Relative contribution of basal and postprandial hyperglycaemia stratified by HbA1c categories before and after treatment intensification with dulaglutide

Ultra rapid lispro improves postprandial glucose control versus lispro in combination with basal insulin: a study based on CGM in type 2 diabetes in China

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of URLi (ultra rapid lispro insulin) compared to insulin lispro as bolus insulin with basal insulin using CGM in the individuals with type 2 diabetes(T2D) in China.

Methods

This was a double-blind, randomized, parallel, prospective, phase 3 study. Subjects with uncontrolled T2D were recruited and randomized 1:2 into the insulin lispro and URLi groups. Subjects received a consistent basal insulin regimen during the study and self-administered insulin lispro or URLi before each meal throughout the treatment period. Subjects underwent a 3-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) at the baseline and endpoint respectively, and then CGM data were analyzed. The primary endpoint was to compare the difference in postprandial glucose (PPG) control using CGM between the two groups.

Results

A total of 57 subjects with T2D completed the study. Our CGM data showed that postprandial glucose excursions after breakfast (BPPGE) in the URLi group was lower than that in the insulin lispro group (1.59 ± 1.57 mmol/L vs 2.51 ± 1.73 mmol/L, p = 0.046). 1-hour PPG was observed to decrease more in the URLi group than that in the insulin lispro group (-1.37 ± 3.28 mmol/L vs 0.24 ± 2.58 mmol/L, p = 0.047). 2-hour PPG was observed to decrease more in the URLi group than that in the insulin lispro group (-1.12 ± 4.00 mmol/L vs 1.22 ± 2.90 mmol/L, p = 0.021). The mean HbA1c level decreased by 1.1% in the URLi group and 0.99% in the insulin lispro group, with no treatment difference (p = 0.642). In the CGM profile, TBR was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.743). The weight gain also did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.303).

Conclusion

URLi can control breakfast PPG better than insulin lispro in adults with T2D in China, while it is non-inferior in improving HbA1c. The incidence of hypoglycemic and weight gain were similar between the two groups.

Efficacy of Dulaglutide in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Different Glycemic Patterns: a Post-hoc Analysis of the Phase 3 AWARD-CHN2 Trial

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the effect of dulaglutide on the relative contributions of fasting glucose (FG) and postprandial glucose (PPG) to overall hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and assessed responses to dulaglutide versus insulin glargine (glargine) in patients with different baseline glycemic patterns.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 AWARD-CHN2 trial included data from 560 Chinese patients with uncontrolled T2D who received once-weekly dulaglutide (1.5 or 0.75 mg) or once-daily glargine for 26 weeks. The relative contributions of FG and PPG to overall hyperglycemia across different glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) categories were calculated using the area under the curve of 7-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles. Patients were also categorized into four subgroups according to median baseline FG (cutoff 8.9 mmol/L) and PPG (cutoff 12.5 mmol/L): low FG/low PPG, low FG/high PPG, high FG/low PPG and high FG/high PPG. Changes in glycemic parameters and body weight were calculated for patients in each subgroup.

RESULTS

Among patients receiving dulaglutide, higher HbA1c was associated with higher relative contributions of FG and lower relative contributions of PPG to overall hyperglycemia at baseline and week 26 of dulaglutide treatment. After 26 weeks, dulaglutide 1.5 mg led to statistically greater decreases in HbA1c from baseline versus glargine in most subgroups, including the high FG subgroups, and a numerically greater decrease in HbA1c was observed in the low FG/high PPG subgroup. Across all subgroups, higher proportions of patients achieved HbA1c ≤ 6.5% with dulaglutide 1.5 mg than with glargine (all P < 0.05). Dulaglutide 1.5 mg showed better control of body weight than glargine in all subgroups (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide reduced HbA1c through reductions in both FG and PPG across HbA1c categories in T2D patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Furthermore, treatment with dulaglutide provided a greater reduction in HbA1c than glargine, regardless of baseline FG and PPG levels.

A new approach for investigating the relative contribution of basal glucose and postprandial glucose to HbA1C

To develop an accurate method for evaluating the relative contributions of basal glucose (BG) and postprandial glucose (PPG) to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in subjects with hyperglycaemia using a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS®). The subjects were divided into the normal glucose tolerance (NGT), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), newly-diagnosed type 2 diabetes (NDDM), and drug-treated type 2 diabetes (T2DM) groups. We evaluated the relative contributions of BG and PPG to HbA1c in patients with hyperglycaemia according to three different baseline values. Subjects (n = 490) were grouped as follows: 92 NGT, 36 IGT, 131 NDDM, and 231 T2DM. The relative contributions of PPG to HbA1c were calculated using baseline values of 6.1 mmol/L, 5.6 mmol/L, and the 24-h glucose curve of the NGT group. The relative contribution of PPG to HbA1c decreased progressively from the IGT group to the T2DM group. Compared with the 24-h glucose curve as the baseline, the relative contribution of PPG was overestimated in 9.04% and 1.76% of the subjects when 6.1 mmol/L and 5.6 mmol/L were used as baselines, respectively (P < 0.01), in T2DM patients. The 24-h glucose curve of NGT is more suitable for studying the relative contributions of BG and PPG to HbA1c and it is more precise, as it considers physiological fluctuations in NGT after meals. However, 5.6 mmol/L can be used when the 24-h glucose curve for NGT is unavailable; using 6.1 mmol/L as a baseline value may overestimate the contribution to the HbA1c. There is no unified standard for assessing the contributions of basal glucose (BG) and postprandial glucose (PPG) to HbA1c. The 24-h glucose curve of NGT is more suitable for studying the relative contributions of BG and PPG to HbA1c, as it considers physiological fluctuations in NGT after meals. However, 5.6 mmol/L can be used when the 24-h glucose curve for NGT is unavailable; using 6.1 mmol/L as a baseline value may overestimate the contribution to the HbA1c.

