The importance of the initial period of basal insulin titration in people with diabetes

Treatment intensification following glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: Comparative effectiveness analyses between different basal insulins. RESTORE-G real-world study

AIM

To compare the effectiveness of different basal insulins (BI) prescribed as an add-on to or switch from glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective, real-world data from electronic medical records of 32 Italian diabetes clinics were used, after propensity score adjustment, to compare effectiveness after 6 months of treatment with second- versus first-generation BI (2BI vs. 1BI) or glargine 300 U/ml versus degludec 100 U/ml (Gla-300 vs. Deg-100), when added to (ADD-ON) or in substitution of (SWITCH) GLP-1 RA. Only comparisons, including a minimum of 100 patients per group, were performed to ensure adequate robustness of the analyses.

RESULTS

In the ADD-ON cohort (N = 700), greater benefits of 2BI versus 1BI were found in glycated haemoglobin {HbA1c; estimated mean difference: -0.32% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.62; -0.02]; p = .04} and fasting blood glucose [FBG; -20.73 mg/dl (95% CI -35.62; -5.84); p = .007]. In the SWITCH cohort (N = 2097), greater benefits of 2BI versus 1BI were found in HbA1c [-0.22% (95% CI -0.42; -0.02); p = .03], FBG [-10.15 mg/dl (95% CI -19.04; -1.26); p = .03], and body weight [-0.67 kg (95% CI -1.30; -0.04); p = .04]. In the SWITCH cohort starting 2BI (N = 688), marked differences in favour of Gla-300 versus Deg-100 were documented in HbA1c [-0.89% (95% CI -1.26; -0.52); p < .001] and FBG [-17.89 mg/dl (95% CI -32.45; -3.33); p = .02]. Using propensity score matching as a sensitivity analysis, the benefit on HbA1c was confirmed [-0.55% (95% CI -1.02; -0.08); p = .02]. BI titration was suboptimal in all examined cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

2BI are a valuable option to intensify GLP-1 RA therapy. Switching to Gla-300 versus Deg-100 was associated with greater HbA1c improvement.

What Is the Role of Basal Weekly Insulin in Clinical Practice? The State of the Art

Despite the advent of innovative therapies in the treatment of diabetes, ever-increasing awareness is still directed to the role of insulin since it has continued to be at the centre of diabetes therapy for decades, as a therapeutic integration of innovative agents in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), as the only replacement therapy in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and also in gestational diabetes. In this context, the study of molecules such as weekly basal insulins, both for their technological and pharmacodynamic innovation and their manageability and undoubted benefits in compliance with drug therapy, can only be a turning point in diabetes and for all its phenotypes. This review aims to provide insight into the knowledge of basal weekly insulins and their use in type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus by examining their safety, efficacy, manageability and increased therapeutic compliance.

Applications of Clinical Decision Support Systems in Diabetes Care: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Providing comprehensive and individualized diabetes care remains a significant challenge in the face of the increasing complexity of diabetes management and a lack of specialized endocrinologists to support diabetes care. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are progressively being used to improve diabetes care, while many health care providers lack awareness and knowledge about CDSSs in diabetes care. A comprehensive analysis of the applications of CDSSs in diabetes care is still lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to summarize the research landscape, clinical applications, and impact on both patients and physicians of CDSSs in diabetes care.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review following the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A search was conducted in 7 electronic databases to identify the clinical applications of CDSSs in diabetes care up to June 30, 2022. Additional searches were conducted for conference abstracts from the period of 2021-2022. Two researchers independently performed the screening and data charting processes.

