Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec given as part of basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes: a 26-week randomized, 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.

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.

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.

Pregnancy outcomes in women with type 1 diabetes using insulin degludec

AIMS

To evaluate pregnancy outcomes in a real-world setting of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes using the ultra-long-acting insulin analog degludec compared to other long-acting insulin analogs throughout pregnancy.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study. The prospective cohort included consecutive, singleton pregnant women with type 1 diabetes receiving long-acting insulin analogs both before and during pregnancy: 67 women using degludec compared to 95 women using other long-acting insulin analogs in a routine care setting.

RESULTS

Women using degludec had similar clinical characteristics as women using other long-acting insulin analogs including HbA1c at 9 gestational weeks [6.5 (6.2-6.9) % (48 (44-52) mmol/mol) versus 6.5 (6.0-7.0) % (47 (42-53) mmol/mol), p = 0.52] and at 35 gestational weeks [6.0 (5.6-6.5) % (42 (38-47) mmol/mol) versus 6.1 (5.6-6.5) % (43 (38-48) mmol/mol), p = 0.68]. Pregnancy outcomes were similar regarding preeclampsia [10% (7/67) versus 8% (8/95), p = 0.66] and preterm delivery before 37 gestational weeks [16% (11/67) versus 23% (22/95), p = 0.29]. There were no perinatal deaths, and neonatal outcomes as large for gestational age infants [37% (25/67) versus 39% (37/95), p = 0.83], small for gestational age infants [4% (3/67) versus 5% (5/95), p = 1.0] and neonatal hypoglycemia [32% (21/65) versus 41% (34/83), p = 0.28] were similar between women using degludec and other long-acting insulin analogs.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of degludec during pregnancy resulted in similar pregnancy outcomes as use of other long-acting insulin analogs in women with type 1 diabetes in a real-world setting. This suggests that degludec initiated before pregnancy can be continued throughout gestation.

Randomized controlled study to evaluate the impact of flexible patient-controlled visits in people with type 1 diabetes: The DiabetesFlex Trial

AIM

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of health care-initiated visits versus patient-controlled flexible visits on clinical and patient-reported outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

The DiabetesFlex trial was a randomized controlled, pragmatic non-inferiority 15-month follow-up study comparing standard care (face-to-face visits every 4 months) with DiabetesFlex (patient-controlled flexible visits using patient-reported, outcome-based telehealth follow-up). Of 343 enrolled participants, 160 in each group completed the study. The primary outcome was mean change in HbA_1c from baseline to 15-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were blood pressure, lipid levels, frequency of visits, the World Health Organization score-five well-being-index (WHO-5), the Problem Areas In Diabetes (PAID) scale and experience of participation in own care (participation score).

RESULTS

The adjusted mean difference in HbA_1c between standard care and DiabetesFlex was similar and below the predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.4% (-0.03% [95%CI: 0.15, 0.11]/-0.27 mmol/mol [-1.71, 1.16]). No intergroup mean changes in lipid or blood pressure were observed. Conversely, DiabetesFlex participants presented an increased mean WHO-5 index of 4.5 (1.3, 7.3), participation score of 1.1 (0.5, 2.0), and decreased PAID score of -4.8 (-7.1, -2.6) compared with standard care. During follow-up, DiabetesFlex participants actively changed 23% of face-to-face visits to telephone consultations, cancelled more visits (17% vs. 9%), and stayed away without cancellation less often (2% vs. 8%).

CONCLUSION

Compared with standard care, flexible patient-controlled visits combined with patient-reported outcomes in participants with metabolic controlled type 1 diabetes and good psychological well-being further improved diabetes-related well-being and decreased face-to-face visits while maintaining safe diabetes management.

Insulin Titration Guidelines for Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: It Is About Time!

PURPOSE

A proposal that an Insulin Advisory Committee develop insulin titration guidelines 100 years after its discovery.

FINDINGS

Glucose control metrics remain poor despite significant advances in diabetes technology.

SUMMARY

A century after the introduction of insulin, health care providers and patients with type 1 diabetes have worldwide access to a variety of insulin delivery devices (IDDs), glucose monitors, bolus calculators (BCs), continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. However, these advances have not enabled most patients to achieve today's clear A1c and time-in-range goals. Much of this failure arises from the lack of clear insulin titration guidelines for determining appropriate insulin doses. The lack of dosing clarity results in local physicians, clinics, and individual patients managing insulin titrations as they see fit, creating significant inefficiencies for reaching recommended glycemic goals. This review (1) details the widespread problems generated by nonphysiological dose settings in today's BCs, insulin pumps, and AID systems; (2) presents a method to develop and implement optimized total daily doses of insulin to correct the most common problem of hyperglycemia; (3) discusses using large device databases to provide clear insulin titration guidelines that optimize BC settings from an optimized total daily dose (TDD) of insulin for patients with T1D; and (4) recommends the formation of an Insulin Advisory Committee to clarify the steps to take toward universal insulin titration guidelines, optimized BC settings, and a systematic logic for their use in insulin delivery devices.

