Continuation versus discontinuation of insulin secretagogues when initiating insulin in type 2 diabetes

A practical approach to the clinical challenges in initiation of basal insulin therapy in people with type 2 diabetes

Initiating insulin therapy with a basal insulin analogue has become a standard of care in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Despite increasing choices in pharmacological approaches, intensified glucose monitoring and improvements in quality of care, many patients do not achieve the desired level of glycaemic control. Although insulin therapy, when optimized, can help patients reach their glycaemic goals, there are barriers to treatment initiation on both the side of the patient and provider. Providers experience barriers based on their perceptions of patients' capabilities and concerns. They may lack the confidence to solve the practical problems of insulin therapy and avoid decisions they perceive as risky for their patients. In this study, we review recommendations for basal insulin initiation, focussing on glycaemic targets, titration, monitoring, and combination therapy with non-insulin anti-hyperglycaemic medications. We provide practical advice on how to address some of the key problems encountered in everyday clinical practice and give recommendations where there are gaps in knowledge or guidelines. We also discuss common challenges faced by people with T2DM, such as weight gain and hypoglycaemia, and how providers can address and overcome them.

Benefits of insulin degludec/liraglutide are maintained even in patients discontinuing sulphonylureas or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors upon initiation of degludec/liraglutide therapy: A post hoc analysis of the DUAL II and DUAL IX trials

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and safety of initiating insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who had discontinued pretrial sulphonylureas (SUs) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) versus patients not previously treated with these regimens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In DUAL II, patients with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin and metformin ± SU/glinides were randomized to insulin degludec or IDegLira (both capped at 50 U). In DUAL IX, patients were randomized to insulin glargine U100 (no maximum dose) or IDegLira, as add-on to sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors ± oral antidiabetic drugs. In this post hoc analysis, patients were grouped according to pretrial use of SU (DUAL II) or DPP4i (DUAL IX).

RESULTS

Regardless of pretrial SU/DPP4i use, IDegLira was favourable versus insulin comparators with respect to change in HbA1c and body weight. Lower hypoglycaemia rates and comparable end-of-trial daily insulin dose were achieved with IDegLira, regardless of pretrial regimen. There was no clinically relevant increase in mean self-measured blood glucose in the early weeks after IDegLira initiation. There was no statistically significant interaction between the randomized treatments and previous SU/DPP4i use.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegLira was more favourable compared with degludec or glargine U100 in terms of change in HbA1c and body weight, regardless of antecedent treatment. Clinicians should be aware of a potential transient rise in self-measured blood glucose when transitioning therapy in patients. This shows that SUs/DPP4is can be safely discontinued, without deterioration in glycaemic control when initiating IDegLira, allowing a simplified treatment regimen.

Use of non-insulin diabetes medicines after insulin initiation: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Clinical guidelines recommend that metformin be continued after insulin is initiated among patients with type 2 diabetes, yet little is known regarding how often metformin or other non-insulin diabetes medications are continued in this setting.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to characterize rates and use patterns of six classes of non-insulin diabetes medications: biguanides (metformin), sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1 receptor agonists), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4 inhibitors), and sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitors (SGLT2 inhibitors), among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin. We used the 2010–2015 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters data examining 72,971 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 18–65 years old who initiated insulin and had filled a prescription for a non-insulin diabetes medication in the 90 days prior to insulin initiation. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients refilling the various non-insulin diabetes medications during the first 90 days after insulin initiation. We also used time-to-event analysis to characterize the time to discontinuation of specific medication classes.

Results

Metformin was the most common non-insulin medication used prior to insulin initiation (N = 53,017, 72.7%), followed by sulfonylureas (N = 25,439, 34.9%) and DPP4 inhibitors (N = 8,540, 11.7%). More than four out of five patients (N = 65,902, 84.7%) refilled prescriptions for any non-insulin diabetes medications within 90 days after insulin initiation. Within that period, metformin remained the most common medication with the highest continuation rate of 84.6%, followed by SGLT2 inhibitors (81.9%) and TZDs (79.3%). Sulfonylureas were the least likely medications to be continued (73.6% continuation) though they remained the second most common medication class used after insulin initiation. The median time to discontinuation varied by therapeutic class from the longest time to discontinuation of 26.4 months among metformin users to the shortest (3.0 months) among SGLT2 inhibitor users.

