Understanding how pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences of basal analog insulins influence clinical practice

Evolution of biosynthetic human insulin and its analogues for diabetes management

Hormones play a crucial role in maintaining the normal human physiology. By acting as chemical messengers that facilitate the communication between different organs, tissues and cells of the body hormones assist in responding appropriately to external and internal stimuli that trigger growth, development and metabolic activities of the body. Any abnormalities in the hormonal composition and balance can lead to devastating health consequences. Hormones have been important therapeutic agents since the early 20th century, when it was realized that their exogenous supply could serve as a functional substitution for those hormones which are not produced enough or are completely lacking, endogenously. Insulin, the pivotal anabolic hormone in the body, was used for the treatment of diabetes mellitus, a metabolic disorder due to the absence or intolerance towards insulin, since 1921 and is the trailblazer in hormone therapeutics. At present the largest market share for therapeutic hormones is held by insulin. Many other hormones were introduced into clinical practice following the success with insulin. However, for the six decades following the introduction the first therapeutic hormone, there was no reliable method for producing human hormones. The most common source for hormones were animals, although semisynthetic and synthetic hormones were also developed. However, none of these were optimal because of their allergenicity, immunogenicity, lack of consistency in purity and most importantly, scalability. The advent of recombinant DNA technology was a game changer for hormone therapeutics. This revolutionary molecular biology tool made it possible to synthesize human hormones in microbial cell factories. The approach allowed for the synthesis of highly pure hormones which were structurally and biochemically identical to the human hormones. Further, the fermentation techniques utilized to produce recombinant hormones were highly scalable. Moreover, by employing tools such as site directed mutagenesis along with recombinant DNA technology, it became possible to amend the molecular structure of the hormones to achieve better efficacy and mimic the exact physiology of the endogenous hormone. The first recombinant hormone to be deployed in clinical practice was insulin. It was called biosynthetic human insulin to reflect the biological route of production. Subsequently, the biochemistry of recombinant insulin was modified using the possibilities of recombinant DNA technology and genetic engineering to produce analogues that better mimic physiological insulin. These analogues were tailored to exhibit pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the prandial and basal human insulins to achieve better glycemic control. The present chapter explores the principles of genetic engineering applied to therapeutic hormones by reviewing the evolution of therapeutic insulin and its analogues. It also focuses on how recombinant analogues account for the better management of diabetes mellitus.

You may delay, but time will not. Beta cells lost are never found again: a case for timely initiation of basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Since its first use just over a century ago, insulin treatment has evolved dramatically, such that the molecules are physiologic in nature, and treatment can now closely resemble the natural hormone response over 24 hours. Newer, longer-acting basal insulin analogs have provided insulin therapies with improved characteristics and, therefore, ease of use, and can readily be incorporated as part of routine treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D), but evidence suggests that insulin remains underused in people with T2D. We review the barriers to initiation of basal insulin and the education needed to address these barriers, and we provide practical pointers, supported by evidence, for primary care physicians and advanced practice providers to facilitate timely initiation of basal insulin in the people with T2D who will benefit from such treatment.

Evaluating the clinical effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL in individuals with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin: A real-world evidence study from Saudi Arabia (EVOLUTION)

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety profile of switching to insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-U300) in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin in Saudi Arabia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a multicentre retrospective study that retrieved the medical records of adult T2D patients switched to Gla-U300 because of poor glycaemic control on their basal insulin. Data covering 6 months ± 30 days before and after the switch were retrieved.

RESULTS

Data from 718 patients were analysed. The mean HbA1c decreased significantly 6 months after switching to Gla-U300, with a mean reduction of 0.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6%-0.9%; P < .001). The percentage of patients with HbA1c levels of less than 7% increased from 6.4% before switching to 10.3% after switching to Gla-U300. The percentage of patients achieving the predefined individualized HbA1c goal increased from 8.6% before switching to 17.3% after switching to Gla-U300. The mean daily insulin dose decreased from a baseline level of 32.2 (± 14.7) to 31.0 (± 15) U (P = .09). About 36.1 of the patients required adjustment to the initial dose. Gla-300 was well tolerated; 4.5% of the patients experienced overall confirmed or symptomatic hypoglycaemia, compared with 15.3% before switching to Gla-U300. The incidence of severe hypoglycaemia after switching was 0.6% (n = 4 patients), compared with 1% before switching.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world evidence supports the effectiveness of switching to Gla-U300 from first-generation basal insulin in T2D in Saudi Arabia.

