Dataset Information

An RCT Investigating Patient-Driven Versus Physician-Driven Titration of BIAsp 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled Using NPH Insulin.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:The aim of this study was to confirm the efficacy of patient-driven titration of BIAsp 30 in terms of glycemic control, by comparing it to physician-driven titration of BIAsp 30, in patients with type 2 diabetes in North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. METHODS:A 20-week, open-label, randomized, two-armed, parallel-group, multicenter study in Egypt, Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam. Patients (n = 155) with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled using neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin were randomized to either patient-driven or physician-driven BIAsp 30 titration. RESULTS:The noninferiority of patient-driven compared to physician-driven titration with respect to the reduction in HbA1c was confirmed. The estimated mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 20 was -1.27% in the patient-driven arm and -1.04% in the physician-driven arm, with an estimated treatment difference of -0.23% (95% confidence interval: -0.54; 0.08). After 20 weeks of treatment, the proportions of patients achieving the target of HbA1c <7.5% were similar between titration arms; the proportions of patients achieving the target of ≤6.5% were also similar. Both titration algorithms were well tolerated, and hypoglycemic episode rates were similar in both arms. CONCLUSION:Patient-driven titration of BIAsp 30 can be as effective and safe as physician-driven titration in non-Western populations. Overall, the switch from NPH insulin to BIAsp 30 was well tolerated in both titration arms and led to improved glycemic control. A limitation of the study was the relatively small number of patients recruited in each country. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01589653. FUNDING:Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark.

SUBMITTER: Chraibi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5544605 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims/introductionThe present study was to compare the efficacy and safety of subject-driven and investigator-driven titration of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) twice daily (BID).Materials and methodsIn this 20-week, randomized, open-label, two-group parallel, multicenter trial, Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by premixed/self-mixed human insulin were randomized 1:1 to subject-driven or investigator-driven titration of BIAsp 30 BID, in combination with metformin and/or α-glucosidase inhibitors. Dose adjustment was decided by patients in the subject-driven group after training, and by investigators in the investigator-driven group.ResultsEligible adults (n = 344) were randomized in the study. The estimated glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction was 14.5 mmol/mol (1.33%) in the subject-driven group and 14.3 mmol/mol (1.31%) in the investigator-driven group. Non-inferiority of subject-titration vs investigator-titration in reducing HbA1c was confirmed, with estimated treatment difference -0.26 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval -2.05, 1.53) (-0.02%, 95% confidence interval -0.19, 0.14). Fasting plasma glucose, postprandial glucose increment and self-measured plasma glucose were improved in both groups without statistically significant differences. One severe hypoglycemic event was experienced by one subject in each group. A similar rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia (events/patient-year) was reported in the subject-driven (1.10) and investigator-driven (1.32) groups. There were 64.5 and 58.1% patients achieving HbA1c <53.0 mmol/mol (7.0%), and 51.2 and 45.9% patients achieving the HbA1c target without confirmed hypoglycemia throughout the trial in the subject-driven and investigator-driven groups, respectively.ConclusionsSubject-titration of BIAsp 30 BID was as efficacious and well-tolerated as investigator-titration. The present study supported patients to self-titrate BIAsp 30 BID under physicians' supervision.

Project description:IntroductionThis 32-week, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multinational trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of stepwise insulin intensification of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) relative to stepwise intensification of a basal-bolus regimen in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who continued pretrial treatment with metformin and sulfonylurea.MethodsAdults with T2D were randomized into one of two treatment arms for 32 weeks: (1) BIAsp 30 once daily (OD), with the possibility of stepwise treatment intensification up to BIAsp 30 three times daily (TID); (2) insulin glargine OD, with the possibility of stepwise treatment intensification with insulin aspart up to TID. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks.ResultsAfter 32 weeks, the estimated mean change in HbA1c from baseline was statistically significantly lower in the BIAsp 30 arm (- 1.18%) versus basal-bolus (- 1.36%) [estimated treatment difference 0.18%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.01; 0.36; p < 0.05]. The proportion of patients with HbA1c below 7.0% was statistically significantly lower with BIAsp 30 (42.9%) compared with basal-bolus (56.9%) (odds ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.37; 0.89; p = 0.01). The overall rate of severe or blood glucose (BG)-confirmed hypoglycemic events was numerically lower for BIAsp 30 compared with basal-bolus, and a statistically significantly lower rate in nocturnal severe or BG-confirmed hypoglycemia in the BIAsp 30 arm relative to basal-bolus was observed: estimated rate ratio 0.32 (95% CI 0.13; 0.79), p = 0.0131. The proportion of patients with adverse events was similar in both treatment arms.ConclusionInsulin intensification with BIAsp 30 and basal-bolus showed an improvement in glycemic control; the change in HbA1c was statistically significantly lower for BIAsp 30 compared to basal-bolus. Basal-bolus treatment was accompanied by a numerically, and statistically significantly, higher rate of overall and nocturnal severe or BG-confirmed hypoglycemia, respectively, compared with BIAsp 30.FundingNovo Nordisk A/S.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02453685.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2016, a short message service text messaging intervention to titrate insulin in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes was implemented at two health care facilities in New York City.ObjectiveThis study aimed to conduct a qualitative evaluation assessing barriers to and the facilitators of the implementation of the Mobile Insulin Titration Intervention (MITI) program into usual care.MethodsWe conducted in-depth interviews with 36 patients enrolled in the MITI program and the staff involved in MITI (n=19) in the two health care systems. Interviews were transcribed and iteratively coded by two study investigators, both inductively and deductively using a codebook guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsMultiple facilitator themes emerged: (1) MITI had strong relative advantages to in-person titration, including its convenience and time-saving design, (2) the free cost of MITI was important to the patients, (3) MITI was easy to use and the patients were confident in their ability to use it, (4) MITI was compatible with the patients' home routines and clinic workflow, (5) the patients and staff perceived MITI to have value beyond insulin titration by reminding and motivating the patients to engage in healthy behaviors and providing a source of patient support, and (6) implementation in clinics was made easy by having a strong implementation climate, communication networks to spread information about MITI, and a strong program champion. The barriers identified included the following: (1) language limitations, (2) initial nurse concerns about the scope of practice changes required to deliver MITI, (3) initial provider knowledge gaps about the program, and (4) provider perceptions that MITI might not be appropriate for some patients (eg, older or not tech-savvy). There was also a theme that emerged during the patient and staff interviews of an unmet need for long-term additional diabetes management support among this population, specifically diet, nutrition, and exercise support.ConclusionsThe patients and staff were overwhelmingly supportive of MITI and believed that it had many benefits and that it was compatible with the clinic workflow and patients' lives. Initial implementation efforts should address staff training and nurse concerns. Future research should explore options for integrating additional diabetes support for patients.

Project description:ObjectiveTo directly compare the efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination, of insulin glargine 100 units/mL and the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist lixisenatide (iGlarLixi), with those of a premix insulin analog, biphasic aspart insulin 30 (30% insulin aspart and 70% insulin aspart protamine) (BIAsp 30) as treatment advancement in type 2 diabetes suboptimally controlled on basal insulin plus oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OADs).Research design and methodsIn SoliMix, a 26-week, open-label, multicenter study, adults with suboptimally controlled basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤10%) were randomized to once-daily iGlarLixi or twice-daily BIAsp 30. Primary efficacy end points were noninferiority in HbA1c reduction (margin 0.3%) or superiority in body weight change for iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30.ResultsBoth primary efficacy end points were met: after 26 weeks, baseline HbA1c (8.6%) was reduced by 1.3% with iGlarLixi and 1.1% with BIAsp 30, meeting noninferiority (least squares [LS] mean difference -0.2% [97.5% CI -0.4, -0.1]; P < 0.001). iGlarLixi was also superior to BIAsp 30 for body weight change (LS mean difference -1.9 kg [95% CI -2.3, -1.4]) and percentage of participants achieving HbA1c <7% without weight gain and HbA1c <7% without weight gain and without hypoglycemia (all P < 0.001). iGlarLixi was also superior versus BIAsp 30 for HbA1c reduction (P < 0.001). Incidence and rates of American Diabetes Association level 1 and 2 hypoglycemia were lower with iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30.ConclusionsOnce-daily iGlarLixi provided better glycemic control with weight benefit and less hypoglycemia than twice-daily premix BIAsp 30. iGlarLixi is a more efficacious, simpler, and well-tolerated alternative to premix BIAsp 30 in suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes requiring treatment beyond basal insulin plus OAD therapy. VIDEO 1: diacare;dc21-0393v4/F1F1f1Infographic available at https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/dc21-0393-infographic.

Dataset Information

An RCT Investigating Patient-Driven Versus Physician-Driven Titration of BIAsp 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled Using NPH Insulin.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure