Practical Guidance on Effective Basal Insulin Titration for Primary Care Providers

What Is the Role of Basal Weekly Insulin in Clinical Practice? The State of the Art

Despite the advent of innovative therapies in the treatment of diabetes, ever-increasing awareness is still directed to the role of insulin since it has continued to be at the centre of diabetes therapy for decades, as a therapeutic integration of innovative agents in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), as the only replacement therapy in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and also in gestational diabetes. In this context, the study of molecules such as weekly basal insulins, both for their technological and pharmacodynamic innovation and their manageability and undoubted benefits in compliance with drug therapy, can only be a turning point in diabetes and for all its phenotypes. This review aims to provide insight into the knowledge of basal weekly insulins and their use in type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus by examining their safety, efficacy, manageability and increased therapeutic compliance.

Use of Voice-Based Conversational Artificial Intelligence for Basal Insulin Prescription Management Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Optimizing insulin therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes can be challenging given the need for frequent dose adjustments. Most patients receive suboptimal doses and do not achieve glycemic control.

Objective

To examine whether a voice-based conversational artificial intelligence (AI) application can help patients with type 2 diabetes titrate basal insulin at home to achieve rapid glycemic control.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this randomized clinical trial conducted at 4 primary care clinics at an academic medical center from March 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022, 32 adults with type 2 diabetes requiring initiation or adjustment of once-daily basal insulin were followed up for 8 weeks. Statistical analysis was performed from January to February 2023.

Interventions

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive basal insulin management with a voice-based conversational AI application or standard of care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were time to optimal insulin dose (number of days needed to achieve glycemic control), insulin adherence, and change in composite survey scores measuring diabetes-related emotional distress and attitudes toward health technology and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes were glycemic control and glycemic improvement. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis.

Results

The study population included 32 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.1 [12.7] years; 19 women [59.4%]). Participants in the voice-based conversational AI group more quickly achieved optimal insulin dosing compared with the standard of care group (median, 15 days [IQR, 6-27 days] vs >56 days [IQR, >29.5 to >56 days]; a significant difference in time-to-event curves; P = .006) and had better insulin adherence (mean [SD], 82.9% [20.6%] vs 50.2% [43.0%]; difference, 32.7% [95% CI, 8.0%-57.4%]; P = .01). Participants in the voice-based conversational AI group were also more likely than those in the standard of care group to achieve glycemic control (13 of 16 [81.3%; 95% CI, 53.7%-95.0%] vs 4 of 16 [25.0%; 95% CI, 8.3%-52.6%]; difference, 56.3% [95% CI, 21.4%-91.1%]; P = .005) and glycemic improvement, as measured by change in mean (SD) fasting blood glucose level (-45.9 [45.9] mg/dL [95% CI, -70.4 to -21.5 mg/dL] vs 23.0 [54.7] mg/dL [95% CI, -8.6 to 54.6 mg/dL]; difference, -68.9 mg/dL [95% CI, -107.1 to -30.7 mg/dL]; P = .001). There was a significant difference between the voice-based conversational AI group and the standard of care group in change in composite survey scores measuring diabetes-related emotional distress (-1.9 points vs 1.7 points; difference, -3.6 points [95% CI, -6.8 to -0.4 points]; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of a voice-based conversational AI application that provided autonomous basal insulin management for adults with type 2 diabetes, participants in the AI group had significantly improved time to optimal insulin dose, insulin adherence, glycemic control, and diabetes-related emotional distress compared with those in the standard of care group. These findings suggest that voice-based digital health solutions can be useful for medication titration.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05081011.

Patient and physician perspectives and experiences of basal insulin titration in type 2 diabetes in the United States: Cross-sectional surveys

AIM

Patient- and physician-associated barriers impact the effectiveness of basal insulin (BI) titration in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). We evaluated the experiences of patients with T2D and physicians with BI titration education.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this observational, cross-sectional study, patients with T2D and physicians treating patients with T2D were identified by claims in the Optum Research Database and were invited to complete a survey. Eligible patients had 12 months of continuous health-plan enrolment with medical and pharmacy benefits during the baseline period, and recent initiation of BI therapy. Eligible physicians had initiated BI for ≥1 eligible patient with T2D during the past 6 months.

RESULTS

In total, 416 patients and 386 physicians completed the survey. Ninety per cent of physicians reported treating ≥50 patients with T2D; 66% treated ≥25% of patients with BI. Whereas 74% of patients reported that BI titration was explained to them by a physician, 96% of physicians reported doing so. Furthermore, 20% of patients stated they were offered educational materials whereas 56% of physicians reported having provided materials. Physicians had higher expectations of glycaemic target achievement than were seen in the patient survey; their main concern was the patients' ability to titrate accurately (79%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a marked difference in patients' and physicians' experiences of BI titration education. Novel tools and strategies are required to enable effective BI titration, with more educational resources at the outset, and ongoing access to tools that provide clear, simple direction for self-titration with less reliance on physicians/health care providers.

Efficacy of a basal insulin dose management smartphone application for controlling fasting blood glucose in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus: A single-centre, randomised clinical study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the efficacy and safety of the 'Walk with you' application for titrating basal insulin (BI) doses in type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) hospitalised patients.

METHODS

This was a randomised, single-centre, open-label, controlled clinical trial to compare the changes in fasting blood glucose (FBG) and postprandial blood glucose (PBG), time to reach target FBG (FBG-TRT), incidence of hypoglycaemia events and FBG coefficient of variation in the application group (weight-based titration of BI dose regimen) and control group (typical adjustment regimen).

PATIENTS

This study selected 173 patients with T2DM using basal-prandial insulin therapy who were admitted to Binhaiwan Central Hospital of Dongguan between December 2021 and December 2022. Patients were randomised to the control group or the application group (App group) and then titrated to achieve an FBG concentration of less than 7.0 mmol/L.

RESULTS

There were 86 patients in the control group and 87 patients in the App group. The FBG concentrations in the control and App groups were decreased by 6.77 ± 4.75 and 5.95 ± 4.06 mmol/L, respectively. The FBG-TRTs in the control and App groups were 3.80 ± 1.52 and 2.82 ± 1.34 days, respectively (p < .001). Fewer patients in the control group reached the FBG-TRT within 3 days than in the App group, with 46.5% and 71.3% of patients reaching that target, respectively. There was no significant between-group difference in hypoglycaemia incidence.

CONCLUSION

The use of this weight-based insulin dose titration protocol for BI app is effective and safe for achieving the target FBG in noncritically ill patients with T2DM and is free, easy to use and user friendly.

Advances in the management of type 2 diabetes in adults

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic and progressive cardiometabolic disorder that affects more than 10% of adults worldwide and is a major cause of morbidity, mortality, disability, and high costs. Over the past decade, the pattern of management of diabetes has shifted from a predominantly glucose centric approach, focused on lowering levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), to a directed complications centric approach, aimed at preventing short term and long term complications of diabetes, and a pathogenesis centric approach, which looks at the underlying metabolic dysfunction of excess adiposity that both causes and complicates the management of diabetes. In this review, we discuss the latest advances in patient centred care for type 2 diabetes, focusing on drug and non-drug approaches to reducing the risks of complications of diabetes in adults. We also discuss the effects of social determinants of health on the management of diabetes, particularly as they affect the treatment of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes.

The Need for Data Standards and Implementation Policies to Integrate Insulin Delivery Data Into the Electronic Health Record

Integration of insulin dosing data into the electronic health record (EHR), combined with other patient-generated health care data, would facilitate the use of wirelessly connected insulin delivery systems, including smart insulin pens, insulin pumps, and advanced hybrid closed-loop systems. In 2022, Diabetes Technology Society developed the Integration of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data into the EHR (iCoDE) Project, which is the first consensus standard for integrating data from a wearable device into the EHR. The iCoDE Standard is a comprehensive guide for any health care delivery organization or hospital for automatically integrating continuous glucose monitoring data into the EHR. Diabetes Technology Society is following iCoDE with the Integration of Connected Diabetes Device Data into the EHR (iCoDE-2) Project, to similarly provide guidance for integrating insulin delivery data into the EHR alongside continuous glucose monitoring data.

Comparison of two titration programmes for adding insulin detemir to oral antidiabetic drugs in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM

To explore the effect of active insulin titration versus usual titration on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).

METHODS

In a 24-week, prospective and randomized study, 172 patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to either active titration or usual titration. Efficacy and safety outcomes included changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose, percentage of individuals achieving HbA1c<53 mmol/mol, and hypoglycaemic events.

RESULTS

At Week 24, change in HbA1c was -1.08% ± 1.60% in the active titration group and -0.95% ± 1.34% in the usual titration group (P = 0.569). The percentages of individuals achieving HbA1c<53 mmol/mol were 29.4% and 16.1% in the active and usual titration groups, respectively (P = 0.037). There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypoglycaemia between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that, with active titration, baseline HbA1c levels and postprandial glucose excursion were significantly associated with achieving HbA1c<53 mmol/mol.

CONCLUSION

Addition of basal insulin using active titration for 24 weeks provided a higher rate of HbA1c target achievement without significant hypoglycaemia compared to usual titration in individuals with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

Hypoglycaemia events with iGlarLixi versus premix biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with type 2 diabetes advancing from basal insulin: An analysis of the SoliMix trial

AIMS

To explore details of the incidence and rates of daytime and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, levels of hypoglycaemia, and relationship to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), when comparing iGlarLixi versus premixed biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in the SoliMix randomized controlled trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This exploratory analysis of SoliMix used logistic regression and negative binomial regression analyses to assess between-treatment differences in the incidence and rates of hypoglycaemia by time of day. A negative binomial model was used to derive estimated annualized hypoglycaemia rates as a function of HbA1c.

RESULTS

iGlarLixi was associated with lower incidence and rates of American Diabetes Association Level 2 (<54 mg/dL [<3.0 mmol/L]) hypoglycaemia during both night and day versus BIAsp 30. Incidence and rates of Level 1 (<70 to ≥54 mg/dL [<3.9 to ≥3.0 mmol/L]) hypoglycaemia were also mostly shown to be reduced with iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30. Severe (Level 3) events were too few for analysis (n = 3). iGlarLixi was associated with lower modelled event rates of Level 2 and Level 1 hypoglycaemia over a wide range of HbA1c levels versus BIAsp 30.

CONCLUSIONS

These results show that the lower HbA1c levels and weight benefit seen with iGlarLixi versus premixed BIAsp 30 in people with type 2 diabetes advancing their basal insulin therapy in the SoliMix trial are also accompanied by a lower risk of hypoglycaemia at any time of day and across a broad range of HbA1c levels.

Comparing a daily versus weekly titration algorithm in people with type 2 diabetes switching from basal insulin to iGlarLixi in the LixiLan ONE CAN randomized trial

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of a simple daily titration algorithm compared with a weekly dose adjustment of iGlarLixi in people with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

LixiLan ONE CAN (NCT03767543), a randomized, 26-week, open-label, multicentre phase 3 trial conducted in Canada, involved 265 people with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1c of ≥7.5% to ≤ 10.5% or less (≥58 to ≤91 mmol/mol) on basal insulin for 6 months or longer. Participants were randomized 1:1 with instructions to self-titrate iGlarLixi daily (1 unit/day) or once weekly (2 or 4 units/week) to a common target fasting plasma glucose of 4.4 to 5.6 mmol/L (79 to 101 mg/dl). The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of the daily versus weekly titration algorithm.

RESULTS

At 26 weeks, daily titration of iGlarLixi was not inferior to a weekly titration for both the prespecified primary endpoint of change in HbA1c from baseline (least square [LS] mean change: -1.24% vs. -0.92%, respectively; LS mean difference: 0.32%; 95% CI [0.07, 0.57]; P < .0001) and for the secondary endpoint of change in weight from baseline (LS mean change: -0.22 vs. +0.81 kg, respectively; LS mean difference: 1.03 kg; 95% CI [0.01, 2.06]; P < .0001). Indeed, for both the primary and secondary outcome, the daily titration of iGlarLixi was superior. There were no statistically significant differences in hypoglycaemia incidence between the two titration strategies during the 26-week study.

CONCLUSION

A daily titration algorithm for switching basal insulin to iGlarLixi was shown to be non-inferior and superior for glycaemic control and weight compared with weekly titration.

Basal weekly insulins: the way of the future!

Basal insulin treatment is indispensable for patients with type 1 diabetes and often required by many with type 2 diabetes. Incremental advances lengthening the duration of action of insulin analogs and reducing pharmacodynamic variability have resulted in truly once-daily, long-acting basal insulin analogs. In the quest for better basal insulins to facilitate improvements in glycemic control and long-term outcomes, the driving need is to remove barriers delaying timely initiation of basal insulin, to maximize treatment adherence and persistence and reduce treatment burden without increasing risk of hypoglycemia. We review the range of investigational once-weekly insulins and their molecular strategies and profiles. Currently, the two most advanced clinical development programs are: (1) basal insulin icodec, an insulin analog acylated with a C20 fatty diacid (icosanedioic acid) side chain (Novo Nordisk) and (2) basal insulin Fc, a fusion protein that combines a single-chain insulin variant with a human immunoglobulin G fragment crystallizable domain (Eli Lilly). Available phase 2 data for these two once-weekly agents show comparable glycemic control to existing once-daily insulin analogs, with no greater risk of hypoglycemia. While phase 3 data are awaited to confirm efficacy and safety, we provide future clinical perspectives on practical considerations for the potential use of once-weekly insulins.

Practical guidance on the initiation, titration, and switching of basal insulins: a narrative review for primary care

Many patients with type 2 diabetes will ultimately require the inclusion of basal insulin in their treatment regimen. Since most people with type 2 diabetes are managed in the community, it is important that primary care providers understand and correctly manage the initiation and titration of basal insulins, and help patients to self-manage insulin injections. Newer, long-acting basal insulins provide greater stability and flexibility than older preparations and improved delivery systems. Basal insulin is usually initiated at a conservative dose of 10 units/day or 0.1-0.2 units/kg/day, then titrated thereafter over several weeks or months, based on patients' self-measured fasting plasma glucose, to achieve an individualized target (usually 80-130 mg/dL). Through a shared decision-making process, confirmation of appropriate goals and titration methods should be established, including provisions for events that might alter scheduled titration (e.g. travel, dietary change, illness, hospitalization, etc.). Although switching between basal insulins is usually easily accomplished, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences between formulations require clinicians to provide explicit guidance to patients. Basal insulin is effective long-term, but overbasalization (continuing to escalate dose without a meaningful reduction in fasting plasma glucose) should be avoided.Key messagesPrimary care providers often initiate basal insulin for people with type 2 diabetes.Basal insulin is recommended to be initiated at 10 units/day or 0.1-0.2 units/kg/day, and doses must be titrated to agreed fasting plasma glucose goals, usually 80-130 mg/dL. A simple rule is to gradually increase the initial dose by 1 unit per day (NPH, insulin detemir, and glargine 100 units/mL) or 2-4 units once or twice per week (NPH, insulin detemir, glargine 100 and 300 units/mL, and degludec) until FPG levels remain consistently within the target range. If warranted, switching between basal insulins can be done using simple regimens.The dose of basal insulin should be increased as required up to approximately 0.5-1.0 units/kg/day in some cases. Overbasalization (continuing to escalate dose without a meaningful reduction in fasting plasma glucose) is not recommended; rather re-evaluation of individual therapy, including consideration of more concentrated basal insulin preparations and/or short-acting prandial insulin as well as other glucose-lowering therapies, is suggested.

Leveraging advances in diabetes technologies in primary care: a narrative review

Primary care providers (PCPs) play an important role in providing medical care for patients with type 2 diabetes. Advancements in diabetes technologies can assist PCPs in providing personalised care that addresses each patient's individual needs. Diabetes technologies fall into two major categories: devices for glycaemic self-monitoring and insulin delivery systems. Monitoring technologies encompass self-measured blood glucose (SMBG), where blood glucose is intermittently measured by a finger prick blood sample, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices, which use an interstitial sensor and are capable of giving real-time information. Studies show people using real-time CGM have better glucose control compared to SMBG. CGM allows for new parameters including time in range (the time spent within the desired target glucose range), which is an increasingly relevant real-time metric of glycaemic control. Insulin pens have increased the ease of administration of insulin and connected pens that can calculate and capture data on dosing are becoming available. There are a number of websites, software programs, and applications that can help PCPs and patients to integrate diabetes technology into their diabetes management schedules. In this article, we summarise these technologies and provide practical information to inform PCPs about utility in their clinical practice. The guiding principle is that use of technology should be individualised based on a patient's needs, desires, and availability of devices. Diabetes technology can help patients improve their clinical outcomes and achieve the quality of life they desire by decreasing disease burden.KEY MESSAGESIt is important to understand the role that diabetes technologies can play in primary care to help deliver high-quality care, taking into account patient and community resources. Diabetes technologies fall into two major categories: devices for glycaemic self-monitoring and insulin delivery systems. Modern self-measured blood glucose devices are simple to use and can help guide decision making for self-management plans to improve clinical outcomes, but cannot provide "live" data and may under- or overestimate blood glucose; patients' monitoring technique and compliance should be reviewed regularly. Importantly, before a patient is provided with monitoring technology, they must receive suitably structured education in its use and interpretation.Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is now standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes and people with type 2 diabetes on meal-time (prandial) insulin. Real-time CGM can tell both the patient and the healthcare provider when glucose is in the normal range, and when they are experiencing hyper- or hypoglycaemia. Using CGM data, changes in lifestyle, eating habits, and medications, including insulin, can help the patient to stay in a normal glycaemic range (70-180 mg/dL). Real-time CGM allows for creation of an ambulatory glucose profile and monitoring of time in range (the time spent within target blood glucose of 70-180 mg/dL), which ideally should be at least 70%; avoiding time above range (>180 mg/dL) is associated with reduced diabetes complications and avoiding time below range (<70 mg/dL) will prevent hypoglycaemia. Insulin pens are simpler to use than syringes, and connected pens capture information on insulin dose and injection timing.There are a number of websites, software programs and applications that can help primary care providers and patients to integrate diabetes technology into their diabetes management schedules. The guiding principle is that use of technology should be individualised based on a patient's needs, desires, skill level, and availability of devices.