Proteomic Changes to the Updated Discovery of Engineered Insulin and Its Analogs: Pros and Cons

The destruction of β-cells of the pancreas leads to either insulin shortage or the complete absence of insulin, which in turn causes diabetes Mellitus. For treating diabetes, many trials have been conducted since the 19th century until now. In ancient times, insulin from an animal's extract was taken to treat human beings. However, this resulted in some serious allergic reactions. Therefore, scientists and researchers have tried their best to find alternative ways for managing diabetes with progressive advancements in biotechnology. However, a lot of research trials have been conducted, and they discovered more progressed strategies and approaches to treat type I and II diabetes with satisfaction. Still, investigators are finding more appropriate ways to treat diabetes accurately. They formulated insulin analogs that mimic the naturally produced human insulin through recombinant DNA technology and devised many methods for appropriate delivery of insulin. This review will address the following questions: What is insulin preparation? How were these devised and what are the impacts (both positive and negative) of such insulin analogs against TIDM (type-I diabetes mellitus) and TIIDM (type-II diabetes mellitus)? This review article will also demonstrate approaches for the delivery of insulin analogs into the human body and some future directions for further improvement of insulin treatment.

Rationales of delay and difference in regulatory review by Japan, the USA and Europe among new drugs first approved in Japan

AIMS

To clarify the rationales of delay or difference in the review of new drug applications among regulatory authorities for new drugs, those first approved in the world being in Japan.

METHODS

Among 80 new drugs first approved in Japan from 2008 to 2019, we identified those subsequently approved in the USA or Europe. Significant delays in approval time (boxplot outliers) and the rationales for the delays were assessed among the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

RESULTS

Of the 80 Japan-first approvals, 25 and 24 were approved in the USA and Europe, respectively, and their median approval times in Japan, the USA and Europe were 285, 334 and 477 days, respectively. Significant delays were identified for pirfenidone (1806 days, FDA), alogliptin benzoate (1856 days, FDA), insulin degludec (1457 days, FDA) and romosozumab (750 days, PMDA; 994 days, FDA; 748 days, EMA). Due to concerns about cardiovascular risk, alogliptin benzoate and insulin degludec were requested for additional clinical trials by the FDA, and romosozumab required a much longer review period than the standard approval time in all three regions.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the new drugs significantly delayed in approval time in Japan, the USA or Europe, there were some differences in the requirements, the participating regions and the assessment of clinical trials. The regulatory views on the cardiovascular risk also differed among the three regions. These divergences may be associated with the differences in approval histories.

(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.

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.

Insulin Therapy in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Narrative Review

Here, we review insulin management options and strategies in nonpregnant adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Most patients with T1DM should follow a regimen of multiple daily injections of basal/bolus insulin, but those not meeting individual glycemic targets or those with frequent or severe hypoglycemia or pronounced dawn phenomenon should consider continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. The latter treatment modality could also be an alternative based on patient preferences and availability of reimbursement. Continuous glucose monitoring may improve glycemic control irrespective of treatment regimen. A glycemic target of glycated hemoglobin < 7% (53 mmol/mol) is appropriate for most nonpregnant adults. Basal insulin analogues with a reduced peak profile and an extended duration of action with lower intraindividual variability relative to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin are preferred. The clinical advantages of basal analogues compared with older basal insulins include reduced injection burden, better efficacy, lower risk of hypoglycemic episodes (especially nocturnal), and reduced weight gain. For prandial glycemic control, any rapid-acting prandial analogue (aspart, glulisine, lispro) is preferred over regular human insulin. Faster-acting insulin aspart is a relatively new option with the advantage of better postprandial glucose coverage. Frequent blood glucose measurements along with patient education on insulin dosing based on carbohydrate counting, premeal blood glucose, and anticipated physical activity is paramount, as is education on the management of blood glucose under different circumstances.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary is available for this article.

Switching Patients with Type 1 Diabetes to Insulin Degludec from Other Basal Insulins: Real-World Data of Effectiveness and Safety

INTRODUCTION

Real-world evidence on the effectiveness and safety of insulin degludec (IDeg) in patients with diabetes is a priority. We have therefore evaluated the effectiveness and safety of IDeg, including impact on metabolic control, glycemic variability, weight gain and hypoglycemia, in patients with type 1 diabetes under routine clinical practice conditions.

METHODS

This was an observational longitudinal multicenter study. A retrospective chart review of all patients with type 1 diabetes who were switched from basal insulin to IDeg was performed, and temporal trends in clinical outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Data obtained from 195 patients, with a median age of 42.8 [interquartile range (IQR) 24.6-56.4] years and a median diabetes duration of 16 (IQR 10.0-28) years, were analyzed. Median follow-up was 9.5 (IQR 7.7-11.3) months. Improvements were found in glycated hemoglobin (- 0.34%; p  < 0.0001), fasting blood glucose (- 24.82 mg/dL; p  < 0.0001), post-prandial glucose (- 17.23 mg/dL; p  = 0.0009), glycemic variability as indicated by standard deviation of blood glucose (- 5.67 mg/dL; p  < 0.0001) and high blood glucose index (- 3.77; p < 0.0001). Body weight and body mass index remained substantially stable during the follow-up (- 0.18 kg; p = 0.56 and - 0.12; p = 0.42, respectively). Risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia decreased by 52% [incidence rate ratio 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.77] and risk of total hypoglycemic episodes by 41% (incidence ratio 0.59; 95% CI 0.45-0.83). Basal and short-acting insulin doses decreased by - 1.4 and - 3.1 IU, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Switching patients with type 1 diabetes to IDeg from other basal insulins was associated with relevant improvements in metabolic control and glycemic variability without weight gain; the risk of hypoglycemic episodes also significantly declined.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk S.p.A. unconditional grant.

[Insulin therapy-new insulin analogues]

A multitude of short-acting and long-acting insulin analogues are currently available for the treatment of diabetes mellitus, which mimic physiological insulin secretion better than normal insulins. By the use of ultrarapid insulin analogues postprandial glucose increases can be significantly reduced. Newer long-acting insulin analogues have a very stable action profile and reduce the rate of hypoglycemia, especially nocturnal hypoglycemia, even more than first generation long-acting insulin analogues. Future developments focus on a further acceleration of prandial insulin effects with a simultaneous shorter effect time and an even more prolonged action of long-acting insulin analogues.

Reporting of hypoglycaemia in clinical trials of basal insulins: A need for consensus

Hypoglycaemia is a common side-effect of diabetes therapies, particularly insulin, and imposes a substantial burden on individuals and healthcare systems. Consequently, regulatory approval of newer basal insulin (BI) therapies has relied on demonstration of a balance between achievement of good glycaemic control and less hypoglycaemia. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing efficacy and safety, including hypoglycaemia risk, of BIs and are invaluable for obtaining regulatory approval. However, their highly selected patient populations and their conditions lead to results that may not be representative of real-life situations. Real-world evidence (RWE) studies are more representative of clinical practice, but they also have limitations. As such, data both from RCTs and RWE studies provide a fuller picture of the hypoglycaemia risk with BI therapies. However, substantial differences exist in the way hypoglycaemia is reported across these studies, which confounds comparisons of hypoglycaemia frequency among different BIs. This problem is ongoing and persists in recent trials of second-generation BI analogues. Although they provide a lower risk of hypoglycaemia when compared with earlier BIs, they do not eliminate it. This review describes differences in the way hypoglycaemia is reported across RCTs and RWE studies of second-generation BI analogues and examines potential reasons for these differences. For studies of BIs, there is a need to standardize aspects of design, analysis and methods of reporting to better enable interpretation of the efficacy and safety of such insulins among studies; such aspects include length of follow-up, glycaemic targets, hypoglycaemia definitions and time intervals for determining nocturnal events.

Treatment with the long-acting insulin analog degludec during pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes: An observational study of 22 cases

AIM

To report glycemic control and pregnancy outcome in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes on insulin degludec.

METHODS

Twenty-two women with type 1 diabetes on degludec from conception to delivery between 2014 and 2018 were compared with 51 pregnant women with type 1 diabetes on glargine.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable, however HbA1c was higher at median 9 (range 5-19) weeks in women on degludec compared to women on glargine (6.9% (5.7-8.7); (52 (39-72) mmol/mol) versus 6.4% (5.1-10.1); (46 (32-87) mmol/mol), p = 0.04). HbA1c was similar in late pregnancy (6.3% (5.6-7.1); (45 (38-54) mmol/mol) versus 6.1% (5.2-9.0); (43 (33-75) mmol/mol), p = 0.28). The prevalence of severe hypoglycemia was 3 (14%) versus 6 (12%), p = 1.00 during pregnancy and 0 versus 1, p = 1.00 during hospital admittance after delivery. Most women on degludec used one daily injection in early (20 (91%) versus 25 (49%), p = 0.001) and late pregnancy (21 (96%) versus 19 (37%), p < 0.001). No significant differences in obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were found between the groups. Maternal hospital admittance after delivery was 2 (1-5) versus 3 (2-11) days (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Glycemic control in late pregnancy, severe hypoglycemia during and immediately after pregnancy as well as pregnancy outcome were comparable in women on degludec or glargine. Degludec initiated preconceptionally may be continued in pregnancy.

