Search

Warts, hypogammaglobulinemia, infections, and myelokathexis (WHIM) syndrome is a rare primary immunodeficiency caused by gain-of-function mutations in the CXCR4 gene. We report the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of mavorixafor from a phase 2 open-label dose-escalation and extension study in 8 adult patients with genetically confirmed WHIM syndrome. Mavorixafor is an oral small molecule selective antagonist of the CXCR4 receptor that increases mobilization and trafficking of white blood cells from the bone marrow. Patients received escalating doses of mavorixafor, up to 400 mg once daily. Five patients continued on the extension study for up to 28.6 months. Mavorixafor was well tolerated with no treatment-related serious adverse events. At a median follow-up of 16.5 months, we observed dose-dependent increases in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and absolute lymphocyte count (ALC). At doses ≥300 mg/d, ANC was maintained at >500 cells per microliter for a median of 12.6 hours, and ALC was maintained at >1000 cells per microliter for up to 16.9 hours. Continued follow-up on the extension study resulted in a yearly infection rate that decreased from 4.63 events (95% confidence interval, 3.3-6.3) in the 12 months prior to the trial to 2.27 events (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.5) for patients on effective doses. We observed an average 75% reduction in the number of cutaneous warts. This study demonstrates that mavorixafor, 400 mg once daily, mobilizes neutrophil and lymphocytes in adult patients with WHIM syndrome and provides preliminary evidence of clinical benefit for patients on long-term therapy. The trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03005327.

L-arginine (Arg) is a semiessential amino acid with several physiological functions. N-Carbamylglutamate (NCG) can promote the synthesis of endogenous Arg in mammals. However, the roles of Arg or NCG on hepatic inflammation and apoptosis in suckling lambs suffering from intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) are still unclear. The current work is aimed at examining the effects of dietary Arg and NCG on inflammatory and hepatocyte apoptosis in IUGR suckling lambs. On day 7 after birth, 48 newborn Hu lambs were selected from a cohort of 432 twin lambs. Normal-birthweight and IUGR Hu lambs were allocated randomly (n=12/group) to control (CON), IUGR, IUGR+1% Arg, or IUGR+0.1% NCG groups. Lambs were fed for 21 days from 7 to 28 days old. Compared with CON lambs, relative protein 53 (P53), apoptosis antigen 1 (Fas), Bcl-2-associated X protein (Bax), caspase-3, cytochrome C, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), nuclear factor kappa-B (NF-κB) p65, and NF-κB pp65 protein levels were higher (P<0.05) in liver from IUGR lambs, whereas those in liver from IUGR lambs under Arg or NCG treatment were lower than those in IUGR lambs. These findings indicated that supplementing Arg or NCG reduced the contents of proinflammatory cytokines at the same time when the apoptosis-related pathway was being suppressed, thus suppressing the IUGR-induced apoptosis of hepatic cells.

Background: WHIM (Warts, Hypogammaglobulinemia, Infections, and Myelokathexis) syndrome is a rare primary immunodeficiency associated with broad cytopenia, including neutropenia. It is caused by gain-of-function mutations in C XCR4, leading to dysregulated immune cell trafficking with retention of neutrophils, lymphocytes, and monocytes in the bone marrow and in some cases, hypogammaglobulinemia. As a result, patients with WHIM syndrome have recurrent bacterial and viral infections, and unusual susceptibility to human papillomavirus infection predisposing individuals to recalcitrant warts and malignancy (McDermott D, et al. Immunol Rev. 2019;91-102). Therapeutic options are limited and do not address the underlying pathogenic mechanism of WHIM syndrome. The investigational oral CXCR4 antagonist mavorixafor directly targets the underlying cause of disease and has been shown to increase absolute neutrophil, lymphocyte, and monocyte counts, and to decrease annualized infection rate, and reduce cutaneous wart burden in a phase 2 trial of adults with WHIM syndrome (NCT03005327; Dale D, et al. Blood. 2020;136: 2994-3003). Findings from an ongoing long-term extension of this study support a sustained clinical benefit of long-term mavorixafor treatment in patients with WHIM syndrome. Here, we describe the design of a global phase 3 registrational trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of mavorixafor in WHIM syndrome in participants aged ≥12 years while reporting on preliminary baseline characteristics of the enrolled population. Methods: This phase 3 trial (4WHIM; NCT03995108) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with open-label extension (OLE) and planned enrollment of 18 to 28 patients from sites in Asia, Australia, Europe, Israel, and the United States. Patients aged ≥12 years with a confirmed CXCR4 mutation consistent with WHIM syndrome phenotype and a screening absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≤400 cells/µL without clinical evidence of active systemic infection are eligible for enrollment. Patients are randomized 1:1 to receive mavorixafor (400 mg in adults, and adolescents weighing >50 kg; 200 mg in adolescents weighing ≤50 kg) or matching placebo once daily for a total of 52 weeks (≥9 patients per group). Patients who complete the randomized period or are granted early release due to recurrent infections requiring treatment (≤2 requiring hospitalization or 4 requiring intravenous antibiotic or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) are eligible to enroll in the OLE and receive mavorixafor until commercial availability or study termination. The primary end point is the number of hours above ANC threshold of 500 cells/µL over a 24-hour period, assessed prior to treatment, and 4 times (every 3 months) over the 52-week randomized period. Secondary end points include infection rates adjudicated by a blinded, independent committee, change from baseline in cutaneous warts also with blinded assessment, number of hours above absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) of 1000 cells/µL over a 24-hour period, and patient-reported outcomes such as work/school absence and quality of life assessment using age-appropriate questionnaires. Patient Demographics and Characteristics: As of July 15 2021, the first 18 patients have enrolled from 10 countries and 15 sites. Of these, 56% are pediatric patients, 56% are males, 56% of the patients have warts, 94% have nonsense and 6% have frameshift CXCR4 mutations. All patients had severe neutropenia (ANC ≤400 cells/μL) and majority had significant lymphopenia (ALC ≤1000 cells/μL). Conclusions: Evidence supporting efficacy of current therapies in WHIM syndrome is lacking, and approved therapies targeting the underlying molecular mechanisms and hence, able to address the full clinical spectrum of this condition, are needed. The 4WHIM study is the first double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial in patients with this syndrome and is an important next step in the clinical development of a novel, orally bioavailable targeted therapy for WHIM syndrome and potentially for other individuals with related cellular immunodeficiencies. This robust study will build on the findings of the phase 2 trial that suggested a clinical benefit of mavorixafor for WHIM syndrome by incorporating a broader, global population of patients observed for a longer period of time. Full phase 3 trial results are anticipated in late 2022. Disclosures Dale: X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Azar: X4 Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Badolato: Angelini: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; SOBI (IDMC): Other. Bhandari: X4 Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment. Belschner: X4 Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment. Cadavid: X4 Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Dickerson: Bluebird Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hoffman: Zomagen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; Jecure: Research Funding. Jiang: X4 Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kang: Cartexell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Korea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen Korea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kulagin: Roche: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Generium: Speakers Bureau; Biocad: Research Funding; Apellis: Research Funding; Alexion: Research Funding; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Langguth: RCPA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. MacLeod: X4 Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sharathkumar: Amgen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; NIH Trials of Pediatric VTE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CSL: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shcherbina: X4 Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Tang: X4 Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vossen: X4 Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI in WHIM Trial; Brothers of St. John: Consultancy; Austrian National Bank: Research Funding; Menarini: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Astro Pharma: Honoraria.

