Prandial Options to Advance Basal Insulin Glargine Therapy: Testing Lixisenatide Plus Basal Insulin Versus Insulin Glulisine Either as Basal-Plus or Basal-Bolus in Type 2 Diabetes: The GetGoal Duo-2 Trial

The effect of subcutaneous Lixisenatide on weight loss in patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The impacts of subcutaneous Lixisenatide on body weight in patients with type 2 DM, remain inadequately understood; consequently, this systematic review and meta-regression analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the influence of subcutaneous Lixisenatide administration on BW and BMI values in individuals with Type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across four databases, spanning from their inception to February 2023. We computed effect sizes employing the random-effects model and reported results in terms of weighted mean differences (WMD) along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

23 articles with 26 RCT arms were included in the meta-analysis. The combined findings from a random-effects model demonstrated a significant reduction in body weight (WMD: -0.97 kg, 95 % CI: -1.10, -0.83, p < 0.001) and BMI (WMD: -0.48 kg/m2, 95 % CI: -0.67, -0.29, P < 0.001) after subcutaneous administration of Lixisenatide. Furthermore, a more pronounced reduction in body weight was discovered in RCTs lasting less than 24 weeks (WMD: -1.56 kg, 95 % CI: -2.91, -0.20, p < 0.001), employing a daily dosage of subcutaneous Lixisenatide lower than 19 Âµg per day (WMD: -1.94 kg, 95 % CI: -2.54, -1.34, p < 0.001) and with a mean participant age of 60 years or more (WMD: -1.86 kg, 95 % CI: -3.16, -0.57, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Lixisenatide was found to significantly decrease BW and BMI in patients with type 2 DM and could be considered as a therapeutic option for those suffering from weight gain caused by other anti-diabetic agents. However, while prescribing Lixisenatide, careful consideration of patient-specific factors is recommended.

Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Agonists: What the Orthopaedic Surgeon Needs to Know

» Orthopaedic surgeons are increasingly likely to encounter patients with obesity and/or type 2 diabetes taking glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists for weight loss.» GLP-1 agonists are an effective treatment for weight loss with semaglutide and tirzepatide being the most effective agents. Randomized controlled trials using these agents have reported weight loss up to 21 kg (46 lb).» The use of GLP-1 agonists preoperatively can improve glycemic control, which can potentially reduce the risk of postoperative complications. However, multiple cases of intraoperative aspiration/regurgitation have been reported, potentially related to the effect of GLP-1 agonists on gastric emptying.» While efficacious, GLP-1 agonists may not produce sufficient weight loss to achieve body mass index cutoffs for total joint arthroplasty depending on individual patient factors, including starting bodyweight. Multifactorial approaches to weight loss with focus on lifestyle modification in addition to GLP-1 agonists should be considered in such patients.» Although GLP-1 agonists are efficacious agents for weight loss, they may not be accessible or affordable for all patients. Each patient's unique circumstances should be considered when creating an ideal weight loss plan during optimization efforts.

Emerging Role of GLP-1 Agonists in Obesity: A Comprehensive Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

Obesity is a chronic disease with high prevalence and associated comorbidities, making it a growing global concern. These comorbidities include type 2 diabetes, hypertension, ventilatory dysfunction, arthrosis, venous and lymphatic circulation diseases, depression, and others, which have a negative impact on health and increase morbidity and mortality. GLP-1 agonists, used to treat type 2 diabetes, have been shown to be effective in promoting weight loss in preclinical and clinical studies. This review summarizes numerous studies conducted on the main drugs in the GLP-1 agonists class, outlining the maximum achievable weight loss. Our aim is to emphasize the active role and main outcomes of GLP-1 agonists in promoting weight loss, as well as in improving hyperglycemia, insulin sensitivity, blood pressure, cardio-metabolic, and renal protection. We highlight the pleiotropic effects of these medications, along with their indications, contraindications, and precautions for both diabetic and non-diabetic patients, based on long-term follow-up studies.

A Comprehensive Review on Weight Loss Associated with Anti-Diabetic Medications

Obesity is a complex metabolic condition that can have a negative impact on one's health and even result in mortality. The management of obesity has been addressed in a number of ways, including lifestyle changes, medication using appetite suppressants and thermogenics, and bariatric surgery for individuals who are severely obese. Liraglutide and semaglutide are two of the five Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved anti-obesity drugs that are FDA-approved agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. In order to highlight the positive effects of these drugs as anti-obesity treatments, we analyzed the weight loss effects of T2DM agents that have demonstrated weight loss effects in this study by evaluating clinical studies that were published for each agent. Many clinical studies have revealed that some antihyperglycemic medications can help people lose weight, while others either cause weight gain or neutral results. Acarbose has mild weight loss effects and metformin and sodium-dependent glucose cotransporter proteins-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors have modest weight loss effects; however, some glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists had the greatest impact on weight loss. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors showed a neutral or mild weight loss effect. To sum up, some of the GLP-1 agonist drugs show promise as weight-loss treatments.

iGlarLixi versus basal plus Rapid-Acting insulin in adults with type 2 diabetes advancing from basal insulin therapy: The SoliSimplify Real-World study

AIM

For people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin (BI), guidelines recommend several treatment advancement options. This study compared the clinical effectiveness of once-daily iGlarLixi versus a multiple-injection BI + rapid acting insulin (RAI) regimen in adults with T2D advancing from BI therapy in real-world clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic medical records from the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) database were analysed retrospectively using propensity score matching to compare therapy advancement with iGlarLixi or BI + RAI in US adults ≥18 years with T2D on BI who had ≥1 valid glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) value at baseline and at the 6-month follow-up. The primary objective was non-inferiority of iGlarLixi to BI + RAI in HbA1c change from baseline to 6 months (margin 0.3%).

RESULTS

Propensity score matching generated cohorts with balanced baseline characteristics (N = 814 in each group). HbA1c reduction from baseline to 6 months with iGlarLixi was non-inferior to BI + RAI [mean difference (95% confidence interval): 0.1 (-0.1, 0.2)%; one-sided p = .0032]. At 6 months, weight gain was significantly lower with iGlarLixi than with BI + RAI [-0.8 (-1.3, -0.2) kg; two-sided p = .0069]. Achievement of HbA1c <7% without hypoglycaemia and weight gain were similar between groups [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.15 (0.81, 1.63); p = .4280]. Hypoglycaemia was low in both groups, probably because of underreporting.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world clinical practice, glycaemic outcomes 6 months after treatment advancement from BI are similar for people with T2D using iGlarLixi versus BI + RAI, with iGlarLixi leading to less weight gain.

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.

Effect of once-weekly semaglutide versus thrice-daily insulin aspart, both as add-on to metformin and optimized insulin glargine treatment in participants with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 11): A randomized, open-label, multinational, phase 3b trial

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly (OW) semaglutide versus thrice-daily (TID) insulin aspart (IAsp) in participants with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with insulin glargine (IGlar) and metformin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SUSTAIN 11 (NCT03689374) was a randomized (1:1), parallel, open-label, multinational, phase 3b trial. After a 12-week run-in to optimize once-daily IGlar U100, 1748 adults with T2D (HbA1c >7.5% to ≤10.0%) were randomized to OW semaglutide or TID IAsp as add-on to optimized IGlar and metformin for 52 weeks. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from randomization to week 52. Confirmatory secondary endpoints included the occurrence of severe hypoglycaemic episodes and change in body weight (BW). Safety was assessed.

RESULTS

HbA1c (randomization: 8.6% [70.0 mmol/mol]) decreased by 1.5% points (16.6 mmol/mol) and 1.2% points (13.4 mmol/mol) with semaglutide (n = 874) and IAsp (n = 874), respectively (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0.29% points [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.38; -0.20]; P < .0001 for non-inferiority). Few severe hypoglycaemic episodes were recorded in either group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. Change in BW from randomization (87.9 kg) to week 52 was in favour of semaglutide (-4.1 kg) versus IAsp (+2.8 kg) (ETD -6.99 kg [95% CI -7.41; -6.57]). A higher proportion of participants experienced adverse events with semaglutide (58.5%) versus IAsp (52.1%); most were mild to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this basal insulin-treated population, OW semaglutide improved glycaemic control to a greater extent than TID IAsp and provided numerically greater weight loss.