Prescriber Perspectives on Biosimilar Adoption and Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology: A Workshop Summary

The approval and adoption of biosimilar products are essential to contain increasing healthcare costs and provide more affordable choices for patients. Despite steady progress in the number of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) biosimilar approvals over the years, biosimilar adoption in the United States has been slow and gradual, largely driven by payers rather than clinicians. In order to better understand the barriers to biosimilar adoption in the clinic, the University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI) and the FDA jointly hosted a virtual workshop on April 13, 2022, titled "Biosimilars: A Decade of Experience and Future Directions - Strategies for Improving Biosimilar Adoption and the Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology." This summary documents the experiences of four leading academic clinicians with specialties in oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology and their perspectives on how to increase biosimilar adoption, including the role of clinical pharmacology. Besides systemic changes in pricing and reimbursement, there is a need for additional education of a broad range of providers, including advanced care practitioners, and patients themselves. Educational efforts highlighting the rigor of the studies that support the approval of biosimilars-including the clinical pharmacology studies-and the benefits of biosimilars, can play a major role in improving biosimilar acceptance.

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.

Is Time-Restricted Eating Safe in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes?-A Review of Intervention Studies

Time-restricted eating (TRE) has been shown to improve body weight and glucose metabolism in people at high risk of type 2 diabetes. However, the safety of TRE in the treatment of type 2 diabetes is unclear. We investigated the safety of TRE interventions in people with type 2 diabetes by identifying published and ongoing studies. Moreover, we identified the commonly used antidiabetic drugs and discussed the safety of TRE in people with type 2 diabetes considering the use of these drugs. In addition, we addressed the research needed before TRE can be recommended in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. A literature search was conducted to identify published (MEDLINE PubMed) and ongoing studies (ClinicalTrials.gov) on TRE in people with type 2 diabetes. To assess the usage of antidiabetic drugs and to discuss pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics in a TRE context, the most used antidiabetic drugs were identified and analysed. Statistics regarding sale of pharmaceuticals were obtained from MEDSTAT.DK which are based on data from the national Register of Medicinal Product Statistics, and from published studies on medication use in different countries. Four published studies investigating TRE in people with type 2 diabetes were identified as well as 14 ongoing studies. The completed studies suggested that TRE is safe among people with type 2 diabetes. Common antidiabetic drugs between 2010 and 2019 were metformin, insulin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sulfonylureas, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Existing studies suggest that TRE is not associated with major safety issues in people with type 2 diabetes as long as medication is monitored and adjusted. However, because of low generalisability of the few studies available, more studies are needed to make concrete recommendations regarding efficacy and safety of TRE in people with type 2 diabetes.

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.

Diurnal Variation of Real-Life Insulin Sensitivity Factor Among Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes Using Ultra-Long-Acting Basal Insulin Analogs

BACKGROUND

Estimation of insulin sensitivity factor (ISF) is essential for correction insulin doses calculation. This study aimed to assess real-life ISF among children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using ultra-long-acting basal insulin analogs and to detect factors associated with ISF among those patients.

METHODS

This prospective observational study was conducted at Sohag University Hospital, Egypt, and included 93 participants aged 6-18 years, diagnosed with T1DM for at least 1 year and using insulin glargine 300 Units/mL or insulin degludec 100 Units/mL as basal insulin. The ISF, insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio (ICR) and insulin doses were initially assessed then adjusted as required. The participants were regularly contacted throughout the follow-up period. Glycemic control parameters were assessed after 3 months.

