Major adverse cardiovascular events with basal insulin peglispro versus comparator insulins in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Evidence that antihyperglycaemic therapy is beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. While the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) found tighter glycaemic control to be positive, other studies, such as the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, found the effects of an intensive therapy to lower blood glucose to near normal levels to be more harmful than beneficial. Study results also showed different effects for different antihyperglycaemic drugs, regardless of the achieved blood glucose levels. In consequence, firm conclusions on the effect of interventions on patient-relevant outcomes cannot be drawn from the effect of these interventions on blood glucose concentration alone. In theory, the use of newer insulin analogues may result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine U100 and U300, insulin detemir and insulin degludec) with NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin (human isophane insulin) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

For this Cochrane Review update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 5 November 2019, except Embase which was last searched 26 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 24 RCTs. Of these, 16 trials compared insulin glargine to NPH insulin and eight trials compared insulin detemir to NPH insulin. In these trials, 3419 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomised to insulin glargine and 1321 people to insulin detemir. The duration of the included trials ranged from 24 weeks to five years. For studies, comparing insulin glargine to NPH insulin, target values ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.8 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 140 mg/dL) for fasting blood glucose (FBG), from 4.4 mmol/L to 6.6 mmol/L (80 mg/dL to 120 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, when applicable. Blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target values for studies comparing insulin detemir to NPH insulin ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for FBG, less than 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) to less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and 5.8% to less than 6.4% HbA1c, when applicable. All trials had an unclear or high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Overall, insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Changes in HbA1c were comparable for long-acting insulin analogues and NPH insulin. Insulin glargine compared to NPH insulin had a risk ratio (RR) for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.06; absolute risk reduction (ARR) -1.2%, 95% CI -2.0 to 0; 14 trials, 6164 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The RR for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.09; P = 0.13; ARR -0.7%, 95% CI -1.3 to 0.2; 10 trials, 4685 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with insulin glargine reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treatment with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin found an RR for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.45 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.20; P = 0.11; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.4 to 0.4; 5 trials, 1804 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Peto odds ratio for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; P = 0.007; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.4; 5 trials, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with detemir also reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Information on patient-relevant outcomes such as death from any cause, diabetes-related complications, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects was insufficient or lacking in almost all included trials. For those outcomes for which some data were available, there were no meaningful differences between treatment with glargine or detemir and treatment with NPH. There was no clear difference between insulin-analogues and NPH insulin in terms of weight gain. The incidence of adverse events was comparable for people treated with glargine or detemir, and people treated with NPH. We found no trials comparing ultra-long-acting insulin glargine U300 or insulin degludec with NPH insulin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While the effects on HbA1c were comparable, treatment with insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Treatment with insulin detemir also reduced the incidence of serious hypoglycaemia. However, serious hypoglycaemic events were rare and the absolute risk reducing effect was low. Approximately one in 100 people treated with insulin detemir instead of NPH insulin benefited. In the studies, low blood glucose and HbA1c targets, corresponding to near normal or even non-diabetic blood glucose levels, were set. Therefore, results from the studies are only applicable to people in whom such low blood glucose concentrations are targeted. However, current guidelines recommend less-intensive blood glucose lowering for most people with type 2 diabetes in daily practice (e.g. people with cardiovascular diseases, a long history of type 2 diabetes, who are susceptible to hypoglycaemia or older people). Additionally, low-certainty evidence and trial designs that did not conform with current clinical practice meant it remains unclear if the same effects will be observed in daily clinical practice. Most trials did not report patient-relevant outcomes.

Comparative cardiovascular outcomes in the era of novel anti-diabetic agents: a comprehensive network meta-analysis of 166,371 participants from 170 randomized controlled trials

Background

Cardiovascular (CV) safety of one anti-diabetic medication over another remains partially delineated. We sought to assess the comparative effect on CV outcomes among novel anti-diabetic agents.

Methods

This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD 42016042063). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched between Jan 1, 1980, and June 30, 2016. Randomized controlled trials comparing anti-diabetic drugs with other comparators in adults with type 2 diabetes were included. We used network meta-analysis to obtain estimates for the outcomes of interests. In addition, post hoc correlation analysis of severe hypoglycemia and primary outcome as per ranking order was conducted. Outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality.

Results

A total of 170 trials (166,371 participants) were included. By class and by individual, sulfonylureas (SU) ranked last. Therefore, with SU as reference, categorically sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), insulin (INS), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor were significantly superior in term of MACE; as were SGLT2i and INS in term of all-cause mortality. Moreover, ranking orders of MACE and all-cause mortality were both positively correlated with that of severe hypoglycemia risk (by individual: R² = 0.3178, P = 0.018; by class: R² = 0.2574, P = 0.038).

Conclusions

Novel anti-diabetic agents possess favorable CV safety profile, despite small but robust differences between individuals. In addition, increase in CV risk was again shown to be partly attributable to a concomitant increase in the risk of severe hypoglycemia, for which SU performed the worst.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12933-018-0722-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effects of hepato-preferential basal insulin peglispro on nuclear magnetic resonance biomarkers lipoprotein insulin resistance index and GlycA in patients with diabetes

AIM

To characterize the effects of hepato-preferential basal insulin peglispro (BIL) and insulin glargine on insulin resistance (lipoprotein insulin resistance index [LP-IR]) and inflammation (GlycA), and to explore the biological implications.

METHODS

This substudy included 847 patients with Type 1 diabetes (T1D) or Type 2 diabetes (T2D) in four cohorts of the BIL development program. LP-IR and GlycA were measured before and after insulin treatment. Correlations between LP-IR, GlycA, clinical parameters and liver biomarkers were assessed.

RESULTS

LP-IR and GlycA were higher in T2D than T1D. LP-IR increased in patients switched from basal insulins to BIL but not in insulin-naive patients. GlycA decreased in T2D patients treated with BIL and T1D patients treated with glargine.

CONCLUSION

These exploratory analyses help to characterize differences in biological effects between BIL and glargine treatment.

The effects of basal insulin peglispro vs. insulin glargine on lipoprotein particles by NMR and liver fat content by MRI in patients with diabetes

Background

In Phase 2/3 studies of basal insulin peglispro (BIL) compared to insulin glargine, patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes previously treated with insulin and randomized to BIL had an increase in serum triglycerides (TGs). To further understand lipoprotein changes, a lipid substudy which included liver fat content was designed to assess relationships among the measured variables for each diabetes cohort and compare the hepato-preferential insulin BIL to glargine.

Methods

In three cohorts of patients with diabetes (type 1, type 2 insulin naïve, and type 2 previously on insulin; n = 652), liver fat content (LFC) was determined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and blood lipids were analyzed by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy at baseline, 26 and 52 weeks of treatment. Apolipoproteins, adiponectin, and other lipid parameters were also measured. Descriptive statistics were done, as well as correlation analyses to look for relationships among LFC and lipoproteins or other lipid measures.

Results

In patients with type 1 diabetes treated with BIL, but not glargine, small LDL and medium and large VLDL subclass concentrations increased from baseline. In patients with type 2 diabetes previously on insulin and treated with BIL, large VLDL concentration increased from baseline. In insulin naïve patients with type 2 diabetes treated with BIL, there were very few changes, while in those treated with glargine, small LDL and large VLDL decreased from baseline. Baseline LFC correlated significantly in one or more cohorts with baseline large VLDL, small LDL, VLDL size, and Apo C3. Changes in LFC by treatment showed generally weak correlations with lipoprotein changes, except for positive correlations with large VLDL and VLDL size. Adiponectin was higher in patients with type 1 diabetes compared to patients with type 2 diabetes, but decreased with treatment with both BIL and glargine.

Conclusions

The lipoprotein changes were in line with the observed changes in serum TGs; i.e., the cohorts experiencing increased TGs and LFC with BIL treatment had decreased LDL size and increased VLDL size. These data and analyses add to the currently available information on the metabolic effects of insulins in a very carefully characterized cohort of patients with diabetes.

Clinicaltrials.gov registration numbers and dates NCT01481779 (2011), NCT01435616 (2011), NCT01454284 (2011), NCT01582451 (2012)

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12933-017-0555-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Treatment Strategy for Type 2 Diabetes with Obesity: Focus on Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists

PURPOSE

The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) calls for step-wise intensification of therapy for maintaining normal glycemic levels and lowering cardiovascular (CV) risk. Because obesity is a prominent risk factor and comorbidity of T2DM, it further elevates the CV risk in T2DM. Therefore, it is vital to manage weight, obesity, and glycemic parameters for effective T2DM management. Few oral antidiabetic drugs (sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones) and insulin are not suitable for obese patients with T2DM because these drugs cause weight gain. The present review discusses the place of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in the treatment of obese patients with T2DM and the significance of these drugs in the prevention of future CV risk in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed and EMBASE was conducted by using the search terms T2DM, GLP-1RAs, obesity, and cardiovascular complication. Randomized controlled trials measuring the effect of GLP-1RAs versus that of placebo on CV outcomes were included in the review.

FINDINGS

GLP-1RAs have emerged as a therapeutic alternative; these drugs exert their actions by providing glycemic control, improving insulin resistance and ö̇-cell function, and reducing weight. The risk of hypoglycemia with GLP-1RAs is minimal; however, GLP-1RAs are associated with gastrointestinal adverse events and raise concerns regarding pancreatitis. Combining GLP-1RAs with insulin analogues results in higher efficacy, a lowered insulin dose, and reduced insulin-related hypoglycemia and weight gain. Longer acting GLP-1RAs are also associated with improvement in medication adherence. Improvement in CV risk factors such as blood pressure and lipid profile further increases their usability for improving CV outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS

Overall, the properties of GLP-1RAs make them suitable for combination with oral antidiabetic drugs in the early stages of T2DM and with insulins in the later stages for optimizing comprehensive management of the disease.

How Can a Good Idea Fail? Basal Insulin Peglispro [LY2605541] for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Lack of control in diabetic patients has stimulated the development of new insulin analogues. One of these was basal insulin peglispro (BIL) or LY2605541; it had a large hydrodynamic size, flat pharmacokinetic profile, half life of 2-3 days and acted preferably in the liver.

METHODS

We reviewed the recent literature examining the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy and safety of BIL treatment in type 2 diabetes patients.

RESULTS

The pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic outline of BIL seemed to have an advantage over neutral protamine Hagedorn and glargine insulins. Recently, phase 3 studies suggested BIL was superior to glargine in reducing glucose levels in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in addition to causing less weight gain. It showed a different hypoglycaemia rate profile depending on the study population, with less nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared to glargine. Unfortunately, it caused higher transaminase and triglyceride levels, which led the company to discontinue development. The decision came after it had been analysed by the regulatory authorities and other external experts concerning the worse liver profile data from the IMAGINE trials.

CONCLUSIONS

BIL was an adequate basal insulin analogue with interesting specific properties. Unfortunately the disadvantages as shown in the lipid values and liver function tests led to its failure.

Randomized double-blind clinical trial comparing basal insulin peglispro and insulin glargine, in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes: IMAGINE 4

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of basal insulin peglispro (BIL) with those of insulin glargine, both in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

In this phase III, multicentre, double-blind, 26-week study, we randomized patients with T2D [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7 and <12%, on ≥1 insulin injections daily) to BIL (n = 691) or glargine (n = 678), in combination with lispro.

RESULTS

At week 26, the primary objective of non-inferiority of BIL versus glargine for HbA1c reduction was achieved (least squares mean difference -0.21%; 95% confidence interval -0.31 to -0.11%), with statistical superiority of BIL with multiplicity adjustment (p < 0.001). HbA1c at baseline was 8.4% versus 8.5% for BIL versus glargine and at 26 weeks it was 6.8% versus 7.0%. At 26 weeks, more patients reached HbA1c <7% with BIL than with glargine (63.3% vs 53.3%; p < 0.001), the nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate (≤3.9 mmol/l) was lower with BIL (0.51 vs 0.92 events/30 days; p < 0.001), but the daytime hypoglycaemia rate was higher with BIL (5.47 vs 4.53 events/30 days; p < 0.001). The total hypoglycaemia relative rate was 1.10 (p = 0.053). At 26 weeks, patients in the BIL group had lower fasting serum glucose levels, higher basal insulin dosing, with no statistically significant difference in prandial or total insulin dosing, reduced glucose variability and less weight gain (1.3 kg vs 2.2 kg) compared with the glargine group. The BIL group had higher mean triglyceride and aminotransferase levels.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2D, BIL with insulin lispro provided greater improvement in glycaemic control with less nocturnal hypoglycaemia, lower glucose variability and less weight gain compared with glargine. The daytime hypoglycaemia rate and mean triglyceride and aminotransferase levels were higher with BIL.

Basal insulin peglispro: Overview of a novel long-acting insulin with reduced peripheral effect resulting in a hepato-preferential action

Basal insulin peglispro (BIL) is a novel basal insulin with a flat, prolonged activity profile. BIL has been demonstrated in a dog model, in healthy men and in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to have significant hepato-preferential action resulting from reduced peripheral activity. In the IMAGINE-Phase 3 clinical trial program, more than 6000 patients were included, of whom ~3900 received BIL. Of the 7 pivotal IMAGINE trials, 3 studies were double-blinded and 3 were in T1D patients. BIL consistently demonstrated a greater HbA1c reduction, less glycaemic variability and a clinically relevant reduction in the rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia across comparator [glargine and isophane insulin (NPH)] studies. Trials using basal/bolus regimens had higher rates of total hypoglycaemia with BIL due to higher rates of daytime hypoglycaemia. Severe hypoglycaemia rates were similar to comparator among both patients with T1D or type 2 diabetes (T2D). T1D patients lost weight compared with glargine (GL). Patients with T2D tended to gain less weight with BIL than with glargine. Compared to glargine, BIL was associated with higher liver fat, triglycerides and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, including a higher frequency of elevation of ALT ≥3 times the upper limit of normal, but without severe, acute drug-induced liver injury. Injection site reactions, primarily lipohypertrophy, were more frequent with BIL. In conclusion, BIL demonstrated better glycaemic control with reduced glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycaemia but higher triglycerides, ALT and liver fat relative to conventional comparator insulin. The hepato-preferential action of BIL with reduced peripheral activity may account for these findings.