Glycaemic outcomes of an Individualised treatMent aPproach for oldER vulnerable patIents: A randomised, controlled stUdy in type 2 diabetes Mellitus (IMPERIUM).

AIM: To compare the glycaemic outcomes of 2 glucose-lowering treatment strategies in vulnerable (moderately ill and/or frail) patients aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes whose individual HbA1c targets were not met with diet/exercise and/or oral antihyperglycaemic medications (OAMs). METHODS: The primary endpoint of this study was a composite of achieving/maintaining individualised HbA1c targets without 'clinically significant' hypoglycaemia (severe hypoglycaemia or repeated hypoglycaemia causing interruption of patients' activities or blood glucose <54 mg/dL). Strategy-A comprised glucose-dependent therapies (N = 99) with a non-sulphonylurea OAM and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist as the first injectable. Strategy-B comprised non-glucose-dependent therapies (N = 93) with sulphonylurea as the preferred OAM and insulin glargine as the first injectable. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between Strategies A and B in percentages of patients achieving the primary endpoint (64.5% vs 54.9%; P=0.190). Mean incidences (A vs B) of total (10.2% vs 53.8%), documented symptomatic (5.1% vs 36.6%), and asymptomatic (8.2% vs 32.3%) hypoglycaemia were lower for Strategy-A (P<0.001 each). Proportions of patients achieving/maintaining HbA1c target (A, 63.3% vs B, 55.9%) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Similar proportions of older, vulnerable aged ≥65 years patients with type 2 diabetes achieved/maintained glycaemic treatment goals without clinically significant hypoglycaemia with Strategies A or B. However, Strategy-A resulted in lower risk of total, documented symptomatic, and asymptomatic hypoglycaemia. These results identify an approach of potential clinical benefit in this age group and will inform future clinical research in older patients with type 2 diabetes. This trial is registered with ClinTrials.gov, number NCT02072096

Biosimilar insulins: a European perspective

Biosimilar insulins are likely to enter clinical practice in Europe in the near future. It is important that clinicians are familiar with and understand the concept of biosimilarity and how a biosimilar drug may differ from its reference product. The present article provides an overview of biosimilars, the European regulatory requirements for biosimilars and safety issues. It also summarizes the current biosimilars approved in Europe and the key clinical issues associated with the use of biosimilar insulin

Adherence to Basal Insulin Therapy Among People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Costs and Patient Outcomes

<p></p><p><b>Article full text</b></p> <p><br></p> <p>The full text of this article can be found here<b>. </b><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13300-018-0421-5">https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13300-018-0421-5</a></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p><br></p> <p><b>Provide enhanced content for this article</b></p> <p><br></p> <p>If you are an author of this publication and would like to provide additional enhanced content for your article then please contact <a href="http://www.medengine.com/Redeem/”mailto:[email protected]”"><b>[email protected]</b></a>.</p> <p><br></p> <p>The journal offers a range of additional features designed to increase visibility and readership. All features will be thoroughly peer reviewed to ensure the content is of the highest scientific standard and all features are marked as ‘peer reviewed’ to ensure readers are aware that the content has been reviewed to the same level as the articles they are being presented alongside. Moreover, all sponsorship and disclosure information is included to provide complete transparency and adherence to good publication practices. This ensures that however the content is reached the reader has a full understanding of its origin. No fees are charged for hosting additional open access content.</p> <p><br></p> <p>Other enhanced features include, but are not limited to:</p> <p><br></p> <p>• Slide decks</p> <p>• Videos and animations</p> <p>• Audio abstracts</p> <p>• Audio slides</p><br><p></p

Exenatide twice daily versus glimepiride for prevention of glycaemic deterioration in patients with type 2 diabetes with metformin failure (EUREXA): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Glycaemic control deteriorates progressively over time in patients with type 2 diabetes. Options for treatment escalation remain controversial after failure of first-line treatment with metformin. We compared add-on exenatide with glimepiride for durability of glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin alone. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial at 128 centres in 14 countries between Sept 5, 2006, and March 29, 2011. Patients aged 18-85 years with type 2 diabetes inadequately treated by metformin were randomly assigned via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive exenatide twice daily or glimepiride once daily as add-on to metformin. Randomisation was stratified by predetermined categories of glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1C)) concentration. The primary outcome was time to inadequate glycaemic control and need for alternative treatment, defined as an HbA(1c) concentration of more than 9% after the first 3 months of treatment, or more than 7% at two consecutive visits after the first 6 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-005448-21, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00359762. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 515 patients to the exenatide group and 514 to the glimepiride group, of whom 490 versus 487 were the intention-to-treat population. 203 (41%) patients had treatment failure in the exenatide group compared with 262 (54%) in the glimepiride group (risk difference 12·4 [95% CI 6·2-18·6], hazard ratio 0·748 [0·623-0·899]; p=0·002). 218 (44%) of 490 patients in the exenatide group, and 150 (31%) of 487 in the glimepiride group achieved an HbA(1c) concentration of less than 7% (p<0·0001), and 140 (29%) versus 87 (18%) achieved concentrations of 6·5% and less (p=0·0001). We noted a significantly greater decrease in bodyweight in patients given exenatide than in those given glimepiride (p<0·0001). Five patients in each treatment group died from causes unrelated to treatment. Significantly fewer patients in the exenatide group than in the glimepiride group reported documented symptomatic (p<0·0001), nocturnal (p=0·007), and non-nocturnal (p<0·0001) hypoglycaemia. Discontinuation because of adverse events (mainly gastrointestinal) was significantly higher (p=0·0005) in the exenatide group than in the glimepiride group in the first 6 months of treatment, but not thereafter. INTERPRETATION: These findings provide evidence for the benefits of exenatide versus glimepiride for control of glycaemic deterioration in patients with type-2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin alone

Treatment outcomes after initiation of exenatide twice daily or insulin in clinical practice: 12-month results from CHOICE in six European countries

Claes-G&ouml;ran &Ouml;stenson,1 Stephan Matthaei,2 Matthew Reaney,3 Thure Krarup,4 Bruno Guerci,5 Jacek Kiljanski,6 Carole Salaun-Martin,7 H&eacute;l&egrave;ne Sapin,7 David Bruhn,8 Chantal Mathieu,9 Michael Theodorakis10 1Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; 2Diabetes-Center Quakenbr&uuml;ck, Quakenbr&uuml;ck, Germany; 3Eli Lilly, Windlesham, Surrey, UK; 4Department of Endocrinology I, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 5Diabetology, Metabolic Diseases and Nutrition, Brabois Hospital, CHU Nancy, and INSERM CIC, ILCV, Vandoeuvre L&egrave;s Nancy, France; 6Eli Lilly, Warsaw, Poland; 7Eli Lilly, Neuilly Cedex, France; 8Eli Lilly, San Diego, California, USA; 9Department of Endocrinology, UZ Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium; 10Department of Clinical Therapeutics, University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece* *Michael Theodorakis was affiliated with the institution shown at the time of the study, but has since left this institution Objective: The CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy (CHOICE) study assessed time to, and reasons for, significant treatment change after patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) initiated their first injectable glucose-lowering therapy (exenatide twice daily [BID] or insulin) in routine clinical practice, and these patients&rsquo; clinical outcomes, in six European countries. This paper reports interim data from the first 12 months of the study. Research design and methods: CHOICE (NCT00635492) is a prospective, noninterventional, observational study. Clinical data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy and after approximately 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Of 2497 patients enrolled in CHOICE, 1096 in the exenatide BID and 1239 in the insulin cohorts had &ge;1 post-baseline assessment and were included in this analysis. Overall, 32.2% of the exenatide BID cohort and 29.1% of the insulin cohort (Kaplan&ndash;Meier estimates) had significant treatment change during the first 12 months, most commonly discontinuing injectable therapy or adding new T2DM therapy, respectively. Glycemic control improved in both cohorts, but weight loss occurred only in the exenatide BID cohort (mean change &ndash;3.3 kg). Hypoglycemia occurred in 13.2% of the exenatide BID cohort and 28.6% of the insulin cohort (82.8% and 55.6% of these patients, respectively, received sulfonylureas). The post hoc endpoint of glycated hemoglobin < 7%, no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia was attained at 12 months by 24.3% and 10.3% of patients who had data at 12 months and who were receiving exenatide BID and insulin, respectively. Conclusion: About 30% of patients in CHOICE changed treatment in the first 12 months after initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide BID or insulin). Overall, both cohorts achieved improved glycemic control, which was accompanied by a mean weight loss in the exenatide BID cohort. Keywords: type 2 diabetes mellitus, exenatide, insulin, injectable therap