Search

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of insulin sensitivity and β-cell function over time on HbA1c and durability of glycemic control in response to dual therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: GRADE participants were randomized to glimepiride (n = 1,254), liraglutide (n = 1,262), or sitagliptin (n = 1,268) added to baseline metformin and followed for mean ± SD 5.0 ± 1.3 years, with HbA1c assessed quarterly and oral glucose tolerance tests at baseline, 1, 3, and 5 years. We related time-varying insulin sensitivity (HOMA 2 of insulin sensitivity [HOMA2-%S]) and early (0–30 min) and total (0–120 min) C-peptide (CP) responses to changes in HbA1c and glycemic failure (primary outcome HbA1c ≥7% [53 mmol/mol] and secondary outcome HbA1c >7.5% [58 mmol/mol]) and examined differential treatment responses. RESULTS: Higher HOMA2-%S was associated with greater initial HbA1c lowering (3 months) but not subsequent HbA1c rise. Greater CP responses were associated with a greater initial treatment response and slower subsequent HbA1c rise. Higher HOMA2-%S and CP responses were each associated with lower risk of primary and secondary outcomes. These associations differed by treatment. In the sitagliptin group, HOMA2-%S and CP responses had greater impact on initial HbA1c reduction (test of heterogeneity, P = 0.009 HOMA2-%S, P = 0.018 early CP, P = 0.001 total CP) and risk of primary outcome (P = 0.005 HOMA2-%S, P = 0.11 early CP, P = 0.025 total CP) but lesser impact on HbA1c rise (P = 0.175 HOMA2-%S, P = 0.006 early CP, P < 0.001 total CP) in comparisons with the glimepiride and liraglutide groups. There were no differential treatment effects on secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin sensitivity and β-cell function affected treatment outcomes irrespective of drug assignment, with greater impact in the sitagliptin group on initial (short-term) HbA1c response in comparison with the glimepiride and liraglutide groups. [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]