Honghua Jiang

Advancing Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Previously Treated With Glargine Plus Oral Agents: Prandial premixed (insulin lispro protamine suspension/lispro) versus basal/bolus (glargine/lispro) therapy

OBJECTIVE—The purpose of this study was to compare two analog insulin therapies (prandial premixed therapy [PPT] versus basal/bolus therapy [BBT]) in type 2 diabetic patients previously treated with insulin glargine (≥30 units/day) plus oral agents, with the aim of demonstrating noninferiority of PPT to BBT. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Patients were randomly assigned to PPT (lispro mix 50/50: 50% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 50% lispro; n = 187) t.i.d. with meals or BBT (glargine at bedtime plus mealtime lispro; n = 187) in a 24-week, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial. Investigators could replace lispro mix 50/50 with lispro mix 75/25 at the evening meal if the fasting plasma glucose target was unachievable. RESULTS—Baseline A1C was similar (PPT 8.8%; BBT 8.9%; P = 0.598). At week 24, A1C was lower with BBT (6.78 vs. 6.95%, P = 0.021). A1C was reduced significantly from baseline for both therapies (P < 0.0001). The difference in A1C change from baseline to the end point (BBT minus PPT) was −0.22% (90% CI −0.38 to −0.07). Noninferiority of PPT to BBT was not demonstrated based on the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%. The percentages of patients achieving target A1C <7.0% (PPT versus BBT, respectively) were 54 vs. 69% (P = 0.009) and for target ≤6.5% were 35 vs. 50% (P = 0.01) but did not differ for target ≤6.0% or <7.5%. Rates of hypoglycemia were similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS—Although noninferiority of PPT to BBT was not demonstrated, findings for A1C reduction, percentage of patients achieving A1C targets, hypoglycemia, and number of required injections should be considered in the individual decision-making process of advancing insulin replacement to PPT versus BBT in type 2 diabetes.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Mean Plasma Glucose, Hemoglobin A1c, and 1,5-Anhydroglucitol in Over 2000 Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

CONTENT Recent studies have reported hemoglobin A(1c) (A1c) differences across racial/ethnic groups. Our diverse population allows for further investigation of potential differences in measurements of glycemia. OBJECTIVES Our objectives were to describe and explore baseline racial/ethnic differences in self-monitored plasma glucose profiles, A1c, and 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) in patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the Assessing DURAbility of Basal vs. Lispro Mix 75/25 Insulin Efficacy trial. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS The trial enrolled 2094 patients with type 2 diabetes, ages 30-80 yr, from 11 countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Estimated mean plasma glucose (MPG), A1c, and 1,5-AG were compared among racial/ethnic groups before and after adjusting for factors affecting glycemia: age, sex, duration of diabetes, body mass index, and MPG. RESULTS Baseline estimated MPG +/- sd was 220.0 +/- 82.0 mg/dl, mean A1c was 9.0 +/- 1.3%, and 1,5-AG was 5.0 +/- 4.1microg/ml. Estimated MPG did not differ between Caucasian and non-Caucasian groups. A1c was higher in Hispanics (9.4 +/- 1.4%; P < 0.001), Asians (9.2 +/- 1.4%; P < 0.01), and patients of other racial/ethnic groups (9.7 +/- 1.5%; P < 0.001) compared with Caucasians (8.9 +/- 1.2%). Paradoxically, 1,5-AG was higher for Asian (5.7 +/- 4.6 microg/ml) and African patients (6.2 +/- 5.4 microg/ml) vs. Caucasians (4.9 +/- 3.9 microg/ml) (P < 0.01). After adjusting for factors affecting glycemia, A1c was higher (all P <or= 0.002) in Hispanics, Asians, Africans, and patients of other racial/ethnic groups, and 1,5-AG was higher in Asian and African patients (P < 0.001) vs. Caucasians. CONCLUSIONS There were differences in A1c and 1,5-AG, but not MPG, among racial/ethnic groups. Comparisons of glycemia across racial/ethnic groups using these parameters may be problematic due to inherent biological variability and methodological issues.

Advancing Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes, Previously Treated with Glargine Plus Oral Agents: Prandial Premixed (Lispro/ILPS) vs. Basal/Bolus (Glargine/Lispro) Therapy

OBJECTIVE—The purpose of this study was to compare two analog insulin therapies (prandial premixed therapy [PPT] versus basal/bolus therapy [BBT]) in type 2 diabetic patients previously treated with insulin glargine (≥30 units/day) plus oral agents, with the aim of demonstrating noninferiority of PPT to BBT. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Patients were randomly assigned to PPT (lispro mix 50/50: 50% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 50% lispro; n = 187) t.i.d. with meals or BBT (glargine at bedtime plus mealtime lispro; n = 187) in a 24-week, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial. Investigators could replace lispro mix 50/50 with lispro mix 75/25 at the evening meal if the fasting plasma glucose target was unachievable. RESULTS—Baseline A1C was similar (PPT 8.8%; BBT 8.9%; P = 0.598). At week 24, A1C was lower with BBT (6.78 vs. 6.95%, P = 0.021). A1C was reduced significantly from baseline for both therapies (P < 0.0001). The difference in A1C change from baseline to the end point (BBT minus PPT) was −0.22% (90% CI −0.38 to −0.07). Noninferiority of PPT to BBT was not demonstrated based on the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%. The percentages of patients achieving target A1C <7.0% (PPT versus BBT, respectively) were 54 vs. 69% (P = 0.009) and for target ≤6.5% were 35 vs. 50% (P = 0.01) but did not differ for target ≤6.0% or <7.5%. Rates of hypoglycemia were similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS—Although noninferiority of PPT to BBT was not demonstrated, findings for A1C reduction, percentage of patients achieving A1C targets, hypoglycemia, and number of required injections should be considered in the individual decision-making process of advancing insulin replacement to PPT versus BBT in type 2 diabetes.

Once-weekly dulaglutide versus bedtime insulin glargine, both in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-4): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND For patients with type 2 diabetes who do not achieve target glycaemic control with conventional insulin treatment, advancing to a basal-bolus insulin regimen is often recommended. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide with that of insulin glargine, both combined with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS We did this 52 week, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial at 105 study sites in 15 countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with conventional insulin treatment were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence with an interactive voice-response system, to receive once-weekly dulaglutide 1·5 mg, dulaglutide 0·75 mg, or daily bedtime glargine. Randomisation was stratified by country and metformin use. Participants and study investigators were not masked to treatment allocation, but were unaware of dulaglutide dose assignment. The primary outcome was a change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 26, with a 0·4% non-inferiority margin. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01191268. FINDINGS Between Dec 9, 2010, and Sept 21, 2012, we randomly assigned 884 patients to receive dulaglutide 1·5 mg (n=295), dulaglutide 0·75 mg (n=293), or glargine (n=296). At 26 weeks, the adjusted mean change in HbA1c was greater in patients receiving dulaglutide 1·5 mg (-1·64% [95% CI -1·78 to -1·50], -17·93 mmol/mol [-19·44 to -16·42]) and dulaglutide 0·75 mg (-1·59% [-1·73 to -1·45], -17·38 mmol/mol [-18·89 to -15·87]) than in those receiving glargine (-1·41% [-1·55 to -1·27], -15·41 mmol/mol [-16·92 to -13·90]). The adjusted mean difference versus glargine was -0·22% (95% CI -0·38 to -0·07, -2·40 mmol/mol [-4·15 to -0·77]; p=0·005) for dulaglutide 1·5 mg and -0·17% (-0·33 to -0·02, -1·86 mmol/mol [-3·61 to -0·22]; p=0·015) for dulaglutide 0·75 mg. Five (<1%) patients died after randomisation because of septicaemia (n=1 in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group); pneumonia (n=1 in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group); cardiogenic shock; ventricular fibrillation; and an unknown cause (n=3 in the glargine group). We recorded serious adverse events in 27 (9%) patients in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group, 44 (15%) patients in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group, and 54 (18%) patients in the glargine group. The most frequent adverse events, arising more often with dulaglutide than glargine, were nausea, diarrhoea, and vomiting. INTERPRETATION Dulaglutide in combination with lispro resulted in a significantly greater improvement in glycaemic control than did glargine and represents a new treatment option for patients unable to achieve glycaemic targets with conventional insulin treatment. FUNDING Eli Lilly and Company.

Randomized, open-label, parallel-group evaluations of basal-bolus therapy versus insulin lispro premixed therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus failing to achieve control with starter insulin treatment and continuing oral antihyperglycemic drugs: A noninferiority intensification substudy of the DURABLE trial

BACKGROUND Insulin glargine and lispro mix 75/25 (75% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 25% insulin lispro injection [LM75/25]) represent 2 common starter insulin regimen classes: basal and premixed. After initiation of starter insulin therapy, if patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) are unable to achieve a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level <7.0%, insulin intensification may be indicated. The DURABLE (Assessing Durability of Basal Versus Lispro Mix 75/25 Insulin Efficacy) trial was designed to compare initiating insulin therapy with analogue basal insulin versus premixed analogue insulin in patients unable to achieve good glycemic control while taking multiple oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OADs). OBJECTIVE To provide objective information about insulin intensification, the DURABLE trial also included a substudy evaluating a systematic approach to advancing insulin therapy in those patients who did not achieve glycemic control with their initial insulin regimen. This substudy, the results of which are reported here, tested the hypothesis that advancing insulin therapy with premixed insulin is noninferior to basal-bolus therapy (BBT) in patients with type 2 DM unable to achieve an HbA1c level < or = 7.0% after 6 months of starter insulin therapy. METHODS In the main DURABLE study, 2091 patients (age range, 30-80 years) with type 2 DM and HbA1c values >7.0% receiving > or = 2 OADs were randomized to receive insulin glargine (n = 1046) or LM75/25 (n = 1045), both in combination with prestudy OADs. After 6 months, patients with HbA1c levels >7.0% could enter this intensification substudy; OADs except sulfonylureas were continued. Patients originally receiving insulin glargine were enrolled in intensification arm A and were randomized to receive BBT (insulin glargine once daily plus mealtime insulin lispro TID) or LM75/25 BID. Patients originally receiving LM75/25 were enrolled in intensification arm B and randomized to receive BBT or mealtime 50% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 50% insulin lispro injection (LM50/50) TID. Insulin doses were adjusted based on preprandial plasma glucose levels. The primary end point was noninferiority of premixed therapy versus BBT with respect to end-point HbA1c. Secondary end points included change in HbA1c and weight, percentage of patients reaching HbA1c target levels, total daily insulin dose, and rates of hypoglycemia. The safety profile was also assessed. RESULTS Of the 475 patients in the insulin glargine + OAD arm of the main study who had HbA1c levels >7.0% at 6 months, 399 (84%) entered intensification arm A. The mean age was 57 years, 53% of the patients were male, and mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.0% (1.0%) at baseline. Of those patients, 199 were randomly assigned to receive BBT and 200 were assigned to receive LM75/25. Of the 411 patients in the LM75/25 + OAD arm of the main study who had an HbA1c level >7.0% at 6 months, 345 (84%) entered intensification arm B. The mean age was 55 years, 51% of the patients were male, and mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.0% (0.9%) at baseline. Of those patients, 171 were randomly assigned to receive BBT and 174 were assigned to receive LM50/50. At end point, noninferiority of LM75/25 or LM50/50 to BBT was supported, with a 95% CI of -0.10 to 0.37 and -0.25 to 0.25, respectively. At 6 months, HbA1c did not differ significantly from baseline in any group. Regardless of treatment group, <20% of patients achieved an HbA1c level <7.0%. There were no significant differences between groups in total daily insulin dose, weight gain, incidence or rate of hypoglycemia, or incidence of serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS No group had significant improvement from baseline in HbA1c. Our study results suggest that premixed therapy, dosed 2 times per day (LM75/25) or 3 times per day (LM50/50), was noninferior to BBT (4 injections/d) in this population of adult patients with type 2 DM previously uncontrolled with OADs plus basal insulin or twice-daily premixed insulin. Clinical-Trials.gov identifier: NCT00279201.

Initiating insulin therapy in elderly patients with Type 2 diabetes: efficacy and safety of lispro mix 25 vs. basal insulin combined with oral glucose‐lowering agents

Aims  To compare starter insulins in the elderly subgroup of the DURABLE trial 24‐week initiation phase.

Impact of race/ethnicity on the efficacy and safety of commonly used insulin regimens: a post hoc analysis of clinical trials in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE To explore the impact of race/ethnicity on the efficacy and safety of commonly used insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS In this post hoc analysis, pooled data from 11 multinational clinical trials involving 1455 patients with type 2 diabetes were used to compare specific insulin treatments in Latino/Hispanic, Asian, African-descent, and Caucasian patients. Insulin treatments included once daily insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn (BASAL), insulin lispro mix 75/25 twice daily (LMBID), or insulin lispro mix 50/50 three times daily (LMTID). RESULTS Race/ethnicity was associated with significant outcome differences for each of the insulin regimens. BASAL therapy was associated with greater improvement in several measures of glycemic control among Latino/Hispanic patients compared with Caucasian patients (lower end point hemoglobin A1c, greater reduction in hemoglobin A1c from baseline, and a larger proportion of patients achieving hemoglobin A1c level <7%). In contrast, LMBID therapy was associated with higher end point hemoglobin A1c and a smaller decrease in hemoglobin A1c from baseline in Latino/Hispanic and Asian patients than in Caucasian patients. Furthermore, fewer Asian patients attained a hemoglobin A1c level <7% than did Caucasians patients. For LMTID therapy, hemoglobin A1c outcomes were comparable across patient groups. Fasting blood glucose and glycemic excursions varied among racial/ethnic groups for the 3 insulin regimens. Weight change was comparable among racial/ethnic groups in each insulin regimen. During treatment with LMTID, Asian patients experienced higher incidence and rate of severe hypoglycemia than Caucasian patients. CONCLUSIONS Latino/Hispanic, Asian, and African-descent patients with type 2 diabetes show different metabolic responses to insulin therapy, dependent in part on insulin type and regimen intensity.

Placebo‐controlled, randomized trial of the addition of once‐weekly glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist dulaglutide to titrated daily insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD‐9)

To compare the addition of weekly dulaglutide vs the addition of placebo to titrated glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with sub‐optimum glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration.

A 24-week study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide added on to glimepiride in type 2 diabetes (AWARD-8)

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of once‐weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg, a long‐acting glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist, compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on glimepiride monotherapy.

Dulaglutide as add-on therapy to SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (AWARD-10): a 24-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors improve glycaemic control and reduce bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes through different mechanisms. We assessed the safety and efficacy of the addition of the once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide to the ongoing treatment regimen in patients whose diabetes is inadequately controlled with SGLT2 inhibitors, with or without metformin. METHODS AWARD-10 was a phase 3b, double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled, 24-week study done at 40 clinical sites in Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Mexico, Spain, and the USA. Eligible adult patients (≥18 years) with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c concentration ≥7·0% [53 mmol/mol] and ≤9·5% [80 mmol/mol]), a BMI of 45 kg/m2 or less, and taking stable doses (>3 months) of an SGLT2 inhibitor (with or without metformin) were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via an interactive web-response system to subcutaneous injections of either dulaglutide 1·5 mg, dulaglutide 0·75 mg, or placebo once per week for 24 weeks. Patients and investigators were masked to dulaglutide and placebo assignment, and those assessing outcomes were masked to study drug assignment. The primary objective was to test for the superiority of dulaglutide (1·5 mg or 0·75 mg) versus placebo for change in HbA1c concentration from baseline at 24 weeks. All analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02597049. FINDINGS Between Dec 7, 2015, and Feb 3, 2017, 424 patients were randomly assigned to dulaglutide 1·5 mg (n=142), dulaglutide 0·75 mg (n=142), and placebo (n=140). One patient in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group was excluded from the analysis because they did not receive any dose of the study drug. The reduction in HbA1c concentration at 24 weeks was larger in patients receiving dulaglutide (least squares mean [LSM] for dulaglutide 1·5 mg -1·34% [SE 0·06] or -14·7 mmol/mol [0·6]; dulaglutide 0·75 mg -1·21% [0·06] or -13·2 mmol/mol [0·6]) than in patients receiving placebo (-0·54% [0·06] or -5·9 mmol/mol [0·6]; p<0·0001 for both groups vs placebo). The LSM differences were -0·79% (95% CI -0·97 to -0·61) or -8·6 mmol/mol (-10·6 to -6·7) for dulaglutide 1·5 mg and -0·66% (-0·84 to -0·49) or -7·2 mmol/mol (-9·2 to -5·4) for dulaglutide 0·75 mg (p<0·0001 for both). Serious adverse events were reported for five (4%) patients in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group, three (2%) patients in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group, and five (4%) patients in the placebo group. Treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in patients treated with dulaglutide than in patients who received placebo, mainly because of an increased incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events. Nausea (21 [15%] patients in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group vs seven [5%] in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group vs five [4%] in the placebo group), diarrhoea (eight [6%] vs 14 [10%] vs four [3%]), and vomiting (five [4%] vs four [3%] vs one [1%]) were more common with dulaglutide than with placebo. One episode of severe hypoglycaemia was reported in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group. Two (1%) patients receiving dulaglutide 1·5 mg died, but these deaths were not considered to be related to study drug; no deaths occurred in the other groups. INTERPRETATION Dulaglutide as add-on treatment to SGLT2 inhibitors (with or without metformin) resulted in significant and clinically relevant improvements in glycaemic control, with acceptable tolerability that is consistent with the established safety profile of dulaglutide. FUNDING Eli Lilly and Company.