Saxagliptin/dapagliflozin is non-inferior to insulin glargine in terms of β-cell function in subjects with latent autoimmune diabetes in adults: A 12-month, randomized, comparator-controlled pilot study

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin/dapagliflozin and insulin glargine in people with latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA).

METHODS

In this phase 2b multicentre, open-label, comparator-controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority study, we randomly assigned 33 people with LADA who had a fasting C-peptide concentration ≥0.2 nmol/L (0.6 ng/mL) to receive 1-year daily treatment with either the combination of saxagliptin (5 mg) plus dapagliflozin (10 mg) or insulin glargine (starting dose: 10 IU), both on top of metformin. The primary outcome was the 2-h mixed meal-stimulated C-peptide area under the curve (AUC), measured 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, change in body mass index (BMI), and hypoglycaemic events.

RESULTS

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome was similar in participants assigned to saxagliptin/dapagliflozin or to insulin glargine (median C-peptide AUC: 152.0 ng*min/mL [95% confidence interval {CI} 68.2; 357.4] vs. 122.2 ng*min/mL [95% CI 84.3; 255.8]; p for noninferiority = 0.0087). Participants randomized to saxagliptin/dapagliflozin lost more weight than those randomized to insulin glargine (median BMI change at the end of the study: -0.4 kg/m2 [95% CI -1.6; -0.3] vs. +0.4 kg/m2 [95% CI -0.3; +1.1]; p = 0.0076). No differences in HbA1c or in the number of participants experiencing hypoglycaemic events were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Saxagliptin/dapagliflozin was non-inferior to glargine in terms of β-cell function in this 12-month, small, phase 2b study, enrolling people with LADA with still viable endogenous insulin production. Weight loss was greater with saxagliptin/dapagliflozin, with no differences in glycaemic control or hypoglycaemic risk.

Bridging dose of U-100 glargine with first dose of insulin degludec improves glycaemia in the 48 h after transition in twice-daily glargine users

AIMS

To study the effects of a bridging dose of U-100 glargine (U-100G) with the first dose of degludec in type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients transitioning from glargine to degludec, by comparing the glucose metrics 48 h before and after the transition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with T1D on a stable U-100G regimen and with glycated haemoglobin concentration <75 mmol/mol were randomized (double-blind) to one dose of placebo or U-100G with first dose of degludec, administered at 9:00 pm. Patients on once-daily U-100G at baseline received 50% of total U-100G dose (bridging dose), while patients on twice-daily U-100G received 50% of the evening U-100G dose. Participants wore a continuous glucose monitor during the study.

RESULTS

Forty participants were randomized, of whom 37 completed the study. The cohort was 65% male, the mean age was 47 years, duration of T1D 22 years, BMI 26 kg/m2, HbA1c 51 mmol/mol and total daily insulin dose 0.7 units/kg body weight. The bridging group included 19 participants (once-daily U-100G: n = 12; twice-daily U-100G: n = 7) and the placebo group included 18 participants (once-daily U-100G: n = 12; twice-daily U-100G: n = 6). Change in time in range (TIR) was not significantly different between the two treatment groups. In secondary analyses, among twice-daily U-100G users, TIR (3.9-10 mmol/L) increased 8% in the bridging group in the 48 h after first dose of degludec compared to the preceding 48 h, while participants in the placebo group had a 9.5% decrease (p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

A subgroup of well-controlled twice-daily U-100G users transitioning to degludec benefited from a 50% bridging dose of evening U-100G with the first dose of degludec in a small pilot study.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, two-period crossover trial, 66 individuals with T1D (age 18-64 years; glycated haemoglobin ≤75 mmol/mol [≤ 9%]) were to receive once-weekly icodec (8 weeks) and once-daily insulin glargine U100 (2 weeks) at individualized fixed equimolar total weekly doses established during up to 10 weeks' run-in with glargine U100 titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose (PG) of 4.4-7.2 mmol/L (80-130 mg/dL). Insulin aspart was used as bolus insulin. Blood sampling for icodec pharmacokinetics was performed from the first icodec dose until 35 days after the last dose. The glucose infusion rate at steady state was assessed in glucose clamps (target 6.7 mmol/L [120 mg/dL]) at 16-52 h and 138-168 h after the last icodec dose and 0-24 h after the last glargine U100 dose. Icodec pharmacodynamics during 1 week were predicted by pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling. Hypoglycaemia was recorded during the treatment periods based on self-measured PG.

