Risk of hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U300 in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: the randomised, head-to-head CONCLUDE trial

Expert Opinion on Current Trends in the Use of Insulin in the Management of People with Type 2 Diabetes from the South-Eastern European Region and Israel

Despite the availability of various antihyperglycaemic therapies and comprehensive guidelines, glycaemic control in diabetes management has not improved significantly during the last decade in the real-world clinical setting. Treatment inertia arising from a complex interplay among patient-, clinician- and healthcare-system-related factors is the prime reason for this suboptimal glycaemic control. Also, the key factor leading to inadequate glycaemic levels remains limited communication between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and people with type 2 diabetes (PwT2D). Early insulin administration has several advantages including reduced glucotoxicity, high efficacy and preserved β-cell mass/function, leading to lowering the risk of diabetes complications. The current publication is based on consensus of experts from the South-Eastern European region and Israel who reviewed the existing evidence and guidelines for the treatment of PwT2D. Herein, the experts emphasised the timely use of insulin, preferably second-generation basal insulin (BI) analogues and intensification using basal-plus therapy, as the most-potent glucose-lowering treatment choice in the real-world clinical setting. Despite an increase in the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), the experts urged timely insulin initiation for inadequate glycaemic control in PwT2D. Furthermore, the combination of BI and GLP-1 RA addressing both fasting plasma glucose and post-prandial excursions as a free- or fixed-ratio combination was identified to reduce treatment complexity and burden. To minimise discontinuation and improve adherence, the experts reiterated quality, regular interactions and discussions between HCPs and PwT2D/carers for their involvement in the diabetes management decision-making process. Clinicians and HCPs should consider the opinions of the experts in accordance with the most recent recommendations for diabetes management.

Pharmacological and Benefit-Risk Profile of Once-Weekly Basal Insulin Administration (Icodec): Addressing Patients' Unmet Needs and Exploring Future Applications

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic metabolic disease affecting over 500 million people worldwide, which leads to severe complications and to millions of deaths yearly. When therapeutic goals are not reached with diet, physical activity, or non-insulin drugs, starting/adding insulin treatment is recommended by international guidelines. A novel recombinant insulin is icodec, a once-weekly insulin that successfully completed phase III trials and that has recently obtained the marketing authorization approval from the European Medicines Agency. This narrative review aims to assess icodec pharmacological and clinical features concerning evidence on benefit-risk profile, as compared to other basal insulins, addressing the potential impact on patients' unmet needs. Icodec is a full agonist, recombinant human insulin analogue characterized by an ultra-long half-life (196 h), enabling its use in once-weekly administration. Phase III randomized clinical trials involving more than 4000 diabetic patients, mostly type 2 DM, documented non-inferiority of icodec, as compared to currently available basal insulins, in terms of estimated mean reduction of glycated hemoglobin levels; a superiority of icodec, compared to control, was confirmed in insulin-naïve patients (ONWARDS 1, 3, and 5), and in patients previously treated with basal insulin (ONWARDS 2). Icodec safety profile was comparable to the currently available basal insulins. Once-weekly icodec has the potential to improve patients' adherence, thus positively influencing patients' treatment satisfaction as well as quality of life, especially in type 2 DM insulin-naïve patients. An improved adherence might positively influence glycemic target achievement, reduce overall healthcare costs and overcome some of the unmet patients' needs. Icodec has the potential to emerge as a landmark achievement in the evolution of insulin therapy, with a positive impact also for the National Health Services and the whole society.

Efficacy and safety of basal insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Aim

The comparative effectiveness of basal insulins has been examined in several studies. However, current treatment algorithms provide a list of options with no clear differentiation between different basal insulins as the optimal choice for initiation.

Methods

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI, and Scopus, and a reference list of retrieved studies and reviews were performed up to November 2023. We identified phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens. The primary outcomes evaluated were HbA1c reduction, weight change, and hypoglycemic events. The revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals considering the critical assumptions in the networks. The certainty of the evidence and confidence in the rankings was assessed using the GRADE minimally contextualized approach.

Results

Of 20,817 retrieved studies, 44 RCTs (23,699 participants) were eligible for inclusion in our network meta-analysis. We found no significant difference among various basal insulins (including Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH), ILPS, insulin glargine, detemir, and degludec) in reducing HbA1c. Insulin glargine, 300 U/mL (IGlar-300) was significantly associated with less weight gain (mean difference ranged from 2.9 kg to 4.1 kg) compared to other basal insulins, namely thrice-weekly insulin degludec (IDeg-3TW), insulin degludec, 100 U/mL (IDeg-100), insulin degludec, 200 U/mL (IDeg-200), NPH, and insulin detemir (IDet), but with low to very low certainty regarding most comparisons. IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 were associated with significantly lower odds of overall, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemic events than NPH and insulin lispro protamine (ILPS) (moderate to high certainty evidence). NPH was associated with the highest odds of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to others. Network meta-analysis models were robust, and findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

The efficacy of various basal insulin regimens is comparable. However, they have different safety profiles. IGlar-300 may be the best choice when weight gain is a concern. In contrast, IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 may be preferred when hypoglycemia is the primary concern.

[Evolution of insulin therapy: past, present, future]

2021 marks the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin, an event that forever changed the lives of people with diabetes mellitus. At present patients around the world experience the miracle of insulin therapy every day. A disease that used to kill children and teenagers in 2 years in 1920 has become a disease that can be controlled with a possibility to lead a long productive life. Over the past century, the great discovery of Banting, Best and Collip has forever changed the world and saved millions of lives. This review is devoted to the history of the development of insulin and its further improvement: from the moment of discovery to the present days. Various generations of insulin are considered: from animals to modern ultrashort and basal analogues. The article ends with a brief review of current trends in the development of new delivery methods and the development of new insulin molecules. Over the past century, insulin therapy has come a long way, which has significantly improved the quality of life of our patients. But research is actively continuing, including in the field of alternative methods of insulin delivery, which are more convenient for the patient, as well as in the development of «smart» molecules that will have a glucose-dependent effect.

Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 units/mL vs insulin degludec in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Ultra-long-acting insulin analogs [insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine 300 units/mL (IGla-300)] offer a longer duration of action with less risk of hypoglycemia compared to other long-acting insulins. However, data about the comparative efficacy and safety are inconsistent.

Methods

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 October 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of IDeg (100 or 200 units/mL) and IGla-300 in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were included. Three review authors independently selected trials, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data, and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcomes were the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and any hypoglycemia; the secondary outcomes were the change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and severe and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Results

Four open-label RCTs were included (2727 participants), 3 parallel and 1 cross-over. Overall, the risk of bias assessment yielded some concern or high risk. There was a comparable change in HbA1c from baseline to the end of treatment, a mean difference of 0.07% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 - 0.19; p = 0.29; 3 trials; 2652 patients; very low-certainty evidence), and a comparable rate of any hypoglycemia, rate ratio 1.02 (95% CI 0.8 - 1.3; p = 0.87; 3 trials; 2881 patients; very low-certainty evidence). IDeg resulted in more reduction in FPG compared to IGla-300, mean difference of 10.27 mg/dL (95% CI 7.25 - 13.29; p < 0.001; 3 trials; 2668 patients; low-certainty evidence). Similar rates of nocturnal and severe hypoglycemia were observed, rate ratio of 1.13 (95% CI 0.72 - 1.78; p = 0.54; 3 trials; 2668 patients; very low-certainty evidence) and 1.4 (95% CI 0.41 - 4.73; p = 0.59; 2 trials; 1952 patients; very low-certainty evidence), respectively.

Conclusion

There is no evidence of a difference between IDeg and IGla-300 in the mean change in HbA1c and the risk of anytime, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemia. IDeg appeared to cause a higher reduction in FPG compared to IGla-300. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of trials included and their high risk of bias.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022364891, identifier CRD42022364891.

Drug-induced hypoglycemia: a disproportionality analysis of the FAERS database

BACKGROUND

Hypoglycemia is an adverse event (AE) that cannot be ignored in clinical practice. This study aimed to identify the most common and top drugs associated with the risk of hypoglycemia based on the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used OpenVigil 2.1 pharmacovigilance analytics platform to query FAERS database and data from 2004 to 2023 were retrieved. The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) was used to identify hypoglycemia cases, and DrugBank database was used to determine drug generic names.

RESULTS

A total of 11,155,106 AEs reports were identified, of which 28,443 (0.25%) were related to hypoglycemia. Metformin (6926 cases) was associated with most cases of hypoglycemia. According to the disproportionality analysis, the top five drugs with the highest ROR and PRR were penamecillin, nikethamide, sotagliflozin, norethandrolone, glimepiride/pioglitazone. Nineteen of the top 50 drugs did not have hypoglycemia indicated in the package insert.

CONCLUSIONS

By analyzing the FAERS database, we listed drugs with a strong hypoglycemic signal for which the label does not provide a reminder. Notably, the potential hypoglycemia risks are of great importance and should be closely monitored in medical practice.

Glycaemic control, risk of hypoglycaemia and all-cause mortality in new users of second-generation basal insulin with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease: a nationwide register-based cohort study

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the second-generation basal insulins, insulin degludec 100 U/ml (Deg-100) and insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300), in terms of change in HbA1c, hospitalisation for hypoglycaemia and all-cause mortality among individuals with type 2 diabetes and concurrent chronic kidney disease.

METHODS

This register-based cohort study, based on the entire Danish diabetes population, included 6519 new users of Deg-100 and Gla-300 with type 2 diabetes and moderate to end-stage chronic kidney disease. HbA1c trajectories, from initiation of either Deg-100 (2013) or Gla-300 (2015) to end of follow-up (2020), were modelled with mixed-effect models while rates of hospitalisation for hypoglycaemia and all-cause mortality were modelled in separate models using Poisson likelihood.

RESULTS

Of the 6519 (44% women) individuals included in the study, 3747 were exposed to Deg-100 and 2772 to Gla-300. Both mean (SD) type 2 diabetes duration (14.4 [6.6] years vs 15.2 [6.7] years) and median (IQR) chronic kidney disease duration (2.3 [1.3, 3.9] years vs 2.8 [1.6, 4.6] years) were significantly shorter in the Gla-300 group. The median (IQR) follow-up time was similar between groups: 1.0 (0.5-1.6) year for Gla-300 and 1.0 (0.3-1.5) year for Deg-100. In both groups mean HbA1c levels were reduced by 13-14 mmol/mol (1.2-1.3%) from initiation to end of follow-up, with the largest reduction (of 8-9 mmol/mol [0.7-0.8%]) occurring during the first year. There was no significant difference in HbA1c reduction between Deg-100 and Gla-300. Both the rate of hospitalisation for hypoglycaemia (rate ratio 1.02 [95% CI 0.70, 1.49], Deg-100 vs Gla-300) and the rate of all-cause mortality (rate ratio 0.98 [95% CI 0.84, 1.15], Deg-100 vs Gla-300) were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

We found no difference in HbA1c reduction, hospitalisation for hypoglycaemia or all-cause mortality between Gla-300 and Deg-100 in a real-world population of new users with type 2 diabetes and moderate to end-stage chronic kidney disease. Therefore, we conclude that these two treatment options are equally effective and safe in this vulnerable population.

Comprehensive Cardiovascular and Renal Protection in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is one of the main public health care problems worldwide. It is associated with a marked increased risk of developing atherosclerotic vascular disease, heart failure, chronic kidney disease and death. It is essential to act during the early phases of the disease, through the intensification of lifestyle changes and the prescription of those drugs that have been shown to reduce these complications, with the aim not only of achieving an adequate metabolic control, but also a comprehensive vascular risk control. In this consensus document, developed by the different specialists that treat these patients (endocrinologists, primary care physicians, internists, nephrologists and cardiologists), a more appropriate approach in the management of patients with T2DM or its complications is provided. A particular focus is given to the global control of cardiovascular risk factors, the inclusion of weight within the therapeutic objectives, the education of patients, the deprescription of those drugs without cardiovascular benefit, and the inclusion of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as cardiovascular protective drugs, at the same level as statins, acetylsalicylic acid, or renin angiotensin system inhibitors.

Comparison of Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL and Insulin Degludec 100 U/mL Around Spontaneous Exercise Sessions in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Cross-Over Trial (ULTRAFLEXI-1 Study)

Aims: In the ULTRAFLEXI-1 study, we compared basal insulin Glargine 300 U/mL (IGlar U300) and insulin Degludec 100 U/mL (IDeg U100) for time below range <70 mg/dL (TBR^<70; 3.9 mmol/L) in two different doses (100% and 75% of the regular dose) when used around spontaneous exercise sessions in adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods: A randomized, single-center, four-period, cross-over trial was performed and in each of the four 2-weeks-periods, participants attended six spontaneous 60 min moderate-intensity evening cycle ergometer exercise sessions. The basal insulin administered on the exercise days were IGlar U300 100% or 75% of the regular dose or IDeg U100 100% or 75%, respectively (morning injection). The primary outcome was the TBR^<70 during the 24 h postexercise periods of the six spontaneous exercise sessions in the four trial arms and was analyzed in hierarchical order using the repeated measures linear mixed model. Results: Twenty-five people with type 1 diabetes were enrolled (14 males) with a mean age of 41.4 ± 11.9 years and an HbA_1c of 7.5% ± 0.8% (59 ± 9 mmol/mol). The mean ± standard error of mean TBR^<70 during the 24 h periods following the exercise sessions was 2.71% ± 0.51% for IGlar U300 (100%) and 4.37% ± 0.69% for IDeg U100 (100%) (P = 0.023) as well as 2.28% ± 0.53% for IGlar U300 and 2.55% ± 0.58% for IDeg U100 when using a 75% dose on exercise days (P = 0.720). Time in glucose range^70-180 was the highest in the IDeg U100 (100%) group. Conclusions: TBR^<70 within the first 24 h after spontaneous exercise sessions was significantly lower when receiving IGlar U300 compared to IDeg U100 when a regular basal dose was administered.

Efficacy and safety of basal insulin degludec 100 IU/mL versus glargine 300 IU/mL for type 1 diabetes: The single-center INEOX randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To compare efficacy and safety of degludec 100 IU/mL (Deg-100) and glargine 300 IU/mL (Gla-300) in adults with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Open-label, single-center, randomized, parallel-group, 24-week trial in adults with type 1 diabetes, on basal-bolus insulin therapy, HbA1c ≤ 10%, using self-monitoring blood glucose. Participants were randomized 1:1 to a basal-bolus insulin regimen with Deg-100 (N = 129) or Gla-300 (N = 131). Primary efficacy endpoint: mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week-24. Main safety outcome: incidence rate of hypoglycemia during the study. Quality of life (DQOL) and satisfaction with diabetes treatment (DTSQ) were assessed.

RESULTS

At week 24, after adjusting for baseline HbA1c, the decrease in HbA1c did not differ between groups: Deg-100 (-0.07 ± 0.7%) and Gla-300 (-0.16 ± 0.77%) (P = 0.320). There were no significant differences between groups in HbA1c, nocturnal hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, DQOL, or DTSQ scores. The incidence rates of hypoglycemia < 3.9 mmol/L (Deg-100: 115.24 events/person-year vs Gla-300: 99.01 events/person-year, p < 0.001); and < 3.0 mmol/L (Deg-100: 41.17 events/person-year vs Gla-300: 34.29 events/person-year, p < 0.001) were different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Deg-100 and Gla-300 have similar metabolic efficacy, incidence ratio of nocturnal and severe hypoglycemia, DQOL and DTSQ scores. Differences in the incidence rate of hypoglycemia < 3.9 mmol/L and < 3.0 mmol/L should be confirmed.

Real-world effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/ml in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes in the Latin America region: A subgroup analysis of the ATOS

AIM

To evaluate the real-world effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) in achieving glycaemic goals in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Mexico, Colombia and Peru (Latin America region) in the A Toujeo Observational Study (ATOS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ATOS was a multicentre, prospective, 12-month observational study, which included 4422 insulin-naïve adults (age ≥ 18 years) with T2D uncontrolled (HbA1c > 7% and ≤11%) on at least one oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) who initiated Gla-300 treatment as per routine practice. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants achieving their predefined individualized HbA1c goal at month 6. Key secondary endpoints included change from baseline in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG), body weight and incidence of hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

In this subgroup analysis, a total of 314 participants with T2D received Gla-300. At baseline, mean ± SD age was 56.0 ± 11.6 years, duration of diabetes was 9.7 ± 6.6 years and 65.9% of participants were on at least two OADs. The individualized HbA1c target was achieved by 25.8% of participants (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.3-31.9) at month 6 and by 35.3% (95% CI: 28.5-42.5) at month 12. Gla-300 treatment improved glycaemic control with meaningful reductions in mean HbA1c, FPG and fasting SMBG. The incidence of hypoglycaemia reported was low and body weight remained stable.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting in the Latin America region, the initiation of Gla-300 in people with T2D uncontrolled on OADs resulted in improved glycaemic control with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia and no change in body weight.

Predictors of success and failure in achieving glycemic control targets in patients with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin: review of the real-world evidence studies

Basal insulin (BI) is the main therapeutic option for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who have not reached glycemic targets on oral antidiabetic drugs and/or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. The results of epidemiological studies indicate that the majority of patients with T2D do not achieve the targeted parameters of glycemic control on BI in the real-world settings. In this review the results of real-world evidence studies assessing predictors of success or failure of BI therapy in patients with T2D are we summarized. A number of studies have demonstrated that delayed initiation of insulin therapy with a high level of glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at the start of the treatment reduces achieving glycemic control targets on BI. Hypoglycemia in the first weeks or months of BI treatment may reduce the adherence and persistence to treatment and likelihood of achieving treatment targets. In real-world evidence studies, glargine 300 U/mL and degludec, the long-acting second-generation insulin analogues, have shown greater potential in reduction of HbA1c levels with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia compared to other BIs. In the DUNE, ATOS, and some others studies, a lack of insulin dose titration in newly initiated BI users and those who needed treatment intensification was demonstrated. Poor treatment adherence and persistence (missed injections, incorrect dose selection, and temporary or permanent discontinuation of insulin therapy), deviations in insulin injection technique, and formation of lipohypertrophy at the injection sites are also common problems that prevent good glycemic control in these patients. Therefore, patient education with a focus on injection technique, dose titration and prevention of hypoglycemia, as well as the use of the second-generation BI analogs, increases the chances for achieving glycemic control targets in patients with T2D who initiate or need to intensify BI therapy.

Individualisation of basal insulin therapy of type 2 diabetes: evidence from large randomized controlled trials

Initiation of insulin therapy with basal insulin analogues has become the standard of care for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Timely administration of insulin allows not only to slow down the progression of type 2 diabetes, but also to reduce the frequency and severity of complications associated with it. This paper reviews the efficacy and safety of the use of the latest basal insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes from the perspective of current clinical guidelines, and also reviews updated data on the efficacy and safety of therapy by various members of the class. In this paper a review of the efficacy and safety of latest basal insulin analogues use in T2DM from the standpoint of current clinical guidelines has been carried out, and updated data on the efficacy and safety of therapy by various members of the class have been reviewed, taking into account their impact on the risk of hypoglycemia and glycemic variability. The available data indicate that insulin degludec 200 U/mL may be the drug of choice for those at high risk of developing severe forms of hypoglycemia. Since severe hypoglycemia and high glycemic variability are important risk factors for cardiovascular events and mortality, it has been shown that a differentiated approach to insulin therapy in the treatment of T2DM is currently advisable, taking into account the effect on the risk of hypoglycemia and glycemic variability.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Insulin Degludec Versus Other Long-acting Basal Insulin Analogues in the Treatment of Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of insulin degludec with those of other long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus (T1D or T2D).

METHODS

Those randomized controlled trials comparing insulin degludec with other long-acting insulin analogues in the treatment of patients with T1D or T2D published on or before August 21, 2022, were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The efficacy end points were the changes from baseline in hemoglobin A_1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). The tolerability end point was the prevalence of hypoglycemia confirmed throughout the treatment period.

FINDINGS

Data from a total of 20 trials (19,048 patients) were included. The differences in the reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin between insulin degludec and other long-acting basal insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) used for the treatment of patients with T1D or T2D were not significant. However, the reduction in FPG was greater with insulin degludec (-0.370 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.473 to -0.267 mmol/L; P ≤ 0.001). Throughout the treatment periods of all of the available trials, the estimated rate ratios of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia were significantly decreased with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine or insulin detemir in patients with T1D or T2D; the differences in the risks for severe hypoglycemia were not significant.

IMPLICATIONS

Compared with other long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir), insulin degludec was associated with a significantly decreased FPG, with lower prevalences of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of glargine 300 U/mL versus degludec 100 U/mL in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. A multicenter retrospective real-world study (RESTORE-2 NAIVE STUDY)

AIMS

This study assessed comparative effectiveness of glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus degludec 100 U/mL (Deg-100) in insulin-naïve patients with T2D.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, multicenter, non-inferiority study based on electronic medical records. All patients initiating Gla-300 or Deg-100 were 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM). Linear mixed models were used to assess the changes in continuous endpoints. Incidence rates (IR) of hypoglycemia were compared using Poisson's regression models.

RESULTS

Nineteen centers provided data on 357 patients in each PSM cohort. HbA1c after 6 months (primary endpoint) decreased by - 1.70% (95%CI - 1.90; - 1.50) in Gla-300 group and - 169% (95%CI - 1.89; - 1.49) in Deg-100 group, confirming non-inferiority of Gla-300 versus Deg-100. Fasting blood glucose (BG) decreased by ~60 mg/dl in both groups; body weight remained unchanged. In both groups, the mean starting dose was 12U (0.15U/kg) and it was slightly titrated to 16U (0.20U/kg). IR (episodes per patient-months) of BG ≤70 mg/dl was 0.13 in Gla-300 group and 0.14 in Deg-100 group (p=0.87). IR of BG <54 mg/dL was 0.02 in both groups (p=0.49). No severe hypoglycemia occurred.

CONCLUSION

Initiating Gla-300 or Deg-100 was associated with similar improvements in glycemic control, no weight gain and low hypoglycemia rates, without severe episodes during 6 months of treatment.