Conclusion

While metformin was commonly continued among commercially insured adults starting insulin, rates of continuation of other non-insulin diabetes medications were also high. Further studies are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of continuing insulin secretagogues and newer diabetes medications after insulin initiation.

Changes in metformin use and other antihyperglycemic therapies after insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

When patients with type 2 diabetes initiate insulin, metformin should be continued while continuation of other antihyperglycemics has unclear benefit. We aimed to identify practice patterns in antihyperglycemic therapy during the insulin transition, and determine factors associated with metformin continuation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) trial which randomized overweight/obese adults under ambulatory care for type 2 diabetes to an intensive lifestyle intervention or diabetes support and education. Among the 931 participants who initiated insulin over ten years, we described longitudinal changes in antihyperglycemic medications during the insulin transition, and performed multivariable logistic regression to estimate the association between patient characteristics and metformin continuation.

RESULTS

Before insulin initiation, 81.0% of patients used multiple antihyperglycemics, the most common being metformin, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. After insulin initiation, metformin was continued in 80.3% of patients; other antihyperglycemics were continued less often, yet 58.0% of patients were treated with multiple non-insulin antihyperglycemics. Metformin continuation was inversely associated with age (fully adjusted (a) OR 0.60 per 10 years [0.42-0.86]), serum creatinine above safety thresholds (aOR 0.09 [0.02-0.36]), lower income (P = 0.025 for trend), taking more medications (aOR 0.92 per medication [0.86-0.98]), and initiating rapid, short, or premixed insulin (aOR 0.59 [0.39-0.89]).

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of patients with type 2 diabetes continue metformin after insulin initiation, consistent with guidelines. Other antihyperglycemics are frequently continued along with insulin, and further research is needed to determine which, if any, patients may benefit from this.

Evidence-based recommendations for insulin intensification strategies after basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Over the time due to progressive nature of diabetes, proactive intensification of the existing insulin therapy becomes imminent as it minimizes patients' exposure to chronic hypo/hyperglycaemia and reduces weight gain while achieving individualized glycaemic targets. This review focuses on the strength of evidence behind various options for intensification, primarily the insulins as also the GLP-1 analogues. The recommendations presented here are meant to serve as a guide for the physician managing type 2 diabetes patients requiring insulin intensification upon failing of basal insulin therapy.

The Efficacy of IDegLira (Insulin Degludec/Liraglutide Combination) in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with a GLP-1 Receptor Agonist and Oral Therapy: DUAL III Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes necessitates treatment intensification. This often involves intensification with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) initially, followed by other agents, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), with the majority of patients eventually requiring insulin therapy. Therefore, this trial aimed to investigate the efficacy of IDegLira (combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) in controlling glycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled on a GLP-1RA and OADs.

METHODS

In this 26-week open-label phase 3b trial, patients on maximum-dose GLP-1RA therapy (liraglutide once daily or exenatide twice daily) with metformin alone or with pioglitazone and/or sulfonylurea were randomized 2:1 to IDegLira once daily (n = 292) or to unchanged GLP-1RA therapy (n = 146), continuing OADs at the pre-trial dose.

RESULTS

After 26 weeks, HbA_1c reductions were superior with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA; estimated treatment difference -0.94% (-10.3 mmol/mol), p < 0.001. Mean HbA_1c reduced from 7.8% to 6.4% (61.5 to 46.9 mmol/mol) with IDegLira and from 7.7 to 7.4% (60.8 to 57.1 mmol/mol) with unchanged GLP-1RA. With IDegLira, 75% and 63% of patients achieved HbA_1c <7% and ≤6.5%, compared with 36% and 23% on unchanged GLP-1RA, respectively. Fasting plasma glucose and 9-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles improved significantly more with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA. The mean change in weight was +2.0 kg with IDegLira, versus -0.8 kg with unchanged GLP-1RA. Rates of confirmed hypoglycemia were low, but higher with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA. The safety profile of IDegLira was consistent with previous findings; both treatments were well tolerated and the rate of nausea was low in both groups. IDegLira improved patient-reported outcomes versus unchanged GLP-1RA.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegLira provided superior glycemic control versus unchanged GLP-1RA and represents an efficacious intensification approach in patients inadequately controlled on GLP-1RAs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01676116.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

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 [HbA_1c 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 HbA_1c 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 HbA_1c 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.

Role of incretin-based therapies and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors as adjuncts to insulin therapy in Type 2 diabetes, with special reference to IDegLira

The progressive nature of Type 2 diabetes necessitates treatment intensification over time in order to maintain glycaemic control, with many patients ultimately requiring insulin therapy. While insulin has unlimited potential efficacy, its initiation is often delayed and improvements in glycaemic control are typically accompanied by weight gain and an increased risk of hypoglycaemia, particularly as HbA1c approaches and falls below target levels. This may account for the sub-optimal control often achieved after insulin initiation. Combining insulin with antihyperglycaemic therapies that have a low risk of hypoglycaemia and are weight-neutral or result in weight loss is a therapeutic strategy with the potential to improve Type 2 diabetes management. Although the effects differ with each individual class of therapy, clinical trials have shown that adding a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor or sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor to insulin regimens can offer a significant reduction in HbA1c without substantially increasing hypoglycaemia risk, or weight. The evidence and merit of each approach are reviewed in this paper. Once-daily co-formulations of a basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist have been developed (insulin degludec/liraglutide) or are under development (lixisenatide/insulin glargine). Insulin degludec/liraglutide phase III trials and a lixisenatide/insulin glargine phase II trial have shown robust HbA1c reductions, with weight loss and a low risk of hypoglycaemia. With insulin degludec/liraglutide now approved in Europe, an important consideration will be the types of patients who may benefit most from a fixed-ratio combination; this is discussed in the present review, and we also take a look toward future developments in the field.

Physical characteristics that predict final basal insulin dose in type 2 diabetes mellitus, with a special focus on BMI

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The possibility to predict final insulin dose based on patient's characteristics would allow for efficient titration for patients with higher dose needs. The primary aim of this post-hoc analysis of the L2T3 study was to determine predictors for final dose. Specifically, we focused on the relationship between BMI and dose. The secondary aims were to investigate (i) the predictive value of BMI and age on final dose and (ii) the possibility to tailor the starting dose of insulin based on BMI and age.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed two stepwise regression analyses, one using all baseline characteristics, and one using physical characteristics and FPG which can be assessed "at the bedside" only. Furthermore, median [min, max] final doses of groups stratified according to BMI and age were calculated. BMI clearly correlated with final dose in IU (Pearson correlation 0.42 [0.37; 0.48], p < 0.001). Characteristics which can be assessed "at the bedside" that predict high final dose were allocation to detemir, absence or discontinuation of insulin secretagogues, high BMI, low age, male gender and high FPG. Final dose varied among strata (BMI ≥30 kg/m(2): 64 IU; BMI <30 kg/m(2): 38 IU, p < 0.001 and age <59 years: 52 IU; age ≥59 years: 44 IU, p < 0.001). All groups stratified for both BMI and age showed similarly low minimal final dose (5-17 IU).

CONCLUSION

Our data showed a high predictive value of BMI on final dose. However, it does not seem possible to tailor starting dose based on BMI and age.

A Patient-level Analysis of Efficacy and Hypoglycaemia Outcomes Across Treat-to-target Trials with Insulin Glargine Added to Oral Antidiabetes Agents in People with Type 2 Diabetes

Background: A better understanding of hypoglycaemia risk when insulin is used in combination with one or more oral antidiabetes agents may assist in the treatment decision-making process for the clinician and address concerns regarding hypoglycaemia when initiating or intensifying insulin therapy. The objective of this study was to analyse efficacy and hypoglycaemia outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin glargine (IG) with metformin (MET), sulphonylurea (SU) or MET+SU. Methods: Patient-level data were pooled from 15 randomised, treat-to-target trials (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] targets <5.6 mmol/l) with a duration >24 weeks. Efficacy outcomes included glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c), FPG and HbA_1c target achievement. Overall hypoglycaemia events were assessed by a confirmed PG value of <3.9, <3.1 and <2.8 mmol/l or assistance required; daytime, nocturnal (00:01-05:59 AM); and severe (assistance required or with confirmed PG <2.0 mmol/l). Results: Overall, 2,837 IG patients were analysed, with either MET (634), SU (906) or MET+SU (1,297) as background oral antidiabetes agents. Endpoint HbA_1c in IG+MET and IG+MET+SU-treated patients was significantly lower than in IG+SU-treated patients (adjusted difference -0.32 %; p=0.0001 and -0.33 %; p=0.0002, respectively). Fewer patients achieved endpoint HbA_1c <7.0 % with IG+SU (32 %) versus IG+MET (57 %) or IG+MET+SU (49 %). IG+SU and IG+MET+SU led to significant increases in overall, daytime and nocturnal hypoglycaemia versus IG+MET; severe hypoglycaemia was rare. Weight gain was lowest in IG+MET patients (adjusted difference -1.51 kg versus IG+SU; p<0.0001; -0.78 kg versus IG+MET+SU; p=0.0037) despite higher insulin doses (0.51 U/kg versus 0.43 and 0.42 U/kg, respectively). Conclusions: Better glycaemic goal achievement and reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain were observed with IG+MET versus IG+SU and IG+MET+SU, albeit with an increased insulin dose requirement.

