Insulin degludec: four times lower pharmacodynamic variability than insulin glargine under steady-state conditions in type 1 diabetes

In-Hospital Management of Hyperglycemia: The Role of Insulin Degludec

INTRODUCTION

Hyperglycemia is a common and challenging condition in hospitalized patients both with and without a history of diabetes. Managing hyperglycemia effectively is critical in reducing complications, mortality, and the length of hospital stays. Insulin degludec (IDeg), an ultralong-acting basal insulin, has a well-established efficacy and safety profile in terms of managing hyperglycemia in outpatients; it has demonstrated benefits in clinical practice across various patient populations. This review aims to assess the evidence on its clinical suitability, as well as efficacy and safety, for managing hyperglycemia across different inpatient populations. The review specifically focuses on outcomes such as glycemic control, glycemic variability, safety (particularly hypoglycemia risk), dosing flexibility, ease of titration, and use in special populations.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed to identify studies published between 2014 and 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, real-world evidence, and case series that examined the use of IDeg for hyperglycemia management in hospitalized patients.

RESULTS

The reviewed studies consistently demonstrated that IDeg provides stable and predictable glycemic control with low glycemic variability. The ultralong duration of action, ability to be titrated daily, and flexibility in dosing make IDeg suitable for noncritical care settings with difficult-to-maintain rigid insulin schedules. Furthermore, the risk of hypoglycemia, particularly nocturnal hypoglycemia, is low with IDeg. These attributes are beneficial across diverse inpatient populations. Practical advantages, such as ease of administration with a specialized delivery device, further support its use in hospital settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of IDeg, reduced glycemic variability, low hypoglycemia risk, ease of daily titration, and dosing flexibility make it appropriate for managing hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients.

Improved glycaemic control in people with type 2 diabetes initiating or switching to IDegAsp in a real-world setting in China

AIMS

To investigate glycaemic control in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating, or switching to insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp), a co-formulation of basal, and bolus insulin, in a real-world setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 20-week, prospective, single-arm, open-label, non-interventional study was conducted in Chinese adults with T2D initiating, or switching to IDegAsp after anti-hyperglycaemic treatment with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), other insulins, or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. The primary endpoint was a change in HbA1c from baseline to end of the study; the secondary endpoints included a change in fasting plasma glucose and Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) score.

RESULTS

Significant reductions were observed in mean HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose, among both the overall population (N = 878; -1.27%-points [95% CI: -1.36; -1.19]; p < 0.0001, and -1.61 mmol/L [95% CI: -1.81; -1.41]; p < 0.0001, respectively), and in subgroups switching from OADs only, or basal, or premix insulins ± OADs. The mean total DTSQ score increased from 26.4 (baseline) to 31.6 (end-of-study). No significant, or unexpected tolerability, or safety issues were observed. Significant reductions were observed in incidence rates of non-severe (rate ratio 0.37 [95% CI: 0.24; 0.59]; p < 0.0001) and nocturnal non-severe (rate ratio 0.45 [95% CI: 0.21; 0.94]; p = 0.0326) hypoglycaemic episodes.

CONCLUSIONS

In a broad, real-world Chinese population of adults with T2D, initiating or switching to IDegAsp was associated with improved glycaemic control and lower rates of hypoglycaemia. The use of IDegAsp could be an effective treatment option for those with suboptimal glycaemic control or therapeutic inertia.

Navigating Insulin Options for Diabetes Management

CONTEXT

Insulin therapy is first-line therapy for people with type 1 diabetes and often used for people with type 2 diabetes. Over the years, there has been a surge in insulin products available for use. As a result, clinicians need to have a strong understanding of the differences between insulin agents to provide proper patient care.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We included population-level data and searched PubMed and Google Scholar databases for recent systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and original research articles.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Patients who present with severe hyperglycemia or signs consistent with a catabolic state such as weight loss or ketonuria should be initiated on insulin. Furthermore, patients with a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level >10% or an unclear diagnosis of type 1 diabetes should typically be treated with insulin. Insulin products differ mainly in their pharmacokinetic profiles and not mechanism of action. The literature suggests that differences in pharmacokinetics allow certain insulin products to be well equipped to address different clinical situations such as steroid-induced hyperglycemia, managing patients with severe chronic kidney disease or dialysis, and insulin pump therapy.

CONCLUSION

Understanding kinetic profiles of different insulin agents will allow clinicians to properly navigate options for either fasting or mealtime coverage. Furthermore, this foundational knowledge will be critical when applying insulin therapy in clinical scenarios such as steroid-induced hyperglycemia, kidney disease, and insulin pump management. Ultimately, this will allow clinicians and patients to create proper diabetes care plans and self-management skills.

Pharmacotherapy of type 1 diabetes - part 1: yesterday

INTRODUCTION

Type 1 diabetes is a unique autoimmune attack on the β cell of the pancreatic islet resulting in progressive destruction of these cells and as a result the ability of the body to maintain insulin production. The consequences of insulin deficiency are very severe, and the disease was fatal prior to the ability to extract insulin from animal pancreas in 1921. We review progress in the treatment of childhood type 1 diabetes over the past 100 years.

AREAS COVERED

We used PubMed and standard search engines to search for the evolution of diagnosis and treatment of type 1 diabetes.

EXPERT OPINION

Insulin replacement proved lifesaving for children afflicted with type 1 diabetes. However, it was observed that these children suffered from microvascular and large vessel disease. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) with its extension Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Trial (EDIC) proved that control of blood glucose as close to normal as possible could prevent these diabetes-related conditions. Many formuations of insulin with varying onset and duration of action have been developed; yet normalization of glucose levels is difficult due to hypoglycemic events. There is continued progress toward that goal.

Insulin Degludec vs Insulin Glargine for Glycemic Control in Critical Illness Hyperglycemia

Aim and background

Hyperglycemia is a serious condition and associated with an increased risk of complications and mortality in both critically ill and non-critically ill people. Improvement in the glycemic level reduces the length of hospital stay, systemic infections and short- and long-term mortality. The aim was to test the effectiveness of insulin degludec vs insulin glargine and regular insulin in controlling blood sugar in patients with critical hyperglycemia.

Materials and methods

Using random control trial, the patients were randomly divided into three equal groups-group R, group G and group D. Each group included 30 patients. Group G was managed using regular insulin together with an insulin glargine. Group D was managed using regular insulin together with an insulin degludec. However, group R was managed using only regular insulin.

Results

The incidence of hypoglycemia was statistically more significant in the group of regular insulin than in groups G and group D with a p-value 0.0069. There was no statistically significant difference between the three groups regarding the frequency of hypoglycemia.

Conclusion

Ultra-long-acting insulin can effectively control random blood sugar (RBS) with a decrease in the total dose of insulin used. It is recommended that using insulin degludec is a safe and effective alternative to regular insulin for glycemic control in critically ill patients.

How to cite this article

El Sherif IM, Haggag AM, Abbas MH, Kamel WY. Insulin Degludec vs Insulin Glargine for Glycemic Control in Critical Illness Hyperglycemia. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(1):52-58.

Insulin Degludec in Critically Ill Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Prospective Interventional Study

OBJECTIVE

Dysglycemia has deleterious outcomes on critically ill patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Insulin degludec, an ultralong-acting insulin, is associated with lower rates of hypoglycemia and blood glucose (BG) variability in non-critically ill patients. The experience with insulin degludec in the intensive care units is lacking. This study aimed to assess the effect of insulin degludec on glycemic control in critically ill patients with type 2 DM.

METHODS

A prospective, interventional study enrolled critically ill patients with type 2 DM. Subjects were started on insulin degludec plus insulin regular correctional doses. BG levels were assessed every 6 hours. The primary outcome was the percentage of BG levels within a target of 140 to 180 mg/dL. The secondary outcomes included the median BG levels, severe hypoglycemia rate, and BG variability.

