Glycemic Control Following GLP-1 RA or Basal Insulin Initiation in Real-World Practice: A Retrospective, Observational, Longitudinal Cohort Study

Temporal trends in the starting of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes in Italy: data from the AMD Annals initiative

AIMS

Opportunities and needs for starting insulin therapy in Type 2 diabetes (T2D) have changed overtime. We evaluated clinical characteristics of T2D subjects undergoing the first insulin prescription during a 15-year-observation period in the large cohort of the AMD Annals Initiative in Italy.

METHODS

Data on clinical and laboratory variables, complications and concomitant therapies and the effects on glucose control after 12 months were evaluated in T2D patients starting basal insulin as add-on to oral/non-insulin injectable agents, and in those starting fast-acting in add-on to basal insulin therapy in three 5-year periods (2005-2019).

RESULTS

We evaluated data from 171.688 T2D subjects who intensified therapy with basal insulin and 137.225 T2D patients who started fast-acting insulin. Overall, intensification with insulin occurred progressively earlier over time in subjects with shorter disease duration. Moreover, the percentage of subjects with HbA1c levels > 8% at the time of basal insulin initiation progressively decreased. The same trend was observed for fast-acting formulations. Clinical characteristics of subjects starting insulin did not change in the three study-periods, although all major risk factors improved overtime. After 12 months from the starting of basal or fast-acting insulin therapy, mean HbA1c levels decreased in all the three investigated time-periods, although mean HbA1c levels remained above the recommended target.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large cohort of T2D subjects, a progressively earlier start of insulin treatment was observed during a long observation period, suggesting a more proactive prescriptive approach. However, after 12 months from insulin prescription, in many patients, HbA1c levels were still out-of-target.

A Scalable Application of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Insulin Titration Program to Transform Type 2 Diabetes Management

Background: Despite new pharmacotherapy, most patients with long-term type 2 diabetes are still hyperglycemic. This could have been solved by insulin with its unlimited potential efficacy, but its dynamic physiology demands frequent titrations which are overdemanding. This report provides a real-life account for a scalable transformation of diabetes care in a community-based endocrinology center by harnessing artificial intelligence-based autonomous insulin titration. Methods: The center embedded the d-Nav® technology and its dedicated clinical support. Reported outcomes include treatment efficacy/safety in the first 600 patients and use of cardiorenal-risk reduction pharmacotherapy. Findings: Patients used d-Nav for 8.2 ± 3.0 months with 82% retention. Age was 67.1 ± 11.5 years and duration of diabetes was 19.8 ± 11.0 years. During the last 3 years before d-Nav, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) had been overall higher than 8% and at the beginning of the program it was as high as 8.6% ± 2.1% with 29.3% of the patients with HbA1c >9%. With d-Nav, HbA1c decreased to 7.3% ± 1.2% with 5.7% of patients with HbA1c >9%. During the first 3 months, d-Nav reduced total daily dose of insulin in one of every five patients due to relatively low glucose levels to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia. Glucagon like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or dual GLP-1 and Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonists were prescribed in about a half of the patients and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor in a third. The frequency of hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) was 0.4 ± 0.6/month and severe hypoglycemia 1.7/100-patient-years. Interpretation: The use of d-Nav allowed for improvement in overall diabetes management with appropriate use of both insulin and noninsulin pharmacologic agents in a scalable way.

Open questions on basal insulin therapy in T2D: a Delphi consensus

AIMS

The revolution in the therapeutic approach to type 2 diabetes (T2D) requires a rethinking of the positioning of basal insulin (BI) therapy. Given the considerable number of open questions, a group of experts was convened with the aim of providing, through a Delphi consensus method, practical guidance for doctors.

METHODS

A group of 6 experts developed a series of 29 statements on: the role of metabolic control in light of the most recent guidelines; BI intensification strategies: (1) add-on versus switch; (2) inertia in starting and titrating; (3) free versus fixed ratio combination; basal-bolus intensification and de-intensification strategies; second generation analogues of BI (2BI). A panel of 31 diabetologists, by accessing a dedicated website, assigned each statement a relevance score on a 9-point scale. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was adopted to assess the existence of disagreement among participants.

RESULTS

Panelists showed agreement for all 29 statements, of which 26 were considered relevant, one was considered not relevant and two were of uncertain relevance. Panelists agreed that the availability of new classes of drugs often allows the postponement of BI and the simplification of therapy. It remains essential to promptly initiate and titrate BI when required. BI should always, unless contraindicated, be started in addition to, and not as a replacement, for ongoing treatments with cardiorenal benefits. 2BIs should be preferred for their pharmacological profile, greater ease of self-titration and flexibility of administration.

CONCLUSION

In a continuously evolving scenario, BI therapy still represents an important option in the management of T2D patients.

Treatment intensification following glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatment in type 2 diabetes: The RESTORE-G real-world study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To assess intensification approaches with basal insulin (BI) following glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) treatment in type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Real-world data were collected in electronic medical records by 32 Italian diabetes clinics between 2011 and 2021. Primary endpoint was the proportion of insulin-naïve T2D patients treated with GLP-1 RA who initiated (add-on or switch) BI. Secondary endpoints were: treatment approaches, mean time to BI start, effectiveness and safety. Among 7,962 eligible patients, BI was prescribed to 3,164 (39.7%; 95%CI 38.7; 40.8): 67.6% switched to BI (22.1% also starting 1-3 injections of short-acting insulin), 22.7% added BI while maintaining GLP-1 RA, and 9.7% switched to a fixed-ratio combination of GLP-1 RA and BI (FRC). Median time since the first GLP-1 RA to BI/FRC prescription was 27.4 (IQ range 11.8-53.5) months. In this study 60.3% of patients did not start BI/FRC, among whom 15.2% intensified GLP-1 RA therapy with other oral agents. Effectiveness and safety were documented in all intensification approaches with BI/FRC, but HbA1c level at intensification time of ≥9.0% and suboptimal BI titration suggested clinical inertia. Use of second generation BI and add-on to GLP-1 RA schemes increased over time and effectiveness improved.

CONCLUSION

Clinical inertia should be overcome using innovative insulin options. Timely combination therapy of BI and GLP-1 RA is a valuable choice.

The Wedding Bells Sound Really Good! iGlarLixi Fixed-Ratio Combination in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Narrative Review

iGlarLixi is a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. iGlarLixi has proven clinical benefits in terms of glycemia, weight control, and safety, defined by the risk of hypoglycemia. It simultaneously targets many pathophysiologic abnormalities which are at the root of type 2 diabetes and thus presents a complementary mode of action. Finally, it may also address diabetes treatment burden, and, by decreasing the complexity of treatment, it may improve patient adherence and persistence and fight against clinical inertia. This article reviews the results of major randomized controlled trials in people with type 2 diabetes that compared iGlarLixi to other therapeutic regimens, representing different intensification strategies, such as basal supported oral therapy, oral antidiabetic drugs, and a combination of the latter with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists. Moreover, as a supplement to randomized trials, data from real-world evidence have also been included.

Predictors of insulin pump initiation among people with type 2 diabetes from a US claims database using machine learning

OBJECTIVE

Insulin pump use is increasing among people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), albeit at a slower rate compared to people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Factors associated with insulin pump initiation among people with T2D in the real-world are understudied.

METHODS

This retrospective, nested case-control study aimed to identify predictors of insulin pump initiation among people with T2D in the United States (US). Adults with T2D who were new to bolus insulin use were identified from the IBM MarketScan Commercial database (2015-2020). Candidate variables of pump initiation were entered into conditional logistic regression (CLR) and penalized CLR models.

RESULTS

Of the 32,104 eligible adults with T2D, 726 insulin pump initiators were identified and matched to 2,904 non-pump initiators using incidence density sampling. Consistent predictors of insulin pump initiation across the base case, sensitivity, and post hoc analyses included continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use, visiting an endocrinologist, acute metabolic complications, higher count of HbA1c tests, lower age, and fewer diabetes-related medication classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of these predictors could represent a clinical indication for treatment intensification, greater patient engagement in diabetes management, or proactive management by healthcare providers. Improved understanding of predictors for pump initiation may lead to more targeted efforts to improve access and acceptance of insulin pumps among persons with T2D.

Expert Opinion on Diabetes Management Challenges and Role of Basal Insulin/GLP-1 RA Fixed-Ratio Combination in People with Type 2 Diabetes from Indonesia

Indonesia is struggling with a rapidly growing burden of diabetes due to rapid socioeconomic transition. People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) need appropriate treatment strategies to maintain glycemic control. New modalities with simplicity, such as fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), further referred to as FRC, have proven to be an effective and practical therapeutic approach that may address this issue. In January 2021, a scientific expert meeting was held with the participation of endocrinologists from Indonesia to provide expert opinions regarding the optimal practical use of the FRC basal insulin/GLP1-RA. Topics discussed in the meeting included the challenges in diabetes management, clinical inertia with insulin therapy, local and international guideline positioning, initiation, titration, and switching of basal insulin and GLP-1 RA, including FRC, and the management of T2DM.

Effect of once-weekly semaglutide versus thrice-daily insulin aspart, both as add-on to metformin and optimized insulin glargine treatment in participants with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 11): A randomized, open-label, multinational, phase 3b trial

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly (OW) semaglutide versus thrice-daily (TID) insulin aspart (IAsp) in participants with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with insulin glargine (IGlar) and metformin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SUSTAIN 11 (NCT03689374) was a randomized (1:1), parallel, open-label, multinational, phase 3b trial. After a 12-week run-in to optimize once-daily IGlar U100, 1748 adults with T2D (HbA1c >7.5% to ≤10.0%) were randomized to OW semaglutide or TID IAsp as add-on to optimized IGlar and metformin for 52 weeks. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from randomization to week 52. Confirmatory secondary endpoints included the occurrence of severe hypoglycaemic episodes and change in body weight (BW). Safety was assessed.

RESULTS

HbA1c (randomization: 8.6% [70.0 mmol/mol]) decreased by 1.5% points (16.6 mmol/mol) and 1.2% points (13.4 mmol/mol) with semaglutide (n = 874) and IAsp (n = 874), respectively (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0.29% points [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.38; -0.20]; P < .0001 for non-inferiority). Few severe hypoglycaemic episodes were recorded in either group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. Change in BW from randomization (87.9 kg) to week 52 was in favour of semaglutide (-4.1 kg) versus IAsp (+2.8 kg) (ETD -6.99 kg [95% CI -7.41; -6.57]). A higher proportion of participants experienced adverse events with semaglutide (58.5%) versus IAsp (52.1%); most were mild to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this basal insulin-treated population, OW semaglutide improved glycaemic control to a greater extent than TID IAsp and provided numerically greater weight loss.

Treatment persistence and adherence in people with type 2 diabetes switching to iGlarLixi vs free-dose combinations of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist

BACKGROUND: Fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin (BI) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have greater simplicity of administration with expected improved adherence/persistence with therapy, but real-world data are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare medication persistence, adherence, and health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs for insulin glargine 100 U/mL and the GLP-1 RA lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) with newly initiated free-dose combinations of BI and GLP-1 RAs initiated simultaneously or sequentially. METHODS: This analysis used the US Optum Clinformatics (January 2017 to November 2019) database and included data from adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with type 2 diabetes and a glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1c) of 8% or more. Participants received iGlarLixi or free-dose combinations of BI and GLP-1 RAs prescribed simultaneously or subsequently. Participants were followed for 12 months. Cohorts were propensity score matched on baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was persistence (days on treatment without discontinuation). Secondary outcomes were adherence (proportion of days covered), change in A1c, and all-cause and diabetes-related health care resource utilization and costs. Subgroup analyses were performed for individuals with A1c levels of 9% or more. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, there were 1,357 patients in each group; groups were well balanced. In the free-dose combination group, 65.6% started on BI, then added GLP-1 RAs; 28.5% started on GLP-1 RAs, then added BI; and 5.9% started on GLP-1 RAs and BI on the same day. In the subgroup with a baseline of A1c levels of 9% or more, 952 (iGlarLixi) and 932 (free-dose combination) participants were included. A significantly higher proportion of participants in the overall population who received iGlarLixi vs free-dose combinations were persistent (44.8% vs 36.3% [hazard ratio = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.11-1.35, P < 0.001]; the median [Q1, Q3] number of persistent days was 150 [63, 360] vs 120 [60, 310]) and adherent to therapy (41.3% vs 18.7%, [odds ratio = 3.06, 95% CI = 2.57-3.65; P < 0.001]). Results for persistence in the subpopulation of participants with HbA1c levels of 9% or more were similar. Reductions in A1c from baseline were similar between iGlarLixi and the free-dose combination group (overall population: -1.2% vs -1.3%; P = 0.1913), but the number of participants in the database with follow-up A1c data was low. All-cause and diabetes-related pharmacy visits and total medication and diabetes medication pharmacy claims costs were significantly lower (all P < 0.001) for those receiving iGlarLixi vs free-dose combinations in both populations. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with type 2 diabetes, iGlarLixi was associated with longer persistence by approximately 30 days, improved adherence, and reductions in outpatient and pharmacy visits and in pharmacy costs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi US. Medical writing support was provided by Barrie Anthony, PhD, CMPP, of Evidence Scientific Solutions and funded by Sanofi US. Dr Edelman has been on an advisory board and speakers' bureau for AstraZeneca, MannKind, and Xeris and on an advisory board for BrightSight and is a board member for Senseonics and Team-Type1. Mr Cassarino is on the speakers' bureau for Sanofi. Dr Kayne has been a consultant and speakers' bureau member for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dexcom, Eli Lilly & Company, Janssen, MannKind, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr Dex and Mr Li are employees of Sanofi. Dr Pasquel has received unrestricted research support from Dexcom, Insulet, and Merck and has been a consultant for Medscape, AI Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Dexcom.

Real-world outcomes of addition of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) therapy in people with type 2 diabetes: The DELIVER-G study

AIMS

To provide real-world data on the addition of basal insulin (BI) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (PWD2) suboptimally controlled with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) therapy. However, real-world data on the addition of BI to GLP-1RA therapy are limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a US electronic medical record data source (IBM® Explorys®) that includes approximately 4 million PWD2 to assess the real-world impact of adding the second-generation BI analogue insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) to GLP-1RA therapy. Insulin-naïve PWD2 receiving GLP-1RAs who also received Gla-300 between March 1, 2015 and September 30, 2019 were identified; participants were required to have data for ≥12 months before, and ≥6 months after, addition of Gla-300.

RESULTS

The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of participants (N = 271) was 57.9 (10.8) years. Baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was 9.16% and was significantly reduced (-0.97 [SD 1.60]%; P < 0.0001) after addition of Gla-300; a significant increase in the proportion of PWD2 achieving HbA1c control was observed after addition of Gla-300 (HbA1c <7.0%: 4.80% vs. 22.14%, P < 0.0001; HbA1c <8.0%: 19.56% vs. 51.29%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of overall (8.49% vs. 9.59%; P = 0.513) and inpatient/emergency department (ED)-associated hypoglycaemia (0.37% vs. 0.74%; P = 1.000), as well as overall (0.33 vs. 0.46 per person per year [PPPY]; P = 0.170) and inpatient/ED-associated hypoglycaemia events (0.01 vs. 0.04 PPPY; P = 0.466) were similar before and after addition of Gla-300.

CONCLUSIONS

In US real-world clinical practice, adding Gla-300 to GLP-1RA significantly improved glycaemic control without significantly increasing hypoglycaemia in PWD2. Further research into the effect of adding Gla-300 to GLP-1RA therapy is warranted.

Cost-Effectiveness of iGlarLixi in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Suboptimally Controlled on Basal Insulin Plus Metformin in the UK

INTRODUCTION

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing a fixed-ratio combination (FRC) of insulin glargine 100 units/mL plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) versus the FRC of insulin degludec plus liraglutide (iDegLira) and the free-combination comparators insulin glargine plus dulaglutide (iGlar plus Dula) and basal insulin plus liraglutide (BI plus Lira).

