Dataset Information

A new-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulin with a bolus boost compared with insulin glargine in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble coformulation of the novel basal analog insulin degludec (IDeg: 70%) and insulin aspart (IAsp: 30%). We compared the safety and efficacy of IDegAsp, an alternative formulation (AF) (55% IDeg and 45% IAsp), and insulin glargine (IGlar) in insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs.In this 16-week, open-label trial, subjects (mean age 59.1 years, A1C 8.5%, BMI 30.3 kg/m(2)) were randomized to once-daily IDegAsp (n = 59), AF (n = 59), or IGlar (n = 60), all in combination with metformin. Insulin was administered before the evening meal and dose-titrated to a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) target of 4.0-6.0 mmol/L.After 16 weeks, mean A1C decreased in all groups to comparable levels (IDegAsp: 7.0%; AF: 7.2%; IGlar: 7.1%). A similar proportion of subjects achieved A1C <7.0% without confirmed hypoglycemia in the last 4 weeks of treatment (IDegAsp: 51%; AF: 47%; IGlar: 50%). Mean 2-h postdinner plasma glucose increase was lower for IDegAsp (0.13 mmol/L) and AF (0.24 mmol/L) than IGlar (1.63 mmol/L), whereas mean FPG was similar (IDegAsp: 6.8 mmol/L; AF: 7.4 mmol/L; IGlar: 7.0 mmol/L). Hypoglycemia rates were lower for IDegAsp and IGlar than AF (1.2, 0.7, and 2.4 events/patient year). Nocturnal hypoglycemic events occurred rarely for IDegAsp (1 event) and IGlar (3 events) compared with AF (27 events).In this proof-of-concept trial, once-daily IDegAsp was safe, well tolerated, and provided comparable overall glycemic control to IGlar at similar low rates of hypoglycemia, but better postdinner plasma glucose control.

SUBMITTER: Heise T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3041205 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A new-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulin with a bolus boost compared with insulin glargine in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial.

Heise Tim T Tack Cees J CJ Cuddihy Robert R Davidson Jaime J Gouet Didier D Liebl Andreas A Romero Enrique E Mersebach Henriette H Dykiel Patrik P Jorde Rolf R

Diabetes care 20110201 3

<h4>Objective</h4>Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble coformulation of the novel basal analog insulin degludec (IDeg: 70%) and insulin aspart (IAsp: 30%). We compared the safety and efficacy of IDegAsp, an alternative formulation (AF) (55% IDeg and 45% IAsp), and insulin glargine (IGlar) in insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs.<h4>Research design and methods</h4>In this 16-week, open-label trial, subjects (mean age 59 ...[more]

PMID: 21285389

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:OPTIMIZE evaluated the efficacy, safety and treatment satisfaction of insulin glargine 300 U/mL once daily (Gla-300 OD) in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) previously uncontrolled on basal insulin twice daily (BID) as part of basal-bolus therapy. METHODS:OPTIMIZE was a 28-week, prospective, interventional, single-arm phase 4 trial in adults with T1DM. At baseline, basal insulin BID treatment was switched to Gla-300 OD titrated to a fasting self-monitored blood glucose target of 4.4-7.2 mmol/L (80-130 mg/dL). The primary endpoint was the mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline to week 24. Secondary endpoints included self-monitored blood glucose, fasting-plasma glucose, hypoglycaemia and patient-reported outcomes including the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (DTSQs). RESULTS:Switching to Gla-300 OD significantly improved mean HbA1c (8.54% at baseline and 8.27% at week 24 [last observation carried forward, N = 94, p < 0.0001]; mean difference 0.27% [95% CI 0.15, 0.40]). There was a statistically significant decrease in fasting self-monitored blood glucose during the study (analysis of variance for repeated measures, p = 0.014; N = 72). Eight-point self-monitored blood glucose was significantly improved between baseline and week 24 for post-breakfast (p = 0.009), post-dinner (p = 0.009) and bedtime (p = 0.049) values. The study did not allow for any significant effects on confirmed and/or severe hypoglycaemia at the ≤ 3.9 mmol/L [≤ 70 mg/dL] or < 3.0 mmol/L [< 54 mg/dL] blood glucose cut-offs to be observed. Statistically significant improvements were observed in DTSQs total scores from baseline (24.1) to week 24 (29.4, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:A basal-bolus regimen including Gla-300 OD was associated with improvements in HbA1c and treatment satisfaction in people with uncontrolled T1DM previously receiving basal-bolus insulin including a basal insulin BID analogue. TRIAL REGISTRATION:EudraCT number: 2015-001186-46.

Project description:IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to compare insulin degludec with insulin glargine in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials published prior to 13 August 2018 (no language restrictions) which compared insulin degludec with insulin glargine. Our main endpoints were glycemic control, hypoglycemic event, weight gain, and serious adverse events (SAEs). We assessed pooled data using random-effects models.ResultsA total of 15 studies that included 9619 patients in the insulin degludec arm of the studies and 7075 patients in the insulin glargine arm were identified and subsequently assessed. Our analysis showed that compared with insulin glargine, insulin degludec yielded an improved mean reduction in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (weighted mean difference [WMD] - 5.20 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 7.34, - 3.07, P < 0.00001) and a lower ratio of participants experiencing ≥ 1 severe hypoglycemic event (relative risk [RR] 0.68, 95% CI 0.50, 0.93, P = 0.01) and nocturnal hypoglycemia (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75, 0.88, P < 0.0001); however, in the insulin degludec group there was a lower ratio of participants with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of ≤ 7.0% (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86, 0.98, P = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups for HbA1c reduction (WMD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.00, 0.07, P = 0.08), body weight gain (WMD 0.12, 95% CI - 0.19, 0.43, P = 0.46), and proportion of participants with SAEs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92, 1.02, P = 0.20).ConclusionsInsulin degludec and insulin glargine provide similar glycemic control, but insulin degludec also lowers the risk of hypoglycemia. Consequently, insulin degludec may be an alternative treatment for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes who are prone to hypoglycemia with insulin glargine.

Project description:IntroductionNew insulin glargine 300 U mL(-1) (Gla-300) is a basal insulin that shows more stable and prolonged pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles than insulin glargine 100 U mL(-1) (Gla-100). This study used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to compare 24-h glucose profiles in a Japanese population using Gla-300 versus Gla-100.MethodsThis was an exploratory 8.4-week, single-center, 2-sequence, 2-period, open-label crossover study. Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) treated with basal-bolus insulin, with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 6.5-10.0% and median fasting self-monitored plasma glucose concentration ≤13 mmol L(-1), were randomized to Gla-300 followed by Gla-100 (subgroup 1) or vice versa (subgroup 2), with no washout period. CGM was performed on the last 3 days of the screening period and each treatment period. Primary endpoint was comparison of 24-h glucose variability (area under the curve [AUC]mean_24 h) on the second day of each CGM measurement with Gla-300 versus Gla-100. Baseline and end of treatment period values for HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and daily basal/mealtime insulin doses were recorded. Hypoglycemia and adverse events (AEs) were recorded.ResultsTwenty participants were randomized (10 to subgroup 1 and 10 to subgroup 2). Participants showed comparable glucose variability over 24 h (AUCmean_24 h during treatment with Gla-300 or Gla-100 (treatment ratio 0.96; 90% confidence interval 0.79, 1.16). HbA1c and FPG were generally stable across both treatment periods. There was a trend towards fewer participants experiencing ≥1 hypoglycemia event at any time (24 h) and at night (00:00-05:59 h) with Gla-300 versus Gla-100. Treatment-emergent AEs, reported by 9/20 (45%) and 4/20 (20%) participants during Gla-300 and Gla-100 treatment, respectively, were unrelated to study medication.ConclusionsIn this cohort of Japanese people with T1DM, no between-treatment difference was observed in glucose variability with Gla-300 versus Gla-100, as measured by CGM. There was a trend for less hypoglycemia with Gla-300, particularly at night, versus Gla-100. Both treatments were well tolerated.FundingSanofi, Tokyo, Japan.Clinical trial registrationNCT01676233, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Dataset Information

A new-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulin with a bolus boost compared with insulin glargine in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial.

Publications

A new-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulin with a bolus boost compared with insulin glargine in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets