Comparative safety and efficacy of insulin degludec with insulin glargine in type 2 and type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pharmacological Treatment With Insulin and Insulin Analogs for Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Colombia

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness relationship of insulins and insulin analogs in diabetes mellitus type 1 (DM1) and 2 (DM2), from the perspective of the Colombian health system.

METHODS

A short-term decision tree model (SM) was built, the outcome of which was severe/nocturnal hypoglycemia, and a long-term Markov model for quality-adjusted life-years. The probabilities were calculated through a literature review of effectiveness and safety. The costs are estimated from official databases. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

For DM1, in prandial insulins, and for both models, the cost-effective interventions (CEIs) are aspartate and lispro. In basal insulins, the CEIs are NPH and glargine U-100 in both models. In the comparison of detemir and NPH, detemir generates lower nocturnal hypoglycemia and higher quality-adjusted life-years; however, in the long-term Markov model, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio exceeds the threshold. For DM2, in the prandial insulin, and for both models, aspartate is a CEI and the glargine U-300 is also a CEI in the SM. In basal insulin, the CEIs are glargine U-100 and detemir (for nocturnal hypoglycemia) in both models and glargine U-300 is also a CEI in the SM. Finally, in the group of combinations, iGlarLixi is dominant over IDegLira.

CONCLUSIONS

The results favor the use of analog insulins over human insulins, the former reducing the possibility of acute events and chronic complications to a greater extent.

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.

Safety and Clinical Outcomes of Insulin Degludec in Korean Patients with Diabetes in Real-World Practices: A Prospective, Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) in a real-world population of Korean patients with diabetes requiring insulin therapy.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, single-arm, open-label, non-interventional study. Patients aged ≥ 12 months and treated with previous glucose-lowering medications were eligible to switch to IDeg. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and the secondary endpoints were changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial glucose (PPG), and target HbA1c < 7.0%.

RESULTS

In total, 3225 and 2450 patients were included in the safety analysis set (SAS) and effectiveness analysis set (EAS), respectively. The mean baseline HbA1c and duration of diabetes were 9.4% and 13.0 years, respectively. Adverse events were reported in 740 patients (22.9%); the majority were mild and resolved. Significant improvements were observed in HbA1c, FPG, and PPG at week 26 (all p < 0.0001). The target of HbA1c < 7% was achieved in 22.2% of patients at week 26.

CONCLUSION

In real-world clinical practice, 26 weeks of IDeg treatment resulted in significant reductions in glycemic parameters with a low incidence of AEs in Korean patients with diabetes. No new safety signals were observed.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02779413) and the universal trial number is [U1111-1176-2287].

Glycaemic Control in People with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Insulin Degludec: A Real-World, Prospective Non-interventional Study-UPDATES Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION

Insulin degludec (degludec) has proven benefits in type 2 diabetes (T2D), in terms of improved glycaemic control, low risk of hypoglycaemia, and flexibility in dosing time. This prospective non-interventional UPDATES study aimed to investigate whether results obtained from randomised clinical trials and other real-world studies with degludec are generalisable to patients with T2D in routine clinical practice in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

Eligible adults (n = 561) with T2D received degludec for 26-34 weeks, at physicians' discretion and in accordance with local routine clinical practice. The primary endpoint was mean change in HbA_1c from baseline to end of study (EOS). Secondary endpoints included mean change from baseline to EOS in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), daily insulin dose and rate of hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean age, HbA_1c and FPG were 55.7 years, 9.4% and 185.6 mg/dL, respectively. Mean (standard error [SE]) changes from baseline to EOS (crude analysis) were statistically significant for HbA_1c (- 1.1 [0.08] %-points, 95% CI - 1.29, - 0.98; P < 0.0001), FPG (- 39.1 [3.42] mg/dL, 95% CI - 45.9, - 32.4; P < 0.0001) and total daily insulin dose (+ 4.7 [1.6] units, 95% CI 1.63, 7.86; P = 0.003, insulin-experienced population). In exploratory analysis of patients switching from insulin glargine U100 or U300 to degludec, similar reductions were seen in HbA_1c and FPG. The rate of hypoglycaemia was significantly reduced with degludec versus previous treatment, with no apparent or unexpected safety and tolerability issues. The number of insulin-experienced patients utilising resources associated with severe hypoglycaemia was also reduced. Most patients (95.5%) were willing to continue treatment at EOS, and expressed a preference for degludec over their previous regimen (93.0%).

