Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes (BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 1): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial

Frequency of hypoglycaemia with basal insulin treatments in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin regimens in treat-to-target trials: A narrative review

AIM

To summarise, in a narrative review, published data on hypoglycaemia occurrence with basal insulin therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin regimens in treat-to-target randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

Data were included from 21 eligible trials, which mainly used self-measured blood glucose or plasma glucose to detect hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

All-day self-measured blood glucose or plasma glucose level 2 (glucose threshold of 3.1 or 3.0 mmol/L) and level 3 (severe, requiring assistance) hypoglycaemic events were reported, respectively, by a range of 69.0%-97.5% and 0%-13.4% adults when receiving basal-bolus insulin therapy, with rates of 10.6-68.1 and 0.0-0.4 events per patient-year of exposure, respectively. Hypoglycaemia rates measured using continuous glucose monitoring (three studies) were numerically, yet consistently, higher than with either other method, except when limiting to symptomatic events. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were generally less than 30% of the equivalent all-day rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences across the studies in design (e.g., titration targets) and participant characteristics hindered comparison of hypoglycaemia rates by insulin formulation. Consequently, few trends were identified by insulin formulation, study methodology or individuals' characteristics, suggesting that further research is required to identify treatment strategies that facilitate development of individualised recommendations to lower hypoglycaemia risk. These findings are useful to understand hypoglycaemia risk with available basal insulin therapies when used in a multiple daily injection regimen, as well as to provide context for the results of ongoing and future clinical trials, including those for two once-weekly basal insulins, insulin icodec and basal insulin Fc.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Derived Glucometrics in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes When Switching Basal Insulins

Context: Limited evidence is available on the real-world effect of insulin degludec (IDeg) in type 1 diabetes (T1D), using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived metrics. Objective: To assess the real-world effect of switching to IDeg from other long-acting insulins on time in ranges (TIRs) measured by CGM, metabolic control, and insulin dose for people with T1D. Design: This retrospective multicenter study encompassed five time points during a 12-month pre-switch of IDeg and a 12-month follow-up period. For each visit, clinical and CGM data were collected to evaluate temporal trends in glycemic outcomes. Participants: Of 753 persons with T1D who were assessed for eligibility, 486 persons were included, mostly men (61.5%), 47.4 (16.9) years old and diabetes duration of 23.8 (14.2) years at IDeg-initiation. Main Outcome Measure: Primary outcome was the evolution of percent TIR (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L, TIR) before versus after switch to IDeg. Results: TIR over 24 h increased at 12 months versus baseline (56.7% vs. 52.3%, P < 0.001), mostly during daytime. Time <54 mg/dL (<3.0 mmol/L) over 24 h decreased at 12 months versus baseline (2.02% vs. 2.86%, P < 0.001), mostly during nighttime. Glycated hemoglobin (7.9% vs. 8.1%, P < 0.001) and coefficient of variation (40.0% vs. 41.5%, P < 0.001) improved at 12 months versus baseline. Mean daily basal, bolus and total insulin doses decreased at 12 months (P < 0.001 for all vs. baseline). Conclusions: This retrospective real-world study reports that switching basal insulin significantly improved time spent in glucometric ranges and glycemic variability in the studied population of people with T1D. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT05434559.

Treating obesity in type 1 diabetes mellitus - review of efficacy and safety

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Obesity is an epidemic in the United States with serious concomitant co-morbid conditions; people living with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) are not immune to the risk either. Weight gain in T1D is likely multifactorial, due to genetic, environmental and treatment-related factors. FDA-approved and other adjunctive weight loss therapies may benefit people living with T1D but there are risks to consider when providing recommendations or prescribing medications.

RECENT FINDINGS

We performed a PubMed search of studies assessing clinical outcomes of both approved and off-label medications used in the treatment of type 1 diabetes. Search terms included 'type 1 diabetes, obesity' and the following: (1) metformin, (2) pramlintide, (3) glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, (4) dual GLP-1 and gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) agonists, (5) sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, (6) surgical treatment of obesity, (7) insulin pump, (8) insulin, (9) medical nutrition therapy, (10) diabetes self-management education, (11) exercise, (12) naltrexone-buproprion, (13) orlistat, and (14) phentermine-topiramate.

SUMMARY

Weight loss treatments provide a wide-range of benefits in reducing both morbidity and mortality in those who are obese. Treatments also have varying adverse effect profiles which may impact T1D treatment. In this review, we aim to summarize study outcomes in people with T1D, including risks and benefits, of on- and off-label weight loss treatments.

Insulin Glargine in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Review of Clinical Trials and Real-world Evidence Across Two Decades

BACKGROUND

Over the past two decades, insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) has emerged as the "standard of care" basal insulin for the management of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Both formulations, insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) and glargine 300 U/mL (Gla- 300) have been extensively studied against various comparator basal insulins across various clinical and real-world studies. In this comprehensive article, we reviewed the evidence on both insulin glargine formulations in T1DM across clinical trials and real-world studies.

METHODS

Evidence in T1DM for Gla-100 and Gla-300 since their approvals in 2000 and 2015, respectively, were reviewed.

RESULTS

Gla-100 when compared to the second-generation basal insulins, Gla-300 and IDeg-100, demonstrated a comparable risk of overall hypoglycemia, but the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia was higher with Gla-100. Additional benefits of Gla-300 over Gla-100 include a prolonged (>24- hours) duration of action, a more stable glucose-lowering profile, improved treatment satisfaction, and greater flexibility in the dose administration timing.

CONCLUSION

Both glargine formulations are largely comparable to other basal insulins in terms of glucose-lowering properties in T1DM. Further, risk of hypoglycemia is lower with Gla-100 than Neutral Protamine Hagedorn but comparable to insulin detemir.

Once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec as part of a basal-bolus regimen in individuals with type 1 diabetes (ONWARDS 6): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target trial

BACKGROUND

ONWARDS 6 compared the efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneous insulin icodec (icodec) and once-daily insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

This 52-week (26-week main phase plus a 26-week safety extension), randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, phase 3a trial was done at 99 sites across 12 countries. Adults with type 1 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] <10·0% [86 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned (1:1) to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, both in combination with insulin aspart (two or more daily injections). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26, tested for non-inferiority (0·3 percentage point margin) in all randomly assigned participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04848480, and is now complete.

FINDINGS

Between April 30 and Oct 15, 2021, of 655 participants screened, 582 participants were randomly assigned to icodec (n=290) or degludec (n=292). At week 26, from baseline values of 7·59% (icodec) and 7·63% (degludec), estimated mean changes in HbA1c were -0·47 percentage points and -0·51 percentage points, respectively (estimated treatment difference 0·05 percentage points [95% CI -0·13 to 0·23]), confirming non-inferiority of icodec to degludec (p=0·0065). Overall rate of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia (baseline to week 26) was statistically significantly higher with icodec than degludec (19·9 vs 10·4 events per patient-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 1·9 [95% CI 1·5 to 2·3]; p<0·0001). The rate was also statistically significantly higher with icodec than degludec when evaluated over 57 weeks (52 weeks plus a 5-week follow-up period). 39 serious adverse events were reported in 24 (8%) participants receiving icodec, and 25 serious adverse events were reported in 20 (7%) participants receiving degludec. One participant in the icodec group died; this was judged unlikely to be due to the trial product.

INTERPRETATION

In adults with type 1 diabetes, once-weekly icodec showed non-inferiority to once-daily degludec in HbA1c reduction at week 26, with statistically significantly higher rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia. For icodec, time below 3·0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL) was at the threshold of the internationally recommended target (<1%) during weeks 22-26 and below target during weeks 48-52.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Simplification of Complex Insulin Regimens with IdegLira in People with Type 2 Diabetes: Literature Review and Clinical Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

This study developed a simple algorithm based on clinical results described in medical literature and which allows one to simplify complex insulin regimes with IdegLira to avoid adverse events related to the complexity of some insulin treatments.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature that allowed us to identify studies that evaluated the clinical result of simplifying complex insulin regimes. The authors reviewed the common factors these simpler regimes had, including the type of patients who used them.

RESULTS

We found nine clinical studies published between 2017 and 2022, eight performed in Europe and one in Latin America. The monitoring time of the studies ranged between 3 and 18 months. The size of the study populations was between 61 and 611 patients (the latter was in five countries). In all studies, HbA1c decreased by 0.6-1.7% and the weight decreased by 0.1-3.11 kg.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the findings of these studies, we made some recommendations for clinical practice to simplify treatment. The results of these studies support an algorithm that simplifies the treatment of complex insulin regimens.

Safety and Clinical Outcomes of Insulin Degludec in Korean Patients with Diabetes in Real-World Practices: A Prospective, Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) in a real-world population of Korean patients with diabetes requiring insulin therapy.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, single-arm, open-label, non-interventional study. Patients aged ≥ 12 months and treated with previous glucose-lowering medications were eligible to switch to IDeg. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and the secondary endpoints were changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial glucose (PPG), and target HbA1c < 7.0%.

RESULTS

In total, 3225 and 2450 patients were included in the safety analysis set (SAS) and effectiveness analysis set (EAS), respectively. The mean baseline HbA1c and duration of diabetes were 9.4% and 13.0 years, respectively. Adverse events were reported in 740 patients (22.9%); the majority were mild and resolved. Significant improvements were observed in HbA1c, FPG, and PPG at week 26 (all p < 0.0001). The target of HbA1c < 7% was achieved in 22.2% of patients at week 26.

CONCLUSION

In real-world clinical practice, 26 weeks of IDeg treatment resulted in significant reductions in glycemic parameters with a low incidence of AEs in Korean patients with diabetes. No new safety signals were observed.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02779413) and the universal trial number is [U1111-1176-2287].

The Effect of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 on Glucose Metrics Recorded During Continuous Glucose Monitoring in People With Type 1 Diabetes and Recurrent Nocturnal Severe Hypoglycemia

AIM

Comparing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-recorded metrics during treatment with insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin glargine U100 (IGlar-100) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and recurrent nocturnal severe hypoglycemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a multicenter, two-year, randomized, crossover trial, including 149 adults with T1D and minimum one episode of nocturnal severe hypoglycemia within the last two years. Participants were randomized 1:1 to treatment with IDeg or IGlar-100 and given the option of six days of blinded CGM twice during each treatment. CGM traces were reviewed for the percentage of time-within-target glucose range (TIR), time-below-range (TBR), time-above-range (TAR), and coefficient of variation (CV).

RESULTS

Seventy-four participants were included in the analysis. Differences between treatments were greatest during the night (23:00-06:59). Treatment with IGlar-100 resulted in 54.0% vs 49.0% with IDeg TIR (70-180 mg/dL) (estimated treatment difference [ETD]: -4.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -9.1, -0.0, P = .049). TBR was lower with IDeg at level 1 (54-69 mg/dL) (ETD: -1.7% [95% CI: -2.9, -0.5], P < .05) and level 2 (<54 mg/dL) (ETD: -1.3% [95% CI: -2.1, -0.5], P = .001). TAR was higher with IDeg compared with IGlar-100 at level 1 (181-250 mg/dL) (ETD: 4.0% [95% CI: 0.8, 7.3], P < .05) and level 2 (> 250 mg/dL) (ETD: 4.0% [95% CI: 0.8, 7.2], P < .05). The mean CV was lower with IDeg than that with IGlar-100 (ETD: -3.4% [95% CI: -5.6, -1.2], P < .05).

CONCLUSION

For people with T1D suffering from recurrent nocturnal severe hypoglycemia, treatment with IDeg, compared with IGlar-100, results in a lower TBR and CV during the night at the expense of more TAR.

Switching to once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in individuals with basal-bolus insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 4): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Insulin icodec (icodec) is a basal insulin analogue suitable for once-weekly dosing. ONWARDS 4 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec compared with once-daily insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen.

METHODS

In this 26-week, phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial, adults from 80 sites (outpatient clinics and hospital departments) across nine countries (Belgium, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, and the USA) with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·0-10·0%) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-weekly icodec or once-daily glargine U100 combined with 2-4 daily bolus insulin aspart injections. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 (non-inferiority margin of 0·3 percentage points). The primary outcome was evaluated in the full analysis set (ie, all randomly assigned participants). Safety outcomes were evaluated in the safety analysis set (ie, all participants randomly assigned who received at least one dose of trial product). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04880850.

FINDINGS

Between May 14 and Oct 29, 2021, 746 participants were screened for eligibility, of whom 582 (78%) were randomly assigned (291 [50%] to icodec treatment and 291 [50%] to glargine U100 treatment). Participants had a mean duration of type 2 diabetes of 17·1 years (SD 8·4). At week 26, estimated mean change in HbA1c was -1·16 percentage points in the icodec group (baseline 8·29%) and -1·18 percentage points in the glargine U100 group (baseline 8·31%), showing non-inferiority for icodec versus glargine U100 (estimated treatment difference 0·02 percentage points [95% CI -0·11 to 0·15], p<0·0001). Overall, 171 (59%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 167 (57%) of 291 participants in the glargine U100 group had an adverse event. 35 serious adverse events were reported in 22 (8%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 33 serious adverse events were reported in 25 (9%) of 291 participants receiving glargine U100. Overall, combined level 2 and level 3 hypoglycaemia rates were similar between treatment groups. No new safety concerns were identified for icodec.

INTERPRETATION

In people with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen, once-weekly icodec showed similar improvements in glycaemic control, with fewer basal insulin injections, lower bolus insulin dose, and with no increase in hypoglycaemic rates compared with once-daily glargine U100. Key strengths of this trial include the use of masked continous glucose monitoring; the high trial completion rate; and the inclusion of a large, diverse, and multinational population. Limitations include the relatively short trial duration and the open-label design.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Emerging drugs for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus: a review of phase 2 clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Despite therapeutic advances in the field of diabetes management since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago, there are still unmet clinical needs for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

AREAS COVERED

Genetic testing and islet autoantibodies testing allow researchers to design prevention studies. This review discusses the emerging therapy for prevention of T1DM, disease modification therapy in early course of T1DM, and therapies and technologies for established T1DM. We focus on phase 2 clinical trials with promising results, thus avoiding the exhausted list of every new therapy for T1DM.

EXPERT OPINION

Teplizumab has demonstrated potential as a preventative agent for individuals at risk prior to the onset of overt dysglycemia. However, these agents are not without side effects, and there are uncertainties on long-term safety. Technological advances have led a substantial influence on quality of life of people suffering from T1DM. There remains variation in uptake of new technologies across the globe. Novel insulins (ultra-long acting), oral insulin, and inhaled insulin attempt to narrow the gap of unmet needs. Islet cell transplant is another exciting field, and stem cell therapy might have potential to provide unlimited supply of islet cells.

Effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 on nocturnal glycaemia assessed by plasma glucose profiles in people with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia

AIM

To compare nocturnal glucose profiles according to hourly plasma glucose measurements during treatment with insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 in a cohort of people with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The HypoDeg trial is a 2-year investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled crossover trial in 149 participants randomized to treatment with insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 for 12 months each. The 51 participants in this predefined substudy stayed at least one night in hospital during each treatment arm for plasma glucose samples to be taken. Endpoints were glucose profiles, including mean plasma glucose, glycaemic variability and risk of hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

There were no differences between treatments regarding mean plasma glucose. We saw a flatter glucose profile during insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 treatment, which had a nadir at 4:00 AM, with a subsequent rise. During treatment with insulin degludec, the participants had lower glycaemic variability, with an estimated treatment difference of -4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] -8.1 to -0.5; P < 0.05). Participants treated with insulin degludec were less likely to experience nocturnal hypoglycaemia below 3.0 mmol/L (hazard ratio 0.36 [95% CI 0.17-0.73; P < 0.05]).

CONCLUSION

Based on nocturnal plasma glucose measurements, treatment with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 administered in the evening results in lower glycaemic variability and lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia without differences in mean plasma glucose.

The Effect of BMI on Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Parameters of Insulin Degludec: Results from an Euglycemic Glucose Clamp Study

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the effect of body mass index (BMI) on pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) parameters of insulin degludec in healthy Chinese males, depending on an euglycemic glucose clamp study.

METHODS

Sixty-five healthy male subjects were divided into four groups according to quartile of BMI value. Group A: BMI ≤ 20.7 kg/m²; group B: 20.7 < BMI ≤ 22.5 kg/m²; group C: 22.5 < BMI ≤ 23.6 kg/m²; group D: BMI > 23.6 kg/m². Each volunteer received a single subcutaneous dose (0.4 U/kg) of insulin degludec and accepted a 24-h euglycemic glucose clamp study. The primary PK parameters were maximum observed drug concentration (C_max) and the area under the curve (AUC_INS) for the specified time intervals. The primary PD parameters were the time to the start of glucose infusion (T_onset), maximal glucose infusion rate (GIR_max) and area under the curve (AUC_GIR) for the specified time intervals. The differences of these PK/PD parameters were compared among groups.

RESULTS

C_max and the AUC of insulin (0-6 h, 6-12 h and 0-24 h) were more than onefold higher in group A than those in groups B, C, D, and the concentration-time curve of group A was significantly shifted to the left compared with the other three groups. The GIR_max, total AUC_GIR, and AUC_GIR for each time interval were significantly higher in group A than those in other three groups. The proportion of AUC_GIR in group A was the lowest proportion among four groups seen in the late stage. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that BMI was negatively correlated with AUC_GIR,_{0-24 h}.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin degludec in healthy Chinese male subjects with BMI ≤ 20.7 kg/m² had a faster absorption, clearance, and a stronger glucose-lowering effect, but a steeper decrease of insulin action in the late stage after dosing.

Efficacy and safety of basal insulin degludec 100 IU/mL versus glargine 300 IU/mL for type 1 diabetes: The single-center INEOX randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To compare efficacy and safety of degludec 100 IU/mL (Deg-100) and glargine 300 IU/mL (Gla-300) in adults with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Open-label, single-center, randomized, parallel-group, 24-week trial in adults with type 1 diabetes, on basal-bolus insulin therapy, HbA1c ≤ 10%, using self-monitoring blood glucose. Participants were randomized 1:1 to a basal-bolus insulin regimen with Deg-100 (N = 129) or Gla-300 (N = 131). Primary efficacy endpoint: mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week-24. Main safety outcome: incidence rate of hypoglycemia during the study. Quality of life (DQOL) and satisfaction with diabetes treatment (DTSQ) were assessed.

RESULTS

At week 24, after adjusting for baseline HbA1c, the decrease in HbA1c did not differ between groups: Deg-100 (-0.07 ± 0.7%) and Gla-300 (-0.16 ± 0.77%) (P = 0.320). There were no significant differences between groups in HbA1c, nocturnal hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, DQOL, or DTSQ scores. The incidence rates of hypoglycemia < 3.9 mmol/L (Deg-100: 115.24 events/person-year vs Gla-300: 99.01 events/person-year, p < 0.001); and < 3.0 mmol/L (Deg-100: 41.17 events/person-year vs Gla-300: 34.29 events/person-year, p < 0.001) were different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Deg-100 and Gla-300 have similar metabolic efficacy, incidence ratio of nocturnal and severe hypoglycemia, DQOL and DTSQ scores. Differences in the incidence rate of hypoglycemia < 3.9 mmol/L and < 3.0 mmol/L should be confirmed.

[Injection therapy of diabetes]

The present article is a recommendation of the Austrian Diabetes Association for the practical use of injection therapy (GLP1-receptor agonists and insulin) in type 2 diabetes.

Derivatization with fatty acids in peptide and protein drug discovery

Peptides and proteins are widely used to treat a range of medical conditions; however, they often have to be injected and their effects are short-lived. These shortcomings of the native structure can be addressed by molecular engineering, but this is a complex undertaking. A molecular engineering technology initially applied to insulin - and which has now been successfully applied to several biopharmaceuticals - entails the derivatization of peptides and proteins with fatty acids. Various protraction mechanisms are enabled by the specific characteristics and positions of the attached fatty acid. Furthermore, the technology can ensure a long half-life following oral administration of peptide drugs, can alter the distribution of peptides and may hold potential for tissue targeting. Due to the inherent safety and well-defined chemical nature of the fatty acids, this technology provides a versatile approach to peptide and protein drug discovery.

The 2021-2022 position of Brazilian Diabetes Society on insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes: an evidence-based guideline to clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Insulin therapy regimens for people with type 1 diabetes (PWT1D) should mimic the physiological insulin secretion that occurs in individuals without diabetes. Intensive insulin therapy, whether by multiple daily injections (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), constitutes the fundamental therapy from the initial stages of type 1 diabetes (T1D), at all ages. This review is an authorized literal translation of part of the Brazilian Diabetes Society (SBD) Guidelines 2021-2022. This evidence-based guideline supplies guidance on insulin therapy in T1D.

METHODS

The methods were published elsewhere in earlier SBD guidelines and was approved by the Internal Institutional Steering Committee for publication. Briefly, the Brazilian Diabetes Society indicated fourteen experts to constitute the Central Committee, designed to regulate the method review of the manuscripts, and judge the degrees of recommendations and levels of evidence. SBD Type 1 Diabetes Department drafted the manuscript selecting key clinical questions to do a narrative review using MEDLINE via PubMed, with the best evidence available, including high-quality clinical trials, metanalysis, and large observational studies related to insulin therapy in T1D, by using the Mesh terms [type 1 diabetes] and [insulin].

