Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a 1-year, randomized, treat-to-target trial (BEGIN Once Long)

Once-weekly insulin icodec compared with daily basal insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes: Participant-level meta-analysis of the ONWARDS 1-5 trials

AIM

To perform a participant-level post hoc meta-analysis of Phase 3a trials in type 2 diabetes (T2D) to characterize the hypoglycaemia safety and glycaemic efficacy of once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All ONWARDS 1-5 randomized participants were pooled as overall T2D, insulin-naive, an insulin-experienced subgroups, and by once-daily trial comparator (degludec or glargine U100). The main outcomes included incidence and rates of clinically significant and severe hypoglycaemia. Additional endpoints included change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline and HbA1c target achievement without clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis comprised 3765 participants (1882 icodec vs. 1883 comparators). In the overall T2D pool, clinically significant hypoglycaemia incidence was similar in the icodec group versus the comparator group (17.9% vs. 16.2%, odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94, 1.38); however, rates were low but significantly higher in the icodec group (1.15 vs. 1.00 episodes/participant-year of exposure, estimated rate ratio 1.51 [95% CI 1.24, 1.85]). Fewer severe hypoglycaemic episodes occurred with icodec than with comparators (8 vs. 18). A greater reduction in HbA1c occurred with icodec versus comparators, irrespective of subgroup (estimated treatment difference range [-0.10 to -0.29%]; all p < 0.05). Across subgroups, except for the insulin-experienced subgroup, the odds of achieving HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (7.0%) without clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia were greater with icodec than with comparators (OR range 1.30-1.55; all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Icodec was associated with a similar incidence but higher rates of clinically significant hypoglycaemia (equating to one additional hypoglycaemic episode every 6 years) and fewer severe hypoglycaemic episodes versus comparators. Our findings also confirmed the greater efficacy of icodec that was demonstrated in the ONWARDS trial programme.

Tailoring the Padova Type 2 Diabetes Simulator for Treatment Guidance in Target Populations

OBJECTIVE

The Padova type 2 diabetes (T2D) simulator (T2DS) has been recently proposed to optimize T2D treatments including novel long-acting insulins. It consists of a physiological model and an in silico population describing glucose dynamics, derived from early-stage T2D subjects studied with sophisticated tracer-based experimental techniques. This limits T2DS domain of validity to this specific sub-population. Conversely, running simulations in insulin-naïve or advanced T2D subjects, would be more valuable. However, it is rarely possible or cost-effective to run complex experiments in such populations. Therefore, we propose a method for tuning the T2DS to any desired T2D sub-population using published clinical data. As case study, we extended the T2DS to insulin-naïve T2D subjects, who need to start insulin therapy to compensate the reduced insulin function.

METHODS

T2DS model was identified based on literature data of the target population. The estimated parameters were used to generate a virtual cohort of insulin-naïve T2D subjects (inC1). A model of basal insulin degludec (IDeg) was also incorporated into the T2DS to enable basal insulin therapy. The resulting tailored T2DS was assessed by simulating IDeg therapy initiation and comparing simulated vs. clinical trial outcomes. For further validation, this procedure was reiterated to generate a new cohort of insulin-naïve T2D (inC2) assuming inC1 as target population.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were found when comparing fasting plasma glucose and IDeg dose, neither in clinical data vs. inC1, nor inC1 vs. inC2.

CONCLUSIONS

The tuned T2DS allowed reproducing the main findings of clinical studies in insulin-naïve T2D subjects.

SIGNIFICANCE

The proposed methodology makes the Padova T2DS usable for supporting treatment guidance in target T2D populations.

Clinical perspectives on the frequency of hypoglycemia in treat-to-target randomized controlled trials comparing basal insulin analogs in type 2 diabetes: a narrative review

The objective of this review was to comprehensively present and summarize trends in reported rates of hypoglycemia with one or two times per day basal insulin analogs in individuals with type 2 diabetes to help address and contextualize the emerging theoretical concern of increased hypoglycemic risk with once-weekly basal insulins.Hypoglycemia data were extracted from treat-to-target randomized clinical trials conducted during 2000-2022. Published articles were identified on PubMed or within the US Food and Drug Administration submission documents. Overall, 57 articles were identified: 44 assessed hypoglycemic outcomes in participants receiving basal-only therapy (33 in insulin-naive participants; 11 in insulin-experienced participants), 4 in a mixed population (insulin-naive and insulin-experienced participants) and 9 in participants receiving basal-bolus therapy. For the analysis, emphasis was placed on level 2 (blood glucose <3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL)) and level 3 (or severe) hypoglycemia.Overall, event rates for level 2 or level 3 hypoglycemia across most studies ranged from 0.06 to 7.10 events/person-year of exposure (PYE) for participants receiving a basal-only insulin regimen; the rate for basal-bolus regimens ranged from 2.4 to 13.6 events/PYE. Rates were generally lower with second-generation basal insulins (insulin degludec or insulin glargine U300) than with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin or first-generation basal insulins (insulin detemir or insulin glargine U100). Subgroup categorization by sulfonylurea usage, end-of-treatment insulin dose or glycated hemoglobin reduction did not show consistent trends on overall hypoglycemia rates. Hypoglycemia rates reported so far for once-weekly basal insulins are consistent with or lower than those reported for daily-administered basal insulin analogs.

Smart Algorithms for Efficient Insulin Therapy Initiation in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes: An in Silico Study

BACKGROUND

Insulin-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) start basal insulin titration from a low initial insulin dose (IID), which is adjusted weekly or twice per week based on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) measurement as recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA). The procedure to reach the optimal insulin dose (OID) is time-consuming, especially in subjects with high insulin needs (HIN). The aim of this study is to provide a fast and effective, but still safe, insulin titration algorithm in insulin-naive T2D subjects with HIN.

METHOD

To do that, we in silico cloned 300 subjects, matching a real population of insulin-naive T2D and used a logistic regression model to classify them as subjects with HIN or subjects with low insulin needs (LIN). Then, we applied to the subjects with HIN both a more aggressive insulin dose initiation (SMART-IID) and two newly developed titration algorithms (continuous glucose monitoring [CGM]-BASED and SMART-CGM-BASED) in which CGM was used to guide the decision-making process.

RESULTS

The new titration algorithm applied to HIN-classified individuals guaranteed a faster reaching of OID, with significant improvements in time in range (TIR) and reduction in time above range (TAR) in the first months of the trial, without any clinically significant increase in the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Smart basal insulin titration algorithms enable insulin-naive T2D individuals to achieve OID and improve their glycemic control faster than standard guidelines, without jeopardizing patient safety.

Insulin Degludec in People with Type 2 Diabetes in China: A Non-interventional, Retrospective Chart Review Study (CN-TREAT)

INTRODUCTION

Insulin degludec (degludec), an ultra-long-acting basal insulin analogue, provides equivalent glycemic control to other basal insulin analogues, with lower risk of hypoglycemia and flexible dosing. Chinese TREsiba AudiT (CN-TREAT) investigated outcomes with degludec in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in routine clinical practice in China.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review study in adults with T2D initiating or switching to degludec at 50 sites in China between January 2020 and July 2021. The primary endpoint was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of study (EOS; week 20). Secondary endpoints included change from baseline to EOS in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG), daily insulin dose, and rate of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Data from 936 participants were included (499 insulin-naïve; 437 insulin-experienced). Mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) HbA1c change from baseline to EOS was - 1.48%-points (- 1.57; - 1.38; P < 0.0001) overall: - 1.95%-points (- 2.08; - 1.81; P < 0.0001) in insulin-naïve participants and - 0.95%-points (- 1.08; - 0.82; P < 0.0001) in insulin-experienced participants. Mean (95% CI) changes in FPG and SMPG were - 2.27 mmol/L (- 2.69; - 1.85; P < 0.0001) and - 2.89 mmol/L (- 3.52; - 2.25; P < 0.0001), respectively, with similar reductions in insulin-naïve and insulin-experienced subgroups. Rate of hypoglycemia did not change statistically significantly from baseline to EOS overall, or in insulin-experienced participants, except when adjusted for baseline hypoglycemia. Basal insulin dose did not change statistically significantly in insulin-experienced participants.

CONCLUSION

In routine clinical practice in China, initiation or switching to degludec was associated with improvements in glycemic control in people with T2D, with no increased risk of hypoglycemia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinialTrials.gov, NCT04227431.

Simplification of Complex Insulin Regimens with IdegLira in People with Type 2 Diabetes: Literature Review and Clinical Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

This study developed a simple algorithm based on clinical results described in medical literature and which allows one to simplify complex insulin regimes with IdegLira to avoid adverse events related to the complexity of some insulin treatments.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature that allowed us to identify studies that evaluated the clinical result of simplifying complex insulin regimes. The authors reviewed the common factors these simpler regimes had, including the type of patients who used them.

RESULTS

We found nine clinical studies published between 2017 and 2022, eight performed in Europe and one in Latin America. The monitoring time of the studies ranged between 3 and 18 months. The size of the study populations was between 61 and 611 patients (the latter was in five countries). In all studies, HbA1c decreased by 0.6-1.7% and the weight decreased by 0.1-3.11 kg.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the findings of these studies, we made some recommendations for clinical practice to simplify treatment. The results of these studies support an algorithm that simplifies the treatment of complex insulin regimens.

Safety and Clinical Outcomes of Insulin Degludec in Korean Patients with Diabetes in Real-World Practices: A Prospective, Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) in a real-world population of Korean patients with diabetes requiring insulin therapy.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, single-arm, open-label, non-interventional study. Patients aged ≥ 12 months and treated with previous glucose-lowering medications were eligible to switch to IDeg. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and the secondary endpoints were changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial glucose (PPG), and target HbA1c < 7.0%.

RESULTS

In total, 3225 and 2450 patients were included in the safety analysis set (SAS) and effectiveness analysis set (EAS), respectively. The mean baseline HbA1c and duration of diabetes were 9.4% and 13.0 years, respectively. Adverse events were reported in 740 patients (22.9%); the majority were mild and resolved. Significant improvements were observed in HbA1c, FPG, and PPG at week 26 (all p < 0.0001). The target of HbA1c < 7% was achieved in 22.2% of patients at week 26.

CONCLUSION

In real-world clinical practice, 26 weeks of IDeg treatment resulted in significant reductions in glycemic parameters with a low incidence of AEs in Korean patients with diabetes. No new safety signals were observed.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02779413) and the universal trial number is [U1111-1176-2287].

Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec vs Once-Daily Insulin Degludec in Adults With Insulin-Naive Type 2 Diabetes: The ONWARDS 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Once-weekly insulin icodec could provide a simpler dosing alternative to daily basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec vs once-daily insulin degludec in people with insulin-naive type 2 diabetes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Randomized, double-masked, noninferiority, treat-to-target, phase 3a trial conducted from March 2021 to June 2022 at 92 sites in 11 countries in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with any noninsulin glucose-lowering agents with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7%-11% (53-97 mmol/mol).

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either once-weekly icodec and once-daily placebo (icodec group; n = 294) or once-daily degludec and once-weekly placebo (degludec group; n = 294).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 (noninferiority margin, 0.3% percentage points). Secondary end points included change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to week 26, mean weekly insulin dose during the last 2 weeks of treatment, body weight change from baseline to week 26, and number of level 2 (clinically significant; glucose level <54 mg/dL) and level 3 (severe; requiring external assistance for recovery) hypoglycemic episodes.

Results

Among 588 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 58 [10] years; 219 [37%] women), 564 (96%) completed the trial. Mean HbA1c level decreased from 8.6% (observed) to 7.0% (estimated) at 26 weeks in the icodec group and from 8.5% (observed) to 7.2% (estimated) in the degludec group (estimated treatment difference [ETD], -0.2 [95% CI, -0.3 to -0.1] percentage points), confirming noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .002). There were no significant differences between the icodec and degludec groups for fasting plasma glucose change from baseline to week 26 (ETD, 0 [95% CI, -6 to 5] mg/dL; P = .90), mean weekly insulin dose during the last 2 weeks of treatment, or body weight change from baseline to week 26 (2.8 kg vs 2.3 kg; ETD, 0.46 [95% CI, -0.19 to 1.10] kg; P = .17). Combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher in the icodec group than the degludec group from week 0 to 31 (0.31 vs 0.15 events per patient-year exposure; P = .11) and statistically higher in the icodec group from week 0 to 26 (0.35 vs 0.12 events per patient-year exposure; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among people with insulin-naive type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec demonstrated superior HbA1c reduction to once-daily degludec after 26 weeks of treatment, with no difference in weight change and a higher rate of combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemic events in the context of less than 1 event per patient-year exposure in both groups.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04795531.

Switching to once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in individuals with basal-bolus insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 4): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Insulin icodec (icodec) is a basal insulin analogue suitable for once-weekly dosing. ONWARDS 4 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec compared with once-daily insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen.

METHODS

In this 26-week, phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial, adults from 80 sites (outpatient clinics and hospital departments) across nine countries (Belgium, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, and the USA) with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·0-10·0%) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-weekly icodec or once-daily glargine U100 combined with 2-4 daily bolus insulin aspart injections. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 (non-inferiority margin of 0·3 percentage points). The primary outcome was evaluated in the full analysis set (ie, all randomly assigned participants). Safety outcomes were evaluated in the safety analysis set (ie, all participants randomly assigned who received at least one dose of trial product). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04880850.

FINDINGS

Between May 14 and Oct 29, 2021, 746 participants were screened for eligibility, of whom 582 (78%) were randomly assigned (291 [50%] to icodec treatment and 291 [50%] to glargine U100 treatment). Participants had a mean duration of type 2 diabetes of 17·1 years (SD 8·4). At week 26, estimated mean change in HbA1c was -1·16 percentage points in the icodec group (baseline 8·29%) and -1·18 percentage points in the glargine U100 group (baseline 8·31%), showing non-inferiority for icodec versus glargine U100 (estimated treatment difference 0·02 percentage points [95% CI -0·11 to 0·15], p<0·0001). Overall, 171 (59%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 167 (57%) of 291 participants in the glargine U100 group had an adverse event. 35 serious adverse events were reported in 22 (8%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 33 serious adverse events were reported in 25 (9%) of 291 participants receiving glargine U100. Overall, combined level 2 and level 3 hypoglycaemia rates were similar between treatment groups. No new safety concerns were identified for icodec.

