Glycaemic outcomes of an Individualized treatMent aPproach for oldER vulnerable patIents: A randomized, controlled stUdy in type 2 diabetes Mellitus (IMPERIUM). Issue 1 (8th August 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Heller, Simon R.; Pratley, Richard E.; Sinclair, Alan; Festa, Andreas; Kiljański, Jacek; Brusko, Cynthia S.; Duan, Ran; Heine, Robert J.
• Is Part Of: Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. Volume 20:Issue 1(2018)
• Page Start: 148
• Page End: 156
• Publication Date: 2017-08-08
• Subjects: GLP‐1 analogue -- glycaemic control -- hypoglycaemia -- insulin delivery -- sulphonylureas; Diabetes -- Periodicals; Obesity -- Periodicals; Metabolism -- Disorders -- Periodicals; Clinical pharmacology -- Periodicals; 616.462
• DOI: 10.1111/dom.13051
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1462-8902

Abstract

Abstract : Aims: To compare the glycaemic outcomes of 2 glucose‐lowering treatment strategies in vulnerable (moderately ill and/or frail) patients aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes whose individual HbA1c targets were not met with diet/exercise and/or oral anti‐hyperglycaemic medications (OAMs). Methods: The primary endpoint of this study was a composite of achieving/maintaining individualized HbA1c targets without "clinically significant" hypoglycaemia (severe hypoglycaemia or repeated hypoglycaemia causing interruption of patients' activities or blood glucose <54 mg/dL). Strategy‐A comprised glucose‐dependent therapies ( n = 99) with a non‐sulphonylurea OAM and a glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist as the first injectable. Strategy‐B comprised non‐glucose‐dependent therapies ( n = 93) with sulphonylurea as the preferred OAM and insulin glargine as the first injectable. Results: There was no significant difference between Strategy‐A and Strategy‐B in percentages of patients achieving the primary endpoint (64.5% vs 54.9%; P = .190). Mean incidences (A vs B) of total (10.2% vs 53.8%), documented symptomatic (5.1% vs 36.6%), and asymptomatic (8.2% vs 32.3%) hypoglycaemia were lower for Strategy‐A ( P < .001 each). Proportions of patients achieving/maintaining HbA1c target (A, 63.3% vs B, 55.9%) were similar. Conclusion: Similar proportions of older, vulnerable aged ≥65 years patients with type 2 diabetes achieved/maintained glycaemic treatment goals without clinically significant hypoglycaemia with Strategies A or B. However, Strategy‐A resulted in lower risk of total, documented symptomatic, and asymptomatic hypoglycaemia. These results identify an approach of potential clinical benefit in this age group and will inform future clinical research in older patients with type 2 diabetes.