The treat-to-target trial: randomized addition of glargine or human NPH insulin to oral therapy of type 2 diabetic patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare the abilities and associated hypoglycemia risks of insulin glargine and human NPH insulin added to oral therapy of type 2 diabetes to achieve 7% HbA(1c).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a randomized, open-label, parallel, 24-week multicenter trial, 756 overweight men and women with inadequate glycemic control (HbA(1c) >7.5%) on one or two oral agents continued prestudy oral agents and received bedtime glargine or NPH once daily, titrated using a simple algorithm seeking a target fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <or=100 mg/dl (5.5 mmol/l). Outcome measures were FPG, HbA(1c), hypoglycemia, and percentage of patients reaching HbA(1c) <or=7% without documented nocturnal hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Mean FPG at end point was similar with glargine and NPH (117 vs. 120 mg/dl [6.5 vs. 6.7 mmol/l]), as was HbA(1c) (6.96 vs. 6.97%). A majority of patients ( approximately 60%) attained HbA(1c) <or=7% with each insulin type. However, nearly 25% more patients attained this without documented nocturnal hypoglycemia (<or=72 mg/dl [4.0 mmol/l]) with glargine (33.2 vs. 26.7%, P < 0.05). Moreover, rates of other categories of symptomatic hypoglycemia were 21-48% lower with glargine.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematically titrating bedtime basal insulin added to oral therapy can safely achieve 7% HbA(1c) in a majority of overweight patients with type 2 diabetes with HbA(1c) between 7.5 and 10.0% on oral agents alone. In doing this, glargine causes significantly less nocturnal hypoglycemia than NPH, thus reducing a leading barrier to initiating insulin. This simple regimen may facilitate earlier and effective insulin use in routine medical practice, improving achievement of recommended standards of diabetes care.

Lower within-subject variability of insulin detemir in comparison to NPH insulin and insulin glargine in people with type 1 diabetes

The aim of this randomized double-blind study was to compare the within-subject variability of the glucose-lowering effect of a novel insulin analog, insulin detemir, with that of insulin glargine and NPH insulin in people with type 1 diabetes. Fifty-four subjects (32 males and 22 females, age 38 +/- 10 years [mean +/- SD], BMI 24 +/- 2 kg/m(2), HbA(1c) 7.5 +/- 1.2%, diabetes duration 18 +/- 9 years) participated in this parallel group comparison. Each subject received four single subcutaneous doses of 0.4 units/kg of either insulin detemir (n = 18), insulin glargine (n = 16), or human NPH insulin (n = 17) under euglycemic glucose clamp conditions (target blood glucose concentration 5.5 mmol/l) on four identical study days. The pharmacodynamic (glucose infusion rates [GIRs]) and pharmacokinetic (serum concentrations of insulin detemir, human insulin, and insulin glargine) properties of the basal insulin preparations were recorded for 24 h postdosing. Insulin detemir was associated with significantly less within-subject variability than both NPH insulin and insulin glargine, as assessed by the coefficient of variation (CV) for the pharmacodynamic end points studied [GIR-AUC((0-12 h)) 27% (detemir) vs. 59% (NPH) vs. 46% (glargine); GIR-AUC((0-24 h)) 27 vs. 68 vs. 48%; GIR(max) 23 vs. 46 vs. 36%; P < 0.001 for all comparisons]. Insulin detemir also provided less within-subject variability in the pharmacokinetic end points: maximal concentration (C(max)) 18 vs. 24 vs. 34%; INS-AUC((0- infinity )) 14 vs. 28 vs. 33%. The results suggest that insulin detemir has a significantly more predictable glucose-lowering effect than both NPH insulin and insulin glargine.

Insulin glargine or NPH combined with metformin in type 2 diabetes: the LANMET study

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

In type 2 diabetic patients we compared 9 months of combination therapy with insulin glargine and metformin with 9 months of NPH insulin combined with metformin. The primary focus was changes in HbA(1c); secondary focus was diurnal glucose profiles and symptomatic hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

In this investigator-initiated open, parallel-group clinical trial involving seven centres, 110 insulin-naive type 2 diabetic patients with poor glycaemic control (HbA(1c) >or=8.0%) on oral hypoglycaemic agents (90% using sulfonylurea plus metformin) were randomised to receive bedtime insulin glargine with metformin (G+MET) or bedtime NPH with metformin (NPH+MET) for 36 weeks. The patients were taught how to self-adjust their insulin dose and use a modem to send the results of home glucose monitoring to treatment centres. The goal was to achieve a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of 4.0 to 5.5 mmol/l in both groups.

RESULTS

During the last 12 weeks, FPGs averaged 5.75+/-0.02 and 5.96+/-0.03 mmol/l (p<0.001) and insulin doses were 68+/-5 and 70+/-6 IU/day (0.69+/-0.05 and 0.66+/-0.04 IU kg(-1) day(-1), NS) in the G+MET and NPH+MET groups, respectively. At 36 weeks, mean HbA(1c) was 7.14+/-0.12 and 7.16+/-0.14%, respectively (NS). Symptomatic, but not confirmed symptomatic, hypoglycaemia was significantly lower during the first 12 weeks in the G+MET group (4.1+/-0.8 episodes/patient-year) than in the NPH+MET group (9.0+/-2.3 episodes/patient-year, p<0.05), but not significantly different thereafter. Glucose levels before dinner were higher in the NPH+MET group (10.1+/-0.3 mmol/l) than in the G+MET group (8.6+/-0.3 mmol/l, p=0.002) throughout the 36-week study. With regard to baseline characteristics such as initial glycaemia or C-peptide, there was no difference between patients who achieved good glycaemic control (HbA(1c) <7.0%) and those who did not. Differences were seen in the following: between study centres, weight gain during the run-in period and insulin therapy, and FPG during the last 12 weeks (5.7+/-0.2 vs 6.7+/-0.3 mmol/l for patients reaching vs those not reaching target, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Good glycaemic control can be achieved with both G+MET and NPH+MET. Use of G+MET reduces symptomatic hypoglycaemia during the first 12 weeks and dinner time hyperglycaemia compared with NPH+MET.

Less hypoglycemia with insulin glargine in intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes. U.S. Study Group of Insulin Glargine in Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Insulin glargine (21A-Gly-30Ba-L-Arg-30Bb-L-Arg-human insulin) is a biosynthetic insulin analog with a prolonged duration of action compared with NPH human insulin. This study compared insulin glargine with NPH human insulin in subjects with type 1 diabetes who had been previously treated with multiple daily injections of NPH insulin and regular insulin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This study was a multicenter randomized parallel-group study in which subjects were randomized to receive premeal regular insulin and either insulin glargine (at bedtime) or NPH insulin (at bedtime for patients on once-daily therapy and at bedtime and in the morning for patients on twice-daily therapy) for up to 28 weeks. Dose titration of both basal insulins was based on capillary fasting whole blood glucose (FBG) levels; the goal was a premeal blood glucose concentration of 4.4-6.7 mmol/l.

RESULTS

A total of 534 well-controlled type 1 diabetic subjects (mean GHb 7.7%, mean fasting plasma glucose [FPG] 11.8 mmo/l) were treated. A small decrease in GHb levels was noted with both insulin glargine (-0.16%) and NPH insulin (-0.21%; P > 0.05). Significant reductions in median FPG levels from baseline (-1.67 vs. -0.33 mmol/l with NPH insulin, P = 0.0145) and a trend for a reduction in capillary FBG levels were achieved with insulin glargine. After the 1-month titration phase, significantly fewer subjects receiving insulin glargine experienced symptomatic hypoglycemia (39.9 vs. 49.2%, P = 0.0219) or nocturnal hypoglycemia (18.2 vs. 27.1%, P = 0.0116) with a blood glucose level <2.0 mmol/l compared with subjects receiving NPH insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower FPG levels with fewer episodes of hypoglycemia were achieved with insulin glargine compared with once- or twice-daily NPH insulin as part of a basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Insulin analogues (insulin detemir and insulin aspart) versus traditional human insulins (NPH insulin and regular human insulin) in basal-bolus therapy for patients with type 1 diabetes

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of the trial was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two types of basal-bolus therapy, using either the soluble long-acting basal insulin analogue, insulin detemir, in combination with the rapid-acting analogue, insulin aspart, or NPH insulin in combination with mealtime regular human insulin.

METHODS

In this 18-week, 1:1 randomised, open-labelled, parallel trial, 595 patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus received insulin detemir or NPH insulin in the morning and at bedtime in combination with mealtime insulin aspart or regular human insulin respectively.

RESULTS

Glycaemic control with insulin detemir/insulin aspart was improved in comparison with NPH insulin/regular human insulin (HbA1c: 7.88% vs 8.11%; mean difference: -0.22% point [95% CI: -0.34 to -0.10]; p<0.001). Self-measured 8-point plasma glucose profiles differed between the groups (p<0.001), with lower postprandial plasma glucose levels in the insulin detemir/insulin aspart group. Within-person day-to-day variation in plasma glucose was lower with insulin detemir/insulin aspart than with NPH insulin/regular human insulin (SD: 2.88 vs 3.12 mmol/l; p<0.001). Risk of overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia (23.00-06.00 hours) was, respectively, 21% (p=0.036) and 55% (p<0.001) lower in the insulin detemir/insulin aspart group than in the NPH insulin/regular human insulin group. Body weight (adjusted for baseline and change in HbA1c) was 1 kg lower with insulin detemir/insulin aspart than with NPH insulin/regular human insulin (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Basal-bolus therapy using insulin detemir/insulin aspart offers a better balance of control and tolerability than with NPH insulin/regular human insulin. The low variability and more physiological action profiles generated with these insulin analogues resulted in improved glycaemic control with lower risk of hypoglycaemia and no concomitant body weight increase.

Glimepiride combined with morning insulin glargine, bedtime neutral protamine hagedorn insulin, or bedtime insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes. A randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 2 diabetes are often treated with oral antidiabetic agents plus a basal insulin.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of glimepiride combined with either morning or bedtime insulin glargine or bedtime neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

Open-label, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

111 centers in 13 European countries.

PATIENTS

695 patients with type 2 diabetes who were previously treated with oral antidiabetic agents.