Aims To evaluate the safety and efficacy of once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg, a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on glimepiride monotherapy. Methods This phase III, randomized (4 : 1; dulaglutide:placebo), double-blind, placebo-controlled, 24-week study compared the safety and efficacy of once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg with placebo in sulphonylurea-treated (≥half-maximal dose, stable ≥3 months) patients (N = 300) with T2D and inadequate glycaemic control [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.5 and ≤9.5% (≥58 mmol/mol and ≤80 mmol/mol)]. Analysis was carried out according to intention-to-treat. Results At baseline, the mean participant age was 58 years; mean HbA1c was 8.4% (68 mmol/mol) and mean weight was 85.5 kg. Dulaglutide 1.5 mg was superior to placebo at 24 weeks for HbA1c reduction from baseline with a between-group HbA1c difference of −1.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) −1.6, −1.0] or -14 mmol/mol (95% CI −17, −11); p

This study evaluated the proportions of prandial (PHG) vs fasting hyperglycaemia (FHG) over 24h in a group of patients with type 2 diabetes (overall and for Caucasian vs Asian patients), and tested the hypothesis that an insulin regimen with a prandial component allows a greater response than basal insulin at low glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels with a higher proportion of PHG than FHG.Relative contributions of PHG and FHG to overall hyperglycaemia were analyzed by baseline HbA1c quartiles and by ethnicity at baseline and after 24-week treatment with either insulin glargine or insulin lispro mix 25 in the DURABLE study.With increasing baseline HbA1c, the mean relative contribution of PHG to the total area under the curve decreased (from 41% to 27%) while FHG was increased (from 59% to 73%). Both insulins decreased FHG, but only insulin lispro mix 25 decreased PHG. More patients with baseline HbA1c9%, where PHG was more relevant, achieved the target HbA1c of7% at endpoint with insulin lispro mix 25 compared with glargine. On average, Asians had a 10% larger contribution of PHG at all HbA1c quartiles, and a lower proportion of Asians reached the HbA1c target of7% with either insulin treatment compared with Caucasians.At baseline, the contribution of FHG to overall hyperglycaemia predominated at all HbA1c quartiles, whereas PHG was more clinically relevant at lower HbA1c levels and with a greater response to insulin lispro mix 25. Asians had a greater proportion of PHG and a lesser response to either insulins compared with Caucasians. Thus, responses to diabetes drugs by baseline HbA1c and ethnicity are worth investigating to better target and individualize treatment.

For patients with type 2 diabetes who do not achieve target glycaemic control with conventional insulin treatment, advancing to a basal-bolus insulin regimen is often recommended. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide with that of insulin glargine, both combined with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes.We did this 52 week, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial at 105 study sites in 15 countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with conventional insulin treatment were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence with an interactive voice-response system, to receive once-weekly dulaglutide 1·5 mg, dulaglutide 0·75 mg, or daily bedtime glargine. Randomisation was stratified by country and metformin use. Participants and study investigators were not masked to treatment allocation, but were unaware of dulaglutide dose assignment. The primary outcome was a change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 26, with a 0·4% non-inferiority margin. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01191268.Between Dec 9, 2010, and Sept 21, 2012, we randomly assigned 884 patients to receive dulaglutide 1·5 mg (n=295), dulaglutide 0·75 mg (n=293), or glargine (n=296). At 26 weeks, the adjusted mean change in HbA1c was greater in patients receiving dulaglutide 1·5 mg (-1·64% [95% CI -1·78 to -1·50], -17·93 mmol/mol [-19·44 to -16·42]) and dulaglutide 0·75 mg (-1·59% [-1·73 to -1·45], -17·38 mmol/mol [-18·89 to -15·87]) than in those receiving glargine (-1·41% [-1·55 to -1·27], -15·41 mmol/mol [-16·92 to -13·90]). The adjusted mean difference versus glargine was -0·22% (95% CI -0·38 to -0·07, -2·40 mmol/mol [-4·15 to -0·77]; p=0·005) for dulaglutide 1·5 mg and -0·17% (-0·33 to -0·02, -1·86 mmol/mol [-3·61 to -0·22]; p=0·015) for dulaglutide 0·75 mg. Five (1%) patients died after randomisation because of septicaemia (n=1 in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group); pneumonia (n=1 in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group); cardiogenic shock; ventricular fibrillation; and an unknown cause (n=3 in the glargine group). We recorded serious adverse events in 27 (9%) patients in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group, 44 (15%) patients in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group, and 54 (18%) patients in the glargine group. The most frequent adverse events, arising more often with dulaglutide than glargine, were nausea, diarrhoea, and vomiting.Dulaglutide in combination with lispro resulted in a significantly greater improvement in glycaemic control than did glargine and represents a new treatment option for patients unable to achieve glycaemic targets with conventional insulin treatment.Eli Lilly and Company.

Summary Background Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors improve glycaemic control and reduce bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes through different mechanisms. We assessed the safety and efficacy of the addition of the once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide to the ongoing treatment regimen in patients whose diabetes is inadequately controlled with SGLT2 inhibitors, with or without metformin. Methods AWARD-10 was a phase 3b, double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled, 24-week study done at 40 clinical sites in Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Mexico, Spain, and the USA. Eligible adult patients (≥18 years) with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA 1c concentration ≥7·0% [53 mmol/mol] and ≤9·5% [80 mmol/mol]), a BMI of 45 kg/m 2 or less, and taking stable doses (>3 months) of an SGLT2 inhibitor (with or without metformin) were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via an interactive web-response system to subcutaneous injections of either dulaglutide 1·5 mg, dulaglutide 0·75 mg, or placebo once per week for 24 weeks. Patients and investigators were masked to dulaglutide and placebo assignment, and those assessing outcomes were masked to study drug assignment. The primary objective was to test for the superiority of dulaglutide (1·5 mg or 0·75 mg) versus placebo for change in HbA 1c concentration from baseline at 24 weeks. All analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02597049. Findings Between Dec 7, 2015, and Feb 3, 2017, 424 patients were randomly assigned to dulaglutide 1·5 mg (n=142), dulaglutide 0·75 mg (n=142), and placebo (n=140). One patient in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group was excluded from the analysis because they did not receive any dose of the study drug. The reduction in HbA 1c concentration at 24 weeks was larger in patients receiving dulaglutide (least squares mean [LSM] for dulaglutide 1·5 mg −1·34% [SE 0·06] or −14·7 mmol/mol [0·6]; dulaglutide 0·75 mg −1·21% [0·06] or −13·2 mmol/mol [0·6]) than in patients receiving placebo (−0·54% [0·06] or −5·9 mmol/mol [0·6]; p vs placebo). The LSM differences were −0·79% (95% CI −0·97 to −0·61) or −8·6 mmol/mol (−10·6 to −6·7) for dulaglutide 1·5 mg and −0·66% (−0·84 to −0·49) or −7·2 mmol/mol (−9·2 to −5·4) for dulaglutide 0·75 mg (p vs seven [5%] in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group vs five [4%] in the placebo group), diarrhoea (eight [6%] vs 14 [10%] vs four [3%]), and vomiting (five [4%] vs four [3%] vs one [1%]) were more common with dulaglutide than with placebo. One episode of severe hypoglycaemia was reported in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group. Two (1%) patients receiving dulaglutide 1·5 mg died, but these deaths were not considered to be related to study drug; no deaths occurred in the other groups. Interpretation Dulaglutide as add-on treatment to SGLT2 inhibitors (with or without metformin) resulted in significant and clinically relevant improvements in glycaemic control, with acceptable tolerability that is consistent with the established safety profile of dulaglutide. Funding Eli Lilly and Company.

Aim: To compare the addition of weekly dulaglutide vs the addition of placebo to titrated glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with sub‐optimum glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration. Materials and Methods: Patients (N = 300) from this phase III, double‐blind, parallel‐arm, placebo‐controlled study were randomized to weekly subcutaneous injections of dulaglutide 1.5 mg or placebo with titrated daily glargine (mean ± standard deviation baseline dose: 39 ± 22 U), with or without metformin (≥1500 mg/d). The primary endpoint was superiority of dulaglutide/glargine to placebo/glargine with regard to change from baseline in HbA1c level at 28 weeks. Results: Least squares (LS) mean ± standard error (s.e.) HbA1c changes from baseline were −1.44 ± 0.09% (−15.74 ± 0.98 mmol/mol) with dulaglutide/glargine and −0.67 ± 0.09% (−7.32 ± 0.98 mmol/mol) with placebo/glargine at 28 weeks (LS mean difference [95% confidence interval] −0.77% [−0.97, −0.56]; P

