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

Expert Opinion on Current Trends in the Use of Insulin in the Management of People with Type 2 Diabetes from the South-Eastern European Region and Israel

Despite the availability of various antihyperglycaemic therapies and comprehensive guidelines, glycaemic control in diabetes management has not improved significantly during the last decade in the real-world clinical setting. Treatment inertia arising from a complex interplay among patient-, clinician- and healthcare-system-related factors is the prime reason for this suboptimal glycaemic control. Also, the key factor leading to inadequate glycaemic levels remains limited communication between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and people with type 2 diabetes (PwT2D). Early insulin administration has several advantages including reduced glucotoxicity, high efficacy and preserved β-cell mass/function, leading to lowering the risk of diabetes complications. The current publication is based on consensus of experts from the South-Eastern European region and Israel who reviewed the existing evidence and guidelines for the treatment of PwT2D. Herein, the experts emphasised the timely use of insulin, preferably second-generation basal insulin (BI) analogues and intensification using basal-plus therapy, as the most-potent glucose-lowering treatment choice in the real-world clinical setting. Despite an increase in the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), the experts urged timely insulin initiation for inadequate glycaemic control in PwT2D. Furthermore, the combination of BI and GLP-1 RA addressing both fasting plasma glucose and post-prandial excursions as a free- or fixed-ratio combination was identified to reduce treatment complexity and burden. To minimise discontinuation and improve adherence, the experts reiterated quality, regular interactions and discussions between HCPs and PwT2D/carers for their involvement in the diabetes management decision-making process. Clinicians and HCPs should consider the opinions of the experts in accordance with the most recent recommendations for diabetes management.

iGlarLixi versus basal plus Rapid-Acting insulin in adults with type 2 diabetes advancing from basal insulin therapy: The SoliSimplify Real-World study

AIM

For people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin (BI), guidelines recommend several treatment advancement options. This study compared the clinical effectiveness of once-daily iGlarLixi versus a multiple-injection BI + rapid acting insulin (RAI) regimen in adults with T2D advancing from BI therapy in real-world clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic medical records from the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) database were analysed retrospectively using propensity score matching to compare therapy advancement with iGlarLixi or BI + RAI in US adults ≥18 years with T2D on BI who had ≥1 valid glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) value at baseline and at the 6-month follow-up. The primary objective was non-inferiority of iGlarLixi to BI + RAI in HbA1c change from baseline to 6 months (margin 0.3%).

RESULTS

Propensity score matching generated cohorts with balanced baseline characteristics (N = 814 in each group). HbA1c reduction from baseline to 6 months with iGlarLixi was non-inferior to BI + RAI [mean difference (95% confidence interval): 0.1 (-0.1, 0.2)%; one-sided p = .0032]. At 6 months, weight gain was significantly lower with iGlarLixi than with BI + RAI [-0.8 (-1.3, -0.2) kg; two-sided p = .0069]. Achievement of HbA1c <7% without hypoglycaemia and weight gain were similar between groups [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.15 (0.81, 1.63); p = .4280]. Hypoglycaemia was low in both groups, probably because of underreporting.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world clinical practice, glycaemic outcomes 6 months after treatment advancement from BI are similar for people with T2D using iGlarLixi versus BI + RAI, with iGlarLixi leading to less weight gain.

The Clinical Impact of Switching Basal Insulin to Insulin Degludec in Patients With Diabetes in Saudi Arabia: A Retrospective One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design Study

BACKGROUND

Diabetes is a health problem that has an enormous and intolerable public health burden on the individual, family, and community. Diabetes affects nearly one-fifth of adults in Saudi Arabia and is expected to double by 2030.

AIM OF THE STUDY

The study aims to evaluate the impact of switching patients from conventional basal insulin analogues to insulin degludec during a 90-day follow-up period.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational pretest-posttest cohort study conducted at King Abdulaziz University Hospital between June 2019 and August 2020. Adult patients with diabetes who switched their basal insulin to insulin degludec were included and evaluated for its impact on insulin doses, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), hypoglycemic events, and/or body weight changes during a 90-day follow-up period.

RESULTS

Out of 718 patients, 107 patients were included in the study, with 60.7% being females and their mean (± SD) age was 62.2 ± 14.6 years. There was a significant decrease in the mean baseline of HbA1c from 9.2% to 8.7% after 90 days of follow-up (P<0.001). A statistically significant reduction was noted in the total insulin requirements from a baseline of 71.70 (± 42.4) units to 46.5 (± 29) units, P=0.001, after switching to insulin degludec. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the body weight from the baseline mean (± SD) of 80.5 kg (± 19.4) to 79.9 kg (± 19.9), P=0.68, after switching to insulin degludec. Lastly, there were no statistically significant differences in the reported hypoglycemic episodes from a baseline of 48.7% vs 37.3% after 90 days of follow-up (P = 0.166).

CONCLUSION

Switching to the novel insulin degludec conferred better blood glucose control and dose reduction. There was no increase in the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes or body weight.

Predicting Real-world Hypoglycemia Risk in American Adults With Type 1 or 2 Diabetes Mellitus Prescribed Insulin and/or Secretagogues: Protocol for a Prospective, 12-Wave Internet-Based Panel Survey With Email Support (the iNPHORM [Investigating Novel Predictions of Hypoglycemia Occurrence Using Real-world Models] Study)

BACKGROUND

Hypoglycemia prognostic models contingent on prospective, self-reported survey data offer a powerful avenue for determining real-world event susceptibility and interventional targets.

OBJECTIVE

This protocol describes the design and implementation of the 1-year iNPHORM (Investigating Novel Predictions of Hypoglycemia Occurrence Using Real-world Models) study, which aims to measure real-world self-reported severe and nonsevere hypoglycemia incidence (daytime and nocturnal) in American adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus prescribed insulin and/or secretagogues, and develop and internally validate prognostic models for severe, nonsevere daytime, and nonsevere nocturnal hypoglycemia. As a secondary objective, iNPHORM aims to quantify the effects of different antihyperglycemics on hypoglycemia rates.

METHODS

iNPHORM is a prospective, 12-wave internet-based panel survey that was conducted across the United States. Americans (aged 18-90 years) with self-reported type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus prescribed insulin and/or secretagogues were conveniently sampled via the web from a pre-existing, closed, probability-based internet panel (sample frame). A sample size of 521 baseline responders was calculated for this study. Prospective data on hypoglycemia and potential prognostic factors were self-assessed across 14 closed, fully automated questionnaires (screening, baseline, and 12 monthly follow-ups) that were piloted using semistructured interviews (n=3) before fielding; no face-to-face contact was required as part of the data collection. Participant responses will be analyzed using multivariable count regression and machine learning techniques to develop and internally validate prognostic models for 1-year severe and 30-day nonsevere daytime and nocturnal hypoglycemia. The causal effects of different antihyperglycemics on hypoglycemia rates will also be investigated.

RESULTS

Recruitment and data collection occurred between February 2020 and March 2021 (ethics approval was obtained on December 17, 2019). A total of 1694 participants completed the baseline questionnaire, of whom 1206 (71.19%) were followed up for 12 months. Most follow-up waves (10,470/14,472, 72.35%) were completed, translating to a participation rate of 179% relative to our target sample size. Over 70.98% (856/1206) completed wave 12. Analyses of sample characteristics, quality metrics, and hypoglycemia incidence and prognostication are currently underway with published results anticipated by fall 2022.

CONCLUSIONS

iNPHORM is the first hypoglycemia prognostic study in the United States to leverage prospective, longitudinal self-reports. The results will contribute to improved real-world hypoglycemia risk estimation and potentially safer, more effective clinical diabetes management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04219514; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04219514.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/33726.

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.