hypoglycaemia with self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) ≤70 mg/dL during Ramadan. Secondary endpoints included change in HbA1c and insulin dose and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The mean ± SD number of fasting days was 30.1 ± 3.2. The percentage of participants experiencing ≥1 event of severe and/or symptomatic documented hypoglycaemia (SMPG ≤70 [<54] mg/dL) was low in the pre-Ramadan (2.2% [0.8%]), Ramadan (2.6% [0%]) and post-Ramadan (0.2% [0%]) periods. No participants reported severe hypoglycaemia during Ramadan or post-Ramadan; one participant reported severe hypoglycaemia in pre-Ramadan. HbA1c fell pre- to post-Ramadan, and Gla-300 daily dose (mean ± SD) was reduced pre-Ramadan to Ramadan (from 25.6 ± 11.9 U/0.32 ± 0.14 U/kg to 24.4 ± 11.5 U/0.30 ± 0.13 U/kg). Incidence of AEs was 5.5%. CONCLUSIONS: In ORION, people with T2DM treated with Gla-300 who fasted during Ramadan had a low risk of severe/symptomatic hypoglycaemia and improved glycaemic control.

InRange: Comparison of the Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues Glargine 300 U/mL and Degludec 100 U/mL in Persons with Type 1 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Study Design.

INTRODUCTION: Suboptimal glycaemic control among people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is known to lead to long-term micro- and macrovascular complications and, unfortunately, it is still prevalent even in the most affluent societies. Although glycated haemoglobin monitoring is considered to be the gold standard for assessing glycaemic control, such monitoring is unable to reliably measure acute glycaemic excursions. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve glucose control and reduce the incidence of hypoglycaemia, and also allow a more complete assessment of overall glycaemic control and hyper- and hypoglycaemic excursions. The use of CGM has led to time-in-range, which is the time that a patient is within the glycaemic range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, to be adopted as a treatment target. To date, only limited data comparing the second-generation insulins glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and degludec 100 U/mL (IDeg-100) in people with T1D are available, and there is no CGM literature on comparisons of the use of CGM results to assess primary, secondary and tertiary endpoints. The aim of the InRange study was to address this unmet need. METHODS: InRange is a multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, parallel-group, 12-week, open-label, phase 4, comparative study. Adults with T1D will be randomised to receive once-daily Gla-300 or IDeg-100 by subcutaneous injection in the morning. Following an 8-week titration period, CGM data will be collected over 20 consecutive days. PLANNED OUTCOMES: The primary objective is to demonstrate that Gla-300 is noninferior to IDeg-100 in terms of glycaemic control [time-in-range ≥ 70 to ≤ 180 mg/dL (≥ 3.9 to ≤ 10 mmol/L)] and variability, as assessed using CGM, in adults with T1D. The results are expected to help confirm the utility of CGM in clinical practice in this population and provide insight into its application as an outcome measure in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04075513.

Real-world outcomes of treatment with insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus standard-of-care in people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Objective: To compare real-world outcomes with newer (insulin glargine 300 U/mL; Gla-300) versus standard of care (SoC) basal insulins (BIs) in the REACH (insulin-naïve; NCT02967224) and REGAIN (basal insulin-treated; NCT02967211) studies in participants with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in Europe and Brazil.Methods: In these open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic studies, patients (HbA1c > 7.0%) were randomized to Gla-300 or SoC BI for a 6-month treatment period (to demonstrate non-inferiority of Gla-300 vs SoC BIs for HbA1c change [non-inferiority margin 0.3%]) and a 6-month extension period (continuing with their assigned treatment). Insulin titration/other medication changes were at investigator/patient discretion post-randomization.Results: Overall, 703 patients were randomized to treatment in REACH (Gla-300, n = 352; SoC, n = 351) and 609 (Gla-300, n = 305, SoC, n = 304) in REGAIN. The primary outcome, non-inferiority of Gla-300 versus SoC for HbA1c change from baseline to month 6, was met in REACH (least squares [LS] mean difference 0.12% [95% CI -0.046 to 0.281]) but not REGAIN (LS mean difference 0.17% [0.015-0.329]); no between-treatment difference in HbA1c change was shown after 12 months in either study. BI dose increased minimally from baseline to 12 months in REACH (Gla-300, +0.17 U/kg; SoC, +0.15 U/kg) and REGAIN (Gla-300, +0.11 U/kg; SoC, +0.07 U/kg). Hypoglycemia incidence was low and similar between treatment arms in both studies.Conclusions: In both REACH and REGAIN, no differences in glycemic control or hypoglycemia outcomes with Gla-300 versus SoC BIs were seen over 12 months. However, the suboptimal insulin titration in REACH and REGAIN limits comparisons of outcomes between treatment arms and suggests that more titration instruction/support may be required for patients to fully derive the benefits from newer basal insulin formulations.