Clinical Use of Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Hypothetical Case Studies

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a progressive disease, with many individuals eventually requiring basal insulin therapy to maintain glycaemic control. However, there exists considerable therapeutic inertia to the prompt initiation and optimal titration of basal insulin therapy due to barriers that include fear of injections, hypoglycaemia, weight gain, and burdensome regimens. Hypoglycaemia is thought to be a major barrier to optimal glycaemic control and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Newer second-generation basal insulin analogues provide comparable glycaemic control with lower risk of hypoglycaemia compared with first-generation basal insulin analogues. The present review article discusses clinical evidence for one such second-generation basal insulin analogue, insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300), in the context of hypothetical case studies that are representative of individuals who may attend routine clinical practice. These case studies discuss individualised treatment needs for people with T2D who are insulin-naïve or pre-treated. Clinical characteristics such as older age, frequent nocturnal hypoglycaemia, and renal impairment, which are known risk factors for hypoglycaemia, are also considered.

Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec U100 versus insulin glargine U300 in adults with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison

BACKGROUND

Clinical differences between degludec U100 (Deg-100) and glargine U300 (Gla-300) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) were unknown.

AIM

To indirectly compare the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness between Deg-100 and Gla-300 in T1D adults via systematic review.

METHOD

Medline, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar were searched (October 2021). Randomized controlled trials comparing Deg-100 or Gla-300 vs. glargine U100 in T1D adults (follow-up ≥ 12 weeks) were selected and analyzed using a frequentist network meta-analysis. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted over a 1-year time horizon from societal perspectives.

RESULTS

Nine trials were included. Efficacy analysis suggested that Deg-100 was non-inferior to Gla-300 in reducing HbA_1c (MD 0.03 [95% CI - 0.09 to 0.15]; P = 0.60), FPG (MD - 1.12 [- 2.19 to - 0.04]; P = 0.04), and pre-breakfast SMBG (MD - 0.71 [- 1.46 to 0.03]; P = 0.06). Safety analysis suggested that Deg-100 appeared to have lower rates of both severe (HR 0.44 [0.25-0.78]; P = 0.005) and nocturnal severe (HR 0.19 [0.08-0.44]; P < 0.001) hypoglycemia, with lower total (MD - 0.07 [- 0.13 to - 0.01]; P = 0.02) and basal (MD - 0.08 [- 0.12 to - 0.04]; P < 0.001) insulin doses compared with Gla-300. No significant differences were observed for other hypoglycemia outcomes, adverse events, serious adverse events, bolus insulin dose, and body weight. The CEA showed that Deg-100 appeared to be a dominant treatment in Japan (+ 0.0283 QALYs, ¥26,266 [$228] per patient) and the United States (+ 0.0267 QALYs, $986 per patient).

CONCLUSION

Low-certainty indirect evidence suggested that Deg-100 appeared to have a favorable reduction in rates of severe hypoglycemia and more cost-effective compared with Gla-300 in T1D adults.

Trends in basal insulin prescribing in older adults with chronic kidney disease in Ontario, Canada: A population-based analysis from 2010 to 2020

AIM

To examine trends in basal insulin prescribing in older adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a population-based study of adults aged 66 years or older with treated diabetes from 1 January 2010 to 30 September 2020 in Ontario, Canada. We examined prevalent and incident prescriptions for human NPH, Levemir, glargine-100, Basaglar, glargine-300, and degludec insulin over 43 study intervals. We present trends in those with CKD, and in a subgroup, by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). To provide context for prescribing, we provide demographics, co-morbidities, and the healthcare utilization of included patients.

RESULTS

In CKD, use of basal insulin was about 2-fold higher than in the general treated diabetes cohort. Prescriptions for NPH declined over time, while prescriptions for Levemir and glargine-100 increased until 2018 then decreased. Following drug formulary approval (September 2018), prescriptions for glargine-300 and degludec increased substantially. Incident prescriptions for basal insulin in CKD declined over time; however, in those with an eGFR of less than 30 ml/min/1.73m² , rates remained stable. In recent years, rates of degludec and glargine-300 have rivalled glargine-100.

CONCLUSIONS

In an era of new oral and injectable diabetes medications, the use of basal insulin has declined in older adults with CKD. However, in those with more advanced CKD, basal insulin, particularly newer analogues, remain a mainstay treatment.

Basal insulin analogues in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Diabetic kidney disease is the leading cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) worldwide. ESKD has a high prevalence in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). CKD increases the chances of hypoglycaemia by different mechanisms, causes insulin resistance and a decrease in insulin metabolism. Both the "Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes" (KDIGO) and "American Diabetes Association" (ADA) guidelines recommend the use of insulin as part of treatment, but the type of basal insulin is not specified.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature to determine whether first- and second-generation basal insulins are effective and safe in CKD patients. We reviewed specific pivotal studies conducted by pharmaceutical laboratories, as well as independent studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Basal insulins are safe and effective in patients with CKD and diabetes mellitus but we do not have specific studies. Given that CKD is one of the main complications of type 2 DM, and insulin specific treatment in the final stages, the absence of studies is striking. Real-life data are also important since trials such as pivotal studies do not fully represent actual patients. Treatment should be individualized until we have specific trials in this type of population.

Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine on Glycemic Variability in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Currently, glycemic variability has more deleterious effects than sustained hyperglycemia and is closely associated with acute and chronic complications of diabetes. Reducing glycemic excursion is becoming another vital goal of glycemic control in clinical practice. This study aimed to determine whether insulin degludec (IDeg) or insulin glargine (IGla) was more beneficial for reducing glycemic fluctuations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This research was constructed according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched eight databases and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to 30 November 2021. All randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of glucose variability between IDeg and IGla in diabetic patients were included.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials with 8,683 participants were included. In patients with T1DM, IDeg was associated with a lower mean (MD: -16.25, 95% CI -29.02 to -3.07, P = 0.01) and standard deviation (P = 0.03) compared to IGla in fasting blood glucose (FBG); in people with T2DM, IDeg was related to a lower mean of FBG versus insulin glargine 100 U/ml (IGla100) (P <0.001) and had a more extended time in the range (TIR) than IGla100 (SMD: 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.27, P = 0.02) but not longer than insulin glargine 300 U/ml (IGla300). Moreover, IDeg had a lower coefficient of variation of FBG than IGla (P = 0.0254). For other indicators of glycemic variability, namely, standard deviation of blood glucose for 24 h, the mean of 24-h blood glucose, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion, the coefficient of variation for 24 h, the mean of daily differences, area under the glucose curve, and M-value, no significant differences were identified between IDeg and IGla, regardless of T1DM or T2DM.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current studies, there was comparable efficacy between IDeg and IGla from multiple aspects of glycemic variability, regardless of T1DM or T2DM. However, IDeg may be superior to IGla in reducing FBG variability in T1DM and T2DM. Nonetheless, due to the limitations of the original studies, it is still unclear whether IDeg is superior to both IGla100 and IGla300. In T2DM, IDeg had more extended TIR than IGla100 but not longer than IGla300. Additionally, more well-designed randomized controlled trials comparing IDeg with IGla300 for different indicators of glycemic variability are still warranted.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021283203.

Insulin Centennial: Milestones influencing the development of insulin preparations since 1922

During 1921 to 1922, a team effort by Banting, Macleod, Collip and Best isolated and purified insulin and demonstrated its life-giving properties, giving rise to the birth of insulin therapy. In the early years (1922-1950), priorities revolved around the manufacture of insulin to meet demand, improving purity to avoid allergic reactions, establishing insulin standards and increasing its duration of action to avoid multiple daily injections. Shortly after the emergence of insulin, Joslin and Allen advocated the need to achieve and maintain good glycaemic control to realize its full potential. Although this view was opposed by some during a dark period in the history of insulin, it was subsequently endorsed some 60 years later endorsed by the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial and United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study. Major scientific advances by the Nobel Laureates Sanger, Hodgkin, Yalow and Gilbert and also by Steiner have revolutionized the understanding of diabetes and facilitated major advances in insulin therapy. The more recent advent of recombinant technology over the last 40 years has provided the potential for unlimited source of insulin, and the ability to generate various insulin 'analogues', in an attempt to better replicate normal insulin secretory patterns. The emerging biosimilars now provide the opportunity to improve availability at a lower cost.

