Dataset Information

Metformin versus placebo in combination with insulin analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus-the randomised, blinded Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy (CIMT) trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To assess the effect of metformin versus placebo both in combination with insulin analogue treatment on changes in carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN AND SETTING:Investigator-initiated, randomised, placebo-controlled trial with a 2 × 3 factorial design conducted at eight hospitals in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS:412 participants with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ? 7.5% (? 58 mmol/mol); body mass index >25 kg/m2) were in addition to open-labelled insulin treatment randomly assigned 1:1 to 18 months blinded metformin (1 g twice daily) versus placebo, aiming at an HbA1c ? 7.0% (? 53 mmol/mol). OUTCOMES:The primary outcome was change in the mean carotid IMT (a marker of subclinical cardiovascular disease). HbA1c, insulin dose, weight and hypoglycaemic and serious adverse events were other prespecified outcomes. RESULTS:Change in the mean carotid IMT did not differ significantly between the groups (between-group difference 0.012 mm (95% CI -0.003 to 0.026), p=0.11). HbA1c was more reduced in the metformin group (between-group difference -0.42% (95% CI -0.62% to -0.23%), p<0.001)), despite the significantly lower insulin dose at end of trial in the metformin group (1.04 IU/kg (95% CI 0.94 to 1.15)) compared with placebo (1.36 IU/kg (95% CI 1.23 to 1.51), p<0.001). The metformin group gained less weight (between-group difference -2.6 kg (95% CI -3.3 to -1.8), p<0.001). The groups did not differ with regard to number of patients with severe or non-severe hypoglycaemic or other serious adverse events, but the metformin group had more non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes (4347 vs 3161, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Metformin in combination with insulin did not reduce carotid IMT despite larger reduction in HbA1c, less weight gain, and smaller insulin dose compared with placebo plus insulin. However, the trial only reached 46% of the planned sample size and lack of power may therefore have affected our results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT00657943; Results.

SUBMITTER: Lundby-Christensen L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4771973 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Metformin versus placebo in combination with insulin analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus-the randomised, blinded Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy (CIMT) trial.

Lundby-Christensen Louise L Tarnow Lise L Boesgaard Trine W TW Lund Søren S SS Wiinberg Niels N Perrild Hans H Krarup Thure T Snorgaard Ole O Gade-Rasmussen Birthe B Thorsteinsson Birger B Røder Michael M Mathiesen Elisabeth R ER Jensen Tonny T Vestergaard Henrik H Hedetoft Christoffer C Breum Leif L Duun Elsebeth E Sneppen Simone B SB Pedersen Oluf O Hemmingsen Bianca B Carstensen Bendix B Madsbad Sten S Gluud Christian C Wetterslev Jørn J Vaag Allan A Almdal Thomas P TP

BMJ open 20160225 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the effect of metformin versus placebo both in combination with insulin analogue treatment on changes in carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in patients with type 2 diabetes.<h4>Design and setting</h4>Investigator-initiated, randomised, placebo-controlled trial with a 2 × 3 factorial design conducted at eight hospitals in Denmark.<h4>Participants and interventions</h4>412 participants with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 7.5% (≥ 58 mmol/mol); body mas ...[more]

PMID: 26916684

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the effect of 3 insulin analogue regimens on change in carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN AND SETTING:Investigator-initiated, randomised, placebo-controlled trial with a 2 × 3 factorial design, conducted at 8 hospitals in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS:Participants with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ? 7.5% (? 58 mmol/mol), body mass index >25 kg/m(2)) were, in addition to metformin versus placebo, randomised to 18 months open-label biphasic insulin aspart 1-3 times daily (n=137) versus insulin aspart 3 times daily in combination with insulin detemir once daily (n=138) versus insulin detemir alone once daily (n=137), aiming at HbA1c ? 7.0% (? 53 mmol/mol). OUTCOMES:Primary outcome was change in mean carotid IMT (a marker of subclinical cardiovascular disease). HbA1c, insulin dose, weight, and hypoglycaemic and serious adverse events were other prespecified outcomes. RESULTS:Carotid IMT change did not differ between groups (biphasic -0.009 mm (95% CI -0.022 to 0.004), aspart+detemir 0.000 mm (95% CI -0.013 to 0.013), detemir -0.012 mm (95% CI -0.025 to 0.000)). HbA1c was more reduced with biphasic (-1.0% (95% CI -1.2 to -0.8)) compared with the aspart+detemir (-0.4% (95% CI -0.6 to -0.3)) and detemir (-0.3% (95% CI -0.4 to -0.1)) groups (p<0.001). Weight gain was higher in the biphasic (3.3 kg (95% CI 2.7 to 4.0) and aspart+detemir (3.2 kg (95% CI 2.6 to 3.9)) compared with the detemir group (1.9 kg (95% CI 1.3 to 2.6)). Insulin dose was higher with detemir (1.6 IU/kg/day (95% CI 1.4 to 1.8)) compared with biphasic (1.0 IU/kg/day (95% CI 0.9 to 1.1)) and aspart+detemir (1.1?IU/kg/day (95% CI 1.0 to 1.3)) (p<0.001). Number of participants with severe hypoglycaemia and serious adverse events did not differ. CONCLUSIONS:Carotid IMT change did not differ between 3 insulin regimens despite differences in HbA1c, weight gain and insulin doses. The trial only reached 46% of planned sample size and lack of power may therefore have affected our results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT00657943.

Project description:The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of liraglutide in type 2 diabetes mellitus vs placebo and insulin glargine (A21Gly,B31Arg,B32Arg human insulin), all in combination with metformin and glimepiride.This randomised (using a telephone or web-based randomisation system), parallel-group, controlled 26 week trial of 581 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus on prior monotherapy (HbA(1c) 7.5-10%) and combination therapy (7.0-10%) was conducted in 107 centres in 17 countries. The primary endpoint was HbA(1c). Patients were randomised (2:1:2) to liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily (n = 232), liraglutide placebo (n = 115) and open-label insulin glargine (n = 234), all in combination with metformin (1 g twice daily) and glimepiride (4 mg once daily). Investigators, participants and study monitors were blinded to the treatment status of the liraglutide and placebo groups at all times.The number of patients analysed as intention to treat were: liraglutide n = 230, placebo n = 114, insulin glargine n = 232. Liraglutide reduced HbA(1c) significantly vs glargine (1.33% vs 1.09%; -0.24% difference, 95% CI 0.08, 0.39; p = 0.0015) and placebo (-1.09% difference, 95% CI 0.90, 1.28; p < 0.0001). There was greater weight loss with liraglutide vs placebo (treatment difference -1.39 kg, 95% CI 2.10, 0.69; p = 0.0001), and vs glargine (treatment difference -3.43 kg, 95% CI 4.00, 2.86; p < 0.0001). Liraglutide reduced systolic BP (-4.0 mmHg) vs glargine (+0.5 mmHg; -4.5 mmHg difference, 95% CI 6.8, -2.2; p = 0.0001) but not vs placebo (p = 0.0791). Rates of hypoglycaemic episodes (major, minor and symptoms only, respectively) were 0.06, 1.2 and 1.0 events/patient/year, respectively, in the liraglutide group (vs 0, 1.3, 1.8 and 0, 1.0, 0.5 with glargine and placebo, respectively). A slightly higher number of adverse events (including nausea at 14%) were reported with liraglutide, but only 9.8% of participants in the group receiving liraglutide developed anti-liraglutide antibodies.Liraglutide added to metformin and sulfonylurea produced significant improvement in glycaemic control and bodyweight compared with placebo and insulin glargine. The difference vs insulin glargine in HbA(1c) was within the predefined non-inferiority margin.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00331851.The study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Insulin analogues may be associated with fewer episodes of hypoglycemia than conventional insulins. However, they are costly alternatives. We compared the cost-effectiveness of insulin analogues and conventional insulins used to treat type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness evaluation of insulin analogues versus conventional insulins using the Center for Outcomes Research Diabetes Model. We compared rapid-acting analogues (insulin aspart and insulin lispro) with regular human insulin, and long-acting analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. We derived clinical information for the comparisons from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. We obtained cost and utility estimates from published sources. We performed sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our results. RESULTS: For type 1 diabetes, insulin aspart was more effective and less costly than regular human insulin. Insulin lispro was associated with an incremental cost of Can$28,996 per quality-adjusted life-year. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year was Can$87,932 for insulin glargine and Can$387,729 for insulin detemir, compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. For type 2 diabetes, insulin aspart was associated with an incremental cost of Can$22,488 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with regular human insulin. For insulin lispro, the incremental cost was Can$130,865. Compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin, insulin detemir was less effective and more costly. Insulin glargine was associated with an incremental cost of Can$642,994 per quality-adjusted life-year. The model was sensitive to changes in the effect size of hemoglobin A(1c) and to decrements applied to utility scores when fear of hypoglycemia was included as a factor. INTERPRETATION: The cost-effectiveness of insulin analogues depends on the type of insulin analogue and whether the patient receiving the treatment has type 1 or type 2 diabetes. With the exception of rapid-acting insulin analogues in type 1 diabetes, routine use of insulin analogues, especially long-acting analogues in type 2 diabetes, is unlikely to represent an efficient use of finite health care resources.

Dataset Information

Metformin versus placebo in combination with insulin analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus-the randomised, blinded Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy (CIMT) trial.

Publications

Metformin versus placebo in combination with insulin analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus-the randomised, blinded Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy (CIMT) trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets