Assessing the impact of a new delivery method of insulin on glycemic control using a novel trial design
Author(s) -
Thomas Strack,
L. Martínez,
Stefano Del Prato,
Larry Blonde,
Burkhard Göke,
Vincent Woo,
Ann Millward,
Ramón Gomis,
Bill Canovatchel,
David Lawrence,
Nick Freemantle
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
diabetes metabolic syndrome and obesity
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.853
H-Index - 43
ISSN - 1178-7007
DOI - 10.2147/dmso.s3987
Subject(s) - medicine , glycemic , glycated hemoglobin , randomized controlled trial , clinical endpoint , randomization , diabetes mellitus , family medicine , clinical trial , insulin , type 2 diabetes , endocrinology
Objective The purpose of the trial was to examine the impact of inhaled human insulin (INH) on patient or physician willingness to adopt insulin after oral diabetes agent failure. Research design and methods The EXPERIENCE trial was a one-year randomized controlled trial conducted at primary, secondary and tertiary care facilities in Europe and North America. The primary study endpoint was difference in glycated hemoglobin (A1c) between randomized groups at 26 weeks, and results from that phase have been reported previously. The present report concerns results from the second 26-week extension phase. We also consider the applicability of the design. The trial recruited 727 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who, prior to randomization, were using two or more oral diabetes agents and whose A1c was ≥ 8.0%. Patients were randomized to two treatment settings: Group 1 (usual care with the option of INH) or Group 2 (usual care only). Usual care included adjusting oral therapy (optimizing current regimen or adding/deleting agents) and/or initiating subcutaneous (SC) insulin. Results At baseline, insulin was initiated by more (odds ratio [OR] 6.0;95% confidence interval [CI] 4.2 to 8.8; P < 0.0001) patients in Group 1 (86.2%; 76.7% INH plus 9.5% SC) than in Group 2 (50.7%; SC insulin only). The largest reduction from baseline in A1c was in Group 1 (−2.0 ± 1.2%) at Week 12 and in Group 2 (−1.8 ± 1.3%) at Week 26 (P = 0.003). At 52 weeks, 79.8% were on insulin in Group 1 (67.4% INH; 12.4% SC) vs 58.1% (SC only) in Group 2, and mean (SD) changes in A1c from baseline were −1.9% (1.2%) and −1.8% (1.3%) in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.05). Hypoglycemic event rates per patient month were 0.3 and 0.1 in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P < 0.0001). Conclusion The EXPERIENCE trial showed that novel delivery technology can accelerate the adoption of insulin although some attenuation of differences is observed over time. And further, that this was achieved in a population of patients who appeared more ready to move to insulin therapy than observed in standard clinical practice, and a group of physicians who appeared more ready to adopt INH than the majority of physicians.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom