Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Dulaglutide Versus Insulin Glargine in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes on Metformin and Glimepiride (AWARD-2).

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, with daily insulin glargine, both combined with maximally tolerated doses of metformin and glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes. The primary objective was noninferiority of dulaglutide 1.5 mg to glargine in the HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 78-week, open-label study, 810 patients were randomized to dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg, or glargine. RESULTS: The baseline mean ± SD HbA1c was 8.1 ± 1.0% (65.5 ± 10.8 mmol/mol). The least squares mean ± SE HbA1c change from baseline to the primary end point was -1.08 ± 0.06% (-11.8 ± 0.7 mmol/mol) for dulaglutide 1.5 mg, -0.76 ± 0.06% (-8.3 ± 0.7 mmol/mol) for dulaglutide 0.75 mg, and -0.63 ± 0.06% (-6.9 ± 0.7 mmol/mol) for glargine, with an end point mean ± SD dose of 29 ± 26 units (0.33 ± 0.24 units/kg), and a fasting plasma glucose (mean ± SD) of 118 ± 23 mg/dL from self-monitored plasma glucose. Statistical criteria for superiority were met with dulaglutide 1.5 mg and for noninferiority with dulaglutide 0.75 mg. More patients on dulaglutide 1.5 mg achieved HbA1c targets <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) versus glargine (P < 0.001). Body weight decreased with dulaglutide and increased with glargine. Total hypoglycemia rates were lower with dulaglutide; severe hypoglycemia was minimal. Increases in pancreatic enzymes were observed for dulaglutide. Incidence of nausea (15.4, 7.7, and 1.5%) and diarrhea (10.6, 9.2, and 5.7%) were more common with dulaglutide 1.5 mg and 0.75 mg than with glargine. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg, compared with daily insulin glargine without forced titration, demonstrated greater HbA1c reduction and weight loss, with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events and a lower risk of hypoglycemia.

Predictors of achieving HbA(1c) <7% and no hypoglycaemia 6 months after initiation of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes in the IMPROVE study.

BACKGROUND: Early initiation of insulin therapy has widely been associated with numerous benefits, including improved glycaemic control and reduced long-term risk of developing microvascular diseases. Biphasic insulins offer a convenient option for insulin initiation, addressing both basal and postprandial insulin requirements with one injection, making them relatively simple for patients to dose. Development of biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) has further offered improved postprandial glycaemic control and lower rates of nocturnal and major hypoglycaemia than biphasic human insulin. METHODS: The safety and efficacy of the 30/70 rapid-acting/intermediate-acting formulation of BIAsp (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes was examined in the IMPROVE study, a 26-week, international, observational trial. In this subanalysis, baseline clinical factors that predicted treatment success, defined as HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) without experiencing hypoglycaemia after 26 weeks on BIAsp 30 therapy, were assessed. RESULTS: The composite endpoint was defined for 44,010 (77%) patients from the total cohort of 57,478, and 28,696 of these were included in the statistical examination. The results of the analysis suggest that those with lower baseline HbA1c of ≤8% (≤64 mmol/mol), shorter duration of diabetes at baseline (<5 years) and no incidence of major hypoglycaemia at 13 weeks, or minor hypoglycaemia at 4 weeks, before the beginning of the trial were more likely to achieve treatment success. CONCLUSION: Lower baseline HbA1c, shorter duration of diabetes and no incidence of hypoglycaemia up to 13 weeks prior to initiation are predictors of achieving HbA1c <7% without hypoglycaemia with a BIAsp 30 regimen. These results suggest that it is easier to reach target without hypoglycaemia with BIAsp 30 when prescribed earlier. As this was an observational study, lack of control groups or randomisation, as well as varying clinical practices in study countries, potentially introduced bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00659282.

Predictors of postprandial blood glucose response to biphasic insulin analogue therapy.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) has been shown in randomised controlled trials and the IMPROVE™ observational study to reduce postprandial blood glucose (PPBG) - thought to be an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. We used multivariate regression analysis to identify predictors of PPBG reduction in the IMPROVE™ study. A total of 52,419 type 2 diabetes patients were enrolled in the IMPROVE™ study (pre-study therapy subgroups: no pharmaceutical therapy, n = 8966; oral antidiabetic drugs [OADs] only, n = 33,797; insulin ± OADs, n = 9568; missing information on pre-study therapy, n = 88). Mean change from baseline in PPBG (mean of three meals) in the global cohort was -6.3 mmol/L; reductions in subgroups were: no pharmaceutical therapy, -8.8 mmol/L; OADs only, -6.0 mmol/L; insulin ± OADs, -5.1 mmol/L. High baseline PPBG was consistently and strongly predictive of PPBG response; lower baseline HbA1c and body mass index, greater age and shorter diabetes duration were also significant predictors of PPBG change. The novel findings from this study indicate that most patients can be expected to achieve a PPBG response with BIAsp 30 irrespective of baseline characteristics or previous therapy with an expected larger PPBG reduction when baseline PPBG is higher.