Cost-Effectiveness of iGlarLixi Versus Premix BIAsp 30 in People with Type 2 Diabetes Suboptimally Controlled by Basal Insulin in the US

INTRODUCTION

Many people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) experience suboptimal glycemic control and require therapy advancement. This cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare iGlarLixi (insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide) versus BIAsp 30 (biphasic insulin aspart 30) in people with T2DM suboptimally controlled with basal insulin.

METHODS

The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes for people with T2DM from a US healthcare payer perspective. Initial clinical data were based on the phase 3 randomized, open-label, active-controlled SoliMix clinical study, which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily iGlarLixi with twice-daily BIAsp 30. Lifetime costs (US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30 was estimated; the willingness-to-pay threshold was considered to be $50,000. A subgroup analysis considered people with T2DM aged ≥ 65 years.

RESULTS

Estimated QALYs gained were slightly higher with iGlarLixi compared with BIAsp 30 (9.3 vs. 9.2), with lower costs for iGlarLixi ($117,854 vs. $120,109); the ICER for iGlarLixi was therefore considered dominant over BIAsp 30 in the base case. Key drivers for cost savings were the higher dose and twice-daily administration for BIAsp 30 versus once-daily administration for iGlarLixi. The robustness of the base-case results was confirmed by sensitivity and scenario analyses. Results were similar in a subgroup of people with T2DM aged ≥ 65 years.

CONCLUSION

In people with T2DM with suboptimal glycemic control on basal insulin, iGlarLixi confers improved QALYs and reduced costs compared with BIAsp 30.

Cost-Effectiveness of iGlarLixi Versus Premix BIAsp 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Suboptimally Controlled by Basal Insulin in the UK

INTRODUCTION

iGlarLixi is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise in addition to metformin (with or without sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors) to improve glycemic control in adults with insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D). A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare iGlarLixi with premix biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with T2D suboptimally controlled with basal insulin (BI).

METHODS

The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes for people with T2D from a UK health care perspective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000. Initial clinical data were based on the phase 3 randomized, open-label, active-controlled SoliMix clinical trial which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily iGlarLixi with that of twice-daily BIAsp 30. Costs associated with management and complications and utilities values were derived from published sources. Lifetime costs (in £GBP) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted; extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Estimated QALYs gained were slightly higher with iGlarLixi (8.9 vs. 8.8) compared with premix BIAsp 30, at a higher cost (£23,204 vs. £21,961). The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY was £13,598. Treatment acquisition was the main driver of cost differences (iGlarLixi, £11,750; premix BIAsp 30, £10,395). Costs associated with management and complications were generally similar between comparators.

CONCLUSION

iGlarLixi provides improved QALY outcomes at an acceptable cost compared with premix BIAsp 30, with an ICER below the threshold generally considered acceptable by UK authorities. In people with T2D, iGlarLixi is a simple, cost-effective option for advancing therapy of BI, with fewer daily injections than premix BIAsp 30.

The Durable Safety and Effectiveness of Lixisenatide in Japanese People with Type 2 Diabetes: The Post-Marketing Surveillance PRANDIAL Study

Introduction

Real-world evidence on lixisenatide in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is lacking. Therefore, the 3-year post-marketing PRANDIAL study was conducted to evaluate the safety (primary objective) and effectiveness (secondary objective) of lixisenatide in Japanese people with T2D during routine clinical practice.

Methods

This prospective, observational, multicenter, open-label study was conducted in Japanese individuals with T2D who initiated lixisenatide treatment between March 2014 and June 2017. Using electronic case report forms, investigators collected baseline demographic and clinical information and data on medications, safety and effectiveness up to 3 years after initiation of lixisenatide.

Results

Overall, 3046 participants were analyzed; their mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 58.9 ± 13.1 years, and 53.7% were male. Mean ± SD duration of T2D was 12.8 ± 8.6 years, and baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was 8.7% ± 1.7%. Most participants (93.9%) were receiving concomitant antidiabetic medications when they initiated lixisenatide. Median (range) lixisenatide treatment duration was 382 (1–1096) days. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were reported in 604 participants (19.8%) and serious ADRs in 22 (0.7%). The most common ADR was nausea (9.0%). Of ADRs of special interest, hypoglycemia occurred in 2.9% of participants, injection site reactions in 0.9%, and hypoglycemic unconsciousness in 0.03%. Baseline characteristics associated with an increased risk of ADRs (p < 0.05) were history of treatment for cardiovascular disease, hepatic dysfunction, and other complications. Effectiveness was analyzed in 2675 participants; HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, postprandial glucose, and body weight all decreased significantly at last observation (all p < 0.0001 vs. baseline).

Conclusions

Lixisenatide was well tolerated, with no unexpected ADRs or new safety signals identified, and showed effective glycemic control and weight reduction up to 3 years, supporting the use of lixisenatide as a safe and effective treatment option for T2D in routine clinical practice in Japan.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02121-5.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are antidiabetic drugs that lower blood glucose levels by stimulating the release of insulin and suppressing glucagon, the key hormones involved in controlling blood glucose levels in the body. The selective GLP-1RA lixisenatide was approved for the management of adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Japan based on data from randomized clinical trials. However, these studies may not be representative of the safety and effectiveness of the drug when used in routine clinical practice. Therefore, we conducted the 3-year post-marketing PRANDIAL study to assess the safety and effectiveness of lixisenatide in 3046 Japanese individuals with T2D who started the drug between March 2014 and June 2017. Adverse drug reactions (adverse events for which lixisenatide causality could not be excluded) occurred in 19.8% of participants, with the most common adverse drug reaction being nausea. Hypoglycemia (abnormally low blood glucose levels) was reported in 2.9%. Individuals with a history of treatment for cardiovascular disease, hepatic dysfunction, and other complications had an increased risk of adverse drug reactions. Lixisenatide provided significant improvements in blood glucose control, with significant decreases in glycated hemoglobin (a marker of blood glucose control), fasting plasma glucose, and postprandial glucose levels from baseline, as well as significant reductions in body weight. In this real-world post-marketing surveillance study, lixisenatide was well tolerated, raising no new safety concerns, and provided durable effective blood glucose control and weight reduction. These results support the use of lixisenatide in Japanese individuals with T2D in routine clinical practice.

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

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Use in People Living with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Kidney Disease: A Narrative Review of the Key Evidence with Practical Considerations

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are incretin-mimetic agents that are effective adjuncts in the treatment of diabetes. This class of medications is also associated with promoting weight loss and a low risk of hypoglycemia, and some have been shown to be associated with a significant reduction of major cardiovascular events. Mounting evidence suggests that GLP-1 RAs have benefits beyond reducing blood glucose that include improving kidney function in people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), a common microvascular complication of T2DM. Several large clinical studies, the majority of which are cardiovascular outcome trials, indicate that GLP-1 RA therapy is safe and tolerable for people living with T2DM and compromised renal function, and also suggest that GLP-1 RAs may have renoprotective properties. Although evidence from clinical trials has shown GLP-1 RAs to be safe and efficacious in people living with T2DM and renal impairment, their use is uncommon in this patient population. With continuing developments in the field of GLP-1 RA therapy, it is important for physicians to understand the benefits and practical use of GLP-1 RAs, as well as the clinical evidence, in order to achieve positive patient outcomes. Here, we review evidence on GLP-1 RA use in people living with T2DM and CKD and summarize renal outcomes from clinical studies. We provide practical considerations for GLP-1 RA use to provide an added benefit to guide treatment in this high-risk patient population.

Benefit of insulin glargine/lixisenatide for reducing residual hyperglycaemia in Japan: Post hoc analysis of the LixiLan JP-O2 trial

AIM

To compare the benefits of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi), with insulin glargine (iGlar) for reducing residual hyperglycaemia (defined as HbA1c ≥ 7% despite fasting plasma glucose [FPG] < 130 mg/dL) in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The open-label LixiLan JP-O2 study compared iGlarLixi with iGlar over 26 weeks in 521 people with T2D. This post hoc analysis assessed the proportions of participants with residual hyperglycaemia in the overall population, and in subgroups defined by age and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) use at screening.

