Mealtime fast-acting insulin aspart versus insulin aspart for controlling postprandial hyperglycaemia in people with insulin-resistant Type 2 diabetes.

AIM: This post hoc analysis explored whether mealtime fast-acting insulin aspart treatment provided an advantage in postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) control vs. insulin aspart in people with Type 2 diabetes receiving high doses of bolus insulin. METHODS: A post hoc, post-randomization, subgroup analysis of a 26-week, randomized, double-blind, treat-to-target trial (onset 2) that compared mealtime fast-acting insulin aspart vs. mealtime insulin aspart, both in a basal-bolus regimen, in people with Type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin therapy and metformin. At the end of trial, the impact of fast-acting insulin aspart and insulin aspart on PPG control was assessed with a standard liquid meal test and participants were grouped into three post-randomization subgroups: meal test bolus insulin dose ≤ 10 units per dose (n = 171), > 10-20 units per dose (n = 289) and > 20 units per dose (n = 146). RESULTS: A statistically significant treatment difference in favour of fast-acting insulin aspart vs. insulin aspart was observed for the change in PPG increment at all post-meal time points (from 1 to 4 h) for those in the > 20 units bolus insulin subgroup. There was no difference in the magnitude of change from baseline in HbA1c level between fast-acting insulin aspart and insulin aspart in any of the bolus insulin dose subgroups (data herein). CONCLUSION: Fast-acting insulin aspart may hold promise as a more effective treatment compared with insulin aspart for controlling PPG in people with insulin-resistant Type 2 diabetes.

Safety and efficacy of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) added to sulphonylurea alone or to sulphonylurea and metformin in insulin-naïve people with Type 2 diabetes: the DUAL IV trial.

AIM: To investigate the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira), a novel combination product, as add-on therapy for people with Type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on sulphonylurea therapy. METHODS: In this 26-week, double-blind trial, adults with Type 2 diabetes [HbA1c 53-75 mmol/mol (7.0-9.0%)] were randomized to IDegLira (n = 289) or placebo (n = 146) as add-on to pre-trial sulphonylurea ± metformin, titrating to a fasting glycaemic target of 4.0-6.0 mmol/l. Treatment initiation was at 10 dose steps, and maximum dose was 50 dose steps (50 units insulin degludec/1.8 mg liraglutide). RESULTS: The mean HbA1c decreased from 63 mmol/mol (7.9%) to 46 mmol/mol (6.4%) with IDegLira and to 57 mmol/mol (7.4%) with placebo [estimated treatment difference -11 mmol/mol (95% CI -13; -10) or -1.02% (95% CI -1.18; -0.87); P < 0.001]. The HbA1c target of 53 mmol/mol (<7%) was achieved by 79.2% of participants in the IDegLira group vs 28.8% in the placebo group [estimated odds ratio 11.95 (95% CI 7.22; 19.77); P < 0.001]. Mean weight change was +0.5 kg with IDegLira vs -1.0 kg with placebo [estimated treatment difference 1.48 kg (95% CI 0.90; 2.06); P < 0.001]. Confirmed hypoglycaemia occurred in 41.7 and 17.1% of IDegLira- and placebo-treated participants, respectively, with rates of 3.5 vs 1.4 events/patient-years of exposure [estimated rate ratio 3.74 (95% CI 2.28; 6.13); P < 0.001]. IDegLira was generally well tolerated. The rates of serious adverse events were 20.3 and 8.0 per 100 patient-years of exposure with IDegLira and placebo, respectively, without obvious patterns in the type of events. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira can be used in people uncontrolled with sulphonylurea ± metformin to improve efficacy with a safety profile in line with previous DUAL trials.

One-year efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes: results of a 26-week extension to a 26-week main trial.