RESULTS

In total, 155 patients were enrolled. The percentage of BG levels within the target was 28.5%. The first day that the median of BG levels within target was on day 2 of insulin degludec therapy, which continued to be within the target for 1 week. Severe hypoglycemia developed in 5 patients (3.2%). The BG variability in the study was 26% using the coefficient of variation.

CONCLUSION

In critically ill patients with type 2 DM, one-fourth of BG levels were within the glycemic target (140-180 mg/dL) with insulin degludec plus insulin regular correctional doses. The median BG levels were in target starting the second day of insulin degludec therapy. The favorable BG variability using insulin degludec merits further investigation for effect on clinical outcomes.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Derived Glucometrics in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes When Switching Basal Insulins

Context: Limited evidence is available on the real-world effect of insulin degludec (IDeg) in type 1 diabetes (T1D), using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived metrics. Objective: To assess the real-world effect of switching to IDeg from other long-acting insulins on time in ranges (TIRs) measured by CGM, metabolic control, and insulin dose for people with T1D. Design: This retrospective multicenter study encompassed five time points during a 12-month pre-switch of IDeg and a 12-month follow-up period. For each visit, clinical and CGM data were collected to evaluate temporal trends in glycemic outcomes. Participants: Of 753 persons with T1D who were assessed for eligibility, 486 persons were included, mostly men (61.5%), 47.4 (16.9) years old and diabetes duration of 23.8 (14.2) years at IDeg-initiation. Main Outcome Measure: Primary outcome was the evolution of percent TIR (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L, TIR) before versus after switch to IDeg. Results: TIR over 24 h increased at 12 months versus baseline (56.7% vs. 52.3%, P < 0.001), mostly during daytime. Time <54 mg/dL (<3.0 mmol/L) over 24 h decreased at 12 months versus baseline (2.02% vs. 2.86%, P < 0.001), mostly during nighttime. Glycated hemoglobin (7.9% vs. 8.1%, P < 0.001) and coefficient of variation (40.0% vs. 41.5%, P < 0.001) improved at 12 months versus baseline. Mean daily basal, bolus and total insulin doses decreased at 12 months (P < 0.001 for all vs. baseline). Conclusions: This retrospective real-world study reports that switching basal insulin significantly improved time spent in glucometric ranges and glycemic variability in the studied population of people with T1D. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT05434559.

The Basis for Weekly Insulin Therapy: Evolving Evidence With Insulin Icodec and Insulin Efsitora Alfa

Basal insulin continues to be a vital part of therapy for many people with diabetes. First attempts to prolong the duration of insulin formulations were through the development of suspensions that required homogenization prior to injection. These insulins, which required once- or twice-daily injections, introduced wide variations in insulin exposure contributing to unpredictable effects on glycemia. Advances over the last 2 decades have resulted in long-acting, soluble basal insulin analogues with prolonged and less variable pharmacokinetic exposure, improving their efficacy and safety, notably by reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia. However, adherence and persistence with once-daily basal insulin treatment remains low for many reasons including hypoglycemia concerns and treatment burden. A soluble basal insulin with a longer and flatter exposure profile could reduce pharmacodynamic variability, potentially reducing hypoglycemia, have similar efficacy to once-daily basal insulins, simplify dosing regimens, and improve treatment adherence. Insulin icodec (Novo Nordisk) and insulin efsitora alfa (basal insulin Fc [BIF], Eli Lilly and Company) are 2 such insulins designed for once-weekly administration, which have the potential to provide a further advance in basal insulin replacement. Icodec and efsitora phase 2 clinical trials, as well as data from the phase 3 icodec program indicate that once-weekly insulins provide comparable glycemic control to once-daily analogues, with a similar risk of hypoglycemia. This manuscript details the technology used in the development of once-weekly basal insulins. It highlights the clinical rationale and potential benefits of these weekly insulins while also discussing the limitations and challenges these molecules could pose in clinical practice.

Bridging dose of U-100 glargine with first dose of insulin degludec improves glycaemia in the 48 h after transition in twice-daily glargine users

AIMS

To study the effects of a bridging dose of U-100 glargine (U-100G) with the first dose of degludec in type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients transitioning from glargine to degludec, by comparing the glucose metrics 48 h before and after the transition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with T1D on a stable U-100G regimen and with glycated haemoglobin concentration <75 mmol/mol were randomized (double-blind) to one dose of placebo or U-100G with first dose of degludec, administered at 9:00 pm. Patients on once-daily U-100G at baseline received 50% of total U-100G dose (bridging dose), while patients on twice-daily U-100G received 50% of the evening U-100G dose. Participants wore a continuous glucose monitor during the study.

RESULTS

Forty participants were randomized, of whom 37 completed the study. The cohort was 65% male, the mean age was 47 years, duration of T1D 22 years, BMI 26 kg/m2, HbA1c 51 mmol/mol and total daily insulin dose 0.7 units/kg body weight. The bridging group included 19 participants (once-daily U-100G: n = 12; twice-daily U-100G: n = 7) and the placebo group included 18 participants (once-daily U-100G: n = 12; twice-daily U-100G: n = 6). Change in time in range (TIR) was not significantly different between the two treatment groups. In secondary analyses, among twice-daily U-100G users, TIR (3.9-10 mmol/L) increased 8% in the bridging group in the 48 h after first dose of degludec compared to the preceding 48 h, while participants in the placebo group had a 9.5% decrease (p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

A subgroup of well-controlled twice-daily U-100G users transitioning to degludec benefited from a 50% bridging dose of evening U-100G with the first dose of degludec in a small pilot study.

Insulin's Legacy: A Century of Breakthroughs and Innovation

The clinical use of insulin to treat diabetes started just over 100 years ago. The past century has witnessed remarkable innovations in insulin therapy, evolving from animal organ extracts to bioengineered human insulins with ultra-rapid onset or prolonged action. Insulin delivery systems have also progressed to current automated insulin delivery systems. In this review, we discuss the history of insulin and the pharmacology and therapeutic indications for a variety of available insulins, especially newer analog insulins. We highlight recent advances in insulin pump therapy and review evidence on the therapeutic benefits of automated insulin delivery. As with any form of progress, there have been setbacks, and insulin has recently faced an affordability crisis. We address the challenges of insulin accessibility, along with recent progress to improve insulin affordability. Finally, we mention research on glucose-responsive insulins and hepato-preferential insulins that are likely to shape the future of insulin therapy.

Insulin Degludec in People with Type 2 Diabetes in China: A Non-interventional, Retrospective Chart Review Study (CN-TREAT)

INTRODUCTION

Insulin degludec (degludec), an ultra-long-acting basal insulin analogue, provides equivalent glycemic control to other basal insulin analogues, with lower risk of hypoglycemia and flexible dosing. Chinese TREsiba AudiT (CN-TREAT) investigated outcomes with degludec in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in routine clinical practice in China.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review study in adults with T2D initiating or switching to degludec at 50 sites in China between January 2020 and July 2021. The primary endpoint was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of study (EOS; week 20). Secondary endpoints included change from baseline to EOS in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG), daily insulin dose, and rate of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Data from 936 participants were included (499 insulin-naïve; 437 insulin-experienced). Mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) HbA1c change from baseline to EOS was - 1.48%-points (- 1.57; - 1.38; P < 0.0001) overall: - 1.95%-points (- 2.08; - 1.81; P < 0.0001) in insulin-naïve participants and - 0.95%-points (- 1.08; - 0.82; P < 0.0001) in insulin-experienced participants. Mean (95% CI) changes in FPG and SMPG were - 2.27 mmol/L (- 2.69; - 1.85; P < 0.0001) and - 2.89 mmol/L (- 3.52; - 2.25; P < 0.0001), respectively, with similar reductions in insulin-naïve and insulin-experienced subgroups. Rate of hypoglycemia did not change statistically significantly from baseline to EOS overall, or in insulin-experienced participants, except when adjusted for baseline hypoglycemia. Basal insulin dose did not change statistically significantly in insulin-experienced participants.

CONCLUSION

In routine clinical practice in China, initiation or switching to degludec was associated with improvements in glycemic control in people with T2D, with no increased risk of hypoglycemia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinialTrials.gov, NCT04227431.

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.

Injectable systems for long-lasting insulin therapy

Insulin therapy is the mainstay to treat diabetes characterizedd by hyperglycemia. However, its short half-life of only 4-6 min limits its effectiveness in treating chronic diabetes. Advances in recombinant DNA technology and protein engineering have led to several insulin analogue products that have up to 42 h of glycemic control. However, these insulin analogues still require once- or twice-daily injections for optimal glycemic control and have poor patient compliance and adherence issues. To achieve insulin release for more than one day, different injectable delivery systems including microspheres, in situ forming depots, nanoparticles and composite systems have been developed. Several of these delivery systems have advanced to clinical trials for once-weekly insulin injection. This review comprehensively summarizes the developments of injectable insulin analogs and delivery systems covering the whole field of injectable long-lasting insulin technologies from prototype design, preclinical studies, clinical trials to marketed products for the treatment of diabetes.

A phase-I randomized euglycemic clamp study to demonstrate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of an insulin degludec biosimilar (B01411) with the reference product in healthy Chinese volunteers

BACKGROUND

B01411 is a biosimilar candidate manufactured by Jilin Huisheng Biopharmaceutical Co. Ltd for the reference insulin degludec (Tresiba) (IDeg). This study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety of the two IDeg products and to assess the PK/PD similarity of B01411 compared with the reference IDeg product.

RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS

A single-center, single-dose, randomized, crossover, open-labeled, phase I, euglycemic clamp study in healthy Chinese subjects to examine the bioequivalence of B01411 (0.4 U/kg) compared with the reference IDeg product. Blood samples were collected at a predefined time for the analysis of blood glucose (BG), IDeg, and C-peptide concentrations. The glucose infusion rate (GIR) was adjusted to maintain the BG at approximately 0.28 mmol/L below baseline throughout the clamp.

RESULTS

Thirty-two subjects (20 males and 12 females) were enrolled, 31 of whom received both treatments. The 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the least-squares geometric means for AUCIDeg,0-24 h, AUCGIR,0-24 h, IDegmax, and GIRmax were all in the range of 0.80-1.25. Only one adverse event of puncture site bruising occurred once in a subject in the B01411 group.

CONCLUSION

B01411 exhibited a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity to the reference product. Both IDeg products were well tolerated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html#. Identifier is CTR20192122.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the novel basal insulin Fc (insulin efsitora alfa), an insulin fusion protein in development for once-weekly dosing for the treatment of patients with diabetes

AIM

To assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of basal insulin Fc (BIF; LY3209590), a fusion protein combining a novel single-chain insulin variant together with human IgG2 Fc domain, following single and multiple once-weekly BIF administration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The single ascending dose, 15-day study assessed four BIF doses (5-35 mg) in healthy participants and people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). In the 6-week multiple ascending dose study, people with T2D, previously treated with basal insulin, received insulin glargine daily or a one-time loading dose of BIF followed by 5 weeks of once-weekly dosing (1-10 mg). Safety, tolerability and PK and glucose PD were examined.

RESULTS

Mean ages of people with T2D (N = 57) and healthy participants (N = 16) in the single-dose study were 58.4 and 35.8 years, respectively; mean body mass index values were 29.5 and 26.1 kg/m² . BIF had a PK half-life of approximately 17 days, which led to a sustained, dose-dependent decrease in fasting blood glucose for 5 days or longer. No severe hypoglycaemia was observed. The 6-week ascending dose study included 33 people with T2D aged 40-69 years. BIF showed a low peak-to-trough ratio of 1.14 after the last dose at week 6 (steady state). Over 6 weeks, BIF seven-point glucose profiles remained constant and were similar to insulin glargine. Rates and duration of BIF hypoglycaemic events were similar to insulin glargine.

CONCLUSIONS

BIF was well tolerated and the PK/PD profile enabled once-weekly dosing with minimal variation in exposure in a treatment interval of 1 week. The findings suggest BIF is suitable for further development as a weekly basal insulin in people with diabetes.

No insulin degludec dose adjustment required after aerobic exercise for people with type 1 diabetes: the ADREM study

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

It is generally recommended to reduce basal insulin doses after exercise to reduce the risk of post-exercise nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Based on its long t_½, it is unknown whether such adjustments are required or beneficial for insulin degludec.

METHODS

The ADREM study (Adjustment of insulin Degludec to Reduce post-Exercise (nocturnal) hypoglycaeMia in people with diabetes) was a randomised controlled, crossover study in which we compared 40% dose reduction (D40), or postponement and 20% dose reduction (D20-P), with no dose adjustment (CON) in adults with type 1 diabetes at elevated risk of hypoglycaemia, who performed a 45 min aerobic exercise test in the afternoon. All participants wore blinded continuous glucose monitors for 6 days, measuring the incidence of (nocturnal) hypoglycaemia and subsequent glucose profiles.

RESULTS

We recruited 18 participants (six women, age 38 ± 13 years, HbA_1c 56 ± 8 mmol/mol [7.3 ± 0.8%], mean ± SD). Time below range (i.e. glucose <3.9 mmol/l) the night after the exercise test was generally low and occurrence did not differ between the treatment regimens. During the subsequent whole day, time below range was lower for D40 compared with CON (median [IQR], 0 [0-23] vs 18 [0-55] min, p=0.043), without differences in the number of hypoglycaemic events. Time above range (i.e. glucose >10 mmol/l) was greater for D20-P vs CON (mean ± SEM, 584 ± 81 vs 364 ± 66 min, p=0.001) and D40 (385 ± 72 min, p=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Post-exercise adjustment of degludec does not mitigate the risk of subsequent nocturnal hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes. Although reducing degludec reduced next-day time below range, this did not translate into fewer hypoglycaemic events, while postponing degludec should be avoided because of increased time above range. Altogether, these data do not support degludec dose adjustment after a single exercise bout.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT number 2019-004222-22 FUNDING: The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Novo Nordisk, Denmark.

Hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes mellitus: risks and practical prevention strategies

Hypoglycaemia, which occurs when blood levels of glucose fall below what is considered a normal range, is a well-known complication of insulin therapy in individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Despite advances in diabetes mellitus management, hypoglycaemia has continued to affect the majority of these individuals, leading to suboptimal care and decreased quality of life. Multiple epidemiological studies have demonstrated the risks associated with hypoglycaemic events. With this understanding, various advances have been made in therapeutics for diabetes mellitus management. Diabetes mellitus education continues to form the foundation for management and prevention of hypoglycaemia. The advent of newer diabetes mellitus technologies and newer insulins herald improvements in management strategies and hypoglycaemia prevention. Improved understanding of these newer approaches is needed to ensure delivery of safe and effective care to individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus, leading to reductions in both the short-term and long-term morbidity and mortality associated with hypoglycaemic events.

Effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 on nocturnal glycaemia assessed by plasma glucose profiles in people with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia

AIM

To compare nocturnal glucose profiles according to hourly plasma glucose measurements during treatment with insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 in a cohort of people with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The HypoDeg trial is a 2-year investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled crossover trial in 149 participants randomized to treatment with insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 for 12 months each. The 51 participants in this predefined substudy stayed at least one night in hospital during each treatment arm for plasma glucose samples to be taken. Endpoints were glucose profiles, including mean plasma glucose, glycaemic variability and risk of hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

There were no differences between treatments regarding mean plasma glucose. We saw a flatter glucose profile during insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 treatment, which had a nadir at 4:00 AM, with a subsequent rise. During treatment with insulin degludec, the participants had lower glycaemic variability, with an estimated treatment difference of -4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] -8.1 to -0.5; P < 0.05). Participants treated with insulin degludec were less likely to experience nocturnal hypoglycaemia below 3.0 mmol/L (hazard ratio 0.36 [95% CI 0.17-0.73; P < 0.05]).

CONCLUSION

Based on nocturnal plasma glucose measurements, treatment with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 administered in the evening results in lower glycaemic variability and lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia without differences in mean plasma glucose.

Performance assessment and economic analysis of a human Liver-Chip for predictive toxicology

BACKGROUND

Conventional preclinical models often miss drug toxicities, meaning the harm these drugs pose to humans is only realized in clinical trials or when they make it to market. This has caused the pharmaceutical industry to waste considerable time and resources developing drugs destined to fail. Organ-on-a-Chip technology has the potential improve success in drug development pipelines, as it can recapitulate organ-level pathophysiology and clinical responses; however, systematic and quantitative evaluations of Organ-Chips' predictive value have not yet been reported.

METHODS

870 Liver-Chips were analyzed to determine their ability to predict drug-induced liver injury caused by small molecules identified as benchmarks by the Innovation and Quality consortium, who has published guidelines defining criteria for qualifying preclinical models. An economic analysis was also performed to measure the value Liver-Chips could offer if they were broadly adopted in supporting toxicity-related decisions as part of preclinical development workflows.

RESULTS

Here, we show that the Liver-Chip met the qualification guidelines across a blinded set of 27 known hepatotoxic and non-toxic drugs with a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 100%. We also show that this level of performance could generate over $3 billion annually for the pharmaceutical industry through increased small-molecule R&D productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show how incorporating predictive Organ-Chips into drug development workflows could substantially improve drug discovery and development, allowing manufacturers to bring safer, more effective medicines to market in less time and at lower costs.

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.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of glargine 300 U/mL versus degludec 100 U/mL in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. A multicenter retrospective real-world study (RESTORE-2 NAIVE STUDY)

AIMS

This study assessed comparative effectiveness of glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus degludec 100 U/mL (Deg-100) in insulin-naïve patients with T2D.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, multicenter, non-inferiority study based on electronic medical records. All patients initiating Gla-300 or Deg-100 were 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM). Linear mixed models were used to assess the changes in continuous endpoints. Incidence rates (IR) of hypoglycemia were compared using Poisson's regression models.

RESULTS

Nineteen centers provided data on 357 patients in each PSM cohort. HbA1c after 6 months (primary endpoint) decreased by - 1.70% (95%CI - 1.90; - 1.50) in Gla-300 group and - 169% (95%CI - 1.89; - 1.49) in Deg-100 group, confirming non-inferiority of Gla-300 versus Deg-100. Fasting blood glucose (BG) decreased by ~60 mg/dl in both groups; body weight remained unchanged. In both groups, the mean starting dose was 12U (0.15U/kg) and it was slightly titrated to 16U (0.20U/kg). IR (episodes per patient-months) of BG ≤70 mg/dl was 0.13 in Gla-300 group and 0.14 in Deg-100 group (p=0.87). IR of BG <54 mg/dL was 0.02 in both groups (p=0.49). No severe hypoglycemia occurred.

CONCLUSION

Initiating Gla-300 or Deg-100 was associated with similar improvements in glycemic control, no weight gain and low hypoglycemia rates, without severe episodes during 6 months of treatment.

Scientific advisory on nocturnal hypoglycemia in insulin-treated patients with diabetes: Recommendations from Indian experts

INTRODUCTION

Insulin is one of the commonly prescribed glucose lowering agents in diabetes. Hypoglycemia is the most common complication, and severe hypoglycemia is the most serious complication of insulin therapy. Almost half of all severe hypoglycemia episodes (HEs) occur at night. However, patients are often unaware of their nocturnal hypoglycaemia (NH) risk. Additionally, both healthcare professionals and patients find it difficult to manage NH. The purpose of this expert group meeting is to improve NH awareness and provide guidance for the physicians to recognize and manage NH.

METHOD

The panel of experts in an e-board deliberated extensively upon the available literature and guidelines on hypoglycemia and NH discussed the consensus on definition, detection, reporting, monitoring, treatment, and optimization of therapy in NH.

RESULT

& Conclusion: Though there are many guidelines on the management of HEs in patients with diabetes, very few touch the topic of NH. This scientific advisory on management of NH in insulin treated patients with diabetes is formulated to address this gap in understanding regarding management of NH. The experts provide recommendations for the nocturnal window, defining NH based on blood glucose values, recognition, prevention and management of NH.

Controlling glycemic variability in people living with type 1 diabetes receiving insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300)

Short-term glycemic variability is associated with the risk of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia in people living with type 1 diabetes and can potentially affect clinical outcomes. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is of increasing importance to evaluate glycemic variability in greater detail. Specific metrics for assessing glycemic variability were proposed, such as the SD of mean glucose level and associated coefficient of variation, and time in target glucose range to guide study designs, therapy and allow people with diabetes more transparency in interpreting their own CGM data. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and real-world evidence provide complementary information about the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of interventions. Insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) has a longer lasting and less variable action than insulin glargine U100 (Gla-100) with a lower risk of hypoglycemia. While insulin degludec U100 (iDeg-100) was associated with lower glucose values but more time below range in one randomized study compared with Gla-300, Gla-300 was associated with a higher per cent time in range, but also above the therapeutic range. However, a real-world study did not find differences during the day between Gla-300 and iDeg-100. The upcoming InRange RCT is the first head-to-head comparison of Gla-300 with iDeg-100 using CGM in an international population using CGM metrics as the primary endpoint. The non-interventional COMET-T real-world study will determine the real-world effectiveness of Gla-300 using CGM metrics and cover a broad spectrum of clinical practice decisions irrespective of the prior basal insulin.

Comparison of the Impact of Insulin Degludec U100 and Insulin Glargine U300 on Glycemic Variability and Oxidative Stress in Insulin-Naive Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Pilot Study for a Randomized Trial

Background

There is an ongoing discussion about possible differences between insulin degludec (IDeg-100) and glargine U300 (IGlar-300). There is little data and head-to-head comparison of IDeg-100 and IGlar-300 regarding their simultaneous impact on glycemic variability and oxidative stress in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Objective

In our randomized, open-label, crossover study, we compared the impact of IDeg-100 and IGlar-300 on glycemic variability and oxidative stress in insulin-naive patients with T2DM.

Methods

We recruited a total of 25 adult patients with T2DM (7 females) whose diabetes was uncontrolled (HbA1c ≥7.5%) on two or more oral glucose-lowering drugs; a total of 22 completed the study. Mean age was 57.3 (SD 6.99) years and duration of diabetes was 9.94 (SD 5.01) years. After the washout period, they were randomized alternately to first receive either IDeg-100 or IGlar-300 along with metformin. Each insulin was administered for 12 weeks and then switched. At the beginning and end of each phase, biochemical and oxidative stress parameters were analyzed. On 3 consecutive days prior to each control point, patients performed a 7-point self-monitoring of blood glucose profile. Oxidative stress was assessed by measuring thiol groups and hydroperoxides (determination of reactive oxygen metabolites test) in serum.

Results

IGlar-300 reduced mean glucose by 0.02-0.13 mmol/L, and IDeg-100 reduced glucose by 0.10-0.16 mmol/L, with no significant difference. The reduction of the coefficient of glucose variation also did not show a statistically significant difference. IGlar-300 increased thiols by 0.08 µmol/L and IDeg-100 increased thiols by 0.15 µmol/L, with no significant difference (P=.07) between them. IGlar-300 reduced hydroperoxides by 0.040 CARR U and IDeg-100 increased hydroperoxides by 0.034 CARR U, but the difference was not significant (P=.12).

Conclusions

The results of our study do not show a significant difference regarding glycemic variability between patients receiving either insulin IDeg-100 or IGlar-300, although IGlar-300 showed greater dispersion of data. No significant difference in oxidative stress was observed. In a larger study, doses of insulins should be higher to achieve significant impact on glycemic parameters and consequently on glycemic variability and oxidative stress.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04692415; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04692415

One-year safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec in patients with diabetes mellitus in routine clinical practice in India-TRUST (Tresiba real-world use study)

Objective

This post-authorization safety study (PASS) was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) requiring insulin therapy in routine clinical practice in India.

Methods

Data on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and adverse events (AEs) were collected up to 12 months after insulin degludec initiation.

Results

A total of 1057 adult patients with DM were enrolled, including 60.07% males with the mean duration of 22.2 ± 21.90 years with type 1 DM and 10.1 ± 7.37 years with type 2 DM and the mean HbA1c of 9.6 ± 1.9%. Insulin degludec was prescribed to improve HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Insulin degludec daily dose was increased from 14.8 ± 8.0 U to 18.0 ± 9.46 U over 12 months resulting in a significant decrease of HbA1c by 1.8 ± 1.68% compared with baseline. There were 84 events of confirmed hypoglycemia in 51 patients during the 12-month follow-up period, and 44 AEs were reported in 2.6% of patients, of which 2 AEs were serious and unrelated to the drug.

Conclusion

Insulin degludec is well tolerated in patients with DM. It improves glycemic control with reduced HbA1c, FPG, and postprandial glucose, with a low risk of hypoglycemia.

Effect of the Concomitant Use of Subcutaneous Basal Insulin and Intravenous Insulin Infusion in the Treatment of Severe Hyperglycemic Patients

BACKGRUOUND

No consensus exists regarding the early use of subcutaneous (SC) basal insulin facilitating the transition from continuous intravenous insulin infusion (CIII) to multiple SC insulin injections in patients with severe hyperglycemia other than diabetic ketoacidosis. This study evaluated the effect of early co-administration of SC basal insulin with CIII on glucose control in patients with severe hyperglycemia.

METHODS

Patients who received CIII for the management of severe hyperglycemia were divided into two groups: the early basal insulin group (n=86) if they received the first SC basal insulin 0.25 U/kg body weight within 24 hours of CIII initiation and ≥4 hours before discontinuation, and the delayed basal insulin group (n=79) if they were not classified as the early basal insulin group. Rebound hyperglycemia was defined as blood glucose level of >250 mg/dL in 24 hours following CIII discontinuation. Propensity score matching (PSM) methods were additionally employed for adjusting the confounding factors (n=108).

RESULTS

The rebound hyperglycemia incidence was significantly lower in the early basal insulin group than in the delayed basal insulin group (54.7% vs. 86.1%), despite using PSM methods (51.9%, 85.2%). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the early basal insulin group than in the delayed basal insulin group (8.5 days vs. 9.6 days, P=0.027). The hypoglycemia incidence did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Early co-administration of basal insulin with CIII prevents rebound hyperglycemia and shorten hospital stay without increasing the hypoglycemic events in patients with severe hyperglycemia.

Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec U100 versus insulin glargine U300 in adults with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison

BACKGROUND

Clinical differences between degludec U100 (Deg-100) and glargine U300 (Gla-300) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) were unknown.

AIM

To indirectly compare the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness between Deg-100 and Gla-300 in T1D adults via systematic review.

METHOD

Medline, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar were searched (October 2021). Randomized controlled trials comparing Deg-100 or Gla-300 vs. glargine U100 in T1D adults (follow-up ≥ 12 weeks) were selected and analyzed using a frequentist network meta-analysis. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted over a 1-year time horizon from societal perspectives.

RESULTS

Nine trials were included. Efficacy analysis suggested that Deg-100 was non-inferior to Gla-300 in reducing HbA_1c (MD 0.03 [95% CI - 0.09 to 0.15]; P = 0.60), FPG (MD - 1.12 [- 2.19 to - 0.04]; P = 0.04), and pre-breakfast SMBG (MD - 0.71 [- 1.46 to 0.03]; P = 0.06). Safety analysis suggested that Deg-100 appeared to have lower rates of both severe (HR 0.44 [0.25-0.78]; P = 0.005) and nocturnal severe (HR 0.19 [0.08-0.44]; P < 0.001) hypoglycemia, with lower total (MD - 0.07 [- 0.13 to - 0.01]; P = 0.02) and basal (MD - 0.08 [- 0.12 to - 0.04]; P < 0.001) insulin doses compared with Gla-300. No significant differences were observed for other hypoglycemia outcomes, adverse events, serious adverse events, bolus insulin dose, and body weight. The CEA showed that Deg-100 appeared to be a dominant treatment in Japan (+ 0.0283 QALYs, ¥26,266 [$228] per patient) and the United States (+ 0.0267 QALYs, $986 per patient).

CONCLUSION

Low-certainty indirect evidence suggested that Deg-100 appeared to have a favorable reduction in rates of severe hypoglycemia and more cost-effective compared with Gla-300 in T1D adults.

New Horizons: Next-Generation Insulin Analogues: Structural Principles and Clinical Goals

Design of "first-generation" insulin analogues over the past 3 decades has provided pharmaceutical formulations with tailored pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties. Application of a molecular tool kit-integrating protein sequence, chemical modification, and formulation-has thus led to improved prandial and basal formulations for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Although PK/PD changes were modest in relation to prior formulations of human and animal insulins, significant clinical advantages in efficacy (mean glycemia) and safety (rates of hypoglycemia) were obtained. Continuing innovation is providing further improvements to achieve ultrarapid and ultrabasal analogue formulations in an effort to reduce glycemic variability and optimize time in range. Beyond such PK/PD metrics, next-generation insulin analogues seek to exploit therapeutic mechanisms: glucose-responsive ("smart") analogues, pathway-specific ("biased") analogues, and organ-targeted analogues. Smart insulin analogues and delivery systems promise to mitigate hypoglycemic risk, a critical barrier to glycemic control, whereas biased and organ-targeted insulin analogues may better recapitulate physiologic hormonal regulation. In each therapeutic class considerations of cost and stability will affect use and global distribution. This review highlights structural principles underlying next-generation design efforts, their respective biological rationale, and potential clinical applications.

Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine on Glycemic Variability in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Currently, glycemic variability has more deleterious effects than sustained hyperglycemia and is closely associated with acute and chronic complications of diabetes. Reducing glycemic excursion is becoming another vital goal of glycemic control in clinical practice. This study aimed to determine whether insulin degludec (IDeg) or insulin glargine (IGla) was more beneficial for reducing glycemic fluctuations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This research was constructed according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched eight databases and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to 30 November 2021. All randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of glucose variability between IDeg and IGla in diabetic patients were included.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials with 8,683 participants were included. In patients with T1DM, IDeg was associated with a lower mean (MD: -16.25, 95% CI -29.02 to -3.07, P = 0.01) and standard deviation (P = 0.03) compared to IGla in fasting blood glucose (FBG); in people with T2DM, IDeg was related to a lower mean of FBG versus insulin glargine 100 U/ml (IGla100) (P <0.001) and had a more extended time in the range (TIR) than IGla100 (SMD: 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.27, P = 0.02) but not longer than insulin glargine 300 U/ml (IGla300). Moreover, IDeg had a lower coefficient of variation of FBG than IGla (P = 0.0254). For other indicators of glycemic variability, namely, standard deviation of blood glucose for 24 h, the mean of 24-h blood glucose, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion, the coefficient of variation for 24 h, the mean of daily differences, area under the glucose curve, and M-value, no significant differences were identified between IDeg and IGla, regardless of T1DM or T2DM.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current studies, there was comparable efficacy between IDeg and IGla from multiple aspects of glycemic variability, regardless of T1DM or T2DM. However, IDeg may be superior to IGla in reducing FBG variability in T1DM and T2DM. Nonetheless, due to the limitations of the original studies, it is still unclear whether IDeg is superior to both IGla100 and IGla300. In T2DM, IDeg had more extended TIR than IGla100 but not longer than IGla300. Additionally, more well-designed randomized controlled trials comparing IDeg with IGla300 for different indicators of glycemic variability are still warranted.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021283203.

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.

Reduction in C-Peptide Levels and Influence on Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Insulin Preparations: How to Conduct a High-Quality Euglycemic Clamp Study

Objective: The aim of the study was to investigate the different extent of inhibition of endogenous insulin secretion by the reduction of C-peptide levels in an euglycemic clamp study and its effects on the evaluation of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics of insulin preparations, and quality of clamp study to determine the best reduction range of C-peptide levels. Methods: Healthy Chinese male volunteers were enrolled and underwent a single-dose euglycemic clamp test. Participants were subcutaneously injected with long-acting insulin glargine (0.4 IU/kg). Blood samples were collected pretest and up to 24 h post-test to assess pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and C-peptide levels. Results: We divided the 39 volunteers enrolled in the study into three groups according to the reduction of C-peptide levels: group A (ratio of C-peptide reduction <30%, n = 13), group B (ratio of C-peptide reduction between ≥ 30% and <50%, n = 15), and group C (ratio of C-peptide reduction ≥50%, n = 11); there were significant differences in the three groups (p = 0.000). The upper and lower limits of blood glucose oscillation in group C was statistically lower than the other groups, the range of oscillating glucose levels in group C was -17.0 ± 6.6% to -1.1 ± 6.7%. The AUC_0-24 h in groups A, B, and C were 9.7 ± 2.2, 11.0 ± 2.9, and 11.9 ± 2.1 ng/ml × min, respectively, which indicated an increasing trend in the three groups (P _trend = 0.041). For quality assessment, the average glucose (p = 0.000) and MEFTG (p = 0.001) levels in three groups were significantly different. Conclusion: The different extent of inhibition of endogenous insulin will influence the PK/PD of insulin preparations and the quality of the euglycemic clamp. Furthermore, the ratio of C-peptide reduction should be above 50% to free from the interference of endogenous insulin, and the range of blood glucose levels should be consistently maintained at -10% to 0 in the euglycemic clamp.

Insulin degludec and glutamine dipeptide modify glucose homeostasis and liver metabolism in diabetic mice undergoing insulin-induced hypoglycemia

This study investigated whether a 30-day co-treatment with 1 g/kg glutamine dipeptide (GdiP) and 1 U/kg regular (rapid acting) or 5 U/kg degludec (long acting) insulins modifies glucose homeostasis and liver metabolism of alloxan-induced type 1 diabetic (T1D) male Swiss mice undergoing insulin-induced hypoglycemia (IIH). Glycemic curves were measured in fasted mice after IIH with 1 U/kg regular insulin. One hour after IIH, the lipid profile and AST and ALT activities were assayed in the serum. Morphometric analysis was assessed in the liver sections stained with hematoxylin-eosin and glycolysis, glycogenolysis, gluconeogenesis and ureagenesis were evaluated in perfused livers. T1D mice receiving GdiP or the insulins had a smaller blood glucose drop at 60 minutes after IIH, which was not sustained during the subsequent period up to 300 minutes. The 30-day treatment of T1D mice with insulin degludec, but not with regular insulin, improved fasting glycemia, body weight gain and serum activity of AST and ALT. Treatments with insulin degludec, GdiP and insulin degludec + GdiP decreased the liver capacity in synthesizing glucose from alanine. GdiP, in combination with both insulins, was associated with increases in the serum triglycerides and, in addition, regular insulin and GdiP increased AST and ALT activities, which could be the consequence of hepatic glycogen overload. GdiP and the insulins improved the IIH, although to a small extent. Caution is recommended, however, with respect to the use of GdiP because of its increasing effects on serum triglycerides and AST plus ALT activities.

Post Hoc Analysis Evaluating the Impact of Antihyperglycemic Background Therapies on Attainment of A1C Targets Without Hypoglycemia in the ACHIEVE Control Pragmatic, Real-Life Study

BACKGROUND

ACHIEVE Control, a prospective, open-label, randomized, pragmatic, real-life study in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes (A1C 8.0-11.0%), demonstrated superiority of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) versus first-generation standard-of-care basal insulin (SOC-BI; glargine 100 units/mL or insulin detemir) in achieving individualized A1C targets without documented symptomatic (glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL] or <3.0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycemia (American Diabetes Association level 3) at 6 months. Noninsulin antihyperglycemic background therapies are commonly used; however, sulfonylureas may increase hypoglycemia risk. This post hoc analysis assessed outcomes according to background therapy.

METHODS

Subgroup analyses were performed per concomitant use/nonuse of sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. End points (6 and 12 months) included A1C target attainment without documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia, A1C target attainment, and absence of documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Odds ratios (ORs) at 12 months mostly favored Gla-300 versus SOC-BI across subgroups except in analysis of SGLT2 inhibitors, in which ORs were similar. Among sulfonylurea users, ORs at 12 months strongly favored Gla-300 versus SOC-BI for all end points, particularly A1C target achievement without documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]; OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.53) or severe hypoglycemia and achievement of no documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (glucose <3.0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL]; OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.52) or severe hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that, in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes, Gla-300 is effective with a risk of hypoglycemia that is lower than or similar to that of SOC-BI regardless of background medication. Individuals receiving concomitant sulfonylureas were more likely to remain without symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia with Gla-300.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ultra-Long-Acting, Long-Acting, Intermediate-Acting, and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

We included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42017077051.

Efficacy and safety among second-generation and other basal insulins in adult patients with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of second-generation basal insulins (glargine U300 and degludec U100) vs. neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) and first-generation basal insulins (glargine U100 and detemir) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) adults.PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar (until January 2021) were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with ≥ 12 weeks of follow-up comparing efficacy (HbA_1c) or safety (hypoglycemia and weight gain) between second-generation basal insulins vs. other basal insulins in T1D adults were included. Bayesian network meta-analyses were used to estimate risk ratio, hazard ratio, and mean difference. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to appraise evidence certainty.Eighteen RCTs (≥ 24 weeks of follow-up) involving 7283 randomized participants were included for main analysis. Moderate to high certainty evidence suggested that second-generation basal insulins showed equivalent HbA_1c reduction compared with NPH and first-generation basal insulins. Compared with second-generation basal insulins, low to high certainty evidence suggested that NPH was associated with a higher risk of patients experiencing severe hypoglycemia; NPH and first-generation basal insulins were associated with a higher rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemic events. For the weight gain, glargine U300 was comparable to detemir (low certainty), but degludec U100 was greater than detemir (moderate certainty).In conclusion, second-generation basal insulins maintained equivalent efficacy of glycemic control (moderate to high certainty), with differences in safety (low to high certainty) compared with NPH and first-generation basal insulins during ≥ 24 weeks of follow-up in T1D adults.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Switching to Insulin Degludec from Other Basal Insulins in a Real-World Canadian Population with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes: The CAN-TREAT Study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to examine glycaemic control and safety of insulin degludec (degludec) in patients with either type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) under routine care settings in Canada.

METHODS

Data were extracted from medical records of adults with T1D or T2D who switched to degludec (± prandial insulin) from another basal insulin (± prandial insulin) ≥ 6 months prior to data collection. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) at 6 ± 3 months after degludec initiation. Secondary endpoints included change in hypoglycaemia rate in the 6 months before versus the 6 months after switching, and change in mean total daily insulin dose.