Comparative effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide in Asian type 2 diabetes patients: a multi-institutional cohort study and meta-analysis

Background

Head-to-head comparison of clinical effectiveness between dulaglutide and liraglutide in Asia is limited. This study was aimed to assess the real-world comparative effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study by utilizing multi-institutional electronic medical records to identify real-world type 2 diabetes patients treated with dulaglutide or liraglutide during 2016–2018 in Taiwan and followed up until 2019. Effectiveness outcomes were assessed at every 3 months in the 1-year follow-up. Propensity score techniques were applied to enhance between-group comparability. Significant differences in changes of effectiveness outcomes between treatment groups during the follow-up were examined and further analyzed using mixed-model repeated-measures approaches.

Results

A total of 1512 subjects receiving dulaglutide and 1513 subjects receiving liraglutide were identified. At 12 months, significant HbA1c changes from baseline were found in both treatments (dulaglutide: − 1.06%, p < 0.001; liraglutide: − 0.83%, p < 0.001), with a significant between-group difference (− 0.23%, 95% confidence interval − 0.38 to − 0.08%, p < 0.01). Both treatments yielded significant declines in weight, alanine aminotransferase level, and estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline (dulaglutide: − 1.14 kg, − 3.08 U/L and − 2.08 mL/min/1.73 m², p < 0.01; liraglutide: − 1.64 kg, − 3.65 U/L and − 2.33 mL/min/1.73 m², p < 0.001), whereas only dulaglutide yielded a significant systolic blood pressure reduction (− 2.47 mmHg, p < 0.001). Between-group differences in changes of weight, blood pressure, and liver and renal functions at 12 months were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

In real-world T2D patients, dulaglutide versus liraglutide was associated with better glycemic control and comparable effects on changes of weight, blood pressure, and liver and renal functions.

Insulin treatment of patients with gestational diabetes: does dosage play a role?

Background and objective: In nonpregnant patients high insulin requirements are associated with hypoglycemia and weight gain but not with improvement in glucose control. The effect of insulin requirement on maternal and neonatal outcomes in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is yet unknown.Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnancy according to insulin requirements in women with GDM who were followed and delivered at the Yitzhak Shamir Medical Center between 2006 and 2016. The daily insulin dose in units per body weight was divided into quartiles and analyses were performed to compare the lowest, highest, and two middle quartiles. The primary outcome was a composite of any of the following: cesarean-section (CS), preeclampsia, macrosomia and large for gestational age (LGA) birth weight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, need for phototherapy, and neonatal hypoglycemia.Results: Women were divided according to their insulin requirements as follows: 79 (24.8%) women who needed <0.13 IU/kg/day of insulin (insulin-sensitive group), 160 (50%) women who needed 0.14-0.42 IU/kg/day of insulin (comparison-group), and the rest who needed >0.43 IU/kg/day of insulin (insulin resistant group). There were no differences in the composite outcome between the groups (64.6, 61.3, and 69.6% for the insulin sensitive-, comparison- and resistant- groups, respectively, p = .44). Women in the insulin-resistant group had higher fasting glucose levels in the first trimester (91, 98 and 102 mg/dL for women in the insulin sensitive-, comparison- and insulin-resistant groups, respectively; p = .01). Women in the insulin-sensitive group had significantly better glycemic control (fasting glucose levels ≤90 mg/dL and 1-hour and 2-hour postprandial glucose levels ≤140 mg/dL and ≤120 mg/dL for more than 80% of measurements) than those in the insulin-resistant group (70.3 versus 29.9%; p < .001). The rate of CS was significantly higher in the insulin-resistant group (42.3 versus 24.1%; p = .03), but the rate of LGA birth weight was surprisingly higher in the insulin-sensitive group (29.5 versus 16.7%, p = .04). After controlling for confounders, women in the insulin-sensitive group had a decreased risk for CS in relation to the comparison group (OR = 0.46, 95%CI 0.23-0.9, p = .025).Conclusion: We found no association between insulin requirements and adverse composite outcome in women with GDM. However, those with higher insulin requirements have poorer glucose control and higher rates of CS than those with lower insulin requirements. Larger studies are needed to inquire short- and long-term outcomes of insulin requirements on fetal and maternal outcomes.