Achievement of Target A1C <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) by U.S. Type 2 Diabetes Patients Treated With Basal Insulin in Both Randomized Controlled Trials and Clinical Practice

Comparation of fixed-ratio (IDegLira and iGlarLixi) versus free combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the fixed-ratio combination (FRC) and free combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and four Chinese databases were searched for relevant studies from inception to April 13, 2023. Phase III clinical trials involving FRC or free combination in patients with uncontrolled T2DM were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to evaluate the effects of FRC and free combination. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to evaluate the risk-of-bias. The primary outcomes were changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, and incident hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes included changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023409585).

RESULTS

Forty-two trials with 23,619 patients were included in the NMA, and treatments were categorized as FRC, free combination and NOINSGLP (neither FRC nor free combination). The forest plots revealed comparable HbA1c control (mean difference (MD) = 0.07%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.17 to -0.30) between free combination and FRC. However, there were significant differences in the body weight (MD = -2.06 kg; 95% CI: -3.34 to -0.77), SBP (MD = -1.22 mmHg; 95% CI: -2.41 to -0.04), and DBP (MD = -1.09 mmHg; 95% CI: -1.94 to -0.24) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with uncontrolled T2DM, the safety and efficacy of FRC and free combination therapy were comparable. The use of FRC is justifiable in patients requiring free combination.

The Basis for Weekly Insulin Therapy: Evolving Evidence With Insulin Icodec and Insulin Efsitora Alfa

Basal insulin continues to be a vital part of therapy for many people with diabetes. First attempts to prolong the duration of insulin formulations were through the development of suspensions that required homogenization prior to injection. These insulins, which required once- or twice-daily injections, introduced wide variations in insulin exposure contributing to unpredictable effects on glycemia. Advances over the last 2 decades have resulted in long-acting, soluble basal insulin analogues with prolonged and less variable pharmacokinetic exposure, improving their efficacy and safety, notably by reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia. However, adherence and persistence with once-daily basal insulin treatment remains low for many reasons including hypoglycemia concerns and treatment burden. A soluble basal insulin with a longer and flatter exposure profile could reduce pharmacodynamic variability, potentially reducing hypoglycemia, have similar efficacy to once-daily basal insulins, simplify dosing regimens, and improve treatment adherence. Insulin icodec (Novo Nordisk) and insulin efsitora alfa (basal insulin Fc [BIF], Eli Lilly and Company) are 2 such insulins designed for once-weekly administration, which have the potential to provide a further advance in basal insulin replacement. Icodec and efsitora phase 2 clinical trials, as well as data from the phase 3 icodec program indicate that once-weekly insulins provide comparable glycemic control to once-daily analogues, with a similar risk of hypoglycemia. This manuscript details the technology used in the development of once-weekly basal insulins. It highlights the clinical rationale and potential benefits of these weekly insulins while also discussing the limitations and challenges these molecules could pose in clinical practice.

Initiation of iGlarLixi Versus Basal-Bolus Insulin in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Advancing From Basal Insulin Therapy: The SoliComplex Real-World Study

Background

When type 2 diabetes is suboptimally controlled with basal insulin, prandial insulin injections are commonly added (i.e., a basal-bolus insulin regimen), which can increase treatment burden and hypoglycemia risk. The once-daily injectable iGlarLixi is an alternative treatment.

Methods

This retrospective analysis of the U.S. Optum Clinformatics database compared outcomes in adults (≥18 years of age) with type 2 diabetes who previously received basal insulin and were newly initiated on iGlarLixi or basal-bolus insulin therapy. Cohorts were propensity score-matched in a 1:1 ratio on baseline characteristics, and imbalances were adjusted in multivariate analyses. Subgroup analyses were performed for people ≥65 years of age and those with a baseline A1C ≥9%. The primary end point was persistence with therapy at 12 months in the overall population. Secondary end points were treatment adherence, health care resource utilization (HCRU), costs, any hypoglycemia, and A1C change at 12 months.

Results

Cohorts each comprised 1,070 participants. Treatment persistence at 12 months was statistically significantly higher for iGlarLixi versus basal-bolus insulin therapy (43.7 vs. 22.3%, hazard ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.46-0.57, adjusted P <0.001). Adherence was numerically higher for iGlarLixi, and hypoglycemia events, HCRU, and costs were numerically lower for iGlarLixi. A1C reduction from baseline was slightly greater for basal-bolus insulin. Results for both subgroups (≥65 years of age and baseline A1C ≥9%) were similar to those of the overall population.

Conclusion

In this observational study, initiation of once-daily iGlarLixi versus basal-bolus insulin was associated with higher persistence, lower hypoglycemia, and similar A1C reduction without increasing HCRU or costs regardless of age or A1C. iGlarLixi could be an alternative to basal-bolus insulin, particularly for older adults with type 2 diabetes who require treatment simplification with lower hypoglycemia risk.

Safety and efficacy of once-weekly basal insulin Fc in people with type 2 diabetes previously treated with basal insulin: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

The burden of daily basal insulins often causes hesitancy and delays in the initiation of insulin therapy. Basal insulin Fc (BIF, insulin efsitora alfa), designed for once-weekly administration, is a fusion protein combining a novel single-chain insulin variant with a human immunoglobulin G (IgG) Fc domain. In this study, we explored the safety and efficacy of BIF in people with type 2 diabetes who had been previously treated with basal insulin.

METHODS

For this phase 2, 44-site (clinical research centres and hospitals), randomised, open-label, comparator-controlled, 32-week study in the USA, Puerto Rico, and Mexico, we enrolled participants with type 2 diabetes. Eligible participants had to be adults (aged ≥18 years) and to have been treated with basal insulin and up to three oral antidiabetic medicines. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to subcutaneous administration of BIF (BIF treatment group 1 [BIF-A1] or 2 [BIF-A2]) or insulin degludec. Randomisation was stratified by country, baseline HbA_1c values (<8·5% or ≥8·5%; <69·4 or ≥69·4 mmol/mol), use of sulfonylureas (yes or no), and baseline BMI (<30 or ≥30 kg/m²). The randomisation scheme was performed using an interactive web-response system, which ensured balance between treatment groups. Different fasting glucose targets for the BIF-A1 (≤7·8 mmol/L or ≤140 mg/dL; titrated every 2 weeks), BIF-A2 (≤6·7 mmol/L or ≤120 mg/dL; titrated every 4 weeks), and degludec (≤5·6 mmol/L or ≤100 mg/dL) groups were selected. Patients randomly assigned to BIF received a one-time loading dose ranging from 1·5-3 times their calculated weekly dose. The first weekly dose was administered 1 week after the loading dose. We used interstitial fasting glucose measurements from the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring system to titrate the basal insulin. The primary measure of glycaemic control was change in HbA_1c from baseline to week 32 for BIF. BIF was also compared with degludec (with a non-inferiority margin of 0·40%). The efficacy analysis set consisted of data from all randomised study participants who received at least one dose of the study medication and participants were analysed according to the treatment they were assigned. The safety population was the same as the efficacy analysis set. The completed trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03736785).

FINDINGS

Between Nov 15, 2018 and Feb 18, 2020, 399 participants were enrolled and randomised to BIF-A1 (n=135), BIF-A2 (n=132), or degludec (n=132); 202 (51%) were female and 197 (49%) were male. 379 were analysed for the primary outcome (BIF-A1: n=130; BIF-A2: n=125; degludec: n=124). Mean HbA1c change from baseline to week 32, the primary outcome, was -0·6% (SE 0·1%) for BIF-A1 and BIF-A2. Degludec achieved a change from baseline of -0·7% (0·1%). The pooled BIF analysis achieved non-inferiority versus degludec for the treatment difference in HbA1c (0·1% [90% CI -0·1 to 0·3]). The hypoglycaemia (≤3·9 mmol/L or ≤70 mg/dL) event rates (hypoglycaemia events per patient per year) in the BIF groups were 25% lower than those in the degludec group (treatment ratio BIF-A1 vs degludec was 0·75 [0·61-0·93]; and BIF-A2 vs degludec was 0·74 [0·58-0·94]). BIF was well tolerated; treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across groups.

