Once-Weekly Insulin for Type 2 Diabetes without Previous Insulin Treatment.

BACKGROUND: It is thought that a reduction in the frequency of basal insulin injections might facilitate treatment acceptance and adherence among patients with type 2 diabetes. Insulin icodec is a basal insulin analogue designed for once-weekly administration that is in development for the treatment of diabetes. METHODS: We conducted a 26-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 2 trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec as compared with once-daily insulin glargine U100 in patients who had not previously received long-term insulin treatment and whose type 2 diabetes was inadequately controlled (glycated hemoglobin level, 7.0 to 9.5%) while taking metformin with or without a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. The primary end point was the change in glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 26. Safety end points, including episodes of hypoglycemia and insulin-related adverse events, were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 247 participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive icodec or glargine. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups; the mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 8.09% in the icodec group and 7.96% in the glargine group. The estimated mean change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level was -1.33 percentage points in the icodec group and -1.15 percentage points in the glargine group, to estimated means of 6.69% and 6.87%, respectively, at week 26; the estimated between-group difference in the change from baseline was -0.18 percentage points (95% CI, -0.38 to 0.02, P = 0.08). The observed rates of hypoglycemia with severity of level 2 (blood glucose level, <54 mg per deciliter) or level 3 (severe cognitive impairment) were low (icodec group, 0.53 events per patient-year; glargine group, 0.46 events per patient-year; estimated rate ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.65). There was no between-group difference in insulin-related key adverse events, and rates of hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions were low. Most adverse events were mild, and no serious events were deemed to be related to the trial medications. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly treatment with insulin icodec had glucose-lowering efficacy and a safety profile similar to those of once-daily insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; NN1436-4383 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03751657.).

Risk of hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U300 in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: the randomised, head-to-head CONCLUDE trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: A head-to-head randomised trial was conducted to evaluate hypoglycaemia safety with insulin degludec 200 U/ml (degludec U200) and insulin glargine 300 U/ml (glargine U300) in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin. METHODS: This randomised (1:1), open-label, treat-to-target, multinational trial included individuals with type 2 diabetes, aged ≥18 years with HbA1c ≤80 mmol/mol (9.5%) and BMI ≤45 kg/m2. Participants were previously treated with basal insulin with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs (excluding insulin secretagogues) and had to fulfil at least one predefined criterion for hypoglycaemia risk. Both degludec U200 and glargine U300 were similarly titrated to a fasting blood glucose target of 4.0-5.0 mmol/l. Endpoints were assessed during a 36 week maintenance period and a total treatment period up to 88 weeks. There were three hypoglycaemia endpoints: (1) overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia (either severe, an event requiring third-party assistance, or confirmed by blood glucose [<3.1 mmol/l] with symptoms); (2) nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (severe or confirmed by blood glucose with symptoms, between 00:01 and 05:59 h); and (3) severe hypoglycaemia. The primary endpoint was the number of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemic events in the maintenance period. Secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints included the number of nocturnal symptomatic events and number of severe hypoglycaemic events during the maintenance period. RESULTS: Of the 1609 randomised participants, 733 of 805 (91.1%) in the degludec U200 arm and 734 of 804 (91.3%) in the glargine U300 arm completed the trial (87.3% and 87.8% completed on treatment, respectively). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two treatment arms. For the primary endpoint, the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia was not significantly lower with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 (rate ratio [RR] 0.88 [95% CI 0.73, 1.06]). As there was no significant difference between treatments for the primary endpoint, the confirmatory testing procedure for superiority was stopped. The pre-specified confirmatory secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints were analysed using pre-specified statistical models but were now considered exploratory. These endpoints showed a lower rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (RR 0.63 [95% CI 0.48, 0.84]) and severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.20 [95% CI 0.07, 0.57]) with degludec U200 vs glargine U300. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: There was no significant difference in the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 in the maintenance period. The rates of nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were nominally significantly lower with degludec U200 during the maintenance period compared with glargine U300. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03078478 FUNDING: This trial was funded by Novo Nordisk (Bagsvaerd, Denmark).

