Dataset Information

Adding insulin glargine vs. NPH insulin to metformin results in a more efficient postprandial beta-cell protection in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

Postprandial release of intact proinsulin (IP) is an independent marker for beta-cell dysfunction in patients with type 2 diabetes. This open-label, parallel-group, two-arm, pilot study compared the beta-cell protective effect of adding insulin glargine (GLA) vs. NPH insulin to ongoing metformin.

Material and methods

Overall, 28 insulin-naive type 2 diabetes subjects (mean +/- SD age, 61.5 +/- 6.7 years; diabetes duration, 9.8 +/- 6.5 years; HbA1c, 7.1 +/- 0.5%; BMI, 30.7 +/- 4.3 kg/m(2)) treated with metformin and sulfonylurea were randomized to add once-daily GLA or NPH at bedtime. At baseline and after 3 months, subjects received a standardized breakfast, lunch and dinner, with pre- and postprandial blood sampling to measure plasma IP, total insulin and blood glucose (BG).

Results

Insulin dose after 3 months was comparable in both groups (GLA vs. NPH: 23.6 +/- 13.4 vs. 23.3 +/- 12.7; p = NS ). Both treatments significantly reduced fasting BG levels (GLA: 158 +/- 19 to 121 +/- 23 mg/dl; NPH: 156 +/- 34 to 119 +/- 29 mg/dl; both p < 0.01 vs. baseline). Fasting and postprandial BG levels did not differ between groups. IP levels decreased in both groups (p < 0.05 at all timepoints). Although IP release after breakfast did not differ between treatments, GLA induced a greater reduction in IP release after lunch (p = 0.08) and dinner (p = 0.04). Total plasma insulin levels did not differ between groups.

Conclusions

Adding basal insulin to metformin reduces postprandial beta-cell load. While GLA and NPH had comparable effects at breakfast, GLA reduces beta-cell stress more effectively at dinner, and with a trend at lunch, most probably because of its longer lasting pharmacodynamic profile.

SUBMITTER: Forst T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2871167 | biostudies-literature | 2010 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adding insulin glargine vs. NPH insulin to metformin results in a more efficient postprandial beta-cell protection in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Forst T T Larbig M M Hohberg C C Forst S S Diessel S S Borchert M M Roth W W Pfützner A A

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism 20100501 5

<h4>Aim</h4>Postprandial release of intact proinsulin (IP) is an independent marker for beta-cell dysfunction in patients with type 2 diabetes. This open-label, parallel-group, two-arm, pilot study compared the beta-cell protective effect of adding insulin glargine (GLA) vs. NPH insulin to ongoing metformin.<h4>Material and methods</h4>Overall, 28 insulin-naive type 2 diabetes subjects (mean +/- SD age, 61.5 +/- 6.7 years; diabetes duration, 9.8 +/- 6.5 years; HbA1c, 7.1 +/- 0.5%; BMI, 30.7 +/- ...[more]

