Prandial-basal insulin regimens plus oral antihyperglycaemic agents to improve mealtime glycaemia: initiate and progressively advance insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes

被引:30
|
作者
Jain, S. M. [2 ]
Mao, X. [1 ]
Escalante-Pulido, M. [3 ]
Vorokhobina, N. [4 ]
Lopez, I. [5 ]
Ilag, L. L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Eli Lilly & Co, Lilly Corp Ctr, Indianapolis, IN 46285 USA
[2] TOTALL Diabet Hormone Inst, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India
[3] IMSS, CMNO, UMAE, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico
[4] St Petersburg Med Acad Postgrad Studies, Fed Agcy Hlth Care & Social Dev, State Inst Profess Educ, St Petersburg, Russia
[5] Med Practice Ignacio Lopez, Mantes La Jolje, France
关键词
basal and bolus therapy; insulin glargine; insulin lispro; prandial premixed therapy; type 2 diabetes mellitus; LISPRO MIX 75/25; PREMIXED INSULIN; CLINICAL INERTIA; GLUCOSE CONTROL; GLARGINE; TRIAL; COMPLICATIONS; MANAGEMENT; EFFICACY; MELLITUS;
D O I
10.1111/j.1463-1326.2010.01287.x
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Aims: To compare two progressive approaches [once-daily insulin glargine plus <= 3 mealtime lispro (G+L) vs. insulin lispro mix 50/50 (LM50/50) progression once up to thrice daily (premix progression, PP)] of beginning and advancing insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and inadequate glycaemic control on oral therapy, with the aim of showing non-inferiority of PP to G+L. Methods: Patients were randomized to PP (n = 242) or G+L (n = 242) in a 36-week, multinational, open-label trial. Dinnertime insulin LM 50/50 could be replaced with insulin lispro mix 75/25 if needed for fasting glycaemic control. Results: Baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) were 9.5% (PP) and 9.3% (G+L); p = 0.095. Change in A1C (baseline to endpoint) was -1.76% (PP) and -1.93% (G+L) (p = 0.097) [between-group difference of 0.17 (95% confidence interval: -0.03, 0.37)]. Non-inferiority of PP to G+L was not shown based on the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%. A1C was lower with G+L at weeks 12 (7.8 vs. 7.9%; p = 0.042), 24 (7.4 vs. 7.6%; p = 0.046), but not at week 36 (7.5 vs. 7.6%; p = 0.405). There were no significant differences in percentages of patients achieving A1C < 7%, overall hypoglycaemia incidence and rate or weight change. Total daily insulin dosages at endpoint were higher with PP vs. G+L (0.57 vs. 0.51 U/kg; p = 0.017), likely due to more injections (1.98 vs. 1.79; p = 0.011). Conclusions: Both treatments progressively improved glycaemic control in patients with T2D on oral therapy, although non-inferiority of PP to G+L was not shown. Higher insulin doses were observed with PP with no between-treatment differences in overall hypoglycaemia or weight gain.
引用
收藏
页码:967 / 975
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Initiating Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetic Patients Failing on Oral Hypoglycemic Agents Basal or prandial insulin? The APOLLO trial and beyond
    Bretzel, Reinhard G.
    Eckhard, Michael
    Landgraf, Wolfgang
    Owens, David R.
    Linn, Thomas
    DIABETES CARE, 2009, 32 : S260 - S265
  • [2] Prandial Options to Advance Basal Insulin Glargine Therapy: Testing Lixisenatide Plus Basal Insulin Versus Insulin Glulisine Either as Basal-Plus or Basal-Bolus in Type 2 Diabetes: The GetGoal Duo-2 Trial
    Rosenstock, Julio
    Guerci, Bruno
    Hanefeld, Markolf
    Gentile, Sandro
    Aronson, Ronnie
    Tinahones, Francisco J.
    Roy-Duval, Christine
    Souhami, Elisabeth
    Wardecki, Marek
    Ye, Jenny
    Perfetti, Riccardo
    Heller, Simon
    DIABETES CARE, 2016, 39 (08) : 1318 - 1328
  • [3] Randomized, 1-year comparison of three ways to initiate and advance insulin for type 2 diabetes: twice-daily premixed insulin versus basal insulin with either basal-plus one prandial insulin or basal-bolus up to three prandial injections
    Riddle, M. C.
    Rosenstock, J.
    Vlajnic, A.
    Gao, L.
    DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM, 2014, 16 (05) : 396 - 402
  • [4] A comparison of intensive mixture therapy with basal insulin therapy in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes receiving oral antidiabetes agents
    Jacober, S. J.
    Scism-Bacon, J. L.
    Zagar, A. J.
    DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM, 2006, 8 (04) : 448 - 455
  • [5] BeAM value: an indicator of the need to initiate and intensify prandial therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving basal insulin
    Zisman, Ariel
    Morales, Francienid
    Stewart, John
    Stuhr, Andreas
    Vlajnic, Aleksandra
    Zhou, Rong
    BMJ OPEN DIABETES RESEARCH & CARE, 2016, 4 (01)
  • [6] A pragmatic study of mid-mixture insulin and basal insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with oral antihyperglycaemic medications: A lesson from real-world experience
    Zhang, Xiaomei
    Ma, Yujin
    Chen, Hong
    Lou, Ying
    Ji, Linong
    Chen, Lulu
    DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM, 2020, 22 (08) : 1436 - 1442
  • [7] Effects of switching from prandial premixed insulin therapy to basal plus two times bolus insulin therapy on glycemic control and quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus
    Ito, Hiroyuki
    Abe, Mariko
    Antoku, Shinichi
    Omoto, Takashi
    Shinozaki, Masahiro
    Nishio, Shinya
    Mifune, Mizuo
    Togane, Michiko
    DRUG DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND THERAPY, 2014, 8 : 391 - 396
  • [8] Prandial inhaled insulin plus basal insulin glargine versus twice daily biaspart insulin for type 2 diabetes: a multicentre randomised trial
    Rosenstock, Julio
    Lorber, Daniel L.
    Gnudi, Luigi
    Howard, Campbell P.
    Bilheimer, David W.
    Chang, P-C
    Petrucci, Richard E.
    Boss, Anders H.
    Richardson, Peter C.
    LANCET, 2010, 375 (9733) : 2244 - 2253
  • [9] Prandial premixed insulin analogue regimens versus basal insulin analogue regimens in the management of type 2 diabetes: An evidence-based comparison
    Ilag, Liza L.
    Kerr, Lisa
    Malone, James K.
    Tan, Meng H.
    CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2007, 29 : 1254 - 1270
  • [10] Contribution of glimepiride to basal-prandial insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes
    Yokoyama, Hiroki
    Sone, Hirohito
    Yamada, Daishiro
    Honjo, Jun
    Haneda, Masakazu
    DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2011, 91 (02) : 148 - 153