Glycemic control and long-acting insulin analog utilization in patients with type 2 diabetes

Efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly dulaglutide to basal insulin for inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes in Chinese patients (AWARD-CHN3): A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial

AIM

To determine the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide added to basal insulin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with inadequate glycaemic control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the phase III, double-blind AWARD-CHN3 study, Chinese patients with T2DM (N = 291) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.0% and ≤11.0% receiving stable doses of basal insulin glargine with metformin and/or acarbose were randomized (1:1) to receive add-on dulaglutide 1.5 mg once weekly or placebo once weekly. The primary endpoint was the superiority of dulaglutide/glargine to placebo/glargine for change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 28.

RESULTS

The least squares (LS) mean ± standard error change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 28 was -2.0 ± 0.08% with dulaglutide/glargine and -1.1 ± 0.07% with placebo/glargine (LS mean difference: -1.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.1 to -0.8; P < 0.001), and more patients receiving dulaglutide/glargine achieved HbA1c levels <7.0% (75.9% vs. 33.8%; P < 0.001 vs. placebo/glargine). Body weight decreased with dulaglutide/glargine and increased with placebo/glargine (LS mean difference: -1.2 kg, 95% CI -1.8 to - 0.6; P < 0.001). Reductions in fasting serum glucose were greater with dulaglutide/glargine than with placebo/glargine (LS mean difference: -0.8 mmol/L, 95% CI -1.1 to - 0.5; P < 0.001). The incidence of hypoglycaemia was similar with dulaglutide/glargine and placebo/glargine (29.2% vs. 31.3%; P = 0.704); no patient in either group had severe hypoglycaemia. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with dulaglutide/glargine were decreased appetite (22.2%), diarrhoea (13.2%) and nausea (10.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide added to basal insulin was efficacious and well tolerated in Chinese patients with T2DM.

Probability of Achieving Glycemic Control with Basal Insulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Real-World Practice in the USA

INTRODUCTION

Basal insulin (BI) plays an important role in treating type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially when oral antidiabetic (OAD) medications are insufficient for glycemic control. We conducted a retrospective, observational study using electronic medical records (EMR) data from the IBM^® Explorys database to evaluate the probability of achieving glycemic control over 24 months after BI initiation in patients with T2D in the USA.

METHODS

A cohort of 6597 patients with T2D who started BI following OAD(s) and had at least one valid glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) result recorded both within 90 days before and 720 days after BI initiation were selected. We estimated the changes from baseline in HbA1c every 6 months, the quarterly conditional probabilities of reaching HbA1c < 7% if a patient had not achieved glycemic control prior to each quarter (Q), and the cumulative probability of reaching glycemic control over 24 months.

RESULTS

Our cohort was representative of patients with T2D who initiated BI from OADs in the USA. The average HbA1c was 9.1% at BI initiation, and decreased robustly (1.5%) in the first 6 months after initiation with no further reductions thereafter. The conditional probability of reaching glycemic control decreased rapidly in the first year (26.6% in Q2; 17.6% in Q3; 8.6% in Q4), and then remained low (≤ 6.1%) for each quarter in the second year. Cumulatively, about 38% of patients reached HbA1c < 7% in the first year; only approximately 8% more did so in the second year.

CONCLUSION

Our study of real-world data from a large US EMR database suggested that among patients with T2D who initiated BI after OADs, the likelihood of reaching glycemic control diminished over time, and remained low from 12 months onwards. Additional treatment options should be considered if patients do not reach glycemic control within 12 months of BI initiation.

FUNDING

Sanofi Corporation.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Detemir and Insulin Glargine in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Trial

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies comparing insulin detemir versus insulin glargine showed conflicting results, and included only outpatients. This study compared the two insulin analogs once daily in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

A total of 55 patients aged 18-80 years with hyperglycemia admitted to the endocrinology wards were screened between June 2014 and February 2015. Forty-two enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive either insulin detemir followed by insulin glargine once daily (n = 21), or vice versa (n = 21). The two insulin analogs were titrated 0.1 U/kg once daily based on fasting blood glucose (FBG). After achieving FBG <7.8 mmol/L (the first period), subjects were switched from one analog to the other (the second period) with no change in the dose. The second period lasted for 3 days. When hypoglycemia occurred in the second period, the observation was discontinued. Six-point blood glucose including FBG, 2 h after breakfast, lunch, dinner, bedtime, and at 3:00 am was tested every day. The glucose profiles of the final days in the two periods were compared.

RESULTS

At the end of the first period, days for achieving FBG target (4.0 ± 0.5 days vs. 3.3 ± 0.4 days, t = 1.079, P = 0.286) and total daily dose (30.1 ± 2.4 U vs. 30.1 ± 2.9 U, t = 0.002, P = 0.999) between insulin detemir and insulin glargine were similar. There was no significant difference in the 24-h glucose control between the two analogs. No hypoglycemia occurred with both analogs in the first period. However, in the second period, when insulin glargine was switched to insulin detemir, two, three and, one patients had hypoglycemia events on day 1, day 2 and day 3 of the second period, respectively. One patient had severe hypoglycemia on day 1.

CONCLUSION

When both basal insulin analogs were given once daily in T2D, insulin detemir achieved similar efficacy to insulin glargine. On the other hand, there may be differences in action of the compared basal insulins. Further studies with larger patient samples are necessary to support evidence and reveal possible mechanisms.

Clinical and financial outcomes of switching insulin glargine to insulin detemir in a veteran population with type 2 diabetes

Background

Although glargine and detemir are both FDA-approved in the U.S. as long-acting insulin analogues, inherent differences in the insulins may lead to varying outcomes. This study examined changes in clinical measures and associated costs for veterans with type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy converted from insulin glargine to insulin detemir.

Methods

A retrospective before-and-after comparison study was performed at a single-site medical center located in the southwestern U.S., comprising 133 Veterans diagnosed with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin therapy with glargine and converted to insulin detemir using a 1:1 unit dosage ratio. Patients’ A1c, weight, body mass index, total daily dose, and estimated monthly insulin costs during and after conversion were compared employing Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. These measures were similarly assessed in patients at A1c goal (<7 %) prior to conversion.

Results

When switched from insulin glargine to insulin detemir, an increase in A1c (median of 7.7 % to 8.3 %, p < 0.01) and total daily dose (TDD: 40 to 46 units/day, p < 0.01) resulted. Monthly insulin costs decreased 19 % ($47 to $38, p < 0.01), or roughly a one-year savings of $110 per patient. An increase in A1c was similarly observed for patients at-goal prior to conversion but remained at-goal post-conversion (6.5 % to 6.7 %, p = 0.02).

Conclusion

The increase in A1c and TDD following conversion from insulin glargine to insulin detemir suggests that glargine requires a smaller amount of units to reach the same glycemic-lowering ability compared to detemir. Despite the observed insulin cost savings associated with detemir, future studies should also determine overall costs (including indirect) and benefits associated with switching from glargine to detemir among Veteran with Type 2 diabetes.

HARMONY 4: randomised clinical trial comparing once-weekly albiglutide and insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin with or without sulfonylurea

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly albiglutide with once-daily insulin glargine (A21Gly,B31Arg,B32Arg human insulin) in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin with or without sulfonylurea.

METHODS

This was a randomised, open-label, multicentre (n = 222), parallel-group, non-inferiority out-patient clinical trial, with 779 patients enrolled in the study. The study was conducted in 222 centres located in four countries. Patients aged ≥18 years with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin (±sulfonylurea) for at least 3 months with a baseline HbA1c 7.0-10.0% (53.0-85.8 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned (2:1) via a computer-generated randomisation sequence with a voice response system to receive albiglutide (30 mg once a week, n = 504) or insulin glargine (10 U once a day, n = 241) added to current therapy. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Doses of each medication were adjusted on the basis of the glycaemic response. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52.

RESULTS

In the albiglutide group, HbA1c declined from 8.28 ± 0.90% (67.0 ± 9.8 mmol/mol) (mean ± SD) at baseline to 7.62 ± 1.12% (59.8 ± 12.2 mmol/mol) at week 52. A similar reduction occurred in the insulin glargine group (8.36 ± 0.95% to 7.55 ± 1.04% [67.9 ± 10.4 to 59.0 ± 11.4 mmol/mol]). The model-adjusted treatment difference of 0.11% (95% CI -0.04%, 0.27%) (1.2 mmol/mol [95% CI -0.4, 3.0 mmol/mol]) indicated non-inferiority of albiglutide to insulin glargine based on the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3% (3.3 mmol/mol, p = 0.0086). Body weight increased in the insulin glargine group and decreased in the albiglutide group, with a mean treatment difference of -2.61 kg (95% CI -3.20, -2.02; p < 0.0001). Documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia occurred in a higher proportion of patients in the insulin glargine group than in the albiglutide group (27.4% vs 17.5%, p = 0.0377).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Albiglutide was non-inferior to insulin glargine at reducing HbA1c at week 52, with modest weight loss and less hypoglycaemia. Both drugs were well tolerated. Albiglutide may be considered an alternative to insulin glargine in this patient population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00838916 (completed)

FUNDING

This study was planned and conducted by GlaxoSmithKline.

Advancing basal insulin replacement in type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with insulin glargine plus oral agents: a comparison of adding albiglutide, a weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist, versus thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro

OBJECTIVE

GLP-1 receptor agonists may provide an alternative to prandial insulin for advancing basal insulin therapy. Harmony 6 was a randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial testing once-weekly albiglutide vs. thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro as an add-on to titrated once-daily insulin glargine.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients taking basal insulin (with or without oral agents) with HbA1c 7-10.5% (53-91 mmol/mol) entered a glargine standardization period, followed by randomization to albiglutide, 30 mg weekly (n = 282), subsequently uptitrated to 50 mg, if necessary, or thrice-daily prandial lispro (n = 281) while continuing metformin and/or pioglitazone. Glargine was titrated to fasting plasma glucose of <5.6 mmol/L, and lispro was adjusted based on glucose monitoring. The primary end point was the difference in the HbA1c change from baseline at week 26.

RESULTS

At week 26, HbA1c decreased from baseline by -0.82 ± SE 0.06% (9.0 mmol/mol) with albiglutide and -0.66 ± 0.06% (7.2 mmol/mol) with lispro; treatment difference, -0.16% (95% CI -0.32 to 0.00; 1.8 mmol/mol; P < 0.0001), meeting the noninferiority end point (margin, 0.4%). Weight decreased with albiglutide but increased with lispro (-0.73 ± 0.19 kg vs. +0.81 ± 0.19 kg). The mean glargine dose increased from 47 to 53 IU (albiglutide) and from 44 to 51 IU (lispro). Adverse events for albiglutide versus lispro included severe hypoglycemia (0 vs. 2 events), documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (15.8% vs. 29.9%), nausea (11.2% vs. 1.4%), vomiting (6.7% vs. 1.4%), and injection site reactions (9.5% vs. 5.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Weekly albiglutide is a simpler therapeutic option than thrice-daily lispro for advancing basal insulin glargine therapy, resulting in comparable HbA1c reduction with weight loss and lower hypoglycemia risk.

Comparing dosing of basal insulin analogues detemir and glargine: is it really unit-per-unit and dose-per-dose?

OBJECTIVE

To review the available evidence regarding dosing conversion between glargine and detemir in an effort to assist clinicians in performing dosing conversion.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE literature search was performed using the search terms glargine and detemir for articles published through August 2013.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All English-language clinical trials were reviewed for inclusion of dosing and/or pharmacokinetic data.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 7 large (n ≥ 258) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing glargine and detemir in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes had dosing equivalency data available. In these 7 RCTs, on average, a 38% higher detemir dose was required (range = 8.0%-77.2%) to achieve glucose control comparable to that achieved with glargine. A 24-hour isoglycemic clamp study conducted in 11 patients with type 1 diabetes demonstrated that the duration of action of detemir is dose dependent, with increasing doses of detemir resulting in increased duration of action of detemir. Pharmacokinetic studies conducted in patients with type 2 diabetes are conflicting, although the majority of evidence suggests that glargine provides a longer duration of glycemic control as compared with detemir.

CONCLUSIONS

When performing conversion between glargine and detemir, prescribers should be aware that higher doses of detemir as compared with glargine may be necessary to achieve the same glycemic control. Additionally, twice-daily injections of detemir should be considered in clinical situations in which glucose control appears to decline after 12 hours, especially with doses ≤0.4 units/kg/d in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Assessing achievement and maintenance of glycemic control by patients initiating basal insulin

OBJECTIVE

Describe characteristics of diabetic patients who initiated basal insulin and assess their glycemic control.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Physician encounters in the General Electric EMR Database (2005-2010) were assessed for patients with type II diabetes (T2DM) who initiated basal insulin between February 2006 and August 2009, with initiation defined as no prescription record of insulin in prior 15 months. Patients were followed for an average 2.5 years after insulin initiation. The proportion and time to achieving HbA1c ≤ 7% ('goal') were assessed. Among patients who reached goal, the proportion and time to HbA1c increasing above 7% were analyzed. Cox proportional hazard models were estimated to identify predictors of HbA1c goal achievement and goal sustainability.

RESULTS

Basal insulin initiators with T2DM (n = 13,373) were on average 60 years old, 50.5% were females, and 59.5% had HbA1c > 8%; 5840 (44%) patients reached goal within one year and 7699 (58%) reached goal during the ∼2.5-year follow-up. Being older, white or male, lower baseline HbA1c values, and no OAD use before insulin initiation were associated with significantly higher rates of reaching goal. Among patients who reached goal, 57.6% could not sustain the goal. Being Hispanic, higher baseline HbA1c values, and baseline OAD use were associated with significantly lower rates of goal sustainment.

CONCLUSION

A high proportion of T2DM patients did not have adequate glycemic control after initiating basal insulin. Various factors existing prior to insulin initiation were related to successful treatment of T2DM. Further research on how to improve glycemic control is encouraged.

Insulin analogues dosing and costs - comparing real-life daily doses of insulin detemir and insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes patients

BACKGROUND

The uncertainties regarding dose similarities between basal long-acting insulin analogues remain. Recent real-world studies indicate dose similarities between insulin detemir and insulin glargine, but further studies are still warranted.The aim of this study was to compare real-life daily doses of insulin detemir and insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes patients when administered once daily.

METHODS

We analysed 536 patient cases from general practice (63%) and endocrinological outpatient clinics (37%). A self-administered questionnaire completed by the treating physician was used to obtain data on patient characteristics (gender, age, weight, height, latest HbA1c-value), daily doses, administration of and number of years treated with insulin detemir and insulin glargine, concomitant insulin use and use of non-insulin anti-diabetic medication. Both bivariate analyses and multivariate regression analyses were applied to examine whether there were differences in the daily doses of insulin detemir and insulin glargine.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the mean daily doses of insulin detemir (0.414 U/kg) and insulin glargine (0.416 U/kg) (p = 0.4341). In multivariate regression analyses, age and BMI had a significant influence on daily insulin dose with the dose increasing 0.003 U/kg (p = 0.0375) and 0.008 U/kg (p = 0.0003) with every 1 increment in age and BMI, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose similarities between insulin detemir and insulin glargine were seen in type 2 diabetes patients when administered once daily. Thus, the use of insulin detemir and insulin glargine is not associated with different medical costs if the price and treating algorithm are similar.

Treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus with insulin detemir, a long-acting insulin analog

Insulin detemir is a long-acting basal insulin approved for use in patients with type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Insulin detemir has demonstrated equivalent glycemic control and hypoglycemic risk when compared to insulin glargine, and insulin detemir has generally but not consistently demonstrated less weight gain than insulin glargine in T2DM. The benefits of basal insulin analogs relative to NPH insulin are well recognized, including less FBG variability, lower risk of hypoglycemia, and less weight gain specifically with insulin detemir. However, NPH insulin continues to be widely prescribed, which may be due in part to economic considerations. While NPH insulin generally costs less per prescription, insulin detemir has been shown to be cost effective compared to NPH insulin as well as insulin glargine. Therefore, insulin detemir is an effective option from both clinical and economic perspectives for patients with T1DM or T2DM who require basal insulin to achieve glycemic control.