The Diabetes Unmet Need with Basal Insulin Evaluation (DUNE) study in type 2 diabetes: Achieving HbA1c targets with basal insulin in a real-world setting.

AIMS: To describe in a real-world setting the achievement of physician-selected individualized HbA1c targets in individuals with type 2 diabetes, newly or recently initiated with basal insulin, and the association of hypoglycaemia with target achievement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 12-week, prospective, single-arm, observational study of adults with type 2 diabetes, either newly initiated with any basal insulin or start on basal insulin within the preceding 12 months. At enrollment, eligible participants from 28 countries were treated with or without oral antihyperglycaemic drugs and/or GLP-1 receptor agonists. RESULTS: Individualized targets for almost all of the 3139 evaluable participants (99.7%) had been set by their physicians, with 57% of participants having HbA1c targets between 7.0% and <7.5% (53 and <58 mmol/mol). By week 12, 28% and 27% of newly and previously initiated participants, respectively, achieved individualized HbA1c targets with modest average increases in daily insulin dose of 9 and 5 U (0.10 and 0.06 U/kg), respectively, from baseline (14 and 23 U [0.17 and 0.29 U/kg], respectively). Overall, 16% of participants experienced at least one episode of hypoglycaemia. Both the incidence and frequency of hypoglycaemia, but not the severity, were positively associated with a higher likelihood of achieving individualized HbA1c targets (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective real-world study, most participants using basal insulin did not achieve the individualized HbA1c targets set by their physicians. Participants who experienced symptomatic hypoglycaemia were more likely to achieve HbA1c targets than those who did not.

Clinical correlates of hypoglycaemia over 4 years in people with type 2 diabetes starting insulin: An analysis from the CREDIT study.

AIM: To identify factors associated with documented symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia over 4 years in people with type 2 diabetes starting insulin therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CREDIT, a prospective international observational study, collected data over 4 years on people starting any insulin in 314 centres; 2729 and 2271 people had hypoglycaemia data during the last 6 months of years 1 and 4, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was used to select the characteristics associated with documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia, and the model was tested against severe hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: The proportions of participants reporting ≥1 non-severe event were 18.5% and 16.6% in years 1 and 4; the corresponding proportions of those achieving a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) were 24.6% and 18.3%, and 16.5% and 16.2% of those who did not. For severe hypoglycaemia, the proportions were 3.0% and 4.6% of people reaching target vs 1.5% and 1.1% of those not reaching target. Multivariable analysis showed that, for documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia at both years 1 and 4, baseline lower body mass index and more physical activity were predictors, and lower HbA1c was an explanatory variable in the respective year. Models for documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia predicted severe hypoglycaemia. Insulin regimen was a univariate explanatory variable, and was not retained in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Hypoglycaemia occurred at significant rates, but was stable over 4 years despite increased insulin doses. The association with insulin regimen and with oral agent use declined over that time. Associated predictors and explanatory variables for documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia conformed to clinical impressions and could be extended to severe hypoglycaemia. Better achieved HbA1c was associated with a higher risk of hypoglycaemia.

Insulin regimens and glycemic control in different parts of Europe over 4years after starting insulin in people with type 2 diabetes: Data from the CREDIT non-interventional study.

AIMS: A number of insulin regimens are used in type 2 diabetes. This analysis aims to better understand the evolution of insulin therapy in different regions of Europe. METHODS: Data from people starting any insulin were collected in eastern Europe (EEur: Croatia, Russia, Ukraine), northern Europe (NEur: Finland, Germany, UK) and southern Europe (SEur: France, Italy, Portugal, Spain). Retrospective data on starting insulin and prospective follow-up data were extracted from clinical records. RESULTS: At 4years, 1699 (76.0%) of 2236 eligible people had data. EEur participants were mostly female, younger and had shorter diabetes duration on starting insulin, yet had highest baseline HbA1c and more micro-/macrovascular disease. A majority (60%-64%) in all regions started on basal insulin alone, declining to 30%-38% at 4years, with most switching to basal+mealtime insulin regimen (24%-40%). Higher baseline (28%) and 4-year use (34%) of premix insulin was observed in NEur. Change in HbA1c (SD) ranged from -1.2 (2.1)% (-13 [23]mmol/mol) in NEur to -2.4 (2.0)% (-26 [22]mmol/mol) in EEur. Weight change ranged from +1.9 (8.3) kg in NEur to +3.2 (7.0) kg in SEur. Overall documented hypoglycemia ranged from 0.3 (1.3) to 1.3 (4.4) events/person/6-months (NEur vs. EEur, respectively) and was stable with time. Severe hypoglycemia rates remained low. CONCLUSION: When starting insulin, HbA1c and prevalence of complications were higher in EEur. Regional differences exist in choice of insulin regimens in Europe. However, people starting insulin improved and sustained their glycemic control regardless of regional differences or insulin regimens used.

Lixisenatide Therapy in Older Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled on Their Current Antidiabetic Treatment: The GetGoal-O Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide versus placebo on glycemic control in older patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on their current antidiabetic treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-arm, parallel-group, multicenter trial, patients aged ≥70 years were randomized to receive once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg or placebo before breakfast concomitantly with their existing antidiabetic therapy (including insulin) for 24 weeks. Patients at risk for malnutrition or with moderate to severe cognitive impairment were excluded. The primary end point was absolute change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24. Secondary end points included change from baseline to week 24 in 2-h postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) and body weight. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were randomized. HbA1c decreased substantially with lixisenatide (-0.57% [6.2 mmol/mol]) compared with placebo (+0.06% [0.7 mmol/mol]) from baseline to week 24 (P < 0.0001). Mean reduction in 2-h PPG was significantly greater with lixisenatide (-5.12 mmol/L) than with placebo (-0.07 mmol/L; P < 0.0001). A greater decrease in body weight was observed with lixisenatide (-1.47 kg) versus placebo (-0.16 kg; P < 0.0001). The safety profile of lixisenatide in this older population, including rates of nausea and vomiting, was consistent with that observed in other lixisenatide studies. Hypoglycemia was reported in 17.6% of patients with lixisenatide versus 10.3% with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In nonfrail older patients uncontrolled on their current antidiabetic treatment, lixisenatide was superior to placebo in HbA1c reduction and in targeting postprandial hyperglycemia, with no unexpected safety findings.

Insulin glargine compared with premixed insulin for management of insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes patients uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs: the open-label, randomized GALAPAGOS study.

AIMS: Demonstrate superiority of insulin glargine (±glulisine) strategy versus premixed insulin strategy for percentage of patients reaching HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) at study end without any documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (bloof glucose [BG] ≤3.1 mmol/L) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients failing oral agents. METHODS: This 24-week, open-label, multinational trial randomized patients to glargine OD or premix OD or BID, continuing metformin ± insulin secretagogue (IS). Second premix injection could be added any time; glulisine could be added with main meal in glargine OD patients with HbA1c ≥7% and fasting blood glucose (FBG) <7 mmol/L at week 12. IS was stopped with any second injection. Insulin titration targeted FBG ≤5.6 mmol/L. RESULTS: Modified intent-to-treat population comprised 923 patients (glargine, 462; premix, 461). Baseline characteristics were similar (mean T2DM duration: 9 years; HbA1c: 8.7% (72 mmol/mol); FBG: 10.4 mmol/L). Primary endpoint was achieved by 33.2% of glargine (±glulisine) and 31.4% of premix patients. Superiority was not demonstrated, but non-inferiority was (pre-specified margin: 25% of premix rate). More patients using premix achieved target (52.6% vs. 43.2%, p=0.005); symptomatic hypoglycemia was less with glargine (1.17 vs. 2.93 events/patient-year). CONCLUSIONS: Glargine (±glulisine) and premix strategies resulted in similar percentages of well-controlled patients without hypoglycemia, with more patients achieving target HbA1c with premix whereas overall symptomatic hypoglycemia was less with glargine.

Four-year evolution of insulin regimens, glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia and body weight after starting insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes across three continents.

AIMS: It is of interest to understand how insulin therapy currently evolves in clinical practice, in the years after starting insulin in people with type 2 diabetes. We aimed to describe this evolution prospectively over 4 years, to assist health care planning. METHODS: People who had started any insulin were identified from 12 countries on three continents. Baseline, then yearly follow-up, data were extracted from clinical records over 4 years. RESULTS: Of the 2999 eligible people, 2272 were followed over 4 years. When starting insulin, mean (SD) duration of diabetes was 10.6 (7.8) years, HbA1c 9.5 (2.0)% (80 [22]mmol/mol) and BMI 29.3 (6.3)kg/m(2). Initial insulin therapy was basal 52%, premix 23%, mealtime+basal 14%, mealtime 8% and other 3%; at 4 years, 30%, 25%, 33%, 2% and 5%, respectively, with 5% not on insulin. Insulin dose was 20.2U/day at the start and 45.8U/day at year 4. There were 1258 people (55%) on their original regimen at 4 years, and this percentage differed according to baseline insulin regimen. HbA1c change was -2.0 (2.2)% (-22 [24]mmol/mol) and was similar by final insulin regimen. Hypoglycaemia prevalence was <20% in years 1-4. Body weight change was mostly in year 1, and was very variable, mean +2.7 (7.5)kg at year 4. CONCLUSION: Different insulin regimens were started in people with differing characteristics, and they evolved differently; insulin dose, hypoglycaemia and body weight change were diverse and largely independent of regimen.

Predictors of HbA1c over 4 years in people with type 2 diabetes starting insulin therapies: The CREDIT study.

AIMS: To identify factors associated with glucose control, as measured by HbA1c over 4 years, in people with type 2 diabetes starting insulin therapy. METHODS: CREDIT, an observational cohort study, collected data semi-annually over 4 years, on people with type 2 diabetes starting any insulin, in 311 centres in 12 countries; 2803 people had data on HbA1c during follow-up. Multivariable backward regression analysis selected characteristics associated with glycaemic control from a limited number of candidate variables. RESULTS: Before starting insulin therapy, HbA1c was 9.3% (78 mmol/mol) and decreased to 7.6% (60 mmol/mol) after 1 year, and changed little after that. Insulin dose increased from 0.21 U/kg to 0.36 U/kg at 1 year, and then by 0.10 U/kg over the next 3 years. Body weight increased by 2.0 kg in the first year and increased little thereafter. Poorer glycaemic control over the 4 years was mainly determined by the HbA1c before starting therapy, after accounting for the other statistically significant associated variables in multivariable analysis: higher BMI, younger age, longer diabetes duration, more glucose-lowering drugs, using basal insulin alone, higher insulin dose and female sex. At 4 years, a higher current insulin dose was the characteristic most strongly associated with a higher concurrent HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: HbA1c at the start of insulin therapy was the characteristic most predictive of later HbA1c, after accounting for other variables associated with HbA1c. This may provide some justification for earlier insulin introduction to improve glucose control to target.

Triple combination of insulin glargine, sitagliptin and metformin in type 2 diabetes: the EASIE post-hoc analysis and extension trial.

AIM: We examined the effects of adding glargine to metformin-sitagliptin (MS+G) or sitagliptin to metformin-glargine (MG+S) therapy in type 2 diabetic persons uncontrolled after 24-week MS or MG dual therapy. METHODS: Subjects with A1c≥7% on MS or MG treatment were respectively given glargine (0.2U/kg starting dose) or sitagliptin (100mg daily) for 12weeks. The primary endpoint was number of subjects attaining A1c goal defined as <7%. RESULTS: After receiving 24-week MS or MG dual therapy in the original EASIE Study, 42% (104/248) on MS and 68% (152/224) on MG attained A1c<7% (p<0.0001). The reduction in A1c was negatively associated with baseline fasting blood glucose (FBG) only in the MG group. Reduction in A1c was not related to baseline postprandial blood glucose (PPBG) in either the MG or MS group. Amongst 194 eligible patients, 57.7% (n=111) entered the 12-week extension trial [MS+G:74/131, 57.3%; MG+S:37/63, 58.7%) with 55 (51.9%) subjects attaining goal [MS+G:59.2%; MG+S:37.1%] at week 12. The final insulin dosage was similar in both groups [MS+G: 0.46U/kg; MG+S: 0.45U/kg] with a higher rate of hypoglycemia in the MG+S (6.5 events/patient-year) than the MS+G group (3.2 events/patient-year), although neither group had severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: In metformin-treated type 2 diabetes patients, high fasting BG predicted greater A1c reductions with the addition of glargine, but not with sitagliptin. In subjects uncontrolled with 6-month dual therapy of MS or MG, 50% attained A1c<7% with triple therapy of MS+G or MG+S in 12weeks. The increased rate of hypoglycemia with MG+S (but not with MS+G) underlines the need to take measures to avoid the hypoglycemia.

Insulin glargine versus sitagliptin in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled on metformin (EASIE): a multicentre, randomised open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: In people with type 2 diabetes, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor is one choice as second-line treatment after metformin, with basal insulin recommended as an alternative. We aimed to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of insulin glargine and sitagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, in patients whose disease was uncontrolled with metformin. METHODS: In this comparative, parallel, randomised, open-label trial, metformin-treated people aged 35-70 years with glycated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) of 7-11%, diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for at least 6 months, and body-mass index of 25-45 kg/m(2) were recruited from 17 countries. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to 24-week treatment with insulin glargine (titrated from an initial subcutaneous dose of 0·2 units per kg bodyweight to attain fasting plasma glucose of 4·0-5·5 mmol/L) or sitagliptin (oral dose of 100 mg daily). Randomisation (via a central interactive voice response system) was by random sequence generation and was stratified by centre. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was change in HbA(1c) from baseline to study end. Efficacy analysis included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one on-treatment assessment of any primary or secondary efficacy variable. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00751114. FINDINGS: 732 people were screened and 515 were randomly assigned to insulin glargine (n=250) or sitagliptin (n=265). At study end, adjusted mean reduction in HbA(1c) was greater for patients on insulin glargine (n=227; -1·72%, SE 0·06) than for those on sitagliptin (n=253; -1·13%, SE 0·06) with a mean difference of -0·59% (95% CI -0·77 to -0·42, p<0·0001). The estimated rate of all symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes was greater with insulin glargine than with sitagliptin (4·21 [SE 0·54] vs 0·50 [SE 0·09] events per patient-year; p<0·0001). Severe hypoglycaemia occurred in only three (1%) patients on insulin glargine and one (<1%) on sitagliptin. 15 (6%) of patients on insulin glargine versus eight (3%) on sitagliptin had at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event. INTERPRETATION: Our results support the option of addition of basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin. Long-term benefits might be expected from the achievement of optimum glycaemic control early in the course of the disease. FUNDING: Sanofi.