Lower rates of hypoglycaemia in older individuals with type 2 diabetes using insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100: Results from SWITCH 2.

AIM: This study aimed to investigate the safety of insulin degludec (degludec) in relation to age and risk of hypoglycaemia post hoc in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (SWITCH 2 trial). METHODS: In this crossover study, individuals with T2D who were at risk of hypoglycaemia were randomized to double-blind treatment with degludec or insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) ± oral antidiabetic drugs. After 32 weeks, patients crossed over to the other treatment. Primary endpoint was number of overall severe (positively adjudicated) or glucose-confirmed (plasma glucose <56 mg/dL; 3.1 mmol/L) symptomatic hypoglycaemia events during the two 16-week maintenance periods. RESULTS: For individuals ≤65 (n = 450) and >65 (n = 270) years, baseline median (range) duration of diabetes was 12 (1-40) vs 15 (1-54) years, mean HbA1c was 7.7% vs 7.4% and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 87.0 vs 63.7 mL/min/1.73 m2 , respectively. No significant differences in HbA1c reduction were seen in individuals ≤65 or >65 years. During both maintenance periods, treatment with degludec lowered rates of hypoglycaemia (overall/nocturnal symptomatic) vs those with glargine U100 in individuals ≤65 (31% vs 43%) and >65 (30% vs 41%) years. With degludec and glargine U100, respectively, six vs nine severe hypoglycaemic events occurred in individuals ≤65 years and four vs eight events occurred in those >65 years. Adverse event rates were 3.2 and 3.3 events/patient-year for individuals ≤65 years and were 3.5 and 4.1 events/patient-year for individuals >65 years with degludec and glargine U100, respectively. CONCLUSION: Treatment with degludec was safe and effective, with a frequency of hypoglycaemia lower than that with glargine U100 in both younger and older individuals (>65 years) with T2D.

Cardiovascular safety and lower severe hypoglycaemia of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes aged 65 years or older: Results from DEVOTE (DEVOTE 7).

AIMS: The aim of this study was to describe the risks of cardiovascular (CV) events and severe hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec (degludec) vs insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) aged 65 years or older. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 7637 patients in the DEVOTE trial, a treat-to-target, randomized, double-blind trial evaluating the CV safety of degludec vs glargine U100, were divided into three age groups (50-64 years, n = 3682; 65-74 years, n = 3136; ≥75 years, n = 819). Outcomes by overall age group and randomized treatment differences were analysed for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, severe hypoglycaemia and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS: Patients with increasing age had higher risks of CV death, all-cause mortality and SAEs, and there were non-significant trends towards higher risks of MACE and severe hypoglycaemia. Treatment effects on the risk of MACE, all-cause mortality, severe hypoglycaemia and SAEs were consistent across age groups, based on the non-significant interactions between treatment and age with regard to these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There were higher risks of CV death, all-cause mortality and SAEs, and trends towards higher risks of MACE and severe hypoglycaemia with increasing age after adjusting for baseline differences. The effects across age groups of degludec vs glargine U100 on MACE, all-cause mortality and severe hypoglycaemia were comparable, suggesting that the risk of MACE, as well as all-cause mortality, is similar and the risk of severe hypoglycaemia is lower with degludec regardless of age. Evidence is conclusive only until 74 years of age.

