Clinical outcomes using long-term combination therapy with insulin glargine and exenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the long-term effects of combination insulin glargine/exenatide treatment on glycemic control. METHODS: We conducted a 24-month retrospective US chart review of patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and hemoglobin A1c (A1C) levels >7.0% for whom glargine and exenatide were coprescribed in differing order (glargine added after exenatide [exenatide/glargine]; exenatide added after glargine [glargine/exenatide]). Treatment order groups were combined to form a pooled treatment group. Changes from baseline in A1C, patients with A1C ≤7.0%, body weight, glargine/exenatide daily dose, oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) use, and hypoglycemia were evaluated. RESULTS: Treatment groups were similar at baseline; however, patients in the glargine/exenatide group (n = 121) (vs exenatide/glargine group [n = 44]) had longer disease duration (11.8 vs 8.0 years) and took fewer OADs (1.7 vs 2.3). Overall, baseline A1C was 8.8 ± 1.3% and weight was 109.5 ± 25.3 kg. Significant A1C reductions emerged at month 6 and persisted throughout 24 months (vs baseline) in both treatment groups (pooled: -0.7 ± 1.6; P<.001), and 33.0% of patients achieved an A1C level ≤7.0%. After 24 months of exenatide/glargine, body weight remained unchanged (0.7 ± 8.3 kg; P = .640). With glargine/exenatide, body weight decreased (-2.5 ± 6.7 kg; P = .001). At month 24, daily glargine dose was 0.40 ± 0.23 units/kg for the exenatide/glargine group and 0.47 ± 0.30 units/kg for the glargine/exenatide group. Hypoglycemia frequency was similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of treatment order, long-term combined therapy with glargine and exenatide for up to 24 months in patients with inadequately controlled T2DM suggests reduction of A1C without significant weight gain or increased hypoglycemia risk.

Glycemic control with insulin glargine plus insulin glulisine versus premixed insulin analogues in real-world practices: a cost-effectiveness study with a randomized pragmatic trial design.

BACKGROUND: Cost can be an important consideration, along with safety and efficacy, in deciding the most appropriate treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes. Both basal-bolus and premixed insulin analogue regimens are widely used in clinical practice; however, limited information is available regarding cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare glycemic control, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life effects of insulin glargine plus insulin glulisine (glargine/glulisine) versus premixed insulin analogues in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: Adults with type 2 diabetes (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)] ≥7.0%) at 3 US endocrinology centers were randomly assigned to receive either glargine/glulisine or premixed insulin analogues and continued treatment following the centers' usual practice. HbA(1c), weight, insulin dose, concomitant oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) usage, and hypoglycemia were evaluated at baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months. Medication costs, including costs for all insulin or OAD regimens, were estimated using published wholesale acquisition costs. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients were randomized to receive glargine/glulisine therapy (n = 106) or premixed analogue therapy (n = 91). Overall, the mean age was 56 years, the mean duration of diabetes was 13 years, with a mean HbA(1c) of 9.25% and mean BMI of 35.8 kg/m(2) at baseline. Patients randomized to receive glargine/glulisine had a greater mean HbA(1c) reduction from baseline (-2.3%) than patients receiving a premixed analogue regimen (-1.7%). Adjusted mean follow-up HbA(1c) was 6.9% versus 7.5%, respectively (difference, -0.59%; P < 0.01). The glargine/glulisine group also used a lower mean number of OADs (0.86 vs 1.14; difference, -0.28; P = 0.04) but had a higher weight (240 vs 235 lb; difference, 4.55 lb; P = 0.03) than the premixed analogue group at follow-up. There were no significant differences in daily insulin dose and rates of hypoglycemia. Overall medication costs per 1.0% reduction in HbA(1c) were $841 with glargine/glulisine and $1308 with premixed analogues. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, treatment with glargine/glulisine provided greater improvement in glycemic control and may represent a more cost-effective treatment option than premixed regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes in real-world clinical practice. However, due to the pragmatic trial design, the study concluded before follow-up assessments were available for all randomized patients.

Effects of sulodexide in patients with type 2 diabetes and persistent albuminuria.

BACKGROUND: Urinary albumin excretion frequently persists in diabetic patients who are treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). Sulodexide, a glycosaminoglycan mixture of 80% heparan sulfate and 20% dermatan sulfate, has been hypothesized to reduce persistent albuminuria. We have conducted a multi-center randomized double-blind pilot study in order to determine the effect of 6 months' therapy with sulodexide on urinary albumin excretion and to address logistical issues for a full-scale trial. METHODS: A total of 149 patients with type 2 diabetes and an albumin:creatinine ratio (ACR) between 20 and 300 mg/g were randomized with equal allocation to either placebo, 200 mg of sulodexide or 400 mg of sulodexide. The primary endpoint was the achievement, at 6 months, of either 3(1) return to normoalbuminuria (ACR < 20 mg/g with a decrease of at least 25%) or (2) a decrease in ACR of at least 50% from the baseline value. All patients used a maximum tolerated recommended FDA approved dose of an ACEI or ARB for at least 60 days and had stable blood pressure prior to randomization. RESULTS: The primary efficacy endpoint was achieved in 25.3% of the patients in the two sulodexide groups combined versus 15.4% of the placebo-treated patients (P = 0.26). The primary endpoint was achieved in 33.3% (P = 0.075 for the comparison to placebo) in the sulodexide 200 mg group and 18.4% (P = 0.781) in the sulodexide 400 mg group. (No consistent patterns of side effects were observed. CONCLUSION: Based on the experience gained in this pilot study, one full-scale trial is currently being conducted to evaluate the effects of sulodexide on change in ACR in patients with persistent microalbuminuria, and a longer-term trial is underway to evaluate the effects of sulodexide on long-term renal disease progression in patients with overt proteinuria.