Twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart effectively improved morning and evening glucose levels and quality of life in patients previously treated with premixed insulin: an observational study

Cardiovascular risk reduction in older people with type 2 diabetes mellitus-a comprehensive narrative review

Metabolic targets are controversial in older people with type 2 diabetes due to functional heterogeneity and morbidity burden. Tight blood pressure and metabolic control appears beneficial in fit individuals who are newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and have fewer comorbidities. The benefits of low blood pressure and tight metabolic control is attenuated with the development of comorbidities, especially frailty. Guidelines consider frail older people as one category and recommend relaxed targets. However, sarcopenic obese frail individuals may benefit from tight targets and intensification of therapy due to their unfavourable metabolic profile, accelerated diabetes trajectory and high cardiovascular risk. In addition, the early use of sodium glucose transporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists may be beneficial in this frailty phenotype due to their cardio-renal protection, which is independent of glycaemic control, provided they are able to engage in resistance exercise training to avoid loss of muscle mass. In the anorexic malnourished frail individual, early use of insulin, due to its weight gain and anabolic properties, is appropriate. In this phenotype, targets should be relaxed with deintensification of therapy due to significant weight loss, decelerated diabetes trajectory and increased risk of medication side effects.

The outcome of frailty in older people with diabetes as a function of glycaemic control and hypoglycaemic therapy: a review

INTRODUCTION

Frailty is an emerging and newly recognized complication of diabetes in older people. However, frailty is not thoroughly investigated in diabetes outcome studies.

AREAS COVERED

This manuscript reviews the effect of glycemic control and hypoglycemic therapy on the incidence of frailty in older people with diabetes.

EXPERT OPINION

Current studies show that both low glycemia and high glycemia are associated with frailty. However, most of the studies, especially low glycemia studies, are cross-sectional or retrospective, suggesting association, rather than causation, of frailty. In addition, frail patients in the low glycemia studies are characterized by lower body weight or lower body mass index (BMI), contrary to those in the high glycemia studies, who are either overweight or obese. This may suggest that frailty has a heterogeneous metabolic spectrum, starting with an anorexic malnourished (AM) phenotype at one end, which is associated with low glycemia and a sarcopenic obese (SO) phenotype on the other end, which is associated with high glycemia. The current little evidence suggests that poor glycemic control increases the risk of frailty, but there is a paucity of evidence to suggest that tight glycemic control would reduce the risk of incident frailty. Metformin is the only well-studied hypoglycemic agent, so far, to have a protective effect against frailty independent of glycemic control in the non-frail older people with diabetes. However, once frailty is developed, the choice of the best hypoglycemic agent for these patients will be affected by the metabolic phenotype of frailty. For example, sodium glucose transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) are appropriate in the SO phenotype due to their weight losing properties, while insulin therapy may be considered early in the AM phenotype due to its anabolic and weight gaining benefits. Future studies are still required to further investigate the metabolic effects of frailty on older people with diabetes, determine the most appropriate HbA1c target, and explore the most suitable hypoglycemic agent in each metabolic phenotype of frailty.

Metabolic Characteristics of Frail Older People with Diabetes Mellitus-A Systematic Search for Phenotypes

Frailty in older people with diabetes is viewed as one homogeneous category. We previously suggested that frailty is not homogeneous and spans across a metabolic spectrum that starts with an anorexic malnourished (AM) frail phenotype and ends with a sarcopenic obese (SO) phenotype. We aimed to investigate the metabolic characteristics of frail older people with diabetes reported in the current literature to explore whether they fit into two distinctive metabolic phenotypes. We performed systematic review of studies published over the last 10 years and reported characteristics of frail older people with diabetes mellitus. A total of 25 studies were included in this systematic review. Fifteen studies reported frail patients' characteristics that could fit into an AM phenotype. This phenotype is characterised by low body weight, increased prevalence of malnutrition markers such as low serum albumin, low serum cholesterol, low Hb, low HbA1c, and increased risk of hypoglycaemia. Ten studies reported frail patients' characteristics that describe a SO phenotype. This phenotype is characterised by increased body weight, increased serum cholesterol, high HbA1c, and increased blood glucose levels. Due to significant weight loss in the AM phenotype, insulin resistance decreases, leading to a decelerated diabetes trajectory and reduced hypoglycaemic agent use or deintensification of therapy. On the other hand, in the SO phenotype, insulin resistance increases leading to accelerated diabetes trajectory and increased hypoglycaemic agent use or intensification of therapy. Current literature suggests that frailty is a metabolically heterogeneous condition that includes AM and SO phenotypes. Both phenotypes have metabolically distinctive features, which will have a different effect on diabetes trajectory. Therefore, clinical decision-making and future clinical studies should consider the metabolic heterogeneity of frailty.

Metabolic Impact of Frailty Changes Diabetes Trajectory

Diabetes mellitus prevalence increases with increasing age. In older people with diabetes, frailty is a newly emerging and significant complication. Frailty induces body composition changes that influence the metabolic state and affect diabetes trajectory. Frailty appears to have a wide metabolic spectrum, which can present with an anorexic malnourished phenotype and a sarcopenic obese phenotype. The sarcopenic obese phenotype individuals have significant loss of muscle mass and increased visceral fat. This phenotype is characterised by increased insulin resistance and a synergistic increase in the cardiovascular risk more than that induced by obesity or sarcopenia alone. Therefore, in this phenotype, the trajectory of diabetes is accelerated, which needs further intensification of hypoglycaemic therapy and a focus on cardiovascular risk reduction. Anorexic malnourished individuals have significant weight loss and reduced insulin resistance. In this phenotype, the trajectory of diabetes is decelerated, which needs deintensification of hypoglycaemic therapy and a focus on symptom control and quality of life. In the sarcopenic obese phenotype, the early use of sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists is reasonable due to their weight loss and cardio-renal protection properties. In the malnourished anorexic phenotype, the early use of long-acting insulin analogues is reasonable due to their weight gain and anabolic properties, regimen simplicity and the convenience of once-daily administration.

Intensification of Insulin Treatment With Insulin Degludec/Aspart in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A 2-Year Real-World Experience

AIM

To evaluate the effects of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) coformulation as an intensification of insulin treatment for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a long term real-world clinical setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective non-interventional study, included 210 patients with T2D who to IDegAsp coformulation from prior insulin treatment in a tertiary endocrinology center between September 2017 and December 2019. The baseline data was taken as the index date and defined as the first IDegAsp prescription claim. Previous insulin treatment modalities, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and body weight were recorded, respectively at the 3^rd, 6^th, 12^th, and 24^th months of the IDegAsp treatment.

RESULTS

Out of the total 210 patients, 166 patients under insulin treatment switched to twice-daily IDegAsp treatment, 35 patients switched to once daily IDegAsp and twice premeal short-acting insulin regimen as a modified basal-bolus (BB) treatment, and nine patients commenced with once-daily IDegAsp treatment. HbA1c decreased from 9.2% ± 1.9% to 8.2% ± 1.6% in 6 months, 8.2% ± 1.7% in the first year, and 8.1% ± 1.6% in the second year of the therapy (p< 0.001). FPG decreased from 209.0 ± 85.0 mg/dL to 147.0 ± 62.6 mg/dL in the second year (p< 0.001). The required total daily dose of insulin increased in the second year of IDegAsp treatment compared to baseline. However, there was a borderline significance increase in IDegAsp requirement for the whole group at the two-year follow-up (p = 0.05). Patients who were administered twice daily IDegAsp injections required more total insulin in the first and second years due to added premeal short-acting insulin injections (p < 0.05). The frequency of patients with HbA1c < 7% was 31.8% in first year and 35.8% in second year under IDegAsp treatment.Insulin dose was de-escalated in 28.5% of the patients under BB treatment, while 15% under twice-daily IDegAsp required increased BB treatment.

CONCLUSION

Intensification of insulin treatment with IDegAsp coformulation improved glycemic control in patients with T2D. The total daily insulin requirement increased but the IDegAsp requirement lightly increased at the two-year follow-up. Patients under BB treatment required de-escalation of insulin treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart Compared with a Conventional Premixed Insulin or Basal Insulin: A Meta-Analysis

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a novel co-formulation of 70% insulin degludec and 30% insulin aspart. The present meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp compared with a conventional premixed insulin or basal insulin. We extracted data from citation databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, since inception to 2021. We calculated the mean differences for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-measured mean glucose, and postprandial glucose (PPG) and odds ratios for confirmed hypoglycemia events. Compared with twice-daily conventional premixed insulin, twice-daily IDegAsp showed a similar effect on changes in HbA1c, but it significantly reduced FPG and self-measured mean glucose levels. Furthermore, compared to once-daily basal insulin, once-daily IDegAsp had a similar effect on changes in HbA1c, but it significantly reduced self-measured mean glucose and PPG levels. The risk of overall confirmed hypoglycemia was similar between treatments; however, the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia events was significantly lower with IDegAsp than with conventional premixed insulin and basal insulin. Thus, IDegAsp was more effective than conventional premixed insulin and basal insulin at reducing blood glucose with fewer nocturnal hypoglycemia events.

A Real-World, Prospective, Non-interventional Study of Adults with T2D Switching to IDegAsp from Glargine U100 or U300 in Japan

INTRODUCTION

This real-world study investigated glycaemic control and quality of life (QoL) in insulin-experienced Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who switched to insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp).

METHODS

This was a prospective, non-interventional, open-label, single-arm study. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥ 20 years) with T2D, previously treated with insulin glargine 100 or 300 units/mL (glargine U100/U300) with or without prandial insulin, who switched to IDegAsp as part of routine practice. Change from baseline to end of study (EOS; 26 weeks after initiation or IDegAsp discontinuation) in the following endpoints was assessed by adjusted mixed models for repeated measures: glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; primary endpoint), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin dose and total Diabetes Therapy-Related Quality of Life (DTR-QoL) score. Non-severe hypoglycaemia was assessed in the 4-week period prior to initiating IDegAsp and in the 4-week period before EOS or discontinuation using negative binomial regression.

RESULTS

The full analysis set included 236 patients from 29 centres in Japan with mean (± SD) age 63.2 years (± 12.3), HbA1c 7.7% (± 1.0) and diabetes duration 14.9 (± 9.3) years. After 26 weeks with IDegAsp, HbA1c (estimated change - 0.1% [- 0.2; 0.0]_{95% confidence interval (CI)}, p = 0.3036) and FPG (- 7.5 mg/dL [- 23.5; 8.5]_{95% CI}, p = 0.3477) were maintained; there were significant reductions in basal and total insulin dose: estimated change of - 3.4 units/day [- 3.8; - 3.0]_{95% CI} and - 1.0 units/day [- 1.9; - 0.1]_{95% CI}, respectively (both p < 0.05). Non-severe hypoglycaemia rates were similar in the periods before and after initiating IDegAsp, while there was a significant improvement in total DTR-QoL score after 26 weeks with IDegAsp (p = 0.0012).

CONCLUSION

These real-world data suggest that switching to IDegAsp from glargine U100 or U300 was well tolerated in a Japanese population with T2D, with no new safety or tolerability signals, and associated with maintenance of glycaemic control and improved QoL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03745157.

Factors that affect the Glycemic Control Achieved by Switching to Insulin Degludec/ Aspart in Insulin-Treated Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in a Real-World Setting: a Non-interventional, Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) is a co-formulation with IDeg and IAsp. Different insulin regimens may be switched to IDegAsp. In this study, we aimed to find out the effect of switch to IDegAsp on glycemic control and whether the basal characteristics and treatment modalities of the patients affect the change in glycemic control brought by switch to IDegAsp.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 78 patients whose insulin therapies (basal+bolus, premixed analogues or basal only) were switched on a 1:1 unit basis to IDegAsp±bolus insulin. Oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) given were recorded. At the end of 12^th and 24^th week, total insulin doses of patients and HbA1c were compared to the baseline.

Results

There was a statistically significant decrease at HbA1c at 12 weeks (1.4%; p<0.001). There was not a significant difference in HbA1c between the OAD added group and the group with no new OADs(p=0.1). Basal insulin dose was not statistically different from baseline, whereas bolus insulin dose was significantly lower (p=0.007). At the end of 24 weeks the decrease in HbA1c level from baseline was preserved.

Conclusion

Regardless of the baseline insulin regimen, diabetes type and oral antidiabetic drugs given, HbA1c is significantly lowered after switching to IDegAsp.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

People with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) need treatment with insulin for survival. Whether any particular type of (ultra-)long-acting insulin provides benefit especially regarding risk of diabetes complications and hypoglycaemia is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn) or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogue in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We explored the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Agency (EMA) web pages. We asked pharmaceutical companies, EMA and investigators for additional data and clinical study reports (CSRs). The date of the last search of all databases was 24 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 24 weeks or more comparing one (ultra-)long-acting insulin to NPH insulin or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin in people with T1DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 (RoB 2) tool and extracted data. Our main outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (QoL), severe hypoglycaemia, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke (NFMI/NFS), severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events (SAEs) and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs. Two studies were unpublished. We obtained CSRs, clinical study synopses or both as well as medical reviews from regulatory agencies on 23 studies which contributed to better analysis of risk of bias and improved data extraction. A total of 8784 participants were randomised: 2428 participants were allocated to NPH insulin, 2889 participants to insulin detemir, 2095 participants to insulin glargine and 1372 participants to insulin degludec. Eight studies contributing 21% of all participants comprised children. The duration of the intervention varied from 24 weeks to 104 weeks. Insulin degludec versus NPH insulin: we identified no studies comparing insulin degludec with NPH insulin. Insulin detemir versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): five deaths reported in two studies including adults occurred in the insulin detemir group (Peto OR 4.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.38; 9 studies, 3334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies with 870 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). There was a reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir: 171/2019 participants (8.5%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 138/1200 participants (11.5%) in the NPH insulin group experienced severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 8 studies, 3219 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.34 and 1.39. Only 1/331 participants in the insulin detemir group compared with 0/164 participants in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFMI (1 study, 495 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported NFS. A total of 165/2094 participants (7.9%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 102/1238 participants (8.2%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21; 9 studies, 3332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 70/1823 participants (3.8%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 60/1102 participants (5.4%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17; 7 studies, 2925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin was 0.01%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 8 studies, 3122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): one adult died in the NPH insulin group (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.98; 8 studies, 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 1013 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial effect or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was observed in 122/1191 participants (10.2%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 145/1159 participants (12.5%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.04; 9 studies, 2350 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a NFMI and one participant in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFS in the single study reporting this outcome (585 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 109/1131 participants (9.6%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 110/1098 participants (10.0%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.84; 8 studies, 2229 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 69/938 participants (7.4%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 83/955 participants (8.7%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; 6 studies, 1893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin was 0.02%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 9 studies, 2285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine (2 RCTs),insulin degludec versus insulin detemir (2 RCTs), insulin degludec versus insulin glargine (4 RCTs): there was no evidence of a clinically relevant difference for all main outcomes comparing (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues with each other. For all outcomes none of the comparisons indicated differences in tests of interaction for children versus adults.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin for T1DM showed lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir (moderate-certainty evidence). However, the 95% prediction interval indicated inconsistency in this finding. Both insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin did not show benefits or harms for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. For all other main outcomes with overall low risk of bias and comparing insulin analogues with each other, there was no true beneficial or harmful effect for any intervention. Data on patient-important outcomes such as QoL, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications were sparse or missing. No clinically relevant differences were found between children and adults.

A Japanese Study Assessing Glycemic Control with Use of IDegAsp Co-formulation in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Clinical Practice: The JAGUAR Study

Introduction

The aim of this study was to evaluate the glycemic control and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) co-formulation in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a real-world clinical setting, including elderly patients (aged > 75 years).

Methods

Patients (≥ 18 years) diagnosed with T2D, previously treated with insulin were included from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Baseline data were taken at the index date, defined as the first IDegAsp prescription claim. Change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) at 12 months was estimated using a mixed model repeated measures analysis. The proportion of patients achieving target HbA_1c < 8.0% without experiencing hypoglycemia (identified by International Classification of Disease codes) was calculated at 12 months (365 ± 90 days) after baseline.

Results

Overall, 10,798 patients were included, 3940 were aged > 75 years, and 913 had baseline HbA_1c values available. Switching to IDegAsp was associated with significantly improved HbA_1c values at 12 months (− 1.23% [− 1.43, − 1.02]_95%CI, p < 0.001) versus baseline. Moreover, relative to baseline, a significantly greater proportion of patients achieved HbA_1c < 8.0% without hypoglycemia at 12 months, relative rate (RR) 1.30 [1.15, 1.45]_95%CI, p < 0.001. Results were similar for patients aged ≤ 75 years and aged > 75 years; 66% and 64% of patients, respectively, achieved HbA_1c < 8.0% without hypoglycemia at 12 months.

Conclusion

Switching from insulin to IDegAsp co-formulation was associated with significantly improved glycemic control and a reduction in hypoglycemia rate during 12 months of follow-up in Japanese patients with T2D, including those aged > 75 years.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01623-y.

Indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of insulin glargine/lixisenatide and insulin degludec/insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes patients not controlled on basal insulin

BACKGROUND

Fixed-dose combinations of insulin glargine/lixisenatide (IGlarLixi) or insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) constitute treatment intensification in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D).

OBJECTIVES

Compare efficacy and safety of IGlarLixi and IDegAsp (as intensification from basal insulin), by indirect comparison of phase III trials, in the absence of head-to-head trials.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies comparing treatment intensification by once-daily IDegAsp or IGlarLixi to basal insulin. Data were extracted from two trials (BOOST: Intensify-Basal and LixiLan-L) retained for analysis.

SYNTHESIS METHODS

Treatments were compared in terms of estimated treatment difference (ETD) in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting and postprandial plasma glucose (FPG and PPG) change from baseline; in addition to hypoglycaemia incidence and weight changes.

RESULTS

In a fixed-effect model examining HbA1c control, IGlarLixi was more effective than IDegAsp in reducing HbA1c (ETD 0.53%, P<0.0001]), PPG (ETD 2.65%, P<0.0001), and body weight (ETD 1.73kg, P<0.0001). Patients on IGlarLixi were more likely to achieve HbA1c<7% than patients on IDegAsp (odds ratio [OR]=0.40, P<0.0001), with lower incidence of hypoglycaemia (OR=1.33, P<0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Limited number of studies; different baseline HbA1c and FPG.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily IGlarLixi is more efficient than once-daily IDegAsp in controlling HbA1c and PPG and associates with greater weight loss and lower hypoglycaemia incidence.

Fear of hypoglycemia in adults with diabetes mellitus switching to treatment with IDegAsp co-formulation to examine real-world setting: an observational study (The HATICE study)

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical results of insulin degludec/aspart (IDEgAsp) therapy and its effect on the fear of hypoglycemia.

METHODS

A prospective observational study has been conducted through surveys of 36 patients using insulin because of type 2 diabetes mellitus who initiated treatment with IDegAsp switching from other insulins. Patients, 18-75 years old, were recruited to the study, consecutively. Participants' age, gender, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), daily insulin dose, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), hypoglycemia rate, hypoglycemia fear survey (HFS) were recorded at the beginning of the study. By the end of 12th month, data was re-measured and compared with each other.

RESULTS

HbA1c was declined by mean of -1.59% (95% CI -1.06 to -2.12, p<0.001). There was also a significant decrease in mean, daily insulin dose, weight and BMI values of patients via IDegAsp. While there was an increase in the amount of dipeptidyl peptidase 4-inhibitors (DPP4-i) and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2-inhibitors (SGLT2-i), there was a decrease in daily injection frequency. There was also a significant decrease in the median values of monthly hypoglycemia rate (from 2.0 to 1.0, p<0.001) and the entire HFS scores (HFS-T: from 1.09 to 0.73, p<0.001; HFS-B: from 0.83 to 0.60, p<0.001; HFS-W: from 1.33 to 0.88, p<0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between ΔHFS-B and daily injection frequency (Rho: 0.398; P: 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp co-formulation, combined with DPP4-i and/or SGLT2-i, can provide usefulness in terms of rates of hypoglycemia, reduced HbA1c, less injection administration, and decreased the fear of hypoglycemia in diabetics.

Practical use of insulin degludec/insulin aspart in a multinational setting: beyond the guidelines

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed-ratio co-formulation of insulin degludec, which provides long-lasting basal insulin coverage, and insulin aspart, which targets postprandial glycaemia. This review provides expert opinion on the practical clinical use of IDegAsp, including: dose timings relative to meals, when and how to intensify treatment from once-daily (OD) to twice-daily (BID) dose adjustments, and use in special populations (including hospitalized patients). IDegAsp could be considered as one among the choices for initiating insulin treatment, preferential to starting on basal insulin alone, particularly for people with severe hyperglycaemia and/or when postprandial hyperglycaemia is a major concern. The recommended starting dose of IDegAsp is 10 units with the most carbohydrate-rich meal(s), followed by individualized dose adjustments. Insulin doses should be titrated once weekly in two-unit steps, guided by individualized fasting plasma glucose targets and based on patient goals, preferences and hypoglycaemia risk. Options for intensification from IDegAsp OD are discussed, which should be guided by HbA1c, prandial glucose levels, meal patterns and patient preferences. Recommendations for switching to IDegAsp from basal insulin, premixed insulins OD/BID, and basal-plus/basal-bolus regimens are discussed. IDegAsp can be co-administered with other antihyperglycaemic drugs; however, sulphonylureas frequently need to be discontinued or the dose reduced, and the IDegAsp dose may need to be decreased when sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are added. Considerations around the initiation or continuation of IDegAsp in hospitalized individuals are discussed, as well as in those undergoing medical procedures.