Randomized comparison of initiating the fixed-ratio combination of iGlarLixi or biosimilar insulin glargine together with gliclazide in South Asian origin participants with Type 2 Diabetes: VARIATION 2 SA trial

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.

iGlarLixi for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of iGlarLixi-a novel, fixed-ratio, soluble combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide-for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from inception to November 15, 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing iGlarLixi with a placebo or any other antidiabetic agent in adults with T2D. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 10 trials enrolling 6071 T2D patients were included. Compared with placebos or other antidiabetic agents, iGlarLixi exerted beneficial effects on changes in HbA1c, the percentage of patients who achieved an HbA1c < 7%, the percentage of patients who achieved an HbA1c < 6.5%, the percentage of patients who achieved an HbA1c < 7.0% without weight gain and/or without severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycemic episodes, changes in fasting plasma glucose, and changes in self-measured plasma glucose. Regarding safety, iGlarLixi did not increase the incidence of severe hypoglycemia or serious adverse events but did increase the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events, symptomatic hypoglycemia, and adverse events (e.g., nausea, vomiting, diarrhea).

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi showed improved efficacy and safety in patients with T2D. Additional large, multicenter RCTs are warranted to obtain deeper insights into the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, thereby providing guidance for clinical treatment decisions.

Effectiveness, Safety, and Appropriateness in the Use of the Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Glargine and Lixisenatide in Type 2 Diabetes: The ENSURE Retrospective Real-World Study

INTRODUCTION

Pivotal trials documented glycemic benefits of fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi), with no weight gain and low hypoglycemia risk in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed at assessing effectiveness and patterns of use of iGlarLixi in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, multicenter, study, based on electronic medical records. All patients initiating iGlarLixi from May 2018 to July 2020 were considered.

RESULTS

Overall, 25 centers provided data on 675 patients initiating iGlarLixi with the following characteristics: age 66.4 ± 10.1 years, 54.2% men, T2D duration 15.5 ± 11.5 years, HbA1c 8.6 ± 1.4%, body mass index (BMI) 30.8 ± 5.3 kg/m², 45.1% already treated with basal insulin, and 21.9% with basal bolus (± oral hypoglycemic agents). Metformin and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors were used in 76.0% and 0.9% of patients, respectively. Combinations of iGlarLixi with other glucose-lowering drugs such as sulfonylureas or short-acting insulin were found in 32.4% of patients. Effectiveness of iGlarLixi (N = 184) showed that HbA1c declined by 0.77% [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.00, -0.54] after 6 months. In combination with metformin and/or SGLT-2i (N = 117), HbA1c declined by -0.92% (95% CI -1.22, -0.62) and weight significantly decreased by 1.21 kg. iGlarLixi dose was suboptimally titrated. Safety data (N = 171) showed incidence rates of blood glucose ≤ 70 and < 54 mg/mL of 0.26 and 0.05 events per person-month during 6 months, respectively, with a risk reduction of about 75% with respect the 6 months before iGlarLixi initiation. No severe hypoglycemia was reported.

CONCLUSION

In adults with T2D, effectiveness and safety of iGlarLixi were documented in a real-world setting; appropriateness of use and adequate titration should be urgently improved so that clinical practice outcomes become more comparable to clinical trials results. Further real-world studies on the effect of iGlarLixi therapy are warranted.

Continuous glucose monitoring and metrics for clinical trials: an international consensus statement

Randomised controlled trials and other prospective clinical studies for novel medical interventions in people with diabetes have traditionally reported HbA1c as the measure of average blood glucose levels for the 3 months preceding the HbA1c test date. The use of this measure highlights the long-established correlation between HbA1c and relative risk of diabetes complications; the change in the measure, before and after the therapeutic intervention, is used by regulators for the approval of medications for diabetes. However, with the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in clinical practice, prospective clinical studies are also increasingly using CGM devices to collect data and evaluate glucose profiles among study participants, complementing HbA1c findings, and further assess the effects of therapeutic interventions on HbA1c. Data is collected by CGM devices at 1-5 min intervals, which obtains data on glycaemic excursions and periods of asymptomatic hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia (ie, details of glycaemic control that are not provided by HbA1c concentrations alone that are measured continuously and can be analysed in daily, weekly, or monthly timeframes). These CGM-derived metrics are the subject of standardised, internationally agreed reporting formats and should, therefore, be considered for use in all clinical studies in diabetes. The purpose of this consensus statement is to recommend the ways CGM data might be used in prospective clinical studies, either as a specified study endpoint or as supportive complementary glucose metrics, to provide clinical information that can be considered by investigators, regulators, companies, clinicians, and individuals with diabetes who are stakeholders in trial outcomes. In this consensus statement, we provide recommendations on how to optimise CGM-derived glucose data collection in clinical studies, including the specific glucose metrics and specific glucose metrics that should be evaluated. These recommendations have been endorsed by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Diabetes Association, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, DiabetesIndia, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, the Japanese Diabetes Society, and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. A standardised approach to CGM data collection and reporting in clinical trials will encourage the use of these metrics and enhance the interpretability of CGM data, which could provide useful information other than HbA1c for informing therapeutic and treatment decisions, particularly related to hypoglycaemia, postprandial hyperglycaemia, and glucose variability.