RESULTS

Of 667 patients assessed for eligibility, 626 were included. After 6 ± 3 months, HbA_1c decreased from baseline in patients with T1D (- 0.3% [- 0.42, - 0.14]_95% CI; p < 0.001) and in patients with T2D (- 0.4% [- 0.55, - 0.30]_95% CI; p < 0.001). In patients with T1D, there were significant reductions in the rates of overall (rate ratio [RR] 0.70), non-severe (RR 0.69), non-severe nocturnal (RR 0.36), and severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.12; all p ≤ 0.004). In patients with T2D there was a significant reduction in non-severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.22; p < 0.001). Mean daily basal insulin dose decreased in patients with T1D (- 1.6 units [- 2.8, - 0.4]_95% CI; p = 0.008); there was no significant change in patients with T2D (- 0.6 units [- 2.7, 1.4]_95% CI; p = 0.543).

CONCLUSION

In routine clinical practice, improved glycaemic control was observed in patients with T1D or T2D switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins, with either improvement or no change in hypoglycaemia rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03674866.

A comprehensive stability assessment of insulin degludec using New customized validated RP-HPLC and SEC-HPLC methods in an orthogonal testing protocol

Stress testing of biopharmaceuticals plays an important role in preparation of their stability profiles through investigation of possible degradation pathways and identification of degradation products, so in this study Insulin Degludec which is a new generation ultra-long-acting basal insulin is subjected to stress conditions as different temperatures, different pH, oxidation, mechanical agitation, and repeated freeze and thaw cycles to generate possible degradation products and aggregation that are investigated by two new validated RP-HPLC and SEC-HPLC methods in addition to dynamic light scattering (DLS) and native polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (Nu-PAGE). SEC-HPLC was used to investigate formation of aggregates whose results were correlated with those obtained from DLS and Nu-PAGE, while RP-HPLC was used to investigate any possible chemical modifications. The Proposed RP-method had limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.012 mg/mL and 0.045 mg/mL respectively and accuracy of 99.22 ± 1.07 %, while the SEC methods had limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.012 mg/mL and 0.031 mg/mL, respectively. The degradation pattern due to high temperature effect and oxidation is investigated by LC- tandem mass spectrometry. Results showed that Insulin degludec is highly stable under low temperature, mechanical agitation and repeated freeze and thaw stress conditions but elevated temperature and high acidic condition lead to formation of aggregates and also chemical modifications including deamidation, isomerization and oxidation. Such different chemical degradation pathways are due to presence of variable reactive moieties in Insulin degludec structure. Insulin degludec is highly vulnerable to oxidation at the sulfur containing cysteine residue in B chain in position B7 forming trioxidation derivative when exposed to hydrogen peroxide. Formation of A21-Asp and A18-Asp deamidated variants as well as B3-Asp and B3-isoAsp deamidated variants are prominent degradation pathways at neutral pH but at elevated temperature.

Comparison of Insulins Glargine and Degludec in Diabetic Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta) with CGM Devices

Treating and monitoring type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in NHP can be challenging. Multiple insulin and hypoglycemic therapies and management tools exist, but few studies demonstrate their benefits in a NHP clinical setting. The insulins glargine and degludec are long-acting insulins; their duration of action in humans exceeds 24 and 42 h, respectively. In the first of this study's 2 components, we evaluated whether insulin degludec could be dosed daily at equivalent units to glargine to achieve comparable blood glucose (BG) reduction in diabetic rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices. The second component assessed the accuracy of CGM devices in rhesus macaques by comparing time-stamped CGM interstitial glucose values, glucometer BG readings, and BG levels measured by using an automated clinical chemistry analyzer from samples that were collected at the beginning and end of each CGM device placement. The CGM devices collected a total of 21,637 glucose data points from 6 diabetic rhesus macaques that received glargine followed by degludec every 24 h for 1 wk each. Ultimately, glucose values averaged 29 mg/dL higher with degludec than with glargine. Glucose values were comparable between the CGM device, glucometer, and chemistry analyzer, thus validating that CGM devices as reliable for measuring BG levels in rhesus macaques. Although glargine was superior to degludec when given at the same dose (units/day), both are safe and effective treatment options. Glucose values from CGM, glucometers, and chemistry analyzers provided results that were analogous to BG values in rhesus macaques. Our report further highlights critical clinical aspects of using glargine as compared with degludec in NHP and the benefits of using CGM devices in macaques.

Comparative clinical outcomes of insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/mL after switching from other basal insulins in real-world patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Aims/Introduction

To evaluate and compare the efficacy of insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla300) 6 months after switching from other basal insulins by assessing the changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body mass index (BMI), and insulin doses in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in a real‐world clinical setting.

Materials and Methods

A total of 307 patients with type 1 diabetes and 294 patients with type 2 diabetes with HbA1c >7.0% were studied. Adjusted mean changes in HbA1c, BMI, and insulin doses were compared between IDeg (IDeg group) and Gla300 (Gla300 group) switchers. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were carried out to examine whether the IDeg or Gla300 group was associated with HbA1c or insulin dose reduction and BMI gain.

Results

HbA1c was significantly decreased in both the IDeg and Gla300 groups. Adjusted mean changes in HbA1c (approximately −0.3% and −0.5% in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes patients, respectively) and BMI were similar between both groups. The mean change in insulin dose was slightly larger for dose reduction in the IDeg group than in the Gla300 group. Multivariable logistic regression models showed that the IDeg group was significantly associated with insulin dose reduction after adjusting for basal insulin type, insulin dose, and number of basal insulin injections at baseline and other confounding factors.

Conclusions

The current study suggested that IDeg and Gla300 have similar effects in reducing HbA1c and gaining BMI after switching from other basal insulins in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. IDeg selection was associated with insulin dose reduction.

A Nickel(II)-Mediated Thiocarbonylation Strategy for Carbon Isotope Labeling of Aliphatic Carboxamides

A series of pharmaceutically relevant small molecules and biopharmaceuticals bearing aliphatic carboxamides have been successfully labeled with carbon-13. Key to the success of this novel carbon isotope labeling technique is the observation that ¹³ C-labeled Ni^II -acyl complexes, formed from a ¹³ CO insertion step with Ni^II -alkyl intermediates, rapidly react in less than one minute with 2,2'-dipyridyl disulfide to quantitatively form the corresponding 2-pyridyl thioesters. Either the use of ¹³ C-SilaCOgen or ¹³ C-COgen allows for the stoichiometric addition of isotopically labeled carbon monoxide. Subsequent one-pot acylation of a series of structurally diverse amines provides the desired ¹³ C-labeled carboxamides in good yields. A single electron transfer pathway is proposed between the Ni^II -acyl complexes and the disulfide providing a reactive Ni^III -acyl sulfide intermediate, which rapidly undergoes reductive elimination to the desired thioester. By further optimization of the reaction parameters, reaction times down to only 11 min were identified, opening up the possibility of exploring this chemistry for carbon-11 isotope labeling. Finally, this isotope labeling strategy could be adapted to the synthesis of ¹³ C-labeled liraglutide and insulin degludec, representing two antidiabetic drugs.

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.

Improved Nocturnal Glycaemia and Reduced Insulin Use Following Clinical Exercise Trial Participation in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes

Aim: To explore the influence of clinical exercise trial participation on glycaemia and insulin therapy use in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

Research Design and Methods: This study involved a secondary analysis of data collected from 16 individuals with T1D who completed a randomized clinical trial consisting of 23-h in-patient phases with a 45-min evening bout of moderate intensity continuous exercise. Participants were switched from their usual basal-bolus therapy to ultra-long acting insulin degludec and rapid-acting insulin aspart as well as provided with unblinded interstitial flash-glucose monitoring systems. To assess the impact of clinical trial participation, weekly data obtained at the screening visit (pre-study involvement) were compared against those collated on the last experimental visit (post-study involvement). Interstitial glucose [iG] data were split into distinct glycaemic ranges and stratified into day (06:00–23:59) and night (00:00–05:59) time periods. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was accepted for significance.

