Reduction of glycemic variability with Degludec insulin in patients with unstable diabetes

Insulin degludec in pregestational diabetes: evidence and perspectives

Pregestational diabetes is described when a woman with diabetes before the onset of pregnancy becomes pregnant and consequently she is vulnerable to higher risk for adverse outcomes in the embryo/foetus. Strict glycaemic control, with minimal glucose variability, starting from before conception and maintained throughout pregnancy decreases significantly adverse foetal and maternal outcomes; maternal hypoglycaemic episodes are the major barrier in achieving this goal. Insulin degludec is an ultralong-acting analogue, which has half-life of over 25 h and full duration of effect of more than 42 h, reaching a steady-state serum concentration after 2-3 days of its administration. It promotes flat, steady, peakless and predictable insulin concentrations, with minor intra-individual and inter-individual variability. It also exerts a low mitogenic/metabolic potency ratio. This review examines thoroughly all current evidence of the administration of insulin degludec in pregestational diabetes as well as its future role in this population.

Development and validation of a prediction model for self-reported hypoglycemia risk in patients with type 2 diabetes: A longitudinal cohort study

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

To develop and validate a simple prediction model for hypoglycemia risk in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively analyzed the data of 1,303 subjects in a third-class hospital in Tianjin and followed up their hypoglycemia events at 3 and 6 months. The hypoglycemia risk prediction models for 3 and 6 months were developed and the model performance was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 340 (28.4%) patients experienced hypoglycemia within 3 months and 462 (37.2%) within 6 months during the follow-up period. Age, central obesity, intensive insulin therapy, frequency of hypoglycemia in the past year, and hypoglycemia prevention education entered both model3month and model6month. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of model3month and model6month were 0.711 and 0.723, respectively. The Youden index was 0.315 and 0.361, while the sensitivities were 0.615 and 0.714, and the specificities were 0.717 and 0.631. The calibration curves showed that the models were similar to reality. The decision curves implied that the clinical net benefit of the model was clear.

CONCLUSIONS

The study developed 3 and 6 month hypoglycemia risk prediction models for patients with type 2 diabetes. The discrimination and calibration of the two prediction models were good, and might help to improve clinical decision-making and guide patients to more reasonable self-care and hypoglycemia prevention at home.

Glycaemic variability in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with dulaglutide, with and without concomitant insulin: Post hoc analyses of randomized clinical trials

AIM

To investigate the association between treatment with dulaglutide and glycaemic variability (GV) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Post hoc analyses of six randomized, phase 3 studies were conducted to investigate the association between treatment with dulaglutide 1.5 mg once weekly and GV in adult patients with T2D. Using data from seven- and eight-point self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) profiles over up to 28 weeks of treatment, GV in within- and between-day SMPG, and between-day fasting glucose from SMPG (FSMPG) was assessed according to standard deviation and coefficient of variation.

RESULTS

Pooled data from five studies with dulaglutide as monotherapy or added to oral glucose-lowering medication, without concomitant insulin treatment, revealed clinically meaningful reductions in within- and between-day SMPG, and between-day FSMPG variability from baseline in the dulaglutide group. Comparisons between treatment groups in two studies demonstrated that reductions from baseline in within-day and between-day SMPG, and between-day FSMPG variability were greater for treatment with dulaglutide compared with insulin glargine, as well as for treatment with dulaglutide when added to insulin glargine compared with insulin glargine alone.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2D, treatment with dulaglutide as monotherapy or added to oral glucose-lowering medication, without concomitant insulin treatment, was potentially associated with a reduction in GV. Treatment with dulaglutide was associated with a reduction in GV to a greater degree than insulin glargine. When added to insulin glargine, treatment with dulaglutide was associated with greater decreases in GV compared with insulin glargine alone. As reduced GV may be associated with better outcomes, these findings may have clinical relevance.

Effectiveness and Safety of Insulin Glargine 300 U/ml in Comparison with Insulin Degludec 100 U/ml Evaluated with Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemic Control in Routine Clinical Practice: The OneCARE Study