RESULTS

Of 11,569 retrieved studies, 85 (0.7%) were included for analysis. Research interest is growing in this field, with 45 (53%) of the 85 studies published in the past 5 years. Among the 58 (68%) out of 85 studies disclosing the underlying decision-making mechanism, most CDSSs (44/58, 76%) were knowledge based, while the number of non-knowledge-based systems has been increasing in recent years. Among the 81 (95%) out of 85 studies disclosing application scenarios, the majority of CDSSs were used for treatment recommendation (63/81, 78%). Among the 39 (46%) out of 85 studies disclosing physician user types, primary care physicians (20/39, 51%) were the most common, followed by endocrinologists (15/39, 39%) and nonendocrinology specialists (8/39, 21%). CDSSs significantly improved patients' blood glucose, blood pressure, and lipid profiles in 71% (45/63), 67% (12/18), and 38% (8/21) of the studies, respectively, with no increase in the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

CDSSs are both effective and safe in improving diabetes care, implying that they could be a potentially reliable assistant in diabetes care, especially for physicians with limited experience and patients with limited access to medical resources.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.37766/inplasy2022.9.0061.

Patient and physician perspectives and experiences of basal insulin titration in type 2 diabetes in the United States: Cross-sectional surveys

AIM

Patient- and physician-associated barriers impact the effectiveness of basal insulin (BI) titration in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). We evaluated the experiences of patients with T2D and physicians with BI titration education.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this observational, cross-sectional study, patients with T2D and physicians treating patients with T2D were identified by claims in the Optum Research Database and were invited to complete a survey. Eligible patients had 12 months of continuous health-plan enrolment with medical and pharmacy benefits during the baseline period, and recent initiation of BI therapy. Eligible physicians had initiated BI for ≥1 eligible patient with T2D during the past 6 months.

RESULTS

In total, 416 patients and 386 physicians completed the survey. Ninety per cent of physicians reported treating ≥50 patients with T2D; 66% treated ≥25% of patients with BI. Whereas 74% of patients reported that BI titration was explained to them by a physician, 96% of physicians reported doing so. Furthermore, 20% of patients stated they were offered educational materials whereas 56% of physicians reported having provided materials. Physicians had higher expectations of glycaemic target achievement than were seen in the patient survey; their main concern was the patients' ability to titrate accurately (79%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a marked difference in patients' and physicians' experiences of BI titration education. Novel tools and strategies are required to enable effective BI titration, with more educational resources at the outset, and ongoing access to tools that provide clear, simple direction for self-titration with less reliance on physicians/health care providers.

Personalized Prediction of Change in Fasting Blood Glucose Following Basal Insulin Adjustment in People With Type 2 Diabetes: A Proof-of-Concept Study

AIMS

For people with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin, suboptimal glycemic control due to clinical inertia is a common issue. Determining the optimal basal insulin dose can be difficult, as it varies between individuals. Thus, insulin titration can be slow and cautious which may lead to treatment fatigue and non-adherence. A model that predicts changes in fasting blood glucose (FBG) after adjusting basal insulin dose may lead to more optimal titration, reducing some of these challenges.

OBJECTIVE

To predict the change in FBG following adjustment of basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes using a machine learning framework.

METHODS

A multiple linear regression model was developed based on 786 adults with type 2 diabetes. Data were divided into training (80%) and testing (20%) sets using a ranking approach. Forward feature selection and fivefold cross-validation were used to select features.

RESULTS

Participants had a mean age of approximately 59 years, a mean duration of diabetes of 12 years, and a mean HbA1c at screening of 65 mmol/mol (8.1%). Chosen features were FBG at week 2, basal insulin dose adjustment from week 2 to 7, trial site, hemoglobin level, and alkaline phosphatase level. The model achieved a relative absolute error of 0.67, a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.74, and a coefficient of determination of 0.55.

CONCLUSIONS

A model using FBG, insulin doses, and blood samples can predict a five-week change in FBG after adjusting the basal insulin dose in people with type 2 diabetes. Implementation of such a model can potentially help optimize titration and improve glycemic control.

Comparison of two titration programmes for adding insulin detemir to oral antidiabetic drugs in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM

To explore the effect of active insulin titration versus usual titration on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).

METHODS

In a 24-week, prospective and randomized study, 172 patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to either active titration or usual titration. Efficacy and safety outcomes included changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose, percentage of individuals achieving HbA1c<53 mmol/mol, and hypoglycaemic events.

RESULTS

At Week 24, change in HbA1c was -1.08% ± 1.60% in the active titration group and -0.95% ± 1.34% in the usual titration group (P = 0.569). The percentages of individuals achieving HbA1c<53 mmol/mol were 29.4% and 16.1% in the active and usual titration groups, respectively (P = 0.037). There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypoglycaemia between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that, with active titration, baseline HbA1c levels and postprandial glucose excursion were significantly associated with achieving HbA1c<53 mmol/mol.

CONCLUSION

Addition of basal insulin using active titration for 24 weeks provided a higher rate of HbA1c target achievement without significant hypoglycaemia compared to usual titration in individuals with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

Therapeutic inertia related to the injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists dulaglutide and semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes in UK primary care

AIMS

To determine the extent of therapeutic inertia related to the weekly injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists dulaglutide and semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the United Kingdom.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adults with T2D who received their first primary care prescription of dulaglutide or semaglutide between January and July 2019 were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD primary care database. Doses prescribed, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body mass index (BMI) and concomitant T2D medications were assessed at first prescription and at 3, 6 and 9 months.

RESULTS

Of the patients prescribed dulaglutide (N = 748; mean [SD] age 59.0 [11.2] years) and semaglutide (N = 437; mean [SD] age 58.4 [10.6] years), 93.0% and 89.0%, respectively, had an HbA1c level ≥7.5% (≥58.46 mmol/mol), and 56.4% and 54.9%, respectively, had an HbA1c level ≥9.0% (≥74.86 mmol/mol), at first prescription. At 6 to 9 months, 75.0% of those on dulaglutide 0.75 mg and 57.6% of those on semaglutide 0.25 mg or 0.5 mg had an HbA1c level ≥7.5% (≥58.46 mmol/mol). At 9 months, 21.9% of the dulaglutide cohort were on the suboptimal dose of 0.75 mg, and 46.1% of the semaglutide cohort were on the suboptimal doses of 0.25 mg or 0.5 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple examples of therapeutic inertia were identified, including first prescription at HbA1c levels considerably above target and failure to escalate to optimal doses even with evidence of suboptimal metabolic control. A substantial proportion of patients therefore did not achieve optimal HbA1c targets.

Time for Using Machine Learning for Dose Guidance in Titration of People With Type 2 Diabetes? A Systematic Review of Basal Insulin Dose Guidance

BACKGROUND

Real-world studies of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have shown insufficient dose adjustment during basal insulin titration in clinical practice leading to suboptimal treatment. Thus, 60% of people with T2D treated with insulin do not reach glycemic targets. This emphasizes a need for methods supporting efficient and individualized basal insulin titration of people with T2D. However, no systematic review of basal insulin dose guidance for people with T2D has been found.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of basal insulin dose guidance methods that support titration of people with T2D and categorize these methods by characteristics, effect, and user experience.

METHODS

The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies about basal insulin dose guidance, including adults with T2D on basal insulin analogs published before September 7, 2022, were included. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists were applied to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

In total, 35 studies were included, and three categories of dose guidance were identified: paper-based titration algorithms, telehealth solutions, and mathematical models. Heterogeneous reporting of glycemic outcomes challenged comparison of effect between the three categories. Few studies assessed user experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies mainly used titration algorithms to titrate basal insulin as telehealth or in paper format, except for studies using mathematical models. A numerically larger proportion of participants seemed to reach target using telehealth solutions compared to paper-based titration algorithms. Exploring capabilities of machine learning may provide insights that could pioneer future research while focusing on holistic development.

Comparing a daily versus weekly titration algorithm in people with type 2 diabetes switching from basal insulin to iGlarLixi in the LixiLan ONE CAN randomized trial

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of a simple daily titration algorithm compared with a weekly dose adjustment of iGlarLixi in people with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

LixiLan ONE CAN (NCT03767543), a randomized, 26-week, open-label, multicentre phase 3 trial conducted in Canada, involved 265 people with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1c of ≥7.5% to ≤ 10.5% or less (≥58 to ≤91 mmol/mol) on basal insulin for 6 months or longer. Participants were randomized 1:1 with instructions to self-titrate iGlarLixi daily (1 unit/day) or once weekly (2 or 4 units/week) to a common target fasting plasma glucose of 4.4 to 5.6 mmol/L (79 to 101 mg/dl). The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of the daily versus weekly titration algorithm.

RESULTS

At 26 weeks, daily titration of iGlarLixi was not inferior to a weekly titration for both the prespecified primary endpoint of change in HbA1c from baseline (least square [LS] mean change: -1.24% vs. -0.92%, respectively; LS mean difference: 0.32%; 95% CI [0.07, 0.57]; P < .0001) and for the secondary endpoint of change in weight from baseline (LS mean change: -0.22 vs. +0.81 kg, respectively; LS mean difference: 1.03 kg; 95% CI [0.01, 2.06]; P < .0001). Indeed, for both the primary and secondary outcome, the daily titration of iGlarLixi was superior. There were no statistically significant differences in hypoglycaemia incidence between the two titration strategies during the 26-week study.

CONCLUSION

A daily titration algorithm for switching basal insulin to iGlarLixi was shown to be non-inferior and superior for glycaemic control and weight compared with weekly titration.

Current State and Principles of Basal Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes

Treatment with basal insulins is a fundamental part of management in many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Multiple management schemes may be indicated in these individuals, for example, the use of oral antihyperglycemic agents with basal insulins (basal-supported oral therapy) or the combinations of basal insulins with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists; each of these strategies makes it easier to achieve glycemic control goals. A basic knowledge of the physiology, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic aspects of the different basal insulins is essential to achieve treatment goals and compliance. This review addresses the principles of management with basal insulins.

Basal weekly insulins: the way of the future!

Basal insulin treatment is indispensable for patients with type 1 diabetes and often required by many with type 2 diabetes. Incremental advances lengthening the duration of action of insulin analogs and reducing pharmacodynamic variability have resulted in truly once-daily, long-acting basal insulin analogs. In the quest for better basal insulins to facilitate improvements in glycemic control and long-term outcomes, the driving need is to remove barriers delaying timely initiation of basal insulin, to maximize treatment adherence and persistence and reduce treatment burden without increasing risk of hypoglycemia. We review the range of investigational once-weekly insulins and their molecular strategies and profiles. Currently, the two most advanced clinical development programs are: (1) basal insulin icodec, an insulin analog acylated with a C20 fatty diacid (icosanedioic acid) side chain (Novo Nordisk) and (2) basal insulin Fc, a fusion protein that combines a single-chain insulin variant with a human immunoglobulin G fragment crystallizable domain (Eli Lilly). Available phase 2 data for these two once-weekly agents show comparable glycemic control to existing once-daily insulin analogs, with no greater risk of hypoglycemia. While phase 3 data are awaited to confirm efficacy and safety, we provide future clinical perspectives on practical considerations for the potential use of once-weekly insulins.

Expert Opinion: A Call for Basal Insulin Titration in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Daily Practice: Southeast European Perspective

Therapeutic inertia related to insulin treatment, i.e. delays in initiation, especially titration of basal insulin, is a significant problem in daily practice in Southeast European countries. This phenomenon can be traced back to several patient-, physician- and health system-related factors. In recognition of the issue of inadequate insulin titration, 11 leading experts from countries in this region held a consensus-seeking meeting to review the current status of insulin initiation after non-insulin treatment and the potential barriers to insulin titration to provide an algorithm and tools for outpatient physicians and for patients aimed at optimizing basal insulin titration. The experts reached a consensus on the majority of the topics and proposed recommendations on how clinical inertia can be overcome. The outcomes of the meeting have been summarized in this paper.

Knowledge, attitude, and practice of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with regard to their disease: a cross-sectional study among Palestinians of the West Bank

Background

In Palestine, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a rapidly growing health concern. This study evaluated knowledge, attitude, and practice of patients with T2DM with regard to their disease. The study also investigated association and correlation between knowledge, attitude, and practice with sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the patients. Predictors of higher knowledge, positive attitude, and good practice were also identified.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted in primary healthcare facilities frequently visited by patients with T2DM across the West Bank of Palestine in the period of October 2018 to January 2019. An interviewer administered questionnaire was used to determine knowledge, attitude and practice of patients with T2DM with regard to their disease.

Results

Out of 300 patients invited, 220 (73.3%) patients responded. In this study, the median age was 57.0 years (51.0, 65.0), the median time elapsed since diagnosis with T2DM was 7.0 years (4.0, 14.0), the median fasting blood glucose was 150.0 mg/dL (128.8, 180.0), the median postprandial glucose was 230.0 mg/dL (200.0, 270.0), the median HbA_1c was 7.8% (7.0, 8.53), and the median BMI was 28.8 kg/m² (25.5, 33.1). The median knowledge score was 6.0/13.0 (4.5/13.0, 7.5/13.0), the median attitude score was 3.0/4.0 (2.0/4.0, 4.0/4.0), and the median practice score was 3.0 (1.0/5.0, 4.0/5.0). Having university education was strongly associated with having higher knowledge scores (p-value = 0.001). Additionally, having attended an educational program on diabetes was moderately associated with higher practice scores (p-value = 0.026).

Conclusions

Findings of this study highlighted the need for appropriately designed interventions to increase knowledge about T2DM among patients with low educational level. Well-designed educational programs might promote healthy practice among patients with T2DM. Future studies are still needed to assess if such interventions could be effective in improving health outcomes and quality of life of patients with T2DM in Palestine.

Comparative Effectiveness of Switching From First-Generation Basal Insulin to Glargine 300 U/ml or Degludec 100 U/ml in Type 1 Diabetes: The RESTORE-1 Study

INTRODUCTION

Following pivotal trials, real-world evidence is important to assess the impact of new drugs in everyday clinical practice. The RESTORE-1 study aimed to compare effectiveness and safety of the second-generation basal insulins (2BI), i.e., insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) vs. degludec 100 U/ml (IDeg-100), in type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Retrospective, non-inferiority, multicenter study, based on electronic medical records. All patients switching to Gla-300 or IDeg-100 from first-generation basal insulins (1BI) were 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM). Changes during 6 months in HbA1c (primary endpoint), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight, and insulin doses were assessed using linear mixed models for repeated measures. Incidence rates (IR) of hypoglycemic events were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 19 centers provided data on 585 patients in each PSM cohort. For both groups, statistically significant reductions in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months were documented: - 0.20%; (95% CI - 0.32; - 0.08) in the Gla-300 group and - 0.14%; (95% CI - 0.24; - 0.04) in the IDeg-100 group. The non-inferiority of Gla-300 vs. IDeg-100 was confirmed (non-inferiority margin of 0.30%; upper 95% CI at 6 months, 0.09%). No statistically significant between-group differences emerged in FPG and body weight. Dose changes of basal and short-acting insulin were small in both groups, but higher in the Gla-300 group than in the Deg-100 group (p < 0.006). Incidence rates (IR) of hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤ 70 mg/dl and < 54 mg/dl) during the 6-month follow-up by treatment were slightly lower in the Gla-300 group than in the Deg-100 group [IR ratios 0.82 (95% CI 0.55; 1.22) and 0.83; (95% CI 0.38; 1.83), respectively]. Hypoglycemic events (blood glucose < 54 mg/dl) decreased at 6 months in both groups (p = 0.01 for Gla-300 and p < 0.001 for IDeg-100). There were no severe hypoglycemic events for Gla-300 and seven events for IDeg-100 (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from 1BI to 2BI in adults with T1D was associated with similar improvements in glycemic control and overall significant decrease in hypoglycemia, with no severe events with Gla-300. Effectiveness of both insulins was limited by under-titration.