RESULTS

Based on extensive literature review the Central Committee defined ten recommendations. Three levels of evidence were considered: A. Data from more than one randomised clinical trial (RCT) or one metanalysis of RCTs with low heterogeneity (I² < 40%). B. Data from metanalysis, including large observational studies, a single RCT, or a pre-specified subgroup analysis. C: Data from small or non-randomised studies, exploratory analysis, or consensus of expert opinion. The degree of recommendation was obtained based on a poll sent to the panellists, using the following criteria: Grade I: when more than 90% of agreement; Grade IIa if 75-89% of agreement; IIb if 50-74% of agreement, and III, when most of the panellist recommends against a defined treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In PWT1D, it is recommended to start insulin treatment immediately after clinical diagnosis, to prevent metabolic decompensation and diabetic ketoacidosis. Insulin therapy regimens should mimic insulin secretion with the aim to achieve glycemic control goals established for the age group. Intensive treatment with basal-bolus insulin therapy through MDI or CSII is recommended, and insulin analogues offers some advantages in PWT1D, when compared to human insulin. Periodic reassessment of insulin doses should be performed to avoid clinical inertia in treatment.

Changes of HbA1c variability after the switch to a longer-acting insulin analog in people with type 1 diabetes

This study investigated whether longer-acting basal analogs (insulin degludec and insulin glargine U300) could reduce visit-to-visit hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) variability in patients with type 1 diabetes. Ninety adults with type 1 diabetes for whom the basal insulin was switched to a longer-acting insulin analog were analyzed retrospectively. The coefficient of variation of HbA1c levels (CV-HbA1c) during the year before and after the switch was compared. The CV-HbA1c after the switch was not significantly different from that before the switch (4.39 ± 2.24% vs 4.25 ± 2.07%; P = 0.506). The linear regression model revealed that CV-HbA1c before the switch was independently associated with the change of CV-HbA1c (regression coefficient per standard deviation = -0.568, P < 0.001), whereas the other variables were not (all P > 0.05). In conclusion, CV-HbA1c remained unchanged after the switch on average, but CV-HbA1c before the switch was associated with the decrease of CV-HbA1c in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Insulin Degludec Versus Other Long-acting Basal Insulin Analogues in the Treatment of Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of insulin degludec with those of other long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus (T1D or T2D).

METHODS

Those randomized controlled trials comparing insulin degludec with other long-acting insulin analogues in the treatment of patients with T1D or T2D published on or before August 21, 2022, were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The efficacy end points were the changes from baseline in hemoglobin A_1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). The tolerability end point was the prevalence of hypoglycemia confirmed throughout the treatment period.

FINDINGS

Data from a total of 20 trials (19,048 patients) were included. The differences in the reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin between insulin degludec and other long-acting basal insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) used for the treatment of patients with T1D or T2D were not significant. However, the reduction in FPG was greater with insulin degludec (-0.370 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.473 to -0.267 mmol/L; P ≤ 0.001). Throughout the treatment periods of all of the available trials, the estimated rate ratios of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia were significantly decreased with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine or insulin detemir in patients with T1D or T2D; the differences in the risks for severe hypoglycemia were not significant.

IMPLICATIONS

Compared with other long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir), insulin degludec was associated with a significantly decreased FPG, with lower prevalences of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of glargine 300 U/mL versus degludec 100 U/mL in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. A multicenter retrospective real-world study (RESTORE-2 NAIVE STUDY)

AIMS

This study assessed comparative effectiveness of glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus degludec 100 U/mL (Deg-100) in insulin-naïve patients with T2D.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, multicenter, non-inferiority study based on electronic medical records. All patients initiating Gla-300 or Deg-100 were 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM). Linear mixed models were used to assess the changes in continuous endpoints. Incidence rates (IR) of hypoglycemia were compared using Poisson's regression models.

RESULTS

Nineteen centers provided data on 357 patients in each PSM cohort. HbA1c after 6 months (primary endpoint) decreased by - 1.70% (95%CI - 1.90; - 1.50) in Gla-300 group and - 169% (95%CI - 1.89; - 1.49) in Deg-100 group, confirming non-inferiority of Gla-300 versus Deg-100. Fasting blood glucose (BG) decreased by ~60 mg/dl in both groups; body weight remained unchanged. In both groups, the mean starting dose was 12U (0.15U/kg) and it was slightly titrated to 16U (0.20U/kg). IR (episodes per patient-months) of BG ≤70 mg/dl was 0.13 in Gla-300 group and 0.14 in Deg-100 group (p=0.87). IR of BG <54 mg/dL was 0.02 in both groups (p=0.49). No severe hypoglycemia occurred.

CONCLUSION

Initiating Gla-300 or Deg-100 was associated with similar improvements in glycemic control, no weight gain and low hypoglycemia rates, without severe episodes during 6 months of treatment.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Recorded Hypoglycemia with Insulin Degludec or Insulin Glargine U100 in People with Type 1 Diabetes Prone to Nocturnal Severe Hypoglycemia

Background and Aims: Nocturnal hypoglycemia is mainly a consequence of inappropriate basal insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and may compromise optimal glycemic control. Insulin degludec is associated with a lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia in T1D. As nocturnal hypoglycemia is often asymptomatic, we applied continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to detect a more precise occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycemia in the HypoDeg trial, comparing insulin degludec with insulin glargine U100 in people with T1D and previous nocturnal severe hypoglycemia. Materials and Methods: In the HypoDeg trial, 149 people with T1D were included in an open-label randomized cross-over trial. Sixty-seven participants accepted optional participation in the predefined substudy of 4 × 6 days of blinded CGM requiring completion of at least one CGM period in each treatment arm. CGM data were reviewed for hypoglycemic events. Results: Treatment with insulin degludec resulted in a relative rate reduction (RRR) of 36% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10%-54%; P < 0.05) in nocturnal CGM-recorded hypoglycemia (≤3.9 mmol/L), corresponding to an absolute rate reduction (ARR) of 0.85 events per person-week. In nocturnal CGM-recorded hypoglycemia (≤3.0 mmol/L), we found an RRR of 53% (95% CI: 36%-65%; P < 0.001), corresponding to an ARR of 0.75 events per person-week. At the lower detection limit of the CGM (≤2.2 mmol/L), treatment with insulin degludec resulted in a significant RRR of 58% (95% CI: 23%-77%; P = 0.005). The reductions were primarily due to significant RRRs in asymptomatic hypoglycemia. Conclusion: In people with T1D, prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycemia, insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 significantly reduces nocturnal CGM-recorded hypoglycemia. www.clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02192450).

Insulin: evolution of insulin formulations and their application in clinical practice over 100 years

The first preparation of insulin extracted from a pancreas and made suitable for use in humans after purification was achieved 100 years ago in Toronto, an epoch-making achievement, which has ultimately provided a life-giving treatment for millions of people worldwide. The earliest animal-derived formulations were short-acting and contained many impurities that caused adverse reactions, thereby limiting their therapeutic potential. However, since then, insulin production and purification improved with enhanced technologies, along with a full understanding of the insulin molecule structure. The availability of radio-immunoassays contributed to the unravelling of the physiology of glucose homeostasis, ultimately leading to the adoption of rational models of insulin replacement. The introduction of recombinant DNA technologies has since resulted in the era of both rapid- and long-acting human insulin analogues administered via the subcutaneous route which better mimic the physiology of insulin secretion, leading to the modern basal-bolus regimen. These advances, in combination with improved education and technologies for glucose monitoring, enable people with diabetes to better meet individual glycaemic goals with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia. While the prevalence of diabetes continues to rise globally, it is important to recognise the scientific endeavour that has led to insulin remaining the cornerstone of diabetes management, on the centenary of its first successful use in humans.

Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec U100 versus insulin glargine U300 in adults with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison

BACKGROUND

Clinical differences between degludec U100 (Deg-100) and glargine U300 (Gla-300) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) were unknown.

AIM

To indirectly compare the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness between Deg-100 and Gla-300 in T1D adults via systematic review.

METHOD

Medline, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar were searched (October 2021). Randomized controlled trials comparing Deg-100 or Gla-300 vs. glargine U100 in T1D adults (follow-up ≥ 12 weeks) were selected and analyzed using a frequentist network meta-analysis. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted over a 1-year time horizon from societal perspectives.

RESULTS

Nine trials were included. Efficacy analysis suggested that Deg-100 was non-inferior to Gla-300 in reducing HbA_1c (MD 0.03 [95% CI - 0.09 to 0.15]; P = 0.60), FPG (MD - 1.12 [- 2.19 to - 0.04]; P = 0.04), and pre-breakfast SMBG (MD - 0.71 [- 1.46 to 0.03]; P = 0.06). Safety analysis suggested that Deg-100 appeared to have lower rates of both severe (HR 0.44 [0.25-0.78]; P = 0.005) and nocturnal severe (HR 0.19 [0.08-0.44]; P < 0.001) hypoglycemia, with lower total (MD - 0.07 [- 0.13 to - 0.01]; P = 0.02) and basal (MD - 0.08 [- 0.12 to - 0.04]; P < 0.001) insulin doses compared with Gla-300. No significant differences were observed for other hypoglycemia outcomes, adverse events, serious adverse events, bolus insulin dose, and body weight. The CEA showed that Deg-100 appeared to be a dominant treatment in Japan (+ 0.0283 QALYs, ¥26,266 [$228] per patient) and the United States (+ 0.0267 QALYs, $986 per patient).

CONCLUSION

Low-certainty indirect evidence suggested that Deg-100 appeared to have a favorable reduction in rates of severe hypoglycemia and more cost-effective compared with Gla-300 in T1D adults.

One-year safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec in patients with diabetes mellitus in routine clinical practice in India—TRUST (Tresiba real-world use study)

Objective

This post-authorization safety study (PASS) was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) requiring insulin therapy in routine clinical practice in India.

Methods

Data on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and adverse events (AEs) were collected up to 12 months after insulin degludec initiation.

Results

A total of 1057 adult patients with DM were enrolled, including 60.07% males with the mean duration of 22.2 ± 21.90 years with type 1 DM and 10.1 ± 7.37 years with type 2 DM and the mean HbA1c of 9.6 ± 1.9%. Insulin degludec was prescribed to improve HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Insulin degludec daily dose was increased from 14.8 ± 8.0 U to 18.0 ± 9.46 U over 12 months resulting in a significant decrease of HbA1c by 1.8 ± 1.68% compared with baseline. There were 84 events of confirmed hypoglycemia in 51 patients during the 12-month follow-up period, and 44 AEs were reported in 2.6% of patients, of which 2 AEs were serious and unrelated to the drug.

Conclusion

Insulin degludec is well tolerated in patients with DM. It improves glycemic control with reduced HbA1c, FPG, and postprandial glucose, with a low risk of hypoglycemia.

Persistent Hypoglycemia Induced by Long-acting Insulin Degludec

A 58-year-old Japanese man was brought to the emergency room due to disturbance of consciousness. He regained consciousness on the day of admission and started taking hospital meals, but he needed intravenous glucose administration for eight days. The total amount of glucose administration was 4,464 g. It took over three weeks for exogenous insulin to be almost undetectable. While degludec binds to albumin and exerts glucose-lowering effects for a long time, the above-mentioned period of three weeks was consistent with the half-life of albumin. Hypoglycemia induced by massive dose of insulin degludec is persistent and prominent.

Evaluation of Tresiba Combined with Six Ingredient Rehmannia Pill in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Insulin replacement therapy is the main treatment method for type 1 diabetes, and adjuvant comprehensive treatment to reduce the complications of diabetes is still the focus of research. The purpose of this study is to explore the clinical efficacy of Tresiba combined with Ingredient Rehmannia Pill in the treatment of type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

A total of 216 patients with type 2 diabetes admitted to our hospital from January 2019 to July 2019 were enrolled in this study. Patients in the control and observation groups were treated with Tresiba and Tresiba combined with Ingredient Rehmannia Pill, respectively. The change of TCM symptom score, blood glucose level and fasting insulin level before and after treatment were evaluated, and the insulin resistance index was calculated to observe the adverse reactions of patients.

RESULTS

After treatment, the TCM syndrome scores of the two groups decreased significantly, and the TCM syndrome scores of the observation group were significantly lower than those of the control group. The fasting blood glucose, 2 h postprandial blood glucose and insulin resistance index of the observation group were lower than those of the control group. The levels of FBG, 2 hBG and HbA1C in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group. The total effective rate of the observation group was 91.7%, which was significantly higher than that of the control group (77.1%). The adverse reactions of patients in the observation group were slightly more than those in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that Ingredient Rehmannia Pill combined with Tresiba is effective in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, providing alternative therapies for the treatment of diabetes.

Comparison of treatment with insulin degludec and glargine U100 in patients with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia: The HypoDeg randomized, controlled, open-label, crossover trial

AIM

To investigate whether the long-acting insulin analogue insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 reduces the risk of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Adults with T1D and at least one episode of nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia during the last 2 years were included in a 2-year prospective, randomized, open, multicentre, crossover trial. A total of 149 patients were randomized 1:1 to basal-bolus therapy with insulin degludec and insulin aspart or insulin glargine U100 and insulin aspart. Each treatment period lasted 1 year and consisted of 3 months of run-in or crossover followed by 9 months of maintenance. The primary endpoint was the number of blindly adjudicated nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes. Secondary endpoints included the occurrence of severe hypoglycaemia. We analysed all endpoints by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Treatment with insulin degludec resulted in a 28% (95% CI: 9%-43%; P = .02) relative rate reduction (RRR) of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia at level 1 (≤3.9 mmol/L), a 37% (95% CI: 16%-53%; P = .002) RRR at level 2 (≤3.0 mmol/L), and a 35% (95% CI: 1%-58%; P = .04) RRR in all-day severe hypoglycaemia compared with insulin glargine U100.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with T1D prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia have lower rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia and all-day severe hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100.

Insulin Centennial: Milestones influencing the development of insulin preparations since 1922

During 1921 to 1922, a team effort by Banting, Macleod, Collip and Best isolated and purified insulin and demonstrated its life-giving properties, giving rise to the birth of insulin therapy. In the early years (1922-1950), priorities revolved around the manufacture of insulin to meet demand, improving purity to avoid allergic reactions, establishing insulin standards and increasing its duration of action to avoid multiple daily injections. Shortly after the emergence of insulin, Joslin and Allen advocated the need to achieve and maintain good glycaemic control to realize its full potential. Although this view was opposed by some during a dark period in the history of insulin, it was subsequently endorsed some 60 years later endorsed by the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial and United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study. Major scientific advances by the Nobel Laureates Sanger, Hodgkin, Yalow and Gilbert and also by Steiner have revolutionized the understanding of diabetes and facilitated major advances in insulin therapy. The more recent advent of recombinant technology over the last 40 years has provided the potential for unlimited source of insulin, and the ability to generate various insulin 'analogues', in an attempt to better replicate normal insulin secretory patterns. The emerging biosimilars now provide the opportunity to improve availability at a lower cost.