Effect of once-daily insulin detemir on oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) use in patients with type 2 diabetes

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

There are acknowledged benefits to continuing metformin when initiating insulin, but there appears to be growing concern over the role of sulphonylureas and thiazolidinediones when used in combination with insulin. This analysis investigates the effects of continuing or discontinuing oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) following the initiation of once-daily insulin detemir.

METHODS

SOLVE is a 24-week, multinational observational study of insulin detemir initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with one or more OADs.

RESULTS

In the total cohort (n = 17 374), there were significant improvements in HbA1c (-1·3%, 95% CI -1·34; -1·27%) and weight (-0·6 kg, 95% CI -0·65; -0·47 kg), with an increase in the incidence rate of minor hypoglycaemia (+0·256 events ppy, P < 0·001), but not severe hypoglycaemia (-0·038 events ppy, P < 0·001). Study participants had information on OAD use either prior to (n = 17 086) or during insulin initiation (n = 16 346). HbA1c reductions were significantly greater in patients continuing treatment with metformin (-1·3% vs. -1·1%, P < 0·01), thiazolidinediones (-1·3% vs. -1·0%, P < 0·01) and DPP-IV inhibitors (-1·3% vs. -0·9%, P < 0·001). Final insulin doses were significantly greater in patients discontinuing treatment with sulphonylureas (0·29 vs. 0·26 IU/kg, P < 0·001), glinides (0·28 vs. 0·26 IU/kg, P < 0·01), thiazolidinediones (0·31 vs. 0·26 IU/kg, P < 0·001) and DPP-IV inhibitors (0·35 vs. 0·29 IU/kg, P < 0·001) compared with patients continuing these respective agents. All patient subgroups had a mean weight loss irrespective of OAD continuation, apart from those continuing thiazolidinediones (+0·2 kg). The largest improvements in weight were seen following the withdrawal of sulphonylureas and thiazolidinediones (-1·1 and -1·1 kg, respectively).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Discontinuation (or switching) of OADs at the time of insulin initiation appears to be governed principally by concerns about hypoglycaemia and weight. HbA1c improvements were smaller in patients discontinuing OADs at the time of insulin initiation and may be associated with insufficient insulin titration.

The CLUES study: a cluster randomized clinical trial for the evaluation of cardiovascular guideline implementation in primary care

BACKGROUND

The appropriate care for people with cardiovascular risk factors can reduce morbidity and mortality. One strategy for improving the care for these patients involves the implementation of evidence-based guidelines. To date, little research concerning the impact of such implementation strategies in our setting has been published. Aims. To evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted tailored intervention in the implementation of three cardiovascular risk-related guidelines (hypertension, type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia) in primary care in the Basque Health Service compared with usual implementation.

METHODS/DESIGN

A two-year cluster randomized clinical trial in primary care in two districts in the Basque Health Service. All primary care units are randomized. Data from all patients with diabetes, hypertension and those susceptible to coronary risk screening will be analyzed.Interventions. The control group will receive standard implementation. The experimental group will receive a multifaceted tailored implementation strategy, including a specific web page and workshops for family physicians and nurses.Endpoints. Primary endpoints: annual request for glycosylated hemoglobin, basic laboratory tests for hypertension, cardiovascular risk screening (women between 45-74 and men between 40-74 years old). Secondary endpoints: other process and clinical guideline indicators.