AIMS: To confirm, in a 26-week extension study, the sustained efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with either insulin degludec or liraglutide alone, in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes randomized to once-daily IDegLira, insulin degludec or liraglutide, in addition to metformin ± pioglitazone, continued their allocated treatment in this preplanned 26-week extension of the DUAL I trial. RESULTS: A total of 78.8% of patients (1311/1663) continued into the extension phase. The mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration at 52 weeks was reduced from baseline by 1.84% (20.2 mmol/mol) for the IDegLira group, 1.40% (15.3 mmol/mol) for the insulin degludec group and 1.21% (13.2 mmol/mol) for the liraglutide group. Of the patients on IDegLira, 78% achieved an HbA1c of <7% (53 mmol/mol) versus 63% of the patients on insulin degludec and 57% of those on liraglutide. The mean fasting plasma glucose concentration at the end of the trial was similar for IDegLira (5.7 mmol/l) and insulin degludec (6.0 mmol/l), but higher for liraglutide (7.3 mmol/l). At 52 weeks, the daily insulin dose was 37% lower with IDegLira (39 units) than with insulin degludec (62 units). IDegLira was associated with a significantly greater decrease in body weight (estimated treatment difference, -2.80 kg, p < 0.0001) and a 37% lower rate of hypoglycaemia compared with insulin degludec. Overall, all treatments were well tolerated and no new adverse events or tolerability issues were observed for IDegLira. CONCLUSIONS: These 12-month data, derived from a 26-week extension of the DUAL I trial, confirm the initial 26-week main phase results and the sustainability of the benefits of IDegLira compared with its components in glycaemic efficacy, safety and tolerability.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist albiglutide (HARMONY 1 trial): 52-week primary endpoint results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus not controlled on pioglitazone, with or without metformin.

AIMS: To show that albiglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, is an effective and generally safe treatment to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus whose hyperglycaemia is inadequately controlled with pioglitazone (with or without metformin). METHODS: In this 3-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 310 adult patients on a regimen of pioglitazone (with or without metformin) were randomly assigned to receive additional treatment with albiglutide [30 mg subcutaneous (s.c.) once weekly, n = 155] or matching placebo (n = 155). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 52 (intention-to-treat) in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). RESULTS: The model-adjusted change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was significantly better with albiglutide than with placebo (-0.8%, 95% confidence interval -1.0, -0.6; p < 0.0001). Change from baseline fasting plasma glucose was -1.3 mmol/l in the albiglutide group and +0.4 mmol/l in the placebo group (p < 0.0001); a significantly higher percentage of patients reached the HbA1c goals with albiglutide (p < 0.0001), and the rate of hyperglycaemia rescue up to week 52 for albiglutide was 24.4 versus 47.7% for placebo (p < 0.0001). Albiglutide plus pioglitazone had no impact on weight, and severe hypoglycaemia was observed rarely (n = 2). With few exceptions, the results of safety assessments were similar between the groups, and most adverse events (AEs) were mild or moderate. The 52-week incidence rates for gastrointestinal AEs for albiglutide and placebo were: 31.3 and 29.8%, respectively (diarrhoea: 11.3 and 8.6%; nausea: 10.7 and 11.3%; vomiting: 4.0 and 4.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Albiglutide 30 mg administered once weekly as an add-on to pioglitazone (with or without metformin) provided effective and durable glucose lowering and was generally well tolerated.

Insulin degludec improves glycaemic control with lower nocturnal hypoglycaemia risk than insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in Type 1 diabetes (BEGIN(®) Basal-Bolus Type 1): 2-year results of a randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: The goal of this study was to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of the basal insulin analogue, insulin degludec with insulin glargine (both with insulin aspart) in Type 1 diabetes, over a 2-year time period. METHODS: This open-label trial comprised a 1-year main trial and a 1-year extension. Patients were randomized to once-daily insulin degludec or insulin glargine and titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose values of 3.9-4.9 mmol/l. RESULTS: The rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia was 25% lower with insulin degludec than with insulin glargine (P = 0.02). Rates of confirmed hypoglycaemia, severe hypoglycaemia and adverse events, and reductions in glycated haemoglobin and fasting plasma glucose were similar between groups. Despite achieving similar glycaemic control, insulin degludec-treated patients used 12% less basal and 9% less total daily insulin than did insulin glargine-treated patients (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term basal therapy using insulin degludec in Type 1 diabetes required lower doses and was associated with a 25% lower risk for nocturnal hypoglycaemia than insulin glargine.

Continuous glucose monitoring in 2010.

After the initial positive data several recent randomised controlled trials offer more firm evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Integrating CGM with insulin pumps offers additional benefit. Improved metabolic control with significant lowering of glycated haemoglobin along with other parameters of glycaemia and without a concomitant increase in hypoglycaemia is demonstrated in all age groups, including children and adolescents. Reducing hypoglycaemia with CGM in well-controlled individuals with T1D remains to be demonstrated; however, evidence for reducing hypoglycaemia in critically ill patients seems convincing. Several important aspects of type 2 diabetes (T2D) were recently addressed by professional CGM. Adding predictive algorithms to CGM may considerably improve its efficacy and lead the way towards the closed loop.