The ongoing evolution of basal insulin therapy over 100 years and its promise for the future

The evolution of basal insulin therapy over the past 100 years since the discovery of insulin is a testimony to the biomedical bench-to-bedside process, wherein incremental advances in the basic sciences are progressively translated over time into a series of enhancements in clinical care, each building upon the success of its predecessors. The emergence of recombinant DNA technology and the resultant biosynthesis of human insulin in the 1980s provided the critical capacity to bioengineer designer insulin analogues with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties that can better mimic, although not fully replicate, the effects of endogenous insulin secretion. Through these efforts, basal insulin therapy has progressed over this time from first-generation analogues (glargine U-100, detemir) to second-generation analogues (glargine U-300, degludec) to ultra-long-acting formulations that are suitable for administration once weekly (icodec). Each iteration in this progression has represented a step closer towards the goal of replicating the continuous secretion of insulin that normally comprises the basal output of the pancreatic beta-cells between meals, during episodes of fasting and overnight. However, it may be that we may have reached the achievable limit in the context of an "open-loop" approach, such that only with the addition of closed loop control will we be able to achieve physiologic basal insulin replacement. In this review, we will examine the evolution of basal insulin therapy over the past 100 years and its implications for patient care and outcomes in current practice and the future.

Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL Therapy in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the second-generation basal insulin glargine 300 Units/mL (Gla-300) may be of benefit in the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Gla-300 provides a stable and sustained time-action profile, which is associated with glycaemic control and flexible dosing schedule. This review summarises the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of Gla-300 in children and adolescents with T1DM. Gla-300 is as effective as the first-generation basal insulin glargine 100 Units/mL (Gla-100), a standard of care for patients with diabetes in reducing HbA1c, and shows a lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia in children and adolescents with T1DM. However, Gla-300 and Gla-100 are not bioequivalent and are not directly interchangeable. Real-world studies on patients aged 6-17 years are limited. To date, only one small study assessed the effectiveness and safety of Gla-300 versus Gla-100 in newly diagnosed T1DM paediatric patients, confirming the treatment safety and effectiveness of Gla-300 in clinical practice. Gla-300 is a longer-acting basal insulin alternative in the management of children (aged ≥ 6 years) and adolescents with T1DM.

Hypoglycemia in diabetes: An update on pathophysiology, treatment, and prevention

Hypoglycemia is a common complication in patients with diabetes, mainly in those treated with insulin, sulfonylurea, or glinide. Impairments in counterregulatory responses and hypoglycemia unawareness constitute the main risk factors for severe hypoglycemia. Episodes of hypoglycemia are associated with physical and psychological morbidity. The fear of hypoglycemia constitutes a barrier that impairs the patient’s ability to reach good glycemic control. To prevent hypoglycemia, much effort must be invested in patient education regarding risk factors, warning signs, and treatment of hypoglycemia at an early stage, together with setting personalized goals for glycemic control. In this review, we present a comprehensive update on the treatment and prevention of hypoglycemia in type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients.

Clinical Considerations for Insulin Therapy in Older Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Type 1 diabetes represents an autoimmune condition with a strong inherited background, and its incidence is increasing worldwide. About 25% of such cases are diagnosed in adulthood, some even as late as the ninth decade of life. The number of older adults with type 1 diabetes is increasing due to improvements in care and decreased mortality rate. However, there is a lack of clinical trials in people older than 70 years of age with type 1 diabetes complicated with comorbidities, frailty, and dependency. The management of type 1 diabetes and the goals of therapy should be individualized based on the patient's health status and life expectancy. In healthier older adults, insulin treatment regimens (multiple daily insulin injections or insulin pump therapy) that approximate the normal physiology of insulin secretion should be used to achieve lower glycemic goals, while reducing the risk of hypoglycemia with frequent glucose monitoring (preferably using continuous glucose monitoring systems). For frail individuals with poor health, simpler insulin regimens and less stringent glycemic targets would be more appropriate. Poor cognition, vision and hearing, impaired mobility, depression, and chronic pain can interfere with complex insulin regimens. In these individuals, the principal goals of therapy are to reduce the acute effects of hyperglycemia, minimize hypoglycemia risk, and optimize quality of life. The newer insulin preparations and technological advances in insulin delivery and blood glucose monitoring have enhanced the management of type 1 diabetes in all age groups.

Synthetic long-acting insulin analogs for the management of type 1 diabetes: an update

INTRODUCTION

Type 1 diabetes is characterized by insulin deficiency and requires near-physiological insulin replacement. In most patients, this is accomplished by basal bolus therapy consisting of a long-acting basal insulin administered once or twice daily and short-acting insulin with main meals. Several long-acting insulin analogs have been developed to optimize basal insulin therapy.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews the design of - and data from - randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess glucose lowering efficacy and safety of long-acting insulin analogs for the treatment of type 1 diabetes.

EXPERT OPINION

Due to the non-inferiority treat-to-target design of insulin, RCTs treatment differences primarily appear as differences in hypoglycemia risk. Data suggest that the first generation long-acting insulin analogs insulin glargine U100 and insulin detemir have a similar glucose lowering efficacy compared to NPH insulin but a lower risk of hypoglycemia, particularly during nighttime. The newer analogs insulin glargine U300 and insulin degludec provide non-inferior efficacy, although insulin glargine U300 is less potent unit-to-unit. Insulin degludec reduces hypoglycemia risk compared to insulin glargine U100. Future studies should explore the potential for further improvement of treatment results in type 1 diabetes by a structured approach to personalization of basal insulin therapy.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ultra-Long-Acting, Long-Acting, Intermediate-Acting, and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

We included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42017077051.

Living with Insulin: The story of insulin from people with diabetes

The history of insulin is rightly considered one of the most beautiful stories in medicine which goes even further than the extraordinary result of tens of millions of lives saved. Without a doubt, it constitutes a major achievement for medical science which, especially in the last 50 years, has led to an impressive acceleration in the succession of new treatment opportunities. We are going to describe the history of insulin therapy, the history we lived from two different angles as people living with type 1 diabetes, and obviously also as diabetologists, but as diabetologists with diabetes. Without a doubt, insulin and his story constitutes a major achievement for medical science which has led to an impressive acceleration in the succession of new treatment opportunities. Care opportunities that have not only allowed fundamental improvements in outcomes, but have also and above all impacted the quality of life of people with diabetes. Summarizing one hundred years of insulin is no simple endeavor. In our view, it would be easier, and probably more befitting, to focus on the last 50 years, namely the period we have lived closely and personally together with insulin. More to the point, these last 50 years have witnessed a dramatic acceleration of research and innovation. In our opinion, it is precisely the innovations in insulin therapy introduced from the last decades that fully justify the description of events in this incredible period as "the miracle of insulin". We'll describe how the most important innovations introduced in the last decades had impact on what we have nowadays, as patients and diabetologits: today, we can finally adapt insulin therapy to the patient's life or lifestyle, reversing what was the perception of patients until 20 years, when insulin was considered, by the most, as an obstacle, which seemed insurmountable to some, to a free and unconstrained life.