RESULTS

Icodec reached pharmacokinetic steady state on average within 2-3 weeks. At steady state, model-predicted daily proportions of glucose infusion rate during the 1-week dosing interval were 14.3%, 19.6%, 18.3%, 15.7%, 13.1%, 10.6% and 8.4%, respectively. Rates and duration of Level 2 hypoglycaemic episodes (PG <3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) were 32.8 versus 23.9 episodes per participant-year of exposure and 33 ± 25 versus 30 ± 18 min (mean ± SD) for icodec versus glargine U100.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of icodec suggest its potential to provide basal coverage in a basal-bolus insulin regimen in people with T1D.

Efficacy and safety of tirzepatide in people with type 2 diabetes by baseline body mass index: An exploratory subgroup analysis of SURPASS-AP-Combo

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide versus insulin glargine in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) by baseline body mass index (BMI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants with T2D from the Phase 3 SURPASS-AP-Combo trial (NCT04093752) were categorized into three BMI subgroups (normal weight [<25 kg/m2 ], overweight [≥25 and <30 kg/m2 ], and obese [≥30 kg/m2 ]) according to World Health Organization criteria. Exploratory outcomes including glycaemic control, body weight, cardiometabolic risk, and safety were compared among three tirzepatide doses (5, 10 or 15 mg) and insulin glargine.

RESULTS

Of 907 participants, 235 (25.9%) had a BMI <25 kg/m2 , 458 (50.5%) a BMI ≥25 to <30 kg/m2 , and 214 (23.6%) a BMI ≥30 kg/m2 at baseline. At Week 40, all tirzepatide doses led to a greater reduction in mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; -2.0% to -2.8% vs. -0.8% to -1.0%, respectively) and percent change in body weight (-5.5% to -10.8% vs. 1.0% to 2.5%, respectively) versus insulin glargine, across the BMI subgroups. Compared with insulin glargine, a higher proportion of tirzepatide-treated participants achieved treatment goals for HbA1c and body weight reduction. Improvements in other cardiometabolic indicators were also observed with tirzepatide across all the BMI subgroups. The safety profile of tirzepatide was similar across all subgroups by BMI. The most frequent adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal-related events and decreased appetite, with relatively few events leading to treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

In participants with T2D, regardless of baseline BMI, treatment with tirzepatide resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful glycaemic reductions and body weight reductions compared with insulin glargine, with a safety profile consistent with previous reports.

A prospective, multicentre, randomized, open-label comparison of a long-acting basal insulin analog glargine plus glulisine with premixed insulin in insulin naïve patients with Type 2 diabetes - A study from India

AIMS

We aimed to compare the effectiveness of Glargine plus Glulisine to premixed insulin analogue, as measured by HbA1c ≤ 7.0% in insulin naive Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) patients with elevated fasting and/or postprandial plasma glucose.

METHODS

Insulin-naive T2D patients (116 men, 84 women) on ≥ 2 oral hypoglycemic agents with inadequate glycemic control were randomized either to group 1 (insulin Glargine plus Glulisine, n = 101) or group 2 (Premixed Insulin analogue, n = 99).

RESULTS

In the intention to treat analysis, at week 24, percentage of patients with good glycaemic control (HbA1c ≤ 7.0%) was similar between the two groups (16.8% in Group 1 vs. 13.1% in Group 2, χ2 - 0.535, p = 0.47). Significant reductions in fasting and postprandial levels were observed in groups 1 and 2 at both post-baseline time points (Week 12 and 24). In group 1, reduction in HbA1c from baseline to week 12 was 0.6 ± 0.1 and 0.7 ± 0.2 at week 24, p < 0.0001 for all. In group 2, no significant change in HbA1c was observed. In group 1, 83.2% required an additional dose of glulisine and in group 2, 88.9% required an additional dose of premixed insulin. Hypoglycemic events were similar in both groups (0.12 events per person-year in group 1 and 0.13 events per person-year in group 2). Weight gain was non-significant in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Glargine plus Glulisine, though in higher dose was effective as premixed insulin in lowering HbA1c. Hypoglycemic events per person-year were similar in both groups.

Effect of basal insulin and omega 3 fatty acids on cognitive impairment in dysglycaemia: An exploratory analysis of the ORIGIN trial

AIM

The outcomes reduction with an initial glargine intervention (ORIGIN) trial reported that, allocation to insulin glargine-mediated normoglycaemia versus standard care, and to omega 3 fatty acids versus placebo had a neutral effect on cognitive test scores when analysed as continuous variables. Analyses of these scores as standardized categorical variables using a previously validated strategy may yield different results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The ORIGIN trial recruited participants with dysglycaemia and additional cardiovascular risk factors from 573 sites in 40 countries. They completed a mini mental state examination and a subset completed the digit symbol substitution test at baseline and up to three subsequent visits. The effect of the interventions on country-standardized substantive cognitive impairment, defined as the first occurrence of a baseline-adjusted follow-up mini mental state examination or digit symbol substitution test score ≥1.5 standard deviations below the baseline mean score in each participant's country was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 6.2 years, 2627 of 11 682 people (22.5%) developed country-standardized substantive cognitive impairment. The hazard of this outcome was reduced by 9% (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.85, 0.99; p = .023) in participants assigned to insulin glargine (21.6%) versus standard care (23.3%). Conversely, the hazard of this outcome was not affected by assignment to omega 3 fatty acid versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.86, 1.01; p = .074).

CONCLUSIONS

In this post hoc exploratory analysis, insulin glargine-mediated normoglycaemia but not omega 3 fatty acids reduced the hazard of substantive cognitive impairment in people with dysglycaemia and additional cardiovascular risk factors.

Advancing type 2 diabetes therapy with iGlarLixi in older people: Pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi in older people (≥65 years) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) advancing or switching from oral agents, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), or basal insulin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data of participants aged <65 years and ≥65 years from four LixiLan trials (LixiLan-O, LixiLan-G, LixiLan-L, SoliMix) were evaluated over 26 or 30 weeks.

RESULTS

Participants aged <65/≥65 years (n = 1039/n = 497) had a mean baseline body mass index of 31.4 and 30.7 kg/m2 and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 66 mmol/mol (8.2%) and 65 mmol/mol (8.1%), respectively. Least squares mean HbA1c change from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) was -14.32 mmol/mol (-1.31%) (95% confidence interval [CI] -14.97, -13.77 [-1.37%, -1.26%]) for those aged <65 years and -13.66 mmol/mol (-1.25%) (95% CI -14.54, -12.79 [-1.33%, -1.17%]) for those aged ≥65 years. At EOT, achievement of HbA1c targets was similar between the group aged <65 years and the group aged ≥65 years: <53 mmol/mol (<7%) (59.0% and 56.5%, respectively), <59 mmol/mol (<7.5%) (75.5% and 73.0%, respectively) and <64 mmol/mol (<8%) (83.8% and 84.1%, respectively). The incidence and event rate of American Diabetes Association Level 1 hypoglycaemia during the studies were also comparable between the two groups: 26.7% and 28.2% and 1.7 and 2.1 events per patient-year for the group aged <65 years and the group aged ≥65 years, respectively. A clinically relevant reduction in HbA1c (>1% from baseline for HbA1c ≥64 mmol/mol [≥8%] or ≥0.5% from baseline for HbA1c <64 mmol/mol [<8%]) without hypoglycaemia was attained by 50.0% and 47.6% of participants aged <65 years and ≥65 years, respectively. Adverse events were similar between the two age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi is a simple, well-tolerated, once-daily alternative for treatment advancement in older people with T2D that provides significant improvements in glycaemic control without increasing hypoglycaemia risk, thus reducing the treatment burden.

Treatment responses to basal insulin glargine 300 U/ml and glargine 100 U/ml in newly defined subphenotypes of type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis of the EDITION 3 randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

To compare responses to basal insulin glargine 300 U/ml (IGlar-300) and 100 U/ml (IGlar-100) in newly defined subphenotypes of type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Insulin-naive participants (n = 858) from the EDITION 3 trial were assigned to subphenotypes 'Mild Age-Related Diabetes (MARD)', 'Mild Obesity Diabetes (MOD)', 'Severe Insulin Resistant Diabetes (SIRD)' and 'Severe Insulin Deficient Diabetes (SIDD)'. Key variables were analysed at baseline and 26 weeks.

RESULTS

Participants were comprised of MOD 56.1% (n = 481), SIDD 22.1% (n = 190), MARD 18.2% (n = 156) and SIRD 3.0% (n = 26). After 26 weeks a similar decrease in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of 16-19 mmol/mol and 1.4-1.7 mmol/L, respectively, occurred in MARD and MOD with both insulins. SIDD had the most elevated HbA1c and FPG (80-83 mmol/mol/11.1-11.4 mmol/L) and reduction in both HbA1c and FPG was greater with IGlar-100 than with IGlar-300 (-18 vs. -15 mmol/mol and -1.6 vs. -1.3 mmol/L, respectively; each p = .03). In SIDD, despite receiving the highest basal insulin doses, HbA1c decline (57-60 mmol/mol/7.3-7.6%) was suboptimal at week 26. In MOD and SIDD lower incidences with IGlar-300 were found for level 1 nocturnal hypoglycaemia [odds ratio (OR) 0.59, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.36-0.97; OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.99]. In addition, fewer level 2 hypoglycaemia episodes occurred at any time with IGlar-300 in SIDD (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.77).

CONCLUSION

Both insulins produce comparable outcomes in type 2 diabetes subphenotypes, but in SIDD, add-on treatment to basal insulin is required to achieve glycaemic targets.

5-Year simulation of diabetes-related complications in people treated with tirzepatide or semaglutide versus insulin glargine

AIM

This study compared the 5-year incidence rate of macrovascular and microvascular complications for tirzepatide, semaglutide and insulin glargine in individuals with type 2 diabetes, using the Building, Relating, Assessing, and Validating Outcomes (BRAVO) diabetes simulation model.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This study was a 5-year SURPASS-2 trial extrapolation, with an insulin glargine arm added as an additional comparator. The 1-year treatment effects of tirzepatide (5, 10 or 15 mg), semaglutide (1 mg) and insulin glargine on glycated haemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein and body weights were obtained from the SUSTAIN-4 and SURPASS-2 trials. We used the BRAVO model to predict 5-year complications for each study arm under two scenarios: the 1-year treatment effects persisted (optimistic) or diminished to none in 5 years (conservative).

RESULTS

When compared with insulin glargine, we projected a 5-year risk reduction in cardiovascular adverse events [rate ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.67] and microvascular composite (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.64-0.70) with 15 mg tirzepatide, and 5-year risk reduction in cardiovascular adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.79) and microvascular composite (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.76-0.82) with semaglutide (1 mg) under an optimistic scenario. Lower doses of tirzepatide also had similar, albeit smaller benefits. Treatment effects for tirzepatide and semaglutide were smaller but still significantly higher than insulin glargine under a conservative scenario. The 5-year risk reduction in diabetes-related complication events and mortality for the 15 mg tirzepatide compared with insulin glargine ranged from 49% to 10% under an optimistic scenario, which was reduced by 17%-33% when a conservative scenario was assumed.

CONCLUSION

With the use of the BRAVO diabetes model, tirzepatide and semaglutide exhibited potential to reduce the risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications among individuals with type 2 diabetes, compared with insulin glargine in a 5-year window. Based on the current modelling assumptions, tirzepatide (15 mg) may potentially outperform semaglutide (1 mg). While the BRAVO model offered insights, the long-term cardiovascular benefit of tirzepatide should be further validated in a prospective clinical trial.

Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 units/mL vs insulin degludec in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Ultra-long-acting insulin analogs [insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine 300 units/mL (IGla-300)] offer a longer duration of action with less risk of hypoglycemia compared to other long-acting insulins. However, data about the comparative efficacy and safety are inconsistent.

Methods

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 October 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of IDeg (100 or 200 units/mL) and IGla-300 in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were included. Three review authors independently selected trials, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data, and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcomes were the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and any hypoglycemia; the secondary outcomes were the change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and severe and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Results

Four open-label RCTs were included (2727 participants), 3 parallel and 1 cross-over. Overall, the risk of bias assessment yielded some concern or high risk. There was a comparable change in HbA1c from baseline to the end of treatment, a mean difference of 0.07% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 - 0.19; p = 0.29; 3 trials; 2652 patients; very low-certainty evidence), and a comparable rate of any hypoglycemia, rate ratio 1.02 (95% CI 0.8 - 1.3; p = 0.87; 3 trials; 2881 patients; very low-certainty evidence). IDeg resulted in more reduction in FPG compared to IGla-300, mean difference of 10.27 mg/dL (95% CI 7.25 - 13.29; p < 0.001; 3 trials; 2668 patients; low-certainty evidence). Similar rates of nocturnal and severe hypoglycemia were observed, rate ratio of 1.13 (95% CI 0.72 - 1.78; p = 0.54; 3 trials; 2668 patients; very low-certainty evidence) and 1.4 (95% CI 0.41 - 4.73; p = 0.59; 2 trials; 1952 patients; very low-certainty evidence), respectively.

Conclusion

There is no evidence of a difference between IDeg and IGla-300 in the mean change in HbA1c and the risk of anytime, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemia. IDeg appeared to cause a higher reduction in FPG compared to IGla-300. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of trials included and their high risk of bias.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022364891, identifier CRD42022364891.

Insulin Glargine in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Review of Clinical Trials and Real-world Evidence Across Two Decades

BACKGROUND

Over the past two decades, insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) has emerged as the "standard of care" basal insulin for the management of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Both formulations, insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) and glargine 300 U/mL (Gla- 300) have been extensively studied against various comparator basal insulins across various clinical and real-world studies. In this comprehensive article, we reviewed the evidence on both insulin glargine formulations in T1DM across clinical trials and real-world studies.

METHODS

Evidence in T1DM for Gla-100 and Gla-300 since their approvals in 2000 and 2015, respectively, were reviewed.

RESULTS

Gla-100 when compared to the second-generation basal insulins, Gla-300 and IDeg-100, demonstrated a comparable risk of overall hypoglycemia, but the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia was higher with Gla-100. Additional benefits of Gla-300 over Gla-100 include a prolonged (>24- hours) duration of action, a more stable glucose-lowering profile, improved treatment satisfaction, and greater flexibility in the dose administration timing.

CONCLUSION

Both glargine formulations are largely comparable to other basal insulins in terms of glucose-lowering properties in T1DM. Further, risk of hypoglycemia is lower with Gla-100 than Neutral Protamine Hagedorn but comparable to insulin detemir.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly basal insulin versus once-daily basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Once-weekly insulin is expected to improve treatment compliance and durability and lead to better glycemic control. Several clinical trials on once-weekly insulin have recently been published. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin versus once-daily insulin in type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

The following databases were searched for studies: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library (From January 1, 1946 to May 9, 2023). All randomized trials comparing weekly versus daily insulin in T2D were eligible for inclusion. Data analysis was performed using STATA 17.0 software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX). The main outcomes and indexes included reduction in Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose and bodyweight, proportion of patients achieving HbA1c < 7%, time-in-range 70 to 180 mg/dL and adverse events.

RESULTS

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 7 randomized controlled studies involving 2391 patients (1347 receiving 1-week insulin and 1044 receiving 1-day insulin). Once-weekly insulin was not inferior to once-daily insulin in HbA1c change [estimated treatment difference (ETD) = -0.05; 95% confidence intervals (CI): -0.14 to 0.04), HbA1c  < 7% (odds ratio = 1.14; 95% CI: 0.87-1.50), fasting plasma glucose (ETD = 0.09; 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.36) and body weight loss (ETD = 0.27; 95% CI: -0.36 to 0.91). In terms of time-in-range 70 to 180 mg/dL, weekly insulin was superior to daily insulin (MTD = 3.84; 95% CI: 1.55-6.08). Icodec was associated with higher incidence of all adverse events (odds ratio = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.03-1.48; P = .024), but did not result in high risk of serious and severe adverse events. Moreover, icodec and Basal Insulin Fc did not result in higher incidence of hypoglycemia compared with insulin daily.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis found that insulin weekly was well tolerated and effective for glycemic control. Once-weekly insulin was not inferior to once-daily insulin in both efficacy and safety in T2D.