Aim To conduct a substudy, using 24-hour continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), of the AWARD-4 trial, which was designed to compare insulin + glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatment with an insulin-only regimen. Methods The AWARD-4 trial randomized 884 conventional insulin regimen-treated patients to dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg and glargine, all in combination with prandial insulin lispro. The CGM substudy included 144 patients inserted with a Medtronic CGMS iPro CGM device to enable 3-day glucose monitoring. CGM sessions were completed at weeks 0, 13, 26 and 52. CGM measures included mean 24-hour glucose, percentage time in target glucose ranges, hyper- and hypoglycaemia and glucose variability. The primary objective was treatment comparison for percentage time spent with CGM glucose values in the 3.9-7.8 mmol/L range after 26 weeks. Results At week 26, mean CGM values decreased in all treatment groups (change from baseline −2.8 ± 0.3, −2.4 ± 0.3 and −2.5 ± 0.3 mmol/L for dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg and glargine, respectively); between-group differences were not statistically significant. Treatment groups were similar for percentage time in the 3.9-7.8 mmol/L range. Percentage time in the 3.9-10.0 mmol/L range was greater for dulaglutide 1.5 mg than for glargine (p

� Objective: To explore the impact of race/ethnicity on the efficacy and safety of commonly used insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. � Methods: In this post hoc analysis, pooled data from 11 multinational clinical trials involving 1455 patients with type 2 diabetes were used to compare specific insulin treatments in Latino/Hispanic, Asian, African-descent, and Caucasian patients. Insulin treatments included once daily insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn (BASAL), insulin lispro mix 75/25 twice daily (LMBID), or insulin lispro mix 50/50 three times daily (LMTID). � Results: Race/ethnicity was associated with signifi cant outcome differences for each of the insulin regimens. BASAL therapy was associated with greater improvement in several measures of glycemic control among Latino/ Hispanic patients compared with Caucasian patients (lower end point hemoglobin A 1c , greater reduction in hemoglobin A 1c from baseline, and a larger proportion of patients achieving hemoglobin A 1c level

Content: Recent studies have reported hemoglobin A(1c) (A1c) differences across racial/ethnic groups. Our diverse population allows for further investigation of potential differences in measurements of glycemia.Objectives: Our objectives were to describe and explore baseline racial/ethnic differences in self-monitored plasma glucose profiles, A1c, and 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) in patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the Assessing DURAbility of Basal vs. Lispro Mix 75/25 Insulin Efficacy trial.Design, Setting, Patients: The trial enrolled 2094 patients with type 2 diabetes, ages 30-80 yr, from 11 countries.Main Outcome Measures: Estimated mean plasma glucose (MPG), A1c, and 1,5-AG were compared among racial/ethnic groups before and after adjusting for factors affecting glycemia: age, sex, duration of diabetes, body mass index, and MPG.Results: Baseline estimated MPG +/- SD was 220.0 +/- 82.0 mg/dl, mean A1c was 9.0 +/- 1.3%, and 1,5-AG was 5.0 +/- 4.1 mu g/ml. Estimated MPG did not differ between Caucasian and non-Caucasian groups. A1c was higher in Hispanics (9.4 +/- 1.4%; P Conclusions: There were differences in A1c and 1,5-AG, but not MPG, among racial/ethnic groups. Comparisons of glycemia across racial/ethnic groups using these parameters may be problematic due to inherent biological variability and methodological issues. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 94:1689-1694, 2009)

