Similar glycaemic control with less nocturnal hypoglycaemia in a 38-week trial comparing the IDegAsp co-formulation with insulin glargine U100 and insulin aspart in basal insulin-treated subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Clinical perspectives on the frequency of hypoglycemia in treat-to-target randomized controlled trials comparing basal insulin analogs in type 2 diabetes: a narrative review

The objective of this review was to comprehensively present and summarize trends in reported rates of hypoglycemia with one or two times per day basal insulin analogs in individuals with type 2 diabetes to help address and contextualize the emerging theoretical concern of increased hypoglycemic risk with once-weekly basal insulins.Hypoglycemia data were extracted from treat-to-target randomized clinical trials conducted during 2000-2022. Published articles were identified on PubMed or within the US Food and Drug Administration submission documents. Overall, 57 articles were identified: 44 assessed hypoglycemic outcomes in participants receiving basal-only therapy (33 in insulin-naive participants; 11 in insulin-experienced participants), 4 in a mixed population (insulin-naive and insulin-experienced participants) and 9 in participants receiving basal-bolus therapy. For the analysis, emphasis was placed on level 2 (blood glucose <3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL)) and level 3 (or severe) hypoglycemia.Overall, event rates for level 2 or level 3 hypoglycemia across most studies ranged from 0.06 to 7.10 events/person-year of exposure (PYE) for participants receiving a basal-only insulin regimen; the rate for basal-bolus regimens ranged from 2.4 to 13.6 events/PYE. Rates were generally lower with second-generation basal insulins (insulin degludec or insulin glargine U300) than with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin or first-generation basal insulins (insulin detemir or insulin glargine U100). Subgroup categorization by sulfonylurea usage, end-of-treatment insulin dose or glycated hemoglobin reduction did not show consistent trends on overall hypoglycemia rates. Hypoglycemia rates reported so far for once-weekly basal insulins are consistent with or lower than those reported for daily-administered basal insulin analogs.

Guideline for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus in the Elderly in China (2024 Edition)

With the deepening of aging in China, the prevalence of diabetes in older people has increased noticeably, and standardized diabetes management is critical for improving clinical outcomes of diabetes in older people. In 2021, the National Center of Gerontology, Chinese Society of Geriatrics, and Diabetes Professional Committee of Chinese Aging Well Association organized experts to write the first guideline for diabetes diagnosis and treatment in older people in China, the Guideline for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus in the Elderly in China (2021 Edition). The guideline emphasizes that older patients with diabetes are a highly heterogeneous group requiring comprehensive assessment and stratified and individualized management strategies. The guideline proposes simple treatments and de-intensified treatment strategies for older patients with diabetes. This edition of the guideline provides clinicians with practical and operable clinical guidance, thus greatly contributing to the comprehensive and full-cycle standardized management of older patients with diabetes in China and promoting the extensive development of clinical and basic research on diabetes in older people and related fields. In the past 3 years, evidence-based medicine for older patients with diabetes and related fields has further advanced, and new treatment concepts, drugs, and technologies have been developed. The guideline editorial committee promptly updated the first edition of the guideline and compiled the Guideline for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus in the Elderly in China (2024 Edition). More precise management paths for older patients with diabetes are proposed, for achieving continued standardization of the management of older Chinese patients with diabetes and improving their clinical outcomes.

Swiss recommendations of the Society for Endocrinology and Diabetes (SGED/SSED) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (2023)

As a first step, the authors emphasise lifestyle changes (increased physical activity, stopping smoking), blood pressure control, and lowering cholesterol). The initial medical treatment should always be a combination treatment with metformin and a sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like 1 peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist. Metformin is given first and up-titrated, followed by SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists. In persons with type 2 diabetes, if the initial double combination is not sufficient, a triple combination (SGLT-2 inhibitor, GLP-1 receptor agonist, and metformin) is recommended. This triple combination has not been officially tested in cardiovascular outcome trials, but there is more and more real-world experience in Europe and in the USA that proves that the triple combination with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitor, and GLP-1 receptor agonist is the best treatment to reduce 3-point MACE, total mortality, and heart failure as compared to other combinations. The treatment with sulfonylurea is no longer recommended because of its side effects and higher mortality compared to the modern treatment with SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. If the triple combination is not sufficient to reduce the HbA1c to the desired target, insulin treatment is necessary. A quarter of all patients with type 2 diabetes (sometimes misdiagnosed) require insulin treatment. If insulin deficiency is the predominant factor at the outset of type 2 diabetes, the order of medications has to be reversed: insulin first and then cardio-renal protective medications (SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists).

Scientific advisory on nocturnal hypoglycemia in insulin-treated patients with diabetes: Recommendations from Indian experts

INTRODUCTION

Insulin is one of the commonly prescribed glucose lowering agents in diabetes. Hypoglycemia is the most common complication, and severe hypoglycemia is the most serious complication of insulin therapy. Almost half of all severe hypoglycemia episodes (HEs) occur at night. However, patients are often unaware of their nocturnal hypoglycaemia (NH) risk. Additionally, both healthcare professionals and patients find it difficult to manage NH. The purpose of this expert group meeting is to improve NH awareness and provide guidance for the physicians to recognize and manage NH.

METHOD

The panel of experts in an e-board deliberated extensively upon the available literature and guidelines on hypoglycemia and NH discussed the consensus on definition, detection, reporting, monitoring, treatment, and optimization of therapy in NH.

RESULT

& Conclusion: Though there are many guidelines on the management of HEs in patients with diabetes, very few touch the topic of NH. This scientific advisory on management of NH in insulin treated patients with diabetes is formulated to address this gap in understanding regarding management of NH. The experts provide recommendations for the nocturnal window, defining NH based on blood glucose values, recognition, prevention and management of NH.

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

Recent studies have found compared with insulin glargine (IGlar), insulin degludec/aspart (IDeg/Asp) may provide adequate glycemic control and prevent hypoglycemia events in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Consequently, we performed a meta-analysis to appraise and compare the efficiency and safety of IDeg/Asp and IGlar in the treatment of T2DM. We sought the databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library to confirm related articles which inspected the effect of IDeg/Asp versus IGlar for the treatment of T2DM until May 2021. Finally, six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 1,346 patients were included. The results showed that IDeg/Asp significantly decreased the mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level but was prone to serious adverse events, and IGlar increased the nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia events. Besides, there were no significant changes in other indicators, including mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level, nine-point self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG) level, and adverse events. What's more, we found that there was no significant difference in the occurrence of hypoglycemia overall, but our subgroup analysis of confirmed hypoglycemia revealed the population in this subgroup (duration of diabetes ≤11 years) might has its particularity effecting the hypoglycemia outcome. Concerning efficiency, IDeg/Asp may have advantages in controlling the mean HbA1c level. Regarding safety, IGlar might increase the risk of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia. Further evidence is needed to compare better the efficiency and safety of IDeg/Asp versus IGlar therapy.

Twenty Years of Insulin Gla-100: A Systematic Evaluation of Its Efficacy and Safety in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to present the current evidence base with respect to the initiation and intensification of insulin therapy with glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) compared to other insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled clinical trials databases was performed to identify studies published up to September 30, 2020 that compared the effects of Gla-100 to that of other insulin regimens in people with T2DM. Relevant information pertaining to the predefined outcomes of interest was extracted. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change and response rates along with overall hypoglycemia incidence were the primary efficacy and safety outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine studies (63 interventional and 16 non-interventional) in which Gla-100 was either initiated in previously insulin-naïve patients (n = 57) or used in an intensified regimen (n = 22) were identified and evaluated. In insulin-naïve patients, most studies demonstrated that Gla-100 was significantly better compared with premixed insulins and similar compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations, and other first-generation basal insulins in terms of the primary efficacy parameters. Overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with NPH, premixed, coformulation, and other first-generation basal insulins and significantly higher compared with second-generation basal insulins. In studies with intensified regimens, efficacy outcomes with Gla-100 were significantly better compared with insulin detemir (IDet); similar compared with NPH, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations; and with premixed insulins. In these studies, overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with IDet and comparable to NPH, premixed insulins, co-formulations, and second-generation basal insulins. In addition, most intensification studies also revealed a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia with Gla-100-based regimens versus NPH and premixed insulins and a significantly greater risk compared to second-generation basal insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence presented in this review suggests that Gla-100 is an effective option for both insulin initiation and intensification strategies used in the management of T2DM.

Clinical course of different long-acting insulin therapies-glargine U100, U300, degludec, and insulin degludec/insulin aspart-among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicenter retrospective observational study (JDDM65 study)

This study aimed to retrospectively compare the clinical efficacy of different types of long-acting insulin therapies-glargine U100, glargine U300, degludec, and insulin degludec/insulin aspart-among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes after insulin use was initiated in an outpatient setting. The study consisted of 822 insulin-naïve patients in Japan who started using long-acting insulin for treatment of type 2 diabetes and continued for over 12 months. In addition, the impact of insulin type on insulin withdrawal was investigated by dividing the participants into two groups: those who achieved insulin withdrawal and those who did not, during the 12-month observation period based on a Cox proportional hazards model. As a result, HbA1c was decreased, and BMI was increased in all participants regardless of the insulin type used. A total of 185 participants succeeded in insulin withdrawal. After adjustment was made for several confounders, the positive determinant factors for withdrawal were short duration of diabetes and the choice of IDegAsp when compared with Gla100; the negative determinant factor was use of insulin secretagogues at the start of the study. In conclusion, all long-acting insulins were a powerful tool for treatment of type 2 diabetes, and patients with short duration of diabetes and/or no usage of insulin secretagogues resulted in favorable outcomes in terms of insulin withdrawal within a year in an outpatient setting. In addition, insulin degludec/insulin aspart was found to possibly be a better choice for treatment when it was compared with glargine U100 among the four types of insulin.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart (IDegAsp) in Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a prevalent metabolic disease requiring tight glycemic control of basal and postprandial glucose levels. Treatment intensification using separate basal and bolus injections increased the number of injections and reduced cost-effectivity, leading to decreased compliance and failure of glycemic control. Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart (IDegAsp), a novel premix of basal and bolus insulin, is one of the potential treatments for reducing the number of injections. However, its efficacy and safety have not been reviewed clearly. Therefore, this systematic review aims to compare the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp with standard basal and basal plus bolus insulin regimens.

A systematic review of four databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Proquest) was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Search results were screened by eligibility criteria and critically appraised by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) tool and the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool. Meta-Analysis was done using Review Manager to obtain cumulative outcomes from hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) changes, hypoglycemia incidents, and weight gain from all studies.

Out of 132 search results, 10 studies were reviewed. IDegAsp once-daily administration was proven beneficial in reducing HbA1c levels and nocturnal hypoglycemia incidences, while IDegAsp twice-daily administration was proven beneficial in lowering hypoglycemia incidence and nocturnal hypoglycemia incidence. IDegAsp yielded better glycemic index results and lowered hypoglycemic incidents in the meta-analysis.

Thus, it is concluded that IDegAsp once daily with stepwise titration on the largest meal of the day achieved most benefits with minimal risks.

Efficacy of IDegLira Versus IDegAsp Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Study by isCGM

Introduction

We aimed to compare the efficacy of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) and insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) in controlling glucose fluctuation and suppressing postprandial glucose levels using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring.

Methods

Twenty-four patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomly allocated to receive either IDegLira or IDegAsp followed by IDegAsp or IDegLira, respectively. A crossover study was conducted with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring. We compared the postprandial blood glucose level, time in range, and time below range from a 3-day intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring period for each treatment group.

Results

The time in range was significantly higher in IDegLira than in IDegAsp. Postprandial glucose levels 90 and 120 min after breakfast and 60, 90, and 120 min after lunch were significantly lower for IDegLira than for IDegAsp. However, postprandial glucose levels 90 and 120 min after supper were significantly lower for IDegAsp than for IDegLira. There was no significant difference in the time below range between IDegLira and IDegAsp.

Conclusion

IDegLira was more effective in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus than IDegAsp, as indicated by a higher time in range and lower postprandial glucose level at breakfast and lunch. This study was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN 000039221).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02138-w.

Postprandial Glucose Excursions in Asian Versus Non-Asian Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Analysis of Baseline Data from Phase 3 Randomised Controlled Trials of IDegAsp

INTRODUCTION

Increased postprandial glucose (PPG) is associated with high glycated haemoglobin levels and is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. The aim of this study was to compare PPG increments in Asian versus non-Asian adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), who were insulin-naïve or insulin-experienced, from the phase 3 insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) clinical trials.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of data from 13 phase 3, randomised, parallel-group, open-label IDegAsp trials in patients with T2D. The pooled baseline clinical data were analysed for insulin-naïve and insulin-experienced groups; and each group was split into subgroups of Asian and non-Asian patients, respectively, and analysed accordingly. Baseline self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) values at breakfast, lunch and the evening meal (before and 90 min after each meal) were used to assess PPG increments. The estimated differences in baseline SMBG increment between the Asian and non-Asian subgroups were analysed.

RESULTS

Clinical data from 4750 participants (insulin-naïve, n = 1495; insulin-experienced, n = 3255) were evaluated. In the insulin-naïve group, the postprandial SMBG increment was significantly greater in the Asian versus the non-Asian subgroup at breakfast (estimated difference 28.67 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval [CI] 18.35, 38.99; p < 0.0001), lunch (17.34 mg/dL, 95% CI 6.47, 28.21; p = 0.0018) and the evening meal (16.19 mg/dL, 95% CI 5.04, 27.34; p = 0.0045). In the insulin-experienced group, the postprandial SMBG increment was significantly greater in the Asian versus non-Asian subgroup at breakfast (estimated difference 13.81 mg/dL, 95% CI 9.19, 18.44; p < 0.0001) and lunch (29.18 mg/dL, 95% CI 24.22, 34.14; p < 0.0001), but not significantly different at the evening meal.

CONCLUSION

In this post hoc analysis, baseline PPG increments were significantly greater in Asian participants with T2D than in their non-Asian counterparts at all mealtimes, with the exception of the evening meal in insulin-experienced participants. Asian adults with T2D may benefit from the use of regimens that control PPG excursions.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBERS

NCT02762578, NCT01814137, NCT01513590, NCT01009580, NCT01713530, NCT02648217, NCT01045447, NCT01365507, NCT01045707, NCT01272193, NCT01059812, NCT01680341, NCT02906917.

Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus over a Period of 1 Year during Routine Clinical Care in India: SMART (Study of Management of Diabetes with Ryzodeg™ Treatment)

This post-authorization study was conducted to evaluate the safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) in adult patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) during routine clinical care under a real-world setting in India. Eligible patients received IDegAsp for a minimum of 12 months during routine clinical management. Data were collected at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months. In total, 1029 adult patients with DM were included; 65.2% (n = 671) were men; mean age was 55.0 ± 12.2 years, and the mean duration of diabetes mellitus was 10.8 ± 7.4 years. Thirty adverse events were reported in 23 patients (2.2%) during the follow-up: two adverse events in two patients were serious with fatal outcomes, which were unrelated to IDegAsp use. At baseline, there were 176 confirmed hypoglycemic events in 67 (6.7%) patients while they were on their previous treatment options. At 12 months of treatment with IDegAsp, 11 confirmed hypoglycemic events were reported in 11 (1.1%) patients since the previous visit; there were no reported episodes of severe hypoglycemia. Mean glycosylated hemoglobin value reduced from 9.5% ± 1.8% at baseline to 7.7% ± 1.1% at 12 months. This study showed the safety of IDegAsp in patients with diabetes mellitus over a period of 1 year during routine clinical care.

ARISE-a prospective, non-interventional, single-arm study assessing clinical parameters associated with the use of insulin degludec/insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes in real-world settings: rationale and design

PURPOSE

IDegAsp, a co-formulation of long-acting basal (insulin degludec) and rapid-acting bolus (insulin aspart) insulin, provides separate prandial and basal glucose-lowering effects with relatively low risk of hypoglycaemia. Its efficacy and safety have been investigated in a large clinical trial programme (BOOST). We present the rationale and design of the ARISE study, which aims to assess glycaemic control and other clinical parameters associated with IDegAsp use in real world.

METHODS

ARISE is a ~26-wk-long, prospective, non-interventional, single-arm study of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating IDegAsp treatment. Approximately 1112 patients with T2D aged ≥18 years previously on anti-hyperglycaemic drugs except IDegAsp will be enroled across six countries from 15 Aug 2019 to 12 Nov 2020. IDegAsp treatment will be initiated at the physicians' discretion and as per the local label. Key exclusion criteria include previous participation, or previous IDegAsp treatment. The primary and secondary endpoints are change in HbA_1c from baseline (wk 0) to study end (wk 26-36) and the proportion of patients achieving the target HbA_1c level of <7% at the study end, respectively. A mixed model for repeated measurements will analyse the primary endpoint.

CONCLUSION

Between-country differences in the prescription patterns of glucose-lowering agents in people with T2D warrant examination of their clinical use in different geographical settings. The ARISE study is designed to assess the clinical use of IDegAsp from real world in six different countries. Findings from the ARISE study will supplement those of previous randomised controlled studies by establishing real-world evidence of IDegAsp use in the participating countries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04042441. Registered 02 August 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04042441.

Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp: Results of a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) versus IDegAsp, a co-formulation of basal insulin degludec 100 U/mL with rapid-acting insulin aspart.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Outcomes from eligible RCTs were compared by an indirect treatment comparison using a Bayesian framework. Subanalyses of Japanese and international trials were performed.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs (duration 26-30 weeks) were included. Mean difference in HbA1c change with iGlarLixi exceeded that for IDegAsp: -0.64 (95% credible interval -1.01, -0.28) %-units (-7.0 [-11.0, -3.1] mmol/mol) for all trials, -0.39 (-0.55, -0.23) %-units (-4.3 [-6.0, -2.5] mmol/mol) for international, and -0.88 (-1.11, -0.64) %-units (-9.6 [-12.1, -7.0] mmol/mol) for Japanese trials. HbA1c target achievement (<7.0%-units [<53 mmol/mol]) was greater for iGlarLixi in all trials (odds ratio 2.50 [1.06, 5.56]) and Japanese trials (2.17 [1.27, 3.70]), but not in international trials (2.17 [0.42, 11.11]). Analyses suggesting differences in mean postmeal self-measured plasma glucose were significantly lower by 1.0-2.0 mmol/L (18-36 mg/dL) with iGlarLixi in all analyses. Bodyweight change was more favourable (1-2 kg) for iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp for all analyses (P < 0.05). Comparisons of hypoglycaemia were inconclusive owing to differences in definitions between studies. Adverse events were more frequent with iGlarLixi because of gastrointestinal intolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi appears to offer clinical benefit in glucose control and bodyweight change in people needing both basal and meal-time intervention.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart Compared with a Conventional Premixed Insulin or Basal Insulin: A Meta-Analysis

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a novel co-formulation of 70% insulin degludec and 30% insulin aspart. The present meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp compared with a conventional premixed insulin or basal insulin. We extracted data from citation databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, since inception to 2021. We calculated the mean differences for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-measured mean glucose, and postprandial glucose (PPG) and odds ratios for confirmed hypoglycemia events. Compared with twice-daily conventional premixed insulin, twice-daily IDegAsp showed a similar effect on changes in HbA1c, but it significantly reduced FPG and self-measured mean glucose levels. Furthermore, compared to once-daily basal insulin, once-daily IDegAsp had a similar effect on changes in HbA1c, but it significantly reduced self-measured mean glucose and PPG levels. The risk of overall confirmed hypoglycemia was similar between treatments; however, the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia events was significantly lower with IDegAsp than with conventional premixed insulin and basal insulin. Thus, IDegAsp was more effective than conventional premixed insulin and basal insulin at reducing blood glucose with fewer nocturnal hypoglycemia events.

A Real-World, Prospective, Non-interventional Study of Adults with T2D Switching to IDegAsp from Glargine U100 or U300 in Japan

INTRODUCTION

This real-world study investigated glycaemic control and quality of life (QoL) in insulin-experienced Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who switched to insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp).

METHODS

This was a prospective, non-interventional, open-label, single-arm study. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥ 20 years) with T2D, previously treated with insulin glargine 100 or 300 units/mL (glargine U100/U300) with or without prandial insulin, who switched to IDegAsp as part of routine practice. Change from baseline to end of study (EOS; 26 weeks after initiation or IDegAsp discontinuation) in the following endpoints was assessed by adjusted mixed models for repeated measures: glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; primary endpoint), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin dose and total Diabetes Therapy-Related Quality of Life (DTR-QoL) score. Non-severe hypoglycaemia was assessed in the 4-week period prior to initiating IDegAsp and in the 4-week period before EOS or discontinuation using negative binomial regression.

RESULTS

The full analysis set included 236 patients from 29 centres in Japan with mean (± SD) age 63.2 years (± 12.3), HbA1c 7.7% (± 1.0) and diabetes duration 14.9 (± 9.3) years. After 26 weeks with IDegAsp, HbA1c (estimated change - 0.1% [- 0.2; 0.0]_{95% confidence interval (CI)}, p = 0.3036) and FPG (- 7.5 mg/dL [- 23.5; 8.5]_{95% CI}, p = 0.3477) were maintained; there were significant reductions in basal and total insulin dose: estimated change of - 3.4 units/day [- 3.8; - 3.0]_{95% CI} and - 1.0 units/day [- 1.9; - 0.1]_{95% CI}, respectively (both p < 0.05). Non-severe hypoglycaemia rates were similar in the periods before and after initiating IDegAsp, while there was a significant improvement in total DTR-QoL score after 26 weeks with IDegAsp (p = 0.0012).

CONCLUSION

These real-world data suggest that switching to IDegAsp from glargine U100 or U300 was well tolerated in a Japanese population with T2D, with no new safety or tolerability signals, and associated with maintenance of glycaemic control and improved QoL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03745157.

Clinical research of insulin glargine U300 basal-bolus therapy and insulin degludec/aspart co-formulation in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A real world experience

AIMS

Insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) and insulin glargine U300 (IGlarU300) have recently emerged as popular new-generation insulin analogues. The aim of this real-life study was to investigate the patient profiles in which IGlarU300 and IDegAsp were preferred and the insulin combinations after which each of them were mostly used and also to analyse the effect of these two insulin analogues on blood glucose regulation and hypoglycaemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The retrospective study included 174 patients that were switched from basal insulin, basal-bolus insulin, or premixed insulin to IGlarU300 or IDegAsp due to uncontrolled blood glucose levels or history of hypoglycaemia. Hypoglycaemia, body weight, body mass index (BMI), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA1c levels over 3-month periods were evaluated for each patient.

RESULTS

There were 84 and 90 patients in the IGlarU300 and IDegAsp groups, respectively. Body weight was similar in both groups. Baseline FPG and HbA1c levels in the IGlarU300 and IDegAsp groups were 9.0%, 175.5 mg/dL and 9.4%, 193.5 mg/dL, respectively. A significant decrease was found in FPG and HbA1c levels in both groups (138.5, 7.8 vs 141.5, 8.2; P < .001 for all). Moreover, a significant weight gain was observed in both groups (P < .05 for both). The prevalence of hypoglycaemia in both groups decreased significantly and consistently between months 1 and 9 (P < .001). At month 12, although this decrease continued in the IGlarU300 group (P = .013), no significant decrease was observed in the IDegAsp group (P = .057).

CONCLUSION

Both twice-daily IDegAsp ± bolus insulin and IGlarU300 basal bolus insulin therapies are effective and safe treatment modalities.

Titratable fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin plus a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist: A novel, simplified alternative to premix insulin for type 2 diabetes

Despite novel therapeutic options, many people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) do not achieve their HbA1c targets. Given the progressive nature of T2D, many individuals not controlled with oral therapy will require advancement to injectable therapy using either a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), recently recommended as a first option, or traditionally a basal insulin. However, premix insulins remain frequently used, either as initial injectable therapy or as intensification from basal insulin. Premix insulin injections can potentially provide significant glycaemic improvements to basal insulin but at the expense of increased hypoglycaemia and weight gain and the need for multiple daily doses, which may affect treatment adherence. Real-world evidence suggests that glycaemic control often remains suboptimal with premix insulins. Fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of basal insulin and GLP-1 RAs provide a novel alternative to premix insulin for therapy intensification. While no direct comparisons between premix insulins and FRCs are available, results from meta-analyses suggest that FRCs may offer better HbA1c reductions, a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and less weight gain compared with premix insulin in a simplified treatment regimen. A head-to-head trial of T2D treatment intensification with premix insulin and a FRC of basal insulin plus a GLP-1 RA is currently in progress, which should help to clarify the outcomes for each treatment option. This review discusses the unmet needs of people with T2D treated with premix insulin and provides evidence supporting FRCs of basal insulin and GLP-1 RAs as an alternative treatment option.

A Japanese Study Assessing Glycemic Control with Use of IDegAsp Co-formulation in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Clinical Practice: The JAGUAR Study

Introduction

The aim of this study was to evaluate the glycemic control and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) co-formulation in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a real-world clinical setting, including elderly patients (aged > 75 years).

Methods

Patients (≥ 18 years) diagnosed with T2D, previously treated with insulin were included from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Baseline data were taken at the index date, defined as the first IDegAsp prescription claim. Change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) at 12 months was estimated using a mixed model repeated measures analysis. The proportion of patients achieving target HbA_1c < 8.0% without experiencing hypoglycemia (identified by International Classification of Disease codes) was calculated at 12 months (365 ± 90 days) after baseline.

