Achieve control: a pragmatic clinical trial of insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus other basal insulins in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes

Post Hoc Analysis Evaluating the Impact of Antihyperglycemic Background Therapies on Attainment of A1C Targets Without Hypoglycemia in the ACHIEVE Control Pragmatic, Real-Life Study

BACKGROUND

ACHIEVE Control, a prospective, open-label, randomized, pragmatic, real-life study in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes (A1C 8.0-11.0%), demonstrated superiority of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) versus first-generation standard-of-care basal insulin (SOC-BI; glargine 100 units/mL or insulin detemir) in achieving individualized A1C targets without documented symptomatic (glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL] or <3.0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycemia (American Diabetes Association level 3) at 6 months. Noninsulin antihyperglycemic background therapies are commonly used; however, sulfonylureas may increase hypoglycemia risk. This post hoc analysis assessed outcomes according to background therapy.

METHODS

Subgroup analyses were performed per concomitant use/nonuse of sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. End points (6 and 12 months) included A1C target attainment without documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia, A1C target attainment, and absence of documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Odds ratios (ORs) at 12 months mostly favored Gla-300 versus SOC-BI across subgroups except in analysis of SGLT2 inhibitors, in which ORs were similar. Among sulfonylurea users, ORs at 12 months strongly favored Gla-300 versus SOC-BI for all end points, particularly A1C target achievement without documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]; OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.53) or severe hypoglycemia and achievement of no documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (glucose <3.0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL]; OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.52) or severe hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that, in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes, Gla-300 is effective with a risk of hypoglycemia that is lower than or similar to that of SOC-BI regardless of background medication. Individuals receiving concomitant sulfonylureas were more likely to remain without symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia with Gla-300.

Target attainment in insulin-naive patients at high risk for hypoglycemia: Results from ACHIEVE Control

AIMS

To better understand outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes at high risk of hypoglycemia, we conducted post hoc analyses in subgroups of participants from the real-world ACHIEVE Control study (NCT02451137) with ≥1 hypoglycemia risk factor.

METHODS

Insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes and A1c ≥8% were randomized 1:1 to insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) or standard-of-care basal insulin (SOC-BI). Participants had documented history of ≥1 risk factors for hypoglycemia: chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, dementia or blindness, age ≥65 years, or history of hypoglycemia. Outcomes included individualized A1c target attainment without documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] ≤3.9 mmol/L or <3.0 mmol/L) or severe hypoglycemia, A1c target attainment, and absence of documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia at 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS

Within subgroups, odds ratios generally showed trends favoring Gla-300 versus SOC-BI, particularly for hypoglycemia avoidance in participants ≥65 years of age (BG ≤3.9 mmol/L; odds ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-2.03) and those with chronic kidney disease (BG ≤3.9 mmol/L; odds ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-4.12). Results were consistent with the overall population.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest potential benefit of Gla-300 versus SOC-BI for avoiding hypoglycemia in participants with ≥1 hypoglycemia risk factor.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Evidence that antihyperglycaemic therapy is beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. While the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) found tighter glycaemic control to be positive, other studies, such as the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, found the effects of an intensive therapy to lower blood glucose to near normal levels to be more harmful than beneficial. Study results also showed different effects for different antihyperglycaemic drugs, regardless of the achieved blood glucose levels. In consequence, firm conclusions on the effect of interventions on patient-relevant outcomes cannot be drawn from the effect of these interventions on blood glucose concentration alone. In theory, the use of newer insulin analogues may result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine U100 and U300, insulin detemir and insulin degludec) with NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin (human isophane insulin) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

For this Cochrane Review update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 5 November 2019, except Embase which was last searched 26 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 24 RCTs. Of these, 16 trials compared insulin glargine to NPH insulin and eight trials compared insulin detemir to NPH insulin. In these trials, 3419 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomised to insulin glargine and 1321 people to insulin detemir. The duration of the included trials ranged from 24 weeks to five years. For studies, comparing insulin glargine to NPH insulin, target values ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.8 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 140 mg/dL) for fasting blood glucose (FBG), from 4.4 mmol/L to 6.6 mmol/L (80 mg/dL to 120 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, when applicable. Blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target values for studies comparing insulin detemir to NPH insulin ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for FBG, less than 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) to less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and 5.8% to less than 6.4% HbA1c, when applicable. All trials had an unclear or high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Overall, insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Changes in HbA1c were comparable for long-acting insulin analogues and NPH insulin. Insulin glargine compared to NPH insulin had a risk ratio (RR) for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.06; absolute risk reduction (ARR) -1.2%, 95% CI -2.0 to 0; 14 trials, 6164 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The RR for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.09; P = 0.13; ARR -0.7%, 95% CI -1.3 to 0.2; 10 trials, 4685 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with insulin glargine reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treatment with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin found an RR for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.45 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.20; P = 0.11; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.4 to 0.4; 5 trials, 1804 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Peto odds ratio for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; P = 0.007; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.4; 5 trials, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with detemir also reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Information on patient-relevant outcomes such as death from any cause, diabetes-related complications, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects was insufficient or lacking in almost all included trials. For those outcomes for which some data were available, there were no meaningful differences between treatment with glargine or detemir and treatment with NPH. There was no clear difference between insulin-analogues and NPH insulin in terms of weight gain. The incidence of adverse events was comparable for people treated with glargine or detemir, and people treated with NPH. We found no trials comparing ultra-long-acting insulin glargine U300 or insulin degludec with NPH insulin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While the effects on HbA1c were comparable, treatment with insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Treatment with insulin detemir also reduced the incidence of serious hypoglycaemia. However, serious hypoglycaemic events were rare and the absolute risk reducing effect was low. Approximately one in 100 people treated with insulin detemir instead of NPH insulin benefited. In the studies, low blood glucose and HbA1c targets, corresponding to near normal or even non-diabetic blood glucose levels, were set. Therefore, results from the studies are only applicable to people in whom such low blood glucose concentrations are targeted. However, current guidelines recommend less-intensive blood glucose lowering for most people with type 2 diabetes in daily practice (e.g. people with cardiovascular diseases, a long history of type 2 diabetes, who are susceptible to hypoglycaemia or older people). Additionally, low-certainty evidence and trial designs that did not conform with current clinical practice meant it remains unclear if the same effects will be observed in daily clinical practice. Most trials did not report patient-relevant outcomes.

A pragmatic randomized clinical trial of insulin glargine 300 U/mL vs first-generation basal insulin analogues in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes: 6-month outcomes of the ACHIEVE Control study

AIMS

To compare the safety and efficacy of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus first-generation standard-of-care basal insulin analogues (SOC-BI; insulin glargine 100 U/mL or insulin detemir) at 6 months.

METHODS

In the 12-month, open-label, multicentre, randomized, pragmatic ACHIEVE Control trial, insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 64 to 97 mmol/mol (8.0%-11.0%) after ≥1 year of treatment with ≥2 diabetes medications were randomized to Gla-300 or SOC-BI. The composite primary endpoint, evaluated at 6 months, was the proportion of participants achieving individualized HbA1c targets per Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) criteria without documented symptomatic (blood glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia at any time of the day at 6 months.

RESULTS

Of 1651 and 1653 participants randomized to Gla-300 and SOC-BI, respectively, 31.3% and 27.9% achieved the composite primary endpoint at 6 months (odds ratio [OR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.39; P = 0.03 for superiority); 78.4% and 75.3% had no documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.41). Changes from baseline to month 6 in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, weight, and BI analogue dose were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among insulin-naïve adults with poorly controlled T2D, Gla-300 was associated with a statistically significantly higher proportion of participants achieving individualized HEDIS HbA1c targets without documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia (vs SOC-BI) in a real-life population managed in a usual-care setting. The ACHIEVE Control study results add value to treatment decisions and options for patients, healthcare providers, payers and decision makers.

Insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus first-generation basal insulin analogues in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes: 12-month outcomes of ACHIEVE Control, a prospective, randomized, pragmatic real-life clinical trial

AIM

To report the effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus standard-of-care basal insulin analogues (SOC-BI) at 12 months in the ACHIEVE Control trial, which is a prospective pragmatic randomized real-life study in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

A total of 3304 insulin-naïve adults with T2D and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 64 to 97 mmol/mol (8.0% to 11.0%) after ≥1 year of treatment with two or more antihyperglycaemic agents were randomized to Gla-300 or SOC-BI. Key secondary endpoints included HbA1c target attainment without documented symptomatic (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia at 12 months.

RESULTS

At 12 months, 26.1% (Gla-300) and 23.7% (SOC-BI) of adults achieved HbA1c targets without documented symptomatic (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.35); 33.0% and 29.5%, respectively, achieved HbA1c targets without documented symptomatic (<3.0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02-1.38). The OR for HbA1c target achievement was 1.15 (95% CI 0.99-1.34), and favoured Gla-300 versus SOC-BI for absence of documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia at 12 months for both ≤3.9 mmol/L (≤70 mg/dL; OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05-1.40) and < 3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL; OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.07-1.48).

CONCLUSION

Gla-300 tended to be associated with lower hypoglycaemia risk than SOC-BI in real-world clinical practice during the 12-month follow-up.

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 (HbA_1c > 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 HbA_1c 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 HbA_1c 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 HbA_1c 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.

Glycaemic goal attainment and hypoglycaemia outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients initiating insulin glargine 300 units/mL or 100 units/mL: Real-world results from the DELIVER Naïve cohort study

AIMS

To compare HbA1c and hypoglycaemia in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) or 100 units/mL (Gla-100).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study examined electronic medical records of insulin-naïve adults with T2D who initiated Gla-300 or Gla-100 during March 2015 through to December 2016 with active records for ≥12 months before and ≥6 months after initiation, and ≥1 valid HbA1c value during 6-month baseline and 90-180-day follow-up. Outcomes included HbA1c and hypoglycaemia. Cohorts were propensity score-matched (1:2) on baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using broader inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The matched cohorts included 1004 Gla-300 and 2008 Gla-100 initiators (mean age 60.4 years; 53.2% male). During 6-month follow-up, Gla-300 versus Gla-100 initiators had a greater mean HbA1c decrease (-1.52 ± 2.08% vs. -1.30 ± 2.12%; P = 0.003) and more patients achieved HbA1c <7% (25.0% vs. 21.5%; P = 0.029) and <8% (55.0% vs. 49.2%; P = 0.002); and HbA1c <7% (21.9% vs. 17.4%; P = 0.003) and <8% (49.1% vs. 41.8%; P < 0.001) without hypoglycaemia. Gla-300 initiators were similarly or less likely to have any or inpatient/emergency department-associated hypoglycaemia during 3- and 6-month follow-up (e.g. any hypoglycaemia to 6 months: 9.7% vs. 12.5%; adjusted odds ratio 0.61; P = 0.057).

CONCLUSIONS

Among insulin-naïve adults with T2D, Gla-300 was associated with significantly better HbA1c reductions (latest value during 90-180-day follow-up) and similar or improved hypoglycaemia outcomes (3- and 6-month follow-up) than Gla-100.

Achievement of Target A1C <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) by U.S. Type 2 Diabetes Patients Treated With Basal Insulin in Both Randomized Controlled Trials and Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVE

Many patients with type 2 diabetes do not reach glycemic goals despite basal insulin treatment. This study assessed the achievement of a target A1C <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) after initiation of basal insulin in two settings.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of pooled randomized controlled trial (RCT) data, from 11 24-week studies of patients initiating basal insulin performed between 2000 and 2005 and of outpatient electronic medical record (EMR) data from the General Electric Centricity database for insulin-naive patients initiating basal insulin between 2005 and 2012. Baseline characteristics stratified by target A1C and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) attainment were compared descriptively.

RESULTS

In the RCT dataset, 49.0% of patients failed to achieve the target A1C at 6 months versus 72.4% and 72.9% at 6 and 12 months in the EMR dataset, respectively. Despite this, in the RCT dataset, 79.4% of patients achieved the target A1C and/or an FPG <130 mg/dL. In the EMR dataset, only 47.6% and 47.3% of patients achieved an A1C <7.0% and/or FPG <130 mg/dL at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Overall, patients with an A1C >7.0% had a longer diabetes duration and were more likely to be female, nonwhite, and self-funding or covered by Medicaid. Among patients with an A1C >7.0%, more RCT patients (58.0%) had an FPG <130 mg/dL than EMR patients at 6 months (27.8%) and 12 months (27.7%).

CONCLUSION

Unmet needs remain after basal insulin initiation, particularly in real-world settings, where many patients require further insulin titration. In both populations, patients failing to achieve the target A1C despite attaining an FPG <130 mg/dL require interventions to improve postprandial control.

Levator Pull-Out Suture Technique for Immediate Postoperative Correction of Eyelid Asymmetry After Ptosis Surgery in Asians

BACKGROUND

Postoperative eyelid asymmetry is the most common complaint of patients after undergoing blepharoplasty and ptosis correction surgery. Calibrating eyelid asymmetry during ptosis correction surgery is still difficult for surgeons despite the development of innovative procedures. Our levator pull-out suture technique for correcting postoperative eyelid asymmetry after ptosis surgery is introduced.

METHODS

A total of 330 patients who underwent ptosis correction surgery with upper blepharoplasty from 2016 to 2017 were enrolled in our study. All surgeries were performed using the levator pull-out suture technique, and the postoperative eyelid asymmetry was corrected in the outpatient clinic at 2-3 days after the operation. Patient satisfaction was evaluated preoperatively and at 1 week and 2 months postoperatively using a questionnaire. Visual acuity, marginal reflex distance 1 (MRD1), and vertical palpebral fissure length asymmetry were measured preoperatively and compared to values taken postoperatively.

