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

A machine learning-based algorithm to identify U-500R insulin candidates among adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus in US retrospective databases

OBJECTIVE

To develop a machine learning-based predictive algorithm to identify patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who are candidates for initiation of U-500R insulin (U-500R).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of patients with T2DM was used from a large US administrative claims and electronic health records (EHR) database affiliated with Optum. Predictor variables derived from the data were used to identify appropriate supervised machine learning models including least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and extreme gradient boosted (XGBoost) methods. Predictive performance was assessed using precision-recall (PR) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC). The clinical interpretation of the final model was supported by fitting the final set of variables from the LASSO and XGBoost models to a traditional logistic regression model. Model choice was determined by comparing Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), residual deviances, and scaled Brier scores.

RESULTS

Among 81,242 patients who met the study eligibility criteria, 577 initiated U-500R and were assigned to the positive class. Predictors of U-500R initiation included overweight/obesity, neuropathy, HbA1c ≥9% and 8%-9%, BUN 23.8 to <112 mg/dl, ALT 35.9-2056.2 U/L, no radiological chest exams, no GFR labs, and gait/mobility abnormalities. The best performing model was the LASSO model with an ROC AUC of 0.776 on the hold-out test set.

CONCLUSION

This study successfully developed and validated a machine learning-based algorithm to identify U-500R candidates among patients with T2DM. This may help health care providers and decision-makers to understand important characteristics of patients who could use U-500R therapies which in turn could support policies and guidelines for optimal patient management.

Survey Reveals Patient and Health Care Provider Experiences and Challenges With the Use of High Doses of Basal Insulin

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic, progressive disease, and its management results in a high emotional burden on patients. Eventually many patients require and can benefit from the use of insulin. This article reports results of a survey of patients and health care providers regarding their experiences of and challenges with the use of basal insulin. Health care providers can play a key role in helping people with type 2 diabetes overcome the challenges associated with the use of basal insulin, including connecting with their emotional needs and understanding the stressors associated with managing diabetes.

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.

Assessment of basal insulin adherence using 2 methodologies among Texas Medicaid enrollees with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: Basal insulin is often recommended as the initial therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes who require insulin treatment. Adequate adherence is critical to diabetes management, yet suboptimal insulin adherence has been reported. Second-generation long-acting (SGLA) insulin has higher dosing flexibility and lower hypoglycemia risk and may improve adherence. However, little is known regarding adherence to SGLA insulin and how adherence to SGLA insulin compares with intermediate-acting neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) and first-generation long-acting (FGLA) insulin. Measurement of insulin adherence is challenging because of the inaccuracies of recorded days supply of insulin, and traditional medication possession ratio (MPR) may be negatively affected. Adjusted MPR (aMPR) has been developed in an effort to address this issue. OBJECTIVE: To examine the unadjusted and adjusted associations between basal insulin type and adherence to basal insulin using MPR and aMPR. METHODS: This retrospective database study used Texas Medicaid prescription claims from January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2017. The index date was the date of the first basal insulin prescription without the same prescription 6 months before (pre-index), and all patients were followed for 12 months (post-index). Patients aged 18-63 years with ≥ 1 pre-index prescription of an oral hypoglycemia agent (OHA) or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), without any post-index prescription of premixed insulin or a basal insulin different from index insulin, and with continuous enrollment throughout the pre- and post-index periods, were included. The dependent variable was basal insulin adherence over 12 months, measured using MPR and aMPR. Unadjusted and adjusted adherence comparisons were conducted by basal (background) insulin type (NPH, FGLA, and SGLA). Covariates included age, gender, baseline use of basal insulins and comorbid medications, total number of medications, OHA adherence, post-index number of OHAs, and use of bolus insulins and GLP-1 RAs. Analysis of variance, chi-square tests, and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 5,034 patients included, NPH, FGLA, and SGLA insulin users accounted for 3.7%, 89.8%, and 6.5%, respectively. The overall mean (SD) age was 50.9 (9.9) years, and 65.9% were female. In the unadjusted bivariate analyses, SGLA insulin users had significantly higher adherence, using either MPR (SGLA 0.68 [0.25] vs. FGLA 0.59 [0.27] vs. NPH 0.55 [0.27]; P < 0.0001) or aMPR (0.83 [0.23] vs. 0.78 [0.26] vs. 0.73 [0.28]; P = 0.0001). After controlling for covariates, insulin type was not significantly associated with the likelihood of being adherent (MPR or aMPR ≥ 0.8) using either measure. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to SGLA insulin was not different from adherence to other basal insulins after controlling for patient characteristics. Yet, MPR and aMPR have limitations and warrant further confirmation of the study findings. Before new adherence measures for insulin therapy are developed, MPR and aMPR should be used with caution. DISCLOSURES: No specific funding was received for this manuscript. The authors report no potential conflicts of interest. Part of the data from this study was presented as posters at the American Pharmacists Association 2020 Annual Meeting & Exposition, March 20-23, 2020, in National Harbor, MD, and at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2020 Conference, May 16-20, 2020, in Orlando, FL.

Comparison of pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/mL in healthy cats

Insulin glargine 300 U/mL (IGla-U300) and insulin degludec (IDeg) are synthetic insulin analogs designed as basal insulin formulations. In people, IGla-U300 is more predictable and longer acting compared with glargine 100 U/mL. The duration of action of IDeg in people is > 42 h, allowing flexibility in daily administration. We hypothesized that IDeg would have longer duration of action compared with IGla-U300 in healthy purpose-bred cats. Seven cats received 0.4 U/kg (subcutaneous) of IDeg and IGla-U300 on two different days, >1 wk apart. Exogenous insulin was measured and pharmacodynamic parameters were derived from glucose infusion rates during isoglycemic clamps and suppression of endogenous insulin. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality, and normally distributed parameters were compared using paired t-tests. There was no difference between IDeg and IGla-U300 in onset, peak action, or total metabolic effect. On average, time to peak action (T_PEAK) of IGla-U300 was 145 ± 114 min (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25-264) longer than T_PEAK of IDeg (P = 0.03) and duration of action (T_DUR) of IGla-U300 was 250 ± 173 min (95% CI = 68-432) longer than T_DUR of IDeg (P = 0.02). The "flatness" of the time-action profile (as represented by the quotient of peak action/T_DUR) was significantly greater for IGla-U300 compared with IDeg (P = 0.04). Overall, insulin concentration measurements concurred with findings from isoglycemic clamps. Based on these data, IDeg is not suitable for once-daily administration in cats. The efficacy of once-daily IGla-U300 in diabetic cats should be further investigated.

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized, crossover trial comparing a pen injector with insulin degludec versus a pen injector with insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes

Objective: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with insulin resistance and deteriorated glycemic control that can be restored with insulin injections. Choice of insulin pen injector may affect complexity, adherence, efficacy of treatment and health-related quality of life. We describe detailed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on treatment impact and preference comparing insulin degludec (degludec) using FlexTouch¹ versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) with SoloStar² pen injector.Methods: In this randomized, multicenter (USA), open-label, crossover, treat-to-target study (NCT01570751), patients with T2D using high-dose insulin (≥81 U/day from vials) were randomized (n = 145) 1:1 to 16 weeks of degludec U200 (3 mL FlexTouch) followed by 16 weeks of glargine U100 (3 mL SoloStar) or vice versa. PRO questionnaires assessed treatment impact and patient preference of pen injectors.Results: Significantly more patients (p < .01) considered FlexTouch "extremely easy" for learning (62.5 vs. 43.0%), maintaining (63.2 vs. 42.2%) and adjusting the dose (63.2 vs. 44.4%), and significantly more were "very" or "extremely confident" in using the device (60.3 vs. 36.3%) and in its accuracy (50.7 vs. 30.4%) versus SoloStar. Significantly more were "not at all bothered" by device discomfort (74.3 vs. 54.1%), whereas device size (83.8 vs. 80.0%) or public use (69.9 vs. 60.7%) were numerically in favor of FlexTouch. Significantly more patients preferred degludec treatment with FlexTouch (59 vs. 22%), preferred to continue (67 vs. 15%) and recommend (67 vs. 14%) use of FlexTouch compared with SoloStar with glargine U100.Conclusions: In this randomized, crossover trial, lower treatment impact and higher patient preference were reported for FlexTouch versus SoloStar pen injectors.

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.

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.

Effect of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 on Hypoglycemia in Hispanic Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Results From the SWITCH 2 Trial

IN BRIEF Hispanic patients with type 2 diabetes have poorer glycemic control and are at higher risk of severe diabetes complications and mortality than non-Hispanic white patients. This post hoc analysis investigated the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in the Hispanic patient subpopulation from the SWITCH 2 trial. In Hispanic patients, hypoglycemia was consistently lower and nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly lower with degludec versus glargine U100 at similar levels of glycemic control. Overall, results in Hispanic patients in SWITCH 2 were consistent with those in non-Hispanic patients.

Comparative Benefits and Harms of Basal Insulin Analogues for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Basal insulin analogues aim for protracted glycemic control with minimal adverse effects.

PURPOSE

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of basal insulin analogues for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

DATA SOURCES

Several databases from inception to April 2018 without language restrictions, ClinicalTrials.gov to April 2018, references of reviews, and meeting abstract books.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials lasting at least 12 weeks that compared efficacy (change in hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] level from baseline [primary outcome]; percentage of patients with HbA1c level <7% at end of study and change in body weight [secondary outcomes]) and safety (hypoglycemia) of basal insulin analogues.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each outcome. All authors evaluated overall confidence in the evidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-nine trials (26 195 patients) assessed 10 basal insulin analogues. Low- to very-low-quality evidence indicated that thrice-weekly degludec (Deg-3TW) was inferior to most other regimens for reducing HbA1c level, with mean differences ranging from 0.21% (vs. degludec, 100 U/mL [Deg-100]) to 0.32% (vs. glargine, 300 U/mL [Glar-300]). High- to moderate-quality evidence suggested that detemir had a favorable weight profile versus all comparators, and Glar-300 was associated with less weight gain than glargine, 100 U/mL (Glar-100); Deg-100; degludec, 200 U/mL (Deg-200); Deg-3TW; and LY2963016. Low- and very-low-quality evidence suggested that Deg-100, Deg-200, and Glar-300 were associated with lower incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia than detemir, Glar-100, LY2963016, and neutral protamine lispro (NPL). Incidence of severe hypoglycemia did not differ among regimens, except NPL, which was associated with increased risk versus Deg-100, detemir, Glar-100, and Glar-300.

LIMITATIONS

Results are based mostly on indirect comparisons. Confidence in summary estimates is low or very low due to individual-study limitations, imprecision, or inconsistency.

CONCLUSION

Low-quality evidence suggests that basal insulin analogues for T2DM do not substantially differ in their glucose-lowering effect. Low- and very-low-quality evidence suggests some regimens may be associated with lower risk for nocturnal hypoglycemia (Deg-100, Deg-200, and Glar-300) or less weight gain (detemir and Glar-300).

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42016037055).

Understanding concentrated insulins: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compile, analyze, and summarize the literature on concentrated insulins (i.e. concentrations >100 units/mL) from randomized controlled trials and derive guidance on appropriate use of these agents.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Trialtrove (through April 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (through April 2017) for phase 1-4 clinical studies using concentrated insulins. Selected studies included multiple-arm, randomized controlled trials evaluating subcutaneously administered concentrated insulins. Trial registration numbers (selected studies) were searched in Medline, Embase and Google Scholar (through April 2017). Late-phase studies were graded using guidance from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight completed trials (7900 participants) and 34 qualifying publications were identified. Four marketed concentrated insulins were evaluated: two long-acting basal (insulin glargine 300 units/mL and insulin degludec 200 units/mL [IDeg200]), one rapid-acting prandial (insulin lispro 200 units/mL [ILis200]), and one prandial/basal (human regular insulin 500 units/mL). Early-phase trials established bioequivalence for IDeg200 and ILis200 with the corresponding 100 units/mL formulations. Efficacy studies showed noninferior glycemic control between comparators for long-acting basal and prandial/basal products with generally low severe hypoglycemia. Six additional concentrated insulins with completed early-phase development were also identified.

CONCLUSION

Concentrated-insulin products demonstrated efficacious and safe outcomes in appropriate patients. Clinical findings (HbA1c and hypoglycemia) and methodology (initiation and titration), patient factors (insulin experience and dosing requirements) and treatment characteristics (bioequivalence, potency and device features) are important considerations. This overview of these and other factors provides essential information and guidance for using concentrated insulins in clinical practice.

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.