Clinical Outcomes After Insulin Initiation in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: 24-Month Results from INSTIGATE.

INTRODUCTION: To examine changes in insulin regimens and glycemic control during the 24 months after initiation of insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Data were collected over a 24-month period from patients requiring insulin initiation as part of usual care, in a prospective, observational study. Changes in insulin regimens and hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) were examined within countries (Germany, Greece, Spain) and overall. RESULTS: Prandial insulin only was most commonly initiated in Germany, while basal or premixed formulations were initiated in Greece and Spain. In Germany, compared with Greece or Spain, the patients were slightly younger and had a shorter diabetes duration when initiating insulin. For patients overall, 76.1% did not change their insulin regimen between initiation and 24 months. The most obvious change was a shift from prandial to basal/bolus in Germany, with almost doubling of mean daily insulin dose; in Greece and Spain, more patients stopped using insulin and the trend to more complex regimens was not seen. Overall, mean (SD) HbA(1c) decreased from baseline (9.4 [1.7]%) to 6 months (7.2 [1.0]%), but with little further change through 24 months (7.2 [1.1]%). HbA(1c) change with basal/bolus insulin (-2.6 [2.0]%, baseline 10.1%) was greater than with basal only (-2.0 [1.8]%, baseline 9.3%). Mean HbA(1c) less than 7% was achieved and maintained over 24 months in Germany, but was not achieved at any time in Greece or Spain. CONCLUSIONS: Within 24 months of insulin initiation, the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes remained on the same insulin regimen initially instigated, despite the well-established progressive loss of prandial and basal endogenous insulin secretion. Adequate glycemic control was best achieved where insulin dosage adjustments and insulin intensification took place.

Fear, guilt feelings and misconceptions: barriers to effective insulin treatment in type 2 diabetes.

Diabetes self management education, the process of teaching individuals to manage their diabetes, has been considered the cornerstone of the clinical management of individuals with diabetes since the work of the Joslin Diabetes Center. The goals of self-management education are to optimize metabolic control, prevent acute and chronic complications, and optimize quality of life. The keystone to successful management is to involve the patient in his treatment. Clearly, factors other than knowledge and effective therapies affect the behaviors of patients and health care professionals and influence their ability to make optimal use of available treatments. The DAWN study has shown that both health care providers and patients may have a negative attitude toward starting insulin therapy. Patients with type 2 diabetes are very often reluctant to accept insulin therapy. The reasons most commonly encountered, for this negative attitude are: Patients blame themselves, for they consider that starting insulin therapy would indicate they had "failed" proper diabetes self-management. For some patients taking insulin means life will be more restricted or it means they have reached their last resort. Fear of hypoglycemia is a very common barrier for insulin therapy. Physicians may, unconsciously, negatively influence their patients. For some physicians putting his patient on insulin, means that he has failed to control his patient's diabetes on oral agents and now has to force him in a troublesome therapeutic regime. In order to overcome these barriers, health care professionals, rather than trying to "convince" their patients of the necessity of the treatment, should assess, by active listening, the precise reason for which his/her patient denies it.

Clinical outcomes after insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes: 6-month data from the INSTIGATE observational study in five European countries.

OBJECTIVES: To examine insulin regimens and factors that affect glycaemic control at 6 months after initiation of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Information on patients requiring insulin initiation as part of usual care was collected in a prospective, observational, open-label study in five European countries. Univariate and multiple regression analyses were used to investigate factors associated with HbA1c achieved at 6 months. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c for all patients at baseline was 9.6 ± 1.8%. Long/intermediate-acting insulin only was most commonly initiated in France and Spain, while long/intermediate or pre-mixed formulations were initiated in Greece and UK. This was consistent with guidelines used in those countries and there was little change in insulin regimen at 6 months in these countries. In Germany, short-acting insulin only was favoured at baseline and there was a shift towards basal/bolus regimens at 6 months, which reflected the local guidelines for insulin initiation in Germany. Mean HbA1c reduction was greatest in Germany (-2.3%), which was the only country to achieve a mean of <7% at 6 months. In all countries, HbA1c achieved at 6 months was associated with baseline HbA1c. Differences between countries were seen for influence of factors such as BMI, duration of diabetes, insulin regimen, insulin dose and number of oral anti-diabetes drugs on HbA1c achieved. Explained variability for the factors ranged from 5.6% to 22.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in insulin regimen were observed between countries, and appeared to reflect the guidelines and treatment regimens used.

Improved glycaemic control with BIAsp 30 in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes patients inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetics: subgroup analysis from the IMPROVE study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this subanalysis of the IMPROVE study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of initiating biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) in type 2 diabetes patients uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). METHODS: IMPROVE is a 26-week, open-label, non-randomised, international observational study in type 2 diabetes patients prescribed BIAsp 30 in routine clinical practice. The total cohort comprised 52 419 patients from various pre-study therapies. Here results from the subgroup of previously insulin-naïve patients are reported. Changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting blood glucose (FBG), postprandial blood glucose (PPBG), weight, dose, proportion of patients achieving HbA(1c) < 7.0%, and rates of major and minor hypoglycaemic events were recorded. Treatment satisfaction was assessed using a validated questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 29 160 insulin-naïve patients were included; mean age 55.6 years, diabetes duration 7.3 years, baseline HbA(1c) 9.24%. Significant reductions were seen for HbA(1c) (-2.12%; p < 0.0001), FBG (-4.07 mmol/L; p < 0.0001) and PPBG after all meals (mean: -5.27 mmol/L; p < 0.0001); 39.2% of patients achieved HbA(1c) < 7.0% without hypoglycaemia. Better glycaemic control was seen in patients treated with BIAsp 30 twice-daily (BID) both at baseline and final visit, or BID at baseline and three-times daily at final visit, compared with other regimens. The rate of major hypoglycaemic events decreased significantly, while the rate of minor hypoglycaemic events increased. Better glycaemic control and a lower rate of minor hypoglycaemia were observed in patients using BIAsp 30 without OADs than with OADs. There was no clinically relevant change in weight (-0.07 kg; p < 0.0001). At final visit, 59.7% of patients were extremely/very satisfied with treatment, compared with 10.2% at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This open-label, non-randomised, observational study demonstrated that initiating insulin therapy with BIAsp 30 significantly improved glycaemic control in insulin-naïve patients previously poorly controlled on OADs. The rate of major hypoglycaemia was reduced and treatment satisfaction increased after initiation of BIAsp 30. Furthermore, better glycaemic control was achieved with BIAsp 30 without OAD compared to with OAD.

Characteristics of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating insulin therapy: baseline data from the INSTIGATE study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics at baseline of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are initiating insulin. METHODS: Prospective, observational multi-centre, open-label study in five European countries of patients with type 2 diabetes who were initiating insulin as part of their usual care. RESULTS: A total of 1172 patients were enrolled, with mean age 63.3 years and body mass index 29.9 kg/m(2). The majority (90%) of patients were taking one or more oral anti-diabetic agents; the percentage not taking anti-diabetic medication in the previous four weeks was highest in Germany (23.4%) and Spain (15.1%). The prevalence of microvascular diseases (range: 16.1%-36.1%) varied considerably between countries but for macrovascular (30.4%-38.6%) and other diabetes-related diagnoses (72.6%-76.6%) such as hypertension and dyslipidaemia the differences were less pronounced. In Germany, reported use of lipid-lowering (26.7%) and anti-platelet (27.1%) therapies was much less than in other countries (ranges: 53.2%-78.1% and 48.3%-61.1%, respectively). The majority of evaluable patients in each country had demonstrated poor control over a long period of time. Prior to initiating insulin, the most recent mean (+/-SD) HbA1(c) was 9.58 +/- 1.81%, fasting plasma glucose was 12.18 +/- 4.32 mmol/L and 78.5% had metabolic syndrome. IDF targets for HDL- and LDL-cholesterol, and blood pressure were met in 76.8%, 33.1% and 18.9% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin treatment was only initiated after HbA1(c) values were considerably higher than recommended in treatment guidelines for a sustained period of time.