METHODS

The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes for a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from the UK healthcare perspective. Initial clinical data for iGlarLixi were based on the randomized, controlled LixiLan-L trial and the relative treatment effects for comparators were based on an indirect treatment comparison using data from the AWARD-9 (iGlar plus Dula), LIRA ADD2 BASAL (BI plus Lira), and DUAL V (iDegLira) trials. Costs were derived from publicly available sources. Lifetime costs (in British Pound Sterling [£]) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted; net monetary benefit (NMB) for iGlarLixi versus comparators was derived using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000. Extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Estimated costs were lowest with iGlarLixi (£31,295) compared with iGlar plus Dula (£38,790), iDegLira (£40,179), and BI plus Lira (£42,467). Total QALYs gained were identical with iGlarLixi and iDegLira (8.438), and comparable with iGlar plus Dula (8.439) and BI plus Lira (8.466). NMB for iGlarLixi was positive versus all comparators (£10,603.86 vs. BI plus Lira; £7,466.24 vs. iGlar plus Dula; £8.874.11 vs. iDegLira).

CONCLUSION

In patients with T2DM with suboptimal glycemic control on basal insulin, iGlarLixi provides very similar outcomes and substantial cost savings, compared with other fixed and free combinations of insulins plus glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

Cost-Effectiveness of iGlarLixi Versus iDegLira in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled by GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Oral Antihyperglycemic Therapy

INTRODUCTION

The fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and basal insulin, insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi), and insulin degludec plus liraglutide (iDegLira), have demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on GLP-1 RAs. However, a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis between these FRCs from a UK Health Service perspective has not been conducted.

METHODS

The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes in patients with T2DM receiving iGlarLixi (based on the LixiLan-G trial) versus iDegLira (based on relative treatment effects from an indirect treatment comparison using data from DUAL III). Utilities, medical costs, and costs of diabetes-related complications were derived from literature. Model outputs included costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated with a local willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY. Extensive scenario, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

iGlarLixi was less costly (iGlarLixi, £30,011; iDegLira, £40,742), owing to lower acquisition costs, and similar in terms of QALYs gained (iGlarLixi, 8.437; iDegLira, 8.422). Extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses supported the base case findings.

CONCLUSION

In patients with T2DM and inadequate glycemic control despite GLP-1 RAs, use of iGlarLixi was associated with substantial cost savings and comparable utility outcomes. iGlarLixi can be considered as cost-effective versus iDegLira from the UK Health Service perspective.

Importance of diabetes management during the COVID-19 pandemic

Uncontrolled diabetes and/or hyperglycemia is associated with severe COVID-19 disease and increased mortality. It is now known that poor glucose control before hospital admission can be associated with a high risk of in-hospital death. By achieving and maintaining glycemic control, primary care physicians (PCPs) play a critical role in limiting this potentially devastating outcome. Further, despite the hope that mass vaccination will help control the pandemic, genetic variants of the virus are causing surges in some countries. As such, PCPs will treat an increasing number of patients with diabetes who have symptoms of post-COVID-19 infection, or even have new-onset type 2 diabetes as a result of COVID-19 infection. However, much of the literature published focuses on the effects of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, with few publications providing information and advice to those caring for people with diabetes in the primary care setting. This manuscript reviews the current knowledge of the risk and outcomes of individuals with diabetes who are infected with COVID-19 and provides information for PCPs on the importance of glucose control, appropriate treatment, and use of telemedicine and online prescription delivery systems to limit the potentially devastating effects of COVID-19 in people with hyperglycemia.

Translating iGlarLixi Evidence for the Management of Frequent Clinical Scenarios in Type 2 Diabetes

Treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) requires progressive therapy intensification to reach and maintain individualized glycemic targets. iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (iGlar) and lixisenatide (Lixi), has been shown to provide robust HbA1c reductions allowing more people to reach HbA1c targets compared with separate administration of iGlar or Lixi. The purpose of this review is to help clinicians understand treatment intensification using iGlarLixi by presenting typical clinical scenarios supported by research evidence. These cases will focus on individuals with T2D inadequately controlled by oral antihyperglycemic drugs, basal insulin, or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), and take into consideration T2D duration, body mass index, incidence of adverse events, and regimen simplicity. Clinical evidence on the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of iGlarLixi from randomized controlled trials and real-world studies will be discussed in the context of these cases.