INTRODUCTION

Data regarding efficacy of second-generation basal insulins (BI) using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) come from clinical trials. We evaluated the effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) compared to insulin degludec 100 U/ml (IDeg-100) in terms of percentage of time in range (TIR); 70-180 mg/dl was obtained from CGM in sub-optimally controlled patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study included patients with T1D (> 3 years diabetes duration, HbA_1c ≥ 7.5%) who had switched from first-generation BI to Gla-300/IDeg-100 within the past 24 months according to physician discretion. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained from clinical records and during study visit, and CGM data were collected prior to the visit.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-nine people with T1D were included [42.6 ± 13.4 (mean ± SD) years, 18.4 ± 10.4 years diabetes duration]; 104 received Gla-300, 95 IDeg-100. TIR 70-180 throughout whole day was similar in both groups, 52.4 ± 14.0 vs. 49.3 ± 13.9% Gla-300/IDeg-100, respectively. At night, TIR 70-180 and TIR 70-140 were significantly higher in the Gla-300 group compared to the IDeg-100 (52.4 vs. 46.2 and 31.8 vs. 26.9%, respectively, p = 0.0209 and p = 0.0182), and time above range (180) was significantly lower in the Gla-300 group (40.1% vs. 47.2%, p = 0.0199). Additional CGM glucometric data were comparable in both groups. Patient treatment satisfaction score assessed through the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) was high and similar for both insulins.

CONCLUSION

This real-world study shows the effectiveness and safety of Gla-300 are more similar to than different from IDeg-100, with a slightly better nocturnal glucose profile, in sub-optimally controlled T1D patients switching from a first-generation BI.

Clinical Factors Associated with High Glycemic Variability Defined by Coefficient of Variation in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Background

High glycemic Variability (HGV) has become a stronger predictor of hypoglycemia. However, clinical factors associate with HGV still are unknown.

Objective

To determine clinical variables that were associated with a coefficient of variation (CV) above 36% evaluated by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in a group of patients with diabetes mellitus.

Methods

A cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) was evaluated. Demographic variables, HbA1c, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and treatment regimen were assessed. A bivariate analysis was performed, to evaluate the association between the outcome variable (CV> 36%) and each of the independent variables. A multivariate model was constructed to evaluate associations after controlling for confounding variables.

Results

CGM data from 274 patients were analyzed. CV> 36% was present in 56 patients (20.4%). In the bivariate analysis, demographic and clinical variables were included, such as time since diagnosis, hypoglycemia history, A1c, GFR and treatment established. In the multivariate analysis, GFR <45 mL/min (OR 2.81; CI 1.27,6.23; p:0.01), A1c > 9% (OR 2.81; CI 1.05,7.51; p:0.04) and hypoglycemia history (OR 2.09; CI 1.02,4.32; p:0.04) were associated with HGV. Treatment with iDPP4 (OR 0.39; CI 0.19,0.82; p:0.01) and AGLP1 (OR 0.08; CI 0.01,0.68; p:0.02) was inversely associated with GV.

Conclusion

Clinical variables such as GFR <45 mL/min, HbA1C>9% and a history of hypoglycemia are associated with a high GV. Our data suggest that the use of technology and treatments able to reduce glycemic variability could be useful in this population to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and to improve glycemic control.

Comparison of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogs: A Review of the Evidence from Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Many people with insulin-treated diabetes continue to experience inadequate glycemic control and a high incidence of hypoglycemic events, despite improvements in therapeutic strategies. While glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) is currently recognized as the gold-standard for assessing glycemic control, the measure reflects mean blood glucose levels over a period of time, does not inform on acute glycemic deviations, and can be unreliable in certain populations. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) facilitates the acquisition of blood glucose data around the clock and, importantly, predicts and/or captures acute hyper- and hypoglycemic episodes. In light of the recent publication of the Time in Range (TIR) International Consensus Group report on key CGM metrics, we performed a review of current CGM evidence for second-generation basal insulins in both people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The identified studies highlight the varied CGM-related metrics used to assess basal insulins, which complicate comparisons. Furthermore, all studies had small sample sizes and typically were of short duration, which may account for the lack of statistically significant between-treatment differences observed. Differences were seen in the titration approaches used and the settings in which participants were observed. These results highlight the need for further studies of second-generation basal insulin analogs that are designed to capture the standard metrics proposed by the TIR consensus group, with additional consideration given to sample size and study duration.

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.

Favourable effect of the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor canagliflozin plus the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor teneligliptin in combination on glycaemic fluctuation: An open-label, prospective, randomized, parallel-group comparison trial (the CALMER study)

This multicentre, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, parallel-group, short-term (4-5 weeks) controlled trial was conducted to investigate the superiority of the effect of reducing mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions (MAGE) during meal tolerance tests (MTTs) for the combination of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor compared with SGLT2 inhibitor monotherapy. Ninety-nine patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking teneligliptin (20 mg/d) were randomized to one of the following two groups: those who switched to 100 mg/d of canagliflozin (SWITCH group) or those who added 100 mg/d of canagliflozin (COMB group). MAGE in the COMB group was significantly decreased compared with that in the SWITCH group (COMB 117.5 ± 39.8 to 92.2 ± 28.0 mg/dL vs SWITCH 110.7 ± 29.8 to 104.2 ± 27.6 mg/dL; P<0.01). Mean blood glucose decreased significantly during MTTs in both groups, although the extent of the reduction was significantly greater in the COMB group (COMB 142.3 ± 28.7 to 119.5 ± 25.1 mg/dL vs SWITCH 146.4 ± 25.5 to 135.5 ± 22.4 mg/dL; P < 0.01). SGLT2 inhibitor combined with DPP-4 inhibitor therapy strongly reduced glycaemic fluctuation compared with SGLT2 inhibitor monotherapy.

Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec in Thai Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Real-World Evidence From a Specialized Diabetes Center

Background Insulin degludec, an ultra-long-acting insulin analogue, has been available in Thailand since October 2016. Although clinical trial results revealed less hypoglycemia, data from real-world settings is limited especially in Asian patients. This study aimed to evaluate prospectively the real-world effectiveness, safety, quality of life (QOL) and patient satisfaction with insulin degludec among Thai patients with diabetes mellitus (DM).

Methods From October 2016 to September 2017, all patients who had started insulin degludec for at least 3 months were observed and evaluated at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. QOL was assessed using WHOQOL-BREF-THAI and level of satisfaction was measured by 7-point Likert scale. Glycemic fluctuation from paired iPro2 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) obtained 4–6 weeks apart were also evaluated from a subset of patients with T1DM who switched from insulin glargine to insulin degludec.

Results A total of 55 patients (T2DM 76.4%, females 54.5%, mean age 57.1±16.1 years, duration of diabetes 16.7±8.8 years, BMI 27.3±5.5 kg/m ² , baseline A1C 9.3±2.3%, median duration of treatment 8 months) were included in the study. In T1DM patients (n=13), the overall mean A1C reduction at 12 months was 0.5% with minimal weight gain of 0.9 kgs at 12 months. In T2DM patients (n=42), the overall mean A1C reduction at 12 months was 0.8% with minimal weight loss of 0.4 kgs at 12 months. The proportion of T1DM patients who could achieve optimal glycemic control increased slightly from 14.3 to 18.2% but the proportion of T2DM patients who could achieve optimal glycemic control increased from 30.8 to 53.8%. Patient satisfaction showed a sustained improvement throughout the duration of study. In four T1DM patients who had paired CGM data, insulin degludec provided greater reductions in glycemic variability endpoints with increased time-in-range when compared with previous insulin glargine.

Discussion Our data suggested that the effectiveness of insulin degludec was consistent with the results seen in clinical trials with lower risk of patients-reported hypoglycemia, and a significant improvement in glycemic control. Patients also reported higher treatment satisfaction. More long-term and cost-effectiveness data are needed to establish the role of this ultra-long-acting insulin in real-world settings.

A View Beyond HbA1c: Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) is used as an index of average blood glucose measurement over a period of months and is a mainstay of blood glucose monitoring. This metric is easy to measure and relatively inexpensive to obtain, and it predicts diabetes-related microvascular complications. However, HbA1c provides only an approximate measure of glucose control; it does not address short-term glycemic variability (GV) or hypoglycemic events. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a tool which helps clinicians and people with diabetes to overcome the limitations of HbA1c in diabetes management. Time spent in the glycemic target range and time spent in hypoglycemia are the main CGM metrics that provide a more personalized approach to diabetes management. Moreover, the glucose management indicator (GMI), which calculates an approximate HbA1c level based on the average CGM-driven glucose level, facilitates individual decision-making when the laboratory-measured HbA1c and estimated HbA1c are discordant. GV, on the other hand, is a measure of swings in blood glucose levels over hours or days and may contribute to diabetes-related complications. In addition, addressing GV is a major challenge during the optimization of glycemia. The degree of GV is associated with the frequency, duration, and severity of the hypoglycemic events. Many factors affect GV in a patient, including lifestyle, diet, the presence of comorbidities, and diabetes therapy. Recent evidence supports the use of some glucose-lowering agents to improve GV, such as the new ultra-long acting insulin analogs, as these agents have a smoother pharmacodynamic profile and improve glycemic control with fewer fluctuations and fewer nocturnal hypoglycemic events. These newer glucose-lowering agents (such as incretin hormones or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) can also reduce the degree of GV. However, randomized trials are needed to evaluate the effect of GV on important diabetes outcomes. In this review, we discuss the role of HbA1c as a measure of glycemic control and its limitations. We also explore additional glycemic metrics, with a focus on time (duration) in glucose target range, time (duration) in hypoglycemia, GV, GMI, and their correlation with clinical outcomes.