Results

Overall, 10,798 patients were included, 3940 were aged > 75 years, and 913 had baseline HbA_1c values available. Switching to IDegAsp was associated with significantly improved HbA_1c values at 12 months (− 1.23% [− 1.43, − 1.02]_95%CI, p < 0.001) versus baseline. Moreover, relative to baseline, a significantly greater proportion of patients achieved HbA_1c < 8.0% without hypoglycemia at 12 months, relative rate (RR) 1.30 [1.15, 1.45]_95%CI, p < 0.001. Results were similar for patients aged ≤ 75 years and aged > 75 years; 66% and 64% of patients, respectively, achieved HbA_1c < 8.0% without hypoglycemia at 12 months.

Conclusion

Switching from insulin to IDegAsp co-formulation was associated with significantly improved glycemic control and a reduction in hypoglycemia rate during 12 months of follow-up in Japanese patients with T2D, including those aged > 75 years.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01623-y.

A case of an elderly patient with insulin-dependent diabetes and dementia receiving one basal insulin plus one bolus insulin injections a day for 6 months

Multiple daily injections of insulin, referred to basal-bolus regimen, are generally essential in achieving glycemic control and preventing ketosis in insulin-dependent diabetes, such as type 1 diabetes (T1D). A 75-year-old man with T1D receiving basal-bolus insulin therapy exhibited symptoms of dementia after hospitalization due to pyelonephritis and failed to continue insulin self-injection. Given that his social and familial circumstances allowed insulin injection once a day during the morning, bolus insulin injections needed to be discontinued. Ketonuria was observed the day following discontinuation of bolus insulin. Although increasing the basal insulin dose (degludec) from 10 to 15 units improved ketonuria, his preprandial glucose levels increased to ≥ 500 mg/dL before lunch and ≥ 400 mg/dL before dinner. Hence, another bolus insulin injection was simultaneously added to the basal insulin dose before breakfast, which, subsequently, decreased his preprandial glucose levels to ≤ 220 mg/dL before lunch and ≤ 350 mg/dL before dinner. For half a year after discharge, ketonuria or hypoglycemia had not been detected. After 6 months, he was able to restart intensive insulin therapy with familial support. Hence, in cases where elderly patients with diabetes exhibit symptoms of dementia and can receive insulin injection once a day due to their social circumstances, short-term one basal plus one bolus insulin injections a day might be considered to prevent life-threatening diabetes complications among those who are insulin-dependent.

Use of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus: Expert Panel Recommendations on Appropriate Practice Patterns

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed-ratio co-formulation of insulin degludec (IDeg), which provides long-lasting basal insulin coverage, and insulin aspart (IAsp), which targets post-prandial glucose. This expert panel aimed to provide a practical and implementable guidance document to assist clinicians in prescribing IDegAsp in the diabetes management with respect to different patient populations including children and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) as well as pregnant, elderly and hospitalized patients and varying practice patterns (insulin-naive, insulin-treated, switching from basal, basal bolus and premix regimens). The experts recommended that IDegAsp can be used in insulin-naive T2D patients with poor glycemic control (HbA1c >8.5%) despite optimal oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) as well as in insulin-treated T2D patients by switching from basal insulin, basal-bolus therapy or premixed insulins in relation to lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia, fewer injections and lower intraday glycemic variability, respectively. The experts considered the use of IDegAsp in children with T2D as a basal bolus alternative rather than as an alternative to basal insulin after metformin failure, use of IDegAsp in adult T1D patients as a simplified basal bolus regimen with lesser nocturnal hypoglycemia, fewer injections and better fasting plasma glucose control and in children with T1D as an alternative insulin regimen with fewer injection to increase treatment adherence. The proposed expert opinion provides practical information on use of IDegAsp in different patient populations and practice patterns to assist clinicians, which seems to compensate the need for easily implementable guidance on this novel insulin regimen.

Practical use of insulin degludec/insulin aspart in a multinational setting: beyond the guidelines

