Comparison between insulin degludec/liraglutide treatment and insulin glargine/lixisenatide treatment in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Fixed-ratio Combinations (basal Insulin Plus GLP-1RA) In Type 2 Diabetes. an Analytical Review Of Pivotal Clinical Trials

In type 2 diabetes, therapeutic failure to the oral anti diabetics is frequent, the use of schemes with basal insulin or with multiple doses of insulin (basal insulin and short-acting insulins) are a widely accepted way to intensify therapy. The use of GLP-1 receptor agonists is another intensification strategy. The fixedratio combinations with molecules such as insulin degludec + liraglutide, and insulin glargine + lixisenatide have proven useful in intensifying treatment of individuals with type 2 diabetes. The purpose of this review was to evaluate and analyze the results of pivotal studies with both fixed-ratio combinations in individuals with type 2 diabetes, finding that, they are capable of achieving better glycemic control when compared with each of its components separately (with a lower risk of hypoglycemia vs basal insulin and lower risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects vs GLP-1 receptor agonists) in various clinical scenarios, especially in individuals who do not achieve control with oral antidiabetics or who do not achieve control with basal insulin (associated with oral antidiabetics) or in those under management with GLP-1RA plus oral antidiabetics.

Direct comparison two fixed-ratio combination glucagon-like peptide receptor agonist and basal insulin on glycemic and non glycemic parameters in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Two types of fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) have been approved for use in type 2 diabetes. One is insulin degludec/liraglutide (iDergLira), and the other is insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi). Direct comparisons between these two combination is not available.

METHODS

The retrospective study included 186 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) with inadequate glycemic control on metformin and basal insulin (degludec, glargine 100, glargine 300) who were switched to fixed-ratio combination GLP-1 RA and basal insulin. Patients were divided into two groups based on the basal insulin before study: group I (n = 86) treated with degludec were switched to iDegLira and patients group II (n = 99), treated with glargine were switched to iGlarLixi. The aim of this study was to directly compare the effects between two fixed - ratio combination on glycemic parameters and non glycemic parameters. Follow up was 6 months.

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c decreased similarly (- 1.2% vs.-1.1%). Higher percentage patients in iDegLira group had reached the HbA1c < 7% after 6 months (22% vs. 18.2%, p < 0.05). The mean change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was comparable for the two groups, while mean decrease postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) level were lower in iGlarLixi group (2 vs 1.8 mmol/l, p > 0.05). Change in body weight was significant in iDegLira group (1.8 kg vs. 0.7 kg, p < 0.001). At the end of the study patients showed decrease in total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) for 0.2 mmol/L in iDegLira, 0.1 mmol/l in iGlarLixi, triglycerides decreased 0.3 mmol/l in both groups, high-density lipoprotein(HDL) increased 0.1 mm/l in iGlarLixi.

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that more patients with iDegLira had HbA1c less than 7% and these combination had better effect on weight loss. There was no difference observed in FPG and PPG, lipid profile and rate of hypoglycemia.

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.

Real-world effectiveness of IDegLira compared with intensified conventional insulin therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

IDegLira is a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide with proven efficacy against simpler regimens and non-inferiority against basal-bolus insulin therapy. However, the evaluation of its real-world effectiveness is hindered by technical issues and requires further exploration. Thus we aimed to compare effectiveness of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus intensified conventional insulin therapy (ICT) for type 2 diabetes in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study from an outpatient clinic in Hungary included people who initiated IDegLira due to inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c > 7.0% [53.0 mmol/mol]) with oral and/or injectable antidiabetic drugs. Data were compared with a historical cohort who initiated ICT. Outcomes included HbA1c, body weight, and hypoglycaemia differences over 18 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Data were included from 227 and 72 people who initiated IDegLira and ICT, respectively. Estimated mean difference (MD) in HbA1c at 18 months favoured IDegLira versus ICT (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.88-0.32 [MD 6.6 mmol/mol, 95% CI 9.6-3.5]). More people reached target HbA1c ≤7.0% (53.0 mmol/mol) with IDegLira than ICT (odds ratio 3.36, 95% CI 1.52-7.42). IDegLira treatment was associated with weight loss compared with gain for ICT (MD 6.7 kg, 95% CI 5.0-8.5). The hazard ratio for hypoglycaemia comparing IDegLira with ICT was 0.18 (95% CI 0.08-0.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with IDegLira over 18 months resulted in greater HbA1c reductions, weight loss versus gain, and a lower rate of hypoglycaemia versus ICT in people with type 2 diabetes.

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

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

Glycated haemoglobin reduction and fixed ratio combinations of analogue basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Fixed ratio combinations (FRCs) of analogue basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are a newer addition to the therapeutic armamentarium for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. They reduce treatment complexity by combining two injectables in a single daily injectable, thus potentially improving adherence and persistence. Clinicians wanting to use FRCs would need to choose between members of the class.

AIM

To describe and contrast the glycated haemoglobin reduction of two FRCs of analogue basal insulin and glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonist in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

The following Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question was used for the primary analysis: Among adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus [P], what is the effect of iGlarLixi [I] compared to IDegLira [C] for bringing about glycaemic control (as measured by reduction in glycosylated haemoglobin) [O]? The Prisma Statement was used as a guideline for framing this systematic review. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases and Clinicaltrials.gov using various keywords and medical search headings related to type 2 diabetes mellitus, iGlarlixi, IDegLira and glycated haemoglobin A1c.

RESULTS

All 14 studies identified by the systematic search met the primary efficacy endpoint of reduction in glycated haemoglobin. There were no head-to-head studies between the FRCs of iGlarlixi and IDegLira, and we therefore did an indirect comparison based on a common comparator of insulin glargine U100. Both iGlarLixi and IDegLira effectively reduce glycated haemoglobin when compared to insulin glargine U100. However, using indirect comparisons, IDegLira had a greater haemoglobin A1c reducing ability (0.6% vs 0.3%). The indirect comparison is limited by the differences between the studies; the fasting blood glucose targets were slightly higher for iGlarLixi studies when compared to the IDegLira studies (4.0-5.0 mmol/L and 4.4-5.6 mmol/L), and the IDegLira study used a greater average dose of insulin glargine when compared to the iGlarLixi studies (66 U/d vs 40 U/d).

CONCLUSION

Both iGlarLixi and IDegLira effectively reduce glycated haemoglobin. Indirect comparisons, using insulin glargine as the common comparator, suggest that IDegLira reduces glycated haemoglobin to a greater extent than iGlarLixi. However, given the limitations of indirect comparisons, robust head to head studies and real-world data would better inform clinician choice and clinical practice guidelines.

Improving the treatment of patients with diabetes using insulin analogues: current findings and future directions

Introduction: The aim of insulin replacement in insulin-deficient people (type 1 diabetes, pancreatic causes of diabetes, long-standing type 2 diabetes) is to approximate the physiologic insulin action profile as closely as possible. However, short-acting human insulins start too slow and act too long, causing postprandial hyperglycemia and delayed hypoglycemia, while the insulin action profile of long-acting human insulins is too variable in duration and strength of action, leading to insufficient basal insulin covering and peak insulin levels after injection causing early nocturnal hypoglycemia. Insulin analogues were designed to overcome these shortcomings. In insulin-resistant people (type 2 diabetes), insulin analogues contribute to more efficient and safer insulin supplementation. Areas covered: In this review, we describe the unmet needs for insulin therapy, the currently available short- and long-acting insulin analogues and some considerations on cardiovascular outcomes, use in special populations, and cost-effectiveness. Finally, we discuss what is new in the field of insulin analogues. Expert opinion: The development of insulin analogues is an important step in diabetes treatment. Despite many patients meeting their glycemic targets with the newest analogues, hypoglycemic episodes remain a major problem. More physiologic insulin regimens, with glucose-sensitive or organ-targeting insulin analogues may be the answer to these issues.

Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis with protocols in Diabetes Mellitus Type II: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are strongly encouraged to work from a protocol to facilitate high quality, transparent methodology. The completeness of reporting of a protocol (PRISMA-P) and manuscript (PRISMA) is essential to the quality appraisal (AMSTAR-2) and appropriate use of SR/MAs in making treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to describe the completeness of reporting and quality of SR/MAs, assess the correlations between PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2, and to identify reporting characteristics between similar items of PRISMA-P and PRISMA.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus SR/MAs of hypoglycemic agents with publicly available protocols. Cochrane reviews, guidelines, and specific types of MA were excluded. Two reviewers independently, (i) searched PubMed and Embase between 1/1/2015 to 20/3/2019; (ii) identified protocols of included studies by searching the manuscript bibliography, supplementary material, PROSPERO, and Google; (iii) completed PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2 tools. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

Of 357 relevant SR/MAs, 51 had available protocols and were included. The average score for PRISMA-P was 15.8±3.3 (66%; maximum 24) and 25.2±1.1 (93%; maximum 27) for PRISMA. The quality of SR/MAs assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool identified an overall poor quality (63% critically low, 18% low, 8% moderate, 12% high). The correlation between the PRISMA-P and PRISMA was not significant (r = 0.264; p = 0.06). Correlation was significant between PRISMA-P and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.333; p = 0.02) and PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.555; p<0.01). Discrepancies in reporting were common between similar PRISMA-P and PRISMA items.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to protocol reporting guidance was poor while manuscript reporting was comprehensive. Protocol completeness is not associated with a completely reported manuscript. Independently, PRISMA-P and PRISMA scores were weakly associated with higher quality assessments but insufficient as a surrogate for quality. Critical areas for quality improvement include protocol description, investigating causes of heterogeneity, and the impact of risk of bias on the evidence synthesis.

Titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine plus lixisenatide: A simplified approach to glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Approximately 50% of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) do not achieve glycemic targets and require treatment intensification. A fixed-ratio combination of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) with basal insulin, such as lixisenatide with insulin glargine (iGlarLixi), exploits the complementary mechanisms of action of each component to address hyperglycemia while mitigating potential adverse events (AEs). The iGlarLixi dose is titrated considering the effect of basal insulin on fasting plasma glucose, and the fixed-ratio combination ensures that the lixisenatide dose never exceeds 20 μg/day. We describe the characteristics of iGlarLixi therapy, based on the LixiLan clinical program, and provide guidance on the characteristics of patients likely to benefit from such treatment in routine clinical practice. In the phase III LixiLan trials, iGlarLixi resulted in significantly greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), better achievement of HbA1c targets, less glycemic variability versus insulin glargine, lixisenatide or GLP-1 RA alone, and was associated with weight control, less hypoglycemia versus insulin glargine, and fewer GI AEs versus lixisenatide. Findings were consistent regardless of age, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c. The efficacy, safety, and convenient once-daily administration schedule of iGlarLixi make it a valuable treatment option for patients with T2DM requiring treatment intensification.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegLira in adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison

AIMS

To estimate the relative treatment effect between the fixed-ratio combinations iGlarLixi and IDegLira (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist with basal insulin) in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials followed by an indirect treatment comparison was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of the available fixed-ratio combinations. Main outcomes were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change and target achievement [<6.5% and <7.0% (<48 and <53 mmol/mol)], fasting plasma glucose, self-monitored plasma glucose, body weight, and incidence and rate of hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

From 4850 abstracts screened, 78 qualified for full-text article review and two randomized controlled trials were included. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two studies. The mean difference at 26 weeks between IDegLira and iGlarLixi was -0.36 (95% credible intervals -0.58, -0.14) % [-3.9 (-6.3, -1.5) mmol/mol] for HbA1c and -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4) mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose. No significant differences were found in HbA1c target attainment, preprandial or postprandial self-monitored plasma glucose, or body weight change. Formal comparisons of hypoglycaemia were limited by differences in definitions between the studies: in non-sulphonylurea users, incidence was 28% for IDegLira ('confirmed' at ≤3.1 mmol/L); for iGlarLixi, incidence was 9% ('documented symptomatic' at <3.0 mmol/L).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this indirect treatment comparison using two studies suggest iGlarLixi and IDegLira appear to offer similar benefits for HbA1c target achievement. However, the findings suggest differences in other glycaemia results and hypoglycaemia, which may reflect differences in study design and titration approaches.

Efficacy and Safety of Short- and Long-Acting Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists on a Background of Basal Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of short- and long-acting glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), both used in combination with basal insulin, in patients with type 2 diabetes.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials comparing the coadministration of short- or long-acting GLP-1 RAs and basal insulin with basal insulin ± placebo were identified (PubMed search). Of 974 identified publications, 14 clinical trials were included. Eight trials examined short-acting and six long-acting GLP-1 RAs.

DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS

Differences in HbA_1c, fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and adverse events were compared between studies using short- or long-acting GLP-1 RAs by random-effects meta-analysis.

LIMITATIONS

There were relatively small numbers of available publications, some heterogeneity regarding protocols, and differences in the GLP-1 RA compound used.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-acting GLP-1 RAs more effectively reduced HbA_1c (∆ -6 mmol/mol [95% CI -10; -2], P = 0.007), fasting plasma glucose (∆ -0.7 mmol/L [-1.2; -0.3], P = 0.007), and body weight (∆ -1.4 kg [-2.2; -0.6], P = 0.002) and raised the proportion of patients achieving an HbA_1c target <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) (P = 0.03) more than the short-acting ones. Patients reporting symptomatic (P = 0.048) but not severe (P = 0.96) hypoglycemia were fewer with long- versus short-acting GLP-1 RAs added to insulin. A lower proportion of patients reported nausea (-52%, P < 0.0001) or vomiting (-36%, P = 0.0002) with long-acting GLP-1 RAs. Overall, GLP-1 RAs improved HbA_1c, fasting plasma glucose, and body weight when added to basal insulin. However, long-acting GLP-1 RAs were significantly more effective for glycemic and body weight control and displayed better gastrointestinal tolerability.

Fixed-Ratio Combinations of Basal Insulin and GLP-1RA in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Highlights from the Literature

New pieces of evidence suggest that combining basal insulin with glucagone-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes could promptly ameliorate glucose control and prevent both hypoglycemic events and unnecessary weight gain compared to more intensive insulin regimens. To review the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and GLP- 1RA (FRCs). Authors searched PubMed/MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for freely available original articles, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), clinical reviews, and meta-analysis written in English until January 2020. FRCs provide significative reductions in HbA1c levels in both insulin-naïve (-1.4% to -2%) and insulin- experienced (-1.5% to -2%) type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glucose impairment. More patients achieved the recommended glycemic targets on FRCs compared to those on mono-therapy with basal insulin or GLP-1RAs. The intensification with FRCs results in better glycemic control compared to basal insulin at fasting as well as during the postprandial state. The frequency of hypoglycemia is similar or lower in patients treated with FRCs than in those on basal insulin alone at a similar dose. Weight trend can be variable, ranging from -2.7 to +2 Kg for iDegLira and -0.7 to -1.3 Kg for iGlar- Lixi. However, a lower weight gain is obtained with iDegLira compared to iDeg (-2.2 to -2.5 Kg), iGlar (-1.7 to -3.2 Kg), and basal-bolus (-3.6 Kg) as well as with iGlarLixi compared to iGlar (-1.4 Kg). FRCs should be considered to safely improve the metabolic control in type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glycemic impairment while on oral medications, basal oral regimen or GLP-1RAs. However, a few but significative pieces of evidence suggest that FRCs could be a safe and effective treatment instead of a low dose basal-bolus intensification for patients with mild or moderate glucose impairment in order to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and unnecessary weight gain, and for simplifying treatment regimen as well.

Efficacy and Safety of Dulaglutide Compared to Liraglutide: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes mellitus has been always one of the most prevalent chronic diseases in the last decades. There exist a wide range of pharmacological agents for controlling this disease. However, these agents fare differently in terms of efficacy and safety. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare dulaglutide and liraglutide, two glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, in terms of efficacy and safety, drawing on a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out in January 2018. The articles were evaluated by two independent investigators and their quality was evaluated using Jadad scale and the Cochrane Collaboration’s tools. Finally, the eligible articles entered the study. HbA1c and FBS were considered as efficacy outcomes. Safety profile was evaluated based on several outcomes such as serious side effects and vital signs. Three articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results indicated that the mean difference (MD) of HbA1c reduction was -0.10% (95% CI, -0.20% to -0.01%, P=0.03) in the patients who received dulaglutide in comparison with the patients who received liraglutide. In addition, dulaglutide was safer than liraglutide in terms of gastrointestinal problems (RR=0.85, 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.99, P=0.04, I²=55%) and heart rate (RR=-1.14, 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.38, P=0.003, I²=0%). Once-weekly dulaglutide showed a further reduction in HbA1c compared to once-daily liraglutide. However, comparisons between these regimens indicated no significant difference between groups in either FBS reduction or safety profile. Similarly, no statistically significant difference was observed in treatment discontinuation, hypoglycemia events, and vital signs.

Optimizing Fixed-Ratio Combination Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes

The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes (T2D) means that many patients will require basal insulin therapy at some point in the course of the disease due to β-cell failure. As basal insulin primarily targets fasting plasma glucose, patients may still experience considerable postprandial glucose excursions and therefore require an additional agent to achieve good glycemic control. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) provide an alternative to prandial insulin, with the benefits of fewer daily injections, and a lower risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. Two fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of basal insulin and a GLP-1 RA are now available in the USA and the EU: insulin glargine + lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) and insulin degludec + liraglutide (IDegLira). Titratable FRCs are suitable for most patients with T2D and can help to simplify treatment regimens into one daily injection, potentially aiding in patient adherence. The complementary modes of action of the two components target seven of the many known pathophysiologic defects in T2D. FRCs have demonstrated enhanced glycemic control compared with their constituent components alone, comparable risk of hypoglycemia compared with basal insulin alone, and better tolerability compared with the GLP-1RA component alone due to the slower titration. In this article, we discuss the advantages of FRCs over multiple daily injections, present case studies of typical patients who could benefit from FRC therapy, and outline practical considerations for the initiation of FRC therapy in clinical practice.Funding Sanofi.

Real-world clinical experience of Xultophy in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes in a secondary care clinic

AIMS

Xultophy is the first fixed co-formulation pen containing insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue liraglutide, authorized for type 2 diabetes patients since 2014. The aim was to review the clinical effectiveness of Xultophy across two hospitals in Wales.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients commenced on Xultophy between April 2016 and January 2018 was taken. Data related to glycemic control, weight and medication use were collected.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients were initiated on Xultophy, and 60 patients had follow-up for at least 6 months with a mean age of 57.3 years (47% male). Xultophy was well-tolerated, however, abdominal cramps and nausea limited use in three patients. Baseline HbA1c and weight were 84.7 mmol/mol and 101.5 kg. There were significant HbA1c reductions of 9.9 mmol/mol (p < 0.0001) and 13.4 mmol/mol (p < 0.008) at 6 and 12 months, and non-significant changes in weight. Patients with an HbA1c over 84 mmol/mol showed the greatest HbA1c improvement over 6-months. Those prescribed insulin prior to Xultophy had less significant improvements in HbA1c than those previously prescribed GLP-1 analogues.

CONCLUSIONS

There were significant reductions in HbA1c and statistically insignificant weight gain over 12 months. Switching from GLP-1 analogues to Xultophy was associated with a greater HbA1c reduction compared to switching from insulin.

Probability of Achieving Glycemic Control with Basal Insulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Real-World Practice in the USA

INTRODUCTION

Basal insulin (BI) plays an important role in treating type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially when oral antidiabetic (OAD) medications are insufficient for glycemic control. We conducted a retrospective, observational study using electronic medical records (EMR) data from the IBM^® Explorys database to evaluate the probability of achieving glycemic control over 24 months after BI initiation in patients with T2D in the USA.

METHODS

A cohort of 6597 patients with T2D who started BI following OAD(s) and had at least one valid glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) result recorded both within 90 days before and 720 days after BI initiation were selected. We estimated the changes from baseline in HbA1c every 6 months, the quarterly conditional probabilities of reaching HbA1c < 7% if a patient had not achieved glycemic control prior to each quarter (Q), and the cumulative probability of reaching glycemic control over 24 months.

RESULTS

Our cohort was representative of patients with T2D who initiated BI from OADs in the USA. The average HbA1c was 9.1% at BI initiation, and decreased robustly (1.5%) in the first 6 months after initiation with no further reductions thereafter. The conditional probability of reaching glycemic control decreased rapidly in the first year (26.6% in Q2; 17.6% in Q3; 8.6% in Q4), and then remained low (≤ 6.1%) for each quarter in the second year. Cumulatively, about 38% of patients reached HbA1c < 7% in the first year; only approximately 8% more did so in the second year.

CONCLUSION

Our study of real-world data from a large US EMR database suggested that among patients with T2D who initiated BI after OADs, the likelihood of reaching glycemic control diminished over time, and remained low from 12 months onwards. Additional treatment options should be considered if patients do not reach glycemic control within 12 months of BI initiation.

FUNDING

Sanofi Corporation.

The role of basal insulin and GLP-1 receptor agonist combination products in the management of type 2 diabetes

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes necessitates the development of new treatment options to individualize therapy. Basal insulin has been a standard treatment option for years, while glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have grown in use over the past decade due to glucose-lowering efficacy and weight loss potential. There are two new combination injectable products that have recently been approved combining basal insulins with GLP-1 RAs in single pen-injector devices. United States guidelines recently emphasize the option to use combination injectable therapy with GLP-1 RAs and basal insulin once the basal insulin has been optimally titrated as a second- or third-line agent in addition to metformin without reaching the goal A1c. Insulin glargine/lixisenatide 100/33 (IGlarLixi) can be dosed between 15 and 60 units once daily from a single pen-injector device. Insulin degludec/liraglutide 100/3.6 (IDegLira) can be dosed between 10 and 50 units once daily, also from a single pen-injector device. Maximum doses, while measured in units, correspond to limits defined by each individual GLP-1 RA. The dual use of basal insulin plus GLP-1 RA is non-inferior compared with basal insulin plus a single injection of prandial insulin at the largest meal and compared with twice daily-dosed premixed insulins; and this combination is associated with weight loss and less hypoglycemia. These new combination products could help providers effectively and efficiently follow clinical practice guidelines while enhancing patient adherence with injectable medications.