Comparison of the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/aspart (twice-daily injections), insulin glargine 300 U/mL, and insulin glulisine (basal-bolus therapy).
ABSTRACT: AIMS/INTRODUCTION:We compared the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) twice-daily injections with insulin glargine 300 U/mL and insulin glulisine basal-bolus therapy (Gla300/Glu) using insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla300) and insulin glulisine (Glu). MATERIALS AND METHODS:A total of 20 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were treated with IDegAsp twice-daily injections; achievement of target preprandial glucose concentration of 100-130 mg/dL at breakfast and supper was determined using a wearable flash glucose monitoring system. Patients were later switched to Gla300/Glu basal-bolus therapy before breakfast and before supper. Data were collected on days 2-4 and days 12-14 for each treatment period. The study's primary efficacy end-point was the mean percentage of time with a target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL, and safety end-points were the mean percentage of time with hypoglycemia having glucose levels <70 mg/dL, clinically important hypoglycemia with glucose levels <54 mg/dL and nocturnal (00.00-06.00) hypoglycemia. RESULTS:Considering efficacy, the mean percentage of time for the target glucose range of IDegAsp was significantly lower than that of Gla300/Glu (73.1 [69.4-81.1] vs 84.2 [80.2-93.1], P = 0.001). Considering safety, the mean percentages of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL; 2.1 [0.0-9.4] vs 14.4 [4.4-22.3]), clinically important hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL; 0.0 [0.0-0.2] vs 1.9 [0.0-5.6]) and nocturnal (00.00-06.00 hours) hypoglycemia (0.5 [0.0-5.9] vs 8.9 [3.1-11.8]) of Gla300/Glu were significantly lower than those of IDegAsp (P = 0.012, 0.036 and 0.007, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:When compared with the IDegAsp twice-daily injections, Gla300/Glu basal-bolus therapy might achieve more effective glycemic control without hypoglycemic risk.
Project description:To assess feasibility of overnight closed-loop therapy in young children with type 1 diabetes and contrast closed loop using diluted versus standard insulin strength.Eleven children (male 6; age range 3.75-6.96 years; glycated hemoglobin 60 (14) mmol/mol; body mass index SD score 1.0 (0.8); diabetes duration 2.2 (1.0) years, mean (SD); total daily dose 12.9 (10.6, 16.5) IU/day, median (IQR)) were studied at a clinical research facility on two occasions. In random order, participants received closed loop with diluted insulin aspart (CL_Dil; 20 IU/mL) or closed loop with standard aspart (CL_Std; 100 IU/mL) from 17:00 until 8:00 the following morning. Children consumed an evening meal at 17:00 (44 (12) gCHO) and an optional bedtime snack (6 (7) gCHO) identical on both occasions. Meal insulin boluses were calculated by standard pump bolus calculators. Basal rates on insulin pump were adjusted every 15 min as directed by a model-predictive-control algorithm informed by a real-time glucose sensor values.Mean plasma glucose was 122 (24) mg/dL during CL_Dil vs 122 (23) mg/dL during CL_Std (p=0.993). The time spent in the target glucose range 70-145 mg/dL was 83 (70, 100)% vs 72 (54, 81)% (p=0.328). Time above 145 mg/dL was 13 (0, 27)% vs 19 (10, 45)% (p=0.477) and time spent below 70 mg/dL was 0.0 (0.0, 1.4)% vs 1.4 (0.0, 11.6)% (p=0.161). One asymptomatic hypoglycemia below 63 mg/dL occurred in one participant during CL_Dil versus six episodes in five participants during CL_Std (p=0.09). Glucose variability measured by CV of plasma glucose tended to be reduced during CL_Dil (20% (13, 31) vs 32% (24, 42), p=0.075).In this feasibility study, closed-loop therapy maintained good overnight glucose control with tendency towards reduced hypoglycemia and reduced glucose variability using diluted insulin.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01557634.
