The Use of Rescue Insulin in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE)

OBJECTIVE To describe rescue insulin use and associated factors in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS GRADE participants (type 2 diabetes duration <10 years, baseline A1C 6.8%–8.5% on metformin monotherapy, N = 5,047) were randomly assigned to insulin glargine U-100, glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin and followed quarterly for a mean of 5 years. Rescue insulin (glargine or aspart) was to be started within 6 weeks of A1C >7.5%, confirmed. Reasons for delaying rescue insulin were reported by staff-completed survey. RESULTS Nearly one-half of GRADE participants (N = 2,387 [47.3%]) met the threshold for rescue insulin. Among participants assigned to glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin, rescue glargine was added by 69% (39% within 6 weeks). Rescue aspart was added by 44% of glargine-assigned participants (19% within 6 weeks) and by 30% of non-glargine-assigned participants (14% within 6 weeks). Higher A1C values were associated with adding rescue insulin. Intention to change health behaviors (diet/lifestyle, adherence to current treatment) and not wanting to take insulin were among the most common reasons reported for not adding rescue insulin within 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS Proportionately, rescue glargine, when required, was more often used than rescue aspart, and higher A1C values were associated with greater rescue insulin use. Wanting to use noninsulin strategies to improve glycemia was commonly reported, although multiple factors likely contributed to not using rescue insulin. These findings highlight the persistent challenge of intensifying type 2 diabetes treatment with insulin, even in a clinical trial.