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed-ratio co-formulation of insulin degludec, which provides long-lasting basal insulin coverage, and insulin aspart, which targets postprandial glycaemia. This review provides expert opinion on the practical clinical use of IDegAsp, including: dose timings relative to meals, when and how to intensify treatment from once-daily (OD) to twice-daily (BID) dose adjustments, and use in special populations (including hospitalized patients). IDegAsp could be considered as one among the choices for initiating insulin treatment, preferential to starting on basal insulin alone, particularly for people with severe hyperglycaemia and/or when postprandial hyperglycaemia is a major concern. The recommended starting dose of IDegAsp is 10 units with the most carbohydrate-rich meal(s), followed by individualized dose adjustments. Insulin doses should be titrated once weekly in two-unit steps, guided by individualized fasting plasma glucose targets and based on patient goals, preferences and hypoglycaemia risk. Options for intensification from IDegAsp OD are discussed, which should be guided by HbA1c, prandial glucose levels, meal patterns and patient preferences. Recommendations for switching to IDegAsp from basal insulin, premixed insulins OD/BID, and basal-plus/basal-bolus regimens are discussed. IDegAsp can be co-administered with other antihyperglycaemic drugs; however, sulphonylureas frequently need to be discontinued or the dose reduced, and the IDegAsp dose may need to be decreased when sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are added. Considerations around the initiation or continuation of IDegAsp in hospitalized individuals are discussed, as well as in those undergoing medical procedures.

Insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed-ratio combination (iGlarLixi) compared with premix or addition of meal-time insulin to basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide, relative to premix insulin and other insulin options through network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing iGlarLixi, premix insulin or basal insulin (BI) in combination with meal-time insulin, in people inadequately controlled with BI. Eligible RCTs were compared using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, some open-label, involving 3538 participants, with a study duration of 24-30 weeks were included. The estimated difference in HbA1c reduction with iGlarLixi compared with premix insulin was -0.50%-units (95% credible interval: -0.93 to -0.06) with 98% probability of iGlarLixi being superior to premix. Estimates for iGlarLixi versus meal-time + BI (thrice-daily meal-time insulin + basal) and basal-plus (once-daily meal-time insulin + BI) were -0.35 (-0.89 to +0.13)%-units and -0.68 (-1.18 to -0.17)%-units with probabilities of real difference of 94% and 99%, respectively. Safety outcome analysis suggested that iGlarLixi had lower rates of both confirmed and documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia compared with premix insulin (probabilities of 85% and 93%, respectively) and lower weight gain (probability 98%).

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi showed similar or improved efficacy and safety versus other intensification choices from BI included in this study, providing a clinically relevant treatment option in people with type 2 diabetes not well controlled on BI.

An Overview of Prospective Drugs for Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Aims:

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of several emerging anti-diabetic molecules.

Background:

Diabetes is a complex metabolic disorder involving the dysregulation of glucose homeostasis at various levels. Insulin, which is produced by β-pancreatic cells, is a chief regulator of glucose metabolism, regulating its consumption within cells, which leads to energy generation or storage as glycogen. Abnormally low insulin secretion from β-cells, insulin insensitivity, and insulin tolerance lead to higher plasma glucose levels, resulting in metabolic complications. The last century has witnessed extraordinary efforts by the scientific community to develop anti-diabetic drugs, and these efforts have resulted in the discovery of exogenous insulin and various classes of oral anti-diabetic drugs.

Objective:

Despite these exhaustive anti-diabetic pharmaceutical and therapeutic efforts, long-term glycemic control, hypoglycemic crisis, safety issues, large-scale economic burden and side effects remain the core problems.

Method:

The last decade has witnessed the development of various new classes of anti-diabetic drugs with different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Details of their FDA approvals and advantages/disadvantages are summarized in this review.

Results:

The salient features of insulin degludec, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, glucokinase activators, fibroblast growth factor 21 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 agonists are discussed.

Conclusion :

In the future, these new anti-diabetic drugs may have broad clinical applicability. Additional multicenter clinical studies on these new drugs should be conducted.

The Clinical Role of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart in Type 2 Diabetes: An Empirical Perspective from Experience in Australia

Treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes following failure of basal insulin commonly involves the addition of a rapid-acting insulin analogue (basal plus one or more prandial doses; multiple daily injections) or by a switch to premixed insulin. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp), comprising rapid-acting insulin aspart and ultra-long-acting insulin degludec in solution, enables both fasting and post-prandial glucose control, with some advantages over other treatment intensification options. These include straightforward dose titration, flexibility in dose timing, low injection burden, simplicity of switching and a lower risk of hypoglycaemia. In Australia, where insulin degludec on its own is not available, IDegAsp enables patients to still benefit from its ultra-long-acting properties. This review aims to provide guidance on where and how to use IDegAsp. Specifically, guidance is included on the initiation of IDegAsp in insulin-naïve patients, treatment intensification from basal insulin, switching from premixed or basal-bolus insulin to IDegAsp, up-titration from once- to twice-daily IDegAsp and the use of IDegAsp in special populations or situations.