Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Shinshu University School of Medicine, Nagano 390-8621, Japan.
Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, 2880, Denmark.
Endocr J. 2021 Apr 28;68(4):429-440. doi: 10.1507/endocrj.EJ20-0606. Epub 2020 Dec 26.
This study aimed to confirm the efficacy and safety of mealtime and post-meal fast-acting insulin aspart versus insulin aspart, both with basal insulin degludec, in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes. This was a subgroup analysis of onset 8, a randomized multicenter, treat-to-target trial of mealtime fast-acting insulin aspart (subgroup n = 73), mealtime insulin aspart (n = 83), or open-label post-meal fast-acting insulin aspart (n = 89), all for 26 weeks. Change from baseline in HbA was considered the primary endpoint. After 26 weeks, the estimated treatment difference (ETD, 95% CI) for change from baseline in HbA between mealtime fast-acting insulin aspart or post-meal fast-acting insulin aspart vs. insulin aspart was 0.01% (-0.16;0.19) and 0.10% (-0.07;0.27), respectively. Following a standardized meal test, ETD for change from baseline in postprandial glucose (PPG) increment at 1 hour was -16.91 mg/dL (-32.15;-1.68) for mealtime fast-acting insulin aspart and 40.16 mg/dL (25.46;54.87) for post-meal fast-acting insulin aspart, both versus insulin aspart. Mean self-measured blood glucose 1-hour PPG increments also showed a trend towards improved PPG control with mealtime fast-acting insulin aspart versus insulin aspart. Rates of overall hypoglycemia (35.56, 37.72 and 38.75 per patient-year of exposure with mealtime fast-acting insulin aspart, post-meal fast-acting insulin aspart and insulin aspart, respectively) and meal-related hypoglycemia were similar between treatment arms. Consistent with findings of onset 8, this analysis confirmed mealtime and post-meal fast-acting insulin aspart provided effective HbA and PPG control versus insulin aspart, with similar safety profiles, in Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes.
这项研究旨在确认餐时和餐后速效门冬胰岛素与基础胰岛素德谷胰岛素联用,与餐时门冬胰岛素和基础胰岛素联用相比,在日本 1 型糖尿病患者中的疗效和安全性。这是一项起始 8 研究的亚组分析,是一项多中心、随机、以目标为导向的餐时速效门冬胰岛素(亚组 n = 73)、餐时门冬胰岛素(n = 83)或开放标签餐后速效门冬胰岛素(n = 89)治疗 26 周的试验。从基线到 HbA 的变化被认为是主要终点。26 周后,与餐时速效门冬胰岛素或餐后速效门冬胰岛素相比,胰岛素门冬胰岛素治疗后 HbA 从基线的估计治疗差异(ETD,95%CI)分别为 0.01%(-0.16;0.19)和 0.10%(-0.07;0.27)。在进行标准化餐食测试后,与胰岛素门冬胰岛素相比,餐时速效门冬胰岛素治疗后 1 小时餐后血糖(PPG)增量从基线的 ETD 为-16.91mg/dL(-32.15;-1.68),而餐后速效门冬胰岛素为 40.16mg/dL(25.46;54.87)。自我监测的平均餐后 1 小时 PPG 增量也显示,与胰岛素门冬胰岛素相比,餐时速效门冬胰岛素治疗有改善 PPG 控制的趋势。餐时速效门冬胰岛素、餐后速效门冬胰岛素和胰岛素门冬胰岛素的总体低血糖(35.56、37.72 和 38.75 例患者-年)和与进餐相关的低血糖发生率在各治疗组之间相似。与起始 8 的研究结果一致,该分析证实,餐时和餐后速效门冬胰岛素与胰岛素门冬胰岛素相比,可有效控制 HbA 和 PPG,且安全性相似,在日本 1 型糖尿病成人中。