INTERPRETATION

In people with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen, once-weekly icodec showed similar improvements in glycaemic control, with fewer basal insulin injections, lower bolus insulin dose, and with no increase in hypoglycaemic rates compared with once-daily glargine U100. Key strengths of this trial include the use of masked continous glucose monitoring; the high trial completion rate; and the inclusion of a large, diverse, and multinational population. Limitations include the relatively short trial duration and the open-label design.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Switching to once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec in individuals with basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 2): a phase 3a, randomised, open label, multicentre, treat-to-target trial

BACKGROUND

Insulin icodec (icodec) is a once-weekly basal insulin currently under development. ONWARDS 2 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec (degludec) in basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This 26-week, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, multicentre, treat-to-target phase 3a trial was conducted in 71 sites in nine countries. Eligible participants with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on once-daily or twice-daily basal insulin, with or without non-insulin glucose-lowering agents, were randomly assigned (1:1) to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec. The primary outcome was change from baseline to week 26 in HbA_1c; the margin used to establish non-inferiority of icodec compared with degludec was 0·3 percentage points. Safety outcomes (hypoglycaemic episodes and adverse events) and patient-reported outcomes were also assessed. The primary outcome was evaluated in all randomly assigned participants; safety outcomes were evaluated descriptively based on all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of trial product, with statistical analyses based on all randomly assigned participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04770532, and is now complete.

FINDINGS

Between March 5 and July 19, 2021, 635 participants were screened, of whom 109 were ineligible or withdrew, and 526 were randomly assigned to icodec (n=263) or degludec (n=263). From a mean baseline of 8·17% (icodec; 65·8 mmol/mol) and 8·10% (degludec; 65·0 mmol/mol), HbA_1c was reduced to a greater extent with icodec than degludec (7·20% vs 7·42% [55·2 vs 57·6 mmol/mol], respectively) at week 26. This translates to an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0·22 percentage points (95% CI -0·37 to -0·08) or -2·4 mmol/mol (95% CI -4·1 to -0·8), demonstrating non-inferiority (p<0·0001) and superiority (p=0·0028). The estimated mean change from baseline to week 26 in bodyweight was +1·40 kg for icodec and -0·30 kg for degludec (ETD 1·70 [95% CI 0·76 to 2·63]). Overall rates of combined level 2 or level 3 hypoglycaemia were less than one event per patient-year of exposure for both groups (0·73 [icodec] vs 0·27 [degludec]; estimated rate ratio 1·93 [95% CI 0·93 to 4·02]). Overall, 161 (61%) of 262 participants receiving icodec and 134 (51%) of 263 participants receiving degludec experienced an adverse event; 22 (8%) and 16 (6%), respectively, experienced a serious adverse event. One serious adverse event (degludec) was assessed as being possibly related to treatment. No new safety issues were identified in relation to icodec compared with degludec in this trial.

INTERPRETATION

Among adults with basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, treatment with once-weekly icodec versus once-daily degludec demonstrated non-inferiority and statistical superiority in HbA_1c reduction after 26 weeks, associated with modest weight gain. Overall rates of hypoglycaemia were low, with numerically but not statistically significantly higher event rates of level 2 or level 3 hypoglycaemia with icodec versus degludec.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Effectiveness, safety, initial optimal dose, and optimal maintenance dose range of basal insulin regimens for type 2 diabetes: A systematic review with meta-analysis

AIMS

To investigate the effectiveness, safety, optimal starting dose, optimal maintenance dose range, and target fasting plasma glucose of five basal insulins in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to February 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was adopted. The registration ID is CRD42022319078 in PROSPERO.

RESULTS

Among 11 163 citations retrieved, 35 publications met the planned criteria. From meta-analyses and network meta-analyses, we found that when injecting basal insulin regimens at bedtime, the optimal choice in order of most to least effective might be glargine U-300 or degludec U-100, glargine U-100 or detemir, followed by neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH). Injecting glargine U-100 in the morning may be more effective (ie, more patients archiving glycated hemoglobin < 7.0%) and lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than injecting it at bedtime. The optimal starting dose for the initiation of any basal insulins can be 0.10-0.20 U/kg/day. There is no eligible evidence to investigate the optimal maintenance dose for basal insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The five basal insulins are effective for the target population. Glargine U-300, degludec U-100, glargine U-100, and detemir lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than NPH without compromising glycemic control.

The Effect of BMI on Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Parameters of Insulin Degludec: Results from an Euglycemic Glucose Clamp Study

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the effect of body mass index (BMI) on pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) parameters of insulin degludec in healthy Chinese males, depending on an euglycemic glucose clamp study.

METHODS

Sixty-five healthy male subjects were divided into four groups according to quartile of BMI value. Group A: BMI ≤ 20.7 kg/m²; group B: 20.7 < BMI ≤ 22.5 kg/m²; group C: 22.5 < BMI ≤ 23.6 kg/m²; group D: BMI > 23.6 kg/m². Each volunteer received a single subcutaneous dose (0.4 U/kg) of insulin degludec and accepted a 24-h euglycemic glucose clamp study. The primary PK parameters were maximum observed drug concentration (C_max) and the area under the curve (AUC_INS) for the specified time intervals. The primary PD parameters were the time to the start of glucose infusion (T_onset), maximal glucose infusion rate (GIR_max) and area under the curve (AUC_GIR) for the specified time intervals. The differences of these PK/PD parameters were compared among groups.

RESULTS

C_max and the AUC of insulin (0-6 h, 6-12 h and 0-24 h) were more than onefold higher in group A than those in groups B, C, D, and the concentration-time curve of group A was significantly shifted to the left compared with the other three groups. The GIR_max, total AUC_GIR, and AUC_GIR for each time interval were significantly higher in group A than those in other three groups. The proportion of AUC_GIR in group A was the lowest proportion among four groups seen in the late stage. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that BMI was negatively correlated with AUC_GIR,_{0-24 h}.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin degludec in healthy Chinese male subjects with BMI ≤ 20.7 kg/m² had a faster absorption, clearance, and a stronger glucose-lowering effect, but a steeper decrease of insulin action in the late stage after dosing.

Efficacy and safety of basal insulin degludec 100 IU/mL versus glargine 300 IU/mL for type 1 diabetes: The single-center INEOX randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To compare efficacy and safety of degludec 100 IU/mL (Deg-100) and glargine 300 IU/mL (Gla-300) in adults with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Open-label, single-center, randomized, parallel-group, 24-week trial in adults with type 1 diabetes, on basal-bolus insulin therapy, HbA1c ≤ 10%, using self-monitoring blood glucose. Participants were randomized 1:1 to a basal-bolus insulin regimen with Deg-100 (N = 129) or Gla-300 (N = 131). Primary efficacy endpoint: mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week-24. Main safety outcome: incidence rate of hypoglycemia during the study. Quality of life (DQOL) and satisfaction with diabetes treatment (DTSQ) were assessed.

RESULTS

At week 24, after adjusting for baseline HbA1c, the decrease in HbA1c did not differ between groups: Deg-100 (-0.07 ± 0.7%) and Gla-300 (-0.16 ± 0.77%) (P = 0.320). There were no significant differences between groups in HbA1c, nocturnal hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, DQOL, or DTSQ scores. The incidence rates of hypoglycemia < 3.9 mmol/L (Deg-100: 115.24 events/person-year vs Gla-300: 99.01 events/person-year, p < 0.001); and < 3.0 mmol/L (Deg-100: 41.17 events/person-year vs Gla-300: 34.29 events/person-year, p < 0.001) were different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Deg-100 and Gla-300 have similar metabolic efficacy, incidence ratio of nocturnal and severe hypoglycemia, DQOL and DTSQ scores. Differences in the incidence rate of hypoglycemia < 3.9 mmol/L and < 3.0 mmol/L should be confirmed.

The economic value of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in people ≥18 years of age with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a value-based economic model from a U.S. payer perspective

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the value and affordability of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in a budget impact model from a United States (U.S.) payer perspective by leveraging recent real-world evidence (RWE) studies and incorporating the recent insulin price caps where applicable.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An economic model for a hypothetical one million U.S. health-plan population was developed to assess the budgetary impact of therapeutic interchanges in either direction between the two long- and longer-acting basal insulins (BIs) for patients with type 2 diabetes over a three-year model horizon. The utilization of long-acting BIs, longer-acting BIs, biosimilar BIs, and insulin degludec (IDeg-100) were informed by IQVIA data and internal forecasting at Sanofi. The DELIVER-2 and DELIVER-naïve studies provided healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) parameters. In the model base case, 24% of patients switched from long-acting BIs to insulin glargine biosimilars, IDeg-100, and other longer-acting BIs (Gla-300) by projected year 3.

RESULTS

The base case total costs were $10,145 per patient per year (PPPY) in year 3 for the cumulative population. When all patients switched to Gla-300, the total costs in year 3 were $8,799, reflecting a net savings of -$660 PPPY compared to the budget increase of $686 PPPY in the base case. However, the longer-acting to long-acting BIs reversal scenario demonstrated a budgetary decrease of $676 PPPY over the model horizon. The reduction in incremental PPPY cost of $93 was observed using net drug costs rather than wholesale acquisition costs (WAC).

LIMITATIONS

The market shares for years 1-3 were based on expectations supported by the clinicians' expert opinions and were not obtained from real-world data.

CONCLUSIONS

The economic value of increased utilization of Gla-300 was driven by the reduction in HCRU, costs and market shares assumptions. Budgetary reductions were achieved by switching patients from long-acting BIs to Gla-300.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Tirzepatide for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes: An endocrine perspective

Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist approved in the United States as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes and under investigation for use in chronic weight management, major adverse cardiovascular events and the management of other conditions, including heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity and non-cirrhotic non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. The Phase 3 SURPASS 1-5 clinical trial programme was designed to assess efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneously injected tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg), as monotherapy or combination therapy, across a broad spectrum of people with type 2 diabetes. Use of tirzepatide in clinical studies was associated with marked reductions of glycated haemoglobin (-1.87 to -2.59%, -20 to -28 mmol/mol) and body weight (-6.2 to -12.9 kg), as well as reductions in parameters commonly associated with heightened cardiometabolic risk such as blood pressure, visceral adiposity and circulating triglycerides. In SUPRASS-2, these reductions were greater than with the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide 1 mg. Tirzepatide was well tolerated, with a low risk of hypoglycaemia when used without insulin or insulin secretagogues and showed a generally similar safety profile to the GLP-1 receptor agonist class. Accordingly, evidence from these clinical trials suggests that tirzepatide offers a new opportunity for the effective lowering of glycated haemoglobin and body weight in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Individualisation of basal insulin therapy of type 2 diabetes: evidence from large randomized controlled trials

Initiation of insulin therapy with basal insulin analogues has become the standard of care for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Timely administration of insulin allows not only to slow down the progression of type 2 diabetes, but also to reduce the frequency and severity of complications associated with it. This paper reviews the efficacy and safety of the use of the latest basal insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes from the perspective of current clinical guidelines, and also reviews updated data on the efficacy and safety of therapy by various members of the class. In this paper a review of the efficacy and safety of latest basal insulin analogues use in T2DM from the standpoint of current clinical guidelines has been carried out, and updated data on the efficacy and safety of therapy by various members of the class have been reviewed, taking into account their impact on the risk of hypoglycemia and glycemic variability. The available data indicate that insulin degludec 200 U/mL may be the drug of choice for those at high risk of developing severe forms of hypoglycemia. Since severe hypoglycemia and high glycemic variability are important risk factors for cardiovascular events and mortality, it has been shown that a differentiated approach to insulin therapy in the treatment of T2DM is currently advisable, taking into account the effect on the risk of hypoglycemia and glycemic variability.

Pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes: An update and future directions

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a widely prevalent disease with substantial economic and social impact for which multiple conventional and novel pharmacotherapies are currently available; however, the landscape of T2D treatment is constantly changing as new therapies emerge and the understanding of currently available agents deepens. This review aims to provide an updated summary of the pharmacotherapeutic approach to T2D. Each class of agents is presented by mechanism of action, details of administration, side effect profile, cost, and use in certain populations including heart failure, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and older individuals. We also review targets of novel therapeutic T2D agent development. Finally, we outline an up-to-date treatment approach that starts with identification of an individualized goal for glycemic control then selection, initiation, and further intensification of a personalized therapeutic plan for T2D.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Insulin Degludec Versus Other Long-acting Basal Insulin Analogues in the Treatment of Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of insulin degludec with those of other long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus (T1D or T2D).

METHODS

Those randomized controlled trials comparing insulin degludec with other long-acting insulin analogues in the treatment of patients with T1D or T2D published on or before August 21, 2022, were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The efficacy end points were the changes from baseline in hemoglobin A_1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). The tolerability end point was the prevalence of hypoglycemia confirmed throughout the treatment period.

FINDINGS

Data from a total of 20 trials (19,048 patients) were included. The differences in the reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin between insulin degludec and other long-acting basal insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) used for the treatment of patients with T1D or T2D were not significant. However, the reduction in FPG was greater with insulin degludec (-0.370 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.473 to -0.267 mmol/L; P ≤ 0.001). Throughout the treatment periods of all of the available trials, the estimated rate ratios of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia were significantly decreased with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine or insulin detemir in patients with T1D or T2D; the differences in the risks for severe hypoglycemia were not significant.

IMPLICATIONS

Compared with other long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir), insulin degludec was associated with a significantly decreased FPG, with lower prevalences of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of glargine 300 U/mL versus degludec 100 U/mL in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. A multicenter retrospective real-world study (RESTORE-2 NAIVE STUDY)

AIMS

This study assessed comparative effectiveness of glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus degludec 100 U/mL (Deg-100) in insulin-naïve patients with T2D.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, multicenter, non-inferiority study based on electronic medical records. All patients initiating Gla-300 or Deg-100 were 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM). Linear mixed models were used to assess the changes in continuous endpoints. Incidence rates (IR) of hypoglycemia were compared using Poisson's regression models.

RESULTS

Nineteen centers provided data on 357 patients in each PSM cohort. HbA1c after 6 months (primary endpoint) decreased by - 1.70% (95%CI - 1.90; - 1.50) in Gla-300 group and - 169% (95%CI - 1.89; - 1.49) in Deg-100 group, confirming non-inferiority of Gla-300 versus Deg-100. Fasting blood glucose (BG) decreased by ~60 mg/dl in both groups; body weight remained unchanged. In both groups, the mean starting dose was 12U (0.15U/kg) and it was slightly titrated to 16U (0.20U/kg). IR (episodes per patient-months) of BG ≤70 mg/dl was 0.13 in Gla-300 group and 0.14 in Deg-100 group (p=0.87). IR of BG <54 mg/dL was 0.02 in both groups (p=0.49). No severe hypoglycemia occurred.

CONCLUSION

Initiating Gla-300 or Deg-100 was associated with similar improvements in glycemic control, no weight gain and low hypoglycemia rates, without severe episodes during 6 months of treatment.

Twenty Years of Insulin Gla-100: A Systematic Evaluation of Its Efficacy and Safety in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to present the current evidence base with respect to the initiation and intensification of insulin therapy with glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) compared to other insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled clinical trials databases was performed to identify studies published up to September 30, 2020 that compared the effects of Gla-100 to that of other insulin regimens in people with T2DM. Relevant information pertaining to the predefined outcomes of interest was extracted. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change and response rates along with overall hypoglycemia incidence were the primary efficacy and safety outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine studies (63 interventional and 16 non-interventional) in which Gla-100 was either initiated in previously insulin-naïve patients (n = 57) or used in an intensified regimen (n = 22) were identified and evaluated. In insulin-naïve patients, most studies demonstrated that Gla-100 was significantly better compared with premixed insulins and similar compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations, and other first-generation basal insulins in terms of the primary efficacy parameters. Overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with NPH, premixed, coformulation, and other first-generation basal insulins and significantly higher compared with second-generation basal insulins. In studies with intensified regimens, efficacy outcomes with Gla-100 were significantly better compared with insulin detemir (IDet); similar compared with NPH, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations; and with premixed insulins. In these studies, overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with IDet and comparable to NPH, premixed insulins, co-formulations, and second-generation basal insulins. In addition, most intensification studies also revealed a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia with Gla-100-based regimens versus NPH and premixed insulins and a significantly greater risk compared to second-generation basal insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence presented in this review suggests that Gla-100 is an effective option for both insulin initiation and intensification strategies used in the management of T2DM.

Clinical course of different long-acting insulin therapies-glargine U100, U300, degludec, and insulin degludec/insulin aspart-among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicenter retrospective observational study (JDDM65 study)

This study aimed to retrospectively compare the clinical efficacy of different types of long-acting insulin therapies-glargine U100, glargine U300, degludec, and insulin degludec/insulin aspart-among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes after insulin use was initiated in an outpatient setting. The study consisted of 822 insulin-naïve patients in Japan who started using long-acting insulin for treatment of type 2 diabetes and continued for over 12 months. In addition, the impact of insulin type on insulin withdrawal was investigated by dividing the participants into two groups: those who achieved insulin withdrawal and those who did not, during the 12-month observation period based on a Cox proportional hazards model. As a result, HbA1c was decreased, and BMI was increased in all participants regardless of the insulin type used. A total of 185 participants succeeded in insulin withdrawal. After adjustment was made for several confounders, the positive determinant factors for withdrawal were short duration of diabetes and the choice of IDegAsp when compared with Gla100; the negative determinant factor was use of insulin secretagogues at the start of the study. In conclusion, all long-acting insulins were a powerful tool for treatment of type 2 diabetes, and patients with short duration of diabetes and/or no usage of insulin secretagogues resulted in favorable outcomes in terms of insulin withdrawal within a year in an outpatient setting. In addition, insulin degludec/insulin aspart was found to possibly be a better choice for treatment when it was compared with glargine U100 among the four types of insulin.

Identification and characterization of chemical and physical stability of insulin formulations utilizing degraded glycerol after repeated use and storage

Insulin treatment is currently considered to be the main strategy for controlling diabetes. Although the recombinant insulin formulation is relatively mature, we found that a batch of insulin formulation exhibited an unusual degradation rate in the stability experiment. The main purposes of this article are to identify the root cause for this phenomenon and characterize of chemical and physical degradation products. We compared the chemical and physical stability of two batches of insulin formulations prepared separately with simulated repeated use and freshly opened glycerol. The chemical stability of insulin was identified by liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC- MS/MS). Micro-flow imaging (MFI), far-ultraviolet circular dichroism (Far-UV CD) and Thioflavin T (ThT) fluorescent assays were used to reveal protein aggregation and fibrosis. The chemical and physical stability of the insulin formulation with newly opened glycerol was much better than that with degraded glycerol, and both groups of formulations were extremely sensitive to light. The results indicated that the original batch insulin formulation with abnormal stability was indeed caused by the excipient glycerol after long-term storage and repeated usage. More attention should be paid to the quality changes of excipients during repeated usage and storage of excipients for the practical purpose. Moreover, we have discovered a novel degradation pathway for insulin and peptides in general. In addition, LC-MS/MS results suggested that the N-terminus of insulin B-chain was prone to chemical degradation which enlightens that it could be potentially modified to improve the stability of insulin formulations.

New digital health technologies for insulin initiation and optimization for people with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

The health and economic burden of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is of global significance. Many people with T2D eventually need insulin to help reduce their risk of serious associated complications. However, barriers in initiating and/or optimizing insulin expose people with diabetes to sustained hyperglycemia. In this review, we investigate how new and future technologies may provide opportunities to help overcome barriers to insulin initiation and/or optimization.

METHODS

A focused literature search of PubMed and key scientific congresses was conducted. Software tools and devices developed to support insulin initiation and/or optimization were identified by manually filtering over 300 publications and conference abstracts.

RESULTS

Most software tools have been developed for a smartphone platform. At present, published data suggest that use of these technologies is associated with equivalent or improved glycemic outcomes compared with standard care with additional benefits such as reduced healthcare provider (HCP) time burden and improved diabetes knowledge. However, there remains a paucity of good quality evidence. Most new devices to support insulin therapy help track the dose and timing of insulin use.

CONCLUSIONS

New digital health tools may help to reduce barriers to optimal insulin therapy. An integrated solution that connects glucose monitoring, dose recording, titration advice, and records comorbidities and lifestyle factors has the potential to reduce the complexity and burden of treatment and may improve titration and treatment adherence, resulting in better outcomes for people with diabetes.

One-year safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec in patients with diabetes mellitus in routine clinical practice in India—TRUST (Tresiba real-world use study)

Objective

This post-authorization safety study (PASS) was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) requiring insulin therapy in routine clinical practice in India.

Methods

Data on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and adverse events (AEs) were collected up to 12 months after insulin degludec initiation.

Results

A total of 1057 adult patients with DM were enrolled, including 60.07% males with the mean duration of 22.2 ± 21.90 years with type 1 DM and 10.1 ± 7.37 years with type 2 DM and the mean HbA1c of 9.6 ± 1.9%. Insulin degludec was prescribed to improve HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Insulin degludec daily dose was increased from 14.8 ± 8.0 U to 18.0 ± 9.46 U over 12 months resulting in a significant decrease of HbA1c by 1.8 ± 1.68% compared with baseline. There were 84 events of confirmed hypoglycemia in 51 patients during the 12-month follow-up period, and 44 AEs were reported in 2.6% of patients, of which 2 AEs were serious and unrelated to the drug.

Conclusion

Insulin degludec is well tolerated in patients with DM. It improves glycemic control with reduced HbA1c, FPG, and postprandial glucose, with a low risk of hypoglycemia.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

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.

Impact of the Fasting Plasma Glucose Titration Target on the Success of Basal Insulin Titration in Insulin-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Analysis

BACKGROUND/AIM

We aimed to examine beneficial and adverse outcomes of basal insulin titration performed with different fasting plasma glucose (FPG) titration targets (TT).

METHODS

A PubMed literature search retrieved 43 reported prospective clinical trials introducing basal insulin in 17643 insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes reporting fasting plasma glucose (FPG), HbA_1c, target achievement, hypoglycemic events, and insulin doses. 61 individual study arms were grouped by fasting plasma glucose titration target (TT; 1: ≤5.0 mmol/l/90 mg/dl; 2: 5.01-5.6 mmol/l/90-100 mg/dl; and 3: ≥5.61 mmol/l/101 mg/dl). Weighted means and their standard deviations were calculated for baseline and end-of-treatment FPG (primary endpoint), HbA_1c, target achievement, hypoglycemic events, insulin doses, and body weight gain and compared over a duration of 31 ± 10 weeks.

RESULTS

Achieved FPG and HbA_1c at the end of the study were significantly lower (by up to 0.8 mmol/l or 0.23%, respectively) with more ambitious TTs (p < 0.0001), leading to better HbA_1c target achievement with more ambitious TTs (by up to 14.6% for HbA_1c ≤ 6.5%), without increasing the risk for hypoglycemic episodes.

CONCLUSIONS

Aiming for a lower FPG TT improves glycemic control without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia.

Perspectives of glycemic variability in diabetic neuropathy: a comprehensive review

Diabetic neuropathy is one of the most prevalent chronic complications of diabetes, and up to half of diabetic patients will develop diabetic neuropathy during their disease course. Notably, emerging evidence suggests that glycemic variability is associated with the pathogenesis of diabetic complications and has emerged as a possible independent risk factor for diabetic neuropathy. In this review, we describe the commonly used metrics for evaluating glycemic variability in clinical practice and summarize the role and related mechanisms of glycemic variability in diabetic neuropathy, including cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy, diabetic peripheral neuropathy and cognitive impairment. In addition, we also address the potential pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment methods for diabetic neuropathy, aiming to provide ideas for the treatment of diabetic neuropathy.

Zhang et al. describe metrics for evaluating glycaemic variability (GV) in clinical practice and summarize the role and related mechanisms of GV in diabetic neuropathy, including cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy, diabetic peripheral neuropathy and cognitive impairment. They aim to stimulate ideas for the treatment of diabetic neuropathy.

Effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 on time in range: SWITCH PRO, a crossover study of basal insulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes and risk factors for hypoglycaemia

AIMS

To compare time in range (TIR) with use of insulin degludec U100 (degludec) versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized, crossover, multicentre trial comparing degludec and glargine U100 in basal insulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes and ≥1 hypoglycaemia risk factor. There were two treatment periods, each with 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phases (with evaluation of glucose using blinded professional continuous glucose monitoring). The once-weekly titration (target: 3.9-5.0 mmol/L) was based on pre-breakfast self-measured blood glucose. The primary endpoint was percentage of TIR (3.9─10.0 mmol/L). Secondary endpoints included overall and nocturnal percentage of time in tight glycaemic range (3.9-7.8 mmol/L), and mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and glucose levels.

RESULTS

At baseline, participants (n = 498) had a mean (SD) age of 62.8 (9.8) years, a diabetes duration of 15.1 (7.7) years and an HbA1c level of 59.6 (11.0) mmol/mol (7.6 [1.0]%). Noninferiority and superiority were confirmed for degludec versus glargine U100 for the primary endpoint, with a mean TIR of 72.1% for degludec versus 70.7% for glargine U100 (estimated treatment difference [ETD] 1.43% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12, 2.74; P = 0.03] or 20.6 min/d). Overall time in tight glycaemic range favoured degludec versus glargine U100 (ETD 1.5% [95% CI: 0.15, 2.89] or 21.9 min/d). Degludec also reduced nocturnal time below range (TBR; <3.9 mmol/L) compared with glargine U100 (ETD -0.88% [95% CI: -1.34, -0.42] or 12.7 min/night; post hoc) and significantly fewer nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes of <3.0 mmol/L were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Degludec, compared with glargine U100, provided more TIR and time in tight glycaemic range, and reduced nocturnal TBR in insulin-treated people with type 2 diabetes.

The Value of Insulin Degludec in Frail Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

Insulin represents a mainstay of glucose-lowering therapy for many adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Insulin treatments prescribed as standard care for the majority of people with T2DM, such as basal human insulin, may not be optimal in the treatment of frail older adults because of the increased demand on health care staff to administer multiple daily injections and monitor the patient. When choosing an insulin regimen for a frail older person with T2DM, predictability of glucose lowering effect, risk of hypoglycaemia, ease of administration, and simplicity and flexibility of dosing are major determining factors. Multiple daily injections may be too complex for older frail adults, whilst providing an unnecessary degree of tight glycaemic control and low doses of once-daily basal insulin analogues such as insulin degludec may be a reasonable option as cognitive decline or functional disability increases. Although insulin degludec has a substantially higher acquisition cost than routinely used basal human insulin, it has a longer, more predictable pharmacological profile and is more amenable to once-daily administration, translating into a reduced burden of care and potential cost savings for insulin-treated frail older adults. Insulin acquisition cost represents only a small proportion of the total cost of treatment, and it is important to consider the value perspective of insulin therapy in frail older adults from all stakeholders in the health care system.

Once-weekly tirzepatide versus once-daily insulin degludec as add-on to metformin with or without SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-3): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide versus titrated insulin degludec in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin with or without SGLT2 inhibitors.

METHODS

In this open-label, parallel-group, multicentre (122 sites), multinational (13 countries), phase 3 study, eligible participants (aged ≥18 years) had a baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) of 7·0-10·5%, body-mass index of at least 25 kg/m², stable weight, and were insulin-naive and treated with metformin alone or in combination with an SGLT2 inhibitor for at least 3 months before screening. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1), using an interactive web-response system, to once-weekly subcutaneous injection of tirzepatide (5, 10, or 15 mg) or once-daily subcutaneous injection of titrated insulin degludec, and were stratified by country, HbA_1c, and concomitant use of oral antihyperglycaemic medications. Tirzepatide was initially given at 2·5 mg and the dose was escalated by 2·5 mg every 4 weeks until the assigned dose was reached. Insulin degludec was initially given at 10 U per day and was titrated once weekly to a fasting self-monitored blood glucose of less than 5·0 mmol/L (<90 mg/dL), following a treat-to-target algorithm, for 52 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was non-inferiority of tirzepatide 10 mg or 15 mg, or both, versus insulin degludec in mean change from baseline in HbA_1c at week 52. Key secondary efficacy endpoints were non-inferiority of tirzepatide 5 mg versus insulin degludec in mean change from baseline in HbA_1c at week 52, superiority of all doses of tirzepatide versus insulin degludec in mean change from baseline in HbA_1c and bodyweight, and the proportion of participants achieving HbA_1c of less than 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol) at week 52. We used a boundary of 0·3% to establish non-inferiority in HbA_1c difference between treatments. Efficacy and safety analyses were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all participants who received at least one dose of study drug). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03882970, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between April 1 and Nov 15, 2019, we assessed 1947 participants for eligibility, 1444 of whom were randomly assigned to treatment. The modified intention-to-treat population was 1437 participants from the tirzepatide 5 mg (n=358), tirzepatide 10 mg (n=360), tirzepatide 15 mg (n=359), and insulin degludec (n=360) groups. From a mean baseline HbA_1c of 8·17% (SD 0·91), the reductions in HbA_1c at week 52 were 1·93% (SE 0·05) for tirzepatide 5 mg, 2·20% (0·05) for tirzepatide 10 mg, and 2·37% (0·05) for tirzepatide 15 mg, and 1·34% (0·05) for insulin degludec. The non-inferiority margin of 0·3% was met. The estimated treatment difference (ETD) versus insulin degludec ranged from -0·59% to -1·04% for tirzepatide (p<0·0001 for all tirzepatide doses). The proportion of participants achieving a HbA_1c of less than 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol) at week 52 was greater (p<0·0001) in all three tirzepatide groups (82%-93%) versus insulin degludec (61%). At week 52, from a baseline of 94·3 kg (SD 20·1), all three tirzepatide doses decreased bodyweight (-7·5 kg to -12·9 kg), whereas insulin degludec increased bodyweight by 2·3 kg. The ETD versus insulin degludec ranged from -9·8 kg to -15·2 kg for tirzepatide (p<0·0001 for all tirzepatide doses). The most common adverse events in tirzepatide-treated participants were mild to moderate gastrointestinal events that decreased over time. A higher incidence of nausea (12-24%), diarrhoea (15-17%), decreased appetite (6-12%), and vomiting (6-10%) was reported in participants treated with tirzepatide than in those treated with insulin degludec (2%, 4%, 1%, and 1%, respectively). Hypoglycaemia (<54 mg/dL or severe) was reported in five (1%), four (1%), and eight (2%) participants on tirzepatide 5, 10, and 15 mg, respectively, versus 26 (7%) on insulin degludec. Treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event was more common in the tirzepatide groups than in the insulin degludec group. Five participants died during the study; none of the deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the study treatment.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with type 2 diabetes, tirzepatide (5, 10, and 15 mg) was superior to titrated insulin degludec, with greater reductions in HbA_1c and bodyweight at week 52 and a lower risk of hypoglycaemia. Tirzepatide showed a similar safety profile to that of GLP-1 receptor agonists.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Clinical Characteristics of Withdrawal of Basal Insulin Therapy Among Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to examine retrospectively the clinical backgrounds of Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who successfully withdrew from insulin use after being started on basal insulin in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

The study population comprised 376 insulin-naïve patients who were started on basal insulin (glargine U100, glargine U300, or degludec) for the management of T2D and followed the treatment regimen for at least 6 months in 13 institutions in Japan. The clinical courses of the study participants were compared based on outpatient clinic medical records for the three different types of basal insulin prescribed by categorizing the participants into two groups retrospectively: those who successfully withdrew from insulin therapy and those who did not, during a 6-month observation period. The clinical determinants for insulin withdrawal were assessed using a Cox proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

Glycated hemoglobin was improved in all participants regardless of basal insulin type. Of the 376 study participants, 61 successfully withdrew from basal insulin therapy. After adjustment was made for several confounders, the positive determinant factors for successful withdrawal of insulin were short duration of diabetes and high body mass index at the start of study, and the negative determinant factor was use of insulin secretagogues at the start. The types of basal insulin used by the study participants were not significant determinants of successful insulin withdrawal in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of basal insulin is a powerful option for the treatment of T2D. In patients with high BMI and/or short duration of diabetes, short-term insulin therapy is a promising strategy for the treatment of T2D before the initiation of insulin secretagogues, since such patients have the potential to successfully withdraw from basal insulin use even in an outpatient setting.

The current schemes of insulin therapy: Pro and contra

Insulin regimens have been evolving for a century. The schemes used for type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes differ due to differences in pathophysiology but share important features. Insulin is required for both types of diabetes when other means of controlling glucose are insufficient. For T1D this requires multiple daily injections or continuous subcutaneous infusion assisted by CGM, whereas in early T2D basal insulin together with oral agents or GLP-1RA is usually effective. In both cases current schemes typically maintain HbA1c levels between 7 and 8%, a range that limits but does not eliminate the long-term complications of diabetes, but do not restore glycemic control to a fully protective level. Inability to control postprandial hyperglycemia without problematic weight gain and hypoglycemia is a leading obstacle in both T1D and long-duration T2D. A greater share of prandial dosing decisions will have to be provided by smart electronic systems. Further changes in the structure or formulation of insulin are of uncertain potential, but schemes including delivery of amylin, GLP-1, and glucagon show promise. More reliable access to insulins, delivery devices, and capable medical advisors will be needed to optimize replacement of this essential hormone.

Comparative Effectiveness of Switching From First-Generation Basal Insulin to Glargine 300 U/ml or Degludec 100 U/ml in Type 1 Diabetes: The RESTORE-1 Study

INTRODUCTION

Following pivotal trials, real-world evidence is important to assess the impact of new drugs in everyday clinical practice. The RESTORE-1 study aimed to compare effectiveness and safety of the second-generation basal insulins (2BI), i.e., insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) vs. degludec 100 U/ml (IDeg-100), in type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Retrospective, non-inferiority, multicenter study, based on electronic medical records. All patients switching to Gla-300 or IDeg-100 from first-generation basal insulins (1BI) were 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM). Changes during 6 months in HbA1c (primary endpoint), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight, and insulin doses were assessed using linear mixed models for repeated measures. Incidence rates (IR) of hypoglycemic events were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 19 centers provided data on 585 patients in each PSM cohort. For both groups, statistically significant reductions in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months were documented: - 0.20%; (95% CI - 0.32; - 0.08) in the Gla-300 group and - 0.14%; (95% CI - 0.24; - 0.04) in the IDeg-100 group. The non-inferiority of Gla-300 vs. IDeg-100 was confirmed (non-inferiority margin of 0.30%; upper 95% CI at 6 months, 0.09%). No statistically significant between-group differences emerged in FPG and body weight. Dose changes of basal and short-acting insulin were small in both groups, but higher in the Gla-300 group than in the Deg-100 group (p < 0.006). Incidence rates (IR) of hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤ 70 mg/dl and < 54 mg/dl) during the 6-month follow-up by treatment were slightly lower in the Gla-300 group than in the Deg-100 group [IR ratios 0.82 (95% CI 0.55; 1.22) and 0.83; (95% CI 0.38; 1.83), respectively]. Hypoglycemic events (blood glucose < 54 mg/dl) decreased at 6 months in both groups (p = 0.01 for Gla-300 and p < 0.001 for IDeg-100). There were no severe hypoglycemic events for Gla-300 and seven events for IDeg-100 (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from 1BI to 2BI in adults with T1D was associated with similar improvements in glycemic control and overall significant decrease in hypoglycemia, with no severe events with Gla-300. Effectiveness of both insulins was limited by under-titration.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Machine Learning-Based Adherence Detection of Type 2 Diabetes Patients on Once-Daily Basal Insulin Injections

BACKGROUND

Lack of treatment adherence can lead to life-threatening health complications for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Recent improvements and availability in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology have enabled various possibilities to monitor diabetes treatment. Detection of missed once-daily basal insulin injections can be used to provide feedback to patients, thus improving their diabetes management. In this study, we explore how machine learning (ML) based on CGM data can be used for detecting adherence to once-daily basal insulin injections.

METHODS

In-silico CGM data were generated to simulate a cohort of T2D patients on once-daily insulin injection (Tresiba®). Deep learning methods within ML based on automatic feature extraction including convolutional neural networks were explored and compared with simple feature-engineered ML classification models for adherence detection. It was further investigated whether fused expert-dependent and automatically learned features could improve performance, resulting in a comparison of six different detection models. Adherence was detected throughout each day with an increasing amount of CGM data available.

RESULTS

The adherence detection accuracy improved as more CGM data became available on the day of classification. The three classification models based on expert-engineered features obtained mean accuracies of 78.6%, 78.2%, and 78.3%. The classification model based purely on learned features obtained a mean accuracy of 79.7%. The two classification models fusing expert-engineered and learned features obtained mean accuracies of 79.7% and 79.8%. All the mentioned results were obtained 16 hours after time of injection.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that adherence detection based on CGM data is feasible. Even though our study based on in-silico data indicates only slightly improved performance of more complex models, the question remains whether advanced models would outperform the simple in a real-world setting. Thus, future studies on adherence monitoring using real CGM data are relevant.

Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: Synopsis of the 2020 American Diabetes Association's Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes Clinical Guideline

DESCRIPTION

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) updates the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes annually to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested parties with evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of diabetes.

METHODS

To develop the 2020 Standards, the ADA Professional Practice Committee, comprising physicians, adult and pediatric endocrinologists, diabetes educators, registered dietitians, epidemiologists, pharmacists, and public health experts, continuously searched MEDLINE (English language only) from 15 October 2018 through August-September 2019 for pertinent studies, including high-quality trials that addressed pharmacologic management of type 2 diabetes. The committee selected and reviewed the studies, developed the recommendations, and solicited feedback from the larger clinical community.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This synopsis focuses on guidance relating to the pharmacologic treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes. Recommendations address oral and noninsulin injectable therapies, insulin treatment, and combination injectable therapies. Results of recent large trials with cardiovascular and renal outcomes are emphasized.

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.

Insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus first-generation basal insulin analogues in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes: 12-month outcomes of ACHIEVE Control, a prospective, randomized, pragmatic real-life clinical trial

AIM

To report the effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus standard-of-care basal insulin analogues (SOC-BI) at 12 months in the ACHIEVE Control trial, which is a prospective pragmatic randomized real-life study in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

A total of 3304 insulin-naïve adults with T2D and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 64 to 97 mmol/mol (8.0% to 11.0%) after ≥1 year of treatment with two or more antihyperglycaemic agents were randomized to Gla-300 or SOC-BI. Key secondary endpoints included HbA1c target attainment without documented symptomatic (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia at 12 months.

RESULTS

At 12 months, 26.1% (Gla-300) and 23.7% (SOC-BI) of adults achieved HbA1c targets without documented symptomatic (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.35); 33.0% and 29.5%, respectively, achieved HbA1c targets without documented symptomatic (<3.0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02-1.38). The OR for HbA1c target achievement was 1.15 (95% CI 0.99-1.34), and favoured Gla-300 versus SOC-BI for absence of documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia at 12 months for both ≤3.9 mmol/L (≤70 mg/dL; OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05-1.40) and < 3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL; OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.07-1.48).

CONCLUSION

Gla-300 tended to be associated with lower hypoglycaemia risk than SOC-BI in real-world clinical practice during the 12-month follow-up.

Understanding the Clinical Profile of Insulin Degludec, the Latest Basal Insulin Approved for Use in Canada: a Narrative Review

In recent years, the development of basal insulin therapies has focused on insulin analogues that have longer durations of action and more predictable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) profiles than their human insulin-based predecessors, such as neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. Dosed once-daily, such analogues can provide a more stable glucose-lowering action, which translates clinically into a reduced risk of hypoglycemia. Insulin degludec (degludec) became available in Canada in 2017 and is the first basal insulin analogue to have a half-life exceeding the dosing interval. As well as offering the promise of an exceptionally flat PK/PD profile when at steady state, this characteristic means that insulin degludec can be dosed with some flexibility with regard to time of day and that it need not be taken at the same time each day. However, the approximately 25-h half-life also has some implications concerning dose titration. This article provides an up-to-date review of the study data describing the clinical profile of degludec, and aims to give helpful and practical advice to prescribers about its use. While the clinical benefits of degludec are described, it is also acknowledged that further study is required to better understand how its clinical performance compares with that of insulin glargine 300 units/mL.

Insulin glargine 300 U/mL and insulin degludec: A review of the current evidence comparing these two second-generation basal insulin analogues

For most people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), treatment intensification with the addition of basal insulin therapy is required to maintain glycaemic control. However, this often does not happen in real-life practice promoting the development of long-term diabetes-related complications. The second-generation basal insulin analogues glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and degludec (IDeg) provide pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic improvements that may allow them to be more effective in appropriately managing diabetes compared with first-generation basal insulin analogues. Both Gla-300 and IDeg have been extensively studied vs the first-generation basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL, demonstrating comparable efficacy in terms of glycaemic control, and a lower risk of hypoglycaemia. The BRIGHT randomized controlled trial is the first direct comparison of the efficacy and safety profiles of Gla-300 and IDeg in patients with T2D. Moreover, real-world data have been used to assess the effectiveness of these basal insulins during routine clinical practice. Further research is required to determine if the properties of Gla-300 and IDeg may lead to improvements in healthcare-related costs and the quality of life of patients, which are important factors for informing clinical decisions.

Clinical Outcomes of Switching to Insulin Glargine 300 U/ml from Other Basal Insulins in People with Type 2 Diabetes in Italy: A Real-World Study

INTRODUCTION

Primary aim was to provide real-world evidence of the outcomes after the switch to glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) from other basal insulins (first or second generation) in Italy.

METHODS

Multicenter, observational, retrospective study based on electronic medical records.

RESULTS

Overall, 953 T2DM insulin ± OAD treated people switched to Gla-300 or Gla-100 from January 2015 to July 2018. Three clinically relevant cohorts were identified: patients switching to Gla-300 from first-generation basal insulin (cohort 1), patients switching to Gla-300 from degludec-100 (Deg-100) (cohort 2), and those switching to Gla-100 from any basal insulin (cohort 3). The three cohorts differed in terms of age, diabetes duration, and metabolic control. HbA1c changes after 6 months from the switch were - 0.27% (95% CI - 0.38; - 0.16), - 0.06% (95% CI - 0.31; 0.19), and - 0.30% (95% CI - 0.51; - 0.09) in the three cohorts, respectively. FPG significantly decreased in cohort 1 (- 14.07 mg/dl, 95% CI - 20.25; - 7.89), while body weight significantly decreased in cohort 2 (- 1.47 kg, 95% CI - 2.55; - 0.39). Doses of insulin marginally changed during the follow-up (+ 0.89 U in basal insulin daily dose in cohort 1 and + 2.07 U in short-acting insulin daily dose in cohort 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to Gla-300 from first-generation basal insulin in the real world is associated with improvements in metabolic control despite a suboptimal titration of both basal and short-acting insulins. Inertia in insulin titration documented in the Gla-100 cohort is also observed with the second-generation basal insulin. The switch to Gla-300 from Deg-100 was associated with a decrease in body weight of - 1.47 kg despite a slight increase in short-acting insulin daily doses of about + 2 U.