INTERVENTION

Randomization to treatment with morning insulin glargine, bedtime NPH insulin, or bedtime insulin glargine for 24 weeks in addition to 3 mg of glimepiride. The insulin dose was titrated by using a predefined regimen to achieve fasting blood glucose levels of 5.56 mmol/L or lower (< or =100 mg/dL).

MEASUREMENTS

Hemoglobin A(1c) values, blood glucose levels, insulin dose, and body weight.

RESULTS

Hemoglobin A(1c) levels improved by -1.24% (two-sided 90% CI, -1.10% to -1.38%) with morning insulin glargine, by -0.96% (CI, -0.81% to -1.10%) with bedtime insulin glargine, and by -0.84% (CI, -0.69% to -0.98%) with bedtime NPH insulin. Hemoglobin A(1c) improvement was more pronounced with morning insulin glargine than with NPH insulin (0.40% [CI, 0.23% to 0.58%]; P = 0.001) or bedtime insulin glargine (0.28% [CI, 0.11% to 0.46%]; P = 0.008). Baseline to end-point fasting blood glucose levels improved similarly in all three groups. Nocturnal hypoglycemia was less frequent with morning (39 of 236 patients [17%]) and bedtime insulin glargine (52 of 227 patients [23%]) than with bedtime NPH insulin (89 of 232 patients [38%]) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The risk for nocturnal hypoglycemia was lower with glimepiride in combination with morning and bedtime insulin glargine than with glimepiride in combination with bedtime NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Morning insulin glargine provided better glycemic control than did bedtime insulin glargine or bedtime NPH insulin.

Insulin detemir is associated with more predictable glycemic control and reduced risk of hypoglycemia than NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen with premeal insulin aspart

OBJECTIVE

Insulin detemir is a soluble basal insulin analog with a unique mechanism of protracted action designed to reduce the variability associated with conventional basal insulins. This trial compared the glycemic control, risk of hypoglycemia, and effect on body weight of insulin detemir and NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes treated with rapid-acting insulin aspart at meals.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This study was a 6-month multinational open parallel-group comparison conducted at 46 centers in five countries and included 448 patients with type 1 diabetes randomized 2:1 to insulin detemir or NPH insulin, respectively.

RESULTS

After 6 months, comparable HbA(1c) levels were found between the two treatment groups. Fasting plasma glucose tended to be lower in patients treated with insulin detemir, but this difference was not statistically significant (-0.76 mmol/l, P = 0.097). Within-subject variation in self-measured fasting blood glucose was lower with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin (SD 3.37 vs. 3.78 mmol/l, P < 0.001). Risk of hypoglycemia was 22% lower with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin (P < 0.05) and 34% lower for nocturnal (2300-0600) hypoglycemia (P < 0.005). Nightly plasma glucose profiles were smoother and more stable with insulin detemir (P = 0.05). Body weight was significantly lower with insulin detemir at the end of the trial (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with insulin detemir resulted in more predictable glycemic control, with smoother plasma glucose profiles than NPH insulin and a significant reduction in the risk of hypoglycemia. The reduction in body weight with insulin detemir is a potential additional advantage. Regimens optimized for insulin detemir may be able to improve glycemic control beyond that possible with NPH insulin.

Efficacy and safety of HOE 901 versus NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes. The European Study Group of HOE 901 in type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

HOE 901 (Hoechst Marion Roussel, Frankfurt, Germany) is a biosynthetic insulin with a prolonged action. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of the long-acting insulin analog HOE 901 with NPH insulin regarding glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 333 type 1 diabetic patients were enrolled in this multinational parallel group trial. Subjects were randomized either to two different formulations of HOE 901 (the formulations differed only in zinc content) or to NPH insulin. The study was only partially blinded because patients can distinguish HOE 901 (a clear solution) from NPH (a cloudy suspension). In addition to premeal injections of regular insulin, patients received HOE 901 at bedtime or NPH once daily at bedtime or twice daily in the morning and at bedtime.

RESULTS

Fasting plasma glucose levels were significantly lower with HOE 901 (-1.88 mmol/l. P = 0.0005) as were fasting self-monitored blood glucose levels (-0.80 mmol/l, P = 0.0020). HbA1c levels also showed a significant reduction with HOE 901 (-0.14%) versus NPH (P = 0.030). The overall frequency of hypoglycemia did not differ, but the frequency of nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly (P = 0.0037) lower with HOE 901 (36 vs. 55%). However, this effect on nocturnal hypoglycemia was significant only versus NPH once daily not NPH twice daily. The pattern of adverse events and injection site reactions with HOE 901 was similar to that with NPH.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that HOE 901 achieves better control of fasting glucose and HbA1c levels over 4 weeks, and HOE 901 has a possible safety benefit in terms of nocturnal hypoglycemia.

A 16-week comparison of the novel insulin analog insulin glargine (HOE 901) and NPH human insulin used with insulin lispro in patients with type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and efficacy of the long-acting insulin analog, insulin glargine, as a component of basal bolus therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients with type 1 diabetes receiving basal-bolus insulin treatment with NPH human insulin and insulin lispro were randomized to receive insulin glargine (HOE 901), a long-acting basal insulin analog, once a day (n = 310) or NPH human insulin (n = 309) as basal treatment with continued bolus insulin lispro for 16 weeks in an open-label study NPH insulin patients maintained their prior schedule of administration once or twice a day, whereas insulin glargine patients received basal insulin once a day at bedtime.

RESULTS

Compared with all NPH insulin patients, insulin glargine patients had significant decreases in fasting blood glucose measured at home (means +/- SEM, -42.0 +/- 4.7 vs. -12.4 +/- 4.7 mg/dl [-2.33 +/- 0.26 vs. -0.69 +/- 0.26 mmol/l]; P = 0.0001). These differences were evident early and persisted throughout the study More patients in the insulin glargine group (29.6%) than in the NPH group (16.8%) reached a target fasting blood glucose of 119 mg/dl (< 6.6 mmol/l). However, there were no differences between the groups with respect to change in GHb. Insulin glargine treatment was also associated with a significant decrease in the variability of fasting blood glucose values (P = 0.0124). No differences in the occurrence of symptomatic hypoglycemia, including nocturnal hypoglycemia, were observed. Overall, adverse events were similar in the two treatment groups with the exception of injection site pain, which was more common in the insulin glargine group (6.1%) than in the NPH group (0.3%). Weight gain was 0.12 kg in insulin glargine patients and 0.54 kg in NPH insulin patients (P = 0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

Basal insulin therapy with insulin glargine once a day appears to be as safe and at least as effective as using NPH insulin once or twice a day in maintaining glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes receiving basal-bolus insulin treatment with insulin lispro.

Effects of QD insulin detemir or neutral protamine Hagedorn on blood glucose control in patients with type I diabetes mellitus using a basal-bolus regimen

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this trial was to compare the effects of QD basal insulin replacement using insulin detemir versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in basal-bolus therapy in combination with regular human insulin (HI) in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM).

METHODS

This was a 6-month, prospective, randomized, open-label, controlled, parallel-group trial conducted at 92 sites in Europe and Australia. The trial population included men and women with type 1 DM for at least 1 year aged > or = 18 years with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) <== 12% already taking QD basal-bolus treatment with an intermediate- or long-acting insulin and a fast-acting human insulin or insulin analogue as bolus insulin. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to 6 months of treatment with insulin detemir or NPH at bedtime in combination with HI with main meals. Main outcome measures were blood glucose control as assessed by HbA(1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 9-point self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) profiles, 24-hour continuous blood glucose profiles, hypoglycemia, weight gain, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of the 749 patients randomized to treatment, 747 were exposed to trial products and included in the intent-to-treat analysis set. Seven hundred patients completed the trial: 465 (94.7%) in the insulin detemir group and 235 (91.8%) in the NPH group. After 6 months, FPG was lower with insulin detemir than with NPH (-1.16 mmol/L difference; P = 0.001), whereas HbA(1c) did not differ significantly between treatments (-0.12% [95% CI, -0.25 to 0.02]; P = NS). Day-to-day variability in self-measured fasting blood glucose was lower with insulin detemir (SD, 2.82 vs 3.60 mmol/L; P < 0.001). The overall shape of the 9-point SMBG profiles differed significantly between treatments (P = 0.006), with lower glucose levels before breakfast with insulin detemir than with NPH (P < 0.001). There was a 26% reduction in the relative risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia with insulin detemir compared with NPH (P = 0.003). Gain in body weight was significantly lower after 6 months with insulin detemir than with NPH (-0.54 kg difference; P = 0.024). The frequency and type of adverse events were similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, QD administration of insulin detemir at bedtime resulted in lower fasting blood glucose levels with less day-to-day variability and less fluctuation from ean blood glucose levels over 24 hours than NPH insulin, combined with an overall reduction in the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia. These findings suggest that evening administration of insulin detemir may provide an opportunity to further improve fasting blood glucose targets.

Long-acting insulin analogues vs. NPH human insulin in type 1 diabetes. A meta-analysis

AIM

Basal insulin in type 1 diabetes can be provided using either NPH (Neutral Protamine Hagedorn) human insulin or long-acting insulin analogues, which are supposed to warrant a better metabolic control with reduced hypoglycaemic risk. Aim of this meta-analysis is the assessment of differences with respect to HbA1c (Glycated hemoglobin), incidence of hypoglycaemia, and weight gain, between NPH human insulin and each long-acting analogue.

METHODS

Of 285 randomized controlled trials with a duration > 12 weeks comparing long-acting insulin analogues (detemir or glargine) with NPH insulin in type 1 diabetic patients identified through Medline search and searches on www.clinicaltrials.gov, 20 met eligibility criteria (enrolling 3693 and 2485 in the long-acting analogues and NPH group respectively). Data on HbA1c and body mass index at endpoint, and incidence of any, nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia, were extracted and meta-analysed.

RESULTS

Long-acting analogues had a small, but significant effect on HbA1c [-0.07 (-0.13; -0.01)%; p = 0.026], in comparison with NPH human insulin. When analysing the effect of long-acting analogues on body weight, detemir was associated with a significantly smaller weight gain than human insulin [by 0.26 (0.06;0.47) kg/m2; p = 0.012]. Long-acting analogues were associated with a reduced risk for nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia [OR (Odd Ratio, 95% Confidence Intervals) 0.69 (0.55; 0.86), and OR 0.73 (0.60; 0.89) respectively; all p < 0.01].

CONCLUSIONS

The switch from NPH to long-acting analogues as basal insulin replacement in type 1 diabetic patients had a small effect on HbA1c, and also reduced the risk of nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia.

Comparison of the soluble basal insulin analog insulin detemir with NPH insulin: a randomized open crossover trial in type 1 diabetic subjects on basal-bolus therapy

OBJECTIVE

Insulin detemir (NN304) is a soluble basal insulin analog developed to cover basal insulin requirements. This trial aimed to compare the blood glucose-lowering effect of insulin detemir with that of NPH insulin (NPH) and to evaluate the two treatments with regard to intrasubject variation of fasting blood glucose, incidence of hypoglycemia, dose requirements, and safety.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This multicenter open randomized crossover trial in 59 type 1 diabetic subjects comprised a 2-week run-in period on a basal-bolus regimen with NPH insulin once daily, followed by two 6-week periods of optimized basal-bolus therapy with either once-daily insulin detemir or NPH insulin.

RESULTS

The area under the curve, in the time interval 23:00-8:00, derived from 24-h serum glucose profiles, was not statistically significantly different for the two treatment periods (insulin detemir:NPH ratio 89.2:83.5, P = 0.59). The intrasubject variation in fasting blood glucose during the last 4 days of treatment was lower for insulin detemir compared with NPH (P < 0.001). Mean dose requirements of insulin detemir were 2.35 times higher (95% CI 2.22-2.48) compared with NPH. During the last week of treatment, fewer subjects experienced hypoglycemic episodes on insulin detemir (60%) compared with NPH treatment (77%) (P = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin detemir was as effective as NPH in maintaining glycemic control when administered at a higher molar dose. The results indicate that insulin detemir may provide more predictable fasting blood glucose with lower intrasubject variation and reduced risk of hypoglycemia compared with NPH.

Metformin compared with insulin in the management of gestational diabetes mellitus: a randomized clinical trial

AIMS

To evaluate the effect of metformin and insulin in glycemic control and compare pregnancy outcome in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial was conducted in GDM women with singleton pregnancy and gestational age between 20 and 34 weeks who did not achieve glycemic control on diet were assigned randomly to receive either metformin (n=80) or insulin (n=80). The primary outcomes were maternal glycemic control and birth weight. The secondary outcomes were neonatal and obstetric complications.

RESULTS

Two groups were comparable regarding the maternal characteristics. Two groups were similar in mean FBS (P=0.68) and postprandial measurements (P=0.87) throughout GDM treatment. The neonates of metformin group had less rate of birth weight centile >90 than insulin group (RR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3-0.9, P=0.012). Maternal weight gain was reduced in the metformin group (P<0.001). Two groups were comparable according to neonatal and obstetric complications (P>0.05). In metformin group 14% of women needed to supplemental insulin to achieve euglycemia.

CONCLUSION

Metformin is an effective and safe alternative treatment to insulin for women with GDM. This study does not show significant risk of maternal or neonatal adverse outcome with the use of metformin.

Insulin detemir is characterized by a consistent pharmacokinetic profile across age-groups in children, adolescents, and adults with type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

This trial aimed to characterize for the first time the pharmacokinetic profile of insulin detemir, the novel soluble basal insulin analog, in children and adolescents compared with adults. Comparisons were also made with NPH insulin to determine any between-treatment difference in the effect of age on pharmacokinetic profile.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This single-center, open-label, randomized, crossover trial included children (aged 6-12 years, n = 13), adolescents (aged 13-17 years, n = 10), and adults (aged 18-65 years, n = 11) of both sexes. Subjects were given single doses of 0.5 units/kg s.c. insulin detemir or 0.5 IU/kg NPH insulin on 2 separate days. Serial blood sampling was performed for 24 h for analysis of serum insulin detemir, human insulin, and glucose concentrations.

RESULTS

The mean pharmacokinetic profile of insulin detemir was similar across all three age-groups. This was determined by statistical analyses of the data, which showed no overall age effect or between-group differences when pairwise comparisons were made between children (or adolescents) and adults on the parameters of the area under the curve (AUC), AUC from zero to infinity, AUC from 0 to 24 h [AUC((0-24 h))], and the maximum concentration measured during the 24 h after closing. No overall age effect for AUC((0-24 h)) and C(max) was detected for NPH insulin, but data were only analyzable from seven adults and pairwise comparisons did indicate that children and adults had different pharmacokinetic profiles. Less total variability in the pharmacokinetics of insulin detemir than NPH insulin was indicated by lower coefficients of variation in AUC, C(max), and time to maximum concentration in all three age-groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that insulin detemir can be used in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using titration guidelines similar to those used in adults. Moreover, insulin detemir may offer the advantage of greater predictability of response in comparison to NPH insulin due to lower total variability and a lesser degree of kinetic disparity across age-groups.

A one-year, randomised, multicentre trial comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin in combination with oral agents in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

The aim of the trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of the new, long-acting basal insulin, insulin glargine (LANTUS(R)), with NPH human insulin, each administered in a combination regimen with oral antidiabetic drugs in patients with Type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In a multicentre, open, randomised study, 570 patients with Type 2 diabetes, aged 34 - 80 years, were treated for 52 weeks with insulin glargine or NPH insulin given once daily at bedtime. Previous oral antidiabetic therapy was continued throughout the study.

RESULTS

There was a clinically relevant decrease in glycosylated haemoglobin (GHb) values from baseline to endpoint with both drugs (insulin glargine: - 0.46 %; NPH insulin: - 0.38 %; p = 0.415); also, this difference was statistically significant in the subgroup of overweight patients with BMI > 28 kg/m 2 (insulin glargine: - 0.42 %, NPH insulin: - 0.11 %; p = 0.0237). Over the entire treatment period, NPH insulin-treated patients (41 %) and insulin glargine-treated patients (35 %) experienced a similar level of symptomatic hypoglycaemia. A statistically significant difference was observed in the number of patients treated with NPH insulin who reported at least one episode of nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared with those treated with insulin glargine in the overall population and in the overweight subgroup (overall: 24 % vs. 12 %, p = 0.002; overweight: 22.2 % vs. 9.5 %, p = 0.0006), using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. These differences were most pronounced in insulin-naïve and overweight (BMI > 28 kg/m 2) sub-groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar for the two treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that insulin glargine is as effective as NPH insulin in achieving glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes, and is associated with fewer episodes of symptomatic hypoglycaemia, particularly nocturnal episodes.

Randomized cross-over trial of insulin glargine plus lispro or NPH insulin plus regular human insulin in adolescents with type 1 diabetes on intensive insulin regimens

OBJECTIVE

To compare blood glucose control and incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia in adolescents with type 1 diabetes on multiple injection regimens managed with either an insulin analog combination or NPH insulin plus regular human insulin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a randomized cross-over study, 28 adolescents with type 1 diabetes on multiple injection therapy received either insulin glargine prebedtime plus lispro preprandially (LIS/GLAR) or NPH insulin prebedtime plus regular human insulin preprandially (R/NPH). During each 16-week treatment arm, subjects completed home blood glucose profiles, and at the end of each treatment arm, they were admitted for an overnight metabolic profile. A total of 25 subjects completed the study.

RESULTS

Compared with R/NPH therapy, LIS/GLAR was associated with lower mean blood glucose levels (LIS/GLAR versus R/NPH): fasting (8.0 vs. 9.2 mmol/l, P < 0.0001), 2 h postbreakfast (8.1 vs. 10.7 mmol/l, P < 0.0005), prelunch (8.9 vs. 10.1 mmol/l, P < 0.01), and 2 h postlunch (8.0 vs. 9.5 mmol/l, P < 0.002). However, there was no difference in mean blood glucose levels before or after the evening meal. Incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia on overnight profiles was 43% lower on LIS/GLAR compared with R/NPH therapy; however, there was no difference in rates of self-reported symptomatic hypoglycemia. Total insulin dose required to achieve target blood glucose control was lower on LIS/GLAR (1.16 IU/kg) compared with R/NPH therapy (1.26 IU/kg, P < 0.005), but there was no significant difference in HbA(1c) levels (LIS/GLAR versus R/NPH: 8.7 vs. 9.1%, P = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy with insulin glargine plus lispro reduced the incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia and was at least as effective as R/NPH insulin therapy in maintaining glycemic control in adolescents on multiple injection regimens.

Comparison of three multiple injection regimens for Type 1 diabetes: morning plus dinner or bedtime administration of insulin detemir vs. morning plus bedtime NPH insulin

AIMS

This trial investigated the efficacy and safety of two different administration-time regimens with insulin detemir (IDet) to that of a conventional basal insulin regimen with NPH insulin (NPH).

METHODS

This multinational, 16-week, open, parallel group trial included 400 people with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) randomized to IDet either morning and before dinner (IDetmorn+din) or morning and bedtime (IDetmorn+bed), or to NPH morning and bedtime (NPHmorn+bed), all in combination with mealtime insulin aspart (IAsp).

RESULTS

HbA1c was comparable between the three groups after 16 weeks (P = 0.64), with reductions of 0.39-0.49% points. Lower fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was observed with IDetmorn+din and IDetmorn+bed compared with NPHmorn+bed (9.8 and 9.1 vs. 11.1 mmol/l, P = 0.006), whereas the IDet groups did not differ (P = 0.15). Within-person variation in self-measured FPG was significantly lower for both IDet regimens (sd IDetmorn+din 2.5, IDetmorn+bed 2.6 mmol/l) than for NPHmorn+bed (sd 3.1 mmol/l, P < 0.001), but was comparable between the IDet groups (P = 0.48). Ten-point plasma glucose profiles were lower between dinner and breakfast in the IDetmorn+din group (P = 0.043), compared with the two other groups. Risk of overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia was similar for the three groups. Lower mean bodyweight was observed with IDet compared with NPH after 16 weeks (difference: (IDetmorn+din)-1.3 kg, P < 0.001, (IDetmorn+bed)-0.6 kg, P = 0.050).

CONCLUSIONS

Both IDet regimens were well tolerated and provided lower and less variable glucose levels with no, or less, weight gain than NPH at comparable HbA1c. IDet can be administered either at dinner or bedtime, with similar glycaemic control according to the need of the individual person.

Comparison of Basal-Bolus and Premixed Insulin Regimens in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Premixed insulin is a commonly prescribed formulation for the outpatient management of patients with type 2 diabetes. The safety and efficacy of premixed insulin formulations in the hospital setting is not known.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a prospective, open-label trial, we randomized general medicine and surgery patients to receive a basal-bolus regimen with glargine once daily and glulisine before meals (n = 33) or premixed human insulin (30% regular insulin and 70% NPH insulin) twice daily (n = 39). Major outcomes included differences in daily blood glucose (BG) levels and frequency of hypoglycemic events (<70 mg/dL) between treatment groups.

RESULTS

At the first prespecified interim analysis, the study was stopped early because of an increased frequency of hypoglycemia >50% in patients treated with premixed human insulin. A total of 64% of patients treated with premixed insulin experienced one or more episodes of hypoglycemia compared with 24% in the basal-bolus group (P < 0.001). There were no differences in mean daily BG level after the first day of insulin treatment (175 ± 32 vs. 179 ± 43 mg/dL, P = 0.64) between groups. A BG target between 80 and 180 mg/dL before meals was achieved in 55.9% of BG readings in the basal-bolus group and 54.3% of BG readings in the premixed insulin group (P = 0.23). There was no difference in the length of hospital stay or mortality between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient treatment with premixed human insulin resulted in similar glycemic control but in significantly higher frequency of hypoglycemia compared with treatment with basal-bolus insulin regimen in hospitalized patients with diabetes.

Better long-term glycaemic control with the basal insulin glargine as compared with NPH in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus given meal-time lispro insulin

BACKGROUND

Glargine is a long-acting insulin analogue potentially more suitable than NPH insulin in intensive treatment of Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1 DM), but no study has proven superiority. The aim of this study was to test superiority of glargine on long-term blood glucose (BG) as well as on responses to hypoglycaemia vs. NPH.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-one patients with T1 DM on intensive therapy on four times/day NPH and lispro insulin at each meal, were randomized to either continuation of NPH four times/day (n = 60), or once daily glargine at dinner-time (n = 61) for 1 year. Lispro insulin at meal-time was continued in both groups. In 11 patients from each group, responses to stepped hyperinsulinaemic-hypoglycaemia were measured before and after 1 year's treatment.

RESULTS

Mean daily BG was lower with glargine [7.6 +/- 0.11 mmol/l (137 +/- 2 mg/dl)] vs. NPH [8.1 +/- 0.22 mmol/l (146 +/- 4 mg/dl)] (P < 0.05). HbA(1c) at 4 months did not change with NPH, but decreased with glargine (from 7.1 +/- 0.1 to 6.7 +/- 0.1%), and remained lower than NPH at 12 months (6.6 +/- 0.1%, P < 0.05 vs. NPH). Frequency of mild hypoglycaemia [self-assisted episodes, blood glucose < or = 4.0 mmol/l (72 mg/dl)] was lower with glargine vs. NPH (7.2 +/- 0.5 and 13.2 +/- 0.6 episodes/patient-month, P < 0.05). After 1 year, NPH treatment resulted in no change of responses to hypoglycaemia, whereas with glargine plasma glucose, thresholds and maximal responses of plasma adrenaline and symptoms to hypoglycaemia improved (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The simpler glargine regimen decreases the percentage of HbA(1c) and frequency of hypoglycaemia and improves responses to hypoglycaemia more than NPH. Thus, glargine appears more suitable than NPH as basal insulin for intensive treatment of T1 DM.

No evidence of increased risk of malignancies in patients with diabetes treated with insulin detemir: a meta-analysis

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Recent epidemiological studies suggest that treatment with insulin glargine (A21Gly,B31Arg,B32Arg human insulin) may promote cancer growth. The present meta-analysis was performed to assess the risk of cancer during treatment with insulin detemir (B29Lys(epsilon-tetradecanoyl),desB30 human insulin), another long-acting insulin analogue.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed in a population of 8,693 patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, who were included in Novo Nordisk-sponsored, randomised and controlled diabetes trials of at least 12 weeks in duration that compared insulin detemir with NPH insulin or insulin glargine. In a blinded manner, the adverse events with suspected treatment-emergent malignant tumours were obtained from these studies under three system-organ classes: 'Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (including cysts and polyps)', 'Neoplasm' and 'Surgical and medical procedures'. Conditional ORs were estimated applying both the Mantel-Haenzel and Peto methods to ensure robustness of results.

RESULTS

Separate analyses were performed for trials comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin and insulin detemir with insulin glargine. In the first analysis, 16 studies were included with a total of 3,983 patients treated with insulin detemir and 2,661 patients treated with NPH insulin. In the second analysis, five studies were included with a total of 1,219 patients treated with insulin detemir and 830 patients treated with insulin glargine. The estimated OR for a cancer diagnosis between NPH insulin and insulin detemir was statistically significantly >1, with the ratio favouring insulin detemir. There was a more than twofold higher cancer occurrence in the NPH insulin-treated population. For the insulin detemir comparison with insulin glargine, there was a non-significant difference in ORs in favour of insulin detemir.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

In these randomised controlled diabetes trials, patients treated with insulin detemir had a lower or similar occurrence of a cancer diagnosis compared with patients treated with NPH insulin or insulin glargine, respectively.

Reduced hypoglycemic episodes and improved glycemic control in children with type 1 diabetes using insulin glargine and neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of a new long-acting basal insulin, insulin glargine (IG), in children with type 1 diabetes. Study design Data from 114 subjects, age 2 to 18 years (mean, 12.2 years; 54 boys, 60 girls), were collected for 9 months before and 9 months after IG treatment. During IG therapy, all subjects received morning neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin (given with insulin lispro; Humalog) to provide daytime insulin coverage. The numbers of nonsevere and severe hypoglycemic events, hemoglobin A1c values, body weight, and daily insulin dose were recorded at each clinic visit.

RESULTS

The mean (+/-1 SEM) frequency of nonsevere hypoglycemic events per week decreased from 2.0+/-0.1 to 1.3+/-0.1 (P<.001). Severe hypoglycemic episodes were reduced from a total of 22 in the 9 months before IG to nine in the 9 months after IG. Severe nocturnal events were similarly reduced from 14 to four episodes. The mean (+/-1 SEM) hemoglobin A1c levels were 9.6+/-0.1% (baseline), 9.4+/-0.1% at 3 months (P=.18), 9.3+/-0.1% at 6 months (P=.03), and 9.3+/-0.1% at 9 months (P=.01).

CONCLUSION

Insulin glargine therapy can reduce hypoglycemic episodes in children and adolescents with suboptimal glucose control without jeopardizing glycemic control.

Improved glycaemic control with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro: a multicentre, randomized, cross-over trial in people with Type 1 diabetes

AIMS

To compare blood glucose control using insulin glargine + insulin lispro with that on NPH insulin + unmodified human insulin in adults with Type 1 diabetes managed with a multiple injection regimen.

METHODS

In this 32-week, five-centre, two-way cross-over study, people with Type 1 diabetes (n = 56, baseline HbA1c 8.0 +/- 0.8%) were randomized to evening insulin glargine + mealtime insulin lispro or to NPH insulin (once- or twice-daily) + mealtime unmodified human insulin. Each 16-week period concluded with a 24-h inpatient plasma glucose profile.

RESULTS

HbA1c was lower with glargine + lispro than with NPH + human insulin [7.5 vs. 8.0%, difference -0.5 (95% CI -0.7, -0.3) %, P < 0.001]. This was confirmed by an 8% lower 24-h plasma glucose area under the curve (AUC) (187 vs. 203 mmol l(-1) h(-1), P = 0.037), a 24% reduction in plasma glucose AUC > 7.0 mmol/l1 (47 vs. 62 mmol l(-1) h(-1), P = 0.017) and a 15% lower post-prandial plasma glucose AUC (75 vs. 88 mmol l(-1) h(-1), P = 0.002). There was no reduction in night-time plasma glucose AUC or increase in plasma glucose area < 3.5 mmol/l. Monthly rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was reduced by 44% with glargine + lispro (0.66 vs. 1.18 episodes/month, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with NPH insulin + unmodified human insulin, the combination of insulin glargine with a rapid-acting insulin analogue as multiple-injection therapy for Type 1 diabetes improves overall glycaemic control as assessed by HbA1c and 24-h plasma glucose monitoring to a clinically significant degree, together with a reduction in nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

Therapy in type 2 diabetes: insulin glargine vs. NPH insulin both in combination with glimepiride

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients often fail to achieve adequate glycemic control with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Insulin has been shown to improve glycemic control in these patients but with increased risk of hypoglycemia. This study compared the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine and NPH insulin, both in combination with a once-daily fixed dose of glimepiride, in terms of glycemic control and incidence of hypoglycemia.

METHODS

In this open-label, 24-week randomized trial in ten Latin American countries, T2DM patients poorly controlled on OADs (HbA1c > or = 7.5 and < or = 10.5%) received glimepiride plus insulin glargine (n = 231) or NPH insulin (n = 250) using a forced titration algorithm. The primary endpoint was the equivalence of 24-week mean changes in HbA1c.

RESULTS

Insulin glargine and NPH insulin achieved similar HbA1c reductions (adjusted mean difference -0.047; 90% CI -0.232, 0.138; per-protocol analysis). Confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly lower with insulin glargine vs. NPH insulin (16.9 vs. 30.0%; p <0.01; safety analysis). Patients receiving insulin glargine were significantly more likely to achieve HbA1c levels < 7.0% without hypoglycemia (27 vs. 17%; p = 0.014; per-protocol analysis). There was a more pronounced treatment satisfaction improvement with insulin glargine vs. NPH insulin (p <0.02; full analysis). The proportion of patients who lost time from work or normal activities due to diabetes was lower with insulin glargine vs. NPH (1.8 vs. 3.3%; full analysis).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2DM, inadequately controlled on OADs, once-daily insulin glargine plus glimepiride is effective in improving metabolic control with a reduced incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia compared with NPH insulin.