RESULTS

At 26 weeks, significantly fewer participants had residual hyperglycaemia in the iGlarLixi versus the iGlar arm (8.1% vs. 19.6%; P = .0002). There was also less residual hyperglycaemia with iGlarLixi than iGlar in all subgroup analyses: 9.0% versus 16.8% in participants aged younger than 65 years (P = .0369); 6.5% versus 24.2% in participants aged 65 years or older (P = .0008); 10.1% versus 20.5% (P = .0202) in participants with DPP4i use; and 6.2% versus 18.8% in those without DPP4i use (P = .0024). The proportion reaching both HbA1c less than 7% and FPG less than 130 mg/dL was higher with iGlarLixi versus iGlar in the overall population (50.8% vs. 31.5%; P < .0001), and in all studied subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi reduced the prevalence of residual hyperglycaemia in Japanese people with uncontrolled T2D compared with iGlar, both in the overall population and in subgroups defined by age and DPP4i use at screening.

Cost-Effectiveness of iGlarLixi in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Suboptimally Controlled on Basal Insulin Plus Metformin in the UK

INTRODUCTION

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing a fixed-ratio combination (FRC) of insulin glargine 100 units/mL plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) versus the FRC of insulin degludec plus liraglutide (iDegLira) and the free-combination comparators insulin glargine plus dulaglutide (iGlar plus Dula) and basal insulin plus liraglutide (BI plus Lira).

METHODS

The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes for a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from the UK healthcare perspective. Initial clinical data for iGlarLixi were based on the randomized, controlled LixiLan-L trial and the relative treatment effects for comparators were based on an indirect treatment comparison using data from the AWARD-9 (iGlar plus Dula), LIRA ADD2 BASAL (BI plus Lira), and DUAL V (iDegLira) trials. Costs were derived from publicly available sources. Lifetime costs (in British Pound Sterling [£]) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted; net monetary benefit (NMB) for iGlarLixi versus comparators was derived using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000. Extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Estimated costs were lowest with iGlarLixi (£31,295) compared with iGlar plus Dula (£38,790), iDegLira (£40,179), and BI plus Lira (£42,467). Total QALYs gained were identical with iGlarLixi and iDegLira (8.438), and comparable with iGlar plus Dula (8.439) and BI plus Lira (8.466). NMB for iGlarLixi was positive versus all comparators (£10,603.86 vs. BI plus Lira; £7,466.24 vs. iGlar plus Dula; £8.874.11 vs. iDegLira).

CONCLUSION

In patients with T2DM with suboptimal glycemic control on basal insulin, iGlarLixi provides very similar outcomes and substantial cost savings, compared with other fixed and free combinations of insulins plus glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

Cost-Effectiveness of iGlarLixi Versus iDegLira in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled by GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Oral Antihyperglycemic Therapy

INTRODUCTION

The fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and basal insulin, insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi), and insulin degludec plus liraglutide (iDegLira), have demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on GLP-1 RAs. However, a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis between these FRCs from a UK Health Service perspective has not been conducted.

METHODS

The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes in patients with T2DM receiving iGlarLixi (based on the LixiLan-G trial) versus iDegLira (based on relative treatment effects from an indirect treatment comparison using data from DUAL III). Utilities, medical costs, and costs of diabetes-related complications were derived from literature. Model outputs included costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated with a local willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY. Extensive scenario, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

iGlarLixi was less costly (iGlarLixi, £30,011; iDegLira, £40,742), owing to lower acquisition costs, and similar in terms of QALYs gained (iGlarLixi, 8.437; iDegLira, 8.422). Extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses supported the base case findings.

CONCLUSION

In patients with T2DM and inadequate glycemic control despite GLP-1 RAs, use of iGlarLixi was associated with substantial cost savings and comparable utility outcomes. iGlarLixi can be considered as cost-effective versus iDegLira from the UK Health Service perspective.

Dulaglutide as an Effective Replacement for Prandial Insulin in Kidney Transplant Recipients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Retrospective Review

Dulaglutide, a weekly injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, has demonstrated effectiveness when combined with basal insulin. We examined whether the efficacy of dulaglutide is comparable to that of prandial insulin in kidney transplant (KT) recipients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) undergoing multiple daily insulin injection (MDI) therapy. Thirty-seven patients, who switched from MDI therapy to basal insulin and dulaglutide, were retrospectively analyzed. Changes in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels, body weight, and basal insulin dose were evaluated over 6 months. Dulaglutide was comparable to three injections of prandial insulin in terms of glycemic control (HbA1c 7.1% vs. 7.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.53 to 0.28; P=0.53). The basal insulin and dulaglutide combination resulted in a reduction in FPG levels by 9.7 mg/dL (95% CI, 2.09 to 41.54; P=0.03), in body weight by 4.9 kg (95% CI, 2.87 to 6.98; P<0.001), and in basal insulin dose by 9.52 IU (95% CI, 5.80 to 3.23; P<0.001). Once-weekly dulaglutide may be an effective alternative for thrice-daily prandial insulin in KT recipients with T2DM currently receiving MDI therapy.

An update on the safety of insulin-GLP-1 receptor agonist combinations in type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Recent development of novel antidiabetic drugs with proven cardiovascular (CV) and renal benefit and positive effect on body weight enable to take a more complex approach toward the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Fixed-ratio combinations of insulin-GLP-1 receptor agonist (FRC) utilize complementary mechanisms of action of their individual components and address multiple pathologies linked with T2DM at the same time.

AREAS COVERED

There are currently three FRCs on the market: iGlarLixi (glargine and lixisenatide in 2 different formulations) and IDegLira (degludec and liraglutide). We provide an up-to-date review on the rationale for the use of FRCs and their current position in the management of T2DM. We discuss the available evidence from randomized controlled trials, post hoc analyses, indirect comparative studies and real-world data on their effect on glycemic control, risk of hypoglycemia, body weight, CV safety, and their safety profile.

EXPERT OPINION

FRCs represent an efficacious option for treatment intensification from basal insulin or even the first insulin-based therapy in T2DM. Their excellent glucose-lowering efficacy is complemented with lower risk of hypoglycemia in comparison to basal insulin, neutral effect on body weight and the lower risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects in comparison to GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Molecular Modeling and Bioinformatics Analysis of Drug-Receptor Interactions in the System Formed by Glargine, Its Metabolite M1, the Insulin Receptor, and the IGF1 Receptor

Introduction

Insulin and insulin-like growth factor type 1 (IGF1) regulate multiple physiological functions by acting on the insulin receptor (IR) and insulin-like growth factor type 1 receptor (IGF1R). The insulin analog glargine differs from insulin in three residues (Gly^A21, Arg^B31, Arg^B32), and it is converted to metabolite M1 (lacks residues Arg^B31 and Arg^B32) by in vivo processing. It is known that activation of these receptors modulates pathways related to metabolism, cell division, and growth. Though, the structures and structural basis of the glargine interaction with these receptors are not known.

Aim

To generate predictive structural models, and to analyze the drug/receptor interactions in the system formed by glargine, its metabolite M1, IR, and IGF1R by using bioinformatics tools.

Methods

Ligand/receptor models were built by homology modeling using SWISSMODEL, and surface interactions were analyzed using Discovery Studio® Visualizer. Target and hetero target sequences and appropriate template structures were used for modeling.

Results

Our glargine/IR and metabolite M1/IR models showed an overall symmetric T-shaped conformation and full occupancy with four ligand molecules. The glargine/IR model revealed that the glargine residues Arg^B31 and Arg^B32 fit in a hydrophilic region formed by the α-chain C-terminal helix (αCT) and the cysteine-rich region (CR) domain of this receptor, close to the CR residues Arg270-Arg271-Gln272 and αCT residue Arg717. Regarding IGF1R, homologous ligand/receptor models were further built assuming that the receptor is in a symmetrical T-shaped conformation and is fully occupied with four ligand molecules, similar to what we described for IR. Our glargine/IGF1R model showed the interaction of the glargine residues Arg^B31 and Arg^B32 with Glu264 and Glu305 in the CR domain of IGF1R.

Conclusion

Using bioinformatics tools and predictive modeling, our study provides a better understanding of the glargine/receptor interactions.

Effectiveness of IGlarLixi, a Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Glargine 100 U/mL and Lixisenatide, in People with Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The latest Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes proposes the use of a fixed-ratio combination (FRC) of a long-acting basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist as part of treatment intensification. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the insulin glargine + lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) FRC on glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia in real-life settings.

METHODS

This non-interventional, 26-week study included participants aged 18-80 years with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) using oral antidiabetics (OADs) ± basal insulin therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants who achieved at least a 1% decrease in glycated haemoblobin (HbA1c) level from baseline to week 26.

RESULTS

Of the 441 participants eligible for entry into the study, 353 were included in the efficacy analyses. These individuals were switched from OADs without (282 [79.9%]) or with (71 [20.1%]) insulin-based treatment. A reduction in HbA1c of at least 1.0% (primary endpoint) was achieved by 215 subjects (60.9%). All glycaemic variables (mean ± standard deviation) improved significantly during follow-up (HbA1c, from 8.9 ± 1.31 to 7.4 ± 0.97%; fasting blood glucose, from 9.0 ± 2.18 to 6.9 ± 1.23 mmol/L; postprandial blood glucose, from 11.3 ± 2.33 to 8.5 ± 1.46 mmol/L; p < 0.001 for all). Body weight also decreased during follow-up, from 90.5 ± 18.03 to 88.2 ± 17.75 kg (p < 0.001). Overall, 41 participants (9.3% of the safety population) self-reported 101 non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes (incidence rate 0.498 events/person-year). There were no severe hypoglycaemic episodes reported. Gastrointestinal adverse events were reported by five participants (1.1% of the safety population). The vast majority (96.6%) of the study population continued iGlarLixi treatment after the final visit.

CONCLUSION

The results of this non-interventional study confirmed the efficacy results of the randomized controlled trial programme of the iGlarLixi FRC in a real-life setting. iGlarLixi significantly improved glycaemic control in association with a low frequency of hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal adverse events in a heterogeneous population of participants with T2D suboptimally controlled with OADs ± basal insulin.

Efficacy of once-daily glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide as an add-on treatment to basal insulin in Asian and white adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: An individual-level pooled analysis of phase III studies

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

The prevalence and pathophysiological background of type 2 diabetes mellitus vary across ethnicities, and can affect treatment responses. Adding lixisenatide to basal insulin (BI) in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients has shown improvements in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and postprandial glycemic (PPG) excursions, without increasing hypoglycemic events. We aim to compare the efficacy of lixisenatide in Asian and white patients inadequately controlled with basal insulin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An individual-level pooled analysis of two multi-national phase III studies, GetGoal-L and GetGoal-L-C, was carried out to assess the efficacy of lixisenatide versus placebo as an add-on treatment to BI ± metformin in Asian and white patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Change in HbA1c, 2-h PPG and PPG excursion were analyzed, along with possible predictors of glycemic control.

RESULTS

Pooled data showed that baseline characteristics were similar between Asian and white patients with the exception of bodyweight, body mass index and BI dose being higher in white patients. After 24 weeks, lixisenatide reduced HbA1c in both ethnic groups, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (Asian patients least squares mean difference -0.49, 95% confidence interval -0.68 to - 0.30 and white patients least squares mean difference -0.45, 95% confidence interval -0.63 to - 0.26; P = 0.6287). Similarly, no significant difference was found in 2-h PPG reduction between both groups (least squares mean difference for Asian vs white patients: -3.37 vs -3.93; P = 0.3203). Treatment with lixisenatide contributed to HbA1c reduction of -0.56% after adjustment of baseline HbA1c level in Asian patients, and -0.41% in white patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding lixisenatide to BI significantly reduced HbA1c and 2-h PPG levels in both Asian and white participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus. No differences in treatment effect were observed between the two populations.

Translating iGlarLixi Evidence for the Management of Frequent Clinical Scenarios in Type 2 Diabetes

Treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) requires progressive therapy intensification to reach and maintain individualized glycemic targets. iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (iGlar) and lixisenatide (Lixi), has been shown to provide robust HbA1c reductions allowing more people to reach HbA1c targets compared with separate administration of iGlar or Lixi. The purpose of this review is to help clinicians understand treatment intensification using iGlarLixi by presenting typical clinical scenarios supported by research evidence. These cases will focus on individuals with T2D inadequately controlled by oral antihyperglycemic drugs, basal insulin, or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), and take into consideration T2D duration, body mass index, incidence of adverse events, and regimen simplicity. Clinical evidence on the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of iGlarLixi from randomized controlled trials and real-world studies will be discussed in the context of these cases.

Do GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Increase the Risk of Breast Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Risk of cancer is a major concern in the development of drugs for the treatment of obesity and diabetes. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the Liraglutide Clinical Development Program, subjects treated with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) had a higher absolute number of breast cancer events.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether patients treated with GLP-1RAs had a higher risk of breast neoplasms.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL from July 31, 2019 to February 8, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Reviewers assessed abstracts and full-text articles for RCTs of GLP-1RAs in adults with excessive weight and/or diabetes and a minimum follow-up of 24 weeks.

DATA EXTRACTION

Researchers extracted study-level data and assessed within-study risk of bias with the RoB 2.0 tool and quality of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included 52 trials, of which 50 reported breast cancer events and 11 reported benign breast neoplasms. Overall methodological quality was high. Among 48 267 subjects treated with GLP-1RAs, 130 developed breast cancer compared with 107 of 40 755 controls (relative risk [RR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.26). Subset analyses according to follow-up, participant/investigator blinding, and type of GLP-1RA did not reveal any differences. The risk of benign breast neoplasms also did not differ between groups (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.48-2.01). Trial sequential analysis provided evidence that the sample size was sufficient to avoid missing alternative results.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with GLP-1RAs for obesity and diabetes does not increase the risk of breast neoplasms.

The Differential and Combined Action of Insulin Glargine and Lixisenatide on the Fasting and Postprandial Components of Glucose Control

BACKGROUND

iGlarLixi is an injectable combination of long acting insulin glargine (iGlar) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist lixisenatide in a fixed ratio, which was proven safe and effective for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Lixisenatide and iGlar act differently on fasting and postprandial plasma glucose (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] and postprandial glucose [PPG]). Here, we deconstruct quantitatively their respective FPG and PPG effects.

METHOD

This post hoc study analyzes data from the Lixilan-O trial, where 1170 subjects with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to 30 weeks of once daily injections of lixisenatide, iGlar, and iGlarLixi (1:2:2). The FPG and PPG components of glucose control were assessed in terms of mean glucose (fasting mean plasma glucose [FMPG] and prandial mean plasma glucose [PMPG], respectively). The MPGP was computed across all meals as a delta between post- and premeal glucose; glucose variability was measured by the high blood glucose index (HBGI) (fasting HBGI and prandial HBGI [PHBGI], respectively), and glycemic exposure measured by area under the curve (AUC) computed overall. All metrics were derived from seven-point self-monitoring glucose profiles.

RESULTS

Insulin glargine lowered significantly FMPG by 15.3 mg/dL (P < .01) without any significant change in PMPG. Lixisenatide, when added to iGlar, reduced PMPG by 9.7 mg/dL (P < .01), AUC by 96.3 mg∙h/dL (P < .01), and PHBGI by 2.4 (P < .01), primarily due to attenuation of PPG and without significant change in mean FPG.

CONCLUSION

Insulin glargine and lixisenatide act selectively on FPG and PPG. Their combination iGlarLixi offers more effective glucose control than its components due to the cumulative effect on FPG and PPG, which is evidenced by reduced average glycemia, glycemic exposure, and glucose variability.

Delphi-Based Consensus on Treatment Intensification in Type 2 Diabetes Subjects Failing Basal Insulin Supported Oral Treatment: Focus on Basal Insulin + GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Combination Therapies

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to elaborate a consensus on treatment intensification strategies in patients with type 2 diabetes failing basal insulin supported oral therapy (BOT). The panel focused on glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and basal insulin (BI) combinations.

METHODS

The authors developed a Delphi questionnaire organized into ten statements and 77 items that focused on: the definition of BOT and BOT failure, intensification strategies, fixed-dose combinations in general and the BI/GLP-1RA fixed combination. The survey was administered in two rounds to a panel of 80 Italian diabetes specialists, who rated their level of agreement with each item on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was predefined as > 66% of the panel agreeing/disagreeing on any given item.

RESULTS

Consensus was achieved for 71 of the 77 items. The panel agreed that the use of sulfonylureas in the BOT regimen is inappropriate. BOT failure was defined as individualized targets not being met for glycated hemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose and/or postprandial plasma glucose. There was agreement that postprandial hyperglycaemia and/or presence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia or weight gain define BOT failure. Addition of a GLP-1RA to BI therapy was considered to be the best option for BOT intensification. There was consensus for the use of BI/GLP-1RA fixed combinations as valuable options to increase compliance and safely improve glycaemic control. The panel agreed in considering the fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) to be preferable to the fixed-ratio combination insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in the control of glycaemia, body weight and cardiovascular risk.

CONCLUSION

According to this Delphi consensus, the addition of a GLP-1RA may be the best option to intensify BOT. The BI/GLP-1RA fixed combinations may increase compliance and optimize the advantages of each of these molecules.

Titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine plus lixisenatide: A simplified approach to glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Approximately 50% of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) do not achieve glycemic targets and require treatment intensification. A fixed-ratio combination of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) with basal insulin, such as lixisenatide with insulin glargine (iGlarLixi), exploits the complementary mechanisms of action of each component to address hyperglycemia while mitigating potential adverse events (AEs). The iGlarLixi dose is titrated considering the effect of basal insulin on fasting plasma glucose, and the fixed-ratio combination ensures that the lixisenatide dose never exceeds 20 μg/day. We describe the characteristics of iGlarLixi therapy, based on the LixiLan clinical program, and provide guidance on the characteristics of patients likely to benefit from such treatment in routine clinical practice. In the phase III LixiLan trials, iGlarLixi resulted in significantly greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), better achievement of HbA1c targets, less glycemic variability versus insulin glargine, lixisenatide or GLP-1 RA alone, and was associated with weight control, less hypoglycemia versus insulin glargine, and fewer GI AEs versus lixisenatide. Findings were consistent regardless of age, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c. The efficacy, safety, and convenient once-daily administration schedule of iGlarLixi make it a valuable treatment option for patients with T2DM requiring treatment intensification.

Insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed-ratio combination (iGlarLixi) compared with premix or addition of meal-time insulin to basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide, relative to premix insulin and other insulin options through network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing iGlarLixi, premix insulin or basal insulin (BI) in combination with meal-time insulin, in people inadequately controlled with BI. Eligible RCTs were compared using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, some open-label, involving 3538 participants, with a study duration of 24-30 weeks were included. The estimated difference in HbA1c reduction with iGlarLixi compared with premix insulin was -0.50%-units (95% credible interval: -0.93 to -0.06) with 98% probability of iGlarLixi being superior to premix. Estimates for iGlarLixi versus meal-time + BI (thrice-daily meal-time insulin + basal) and basal-plus (once-daily meal-time insulin + BI) were -0.35 (-0.89 to +0.13)%-units and -0.68 (-1.18 to -0.17)%-units with probabilities of real difference of 94% and 99%, respectively. Safety outcome analysis suggested that iGlarLixi had lower rates of both confirmed and documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia compared with premix insulin (probabilities of 85% and 93%, respectively) and lower weight gain (probability 98%).

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi showed similar or improved efficacy and safety versus other intensification choices from BI included in this study, providing a clinically relevant treatment option in people with type 2 diabetes not well controlled on BI.

Fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in the treatment of Japanese people with type 2 diabetes: An innovative solution to a complex therapeutic challenge

Over 10 million people in Japan have known or suspected type 2 diabetes (T2D), and this number is expected to rise. Although many people require therapy escalation because of the progressive nature of T2D, this appears to be suboptimal in Japanese real-world clinical practice. Insulin therapy tends to be introduced only when glycaemic control is very poor (mean glycated haemoglobin >9%). Although basal insulin therapy is effective in reducing fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose often remains uncontrolled. Basal-bolus insulin regimens are complex and carry the risk of weight gain and hypoglycaemia. Recently, fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of BI and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) have shown efficacy in reducing both FPG and postprandial plasma glucose with a single injection and without increased risk of hypoglycaemia or weight gain. IDegLira, a titratable FRC of insulin degludec (100 U/mL) and liraglutide, is currently available in Japan and the United States/European Union at a ratio of 1 U (unit):0.036 mg. iGlarLixi (insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide at a ratio of 1:1 (20 U/20 μg) has recently been approved in Japan. Phase 3 trials in Japan for IDegLira (DUAL Japan) and iGlarLixi (LixiLan JP) have shown that both FRCs are efficacious. This review provides an overview of IDegLira and iGlarLixi (Japanese formulation) and considers their potential use as new therapeutic options to address the clinical need for early glycaemic control in Japanese people with T2D.

Rationale for Timely Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Within the Framework of Individualised Treatment: 2020 Update

Type 2 diabetes is characterised by chronic hyperglycaemia and variable degrees of insulin deficiency and resistance. Hyperglycaemia and elevated fatty acids exert harmful effects on β-cell function, regeneration and apoptosis (gluco-lipotoxicity). Furthermore, chronic hyperglycaemia triggers a vicious cycle of insulin resistance, low-grade inflammation and a cascade of pro-atherogenic processes. Thus, timely near to normal glucose control is of utmost importance in the management of type 2 diabetes and prevention of micro- and macroangiopathy. The majority of patients are multimorbid and obese, with critical comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Recently published guidelines therefore recommend patient-centred risk/benefit-balanced use of oral glucose-lowering drugs or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, or switching to insulin with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) out of target. This article covers the indications of early insulin treatment to prevent diabetes-related complications, particularly in subgroups with severe insulin deficit, and to achieve recovery of residual β-cell function. Furthermore, the individualised, risk/benefit-balanced, timely initiation of insulin as second and third option is analysed. Timely insulin initiation may prevent diabetes progression, reduce diabetes-related complications and has less serious adverse effects. Basal insulin is the preferred option in most clinical situations with consequences of undertreatment of chronic hyperglycaemia.

Fixed-Ratio Combinations of Basal Insulin and GLP-1RA in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Highlights from the Literature

New pieces of evidence suggest that combining basal insulin with glucagone-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes could promptly ameliorate glucose control and prevent both hypoglycemic events and unnecessary weight gain compared to more intensive insulin regimens. To review the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and GLP- 1RA (FRCs). Authors searched PubMed/MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for freely available original articles, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), clinical reviews, and meta-analysis written in English until January 2020. FRCs provide significative reductions in HbA1c levels in both insulin-naïve (-1.4% to -2%) and insulin- experienced (-1.5% to -2%) type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glucose impairment. More patients achieved the recommended glycemic targets on FRCs compared to those on mono-therapy with basal insulin or GLP-1RAs. The intensification with FRCs results in better glycemic control compared to basal insulin at fasting as well as during the postprandial state. The frequency of hypoglycemia is similar or lower in patients treated with FRCs than in those on basal insulin alone at a similar dose. Weight trend can be variable, ranging from -2.7 to +2 Kg for iDegLira and -0.7 to -1.3 Kg for iGlar- Lixi. However, a lower weight gain is obtained with iDegLira compared to iDeg (-2.2 to -2.5 Kg), iGlar (-1.7 to -3.2 Kg), and basal-bolus (-3.6 Kg) as well as with iGlarLixi compared to iGlar (-1.4 Kg). FRCs should be considered to safely improve the metabolic control in type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glycemic impairment while on oral medications, basal oral regimen or GLP-1RAs. However, a few but significative pieces of evidence suggest that FRCs could be a safe and effective treatment instead of a low dose basal-bolus intensification for patients with mild or moderate glucose impairment in order to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and unnecessary weight gain, and for simplifying treatment regimen as well.

Lixisenatide versus insulin glulisine on top of insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cost-per-responder analysis in China

Objective: To compare the cost per responder of lixisenatide versus insulin glulisine once daily (basal-plus) and three times daily (basal-bolus) on top of basal insulin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled by basal insulin in China.Methods: The cost per responder was estimated based on clinical data obtained from the GetGoal Duo-2 clinical trial and direct medical costs from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system over a 52-week time horizon. The response was assessed at week 26 in the clinical trial, which was extrapolated to 52 weeks to estimate the annual cost per responder. Responders were primarily defined using a composite endpoint that based on an HbA1c ≤ 7.0% threshold AND no weight gain With or Without no documented symptomatic hypoglycemia. Composite endpoints with varied HbA1c thresholds were defined in secondary analyses.Results: For the composite endpoint of HbA1c threshold ≤7.0% AND no weight gain, the annual cost per responder results were 96,722 CNY, 122,552 CNY and 135,926 CNY (14,616, 18,520 and 20,541 US dollars) for lixisenatide combined with basal insulin, basal-plus, and basal-bolus, respectively. For the composite endpoint of HbA1c threshold ≤7.0% AND no weight gain AND no documented symptomatic hypoglycemia, the annual cost per responder results were 136,290 CNY, 231,487 CNY and 222,424 CNY (20,596, 34,982 and 33,612 US dollars) for lixisenatide combined with basal insulin, basal-plus, and basal-bolus, respectively. The secondary analyses proved similar results.Conclusion: Lixisenatide combined with basal insulin is associated with a lower cost per responder compared with basal-plus and basal-bolus for T2DM patients inadequately controlled by basal insulin in China.

