Insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: A 26-week, randomized, controlled, Pan-Asian, treat-to-target trial

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: Insights into clinical efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, and adherence challenges

Insulin therapy plays a crucial role in the management of type 2 diabetes as the disease progresses. Over the past century, insulin formulations have undergone significant modifications and bioengineering, resulting in a diverse range of available insulin products. These products show distinct pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Consequently, various insulin regimens have em-erged for the management of type 2 diabetes, including premixed formulations and combinations of basal and bolus insulins. The utilization of different insulin regimens yields disparate clinical outcomes, adverse events, and, notably, patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs provide valuable insights from the patient's perspective, serving as a valuable mine of information for enhancing healthcare and informing clinical decisions. Adherence to insulin therapy, a critical patient-reported outcome, significantly affects clinical outcomes and is influenced by multiple factors. This review provides insights into the clinical effectiveness of various insulin preparations, PROs, and factors impacting insulin therapy adherence, with the aim of enhancing healthcare practices and informing clinical decisions for individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy and safety of basal insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Aim

The comparative effectiveness of basal insulins has been examined in several studies. However, current treatment algorithms provide a list of options with no clear differentiation between different basal insulins as the optimal choice for initiation.

Methods

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI, and Scopus, and a reference list of retrieved studies and reviews were performed up to November 2023. We identified phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens. The primary outcomes evaluated were HbA1c reduction, weight change, and hypoglycemic events. The revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals considering the critical assumptions in the networks. The certainty of the evidence and confidence in the rankings was assessed using the GRADE minimally contextualized approach.

Results

Of 20,817 retrieved studies, 44 RCTs (23,699 participants) were eligible for inclusion in our network meta-analysis. We found no significant difference among various basal insulins (including Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH), ILPS, insulin glargine, detemir, and degludec) in reducing HbA1c. Insulin glargine, 300 U/mL (IGlar-300) was significantly associated with less weight gain (mean difference ranged from 2.9 kg to 4.1 kg) compared to other basal insulins, namely thrice-weekly insulin degludec (IDeg-3TW), insulin degludec, 100 U/mL (IDeg-100), insulin degludec, 200 U/mL (IDeg-200), NPH, and insulin detemir (IDet), but with low to very low certainty regarding most comparisons. IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 were associated with significantly lower odds of overall, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemic events than NPH and insulin lispro protamine (ILPS) (moderate to high certainty evidence). NPH was associated with the highest odds of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to others. Network meta-analysis models were robust, and findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

The efficacy of various basal insulin regimens is comparable. However, they have different safety profiles. IGlar-300 may be the best choice when weight gain is a concern. In contrast, IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 may be preferred when hypoglycemia is the primary concern.

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.

Effectiveness, safety, initial optimal dose, and optimal maintenance dose range of basal insulin regimens for type 2 diabetes: A systematic review with meta-analysis

AIMS

To investigate the effectiveness, safety, optimal starting dose, optimal maintenance dose range, and target fasting plasma glucose of five basal insulins in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to February 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was adopted. The registration ID is CRD42022319078 in PROSPERO.

RESULTS

Among 11 163 citations retrieved, 35 publications met the planned criteria. From meta-analyses and network meta-analyses, we found that when injecting basal insulin regimens at bedtime, the optimal choice in order of most to least effective might be glargine U-300 or degludec U-100, glargine U-100 or detemir, followed by neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH). Injecting glargine U-100 in the morning may be more effective (ie, more patients archiving glycated hemoglobin < 7.0%) and lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than injecting it at bedtime. The optimal starting dose for the initiation of any basal insulins can be 0.10-0.20 U/kg/day. There is no eligible evidence to investigate the optimal maintenance dose for basal insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The five basal insulins are effective for the target population. Glargine U-300, degludec U-100, glargine U-100, and detemir lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than NPH without compromising glycemic control.

Efficacy and safety of basal insulin degludec 100 IU/mL versus glargine 300 IU/mL for type 1 diabetes: The single-center INEOX randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To compare efficacy and safety of degludec 100 IU/mL (Deg-100) and glargine 300 IU/mL (Gla-300) in adults with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Open-label, single-center, randomized, parallel-group, 24-week trial in adults with type 1 diabetes, on basal-bolus insulin therapy, HbA1c ≤ 10%, using self-monitoring blood glucose. Participants were randomized 1:1 to a basal-bolus insulin regimen with Deg-100 (N = 129) or Gla-300 (N = 131). Primary efficacy endpoint: mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week-24. Main safety outcome: incidence rate of hypoglycemia during the study. Quality of life (DQOL) and satisfaction with diabetes treatment (DTSQ) were assessed.

RESULTS

At week 24, after adjusting for baseline HbA1c, the decrease in HbA1c did not differ between groups: Deg-100 (-0.07 ± 0.7%) and Gla-300 (-0.16 ± 0.77%) (P = 0.320). There were no significant differences between groups in HbA1c, nocturnal hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, DQOL, or DTSQ scores. The incidence rates of hypoglycemia < 3.9 mmol/L (Deg-100: 115.24 events/person-year vs Gla-300: 99.01 events/person-year, p < 0.001); and < 3.0 mmol/L (Deg-100: 41.17 events/person-year vs Gla-300: 34.29 events/person-year, p < 0.001) were different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Deg-100 and Gla-300 have similar metabolic efficacy, incidence ratio of nocturnal and severe hypoglycemia, DQOL and DTSQ scores. Differences in the incidence rate of hypoglycemia < 3.9 mmol/L and < 3.0 mmol/L should be confirmed.

The economic value of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in people ≥18 years of age with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a value-based economic model from a U.S. payer perspective

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the value and affordability of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in a budget impact model from a United States (U.S.) payer perspective by leveraging recent real-world evidence (RWE) studies and incorporating the recent insulin price caps where applicable.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An economic model for a hypothetical one million U.S. health-plan population was developed to assess the budgetary impact of therapeutic interchanges in either direction between the two long- and longer-acting basal insulins (BIs) for patients with type 2 diabetes over a three-year model horizon. The utilization of long-acting BIs, longer-acting BIs, biosimilar BIs, and insulin degludec (IDeg-100) were informed by IQVIA data and internal forecasting at Sanofi. The DELIVER-2 and DELIVER-naïve studies provided healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) parameters. In the model base case, 24% of patients switched from long-acting BIs to insulin glargine biosimilars, IDeg-100, and other longer-acting BIs (Gla-300) by projected year 3.

RESULTS

The base case total costs were $10,145 per patient per year (PPPY) in year 3 for the cumulative population. When all patients switched to Gla-300, the total costs in year 3 were $8,799, reflecting a net savings of -$660 PPPY compared to the budget increase of $686 PPPY in the base case. However, the longer-acting to long-acting BIs reversal scenario demonstrated a budgetary decrease of $676 PPPY over the model horizon. The reduction in incremental PPPY cost of $93 was observed using net drug costs rather than wholesale acquisition costs (WAC).

LIMITATIONS

The market shares for years 1-3 were based on expectations supported by the clinicians' expert opinions and were not obtained from real-world data.

CONCLUSIONS

The economic value of increased utilization of Gla-300 was driven by the reduction in HCRU, costs and market shares assumptions. Budgetary reductions were achieved by switching patients from long-acting BIs to Gla-300.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Insulin Degludec Versus Other Long-acting Basal Insulin Analogues in the Treatment of Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of insulin degludec with those of other long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus (T1D or T2D).

METHODS

Those randomized controlled trials comparing insulin degludec with other long-acting insulin analogues in the treatment of patients with T1D or T2D published on or before August 21, 2022, were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The efficacy end points were the changes from baseline in hemoglobin A_1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). The tolerability end point was the prevalence of hypoglycemia confirmed throughout the treatment period.

FINDINGS

Data from a total of 20 trials (19,048 patients) were included. The differences in the reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin between insulin degludec and other long-acting basal insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) used for the treatment of patients with T1D or T2D were not significant. However, the reduction in FPG was greater with insulin degludec (-0.370 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.473 to -0.267 mmol/L; P ≤ 0.001). Throughout the treatment periods of all of the available trials, the estimated rate ratios of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia were significantly decreased with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine or insulin detemir in patients with T1D or T2D; the differences in the risks for severe hypoglycemia were not significant.