RESULTS

Patient satisfaction regarding asymmetry increased from 2.7/5 (preoperatively) to 4.1/5 points (postoperatively). MRD1 and vertical palpebral fissure length increased from 1.1/1.2 and 6.8/6.8 mm (preoperatively), respectively, to 2.8/2.9 and 8.5/8.6 mm (postoperatively), respectively. The asymmetry of MRD1 and vertical palpebral fissure length before and after surgery were corrected from 0.45/1.81 to 0.01/0.19 mm (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our innovative surgical method of using the levator pull-out suture technique is relatively simple and allows for finer suture adjustments postoperatively to effectively correct eyelid asymmetry, with satisfactory results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences of new generation, longer-acting basal insulins: potential implications for clinical practice in type 2 diabetes

The treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is often complicated by factors such as patient co-morbidities, complex drug-drug interactions, and management of adverse events. In addition, some of these factors are highly dependent on the nature of the treatment regimen and the molecular and physical properties of the drugs being used to treat patients with this disease. This calls for a better understanding of how the properties of individual drugs affect the overall outcome for patients with diabetes. Clinical pharmacology studies to assess the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics of new diabetes drugs play an important role in advancing our understanding of the interactions between a drug and the human body. Specific PK and PD techniques such as the glucose clamp test can be applied to assess the properties of drugs used for the treatment of diabetes. Basal insulin analogs are a common treatment option for the maintenance of glycemic control in patients with T2D. These drugs work by mimicking endogenous insulin secretion within the body and provide stable and prolonged insulin action to achieve optimal glucose levels. Insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin degludec (IDeg) 100 U/mL and 200 U/mL represent a new generation of longer-acting basal insulins. These drugs demonstrate improved PK and PD properties compared with previous basal insulins, allowing them to more closely mimic physiological basal insulin secretion. Here we review the methods used to evaluate the PK and PD profiles of Gla-300 and IDeg and describe studies that have investigated the PK/PD properties of these drugs in type 1 diabetes. The aim of this review is to inform primary care physicians of the value and limitations of data from clinical pharmacology studies when prescribing these agents for the management of T2D.

Better glycaemic control and less hypoglycaemia with insulin glargine 300 U/mL vs glargine 100 U/mL: 1-year patient-level meta-analysis of the EDITION clinical studies in people with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) vs insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) over 12 months in a patient-level meta-analysis, using data from the EDITION studies in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS

EDITION 1, 2 and 3 were multicentre, randomized, open-label, 2-arm, parallel-group, treat-to-target phase IIIa studies. Similar study designs and endpoints enabled a meta-analysis to be conducted.

RESULTS

Reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) were better sustained over 12 months with Gla-300 than with Gla-100 (least squares [LS] mean difference in change from baseline: -0.10 % [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.18 to -0.02] or -1.09 mmol/mol [95% CI -2.01 to -0.20]; P = .0174). Risk of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L) or severe hypoglycaemia was 15% lower with Gla-300 vs Gla-100 at night (relative risk 0.85 [95% CI 0.77-0.92]) and 6% lower at any time of day (relative risk 0.94 [95% CI 0.90-0.98]). Rates of hypoglycaemia were 18% lower with Gla-300 vs Gla-100 at night (rate ratio 0.82 [95% CI 0.67-0.99]), but comparable at any time of day. HbA1c <7.0 % without nocturnal hypoglycaemia was achieved by 24% more participants with Gla-300 than with Gla-100 (relative risk 1.24 [95% CI 1.03-1.50]). Severe hypoglycaemia was rare; in both treatment groups the incidence of events at any time of day was ≤3.6%, while rates were ≤0.08 events per participant-year.

CONCLUSIONS

In a broad population of people with T2DM over 12 months, use of Gla-300 provided more sustained glycaemic control and significantly lower hypoglycaemia risk at night and at any time of day compared with Gla-100.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL Versus Insulin Glargine 100 U/mL in High-Risk and Low-Risk Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Stratified Using Common Clinical Performance Measures

BACKGROUND

To determine whether previously reported reductions in hypoglycemia associated with insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) are impacted by patient risk category in type 2 diabetes (T2D), clinical performance measures based on the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) were applied to patient-level data from the EDITION 2 and EDITION 3 clinical trials that compared Gla-300 and Gla-100.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis, patients were stratified as low risk (LR) if patients were <65 years old with no comorbidities derived from HEDIS (HbA1c target <7.0% [53 mmol/mol]), or as high risk (HR) if patients were either ≥65 years old or had one or more HEDIS-defined comorbidities (HbA1c target <8.0% [64 mmol/mol]). Primary endpoint was a composite of patients achieving HbA1c target without confirmed or severe hypoglycemia over 6 months in the different treatment groups in each of the EDITION trials.

RESULTS

There was a statistically nonsignificant trend of more patients treated with Gla-300 achieving the composite endpoint compared with Gla-100 in both the LR and HR patient cohorts, regardless of prior insulin experience. A similar trend was observed for the composite endpoint of HbA1c target without nocturnal hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a consistent, nonsignificant trend suggesting that Gla-300 might reduce the burden of hypoglycemia compared with Gla-100 in patients with T2D irrespective of whether they are classed as LR or HR based on age- and National Committee for Quality Assurance Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set-derived comorbidities.