OBJECTIVE—The purpose of this study was to compare two analog insulin therapies (prandial premixed therapy [PPT] versus basal/bolus therapy [BBT]) in type 2 diabetic patients previously treated with insulin glargine (≥30 units/day) plus oral agents, with the aim of demonstrating noninferiority of PPT to BBT. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Patients were randomly assigned to PPT (lispro mix 50/50: 50% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 50% lispro; n = 187) t.i.d. with meals or BBT (glargine at bedtime plus mealtime lispro; n = 187) in a 24-week, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial. Investigators could replace lispro mix 50/50 with lispro mix 75/25 at the evening meal if the fasting plasma glucose target was unachievable. RESULTS—Baseline A1C was similar (PPT 8.8%; BBT 8.9%; P = 0.598). At week 24, A1C was lower with BBT (6.78 vs. 6.95%, P = 0.021). A1C was reduced significantly from baseline for both therapies (P < 0.0001). The difference in A1C change from baseline to the end point (BBT minus PPT) was −0.22% (90% CI −0.38 to −0.07). Noninferiority of PPT to BBT was not demonstrated based on the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%. The percentages of patients achieving target A1C CONCLUSIONS—Although noninferiority of PPT to BBT was not demonstrated, findings for A1C reduction, percentage of patients achieving A1C targets, hypoglycemia, and number of required injections should be considered in the individual decision-making process of advancing insulin replacement to PPT versus BBT in type 2 diabetes.

Insulin glargine and lispro mix 75/25 (75% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 25% insulin lispro injection [LM75/25]) represent 2 common starter insulin regimen classes: basal and premixed. After initiation of starter insulin therapy, if patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) are unable to achieve a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level7.0%, insulin intensification may be indicated. The DURABLE (Assessing Durability of Basal Versus Lispro Mix 75/25 Insulin Efficacy) trial was designed to compare initiating insulin therapy with analogue basal insulin versus premixed analogue insulin in patients unable to achieve good glycemic control while taking multiple oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OADs).To provide objective information about insulin intensification, the DURABLE trial also included a substudy evaluating a systematic approach to advancing insulin therapy in those patients who did not achieve glycemic control with their initial insulin regimen. This substudy, the results of which are reported here, tested the hypothesis that advancing insulin therapy with premixed insulin is noninferior to basal-bolus therapy (BBT) in patients with type 2 DM unable to achieve an HbA1c levelor = 7.0% after 6 months of starter insulin therapy.In the main DURABLE study, 2091 patients (age range, 30-80 years) with type 2 DM and HbA1c values7.0% receivingor = 2 OADs were randomized to receive insulin glargine (n = 1046) or LM75/25 (n = 1045), both in combination with prestudy OADs. After 6 months, patients with HbA1c levels7.0% could enter this intensification substudy; OADs except sulfonylureas were continued. Patients originally receiving insulin glargine were enrolled in intensification arm A and were randomized to receive BBT (insulin glargine once daily plus mealtime insulin lispro TID) or LM75/25 BID. Patients originally receiving LM75/25 were enrolled in intensification arm B and randomized to receive BBT or mealtime 50% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 50% insulin lispro injection (LM50/50) TID. Insulin doses were adjusted based on preprandial plasma glucose levels. The primary end point was noninferiority of premixed therapy versus BBT with respect to end-point HbA1c. Secondary end points included change in HbA1c and weight, percentage of patients reaching HbA1c target levels, total daily insulin dose, and rates of hypoglycemia. The safety profile was also assessed.Of the 475 patients in the insulin glargine + OAD arm of the main study who had HbA1c levels7.0% at 6 months, 399 (84%) entered intensification arm A. The mean age was 57 years, 53% of the patients were male, and mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.0% (1.0%) at baseline. Of those patients, 199 were randomly assigned to receive BBT and 200 were assigned to receive LM75/25. Of the 411 patients in the LM75/25 + OAD arm of the main study who had an HbA1c level7.0% at 6 months, 345 (84%) entered intensification arm B. The mean age was 55 years, 51% of the patients were male, and mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.0% (0.9%) at baseline. Of those patients, 171 were randomly assigned to receive BBT and 174 were assigned to receive LM50/50. At end point, noninferiority of LM75/25 or LM50/50 to BBT was supported, with a 95% CI of -0.10 to 0.37 and -0.25 to 0.25, respectively. At 6 months, HbA1c did not differ significantly from baseline in any group. Regardless of treatment group,20% of patients achieved an HbA1c level7.0%. There were no significant differences between groups in total daily insulin dose, weight gain, incidence or rate of hypoglycemia, or incidence of serious adverse events.No group had significant improvement from baseline in HbA1c. Our study results suggest that premixed therapy, dosed 2 times per day (LM75/25) or 3 times per day (LM50/50), was noninferior to BBT (4 injections/d) in this population of adult patients with type 2 DM previously uncontrolled with OADs plus basal insulin or twice-daily premixed insulin. Clinical-Trials.gov identifier: NCT00279201.