ANALYSIS

Data will be extracted from centralized computerized medical records. ANALYSIS will be performed at a primary care unit level weighted by cluster size.

DISCUSSION

The main contribution of our study is that it seeks to identify an effective strategy for cardiovascular guideline implementation in primary care in our setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN88876909.

One-year sustained glycemic control and weight reduction in type 2 diabetes after addition of liraglutide to metformin followed by insulin detemir according to HbA1c target

AIM

To investigate durability of efficacy and safety over 1 year of the sequence of liraglutide added to metformin followed by add-on insulin detemir if glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) remains ≥7.0%.

METHODS

Patients previously uncontrolled on metformin±sulfonylurea with HbA1c ≥7.0% after 12 weeks of adding liraglutide 1.8mg to metformin (run-in; sulfonylurea discontinued) were randomized 1:1 to 52 weeks' open-label add-on detemir (randomized treatment [RT] group; n=162) or continuation without detemir (randomized control [RC] group; n=161). Patients with HbA1c <7.0% continued 52 weeks' unchanged treatment (observational group; n=498).

RESULTS

Run-in HbA1c improvement from 8.3% to 7.6% (-0.6%) was further enhanced in the RT group (-0.50%) and maintained in the RC group (+0.01%) over 52 weeks; estimated treatment difference (ETD)[95%CI]: -0.51 [-0.70;-0.31]; P<0.0001. More RT (52%) than RC patients (22%) achieved HbA1c <7.0% at 52 weeks (P<0.0001). Run-in weight loss (-3.5kg) was maintained in the RT (-0.05kg) and enhanced in the RC group (-1.02kg) after 52 weeks; ETD [95%CI]: 0.97 [0.04;1.91]; P=0.04. No major hypoglycemia occurred; minor hypoglycemia rates were low across groups (0.034-0.228 events/patient-year).

CONCLUSIONS

Supplementing metformin+liraglutide with detemir for 52 weeks improved glycemic control with sustained weight loss and low hypoglycemia rate.

Safety and effectiveness of insulin analogues in type 2 diabetic patients from Algeria: a sub-analysis of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To determine the safety and effectiveness of insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients in the Algerian cohort of the A₁chieve study and to examine the status of T2D management across different regions in Algeria.

METHODS

Patients starting therapy with biphasic insulin aspart 30, insulin detemir, insulin aspart (IAsp) or IAsp + basal insulin at their physicians' decision were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs), including major hypoglycaemia. Secondary outcomes included changes from baseline to Week 24 in hypoglycaemia, glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPPG), weight and quality of life (QoL, evaluated using the EQ-5D questionnaire).

RESULTS

Overall, 1494 patients (mean ± SD age: 60.1 ± 10.3 years; body mass index: 28.1 ± 4.9 kg/m(2); HbA1c: 9.2 ± 1.8%) were enrolled. Poor baseline glucose control was revealed across the different Algerian regions with mean HbA1c varying from 8.9% to 9.6%. Two SADRs were reported during the study. The proportion of patients reporting major hypoglycaemic events decreased from 1.1% at baseline to 0.2% at Week 24 (p = 0.0017). Significant improvements in mean HbA1c (-1.3 ± 2.0%), FPG (-38.8 ± 79.9 mg/dL) and post-breakfast PPPG (-51.4 ± 97.1 mg/dL) were observed in the entire cohort (all p < 0.001). The mean body weight increased by 0.9 ± 3.8 kg, while QoL increased by 9.2 ± 16.7 points after 24 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin analogue therapy was well-tolerated and significantly improved blood glucose control over 24 weeks in the Algerian cohort.

Once-daily initiation of basal insulin as add-on to metformin: a 26-week, randomized, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of once-daily insulin initiation using insulin detemir (detemir) or insulin glargine (glargine) added to existing metformin in type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This 26-week, multinational, randomized, treat-to-target trial involved 457 insulin-naïve adults with T2D (HbA1c 7-9%). Detemir or glargine was added to current metformin therapy [any second oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) discontinued] and titrated to a target fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≤90 mg/dl (≤5.0 mmol/l). Primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA1c.

