Prandial inhaled insulin plus basal insulin glargine versus twice daily biaspart insulin for type 2 diabetes: a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin therapy is often a delayed strategy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus because it is associated with weight gain, hypoglycaemia, and the need for subcutaneous injections. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of prandial Technosphere inhaled insulin compared with twice daily biaspart insulin. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, parallel-group study, adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and poor glycaemic control despite insulin therapy, with or without oral antidiabetes drugs, were enrolled from ten countries between Feb 23, 2006, and Aug 8, 2007. Patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive 52 weeks' treatment with: prandial Technosphere inhaled insulin powder plus bedtime insulin glargine; or twice daily premixed biaspart insulin (70% insulin aspart protamine suspension and 30% insulin aspart of rDNA origin). The primary endpoint was a comparison of change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline to week 52 between treatment groups; the non-inferiority margin was 0.4%. Analysis was by per protocol for non-inferiority testing of the primary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00309244. FINDINGS: 334 patients were allocated to inhaled insulin plus insulin glargine, and 343 to biaspart insulin; 107 patients on inhaled insulin plus insulin glargine and 85 on biaspart insulin discontinued the trial. 211 patients on inhaled insulin plus insulin glargine and 237 on biaspart insulin were included in per-protocol analyses. Change in HbA(1c) with inhaled insulin plus insulin glargine (-0.68%, SE 0.077, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.53) was similar and non-inferior to that with biaspart insulin (-0.76%, 0.071, -0.90 to -0.62). The between-group difference was 0.07% (SE 0.102, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.27). Patients had significantly lower weight gain and had fewer mild-to-moderate and severe hypoglycaemic events on inhaled insulin plus insulin glargine than on biaspart insulin. The safety and tolerability profile was similar for both treatments, apart from increased occurrence of cough and change in pulmonary function in the group receiving inhaled insulin plus insulin glargine. INTERPRETATION: This study is part of a large clinical development programme addressing the efficacy and tolerability of use of Technosphere inhaled insulin in a wide variety of patients. FUNDING: MannKind.

Enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in patients treated with tirofiban, aspirin and an early conservative initial management strategy: results from the A phase of the A-to-Z trial.

AIMS: In high risk patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS), enoxaparin is generally preferred to unfractionated heparin (UFH). However, less is known about the relative merits of these two forms of heparin in patients receiving concomitant glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. METHODS AND RESULTS: The A phase of the A-to-Z trial was an open label non-inferiority trial in which 3987 patients with non-ST elevation ACS were randomised to receive either enoxaparin or UFH in combination with aspirin and tirofiban. Inclusion required either ST depression or cardiac biomarker elevation. While the selection of an early management strategy (invasive or conservative) was at the discretion of the local investigator, investigators were asked to designate their plans for an invasive or conservative strategy on the case record form. An early conservative strategy was specified for 1778 patients (45%); this subgroup forms the population for the present analyses. Among patients with a planned conservative strategy, baseline characteristics were similar between those randomised to UFH (n = 872) and those randomised to enoxaparin (n = 906). The primary endpoint of death, new MI, or documented refractory ischaemia within 7 days of randomisation occurred in 10.6% of patients randomised to UFH and 7.7% of patients randomised to enoxaparin (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.53-0.99; p = 0.04). The combined rate of TIMI major, minor, or loss no-site bleeding was 1.3% in patients treated with UFH and 1.8% in those treated with enoxaparin (p = ns). CONCLUSIONS: When a conservative approach to catheterisation and PCI was planned for ACS patients receiving tirofiban and aspirin, enoxaparin was associated with superior efficacy and similar bleeding vs UFH.

Early intensive vs a delayed conservative simvastatin strategy in patients with acute coronary syndromes: phase Z of the A to Z trial.

CONTEXT: Limited data are available evaluating how the timing and intensity of statin therapy following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event affect clinical outcome. OBJECTIVE: To compare early initiation of an intensive statin regimen with delayed initiation of a less intensive regimen in patients with ACS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: International, randomized, double-blind trial of patients with ACS receiving 40 mg/d of simvastatin for 1 month followed by 80 mg/d thereafter (n = 2265) compared with ACS patients receiving placebo for 4 months followed by 20 mg/d of simvastatin (n = 2232), who were enrolled in phase Z of the A to Z trial between December 29, 1999, and January 6, 2003. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, readmission for ACS, and stroke. Follow-up was for at least 6 months and up to 24 months. RESULTS: Among the patients in the placebo plus simvastatin group, the median low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level achieved while taking placebo was 122 mg/dL (3.16 mmol/L) at 1 month and was 77 mg/dL (1.99 mmol/L) at 8 months while taking 20 mg/d of simvastatin. Among the patients in the simvastatin only group, the median LDL cholesterol level achieved at 1 month while taking 40 mg/d of simvastatin was 68 mg/dL (1.76 mmol/L) and was 63 mg/dL (1.63 mmol/L) at 8 months while taking 80 mg/d of simvastatin. A total of 343 patients (16.7%) in the placebo plus simvastatin group experienced the primary end point compared with 309 (14.4%) in the simvastatin only group (40 mg/80 mg) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.04; P =.14). Cardiovascular death occurred in 109 (5.4%) and 83 (4.1%) patients in the 2 groups (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-1.00; P =.05) but no differences were observed in other individual components of the primary end point. No difference was evident during the first 4 months between the groups for the primary end point (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.83-1.25; P =.89), but from 4 months through the end of the study the primary end point was significantly reduced in the simvastatin only group (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95; P =.02). Myopathy (creatine kinase >10 times the upper limit of normal associated with muscle symptoms) occurred in 9 patients (0.4%) receiving simvastatin 80 mg/d, in no patients receiving lower doses of simvastatin, and in 1 patient receiving placebo (P =.02). CONCLUSIONS: The trial did not achieve the prespecified end point. However, among patients with ACS, the early initiation of an aggressive simvastatin regimen resulted in a favorable trend toward reduction of major cardiovascular events.

Safety and efficacy of enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes who receive tirofiban and aspirin: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Enoxaparin or the combination of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban with unfractionated heparin independently have shown superior efficacy over unfractionated heparin alone in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS). It is not clear if combining enoxaparin with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors is as safe or as effective as the current standard combination of unfractionated heparin with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy and safety of the combination of enoxaparin and tirofiban compared with unfractionated heparin and tirofiban in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial of 1 mg/kg of enoxaparin every 12 hours (n = 2026) compared with weight-adjusted intravenous unfractionated heparin (n = 1961) in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS receiving tirofiban and aspirin. Phase A of the A to Z trial was conducted between December 1999 and May 2002. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia at 7 days in the intent-to-treat population with boundaries set for superiority and noninferiority. Safety based on measures of bleeding using the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) classification system. RESULTS: A total of 169 (8.4%) of 2018 patients randomized to enoxaparin experienced death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia at 7 days compared with 184 (9.4%) of 1952 patients randomized to unfractionated heparin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.08). This met the prespecified criterion for noninferiority. All components of the composite primary and secondary end points favored enoxaparin except death, which occurred in only 1% of patients (23 for enoxaparin and 17 for unfractionated heparin). Rates for any TIMI grade bleeding were low (3.0% for enoxaparin and 2.2% for unfractionated heparin; P =.13). Using a worst-case approach that combined 2 independent bleeding evaluations, use of enoxaparin was associated with 1 additional TIMI major bleeding episode for each 200 patients treated. CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving tirofiban and aspirin, enoxaparin is a suitable alternative to unfractionated heparin for treatment of non-ST-elevation ACS. The 12% relative and 1% absolute reductions in the primary end point in favor of enoxaparin met criterion for noninferiority and are consistent with prior trials performed without the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.