Cardiovascular safety and lower severe hypoglycaemia of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes aged 65 years or older: Results from DEVOTE (DEVOTE 7)

Safety and glycemic control with insulin degludec use in clinical practice: results from a 3-year Japanese post-marketing surveillance study

Introduction

Insulin degludec (degludec) is a basal insulin with a long duration of action. This post-marketing surveillance study monitored safety and glycemic control during use of degludec for 3 years in normal clinical practice in Japan.

Materials and methods

This multicenter, open-label, observational study included patients with diabetes receiving degludec in Japan between 2013 and 2019. The primary outcome was incidence of adverse events occurring over 3 years of treatment. The pre-specified, secondary outcomes were severe hypoglycemic episodes and changes in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose levels.

Results

Of 4167 patients enrolled, 4022 were included in the safety assessments and 3918 in the assessments of glycemic control. Mean age was 58.9 years; 74.1% of patients had type 2 diabetes, and mean HbA1c at baseline was 8.7%. Adverse events and serious adverse events were observed in 19.1% and 8.9% of patients, respectively. Cardiac disorders and neoplasms were reported in 2.0% and 1.8% of patients, respectively, with the majority of these incidents reported as serious adverse events. Adverse drug reactions were seen in 8.0% of patients, mainly hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemic events were observed in 5.6% of patients, and severe hypoglycemic events in 1.7%. No serious allergic or injection-site reactions were seen. Respective changes (from baseline to 3 years' observation) in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose levels were - 0.55% and - 36.3 mg/dL, and 19.6% of patients reached HbA1c < 7.0%.

Conclusions

Using degludec for 3 years in normal clinical practice had a good safety and tolerability profile. Improvements in glycemic control were also seen.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13340-023-00657-7.

Effectiveness of the SUGAR intervention on hypoglycaemia in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A pharmacist-led, individualised, educational intervention (SUGAR) was formulated to prevent hypoglycaemia among elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Jordan.

OBJECTIVE(S)

To evaluate the effectiveness of the SUGAR intervention added to usual care compared with usual care only in preventing hypoglycaemic attacks in elderly patients with T2DM in Jordan.

METHODS

A single-centre, pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation was conducted at the outpatient clinics of a hospital in Jordan. Elderly patients (≥65 years) with T2DM and on sulfonylurea, insulin, or at least three anti-diabetic medications were recruited and parallelly randomised to the SUGAR intervention with usual care or the control (usual care) groups. The primary outcome was the rate of total hypoglycaemic attacks per patient after 3 months from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included rate of hypoglycaemia subtypes, the incidence of any and subtypes of hypoglycaemia, hypoglycaemia-free survival probability, and incidence of fasting hyperglycaemia necessitating therapy modification. Outcomes were measured through glucose meters and diaries, assessed at 3 months, and analysed by intention to treat.

RESULTS

A total of 212 participants (mean age 68.98 years, 58.96% men) were randomly allocated (106 in each group), with 190 (89.62%) participants completing the study. The mean of total hypoglycaemic attacks was less in the intervention group compared with the control group (3.91 [SD 7.65] vs. 6.87 [SD 11.99]; p < 0.0001) at three months. The intervention significantly reduced the rate of hypoglycaemia subtypes; the odds to experience any, severe, and symptomatic hypoglycaemia; and increased hypoglycaemia-free survival probability compared with the control group at three months. Incidence of fasting hyperglycaemia necessitating therapy modification was similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The SUGAR intervention can prevent hypoglycaemia without increasing the risk of fasting hyperglycaemia warranting therapy adjustment in elderly Jordanians with T2DM.

Breaking Barriers With Basal Insulin Biosimilars in Type 2 Diabetes

Despite increases in the availability and effectiveness of other therapies, insulin remains an essential treatment for approximately 30 million people with type 2 diabetes worldwide. The development of biosimilars has created the potential for significant health care cost savings and may lead to greater access to basal insulin for vast populations. In this review, we discuss evidence demonstrating equipoise between basal insulin biosimilars and the patented analogs they may replace.

Effect of Newer Long-Acting Insulins on Hypoglycemia and Fracture Risk Among People with Diabetes: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To investigate the effect of newer long-acting insulins on the risk of hypoglycemic episodes and fractures in people with diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hypoglycemic episodes are the critical limiting factor in glycemic management due to a deteriorating effect on quality of life. Hypoglycemia may in severe cases lead to unconsciousness and thus fractures. Newer long-acting insulins may result in more stable blood glucose levels, less hypoglycemic episodes, and reduced risk of fractures. Use of insulin increases risk of hypoglycemic episodes, and hypoglycemic episodes increase risk of fractures plausible due to falls. Newer ultra-long-acting insulins reduce risk of hypoglycemic episodes compared to older alternatives, and they are thus promising for reducing fracture risk. However, more studies are needed to determine whether these new insulins reduce risk of fractures.

The Value of Insulin Degludec in Frail Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

Insulin represents a mainstay of glucose-lowering therapy for many adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Insulin treatments prescribed as standard care for the majority of people with T2DM, such as basal human insulin, may not be optimal in the treatment of frail older adults because of the increased demand on health care staff to administer multiple daily injections and monitor the patient. When choosing an insulin regimen for a frail older person with T2DM, predictability of glucose lowering effect, risk of hypoglycaemia, ease of administration, and simplicity and flexibility of dosing are major determining factors. Multiple daily injections may be too complex for older frail adults, whilst providing an unnecessary degree of tight glycaemic control and low doses of once-daily basal insulin analogues such as insulin degludec may be a reasonable option as cognitive decline or functional disability increases. Although insulin degludec has a substantially higher acquisition cost than routinely used basal human insulin, it has a longer, more predictable pharmacological profile and is more amenable to once-daily administration, translating into a reduced burden of care and potential cost savings for insulin-treated frail older adults. Insulin acquisition cost represents only a small proportion of the total cost of treatment, and it is important to consider the value perspective of insulin therapy in frail older adults from all stakeholders in the health care system.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for people with cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were approved for treating people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although metformin remains the first-line pharmacotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a body of evidence has recently emerged indicating that DPP4i, GLP-1RA and SGLT2i may exert positive effects on patients with known CVD.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the available evidence on the benefits and harms of DPP4i, GLP-1RA, and SGLT2i in people with established CVD, using network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 16 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials registers on 22 August 2020. We did not restrict by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DPP4i, GLP-1RA, or SGLT2i that included participants with established CVD. Outcome measures of interest were CVD mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF), and safety outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently screened the results of searches to identify eligible studies and extracted study data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted standard pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by pooling studies that we assessed to be of substantial homogeneity; subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also pursued to explore how study characteristics and potential effect modifiers could affect the robustness of our review findings. We analysed study data using the odds ratios (ORs) and log odds ratios (LORs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and credible intervals (Crls), where appropriate. We also performed narrative synthesis for included studies that were of substantial heterogeneity and that did not report quantitative data in a usable format, in order to discuss their individual findings and relevance to our review scope.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 studies (287 records), of which we pooled data from 20 studies (129,465 participants) for our meta-analysis. The majority of the included studies were at low risk of bias, using Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. Among the 20 pooled studies, six investigated DPP4i, seven studied GLP-1RA, and the remaining seven trials evaluated SGLT2i. All outcome data described below were reported at the longest follow-up duration. 1. DPP4i versus placebo Our review suggests that DPP4i do not reduce any risk of efficacy outcomes: CVD mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence), myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; high-certainty evidence), stroke (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). DPP4i probably do not reduce hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). DPP4i may not increase the likelihood of worsening renal function (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not increase the risk of bone fracture (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; moderate-certainty evidence) or hypoglycaemia (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). They are likely to increase the risk of pancreatitis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37; moderate-certainty evidence). 2. GLP-1RA versus placebo Our findings indicate that GLP-1RA reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), and stroke (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA probably do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA may reduce the risk of worsening renal function (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence), but may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of GLP-1RA on hypoglycaemia and bone fractures. 3. SGLT2i versus placebo This review shows that SGLT2i probably reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), and reduce the risk of HF hospitalisation (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71; high-certainty evidence); they do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce the risk of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of treatment safety, SGLT2i probably reduce the incidence of worsening renal function (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably have no effect on hypoglycaemia (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence) or bone fracture (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence), and may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.86; low-certainty evidence). 4. Network meta-analysis Because we failed to identify direct comparisons between each class of the agents, findings from our network meta-analysis provided limited novel insights. Almost all findings from our network meta-analysis agree with those from the standard meta-analysis. GLP-1RA may not reduce the risk of stroke compared with placebo (OR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.0; moderate-certainty evidence), which showed similar odds estimates and wider 95% Crl compared with standard pairwise meta-analysis. Indirect estimates also supported comparison across all three classes. SGLT2i was ranked the best for CVD and all-cause mortality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings from both standard and network meta-analyses of moderate- to high-certainty evidence suggest that GLP-1RA and SGLT2i are likely to reduce the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality in people with established CVD; high-certainty evidence demonstrates that treatment with SGLT2i reduce the risk of hospitalisation for HF, while moderate-certainty evidence likely supports the use of GLP-1RA to reduce fatal and non-fatal stroke. Future studies conducted in the non-diabetic CVD population will reveal the mechanisms behind how these agents improve clinical outcomes irrespective of their glucose-lowering effects.

Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg in patients aged younger than 65 and 65 years or older: Post hoc analysis of the AWARD-11 trial

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg versus 1.5 mg when used as an add-on to metformin in subgroups defined by age (<65 and ≥65 years).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Of 1842 patients included in this post hoc analysis, 438 were aged 65 years or older and 1404 were younger than 65 years. The intent-to-treat (ITT) population, while on treatment without rescue medication, was used for all efficacy analyses; the ITT population without rescue medication was used for hypoglycaemia analyses; all other safety analyses used the ITT population.

RESULTS

Patients aged 65 years or older and those younger than 65 years had a mean age of 69.5 and 53.2 years, respectively. In each age subgroup, the reduction from baseline in HbA1c and body weight (BW), and the proportion of patients achieving a composite endpoint of HbA1c of less than 7% (<53 mmol/mol) with no weight gain and no documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia, were larger for dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg compared with dulaglutide 1.5 mg, but the treatment-by-age interactions were not significant. The safety profile for the additional dulaglutide doses was consistent with that of dulaglutide 1.5 mg and was similar between the age subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Dulaglutide doses of 3.0 or 4.5 mg provided clinically relevant, dose-related improvements in HbA1c and BW with no significant treatment-by-age interactions, and with a similar safety profile across age subgroups.

Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia risk with insulin glargine 300 U/mL and insulin degludec 100 U/mL in older participants in the BRIGHT trial

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin degludec 100 U/mL (IDeg-100) in predefined (</≥65 years) and post hoc (</≥70 years) age groups of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the BRIGHT trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

BRIGHT was the first head-to-head randomized trial comparing Gla-300 and Deg-100 in insulin-naïve adults with T2D. In this subanalysis, endpoints were studied by predefined (</≥65 years, N = 596/333) and post hoc (</≥70 years, N = 768/161) age groups.

RESULTS

Heterogeneity of treatment effect was observed for HbA1c reductions across the </≥70 years subgroups, but not across the </≥ 65 years subgroups, with greater HbA1c reductions with Gla-300 versus IDeg-100 in those 70 years or older (least squares mean -0.34% [95% confidence interval: -0.589% to -0.100%]). There was no significant heterogeneity of treatment effect for incidence and rates of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) hypoglycaemia across any age subgroups over 24 weeks, but numerically lower incidence and rates were consistently observed for Gla-300 versus IDeg-100 in the 65 years or older and 70 years or older age groups in the initial 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Gla-300 may be a suitable treatment option in the growing population of older people with T2D. Further investigation is required to determine Gla-300 glycaemic benefits in high-risk populations without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia.

Hypoglycaemia and Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Patients with Diabetes

Hypoglycaemia represents an important side effect of insulin therapy and insulin secretagogues. It can occur in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Also, some associations between hypoglycaemia and cardiovascular (CV) risk have been reported. Several mechanisms may be involved, including the sympathoadrenal system, hypokalaemia, endothelial dysfunction, coagulation, platelets, inflammation, atherothrombosis and impaired autonomic cardiac reflexes. This narrative review discusses the associations of hypoglycaemia with CV diseases, including coronary heart disease (CHD), cardiac arrhythmias, stroke, carotid disease and peripheral artery disease (PAD), as well as with dementia. Severe hypoglycaemia has been related to CHD, CV and all-cause mortality. Furthermore, there is evidence supporting an association between hypoglycaemia and cardiac arrhythmias, potentially predisposing to sudden death. The data linking hypoglycaemia with stroke, carotid disease and PAD is limited. Several factors may affect the hypoglycaemia-CV relationships, such as the definition of hypoglycaemia, patient characteristics, co-morbidities (including chronic kidney disease) and antidiabetic drug therapy. However, the association between hypoglycaemia and dementia is bilateral. Both the disorders are more common in the elderly; thus, glycaemic goals should be carefully selected in older patients. Further research is needed to elucidate the impact of hypoglycaemia on CV disease.

Cardiovascular outcomes and safety with linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, compared with the sulphonylurea glimepiride in older people with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis of the randomized CAROLINA trial

AIM

To compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of linagliptin with glimepiride in older and younger participants in the CAROLINA trial in both prespecified and post hoc analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

People aged 40 to 85 years with relatively early type 2 diabetes, inadequate glycaemic control and elevated CV risk were randomly assigned to linagliptin 5 mg or glimepiride 1 to 4 mg. The primary endpoint was time to first occurrence of three-point major adverse CV events (MACE: CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke). We evaluated clinical and safety outcomes across age groups.

RESULTS

Of 6033 participants, 50.7% were aged <65 years, 35.3% were aged 65 to 74 years, and 14.0% were aged ≥75 years. During the 6.3-year median follow-up, CV/mortality outcomes did not differ between linagliptin and glimepiride overall (hazard ratio [HR] for three-point MACE 0.98, 95.47% confidence interval [CI] 0.84, 1.14) or across age groups (interaction P >0.05). Between treatment groups, reductions in glycated haemoglobin were comparable across age groups but moderate-to-severe hypoglycaemia was markedly reduced with linagliptin (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.15, 0.21) with no differences among age groups (P = 0.23). Mean weight was -1.54 kg (95% CI -1.80, -1.28) lower for linagliptin versus glimepiride. Adverse events increased with age, but were generally balanced between treatment groups. Significantly fewer falls or fractures occurred with linagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin and glimepiride were comparable for CV/mortality outcomes across age groups. Linagliptin had significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia and falls or fractures than glimepiride, including in "older-old" individuals for whom these are particularly important treatment considerations.

The Safety and Efficacy of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes at Risk of Hypoglycemia and Use in Other Special Populations: A Narrative Review

Hypoglycemia is a major barrier impeding glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus and creates a substantial burden on the healthcare system. Certain populations that require special attention, such as older adults and individuals with renal impairment, a longer duration of diabetes or those who have experienced prior hypoglycemia, may be at a higher risk of hypoglycemia, particularly with insulin treatment. Second-generation basal insulin analogues (insulin glargine 300 U/mL and degludec) have demonstrated reductions in hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL although evidence of this benefit across specific populations is less clear. In this review we summarize the literature with respect to the efficacy and safety data for second-generation basal insulin analogues in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are at risk of hypoglycemia or who require special attention. Randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses and real-world evidence demonstrate that the use of second-generation basal insulin analogues is associated with less hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL without compromising glycated hemoglobin control. A reduced risk of hypoglycemia with second-generation basal insulin analogues was evident in older adults and in individuals with obesity, renal impairment, a history of cardiovascular disease or a long duration of insulin use. Further studies are needed in other populations, including those with more severe renal impairment or hepatic dysfunction, the hospitalized population and those with cognitive impairment. Overall, less hypoglycemia associated with second-generation basal insulin analogues may help reduce barriers for insulin use, improve adherence and offset the costs of hypoglycemia-related healthcare resource utilization.

Cardiovascular safety outcomes of once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists in people with type 2 diabetes

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), which in turn is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The impact of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes has been investigated in CV outcomes trials (CVOTs). This review aims to help pharmacists and other healthcare professionals (HCPs) gain a better understanding of such CVOTs in T2D with a primary focus on the once-weekly (QW) GLP-1 RAs.

METHODS

This narrative review mainly focuses on the evaluation of the similarities and differences in the design and results of CVOTs involving currently approved and marketed QW GLP-1 RAs-semaglutide subcutaneous, exenatide extended-release (ER) and dulaglutide. Results from CVOTs of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) are also included.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Three CVOTs of QW GLP-1 RAs were identified for inclusion in this review: SUSTAIN 6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide ER) and REWIND (dulaglutide), all of which varied in terms of trial design, patient demographics and other baseline characteristics. Results from these CVOTs demonstrated the CV safety of QW GLP-1 RAs compared with standard of care. Additionally, CV and renal benefits were demonstrated for semaglutide and dulaglutide, but not for exenatide ER. The CV safety of four DPP4is and three SGLT2is was demonstrated. None of the DPP4is had a CV or renal benefit, whereas all three SGLT2is were associated with CV and renal benefits.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

This article provides an overview of the results from QW GLP-1 RA CVOTs, including the recently published results for dulaglutide, and places them within the broader T2D treatment landscape to help HCPs make informed decisions in daily practice. The QW GLP-1 RAs with benefits reaching beyond glycaemic control can provide a comprehensive treatment option for people with T2D at high risk of CVD, with CVD or chronic kidney disease.

Evaluating glucose-lowering treatment in older people with diabetes: Lessons from the IMPERIUM trial

Understanding the benefits and risks of treatments to be used by older individuals (≥65 years old) is critical for informed therapeutic decisions. Glucose-lowering therapy for older patients with diabetes should be tailored to suit their clinical condition, comorbidities and impaired functional status, including varying degrees of frailty. However, despite the rapidly growing population of older adults with diabetes, there are few dedicated clinical trials evaluating glucose-lowering treatment in older people. Conducting clinical trials in the older population poses multiple significant challenges. Despite the general agreement that individualizing treatment goals and avoiding hypoglycaemia is paramount for the therapy of older people with diabetes, there are conflicting perspectives on specific glycaemic targets that should be adopted and on use of specific drugs and treatment strategies. Assessment of functional status, frailty and comorbidities is not routinely performed in diabetes trials, contributing to insufficient characterization of older study participants. Moreover, significant operational barriers and problems make successful enrolment and completion of such studies difficult. In this review paper, we summarize the current guidelines and literature on conducting such trials, as well as the learnings from our own clinical trial (IMPERIUM) that assessed different glucose-lowering strategies in older people with type 2 diabetes. We discuss the importance of strategies to improve study design, enrolment and attrition. Apart from summarizing some practical advice to facilitate the successful conduct of studies, we highlight key gaps and needs that warrant further research.

Cardiovascular safety and lower severe hypoglycaemia of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes aged 65 years or older: Results from DEVOTE (DEVOTE 7)

AIMS

The aim of this study was to describe the risks of cardiovascular (CV) events and severe hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec (degludec) vs insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) aged 65 years or older.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 7637 patients in the DEVOTE trial, a treat-to-target, randomized, double-blind trial evaluating the CV safety of degludec vs glargine U100, were divided into three age groups (50-64 years, n = 3682; 65-74 years, n = 3136; ≥75 years, n = 819). Outcomes by overall age group and randomized treatment differences were analysed for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, severe hypoglycaemia and serious adverse events (SAEs).

RESULTS

Patients with increasing age had higher risks of CV death, all-cause mortality and SAEs, and there were non-significant trends towards higher risks of MACE and severe hypoglycaemia. Treatment effects on the risk of MACE, all-cause mortality, severe hypoglycaemia and SAEs were consistent across age groups, based on the non-significant interactions between treatment and age with regard to these outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There were higher risks of CV death, all-cause mortality and SAEs, and trends towards higher risks of MACE and severe hypoglycaemia with increasing age after adjusting for baseline differences. The effects across age groups of degludec vs glargine U100 on MACE, all-cause mortality and severe hypoglycaemia were comparable, suggesting that the risk of MACE, as well as all-cause mortality, is similar and the risk of severe hypoglycaemia is lower with degludec regardless of age. Evidence is conclusive only until 74 years of age.