Melanie Davies1, Steve Bain2, Guillaume Charpentier3, Frank Flacke4, Harmonie Goyeau5, Michael Woloschak6, Christoph Hasslacher7, Giacomo Vespasiani8, Steven Edelman9. 1. 1 Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK. 2. 2 Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK. 3. 3 Department of Medicine, Sud-Francilien Hospital, Corbeil-Essonnes, France. 4. 4 Sanofi, Industriepark Höchst, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 5. 5 Sanofi, Chilly-Mazarin, France. 6. 6 Sanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, USA. 7. 7 Diabetes Institute Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 8. 8 Center for Outcomes Research and Clinical Epidemiology (CORESEARCH), Via Tiziano Vecellio, Pescara, Italy. 9. 9 University of California, San Diego, Solana Beach, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy/safety of device-supported versus routine titration with Gla-300 in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) was evaluated. METHOD: AUTOMATIX was a 16-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, noninferiority trial in insulin-treated or insulin-naïve people with T2DM. The fasting self-monitored plasma glucose (FSMPG) target was 90-130 mg/dL (5.0-7.2 mmol/L). Primary endpoint: proportion of participants achieving target FSMPG at week 16 without severe hypoglycemia. Secondary endpoints included: proportion reaching FSMPG target without confirmed (≤70 mg/dL [≤3.9 mmol/L]) or severe hypoglycemia; time to first achieve FSMPG target; mean FSMPG and HbA1c change (baseline to week 16). Safety endpoints included hypoglycemia and adverse events. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were also assessed. RESULTS: Participants were randomized to device-supported (n = 75) or routine titration (n = 76); 17 participants in thedevice-supported group discontinued device use. Noninferiority was achieved for the primary endpoint (device-supported: 45.9%, routine: 36.8%; weighted difference: 9.04 [95% CI: -6.75, 24.83]), but not superiority (P = .262). The proportion reaching FSMPG target range without confirmed (≤70 mg/dL [≤3.9 mmol/L]) or severe hypoglycemia was 34.3% vs 14.5%, respectively. The time at which 50% of the participants achieved the FSMPG target was less in the device-supported than routine titration arm (10 vs 13 weeks). Least squares mean HbA1c reduction, safety profiles, and PROs were similar in both arms. Mean "ease of use" score for the device, assessed by healthcare professionals and participants on a scale of 1-7, was ≥6. CONCLUSIONS: Device-supported self-titration had a good safety/efficacy profile, and was noninferior to routine titration and well accepted by diabetes specialists and patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The efficacy/safety of device-supported versus routine titration with Gla-300 in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) was evaluated. METHOD: AUTOMATIX was a 16-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, noninferiority trial in insulin-treated or insulin-naïve people with T2DM. The fasting self-monitored plasma glucose (FSMPG) target was 90-130 mg/dL (5.0-7.2 mmol/L). Primary endpoint: proportion of participants achieving target FSMPG at week 16 without severe hypoglycemia. Secondary endpoints included: proportion reaching FSMPG target without confirmed (≤70 mg/dL [≤3.9 mmol/L]) or severe hypoglycemia; time to first achieve FSMPG target; mean FSMPG and HbA1c change (baseline to week 16). Safety endpoints included hypoglycemia and adverse events. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were also assessed. RESULTS:Participants were randomized to device-supported (n = 75) or routine titration (n = 76); 17 participants in the device-supported group discontinued device use. Noninferiority was achieved for the primary endpoint (device-supported: 45.9%, routine: 36.8%; weighted difference: 9.04 [95% CI: -6.75, 24.83]), but not superiority (P = .262). The proportion reaching FSMPG target range without confirmed (≤70 mg/dL [≤3.9 mmol/L]) or severe hypoglycemia was 34.3% vs 14.5%, respectively. The time at which 50% of the participants achieved the FSMPG target was less in the device-supported than routine titration arm (10 vs 13 weeks). Least squares mean HbA1c reduction, safety profiles, and PROs were similar in both arms. Mean "ease of use" score for the device, assessed by healthcare professionals and participants on a scale of 1-7, was ≥6. CONCLUSIONS: Device-supported self-titration had a good safety/efficacy profile, and was noninferior to routine titration and well accepted by diabetes specialists and patients.
Authors: Rachel M Bailon; Curtiss B Cook; Michael J Hovan; Bryan P Hull; Karen M Seifert; Victoria Miller-Cage; Karen A Beer; Mary E Boyle; Stephanie D Littman; Janice M Magallanez; Joanne M Fischenich; Jana K Harris; Susie S Scoggins; Josephine Uy Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2009-03-01
Authors: Michele Heisler; Reynard R Bouknight; Rodney A Hayward; Dylan M Smith; Eve A Kerr Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: T R S Hajos; F Pouwer; S E Skovlund; B L Den Oudsten; P H L M Geelhoed-Duijvestijn; C J Tack; F J Snoek Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: S Franc; S Borot; O Ronsin; J-L Quesada; D Dardari; C Fagour; E Renard; A-M Leguerrier; C Vigeral; F Moreau; P Winiszewski; A Vambergue; H Mosnier-Pudar; L Kessler; S Reffet; B Guerci; L Millot; S Halimi; C Thivolet; P-Y Benhamou; A Penfornis; G Charpentier; H Hanaire Journal: Diabetes Metab Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 6.041
Authors: Sarah Stark Casagrande; Judith E Fradkin; Sharon H Saydah; Keith F Rust; Catherine C Cowie Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Kamlesh Khunti; Michael L Wolden; Brian Larsen Thorsted; Marc Andersen; Melanie J Davies Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-07-22 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Andrew P McGovern; Kagabo D Hirwa; Abigail K Wong; Claire J E Holland; Isabelle Mayne; Aisha Hashimi; Rachael Thompson; Vicky Creese; Sarah Havill; Tina Sanders; Jennifer Blackman; Bijay Vaidya; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 4.213