An analysis of early insulin glargine added to metformin with or without sulfonylurea: impact on glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia

Aim: To evaluate the benefits of initiating insulin at an earlier versus later treatment stage, and regimens with/without sulfonylurea (SU). Methods: Pooled analysis of 11 prospective randomized clinical trials, including 2171 adults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes initiating insulin glargine following a specific titration algorithm. Clinical outcomes were glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reduction, per cent achieving HbA1c ≤ 7.0%, weight gain and hypoglycaemic events. Statistical analysis compared outcomes 24 weeks after basal insulin initiation in patients previously uncontrolled on 0/1 oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) versus 2 OADs, and in patients taking metformin (MET) or SU alone or in combination at baseline. A meta‐analysis was also conducted. Results: For the pooled analysis, patients on 0/1 OAD and those on MET monotherapy at baseline had the largest 24‐week reductions in HbA1c following the addition of insulin glargine (～0.44 U/kg). Of patients failing MET/SU monotherapy and MET + SU in combination, 68.1, 50.4 and 56.4% achieved HbA1c ≤ 7.0%, respectively (p = 0.0006). Weight gain was lowest when basal insulin was added to MET. Patients on 0/1 OAD at baseline had significantly less symptomatic hypoglycaemia when basal insulin was added than those on 2 OADs (p = 0.0007). Despite higher insulin doses, those taking MET alone had less hypoglycaemia than those taking SU or MET + SU. Results were confirmed in the meta‐analysis. Conclusion: Adding insulin glargine to MET monotherapy early in treatment may provide efficacy/safety benefits over regimens including SU. This may reflect treatment earlier in the disease and supports the inclusion of insulin as a second step in the American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes treatment algorithm.     

Efficacy and safety of gemigliptin as add-on therapy to insulin,with or without metformin,in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (ZEUS II study)

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemigliptin added to a stable dose of insulin alone or of insulin in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. After a two-week run-in period, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive gemigliptin 50 mg or placebo once daily as add-on to background therapy with insulin or insulin plus metformin for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline at Week 24. Baseline characteristics were similar between the gemigliptin (n = 188) and placebo (n = 95) groups in terms of HbA1c (8.1%). At Week 24, the gemigliptin group showed a statistically significant reduction in mean HbA1c from baseline as compared with placebo (between-group mean difference, −0.7% [95% CI, −0.9% to −0.4%]; P-value < 0.0001). The incidence of overall adverse events and the number of hypoglycaemic adverse events were similar between the study groups. Gemigliptin added to insulin alone or to insulin in combination with metformin resulted in superior glycaemic control compared to that in the placebo group and was well tolerated for 24 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, without causing weight gain or increasing the incidence of hypoglycaemia.     

Continuation versus discontinuation of insulin secretagogues when initiating insulin in type 2 diabetes

We compared the combined use of basal insulin, metformin and insulin secretagogues with a combination of basal insulin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes starting basal insulin analogue therapy. This analysis was part of a 24-week trial, in which 964 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral agents (including metformin) were randomized to insulin glargine or detemir. Secretagogues were stopped or maintained at the site-investigators' discretion. During the study, 57.6% of patients continued their secretagogue treatment. Compared with patients stopping secretagogues, those who continued experienced significantly more hypoglycaemia and weight gain. Insulin doses, however, were significantly lower: 0.6 ± 0.4 versus 0.8 ± 0.4 U/kg/day (p < 0.001). The difference between groups in mean HbA1c reduction was not statistically significant. In conclusion, in type 2 diabetic patients starting basal insulin analogue therapy, continuing both metformin and secretagogues results in more hypoglycaemia and weight gain and lower insulin doses than only maintaining metformin.     

Comparison of fixed-dose rosiglitazone/metformin combination therapy with sulphonylurea plus metformin in overweight individuals with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin alone.

AIM: This 52-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was designed to compare rosiglitazone/metformin fixed-dose combination therapy with combination sulphonylurea plus metformin therapy in overweight individuals with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHOD: Individuals with inadequate glycaemic control (HbA (1c)> or =7%) while on metformin monotherapy (> or =0.85 g/day) entered a 4-week run-in period during which they received metformin 2 g/day. At the end of the run-in, individuals with fasting plasma glucose > or =7.0 mmol/l were randomized to treatment with metformin (2 g/day) and either rosiglitazone (4 mg/day; RSG+MET [N=294]) or a sulphonylurea (glibenclamide 5 mg/day or gliclazide 80 mg/day; SU+MET [N=302]). Medications were up-titrated to maximum tolerated doses (rosiglitazone 8 mg, glibenclamide 15 mg or gliclazide 320 mg plus metformin 2 g/day) during the first 12 weeks of double-blind treatment. The primary efficacy end point was the change in HbA (1c) from baseline after 52 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: RSG+MET was non-inferior to SU+MET with respect to changes in HbA (1c) after one year of treatment (DeltaHbA (1c)= -0.78% and -0.86%, respectively; treatment difference =0.09%, 95% CI=-0.08, 0.25). The HbA (1c) reductions with RSG+MET, but not SU+MET, were accompanied by significant improvements in measures of beta-cell function including proinsulin:insulin ratio. The degree of beta-cell failure was significantly greater with SU+MET compared to RSG+MET as measured by the coefficient of failure (0.543 vs. 0.055 HbA (1c)%/year, respectively, p=0.0002). The proportion of individuals who experienced hypoglycaemic events was significantly (p<0.0001) lower with RSG+MET (6%) than with SU+MET (30%). Diastolic ambulatory blood pressure and cardiovascular biomarkers (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1) were also reduced following one year of treatment with RSG+MET but not SU+MET. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Fixed-dose combination therapy with rosiglitazone/metformin is non-inferior to sulphonylurea plus metformin combination therapy in reducing HbA (1c) over one year of treatment. Improvements in measures of beta-cell function suggest that the improvements in glycaemic control may be better maintained in long-term therapy with the rosiglitazone/metformin combination.     

Efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in people with type 2 diabetes during Ramadan fasting

Background and aimsTo explore efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in people with type2 diabetes during Ramadan fastingMethodsPeople with type2 diabetes (T2DM) who were taking empagliflozin and sulphonylurea with or without a metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase inhibitors (DPP4) recruited a month before Ramadan. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were recorded pre- and post-Ramadan. A predesigned diary was given to the participants to keep track of their T2DM status during Ramadan. The proportion of the people who had hypoglycaemia, or any adverse event related to the study drug was assessed after-Ramadan.ResultsA total of 116 participants completed the study. Symptomatic episodes of hypoglycaemia were more common among people who used sulphonylurea (i.e., 8.6%). Genitourinary infections and volume depletion events were recorded more in people on empagliflozin i.e., (6.9% and 5.17%, respectively). A significant reduction in body mass index (BMI), and HbA1c was noted among people on empagliflozin post Ramadan. A significant reduction in eGFR was noted only in people who were taking empagliflozin in combination with metformin.ConclusionEmpagliflozin was found to be safe and effective in fasting people with T2DM. Further large-scale studies are needed to validate our findings.     

Saxagliptin add‐on therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin with or without metformin: Results from the SUPER study,a randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

This prospective, multicentre, phase III study (NCT02104804) evaluated the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin add‐on therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin ± metformin. Patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.5% to 10.5% and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <15 mmol/L (270 mg/dL) on stable insulin therapy (20‐150 U/d) were randomized (1:1) to saxagliptin 5 mg once daily (N = 232) or placebo (N = 230) for 24 weeks, stratified by metformin use. The primary efficacy measure was change in HbA1c. Saxagliptin treatment resulted in a greater adjusted mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 than placebo (?0.58%; P < .001), irrespective of metformin use, and a greater mean change in FPG (0.9 mmol/L [?15.9 mg/dL]; P < .001). More patients achieved HbA1c <7% with saxagliptin (11.4%) than with placebo (3.5%, P = .002). Adverse events and incidence of hypoglycaemia were similar in both groups. Overall, add‐on saxagliptin 5 mg once daily significantly improved glycaemic control without increasing hypoglycaemia risk and was well tolerated in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin (± metformin).     

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.     

Translating science into clinical practice: focus on vildagliptin in combination with metformin

Vildagliptin is a potent and selective oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor that improves glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by increasing both α- and β-cell responsiveness to glucose. The efficacy, tolerability and safety of the combination of vildagliptin and metformin in the treatment of T2DM have been established in numerous trials in the extensive vildagliptin clinical programme. As add-on therapy in patients with inadequate glycaemic control on metformin, vildagliptin produces clinically significant reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose, is well tolerated, and is associated with absence of weight gain and minimal risk of hypoglycaemia. Compared with thiazolidinedione add-on treatment, vildagliptin is associated with similar significant reductions in HbA1c without the weight gain seen with the former. Compared with sulfonylurea add-on treatment, vildagliptin is associated with similar efficacy in controlling glycaemia but absence of weight gain and a markedly lower risk of hypoglycaemia. In drug-naïve patients, single-tablet combinations of vildagliptin/metformin 50/500 and 50/1000 mg bid produced significantly greater reductions in HbA1c than monotherapy with either agent and were well tolerated, with no weight gain and minimal risk of hypoglycaemia. The combination of vildagliptin and metformin poses numerous advantages in the treatment of T2DM.     

Impact of differing glucose‐lowering regimens on the pattern of association between glucose control and survival

Aims

To characterize survival in relation to achieved glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level within alternative glucose‐lowering regimens with differing risks of hypoglycaemia.

Methods

Data were extracted from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and the corresponding Hospital Episode Statistics. Patients with type 2 diabetes prescribed glucose‐lowering therapy in monotherapy or dual therapy with metformin between 2004 and 2013 were identified. Risk of all‐cause mortality within treatment cohorts was evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards model, introducing mean HbA1c as a quarterly updated, time‐dependent covariable.

Results

There were 6646 deaths in a total follow‐up period of 374 591 years. Survival for lower (<7%) vs moderate HbA1c levels (≥7%, <8.5%) differed by cohort: metformin, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95‐1.12); sulphonylurea, aHR 1.11 (95% CI 0.99‐1.25); insulin, aHR 1.47 (95% CI 1.25‐1.72); combined regimens with low hypoglycaemia risk, aHR 1.02 (95% CI 0.94‐1.10); and combined regimens with higher hypoglycaemia risk excluding insulin, aHR 1.24 (95% CI 1.13‐1.35) and including insulin, aHR 1.28 (95% CI 1.18‐1.37). Higher HbA1c levels were associated with increased mortality in regimens with low hypoglycaemia risk. Post hoc analysis by HbA1c deciles revealed an elevated risk of all‐cause mortality for the lowest deciles across all cohorts, but particularly in those regimens associated with hypoglycaemia. High HbA1c was associated with no difference, or a small increase in mortality risk in regimens with increased risk of hypoglycaemia.

Conclusions

The pattern of mortality risk across the range of HbA1c differed by glucose‐lowering regimen. Lower HbA1c was associated with increased mortality risk compared with moderate control, especially in those regimens associated with hypoglycaemia. High levels of HbA1c were associated with the expected elevated mortality risk in regimens with low hypoglycaemia risk.     

Meta-analysis of seven heterogeneous studies on liraglutide add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin

Background and aimsClinical trials indicate the efficacy of add-on therapy using incretin-related drugs to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) inadequately controlled by insulin. However, heterogeneity exists among these studies. Baseline body mass index (BMI) accounts for the heterogeneity of add-on therapy with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and the associated higher BMI with a lower efficacy. The efficacy of add-on therapy with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists remains unclear.MethodsWe performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of ≥12 weeks reporting the endpoint of adjusted mean change in hemoglobin A1c levels (AMΔHbA1c) or hypoglycemia incidence. Patients with type 2 DM treated with insulin alone or with metformin for at least 8 weeks before the study treatment were included. The intervention group received liraglutide co-administered with insulin or a fixed-dose combination. The control group received a placebo or insulin. Covariates included five baseline parameters (HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, BMI, type 2 DM duration, and treatment duration).ResultsSeven studies (2067 patients) were selected. AMΔHbA1c was ?1.00% (95% confidence interval [CI]: ?1.21 to ?0.78, I² = 74.7%). The odds ratio for hypoglycemia incidence was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.50–1.87, I² = 81.9%). Covariates did not account for the heterogeneity in AMΔHbA1c or hypoglycemia incidence.ConclusionsLiraglutide add-on therapy reduced HbA1c levels without increasing hypoglycemia incidence, independent of BMI, in insulin non-responders with type 2 DM. GLP-1 receptor agonists may be more suitable than DPP-4 inhibitors for add-on therapy in patients with high BMI. Registration number. PROSPERO #CRD42021178888.     

Translating science into clinical practice: focus on vildagliptin in combination with metformin

Vildagliptin is a potent and selective oral dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor that improves glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by increasing both α‐ and β‐cell responsiveness to glucose. The efficacy, tolerability and safety of the combination of vildagliptin and metformin in the treatment of T2DM have been established in numerous trials in the extensive vildagliptin clinical programme. As add‐on therapy in patients with inadequate glycaemic control on metformin, vildagliptin produces clinically significant reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose, is well tolerated, and is associated with absence of weight gain and minimal risk of hypoglycaemia. Compared with thiazolidinedione add‐on treatment, vildagliptin is associated with similar significant reductions in HbA1c without the weight gain seen with the former. Compared with sulfonylurea add‐on treatment, vildagliptin is associated with similar efficacy in controlling glycaemia but absence of weight gain and a markedly lower risk of hypoglycaemia. In drug‐naïve patients, single‐tablet combinations of vildagliptin/metformin 50/500 and 50/1000 mg bid produced significantly greater reductions in HbA1c than monotherapy with either agent and were well tolerated, with no weight gain and minimal risk of hypoglycaemia. The combination of vildagliptin and metformin poses numerous advantages in the treatment of T2DM.     

Long-term efficacy and safety of anti-hyperglycaemic agents in new-onset diabetes after transplant: Results from outpatient-based 1-year follow-up and a brief review of treatment options

Background and aimsEvaluation of long-term efficacy and safety of various anti-hyperglycaemic agents (AHA) for glycaemic control in NODAT, in stable kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) during 1-year outpatient follow-up.MethodsWe collected FPG, PPG, HbA1c, serum creatinine, eGFR, blood tacrolimus level, hypoglycaemia and body weight values from an existing database of KTRs diagnosed to have NODAT. Those newly initiated on AHA over 3 months post-transplant; received standard triple immunosuppressive therapy; and followed up for 1-year after referral, were included.ResultsIn ninety-five patients’ (Male = 65), mean decrease at 1-year from baseline in FPG (185.01 ± 62.11 mg/dL), PPG (293.21 ± 85.23 mg/dL) and HbA1c (8.48 ± 1.08%) was 67.09, 126.11 and 1.4 respectively (p < 0.0001). At 1-year, mean HbA1c was 7.08 ± 0.38%, ninety-one patients achieving HbA1c ≤ 7.5%. Fifty-two patients received oral combination therapy based on linagliptin/metformin/repaglinide/gliclazide, 19 received insulin-based regimen, and 24 received linagliptin monotharapey. Thirty patients reported hypoglycaemia (10 with gliclazide and 15 with insulin) and fifty patients gained body-weight at 1-year. Mean serum creatinine and eGFR significantly improved by 0.29 and 15.77 from baseline of 1.56 ± 0.62 mg/dL and 53.95 ± 16.10 mL/min/1.73 m² respectively.ConclusionsSignificant proportion of NODAT patients achieved long-term glycemic control with improved renal function. Combination therapy was needed in most within 1-year. Linagliptin monotherapy was effective, without producing hypoglycaemia or weight gain.     

Predictors of response to liraglutide in Japanese type 2 diabetes

AimIn Japan, liraglutide is approved for use alone or in combination with sulfonylureas, and the approved maximum dosage is 0.9 mg/day. This restriction could limit the glucose-lowering effect of liraglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study was designed to identify predictors of response to liraglutide therapy at the approved dosage.MethodsThis observational retrospective study included 380 patients with T2DM who were treated with liraglutide alone or in combination with sulfonylureas at Diabetes Centers located in four geographically different areas of Japan. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify patient characteristics associated with discontinuation of liraglutide, while multiple regression and decision tree analyses were used to identify predictors of response to liraglutide therapy.ResultsFactors associated with discontinuation of liraglutide included high BMI, long duration of diabetes, and prior insulin therapy. Predictors of response to liraglutide therapy in patients who did not use insulin previously included previous use of few oral glucose-lowering agents and high baseline HbA1c level.ConclusionThe results suggest greater efficacy of liraglutide monotherapy or liraglutide-sulfonylurea combination therapy in patients with short duration of diabetes, non-insulin therapy, and low BMI and high HbA1c level at baseline.     

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin added to treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with premixed insulin

To improve understanding of the safety and efficacy of adding sitagliptin to treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes taking premixed insulin, data from patients using premixed insulin ± metformin (screening HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤11%) in either of two clinical trials in which sitagliptin 100 mg once-daily or placebo was added to various formulations of insulin treatment, were analysed. In both trials, insulin doses were to remain stable throughout the 24-week trial period. At week 24, the between-group difference (sitagliptin - placebo) in the least squares mean (95% confidence intervals) change from baseline in HbA1c in patients using premixed insulin was −0.43% (−0.58, −0.28), P <0.001. Adverse events were generally similar between the treatment groups. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was slightly higher with sitagliptin, and the incidence of hypoglycaemia requiring medical attention was slightly higher with placebo; in both cases the difference was not statistically significant. The data from this pooled analysis confirm the utility of sitagliptin used in combination with premixed insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Effect of early addition of rosiglitazone to sulphonylurea therapy in older type 2 diabetes patients (>60 years): the Rosiglitazone Early vs. SULphonylurea Titration (RESULT) study

AIM: To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of adding rosiglitazone (RSG) vs. sulphonylurea (SU) dose escalation in older type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients inadequately controlled on SU therapy. METHODS: A total of 227 T2DM patients from 48 centres in the USA and Canada, aged > or =60 years, were randomized to receive RSG (4 mg) or placebo once daily in combination with glipizide 10 mg twice daily for 2 years in a double-blind, parallel-group study. Previous SU monotherapy was (1/4) to (1/2) maximum recommended dose for > or =2 months prior to screening with fasting plasma glucose (FPG) > or =7.0 and < or =13.9 mmol/l. Treatment options were individualized, and escalation of study medication was specifically defined. RESULTS: Disease progression (time to reach confirmed FPG > or =10 mmol/l while on maximum doses of both glipizide and study medication or placebo) was reported in 28.7% of patients uptitrating SU plus placebo compared with only 2.0% taking RSG and SU combination (p < 0.0001). RSG + SU significantly decreased HbA(1c), FPG, insulin resistance, plasma free fatty acids and medical care utilization and improved treatment satisfaction compared with uptitrated SU. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of RSG to SU in older T2DM patients significantly improved glycaemic control and reduced disease progression compared with uptitrated SU alone but without increasing hypoglycaemia. These benefits were associated with increased patient treatment satisfaction and reduced medical care utilization with regards to emergency room visits and length of hospitalization. Early addition of RSG is an effective treatment option for older T2DM patients inadequately controlled on submaximal SU monotherapy.     

Efficacy and safety of trelagliptin in combination with insulin therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: Results from a randomized,Phase IV study

We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of once‐weekly trelagliptin 100 mg as an add‐on therapy to insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with inadequate glycaemic control. Patients with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 7.5% to 10.0% who were receiving 8 to 40 units of insulin per day were randomized to receive, with insulin, trelagliptin 100 mg (A/A, n = 116) or placebo (P/A, n = 124) for a 12‐week double‐blind (DB) phase, after which all received trelagliptin for a 40‐week open‐label phase. Primary endpoints were HbA1c change from baseline to the end of the DB phase and adverse events (AEs). HbA1c significantly decreased in the A/A group vs the P/A group at the end of the DB phase (least square mean difference, ?0.63% [95% CI, ?0.83 to ?0.44]: P < .0001). The frequency of treatment‐emergent AEs during the DB phase was 44.0% in the A/A group and 47.6% in the P/A group. No patient experienced severe hypoglycaemia during trelagliptin treatment. Once‐weekly trelagliptin 100 mg therapy with insulin demonstrated a significant reduction in HbA1c. Long‐term treatment was well‐tolerated, with no clinically significant hypoglycaemia, suggesting that trelagliptin with insulin is a meaningful treatment option in this patient population.     

The effect of initial therapy with the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin compared with metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Aims: This study was conducted to compare the glycaemic efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with the fixed‐dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin versus metformin monotherapy in drug‐naive patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: This double‐blind study (18‐week Phase A and 26‐week Phase B) randomized 1250 drug‐naÏve patients with type 2 diabetes [mean baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 9.9%] to sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg bid or metformin 500 mg bid (uptitrated over 4 weeks to achieve maximum doses of sitagliptin/metformin 50/1000 mg bid or metformin 1000 bid). Results of the primary efficacy endpoint (mean HbA1c reductions from baseline at the end of Phase A) are reported herein. Results: At week 18, mean change from baseline HbA1c was ?2.4% for sitagliptin/metformin FDC and ?1.8% for metformin monotherapy (p < 0.001); more patients treated with sitagliptin/metformin FDC had an HbA1c value <7% (p < 0.001) versus metformin monotherapy. Changes in fasting plasma glucose were significantly greater with sitagliptin/metformin FDC (?3.8 mmol/l) versus metformin monotherapy (?3.0 mmol/l; p < 0.001). Homeostasis model assessment of β‐cell function (HOMA‐β) and fasting proinsulin/insulin ratio were significantly improved with sitagliptin/metformin FDC versus metformin monotherapy. Baseline body weight was reduced by 1.6 kg in each group. Both treatments were generally well tolerated with a low and similar incidence of hypoglycaemia. Abdominal pain (1.1 and 3.9%; p = 0.002) and diarrhoea (12.0 and 16.6%; p = 0.021) occurred significantly less with sitagliptin/metformin FDC versus metformin monotherapy; the incidence of nausea and vomiting was similar in both groups. Conclusion: Compared with metformin monotherapy, initial treatment with sitagliptin/metformin FDC provided superior glycaemic improvement with a similar degree of weight loss and lower incidences of abdominal pain and diarrhoea.     

The contribution of metformin to glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving combination therapy with insulin

Combination therapy of oral hypoglycaemic agents and insulin is a therapeutic option for those who have deterioration in glycaemic control. We examined the contribution of metformin by withdrawing it from Type 2 diabetic patients who had been stabilised on combination therapy. Fifty-one subjects with Type 2 diabetes and secondary oral hypoglycaemic agent failure were studied in a randomised, open and parallel study. In the first phase of 36 weeks, subjects were stabilised on combined therapy of sulphonylureas and nocturnal insulin, with or without metformin. During the second phase, metformin was withdrawn. The primary variables for efficacy were HbA(1c), fasting plasma glucose and 3-point capillary blood glucose profiles. After stabilisation with combination therapy, those subjects on metformin used less insulin to maintain glycaemic control (13.7+/-6.8 vs. 23.0+/-9.4 U/day, P=0.001) and had lower HbA(1c) values (8.13+/-0.89 vs. 9.05+/-1.30%, P=0.003) compared with those not given metformin. Withdrawal of metformin therapy caused deterioration in HbA(1c) (P=0.001). This study confirms that metformin plays an important role in the success of the combination therapy. The rational use of metformin and sulphonylurea together with insulin will help to improve metabolic control in Type 2 diabetes patients who have secondary drug failure.     

Twice-daily pre-mixed insulin rather than basal insulin therapy alone results in better overall glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To compare the glycaemic control of an insulin lispro mixture (25% insulin lispro and 75% NPL) twice daily in combination with metformin to that of once-daily insulin glargine plus metformin in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with intermediate insulin, or insulin plus oral agent(s) combination therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Ninety-seven patients were randomized in a multicentre, open-label, 32-week crossover study. Primary variables evaluated: haemoglobin A1c (A1c), 2-h post-prandial blood glucose (BG), hypoglycaemia rate (episodes/patient/30 days), incidence (% patients experiencing > or = 1 episode) of overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: At endpoint, A1c was lower with the insulin lispro mixture plus metformin compared with glargine plus metformin (7.54% +/- 0.87% vs. 8.14% +/- 1.03%, P < 0.001). Change in A1c from baseline to endpoint was greater with the insulin lispro mixture plus metformin (-1.00% vs. -0.42%; P < 0.001). Two-hour post-prandial BG was lower after morning, midday, and evening meals (P < 0.001) during treatment with the insulin lispro mixture plus metformin. The fasting BG values were lower with glargine plus metformin (P = 0.007). Despite lower BG at 03.00 hours (P < 0.01), patients treated with the insulin lispro mixture plus metformin had a lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia (0.14 +/- 0.49 vs. 0.34 +/- 0.85 episodes/patient/30 days; P = 0.002), although the overall hypoglycaemia rate was not different between treatments (0.61 +/- 1.41 vs. 0.44 +/- 1.07 episodes/patient/30 days; P = 0.477). CONCLUSION: In patients with Type 2 diabetes and inadequate glucose control while on insulin or insulin and oral agent(s) combination therapy, treatment with a twice-daily insulin lispro mixture plus metformin, which targets both post-prandial and pre-meal BG, provided clinically significant improvements in A1c, significantly reduced post-prandial BG after each meal, and reduced nocturnal hypoglycaemia as compared with once-daily glargine plus metformin, a treatment that targets fasting BG.     

A comparison of intensive mixture therapy with basal insulin therapy in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes receiving oral antidiabetes agents

Aim: In patients with type 2 diabetes, insulin therapy is commonly initiated with either a single dose of basal insulin or twice‐daily premixed (basal plus prandial) insulin despite no widely accepted recommendation. We compared the glycaemic control, as measured by a change in HbA1c, of intensive mixture therapy (IMT), a basal plus prandial regimen using insulin lispro mixture 50/50 (50% lispro and 50% NPL) before breakfast and lunch and insulin lispro mixture 25/75 (25% lispro and 75% NPL) before dinner, vs. once‐daily insulin glargine therapy, while continuing patients on oral antidiabetes medications. Methods: Following inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c 1.2–2.0 times the upper limit of normal) and at least 2 months of two or more oral antidiabetes agent therapy, 60 insulin‐naïve patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of the insulin regimens for 4 months with crossover to the alternative regimen for an additional 4 months. Glycaemic goals were preprandial blood glucose <120 mg/dl (6.7 mmol/l) and 2‐h postprandial blood glucose <180 mg/dl (10.0 mmol/l). The insulin dose was optimized by investigators without forced titration. Results: Mean prestudy (baseline) HbA1c for all patients was 9.21 ± 1.33% (±s.d.). IMT compared to glargine resulted in both a lower endpoint in HbA1c (7.08 ± 0.11% vs. 7.34 ± 0.11%; p = 0.003) and a greater change in HbA1c from pretherapy (?1.01 ± 0.10% vs. ?0.75 ± 0.10%; p = 0.0068). Forty‐four per cent of patients receiving IMT and 31% of patients receiving insulin glargine achieved HbA1c ≤ 7%. Two‐hour postprandial glucose values (for all three meals) and predinner glucose values were significantly less with IMT than with insulin glargine (p = 0.0034, 0.0001, 0.0066 and 0.0205). Overall hypoglycaemia throughout the complete treatment period was infrequent (IMT vs. Glargine: 3.98 ± 4.74 vs. 2.57 ± 3.22 episodes/patient/30 days, p = 0.0013), and no severe hypoglycaemia was observed during the study with either therapy. There was no difference in nocturnal hypoglycaemia between the two therapies. The mean insulin dose at the end of therapy was greater for IMT than for once‐daily insulin glargine (0.353 ± 0.256 vs. 0.276 ± 0.207 IU/kg, p = 0.0107). Conclusions: In combination with oral antidiabetes agents, multiple daily injections of a basal plus prandial insulin IMT regimen (using premixed insulin lispro formulations) resulted in greater improvements and a lower endpoint in HbA1c compared with a basal‐only insulin regimen. IMT also resulted in improved postprandial blood glucose control at each meal and enabled administration of a greater daily dose of insulin, which most likely contributed to these lower HbA1c measures. This greater reduction in HbA1c with IMT is accompanied by a small increased occurrence of mild hypoglycaemia but without any severe hypoglycaemia. Greater consideration should be given to initiating insulin as a basal plus prandial regimen rather than a basal‐only regimen.