Dataset Information

Differential Treatment Response to Insulin Intensification Therapy: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial Comparing Premixed and Basal-Bolus Insulin Regimens.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Identification of subgroups of patients that may benefit most from certain treatment is important because individual treatment response varies due to multiple contributing factors. The present study used the subgroup identification based on the differential effect search (SIDES) algorithm to identify subgroups with different treatment responses to insulin intensification therapies.

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of a 24-week, multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel study comparing prandial premixed therapy (PPT) to basal-bolus therapy (BBT). Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized to PPT (insulin lispro mix 50/50 thrice daily with meals) or BBT (glargine at bedtime plus mealtime insulin lispro) insulin intensification therapies. The SIDES algorithm was used to identify the subgroups from at-goal patients [glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0% (53.0 mmol/mol) at the end of 24 weeks; n = 182] who could have benefitted from insulin intensification therapies.

Results

Baseline characteristics of overall at-goal patients were comparable between PPT and BBT groups. The SIDES algorithm identified patients with race other than Caucasian (i.e., African-American, Asian, and Hispanic) and baseline fasting blood glucose (FBG) <8.89 mmol/L as a subgroup that could respond better to PPT relative to BBT than the overall at-goal patient population. In this identified subgroup population, the HbA1c mean (standard deviation) changes from baseline to endpoint in PPT and BBT groups were -2.27 (0.88)% versus -2.05 (0.75)%; p = 0.40, respectively; while in the overall at-goal patients, the HbA1c changes were -2.17 (0.79)% versus -2.34 (1.00)%; p = 0.19, respectively.

Conclusions

The preliminary results showed that the subgroup of patients with race other than Caucasian and FBG <8.89 mmol/L may respond better to premixed intensification therapy. This result provides some preliminary information for further investigation in prospective studies.

Funding

Eli Lilly and Company.

Clinical trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov ID number: NCT00110370.

SUBMITTER: Shi LX

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5544622 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIn a preceding trial comparing two different titration schemes, insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) showed good efficacy for achieving HbA1c <7% when administered twice daily (BID) in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, poor glycemic control persisted in a minority of patients. The current exploratory trial investigated the efficacy and safety of intensifying IDegAsp BID treatment in these patients by either adding a once-daily (OD) bolus injection of insulin aspart (IAsp) or by switching to a basal-bolus regimen of insulin degludec (IDeg) plus IAsp taken three times a day (TID).MethodA 26-week, randomized, open-label, phase 3b, treat-to-target trial in which 40 patients with T2D who had not reached target HbA1c ≤7.0% following previous 26-week treatment intensification with IDegAsp BID ±3 oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) were randomized (1:1) to receive IDegAsp BID + IAsp OD (n = 20) or IDeg OD + IAsp TID (n = 20).ResultsMean baseline HbA1c was 7.9% in the IDegAsp BID + IAsp OD group and 7.7% in the IDeg OD + IAsp TID group. After 26 weeks, the estimated mean change in HbA1c from baseline was 0.05% points in the IDegAsp BID + IAsp OD group and -0.49% points for IDeg OD + IAsp TID: estimated treatment difference (ETD) [95% confidence interval] 0.54% [0.09; 0.99], p = 0.021. Few achieved HbA1c <7% in IDegAsp BID + IAsp OD (four patients) and IDeg OD + IAsp TID groups (five patients). Fasting plasma glucose, hypoglycemia, and adverse events were similar between groups.ConclusionWhen used as intensification regimens in patients who failed to achieve target HbA1c during 26-week IDegAsp BID treatment, HbA1c improvements were numerically greater with IDeg OD + IAsp TID compared with IDegAsp BID + IAsp OD. No new safety issues were identified. However, the small, selective sample means clinical generalizations should be made with caution.FundingNovo Nordisk. CLINICALTRIALS.Gov identifierNCT01814137.

Project description:IntroductionBasal-bolus (BB) and premixed insulin regimens may lower fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), but are complex to use and associated with weight gain and hypoglycaemia. Although randomized controlled trials and prospective observational studies in insulin-naïve Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) initiating these regimens have been conducted, real-world data are lacking. This study describes the characteristics of patients initiating these regimens in routine clinical practice and identifies the course and outcomes of therapy in the year following initiation.MethodsAdults with T2D initiating BB or premixed regimens following OAD therapies held in a Japanese electronic medical record database were identified (2010-2019). Subcohorts were determined by treatment changes during ≤ 12 months of follow-up (no change, intensified, switched, discontinued). Outcomes included change in glycated haemoglobin levels (HbA1c), probability of first reaching HbA1c < 7% (stratified by baseline OAD number, HbA1c and age), and hypoglycaemia incidence.ResultsThe main cohorts comprised 1315 BB and 1195 premixed therapy initiators. Most individuals (67.9%) initiated BB as inpatients; 50.8% switched at a mean of 47.6 days. Mean HbA1c lowering was - 2.5% for BB and - 1.4% for premixed regimens (no change cohorts). Overall, a greater proportion achieved HbA1c < 7% if they were (at baseline) taking fewer OADs, in a lower HbA1c category, and aged ≥ 65 years. Hypoglycaemia incidence (< 70 mg/dl) was higher with BB than premixed regimens and lower in patients aged < 65 years.ConclusionGreater HbA1c reductions, but a higher incidence of hypoglycaemia, were reported with BB versus premixed regimens, while both cohorts demonstrated clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c during follow-up. After initiation, most premixed regimens remained unchanged, whereas switches from BB to less intensive regimens were numerous, in accordance with the use of BB for a limited duration to improve FPG and PPG control.

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:INTRODUCTION:Treatment guidelines recommend a stepwise approach to glycemia management in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), but this may result in uncontrolled glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between steps. This retrospective analysis compared clinical and economic outcomes among patients with uncontrolled T2D initiating two oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), or basal insulin in a real-world setting. METHODS:Adults with T2D on OAD monotherapy were identified in the MarketScan claims database (2007-2014). Those initiating two OADs (simultaneously or sequentially), GLP-1 RAs, or basal insulin were selected (date of initiation was termed the 'index date'); patients were required to have HbA1c > 7.0% in the 6 months pre-index date. HbA1c was compared from 6 months pre- to 1-year post-index. Annual all-cause healthcare utilization and costs were reported over the 1-year follow-up period. RESULTS:Data for 6054 patients were analyzed (2-OAD, n = 4442; GLP-1 RA, n = 361; basal insulin, n = 1251). Baseline HbA1c was high in all cohorts, but highest in the basal-insulin cohort. Treatment initiation resulted in reductions in HbA1c in all cohorts, which was generally maintained throughout the follow-up period. Average HbA1c reductions from the 6 months pre- to 1 year post-index date were -1.2% for GLP-1 RA, -1.6% for OADs, and -1.8% for basal insulin. HbA1c < 7.0% at 1 year occurred in 32.6%, 47.5%, and 41.1% of patients, respectively. Annual healthcare costs (mean [SD]) were lowest for OAD (US$10,074 [$22,276]) followed by GLP-1 RA (US$14,052 [$23,829]) and basal insulin (US$18,813 [$37,332]). CONCLUSION:Despite robust HbA1c lowering following treatment initiation, many patients did not achieve HbA1c < 7.0%. Basal insulin, generally prescribed for patients with high baseline HbA1c, was associated with a large reduction in HbA1c and with higher costs. Therapy intensification at an appropriate time could lead to clinical and economic benefits and should be investigated further. FUNDING:Sanofi U.S., Inc.