Search

OBJECTIVE: To describe the individual and joint associations of baseline factors with glycemia, and also with differential effectiveness of medications added to metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE) participants (with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for <10 years, on metformin, and with HbA1c 6.8–8.5%; N = 5,047) were randomly assigned to a basal insulin (glargine), sulfonylurea (glimepiride), glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist (liraglutide), or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (sitagliptin). The glycemic outcome was HbA1c ≥7.0%, subsequently confirmed. Univariate and multivariate regression and classification and regression tree (CART) analyses were used to assess the association of baseline factors with the glycemic outcome at years 1 and 4. RESULTS: In univariate analyses at baseline, younger age (<58 years), Hispanic ethnicity, higher HbA1c, fasting glucose, and triglyceride levels, lower insulin secretion, and relatively greater insulin resistance were associated with the glycemic outcome at years 1 and/or 4. No factors were associated with differential effectiveness of the medications by year 4. In multivariate analyses, treatment group, younger age, and higher baseline HbA1c and fasting glucose were jointly associated with the glycemic outcome by year 4. The superiority of glargine and liraglutide at year 4 persisted after multiple baseline factors were controlled for. CART analyses indicated that failure to maintain HbA1c <7% by year 4 was more likely for younger participants and those with baseline HbA1c ≥7.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Several baseline factors were associated with the glycemic outcome but not with differential effectiveness of the four medications. Failure to maintain HbA1c <7% was largely driven by younger age and higher HbA1c at baseline. Factors that predict earlier glycemic deterioration could help in targeting patients for more aggressive management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To describe rescue insulin use and associated factors in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: GRADE participants (type 2 diabetes duration <10 years, baseline A1C 6.8%–8.5% on metformin monotherapy, N = 5,047) were randomly assigned to insulin glargine U-100, glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin and followed quarterly for a mean of 5 years. Rescue insulin (glargine or aspart) was to be started within 6 weeks of A1C >7.5%, confirmed. Reasons for delaying rescue insulin were reported by staff-completed survey. RESULTS: Nearly one-half of GRADE participants (N = 2,387 [47.3%]) met the threshold for rescue insulin. Among participants assigned to glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin, rescue glargine was added by 69% (39% within 6 weeks). Rescue aspart was added by 44% of glargine-assigned participants (19% within 6 weeks) and by 30% of non-glargine-assigned participants (14% within 6 weeks). Higher A1C values were associated with adding rescue insulin. Intention to change health behaviors (diet/lifestyle, adherence to current treatment) and not wanting to take insulin were among the most common reasons reported for not adding rescue insulin within 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Proportionately, rescue glargine, when required, was more often used than rescue aspart, and higher A1C values were associated with greater rescue insulin use. Wanting to use noninsulin strategies to improve glycemia was commonly reported, although multiple factors likely contributed to not using rescue insulin. These findings highlight the persistent challenge of intensifying type 2 diabetes treatment with insulin, even in a clinical trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We evaluated the effect of optimizing metformin dosing on glycemia and body weight in type 2 diabetes.Research Design and Methods: This was a prespecified analysis of 6,823 participants in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE) taking metformin as the sole glucose-lowering drug who completed a 4- to 14-week (mean ± SD 7.9 ± 2.4) run-in in which metformin was adjusted to 2,000 mg/day or a maximally tolerated lower dose. Participants had type 2 diabetes for <10 years and an HbA1c ≥6.8% (51 mmol/mol) while taking ≥500 mg of metformin/day. Participants also received diet and exercise counseling. The primary outcome was the change in HbA1c during run-in.Results: Adjusted for duration of run-in, the mean ± SD change in HbA1c was -0.65 ± 0.02% (-7.1 ± 0.2 mmol/mol) when the dose was increased by ≥1,000 mg/day, -0.48 ± 0.02% (-5.2 ± 0.2 mmol/mol) when the dose was unchanged, and -0.23 ± 0.07% (-2.5 ± 0.8 mmol/mol) when the dose was decreased (n = 2,169, 3,548, and 192, respectively). Higher HbA1c at entry predicted greater reduction in HbA1c (P < 0.001) in univariate and multivariate analyses. Weight loss adjusted for duration of run-in averaged 0.91 ± 0.05 kg in participants who increased metformin by ≥1,000 mg/day (n = 1,894).Conclusions: Optimizing metformin to 2,000 mg/day or a maximally tolerated lower dose combined with emphasis on medication adherence and lifestyle can improve glycemia in type 2 diabetes and HbA1c values ≥6.8% (51 mmol/mol). These findings may help guide efforts to optimize metformin therapy among persons with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]