Background: While studies have compared the safety and efficacy of starter insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes, none have evaluated regimen durability (length of time a patient can maintain glycemic control) or the safety and efficacy of subsequent intensification regimens in a large, multinational cohort. Methods: The DURABLE (Assessing the DURAbility of Basal vs Lispro Mix 75/25 Insulin Efficacy) trial will compare the ability of glargine once daily vs lispro mix 75/25 (75% insulin lispro protamine suspension, 25% lispro) twice daily added to oral antihyperglycemic agents to achieve and maintain hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) goals. This randomized, open label, parallel study will enroll over 2000 insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes from 11 countries, ages 30 to 80, with HbA1c >7.0% on at least two oral antihyperglycemic agents. At the completion of the 6-month initiation phase, safety and efficacy of the two regimens will be compared. Patients who achieve an HbA1c ≤7.0% at 6 months will continue into the 24-month maintenance phase to evaluate durability. In a substudy, patients not achieving HbA1c ≤7.0% at 6 months may be randomized to one of two intensification comparisons: patients previously on glargine will receive lispro mix 75/25 twice daily or basal/bolus therapy (glargine + thrice-daily mealtime lispro) and patients previously on lispro mix 75/25 will receive lispro mix 50/50 (50% insulin lispro protamine suspension, 50% lispro) thrice daily or basal/bolus therapy. Results: Upon completion, this trial will provide new information about starter insulin durability, defined as the length of time patients can maintain HbA1c control (HbA1c ≤7.0%, or >7.0% but with an increase of Conclusion: This trial aims to broaden clinicians' understanding of the ability of starter insulin and insulin intensification regimens to achieve and maintain glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

s / Can J Diabetes 38 (2014) S29eS74 S50 Results: One hundred patients were enrolled in the study. HbA1c was reduced from9.1% (SD1) at baseline to 7.3% (SD0.9)da change of 1.8% (p

Introduction Dans le DT2, Monnier a montre une plus grande contribution de l’hyperglycemie post-prandiale (HPP) versus a jeun (HAJ) pour des taux d’HbA1c bas. Nous avons reevalue ces resultats avec un profil glycemique de 7 points en 24 h et en comparant les insulines glargine (G) et Lispro Mix25 (LM25). Patients et methodes Dans l’etude DURABLE, 2 091 patients DT2 ont ete randomises sous G (1x/j) ou LM25 (2x/j) pendant 24 semaines. Les contributions de HAJ et HPP sont calculees avec l’aire sous la courbe entre 100 mg/dL et la glycemie a jeun (GAJ) et au-dessus de la ligne de GAJ, respectivement. Resultats Du quartile inferieur au quartile superieur d’HbA1c, la contribution de HAJ augmente de 59 a 73 % (HPP diminue de 41 a 27 %). LM25 et G diminuent HAJ, mais seul LM25 diminue HPP. Sous 9 % d’HbA1c le pourcentage de patients atteignant la cible HbA1c Discussion La contribution de HPP versus HAJ diminue aux HbA1c plus elevees, confirmant les resultats de Monnier. Un role significatif de HPP, avec un pourcentage plus eleve de patients atteignant une HbA1c