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

How Would You Treat This Inpatient With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus? Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Management of hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) presents unique challenges. Two recently released guidelines, one from the American Diabetes Association and the other from the Endocrine Society, provide useful recommendations and evidence review to inform the care of medical inpatients with T2DM. These guidelines mostly agree, although there are slight differences in their recommendations. In these rounds, 2 expert diabetologists discuss their approach to inpatient management of T2DM, specifically regarding inpatient glycemic goals on the medical ward, the use of noninsulin antihyperglycemic medications, and patient safety strategies for patients receiving long-acting insulin. They conclude with recommendations for Mr. D, a real patient with T2DM admitted with a recurrent foot infection.

Efficacy and safety of basal-bolus insulin at 1:1.5 ratio compared to 1:1 ratio using a weight-based initiation and titration (WIT2) algorithm in hospitalized patients with type 2 Diabetes: a multicenter, randomized, clinical study

BACKGROUND

Most studies initiated basal-bolus insulin in a ratio of 1:1 and titrated based on glucose. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of a weight-based and ratio of 1:1.5 basal-bolus insulin using an algorithm for both initiation and titration in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Hospitalized patients with T2D were randomly assigned to two groups in equal numbers to receive 1:1.5 and 1:1 ratios of basal-bolus insulin using a weight-based algorithm for both initiation and titration. The primary outcome was the time taken to reach the fasting blood glucose (FBG) target and 2-h postprandial blood glucose (2hBG) targets after three meals. The secondary outcome included insulin dosage to achieve glycemic control and the incidence of hypoglycemia during hospitalization.

RESULTS

250 patients were screened between October 2021 and June 2022, 220 were randomly grouped, and 182 completed the trial (89 in the 1:1.5 and 93 in the 1:1 groups). The time taken to reach FBG targets was comparable between the two groups (3.4 ± 1.7 vs. 3.0 ± 1.3 days, p = 0.137) within about 3 days. The 2hBG after three meals was shorter in the 1:1.5 group than in the 1:1group (2.9 ± 1.5 vs. 3.4 ± 1.4 days, p = 0.015 for breakfast, 3.0 ± 1.6 vs. 3.6 ± 1.4 days, p = 0.005 for lunch, and 3.1 ± 2.1 vs. 4.0 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.002 for dinner). No significant difference in insulin dosages was found between the two groups at the end of the study. The incidence of hypoglycemia was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that fixed dose-ratio basal-bolus insulin at 1:1.5 calculated using a weight-based initiation and titration algorithm was simple, as effective, and safe as ratio at 1:1 in managing T2D in hospitalized patients. Trial Registration ChiCTR 2,100,050,963. Date of registration: September 8, 2021.

Efficacy and safety of degludec U100 versus glargine U300 for the early postoperative management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A non-inferiority randomized trial

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of degludec U100 versus glargine U300 for the early postoperative management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

METHODS

A total of 239 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a basal-bolus regimen in the early postoperative period using degludec U100 (n = 122) or glargine U300 (n = 117) as basal and glulisine before meals. The primary outcome was mean differences between groups in their daily BG concentrations. The major safety outcome was the occurrence of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

There were no differences in mean daily BG concentrations (157 vs. 162 mg/dl), mean percentage of readings within target BG of 70-180 mg/dl (74% vs. 73%), daily basal insulin dose (19 vs. 21 units/day), length of stay (median [IQR]: 9 vs. 9 days), or hospital complications (21.3% vs. 21.4%) between treatment groups. There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <70 mg/dl (15.6% vs. 23.1%) or <54 mg/dl (1.6% vs. 4.3%) between degludec-100 and glargine-300 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with degludec U100 is as effective and safe as glargine U300 for the early postoperative hospital management of patients with T2D undergoing CABG.

Comparisons of efficacy and safety in insulin glargine and lixisenatide plus glulisine combination therapy with multiple daily injection therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

Multiple daily injection therapy for early glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with hypoglycemia and weight gain. This study aimed to compare the efficacy (time in range of glucose level 70-180 mg/dL), safety (time below range level 1 of glucose <70 mg/dL), glycemic variability changes, therapeutic indices, body mass index and titration periods between multiple daily injection and insulin glargine U100 and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) combination (iGlarLixi + insulin glulisine; injected once daily [evenings]) therapies using intermittent continuous glucose monitoring.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 40 hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to the iGlarLixi + insulin glulisine group or the multiple daily injection group. An intermittent continuous glucose monitoring system was attached, and each injection was adjusted to achieve the target glucose level according to the respective titration algorithm. Times in and below the range were analyzed using data collected on days 11-13 of the intermittent continuous glucose monitoring.

RESULTS

The time in range did not significantly differ between the groups. However, the time below range level 1 was lower in the iGlarLixi + insulin glulisine group (P = 0.047). The changes in glycemic variability, therapeutic indices and body mass index were not significantly different between the groups, although the titration period was significantly shorter in the iGlarLixi + insulin glulisine group (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi + insulin glulisine combination therapy is safe and equally efficacious as multiple daily injection therapy for glycemic control, while avoiding hypoglycemia risk and reducing the number of injections are required.

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

BACKGROUND/AIMS

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021283203.

Degludec hospital trial: A randomized controlled trial comparing insulin degludec U100 and glargine U100 for the inpatient management of patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

Limited data exist about the use of insulin degludec in the hospital. This multicentre, non-inferiority, open-label, prospective randomized trial compared the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec-U100 and glargine-U100 for the management of hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In total, 180 general medical and surgical patients with an admission blood glucose (BG) between 7.8 and 22.2 mmol/L, treated with oral agents or insulin before hospitalization were randomly allocated (1:1) to a basal-bolus regimen using degludec (n = 92) or glargine (n = 88), as basal and aspart before meals. Insulin dose was adjusted daily to a target BG between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was the difference in mean hospital daily BG between groups.

RESULTS

Overall, the randomization BG was 12.2 ± 2.9 mmol/L and glycated haemoglobin 84 mmol/mol (9.8% ± 2.0%). There were no differences in mean daily BG (10.0 ± 2.1 vs. 10.0 ± 2.5 mmol/L, p = .9), proportion of BG in target range (54·5% ± 29% vs. 55·3% ± 28%, p = .85), basal insulin (29.6 ± 13 vs. 30.4 ± 18 units/day, p = .85), length of stay [median (IQR): 6.7 (4.7-10.5) vs. 7.5 (4.7-11.6) days, p = .61], hospital complications (23% vs. 23%, p = .95) between treatment groups. There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <3.9 mmol/L (17% vs. 19%, p = .75) or <3.0 mmol/L (3.7% vs. 1.3%, p = .62) between degludec and glargine.

CONCLUSION

Hospital treatment with degludec-U100 or glargine-U100 is equally safe and effective for the management of hyperglycaemia in general medical and surgical patients with type 2 diabetes.

Evidence-based therapeutics for hyperglycemia in hospitalized noncritically ill patients

Hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients, either with or without diabetes, is a common, serious, and costly healthcare problem. Evidence accumulated over 20 years has associated hyperglycemia with a significant increase in morbidity and mortality, both in surgical and medical patients. Based on this documented link between hyperglycemia and poor outcomes, clinical guidelines from professional organizations recommend the treatment of hospital hyperglycemia with a therapeutic goal of maintaining blood glucose (BG) levels less than 180 mg/dL. Insulin therapy remains a mainstay of glycemic management in the inpatient setting. The use of non-insulin antidiabetic drugs in the hospital setting is limited because little data are available regarding their safety and efficacy. However, information about the use of incretin-based therapy in inpatients has increased in the past 15 years. This review aims to summarize the different treatment strategies for hyperglycemia in hospitalized noncritical patients that are supported by observational studies or clinical trials with insulin and non-insulin drugs. In addition, we propose a protocol to help with the management of this important clinical problem.

Considerations for Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Patients During Hospitalization: A Narrative Review of What We Need to Know in the Age of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogs

With the availability of second-generation basal insulin analogs, insulin degludec (100 and 200 units/ml [degludec]) and insulin glargine 300 units/ml (glargine U300), clinicians now have long-acting, efficacious treatment options with stable pharmacokinetic profiles and associated low risks of hypoglycemia that may be desirable for many patients with type 2 diabetes. In this narrative review, we summarize the current evidence on glycemic control in hospitalized patients and review the pharmacokinetic properties of degludec and glargine U300 in relation to the challenges these may pose during the hospitalization of patients with type 2 diabetes who are receiving outpatient regimens involving these newer insulins. Their increased use in clinical practice requires that hospital healthcare professionals (HCPs) have appropriate protocols to transfer patients from these second-generation insulins to formulary insulin on admission, and ensure the safe discharge of patients and transition back to degludec or glargine U300. However, there is no guidance available on this. Based on the authors' clinical experience, we identify key issues to consider when arranging hospital care of such patients. We also summarize the limited available evidence on the potential utility of these second-generation basal insulin analogs in the non-critical inpatient setting and identify avenues for future research. To address current knowledge gaps, it is important that HCPs are educated about the differences between standard formulary insulins and second-generation insulins, and the importance of clear communication during patient transitions.

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.

Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) during hospitalization and therapy intensification at discharge in patients with insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes: results of the phase IV COBALTA trial

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) during hospitalization and therapy intensification at discharge in insufficiently controlled people with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

COBALTA (for its acronym in Spanish, COntrol Basal durante la hospitalizacion y al ALTA) was a multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase IV trial including 112 evaluable inpatients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled (glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 8%-10%) with basal insulin and/or non-insulin antidiabetic drugs. Patients were treated with a basal-bolus-correction insulin regimen with Gla-300 during the hospitalization and with Gla-300 and/or non-insulin antidiabetics for 6 months after discharge. The primary endpoint was the HbA1c change from baseline to month 6 postdischarge.

RESULTS

HbA1c levels decreased from 8.8%±0.6% at baseline to 7.2%±1.1% at month 6 postdischarge (p<0.001, mean change 1.6%±1.1%). All 7-point blood glucose levels decreased from baseline to 24 hours predischarge (p≤0.001, mean changes from 25.1±66.6 to 63.0±85.4 mg/dL). Fasting plasma glucose also decreased from baseline to 24 hours predischarge (p<0.001), month 3 (p<0.001) and month 6 (p<0.001) postdischarge (mean changes 51.5±90.9, 68.2±96.0 and 77.6±86.4 mg/dL, respectively). Satisfaction was high and hyperglycemia/hypoglycemia perception was low according to the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire at month 6 postdischarge. The incidence of confirmed (glucose<70 mg/dL)/severe hypoglycemia was 25.0% during hospitalization and 59.1% 6 months after discharge. No safety concerns were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient and intensification therapy at discharge with Gla-300 improved significantly glycemic control of patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled with other basal insulin and/or non-insulin antidiabetic medication, with high treatment satisfaction. Gla-300 could therefore be a treatment choice for hospital and postdischarge diabetes management.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Glargine U300 and Glargine U100 for the Inpatient Management of Medicine and Surgery Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Glargine U300 Hospital Trial

OBJECTIVE

The role of U300 glargine insulin for the inpatient management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has not been determined. We compared the safety and efficacy of glargine U300 versus glargine U100 in noncritically ill patients with T2D.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial included 176 patients with poorly controlled T2D (admission blood glucose [BG] 228 ± 82 mg/dL and HbA1c 9.5 ± 2.2%), treated with oral agents or insulin before admission. Patients were treated with a basal-bolus regimen with glargine U300 (n = 92) or glargine U100 (n = 84) and glulisine before meals. We adjusted insulin daily to a target BG of 70-180 mg/dL. The primary end point was noninferiority in the mean difference in daily BG between groups. The major safety outcome was the occurrence of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

There were no differences between glargine U300 and U100 in mean daily BG (186 ± 40 vs. 184 ± 46 mg/dL, P = 0.62), percentage of readings within target BG of 70-180 mg/dL (50 ± 27% vs. 55 ± 29%, P = 0.3), length of stay (median [IQR] 6.0 [4.0, 8.0] vs. 4.0 [3.0, 7.0] days, P = 0.06), hospital complications (6.5% vs. 11%, P = 0.42), or insulin total daily dose (0.43 ± 0.21 vs. 0.42 ± 0.20 units/kg/day, P = 0.74). There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <70 mg/dL (8.7% vs. 9.5%, P > 0.99), but glargine U300 resulted in significantly lower rates of clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) compared with glargine U100 (0% vs. 6.0%, P = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital treatment with glargine U300 resulted in similar glycemic control compared with glargine U100 and may be associated with a lower incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemia.