Advertisement

Triple Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes

Insulin glargine or rosiglitazone added to combination therapy of sulfonylurea plus metformin in insulin-naïve patients

  1. Julio Rosenstock, MD1,
  2. Danny Sugimoto, MD2,
  3. Poul Strange, MD, PHD3,
  4. John A. Stewart, MSC4,
  5. Erika Soltes-Rak, PHD3,
  6. George Dailey, MD5 and
  7. on behalf of the Insulin Glargine 4014 Study Investigators*
  1. 1Dallas Diabetes and Endocrine Center, Dallas, Texas
  2. 2Cedar Crosse Research Center, Chicago, Illinois
  3. 3Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Bridgewater, New Jersey
  4. 4Aventis Pharma, Quebec, Canada
  5. 5Diabetes and Endocrinology Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, California
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Julio Rosenstock, MD, Dallas Diabetes and Endocrine Center at Medical City, 7777 Forest Ln., C-618, Dallas, TX 75230. E-mail: juliorosenstock{at}dallasdiabetes.com

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—To evaluate the efficacy and safety of add-on insulin glargine versus rosiglitazone in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on dual oral therapy with sulfonylurea plus metformin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—In this 24-week multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel trial, 217 patients (HbA1c [A1C] 7.5–11%, BMI >25 kg/m2) on ≥50% of maximal-dose sulfonylurea and metformin received add-on insulin glargine 10 units/day or rosiglitazone 4 mg/day. Insulin glargine was forced-titrated to target fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≤5.5–6.7 mmol/l (≤100–120 mg/dl), and rosiglitazone was increased to 8 mg/day any time after 6 weeks if FPG was >5.5 mmol/l.

RESULTS—A1C improvements from baseline were similar in both groups (−1.7 vs. −1.5% for insulin glargine vs. rosiglitazone, respectively); however, when baseline A1C was >9.5%, the reduction of A1C with insulin glargine was greater than with rosiglitazone (P < 0.05). Insulin glargine yielded better FPG values than rosiglitazone (−3.6 ± 0.23 vs. −2.6 ± 0.22 mmol/l; P = 0.001). Insulin glargine final dose per day was 38 ± 26 IU vs. 7.1 ± 2 mg for rosiglitazone. Confirmed hypoglycemic events at plasma glucose <3.9 mmol/l (<70 mg/dl) were slightly greater for the insulin glargine group (n = 57) than for the rosiglitazone group (n = 47) (P = 0.0528). The calculated average rate per patient-year of a confirmed hypoglycemic event (<70 mg/dl), after adjusting for BMI, was 7.7 (95% CI 5.4–10.8) and 3.4 (2.3–5.0) for the insulin glargine and rosiglitazone groups, respectively (P = 0.0073). More patients in the insulin glargine group had confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia of <3.9 mmol/l (P = 0.02) and <2.8 mmol/l (P < 0.05) than in the rosiglitazone group. Effects on total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels from baseline to end point with insulin glargine (−4.4, −1.4, and −19.0%, respectively) contrasted with those of rosiglitazone (+10.1, +13.1, and +4.6%, respectively; P < 0.002). HDL cholesterol was unchanged with insulin glargine but increased with rosiglitazone by 4.4% (P < 0.05). Insulin glargine had less weight gain than rosiglitazone (1.6 ± 0.4 vs. 3.0 ± 0.4 kg; P = 0.02), fewer adverse events (7 vs. 29%; P = 0.0001), and no peripheral edema (0 vs. 12.5%). Insulin glargine saved $235/patient over 24 weeks compared with rosiglitazone.

CONCLUSIONS—Low-dose insulin glargine combined with a sulfonylurea and metformin resulted in similar A1C improvements except for greater reductions in A1C when baseline was ≥9.5% compared with add-on maximum-dose rosiglitazone. Further, insulin glargine was associated with more hypoglycemia but less weight gain, no edema, and salutary lipid changes at a lower cost of therapy.

Footnotes

  • * A complete list of Insulin Glargine 4014 Study Investigators can be found in the appendix.

  • A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

    The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

    • Accepted December 14, 2005.
    • Received April 21, 2005.
| Table of Contents
Advertisement