Insulin and insulin analogs as antidiabetic therapy: A perspective from clinical trials

The discovery of insulin in 1921 and the progress achieved in the ensuing century highlight the promise and challenge of biochemically modifying the molecule to achieve optimization of its delivery and therapeutic efficacy. Normal endogenous insulin secretion consists of a highly orchestrated physiologic loop wherein multiple metabolic signals trigger the pancreatic β cells to secrete the precise amount of insulin into the portal system required to maintain euglycemia. Accordingly, in the treatment of diabetes, attempting to replicate this complex physiology with exogenous insulin therapy given subcutaneously presents a clinical challenge. In this context, recombinant DNA-based technology has enabled the development of insulin analogs that have been specifically designed to confer advantageous pharmacodynamic features that can better mimic endogenous insulin secretion. In this review, we discuss the development of the most widely available insulin preparations and provide evidence-based insight into their use in clinical practice.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

People with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) need treatment with insulin for survival. Whether any particular type of (ultra-)long-acting insulin provides benefit especially regarding risk of diabetes complications and hypoglycaemia is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn) or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogue in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We explored the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Agency (EMA) web pages. We asked pharmaceutical companies, EMA and investigators for additional data and clinical study reports (CSRs). The date of the last search of all databases was 24 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 24 weeks or more comparing one (ultra-)long-acting insulin to NPH insulin or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin in people with T1DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 (RoB 2) tool and extracted data. Our main outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (QoL), severe hypoglycaemia, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke (NFMI/NFS), severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events (SAEs) and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs. Two studies were unpublished. We obtained CSRs, clinical study synopses or both as well as medical reviews from regulatory agencies on 23 studies which contributed to better analysis of risk of bias and improved data extraction. A total of 8784 participants were randomised: 2428 participants were allocated to NPH insulin, 2889 participants to insulin detemir, 2095 participants to insulin glargine and 1372 participants to insulin degludec. Eight studies contributing 21% of all participants comprised children. The duration of the intervention varied from 24 weeks to 104 weeks. Insulin degludec versus NPH insulin: we identified no studies comparing insulin degludec with NPH insulin. Insulin detemir versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): five deaths reported in two studies including adults occurred in the insulin detemir group (Peto OR 4.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.38; 9 studies, 3334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies with 870 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). There was a reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir: 171/2019 participants (8.5%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 138/1200 participants (11.5%) in the NPH insulin group experienced severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 8 studies, 3219 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.34 and 1.39. Only 1/331 participants in the insulin detemir group compared with 0/164 participants in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFMI (1 study, 495 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported NFS. A total of 165/2094 participants (7.9%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 102/1238 participants (8.2%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21; 9 studies, 3332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 70/1823 participants (3.8%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 60/1102 participants (5.4%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17; 7 studies, 2925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin was 0.01%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 8 studies, 3122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): one adult died in the NPH insulin group (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.98; 8 studies, 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 1013 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial effect or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was observed in 122/1191 participants (10.2%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 145/1159 participants (12.5%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.04; 9 studies, 2350 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a NFMI and one participant in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFS in the single study reporting this outcome (585 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 109/1131 participants (9.6%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 110/1098 participants (10.0%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.84; 8 studies, 2229 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 69/938 participants (7.4%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 83/955 participants (8.7%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; 6 studies, 1893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin was 0.02%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 9 studies, 2285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine (2 RCTs),insulin degludec versus insulin detemir (2 RCTs), insulin degludec versus insulin glargine (4 RCTs): there was no evidence of a clinically relevant difference for all main outcomes comparing (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues with each other. For all outcomes none of the comparisons indicated differences in tests of interaction for children versus adults.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin for T1DM showed lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir (moderate-certainty evidence). However, the 95% prediction interval indicated inconsistency in this finding. Both insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin did not show benefits or harms for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. For all other main outcomes with overall low risk of bias and comparing insulin analogues with each other, there was no true beneficial or harmful effect for any intervention. Data on patient-important outcomes such as QoL, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications were sparse or missing. No clinically relevant differences were found between children and adults.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Ultra Rapid Lispro (URLi) in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: The PRONTO-T1D Extension

INTRODUCTION

The PRONTO-T1D study, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), met the primary endpoint of noninferiority of HbA1c change from baseline compared to lispro at 26 weeks. We present results of an additional 26-week treatment phase evaluating long-term efficacy and safety of URLi.

METHODS

In this phase 3, treat-to-target study, subjects were randomized to double-blind mealtime URLi, lispro, or open-label postmeal URLi with insulin degludec or glargine for 26 weeks. Subjects in the double-blind URLi (n = 451) and lispro (n = 442) groups continued for another 26 weeks to assess long-term efficacy and safety.

RESULTS

HbA1c increased marginally during the long-term maintenance period (week 26-52) in both groups to 7.47% (URLi) and 7.54% (lispro). At week 52, there were no statistically significant treatment differences in change from baseline HbA1c with a least-squares mean treatment difference (95% confidence interval) of - 0.06% (- 0.16, 0.03). Proportions of patients with HbA_1c < 7% at week 52 were similar (URLi, 26.8%; lispro, 24.5%). Self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) showed that 1-h (9.23 versus 10.14 mmol/L) and 2-h (8.40 versus 9.53 mmol/L) postmeal daily mean glucose was statistically significantly (p < 0.001) lower with URLi than lispro. The rate and incidence of severe, documented, and postprandial hypoglycemia (< 54 mg/dl [3.0 mmol/L]) were similar between treatments, but URLi demonstrated a 31% lower rate in the period more than 4 h after meals, (p = 0.023). Injection site reactions were reported by 3.3% of patients on URLi and 0.9% on lispro. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between treatments.

CONCLUSION

Overall glycemic control and improved postprandial glucose via SMBG were maintained after 52 weeks with URLi versus lispro, suggesting that the efficacy of URLi is preserved during long-term treatment in patients with T1D. No long-term safety issues were identified with URLi.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03214367.

Comparative Effectiveness of Switching From First-Generation Basal Insulin to Glargine 300 U/ml or Degludec 100 U/ml in Type 1 Diabetes: The RESTORE-1 Study

INTRODUCTION

Following pivotal trials, real-world evidence is important to assess the impact of new drugs in everyday clinical practice. The RESTORE-1 study aimed to compare effectiveness and safety of the second-generation basal insulins (2BI), i.e., insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) vs. degludec 100 U/ml (IDeg-100), in type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Retrospective, non-inferiority, multicenter study, based on electronic medical records. All patients switching to Gla-300 or IDeg-100 from first-generation basal insulins (1BI) were 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM). Changes during 6 months in HbA1c (primary endpoint), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight, and insulin doses were assessed using linear mixed models for repeated measures. Incidence rates (IR) of hypoglycemic events were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 19 centers provided data on 585 patients in each PSM cohort. For both groups, statistically significant reductions in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months were documented: - 0.20%; (95% CI - 0.32; - 0.08) in the Gla-300 group and - 0.14%; (95% CI - 0.24; - 0.04) in the IDeg-100 group. The non-inferiority of Gla-300 vs. IDeg-100 was confirmed (non-inferiority margin of 0.30%; upper 95% CI at 6 months, 0.09%). No statistically significant between-group differences emerged in FPG and body weight. Dose changes of basal and short-acting insulin were small in both groups, but higher in the Gla-300 group than in the Deg-100 group (p < 0.006). Incidence rates (IR) of hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤ 70 mg/dl and < 54 mg/dl) during the 6-month follow-up by treatment were slightly lower in the Gla-300 group than in the Deg-100 group [IR ratios 0.82 (95% CI 0.55; 1.22) and 0.83; (95% CI 0.38; 1.83), respectively]. Hypoglycemic events (blood glucose < 54 mg/dl) decreased at 6 months in both groups (p = 0.01 for Gla-300 and p < 0.001 for IDeg-100). There were no severe hypoglycemic events for Gla-300 and seven events for IDeg-100 (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from 1BI to 2BI in adults with T1D was associated with similar improvements in glycemic control and overall significant decrease in hypoglycemia, with no severe events with Gla-300. Effectiveness of both insulins was limited by under-titration.

Clinical approaches to treat impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia

Impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) affects between 25% and 30% of all people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and markedly increases risk of severe hypoglycaemia. This greatly feared complication of T1D impairs quality of life and has a recognised morbidity. People with T1D have an increased propensity to hypoglycaemia as a result of fundamental physiological defects in their ability to respond appropriately to a fall in blood glucose levels. With repeated exposure to low glucose, many then develop a condition referred to as IAH, where there is a reduced ability to perceive the onset of hypoglycaemia and take appropriate corrective action. The management of individuals with IAH relies initially on its identification in the clinic through a detailed exploration of the frequency of hypoglycaemia and an assessment of the individual's ability to recognise these episodes. In this review article, we will address the clinical strategies that may help in the management of the patient with IAH once identified, who may or may not also suffer from problematic hypoglycaemia. The initial focus is on how to identify such patients and then on the variety of approaches involving educational programmes and technological approaches that may be taken to minimise hypoglycaemia risk. No single approach can be advocated for all patients, and it is the role of the health care professional to identify the clinical strategy that best enables their patient to achieve this goal.

Understanding the Clinical Profile of Insulin Degludec, the Latest Basal Insulin Approved for Use in Canada: a Narrative Review

In recent years, the development of basal insulin therapies has focused on insulin analogues that have longer durations of action and more predictable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) profiles than their human insulin-based predecessors, such as neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. Dosed once-daily, such analogues can provide a more stable glucose-lowering action, which translates clinically into a reduced risk of hypoglycemia. Insulin degludec (degludec) became available in Canada in 2017 and is the first basal insulin analogue to have a half-life exceeding the dosing interval. As well as offering the promise of an exceptionally flat PK/PD profile when at steady state, this characteristic means that insulin degludec can be dosed with some flexibility with regard to time of day and that it need not be taken at the same time each day. However, the approximately 25-h half-life also has some implications concerning dose titration. This article provides an up-to-date review of the study data describing the clinical profile of degludec, and aims to give helpful and practical advice to prescribers about its use. While the clinical benefits of degludec are described, it is also acknowledged that further study is required to better understand how its clinical performance compares with that of insulin glargine 300 units/mL.

Is it possible to predict the onset of nocturnal asymptomatic hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes receiving insulin degludec? Potential role of previous day and next morning glucose values

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

To determine whether the occurrence of nocturnal asymptomatic, serious, clinically important hypoglycemia (NSH) could be predicted based on glucose values on the previous day and the following morning of the day of onset.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study examined patients with type 1 diabetes who underwent continuous glucose monitoring assessments and received insulin degludec. NSH was defined as glucose level <54 mg/dL detected between 24.00 and 06.00 hours. The participants were evaluated to determine the following: (i) glucose level at bedtime (24.00 hours) on the previous day (BG); (ii) fasting glucose level (FG); and (iii) the range of post-breakfast glucose elevation. The patients were divided into those with NSH and those without, and compared using t-tests. Optimal cut-off values for relevant parameters for predicting NSH were determined using receiver operating characteristic analysis.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 31 patients with type 1 diabetes (mean glycated hemoglobin value 7.8 ± 0.7%). NSH occurred in eight patients (26%). BG and FG were significantly lower in those with NSH than in those without (P = 0.044, P < 0.001). The range of post-breakfast glucose elevation was significantly greater in those with NSH than in those without. The cut-off glucose values for predicting NSH were as follows: BG = 90 mg/dL (sensitivity 0.83/specificity 0.75/area under the curve 0.79, P = 0.017) and FG = 69 mg/dL (0.83/0.75/0.86, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that in patients with type 1 diabetes receiving insulin degludec, BG <90 mg/dL and FG <69 mg/dL had an approximately 80% probability of predicting the occurrence of NSH.

In Silico Head-to-Head Comparison of Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL and Insulin Degludec 100 U/mL in Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Second-generation long-acting insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and degludec 100 U/mL (Deg-100) provide novel basal insulin therapies for the treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Both offer a flatter pharmacokinetic (PK) profile than the previous generation of long-acting insulins, thus improving glycemic control while reducing hypoglycemic events. This work describes an in silico head-to-head comparison of the two basal insulins on 24-h glucose profiles and was used to guide the design of a clinical trial. Materials and Methods: The Universities of Virginia (UVA)/Padova T1D simulator describes the intra-/interday variability of glucose-insulin dynamics and thus provides a robust bench-test for assessing glucose control for basal insulin therapies. A PK model describing subcutaneous absorption of Deg-100, in addition to the one already available for Gla-300, has been developed based on T1D clinical data and incorporated into the simulator. One hundred in silico T1D subjects received a basal insulin dose (Gla-300 or Deg-100) for 12 weeks (8 weeks uptitration, 4 weeks stable dosing) by morning or evening administration in a basal/bolus regimen. The virtual patients were uptitrated to their individual doses with two different titration rules. Results: The last 2-week simulated continuous glucose monitoring data were used to calculate various outcome metrics for both basal insulin treatments, with primary outcome being the percent time in glucose target (70-140 mg/dL). The simulations show no statistically significant difference for Gla-300 versus Deg-100 in the main endpoints. Conclusions: This work suggests comparable glucose control using either Gla-300 or Deg-100 and was used to guide the design of a clinical trial intended to compare second-generation long-acting insulin analogues.

Insulin Degludec in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: Is Newer Better? - A Retrospective Self-Control Case Series in Adolescents with a History of Diabetic Ketoacidosis

INTRODUCTION

Insulin degludec (IDeg) is the longest-acting basal insulin available. Whether IDeg compared to shorter-acting basal insulins like insulin glargine U100 (IGlarU100) reduces the rate of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in adolescents with type 1 diabetes is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that adolescents with type 1 diabetes would have lower DKA rates and mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) when using IDeg as compared to IGlarU100.

METHODS

To avoid selection bias, we used self-control case series methodology. Adolescents with type 1 diabetes treated for DKA from January 2015 through December 2018 who switched basal insulin from IGlarU100 to IDeg were eligible for analysis. Thirty-five patients were included, each acting as their own control. Mean HbA1c and DKA rate for the 12 months prior to and after switching to IDeg were compared.

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c prior to and after switching to IDeg was unchanged (97 ± 20 vs. 97 ± 21 mmol/mol [11.0 ± 1.8 vs. 11.0 ± 1.9%]). Median DKA rate (admissions/year) while on IGlar-U100 was 1 with an interquartile range (IQR) of 1-2. After switching to IDeg, median DKA admission rate remained 1, however the IQR decreased to 0-1 (one-sided p value 0.0004). Median change in DKA rate was 1 fewer admission per year, with a maximum reduction of 3 admissions. Higher baseline rates of DKA increased the odds of a patient reducing his/her DKA rate by 1 admission per year or more.

CONCLUSIONS

Using IDeg for basal insulin in adolescent patients may decrease the rate of DKA relative to IGlarU100 despite no improvement in HbA1c and may be cost-effective.