RESULTS

Mean (s.d.) HbA1c decreased with detemir and glargine by 0.48 and 0.74%-points, respectively, to 7.48% (0.91%) and 7.13% (0.72%) [estimated between-treatment difference, 0.30 (95% CI: 0.14-0.46)]. Non-inferiority for detemir at the a priori level of 0.4%-points was not established. The proportions of patients reaching HbA1c ≤ 7% at 26 weeks were 38% and 53% (p = 0.026) with detemir and glargine, respectively. FPG decreased ∼43.2 mg/dl (∼2.4 mmol/l) in both groups [non-significant (NS)]. Treatment satisfaction was good for both insulins. Hypoglycaemia, which occurred infrequently, was observed less with detemir than glargine [rate ratio 0.73 (95% CI 0.54-0.98)]. The proportions of patients reaching HbA1c ≤ 7% without hypoglycaemia in the detemir and glargine groups were 32% and 38% (NS), respectively. Weight decreased with detemir [-0.49 (3.3) kg] and increased with glargine [+1.0 (3.1) kg] (95% CI for difference: -2.17 to -0.89 kg).

CONCLUSION

While both detemir and glargine, when added to metformin therapy, improved glycaemic control, glargine resulted in greater reductions in HbA1c, while detemir demonstrated less weight gain and hypoglycaemia.

Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in a Bangladeshi subgroup of type 2 diabetic patients switched from biphasic human insulin 30: a sub-analysis of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To determine the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) therapy in Bangladeshi type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients switched from biphasic human insulin (BHI) as a sub-analysis of the A₁chieve study.

METHODS

Bangladeshi patients switched from BHI to BIAsp 30 at the discretion of their physicians were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs), including major hypoglycaemia. Secondary outcomes comprised changes from baseline to Week 24 in the number of hypoglycaemic events, glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPPG), systolic blood pressure and body weight. Quality of life (QoL) was evaluated at baseline and Week 24 using the EQ-5D questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 82 patients (mean age ± SD: 52.3 ± 12.2 years; body mass index: 25.6 ± 3.3 kg/m(2)) with a mean diabetes duration of 9.5 ± 5.5 years and mean duration on insulin of 2.5 ± 2.4 years were included. The mean BIAsp 30 dose was 0.49 ± 0.20 U/kg at baseline and 0.47 ± 0.17 U/kg at Week 24. No SADRs were reported. No events of hypoglycaemia (overall, major, minor or nocturnal) were reported at Week 24. Mean HbA1c, FPG and PPPG levels improved by -2.5 ± 1.3%, -65.0 ± 31.8 mg/dL and -119.3 ± 48.7 mg/dL, respectively, over 24 weeks. QoL also improved (mean change from baseline: +28.5 ± 12.9 points).

CONCLUSION

Switching from BHI to BIAsp 30 therapy improved blood glucose control and was well-tolerated in this Bangladeshi subgroup.

Clinical evidence and mechanistic basis for vildagliptin's effect in combination with insulin

Due to the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes, many patients need insulin as add-on to oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in order to maintain adequate glycemic control. Insulin therapy primarily targets elevated fasting glycemia but is less effective to reduce postprandial hyperglycemia. In addition, the risk of hypoglycemia limits its effectiveness and there is a concern of weight gain. These drawbacks may be overcome by combining insulin with incretin-based therapies as these increase glucose sensitivity of both the α- and β-cells, resulting in improved postprandial glycemia without the hypoglycemia and weight gain associated with increasing the dose of insulin. The dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitor vildagliptin has also been shown to protect from hypoglycemia by enhancing glucagon counterregulation. The effectiveness of combining vildagliptin with insulin was demonstrated in three different studies in which vildagliptin decreased A1C levels when added to insulin therapy without increasing hypoglycemia. This was established with and without concomitant metformin therapy. Furthermore, the effectiveness of vildagliptin appears to be greater when insulin is used as a basal regimen as opposed to being used to reduce postprandial hyperglycemia, since improvement in insulin secretion likely plays a minor role when relatively high doses of insulin are administered before meals. This article reviews the clinical experience with the combination of vildagliptin and insulin and discusses the mechanistic basis for the beneficial effects of the combination. The data support the use of vildagliptin in combination with insulin in general and, in line with emerging clinical practice, suggest that treating patients with vildagliptin, metformin, and basal insulin could be an attractive therapeutic option.