Patient-reported outcomes following treatment with the human GLP-1 analogue liraglutide or glimepiride in monotherapy: results from a randomized controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: As weight gain and hypoglycaemia associated with glimepiride therapy can negatively impact weight perceptions, psychological well-being and overall quality of life in type 2 diabetes, we investigated whether liraglutide treatment could improve these factors. METHODS: Seven hundred and thirty-two patients with type 2 diabetes completed a 77-item questionnaire during a randomized, 52-week, double-blind study with liraglutide 1.2 mg (n = 245) or 1.8 mg (n = 242) compared with glimepiride 8 mg (n = 245). RESULTS: Mean (SE) decreases in glycated haemoglobin levels were greater with liraglutide 1.2 mg [-0.84 (0.08)%] and 1.8 mg [-1.14 (0.08)%] than glimepiride [-0.51 (0.08)%; p = 0.0014 and p < 0.0001, respectively]. Patients gained weight on glimepiride [mean (SE), 1.12 (0.27) kg] but lost weight on liraglutide [1.2 mg: -2.05 (0.28) kg; 1.8 mg: -2.45 (0.28) kg; both p < 0.0001]. Patient weight assessment was more favourable with liraglutide 1.8 mg [mean (SE) score: 40.0 (2.0)] than glimepiride [48.7 (2.0); p = 0.002], and liraglutide 1.8 mg patients were 52% less likely to feel overweight [odds ratio (OR) 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.331-0.696]. Mean (SE) weight concerns were less with liraglutide [1.2 mg: 30.0 (1.2); 1.8 mg: 32.8 (1.2)] than glimepiride [38.8 (1.2); p < 0.0001 and p < 0.001, respectively], with liraglutide groups 45% less likely to report weight concern (OR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.41-0.73). Mean (SE) mental and emotional health and general perceived health improved more with liraglutide 1.8 mg [476.1 (2.8) and 444.2 (3.2), respectively] than glimepiride [466.3 (2.8) and 434.5 (3.2), respectively; p = 0.012 and p = 0.033, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Improved glycaemic control and decreased weight with liraglutide 1.8 mg vs. glimepiride can improve psychological and emotional well-being and health perceptions by reducing anxiety and worry associated with weight gain.

Continuous glucose monitoring.

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) has the potential to revolutionise the care and treatment of individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). During the past three years, several devices to measure the interstitial fluid intermittently or continuously have been developed and approved as an adjunct to blood glucose monitoring for use in individuals with T1D. Original studies using these earlier devices showed promise in lowering HbA1c in selected individuals with suboptimal control (1). The first randomised controlled trial with a subcutaneous continuous sensor demonstrated a significant decrease in HbA1c in adult and paediatric patients with poor metabolic control using the RT-CGM device continuously for 3 months compared with the self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) control group (2). Recent randomised controlled trials clearly demonstrated that RT-CGM can significantly reduce HbA1c. Additionally, retrospective use of CGM data can positively affect metabolic control in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy, safety, and pump compatibility of insulin aspart used in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and pump compatibility of insulin aspart (a rapid-acting insulin analog) and buffered regular human insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes undergoing continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a single-center randomized open-label study Patients received CSII therapy with insulin aspart (n = 19) or buffered regular human insulin (n = 10) for 7 weeks. Bolus doses of insulin aspart were administered immediately before meals and buffered regular human insulin 30 min before meals. RESULTS: Insulin aspart and buffered regular human insulin were both effective in controlling average daily blood glucose levels (8.2 +/- 1.9 and 8.5 +/- 2.1 mmol/l, respectively) (mean +/- SD) and maintaining serum fructosamine (343 +/- 25.7 and 336 +/- 27.4 micromol/l) and HbA1c (6.9 +/- 0.6 and 7.1 +/- 0.6%) levels. Possible obstructions and set leakages were infrequently reported in both groups. Similar numbers of patients experienced hypoglycemia (blood glucose <2.5 mmol/l): 14 (74%) insulin aspart patients versus 6 (60%) buffered regular human insulin patients. Patients receiving insulin aspart had fewer hypoglycemic events per patient (2.9) than those patients receiving buffered regular human insulin (6.2). There were no differences between the two insulins in the occurrence of hyperglycemic events (blood glucose >19 mmol/l) or in the number and type of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin aspart and buffered regular human insulin were effective and well tolerated and provided similar pump compatibility when used in CSII therapy.

Reduction in severe hypoglycemia with long-term continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in type I diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of severe hypoglycemia in patients crossed over from multiple daily injections (MDIs) of insulin to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: From a population of 225 patients using CSII, all patients who met the following selection criteria were included in the present study: 1) a minimum of 12 months on intensive therapy with MDIs before switching to CSII, and 2) a minimum of 12 months on CSII after crossover. Glycemic control and adverse event rates for the 1-year MDI control period were compared with those for the CSII therapy period. RESULTS: The incidence of severe hypoglycemia during MDI therapy declined from 138 to 22 events per 100 patient-years during the 1st year of CSII (P < 0.0001) and remained significantly lower in years 2, 3, and 4 on CSII (26, 39, and 36, respectively). HbA1c levels did not change significantly between the MDI phase and any year on CSII. However, in the subgroup of patients who had pre-CSII HbA1c levels of > or = 8.0%, the change to CSII was associated with a significant reduction in HbA1c from baseline to year 1 (8.9 +/- 0.8 vs. 8.1 +/- 1.0%, P = 0.0004). The difference in diabetic ketoacidosis rates between the MDI year (14.6 events per 100 patient-years) and the CSII period (7.2 events per 100 patient-years) was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: CSII therapy was associated with a marked and sustained reduction in the rate of severe hypoglycemia without adversely affecting the level of glycemic control attained during MDI therapy. The more reproducible and flexible insulin delivery afforded by CSII was considered to be the major factor contributing to the improvement in severe hypoglycemia rates.

Performance evaluation of the MiniMed continuous glucose monitoring system during patient home use.

BACKGROUND: The recent availability of a continuous glucose monitor offers the opportunity to match the demands of intensive diabetes management with a period of equally intensive blood glucose monitoring. The present study evaluates the performance of the MiniMed continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) in patients with diabetes during home use. METHODS: Performance data and demographic information were obtained from 135 patients who were (mean +/- SD) 40.5+/-14.5 years old, had an average duration of diabetes of 18.0+/-9.8 years, 50% were female, 90% were Caucasian, and 87% of whom had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Patients were selected by their physician, trained on the use of the CGMS and wore the device at home for 3 days or more. The performance of the CGMS was evaluated against blood glucose measurements obtained using each patient's home blood glucose meter. Evaluation statistics included correlation, linear regression, mean difference and percent absolute difference scores, and Clarke error grid analysis. RESULTS: The CGMS values were compared to 2477 SMBG tests (r = 0.91, slope = 0.93, intercept = 14.5 mg/dL, mean absolute difference = 18.0%+/-19.8%). Clarke error grid analysis showed 96.2% of the data pairs falling within the clinically acceptable regions (zones A and B). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the agreement of the CGMS to blood glucose meter values, under conditions of home use, in patients selected by their physicians as candidates for continuous monitoring. The detailed glucose information provided by the CGMS should make successful management of diabetes more easily achieved.

Continuous glucose monitoring used to adjust diabetes therapy improves glycosylated hemoglobin: a pilot study.

A 5-week pilot study was conducted to determine if continuous glucose monitoring could be used to improve glycemic control. A total of nine subjects with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c values greater than 8.5% completed the study. Subjects wore a continuous glucose monitor for two 1-week periods during the study. After each sensor use, changes to diet, insulin dosage and self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) schedule were made. HbA1c decreased from 9.9% (S.D. = 1.1%) at baseline to 8.8% (S.D. = 1.0%) 5 weeks after baseline (P = 0.0006), but daily insulin usage was unchanged over the same period of time (P = 0.428). The glucose sensors performed accurately, with a median correlation of 0.92 and a mean absolute difference of 19.1% (S.D. = 9.0%). The continuous glucose profiles allowed identification of glucose patterns and excursions that helped direct changes in therapy. These treatment changes would not have been made on the basis of meter data alone and were effective in improving glucose control. Additional studies are needed to validate these findings. This pilot study highlights the potential for continuous glucose monitoring to provide the valuable information necessary to make therapy adjustments that can dramatically improve patients' glycemic control and reduce the risk of long-term complications.

What's ahead in glucose monitoring? New techniques hold promise for improved ease and accuracy.

Advances in blood glucose monitoring have made it easier, more comfortable, and more practical for patients to monitor frequently. The new meters for intermittent monitoring are smaller and less dependent on technical aptitude than older models. They require less blood, and many provide downloadable information for glucose analysis. Data systems used with new meters provide valuable information that can dramatically improve glycemic control. Continuous glucose sensing (figure 4) is another major breakthrough in management of diabetes. Current systems allow only retrospective analyses, but real-time readings should be available in the near future. Such technological advances hold promise for preventing both hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia and for reducing the risk of long-term complications associated with diabetes. An artificial, mechanical islet cell may be the big next step toward bringing this disease under control. By combining continuous glucose monitoring data with continuous insulin delivery via an external or an implantable insulin pump, the outlook promises to be much brighter for patients with type 1 diabetes.