RESULTS

The ISF showed diurnal variation with higher correction dose requirements for the morning than for the rest of the day (p < 0.001). This pattern of diurnal variation was found in participants with different pubertal stages and in participants using either type of ultra-long acting basal insulin analogs. There was no significant difference between the ISF calculated according to the 1800 rule [1800/Total daily insulin dose (TDD)] and the morning ISF (p = 0.25). The 1800 rule-calculated ISF was significantly lower than the actual ISF for the afternoon (p < 0.001) and the evening (p < 0.001). ISF at different times of the day were significantly correlated with age, body mass index, pubertal stage, diabetes duration, TDD, and ICR. Multiple regression analysis revealed that ICR was the most significant factor associated with ISF. Linear regression analysis revealed that the ISF (in mg/dL) for any time of the day could be estimated as 5.14 × ICR for the same time of the day (coefficient = 5.14, 95% confidence interval: 5.10-5.19, R ² = 0.95, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Diurnal variation of ISF that had to be considered for proper calculation of correction doses. This diurnal variation was found in children and adolescents with different pubertal stages. The 1800 rule was appropriate for the morning correction doses but not in the afternoon or the evening. The TDD and the ICR could be used for ISF estimation.

Off-Patent Biological and Biosimilar Medicines in Belgium: A Market Landscape Analysis

Background and objective: Best-value biological medicines may generate competition in the off-patent biologicals market, resulting in having more resources available to provide patients with access to necessary medicines while maintaining high-quality care. Belgium is a country known to have low biosimilar market shares, suggesting a malfunctioning market for off-patent biologicals. This study aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the Belgian off-patent biologicals market, by looking at the evolution in volumes and costs of the relevant products in the market. Methods: This study included a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods. The quantitative part of this study consisted of the analysis of market data obtained by the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI) for all relevant products in the Belgian off-patent biologicals market (i.e. TNF-inhibitors, insulins, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, epoetins, rituximab, trastuzumab). In addition, for the qualitative part of this study, semi-structured interviews with Belgian stakeholders were conducted between December 2019 and March 2020. Results: Belgian market data and stakeholder perceptions suggest a suboptimal market environment for off-patent biological and biosimilar medicines. Shifts are observed after loss of exclusivities of originator biologicals toward second-generation products or new therapeutic class products, at a higher cost and often limited added value. Moreover, cost reductions for off-patent biologicals after biosimilar market entry are mainly determined by mandatory price reductions applicable to both originator and biosimilar products, and not by lower prices induced by competition. For products used in the retail setting, significant mandatory price reductions for both originator and reference products with low biosimilar volumes were pointed out as the main reasons for the lack of price competition. For products dispensed in hospitals, the hospital financing system is important. First, it does not always encourage the use of lower cost alternatives. Second, competition mainly takes place at the level of confidential discounts in tenders. Most interviewees acknowledged the lack of a competitive environment, which is not supportive of a sustainable Belgian off-patent biologicals market. Conclusion: Market data and stakeholder perceptions indicate that the sustainability of the Belgian market for off-patent biologicals is challenged. A sustainable market ensures access to biological therapies now and in the future.

Transition of Patients to and from Insulin Degludec: A Clinical Challenge

With appearance of new insulins on the market, new clinical challenges, much like unintended consequences, came into light in our daily practice. One of the most pressing issues has become an issue of switching patients to and from newer insulins in various clinical situations. A proper switch from 1 medication to another requires understanding of pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of both drugs. Unfortunately, there is no research in this area and, as a result, there are no guidelines nor is there even a consensus. We present 5 clinical scenarios in which the patients were transitioned to or from insulin degludec. Because there are no data and no current consensus, we have polled 200 diabetes care providers soliciting their opinion as to how they would handle these clinical situations. Our poll of endocrinologists revealed multiple approaches as well as elements of confusion among providers. Even though all answers, summarized following each case, might be reasonable, and there might not be a single correct answer, we wish to express our opinion that is based on PK and PD of these insulins. Because there is more than 1 correct way of implementing these transitions, we urge our colleagues to institute a very close follow-up of these patients with frequent adjustments of insulin dose to avoid stacking with potential hypoglycemia.

Glargine-300: An updated literature review on randomized controlled trials and real-world studies

Despite the availability of a variety of insulins, rates of insulinisation and the acceptance of insulin therapy is suboptimal in real-world clinical settings. Patient and physician concerns with hypoglycaemia and weight gain are the two key issues that serve to impede appropriate insulinisation in patients with diabetes. Recently introduced second-generation basal insulin analogues [for e.g., insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin degludec] are designed to have improved pharmacokinetic profiles with an intention to deliver steady insulin levels over a longer period. Several randomised controlled and real-world studies have proven the resultant advantages of second-generations insulin analogues in lowering intra-individual variability in plasma insulin levels, flexibility in dosing, a sustained glucose-lowering effect, and decreasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Gla-300 is one of the newer second-generation basal insulin analogues to have been approved for both type 1 and 2 diabetes. In this article, we review the currently available clinical and real-world data of Gla-300.

How conclusive is the CONCLUDE trial?

The development of basal insulin analogues has reduced the risk of hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes. Insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/ml (glargine U300) represent an evolution of basal insulin analogues, both of them reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia as compared with that associated with glargine U100. However, whether degludec and glargine U300 are equivalent with respect to glycaemic control and risk of hypoglycaemia remains to be fully ascertained. In the CONCLUDE trial, 1609 individuals with type 2 diabetes were randomised to either degludec 200 U/ml (degludec U200) or glargine U300. In this issue of Diabetologia (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-019-05080-9) the investigators report that during the maintenance period, HbA_1c improved to a similar extent in the two groups with no significant difference in the rate of overall hypoglycaemia (the primary endpoint of the study), while rates of nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia (secondary endpoints) were lower with degludec U200 than with glargine U300. These results, although of great interest to the clinician, need to be carefully interpreted as they cannot be considered as conclusive. First, the primary endpoint was not met and, therefore, analyses of secondary endpoints remain exploratory. Even assuming that degludec is superior to glargine in reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia, the mechanism(s) accounting for such an advantage remain elusive and potential differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics difficult to appreciate because of methodological issues. The study design had to be amended because of lack of reliability of the glucometers initially used in the trial, particularly in the low blood glucose ranges, so the potential implications of these changes in the subsequent conduct of the trial cannot be excluded. Finally, comparison with the BRIGHT trial, the only other available head-to-head study, is complicated by differences between the two studies in the primary endpoint (HbA_1c reduction vs reduction of the risk of hypoglycaemia), study population (insulin-experienced vs insulin-naive) and concomitant glucose-lowering medications. In spite of all this, CONCLUDE teaches us an important lesson regarding the need, particularly in the clinical setting, to monitor the reliability of the glucometers the diabetic individual uses to adjust his/her insulin dose. Insufficient precision or inappropriate use of the glucometer can easily offset any minute advantage a new insulin can offer with respect to glycaemic control and risk of hypoglycaemia.

Achieving Glycaemic Control with Concentrated Insulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

The recent introduction of the second-generation long-acting analogue insulins degludec and insulin glargine U300 have increased the choice of basal insulin therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of these insulins result in a flatter profile that lasts over 24 h and provides an increased window of administration of 6 h once daily. Large-scale multicentre randomised clinical trial programmes (BEGIN for degludec U100 and U200 and EDITION for glargine U300) evaluating these insulin therapies against glargine U100 have demonstrated that they are either non-inferior or superior for glycaemic efficacy and safety, but less likely to result in severe or nocturnal hypoglycaemia than glargine U100. The disposable pen devices for these insulins have been designed with patient satisfaction and convenience in mind. No concerns have arisen with adverse events with insulin analogues or cardiovascular safety from the ORIGIN and DEVOTE trials. As they demonstrate equivalent glycaemic efficacy to other basal insulins, they should be considered more in selected patient groups including those with recurrent or increased risk of hypoglycaemia, especially severe or nocturnal episodes, in the elderly or those living alone, and in patients with multiple co-morbidities such as cardiovascular or renal disease.

Differentiating Basal Insulin Preparations: Understanding How They Work Explains Why They Are Different

Since the introduction of insulin as a life-saving agent for patients with type 1 diabetes, insulin preparations have evolved to approximate physiologic insulin delivery profiles to meet prandial and basal insulin needs. While prandial insulins are designed to have quick time–action profiles that minimize postprandial glucose excursions, basal insulins are designed to have a protracted time–action profile to facilitate basal glucose control over 24 h. Given that all insulins have the same mechanism of action at the target tissue level, the differences in time–action profiles are achieved through different mechanisms of protraction, resulting in different behaviors in the subcutaneous space and different rates of absorption into the circulation. Herein, we evaluate the differences in basal insulin preparations based on their differential mechanisms of protraction, and the resulting clinical action profiles. Multiple randomized control trials and real-world evidence studies have demonstrated that the newer second-generation basal insulin analogs, insulin glargine 300 units/mL and insulin degludec 100 or 200 units/mL, provide stable glycemic control with once-daily dosing and are associated with a reduced risk of hypoglycemia compared with previous-generation basal insulin analogs insulin glargine 100 units/mL and insulin detemir. These advantages can lead to decreased healthcare resource utilization and cost. With this collective knowledge, healthcare providers and payers can make educated and well-informed decisions when determining which treatment regimen best meets the needs of each individual patient.

Funding: Sanofi US, Inc.

Efficacy and safety of the second generation basal insulin analogs in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A critical appraisal

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a progressive disease, which requires insulin treatment when other management is no longer effective. Although, insulin plays a vital role in the treatment of diabetes, conventional basal insulins have certain limitations, which have led to the development of more stable and peak less analogues.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the efficacy and safety of second generation vs. first generation basal insulins, and the efficacy and safety of second generation vs. second generation basal insulins, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, from the evidence provided by head-to-head randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed and MEDLINE, Scopus, BIOSIS, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, and Springer Online Archives Collection, from January 1966 to October 2018. Articles resulting from these searches and relevant references cited in those articles were examined.

RESULTS

The efficacy among insulins evaluated was similar, however, second generation insulins cause a lower risk of hypoglycemia compared to first generation insulins. A single study showed similar metabolic control with subtle differences in the risk of hypoglycemia among second generation insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The second-generation basal insulins result in metabolic control similar to first generation insulins, with lower risk of hypoglycemia. Second-generation insulins have comparable efficacy, with some differences in the risk of hypoglycemia.

Adjustment of insulin doses when switching from glargine 100 U/ml or detemir to degludec: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Degludec is a long-acting insulin with a longer duration of action and a greater day-to-day reproducibility of absorption in comparison with previous long-acting insulin formulations. The aim is the definition of the change in insulin needs in patients switching from detemir/glargine to degludec in real-life conditions.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort observational study, all outpatients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes, starting therapy with degludec insulin-after a prior treatment with either detemir or glargine insulin for at least 6 months-were included.

RESULTS

The analysis was performed on 266 patients, 172 and 96 with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. The equations describing the relationship between baseline and follow-up doses of basal insulin (6 months) were Y = 3.39 + 0.78X and Y = 0.44 + 0.69X, in patients receiving detemir/glargine either once or twice daily, respectively (Y = degludec dose at 6 months and X = basal insulin dose at switch). The corresponding equations for prandial insulin doses were y = 1.83 + 0.83*x and y = 2.85 + 0.80*x for those on pre-switch once or twice-daily basal insulin, respectively. In type 2 diabetes, the switch was associated with a reduction of basal insulin doses only in those with a prior twice-daily treatment with basal insulin. The reduction of prandial insulin reached statistical significance only in patients previously treated with basal insulin once daily.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results provide a suggestion for a simple method for the adjustment of basal and prandial insulin doses in type 1 diabetic patients, switching from glargine or detemir to degludec.

Nocturnal Glycemic Control with New Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL

Insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) is a new generation basal insulin product that has been demonstrated to have more stable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics than insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100). To evaluate the real-world benefits of Gla-300 in reducing nocturnal fluctuations in blood glucose levels and nocturnal hypoglycemia, 10 Taiwanese patients using Gla-100 for insulin therapy were switched to Gla-300 and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was applied at nighttime to monitor changes to nocturnal glycemic variability parameters. Glycemic variability parameters measured to assess between- and within-night glycemic variability included mean 6-hour nocturnal (00:00-6:00 AM) glucose levels, standard deviation (SD), and coefficient of variance (CV) of mean nocturnal glucose levels and mean glucose excursion (MAGE). In this study, Gla-300 demonstrated comparable glycemic efficacy to Gla-100 and the potential to further reduce nocturnal hypoglycemia risk. Overall, nocturnal glycemic variability parameters measured during the Gla-300 treatment period were numerically smaller than those measured during the Gla-100 treatment phase although statistical significance was not reached. In terms of within-night glucose management, SD and CV values of mean nocturnal glucose levels were found to be statistically lower during the Gla-300 treatment phase than the Gla-100 treatment phase on nights individuals displayed normal blood glucose level readings at the beginning of the night. In summary, this study represents the first of its kind from Taiwan to evaluate the real-world clinical benefits of switching Taiwanese diabetes patients from Gla-100 to Gla-300 insulin therapy in reducing nighttime glucose variability by means of CGM.