Current State and Principles of Basal Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes

Treatment with basal insulins is a fundamental part of management in many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Multiple management schemes may be indicated in these individuals, for example, the use of oral antihyperglycemic agents with basal insulins (basal-supported oral therapy) or the combinations of basal insulins with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists; each of these strategies makes it easier to achieve glycemic control goals. A basic knowledge of the physiology, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic aspects of the different basal insulins is essential to achieve treatment goals and compliance. This review addresses the principles of management with basal insulins.

Efficacy and safety of different basal and prandial insulin analogues for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

The aim of the present network meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy and safety across different long and short-acting analogs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases search (20th May, 2020) for all trials with a duration ≥24 weeks comparing an analogue with another or human insulin was performed. Indirect comparisons were performed by NMA choosing glargine U100 and human regular insulin, as the reference for long- and short-acting analogues, respectively. Primary endpoints were HbA1c at 24, 52, and 104 weeks. The weighted difference in means (WDM) and Mantel-Haenzel Odds Ratio [MH-OR] with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

Fifty trials (n = 43) and 7 for basal and prandial analogues, respectively, enrolling 25,554 and 3184 patients with type 2 and 1 diabetes, respectively, were included. At NMA, detemir was less effective than glargine U-100 at 52 weeks. A significant reduction of 24-week HbA1c (WMD [IC]: -0.10 [-0.17, -0.03]%); and risk of total (MH-OR [IC]: 0.80 [0.70, 0.91]), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (MH-OR [IC]: 0.57 [0.45, 0.73]) was observed for basal analogues versus NPH insulin. At NMA, glargine U300 and degludec were associated with a significant reduction in the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia. No significant differences across different short-acting insulin were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper supports the use of long-acting analogues, rather than NPH insulin, as basal insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, without any preferences for any individual long-acting analogue over the others. The evidence on short acting analogues is limited.

One hundred years of insulin therapy

At the time of its first clinical application 100 years ago, insulin was presented as the cure for people with diabetes mellitus. That transpired to be an overstatement, yet insulin has proven to be the lifesaver for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and an essential therapy for many with type 2 diabetes mellitus or other forms of diabetes mellitus. Since its discovery, insulin (a molecule of only 51 amino acids) has been the subject of pharmaceutical research and development that has paved the way for other protein-based therapies. From purified animal-extracted insulin and human insulin produced by genetically modified organisms to a spectrum of insulin analogues, pharmaceutical laboratories have strived to tailor the preparations to the needs of patients. Nonetheless, overall glycaemic control often remains poor as exogenous insulin is still not able to mimic the physiological insulin profile. Circumventing subcutaneous administration and the design of analogues with profiles that mimic that of physiological insulin are ongoing areas of research. Novel concepts, such as once-weekly insulins or glucose-dependent and oral insulins, are on the horizon but their real-world effectiveness still needs to be proven. Until a true cure for type 1 diabetes mellitus is found and the therapeutic arsenal for other forms of diabetes mellitus is expanded, insulin will remain central in the treatment of many people living with diabetes mellitus.

Comparative efficacy and safety of basal insulins: A review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To provide an update on the usefulness of basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using PubMed and MEDLINE, BIOSIS, Scopus, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, and Springer Online Archives Collection until June 2021.

RESULTS

All basal insulins are similar in efficacy, with only small differences among them in terms of the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

For type 2 diabetes mellitus, all basal insulins have a similar efficacy, with some advantage of Glar-300 and Deg-100 in reducing the risk of hypoglycemia compared to Glar-100.

Insulin glargine 300 units/mL for the treatment of individuals with type 2 diabetes in the real world: A review of the DELIVER programme

Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has shown that second-generation basal insulin (BI) analogues, insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin degludec (IDeg), provide similar glycaemic control, with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia compared with the first-generation BI analogue insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the highly selected participants and frequent follow-up of RCTs may not be truly representative of real-life clinical practice. It is important to assess the safety and effectiveness of these second-generation BI analogues in real-life clinical practice settings. The DELIVER programme utilized electronic healthcare records from the United States to compare clinical outcomes in people with T2D who received either Gla-300 or other BI analogues in real-world clinical practice. This review provides a concise overview of the results of the DELIVER studies. Overall, Gla-300 provided similar antihyperglycaemic effectiveness and a lower risk of hypoglycaemia versus the first-generation BI analogues Gla-100 and insulin detemir in people with T2D who had switched BIs. In those who were insulin-naïve, initiation with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 was associated with significantly better antihyperglycaemic effectiveness and similar or lower hypoglycaemic risk. Both glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia risk were also shown to be similar with Gla-300 and IDeg, in people who had switched BIs and in those who were insulin-naïve. In addition, the DELIVER 2 study reported that people with T2D who switched to Gla-300 had reduced healthcare resource utilization, with an overall saving of US$1439 per person per year compared with those who switched to another BI analogue. Overall, the real-world DELIVER programme showed that the glycaemic control with a low risk of hypoglycaemia observed with Gla-300 in RCTs was also seen in standard clinical practice.

100 years on: the impact of the discovery of insulin on clinical outcomes

Throughout history, up to the early part of the 20th century, diabetes has been a devastating disorder, particularly when diagnosed in childhood when it was usually fatal. Consequently, the successful pancreatic extraction of insulin in 1921 was a miraculous, life-changing advance. In this review, the truly transformative effect that insulin has had on the lives of people with type 1 diabetes and on those with type 2 diabetes who are also dependent on insulin is described, from the time of its first successful use to the present day. We have highlighted in turn how each of the many facets of improvements over the last century, from advancements in the properties of insulin and its formulations to the evolution of different methods of delivery, have led to continued improvement in clinical outcomes, through the use of illustrative stories from history and from our own clinical experiences. This review concludes with a brief look at the current challenges and where the next century of technological innovation in insulin therapy may take us.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Switching to Insulin Degludec from Other Basal Insulins in a Real-World Canadian Population with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes: The CAN-TREAT Study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to examine glycaemic control and safety of insulin degludec (degludec) in patients with either type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) under routine care settings in Canada.

METHODS

Data were extracted from medical records of adults with T1D or T2D who switched to degludec (± prandial insulin) from another basal insulin (± prandial insulin) ≥ 6 months prior to data collection. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) at 6 ± 3 months after degludec initiation. Secondary endpoints included change in hypoglycaemia rate in the 6 months before versus the 6 months after switching, and change in mean total daily insulin dose.

RESULTS

Of 667 patients assessed for eligibility, 626 were included. After 6 ± 3 months, HbA_1c decreased from baseline in patients with T1D (- 0.3% [- 0.42, - 0.14]_95% CI; p < 0.001) and in patients with T2D (- 0.4% [- 0.55, - 0.30]_95% CI; p < 0.001). In patients with T1D, there were significant reductions in the rates of overall (rate ratio [RR] 0.70), non-severe (RR 0.69), non-severe nocturnal (RR 0.36), and severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.12; all p ≤ 0.004). In patients with T2D there was a significant reduction in non-severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.22; p < 0.001). Mean daily basal insulin dose decreased in patients with T1D (- 1.6 units [- 2.8, - 0.4]_95% CI; p = 0.008); there was no significant change in patients with T2D (- 0.6 units [- 2.7, 1.4]_95% CI; p = 0.543).

CONCLUSION

In routine clinical practice, improved glycaemic control was observed in patients with T1D or T2D switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins, with either improvement or no change in hypoglycaemia rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03674866.

Comparative clinical outcomes of insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/mL after switching from other basal insulins in real-world patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Aims/Introduction

To evaluate and compare the efficacy of insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla300) 6 months after switching from other basal insulins by assessing the changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body mass index (BMI), and insulin doses in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in a real‐world clinical setting.

Materials and Methods

A total of 307 patients with type 1 diabetes and 294 patients with type 2 diabetes with HbA1c >7.0% were studied. Adjusted mean changes in HbA1c, BMI, and insulin doses were compared between IDeg (IDeg group) and Gla300 (Gla300 group) switchers. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were carried out to examine whether the IDeg or Gla300 group was associated with HbA1c or insulin dose reduction and BMI gain.

Results

HbA1c was significantly decreased in both the IDeg and Gla300 groups. Adjusted mean changes in HbA1c (approximately −0.3% and −0.5% in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes patients, respectively) and BMI were similar between both groups. The mean change in insulin dose was slightly larger for dose reduction in the IDeg group than in the Gla300 group. Multivariable logistic regression models showed that the IDeg group was significantly associated with insulin dose reduction after adjusting for basal insulin type, insulin dose, and number of basal insulin injections at baseline and other confounding factors.

Conclusions

The current study suggested that IDeg and Gla300 have similar effects in reducing HbA1c and gaining BMI after switching from other basal insulins in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. IDeg selection was associated with insulin dose reduction.

Transforming type 1 diabetes: the next wave of innovation

The discovery of insulin in 1921 enabled pharmaceutical production of animal insulins for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes by 1922. The last several decades have witnessed enormous scientific progress in the therapy of type 1 diabetes, yet some developments have been incremental, and insulin is not a cure. Herein, I highlight key scientific advances potentially poised to improve the quality of life and treatment outcomes in type 1 diabetes. These innovations range from newer insulin analogues to the development of smart insulins, oral and weekly insulins, glucose sensors and closed-loop insulin-delivery devices, as well as strategies for durable human beta cell replacement coupled with selective immune manipulation to preserve beta cell function. Finally, progress in the prediction and prevention of type 1 diabetes highlights the ongoing challenges and potential for altering the natural history of the disease or eliminating type 1 diabetes altogether.

How many people with type 2 diabetes fulfil the eligibility criteria for randomized, controlled trials of insulin glargine 300 U/mL in a real-world setting?

Randomized controlled trial (RCT) populations often do not reflect those typically seen in clinical practice. This retrospective, observational cohort study analysed the real-world data of people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) prescribed basal insulin analogues from electronic medical records (EMRs) in the Explorys database, which includes data from 39 integrated healthcare systems in the United States, to determine how representative selected RCTs investigating insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) are of T2DM populations in a real-world setting. Applying eligibility criteria derived from the EDITION 1, 2 and 3 (Gla-300 vs. insulin glargine 100 U/mL [Gla-100]) and BRIGHT (Gla-300 vs. insulin degludec) RCTs, we observed that only 17% (33 345/191 218) of people captured in the real-world database would have been eligible for such trials. Those who were ineligible tended to be older, had more comorbidities and a higher baseline hypoglycaemia rate than the eligible group. Using another large US EMR database (Optum Humedica) as corroboration, we found that 15% (36 285/235 697) would have been eligible to participate in the EDITION/BRIGHT RCTs. Furthermore, only 7% (1734/24 547) would have been eligible for the CONCLUDE (insulin degludec vs. Gla-300) RCT. Our findings remind us of the value of real-world data studies, complementing the results of RCTs, and providing additional insights into groups who would typically be excluded from RCTs.

Hundert Jahre – Insulin bleibt aktuell und notwendig

In der Behandlung des Typ-1-Diabetes ist die Therapie mit Insulin auch 100 Jahre nach seiner Entdeckung weiterhin eine lebensnotwendige Therapie. Der pharmakologische Fortschritt hat die Behandlung erheblich erleichtert und nähert sich der physiologischen Insulin-Sekretion zunehmend an. In der Behandlung des Typ-2-Diabetes hingegen ist die Insulin-Therapie bei den meisten Patienten zunächst nicht notwendig. Lebensstil-Interventionen und moderne Nicht-Insulin Antidiabetika können häufig zu einer lang andauernden Kontrolle der Erkrankung führen. Die Heterogenität des Typ-2-Diabetes führt jedoch dazu, dass einige Patienten früh von einer Insulin-Therapie profitieren. Auch beim Typ-2-Diabetes können moderne Insulin Präparate die Insulin-Behandlung deutlich erleichtern, auch in Kombination mit anderen Antidiabetika. Einleitung und Begleitung einer Insulin-Therapie gehören somit weiterhin zu den Kernaufgaben der Diabetologie.

Individualizing Time-in-Range Goals in Management of Diabetes Mellitus and Role of Insulin: Clinical Insights From a Multinational Panel

Diabetes mellitus is a global health concern associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Inadequate control of diabetes leads to chronic complications and higher mortality rates, which emphasizes the importance of achieving glycemic targets. Although glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) is the gold standard for measuring glycemic control, it has several limitations. Therefore, in recent years, along with the emergence of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology, glycemic control modalities have moved beyond HbA_1c. They encompass modern glucometrics, such as glycemic variability (GV) and time-in-range (TIR). The key advantage of these newer metrics over HbA_1c is that they allow personalized diabetes management with person-centric glycemic control. Basal insulin analogues, especially second-generation basal insulins with properties such as longer duration of action and low risk of hypoglycemia, have demonstrated clinical benefits by reducing GV and improving TIR. Therefore, for more effective and accurate diabetes management, the development of an integrated approach with second-generation basal insulin and glucometrics involving GV and TIR is the need of the hour. With this objective, a multinational group of endocrinologists and diabetologists reviewed the existing recommendations on TIR, provided their clinical insights into the individualization of TIR targets, and elucidated on the role of the second-generation basal insulin analogues in addressing TIR.

Improving the treatment of patients with diabetes using insulin analogues: current findings and future directions

Introduction: The aim of insulin replacement in insulin-deficient people (type 1 diabetes, pancreatic causes of diabetes, long-standing type 2 diabetes) is to approximate the physiologic insulin action profile as closely as possible. However, short-acting human insulins start too slow and act too long, causing postprandial hyperglycemia and delayed hypoglycemia, while the insulin action profile of long-acting human insulins is too variable in duration and strength of action, leading to insufficient basal insulin covering and peak insulin levels after injection causing early nocturnal hypoglycemia. Insulin analogues were designed to overcome these shortcomings. In insulin-resistant people (type 2 diabetes), insulin analogues contribute to more efficient and safer insulin supplementation. Areas covered: In this review, we describe the unmet needs for insulin therapy, the currently available short- and long-acting insulin analogues and some considerations on cardiovascular outcomes, use in special populations, and cost-effectiveness. Finally, we discuss what is new in the field of insulin analogues. Expert opinion: The development of insulin analogues is an important step in diabetes treatment. Despite many patients meeting their glycemic targets with the newest analogues, hypoglycemic episodes remain a major problem. More physiologic insulin regimens, with glucose-sensitive or organ-targeting insulin analogues may be the answer to these issues.

Comparison of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogs: A Review of the Evidence from Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Many people with insulin-treated diabetes continue to experience inadequate glycemic control and a high incidence of hypoglycemic events, despite improvements in therapeutic strategies. While glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) is currently recognized as the gold-standard for assessing glycemic control, the measure reflects mean blood glucose levels over a period of time, does not inform on acute glycemic deviations, and can be unreliable in certain populations. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) facilitates the acquisition of blood glucose data around the clock and, importantly, predicts and/or captures acute hyper- and hypoglycemic episodes. In light of the recent publication of the Time in Range (TIR) International Consensus Group report on key CGM metrics, we performed a review of current CGM evidence for second-generation basal insulins in both people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The identified studies highlight the varied CGM-related metrics used to assess basal insulins, which complicate comparisons. Furthermore, all studies had small sample sizes and typically were of short duration, which may account for the lack of statistically significant between-treatment differences observed. Differences were seen in the titration approaches used and the settings in which participants were observed. These results highlight the need for further studies of second-generation basal insulin analogs that are designed to capture the standard metrics proposed by the TIR consensus group, with additional consideration given to sample size and study duration.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Head-to-Head Comparison of Clinical, Equivalent Doses of Insulin Glargine 300 units · mL-1 and Insulin Degludec 100 units · mL-1 in Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To prove equivalence of individual, clinically titrated basal insulin doses of glargine 300 units ⋅ mL^-1 (Gla-300) and degludec 100 units ⋅ mL^-1 (Deg-100) under steady state conditions in a single-blind, randomized, crossover study, on the glucose pharmacodynamics (PD) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Subjects with T1D (N = 22, 11 men, age 44.3 ± 12.4 years, disease duration 25.5 ± 11.7 years, A1C 7.07 ± 0.63% [53.7 ± 6.9 mmol ⋅ mL^-1], BMI 22.5 ± 2.7 kg · m^-2), naïve to Gla-300 and Deg-100, underwent 24-h euglycemic clamps with individual clinical doses of Gla-300 (0.34 ± 0.08 units ⋅ kg^-1) and Deg-100 (0.26 ± 0.06 units ⋅ kg^-1), dosing at 2000 h, after 3 months of optimal titration of basal (and bolus) insulin.

RESULTS

At the end of 3 months, Gla-300 and Deg-100 reduced slightly and, similarly, A1C versus baseline. Clamp average plasma glucose (0-24 h) was euglycemic with both insulins. The area under curve of glucose infused (AUC-GIR_{[0-24 h]}) was equivalent for the two insulins (ratio 1.04, 90% CI 0.91-1.18). Suppression of endogenous glucose production, free fatty acids, glycerol, and β-hydroxybutyrate was 9%, 14%, 14%, and 18% greater, respectively, with Gla-300 compared with Deg-100 during the first 12 h, while glucagon suppression was no different. Relative within-day PD variability was 23% lower with Gla-300 versus Deg-100 (ratio 0.77, 90% CI 0.63-0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

In T1D, individualized, clinically titrated doses of Gla-300 and Deg-100 at steady state result in similar glycemic control and PD equivalence during euglycemic clamps. Clinical doses of Gla-300 compared with Deg-100 are higher and associated with quite similar even 24-h distribution of PD and antilipolytic effects.

Recent Advances in Insulin Therapy

Insulin therapy has advanced remarkably over the past few decades. Ultra-rapid-acting and ultra-long-acting insulin analogs are now commercially available. Many additional insulin formulations are in development. This review outlines recent advances in insulin therapy and novel therapies in development.

Considerations for Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Patients During Hospitalization: A Narrative Review of What We Need to Know in the Age of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogs

With the availability of second-generation basal insulin analogs, insulin degludec (100 and 200 units/ml [degludec]) and insulin glargine 300 units/ml (glargine U300), clinicians now have long-acting, efficacious treatment options with stable pharmacokinetic profiles and associated low risks of hypoglycemia that may be desirable for many patients with type 2 diabetes. In this narrative review, we summarize the current evidence on glycemic control in hospitalized patients and review the pharmacokinetic properties of degludec and glargine U300 in relation to the challenges these may pose during the hospitalization of patients with type 2 diabetes who are receiving outpatient regimens involving these newer insulins. Their increased use in clinical practice requires that hospital healthcare professionals (HCPs) have appropriate protocols to transfer patients from these second-generation insulins to formulary insulin on admission, and ensure the safe discharge of patients and transition back to degludec or glargine U300. However, there is no guidance available on this. Based on the authors' clinical experience, we identify key issues to consider when arranging hospital care of such patients. We also summarize the limited available evidence on the potential utility of these second-generation basal insulin analogs in the non-critical inpatient setting and identify avenues for future research. To address current knowledge gaps, it is important that HCPs are educated about the differences between standard formulary insulins and second-generation insulins, and the importance of clear communication during patient transitions.

The Safety and Efficacy of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes at Risk of Hypoglycemia and Use in Other Special Populations: A Narrative Review

Hypoglycemia is a major barrier impeding glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus and creates a substantial burden on the healthcare system. Certain populations that require special attention, such as older adults and individuals with renal impairment, a longer duration of diabetes or those who have experienced prior hypoglycemia, may be at a higher risk of hypoglycemia, particularly with insulin treatment. Second-generation basal insulin analogues (insulin glargine 300 U/mL and degludec) have demonstrated reductions in hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL although evidence of this benefit across specific populations is less clear. In this review we summarize the literature with respect to the efficacy and safety data for second-generation basal insulin analogues in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are at risk of hypoglycemia or who require special attention. Randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses and real-world evidence demonstrate that the use of second-generation basal insulin analogues is associated with less hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL without compromising glycated hemoglobin control. A reduced risk of hypoglycemia with second-generation basal insulin analogues was evident in older adults and in individuals with obesity, renal impairment, a history of cardiovascular disease or a long duration of insulin use. Further studies are needed in other populations, including those with more severe renal impairment or hepatic dysfunction, the hospitalized population and those with cognitive impairment. Overall, less hypoglycemia associated with second-generation basal insulin analogues may help reduce barriers for insulin use, improve adherence and offset the costs of hypoglycemia-related healthcare resource utilization.

Clinical Outcomes of Switching to Insulin Glargine 300 U/ml from Other Basal Insulins in People with Type 2 Diabetes in Italy: A Real-World Study

INTRODUCTION

Primary aim was to provide real-world evidence of the outcomes after the switch to glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) from other basal insulins (first or second generation) in Italy.

METHODS

Multicenter, observational, retrospective study based on electronic medical records.

RESULTS

Overall, 953 T2DM insulin ± OAD treated people switched to Gla-300 or Gla-100 from January 2015 to July 2018. Three clinically relevant cohorts were identified: patients switching to Gla-300 from first-generation basal insulin (cohort 1), patients switching to Gla-300 from degludec-100 (Deg-100) (cohort 2), and those switching to Gla-100 from any basal insulin (cohort 3). The three cohorts differed in terms of age, diabetes duration, and metabolic control. HbA1c changes after 6 months from the switch were - 0.27% (95% CI - 0.38; - 0.16), - 0.06% (95% CI - 0.31; 0.19), and - 0.30% (95% CI - 0.51; - 0.09) in the three cohorts, respectively. FPG significantly decreased in cohort 1 (- 14.07 mg/dl, 95% CI - 20.25; - 7.89), while body weight significantly decreased in cohort 2 (- 1.47 kg, 95% CI - 2.55; - 0.39). Doses of insulin marginally changed during the follow-up (+ 0.89 U in basal insulin daily dose in cohort 1 and + 2.07 U in short-acting insulin daily dose in cohort 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to Gla-300 from first-generation basal insulin in the real world is associated with improvements in metabolic control despite a suboptimal titration of both basal and short-acting insulins. Inertia in insulin titration documented in the Gla-100 cohort is also observed with the second-generation basal insulin. The switch to Gla-300 from Deg-100 was associated with a decrease in body weight of - 1.47 kg despite a slight increase in short-acting insulin daily doses of about + 2 U.

Rationale for Timely Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Within the Framework of Individualised Treatment: 2020 Update

Type 2 diabetes is characterised by chronic hyperglycaemia and variable degrees of insulin deficiency and resistance. Hyperglycaemia and elevated fatty acids exert harmful effects on β-cell function, regeneration and apoptosis (gluco-lipotoxicity). Furthermore, chronic hyperglycaemia triggers a vicious cycle of insulin resistance, low-grade inflammation and a cascade of pro-atherogenic processes. Thus, timely near to normal glucose control is of utmost importance in the management of type 2 diabetes and prevention of micro- and macroangiopathy. The majority of patients are multimorbid and obese, with critical comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Recently published guidelines therefore recommend patient-centred risk/benefit-balanced use of oral glucose-lowering drugs or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, or switching to insulin with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) out of target. This article covers the indications of early insulin treatment to prevent diabetes-related complications, particularly in subgroups with severe insulin deficit, and to achieve recovery of residual β-cell function. Furthermore, the individualised, risk/benefit-balanced, timely initiation of insulin as second and third option is analysed. Timely insulin initiation may prevent diabetes progression, reduce diabetes-related complications and has less serious adverse effects. Basal insulin is the preferred option in most clinical situations with consequences of undertreatment of chronic hyperglycaemia.

CONCENTRATED INSULINS: CLINICAL UPDATE OF THERAPEUTIC OPTIONS

Improved glycemic control is associated with a reduced risk of diabetic complications. Optimal management of patients with type 2 diabetes includes nutritional therapy, physical activity, and pharmacotherapy for glycemic control. Most patients with type 2 diabetes are initially managed with oral antidiabetic agents, but as β-cell function declines and the disease progresses, insulin therapy is frequently needed to maintain glycemic control. Insulin therapy given with multidose insulin injection regimen or by continuous insulin infusion is needed for patients with type 1 diabetes to achieve control. Obesity and its associated insulin resistance contribute to greater insulin requirements in patients with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes to achieve glycemic control, creating a need for concentrated insulin. Concentrated insulin formulations can be prescribed as an alternative to 100 unit/mL insulin and provide the advantage of low injection volume, leading to less pain and possibly fewer insulin injections. This review includes a stepwise analysis of all currently available concentrated insulin products, analyzes the most up-to-date evidence, and presents this in combination with expert guidance and commentary in an effort to provide clinicians with a thorough overview of the characteristics and benefits of concentrated insulins in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes-instilling confidence when recommending, prescribing, and adjusting these medications. Abbreviations: A1C = glycated hemoglobin; β-cell = pancreatic betacell; BG = blood glucose; CI = confidence interval; CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; MDI = multiple daily injections; NHANES = National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; PD = pharmacodynamic; PK = pharmacokinetic; TDD = total daily dose; U100 = 100 units/mL; U200 = 200 units/mL; U300 = 300 units/mL; U500 = 500 units/mL; USD = United States dollars.

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U300 in the Netherlands: Evidence From a Randomised Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec 200 units/mL (degludec) versus insulin glargine 300 units/mL (glargine U300) from a Dutch societal perspective.

METHODS

A previously published model estimated costs [2018 euros (EUR)] and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] with degludec compared with glargine U300 over a 1-year time horizon. The model captured hypoglycaemia rates and insulin dosing. Clinical outcomes were informed by CONCLUDE (NCT03078478), a head-to-head randomised controlled trial in insulin-experienced patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

Treatment with degludec was associated with mean annual cost savings (EUR 24.71 per patient) relative to glargine U300, driven by a lower basal insulin dose and lower severe hypoglycaemia rate with degludec compared with glargine U300. Lower rates of non-severe nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia resulted in improved effectiveness (+ 0.0045 QALYs) with degludec relative to glargine U300. In sensitivity analyses, changes to the vast majority of model parameters did not materially affect model outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This short-term analysis, informed by the latest clinical trial evidence, demonstrated that degludec was a cost-effective treatment option relative to glargine U300. As such, our modelling analysis suggests that degludec would represent an efficient use of Dutch public healthcare resources in this patient population.

How conclusive is the CONCLUDE trial?

The development of basal insulin analogues has reduced the risk of hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes. Insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/ml (glargine U300) represent an evolution of basal insulin analogues, both of them reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia as compared with that associated with glargine U100. However, whether degludec and glargine U300 are equivalent with respect to glycaemic control and risk of hypoglycaemia remains to be fully ascertained. In the CONCLUDE trial, 1609 individuals with type 2 diabetes were randomised to either degludec 200 U/ml (degludec U200) or glargine U300. In this issue of Diabetologia (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-019-05080-9) the investigators report that during the maintenance period, HbA_1c improved to a similar extent in the two groups with no significant difference in the rate of overall hypoglycaemia (the primary endpoint of the study), while rates of nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia (secondary endpoints) were lower with degludec U200 than with glargine U300. These results, although of great interest to the clinician, need to be carefully interpreted as they cannot be considered as conclusive. First, the primary endpoint was not met and, therefore, analyses of secondary endpoints remain exploratory. Even assuming that degludec is superior to glargine in reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia, the mechanism(s) accounting for such an advantage remain elusive and potential differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics difficult to appreciate because of methodological issues. The study design had to be amended because of lack of reliability of the glucometers initially used in the trial, particularly in the low blood glucose ranges, so the potential implications of these changes in the subsequent conduct of the trial cannot be excluded. Finally, comparison with the BRIGHT trial, the only other available head-to-head study, is complicated by differences between the two studies in the primary endpoint (HbA_1c reduction vs reduction of the risk of hypoglycaemia), study population (insulin-experienced vs insulin-naive) and concomitant glucose-lowering medications. In spite of all this, CONCLUDE teaches us an important lesson regarding the need, particularly in the clinical setting, to monitor the reliability of the glucometers the diabetic individual uses to adjust his/her insulin dose. Insufficient precision or inappropriate use of the glucometer can easily offset any minute advantage a new insulin can offer with respect to glycaemic control and risk of hypoglycaemia.

InRange: Comparison of the Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues Glargine 300 U/mL and Degludec 100 U/mL in Persons with Type 1 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Study Design

INTRODUCTION

Suboptimal glycaemic control among people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is known to lead to long-term micro- and macrovascular complications and, unfortunately, it is still prevalent even in the most affluent societies. Although glycated haemoglobin monitoring is considered to be the gold standard for assessing glycaemic control, such monitoring is unable to reliably measure acute glycaemic excursions. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve glucose control and reduce the incidence of hypoglycaemia, and also allow a more complete assessment of overall glycaemic control and hyper- and hypoglycaemic excursions. The use of CGM has led to time-in-range, which is the time that a patient is within the glycaemic range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, to be adopted as a treatment target. To date, only limited data comparing the second-generation insulins glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and degludec 100 U/mL (IDeg-100) in people with T1D are available, and there is no CGM literature on comparisons of the use of CGM results to assess primary, secondary and tertiary endpoints. The aim of the InRange study was to address this unmet need.

METHODS

InRange is a multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, parallel-group, 12-week, open-label, phase 4, comparative study. Adults with T1D will be randomised to receive once-daily Gla-300 or IDeg-100 by subcutaneous injection in the morning. Following an 8-week titration period, CGM data will be collected over 20 consecutive days.

PLANNED OUTCOMES

The primary objective is to demonstrate that Gla-300 is noninferior to IDeg-100 in terms of glycaemic control [time-in-range ≥ 70 to ≤ 180 mg/dL (≥ 3.9 to ≤ 10 mmol/L)] and variability, as assessed using CGM, in adults with T1D. The results are expected to help confirm the utility of CGM in clinical practice in this population and provide insight into its application as an outcome measure in clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04075513.