autonomy: the first randomized trial comparing two patient-driven approaches to initiate and titrate...

AUTONOMY: The First Randomized AUTONOMY: The First Randomized Trial Comparing Two Patient-driven Trial Comparing Two Patient-driven Approaches to Initiate and Titrate Approaches to Initiate and Titrate

Prandial Insulin Lispro in Prandial Insulin Lispro in Type 2 DiabetesType 2 Diabetes

Steve V. Edelman,1Rong Liu,2 Jennal Johnson,2 Leonard C. Glass2

Edelman et al. Diabetes Care 2014;37(8):2132-40.

This information may contain a substantive discussion of developmental compound(s) not approved for marketing in the United States and/or products

approved for marketing in the United States but for uses, dosages, formulations and/or populations different than those discussed in these materials. If the

information contains a substantive discussion of a currently marketed product(s), a URL address to the U.S. Prescribing Information for that

product(s) is provided immediately below. You should consult this prescribing information for the product’s approved uses and important information,

including boxed warnings, regarding the product’s use.

Humalog (insulin lispro injection, USP [rDNA origin]) Product Informationhttp://pi.lilly.com/us/humalog-pen-pi.pdf

http://pi.lilly.com/us/humalog-pen-pi.pdf

AUTONOMY: Introduction AUTONOMY: Introduction (Slide 1 of 2)(Slide 1 of 2)

Management of patients with type 2 diabetes generally requires stepwise intensification of therapy1,2:

• Lifestyle changes, OADs, and noninsulin injectable antidiabetic agents

• Given the progressive deterioration in β-cell function, progressing to addition of exogenous insulin

Results of the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) support the need for treatment intensification with exogenous insulin in combination with OADs in a significant percentage of patients to achieve and maintain metabolic control3

1. Inzucchi et al. Diabetes Care 2012;35(6):1364-79(Updated 36: p 490). 2. Garber et al. Endocr Pract 2013;19(2):327-36.3. Turner et al. JAMA 1999;281(21):2005-12.

AUTONOMY: Introduction AUTONOMY: Introduction (Slide 2 of 2)(Slide 2 of 2)

Given limited data and myriad treatment approaches, there is currently no global clinical consensus for the approach to treatment intensification with insulin therapy

Meta-analysis indicates most effective use of insulin is achieved using a basal/bolus regimen1

Currently, there is great interest in sequential addition of prandial insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes not attaining adequate glycemic control with basal insulin only2,3

1. Giugliano et al. Diabetes Care 2011;34(2):510-7.2. Rodbard et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2014;2(1):30-7.3. Edelman et al. Diabetes Care 2014;37(8):2132-40.

AUTONOMY: Study ObjectiveAUTONOMY: Study Objective

To compare efficacy and safety of 2 patient-based self-titration algorithms for initiation and titration of prandial insulin lispro in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin plus OADs in endocrine and generalist settings

• Approximately 44% of trial sites were in primary care settings

1st comparison of 2 self-titration insulin algorithms for escalation of prandial insulin lispro therapy in a large, multicountry, randomized, controlled trial

• Designed as 2 independent parallel studies (Study A, N = 528; Study B, N = 578) utilizing a single protocol to corroborate substantial evidence of reproducibility; data for each study were analyzed separately and independently


AUTONOMY: Study DesignAUTONOMY: Study Design

Discontinue

HbA1c ≤7.0%(≤53.0 mmol/mol)

Randomize

Enrollment

Add insulin lispro 1-2-3 with adjustments

(Q1D)

Add insulin lispro 1-2-3 with adjustments

(Q3D)

NO

6 Weeks 24 Weeks

Visit: 1 (screening) 2a 3a 4a,b 5a,b 6a 7a 8b 9b 10 11b 12 13b 14b 15 16b 17 18b 19

Week: -1 0 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 19 23 27 29 31

a6-week GLA optimization lead-in only required for subjects who had to be converted to GLA from insulin NPH, ILPS, or detemir; required conversion from GLA twice daily to once daily; or those on once-daily GLA at study entry with HbA1c >7.0% (>53.0 mmol/mol) and fasting blood glucose >120 mg/dL (>6.7 mmol/L). Subjects who did not require GLA optimization were randomized at Visit 2, forewent Visits 3 to 7 and instead proceeded to the randomized treatment period beginning with Visit 8 activities, 1 week after Visit 2; bTelephone visits

