Dataset Information

Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension versus insulin glargine once daily added to oral antihyperglycaemic medications and exenatide in type 2 diabetes: a prospective randomized open-label trial.

ABSTRACT: To compare efficacy and safety of two, once-daily basal insulin formulations [insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) vs. insulin glargine (glargine)] added to oral antihyperglycaemic medications (OAMs) and exenatide BID in suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients.This 24-week, open-label, multicentre trial randomized patients to bedtime ILPS (n?=?171) or glargine (n?=?168). Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine was assessed by comparing the upper limit of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 24 (adjusted for baseline HbA1c) with non-inferiority margin 0.4%.Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine was demonstrated: least-squares mean between-treatment difference (ILPS minus glargine) (95% CI) was 0.22% (0.06, 0.38). Mean HbA1c reduction was less for ILPS- versus glargine-treated patients (-1.16?±?0.84 vs. -1.40?±?0.97%, p?=?0.008). Endpoint HbA1c?

SUBMITTER: Arakaki RF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4237556 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension versus insulin glargine once daily added to oral antihyperglycaemic medications and exenatide in type 2 diabetes: a prospective randomized open-label trial.

Arakaki R F RF Blevins T C TC Wise J K JK Liljenquist D R DR Jiang H H HH Jacobson J G JG Martin S A SA Jackson J A JA

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism 20131229 6

<h4>Aims</h4>To compare efficacy and safety of two, once-daily basal insulin formulations [insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) vs. insulin glargine (glargine)] added to oral antihyperglycaemic medications (OAMs) and exenatide BID in suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients.<h4>Methods</h4>This 24-week, open-label, multicentre trial randomized patients to bedtime ILPS (n = 171) or glargine (n = 168). Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine was assessed by comparing the upper ...[more]

PMID: 24298995

Similar Datasets

Project description:Maternal metabolism changes substantially during pregnancy, which poses numerous challenges to physicians managing pregnancy in women with diabetes. Insulin is the agent of choice for glycemic control in pregnant women with diabetes, and the insulin analogs are particularly interesting for use in pregnancy. These agents may reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and promote a more physiological glycemic profile than regular human insulin in pregnant women with type 1 (T1D), type 2 (T2D), or gestational (GDM) diabetes. However, there have been concerns regarding potential risk for crossing the placental barrier, mitogenic stimulation, teratogenicity, and embryotoxicity. Insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS), an intermediate- to long-acting insulin, has a stable and predictable pharmacological profile, and appears to have a favorable time-action profile and produce desirable basal and postprandial glycemic control. As the binding of insulin lispro is unaffected by the protamine molecule, ILPS is likely to have the same mitogenic and immunogenic potential as insulin lispro. Insulin lispro produces similar outcomes to regular insulin in pregnant women with T1D, T2D, or GDM, does not cross the placental barrier, and is considered a useful treatment option for pregnant women with diabetes. Clinical data support the usefulness of ILPS for basal insulin coverage in non-pregnant patients with T1D or T2D, and suggest that the optimal regimen, in terms of balance between efficacy and hypoglycemic risk, is a once-daily injection, especially in patients with T2D. Available data concerning use of ILPS in pregnant women are currently derived from retrospective analyses that involved, in total, >1200 pregnant women. These analyses suggest that ILPS is at least as safe and effective as neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Thus, available experimental and clinical data suggest that ILPS once daily is a safe and effective option for the management of diabetes in pregnant women.

Project description:Diabetes is associated with a higher risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes. To improve the health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommended target goals for the improvement of glycemic control and the reduction of cardiovascular risk factors associated with the disease. This retrospective analysis calculated the absolute benefit increase (ABI) of using exenatide once weekly (QW), a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, vs an oral glucose-lowering medication or insulin glargine to achieve ADA-recommended goals. The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve these goals was also calculated and provides a useful clinical metric for comparing potential therapies from different drug classes.Patient data from three double-blind or open label, 26-week, randomized, controlled trials were retrospectively analyzed separately. ABI and NNT were calculated by comparing the percentage of patients treated with exenatide QW (N = 641) vs metformin (N = 246), sitagliptin (N = 329), pioglitazone (N = 328), or insulin glargine (N = 223), who achieved a single glycemic, weight, blood pressure, or lipid goal or a composite of these recommended goals, during the DURATION-2, -3, and -4 clinical trials.Significant ABIs favoring exenatide QW over all four glucose-lowering medications were observed for at least one HbA1c glycemic goal. NNTs of 4 and 5 were calculated when exenatide QW was compared to sitagliptin for attaining HbA1c goals of <7.0% and ?6.5%, respectively. Additionally, significantly more patients using exenatide QW compared to sitagliptin, pioglitazone, or insulin glargine attained the composite goal of HbA1c <7% or ?6.5%, without weight gain or hypoglycemia. Exenatide QW was also favored over sitagliptin and insulin glargine for the achievement of the composite goals of HbA1c <7% (or ?6.5%), systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein <2.59 mmol/L. For most goals, exenatide QW and metformin had similar effects in treatment naïve patients.This analysis assessed the between-therapy differences in achieving therapeutic goals with therapies commonly used for glycemic control in patients with T2DM. In clinical trials, exenatide QW assisted more patients in reaching the majority of ADA-recommended therapeutic goals than treatment with sitagliptin, pioglitazone, or insulin glargine.NCT00637273, NCT00641056, NCT00676338.

Dataset Information

Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension versus insulin glargine once daily added to oral antihyperglycaemic medications and exenatide in type 2 diabetes: a prospective randomized open-label trial.

Publications

Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension versus insulin glargine once daily added to oral antihyperglycaemic medications and exenatide in type 2 diabetes: a prospective randomized open-label trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure