A Multinational, Randomized, Open-label, Treat-to-Target Trial Comparing Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine in Insulin-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Changyu Pan, Jorge L Gross, Wenying Yang, Xiaofeng Lv, Li Sun, Charlotte Thim Hansen, Hongfei Xu, Robert Wagner, Changyu Pan, Jorge L Gross, Wenying Yang, Xiaofeng Lv, Li Sun, Charlotte Thim Hansen, Hongfei Xu, Robert Wagner

Abstract

Introduction: To lower the barrier for initiating insulin treatment and obtain adequate glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), new basal insulin preparations with improved pharmacological properties and consequently a lower risk of hypoglycemia are needed. The objective of this trial was to confirm the efficacy and compare the safety of insulin degludec (IDeg) with insulin glargine (IGlar) in a multinational setting with two thirds of subjects enrolled in China.

Methods: This was a 26-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial in 833 subjects with T2DM (48 % were female, mean age 56 years, diabetes duration 8 years), inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Subjects were randomized 2:1 to once-daily IDeg (555 subjects) or IGlar (278 subjects), both with metformin. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) after 26 weeks.

Results: The completion rate was high (IDeg 94.2 %; IGlar 91.4 %). Mean HbA1c decreased from 8.3 to 7.0 % in both groups. Estimated treatment difference (ETD) [95 % confidence interval (CI)] IDeg-IGlar in change from baseline was -0.05 % points [-0.18 to 0.08], confirming the non-inferiority of IDeg to IGlar. The proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c <7.0 % was 54.2 and 51.4 % with IDeg and IGlar, respectively (estimated odds ratio [95 % CI] IDeg/IGlar: 1.14 [0.84 to 1.54]). The mean decrease in fasting plasma glucose, self-measured plasma glucose profiles, and insulin dose were similar between groups. Numerically lower rates of overall (estimated rate ratio [95 % CI] IDeg/IGlar: 0.80 [0.59 to 1.10]) and nocturnal (0.77 [0.43 to 1.37]) confirmed hypoglycemia were observed with IDeg compared with IGlar. No treatment differences in other safety parameters were found. Subjects were more satisfied with the IDeg device compared with the IGlar device as reflected by the total Treatment Related Impact Measures-Diabetes Device score (ETD [95 % CI] IDeg-IGlar: 2.2 [0.2 to 4.3]).

Conclusion: IDeg provided adequate glycemic control non-inferior to IGlar and a tendency for a lower hypoglycemia rate. IDeg is considered suitable for initiating insulin therapy in T2DM patients on OADs requiring intensified treatment.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01849289.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Trial flow diagram. The full analysis set included all randomized subjects. The safety analysis set included all randomized subjects who received at least one dose of trial product. Most subjects withdrawn for “other” reasons were randomized in error (5 in the IDeg group, 3 in the IGlar group). % proportion of randomized subjects
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Glycemic control (full analysis set). a Mean HbA1c across the 26-week treatment period, b mean FPG across the 26-week treatment period, c 9-point SMPG profiles at baseline (week 0) and end of treatment (week 26). Glucose measurements for 9-point profiles were performed just before a meal and 90 minutes after start of the meal. Data are mean ± SEM. Missing data after baseline are imputed with the last observation carried forward method. IDeg insulin degludec, IGlar insulin glargine, HbA1c glycosylated hemoglobin, FPG fasting plasma glucose, SMPG self-measured plasma glucose, +90 min 90 min after start of the preceding meal, SEM standard error of the mean
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Cumulative number of confirmed hypoglycemic episodes across the 26-week treatment period (safety analysis set). a Overall confirmed hypoglycemic episodes. b Nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemic episodes. Confirmed hypoglycemic episodes included episodes of severe hypoglycemia as well as hypoglycemic episodes with confirmed plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L. Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes were defined as episodes with time of onset between 00:01 and 05:59 (both inclusive). IDeg insulin degludec, IGlar insulin glargine

References

    1. International Diabetes Foundation. Diabetes atlas. 7th edition 2015. Available from . Accessed 18 Feb 2016.
    1. Xu Y, Wang L, He J, et al. 2010 China Noncommunicable Disease Surveillance Group. Prevalence and control of diabetes in Chinese adults. JAMA. 2013;310:948–959. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.168118.
    1. Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1577–1589. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0806470.
    1. Hanefeld M. Use of insulin in type 2 diabetes: what we learned from recent clinical trials on the benefits of early insulin initiation. Diabetes Metab. 2014;40:391–399. doi: 10.1016/j.diabet.2014.08.006.
    1. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a patient-centred approach. Update to a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetologia. 2015;58:429–442. doi: 10.1007/s00125-014-3460-0.
    1. Ahrén B. Avoiding hypoglycemia: a key to success for glucose-lowering therapy in type 2 diabetes. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2013;9:155–163. doi: 10.2147/VHRM.S33934.
    1. Haahr H, Heise T. A review of the pharmacological properties of insulin degludec and their clinical relevance. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2014;53:787–800. doi: 10.1007/s40262-014-0165-y.
    1. Gough SC, Bhargava A, Jain R, Mersebach H, Rasmussen S, Bergenstal RM. Low-volume insulin degludec 200 units/ml once daily improves glycemic control similarly to insulin glargine with a low risk of hypoglycemia in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a 26-week, randomized, controlled, multinational, treat-to-target trial: the BEGIN LOW VOLUME trial. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:2536–2542. doi: 10.2337/dc12-2329.
    1. Onishi Y, Iwamoto Y, Yoo SJ, Clauson P, Tamer SC, Park S. Insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: a 26-week, randomized, controlled, Pan-Asian, treat-to-target trial. J Diabetes Investig. 2013;4:605–612. doi: 10.1111/jdi.12102.
    1. Zinman B, Philis-Tsimikas A, Cariou B, et al. NN1250-3579 (BEGIN Once Long) Trial Investigators. Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a 1-year, randomized, treat-to-target trial (BEGIN Once Long) Diabetes Care. 2012;35:2464–2471. doi: 10.2337/dc12-1205.
    1. Garber AJ, King AB, Del Prato S, et al. NN1250-3582 (BEGIN BB T2D) Trial Investigators. Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes (BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 2): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2012;379:1498–1507. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60205-0.
    1. Vora J, Christensen T, Rana A, Bain SC. Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of endpoints in phase 3a trials. Diabetes Ther. 2014;5(2):435–446. doi: 10.1007/s13300-014-0076-9.
    1. Ratner RE, Gough SC, Mathieu C, et al. Hypoglycaemia risk with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in type 2 and type 1 diabetes: a pre-planned meta-analysis of phase 3 trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2013;15:175–184. doi: 10.1111/dom.12032.
    1. Brod M, Hammer M, Christensen T, Lessard S, Bushnell DM. Understanding and assessing the impact of treatment in diabetes: the Treatment-Related Impact Measures for Diabetes and Devices (TRIM-Diabetes and TRIM-Diabetes Device) Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:83. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-83.
    1. Warren M, Chaykin LB, Jabbour SA, et al. Efficacy, patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and safety of insulin degludec U200 vs. insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) requiring high-dose insulin (Poster 1040-P). Presented at the American Diabetes Association, 75th Annual Scientific Sessions; 2015 June 5–9; Boston, MA, USA. Available from: . Accessed 18 Aug 2015.
    1. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Seoul: 59th WMA General Assembly; 2008.
    1. International Conference on Harmonisation. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1), Step 4; 1996.
    1. Turner-Bowker DM, Bartley PJ, Ware JE. SF-36® Health survey and “SF” bibliography. Third Edition (1988–2000). Lincoln: QualityMetric Incorporated; 2002.
    1. Lindholm A, Jensen LB, Home PD, Raskin P, Boehm BO, Råstam J. Immune responses to insulin aspart and biphasic insulin aspart in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:876–882. doi: 10.2337/diacare.25.5.876.
    1. Mire-Sluis AR, Barrett YC, Devanarayan V, et al. Recommendations for the design and optimization of immunoassays used in the detection of host antibodies against biotechnology products. J Immunol Methods. 2004;289:1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2004.06.002.
    1. Muchmore DB, Heinemann L, Tamborlane W, Wu XW, Fleming A. Assessing rates of hypoglycemia as an end point in clinical trials. Diabetes Care. 2015;38:e160–e161. doi: 10.2337/dc15-0808.
    1. FDA, USDHHS, and CDER. Guidance for industry: diabetes mellitus: developing drugs and therapeutic biologics for treatment and prevention, 2008. Available from . Accessed 18 Aug 2015.
    1. Hu EA, Pan A, Malik V, Sun Q. White rice consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis and systematic review. BMJ. 2012;344:e1454. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e1454.
    1. Heller S, Mathieu C, Kapur R, Wolden ML, Zinman B. A meta-analysis of rate ratios for nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine using different definitions for hypoglycaemia. Diabet Med. 2016;33:478–487. doi: 10.1111/dme.13002.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever