RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients with type 1 diabetes may prefer features of AIR inhaled insulin (developed by Alkermes, Inc. [Cambridge, MA] and Eli Lilly and Company [Indianapolis, IN]; AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc.) over insulin injection, but the two methods need to be compared for efficacy and safety. METHODS: This multicenter, 6-month, parallel-group, noninferiority trial had 500 patients with type 1 diabetes randomized to morning doses of basal insulin glargine plus either preprandial injectable insulin lispro or preprandial AIR insulin. We hypothesized that AIR insulin is noninferior (upper bound of the 95% confidence interval < or = 0.4%) to insulin lispro for change-from-baseline hemoglobin A1C (A1C). RESULTS: Baseline A1C was 7.95 +/- 0.08% for both groups. At end point, A1C was lower with insulin lispro than with AIR insulin by 0.27% (95% confidence interval 0.11, 0.43; P< 0.001). Noninferiority of AIR insulin to insulin lispro was not demonstrated, but similar percentages of patients in each group achieved A1C <7.0% (P = 0.448). Overall daily blood glucose was similar between groups at baseline (P = 0.879) and end point (P = 0.161). Two-hour postprandial blood glucose change from baseline was significantly (P < 0.001) higher with AIR insulin (20.77 +/- 4.33 mg/dL at 3 months and 15.85 +/- 3.08 mg/dL at end point) than with insulin lispro (3.29 +/- 4.14 mg/dL at 3 months and 1.67 +/- 2.91 mg/dL at end point). Overall hypoglycemia was similar between treatment groups (P = 0.355). The AIR insulin group had greater decrease in diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide at end point (P = 0.020) and greater incidence of cough (P = 0.024) and dyspnea (P = 0.030). Body weight decreased in the AIR insulin group and increased in the insulin lispro group. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin lispro provided lower A1C than AIR insulin, but the difference may not be clinically relevant.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Insulina/análogos & derivados , Administración por Inhalación , Adulto , Glucemia/efectos de los fármacos , Glucemia/metabolismo , Índice de Masa Corporal , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/sangre , Quimioterapia Combinada , Femenino , Volumen Espiratorio Forzado/efectos de los fármacos , Hemoglobina Glucada/efectos de los fármacos , Hemoglobina Glucada/metabolismo , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/administración & dosificación , Insulina/administración & dosificación , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Insulínicos/sangre , Insulina Glargina , Insulina Lispro , Insulina de Acción Prolongada , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Seguridad , Resultado del Tratamiento , Capacidad Vital/efectos de los fármacosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes is often delayed because of concerns about injections. Our objective was to compare the effects of AIR inhaled insulin (Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN) (AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc., Cambridge, MA) with those of injectable insulin on glycemic control and safety. METHODS: This was planned as a 24-month, open-label, randomized study in adults with diabetes inadequately controlled by one or more oral antihyperglycemic medications (OAMs). Following a 2-week baseline period, patients continued OAMs and were randomized to AIR insulin (n = 208) or insulin lispro (n = 203) before meals. The primary end point was hemoglobin A1C (A1C) change from baseline to 6 months. Noninferiority was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in A1C change was < or =0.4%. RESULTS: Early termination of the study diminished the number of patients for the 12- and 24-month analyses, but not for the primary 6-month end point analyses. AIR insulin and injectable insulin groups had comparable baseline A1C values (8.18% vs. 8.21%, respectively). Change in A1C from baseline to 6-month end point was similar (least squares mean, -0.81 +/- 0.09% and -0.87 +/- 0.09%; 95% confidence interval for the difference -0.117, 0.234; P = 0.51) and so were final A1C values of 7.36% and 7.31% for AIR insulin and injectable insulin, respectively. At 6 months, no differences were observed in eight-point profiles, overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia, and weight gain. Greater decreases in spirometry were observed in the AIR insulin group at 12 months. Cough was the most frequently reported adverse event (20% [AIR insulin] vs. 10% [insulin lispro]; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with AIR insulin resulted in similar improvement in glycemic control compared with insulin lispro. More frequent cough and greater decrease in spirometry were observed with AIR insulin.