Dataset Information

Metabolic and sympathovagal effects of bolus insulin glulisine versus basal insulin glargine therapy in people with type 2 diabetes: A randomized controlled study.

ABSTRACT:

Aims/introduction

This study compares the effects of two different insulin regimens - basal versus bolus insulin - on metabolic and cardiovascular autonomic function in Japanese participants with type 2 diabetes.

Materials and methods

Participants were randomly assigned to groups for therapy with insulin glulisine (IGlu) or insulin glargine (IGla). The primary efficacy end-point was glycemic variability, including M-values, mean of glucose levels, and a blood glucose profile of seven time points before and after the intervention. The secondary end-points included pleiotropic effects, including endothelial and cardiac autonomic nerve functions.

Results

Blood glucose levels at all time points significantly decreased in both groups. Post-lunch, post-dinner, and bedtime blood glucose levels were significantly lower in the IGlu group than in the IGla group. Nadir fasting blood glucose levels at the end-point were significantly lower in the IGla group than in the IGlu group. The M-value and mean blood glucose levels were significantly decreased from baseline in both groups, although the former was significantly lower in the IGlu group than in the IGla group. IGla, but not IGlu, was found to elevate 24-h parasympathetic tone, especially during night-time, and it decreased 24-h sympathetic nerve activity, especially at dawn.

Conclusions

Both IGlu and IGla regimens reduced glucose variability, with IGlu bringing a greater reduction in M-value. IGla, but not IGlu, increased parasympathetic tone during night-time and decreased sympathetic nerve activity at dawn. These findings shed light on the previously unrecognized role of night-time basal insulin supplementation on sympathovagal activity in type 2 diabetes patients.

SUBMITTER: Takeshita Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8264393 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:OPTIMIZE evaluated the efficacy, safety and treatment satisfaction of insulin glargine 300 U/mL once daily (Gla-300 OD) in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) previously uncontrolled on basal insulin twice daily (BID) as part of basal-bolus therapy. METHODS:OPTIMIZE was a 28-week, prospective, interventional, single-arm phase 4 trial in adults with T1DM. At baseline, basal insulin BID treatment was switched to Gla-300 OD titrated to a fasting self-monitored blood glucose target of 4.4-7.2 mmol/L (80-130 mg/dL). The primary endpoint was the mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline to week 24. Secondary endpoints included self-monitored blood glucose, fasting-plasma glucose, hypoglycaemia and patient-reported outcomes including the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (DTSQs). RESULTS:Switching to Gla-300 OD significantly improved mean HbA1c (8.54% at baseline and 8.27% at week 24 [last observation carried forward, N = 94, p < 0.0001]; mean difference 0.27% [95% CI 0.15, 0.40]). There was a statistically significant decrease in fasting self-monitored blood glucose during the study (analysis of variance for repeated measures, p = 0.014; N = 72). Eight-point self-monitored blood glucose was significantly improved between baseline and week 24 for post-breakfast (p = 0.009), post-dinner (p = 0.009) and bedtime (p = 0.049) values. The study did not allow for any significant effects on confirmed and/or severe hypoglycaemia at the ≤ 3.9 mmol/L [≤ 70 mg/dL] or < 3.0 mmol/L [< 54 mg/dL] blood glucose cut-offs to be observed. Statistically significant improvements were observed in DTSQs total scores from baseline (24.1) to week 24 (29.4, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:A basal-bolus regimen including Gla-300 OD was associated with improvements in HbA1c and treatment satisfaction in people with uncontrolled T1DM previously receiving basal-bolus insulin including a basal insulin BID analogue. TRIAL REGISTRATION:EudraCT number: 2015-001186-46.

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term cost-utility of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the basal-bolus subgroup of the head-to-head cardiovascular (CV) outcome trial, DEVOTE.MethodsA cost-utility analysis was conducted over a 2-year time horizon using a decision analytic model to compare costs in patients receiving once daily degludec or glargine U100, both as part of a basal-bolus regimen, in addition to standard care. Clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were taken exclusively from DEVOTE, whilst health-related quality of life utilities and UK-specific costs (expressed in 2016 GBP) were obtained from the literature. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service.ResultsDegludec was associated with mean cost savings of GBP 28.78 per patient relative to glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk. Cost savings were driven by the reduction in risk of diabetes-related complications with degludec, which offset the higher treatment costs relative to glargine U100. Degludec was associated with a mean improvement of 0.0064 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with glargine U100, with improvements driven predominantly by lower rates of severe hypoglycemia with degludec versus glargine U100. Improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy combined with cost neutrality resulted in degludec being dominant over glargine U100. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the incremental cost-utility ratio was stable to variations in the majority of model inputs.ConclusionThe present short-term modeling analysis found that for the basal-bolus subgroup of patients in DEVOTE, with a high risk of CV events, degludec was cost neutral (no additional costs) compared with glargine U100 over a 2-year time horizon in the UK setting. Furthermore, there were QALY gains with degludec, particularly due to the reduction in the risk of severe hypoglycemia.FundingNovo Nordisk A/S.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01959529.

Project description:IntroductionNew insulin glargine 300 U mL(-1) (Gla-300) is a basal insulin that shows more stable and prolonged pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles than insulin glargine 100 U mL(-1) (Gla-100). This study used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to compare 24-h glucose profiles in a Japanese population using Gla-300 versus Gla-100.MethodsThis was an exploratory 8.4-week, single-center, 2-sequence, 2-period, open-label crossover study. Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) treated with basal-bolus insulin, with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 6.5-10.0% and median fasting self-monitored plasma glucose concentration ≤13 mmol L(-1), were randomized to Gla-300 followed by Gla-100 (subgroup 1) or vice versa (subgroup 2), with no washout period. CGM was performed on the last 3 days of the screening period and each treatment period. Primary endpoint was comparison of 24-h glucose variability (area under the curve [AUC]mean_24 h) on the second day of each CGM measurement with Gla-300 versus Gla-100. Baseline and end of treatment period values for HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and daily basal/mealtime insulin doses were recorded. Hypoglycemia and adverse events (AEs) were recorded.ResultsTwenty participants were randomized (10 to subgroup 1 and 10 to subgroup 2). Participants showed comparable glucose variability over 24 h (AUCmean_24 h during treatment with Gla-300 or Gla-100 (treatment ratio 0.96; 90% confidence interval 0.79, 1.16). HbA1c and FPG were generally stable across both treatment periods. There was a trend towards fewer participants experiencing ≥1 hypoglycemia event at any time (24 h) and at night (00:00-05:59 h) with Gla-300 versus Gla-100. Treatment-emergent AEs, reported by 9/20 (45%) and 4/20 (20%) participants during Gla-300 and Gla-100 treatment, respectively, were unrelated to study medication.ConclusionsIn this cohort of Japanese people with T1DM, no between-treatment difference was observed in glucose variability with Gla-300 versus Gla-100, as measured by CGM. There was a trend for less hypoglycemia with Gla-300, particularly at night, versus Gla-100. Both treatments were well tolerated.FundingSanofi, Tokyo, Japan.Clinical trial registrationNCT01676233, ClinicalTrials.gov.

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.