AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) versus insulin glargine once daily in a basal-bolus regimen in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. METHODS:Three hundred eighty-three insulin-treated patients were randomized to either ILPS plus lispro or glargine plus lispro in this open-label 24-week European study. Insulin doses were titrated to predefined blood glucose (BG) targets. Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine was assessed by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the change of HbA1c from baseline to week 24 (adjusted for country and baseline HbA1c) with the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. Secondary endpoints included HbA1c categories, BG profiles, insulin doses, hypoglycaemic episodes, adverse events and vital signs. RESULTS: Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine in the change of HbA1c from baseline was shown: least-square mean between-treatment difference (95% CI) was 0.1% (-0.11; 0.31). Mean changes at week 24 were -1.05% (ILPS) and -1.20% (glargine). HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 21.7 versus 29.4% of patients. Mean basal/mealtime insulin doses at week 24 were 29.6/36.2 IU/day (ILPS) versus 32.8/42.2 IU/day (glargine); the difference was not statistically significant for total dose (p = 0.7). In both groups, 56.1/25.7% versus 63.6/19.3% of patients experienced any/nocturnal hypoglycaemia (p = 0.2 for both). No relevant differences were noted in any other variables. CONCLUSIONS: A basal-bolus regimen with ILPS once daily resulted in non-inferior glycaemic control compared to a similar regimen with glargine, without statistically significant or clinically relevant differences in hypoglycaemia. ILPS-based regimens can be considered an alternative to basal-bolus regimens with glargine for T2DM patients.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulinlispro protamine suspension (ILPS) versus insulinglargine once daily in a basal-bolus regimen in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. METHODS: Three hundred eighty-three insulin-treated patients were randomized to either ILPS plus lispro or glargine plus lispro in this open-label 24-week European study. Insulin doses were titrated to predefined blood glucose (BG) targets. Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine was assessed by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the change of HbA1c from baseline to week 24 (adjusted for country and baseline HbA1c) with the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. Secondary endpoints included HbA1c categories, BG profiles, insulin doses, hypoglycaemic episodes, adverse events and vital signs. RESULTS: Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine in the change of HbA1c from baseline was shown: least-square mean between-treatment difference (95% CI) was 0.1% (-0.11; 0.31). Mean changes at week 24 were -1.05% (ILPS) and -1.20% (glargine). HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 21.7 versus 29.4% of patients. Mean basal/mealtime insulin doses at week 24 were 29.6/36.2 IU/day (ILPS) versus 32.8/42.2 IU/day (glargine); the difference was not statistically significant for total dose (p = 0.7). In both groups, 56.1/25.7% versus 63.6/19.3% of patients experienced any/nocturnal hypoglycaemia (p = 0.2 for both). No relevant differences were noted in any other variables. CONCLUSIONS: A basal-bolus regimen with ILPS once daily resulted in non-inferior glycaemic control compared to a similar regimen with glargine, without statistically significant or clinically relevant differences in hypoglycaemia. ILPS-based regimens can be considered an alternative to basal-bolus regimens with glargine for T2DM patients.
Authors: Przemyslaw Rys; Piotr Wojciechowski; Agnieszka Rogoz-Sitek; Grzegorz Niesyczyński; Joanna Lis; Albert Syta; Maciej T Malecki Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: R F Arakaki; T C Blevins; J K Wise; D R Liljenquist; H H Jiang; J G Jacobson; S A Martin; J A Jackson Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2013-12-29 Impact factor: 6.577