Dataset Information

Clinical experience with insulin detemir in patients with type 2 diabetes from the near East countries.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

This study aimed at determining the clinical safety and efficacy of insulin detemir (IDet) in combination with oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients from four Near East Countries (Israel, Jordan, Pakistan and Lebanon).

Methods

This prospective observational study included T2D patients previously on OADs and newly diagnosed patients initiating IDet with or without OADs, at the discretion of physicians. Safety objectives included evaluation of hypoglycemia and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from baseline to Week 24. Efficacy outcomes included baseline to Week 24 changes in glucose control parameters (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], fasting plasma glucose [FPG] and post-breakfast post-prandial plasma glucose [PPPG]). Change in body weight during this period was also assessed.

Results

A total of 2,155 patients (mean ± SD: age 57.1 ± 11.0 years, BMI 29.4 ± 5.1 kg/m(2), average diabetes duration 9.2 ± 5.4 years) were included. IDet dose at baseline was 0.20 ± 0.09 U/kg titrated up to 0.34 ± 0.14 U/kg by Week 24. From baseline to Week 24, the total number of hypoglycemic episodes increased from 1.30 to 1.37 events/patient-year, while major hypoglycemic episodes decreased from 0.15 to 0.02 events/patient-year. A total of 9 ADRs were reported, of which one event was a serious ADR. Statistically significant improvements in glucose control were reported from baseline to Week 24 (HbA1c: 9.6 ± 1.6% vs. 7.6 ± 1.1%; FPG: 201.5 ± 59.5 mg/dL vs. 124.9 ± 31.6 mg/dL; PPPG: 264.2 ± 65.7 mg/dL vs. 167.2 ± 36.8 mg/dL; all p < 0.0001). Body weight did not change significantly after 24 weeks of IDet therapy.

Conclusion

IDet therapy in combination with OADs improved glycemic control without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain.

SUBMITTER: Echtay A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3889319 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronically elevated blood glucose levels are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Many diabetes patients will eventually require insulin treatment to maintain good glycaemic control. There are still uncertainties about the optimal insulin treatment regimens for type 2 diabetes, but the long-acting insulin analogues seem beneficial. Several reviews have compared either insulin detemir or insulin glargine to NPH insulin, but research directly comparing both insulin analogues is limited.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with each other in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.Search strategyWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, online registries of ongoing trials and abstract books. Date of last search was January 2011.Selection criteriaAll randomised controlled trials comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine with a duration of 12 weeks or longer were included.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently selected the studies and extracted the data. Pooling of studies by means of random-effects meta-analysis was performed.Main resultsThis review examined four trials lasting 24 to 52 weeks involving 2250 people randomised to either insulin detemir or glargine. Overall, risk of bias of the evaluated studies was high. Insulin glargine was dosed once-daily in the evening. Insulin detemir was initiated once-daily in the evening with the option of an additional dose in the morning in three studies and initiated twice-daily in one study. Of randomised patients 13.6% to 57.2% were injecting insulin detemir twice-daily at the end of trial.Glycaemic control, measured by glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and HbA1c equal to or less than 7% with or without hypoglycaemia, did not differ statistically significantly between treatment groups.The results showed no significant differences in overall, nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia between treatment groups.Insulin detemir was associated with less weight gain. Treatment with insulin glargine resulted in a lower daily basal insulin dose and a lower number of injection site reactions.There was no significant difference in the variability of FPG or glucose values in 24-hour profiles between treatment groups. It was not possible to draw conclusions on quality of life, costs or mortality. Only one trial reported results on health-related quality of life and showed no significant differences between treatment groups.Authors' conclusionsOur analyses suggest that there is no clinically relevant difference in efficacy or safety between insulin detemir and insulin glargine for targeting hyperglycaemia. However, to achieve the same glycaemic control insulin detemir was often injected twice-daily in a higher dose but with less weight gain, while insulin glargine was injected once-daily, with somewhat fewer injection site reactions.

Project description:BackgroundMany individuals with type 2 diabetes in emerging countries are transitioning from vial-and-syringe insulin delivery to that of insulin pens (disposable or reusable). As with all insulin delivery methods, patient preferences and comfort are of utmost importance to optimize adherence to treatment. Patient-preferred characteristics for reusable insulin pens and barriers to appropriate injection, particularly in these regions, have not been widely reported in the clinical literature, highlighting a key information gap for clinicians considering these methods as part of a comprehensive diabetes management approach.MethodsFace-to-face interviews were conducted with people with type 1/2 diabetes, including insulin-naïve and established insulin users. After moderator demonstration, participants were evaluated on their ability to perform a six-step process to inject a 10-unit dose into a pad with the AllStar(®) (AS; Sanofi, Mumbai, India), HumaPen Ergo II(®) (HE2; Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, USA), and NovoPen 4(®) (NP4; Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark) pens. Local pens were also tested in India, China and Brazil.ResultsA total of 503 people from India, Malaysia, Brazil, Egypt, and China participated. Participants completed the six-step process in an average, 2-3 min per pen. Participants ranked ease of overall use and ease of self-injection and dialing/reading dose as most important features for new insulin pens. When using the pens, the most difficult step was priming/safety testing, with 7-12% failing and 28-40% having difficulty; 6%, 18%, and 22% failed to hold the injection button down for the required period of time using AS, NP4, and HE2, respectively. Participants ranked AS significantly higher for nine of 12 ease-of-use features including three of the top four features considered the most important for reusable pens, while HE2 was ranked higher for two features. Local pens were ranked lowest.ConclusionsPriming the pen and injecting the dose imparted most difficulty for people with diabetes in emerging countries. Most participants found AS easiest to use overall, with differences noted between pens for individual steps of dose delivery. Identifying characteristics most preferred by patients may assist in improving adherence to insulin therapy.