Project description:AIMS/INTRODUCTION:Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble combination of insulin degludec (70%) and insulin aspart (30%). The present exploratory trial investigated the safety of switching unit-to-unit from twice-daily basal or pre-mix insulin to twice-daily IDegAsp in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS:In this 6-week, open-label, parallel-group, controlled trial, 66 participants were randomized (1:1) to receive either IDegAsp or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) twice daily at the same total daily dose as pre-trial insulin. During the trial, insulin doses were adjusted according to a pre-specified algorithm to achieve pre-breakfast and pre-dinner plasma glucose of 4.4-7.2 mmol/L. RESULTS:No severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of confirmed hypoglycemia (rate ratio IDegAsp/BIAsp 30: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.31-1.30) and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia (rate ratio: 0.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.10-2.38) for IDegAsp vs BIAsp 30. The hypoglycemia rate for IDegAsp was constant over the 6 weeks of treatment. IDegAsp and BIAsp 30 were both safe and well tolerated. Reduction in fasting plasma glucose was statistically significantly greater for IDegAsp than for BIAsp 30 (estimated treatment difference, IDegAsp-BIAsp 30: -1.6 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval: -2.4 to -0.8). The apparent decrease in mean postprandial plasma glucose increment (IDegAsp: 4.2-3.8 mmol/L; BIAsp 30: 4.5-2.8 mmol/L) was not statistically significantly different between treatments (estimated treatment difference: 1.0 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval: -0.1 to 2.2). CONCLUSIONS:Switching unit-to-unit from basal or pre-mix insulin to IDegAsp seems not to be associated with any concerns related to hypoglycemia or general safety in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.
Project description:BACKGROUND:To explore the efficacy and safety of switching from once-daily basal insulin therapy to once-daily pre-meal injection insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) with respect to the glycemic control of participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS:In this multicenter, open-label, prospective, randomized, parallel-group comparison trial, participants on basal insulin therapy were switched to IDegAsp (IDegAsp group; n=30) or continued basal insulin (Basal group; n=29). The primary endpoint was the superiority of IDegAsp in causing changes in the daily blood glucose profile, especially post-prandial blood glucose concentration after 12 weeks. RESULTS:Blood glucose concentrations after dinner and before bedtime were lower in the IDegAsp group, and the improvement in blood glucose before bedtime was significantly greater in the IDegAsp group than in the Basal group at 12 weeks (-1.7±3.0 mmol/L vs. 0.3±2.1 mmol/L, P<0.05). Intriguingly, glycemic control after breakfast was not improved by IDegAsp injection before breakfast, in contrast to the favorable effect of injection before dinner on blood glucose after dinner. Glycosylated hemoglobin significantly decreased only in the IDegAsp group (58 to 55 mmol/mol, P<0.05). Changes in daily insulin dose, body mass, and recorded adverse effects, including hypoglycemia, were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION:IDegAsp was more effective than basal insulin at reducing blood glucose after dinner and before bedtime, but did not increase the incidence of hypoglycemia. Switching from basal insulin to IDegAsp does not increase the burden on the patient and positively impacts glycemic control in patients with T2DM.
Project description:Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble coformulation of the novel basal analog insulin degludec (IDeg: 70%) and insulin aspart (IAsp: 30%). We compared the safety and efficacy of IDegAsp, an alternative formulation (AF) (55% IDeg and 45% IAsp), and insulin glargine (IGlar) in insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs.In this 16-week, open-label trial, subjects (mean age 59.1 years, A1C 8.5%, BMI 30.3 kg/m(2)) were randomized to once-daily IDegAsp (n = 59), AF (n = 59), or IGlar (n = 60), all in combination with metformin. Insulin was administered before the evening meal and dose-titrated to a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) target of 4.0-6.0 mmol/L.After 16 weeks, mean A1C decreased in all groups to comparable levels (IDegAsp: 7.0%; AF: 7.2%; IGlar: 7.1%). A similar proportion of subjects achieved A1C <7.0% without confirmed hypoglycemia in the last 4 weeks of treatment (IDegAsp: 51%; AF: 47%; IGlar: 50%). Mean 2-h postdinner plasma glucose increase was lower for IDegAsp (0.13 mmol/L) and AF (0.24 mmol/L) than IGlar (1.63 mmol/L), whereas mean FPG was similar (IDegAsp: 6.8 mmol/L; AF: 7.4 mmol/L; IGlar: 7.0 mmol/L). Hypoglycemia rates were lower for IDegAsp and IGlar than AF (1.2, 0.7, and 2.4 events/patient year). Nocturnal hypoglycemic events occurred rarely for IDegAsp (1 event) and IGlar (3 events) compared with AF (27 events).In this proof-of-concept trial, once-daily IDegAsp was safe, well tolerated, and provided comparable overall glycemic control to IGlar at similar low rates of hypoglycemia, but better postdinner plasma glucose control.
Project description:To evaluate efficacy and tolerability of a co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart (IDegAsp) with insulin aspart (IAsp) at other meals compared with basal-bolus therapy using insulin detemir (IDet) and IAsp.Adults (n = 548) with type 1 diabetes (A1C 7.0-10.0%; BMI ?35.0 kg/m(2)) were randomized 2:1 in a 26-week, multinational, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial to IDegAsp or IDet. IDegAsp was given with a meal, and IDet was given in the evening, with a second (breakfast) dose added if needed.Non-inferiority for IDegAsp versus IDet was confirmed; A1C improved by 0.75% with IDegAsp and 0.70% with IDet to 7.6% in both groups (estimated treatment difference IDegAsp - IDet: -0.05% [95% CI -0.18 to 0.08]). There was no statistically significant difference between IDegAsp and IDet in the rates of severe hypoglycemia (0.33 and 0.42 episodes/patient-year, respectively) or overall confirmed (plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L) hypoglycemia (39.17 and 44.34 episodes/patient-year, respectively). Nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate was 37% lower with IDegAsp than IDet (3.71 vs. 5.72 episodes/patient-year, P < 0.05). Weight gain was 2.3 and 1.3 kg with IDegAsp and IDet, respectively (P < 0.05). Total insulin dose was 13% lower in the IDegAsp group (P < 0.0001). No treatment differences were detected in Health-Related Quality of Life, laboratory measurements, physical examination, vital signs, electrocardiograms, fundoscopy, or adverse events.IDegAsp in basal-bolus therapy with IAsp at additional mealtimes improves overall glycemic control and was non-inferior to IDet, with a reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia and fewer injections in comparison with IDet + IAsp basal-bolus therapy.
Project description:The efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) once daily (OD) compared with insulin glargine U100 (IGlar) OD over 52 weeks in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was investigated.In this open-label, parallel-group treat-to-target trial, participants were randomized (1:1) to receive IDegAsp OD (breakfast, n = 266) or IGlar OD (as per label, n = 264). Participants then entered a 26-week extension phase (IDegAsp OD, n = 192; IGlar OD, n = 221). The primary endpoint was change from baseline to Week 26 in HbA1c.After 26 and 52 weeks, mean HbA1c decreased to similar levels in both groups. After 52 weeks, the mean estimated treatment difference was -0.08% (-0.26, 0.09 95%CI), confirming the non-inferiority of IDegAsp OD versus IGlar OD evaluated at Week 26. After 52 weeks, there was a similar reduction in mean fasting plasma glucose in both treatment groups. The rate of confirmed hypoglycemic episodes was 86% higher (p < 0.0001) whereas the rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia was 75% lower (p < 0.0001) for IDegAsp versus IGlar.Nocturnal-confirmed hypoglycemia was higher with IGlar whereas overall and diurnal hypoglycemia were higher with IDegAsp dosed at breakfast. These results highlight the importance of administration of IDegAsp with the main meal of the day, tailored to the individual patient's needs.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01045707 [core]) and NCT01169766 [ext].
Project description: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.
Project description:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of closed-loop insulin delivery in well-controlled pregnant women with type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII).A total of 12 women with type 1 diabetes (aged 32.9 years, diabetes duration 17.6 years, BMI 27.1 kg/m(2), and HbA(1c) 6.4%) were randomly allocated to closed-loop or conventional CSII. They performed normal daily activities (standardized meals, snacks, and exercise) for 24 h on two occasions at 19 and 23 weeks' gestation. Plasma glucose time in target (63-140 mg/dL) and time spent hypoglycemic were calculated.Plasma glucose time in target was comparable for closed-loop and conventional CSII (median [interquartile range]: 81 [59-87] vs. 81% [54-90]; P = 0.75). Less time was spent hypoglycemic (<45 mg/dL [0.0 vs. 0.3%]; P = 0.04), with a lower low blood glucose index (2.4 [0.9-3.5] vs. 3.3 [1.9-5.1]; P = 0.03), during closed-loop insulin delivery.Closed-loop insulin delivery was as effective as conventional CSII, with less time spent in extreme hypoglycemia.
Project description:To compare the efficacy and safety of adding mealtime pramlintide or rapid-acting insulin analogs (RAIAs) to basal insulin for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes.In a 24-week open-label, multicenter study, 113 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to addition of mealtime pramlintide (120 microg) or a titrated RAIA to basal insulin and prior oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OADs). At screening, patients were insulin naive or had been receiving <50 units/day basal insulin for <6 months. The basal insulin dosage was titrated from day 1, seeking fasting plasma glucose (FPG) > or =70-<100 mg/dl. Pramlintide and an RAIA were initiated on day 1 and week 4, respectively. The proportion of patients achieving A1C < or =7.0% without weight gain or severe hypoglycemia at week 24 was the primary end point.More pramlintide- than RAIA-treated patients achieved the primary end point (30 vs. 11%, P = 0.018) with a similar dose of basal insulin. Pramlintide and an RAIA yielded similar mean +/- SEM values for FPG and A1C at 24 weeks (122 +/- 7 vs. 123 +/- 5 mg/dl and 7.2 +/- 0.2 vs. 7.0 +/- 0.1%, respectively) and similar least squares mean reductions from baseline to end point (-31 +/- 6 vs. -34 +/- 6 mg/dl and -1.1 +/- 0.2 vs. -1.3 +/- 0.2%, respectively). RAIAs but not pramlintide caused weight gain (+4.7 +/- 0.7 vs. +0.0 +/- 0.7 kg, P < 0.0001). Fewer patients reported mild to moderate hypoglycemia with pramlintide than with the RAIA (55 vs. 82%), but more patients reported nausea (21 vs. 0%). No severe hypoglycemia occurred in either group.In patients taking basal insulin and OADs, premeal fixed-dose pramlintide improved glycemic control as effectively as titrated RAIAs. The pramlintide regimen sometimes caused nausea but no weight gain and less hypoglycemia.
Project description:AIMS/INTRODUCTION:We compared the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla300) and insulin degludec U100 (Deg) using a flash glucose monitoring system. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A total of 24 Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive once-daily Gla300 (n = 12) or Deg (n = 12) in the morning. The primary end-points were the mean percentage of time in the target glucose range (70-179 mg/dL) and hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL), as measured using flash glucose monitoring during the last 7 days of each 14-day period. RESULTS:The percentages of time with glucose levels <70 mg/dL were not significantly different between the two insulin treatments. No significant differences were observed in the percentages of time with glucose levels of 70-179 mg/dL or ≥180 mg/dL. The percentage of time with nocturnal hypoglycemia with Gla300 was significantly lower than that with Deg treatment (P = 0.021). This difference might be attributable to the difference in the duration of action between the two formulations, and the incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia with Deg treatment was associated with the concomitant use of metformin (P = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS:The two formulations were comparable in efficacy, whereas the incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly lower with Gla300. Thus, the present study suggests that, although Gla300 and Deg are comparable long-acting insulin analogs, Gla300 is safer with respect to the incidence of hypoglycemia.