Smart Pen Exposes Missed Basal Insulin Injections and Reveals the Impact on Glycemic Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

Connected Pens or Smart Pens: Technology Needs Context

Subcutaneous insulin administration has come a long way; pens that are connected to smartphones/cloud enable data transfer about insulin dosing. The usage of detailed dosing information in a smart way can support the optimization of insulin therapy in many ways. This review discusses terminology aspects that are relevant to the optimal usage of this novel option for insulin administration. Taking such aspects into account might also be crucial to improving the uptake of these medical products. In contrast to systems for automated insulin delivery, people with diabetes have to administer the insulin dose themselves; the technology can only support them. Combining smart pens with systems for continuous glucose monitoring provides solutions that are close to an automated solution, but are more discrete and associated with lower costs.

Time above range and no coefficient of variation is associated with diabetic retinopathy in individuals with type 1 diabetes and glycated hemoglobin within target

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate the association between glucose metrics and diabetic retinopathy in type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients using flash continuous glucose monitoring (FGM) systems, including those maintaining glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) within the target range.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study involving 1070 T1D patients utilizing FGM systems. Data on clinical, anthropometric, and socioeconomic characteristics were collected and retinopathy was classified based on international standards.

RESULTS

Patients' mean age was 47.6 ± 15.0 years, with 49.4% of them being females. Within the cohort, 24.8% of patients presented some form of retinopathy. In the analysis involving the entire sample of subjects, male gender (OR = 1.51, p = 0.027), Time Above Range (TAR) > 250 mg/dL (OR = 1.07, p = 0.025), duration of diabetes (OR = 1.09, p < 0.001), smoking (OR = 2.30, p < 0.001), and history of ischemic stroke (OR = 5.59, p = 0.025) were associated with diabetic retinopathy. No association was observed between the coefficient of variation and diabetic retinopathy (p = 0.934). In patients with HbA1c < 7%, the highest quartile of TAR > 250 was independently linked to diabetic retinopathy (OR = 8.32, p = 0.040), in addition to smoking (OR = 2.90, p = 0.031), duration of diabetes (OR = 1.09, p < 0.001), and hypertension (OR = 2.35, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

TAR > 250 mg/dL significantly emerges as a modifiable factor associated with diabetic retinopathy, even among those patients maintaining recommended HbA1c levels. Understanding glucose metrics is crucial for tailoring treatment strategies for T1D patients.

Association Between Treatment Adherence and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Outcomes in People With Diabetes Using Smart Insulin Pens in a Real-World Setting

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of insulin injection adherence, smart insulin pen engagement, and glycemic control using real-world data from 16 countries from adults self-administering basal insulin degludec and bolus insulin with a smart insulin pen (NovoPen 6 or NovoPen Echo Plus) alongside continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data were aggregated over 14-day periods. Treatment adherence was defined according to the number of missed basal and missed bolus insulin doses and smart pen engagement according to the number of days with data uploads.

RESULTS

Data from 3,945 adults, including 25,157 14-day periods with ≥70% CGM coverage, were analyzed. On average, 0.2 basal and 6.0 bolus insulin doses were missed over 14 days. The estimated probability of missing at least one basal insulin dose over a 14-day period was 17.6% (95% CI 16.5, 18.7). Missing one basal or bolus insulin dose per 14 days was associated with a significant decrease in percentage of time with glucose levels in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0 mmol/L), of -2.8% (95% CI -3.7, -1.8) and -1.7% (-1.8, -1.6), respectively; therefore, missing two basal or four bolus doses would decrease TIR by >5%. Smart pen engagement was associated positively with glycemic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This combined analysis of real-world smart pen and CGM data showed that missing two basal or four bolus insulin doses over a 14-day period would be associated with a clinically relevant decrease in TIR. Smart insulin pens provide valuable insights into treatment injection behaviors.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, two-period crossover trial, 66 individuals with T1D (age 18-64 years; glycated haemoglobin ≤75 mmol/mol [≤ 9%]) were to receive once-weekly icodec (8 weeks) and once-daily insulin glargine U100 (2 weeks) at individualized fixed equimolar total weekly doses established during up to 10 weeks' run-in with glargine U100 titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose (PG) of 4.4-7.2 mmol/L (80-130 mg/dL). Insulin aspart was used as bolus insulin. Blood sampling for icodec pharmacokinetics was performed from the first icodec dose until 35 days after the last dose. The glucose infusion rate at steady state was assessed in glucose clamps (target 6.7 mmol/L [120 mg/dL]) at 16-52 h and 138-168 h after the last icodec dose and 0-24 h after the last glargine U100 dose. Icodec pharmacodynamics during 1 week were predicted by pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling. Hypoglycaemia was recorded during the treatment periods based on self-measured PG.

RESULTS

Icodec reached pharmacokinetic steady state on average within 2-3 weeks. At steady state, model-predicted daily proportions of glucose infusion rate during the 1-week dosing interval were 14.3%, 19.6%, 18.3%, 15.7%, 13.1%, 10.6% and 8.4%, respectively. Rates and duration of Level 2 hypoglycaemic episodes (PG <3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) were 32.8 versus 23.9 episodes per participant-year of exposure and 33 ± 25 versus 30 ± 18 min (mean ± SD) for icodec versus glargine U100.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of icodec suggest its potential to provide basal coverage in a basal-bolus insulin regimen in people with T1D.

Once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec as part of a basal-bolus regimen in individuals with type 1 diabetes (ONWARDS 6): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target trial

BACKGROUND

ONWARDS 6 compared the efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneous insulin icodec (icodec) and once-daily insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

This 52-week (26-week main phase plus a 26-week safety extension), randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, phase 3a trial was done at 99 sites across 12 countries. Adults with type 1 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] <10·0% [86 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned (1:1) to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, both in combination with insulin aspart (two or more daily injections). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26, tested for non-inferiority (0·3 percentage point margin) in all randomly assigned participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04848480, and is now complete.

FINDINGS

Between April 30 and Oct 15, 2021, of 655 participants screened, 582 participants were randomly assigned to icodec (n=290) or degludec (n=292). At week 26, from baseline values of 7·59% (icodec) and 7·63% (degludec), estimated mean changes in HbA1c were -0·47 percentage points and -0·51 percentage points, respectively (estimated treatment difference 0·05 percentage points [95% CI -0·13 to 0·23]), confirming non-inferiority of icodec to degludec (p=0·0065). Overall rate of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia (baseline to week 26) was statistically significantly higher with icodec than degludec (19·9 vs 10·4 events per patient-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 1·9 [95% CI 1·5 to 2·3]; p<0·0001). The rate was also statistically significantly higher with icodec than degludec when evaluated over 57 weeks (52 weeks plus a 5-week follow-up period). 39 serious adverse events were reported in 24 (8%) participants receiving icodec, and 25 serious adverse events were reported in 20 (7%) participants receiving degludec. One participant in the icodec group died; this was judged unlikely to be due to the trial product.

INTERPRETATION

In adults with type 1 diabetes, once-weekly icodec showed non-inferiority to once-daily degludec in HbA1c reduction at week 26, with statistically significantly higher rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia. For icodec, time below 3·0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL) was at the threshold of the internationally recommended target (<1%) during weeks 22-26 and below target during weeks 48-52.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

News in diabetology 2022

The use of new antidiabetic drugs in clinical practice in the last two decades has completely changed the Type 2 diabetes management. Following the results of new clinical trials, international recommendations for the treatment of diabetes were regularly modified. In the field of Type 1 diabetes, new technologies have appeared, such as smart insulin pens. We can await once weekly insulins and dual GLP-1 and GIP analogues in the near future.