Combining GLP-1 receptor agonists with insulin: therapeutic rationales and clinical findings

Due to the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the emergent trend towards diagnosis in younger patients and the progressive nature of this disease, many more patients than before now require insulin to maintain glycaemic control. However, there is a degree of inertia among physicians and patients regarding the initiation and intensification of insulin therapy, in part due to concerns about the associated weight gain and increased risk of hypoglycaemia. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) increase insulin release and suppress glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner, thus conferring glycaemic control with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia. GLP-1RAs also promote weight loss, and have beneficial effects on markers of β cell function, lipid levels, blood pressure and cardiovascular risk markers. However, the durability of their effectiveness is unknown and, compared with insulin, the antihyperglycaemic efficacy of GLP-1RAs is limited. The combination of a GLP-1RA and insulin might thus be highly effective for optimal glucose control, ameliorating the adverse effects typically associated with insulin. Data from clinical studies support the therapeutic potential of GLP-1RA-insulin combination therapy, typically showing beneficial effects on glycaemic control and body weight, with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia and, in established insulin therapy, facilitating reductions in insulin dose. In this review, the physiological and pharmacological rationale for using GLP-1RA and insulin therapies in combination is discussed, and data from clinical studies that have assessed the efficacy and safety of this treatment strategy are outlined.

Sequential intensification of metformin treatment in type 2 diabetes with liraglutide followed by randomized addition of basal insulin prompted by A1C targets

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the addition of liraglutide to metformin in type 2 diabetes followed by intensification with basal insulin (detemir) if glycated hemoglobin (A1C) ≥7%.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In 988 participants from North America and Europe uncontrolled on metformin ± sulfonylurea, sulfonylurea was discontinued and liraglutide 1.8 mg/day added for 12 weeks (run-in). Subsequently, those with A1C ≥7% were randomized 1:1 to 26 weeks' open-label addition of insulin detemir to metformin + liraglutide (n = 162) or continuation without insulin detemir (n = 161). Patients achieving A1C <7% continued unchanged treatment (observational arm). The primary end point was A1C change between randomized groups.

RESULTS

Of 821 participants completing the run-in, 61% (n = 498) achieved A1C <7% (mean change -1.3% from 7.7% at start), whereas 39% (n = 323) did not (-0.6% from 8.3% at start). During run-in, 167 of 988 (17%) withdrew; 46% of these due to gastrointestinal adverse events. At week 26, A1C decreased further, by 0.5% (from 7.6% at randomization) with insulin detemir (n = 162) versus 0.02% increase without insulin detemir (n = 157) to 7.1 and 7.5%, respectively (estimated treatment difference -0.52 [95% CI -0.68 to -0.36]; P < 0.0001). Forty-three percent of participants with insulin detemir versus 17% without reached A1C <7%. Mean weight decreased by 3.5 kg during run-in, then by 0.16 kg with insulin detemir or 0.95 kg without insulin detemir. In the randomized phase, no major hypoglycemia occurred and minor hypoglycemia rates were 0.286 and 0.029 events per participant-year with and without insulin detemir (9.2 vs. 1.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Supplementation of metformin with liraglutide and then insulin detemir was well tolerated in the majority of patients, with good glycemic control, sustained weight loss, and very low hypoglycemia rates.

Intensifying treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: adding insulin

Treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is typically initiated with a combination of lifestyle modification and oral drugs. This treatment provides sustained glycemic control in some patients, but many others require administration of insulin as their disease progresses and pancreatic β cells are lost. One of the most important points in long-term care for patients with type 2 diabetes is the transition to insulin therapy. Health care professionals must choose the most appropriate insulin preparations for management of patients with type 2 diabetes who cannot achieve treatment goals by using other therapies. These include basal, premixed, and basal-bolus insulin regimens. In addition, there are multiple approaches to initiation of insulin treatment, including addition of basal insulin to oral drugs, switching patients to a premixed insulin formulation, or basal-bolus treatment. The pharmacist can play a key role in the transition to insulin therapy by providing education and assisting in day-to-day management of patients with type 2 diabetes who require insulin for intensification of treatment.

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Health care providers and patients have lots of choice to treat type 2 diabetes, but the blood glucose improvement is limited. The one therapy with unlimited potential (at least theoretically) is insulin. Many studies show that glucose control is achievable with insulin safely in most patients with type 2 diabetes. Effective diabetes management at the primary care or specialty level requires a belief in the importance of insulin therapy in uncontrolled patients with type 2 diabetes. This review details the theories, observed outcomes, and how-tos regarding insulin use in type 2 diabetes.

Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine for type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Chronically elevated blood glucose levels are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Many diabetes patients will eventually require insulin treatment to maintain good glycaemic control. There are still uncertainties about the optimal insulin treatment regimens for type 2 diabetes, but the long-acting insulin analogues seem beneficial. Several reviews have compared either insulin detemir or insulin glargine to NPH insulin, but research directly comparing both insulin analogues is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with each other in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, online registries of ongoing trials and abstract books. Date of last search was January 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine with a duration of 12 weeks or longer were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the studies and extracted the data. Pooling of studies by means of random-effects meta-analysis was performed.

MAIN RESULTS

This review examined four trials lasting 24 to 52 weeks involving 2250 people randomised to either insulin detemir or glargine. Overall, risk of bias of the evaluated studies was high. Insulin glargine was dosed once-daily in the evening. Insulin detemir was initiated once-daily in the evening with the option of an additional dose in the morning in three studies and initiated twice-daily in one study. Of randomised patients 13.6% to 57.2% were injecting insulin detemir twice-daily at the end of trial.Glycaemic control, measured by glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and HbA1c equal to or less than 7% with or without hypoglycaemia, did not differ statistically significantly between treatment groups.The results showed no significant differences in overall, nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia between treatment groups.Insulin detemir was associated with less weight gain. Treatment with insulin glargine resulted in a lower daily basal insulin dose and a lower number of injection site reactions.There was no significant difference in the variability of FPG or glucose values in 24-hour profiles between treatment groups. It was not possible to draw conclusions on quality of life, costs or mortality. Only one trial reported results on health-related quality of life and showed no significant differences between treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses suggest that there is no clinically relevant difference in efficacy or safety between insulin detemir and insulin glargine for targeting hyperglycaemia. However, to achieve the same glycaemic control insulin detemir was often injected twice-daily in a higher dose but with less weight gain, while insulin glargine was injected once-daily, with somewhat fewer injection site reactions.

Basal plus basal-bolus approach in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is characterized by insulin resistance and progressive β-cell deterioration. As β-cell function declines, most patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral agents, in monotherapy or combination, will require insulin therapy. Addition of basal insulin (glargine, detemir, or NPH/neutral protamine lispro insulin) to previous treatment is accepted as the simplest way to start insulin therapy in those patients. But even when basal insulin is adequately titrated, some patients will also need prandial insulin to achieve or maintain individual glycemic targets over time. Starting with premixed insulin is an effective option, but it is frequently associated with increased hypoglycemia risk, fixed meal schedules, and weight gain. As an alternative, a novel approached known as "basal plus strategy" has been developed. This approach considers the addition of increasing injections of prandial insulin, beginning with the meal that has the major impact on postprandial glucose values. Finally, if this is not enough intensification to basal-bolus will be necessary. In reducing hyperglycemia, this modality still remains the most effective option, even in people with type 2 diabetes. This article will review the currently evidence on the basal plus strategy and also its progression to basal-bolus therapy. In addition, practical recommendations to start and adjust basal plus therapy will be provided.

Hypoglycemia rates with basal insulin analogs

Hypoglycemia has for the most part been studied inadequately for both of the commonly used long-acting insulin analogs in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Almost all existing trials have been designed to investigate changes in glycemic control and not differences in hypoglycemia events. In this review, we present an overview of the hypoglycemic data available from the randomized controlled trials comparing insulin glargine and insulin detemir with NPH or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The limited head-to-head glargine versus detemir data are also discussed with comments on early results relating to the newer insulin analog, degludec. Basal insulin analogs are associated with reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Most studies have excluded participants with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia or previous severe events, however, and hypoglycemia reporting is variable and inconsistent. This limits interpretation for those with long-duration type 1 diabetes, and particularly impaired awareness of hypoglycemia, or long-duration more insulin-deficient type 2 diabetes. New optimally designed studies are required to elucidate the true impact of basal analogs on hypoglycemia burden in those living with long-term insulin therapy.