Impact of Age on the Effectiveness and Safety of Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL: Results from the REALI European Pooled Data Analysis

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of iGlarLixi (Insulin Glargine 100 U/mL Plus Lixisenatide) in Type 2 Diabetes According to the Timing of Daily Administration: Data from the REALI Pooled Analysis

INTRODUCTION

iGlarLixi (insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide) has demonstrated glycaemic efficacy and safety in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Per the European Medicines Agency's product label, iGlarLixi should be injected once a day within 1 h prior to a meal, preferably the same meal every day when the most convenient meal has been chosen. It is however unknown whether iGlarLixi administration timing affects glycaemic control and safety, as clinical trial evidence is mainly based on pre-breakfast iGlarLixi administration. Therefore, we assessed the effectiveness and safety of iGlarLixi in clinical practice, according to its administration timing.

METHODS

Data were pooled from two prospective observational studies including 1303 European participants with T2DM inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs with or without basal insulin who initiated iGlarLixi therapy for 24 weeks. Participants were classified into four subgroups based on daily timing of iGlarLixi injection: pre-breakfast (N = 436), pre-lunch (N = 262), pre-dinner (N = 399), and those who switched iGlarLixi injection time during the study (N = 206).

RESULTS

No meaningful differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the study groups. Least-squares mean reductions in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 24 were substantial in all groups, with the numerically largest decrease observed in the pre-breakfast group (1.57%) compared with the pre-lunch (1.27%), pre-dinner (1.42%), or changed injection time (1.33%) groups. Pre-breakfast iGlarLixi injection also resulted in a numerically greater proportion of participants achieving HbA1c < 7.0% at week 24 (33.7% versus 19.0% for pre-lunch, 25.6% pre-dinner, and 23.2% changed injection time). iGlarLixi was well tolerated across all groups, with low rates of gastrointestinal disorders and hypoglycaemia. Mean body weight decreased similarly in all groups (by 1.3-2.3 kg).

CONCLUSION

iGlarLixi was effective and safe regardless of its daily administration time. However, pre-breakfast iGlarLixi injection resulted in a more effective glycaemic control.

Glycaemic Control in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Switching from Basal Insulin to Insulin Glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300): Results from the REALI Pooled Database

INTRODUCTION

Using pooled data from the REALI European database, we evaluated the impact of previous basal insulin (BI) type on real-life effectiveness and safety of switching to insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) in people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Patient-level data were pooled from 11 prospective, open-label, 24-week studies. Participants were classified according to the type of prior BI. Of the 4463 participants, 1282 (28.7%) were pre-treated with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin and 2899 (65.0%) with BI analogues (BIAs), and 282 (6.3%) had undetermined prior BI.

RESULTS

There were no meaningful differences in baseline characteristics between subgroups, except for a higher prevalence of diabetic neuropathy in the NPH subgroup (21.6% versus 7.8% with BIAs). Mean ± standard deviation haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) decreased from 8.73 ± 1.15% and 8.35 ± 0.95% at baseline to 7.71 ± 1.09% and 7.82 ± 1.06% at week 24 in the NPH and BIA subgroups, respectively. Least squares (LS) mean change in HbA1c was - 0.85% (95% confidence interval - 0.94 to - 0.77) in NPH subgroup and - 0.70% (- 0.77 to - 0.64) in BIA subgroup, with a LS mean absolute difference between subgroups of 0.16 (0.06-0.26; p = 0.002). Gla-300 mean daily dose was slightly increased at week 24 by 0.07 U/kg/day (approximately 6 U/day) in both subgroups. Incidences of symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were low, without body weight change.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of previous BI therapy (NPH insulin or BIAs), switching to Gla-300 improved glycaemic control without weight gain and with low symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia incidences. However, a slightly greater glucose-lowering effectiveness was observed in people pre-treated with NPH insulin.

Use of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Gla-300 in Special Populations: A Narrative Mini-Review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hypoglycemia and insulin-related adverse events are crucial barriers to effective diabetes management, particularly in the elderly, people with renal impairment, people with diabetes fasting during Ramadan, or people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). There is a scarcity of clinical and real-world evidence assessing the effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in these special populations. To understand the entirety of evidence, this mini-review elaborates on the use of Gla-300 in diabetes management among special populations.

METHODS

Clinical and real-world evidence related to the use of Gla-300 among special populations with diabetes were retrieved using PUBMED and Google Scholar.

RESULTS

Gla-300 has shown improved glycemic control with stable insulin action and low risk of hypoglycemia in diverse groups with diabetes. It also appears to have an acceptable safety profile during Ramadan fasting. However, adequate monitoring and adjustment of insulin dose on an individual basis should be considered.

CONCLUSION

Gla-300 is a second-generation basal insulin with proven benefits of reduced risk of hypoglycemia and improved glycemic control in special populations of people with diabetes.

Switching from Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) Insulin to Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL in Older and Younger Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Older age and longer disease duration are key risk factors for hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who receive insulin. Previous studies have shown that insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) improves glycemic control and reduces the risk of hypoglycemia, but whether this effect is observed in older patients switching from neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin is unclear.

METHODS

In this multicenter, observational study involving patients with T2D aged ≥ 18 years with glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) ≥ 8%, we compared the safety and effectiveness of switching from NPH insulin to Gla-300 in subgroups of patients differing by age (< 65 vs. ≥ 65 years) and duration of diabetes (≤ 13 vs. > 13 years).

RESULTS

A total of 469 participants were included in the study. From baseline to 6 months after switching to Gla-300, mean HbA_1c decreased from 9.23% to 8.13% (p < 0.001) among patients aged ≤ 65 years (224 patients), and from 9.15% to 8.20% (p < 0.001) among those aged > 65 years (245 patients). The proportion of patients with ≥ 1 episodes of hypoglycemia decreased from 19.1% to 13.6% (p = 0.11) among those aged ≤ 65 years, and from 26.9% to 13.0% (p < 0.001) among those aged > 65 years; the reduction was significantly greater in those aged > 65 years (p = 0.001). The reduction in HbA_1c was greater in those with a disease duration ≤ 13 years (p = 0.007), but the reduction in hypoglycemia was greater in those with a disease duration > 13 years (p < 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

The switch from NPH insulin to Gla-300 improved glycemic control in older patients with T2D and in those with a longer disease duration. Older patients with T2D and those with a longer disease duration benefited even more from the switch to Gla-300 than younger patients and those with a shorter disease duration, with significantly greater reductions in the risk of hypoglycemia.