CONCLUSION

Patients with T2D treated with degludec in routine clinical practice in Saudi Arabia experienced clinically significant improvements in glycaemic control and a lower rate of hypoglycaemia compared with baseline, with no new safety concerns reported.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03785522.

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.

A Case of Misdiagnosed as Upper Urinary Tract Obstruction Caused by the Fungal Ball

Upper urinary tract obstruction caused by fungal balls is a rare urinary system disease. We admitted an elderly man with symptoms of urinary tract infection and diabetes mellitus. When the patient was transported into the hospital, a CT scan revealed right renal pelvis dilatation and gas buildup, routine urinalysis showing full field of view of white blood cells and middle urinary bacteria and fungi cultures came back negative, leading to the incorrect diagnosis of emphysematous pyelonephritis with Aerogenes infection. When the diagnosis is confirmed, surgery and antifungal therapy are used to deal with both the obstruction and the fungal ball.

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.

Basal Insulin Degludec and Glycemic Control Compared to Aspart Via Insulin Pump in Type 1 Diabetes (BIGLEAP): A Single-Center, Open-Label, Randomized, Crossover Trial

OBJECTIVE

We compared the efficacy of the second-generation basal insulin degludec (IDeg) to that of insulin aspart via pump using continuous glucose monitoring in patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

In this 40-week, single-center, randomized, crossover-controlled trial, adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes (hemoglobin A1C of <7.5% [<58 mmol/mol]) (N = 52) who were using an insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring were randomized to 1 of 2 treatments for a 20-week period: a single daily injection of IDeg with bolus aspart via pump or a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with aspart, followed by crossover to the other treatment. The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during the final 2 weeks of each treatment period.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were randomized and completed both treatment periods. The time in range for IDeg and CSII was 71.5% and 70.9%, respectively (P = .553). The time in level 1 hypoglycemia for the 24-hour period with IDeg and CSII was 2.19% and 1.75%, respectively (P = .065). The time in level 2 hypoglycemia for the 24-hour period with IDeg and CSII was 0.355% and 0.271%, respectively (P = .212), and the nocturnal period was 0.330% and 0.381%, respectively (P = .639). The mean standard deviation of blood glucose levels for the 24-hour period for IDeg and CSII was 52.4 mg/dL and 51.0 mg/dL, respectively (P = .294). The final hemoglobin A1C level for each treatment was 7.04% (53 mmol/mol) with IDeg, and 6.95% (52 mmol/mol) with CSII (P = .288). Adverse events were similar between treatments.

CONCLUSION

We observed similar glycemic control between IDeg and insulin aspart via CSII for basal insulin coverage in patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes.

Nocturnal hypoglycemia in type 1 and type 2 diabetes: an update on prevalence, prevention, pathophysiology and patient awareness

INTRODUCTION

Despite considerable progress in diabetes treatment, prevalence of nocturnal hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and advanced insulin treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains high.

AREAS COVERED

The present manuscript describes the prevalence of night-time hypoglycemia as reported in observational and randomized controlled trials. Factors that affect the risk of hypoglycemia are highlighted. The authors also describe impaired awareness of hypoglycemia and available preventive methods.

EXPERT OPINION

Prevention of nocturnal hypoglycemia includes behavioral, dietary and pharmacologic interventions. The most recent development with the lowest rate of hypoglycemia is sensor-augmented pumps with predictive low glucose suspend technology. These pumps combine continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with continuous glucose monitoring and use various algorithms to predict and stop hypoglycemia before it develops.

A randomized controlled trial of transition from insulin pump to multiple daily injections using insulin degludec

AIM

To evaluate two methods of transition from an insulin pump to multiple daily injections (MDI) using long-acting insulin degludec (IDeg).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After a 1-week run-in period, adults with type 1 diabetes for longer than 1 year and HbA1c 48-69 mmol/mol (6.5%-8.5%), who had been using an insulin pump at least for 6 months, were randomly transitioned to either standard of care (discontinued insulin pump and started IDeg in 1:1 dose) or overlap (IDeg 1:1 at pump basal dose, but pump continued for the first 48 hours with a gradual basal reduction; 50% from 0-24 hours, 75% from 24-48 hours and then pump discontinued). Participants used blinded Dexcom G6 and the IDeg dose was not changed during the trial. Primary (% time above 180 mg/dL) and secondary (% time in 70-180 mg/dL and below 70 mg/dL) outcomes were compared between the two groups during 7 days of randomization.

RESULTS

Age, gender, diabetes duration and basal/bolus insulin doses were similar between patients randomized to standard of care (n = 17) or overlap (n = 13) transition. Compared with overlap transition, the standard of care group spent 4.8% more time in hyperglycaemia (least square mean 4.8% [95% CI -3.3%, 12.9%]) and 5.3% less time in range (-5.3% [-12.6%, -2.0%]), without a significant difference in hypoglycaemia (0.5% [-2.3%,3.4%]). No treatment-related adverse events were noted in either group.

CONCLUSION

The overlap transition method may result in a significant improvement in time-in-range without increasing hypoglycaemia during the first week of transition from an insulin pump to MDI using IDeg in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes after switching to insulin degludec: results from a cross-sectional survey

PURPOSE

Five quality of life (QoL) domains are particularly important to patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using basal insulin-sense of physical well-being, sense of safety regarding hypoglycemia, sense of diabetes as burdensome, feelings of freedom and flexibility, and sleep quality.

METHODS

An online survey assessed these QoL domains in adult patients with T2D in the USA who had switched from a previous basal insulin to insulin degludec (IDeg): modified versions of the World Health Organization (Five) Well-Being Index (WHO-5), Hypoglycemia Attitudes and Behavior Scale (HABS; confidence and anxiety subscales only), and Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS; emotional burden and regimen-related distress subscales only); three items assessing feelings of freedom and flexibility; and one item assessing sleep quality (hours of restful sleep). Patients rated each item for their previous basal insulin and currently while using IDeg. Correlations between sleep quality and the other QoL scales were also assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 152 patients completed the survey and were included in the study sample. Patients reported significantly improved scores while using IDeg on all WHO-5, DDS, HABS, feelings of freedom and flexibility item scores, and total raw/mean subscale scores (P < 0.0001). Patients also reported a significantly greater number of hours of restful sleep [mean (SD) 6.6 (2.0) vs. 5.5 (1.8); P < 0.0001]. Better sleep quality statistically significantly correlated with improved QoL in all other domains assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with IDeg after switching from a previous basal insulin was associated with statistically significant improvements in all QoL domains assessed.

Advances in newer basal and bolus insulins: impact on type 1 diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Insulin administration is vitally important to maintain a good glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). The purpose of this review is to give a clinically relevant overview of the newer basal and bolus insulin analogues and to highlight their practicalities of use and advantages in specific categories of patients with T1DM.

RECENT FINDINGS

Second-generation rapid-acting insulin analogues (i.e. faster insulin aspart and ultrarapid-acting lispro) have shown to be safe, efficient and superior in controlling postprandial plasma glucose levels without an increase in hypoglycaemia. The newest basal insulin analogues, insulin glargine U300 and degludec, have proven to be efficient in reducing hypoglycaemic events due to a more stable action profile.

SUMMARY

The second-generation rapid-acting and basal insulin analogues approach better the desired physiological insulin pattern of the beta cell. Due to a faster absorption, it is possible to inject the prandial insulin analogues more closely or even after meals without compromising postprandial glucose control. Due to more stable release patterns, basal insulins now have more reliable and longer profiles, covering basal insulin demands in a superior way, leading to a better glycaemic control with less hypoglycaemia (especially nocturnal events) and an improved quality of life.

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.

Expert Consensus on Telemedicine Management of Diabetes (2020 Edition)

Diabetes is a chronic disease that is very suitable for telemedicine management. Owing to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, telemedicine management of diabetes is particularly important. This consensus proposes 38 recommendations for key issues in telemedicine management of diabetes and provides preliminary specifications for diabetes management. It is recommended to use the most current information and communication technologies for telemanagement of patients' diet, exercise, behavior, and drug therapy. A strategy for drug therapy that is more suitable for telemedicine management of diabetes than previous ones is established. During online follow-up visits, major changes of antihyperglycemic agents must be avoided, and treatment modification should be done in a stepwise manner. Greater attention should be paid to the occurrence and prevention of hypoglycemia, in addition to educating patients about the side effects of the drugs used and encouraging them to actively report adverse drug reactions. Conditions are clarified under which online follow-up visits must be terminated and in-person visits or emergency visits must be initiated. Telemedicine can improve the management level and control rate of diabetes. The present consensus for the standardized diagnosis and treatment of diabetes can reduce the potential risks of telemedicine management, yield great benefits to patients, and reduce chronic complications and comorbidities.

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.

Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Since the discovery of insulin, it was the only drug available for the treatment of diabetes until the development of sulfonylureas and biguanides 50 years later. But even with the availability of oral glucose-lowering drugs, insulin supplementation was often needed to achieve good glucose control in type 2 diabetes. Insulin NPH became the basal insulin therapy of choice and adding NPH to metformin and/or sulfonylureas became the standard of care until basal insulin analogs were developed and new glucose-lowering drugs became available.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

The advantages in cost-benefit of insulin analogs and their combination with new glucose-lowering drugs are still a matter of debate. There is no general agreement on how to avoid inertia by prescribing insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes when really needed, as reflected by the diversity of recommendations in the current clinical practice guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

When necessary for this review, a systematic search of the evidence was done in PubMed and Cochrane databases.

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

Adding new oral glucose-lowering drugs to insulin such as DPP-4 inhibitors lead to a modest HbA1c reduction without weight gain and no increase in hypoglycemia. When SGLT-2 inhibitors are added instead, there is a slightly higher HbA1c reduction, but with body weight and blood pressure reduction. The downside is the increase in genital tract infections. GLP-1 receptor agonists have become the best alternative when basal insulin fails, particularly using fixed ratio combinations. Rapid-acting insulins via the inhaled route may also become an alternative for insulin supplementation and/or intensification. "Smart insulins" are under investigation and may become available for clinical use in the near future.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggressive weight loss strategies together with the new glucose-lowering drugs which do not cause hypoglycemia nor weight gain should limit the number of patients with type 2 diabetes needing insulin. Nevertheless, because of therapeutic inertia and the progressive nature of the disease, many need at least a basal insulin supplementation and insulin analogs are the best choice as they become more affordable. Fixed ratio combinations with GLP1 receptor agonists are a good choice for intensification of insulin therapy.

