Efficacy and safety of once-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart compared with once-daily insulin glargine in participants with Type 2 diabetes: a randomized, treat-to-target study.

AIMS: To investigate, in a 26-week, open-label, randomized, treat-to-target trial, the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) once daily vs insulin glargine (IGlar) once daily in adults with Type 2 diabetes, inadequately controlled on basal insulin. METHODS: Participants were randomized (1:1) to IDegAsp once daily or IGlar once daily in combination with existing oral antidiabetic drugs. IDegAsp once daily was administered with the main evening meal or the largest meal of the day (agreed at baseline); dosing time was maintained throughout the trial. Participants titrated their insulin dose weekly to a mean pre-breakfast self-measured plasma glucose target [3.9-4.9 mmol/l (70-89 mg/dl)]. RESULTS: IDegAsp once daily was non-inferior to IGlar once daily in reducing HbA1c after 26 weeks [mean estimated treatment difference IDegAsp once daily - IGlar once daily: -0.03% (95% CI -0.20, 0.14)]. The evening meal glucose increment was significantly lower with IDegAsp once daily vs IGlar once daily [estimated treatment difference IDegAsp once daily - IGlar once daily: -1.32 mmol/l (95% CI -1.93, -0.72); P < 0.05]. The overall confirmed hypoglycaemia rate was higher with IDegAsp once daily (estimated rate ratio 1.43; 95% CI 1.07, 1.92; P < 0.05). The rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia did not significantly differ between the IDegAsp and IGlar groups [estimated rate ratio 0.80 (95% CI 0.49, 1.30); not significant]. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin, IDegAsp once daily improved glycaemic control and was non-inferior to IGlar once daily. IDegAsp led to higher rates of overall hypoglycaemia than IGlar, with no significant difference in rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

Comparison of insulin degludec with insulin glargine in insulin-naive subjects with Type 2 diabetes: a 2-year randomized, treat-to-target trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare long-term safety and efficacy of the basal insulin analogue degludec with glargine in insulin-naive subjects with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This open-label trial included a 52-week core period followed by a 52-week extension. Participants were randomized 3:1 to once-daily degludec or glargine, administered with metformin ± dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Basal insulin was titrated to target pre-breakfast plasma glucose 3.9-4.9 mmol/l. RESULTS: At end of treatment (104 weeks), mean HbA1c reductions were similar for degludec and glargine; estimated treatment difference between degludec and glargine was 1 mmol/mol (95% CI -1 to 3) [0.07% (95% CI -0.07 to 0.22)], P = 0.339 in the extension trial set (degludec 551, glargine 174), comprising subjects who completed core trial and continued into the extension trial. Overall confirmed hypoglycaemia rates (1.72 vs. 2.05 episodes/patient-year), rates of adverse events possibly or probably related to trial product (0.19 events/patient-year), weight gain (2.7 vs. 2.4 kg) and mean daily insulin doses (0.63 U/kg) were similar between treatments in the safety analysis set (degludec 766, glargine 257) comprising all treated subjects. Rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia (0.27 vs. 0.46 episodes/patient-year; P = 0.002) and severe hypoglycaemia (0.006 vs. 0.021 episodes/patient-year, P = 0.023) were significantly lower with degludec for the safety analysis set (analysis based on intention-to-treat full analysis set comprising all randomized subjects). CONCLUSIONS: In Type 2 diabetes, insulin degludec in combination with oral anti-diabetic drugs, safely and effectively improves long-term glycaemic control, with a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia as compared with glargine.

Effect of insulin degludec versus sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic agents.

AIM: The efficacy and safety of insulin degludec (IDeg), a new basal insulin with an ultra-long duration of action, was compared to sitagliptin (Sita) in a 26-week, open-label trial. METHODS: Insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes [n = 458, age: 56 years, diabetes duration: 7.7 years, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c): 8.9% (74 mmol/mol)] were randomized (1 : 1) to once-daily IDeg or Sita (100 mg orally) as add-on to stable treatment with 1 or 2 oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). RESULTS: Superiority of IDeg to Sita in improving HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was confirmed [estimated treatment difference (ETD) IDeg-Sita for HbA1c: -0.43%-points [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61; -0.24, p < 0.0001] and for FPG: -2.17 mmol/l (95% CI: -2.59; -1.74, p < 0.0001)]. HbA1c < 7% (<53 mmol/mol) was achieved by 41% (IDeg) versus 28% (Sita) of patients, estimated odds ratio IDeg/Sita: 1.60 (95% CI: 1.04; 2.47, p = 0.034). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia between IDeg and Sita [0.52 vs. 0.30 episodes/patient-year, estimated rate ratio (ERR): IDeg/Sita: 1.93 (95% CI: 0.90; 4.10, p = 0.09)]. Rates of overall confirmed hypoglycaemia were higher with IDeg than with Sita [3.1 vs. 1.3 episodes/patient-year, ERR IDeg/Sita: 3.81 (95% CI: 2.40; 6.05, p < 0.0001)]. IDeg was associated with a greater change in body weight than Sita [ETD IDeg-Sita: 2.75 kg (95% CI: 1.97; 3.54, p < 0.0001)]. The overall rates of adverse events were low and similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients unable to achieve good glycaemic control on OAD(s), treatment intensification with IDeg offers an effective, well-tolerated alternative to the addition of a second or third OAD.

Efficacy and safety of insulin detemir once daily in combination with sitagliptin and metformin: the TRANSITION randomized controlled trial.

AIM: The aim of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of once-daily insulin detemir (IDet) and sitagliptin (SITA) versus SITA ± sulphonylurea (SU), both in combination with metformin (MET) in insulin-naive subjects. METHODS: In a 26-week, open-label, randomized, parallel-group study in type 2 diabetes, insulin-naive subjects concomitantly treated with MET ± second oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) were randomized 1 : 1 to IDet + SITA + MET or SITA + MET ± SU. All continued with MET treatment, and those treated with SU continued if randomized to SITA + MET ± SU. Efficacy endpoints included glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 9-point self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG), weight, body mass index (BMI). Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: Significantly higher reductions in HbA1c, FPG and SMPG were achieved with IDet + SITA + MET compared with SITA + MET ± SU. Estimated HbA1c decreased by 1.44% in the IDet + SITA + MET group versus 0.89% in SITA + MET ± SU, p < 0.001. FPG decreased by 3.7 mmol/l (66.3 mg/dl) versus 1.2 mmol/l (22.2 mg/dl), p < 0.001, respectively. Small decreases in weight and BMI were observed in both arms, with no significant differences. AEs were mild or moderate and were more common in the SITA + MET ± SU arm than in the IDet + SITA + MET arm. There was no major hypoglycaemia. Observed rates of hypoglycaemia were very low (1.3/1.7 episodes/patient year) in both arms. The subgroup treated with MET and SUs prior to the trial achieved similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of once-daily IDet with SITA showed a clinically and significantly better improvement in glycaemic control than SITA in combination with or without SUs. Both regimens were associated with a low rate of hypoglycaemia and slight weight reduction.