Results: Following study completion, there were significant decreases in both the mean nocturnal iG concentration (Δ-0.9 ± 4.5 mmol.L⁻¹, p < 0.001) and the time spent in severe hyperglycaemia (Δ-7.2 ± 9.8%, p = 0.028) during the night-time period. The total daily (Δ-7.3 ± 8.4 IU, p = 0.003) and basal only (Δ-2.3 ± 3.8 IU, p = 0.033) insulin dose requirements were reduced over the course of study involvement.

Conclusions: Participation in clinical research may foster improved nocturnal glycaemia and reduced insulin therapy use in people with T1D. Recognition of these outcomes may help encourage volunteers to partake in clinical research opportunities for improved diabetes-related health outcomes.

Clinical Trial Registration:DRKS.de; DRKS00013509.

Use of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus: Expert Panel Recommendations on Appropriate Practice Patterns

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed-ratio co-formulation of insulin degludec (IDeg), which provides long-lasting basal insulin coverage, and insulin aspart (IAsp), which targets post-prandial glucose. This expert panel aimed to provide a practical and implementable guidance document to assist clinicians in prescribing IDegAsp in the diabetes management with respect to different patient populations including children and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) as well as pregnant, elderly and hospitalized patients and varying practice patterns (insulin-naive, insulin-treated, switching from basal, basal bolus and premix regimens). The experts recommended that IDegAsp can be used in insulin-naive T2D patients with poor glycemic control (HbA1c >8.5%) despite optimal oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) as well as in insulin-treated T2D patients by switching from basal insulin, basal-bolus therapy or premixed insulins in relation to lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia, fewer injections and lower intraday glycemic variability, respectively. The experts considered the use of IDegAsp in children with T2D as a basal bolus alternative rather than as an alternative to basal insulin after metformin failure, use of IDegAsp in adult T1D patients as a simplified basal bolus regimen with lesser nocturnal hypoglycemia, fewer injections and better fasting plasma glucose control and in children with T1D as an alternative insulin regimen with fewer injection to increase treatment adherence. The proposed expert opinion provides practical information on use of IDegAsp in different patient populations and practice patterns to assist clinicians, which seems to compensate the need for easily implementable guidance on this novel insulin regimen.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Head-to-Head Comparison of Clinical, Equivalent Doses of Insulin Glargine 300 units · mL-1 and Insulin Degludec 100 units · mL-1 in Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To prove equivalence of individual, clinically titrated basal insulin doses of glargine 300 units ⋅ mL^-1 (Gla-300) and degludec 100 units ⋅ mL^-1 (Deg-100) under steady state conditions in a single-blind, randomized, crossover study, on the glucose pharmacodynamics (PD) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Subjects with T1D (N = 22, 11 men, age 44.3 ± 12.4 years, disease duration 25.5 ± 11.7 years, A1C 7.07 ± 0.63% [53.7 ± 6.9 mmol ⋅ mL^-1], BMI 22.5 ± 2.7 kg · m^-2), naïve to Gla-300 and Deg-100, underwent 24-h euglycemic clamps with individual clinical doses of Gla-300 (0.34 ± 0.08 units ⋅ kg^-1) and Deg-100 (0.26 ± 0.06 units ⋅ kg^-1), dosing at 2000 h, after 3 months of optimal titration of basal (and bolus) insulin.

RESULTS

At the end of 3 months, Gla-300 and Deg-100 reduced slightly and, similarly, A1C versus baseline. Clamp average plasma glucose (0-24 h) was euglycemic with both insulins. The area under curve of glucose infused (AUC-GIR_{[0-24 h]}) was equivalent for the two insulins (ratio 1.04, 90% CI 0.91-1.18). Suppression of endogenous glucose production, free fatty acids, glycerol, and β-hydroxybutyrate was 9%, 14%, 14%, and 18% greater, respectively, with Gla-300 compared with Deg-100 during the first 12 h, while glucagon suppression was no different. Relative within-day PD variability was 23% lower with Gla-300 versus Deg-100 (ratio 0.77, 90% CI 0.63-0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

In T1D, individualized, clinically titrated doses of Gla-300 and Deg-100 at steady state result in similar glycemic control and PD equivalence during euglycemic clamps. Clinical doses of Gla-300 compared with Deg-100 are higher and associated with quite similar even 24-h distribution of PD and antilipolytic effects.

Machine Learning-Based Adherence Detection of Type 2 Diabetes Patients on Once-Daily Basal Insulin Injections

BACKGROUND

Lack of treatment adherence can lead to life-threatening health complications for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Recent improvements and availability in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology have enabled various possibilities to monitor diabetes treatment. Detection of missed once-daily basal insulin injections can be used to provide feedback to patients, thus improving their diabetes management. In this study, we explore how machine learning (ML) based on CGM data can be used for detecting adherence to once-daily basal insulin injections.

METHODS

In-silico CGM data were generated to simulate a cohort of T2D patients on once-daily insulin injection (Tresiba®). Deep learning methods within ML based on automatic feature extraction including convolutional neural networks were explored and compared with simple feature-engineered ML classification models for adherence detection. It was further investigated whether fused expert-dependent and automatically learned features could improve performance, resulting in a comparison of six different detection models. Adherence was detected throughout each day with an increasing amount of CGM data available.

RESULTS

The adherence detection accuracy improved as more CGM data became available on the day of classification. The three classification models based on expert-engineered features obtained mean accuracies of 78.6%, 78.2%, and 78.3%. The classification model based purely on learned features obtained a mean accuracy of 79.7%. The two classification models fusing expert-engineered and learned features obtained mean accuracies of 79.7% and 79.8%. All the mentioned results were obtained 16 hours after time of injection.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that adherence detection based on CGM data is feasible. Even though our study based on in-silico data indicates only slightly improved performance of more complex models, the question remains whether advanced models would outperform the simple in a real-world setting. Thus, future studies on adherence monitoring using real CGM data are relevant.

Reduced Rates of Hypoglycemia in Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes After Switching to Insulin Degludec: Results from the Italian Cohort of the ReFLeCT Study

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate in an Italian real-world setting the safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec 100 units/mL, given once daily in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after switching from other basal insulins.

METHODS

ReFLeCT was a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted across seven European countries which involved adult patients whose physician planned to switch their medication from basal insulin to insulin degludec. The primary outcome was the change in the number of hypoglycemic episodes before and after the switch to insulin degludec. Results are expressed as 12-month follow-up/baseline incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

The Italian cohort of the ReFLect study comprised 148 patients with T1DM and 311 patients with T2DM. In patients with T1DM, the switch to insulin degludec was associated with significantly lower rates of overall (IRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82), non-severe (IRR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.85), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (IRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31-0.69). Following the switch, hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) levels decreased significantly by 0.35% (95% CI - 0.50 to  - 0.20), with no significant changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and basal insulin dose. Body weight increased by 0.83 kg (95% CI 0.16-1.50). In patients with T2DM, significant reductions in the rates of overall (IRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29-0.55), non-severe (IRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34-0.63), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (IRR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.86) were documented. HbA_1c and FPG decreased significantly by 0.45% (95% CI - 0.58 to - 0.31) and 0.90 mmol/L (95% CI - 1.21 to - 0.59], respectively, with no significant changes in basal insulin dose or body weight. Treatment satisfaction significantly improved in both diabetes types.

CONCLUSION

In Italian routine clinical practice, switching from other basal insulins to insulin degludec reduced the total episodes of hypoglycemia and improved glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in patients with T1DM and T2DM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02392117.