Glycaemic profiles of diverse patients with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin: MOBILE study baseline data

Basal insulin is often prescribed to patients with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D); however, its therapeutic efficacy is inadequate in many. During the MOBILE study's baseline phase, we evaluated 173 participants' continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data (mean ± SD age 57 ± 9 years; 50% female; HbA1c 9.1% [range 7.1%-11.6%]; 40% using sulphonylureas; 19% using NPH; reported self-monitored blood glucose [SMBG] frequency median 1.0 checks/day) who were using basal, but not prandial insulin. Blinded CGM data were recorded for 10 days prior to randomization. The mean glucose value was 208 ± 47 mg/dL and it was lowest in the early morning. Mean time in the 70-180 mg/dL range was 9.6 ± 6.1 hours/day (40% ± 25%). Hyperglycaemia was extensive with medians of 14.7 (61%) and 5.0 (20.9%) hours/day with glucose greater than 180 and 250 mg/dL, respectively. Hypoglycaemia was infrequent (median [IQR] 0 [0, 4.3] minutes/day [0.0% {0.0%, 0.3%}] with glucose less than 70 mg/dL). Blinded CGM highlights the limitations of infrequent SMBG in basal insulin users with T2D and allows characterization of hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia in basal insulin users with suboptimal control. The MOBILE study randomized phase will define the benefits of using real-time CGM compared with SMBG in this population.

[Insulin therapy is a personalized approach to glycemic management in diabetes]

Type 2 diabetes is characterized by chronic hyperglycemia and varying degrees of insulin resistance and insulinopenia. Achieving targeted glycemic control in diabetic patients is important to reduce the risk of late complications, and many patients with type 2 diabetes ultimately require insulin therapy to maintain adequate glycemic control. Timely administration of insulin can prevent the progression of diabetes, reduce the development of complications, and have fewer side effects. Basal insulin is the preferred option in most cases when glycemic control is not achieved. However, there is considerable therapeutic inertia in clinical practice, both with respect to initiation of insulin therapy and titration of the basal insulin dose. The longer duration of action, reduced glucose variability and a lower risk of hypoglycemia seen with the latest generation of basal insulin analogs compared to the previous generation simplify titration and may increase patient compliance.

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.

The importance of the initial period of basal insulin titration in people with diabetes

Achieving target glycaemic control is essential in people with diabetes to minimize the risk of long-term complications, and many people with type 2 diabetes will ultimately require basal insulin (BI) therapy to achieve their individualized glycaemic targets. Usually, the first 12 weeks following initiation of BI therapy represents the period when the greatest dose increases and glycaemic reductions occur. Effective glycaemic control combined with minimizing the risk of hypoglycaemia is important to enable the achievement of glycaemic control in the longer term. However, substantial therapeutic inertia exists in clinical practice, both in initiation and up-titration of BI, owing to patient-, physician- and healthcare system-related barriers, including fear of hypoglycaemia and the perception of a burdensome regimen. The more prolonged duration of action, reduced glycaemic variability and lower risk of hypoglycaemia seen with second-generation versus first-generation BI analogues may help alleviate patients' and physicians' concerns and facilitate titration. In turn, optimal BI titration and subsequent metabolic benefits may help improve therapy adherence and self-management. This review details the clinical implications of prompt titration of BI to achieve early glycaemic control, and the importance of minimizing hypoglycaemia risk within the initial titration period. Facilitation of patients' self-management of BI is also addressed.