PMID: 20415692

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCompared to conventional human basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn; NPH) the long-acting analogue insulin glargine (GLA) is associated with a number of advantages regarding metabolic control, hypoglycaemic events and convenience. However, the unit costs of GLA exceed those of NPH. This study aims to systematically review the economic evidence comparing GLA with NPH in basal-bolus treatment (intensified conventional therapy; ICT) of type 1 diabetes in order to facilitate informed decision making in clinical practice and health policy.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed for the period of January 1st 2000 to December 1st 2009 via Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Library, the databases GMS (German Medical Science) and DAHTA (Deutsche Agentur für Health Technology Assessment), and the abstract books of relevant international scientific congresses. Retrieved studies were reviewed based on predefined inclusion criteria, methodological and quality aspects. In order to allow comparison between studies, currencies were converted using purchasing power parities (PPP).ResultsA total of 7 health economic evaluations from 4 different countries fulfilled the predefined criteria: 6 modelling studies, all of them cost-utility analyses, and one claims data analysis with a cost-minimisation design. One cost-utility analysis showed dominance of GLA over NPH. The other 5 cost-utility analyses resulted in additional costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for GLA, ranging from € 3,859 to € 57,002 (incremental cost effectiveness ratio; ICER). The cost-minimisation analysis revealed lower annual diabetes-specific costs in favour of NPH from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI).ConclusionsThe incremental cost-utility-ratios (ICER) show favourable values for GLA with considerable variation. If a willingness-to-pay threshold of £ 30,000 (National Institute of Clinical Excellence, UK) is adopted, GLA is cost-effective in 4 of 6 cost utility analyses (CUA) included. Thus insulin glargine (GLA) seems to offer good value for money. Comparability between studies is limited because of methodological and country specific aspects. The results of this review underline that evaluation of insulin therapy should use evidence on efficacy of therapy from information synthesis. The concept of relating utility decrements to fear of hypoglycaemia is a plausible approach but needs further investigation. Also future evaluations of basal-bolus insulin therapy should include costs of consumables such as needles for insulin injection as well as test strips and lancets for blood glucose self monitoring.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Insulin analog glargine (GLA) has been available as one of the therapeutic options for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus to enhance glycemic control. Studies have shown that a decrease in the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes improves the quality of life (QoL) of diabetic patients. However, there are appreciable acquisition cost differences between different insulins. Consequently, there is a need to assess their impact on QoL to provide future guidance to health authorities. METHOD:A systematic review of multiple databases including Medline, LILACS, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases with several combinations of agreed terms involving randomized controlled trials and cohorts, as well as manual searches and gray literature, was undertaken. The primary outcome measure was a change in QoL. The quality of the studies and the risk of bias was also assessed. RESULTS:Eight studies were eventually included in the systematic review out of 634 publications. Eight different QoL instruments were used (two generic, two mixed, and four specific), in which the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) was the most used. The systematic review did not consistently show any significant difference overall in QoL scores, whether as part of subsets or combined into a single score, with the use of GLA versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. Only in patient satisfaction measured by DTSQ was a better result consistently seen with GLA versus NPH insulin, but not using the Well-being Inquiry for Diabetics (WED) scale. However, none of the cohort studies scored a maximum on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for quality, and they generally were of moderate quality with bias in the studies. CONCLUSION:There was no consistent difference in QoL or patient-reported outcomes when the findings from the eight studies were collated. In view of this, we believe the current price differential between GLA and NPH insulin in Brazil cannot be justified by these findings.

Project description:AimsA variety of basal insulin preparations are used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to summarize scientific evidence on relative efficacy and safety of insulin glargine (IGlar) and other insulins in T2DM.MethodsA systematic review was carried out in major medical databases up to December 2012. Relevant studies compared efficacy and safety of IGlar, added to oral drugs (OAD) or/and in combination with bolus insulin, with protamine insulin (NPH) or premixed insulin (MIX) in the same regimen, as well as with insulin detemir (IDet), in T2DM. Target HbA1c level without hypoglycemic events was considered the primary endpoint.ResultsTwenty eight RCTs involving 12,669 T2DM patients followed for 12-52 weeks were included in quantitative analysis. IGlar + OAD use was associated with higher probability of reaching target HbA1c level without hypoglycemia as compared to NPH + OAD (RR = 1.32 [1.09, 1.59]) or MIX without OAD (RR = 1.61 [1.22, 2.13]) and similar effect as IDet + OAD (RR = 1.07 [0.87, 1.33]) and MIX + OAD (RR = 1.09 [0.86, 1.38]). IGlar + OAD demonstrated significantly lower risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia as compared to NPH + OAD (RR = 0.89 [0.83, 0.96]), MIX + OAD (RR = 0.75 [0.68, 0.83]) and MIX without OAD(RR = 0.75 [0.68, 0.83]), but not with IDet + OAD (RR = 0.99 [0.90, 1.08]). In basal-bolus regimens, IGlar demonstrated similar proportion of T2DM patients achieving target HbA1c as compared to NPH (RR = 1.14 [0.91, 1.44]) but higher than MIX (RR = 1.26 [1.12, 1.42) or IDet (RR = 1.38 [1.11, 1.72]). The risk of severe hypoglycemia was lower in IGlar than in NPH (RR = 0.77 [0.63, 0.94]), with no differences in comparison with MIX (RR = 0.74 [0.46, 1.20]) and IDet (RR = 1.10 [0.54, 2.25]). IGlar + OAD has comparable safety profile to NPH, with less frequent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation than MIX + OAD (RR = 0.41 [0.22, 0.76]) and IDet + OAD (RR = 0.40 [0.24, 0.69]). Also severe adverse reactions were less common for IGlar + OAD when compared to MIX + OAD (RR = 0.71 [0.52; 0.98]).ConclusionFor the majority of examined efficacy and safety outcomes, IGlar use in T2DM patients was superior or non-inferior to the alternative insulin treatment options.

Dataset Information

Adding insulin glargine vs. NPH insulin to metformin results in a more efficient postprandial beta-cell protection in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Aim

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Adding insulin glargine vs. NPH insulin to metformin results in a more efficient postprandial beta-cell protection in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets