METHODS: In this multinational, randomised, treat-to-target trial, patients with T2DM who intended to fast and were on basal, pre- or self-mixed insulin ± oral antidiabetic drugs for ≥90 days were randomised (1:1) to IDegAsp twice daily (BID) or BIAsp 30 BID. Treatment period included pre-Ramadan treatment initiation (with insulin titration for 8-20 weeks), Ramadan (4 weeks) and post-Ramadan (4 weeks). Insulin doses were reduced by 30-50% for the pre-dawn meal (suhur) on the first day of Ramadan, and readjusted to the pre-Ramadan levels at the end of Ramadan. Hypoglycaemia was analysed as overall (severe or plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L [56 mg/dL]), nocturnal (00:01-05:59) or severe (requiring assistance of another person).
RESULTS: During the treatment period, IDegAsp (n = 131) had significantly lower overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates with similar glycaemic efficacy, versus BIAsp 30 (n = 132). During Ramadan, despite achieving significantly lower pre-iftar (meal at sunset) self-measured plasma glucose (estimated treatment difference: -0.54 mmol/L [-1.02; -0.07]95% CI, p = .0247; post hoc) with similar overall glycaemic efficacy, IDegAsp showed significantly lower overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates versus BIAsp 30.
CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp is a suitable therapeutic agent for patients who need insulin for sustained glucose control before, during and after Ramadan fasting, with a significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia, versus BIAsp 30, an existing premixed insulin analogue.
METHODS: A retrospective observational study of 60 type 1 and 100 type 2 diabetes subjects. All underwent professional continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 3-6 days and recorded self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG). Indices were calculated from both CGM and SMBG. Statistical analyses included regression and area under receiver operator curve (AUC) analyses.
RESULTS: Hypoglycemia frequency (53.3% vs. 24%, P hypoglycemia. %CVCGM, Low Blood Glucose Index (LBGI)CGM, Glycemic Risk Assessment Diabetes Equation (GRADE)HypoglycemiaCGM, and Hypoglycemia IndexCGM predicted hypoglycemia well. %CVCGM and %CVSMBG consistently remained a robust discriminator of hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes (AUC 0.88). In type 2 diabetes, a combination of HbA1c and %CVSMBG or LBGISMBG could help discriminate hypoglycemia.
CONCLUSION: Assessment of glycemia should go beyond HbA1c and incorporate measures of GV and glycemic indices. %CVSMBG in type 1 diabetes and LBGISMBG or a combination of HbA1c and %CVSMBG in type 2 diabetes discriminated hypoglycemia well. In defining hypoglycemia risk using GV and glycemic indices, diabetes subtypes and data source (CGM vs. SMBG) must be considered.
METHODS: All English-language medical literature published from inception till October 2014 which met the inclusion criteria were reviewed and analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of nine papers were included, reviewed and analyzed. The total sample size was 4276 patients. All studies used either of the two DPP4 inhibitors - Vildagliptin or Sitagliptin, vs sulphonylurea or meglitinides. Patients receiving DPP4 inhibitors were less likely to develop symptomatic hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.70), confirmed hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.64) and severe hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10-0.53) compared with patients on sulphonylureas. There was no statistically significant difference in HbA1C changes comparing Vildagliptin and sulphonylurea.
CONCLUSION: DPP4 inhibitor is a safer alternative to sulphonylurea in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who fast during the month of Ramadan as it is associated with lower risk of symptomatic, confirmed and severe hypoglycemia, with efficacy comparable to sulphonylurea.
METHODS: Two reviewers searched MEDLINE for studies of ≥12 weeks duration in adults with type 2 diabetes. The key search word was "gliclazide", filtered with "randomized controlled trial", "human" and "19+ years". Differences were explored in mean change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline (primary outcome) and risk of hypoglycemia (secondary outcome) between gliclazide and other oral insulinotropic agents; and other sulfonylureas.
RESULTS: Nine out of 181 references reported primary outcomes, of which 7 reported secondary outcomes. Gliclazide lowered HbA1c more than other oral insulinotropic agents, with a weighted mean difference of -0.11% (95%, CI -0.19 to -0.03%, P=0.008, I(2)=60%), though not more than other sulfonylureas (-0.12%; 95%, CI -0.25 to 0.01%, P=0.07, I(2)=77%). Risk of hypoglycemia with gliclazide was not different to other insulinotropic agents (RR 0.85; 95%, CI 0.66 to 1.09, P=0.20, I(2)=61%) but significantly lower than other sulfonylureas (RR 0.47; 95%, CI 0.27 to 0.79, P=0.004, I(2)=0%).
CONCLUSION: Compared with other oral insulinotropic agents, gliclazide significantly reduced HbA1c with no difference regarding hypoglycemia risk. Compared with other sulfonylureas, HbA1c reduction with gliclazide was not significantly different, but hypoglycemia risk was significantly lower.
METHODS: This open-label, parallel-group, 26-week, multicentre, treat-to-target trial, randomly allocated participants (1:1) to two titration arms. The Simple algorithm titrated IDegAsp twice weekly based on a single pre-breakfast self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) measurement. The Stepwise algorithm titrated IDegAsp once weekly based on the lowest of three consecutive pre-breakfast SMPG measurements. In both groups, IDegAsp once daily was titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose values of 4.0-5.0 mmol/l. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 26 weeks.
RESULTS: Change in HbA1c at Week 26 was IDegAspSimple -14.6 mmol/mol (-1.3%) (to 52.4 mmol/mol; 6.9%) and IDegAspStepwise -11.9 mmol/mol (-1.1%) (to 54.7 mmol/mol; 7.2%). The estimated between-group treatment difference was -1.97 mmol/mol [95% confidence interval (CI) -4.1, 0.2] (-0.2%, 95% CI -0.4, 0.02), confirming the non-inferiority of IDegAspSimple to IDegAspStepwise (non-inferiority limit of ≤ 0.4%). Mean reduction in fasting plasma glucose and 8-point SMPG profiles were similar between groups. Rates of confirmed hypoglycaemia were lower for IDegAspStepwise [2.1 per patient years of exposure (PYE)] vs. IDegAspSimple (3.3 PYE) (estimated rate ratio IDegAspSimple /IDegAspStepwise 1.8; 95% CI 1.1, 2.9). Nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were similar between groups. No severe hypoglycaemic events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: In participants with insulin-naïve Type 2 diabetes mellitus, the IDegAspSimple titration algorithm improved HbA1c levels as effectively as a Stepwise titration algorithm. Hypoglycaemia rates were lower in the Stepwise arm.
METHODS: This is a controlled, intervention based study. It was run on three phases: before, during, and after Ramadan on 262 type 2 diabetes patients. The intervention group (n = 140) received RFEP on medications doses & timing adjustment before and after Ramadan, while the control group (n = 122) received standard care.
RESULTS: The dose of insulin glargine was reduced from 42.51 ± 22.16 at the baseline to 40.11 ± 18.51-units during Ramadan (p = 0.002) in the intervention group while it remained the same in the control group before Ramadan and during Ramadan (38.51 ± 18.63 and 38.14 ± 18.46, P = 0.428, respectively). The hypoglycemia score was 14.2 ± (8.5) pre-Ramadan in the intervention and reduced to 6.36 ± 6.17 during Ramadan (p hypoglycemia and safe fasting among T2D patients during Ramadan.