Cost analysis of insulin degludec in comparison with insulin detemir in treatment of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in the UK

OBJECTIVE

With healthcare systems under increasing financial pressure from costs associated with diabetes care, it is important to assess which treatments provide clinical benefits and represent best value. This study evaluated the annual costs of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin detemir (IDet) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the UK.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Using data from a randomized, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial-BEGIN YOUNG 1-annual costs with degludec versus IDet in children and adolescents aged 1-17 years with T1D were estimated, as costs of these insulins and hyperglycemia with ketosis events. Analyses by age group (1-5, 6-11 and 12-17 years) and scenario (no ketosis benefit, no dose benefit, hyperglycemia with ketones >0.6 and >3.0 mmol/L and the additional costs of twice-daily IDet in 64% of patients) were also performed.

RESULTS

The mean annual cost per patient was estimated as £235.16 for degludec vs £382.91 for IDet, resulting in an annual saving of £147.75 per patient. These substantial cost savings were driven by relative reductions in the frequency of hyperglycemia with ketosis and basal insulin dose with degludec versus IDet. Annual savings in favor of degludec were observed across each age group (£122.63, £140.59 and £172.50 for 1-5, 6-11 and 12-17 years age groups, respectively). Five scenario analyses further demonstrated the robustness of the results, which included no ketosis or dose benefits in favor of degludec.

CONCLUSIONS

Degludec provides appreciable annual cost savings compared with IDet in children and adolescents with T1D in a UK setting. While a cost-effectiveness analysis could incorporate the health impact of treatment complications better than the present cost analysis, the strong generalizability of the data from this study suggests that degludec can help healthcare providers to maximize health outcomes despite increasingly stringent budgets.

Differentiating Basal Insulin Preparations: Understanding How They Work Explains Why They Are Different

Since the introduction of insulin as a life-saving agent for patients with type 1 diabetes, insulin preparations have evolved to approximate physiologic insulin delivery profiles to meet prandial and basal insulin needs. While prandial insulins are designed to have quick time-action profiles that minimize postprandial glucose excursions, basal insulins are designed to have a protracted time-action profile to facilitate basal glucose control over 24 h. Given that all insulins have the same mechanism of action at the target tissue level, the differences in time-action profiles are achieved through different mechanisms of protraction, resulting in different behaviors in the subcutaneous space and different rates of absorption into the circulation. Herein, we evaluate the differences in basal insulin preparations based on their differential mechanisms of protraction, and the resulting clinical action profiles. Multiple randomized control trials and real-world evidence studies have demonstrated that the newer second-generation basal insulin analogs, insulin glargine 300 units/mL and insulin degludec 100 or 200 units/mL, provide stable glycemic control with once-daily dosing and are associated with a reduced risk of hypoglycemia compared with previous-generation basal insulin analogs insulin glargine 100 units/mL and insulin detemir. These advantages can lead to decreased healthcare resource utilization and cost. With this collective knowledge, healthcare providers and payers can make educated and well-informed decisions when determining which treatment regimen best meets the needs of each individual patient.Funding: Sanofi US, Inc.

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

AIMS

To confirm non-inferiority of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) once-daily (OD) versus insulin glargine (IGlar) U100 OD + insulin aspart (IAsp) OD for HbA_1c after 26 weeks, and compare efficacy and safety between groups at W26 + W38.

METHODS

A 38-week, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target (HbA_1c < 7.0%) trial in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (on basal insulin ± oral antidiabetic drugs; HbA_1c 7.0-10.0%). Randomisation (1:1): IDegAsp or IGlar U100 + IAsp. Intensification to IDegAsp twice daily (BID) was permitted at W26 + W32, or with additional IAsp injections at W26 (maximum IAsp BID) or W32 (maximum IAsp three-times daily).

RESULTS

For W0-W26, mean percentage-change (standard deviation) HbA_1c was: IDegAsp, -1.1 (0.9); IGlar U100 + IAsp, -1.1 (0.8); estimated treatment difference: 0.07% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.06; 0.21) confirmed non-inferiority. At W26 and W38, target HbA_1c achievement, and mean fasting and postprandial glucose were similar across groups. At W38, more subjects achieved target HbA_1c without hypoglycaemia with IDegAsp (22.5%) than with IGlar U100 + IAsp (21.1%), with significantly fewer nocturnal episodes (W0-W38, estimated rate ratio: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.40; 0.93]). Safety profiles were similar across treatment groups throughout.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp OD/BID are effective treatment intensification options versus multiple injection basal-bolus therapies, achieving similar glycaemic control, with significantly less nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the prior position statements, published in 2012 and 2015, on the management of type 2 diabetes in adults. A systematic evaluation of the literature since 2014 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on lifestyle management and diabetes self-management education and support. For those with obesity, efforts targeting weight loss, including lifestyle, medication and surgical interventions, are recommended. With regards to medication management, for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit is recommended. For patients with chronic kidney disease or clinical heart failure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven benefit is recommended. GLP-1 receptor agonists are generally recommended as the first injectable medication.

Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2018. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the prior position statements, published in 2012 and 2015, on the management of type 2 diabetes in adults. A systematic evaluation of the literature since 2014 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on lifestyle management and diabetes self-management education and support. For those with obesity, efforts targeting weight loss, including lifestyle, medication, and surgical interventions, are recommended. With regards to medication management, for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit is recommended. For patients with chronic kidney disease or clinical heart failure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven benefit is recommended. GLP-1 receptor agonists are generally recommended as the first injectable medication.

The basal to total insulin ratio in outpatients with diabetes on basal-bolus regimen

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the basal/total ratio of daily insulin dose (b/T) in outpatients with diabetes type 1 (DM1) and type 2 (DM2) on basal-bolus regimen, by investigating whether there is a relationship with HbA1c and episodes of hypoglycemia.

METHODS

Multicentric, observational, cross-sectional study in Italy. Adult DM1 (n = 476) and DM2 (n = 541) outpatients, with eGFR >30 mL/min/1.73 m2, on a basal-bolus regimen for at least six months, were recruited from 31 Italian Diabetes services between March and September 2016. Clinicaltrials.govID: NCT03489031.

RESULTS

Total daily insulin dose was significantly higher in DM2 patients (52.3 ± 22.5 vs. 46 ± 20.9 U/day), but this difference disappeared when insulin doses were normalized for body weight. The b/T ratio was lower than 0.50 in both groups: 0.46 ± 0.14 in DM1 and 0.43 ± 0.15 in DM2 patients (p = 0.0011). The b/T was significantly higher in the patients taking metformin in both groups, and significantly different according to the type of basal insulin (Degludec, 0.48 in DM1 and 0.44 in DM2; Glargine, 0.44 in DM1 and 0.43 in DM2; Detemir, 0.45 in DM1 and 0.39 in DM2). The b/T ratio was not correlated in either group to HbA1c or incidence of hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL, or requiring caregiver intervention, in the last three months). In the multivariate analysis, metformin use and age were independent predictors of the b/T ratio in both DM1 and DM2 patients, while the type of basal insulin was an independent predictor only in DM1.

CONCLUSION

The b/T ratio was independent of glycemic control and incidence of hypoglycemia.

Switching From Glargine to Degludec: The Effect on Metabolic Control and Safety During 1-Year of Real Clinical Practice in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes

Background/Objective: Insulin degludec (IDeg) is an ultra-long-acting analog with less daily variability compared to other basal insulins. In this retrospective study we examined 1-year efficacy and safety of IDeg in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Subjects/Methods: Thirty-seven patients [11.7 ± 4.22 years; T1D duration 4.97 ± 3.63 years; once-daily glargine (IGlar) by at least 1 year] were switched to once-daily IDeg because of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) >7.5% and/or reported physical pain at IGlar injection. Changes in HbA1c, 30-day mean fasting plasma glucose (mean FPG), daily insulin dose, and severe hypoglycemia rates were collected at basal insulin switch (T0), 3-months (T1), 6-months (T2), and 12-months (T3) after IDeg was started. Results: In patients with HbA1c >7.5% at T0 we found a decrease in HbA1c values (%) from 8.46 ± 0.53 to 7.89 ± 0.72 at T1 (p = 0.008) and 7.97 ± 0.89 at T2 (p = 0.035). At T3, 38.9% of patients had HbA1c ≤ 7.5%. Mean FPG levels significantly decreased at T2 (p = 0.043). In the overall study population, we documented an increase in IDeg dose (+12.5% at T3; p < 0.001) and a decrease in mealtime insulin dose (-11.6% at T3; p = 0.001) after switch. HbA1c levels were unchanged. No episode of severe hypoglycemia was reported. Conclusions: Our data in children and adolescents with T1D suggest that IDeg dose should be increased by 12% and mealtime insulin doses should be lowered by 11% for patients who previously received IGlar. IDeg might be considered useful and well tolerated and it seems to improve the glycemic control compared to IGlar, mainly in patients with poor glycemic control.

Outcomes of glycemic control in type 1 diabetic patients switched from basal insulin glargine 100 U/ml to glargine 300 U/ml in real life

AIMS

The objective of this study was to evaluate glycemic control in type 1 diabetic mellitus patients who were switched from glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) to glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) in real life practice.

METHODS

Glycemia based on self-monitoring capillary blood glucose, hypoglycemic events and insulin doses were considered during a two-week period before and after transition from Gla-100 to Gla-300 (period 1). Glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA_1c) levels, basal insulin doses and weight were also determined at 12 and 24 weeks after switching (period 2).

RESULTS

116 patients treated with a basal prandial insulin scheme were included. 72% received one injection and 28% two daily injections of Gla-100 before transition to Gla-300. Glycemic control was similar during period 1 . In contrast, the number of nocturnal hypoglycemic events were significantly reduced [22.2% vs 12.2%; relative risk 0.46 (95% CI 0.30 - 0.68); p < 0.0001], as well as the number of patients with nocturnal hypoglycemia per period [30% vs 16%; relative risk 0.53 (95% CI 0.31-0.86); p < 0.01]. At the end of period 2, HbA_1c decreased from 8.0 ± 1.0% (65.5 ± 10.5 mmol/mol) to 7.9 ± 1.0% (62.8 ± 10 mmol/mol) (p = 0.03). Insulin doses of Gla-300 were increased in patients treated previously with Gla-100 (+6.5%), but no weight gain was observed.

CONCLUSION

Short term glycemic control was comparable in patients treated with basal insulin Gla-100 or Gla-300 injection. Nocturnal hypoglycemic rate declined quickly after the switch. HbA_1c was reduced after six months of Gla-300 treatment versus baseline. Gla-300 doses were moderately higher (vs Gla-100), in particular, in patients treated with one Gla-100 dose before switching. Gla-300 is an alternative therapeutic option of interest.

Insulin Matters: A Practical Approach to Basal Insulin Management in Type 2 Diabetes

It is currently estimated that 11 million Canadians are living with diabetes or prediabetes. Although hyperglycemia is associated with serious complications, it is well established that improved glycemic control reduces the risk of microvascular complications and can also reduce cardiovascular (CV) complications over the long term. The UKPDS and ADVANCE landmark trials have resulted in diabetes guidelines recommending an A1C target of ≤ 7.0% for most patients or a target of ≤ 6.5% to further reduce the risk of nephropathy and retinopathy in those with type 2 diabetes (T2D), if it can be achieved safely. However, half of the people with T2D in Canada are not achieving these glycemic targets, despite advances in diabetes pharmacological management. There are many contributing factors to account for this poor outcome; however, one of the major factors is the delay in treatment advancement, particularly a resistance to insulin initiation and intensification. To simplify the process of initiating and titrating insulin in T2D patients, a group of Canadian experts reviewed the evidence and best clinical practices with the goal of providing guidance and practical recommendations to the diabetes healthcare community at large. This expert panel included general practitioners (GPs), nurses, nurse practitioners, endocrinologists, dieticians, pharmacists, and a psychologist. This article summarizes the panel recommendations.