Optional: Insulin Glargine (GLA)

Optimization Lead-ina

YES


AUTONOMY: Treatment AlgorithmsAUTONOMY: Treatment Algorithms

Blood Glucose Daily Reading:

85-114 mg/dL No change in dose

Target not achieved Increase dose by 1 U/day until target is reached

56-84 mg/dL Dose decreased by 1U

<56 mg/dL Dose decreased by 2U

Blood Glucose Median Reading:

85-114 mg/dL No change in dose

115-144 mg/dL Dose increased by 2U

≥145 mg/dL Dose increased by 4U

56-84 mg/dL Dose decreased by 2U

<56 mg/dL Dose decreased by 4U

Starting insulin lispro dose: 10% of total insulin glargine dose; first dose administered with breakfast unless subject does not eat breakfast, then first dose administered at lunch time at investigator discretion

Randomize 1:1

Q1DSelf-titrated daily based on premeal glucose

readings from prior day (eg, prebreakfast dose adjusted using prior day prelunch reading)

Q3DSelf-titrated every 3 days based on median

blood glucose readings from the 3 days prior (eg, prebreakfast dose adjusted using median

prelunch blood glucose reading from the past 3 days)

Premeal Target Blood Glucose: 85-114 mg/dL


AUTONOMY: Inclusion CriteriaAUTONOMY: Inclusion Criteria

Type 2 diabetes

18-85 years of age

BMI <45 kg/m2

HbA1c >7.0% and ≤12.0% (>53.0 and ≤107.7 mmol/mol)

Treated with ≥20 U/d of insulin glargine (GLA), neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS), or detemir; and had been using metformin, meglitinide, sulfonylurea, pioglitazone, sitagliptin, or a combination of these for ≥3 months• Meglitinides or sulfonylureas were discontinued at randomization


AUTONOMY: Exclusion CriteriaAUTONOMY: Exclusion Criteria

Prior rapid- or short-acting insulin therapy Excessive insulin resistance (>2 U/kg/day) Morbid obesity (BMI ≥45 kg/m2) Pregnancy or planned pregnancy Cancer Recent history of severe hypoglycemia Moderate to severe cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, or

hematologic disease Treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists, α-glucosidase

inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors (except sitagliptin), and rosiglitazone within 3 months, or glucocorticoids within 2 weeks of screening


AUTONOMY: Primary and AUTONOMY: Primary and Secondary Outcome MeasuresSecondary Outcome Measures Primary efficacy outcome:

• Compare change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint (Week 24 after randomization) for Q1D and Q3D algorithms

Secondary outcomes:• Incidence and annualized rate of self-reported total, severe, and nocturnal

hypoglycemia

• Proportion of subjects achieving target values HbA1c ≤7.0%

• Change in FBG, 7-point SMBG profile, and weight from baseline

• Change in dose of basal (GLA) and prandial (lispro) insulin at end of study

• Change in 1,5-anhydroglucitol (a marker of hyperglycemia)

Assessments in subjects ≥65 years of age:• Change in HbA1c, hypoglycemia (incidence and rate), FBG, and proportion of

subjects achieving target

Safety was monitored throughout the study (hypoglycemia was considered an AE with severe hypoglycemia recorded as an SAE)


AUTONOMY: Statistical Analyses AUTONOMY: Statistical Analyses (Slide 1 of 3)(Slide 1 of 3) A classification method was applied for primary efficacy analysis, as no prior

projection, preference, or historical evidence regarding which self-titration algorithm performs better was available1

All safety outcomes were assessed in the entire randomized population (ie, all subjects who entered the study, completed the GLA optimization lead-in period [if applicable], and were randomized)

All efficacy analyses were based upon the full analysis set (subjects in the all randomized population who took at least 1 dose of insulin lispro), and a sensitivity analysis was conducted for the primary efficacy measure based upon the all-completer population

All efficacy and safety analyses were conducted at an α-level of .05

All CIs were computed as 2-tailed using a 95% significance level

For categorical measures, including AEs and hypoglycemia incidence, Fisher’s exact test or Pearson’s chi-square test was used

1. Qu et al. Stat Med 2011;30(30):3488-95. Edelman et al. Diabetes Care 2014;37(8):2132-40.

AUTONOMY: Statistical Analyses AUTONOMY: Statistical Analyses (Slide 2 of 3)(Slide 2 of 3)

Continuous efficacy and safety variables measured repeatedly were evaluated using a mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) approach using the restricted maximum likelihood method, including the following independent variables:

• Fixed effects for treatment algorithm, all stratification variables, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline outcome variable as the covariate

Treatment-by-age group (≥65 years, <65 years) interaction for the change in HbA1c was tested using another MMRM model with additional items, including:

• Subgroup and subgroup-by-treatment algorithm interaction


AUTONOMY: Statistical Analyses AUTONOMY: Statistical Analyses (Slide 3 of 3)(Slide 3 of 3) Hypoglycemia incidence was analyzed with a logistic model with terms for

treatment algorithm and all stratification variables as sensitivity analysis

The rate of total, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemia per year during the treatment phase was analyzed using LOCF, applying a negative binomial model with terms for treatment algorithm, HbA1c stratum, sulfonylurea/meglitinide use, and the logarithm of the exposure time (in days) as an offset variable and compound symmetry as variance-covariance structure

A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as a sensitivity analysis

The percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c targets at the end of the study (LOCF) were analyzed using a logistic regression model with terms for treatment algorithm and strata

All data are expressed as least square mean ± standard error unless otherwise stated, and a p-value of <.05 was considered significant


AUTONOMY: Patient Disposition of AUTONOMY: Patient Disposition of All Randomized SubjectsAll Randomized Subjects

a6 subjects were randomized but did not receive at least 1 dose of lispro: Study A Q1D (n = 1) and Q3D (n = 2); Study B Q1D (n = 1) and Q3D (n = 2). These subjects (ie, subjects not exposed to lispro) were not included in the full analysis set. Patient disposition was based on all randomized subjects. There was no significant difference between the percentages of subjects who discontinued from Q1D or Q3D for any reason of early termination. Deaths were not attributed to the treatment

Study ARandomized (N = 531)

Study BRandomized (N = 581)

Q1D (N = 268)a Q3D (N = 263)a Q1D (N = 289)a Q3D (N = 292)a

Completed, n = 223 (83.2%) Completed, n = 210 (79.8%) Completed, n = 244 (84.4%) Completed, n = 241 (82.5%)

Early terminated, n = 45 (16.8%)

Reasons: n %

Adverse event 1 0.4

Death 2 0.7

Entry criteria not met 1 0.4

Lack of efficacy 1 0.4

Lost to follow-up 4 1.5

Physician decision 4 1.5

Protocol violation 17 6.3

Sponsor decision 1 0.4

Subject decision 14 5.2


Reasons: n %

Adverse event 4 1.5

Death 0 0.0









Reasons: n %

Adverse event 2 0.7

Death 1 0.3









Reasons: n %

Adverse event 3 1.0

Death 3 1.0









AUTONOMY: Baseline DemographicsAUTONOMY: Baseline Demographics

p-values for continuous measures were based on an analysis of variance, and categorical measures were based on Fisher’s exact test for treatment algorithm Q3D vs. Q1D

Study A Study B

Baseline DemographicsQ1D

(N = 267)Q3D

(N = 261)

Q3D vs. Q1D

p-valueQ1D

(N = 288)Q3D

(N = 290)

Q3D vs. Q1D

p-valueAge, years, mean (SD) 57.9 (10.3) 58.8 (9.5) .278 57.7 (9.7) 57.0 (10.6) .412

Subjects ≥65 years, % 24.3 26.4 .618 19.4 22.4 .414

Caucasian, % 82.3 83.5 .781 79.7 83.3 .308

Female, % 49.8 52.9 .487 53.8 53.4 .934

BMI, kg/m2, mean (SD) 33.3 (5.3) 33.4 (5.5) .793 32.6 (5.2) 33.2 (5.7) .174

BMI ≥30kg/m2, % 73.4 69.7 .385 66.3 68.6 .594

Body weight, kg (SD) 94.6 (20.2) 92.4 (17.7) .188 90.8 (18.3) 93.5 (21.2) .112Duration of diabetes, years, mean (SD)

11.7 (6.3) 12.6 (7.9) .129 11.6 (6.5) 11.9 (7.1) .645

Duration >10 years 54.3 60.2 .188 54.5 53.8 .868

HbA1c %, mean (SD) 8.3 (0.9) 8.4 (1.0) .453 8.3 (1.0) 8.4 (1.0) .162

mmol/mol, mean (SD) 67.2 (9.8) 68.3 (10.9) - 67.2 (10.9) 68.3 (10.9) -

HbA1c >8.0%(>63.93 mmol/mol), %

56.6 58.2 .725 53.5 57.6 .357


p-values were not calculated

AUTONOMY: Concomitant MedicationsAUTONOMY: Concomitant Medications

Study A Study B

Concomitant MedicationsQ1D

(N = 267)Q3D

(N = 261)Q1D

(N = 288)Q3D

(N = 290)

Biguanides, % 85.4 89.3 93.8 89.3

Sulfonylurea/meglitinide, % 49.4 52.5 34.7 40.3

DPP-4 inhibitors, % 9.7 10.0 8.0 7.2

Thiazolidinediones, % 5.2 7.3 3.8 6.6

OAD class ≥2, % 44.9 51.0 36.1 39.3


AUTONOMY: Change from Baseline AUTONOMY: Change from Baseline in HbA1cin HbA1c

*Significant change from baseline based on 95% CIs from an MMRM approach using restricted maximum likelihood method (REML) for both Q1D and Q3D


0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

Baseline Week 7 Week 12 Week 24-1.2

Q1DQ3D

Hb

A1

c C

ha

ng

e f

rom

Ba

selin

e(%

, L

SM

�S

E)

*

*

*

Q3D-Q1D LSM: 0.07 0.08 0.04

95% CI: -0.04, 0.17 -0.06, 0.22 -0.15, 0.22

N = 528

Study A: HbA1c (%)

Hb

A1

c C

ha

ng

e f

rom

Ba

selin

e(%

, L

SM

�S

E)

Q3D-Q1D LSM: -0.01 -0.02 0.06

95% CI: -0.11, 0.09 -0.15, 0.11 -0.12, 0.24

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

Baseline Week 7 Week 12 Week 24-1.2

*

*

*

Q1DQ3D

N = 578

Study B: HbA1c (%)

AUTONOMY: Overall Percentage of AUTONOMY: Overall Percentage of Subjects with HbA1c ≤7.0% at 24 WeeksSubjects with HbA1c ≤7.0% at 24 Weeks

No statistically significant difference between Q1D and Q3D algorithms for Study A and Study B for overall percentage of subjects reaching target HbA1c ≤7.0% (≤53.0 mmol/mol) at end of study (24 weeks)


49.8%42.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q1D Q3D

Study A (N = 528)

49.3%42.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q1D Q3D

Study B (N = 578)

Pe

rcen

tag

e o

f S

ub

ject

s w

ith

H

bA

1c

≤7.0

% a

t 2

4 W

eek

s

Pe

rcen

tag

e o

f S

ub

ject

s w

ith

H

bA

1c

≤7.0

% a

t 2

4 W

eek

s

p = .128 p = .162


AUTONOMY: Subjects ≥65 Years of Age AUTONOMY: Subjects ≥65 Years of Age with HbA1c ≤7.0% at 24 Weekswith HbA1c ≤7.0% at 24 Weeks

In Study B, percentage of subjects ≥65 years of age reaching target HbA1c ≤7.0% (≤53.0 mmol/mol) at end of study (24 weeks) was significantly lower for those randomized to Q3D (46.2%) than to Q1D (67.9%), p = .015; in Study A, there was no statistical difference between Q1 vs. Q3 algorithms

1. Data on file, Eli Lilly and Company.

58.5% 58.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q1D Q3D

Study A (N = 134)1

67.9%

46.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q1D Q3D

Study B (N = 121)1

Pe

rcen

tag

e o

f S

ub

ject

s w

ith

H

bA

1c

≤7.0

% a

t 2

4 W

eeks

Pe

rcen

tag

e o

f S

ub

ject

s w

ith

H

bA

1c

≤7.0

% a

t 2

4 W

eeks

p = .701 *p = .015

*

(n = 65)1 (n = 69)1 (n = 56)1 (n = 65)1

AUTONOMY: SMBG Profiles at Baseline AUTONOMY: SMBG Profiles at Baseline and Week 24and Week 24

*Significant change in SMBG from baseline based on 95% CIs from an MMRM approach using restricted maximum likelihood method (REML) for both Q1D and Q3D; †Significant difference between Q3D and Q1D at Week 24 from an MMRM model using REML


* * * * * * * * * * * *

Study A (N = 528) Study B (N = 578)

Q1D BaselineQ1D Week 24Q3D BaselineQ3D Week 24

Q1D BaselineQ1D Week 24Q3D BaselineQ3D Week 24

† † †

300

250

200

150

100

0

300

250

07-P

oin

t S

elf-

mo

nit

ore

d B

loo

d G

luco

se (

mg

/dL

)M

ean

�S

D

7-P

oin

t S

elf-

mo

nit

ore

d B

loo

d G

luco

se (

mg

/dL

)M

ean

�S

D

50

200

150

100

50

AUTONOMY: Change from Baseline AUTONOMY: Change from Baseline in 1,5-AGin 1,5-AG

*Significant change from baseline based on 95% CIs from an MMRM approach using restricted maximum likelihood method (REML) for both Q1D and Q3D


Q3D-Q1D LSM: 0.10 0.09 -0.28

95% CI: -0.33, 0.53 -0.51, 0.70 -1.08, 0.52

1,5

-AG

Ch

ang

e fr

om

Bas

elin

e(μ

g/m

L,

LS

M �

SE

)Baseline Week 7 Week 12 Week 24

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

Q1DQ3D

N = 578

*

*

*

Study B: 1,5-AG (μg/mL)

Baseline Week 7 Week 12 Week 24

Q3D-Q1D LSM: -0.08 -0.29 -0.15

95% CI: -0.54, 0.38 -0.88, 0.30 -0.95, 0.66

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

*

*

*

Q1DQ3D

1,5

-AG

Ch

ang

e fr

om

Bas

elin

e(μ

g/m

L,

LS

M �

SE

) N = 528

Study A: 1,5-AG (μg/mL)

AUTONOMY: Overall Hypoglycemia AUTONOMY: Overall Hypoglycemia Incidences and Rates per 1 YearIncidences and Rates per 1 Year

Incidence is reported as the number of subjects with at least 1 hypoglycemic episode; p-values for the incidences of each category were based on a logistic regression model for Q3D vs. Q1D; p-values for rate adjusted per 1 year were based on NBM regression for Q3D vs. Q1D; documented symptomatic p-values calculated by aFisher exact test, bLogistic regression model, cNegative binomial regression model, and dWilcoxon rank sum test

Study A Study B

HypoglycemiaQ1D

(N = 268) Q3D

(N = 263)

Q3D vs. Q1D

p-value

Q3D/Q1DRate Ratio (95% CI)

Q1D(N = 289)

Q3D(N = 292)

Q3D vs. Q1D

p-value


Total:

Incidence, n (%)231

(86.2)218

(83.2).435 -

238 (82.4)

231 (79.1)

.351 -

Rate per 1 year,NBM (SE)38.32(2.80)

40.58(3.06)

.5861.06

(0.86-1.30)38.76(3.14)

40.54(3.29)

.6891.05

(0.84-1.30)

Documented symptomatic1:

Incidence, n (%)194

(72.4)191

(72.9).923a

.842b -205

(70.9)185

(63.4).053a

.032b -


24.16(2.30)

.272c

.504d

1.16(0.89-1.50)

18.22(1.79)

21.26(2.11)

.260c

.561d

1.17(0.89-1.53)

Nocturnal:

Incidence, n (%)169

(63.1)167

(63.7).870 -

156(54.0)

149(51.0)

.470 -

Rate per 1 year,NBM (SE)8.59 (0.80)

9.60 (0.93)

.4041.12

(0.86-1.45)7.14

(0.80)8.23

(0.91).358

1.15(0.85-1.56)

Edelman et al. Diabetes Care 2014;37(8):2132-40.1. Data on file, Eli Lilly and Company.

AUTONOMY: Overall Severe Hypoglycemia AUTONOMY: Overall Severe Hypoglycemia Incidences and Rates per 1 YearIncidences and Rates per 1 Year

Incidence is reported as the number of subjects with at least 1 hypoglycemic episode; p-values for incidences were based on a logistic regression model for Q3D vs. Q1D; due to low occurrence of severe hypoglycemia, mean ± SD and only Wilcoxon test p-values are presented

Study A Study B

HypoglycemiaQ1D

(N = 268) Q3D

(N = 263)

Q3D vs. Q1D

p-value


Q1D(N = 289)

Q3D(N = 292)

Q3D vs. Q1D

p-value


Severe:

Incidence, n (%)5

(1.9)2

(0.8).258 -

7(2.4)

8(2.7)

.856 -

Rate per 1 year, mean (SD)0.04 (0.31)

0.03 (0.41)

.271 -0.11

(1.09)0.06

(0.36).816 -


AUTONOMY: Hypoglycemia Incidences and AUTONOMY: Hypoglycemia Incidences and Rates per 1 Year for Subjects ≥65 Years of AgeRates per 1 Year for Subjects ≥65 Years of Age


Incidence is reported as the number of subjects with at least 1 hypoglycemic episode; p-values for the incidences of each category were based on a logistic regression model for Q3D vs. Q1D; p-values for rate adjusted per 1 year were based on NBM regression for Q3D vs. Q1D; documented symptomatic p-values calculated by aFisher exact test, bLogistic regression model, cNegative binomial regression model, and dWilcoxon rank sum test

Study A Study B

HypoglycemiaQ1D

(N = 66) Q3D

(N = 69)

Q3D vs. Q1D

p-value


Q1D(N = 56)

Q3D(N = 65)

Q3D vs. Q1D

p-value


Total:

Incidence, n (%)60

(90.9)61

(88.4).802 -

51 (91.1)

53(81.5)

.205 -


48.84 (6.21) .3831.17

(0.82-1.68)51.38(8.26)

42.88(6.35)

.4040.83

(0.55-1.28)

Documented symptomatic1:

Incidence, n (%)52

(78.8)56

(81.2).831a

.617b -39

(69.6)41

(63.1).564a

.265b -


28.30(4.63)

.197c

.546d

1.36(0.85-2.16)

22.48(5.13)

19.06(4.05)

.593c

.373d

0.85(0.46-1.55)

Nocturnal:

Incidence, n (%)45

(68.2)49

(71.0).763 -

42(75.0)

43(66.2)

.383 -


11.60 (1.92) .2291.33

(0.84-2.12)12.01(2.40)

10.69 (2.03) .6710.89

(0.52-1.52)

1. Data on file, Eli Lilly and Company.

AUTONOMY: Severe Hypoglycemia Incidences and AUTONOMY: Severe Hypoglycemia Incidences and Rates per 1 Year for Subjects ≥65 Years of AgeRates per 1 Year for Subjects ≥65 Years of Age

Incidence is reported as the number of subjects with at least 1 hypoglycemic episode; p-values for incidences were based on a logistic regression model for Q3D vs. Q1D; due to low occurrence of severe hypoglycemia, mean ± SD and only Wilcoxon test p-values are presented


Study A Study B

HypoglycemiaQ1D

(N = 66) Q3D

(N = 69)

Q3D vs. Q1D

p-value


Q1D(N = 56)

Q3D(N = 65)

Q3D vs. Q1D

p-value


Severe:

Incidence, n (%)3

(4.5)1

(1.4).296 -

1(1.8)

2(3.1)

.797 -

Rate per 1 year, mean (SD)0.10 (0.49)

0.03 (0.25)

.294 -0.05

(0.37)0.07

(0.38).657 -

In both studies, subjects gained weight from baseline to endpoint (24 weeks) regardless of titration algorithm; In Study A, subjects using Q3D algorithm gained more weight from baseline than subjects using Q1D algorithm (p = .014); no significant difference in weight gain was observed between Q3D and Q1D in Study B

AUTONOMY: Weight Change from AUTONOMY: Weight Change from Baseline at 24 WeeksBaseline at 24 Weeks


Wei

gh

t (k

g)

Ch

ang

e fr

om

Bas

elin

e (L

SM�S

E)

at 2

4 W

eeks

Wei

gh

t (k

g)

Ch

ang

e fr

om

Bas

elin

e (L

SM�S

E)

at 2

4 W

eeks

*p = .014 p = .108*

AUTONOMY: Insulin DoseAUTONOMY: Insulin Dose

Study A Study B

Insulin Dose (U/d)Q1D

(N = 267) Q3D

(N = 261)

Q3D vs. Q1D

p-valueQ1D

(N = 288)Q3D

(N = 290)

Q3D vs. Q1D

p-value

GLA at entry, nmean (SD)

18046.8 (32.4)

17748.6 (27.8)

-163

46.8 (29.2)163

45.0 (30.0)-

NPH at entry, nmean (SD)

5050.4 (26.7)

4845.0 (26.4)

-75

46.1 (32.7)78

47.6 (23.2)-

Detemir at entry, nmean (SD)

3758.9 (42.6)

3546.2 (30.8)

-49

52.4 (32.0)47

60.8 (44.1)-

ILPS at entry, nmean (SD)

0NA

0NA

-0

NA1

34.0 (NA)-

Basal (GLA) atrandomization, mean (SD)

62.8 (33.9) 60.3 (32.1) .335 57.3 (32.5) 60.0 (33.0) .236

Basal (GLA) at Week 24, mean (SD)

66.4 (35.1) 63.5 (34.6) .543 59.9 (33.4) 65.2 (42.5) .497

Bolus (lispro) at Week 24, mean (SD)

47.7 (41.1) 54.6 (46.7) .095 44.5 (36.8) 48.8 (51.0) .156

p-values for continuous measures were based on an analysis of variance, and categorical measures were based on Fisher’s exact test for treatment algorithm Q3D vs. Q1D


AUTONOMY: Bolus Injections at 24-Week AUTONOMY: Bolus Injections at 24-Week EndpointEndpoint

Study A Study B

Bolus Injections (LOCF Subjects)

Q1D (N = 267)

Q3D (N = 261)

Q1D (N = 288)

Q3D (N = 290)

1 injection, n (%) 84 (31.5) 81 (31.0) 102 (35.4) 100 (34.5)

2 injections, n (%) 69 (25.8) 66 (25.3) 85 (29.5) 89 (30.7)

3 injections, n (%) 114 (42.7) 114 (43.7) 101 (35.1) 101 (34.8)

p-values were not calculatedEdelman et al. Diabetes Care 2014;37(8):2132-40.

AUTONOMY: Discussion AUTONOMY: Discussion (Slide 1 of 2)(Slide 1 of 2)

Both algorithms (Q1D, Q3D) demonstrated statistically significant and clinically equivalent reductions in HbA1c, significant increases in 1,5-AG, and improved 7-point SMBG profiles in Studies A and B

~50% of subjects who had previously failed to reach goal HbA1c of ≤7.0% (53.0 mmol/mol) with basal insulin optimization plus OADs achieved the ADA goals for glycemic control with less glucose variability

Sequential addition of prandial insulin lispro injections resulted in ~61% of subjects only requiring ≤2 doses rather than a full basal-bolus regimen (ie, simplifies treatment, could enhance therapy compliance)

Subjects gained 2-3 kg of weight, regardless of treatment algorithm, with the initiation of prandial insulin


Results show basal-bolus therapy can be initiated in the elderly without increased risk of hypoglycemia

Regardless of titration algorithm, improved metabolic control was accomplished with low incidences and rates of nocturnal and severe hypoglycemia in both the overall study population and the elderly subgroup (≥65 years of age) with initiation and escalation of lispro

AUTONOMY: Discussion AUTONOMY: Discussion (Slide 2 of 2)(Slide 2 of 2)


AUTONOMY: LimitationsAUTONOMY: Limitations

Exclusion of subjects with BMI ≥45 kg/m2, a potentially important population with the growing healthcare burden associated with obesity

Safety and efficacy need to be addressed in future research for Asian populations, as no Asian countries were included

Although numerical differences were observed, which seem to benefit Q1D vs. Q3D, these were not statistically significant and should only be considered hypothesis-generating

AUTONOMY algorithms were based on PK/PD modeling of GLA and lispro insulins; there may not be substantial differences with the use of other short-acting prandial insulin analogues

Other combinations to control postprandial glucose excursions may be considered (such as combination of GLP-1 agonists with insulin)


AUTONOMY: ConclusionsAUTONOMY: Conclusions

Trial provided novel data and basis for initiation and escalation of lispro therapy using 2 simple, self-titration regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes who failed to achieve adequate glycemic control on appropriately titrated basal insulin plus OADs

Trial demonstrated a basal-bolus regimen can be initiated in an adult population, including the elderly, to lower HbA1c and limit mealtime glucose excursions safely, with either patient-driven algorithm, in endocrinology and generalist settings

Utilizing Q1D and Q3D algorithms simplified insulin therapy by not requiring patient training on carbohydrate counting or insulin correction factor, and reduced the number of OADs in those treated with sulfonylurea or meglitinide


autonomy: the first randomized trial comparing two patient-driven approaches to initiate and titrate...

Documents

diabetes care

basal insulin only2

effective use of insulin

insulin therapymetaanalysis

adjustments q1dadd insulin

lancet diabetes endocrinol

prescribing information

study designdiscontinuehba1c