OBJECTIVE: The role of U300 glargine insulin for the inpatient management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has not been determined. We compared the safety and efficacy of glargine U300 versus glargine U100 in noncritically ill patients with T2D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial included 176 patients with poorly controlled T2D (admission blood glucose [BG] 228 ± 82 mg/dL and HbA1c 9.5 ± 2.2%), treated with oral agents or insulin before admission. Patients were treated with a basal-bolus regimen with glargine U300 (n = 92) or glargine U100 (n = 84) and glulisine before meals. We adjusted insulin daily to a target BG of 70-180 mg/dL. The primary end point was noninferiority in the mean difference in daily BG between groups. The major safety outcome was the occurrence of hypoglycemia. RESULTS: There were no differences between glargine U300 and U100 in mean daily BG (186 ± 40vs. 184 ± 46 mg/dL, P = 0.62), percentage of readings within target BG of 70-180 mg/dL (50 ± 27% vs. 55 ± 29%, P = 0.3), length of stay (median [IQR] 6.0 [4.0, 8.0] vs. 4.0 [3.0, 7.0] days, P = 0.06), hospital complications (6.5% vs. 11%, P = 0.42), or insulin total daily dose (0.43 ± 0.21 vs. 0.42 ± 0.20 units/kg/day, P = 0.74). There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <70 mg/dL (8.7% vs. 9.5%, P > 0.99), but glargine U300 resulted in significantly lower rates of clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) compared with glargine U100 (0% vs. 6.0%, P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital treatment with glargine U300 resulted in similar glycemic control compared with glargine U100 and may be associated with a lower incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemia.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The role of U300 glargineinsulin for the inpatient management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has not been determined. We compared the safety and efficacy of glargine U300 versus glargineU100 in noncritically ill patients with T2D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial included 176 patients with poorly controlled T2D (admission blood glucose [BG] 228 ± 82 mg/dL and HbA1c 9.5 ± 2.2%), treated with oral agents or insulin before admission. Patients were treated with a basal-bolus regimen with glargine U300 (n = 92) or glargineU100 (n = 84) and glulisine before meals. We adjusted insulin daily to a target BG of 70-180 mg/dL. The primary end point was noninferiority in the mean difference in daily BG between groups. The major safety outcome was the occurrence of hypoglycemia. RESULTS: There were no differences between glargine U300 and U100 in mean daily BG (186 ± 40 vs. 184 ± 46 mg/dL, P = 0.62), percentage of readings within target BG of 70-180 mg/dL (50 ± 27% vs. 55 ± 29%, P = 0.3), length of stay (median [IQR] 6.0 [4.0, 8.0] vs. 4.0 [3.0, 7.0] days, P = 0.06), hospital complications (6.5% vs. 11%, P = 0.42), or insulin total daily dose (0.43 ± 0.21 vs. 0.42 ± 0.20 units/kg/day, P = 0.74). There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <70 mg/dL (8.7% vs. 9.5%, P > 0.99), but glargine U300 resulted in significantly lower rates of clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) compared with glargineU100 (0% vs. 6.0%, P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital treatment with glargine U300 resulted in similar glycemic control compared with glargineU100 and may be associated with a lower incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemia.
Authors: Guillermo E Umpierrez; Scott D Isaacs; Niloofar Bazargan; Xiangdong You; Leonard M Thaler; Abbas E Kitabchi Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Philip D Home; Richard M Bergenstal; Geremia B Bolli; Monika Ziemen; Maria Rojeski; Melanie Espinasse; Matthew C Riddle Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Francisco J Pasquel; Roma Gianchandani; Daniel J Rubin; Kathleen M Dungan; Isabel Anzola; Patricia C Gomez; Limin Peng; Israel Hodish; Tim Bodnar; David Wesorick; Vijay Balakrishnan; Kwame Osei; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 32.069
Authors: K Malmberg; L Rydén; S Efendic; J Herlitz; P Nicol; A Waldenström; H Wedel; L Welin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1995-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: G B Bolli; M C Riddle; R M Bergenstal; M Ziemen; K Sestakauskas; H Goyeau; P D Home Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: H Yki-Järvinen; R M Bergenstal; G B Bolli; M Ziemen; M Wardecki; I Muehlen-Bartmer; M Maroccia; M C Riddle Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: F Javier Escalada; Serge Halimi; Peter A Senior; Mireille Bonnemaire; Anna M G Cali; Lydie Melas-Melt; Janaka Karalliedde; Robert A Ritzel Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Rodolfo J Galindo; Francisco J Pasquel; Priyathama Vellanki; Radica Alicic; David W Lam; Maya Fayfman; Alexandra L Migdal; Georgia M Davis; Saumeth Cardona; Maria A Urrutia; Citlalli Perez-Guzman; Karla Walkiria Zamudio-Coronado; Limin Peng; Katherine R Tuttle; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Rodolfo J Galindo; Grazia Aleppo; David C Klonoff; Elias K Spanakis; Shivani Agarwal; Priya Vellanki; Darin E Olson; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Georgia M Davis; Francisco J Pasquel Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2020-06-14