Comparison of lixisenatide in combination with basal insulin vs other insulin regimens for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by basal insulin: Systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

AIMS

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of lixisenatide combined with basal insulin (BI) vs intensive premix insulin (premix), BI plus prandial insulin with the main meal (basal-plus) or progressively covering all meals (basal-bolus) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled by BI, and the long-term cost-effectiveness of lixisenatide from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1998 and 2018 were systematically searched. The clinical efficacy and safety of each treatment were compared by network meta-analysis (NMA). The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct medical costs of patients treated with different strategies.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were finally included. Lixisenatide plus BI showed a similar reduction in HbA1c from baseline compared with premix, basal-plus and basal-bolus. There were significant differences in the change of body weight in favour of lixisenatide plus BI compared with the three insulin regimens. The risk of symptomatic hypoglycaemia of lixisenatide plus BI was significantly lower compared with premix and basal-bolus. Lixisenatide plus BI was cost-effective compared with premix, basal-plus and basal-bolus with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Chinese yuan (CNY) 87 219, 48 173 and 48 670 per QALY gained, respectively, under the threshold of three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China.

CONCLUSIONS

Lixisenatide plus BI shows a similar HbA1c reduction compared with insulin regimens, accompanied by lower risk of hypoglycaemia and greater body weight reduction. It is a cost-effective treatment alternative for patients with T2DM inadequately controlled by BI in China.

Efficacy and Safety of iGlarLixi, Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Glargine and Lixisenatide, Compared with Basal-Bolus Regimen in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Propensity Score Matched Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Basal-bolus (BB) regimens are generally used to intensify basal insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) not meeting glycemic targets. However, drawbacks include multiple injection burden and risk of weight gain and hypoglycemia. A once-daily titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) may provide a simple, well-tolerated, and efficacious alternative. We compared these treatments in a post hoc propensity score matched analysis using randomized trial data.

METHODS

From the LixiLan-L study, 195 patients who had been randomized to iGlarLixi were matched for age, sex, race, T2D duration, baseline body mass index, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose, insulin dose, and metformin use to 195 patients who had been randomized to a BB regimen in the GetGoal Duo-2 trial.

RESULTS

At study end, estimated treatment differences for reduction in HbA1c and weight change, and ratio of hypoglycemia events per patient-year (BB vs iGlarLixi) were - 0.28% (standard error 0.08, P = 0.0002), - 1.32 kg (standard error 0.30, P < 0.0001), and 2.85 (P < 0.0001), respectively, all favoring iGlarLixi over BB. Also, proportions of patients reaching individual and composite goals (HbA1c < 7% [< 53 mmol/mol], no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia) were higher in the iGlarLixi compared with the BB treatment group. Gastrointestinal side effects were more common with iGlarLixi.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2D inadequately controlled on basal insulin, iGlarLixi offers an effective alternative to BB regimen for reducing HbA1c, without increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02058160 (LixiLan-L trial); NCT01768559 (GetGoal Duo-2 trial). Plain language summary available for this article.

Combining GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Basal Insulin in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Focus on Lixisenatide and Insulin Glargine

Estimates suggest that there are currently 122.8 million adults 65-99 years of age living with diabetes, of whom 90-95% are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Over the past two decades, a greater understanding of the complex and multifactorial pathogenesis of T2D has resulted in the development and introduction of new-generation classes of glucose-lowering therapies, which are now extensively endorsed by prevailing guidelines and are increasingly being used worldwide. These newer agents may further assist in the effective pharmacological management of T2D through the provision of patient-centered care that acknowledges multimorbidity and is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences and barriers. Given these considerations, the therapeutic approach in older patients with T2D is complex, particularly in those who have functional dependence, frailty, dementia, or who are at end-of-life. It is currently too early to draw conclusions on the long-term use of newer glucose-lowering agents in this population, as their efficacy and safety in older adults remains largely unknown. In this review, we will discuss considerations for the use of glucose-lowering treatments in older adults, with particular focus on the use of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and the rationale for the use of combination therapy comprising these agents. Finally, we will review clinical data from studies of the fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide in older patients with T2D. FUNDING: Sanofi US, Inc.

Effect of medication adherence on clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes: analysis of the SIMPLE study

Objective

Medication adherence is impacted by regimen complexity. The SIMPLE (Simple basal Insulin titration, Metformin Plus Liraglutide for type 2 diabetes with very Elevated HbA1c) study compared GLP1RA plus basal insulin (GLP1RA+BI) to basal-bolus insulin (BBI) regimen in participants with very uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This analysis aimed to evaluate medication adherence to GLP1RA+BI compared with BBI, the effect of adherence on clinical and patient-reported outcomes, and baseline predictors of adherence.

Research design and methods

This was an analysis of the SIMPLE study based on prespecified outcome. The study took place in pragmatic, real-world setting. A total of 120 adults with T2DM and HgbA1c≥10% were randomized to detemir plus liraglutide, or detemir plus aspart before each meal; 6-month follow-up. The main outcomes evaluated were: adherence, HgbA1c, weight, quality of life, and hypoglycemia. Adherence rate was calculated for each study medication at each follow-up visit; participants were classified as ≥80% or <80% adherent.

Result

A higher percentage of participants in the GLP1RA+BI compared with the BBI group had ≥80% adherence to detemir (59.3% vs 35.7%, p=0.02) as well as liraglutide versus aspart (57.4% vs 30.4%, p=0.007). Higher age was predictive of ≥80% adherence (OR per 5-year increment=1.48, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.0, p=0.01). Higher adherence led to greater improvement in HbA1c and weight in both groups. Treatment with GLP1RA+BI compared with BBI led to greater improvement in HbA1c, weight, and quality of life and lower risk of hypoglycemia even after adjusting for the difference in adherence between groups.

Conclusions

Adherence was higher with the simplified regimen of GLP1RA+BI compared with BBI. Greater adherence to the simpler regimen amplified the treatment effect on HbA1c, weight, quality of life, and risk of hypoglycemia, yet statistically significant greater benefits were noted even when adjusted for adherence.

Trial registration number

NCT01966978.

A randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of treating patients with type 2 diabetes and highly elevated HbA1c levels with basal-bolus insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist plus basal insulin: The SIMPLE study

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1RA) plus basal insulin versus basal-bolus insulin treatment in patients with very uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The SIMPLE study was a 6-month pragmatic, randomized, open-label trial testing the effectiveness of two approaches to treat patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c ≥10%. We randomized patients to detemir plus liraglutide or detemir plus aspart (before each meal). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c; changes in body weight, insulin dose, hypoglycaemia and diabetes-related quality-of-life were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

We randomized 120 participants aged 47.4 ± 9.5 years, Hispanic 40%, African American 42%, diabetes duration 10 [25th-75th percentile (6 to 15)] years, body mass index 37.2 ± 10.3 kg/m² . HbA1c decreased more with GLP1RA plus basal insulin [12.2% (95% CI 11.8% to 12.6%) to 8.1% (95% CI 7.4% to 8.7%)] compared with basal-bolus insulin [11.8% (95% CI 11.5% to 12.2%) to 8.8% (95% CI 88.1% to 9.55%)]; estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -1.1% (95% CI -2.0% to -0.1%) (non-inferiority margin 0.4% and P = .0001, superiority P = .026). Compared with basal-bolus insulin, treatment with GLP1RA plus basal insulin led to a body weight ETD of -3.7 kg (95% CI -5.8 to -1.5; P = .001), fewer patients experiencing hypoglycaemia [66.1% vs 35.2% (P = .002)], and greater improvements in general/current health perception, treatment satisfaction, and fear of hypoglycaemia, while taking a lower total daily dose of insulin [estimated treatment ratio 0.68 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.84)].

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HbA1c ≥10% treatment with GLP1RA plus basal insulin, compared with basal-bolus insulin, resulted in better glycaemic control and body weight, lower insulin dosage and hypoglycaemia, and improved quality of life. This treatment strategy is an effective and safe alternative to a basal-bolus insulin regimen.

Initial injectable therapy in type 2 diabetes: Key considerations when choosing between glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and insulin

Managing type 2 diabetes is complex and necessitates careful consideration of patient factors such as engagement in self-care, comorbidities and costs. Since type 2 diabetes is a progressive disease, many patients will require injectable agents, usually insulin. Recent ADA-EASD guidelines recommend glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as first injectable therapy in most cases. The basis for this recommendation is the similar glycemic efficacy of GLP-1 RAs and insulin, but with GLP-1 RAs promoting weight loss instead of weight gain, at lower hypoglycemia risk, and with cardiovascular benefits in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease. GLP-1 RAs also reduce burden of glucose self-monitoring. However, tolerability and costs are important considerations, and notably, rates of drug discontinuation are often higher for GLP-1 RAs than basal insulin. To minimize risk of gastrointestinal symptoms patients should be started on lowest doses of GLP-1 RAs and up-titrated slowly. Overall healthcare costs may be lower with GLP-1 RAs compared to insulin. Though patient-level costs may still be prohibitive, GLP-1 RAs can replace 50-80 units of insulin daily and reduce costs associated with glucose self-monitoring. Decisions regarding initiating injectable therapy should be individualized. This review provides a framework to guide decision-making in the real-world setting.

The good companions: insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist in type 2 diabetes. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

We provided an updated systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the metabolic effects of combination therapy of insulin and GLP-1RA (combo) in comparison with other injectable therapy. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs evaluating changes in HbA1c (primary outcome), proportion of patients at HbA1c target <7%, hypoglycaemia, and weight change (secondary end-points). We included 36 RCTs involving 14,636 patients. Compared with comparator therapies (overall analysis), the combo led to a significant HbA1c reduction (=-0.49%, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.38%, P < 0.001), more patients at HbA1c target [relative risk, (RR) = 1.77, 95% CI, 1.56, 2.01, P < 0.001], similar hypoglycaemic events (RR = 1.03, 95% CI, 0.88, 1.19, P = 0.728), and reduction in body weight (-2.5 Kg, 95% CI -3.1 to -1.8 kg, P < 0.001), with high heterogeneity in each analysis. The quality of the evidence was low for three of the considered outcomes. Compared with intensified insulin regimens (basal-plus/basal-bolus) the combo produced similar glycemic control with reduction of both hypoglycaemia, and body weight. Combination therapy of GLP-1RA and insulin could represent a valuable treatment strategy to improve glycemic control in the management of type 2 diabetes.

Rationale for a titratable fixed-ratio co-formulation of a basal insulin analog and a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist in patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Achieving and maintaining recommended glycemic targets, including those for glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C), is key to improving outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). As fasting plasma glucose and postprandial glucose contribute to overall A1C, targeting both is essential for sustaining glycemic control.

METHODS

This review examines the complementary mechanisms of action of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and basal insulin; they both enhance glucose-stimulated insulin release and suppress glucagon secretion. GLP-1 receptor agonists also slow gastric emptying and increase satiety.

RESULTS

Adding a GLP-1 receptor agonist to therapy with a basal insulin analog has been associated with improved overall glycemic control, with comparable risk of hypoglycemia and no weight gain. Titratable fixed-ratio co-formulations of basal insulin and a GLP-1 receptor agonist have been shown to improve glycemic control, with less complex dosing schedules, possibly increasing treatment adherence. The slow titration of fixed-ratio co-formulations has been shown to reduce the occurrence and severity of gastrointestinal adverse events associated with the use of a separate GLP-1 receptor agonist. Titratable fixed-ratio co-formulations also mitigate insulin-associated weight gain, and show a comparable risk of hypoglycemia to basal insulin use alone.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of titratable fixed-ratio co-formulations have been demonstrated for insulin degludec/liraglutide and insulin glargine/lixisenatide in the DUAL and LixiLan trials, respectively, in both insulin-naive and -experienced patients. Titratable fixed-ratio co-formulations represent an attractive treatment option for many patients with T2D.

Austrian Experience with Lixisenatide Under Real-Life Conditions: A Prospective Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Lixisenatide has been studied extensively in randomized clinical trials; however, data on its use in the real-life practice are scarce.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, 26-week, multicenter, observational study conducted in Austrian diabetes centers and office-based practices to evaluate efficacy and safety of lixisenatide under real-life conditions in patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

Out of 144 patients (mean BMI 36.4 kg/m², disease duration 12.4 years), 113 completed the documentation at 6 months and 42% received basal insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs. The HbA1c declined from 8.7% (72 mmol/mol) to 7.9% (63 mmol/mol) and at study end 24.8% of the patients reached an HbA1c level below 7%. Fasting and postprandial glucose after lixisenatide administration were reduced by 27 ± 58 mg/dl and 45 ± 67 mg/dl, respectively. At study end body weight (- 4.5 ± 5.4 kg), triglycerides (- 10.8 ± 105 mg/dl), systolic blood pressure (- 4.8 ± 17.1 mmHg), and LDL cholesterol (- 3.7 ± 25 mg/dl) were reduced. The most commonly reported adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders (18.8%). Forty-three patients (30%) discontinued prematurely, mostly caused by lack of efficacy, occurrence of gastrointestinal disorders, and missing reimbursement. The average dose of insulin decreased slightly by 1.5 units (from 29.4 to 27.9).

CONCLUSION

Lixisenatide demonstrated a similar efficacy and safety profile under real-life conditions as previously shown in randomized clinical trials.

FUNDING

sanofi-aventis GmbH Austria.

Impact of lixisenatide dose range on clinical outcomes with fixed-ratio combination iGlarLixi in patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the lixisenatide dose range delivered by the iGlarLixi SoloSTAR pen (5-20 µg), alone or in fixed-ratio combination with insulin glargine (iGlar; iGlarLixi).

METHODS

Data from three clinical studies were analyzed to assess lixisenatide efficacy and safety: a phase 2a trial assessing gastric emptying effects (ACT6011); a phase 2b dose-ranging trial (DRI6012); and a randomized controlled phase 3 trial comparing iGlarLixi with its components of iGlar and lixisenatide (LixiLan-O). Efficacy metrics included glycated hemoglobin A_1c (A1C), post-prandial glucose (PPG) values following a standardized breakfast, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and weight change. Occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse events was also assessed.

RESULTS

ACT6011: lixisenatide doses from 5-20 μg once daily (QD) suppressed PPG; maximal reductions in mean PPG area under the curve were achieved with doses ≥12.5 µg QD, but doses as low as 5 μg achieved 44% of maximal reduction. DRI6012: lixisenatide doses 5-20 μg QD resulted in significant, dose-dependent decreases in A1C, percentage of patients achieving A1C <7.0%, and 2-h PPG levels; doses of 20 μg achieved complete suppression of PPG. LixiLan-O: iGlarLixi decreased 2-h PPG across the entire dose range. Lixisenatide dose was unrelated to reductions in FPG with iGlarLixi. Similar reductions in A1C were seen with iGlarLixi across all lixisenatide doses.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates the clinical benefit of lixisenatide alone or in the formulation of iGlarLixi over the entire dose range of lixisenatide contained in iGlarLixi (5-20 µg), supporting the selection of the lixisenatide dose range delivered by the iGlarLixi SoloSTAR pen.

Current Progress in Pharmacogenetics of Second-Line Antidiabetic Medications: Towards Precision Medicine for Type 2 Diabetes

Precision medicine is a scientific and medical practice for personalized therapy based on patients’ individual genetic, environmental, and lifestyle characteristics. Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics are also rapidly developing and expanding as a key element of precision medicine, in which the association between individual genetic variabilities and drug disposition and therapeutic responses are investigated. Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a chronic metabolic disorder characterized by hyperglycemia mainly associated with insulin resistance, with the risk of clinically important cardiovascular, neurological, and renal complications. The latest consensus report from the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes (ADA-EASD) on the management of T2D recommends preferential use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and some dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors after initial metformin monotherapy for diabetic patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease, and with risk of hypoglycemia or body weight-related problems. In this review article, we summarized current progress on pharmacogenetics of newer second-line antidiabetic medications in clinical practices and discussed their therapeutic implications for precision medicine in T2D management. Several biomarkers associated with drug responses have been identified from extensive clinical pharmacogenetic studies, and functional variations in these genes have been shown to significantly affect drug-related glycemic control, adverse reactions, and risk of diabetic complications. More comprehensive pharmacogenetic research in various clinical settings will clarify the therapeutic implications of these genes, which may be useful tools for precision medicine in the treatment and prevention of T2D and its complications.

Primary Care Management of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Overcoming Inertia and Advancing Therapy With the Use of Injectables

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a progressive disease caused by insulin resistance and associated progressive β-cell functional decline, as well as multiple other related metabolic and pathophysiologic changes. Left unchecked, T2D increases the risk of long-term microvascular and cardiovascular complications and is associated with excess morbidity and mortality. Despite multiple effective options for reducing hyperglycemia, patients are not optimally managed, largely due to delays in appropriate and timely advancement of therapy. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and basal insulin are recommended by treatment guidelines as effective options for advancing therapy to achieve glycemic control. However, injected therapies often face resistance from patients and clinicians. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are associated with weight loss, low risk of hypoglycemia, and potential beneficial cardiovascular effects. The class is recommended for patients across the spectrum of disease severity and represents an attractive option to add to basal insulin therapy when additional control is needed. Newer second-generation basal insulin analogues offer advantages over first-generation basal insulins in terms of lower hypoglycemia rates and greater flexibility in dosing. Incorporating injectable therapy into patient care in a timely manner has the potential to improve outcomes and must not be overlooked. Primary care clinicians play a significant role in managing patients with T2D, and they must be able to address and overcome patient resistance and their own barriers to advancing therapy if optimal treatment outcomes are to be achieved. The purpose of this expert opinion article was to provide a commentary on the key principle of advancing therapy with injectables to control hyperglycemia.

Addition of a single short-acting insulin bolus to basal insulin-supported oral therapy: a systematic review of data on the basal-plus regimen

We summarize here clinical and trial data on a once-daily administration of a single bolus to the meal with the largest expected postprandial glucose excursion (basal-plus), and comment on its clinical utility in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. A PubMed search of data published until September 2018 was taken into consideration and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Eighteen reports representing 15 studies were identified (age: 18-80 years; 50-890 patients; follow-up: 8 days to 60 weeks). Data suggest basal-plus is efficacious for improving glycemic control, with a low incidence of (severe) hypoglycemia and minor increases in bodyweight. The timing of short-acting insulin administration and use of different monitoring/titration approaches appear to have minimal impact. When compared with premixed insulin, basal-plus results in largely comparable outcomes. Compared with basal-bolus, it may result in non-inferior glycemic improvements with less weight gain, less hypoglycemia and fewer daily injections. A basal insulin/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist fixed ratio combination may offer several advantages over the basal-plus regimen, at the cost of gastrointestinal side effects. We conclude that the stepwise introduction of short-acting insulin via the basal-plus strategy represents a viable alternative to a full basal-bolus regimen and may help to overcome barriers associated with multiple injections and anticipated complexity of the insulin regimen.

GLP-1 receptor agonist added to insulin versus basal-plus or basal-bolus insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend that antihyperglycaemic treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving the HbA_1c target on basal insulin should be intensified with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) or basal-plus/basal-bolus (BP/BB) insulin regimen. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of GLP-1RA/insulin combinations versus BP/BB.

METHODS

The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017079547). PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until July 2018. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting HbA_1c , body weight, daily insulin dose, hypoglycaemic events, and discontinuation due to lack of efficacy were included. A subgroup analysis on different combinations of GLP-1RA and insulin was performed.

RESULTS

Out of 1885 retrieved papers, 13 RCTs were included in the review. Compared with BP/BB, GLP-1RA/insulin combinations were associated with a similar HbA_1c reduction (Δ = -0.06%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.14 to 0.02; P = 0.13; I²  = 52%), greater weight loss (Δ = -3.72 kg; 95% CI, -4.49 to -2.95; P < 0.001; I²  = 89%), and lower incidence of hypoglycaemic events (relative risk [RR] = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.38-0.55; P < 0.001; I²  = 99%). The daily insulin dosage among GLP-1RA/insulin users was 30.3 IU/day (95% CI, -41.2 to -19.3; P < 0.001; I²  = 94%), lower than with BP/BB. No difference was found for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present review supports treatment intensification with GLP-1RA added to insulin versus BP/BB in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. This could provide similar antihyperglycaemic efficacy while leading to weight loss and sparing of hypoglycaemia and insulin dose. As a consequence, a considerable number of patients with type 2 diabetes could be potentially shifted from BP/BB to GLP-1RA/insulin combinations.

Propensity-score-matched comparative analyses of simultaneously administered fixed-ratio insulin glargine 100 U and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) vs sequential administration of insulin glargine and lixisenatide in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes

AIM

To conduct two exploratory analyses to compare indirectly the efficacy and safety of simultaneous administration of insulin glargine 100 U (iGlar) and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) lixisenatide (Lixi) as a single-pen, titratable, fixed-ratio combination (iGlarLixi [LixiLan trials]) vs sequential administration of iGlar + Lixi (GetGoal Duo trials) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Propensity-score matching based on baseline covariates was used to compare simultaneous iGlarLixi vs sequential combination of iGlar + Lixi with the addition of Lixi in patients who did not reach the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) goal of <53 mmol/mol (<7%) after short-term use of iGlar alone (LixiLan-O vs GetGoal Duo-1 comparison) and vs sequential addition of Lixi in uncontrolled patients after long-term use of iGlar alone (LixiLan-L vs GetGoal Duo-2 comparison).

RESULTS

In both analyses, compared with sequential iGlar + Lixi, iGlarLixi led to significantly greater HbA1c reductions with associated weight loss and significantly more patients reaching target HbA1c <53 mmol/mol despite lower insulin doses. Symptomatic hypoglycaemia rates were similar, despite greater HbA1c reductions with iGlarLixi. Lower rates of gastrointestinal adverse events were observed with iGlarLixi, probably as a result of the more gradual titration of Lixi with iGlarLixi.

CONCLUSIONS

Indirect propensity-score-matched exploratory comparisons suggest that early treatment with a simultaneous, titratable, fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin and a GLP-1RA (iGlarLixi) may be more effective and possess better gastrointestinal tolerability than a sequential approach of adding a GLP-1RA in patients with uncontrolled T2D initiating or intensifying basal insulin therapy.

Low incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events over time with a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide versus lixisenatide alone

This post hoc analysis of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) from the phase 3 LixiLan-L (NCT02058160) and LixiLan-O (NCT02058147) trials aimed to determine the frequency and timing of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea for iGlarLixi, a titratable, fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 units/mL (iGlar) and lixisenatide, versus iGlar alone or iGlar and lixisenatide alone, in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) or basal insulin ± OADs. In iGlarLixi-treated patients, the rate of GI AEs during the initial weeks of treatment was lower versus patients treated with lixisenatide alone (9.6% and 11.7% of iGlarLixi-treated patients in LixiLan-L and LixiLan-O, respectively, vs. 27.5% of lixisenatide-treated patients in LixiLan-O). Beyond day 60, these rates were generally low and similar to those of lixisenatide. These lower rates are likely due to the gradual titration of lixisenatide in iGlarLixi. Median durations of intermittent GI AEs in the iGlarLixi arms were 6.0, 2.0 and 2.5 days (LixiLan-L), and 5.0, 1.0 and 3.5 days (LixiLan-O), respectively. iGlarLixi-associated GI AEs were transient, mostly mild or moderate in severity, and occurred mainly during initial titration.

Addressing Clinical Inertia in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Review

The current epidemic of type 2 diabetes (T2D) represents a significant global and national health concern. Globally, the prevalence of diabetes has doubled between 1980 and 2014. In 2014 the World Health Organization estimated that there were 422 million adults living with diabetes worldwide. In the USA, the number of people diagnosed with T2D is estimated to increase to over 70 million by 2050, putting an immense strain on the US healthcare system. Achieving glycemic control is widely acknowledged as the key goal of treatment in T2D and is critical for reducing the onset and progression of diabetes-related complications such as cardiovascular diseases, neuropathies, retinopathies, and nephropathies. Despite the increase in the availability of antihyperglycemic medications and evidence-based treatment guidelines, the proportion of people with T2D who fail to achieve glycemic goals continues to rise. One major contributor is a delay in treatment intensification despite suboptimal glycemic control, referred to as clinical or therapeutic inertia. Clinical inertia prolongs the duration of patients' hyperglycemia which subsequently puts them at increased risk of diabetes-associated complications and reduced life expectancy. Clinical inertia results from a complex interaction between patient, healthcare providers, and healthcare system barriers that need to be addressed together, rather than as separate entities. In this article we provide an overview of clinical inertia in the clinical management of T2D and provide suggestions for overcoming aspects that may have a negative impact on patient care.Funding: Sanofi US, Inc.