Current status of insulin degludec in type 1 and type 2 diabetes based on randomized and observational trials

Insulin degludec is a new ultra-long-action basal insulin. Using treat-to-target protocols, controlled trials have shown comparable HbA_1c reductions with insulin degludec and comparators in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Most studies identify, however, better control of fasting plasma glucose with insulin degludec vs. either insulin glargine U100 or detemir, and all have consistently demonstrated clinically relevant decreases in (nocturnal) hypoglycaemic episodes. These characteristics have provided added therapeutic value for insulin degludec in clinical practice. Thus, the aim of this review is to discuss, within the context of randomized and observational studies, the clinical effects of insulin degludec use in type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy and Safety of Dulaglutide Compared to Liraglutide: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes mellitus has been always one of the most prevalent chronic diseases in the last decades. There exist a wide range of pharmacological agents for controlling this disease. However, these agents fare differently in terms of efficacy and safety. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare dulaglutide and liraglutide, two glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, in terms of efficacy and safety, drawing on a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out in January 2018. The articles were evaluated by two independent investigators and their quality was evaluated using Jadad scale and the Cochrane Collaboration’s tools. Finally, the eligible articles entered the study. HbA1c and FBS were considered as efficacy outcomes. Safety profile was evaluated based on several outcomes such as serious side effects and vital signs. Three articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results indicated that the mean difference (MD) of HbA1c reduction was -0.10% (95% CI, -0.20% to -0.01%, P=0.03) in the patients who received dulaglutide in comparison with the patients who received liraglutide. In addition, dulaglutide was safer than liraglutide in terms of gastrointestinal problems (RR=0.85, 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.99, P=0.04, I²=55%) and heart rate (RR=-1.14, 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.38, P=0.003, I²=0%). Once-weekly dulaglutide showed a further reduction in HbA1c compared to once-daily liraglutide. However, comparisons between these regimens indicated no significant difference between groups in either FBS reduction or safety profile. Similarly, no statistically significant difference was observed in treatment discontinuation, hypoglycemia events, and vital signs.

Risk of major cardiovascular events, severe hypoglycaemia, and all-cause mortality for users of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100-A Danish cohort study

AIMS

Real-world evidence of the safety of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 is sparse. This study sought to investigate the risk of major cardiovascular events, severe hypoglycaemia, and all-cause mortality after initiation of degludec or glargine U100 in the population of Denmark.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All Danish people with diabetes initiating treatment on degludec (n=5159) or glargine (n=4041) in 2016 to 2017 were included in the study. The effect of insulin treatment on the endpoints of major cardiovascular events, severe hypoglycaemia, and all-cause mortality was analysed with Cox proportional hazard models. The models were adjusted for age, sex, diabetes duration, diabetes type, highest completed education, and annual income. The model of severe hypoglycaemia was also adjusted for severe hypoglycaemia prior to baseline. The model of mortality was also adjusted for history of alcohol abuse, use of antidepressants, use of opioids, and use of anxiolytics. Lastly, the models of major cardiovascular events and mortality were also adjusted for Charlson comorbidity index.

RESULTS

Use of degludec resulted in an almost twofold decrease in risk of death (hazard rate [HR]: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.65) compared with use of glargine. No statistically significant risk changes were found for major cardiovascular events (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.62-1.19) and severe hypoglycaemia (HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.66-1.93). The proportion of cause of death due to malignant neoplasm of pancreas was almost doubled for glargine compared with degludec.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that insulin degludec has a safer profile with respect to all-cause mortality as compared with insulin glargine U100.

Lipid nanoparticles as vehicles for oral delivery of insulin and insulin analogs: preliminary ex vivo and in vivo studies

AIMS

Subcutaneous administration of insulin in patients suffering from diabetes is associated with the distress of daily injections. Among alternative administration routes, the oral route seems to be the most advantageous for long-term administration, also because the peptide undergoes a hepatic first-pass effect, contributing to the inhibition of the hepatic glucose output. Unfortunately, insulin oral administration has so far been hampered by degradation by gastrointestinal enzymes and poor intestinal absorption. Loading in lipid nanoparticles should allow to overcome these limitations.

METHODS

Entrapment of peptides into such nanoparticles is not easy, because of their high molecular weight, hydrophilicity and thermo-sensitivity. In this study, this objective was achieved by employing fatty acid coacervation method: solid lipid nanoparticles and newly engineered nanostructured lipid carriers were formulated. Insulin and insulin analog-glargine insulin-were entrapped in the lipid matrix through hydrophobic ion pairing.

RESULTS

Bioactivity of lipid entrapped peptides was demonstrated through a suitable in vivo experiment. Ex vivo and in vivo studies were carried out by employing fluorescently labelled peptides. Gut tied up experiments showed the superiority of glargine insulin-loaded nanostructured lipid carriers, which demonstrated significantly higher permeation (till 30% dose/mL) compared to free peptide. Approximately 6% absolute bioavailability in the bloodstream was estimated for the same formulation through in vivo pharmacokinetic studies in rats. Consequently, a discrete blood glucose responsivity was noted in healthy animals.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the optimized ex vivo and in vivo intestinal uptake of glargine insulin from nanostructured lipid carriers, further studies will be carried out on healthy and diabetic rat models in order to establish a glargine insulin dose-glucose response relation.

Efficacy and safety of the second generation basal insulin analogs in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A critical appraisal

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a progressive disease, which requires insulin treatment when other management is no longer effective. Although, insulin plays a vital role in the treatment of diabetes, conventional basal insulins have certain limitations, which have led to the development of more stable and peak less analogues.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the efficacy and safety of second generation vs. first generation basal insulins, and the efficacy and safety of second generation vs. second generation basal insulins, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, from the evidence provided by head-to-head randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed and MEDLINE, Scopus, BIOSIS, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, and Springer Online Archives Collection, from January 1966 to October 2018. Articles resulting from these searches and relevant references cited in those articles were examined.

RESULTS

The efficacy among insulins evaluated was similar, however, second generation insulins cause a lower risk of hypoglycemia compared to first generation insulins. A single study showed similar metabolic control with subtle differences in the risk of hypoglycemia among second generation insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The second-generation basal insulins result in metabolic control similar to first generation insulins, with lower risk of hypoglycemia. Second-generation insulins have comparable efficacy, with some differences in the risk of hypoglycemia.

Are newer insulins always the better option?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Since its discovery almost a century ago, there have been numerous advancements in the formulations of insulin. The newer insulin analogs have structural modifications with the goal of altering pharmacokinetics to achieve either quick onset and offset of action (mealtime bolus analogs), or a prolonged steady action (basal analogs). These analogs offer many advantages over older human insulins but are several-fold more expensive. The aim of this review is to evaluate reasons for the exorbitant price of the newer insulins, to examine the evidence regarding their clinical advantages and to make value-based prescribing recommendations.

RECENT FINDINGS

The higher cost of newer insulins cannot be justified based on drug development or manufacturing costs. Compared with older insulins, newer analogs do not offer significant advantage in achieving hemoglobin A1c targets, but they reduce risk of hypoglycemia. The reductions in hypoglycemia are relatively modest and most apparent in those with type 1 diabetes, possibly because these individuals are more prone to hypoglycemia.

SUMMARY

When cost considerations are important, the older insulins (regular and NPH insulin) can be used safely and effectively for most individuals with type 2 diabetes who have a low risk of hypoglycemia.

Impaired hypoglycemia awareness in diabetes: epidemiology, mechanisms and therapeutic approaches

Impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) is a frequent complication of insulin therapy. Up to half insulin-treated individuals with type 1 and type 2 diabetes report the problems with hypoglycemia awareness, and 1525% of patients have a permanent IAH. A recurrent hypoglycemia is a cornerstone in IAH formation. The repeated episodes of hypoglycemia impair neurohumoral response to hypoglycemia, reduce its symptoms and induce inadequate brain adaptation to low glucose levels. In this regard, the IAH phenomenon can be considered as an example of "metabolic memory" in diabetes. The IAH is associated with episodes of severe hypoglycemia, fear of hypoglycemia and cognitive dysfunction. These associates can be combined into IAH syndrome. Development of IAH becomes a serious barrier in diabetes management. A growing body of evidence indicates that IAH is a reversible condition. If the syndrome is present, the hypoglycemia avoidance should be primary goal of the treatment. Structured training under specialized programs with psychological support is the most reasonable therapeutic approach to IAH amending. Technological approaches, including continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, real-time continuous glucose monitoring, closed-loop insulin delivery systems ("artificial pancreas"), and islet transplantation also showed efficacy in hypoglycemia awareness improvement in some clinical studies. The diabetes management in patients with IAH is time-consuming and expensive. Therefore, step-by-step approach, from insulin personalization and therapeutic training to advanced medical technologies, should be recommended for these patients.

Glucose Targets and Insulin Choice in Pregnancy: What Has Changed in the Last Decade?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review current glycaemic targets and the potential use of newer insulin formulations in pregnancy.

RECENT FINDINGS

The impact of stricter glycaemic control on perinatal outcomes remains controversial, showing conflicting results. Current ongoing randomised trials investigating the role of tighter glucose targets in pregnancy should help clarify the benefit of tighter glucose control. Optimal timing for self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) remains debatable. Data suggest that post-prandial SMBG, particularly at 1 h, offers the best prediction of adverse perinatal outcome. To achieve these targets, insulin is the standard therapy. Novel insulin formulations offer benefits outside of pregnancy. Recent data on the use of new insulins in pregnancy (e.g. insulin degludec and glargine (U 300)) is limited to case reports. Glycaemic targets have remained unchanged in the last decade. Studies using stricter glycaemic targets may improve perinatal outcomes. Newer insulin formulations may offer increased flexibility and glycaemic control. Clinicians caring for women with diabetes striving to minimise adverse perinatal outcomes will find this review of interest.

Improved Cardiovascular and Cardiometabolic Risk in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes and Autoimmune Polyglandular Syndrome Switched From Glargine to Degludec Due to Hypoglycaemic Variability

Background: Cardiovascular disease is a frequent complication of type 1 diabetes (T1D). We evaluated the effectiveness of switching from glargine to degludec in reducing the cardiovascular risk factors, the Framingham risk score (FRS) and visceral adiposity index (VAI) in patients with T1D and autoimmune polyglandular syndrome (APS). Methods: We selected 66 T1D outpatients who had been on stable treatment with glargine for at least 5 years. Among them, 30 patients maintained glargine (group A), while 36 were switched to degludec (group B) for 12 months. At baseline and after 12 months of observation, clinical and metabolic parameters, insulin dose, 30-days blood glucose (BG) self monitoring, VAI and FRS were obtained. Results: At baseline, patients in group B had more hypoglycaemic episodes and prevalence of hypertension than those in group A. After 12 months on degludec, patients in group B had a significant decrease in BMI (p = 0.003), waist circumference (p < 0.001), total daily insulin as U/day and U/kg (p = 0.001 for both), basal insulin as U/day and U/kg (p = 0.001 for both), HbA1c (p < 0.001), mean (p = 0.035) and standard deviation of daily BG (p = 0.017), mean pre-meal BG (p = 0.016), number of hypoglycaemic episodes (p = 0.001), VAI (p = 0.012) and FRS (p = 0.019) and a significant increase in HDL-C (p < 0.001), compared to baseline. At 12 months of treatment a significant decrease in BMI (p = 0.017), WC (p = 0.003), SBP (p = 0.001), DBP (p = 0.005), basal insulin as U/day (p = 0.018) and U/kg (p = 0.045), HbA1c (p = 0.040) and FRS (p = 0.010) was observed in group B compared to group A. Conclusions: Our preliminary data suggest that 12 months' treatment with degludec is associated with an improvement of glycaemic control, cardiometabolic and cardiovascular risk, compared to glargine, in patients with T1D and APS.