INTERPRETATION

Weekly BIF achieved a similar efficacy compared with degludec despite higher fasting glucose targets in the BIF groups. Higher fasting glucose targets and lower glucose variability might have contributed to lower hypoglycaemia rates for BIF compared with degludec. These findings support continued development of BIF as a once-weekly insulin treatment for people with diabetes.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Ease of Use of the iGlarLixi SoloStar Pen from the LixiLan ONE CAN Pen Sub-Study: Questionnaire Findings from People Living with Type 2 Diabetes and Their HealthCare Providers

INTRODUCTION

For people with type 2 diabetes mellitus who do not achieve glycated hemoglobin A1C targets after treatment with basal insulin therapies, additional therapy with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) may be required. One option is to use a once-daily fixed-ratio combination (FRC) of basal insulin and a GLP-1 RA such as iGlarLixi (which is composed of insulin glargine 100 U/ml and lixisenatide). However, the ease of transitioning from basal insulin to an FRC has not been studied.

METHODS

This sub-study of the LixiLan ONE CAN trial (NCT03767543) was conducted to assess the ease of transitioning from insulin glargine 100 U/ml to the FRC, iGlarLixi, using the iGlarLixi SoloStar^® pen. Patients completed a validated, ten-item questionnaire, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) completed a five-item questionnaire. Both questionnaires used either five-point Likert scales or yes/no answers as appropriate, and both were completed after 4 weeks of using the iGlarLixi SoloStar pen.

RESULTS

Overall, 95.1% of patients reported that the iGlarLixi Solostar pen was "easy" or "very easy" to use. Similarly, 100% of HCPs reported that it was "easy" or "very easy" to train people to use the pen. Nearly all participants (97.5% of patients and 94% of HCPs) responded that they would recommend the iGlarLixi Solostar pen to others.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that during the transition from insulin glargine 100 U/ml to iGlarLixi, there were no difficulties associated with using the iGlarLixi SoloStar pen injector regarding instruction for use by HCPs or actual use by the majority of patients. The results indicate a broad consensus between patients and HCPs on the relative simplicity of transitioning from self-administration of insulin glargine 100 U/ml to iGlarLixi.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03767543; Date of registration: December 6, 2018; Retrospectively registered.

Efficacy of a Smart Insulin Pen Cap for the Management of Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Cross-Over Trial

BACKGROUND

We studied a smart insulin pen cap that can be plugged to several brand of insulin pens, to track insulin administration via smart-phone Bluetooth technology, with alarm/reminder system aiming.

METHODS

This pilot randomized, cross-over design study assessed the use of a smart insulin pen cap in improving adherence, glycemic control and patient satisfaction in insulin-treated patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Eighty patients on basal insulin ± oral agents with hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) between 7.0% and 12.0% were randomized to a 12-week active phase receiving alarms/reminders and a 12-week control/masked phase without feedback. We assessed differences between groups on treatment adherence, insulin omission, and mistiming of insulin injections, HbA1c, treatment satisfaction (using Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire Status).

RESULTS

Compared to the control/masked phase, the active phase resulted in lower mean daily blood glucose (147.0 ± 34 vs 157.6 ± 42 mg/dL, P < .01); and greater reduction in HbA1c from baseline (-0.98% vs -0.72%, P = .006); however, no significant differences in treatment adherence, insulin omission or insulin mistiming were observed. High patient satisfaction scores were reported in both active and control phases, with DTSQc of 15.5 ± 3.7 and 14.9 ± 3.6, respectively. Statistical models showed no residual effect after cross-over between active and control phases.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this pilot study indicates that this smart insulin pen cap was effective in improving glycemic control with overall good satisfaction in insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Future studies are needed to confirm its potential for improving care in insulin treated patients with diabetes.

Time for Using Machine Learning for Dose Guidance in Titration of People With Type 2 Diabetes? A Systematic Review of Basal Insulin Dose Guidance

BACKGROUND

Real-world studies of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have shown insufficient dose adjustment during basal insulin titration in clinical practice leading to suboptimal treatment. Thus, 60% of people with T2D treated with insulin do not reach glycemic targets. This emphasizes a need for methods supporting efficient and individualized basal insulin titration of people with T2D. However, no systematic review of basal insulin dose guidance for people with T2D has been found.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of basal insulin dose guidance methods that support titration of people with T2D and categorize these methods by characteristics, effect, and user experience.

METHODS

The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies about basal insulin dose guidance, including adults with T2D on basal insulin analogs published before September 7, 2022, were included. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists were applied to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

In total, 35 studies were included, and three categories of dose guidance were identified: paper-based titration algorithms, telehealth solutions, and mathematical models. Heterogeneous reporting of glycemic outcomes challenged comparison of effect between the three categories. Few studies assessed user experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies mainly used titration algorithms to titrate basal insulin as telehealth or in paper format, except for studies using mathematical models. A numerically larger proportion of participants seemed to reach target using telehealth solutions compared to paper-based titration algorithms. Exploring capabilities of machine learning may provide insights that could pioneer future research while focusing on holistic development.

Real-world outcomes of addition of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) therapy in people with type 2 diabetes: The DELIVER-G study

AIMS

To provide real-world data on the addition of basal insulin (BI) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (PWD2) suboptimally controlled with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) therapy. However, real-world data on the addition of BI to GLP-1RA therapy are limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a US electronic medical record data source (IBM® Explorys®) that includes approximately 4 million PWD2 to assess the real-world impact of adding the second-generation BI analogue insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) to GLP-1RA therapy. Insulin-naïve PWD2 receiving GLP-1RAs who also received Gla-300 between March 1, 2015 and September 30, 2019 were identified; participants were required to have data for ≥12 months before, and ≥6 months after, addition of Gla-300.

RESULTS

The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of participants (N = 271) was 57.9 (10.8) years. Baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was 9.16% and was significantly reduced (-0.97 [SD 1.60]%; P < 0.0001) after addition of Gla-300; a significant increase in the proportion of PWD2 achieving HbA1c control was observed after addition of Gla-300 (HbA1c <7.0%: 4.80% vs. 22.14%, P < 0.0001; HbA1c <8.0%: 19.56% vs. 51.29%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of overall (8.49% vs. 9.59%; P = 0.513) and inpatient/emergency department (ED)-associated hypoglycaemia (0.37% vs. 0.74%; P = 1.000), as well as overall (0.33 vs. 0.46 per person per year [PPPY]; P = 0.170) and inpatient/ED-associated hypoglycaemia events (0.01 vs. 0.04 PPPY; P = 0.466) were similar before and after addition of Gla-300.

CONCLUSIONS

In US real-world clinical practice, adding Gla-300 to GLP-1RA significantly improved glycaemic control without significantly increasing hypoglycaemia in PWD2. Further research into the effect of adding Gla-300 to GLP-1RA therapy is warranted.

Impact of a Digital Lifestyle Intervention on Diabetes Self-Management: A Pilot Study

The aim of this study was to provide preliminary evidence on the impact of the digital health application Vitadio on improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This was a 3-month, prospective, multicenter, open-label trial with an intraindividual control group. Participants received a digital lifestyle intervention. HbA1c levels were observed at 3 time points: retrospectively, at 3 months before app use; at baseline, at the start of usage; and 3 months after the start of use. In addition, changes in other metabolic parameters (fasting glucose, body weight, and waist circumference), patient reported outcomes (quality of life, self-efficacy, and depression), and data generated within the app (frequency of use, steps, and photos of meals) were evaluated. Repeated measures analysis of variance with the Bonferroni correction was used to assess the overall difference in HbA1c values between the intervention and the intraindividual control group, with p < 0.05 considered significant. Participants (n = 42) were 57 ± 7.4 years old, 55% male, and with a mean baseline HbA1c of 7.9 ± 1.0%. An average HbA1c reduction of −0.9 ± 1.1% (p < 0.001) was achieved. The digital health application was effective in significantly reducing body weight (−4.3 ± 4.5 kg), body mass index (−1.4 ± 1.5 kg/m2), waist circumference (−5.7 ± 15 cm), and fasting glucose (−0.6 ± 1.3 mmol/L). The digital therapy achieved a clinically meaningful and significant HbA1c reduction as well as a positive effect on metabolic parameters. These results provide preliminary evidence that Vitadio may be effective in supporting patient diabetes management by motivating patients to adopt healthier lifestyles and improving their self-management.

Individualized HbA1c Goals, and Patient Awareness and Attainment of Goals in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Real-World Multinational Survey

Aims

While glycemic control is key in effective type 2 diabetes mellitus management, many patients fail to reach their individualized glycemic goal. This analysis aimed to describe a real-world picture of diabetes management: individualized hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) goals, rate of goal attainment, HbA_1c at each line of therapy, and patient awareness of their glycemic goal. Secondly, we aimed to understand physician satisfaction with HbA_1c amongst patients aware vs. those unaware of HbA_1c goal.

Methods

Analysis of physicians and the next ten consulting patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus conducted in Europe and the USA including medical record data abstraction/assessment by physicians, a patient-reported survey and a physician survey. Patients were diagnosed for 3 months or more with a known current and target HbA_1c. For the sub-analysis assessment of patient awareness of HbA_1c goal, in addition to the above, these patients had to have completed a patient-reported questionnaire and answer the question on awareness of HbA_1c goal.

Results

A total of 730 physicians provided data on 8794 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus; 5331 patients were eligible for this analysis. Overall, mean (standard deviation, SD) individualized HbA_1c goal was 6.8% (0.68%). Of eligible patients, 39.1% met their HbA_1c goal; of 60.9% of patients not reaching their HbA_1c goal, the mean distance from individualized HbA_1c goal was 0.9% (SD 1.0%). Physicians progressed patients’ antihyperglycemic therapy when HbA_1c was 8% or higher. Among 2560 patients who were included in the sub-analysis assessing the effect of patient awareness of their HbA_1c goal on multiple parameters, 70.5% were aware of their HbA_1c goal; mean HbA_1c goal was 6.8% (0.7%) and current mean HbA_1c value 7.1% (1.2%). A total of 949 patients in the sub-analysis (39.2%) achieved their goal; achieving HbA_1c goal was not related to knowledge of goal. Patients aware of their HbA_1c goal were slightly more adherent to their antihyperglycemic medication. They also were prescribed more antihyperglycemic agents, more often on a later therapy line receiving a GLP-1 receptor agonist, SGLT2i, or insulin, and more often tested their blood glucose levels than patients who were unaware. Physicians were not satisfied with the current blood glucose level of one third of their patients, believing that more of those who were aware of their HbA_1c goal could achieve better glucose control (32.4% of aware vs. 28.2% of unaware patients; p = 0.003).

Conclusions

Our results showed that the proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus achieving their goals for glycemic control was suboptimal when compared to current guideline criteria, with only about 40% of patients achieving their individualized HbA_1c goal. Treatment intensification was often delayed until HbA_1c was 8% and higher. Patients aware of their HbA_1c goal were slightly more adherent to their antihyperglycemic medication; however, awareness of HbA_1c goal did not enhance goal attainment. This highlights the need for a holistic approach to diabetes management, involving patient education, and patient–physician communication and partnership.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01985-3.

Efficacy and safety of ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease using insulin: A VERTIS CV substudy

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) inadequately controlled by insulin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

VERTIS CV was the cardiovascular outcome study for ertugliflozin. Patients were randomly assigned to placebo, or ertugliflozin 5 mg or 15 mg once daily. We report the results of a substudy in patients on a stable dose of insulin ≥20 units/d. The primary endpoint was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline to 18 weeks. Secondary endpoints were changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight (BW), the proportion of patients with HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (<7%), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure and insulin dose.

RESULTS

Of 8246 patients randomized in VERTIS CV, 1065 were included in the substudy (68.2% men, mean [SD] age 64.8 [7.8] years, T2DM duration 16.7 [9.0] years, HbA1c 8.4 [1.0]%). At week 18, the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c was significantly greater with ertugliflozin 5 mg and 15 mg versus placebo (placebo-adjusted LS mean change -0.58%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.71, -0.44 and -0.65%, 95% CI -0.78, -0.51, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Ertugliflozin significantly reduced FPG, BW and SBP. In women, the incidence of genital mycotic infections was higher with ertugliflozin (3.5%) versus placebo (0.0%). The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was similar across treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ertugliflozin added to insulin improved glycaemic control, BW and SBP versus placebo at 18 weeks in patients with T2DM and ASCVD.

Contemporary use of real-world data for clinical trial conduct in the United States: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Real-world data (RWD), defined as routinely collected healthcare data, can be a potential catalyst for addressing challenges faced in clinical trials. We performed a scoping review of database-specific RWD applications within clinical trial contexts, synthesizing prominent uses and themes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Querying 3 biomedical literature databases, research articles using electronic health records, administrative claims databases, or clinical registries either within a clinical trial or in tandem with methodology related to clinical trials were included. Articles were required to use at least 1 US RWD source. All abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction was performed by 1 reviewer. Two reviewers independently verified all decisions.

RESULTS

Of 2020 screened articles, 89 qualified: 59 articles used electronic health records, 29 used administrative claims, and 26 used registries. Our synthesis was driven by the general life cycle of a clinical trial, culminating into 3 major themes: trial process tasks (51 articles); dissemination strategies (6); and generalizability assessments (34). Despite a diverse set of diseases studied, <10% of trials using RWD for trial process tasks evaluated medications or procedures (5/51). All articles highlighted data-related challenges, such as missing values.

DISCUSSION

Database-specific RWD have been occasionally leveraged for various clinical trial tasks. We observed underuse of RWD within conducted medication or procedure trials, though it is subject to the confounder of implicit report of RWD use.

CONCLUSION

Enhanced incorporation of RWD should be further explored for medication or procedure trials, including better understanding of how to handle related data quality issues to facilitate RWD use.

Efficacy and safety of patient-led versus physician-led titration of basal insulin in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Insulin is the most effective antihyperglycemic treatment and basal insulin is the preferred initial formulation in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, its effects are dose-dependent, so adequate titration is necessary to reach targets. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of patient-led versus physician-led titration of basal insulin in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Four databases were searched from database inception through March 2020. Randomized controlled studies with at least 12 weeks of follow-up of patients with type 2 diabetes allocated to patient-led versus physician-led titration of basal insulin were selected. Data on glycemic endpoints (hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), hypoglycemia) and other outcomes (insulin dose, body weight, patient-reported outcomes, adverse events, rescue medication, discontinuation) were extracted. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Six studies evaluating 12 409 patients were finally included. Compared with the physician-led performance, patient-led titration was associated with a statistically significant higher basal insulin dose (+6 IU/day), leading to benefits on HbA1c (-0.1%) and FPG (-5 mg/dL), despite a higher risk of any level hypoglycemia (relative risk=1.1) and a slight increase in body weight (+0.2 kg). No difference was found for the other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that patient-led titration of basal insulin was not inferior to physician-led titration in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. Therefore, diabetes self-management education and support programs on basal insulin should be widely adopted in clinical practice and patients provided with tools to self-adjust their dose when necessary.

Comparable glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia in adults with type 2 diabetes after initiating insulin glargine 300 units/mL or insulin degludec: The DELIVER Naïve D real-world study

AIM

To compare glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia and treatment discontinuation of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) and insulin degludec (IDeg) in a real-world study of insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DELIVER Naive D was a retrospective observational study that used electronic medical record data from the IBM Watson Health Explorys database. Insulin-naïve adults with T2D who started Gla-300 or IDeg between March 2015 and September 2017 were identified. Patients were active in the system for ≥12 months before and ≥6 months after starting Gla-300 or IDeg and had HbA1c measurements during 6-month baseline and 3- to 6-month follow-up. Outcomes were compared among 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts.

RESULTS

In the matched cohorts (n = 638 each), the mean age was 59 years, approximately 53% were male, and mean HbA1c was 9.67% (82 mmol/mol). Mean (SD) HbA1c decreases were comparable in the Gla-300 and IDeg cohorts (-1.67% [2.22] and -1.58% [2.20]; P = 0.51), as were HbA1c target attainment [<7% (53 mmol/mol): 23.8% and 27.4%; P = 0.20; <8% (64 mmol/mol): 55.0% and 57.1%; P = 0.63] and treatment discontinuation (29.2% and 32.6%; P = 0.14). Overall and inpatient/emergency department-associated hypoglycaemia incidences and event rates were similar in both cohorts using fixed 6-month or variable on-treatment follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Among real-world insulin-naïve adults with T2D, initiation of Gla-300 or IDeg resulted in comparable improvements in glycaemic control and similar rates of hypoglycaemia. These real-world data complement and confirm a randomized trial and other real-world studies.

Glycaemic goal attainment and hypoglycaemia outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients initiating insulin glargine 300 units/mL or 100 units/mL: Real-world results from the DELIVER Naïve cohort study

AIMS

To compare HbA1c and hypoglycaemia in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) or 100 units/mL (Gla-100).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study examined electronic medical records of insulin-naïve adults with T2D who initiated Gla-300 or Gla-100 during March 2015 through to December 2016 with active records for ≥12 months before and ≥6 months after initiation, and ≥1 valid HbA1c value during 6-month baseline and 90-180-day follow-up. Outcomes included HbA1c and hypoglycaemia. Cohorts were propensity score-matched (1:2) on baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using broader inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The matched cohorts included 1004 Gla-300 and 2008 Gla-100 initiators (mean age 60.4 years; 53.2% male). During 6-month follow-up, Gla-300 versus Gla-100 initiators had a greater mean HbA1c decrease (-1.52 ± 2.08% vs. -1.30 ± 2.12%; P = 0.003) and more patients achieved HbA1c <7% (25.0% vs. 21.5%; P = 0.029) and <8% (55.0% vs. 49.2%; P = 0.002); and HbA1c <7% (21.9% vs. 17.4%; P = 0.003) and <8% (49.1% vs. 41.8%; P < 0.001) without hypoglycaemia. Gla-300 initiators were similarly or less likely to have any or inpatient/emergency department-associated hypoglycaemia during 3- and 6-month follow-up (e.g. any hypoglycaemia to 6 months: 9.7% vs. 12.5%; adjusted odds ratio 0.61; P = 0.057).

CONCLUSIONS

Among insulin-naïve adults with T2D, Gla-300 was associated with significantly better HbA1c reductions (latest value during 90-180-day follow-up) and similar or improved hypoglycaemia outcomes (3- and 6-month follow-up) than Gla-100.