IMPLICATIONS

Compared with other long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir), insulin degludec was associated with a significantly decreased FPG, with lower prevalences of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Twenty Years of Insulin Gla-100: A Systematic Evaluation of Its Efficacy and Safety in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to present the current evidence base with respect to the initiation and intensification of insulin therapy with glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) compared to other insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled clinical trials databases was performed to identify studies published up to September 30, 2020 that compared the effects of Gla-100 to that of other insulin regimens in people with T2DM. Relevant information pertaining to the predefined outcomes of interest was extracted. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change and response rates along with overall hypoglycemia incidence were the primary efficacy and safety outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine studies (63 interventional and 16 non-interventional) in which Gla-100 was either initiated in previously insulin-naïve patients (n = 57) or used in an intensified regimen (n = 22) were identified and evaluated. In insulin-naïve patients, most studies demonstrated that Gla-100 was significantly better compared with premixed insulins and similar compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations, and other first-generation basal insulins in terms of the primary efficacy parameters. Overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with NPH, premixed, coformulation, and other first-generation basal insulins and significantly higher compared with second-generation basal insulins. In studies with intensified regimens, efficacy outcomes with Gla-100 were significantly better compared with insulin detemir (IDet); similar compared with NPH, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations; and with premixed insulins. In these studies, overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with IDet and comparable to NPH, premixed insulins, co-formulations, and second-generation basal insulins. In addition, most intensification studies also revealed a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia with Gla-100-based regimens versus NPH and premixed insulins and a significantly greater risk compared to second-generation basal insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence presented in this review suggests that Gla-100 is an effective option for both insulin initiation and intensification strategies used in the management of T2DM.

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.

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

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

Safety and Efficacy of Long-Acting Insulins Degludec and Glargine Among Asian Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis

Background Global variation in susceptibility to diabetes, insulin sensitivity, and regimen intensity poses a challenge for clinicians regarding the optimal choice of insulin therapy. The current study was carried out to see the relative safety and efficacy of currently available long-acting insulins among the type 2 diabetic Asian population. Methods A systematic literature search was done using various search engines (PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase) and included published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in English before December 2019. Further, a manual search was performed by screening the reference list of the identified articles. Results We included four RCTs with 534 participants (349 in the insulin degludec group and 185 in the insulin glargine group) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Results show that both insulin glargine and degludec are equally efficacious in reducing fasting blood glucose (mean difference is -4.45, confidence interval -13.32- 4.43, I²=67%) and HbA1c (glycosylated hemoglobin) (mean difference is 0.12, confidence interval -0.12-0.35, I²=0%). However, insulin glargine was associated with lower risks of hypoglycemia (risk ratio = 0.9684, confidence interval- 0.8003- 1.1717, I²=30%). Conclusion Insulin glargine and degludec are comparable in achieving glycemic control with fewer hypoglycemic episodes in the insulin glargine-treated group.

Rationales of delay and difference in regulatory review by Japan, the USA and Europe among new drugs first approved in Japan

AIMS

To clarify the rationales of delay or difference in the review of new drug applications among regulatory authorities for new drugs, those first approved in the world being in Japan.

METHODS

Among 80 new drugs first approved in Japan from 2008 to 2019, we identified those subsequently approved in the USA or Europe. Significant delays in approval time (boxplot outliers) and the rationales for the delays were assessed among the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

RESULTS

Of the 80 Japan-first approvals, 25 and 24 were approved in the USA and Europe, respectively, and their median approval times in Japan, the USA and Europe were 285, 334 and 477 days, respectively. Significant delays were identified for pirfenidone (1806 days, FDA), alogliptin benzoate (1856 days, FDA), insulin degludec (1457 days, FDA) and romosozumab (750 days, PMDA; 994 days, FDA; 748 days, EMA). Due to concerns about cardiovascular risk, alogliptin benzoate and insulin degludec were requested for additional clinical trials by the FDA, and romosozumab required a much longer review period than the standard approval time in all three regions.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the new drugs significantly delayed in approval time in Japan, the USA or Europe, there were some differences in the requirements, the participating regions and the assessment of clinical trials. The regulatory views on the cardiovascular risk also differed among the three regions. These divergences may be associated with the differences in approval histories.

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

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

Insulin glargine 300 U/mL and insulin degludec: A review of the current evidence comparing these two second-generation basal insulin analogues

For most people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), treatment intensification with the addition of basal insulin therapy is required to maintain glycaemic control. However, this often does not happen in real-life practice promoting the development of long-term diabetes-related complications. The second-generation basal insulin analogues glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and degludec (IDeg) provide pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic improvements that may allow them to be more effective in appropriately managing diabetes compared with first-generation basal insulin analogues. Both Gla-300 and IDeg have been extensively studied vs the first-generation basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL, demonstrating comparable efficacy in terms of glycaemic control, and a lower risk of hypoglycaemia. The BRIGHT randomized controlled trial is the first direct comparison of the efficacy and safety profiles of Gla-300 and IDeg in patients with T2D. Moreover, real-world data have been used to assess the effectiveness of these basal insulins during routine clinical practice. Further research is required to determine if the properties of Gla-300 and IDeg may lead to improvements in healthcare-related costs and the quality of life of patients, which are important factors for informing clinical decisions.

Clinical Considerations When Initiating and Titrating Insulin Degludec/Liraglutide (IDegLira) in People with Type 2 Diabetes

Therapeutic inertia is a substantial obstacle to the initiation of insulin therapy in people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D). This effect has in part been perpetuated by concerns over the impact of a burdensome regimen and the increased risk of hypoglycemia and body weight gain often associated with insulin use. An effective, yet simple, less burdensome regimen with a lower risk of body weight gain and hypoglycemia compared with an insulin-only regimen, may help to address these concerns more effectively. We review the available clinical and real-world data on IDegLira, a once-daily, injectable, fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec (degludec) and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide, in people with T2D. Evidence from the comprehensive DUAL clinical trial program suggests an advantage of IDegLira over traditional insulin therapies in a number of clinical outcomes, including maintenance of glycemic control, achievement of glycemic targets, reducing the risk of hypoglycemia, and body weight loss. These findings were demonstrated in participants with T2D irrespective of prior GLP-1RA and insulin use. Furthermore, the individual components of IDegLira have confirmed safety (degludec) or significant benefit in terms of improvement of cardiovascular risk (liraglutide). As an injectable therapy that is simple to titrate, IDegLira has the potential to optimize the ability to achieve relevant glycemic targets, and offers a suitable treatment option for people with T2D requiring insulin therapy who are at risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain.

Fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in the treatment of Japanese people with type 2 diabetes: An innovative solution to a complex therapeutic challenge

Over 10 million people in Japan have known or suspected type 2 diabetes (T2D), and this number is expected to rise. Although many people require therapy escalation because of the progressive nature of T2D, this appears to be suboptimal in Japanese real-world clinical practice. Insulin therapy tends to be introduced only when glycaemic control is very poor (mean glycated haemoglobin >9%). Although basal insulin therapy is effective in reducing fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose often remains uncontrolled. Basal-bolus insulin regimens are complex and carry the risk of weight gain and hypoglycaemia. Recently, fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of BI and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) have shown efficacy in reducing both FPG and postprandial plasma glucose with a single injection and without increased risk of hypoglycaemia or weight gain. IDegLira, a titratable FRC of insulin degludec (100 U/mL) and liraglutide, is currently available in Japan and the United States/European Union at a ratio of 1 U (unit):0.036 mg. iGlarLixi (insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide at a ratio of 1:1 (20 U/20 μg) has recently been approved in Japan. Phase 3 trials in Japan for IDegLira (DUAL Japan) and iGlarLixi (LixiLan JP) have shown that both FRCs are efficacious. This review provides an overview of IDegLira and iGlarLixi (Japanese formulation) and considers their potential use as new therapeutic options to address the clinical need for early glycaemic control in Japanese people with T2D.

A Real-World Observational Study Evaluating the Probability of Glycemic Control with Basal Insulin or Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of basal insulin (BI) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in providing glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Japanese routine practice is not well known. This real-world observational study evaluated the probability of achieving glycemic control in Japanese patients with T2D uncontrolled by oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) who initiated BI or GLP-1 RA therapy.

METHODS

Patients with T2D aged ≥ 18 years initiating BI or GLP-1 RA therapy following treatment with OADs were selected from real-world data (RWD) retrieved from a large electronic medical record database in Japan, using data from 01 January 2010 to 30 June 2019. Patients were required to have glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 7% within 90 days prior to the first prescription of BI or GLP-1 RA. The probability of reaching first HbA1c < 7% was assessed over a 24-month period in cohorts of patients who initiated BI (n = 3477) or GLP-1 RA (n = 780) and in subcohorts by number of OADs at baseline (1, 2, or ≥ 3), HbA1c at baseline (≥ 7 to < 8%, ≥ 8 to < 9%, or ≥ 9%), and age (< 65 or ≥ 65 years).

RESULTS

Mean (standard deviation) baseline HbA1c was 9.4% (1.8%) and 8.8% (1.4%) in patients initiating BI or GLP-1 RA therapy, respectively. The cumulative probability of achieving glycemic control was 50.1% with BI and 60.3% with GLP-1 RA therapy, respectively, at 12 months, and 60.8% and 66.6%, respectively, at 24 months. Quarterly (3-month intervals) conditional probabilities of achieving glycemic control decreased over time and were < 10% after 12 months. Patients with more OADs or higher HbA1c at baseline had a lower probability of achieving glycemic control.

CONCLUSION

Among Japanese patients with T2D who initiated BI or GLP-1 RA therapy after treatment with OADs, the probability of reaching first glycemic control diminished over time. Further therapy intensification is warranted in patients who do not achieve glycemic control within 6-12 months with BI or GLP-1 RA, particularly those with high HbA1c or taking multiple OADs.

Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec U100 and insulin glargine U100 in combination with meal-time bolus insulin in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes: an open-label, randomized controlled study

The short-term efficacy and safety of insulin degludec U100 (IDeg) in patients with type 2 diabetes have not been reported widely. We compared insulin IDeg and insulin glargine U100 (IGla) for glycemic control and glucose variability in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. In an open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial, 74 patients were randomly assigned to either the IDeg (36 patients) or IGla (38 patients) group and were administered with basal-bolus therapy during hospitalization. Following the start of the treatment, on day 11, glucose variability was assessed by continuous glucose monitoring. A fasting blood glucose level of 110 mg/dL and 2-hour postprandial blood glucose level of 180 mg/dL throughout at least one day during the observation period were achieved in 31.3% (10/32) and 30.6% (11/36) of the patients in the IDeg and IGla groups, respectively. The 6-point self-monitoring of blood glucose profiles showed a significant difference between the two groups. On day 7, the intra-day variation was larger in the IDeg group than in the IGla group. The incidence of hypoglycemia or glucose variability was comparable in the two groups. This study suggests that short-term efficacy and safety of IDeg and IGla in patients with type 2 diabetes during the initial phase of basal-bolus therapy were comparable, and these results can help in deciding which treatment to opt for.

Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec in Thai Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Real-World Evidence From a Specialized Diabetes Center

Background Insulin degludec, an ultra-long-acting insulin analogue, has been available in Thailand since October 2016. Although clinical trial results revealed less hypoglycemia, data from real-world settings is limited especially in Asian patients. This study aimed to evaluate prospectively the real-world effectiveness, safety, quality of life (QOL) and patient satisfaction with insulin degludec among Thai patients with diabetes mellitus (DM).

Methods From October 2016 to September 2017, all patients who had started insulin degludec for at least 3 months were observed and evaluated at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. QOL was assessed using WHOQOL-BREF-THAI and level of satisfaction was measured by 7-point Likert scale. Glycemic fluctuation from paired iPro2 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) obtained 4–6 weeks apart were also evaluated from a subset of patients with T1DM who switched from insulin glargine to insulin degludec.

Results A total of 55 patients (T2DM 76.4%, females 54.5%, mean age 57.1±16.1 years, duration of diabetes 16.7±8.8 years, BMI 27.3±5.5 kg/m ² , baseline A1C 9.3±2.3%, median duration of treatment 8 months) were included in the study. In T1DM patients (n=13), the overall mean A1C reduction at 12 months was 0.5% with minimal weight gain of 0.9 kgs at 12 months. In T2DM patients (n=42), the overall mean A1C reduction at 12 months was 0.8% with minimal weight loss of 0.4 kgs at 12 months. The proportion of T1DM patients who could achieve optimal glycemic control increased slightly from 14.3 to 18.2% but the proportion of T2DM patients who could achieve optimal glycemic control increased from 30.8 to 53.8%. Patient satisfaction showed a sustained improvement throughout the duration of study. In four T1DM patients who had paired CGM data, insulin degludec provided greater reductions in glycemic variability endpoints with increased time-in-range when compared with previous insulin glargine.

Discussion Our data suggested that the effectiveness of insulin degludec was consistent with the results seen in clinical trials with lower risk of patients-reported hypoglycemia, and a significant improvement in glycemic control. Patients also reported higher treatment satisfaction. More long-term and cost-effectiveness data are needed to establish the role of this ultra-long-acting insulin in real-world settings.

Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Insulin Glargine 100 U/mL Versus Insulin Degludec for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in China

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the efficacy and safety as well as the long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (IGlar) versus insulin degludec (IDeg) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A systematic search of English and Chinese electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IGlar with IDeg for the treatment of T2DM was performed, followed by a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of IGlar versus IDeg. The CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and cost-effectiveness of IGlar versus IDeg. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the underlying parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The IGlar group showed a statistically significant decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) from baseline compared to the IDeg group (mean difference [MD] 0.08%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01-0.14%, P = 0.02). Body mass index (BMI) control was numerically better in the IGlar group than in the IDeg group (MD 0.07 kg/m², 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.14 kg/m², P  = 0.08). In terms of hypoglycemia, the incidence of non-severe overall hypoglycemia was comparable between the IDeg and IGlar patient groups (P  > 0.05), while the incidence of non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemia (relative risk [RR 0.79], 95% CI 0.70-0.90, P < 0.01) and the event rates of non-severe overall (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, P < 0.01) and non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, P < 0.01) were lower in the IDeg group. The incidences and event rates of both severe overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia were similar for the two groups (P  > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that IGlar is the dominant treatment option compared with IDeg, with a lifetime savings of 1004 Chinese yuan in direct medical costs and a net gain of 0.015 QALYs per patient. Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

IGlar is a cost-saving option with incremental effectiveness compared with IDeg for the treatment of T2DM in China.

FUNDING

Sanofi China.

Achieving Glycaemic Control with Concentrated Insulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

The recent introduction of the second-generation long-acting analogue insulins degludec and insulin glargine U300 have increased the choice of basal insulin therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of these insulins result in a flatter profile that lasts over 24 h and provides an increased window of administration of 6 h once daily. Large-scale multicentre randomised clinical trial programmes (BEGIN for degludec U100 and U200 and EDITION for glargine U300) evaluating these insulin therapies against glargine U100 have demonstrated that they are either non-inferior or superior for glycaemic efficacy and safety, but less likely to result in severe or nocturnal hypoglycaemia than glargine U100. The disposable pen devices for these insulins have been designed with patient satisfaction and convenience in mind. No concerns have arisen with adverse events with insulin analogues or cardiovascular safety from the ORIGIN and DEVOTE trials. As they demonstrate equivalent glycaemic efficacy to other basal insulins, they should be considered more in selected patient groups including those with recurrent or increased risk of hypoglycaemia, especially severe or nocturnal episodes, in the elderly or those living alone, and in patients with multiple co-morbidities such as cardiovascular or renal disease.

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

Hypoglycaemia is a common side-effect of diabetes therapies, particularly insulin, and imposes a substantial burden on individuals and healthcare systems. Consequently, regulatory approval of newer basal insulin (BI) therapies has relied on demonstration of a balance between achievement of good glycaemic control and less hypoglycaemia. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing efficacy and safety, including hypoglycaemia risk, of BIs and are invaluable for obtaining regulatory approval. However, their highly selected patient populations and their conditions lead to results that may not be representative of real-life situations. Real-world evidence (RWE) studies are more representative of clinical practice, but they also have limitations. As such, data both from RCTs and RWE studies provide a fuller picture of the hypoglycaemia risk with BI therapies. However, substantial differences exist in the way hypoglycaemia is reported across these studies, which confounds comparisons of hypoglycaemia frequency among different BIs. This problem is ongoing and persists in recent trials of second-generation BI analogues. Although they provide a lower risk of hypoglycaemia when compared with earlier BIs, they do not eliminate it. This review describes differences in the way hypoglycaemia is reported across RCTs and RWE studies of second-generation BI analogues and examines potential reasons for these differences. For studies of BIs, there is a need to standardize aspects of design, analysis and methods of reporting to better enable interpretation of the efficacy and safety of such insulins among studies; such aspects include length of follow-up, glycaemic targets, hypoglycaemia definitions and time intervals for determining nocturnal events.

Insulin Degludec, a Novel Ultra-Long-Acting Basal Insulin versus Insulin Glargine for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to compare insulin degludec with insulin glargine in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials published prior to 13 August 2018 (no language restrictions) which compared insulin degludec with insulin glargine. Our main endpoints were glycemic control, hypoglycemic event, weight gain, and serious adverse events (SAEs). We assessed pooled data using random-effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies that included 9619 patients in the insulin degludec arm of the studies and 7075 patients in the insulin glargine arm were identified and subsequently assessed. Our analysis showed that compared with insulin glargine, insulin degludec yielded an improved mean reduction in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (weighted mean difference [WMD] - 5.20 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 7.34, - 3.07, P < 0.00001) and a lower ratio of participants experiencing ≥ 1 severe   hypoglycemic event (relative risk [RR] 0.68, 95% CI 0.50, 0.93, P = 0.01) and nocturnal hypoglycemia (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75, 0.88, P < 0.0001); however, in the insulin degludec group there was a lower ratio of participants with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of ≤ 7.0%    (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86, 0.98, P = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups for HbA1c reduction (WMD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.00, 0.07, P = 0.08), body weight gain (WMD 0.12, 95% CI - 0.19, 0.43, P = 0.46), and proportion of participants with SAEs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92, 1.02, P = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin degludec and insulin glargine provide similar glycemic control, but insulin degludec also lowers the risk of hypoglycemia. Consequently, insulin degludec may be an alternative treatment for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes who are prone to hypoglycemia with insulin glargine.

Efficacy and safety of the second generation basal insulin analogs in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A critical appraisal

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a progressive disease, which requires insulin treatment when other management is no longer effective. Although, insulin plays a vital role in the treatment of diabetes, conventional basal insulins have certain limitations, which have led to the development of more stable and peak less analogues.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the efficacy and safety of second generation vs. first generation basal insulins, and the efficacy and safety of second generation vs. second generation basal insulins, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, from the evidence provided by head-to-head randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed and MEDLINE, Scopus, BIOSIS, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, and Springer Online Archives Collection, from January 1966 to October 2018. Articles resulting from these searches and relevant references cited in those articles were examined.

RESULTS

The efficacy among insulins evaluated was similar, however, second generation insulins cause a lower risk of hypoglycemia compared to first generation insulins. A single study showed similar metabolic control with subtle differences in the risk of hypoglycemia among second generation insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The second-generation basal insulins result in metabolic control similar to first generation insulins, with lower risk of hypoglycemia. Second-generation insulins have comparable efficacy, with some differences in the risk of hypoglycemia.

Appropriate Titration of Basal Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes and the Potential Role of the Pharmacist

A substantial proportion of patients with suboptimal control of their type 2 diabetes experience delays in treatment intensification. Additionally, patients often experience overuse of basal insulin, commonly referred to as "over-basalization," whereby basal insulin continues to be uptitrated in order to meet targets, when addition of a mealtime bolus insulin dose may be a more appropriate option. In order to overcome these challenges, there is a need to develop the capacity of allied healthcare professionals to provide appropriate support to these patients, such as during initiation or titration of basal insulin. Pharmacists play an integral role in healthcare delivery, with patients seeing their pharmacist, on average, seven times more often than their primary care physician. This places pharmacists in a unique position to provide diabetes education and care, which may help patients avoid clinical inertia. Nevertheless, the management of the disease with basal insulin is becoming increasingly complex, with growing numbers of treatment options (such as recent second-generation longer-acting basal insulin formulations) and frequently updated titration algorithms. The two most common titration schedules specify either increasing doses by a set amount every 2-3 days or a treat-to-target strategy. Neither schedule has been shown to be superior, and the decision to use one or the other should be based on a discussion between the clinician and patient after assessment of mental and physical acumen, comfort of both parties, and follow-up plans. This review article discusses basal insulin therapy options and titration algorithms from the unique perspective of the pharmacist in order to help ensure that optimal antidiabetes therapy is initiated, appropriately titrated, and maintained.Funding: Sanofi US, Inc.

Comparative effectiveness and harms of long-acting insulins for type 1 and type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To review evidence comparing benefits and harms of long-acting insulins in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes.

METHODS

MEDLINE and two Cochrane databases were searched during February 2018. Two authors selected studies meeting inclusion criteria and assessed their quality. Comparative studies of adult or paediatric patients with diabetes treated with insulin degludec, detemir or glargine were included. Meta-analysis was used to combine results of similar studies, and the I² statistic calculated to assess statistical heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of 2534 citations reviewed, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria. No statistically significant differences in HbA1c were seen between any two insulins or formulations. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than with glargine, including nocturnal hypoglycaemia in type 1 (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.81) and type 2 diabetes (rate ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.82), and severe hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes (relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.96). Patients with type 2 diabetes had higher rates of withdrawal because of adverse events when treated with detemir compared with glargine (relative risk 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.3). Adults taking detemir gained about 1 kg less body weight than those taking degludec (type 1) or glargine (type 2).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in glycaemic control were seen between insulin degludec, detemir and glargine. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than glargine, and patients taking detemir gained less body weight than those given degludec or glargine. In type 2 diabetes, withdrawals as a result of adverse events were more probable with detemir than glargine.

Efficacy and Safety of IDegAsp Versus BIAsp 30, Both Twice Daily, in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Post Hoc Analysis of Two Phase 3 Randomized Controlled BOOST Trials

INTRODUCTION

The majority of elderly patients (≥ 65 years of age) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) will eventually require insulin therapy, but they are particularly vulnerable to hypoglycemia and challenging to treat. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a novel co-formulation of 70% insulin degludec and 30% insulin aspart administered in a single injection, either once or twice daily with main meals.

METHODS

A combined analysis of the phase 3 BOOST INTENSIFY PREMIX I (NCT01009580) and BOOST INTENSIFY ALL (NCT01059812) trials has previously reported lower rates of hypoglycemia during the maintenance period in patients with T2DM treated with IDegAsp twice daily (BID) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) BID. This post hoc analysis examined the safety and efficacy of IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 in elderly patients from the global population of these two trials, and also from the Japanese cohort of BOOST INTENSIFY ALL.

RESULTS

Change in HbA_1c was similar for IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 (p > 0.5). Compared with BIAsp 30, IDegAsp resulted in significant reductions in fasting plasma glucose (p  < 0.0001), numerically lower rates of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia (global estimated rate ratios: 0.92 [0.67; 1.26]_{95% confidence interval [CI]}, p  = 0.5980 and 0.67 [0.39; 1.18]_{95% CI}, p  = 0.1676, respectively), and a significantly lower total daily insulin dose at end of trial (global estimated treatment difference 0.79 [0.73; 0.87]_{95% CI}, p  < 0.0001) in elderly patients.

CONCLUSION

The results described here are consistent with those of the overall trial populations, demonstrating that IDegAsp BID is efficacious in elderly patients and suggesting that there is no need for special safety precautions.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT01009580 and NCT01059812. Plain language summary available for this article.

Impact of Insulin Degludec in Type 2 Diabetes: Real-World Data on Effectiveness and Safety

INTRODUCTION

Real-world evidence on effectiveness and safety of insulin degludec (IDeg) in patients with diabetes is a priority. The aim of the study was to evaluate patterns of use and the long-term effectiveness and safety of IDeg in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This was an observational longitudinal study. A retrospective chart review of all patients with type 2 diabetes treated with IDeg was performed and temporal trends in clinical outcomes were assessed. All data was stratified by treatment modality: the switch group consisted of patients already treated with another basal insulin before initiating IDeg; the add-on group consisted of basal insulin-naïve patients.

RESULTS

Overall, 247 patients were analyzed (55 in the add-on group and 192 in the switch group), mean age 67.0 ± 10.9 years ,and diabetes duration 16.3 ± 8.9 years. Median (interquartile range) follow-up was 9.7 (8.0-11.9) months. In the add-on group, improvements were found in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (- 1.68%; p < 0.0001), fasting blood glucose (FBG) (- 64.7 mg/dL; p < 0.0001), post-prandial glucose (PPG) (- 81.1 mg/dl; p < 0.0001), and glycemic variability (i.e., standard deviation of blood glucose) (- 11.6 mg/dl; p = 0.04). Even in the switch group, improvements were found in HbA1c (- 0.57%; p < 0.0001), FBG (- 28.1 mg/dL; p < 0.0001), and PPG (- 22.6 mg/dl; p = 0.001). Body weight increase during the follow-up was not statistically significant vs. baseline in both groups. Benefits on overall, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemia were found in the switch group.

CONCLUSION

These real-world data documented that initiating IDeg or switching to IDeg from other basal insulins in type 2 diabetes was associated with significant improvement in metabolic control without significant weight gain; a decrease in the risk of hypoglycemia was observed when switching to IDeg from another basal insulin.

The co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart lowers fasting plasma glucose and rates of confirmed and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, independent of baseline glycated haemoglobin levels, disease duration or body mass index: A pooled meta-analysis of phase III studies in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate whether the proven benefits of insulin degludec (IDeg) combined with insulin aspart (IAsp), known as IDegAsp, given twice daily, extend across a wide spectrum of patients with diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a post hoc pooled analysis of 5 phase III randomized, 26-week, open-label, treat-to-target trials comparing IDegAsp twice daily (n = 1111) with one of two comparators: premixed insulin (biphasic insulin aspart 30 [BIAsp 30]) twice daily (n = 561) or IDeg once daily + IAsp (n = 136). Patient data were stratified according to baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) categories, as well as by baseline duration of diabetes or body mass index (BMI) categories.

RESULTS

We conducted a meta-analysis of 5 clinical trials: NCT01513590, NCT01009580, NCT01059812, NCT01680341 and NCT01713530. End-of-trial results were broadly consistent, with differences between IDegAsp and comparators observed in phase III trials. HbA1c results were similar for IDegAsp and the comparators in all baseline characteristic (HbA1c, duration of diabetes or BMI) and category groups (number ranges). Significantly lower FPG level was observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline characteristic and most category groups (excluding FPG <5.5 mmol/L). Significantly lower insulin doses were observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline characteristic and half of the category groups, and significantly lower rates of confirmed and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia were observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline variable and category groups.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp retains a consistent safety and efficacy profile in patients with different baseline characteristics.

Comparative usability study of the dulaglutide single-use pen versus the insulin degludec FlexTouch® among self-injection-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japan

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed training time with the dulaglutide single-use pen (SUP) and the insulin degludec disposable prefilled pen (FlexTouch^®) in self-injection-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan.

METHODS

This multi-center, open-label, comparative, crossover study measured training time with the dulaglutide SUP vs FlexTouch^®. Participants learned how to use both devices in a randomly assigned order. Healthcare providers (HCP) conducted the training. The primary end-point was the time required to train self-injection-naïve T2DM participants to self-inject correctly using each device. Secondary end-points included performance measures, such as success and error rates, patient perceptions related to ease-of-use, and factors associated with training time and performance.

RESULTS

Overall, 48 participants were randomized and completed the study. The mean training time to achieve correct administration was significantly shorter with the dulaglutide SUP vs FlexTouch^® (7.4 min vs 19.7 min, p < .001). The proportions of participants who successfully completed the mock injection without error were similar for both devices. Ninety-two percent (44/48) of participants reported that the dulaglutide SUP was easier to use than FlexTouch^®.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, participants required a shorter training time to achieve correct administration with the dulaglutide SUP, and had a higher preference for the dulaglutide SUP, when compared to FlexTouch^®. These data suggest that the dulaglutide SUP is easy-to-use, which may decrease the burden on HCPs to train diabetic patients how to administer injection therapy and reduce patient injection hurdles, such as needle fear.

Comparative safety and efficacy of insulin degludec with insulin glargine in type 2 and type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To determine the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec versus glargine in patients with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

Databases were searched until July 5, 2017. We included randomized controlled trials comparing degludec with glargine in diabetic patients, each with a minimum of 16 weeks of follow-up.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials with 16,791 patients were included. Degludec was associated with a statistically significant reduction in risk for all confirmed hypoglycemia at the maintenance treatment period [estimated rate ratio (ERR) 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72‒0.92; P = 0.001], nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia at the entire (ERR 0.71; 95% CI 0.63‒0.80; P < 0.001) and maintenance treatment period (ERR 0.65; 95% CI 0.59‒0.71; P < 0.001), all irrespective of the pooled diabetic populations and follow-up durations. The differences in the rate of hypoglycemia were more pronounced in nocturnal period and maintenance period and in T2D than T1D patients. Degludec reduced the incidence of severe hypoglycemia in T2D [ERR 0.65; (0.52; 0.89); P = 0.005] but not T1D patients. HbA1c concentration was slightly higher in degludec over glargine but was not clinically relevant [estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.03; 95% CI - 0.00 to 0.06%; P = 0.06]. Fasting plasma glucose level was lower in degludec-treated patients (ETD - 0.28 mmol/L; 95% CI - 0.44 to - 0.11 mmol/L; P = 0.001). Several subgroup analyses showed largely consistent findings. The rates of adverse events including total mortality and cardiovascular events were not significantly different between two treatment strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin degludec appears to have better safety in reducing hypoglycemic events with similar efficacy compared with insulin glargine.

Insulin Matters: A Practical Approach to Basal Insulin Management in Type 2 Diabetes

It is currently estimated that 11 million Canadians are living with diabetes or prediabetes. Although hyperglycemia is associated with serious complications, it is well established that improved glycemic control reduces the risk of microvascular complications and can also reduce cardiovascular (CV) complications over the long term. The UKPDS and ADVANCE landmark trials have resulted in diabetes guidelines recommending an A1C target of ≤ 7.0% for most patients or a target of ≤ 6.5% to further reduce the risk of nephropathy and retinopathy in those with type 2 diabetes (T2D), if it can be achieved safely. However, half of the people with T2D in Canada are not achieving these glycemic targets, despite advances in diabetes pharmacological management. There are many contributing factors to account for this poor outcome; however, one of the major factors is the delay in treatment advancement, particularly a resistance to insulin initiation and intensification. To simplify the process of initiating and titrating insulin in T2D patients, a group of Canadian experts reviewed the evidence and best clinical practices with the goal of providing guidance and practical recommendations to the diabetes healthcare community at large. This expert panel included general practitioners (GPs), nurses, nurse practitioners, endocrinologists, dieticians, pharmacists, and a psychologist. This article summarizes the panel recommendations.

