Search

Aims: To investigate the association between day-to-day fasting self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) variability and risk of hypoglycaemia in type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), and to compare day-to-day fasting SMBG variability between treatments with insulin degludec (degludec) and insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100)., Materials and Methods: Data were retrieved from two double-blind, randomized, treat-to-target, two-period (32 weeks each) crossover trials of degludec vs glargine U100 in T1D (SWITCH 1, n = 501) and T2D (SWITCH 2, n = 720). Available fasting SMBGs were used to determine the standard deviation (SD) of day-to-day fasting SMBG variability for each patient and the treatment combination. The association between day-to-day fasting SMBG variability and overall symptomatic, nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia was analysed for the pooled population using linear regression, with fasting SMBG variability included as a three-level factor defined by population tertiles. Finally, day-to-day fasting SMBG variability was compared between treatments., Results: Linear regression showed that day-to-day fasting SMBG variability was significantly associated with overall symptomatic, nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia risk in T1D and T2D (P < 0.05). Day-to-day fasting SMBG variability was significantly associated (P < 0.01) with all categories of hypoglycaemia risk, with the exception of severe hypoglycaemia in T2D when analysed within tertiles. Degludec was associated with 4% lower day-to-day fasting SMBG variability than glargine U100 in T1D (P = 0.0082) and with 10% lower day-to-day fasting SMBG variability in T2D (P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Higher day-to-day fasting SMBG variability is associated with an increased risk of overall symptomatic, nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia. Degludec has significantly lower day-to-day fasting SMBG variability vs glargine U100., (© 2018 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In this post hoc analysis we compared glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia between insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) administered once daily in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the EDITION 1 (basal plus mealtime insulin) and EDITION 2 (basal insulin plus oral antihyperglycaemic drugs) trials who were previously receiving twice-daily insulin. At randomization, 16.9% and 20.0% of people in EDITION 1 and 2, respectively, were receiving twice-daily basal insulin. Glycated haemoglobin change from baseline to Month 6 was similar over 6 months with Gla-300 or Gla-100 (least squares mean difference -0.01%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.27 to 0.24] in EDITION 1 and 0.16%; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.57, in EDITION 2). Participants previously receiving twice-daily insulin in EDITION 1 had a lower risk of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia with Gla-300 vs Gla-100 at night (00:00-05:59 hours), but not at any time (24 hours); in EDITION 2 the risk was reduced at night and any time (24 hours). In conclusion, Gla-300 provided similar glycaemic control with less hypoglycaemia compared with Gla-100 in people with T2DM switching from twice-daily to once-daily basal insulin., (© 2017 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: To simplify administration of aqueous exenatide once weekly, which requires reconstitution, the exenatide microspheres have been reformulated in a ready-to-use autoinjector with a Miglyol diluent (exenatide QWS-AI). This study compared the efficacy and safety of exenatide QWS-AI with the first-in-class glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist exenatide twice daily (BID)., Materials and Methods: This randomized, open-label, controlled study in patients with type 2 diabetes using diet and exercise or taking stable oral glucose-lowering medication randomized patients 3:2 to either exenatide QWS-AI (2 mg) or exenatide BID (10 μg) for 28 weeks. The primary outcome was the 28-week change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). A subset of patients completed a standardized meal test for postprandial and pharmacokinetic assessments., Results: A total of 375 patients (mean HbA1c, 8.5% [69 mmol/mol]; body mass index, 33.2 kg/m 2 ; diabetes duration, 8.5 years) received either exenatide QWS-AI (n = 229) or exenatide BID (n = 146); HbA1c was reduced by -1.4% and -1.0%, respectively (least-squares mean difference, -0.37%; P = .0072). More patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% with exenatide QWS-AI (49.3%) than with exenatide BID (43.2%; P = .225). Body weight was reduced in both groups (P = .37 for difference). Gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) were reported in 22.7% (exenatide QWS-AI) and 35.6% (exenatide BID) of patients; fewer patients in the exenatide QWS-AI group withdrew because of AEs than in the exenatide BID group. Minor hypoglycaemia occurred most often with concomitant sulfonylurea use., Conclusions: Exenatide QWS-AI was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c, similar weight loss and a favorable gastrointestinal AE profile compared with exenatide BID., (© 2017 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Hispanic patients with type 2 diabetes have poorer glycemic control and are at higher risk of severe diabetes complications and mortality than non-Hispanic white patients. This post hoc analysis investigated the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in the Hispanic patient subpopulation from the SWITCH 2 trial. In Hispanic patients, hypoglycemia was consistently lower and nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly lower with degludec versus glargine U100 at similar levels of glycemic control. Overall, results in Hispanic patients in SWITCH 2 were consistent with those in non-Hispanic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aims to compare the effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) with its accompanying patient support program with that of other basal insulin and available patient support programs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a real-world setting in terms of achieving HEDIS (Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set) individualized glycemic targets without documented symptomatic hypoglycemia. Methods: Achieve Control is a US-based, multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, parallel group pragmatic Phase IV trial in insulin-naïve patients with T2D uncontrolled on ≥2 oral antidiabetes drugs (OAD) and/or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor antagonists (GLP-1 RA). Inclusion criteria include a diagnosis of T2D, age ≥18 years, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) between 8.0% and 11.0%. Patients will be assigned to either the Gla-300 or other basal insulin group. The primary end point is the proportion of patients achieving HEDIS HbA1c targets (<8.0% [64 mmol/mol] in patients with comorbidities or aged ≥65 years; <7.0% [58 mmol/mol] in all other patients) without occurrence of symptomatic hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤70 mg/dL) from baseline to 6 months. Secondary end points include rates of documented symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycemia and severe hypoglycemia; change from baseline in HbA1c, fasting glucose, and body weight; treatment persistence; patient-reported outcomes; and healthcare resource utilization. Planned enrollment is 3270 patients across approximately 400 clinical sites. Conclusion: Pragmatic clinical trials offer the potential to assess comparative effectiveness in broadly based patient populations receiving care (with or without a corresponding educational support program) in real-world clinical settings. The results of Achieve Control should elucidate the benefits of management of T2D with Gla-300 versus other basal insulins in terms of patient outcomes, experiences, and perceptions, and its impact on healthcare resource utilization and cost. Clinical Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT02451137. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]