Melatonin for pre- and postoperative anxiety in adults.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety in relation to surgery is a well-known problem. Melatonin offers an atoxic alternative to benzodiazepines in ameliorating this condition in the pre- and postoperative period. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of melatonin on pre- and postoperative anxiety in adults when comparing melatonin with placebo or when comparing melatonin with benzodiazepines. SEARCH METHODS: The following databases were searched on 19 April 2013: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science. For ongoing trials and protocols we searched clinicaltrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We reran the search in October 2014. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, placebo-controlled or standard treatment-controlled, or both, studies that evaluated the effect of preoperatively administered melatonin on preoperative or postoperative anxiety. We included adult patients of both genders (15 to 90 years of age) undergoing any kind of surgical procedure in which it was necessary to use general, regional or topical anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently by two review authors. Data extracted included information about study design, country of origin, number of participants and demographic details, type of surgery, type of anaesthesia, intervention and dosing regimen, preoperative anxiety outcome measures and postoperative anxiety outcome measures. MAIN RESULTS: This systematic review identified 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 774 patients that assessed melatonin for treating preoperative anxiety, postoperative anxiety or both. Four of the 12 studies compared melatonin, placebo and midazolam, whereas the remaining eight studies compared melatonin and placebo only.The quality of the evidence for our primary outcome (melatonin versus placebo for preoperative anxiety) was high. More than half of the included studies had a low risk of selection bias and at least 75% of the included studies had a low risk of attrition, performance and detection bias. Most of the included studies had an unclear risk of reporting bias.Eight out the 10 studies that assessed the effect of melatonin on preoperative anxiety using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (ranging from 0 to 100 mm, higher scores indicate greater anxiety) showed a reduction compared to placebo. The reported estimate of effect (relative effect -13.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.13 to -10.58; high quality evidence) was based on a meta-analysis of seven studies. Two studies did not show any difference between melatonin and placebo. Two studies comparing melatonin with midazolam using a VAS found no evidence of a difference in preoperative anxiety between the two groups (relative effect -1.18, 95% CI -2.59 to 0.23; low quality evidence).Eight studies assessed the effect of melatonin on postoperative anxiety. Four of these studies measuring postoperative anxiety 90 minutes postoperatively using a VAS did not find any evidence of a difference between melatonin and placebo (relative effect -3.71, 95% CI -9.26 to 1.84). Conversely, two studies showed a reduction of postoperative anxiety measured six hours after surgery using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) when comparing melatonin with placebo (relative effect -5.31, 95% CI -8.78 to -1.84; moderate quality evidence). Two studies comparing melatonin with midazolam using a VAS did not find any evidence of a difference between the two groups in postoperative anxiety (relative effect -2.02, 95% CI -5.82 to 1.78). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared to placebo, melatonin given as premedication (tablets or sublingually) can reduce preoperative anxiety in adults (measured 50 to 100 minutes after administration). Melatonin may be equally as effective as standard treatment with midazolam in reducing preoperative anxiety in adults (measured 50 to 100 minutes after administration). The effect of melatonin on postoperative anxiety (measured 90 minutes and 6 hours after surgery) in adults is mixed but suggests an overall attenuation of the effect compared to preoperatively.

Effect of melatonin on depressive symptoms and anxiety in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Depression, anxiety and sleep disturbances are known problems in patients with breast cancer. The effect of melatonin as an antidepressant in humans with cancer has not been investigated. We investigated whether melatonin could lower the risk of depressive symptoms in women with breast cancer in a three-month period after surgery and assessed the effect of melatonin on subjective parameters: anxiety, sleep, general well-being, fatigue, pain and sleepiness. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial undertaken from July 2011 to December 2012 at a department of breast surgery in Copenhagen, Denmark. Women, 30-75 years, undergoing surgery for breast cancer and without signs of depression on Major Depression Inventory (MDI) were included 1 week before surgery and received 6 mg oral melatonin or placebo for 3 months. The primary outcome was the incidence of depressive symptoms measured by MDI. The secondary outcomes were area under the curve (AUC) for the subjective parameters. 54 patients were randomized to melatonin (n = 28) or placebo (n = 26) and 11 withdrew from the study (10 placebo group and 1 melatonin group, P = 0.002). The risk of developing depressive symptoms was significantly lower with melatonin than with placebo (3 [11 %] of 27 vs. 9 [45 %] of 20; relative risk 0.25 [95 % CI 0.077-0.80]), giving a NNT of 3.0 [95 % CI 1.7-11.0]. No significant differences were found between AUC for the subjective parameters. No differences in side effects were found (P = 0.78). Melatonin significantly reduced the risk of depressive symptoms in women with breast cancer during a three-month period after surgery.

Lack of circadian variation and reduction of heart rate variability in women with breast cancer undergoing lumpectomy: a descriptive study.

Changes in the autonomic nervous system with increased sympathetic tone may be a cause of postoperative short-, and long-term cardiovascular complications. Heart rate variability (HRV) is assessed by Holter monitoring as a measure of autonomic tone and has not been investigated in patients with breast cancer undergoing surgery. We aimed to investigate evening- and night-time HRV after lumpectomy. Twelve patients were included in this descriptive study. HRV was measured the night before surgery (PREOP), the night after surgery (PO1) and 14 days after surgery (PO14) from 1900 to 0700 h. For calculation of HRV, time domain parameters (SDNN-standard deviation of all normal-to-normal (NN) intervals around the mean NN for the period of measurement, pNN50-percentage of beats where the change from one beat to the next is more than 50 ms, rMSSD-root mean square of successive differences) were used. We analyzed the variation of the overall time period and the circadian variation between evening and night (sympathetic vs. parasympathetic tonus). Mean heart rate increased from PREOP to PO1 (p < 0.001) and also increased between PREOP and PO14 (p < 0.05). SDNN (p < 0.001) and PNN50 (p < 0.001) decreased from PREOP to PO1. There was also a significant decrease between PREOP and PO14 for both parameters (p < 0.005 and p = 0.05 respectively). SDNN increased from PO1 to PO14 (p < 0.005). rMSSD decreased from PREOP to PO1 (p < 0.001). A circadian variation was found in the mean heart rate for all three monitoring periods (p < 0.005). Circadian variation was also present on PREOP for pNN50 (p ≤ 0.05) and rMSSD (p < 0.05). This variation was missing for both PO1 and PO14. Patients had a shift of autonomic tone with reduced parasympathetic activity and lack of circadian variation 14 days after lumpectomy.

A Randomized, Open-Label Comparison of Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec Titration Strategies Versus Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100.

OBJECTIVE: Insulin icodec is a novel once-weekly basal insulin analog. This trial investigated the efficacy and safety of icodec using different once-weekly titration algorithms. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a phase 2, randomized, open-label, 16-week, treat-to-target study. Insulin-naive adults (n = 205) with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c 7-10% while treated with oral glucose-lowering medications initiated once-weekly icodec titrations A (prebreakfast self-measured blood glucose target 80-130 mg/dL; adjustment ±21 units/week; n = 51), B (80-130 mg/dL; ±28 units/week; n = 51), or C (70-108 mg/dL; ±28 units/week; n = 52), or once-daily insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) (80-130 mg/dL; ±4 units/day; n = 51), all titrated weekly. Percentage of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) during weeks 15 and 16 was measured using continuous glucose monitoring. RESULTS: TIR improved from baseline (means: A, 57.0%; B, 55.2%; C, 51.0%; IGlar U100, 55.3%) to weeks 15 and 16 (estimated mean: A, 76.6%; B, 83.0%; C, 80.9%; IGlar U100, 75.9%). TIR was greater for titration B than for IGlar U100 (estimated treatment difference 7.08%-points; 95% CI 2.12 to 12.04; P = 0.005). No unexpected safety signals were observed. Level 2 hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) was low in all groups (0.05, 0.15, 0.38, 0.00 events per patient-year of exposure for icodec titrations A, B, and C and IGlar U100, respectively), with no episodes of severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly icodec was efficacious and well tolerated across all three titration algorithms investigated. The results for icodec titration A (80-130 mg/dL; ±21 units/week) displayed the best balance between glycemic control and risk of hypoglycemia.