Clinical perspectives from the BEGIN and EDITION programmes: Trial-level meta-analyses outcomes with either degludec or glargine 300U/mL vs glargine 100U/mL in T2DM

AIMS

To explore comparative glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia incidence with insulin degludec 100U/mL (IDeg) or insulin glargine 300U/mL (Gla-300) versus glargine 100U/mL (Gla-100) in trial-level meta-analyses of phase 3a clinical trials including people with type-2 diabetes.

METHODS

Meta-analyses of HbA_1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), average 24h self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG), pre-breakfast SMPG and hypoglycaemia incidence and rate, using data from the BEGIN (IDeg) and EDITION (Gla-300) insulin development programmes, were performed.

RESULTS

In BEGIN, despite greater FPG reduction with IDeg than Gla-100, HbA_1c reduction was greater with Gla-100 (mean difference [95% CI] in HbA_1c change: 0.09 [0.01-0.18] %) whereas in EDITION, there was no difference in FPG and HbA_1c reduction between Gla-300 and Gla-100. Risk of nocturnal confirmed (<3.1mmol/L [<56mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia, but not anytime (24h) events, was lower with IDeg than Gla-100 (relative risk [RR] 0.79 [0.66-0.94]) whereas Gla-300 was associated with reduced risk of nocturnal (RR 0.75 [0.61-0.92]) and anytime (24h) (RR 0.81 [0.69-0.94]) confirmed (<3.0mmol/L [<54mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia versus Gla-100.

CONCLUSIONS

These trial-level meta-analyses suggest that despite greater reductions in FPG, IDeg was associated with less improvement in HbA_1c versus Gla-100, with a hypoglycaemia benefit only evident at night. In contrast, Gla-300 showed similar HbA_1c reduction to Gla-100, accompanied by lower risk of hypoglycaemia both at night and at any time of day. Gla-300 and IDeg appear more similar than dissimilar, but head-to-head trials are required.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec versus Insulin Glargine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Fifteen Clinical Trials

AIMS

Insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine (IGlar) are both proved to be effective in diabetes. This study aimed to assess the effects and safety of IDeg versus IGlar.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs were identified. The combined data showed that the decrease in the glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level was slightly different, and the proportion of patients who achieved HbA1c < 7% was similar between the IDeg and IGlar groups. Further, a statistically significant decrease in the fasting plasma glucose level was observed in the IDeg group as compared to the IGlar group. In patients with T2DM, IDeg was associated with lower rates of overall hypoglycemia. Nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly lower in the case of IDeg than in the case of IGlar in both T1DM and T2DM patients. No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with IGlar, IDeg is associated with equivalent glycemic control and a statistically significantly lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia in patients with T1DM and T2DM. In T2DM patients, IDeg also provides better results in terms of overall hypoglycemia.

Open-label, randomized study comparing basal insulin peglispro and insulin glargine, in combination with oral antihyperglycemic medications, in insulin-naïve Asian patients with type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The present phase 3, randomized, open-label study compared the efficacy and safety of basal insulin peglispro with insulin glargine after 26 weeks of treatment when added to oral antihyperglycemic medications in insulin-naïve Asian patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of the change in glycated hemoglobin from baseline to 26 weeks.

RESULTS

At 26 weeks, insulin peglispro was non-inferior to glargine, meeting the primary objective. Patients receiving insulin peglispro (n = 192) showed a greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin from baseline compared with glargine (n = 196); -1.6 vs -1.4%, P = 0.005) and in fasting serum glucose (-61.2 vs -54.8 mg/dL, P = 0.02). A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving insulin peglispro achieved glycated hemoglobin <7% (57 vs 44%, P = 0.012). Insulin peglispro patients showed significantly less weight gain from baseline (1.1 vs 1.6 kg, P = 0.03). Relative rates (insulin peglispro/glargine) of total and nocturnal hypoglycemia through 26 weeks were 1.06 (P = 0.67) and 0.7 (P = 0.10), respectively. Significantly more insulin peglispro-treated patients experienced adverse events compared with glargine-treated patients (P = 0.042). Alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase were significantly increased from baseline with insulin peglispro compared with glargine at week 26 (3.5 vs -4.6 IU/L and 2.8 vs -1.5 IU/L, respectively; P < 0.001). The incidence of injection site reactions was low and did not differ between the treatments.

DISCUSSION

Insulin peglispro provided better glycemic control vs glargine with no differences in hypoglycemia and increased aminotransferases in insulin-naïve Asian patients with type 2 diabetes.

Challenges and unmet needs in basal insulin therapy: lessons from the Asian experience

Basal insulin therapy can improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes. However, timely initiation, optimal titration, and proper adherence to prescribed basal insulin regimens are necessary to achieve optimal glycemic control. Even so, glycemic control may remain suboptimal in a significant proportion of patients. Unique circumstances in Asia (eg, limited resources, management of diabetes primarily in nonspecialist settings, and patient populations that are predominantly less educated) coupled with the limitations of current basal insulin options (eg, risk of hypoglycemia and dosing time inflexibility) amplify the challenge of optimal basal insulin therapy in Asia. Significant progress has been made with long-acting insulin analogs (insulin glargine 100 units/mL and insulin detemir), which provide longer coverage and less risk of hypoglycemia over intermediate-acting insulin (Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin). Furthermore, recent clinical evidence suggests that newer long-acting insulin analogs, new insulin glargine 300 units/mL and insulin degludec, may address some of the unmet needs of current basal insulin options in terms of risk of hypoglycemia and dosing time inflexibility. Nevertheless, more can be done to overcome barriers to basal insulin therapy in Asia, through educating both patients and physicians, developing better patient support models, and improving accessibility to long-acting insulin analogs. In this study, we highlight the unique challenges associated with basal insulin therapy in Asia and, where possible, propose strategies to address the unmet needs by drawing on clinical experiences and perspectives in Asia.

Effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine on glycemic control and daily fasting blood glucose variability in insulin-naïve Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: I'D GOT trial

AIMS

Insulin degludec (IDeg) is an ultra-long-acting insulin that has a smooth time/action profile over more than 42h. The present study compared the effects of IDeg and insulin glargine (IGlar) on HbA1c reduction and on within-subject day-to-day variability of fasting blood glucose (FBG) in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients were randomly allocated at a 3:1 ratio to receive once-daily IDeg (n=31) or IGlar (n=12). Both basal insulins were administered before breakfast and titrated to achieve a target FBG <110mg/dl. The primary endpoints were the change in HbA1c from baseline to 24weeks of treatment, as well as the standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) of FBG from 8 to 12weeks and from 20 to 24weeks. Secondary endpoints included the QOL evaluated by the Diabetes Therapy-Related QOL questionnaire.

RESULTS

After 24weeks, HbA1c was decreased by 1.6% in the IDeg group and 1.7% in the IGlar at the same insulin dosage. At 24weeks, FBG was significantly lower in the IDeg group than in the IGlar group and the CV of FBG was significantly smaller in the IDeg group. The frequency of total and severe hypoglycemic episodes did not differ between the groups. In the IDeg group, QOL showed significant improvement regarding anxiety and dissatisfaction with treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with IDeg or IGlar achieved similar improvement in glycemic control in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. The day-to-day variation of FBG was smaller in patients receiving IDeg.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine u100 for the management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus - from the Spanish National Health System perspective

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine, from the Spanish NHS in three groups of patients.

METHODS

A short-term cost utility model was developed to estimate effectiveness results in terms of the total number of hypoglycaemic events and their disutility impact throughout the year on the initial level of quality of life for patients in each treatment.

RESULTS

Degludec was the dominant strategy for T2DM BOT and exhibited an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 52.70€/QALY and 11,240.88€/QALY for T1DM B/B and T2DM B/B, respectively. Lower costs are primarily driven by lower nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemic events, which were reduced versus IGlar. Improvements in clinical outcomes in all three patient groups are result of the reduced number of hypoglycaemic events showing 0.0211, 0.0328 and 0.0248 QALYs gained when compared to IGlar for T1DM B/B, T2DM BOT and T2DM B/B, respectively. Different scenario analyses showed that the ICERS were stable to plausible variations in the analysed parameters, except when the same number of SMBG for both treatments is used, with T2DM B/B showing an ICER over the accepted threshold.

CONCLUSION

This analysis demonstrates that degludec is a cost-effective option in the Spanish NHS, when used in patients currently treated with long-acting insulin.

Real-life experience of patients starting insulin degludec. A multicenter analysis of 1064 subjects from the German/Austrian DPV registry

BACKGROUND

The long-acting insulin analogue degludec is a therapeutic option for patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Aim of this analysis was to investigate differences in clinical characteristics of patients before and after initiating degludec use in a cohort of German/Austrian patients.

METHODS

1064 subjects with T1D/T2D and documented degludec use from the Diabetes-Patient-Follow-Up (DPV) registry were included. The follow-up cohort (n=421) comprised patients with available data before and 3-15months after switching to degludec. A t-test for paired values was implemented to compare rates of severe hypoglycaemia, and mean values for HbA_1C, BMI, basal insulin dose/kg bodyweight/day, and the number of basal insulin injections/day before and after switching to degludec Results were stratified by type of diabetes. In T1D, subgroup analyses were conducted (age, sex, basal insulin used before switching). P<0.05 was considered significant.

FINDINGS

In T1D (n=360), basal insulin dose (0.43±0.17 to 0.38±0.13IU) and the number of basal injections/day (1.7±0.6 to 1.1±0.3) decreased whereas BMI increased from 23.2±4.8 to 24.0±5.0kg/m² (all p<0.0001) after switching to degludec. No significant changes were observed regarding rates of severe hypoglycaemia or HbA_1C-values. Findings were comparable for subgroups. In T2D (n=61), basal insulin dose (0.41±0.23 to 0.38±0.21; p=0.1730) and the number of basal injections/day (1.3±0.4 to 1.1±0.3; p=0.0097) decreased after switching to degludec. HbA_1C improved from 7.9±1.6 to 7.1±1.5% (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The DPV registry provides data from real-life diabetes care. Our analysis predominantly confirmed results from clinical trials and provides additional information complementing the clinical study program of degludec.

Basal and Bolus Insulin Dose Changes after Switching Basal Insulin to Insulin Degludec in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Ultra-long-acting insulin degludec (DEG) has a longer duration of action and less daily variability relative to other basal insulin (BI), and thus may benefit patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). We examined the impact of switching BI to DEG on glycemic control and insulin dose in T1DM.

METHODS

T1DM patients (n = 22; six male; mean age: 64.5 ± 12.6 years) receiving basal-bolus insulin therapy were included. Initially, the BI dose was replaced with DEG in a 1:1 ratio; 80-100% of the total dose was replaced with DEG for multiple basal insulin injections. DEG was titrated according to study protocol. Changes in HbA1c, daily insulin dose, glycemic self-monitored blood glucose variations, and hypoglycemia frequency were evaluated for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Once-daily DEG significantly decreased HbA1c levels when switched from once-daily BI (7.9 ± 0.8 vs. 7.5 ± 0.9%, p = 0.020) and maintained HbA1c when switched from twice-daily BI (8.5 ± 1.6 vs. 8.4 ± 1.2%, p = 0.457). The BI dose decreased by -7.8 ± 13.9% (p = 0.017) and -16.6 ± 16.9% (p = 0.050) when switched from once-daily BI and twice-daily BI, respectively. The total bolus insulin dose significantly decreased when switched from once-daily BI (21.7 ± 8.3 to 19.3 ± 8.8 U/day, p = 0.016) especially in the injection before breakfast and evening meal. Body weight and hypoglycemia frequency was not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

DEG improved glycemic control when switched from once-daily BI and maintained glycemic control when switched from twice-daily BI without increasing hypoglycemia.

A Multinational, Randomized, Open-label, Treat-to-Target Trial Comparing Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine in Insulin-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Introduction

To lower the barrier for initiating insulin treatment and obtain adequate glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), new basal insulin preparations with improved pharmacological properties and consequently a lower risk of hypoglycemia are needed. The objective of this trial was to confirm the efficacy and compare the safety of insulin degludec (IDeg) with insulin glargine (IGlar) in a multinational setting with two thirds of subjects enrolled in China.

Methods

This was a 26-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial in 833 subjects with T2DM (48 % were female, mean age 56 years, diabetes duration 8 years), inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Subjects were randomized 2:1 to once-daily IDeg (555 subjects) or IGlar (278 subjects), both with metformin. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) after 26 weeks.

Results

The completion rate was high (IDeg 94.2 %; IGlar 91.4 %). Mean HbA_1c decreased from 8.3 to 7.0 % in both groups. Estimated treatment difference (ETD) [95 % confidence interval (CI)] IDeg-IGlar in change from baseline was −0.05 % points [−0.18 to 0.08], confirming the non-inferiority of IDeg to IGlar. The proportion of subjects achieving HbA_1c <7.0 % was 54.2 and 51.4 % with IDeg and IGlar, respectively (estimated odds ratio [95 % CI] IDeg/IGlar: 1.14 [0.84 to 1.54]). The mean decrease in fasting plasma glucose, self-measured plasma glucose profiles, and insulin dose were similar between groups. Numerically lower rates of overall (estimated rate ratio [95 % CI] IDeg/IGlar: 0.80 [0.59 to 1.10]) and nocturnal (0.77 [0.43 to 1.37]) confirmed hypoglycemia were observed with IDeg compared with IGlar. No treatment differences in other safety parameters were found. Subjects were more satisfied with the IDeg device compared with the IGlar device as reflected by the total Treatment Related Impact Measures-Diabetes Device score (ETD [95 % CI] IDeg-IGlar: 2.2 [0.2 to 4.3]).

Conclusion

IDeg provided adequate glycemic control non-inferior to IGlar and a tendency for a lower hypoglycemia rate. IDeg is considered suitable for initiating insulin therapy in T2DM patients on OADs requiring intensified treatment.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01849289.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40268-016-0134-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Insulin Degludec 200 Units/mL Is Associated With Lower Injection Frequency and Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared With Insulin Glargine 100 Units/mL in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Requiring High-Dose Insulin

IN BRIEF Many patients with type 2 diabetes require high basal insulin doses, necessitating multiple injections, increasing patient burden, and resulting in reduced treatment adherence. This randomized, controlled, crossover trial compared the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes for a concentrated formulation of insulin degludec (200 units/mL) to those of insulin glargine in patients requiring high doses of basal insulin. By offering equivalent glycemic control while reducing the rate of confirmed hypoglycemia and the number of injections required for administration, insulin degludec 200 units/mL may be preferred by patients with type 2 diabetes who require high basal insulin doses.

Budget impact of treating commercially insured type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in the United States with insulin degludec compared to insulin glargine

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the annual budget impact if all US commercially insured type 1 diabetes mellitus patients on basal-bolus therapy (T1DM_BBT), type 2 diabetes mellitus patients on basal-oral therapy (T2DM_BOT), and type 2 diabetes mellitus patients on basal-bolus therapy (T2DM_BBT) switched from insulin glargine (IGlar) to insulin degludec (IDeg).

METHODS

A short-term (1 year) budget impact model was developed to evaluate the costs of IDeg vs. IGlar in three treatment groups (T1DM_BBT, insulin-naïve T2DM_BOT, and T2DM_BBT) through a simulation for a potential US health plan population of 35 million. The analysis captured direct medical costs associated with insulin treatment (insulin, needles, and self-monitored glucose testing) and costs related to managing hypoglycemic episodes. There were a total of 59,780 T1DM_BBT patients, 383,145 T2DM_BOT patients, and 171,325 T2DM_BBT patients expected to be using long-acting insulin. A sensitivity analysis on the entire US population was also conducted.

RESULTS

Among T1DM_BBT patients, IDeg was associated with an annual cost savings of -$357.13 per patient per year (PPPY), driven primarily by reduced insulin utilization. IDeg was also found to be cost saving among T2DM_BOT patients (-$1206.61 PPPY), driven primarily by reductions in the cost of treating severe hypoglycemic episodes. Among T2DM_BBT patients, IDeg was associated with an additional cost to the plan of $1420.04 PPPY; however, this result was driven by a higher insulin dose for IDeg compared to IGlar. Overall, IDeg demonstrated cost savings of $240 million per year, which accounted for total cost savings of 3.5% vs. IGlar.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this analysis suggest that the reduced insulin utilization and fewer hypoglycemic episodes associated with IDeg may translate into reduced costs for payers. The model is limited by simplification of a complex disease state and assumptions surrounding disease state, treatment patterns, and costs. Therefore, results may not accurately reflect actual health plans or real-world practice patterns.

Insulin Degludec in Clinical Practice: A Review of Japanese Real-World Data

INTRODUCTION

In this literature review we evaluated the real-world clinical effectiveness of switching Japanese diabetic patients from their current insulin regimen to insulin degludec (IDeg).

METHODS

Studies were identified from Japanese Diabetes Society (JDS) abstracts (2014-2015) and PubMed (2012 onwards). Inclusion criteria were: Japanese population, >15 participants, and studies switching patients from basal or basal-bolus insulin regimens to IDeg. Randomized controlled trials and case reports were excluded. Weighted mean changes in safety and effectiveness endpoints were calculated using the number of patients in each study.

RESULTS

In total, 81 JDS abstracts and seven manuscripts met the search criteria, representing 4238 patients [1028 with type 1 diabetes (T1D), 602 with type 2 diabetes (T2D), 2608 with unspecified or mixed diabetes]. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) was reported in 93% of studies, with an improvement in 84% of these (51% significant, 33% numerical), no change in 12%, and worsening in 4% (3% numerical, 1% significant). Across all studies, the weighted mean absolute change in HbA_1c was -0.3% (-2.7 mmol/mol). Basal insulin dose was reported in 58% of studies and was lower in 60% of these (30% significant, 30% numerical), numerically unchanged in 26%, and higher in 14% (2% significant, 12% numerical). The weighted mean change in basal insulin dose was -4.8% and -3.0% for all studies and for studies with only significant results, respectively. The weighted mean change in basal dose based on all studies was -8.9, -5.5, and -2.9% for the T1D, T2D, and unspecified patient populations, respectively. Hypoglycemia was recorded in 31% of the studies. After switching treatment to IDeg, 55% of studies reported decreased hypoglycemia, 29% no change, and 16% an increase. Quality of life (QoL) was measured in 11% of studies, of which 82% reported improved QoL after switching, and 18% reported no change in QoL.

CONCLUSION

Switching from a conventional basal insulin to IDeg has the potential to improve HbA_1c with a lower insulin dose. Switching to IDeg may also provide a reduced risk of hypoglycemia and improvement in QoL.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Safety and efficacy of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) added to sulphonylurea alone or to sulphonylurea and metformin in insulin-naïve people with Type 2 diabetes: the DUAL IV trial

AIM

To investigate the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira), a novel combination product, as add-on therapy for people with Type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on sulphonylurea therapy.

METHODS

In this 26-week, double-blind trial, adults with Type 2 diabetes [HbA_1c 53-75 mmol/mol (7.0-9.0%)] were randomized to IDegLira (n = 289) or placebo (n = 146) as add-on to pre-trial sulphonylurea ± metformin, titrating to a fasting glycaemic target of 4.0-6.0 mmol/l. Treatment initiation was at 10 dose steps, and maximum dose was 50 dose steps (50 units insulin degludec/1.8 mg liraglutide).

RESULTS

The mean HbA_1c decreased from 63 mmol/mol (7.9%) to 46 mmol/mol (6.4%) with IDegLira and to 57 mmol/mol (7.4%) with placebo [estimated treatment difference -11 mmol/mol (95% CI -13; -10) or -1.02% (95% CI -1.18; -0.87); P < 0.001]. The HbA_1c target of 53 mmol/mol (<7%) was achieved by 79.2% of participants in the IDegLira group vs 28.8% in the placebo group [estimated odds ratio 11.95 (95% CI 7.22; 19.77); P < 0.001]. Mean weight change was +0.5 kg with IDegLira vs -1.0 kg with placebo [estimated treatment difference 1.48 kg (95% CI 0.90; 2.06); P < 0.001]. Confirmed hypoglycaemia occurred in 41.7 and 17.1% of IDegLira- and placebo-treated participants, respectively, with rates of 3.5 vs 1.4 events/patient-years of exposure [estimated rate ratio 3.74 (95% CI 2.28; 6.13); P < 0.001]. IDegLira was generally well tolerated. The rates of serious adverse events were 20.3 and 8.0 per 100 patient-years of exposure with IDegLira and placebo, respectively, without obvious patterns in the type of events.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegLira can be used in people uncontrolled with sulphonylurea ± metformin to improve efficacy with a safety profile in line with previous DUAL trials.

Insulin degludec in a simple or stepwise titration algorithm in a Japanese population of patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, 26-week, treat-to-target trial

Aims

Managing insulin therapy is a challenge for both patients and healthcare providers.The primary aim of this trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec (IDeg) in a fixed versus flexible dosing schedule. The secondary aim and subject of this manuscript was to compare a simple versus a stepwise titration algorithm.

Materials and methods

This was a 26-week, controlled, multicenter, open-label, randomized, treat-to-target phase 3b trial of Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately treated with insulin glargine and with/without antidiabetic drugs orally. The trial had a 2 × 2 factorial design whereby 458 patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to one of two titration algorithms and one of two dosing schedules. IDeg dose was adjusted weekly using a clinician-led, treat-to-target approach in order to ensure optimal insulin titration and glycemic control following self-measured blood glucose (SMBG) readings.

Results

Mean insulin dose at the end of the trial was similar in both simple and stepwise titration algorithms. Glycemic control improved in both titration algorithms, with noninferiority in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) reduction confirmed when comparing simple and stepwise titration algorithms and no significant differences in fasting plasma glucose or SMBG at 26 weeks. No safety concerns were observed in terms of adverse events, and rates of hypoglycemia were not significantly different between the two algorithms.

Conclusions

This trial demonstrated comparable efficacy with noninferior HbA_1c and comparable safety of once-daily IDeg using either a simple or stepwise titration algorithm in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with insulin glargine.

Effect of adding insulin degludec to treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and liraglutide: a double-blind randomized controlled trial (BEGIN: ADD TO GLP-1 Study)

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding insulin degludec (IDeg) to treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving liraglutide and metformin and qualifying for treatment intensification because of inadequate glycaemic control.

METHODS

In this 26-week, double-blind trial, patients who still had inadequate glycaemic control after a 15-week run-in period with initiation and dose escalation of liraglutide to 1.8 mg in combination with metformin (≥1500 mg) were randomized to addition of once-daily IDeg ('IDeg add-on to liraglutide' arm; n = 174) or placebo ('placebo add-on to liraglutide' arm; n = 172), with dosing of both IDeg and placebo based on titration guidelines.

RESULTS

At 26 weeks, the mean change in glycated haemoglobin level was greater in the IDeg add-on to liraglutide arm (-1.04%) than in the placebo add-on to liraglutide arm (-0.16%; p < 0.0001). Similarly, the mean fasting plasma glucose reduction was greater, and self-measured plasma glucose values were lower at all eight time points, with IDeg add-on versus placebo add-on (both p < 0.0001). At 26 weeks, the IDeg dose was 51 U (0.54 U/kg). During the run-in period with liraglutide, body weight decreased by ∼3 kg in both groups. After 26 weeks, the mean change was +2.0 kg (IDeg add-on to liraglutide) and -1.3 kg (placebo add-on to liraglutide). Confirmed hypoglycaemia rates were low in both groups, although higher with IDeg than with placebo (0.57 vs. 0.12 episodes/patient-years of exposure; p = 0.0002). Nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia was infrequent in both groups, with no episodes of severe hypoglycaemia, and no marked differences in adverse events with either treatment approach.

CONCLUSION

The addition of liraglutide and IDeg to patients sub-optimally treated with metformin and liraglutide and requiring treatment intensification was found to be effective and well-tolerated.