Low incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events over time with a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide versus lixisenatide alone

Open questions on basal insulin therapy in T2D: a Delphi consensus

AIMS

The revolution in the therapeutic approach to type 2 diabetes (T2D) requires a rethinking of the positioning of basal insulin (BI) therapy. Given the considerable number of open questions, a group of experts was convened with the aim of providing, through a Delphi consensus method, practical guidance for doctors.

METHODS

A group of 6 experts developed a series of 29 statements on: the role of metabolic control in light of the most recent guidelines; BI intensification strategies: (1) add-on versus switch; (2) inertia in starting and titrating; (3) free versus fixed ratio combination; basal-bolus intensification and de-intensification strategies; second generation analogues of BI (2BI). A panel of 31 diabetologists, by accessing a dedicated website, assigned each statement a relevance score on a 9-point scale. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was adopted to assess the existence of disagreement among participants.

RESULTS

Panelists showed agreement for all 29 statements, of which 26 were considered relevant, one was considered not relevant and two were of uncertain relevance. Panelists agreed that the availability of new classes of drugs often allows the postponement of BI and the simplification of therapy. It remains essential to promptly initiate and titrate BI when required. BI should always, unless contraindicated, be started in addition to, and not as a replacement, for ongoing treatments with cardiorenal benefits. 2BIs should be preferred for their pharmacological profile, greater ease of self-titration and flexibility of administration.

CONCLUSION

In a continuously evolving scenario, BI therapy still represents an important option in the management of T2D patients.

Effects of age and disease duration on the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi in Asian people with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis of the LixiLan-O-AP and LixiLan-L-CN trials

AIM

To evaluate the effect of age and disease duration on the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus insulin glargine 100 units/ml (iGlar) or lixisenatide (Lixi) alone in Asian people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs (LixiLan-O-AP) or basal insulin ± oral antidiabetic drugs (LixiLan-L-CN).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this post hoc analysis, the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) changes were assessed from baseline to week 24 (LixiLan-O-AP) or 30 (LixiLan-L-CN) in subgroups defined by baseline age (<65, ≥65 years) and duration of T2D. The proportion who achieved the composite of HbA1c <7% (<53.0 mmol/mol) without weight gain and without symptomatic hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L) and the incidences of hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal disorders were also analysed.

RESULTS

HbA1c reductions were consistently greater with iGlarLixi versus iGlar or Lixi across all subgroups, including participants aged ≥65 years and those with T2D for ≥15 or ≥20 years. Greater proportions of participants achieved HbA1c <7% (<53.0 mmol/mol) without weight gain or hypoglycaemia with iGlarLixi versus iGlar or Lixi, regardless of age or T2D duration. Hypoglycaemia incidence was similar with iGlarLixi versus iGlar across most subgroups; the incidence of gastrointestinal disorders was lower with iGlarLixi versus Lixi in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi showed consistent efficacy and safety across all age and disease duration subgroups in Asian people with uncontrolled T2D, including older individuals and those with longstanding disease.

Treatment intensification following glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatment in type 2 diabetes: The RESTORE-G real-world study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To assess intensification approaches with basal insulin (BI) following glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) treatment in type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Real-world data were collected in electronic medical records by 32 Italian diabetes clinics between 2011 and 2021. Primary endpoint was the proportion of insulin-naïve T2D patients treated with GLP-1 RA who initiated (add-on or switch) BI. Secondary endpoints were: treatment approaches, mean time to BI start, effectiveness and safety. Among 7,962 eligible patients, BI was prescribed to 3,164 (39.7%; 95%CI 38.7; 40.8): 67.6% switched to BI (22.1% also starting 1-3 injections of short-acting insulin), 22.7% added BI while maintaining GLP-1 RA, and 9.7% switched to a fixed-ratio combination of GLP-1 RA and BI (FRC). Median time since the first GLP-1 RA to BI/FRC prescription was 27.4 (IQ range 11.8-53.5) months. In this study 60.3% of patients did not start BI/FRC, among whom 15.2% intensified GLP-1 RA therapy with other oral agents. Effectiveness and safety were documented in all intensification approaches with BI/FRC, but HbA1c level at intensification time of ≥9.0% and suboptimal BI titration suggested clinical inertia. Use of second generation BI and add-on to GLP-1 RA schemes increased over time and effectiveness improved.

CONCLUSION

Clinical inertia should be overcome using innovative insulin options. Timely combination therapy of BI and GLP-1 RA is a valuable choice.

Practical Guidance for Healthcare Providers on Collaborating with People with Type 2 Diabetes: Advancing Treatment and Initiating Injectable Therapy

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) progresses over time, and to achieve and maintain adequate glucose control, many people eventually require injectable therapies such as insulin. However, there can be significant barriers to the initiation of these medications, both from people living with T2D and from healthcare practitioners (HCPs). Misconceptions and misinformation relating to the potential risks and benefits of injectable therapies are common and can contribute to negative perceptions regarding their use. Additionally, HCPs are often unaware of the emotional burden associated with T2D. In particular, diabetes distress is a key contributory factor that needs to be addressed to alleviate fears before diabetes education can be successful. The onus is often on the HCP to initiate effective, individualized communication with each patient and make that person feel an active and equal participant in the management of their T2D. Shared decision-making has been demonstrated to improve understanding of the pathophysiology and treatment options, to increase risk awareness, adherence, and persistence, and to improve self-management behaviors (e.g., exercise, self-care) and patient satisfaction. While therapeutic inertia can result from both patient and HCP, HCPs need to bear the responsibility for escalating therapy when necessary. A proactive approach by the HCP, combined with shared decision-making and a patient-centric approach, are important for optimal T2D management; therefore, an open and effective relationship between the HCP and the person living with T2D is essential. This article is written by a person with T2D, a nurse practitioner/Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist, and a clinical endocrinologist, with the goal of providing a holistic view of the management experience, exploring patient needs and expectations, recognizing and avoiding HCP and patient barriers, and providing practical advice to HCPs to empower patients who would benefit from injectable therapy.Infographic and video abstract available for this article.

Effectiveness, Safety, and Appropriateness in the Use of the Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Glargine and Lixisenatide in Type 2 Diabetes: The ENSURE Retrospective Real-World Study

INTRODUCTION

Pivotal trials documented glycemic benefits of fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi), with no weight gain and low hypoglycemia risk in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed at assessing effectiveness and patterns of use of iGlarLixi in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, multicenter, study, based on electronic medical records. All patients initiating iGlarLixi from May 2018 to July 2020 were considered.

RESULTS

Overall, 25 centers provided data on 675 patients initiating iGlarLixi with the following characteristics: age 66.4 ± 10.1 years, 54.2% men, T2D duration 15.5 ± 11.5 years, HbA1c 8.6 ± 1.4%, body mass index (BMI) 30.8 ± 5.3 kg/m², 45.1% already treated with basal insulin, and 21.9% with basal bolus (± oral hypoglycemic agents). Metformin and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors were used in 76.0% and 0.9% of patients, respectively. Combinations of iGlarLixi with other glucose-lowering drugs such as sulfonylureas or short-acting insulin were found in 32.4% of patients. Effectiveness of iGlarLixi (N = 184) showed that HbA1c declined by 0.77% [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.00, -0.54] after 6 months. In combination with metformin and/or SGLT-2i (N = 117), HbA1c declined by -0.92% (95% CI -1.22, -0.62) and weight significantly decreased by 1.21 kg. iGlarLixi dose was suboptimally titrated. Safety data (N = 171) showed incidence rates of blood glucose ≤ 70 and < 54 mg/mL of 0.26 and 0.05 events per person-month during 6 months, respectively, with a risk reduction of about 75% with respect the 6 months before iGlarLixi initiation. No severe hypoglycemia was reported.

CONCLUSION

In adults with T2D, effectiveness and safety of iGlarLixi were documented in a real-world setting; appropriateness of use and adequate titration should be urgently improved so that clinical practice outcomes become more comparable to clinical trials results. Further real-world studies on the effect of iGlarLixi therapy are warranted.

Switching to iGlarLixi versus continuation of a daily or weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) in insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes: A LixiLan-G trial subgroup analysis by HbA1c and GLP-1 RA use at screening

AIM

In people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) requiring intensification beyond glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs), switching to iGlarLixi was shown to be efficacious and well-tolerated in the LixiLan-G trial. This exploratory analysis of LixiLan-G assessed the efficacy and safety of switching to iGlarLixi versus continuing GLP-1 RA therapy, stratified by screening HbA1c level (≥7.0 to ≤7.5 %; >7.5 to ≤8.0 %; >8.0 to ≤9.0 % [≥53 to ≤58 mmol/mol; >58 to ≤64 mmol/mol; >64 to ≤75 mmol/mol]) and previous GLP-1 RA regimen at screening (once/twice daily or once weekly).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Endpoints for all subgroups included: change in HbA1c, achievement of HbA1c <7 % and hypoglycaemia events. Adverse events and changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), 2-hour PPG excursion and weight were analysed according to previous GLP-1 RA regimen.

RESULTS

Switching to iGlarLixi in all subgroups resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1c and proportions of participants reaching HbA1c <7 % (including with no documented hypoglycaemia) at Week 26 compared with continued GLP-1 RA treatment. Switching to iGlarLixi also led to significantly greater reductions in FPG, 2-hour PPG, and 2-hour PPG excursion, irrespective of previous GLP-1 RA regimen. Rates of hypoglycaemia were low, but slightly higher in those who switched to iGlarLixi for all subgroups. Modest weight gain was seen with iGlarLixi, irrespective of previous GLP-1 RA regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to iGlarLixi improved glycaemic control, regardless of screening HbA1c or previous GLP-1 RA type, offering a simple, efficacious and well-tolerated treatment intensification option for people with T2D inadequately controlled by GLP-1 RAs and OADs.

Gastrointestinal adverse events with insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed-ratio combination versus glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A network meta-analysis

AIMS

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are the recommended first injectable therapy in type 2 diabetes. However, long-term persistence is suboptimal and partly attributable to gastrointestinal tolerability, particularly during initiation/escalation. Gradual titration of fixed-ratio combination GLP-1 RA/insulin therapies may improve GLP-1 RA gastrointestinal tolerability. We compared gastrointestinal adverse event (AE) rates for iGlarLixi versus GLP-1 RAs during the first 12 weeks of therapy, including a sensitivity analysis with IDegLira.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PICO framework was used to identify studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL searches using a proprietary, web-based, standardized tool with single data extraction. Gastrointestinal AEs were modelled using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), using fixed and random effects for each recommended dose (treatment-specific NMA) and class (drug-class NMA).

RESULTS

Treatment-specific NMA included 17 trials (n = 9030; 3665 event-weeks). Nausea rates were significantly lower with iGlarLixi versus exenatide 10 μg twice daily (rate ratio: 0.32; 95% credible interval: 0.15, 0.66), once-daily lixisenatide 20 μg (0.35; 0.24, 0.50) and liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily (0.48; 0.23, 0.98). Rates were numerically, but not statistically, lower versus once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg (0.60; 0.30, 1.23) and dulaglutide 1.5 mg (0.60; 0.29, 1.26), and numerically, but not statistically, higher versus once-weekly exenatide (1.91; 0.91, 4.03). Sensitivity analysis results were similar. In a naïve, pooled analysis, vomiting was lower with iGlarLixi versus other GLP-1 RAs.

CONCLUSIONS

During the first 12 weeks of treatment, iGlarLixi was generally associated with less nausea and vomiting than single-agent GLP-1 RAs. Enhanced gastrointestinal tolerability with fixed-ratio combinations may favour treatment persistence.

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.

iGlarLixi effectively reduces residual hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin: A post hoc analysis from the LixiLan-L study

Globally, nearly half of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) do not successfully achieve target HbA1c with basal insulin, despite meeting fasting plasma glucose (FPG) targets. In this post hoc analysis of the LixiLan-L study, we determined whether iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine Gla-100 (iGlar) and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide (Lixi), addresses the challenge of reducing residual hyperglycaemia in patients with T2D. In LixiLan-L, a randomized, open-label study, 1018 patients with T2D on basal insulin for ≥6 months ± oral antidiabetes drugs entered a 6-week run-in period, during which they were switched to and/or optimized for a daily dose of iGlar while continuing only metformin. Following the run-in period, 736 patients were then randomized to receive iGlarLixi or were continued on iGlar for 30 weeks ± metformin. Residual hyperglycaemia was defined as HbA1c ≥ 7.0% despite FPG of <140 mg/dL. The proportion of patients with residual hyperglycaemia was similar in both treatment arms at screening (~~42%), and increased after the run-in period (~~62%). After 30 weeks, the proportion of patients with residual hyperglycaemia declined to 23.8% in the iGlarLixi versus 47.1% in the iGlar arm (P < .0001). The proportion of patients achieving both HbA1c (<7.0%) and FPG (<140 mg/dL) targets was higher in the iGlarLixi compared with the iGlar arm (50.3% vs. 27.4%, respectively; P < .0001). iGlarLixi effectively reduces residual hyperglycaemia in patients with T2D on basal insulin therapy.

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.

Glycaemic target attainment in people with Type 2 diabetes treated with insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed-ratio combination: a post hoc analysis of the LixiLan-O and LixiLan-L trials

AIMS

Both fasting (FPG) and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) contribute to HbA_1c levels. We investigated the relationship between achievement of American Diabetes Association (ADA) and American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) recommended FPG and/or PPG targets and glycaemic efficacy outcomes in two trials.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis, data from participants with Type 2 diabetes in the phase 3 LixiLan-O (NCT02058147) and LixiLan-L (NCT02058160) trials were evaluated to compare the relationship between achievement of society-recommended FPG and/or PPG targets and efficacy (HbA_1c change, HbA_1c goal attainment, weight change) and safety outcomes in the treatment groups.

RESULTS

Across treatment arms, iGlarLixi achieved the highest proportion of participants meeting both ADA- and AACE-recommended FPG and PPG targets at study end in both trials. A higher proportion of participants in the iGlarLixi (fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide) vs. insulin glargine alone or lixisenatide alone treatment arms achieved HbA_1c goals (P < 0.001 for overall comparisons), irrespective of ADA- or AACE-defined targets. Hypoglycaemia rates [any, documented symptomatic (plasma glucose ≤ 3.9 mmol/l), and clinically important (plasma glucose < 3.0 mmol/l)] were low across all groups. Participants treated with iGlarLixi tended to show weight loss or less weight gain compared with participants receiving insulin glargine alone. No differences were observed in average daily basal insulin dose at week 30 between the two treatment arms or across the different FPG and PPG target groups.

CONCLUSION

Insulin glargine and lixisenatide as a fixed-ratio combination resulted in more participants reaching both FPG and PPG targets, leading to better HbA_1c target attainment.

Efficacy and safety of lixisenatide as add-on therapy to basal insulin in older adults with type 2 diabetes in the GetGoal-O Study

BACKGROUND

This study compared the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide with placebo as add-on therapy to basal insulin (BI) in adults aged ≥70 years with type 2 diabetes (T2D), with or without moderate renal insufficiency.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis evaluated data from non-frail patients with T2D inadequately controlled on BI with or without oral antidiabetic drugs (n = 108), randomized to once-daily lixisenatide 20 μg or placebo for 24 weeks (GetGoal-O Study). The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24. Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in fasting plasma glucose, 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), average seven-point self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG), area under the curve for SMPG, daily BI dose, body weight, proportion of patients achieving HbA1c > 0.5%, and composite endpoints. Safety outcomes included the incidence of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (plasma glucose <60 mg/dL) and gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Outcomes were also analyzed by the occurrence of moderate renal insufficiency.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, lixisenatide-treated patients had significantly greater reductions in HbA1c, 2-hour PPG, average seven-point SMPG, and body weight. Documented symptomatic hypoglycemia was approximately two-fold higher in patients treated with placebo than lixisenatide (12.7% vs 5.7%). GI TEAEs occurred more frequently in the lixisenatide- than placebo-treated group (34% vs 9.1%). Moderate renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate between ≥30 and <60 mL/min/1.73 m² ) did not negatively affect lixisenatide efficacy or safety. A greater proportion of patients treated with lixisenatide than placebo achieved composite endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Add-on therapy with lixisenatide in non-frail patients aged ≥70 years with T2D uncontrolled with BI is effective, safe, and well tolerated and should be considered in this population.

A Review of the Safety and Adverse Event Profile of the Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Glargine and Lixisenatide

INTRODUCTION

iGlarLixi is a titratable, fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine (100 units/mL) and lixisenatide (33 μg/mL). This review evaluates the overall safety and adverse event (AE) profile of iGlarLixi in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We collated patient-level data from the phase 2 LixiLan proof-of-concept trial and the phase 3 LixiLan-L (insulin-experienced patients) and LixiLan-O (insulin-naïve patients) trials to evaluate AEs associated with iGlarLixi. We also describe data from the ELIXA study to examine pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, and the ELIXA and ORIGIN studies for cardiovascular safety data.

RESULTS

Patients treated with iGlarLixi had improved glycemic control with a similar incidence of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (plasma glucose ≤ 70 mg/dL) compared with iGlar. Incidence of severe hypoglycemia (an event requiring third-party assistance) was low in all treatment arms in both LixiLan-L and LixiLan-O. Rates of gastrointestinal AEs in patients treated with iGlarLixi tended to be lower compared with lixisenatide alone, but higher than those treated with iGlar alone. Gastrointestinal AEs were generally mild to moderate in intensity and transient. Antibodies formed in response to iGlarLixi did not have any significant clinical impact, with similar safety observed for antibody-positive and antibody-negative populations. Rates of allergic reactions, malignancy, renal impairment, and cardiovascular events were low and comparable between treatment groups. Older age (≥ 65 years) and gender did not affect efficacy or safety.

CONCLUSION

iGlarLixi has a safety profile that is consistent with that of its two active components insulin glargine and lixisenatide, with no signals for pancreatitis or thyroid C cell tumors, and no black-box warning for iGlarLixi. There were no unexpected safety findings; iGlarLixi had beneficial effects on glycemic control, with no increased risk of hypoglycemia, despite a greater glycated hemoglobin A1c reduction. In addition, there were also fewer gastrointestinal AEs associated with iGlarLixi compared with lixisenatide alone.

FUNDING

Sanofi US Inc.

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.

Low incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events over time with a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide versus lixisenatide alone

This post hoc analysis of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) from the phase 3 LixiLan-L (NCT02058160) and LixiLan-O (NCT02058147) trials aimed to determine the frequency and timing of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea for iGlarLixi, a titratable, fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 units/mL (iGlar) and lixisenatide, versus iGlar alone or iGlar and lixisenatide alone, in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) or basal insulin ± OADs. In iGlarLixi-treated patients, the rate of GI AEs during the initial weeks of treatment was lower versus patients treated with lixisenatide alone (9.6% and 11.7% of iGlarLixi-treated patients in LixiLan-L and LixiLan-O, respectively, vs. 27.5% of lixisenatide-treated patients in LixiLan-O). Beyond day 60, these rates were generally low and similar to those of lixisenatide. These lower rates are likely due to the gradual titration of lixisenatide in iGlarLixi. Median durations of intermittent GI AEs in the iGlarLixi arms were 6.0, 2.0 and 2.5 days (LixiLan-L), and 5.0, 1.0 and 3.5 days (LixiLan-O), respectively. iGlarLixi-associated GI AEs were transient, mostly mild or moderate in severity, and occurred mainly during initial titration.