Comparative effectiveness and harms of long-acting insulins for type 1 and type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To review evidence comparing benefits and harms of long-acting insulins in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes.

METHODS

MEDLINE and two Cochrane databases were searched during February 2018. Two authors selected studies meeting inclusion criteria and assessed their quality. Comparative studies of adult or paediatric patients with diabetes treated with insulin degludec, detemir or glargine were included. Meta-analysis was used to combine results of similar studies, and the I² statistic calculated to assess statistical heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of 2534 citations reviewed, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria. No statistically significant differences in HbA1c were seen between any two insulins or formulations. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than with glargine, including nocturnal hypoglycaemia in type 1 (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.81) and type 2 diabetes (rate ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.82), and severe hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes (relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.96). Patients with type 2 diabetes had higher rates of withdrawal because of adverse events when treated with detemir compared with glargine (relative risk 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.3). Adults taking detemir gained about 1 kg less body weight than those taking degludec (type 1) or glargine (type 2).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in glycaemic control were seen between insulin degludec, detemir and glargine. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than glargine, and patients taking detemir gained less body weight than those given degludec or glargine. In type 2 diabetes, withdrawals as a result of adverse events were more probable with detemir than glargine.

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.

Reporting Severe Hypoglycemia in Type 1 Diabetes: Facts and Pitfalls

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe potential factors influencing reporting of severe hypoglycemia in adult patients with type 1 diabetes and to analyze their effect on reported rates of severe hypoglycemia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Reported rates of severe hypoglycemia defined as need for third party assistance vary between 0.3-3.0 events per patient-year in unselected cohorts, corresponding to a yearly prevalence range of 10-53%. When defined as need for parenteral therapy with glucose or glucagon or need for admission to an emergency unit or hospitalization, incidence and prevalence rates of severe hypoglycemia are 0.02-0.5 events per patient-year and 1-29%, respectively. When subjects with recurrent severe hypoglycemia in the past or suffering from impaired hypoglycemia awareness are excluded from participation in studies, lower rates are reported. Studies applying anonymous reporting or reporting by partners report higher rates of severe hypoglycemia. There is a large variation between studies reporting incidence and prevalence of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes, mainly explained by definition of severity, methods of reporting, and patient selection. These findings call for consensus about hypoglycemia definition and reporting in future research.

Comparison of glycemic variability in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes receiving insulin degludec versus insulin detemir using continuous glucose monitoring: a randomized, cross-over, pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to compare glycemic variability in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin detemir (IDet).

METHODS

Ten patients with T1D were randomly assigned to receive once-daily IDeg, followed by twice-daily IDet, or vice versa. Glucose variability was evaluated by CGM after >4 weeks of the first insulin and again after crossover to the second insulin.

RESULTS

The total daily insulin dose (U/kg/day) and the total daily basal insulin dose (U/kg/day) were significantly lower during treatment with IDeg than with IDet [median (interquartile range): 0.55 (0.54-0.73) vs. 0.64 (0.54-0.83); P = 0.028, 0.24 (0.19-0.36) vs. 0.30 (0.19-0.39); P = 0.027]. The 24-hour mean glucose levels were not significantly different. However, their standard deviation (SD) was significantly smaller during treatments with IDeg than those with IDet [59.5 (39.5-71.0) vs. 72.8 (61.8-92.8); P = 0.008]. Their mean fasting glucose levels and the mean postprandial peak levels after breakfast and after dinner were significantly lower with IDeg.

CONCLUSIONS

A CGM-based comparison demonstrated that once-daily IDeg showed fewer glycemic fluctuations than twice-daily IDet. IDeg appears to stabilize blood glucose levels better during both daytime and nighttime (particularly, before and after breakfast) with a lower insulin dosage.

Budget impact of treating commercially insured type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in the United States with insulin degludec compared to insulin glargine

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the annual budget impact if all US commercially insured type 1 diabetes mellitus patients on basal-bolus therapy (T1DM_BBT), type 2 diabetes mellitus patients on basal-oral therapy (T2DM_BOT), and type 2 diabetes mellitus patients on basal-bolus therapy (T2DM_BBT) switched from insulin glargine (IGlar) to insulin degludec (IDeg).

METHODS

A short-term (1 year) budget impact model was developed to evaluate the costs of IDeg vs. IGlar in three treatment groups (T1DM_BBT, insulin-naïve T2DM_BOT, and T2DM_BBT) through a simulation for a potential US health plan population of 35 million. The analysis captured direct medical costs associated with insulin treatment (insulin, needles, and self-monitored glucose testing) and costs related to managing hypoglycemic episodes. There were a total of 59,780 T1DM_BBT patients, 383,145 T2DM_BOT patients, and 171,325 T2DM_BBT patients expected to be using long-acting insulin. A sensitivity analysis on the entire US population was also conducted.

RESULTS

Among T1DM_BBT patients, IDeg was associated with an annual cost savings of -$357.13 per patient per year (PPPY), driven primarily by reduced insulin utilization. IDeg was also found to be cost saving among T2DM_BOT patients (-$1206.61 PPPY), driven primarily by reductions in the cost of treating severe hypoglycemic episodes. Among T2DM_BBT patients, IDeg was associated with an additional cost to the plan of $1420.04 PPPY; however, this result was driven by a higher insulin dose for IDeg compared to IGlar. Overall, IDeg demonstrated cost savings of $240 million per year, which accounted for total cost savings of 3.5% vs. IGlar.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this analysis suggest that the reduced insulin utilization and fewer hypoglycemic episodes associated with IDeg may translate into reduced costs for payers. The model is limited by simplification of a complex disease state and assumptions surrounding disease state, treatment patterns, and costs. Therefore, results may not accurately reflect actual health plans or real-world practice patterns.

Safety and efficacy of insulin degludec/insulin aspart with bolus mealtime insulin aspart compared with standard basal-bolus treatment in people with Type 1 diabetes: 1-year results from a randomized clinical trial (BOOST® T1)

AIMS

To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of a simplified basal-bolus regimen of once-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) with additional IAsp vs. a standard basal-bolus insulin regimen of insulin detemir (IDet) with IAsp in adults with Type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

This was an open-label trial comprising a 26-week core phase followed by a 26-week extension phase. Participants were randomized to IDegAsp once daily at the main meal and IAsp at remaining meals (IDegAsp+IAsp), or IDet (once or twice daily) and IAsp at all meals (IDet+IAsp). Insulins were titrated to target plasma glucose of < 5 mmol/l (< 90 mg/dl) at pre-breakfast (IDegAsp and IDet) and at pre-meal (IAsp).

RESULTS

After 52 weeks, the overall confirmed hypoglycaemia rate was 31.8 episodes/patient-years of exposure (PYE) with IDegAsp+Asp and 36.7 episodes/PYE with IDet+IAsp, and the rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with IDegAsp+Asp than with IDet+IAsp (3.1 vs. 5.4 episodes/PYE, respectively; P < 0.05). Adverse event rates were comparable between groups. Mean HbA_1c decreased from baseline by 0.7% (IDegAsp+IAsp) and 0.6% (IDet+IAsp), achieving 60 or 61 mmol/mol (7.6% or 7.7%, respectively), at Week 52. The mean total daily insulin dose was lower with IDegAsp+IAsp than with IDet+IAsp (ratio: 0.87; 95% CI 0.79-0.95; P = 0.0026).

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily treatment with IDegAsp and IAsp as bolus insulin for remaining meals was associated with significantly lower risk of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia, improved glycaemic control and showed non-inferiority compared with IDet+IAsp, the standard of care in Type 1 diabetes.

Similar HbA1c reduction and hypoglycaemia with variable- vs fixed-time dosing of basal insulin peglispro in type 1 diabetes: IMAGINE 7 study

AIMS

To compare 24-hour fixed-time basal insulin peglispro (BIL) dosing with 8- to 40-hour variable-time BIL dosing for glycaemic control and safety in patients with type 1 diabetes. Primary outcome was non-inferiority of BIL variable-time dosing compared with fixed-time dosing for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change after 12-week treatment (margin = 0.4%).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This Phase 3, open-label, randomized, cross-over study (N = 212) was conducted at 20 centres in the United States. During the 12-week lead-in phase, patients received BIL daily at fixed-times. Two 12-week randomized cross-over treatment phases followed, where patients received BIL dosed at either fixed- or variable-times. During the 4-week safety follow-up, patients received conventional insulins.

RESULTS

During the lead-in period, least-squares mean HbA1c decreased from 7.5% to 6.8%. For BIL, variable-time dosing was non-inferior to fixed-time dosing for HbA1c change [least-squares mean difference = 0.06%, 95% confidence interval (-0.01, 0.13)]. In both regimens, HbA1c increased slightly during the cross-over periods, but remained significantly below baseline. Variable- and fixed-time dosing regimens had similar rates of total hypoglycaemia (10.4 ± 0.62 and 10.5 ± 0.67 events/patient/30 days, P = .947) and nocturnal hypoglycaemia (1.3 ± 0.11 and 1.5 ± 0.13 events/patient/30days, P = .060). Comparable proportions of patients achieved HbA1c < 7.0% with variable- [91 (54.5%)] and fixed-time dosing [101 (60.5%)].

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with BIL allows patients to use flexible dosing intervals from 8 to 40 hours. Glycaemic efficacy (HbA1c), glycaemic variability and hypoglycaemia are similar to fixed-time dosing, suggesting that BIL could potentially provide flexibility in dosing for patients who miss their daily basal insulin.

Attributes Influencing Insulin Pen Preference Among Caregivers and Patients With Diabetes Who Require Greater Than 20 Units of Mealtime Insulin

BACKGROUND

This study compared patient preference for Humalog® KwikPen™ 200 units/mL (insulin lispro; hereafter, IL 200 pen; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) versus the Humalog KwikPen 100 units/mL (insulin lispro; hereafter, IL 100 pen; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) in patients with diabetes requiring >20 units of mealtime insulin and diabetes caregivers. This study also determined which attributes had the greatest influence on pen preference selection.

METHODS

In this 2-period, crossover, simulated-use study, 106 participants were randomized to 1 of 8 sequences that varied the pen order (IL 100 pen or IL 200 pen) and dosing order (15 units = low dose or 50 units = high dose) for a total of 4 simulated injections. Participants then completed a self-administered questionnaire to select their overall preference between the 2 pens and then rated the importance of 11 pen attributes in contributing to their overall preference.

RESULTS

Of the 90 participants expressing an overall preference, significantly more preferred the IL 200 pen to the IL 100 pen (IL 200 pen: 80 respondents; IL 100 pen: 10 respondents; 95% confidence interval [0.81, 0.94], P < .0001). The total amount of insulin in the pen, the ease in pressing the injection button, and the amount of fluid injected were key attributes influencing IL 200 pen preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these key attributes, the IL 200 pen was significantly preferred over the IL 100 pen by patients with diabetes who require >20 daily mealtime insulin units or diabetes caregivers and may improve the injection experience for these patients.

A comparison of IDeg + IAsp versus IDet + IAsp in subjects with type 1 diabetes: subgroup analysis of Japanese subjects

Objective

Efficacy and safety were compared between insulin degludec (IDeg) once daily (OD) in combination with mealtime insulin aspart (IAsp) and insulin detemir (IDet) OD or twice daily (BID) in combination with mealtime IAsp in Japanese subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

Materials and methods

This was a post hoc analysis of a multinational, controlled, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial that randomised adults [aged ≥18 years (≥20 years for Japan)] with T1DM for ≥12 months to basal IDeg OD (n = 124) or IDet (n = 62), both with mealtime bolus IAsp. The IDet dosing was adjusted to BID if required at ≥8 weeks.

Results

The estimated mean change in HbA_1c from baseline to week 26 (the primary outcome measure) was -1.03 % in the IDeg + IAsp group and -0.94 % in the IDet + IAsp group (mean estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0.09; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -0.29, 0.10). Significantly greater reductions in fasting plasma glucose were observed in the IDeg + IAsp group (mean ETD -39.36 mg/dL; 95 % CI -56.04, -22.68). Both groups had similar rates of confirmed hypoglycaemia (59.9 and 59.2 per patient-year of exposure [PYE] with IDeg + IAsp and IDet + IAsp, respectively). Rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia were significantly lower with IDeg + IAsp than with IDet + IAsp (5.2 vs 9.5 episodes per PYE; estimated ratio 0.48; 95 % CI 0.31, 0.75). Adverse event profiles were similar.

Conclusion

The findings were consistent with those of the global trial population. IDeg + IAsp may represent an improvement on current standard treatments for Japanese patients with T1DM.

Severe hypoglycaemia in adults with insulin-treated diabetes: impact on healthcare resources

AIMS

To assess resource utilization associated with severe hypoglycaemia across three insulin regimens in a large phase 3a clinical programme involving people with Type 1 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin, people with Type 2 diabetes treated with multiple daily injections and people with Type 2 diabetes treated with basal-oral therapy.

METHODS

Data relating to severe hypoglycaemia events (defined as episodes requiring external assistance) from the insulin degludec and insulin degludec/insulin aspart programme (15 trials) were analysed using descriptive statistics. Comparators included insulin glargine, biphasic insulin aspart, insulin detemir and sitagliptin. Mealtime insulin aspart was used in some regimens. This analysis used the serious adverse events records, which documented the use of ambulance/emergency teams, a hospital/emergency room visit ≤ 24 h, or a hospital visit > 24 h.

RESULTS

In total, 536 severe hypoglycaemia events were analysed, of which 157 (29.3%) involved an ambulance/emergency team, 64 (11.9%) led to hospital/emergency room attendance of ≤ 24 h and 36 (6.7%) required hospital admission (> 24 h). Although there were fewer events in people with Type 2 diabetes compared with Type 1 diabetes, once a severe episode occurred, the tendency to utilize healthcare resources was higher in Type 2 diabetes vs. Type 1 diabetes. A higher proportion (47.6%) in the basal-oral therapy group required hospital treatment for > 24 h versus the Type 1 diabetes (5.0%) and Type 2 diabetes multiple daily injections (5.3%) groups.

CONCLUSION

This analysis suggests that severe hypoglycaemia events often result in emergency/ambulance calls and hospital treatment, incurring a substantial health economic burden, and were associated with all insulin regimens.

Combination therapies in the management of type 2 diabetes: the use of insulin degludec/liraglutide

The global burden of type 2 diabetes is estimated to currently affect over 350 million people worldwide and is anticipated to continue increasing over the next 20 years. Current treatment guidelines recommend the choice of pharmacotherapy based upon patient-specific parameters, with combination therapy for patients with a hemoglobin A1c level ≥9%. A new combination therapy of insulin degludec + liraglutide provides a long-acting basal insulin with a glucagon-like peptide agonist. In clinical trials, this combination product has reduced hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose more than the individual agents alone. Further advantages observed with this combination include weight loss and decrease in hypoglycemia compared to basal insulin alone.

Comparison of insulin degludec with insulin detemir in type 1 diabetes: a 1-year treat-to-target trial

The long-term safety and tolerability of insulin degludec (IDeg) was compared with that of insulin detemir (IDet), as basal treatment in participants with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). In the present multinational, 26-week core + 26-week extension, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial, adults with T1DM were randomized to IDeg or IDet as basal insulin treatment combined with meal-time bolus insulin aspart. IDeg was administered once daily, whilst IDet was administered once or twice daily depending on patients' glycaemic control. After 1 year, IDeg provided a 33% lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared with IDet: estimated rate ratio (IDeg : IDet) 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51; 0.88]; p < 0.05. IDeg improved glycated haemoglobin after 1 year of treatment, similarly to IDet, but IDeg also provided a significantly greater reduction in fasting plasma glucose compared with IDet: estimated difference (IDeg - IDet) -1.11 (95% CI -1.83; -0.40) mmol/l; p < 0.05. The present study confirmed the long-term safety and tolerability profile of IDeg in patients with T1DM. IDeg provided a lower risk of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia than IDet.

Safety, efficacy, and early clinical experience of insulin degludec in Japanese people with diabetes mellitus: A first-year report from Japan

In Japan, insulin therapy is recommended for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus either directly after diet, exercise and lifestyle improvements, or if the target for glycemic control is not achieved with other hypoglycemic agents. Insulin degludec is an ultra-long-acting insulin that was launched in Japan in 2013, having shown good efficacy and safety in its clinical development program. It has now been used in clinical practice for more than 1 year. During this time, clinicians and researchers have identified possible factors that could influence the decision as to which patients might be appropriate for insulin degludec treatment. In the present review, we describe how to initiate and manage insulin degludec therapy in routine clinical practice. We also discuss several important topics related to the use of insulin degludec, including patient selection, dosing, handling of bolus insulin, hypoglycemia and other potential safety considerations.

Management of Severe Insulin Resistance in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

Managing severe insulin resistance (IR) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) can be challenging for both clinicians and patients. As average weight for patients with T1DM has increased in recent decades, IR in this population has become more widespread. Currently, almost 50 % of patients with T1DM are overweight or obese. While intensive insulin therapy is associated with reduction in complications, aggressive treatment can lead to weight gain. With increasing weight, insulin can become less effective to control glycemia, resulting in higher insulin doses and hence more weight gain. Novel strategies to break this vicious cycle are needed. This review will investigate current research on insulin formulations, lifestyle modification, adjunct therapies, and surgery that may help better manage patients with T1DM and IR.

Effect of switching basal insulin regimen to degludec on quality of life in Japanese patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Maintainance of a stable basal insulin level is important for glycemic control in treatment of diabetes mellitus. Recently introduced insulin degludec has the longest duration of action among basal insulin formulations. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in quality of life (QOL) associated with switching the basal insulin regimen to degludec in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

This 24-week open-label intervention study included type 1 (n = 10) and type 2 (n = 20) diabetes mellitus patients, with adequately controlled hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), who had received insulin glargine or detemir for at least 6 months. The primary outcome was change of QOL from baseline, as assessed by the Diabetes Therapy-Related QOL (DTR-QOL) application, after switching from glargine or detemir to degludec. HbA1c and other parameters were also assessed as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

QOL and HbA1c in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus were unchanged during this study. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, HbA1c did not change, but total DTR-QOL score was significantly improved from baseline after switching to degludec. The DTR-QOL Factor 2, "Anxiety and dissatisfaction with treatment", was significantly improved in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and especially in the subgroup receiving basal supported oral therapy (BOT).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching of the basal insulin regimen from glargine or detemir to degludec significantly improved the QOL of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were receiving BOT, by reducing mental stress or anxiety about their treatment.

Insulin degludec in combination with bolus insulin aspart is safe and effective in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes

Insulin degludec (IDeg) once-daily was compared with insulin detemir (IDet) once- or twice-daily, with prandial insulin aspart in a treat-to-target, randomized controlled trial in children 1-17 yr with type 1 diabetes, for 26 wk (n = 350), followed by a 26-wk extension (n = 280). Participants were randomized to receive either IDeg once daily at the same time each day or IDet given once or twice daily according to local labeling. Aspart was titrated according to a sliding scale or in accordance with an insulin:carbohydrate ratio and a plasma glucose correction factor. Randomization was age-stratified: 85 subjects 1-5 yr. (IDeg: 43), 138 6-11 yr (IDeg: 70) and 127 12-17 yr (IDeg: 61) were included. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between groups overall and within each stratification. Non-inferiority of IDeg vs. IDet was confirmed for HbA1c at 26 wk; estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.15% [-0.03; 0.32]95% CI . At 52 wk, HbA1c was 7.9% (IDeg) vs. 7.8% (IDet), NS; change in mean FPG was -1.29 mmol/L (IDeg) vs. +1.10 mmol/L (IDet) (ETD -1.62 mmol/L [-2.84; -0.41]95% CI , p = 0.0090) and mean basal insulin dose was 0.38 U/kg (IDeg) vs. 0.55 U/kg (IDet). The majority of IDet treated patients (64%) required twice-daily administration to achieve glycemic targets. Hypoglycemia rates did not differ significantly between IDeg and IDet, but confirmed and severe hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher with IDeg (57.7 vs. 54.1 patient-years of exposure (PYE) [NS] and 0.51 vs. 0.33, PYE [NS], respectively) although nocturnal hypoglycemia rates were numerically lower (6.0 vs. 7.6 PYE, NS). Rates of hyperglycemia with ketosis were significantly lower for IDeg vs. IDet [0.7 vs. 1.1 PYE, treatment ratio 0.41 (0.22; 0.78)95% CI , p = 0.0066]. Both treatments were well tolerated with comparable rates of adverse events. IDeg achieved equivalent long-term glycemic control, as measured by HbA1c with a significant FPG reduction at a 30% lower basal insulin dose when compared with IDet. Rates of hypoglycemia did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups; however, hyperglycemia with ketosis was significantly reduced in those treated with IDeg.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart combination for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Glycemic control remains the major therapeutic objective to prevent or delay the onset and progression of complications related to diabetes mellitus. Insulin therapy represents a cornerstone in the treatment of diabetes and has been used widely for achieving glycemic goals. Nevertheless, a large portion of the population with diabetes does not meet the internationally agreed glycemic targets. Moreover, insulin treatment, especially if intensive, may be associated with emergency room visits and hospitalization due to hypoglycemic events. Therefore, fear of hypoglycemia or hypoglycemic events represents the main barriers to the attainment of glycemic targets. The burden associated with multiple daily injections also remains a significant obstacle to initiating and maintaining insulin therapy. The most attractive insulin treatment approach should meet the patients’ preference, rather than demanding patients to change or adapt their lifestyle. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a new combination, formulated with ultra-long-acting insulin degludec and rapid-acting insulin aspart, with peculiar pharmacological features, clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability. IDegAsp provides similar, noninferior glycemic control to a standard basal–bolus regimen in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, with additional benefits of significantly lower episodes of hypoglycemia (particularly nocturnal) and fewer daily insulin injections. Moreover, although treatment strategy and patients’ viewpoint are different in type 1 and type 2 diabetes, trial results suggest that IDegAsp may be an appropriate and reasonable option for initiating insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on maximal doses of conventional oral agents. This paper will discuss the role of IDegAsp combination as a novel treatment option in diabetic patients.