Unexpected evolution of a monster case of insulin-induced skin lipohypertrophy

In this journal, in 2020, we published the case of a 74-year-old female outpatient with type-2 diabetes mellitus who self-injected insulin four times a day according to the basal-bolus regimen, with an high glycemic variability and an high rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes. Three years before, we had found two extraordinarily large skin lipohypertrophies, with large underlying fluid collections with high insulin concentration. A long educational and intensive training completely repaired the skin lesions with the disappearance of the subcutaneous insulin reservoirs. Glycemic variability has been reduced dramatically, severe hypoglycemia has almost completely disappeared and the daily dose of insulin has been reduced by 38%. However, this extraordinary, albeit unexpected, result was achieved in five years.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence of Gan & Lee insulin analogues aspart (rapilin®), lispro (prandilin®) and glargine (basalin®) with EU- und US-sourced reference insulins

AIM

For the successful approval and clinical prescription of insulin biosimilars, it is essential to show pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) bioequivalence to the respective reference products sourced from the European Union and the United States.

METHODS

Three phase 1, randomized, double-blind, three-period crossover trials compared single doses of the proposed biosimilar insulin analogues aspart (GL-Asp, n = 36), lispro (GL-Lis, n = 38) and glargine (GL-Gla, n = 113), all manufactured by Gan & Lee pharmaceuticals, to the respective EU- and US-reference products in healthy male participants (GL-Asp and GL-Lis) or people with type 1 diabetes (GL-Gla). Study participants received 0.2 U/kg (aspart and lispro) or 0.5 U/kg (glargine) of each treatment under automated euglycaemic clamp conditions. The clamp duration was 12 h (aspart and lispro) or 30 h (glargine). Primary PK endpoints were the total area under the PK curves (AUCins.total ) and maximum insulin concentrations (Cins.max ). Primary PD endpoints were the total area under the glucose infusion rate curve (AUCGIR.total ) and maximum glucose infusion rate (GIRmax ).

RESULTS

Bioequivalence to both EU- and US-reference products were shown for all three GL insulins. Least squares mean ratios for the primary PK/PD endpoints were close to 100%, and both 90% and 95% confidence intervals were within 80%-125% in all three studies. There were no noticeable differences in the safety profiles between test and reference insulins, and no serious adverse events were reported for the GL insulins.

CONCLUSION

GL-Asp, GL-Lis and GL-Gla are bioequivalent to their EU- and US-reference products.

Tirzepatide vs Insulin Lispro Added to Basal Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes: The SURPASS-6 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Tirzepatide is a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Efficacy and safety of adding tirzepatide vs prandial insulin to treatment in patients with inadequate glycemic control with basal insulin have not been described.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide vs insulin lispro as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This open-label, phase 3b clinical trial was conducted at 135 sites in 15 countries (participants enrolled from October 19, 2020, to November 1, 2022) in 1428 adults with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin.

Interventions

Participants were randomized (in a 1:1:1:3 ratio) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) vs insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine, in HbA1c change from baseline at week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary end points included change in body weight and percentage of participants achieving hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target of less than 7.0%.

Results

Among 1428 randomized participants (824 [57.7%] women; mean [SD] age, 58.8 [9.7] years; mean [SD] HbA1c, 8.8% [1.0%]), 1304 (91.3%) completed the trial. At week 52, estimated mean change from baseline in HbA1c with tirzepatide (pooled cohort) was -2.1% vs -1.1% with insulin lispro, resulting in mean HbA1c levels of 6.7% vs 7.7% (estimated treatment difference, -0.98% [95% CI, -1.17% to -0.79%]; P < .001); results met noninferiority criteria and statistical superiority was achieved. Estimated mean change from baseline in body weight was -9.0 kg with tirzepatide and 3.2 kg with insulin lispro (estimated treatment difference, -12.2 kg [95% CI, -13.4 to -10.9]). The percentage of participants reaching HbA1c less than 7.0% was 68% (483 of 716) with tirzepatide and 36% (256 of 708) with insulin lispro (odds ratio, 4.2 [95% CI, 3.2-5.5]). The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were mild to moderate gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea: 14%-26%; diarrhea: 11%-15%; vomiting: 5%-13%). Hypoglycemia event rates (blood glucose level <54 mg/dL or severe hypoglycemia) were 0.4 events per patient-year with tirzepatide (pooled) and 4.4 events per patient-year with insulin lispro.

Conclusions and Relevance

In people with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin, weekly tirzepatide compared with prandial insulin as an additional treatment with insulin glargine demonstrated reductions in HbA1c and body weight with less hypoglycemia.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04537923.

Diabetes remission and relapse following an intensive metabolic intervention combining insulin glargine/lixisenatide, metformin and lifestyle approaches: Results of a randomised controlled trial

AIM

Non-surgical options for inducing type 2 diabetes remission are limited. We examined whether remission can be achieved by combining lifestyle approaches and short-term intensive glucose-lowering therapy.

METHODS

In this trial, 160 patients with type 2 diabetes on none to two diabetes medications other than insulin were randomised to (a) an intervention comprising lifestyle approaches, insulin glargine/lixisenatide and metformin, or (b) standard care. Participants with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.3% (56 mmol/mol) at 12 weeks were asked to stop diabetes medications and were followed for an additional 52 weeks. The primary outcome was diabetes relapse defined as HbA1c ≥6.5% (48 mmol/mol) at 24 weeks or thereafter, capillary glucose ≥10 mmol/L on ≥50% of readings, or use of diabetes medications, analysed as time-to-event. Main secondary outcomes included complete or partial diabetes remission at 24, 36, 48 and 64 weeks defined as HbA1c <6.5% (48 mmol/mol) off diabetes medications since 12 weeks after randomisation. A hierarchical testing strategy was applied.

RESULTS

The intervention significantly reduced the hazard of diabetes relapse by 43% (adjusted hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.81; p = .002). Complete or partial diabetes remission was achieved in 30 (38.0%) intervention group participants versus 16 (19.8%) controls at 24 weeks and 25 (31.6%) versus 14 (17.3%) at 36 weeks [relative risk 1.92 (95% confidence interval 1.14-3.24) and 1.83 (1.03-3.26), respectively]. The relative risk of diabetes remission in the intervention versus control group was 1.88 (1.00-3.53) at 48 weeks and 2.05 (0.98-4.29) at 64 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

A 12-week intensive intervention comprising insulin glargine/lixisenatide, metformin and lifestyle approaches can induce remission of diabetes.

Evaluating the clinical effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL in individuals with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin: A real-world evidence study from Saudi Arabia (EVOLUTION)

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety profile of switching to insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-U300) in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin in Saudi Arabia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a multicentre retrospective study that retrieved the medical records of adult T2D patients switched to Gla-U300 because of poor glycaemic control on their basal insulin. Data covering 6 months ± 30 days before and after the switch were retrieved.

RESULTS

Data from 718 patients were analysed. The mean HbA1c decreased significantly 6 months after switching to Gla-U300, with a mean reduction of 0.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6%-0.9%; P < .001). The percentage of patients with HbA1c levels of less than 7% increased from 6.4% before switching to 10.3% after switching to Gla-U300. The percentage of patients achieving the predefined individualized HbA1c goal increased from 8.6% before switching to 17.3% after switching to Gla-U300. The mean daily insulin dose decreased from a baseline level of 32.2 (± 14.7) to 31.0 (± 15) U (P = .09). About 36.1 of the patients required adjustment to the initial dose. Gla-300 was well tolerated; 4.5% of the patients experienced overall confirmed or symptomatic hypoglycaemia, compared with 15.3% before switching to Gla-U300. The incidence of severe hypoglycaemia after switching was 0.6% (n = 4 patients), compared with 1% before switching.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world evidence supports the effectiveness of switching to Gla-U300 from first-generation basal insulin in T2D in Saudi Arabia.

Clinical impact after implementing an insulin protocol involving a switch to insulin glargine 300 U/ml as basal insulin for inpatient glycaemic control: A retrospective single-centre study

AIMS

To evaluate the benefit and safety of a switch in the basal insulin protocol to glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) on inpatients' overall dysglycemic events. Efficacy and safety data on insulin Gla-300 in the inpatient setting are limited.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study conducted on 7455 patients admitted to acute care (n = 5414) or geriatric and social healthcare (n = 2041) units of the Regional Hospital of Amposta (Spain) between January 2017 and December 2020 who received basal insulin during hospitalization. Hypo- and hyperglycaemic events were indirectly assessed through hospital pharmacy usage of intravenous glucose and vials of rapid-acting intravenous insulin for 27 months after the switch, and the impact on overall dysglycemic events was analysed.

RESULTS

After protocol implementation, patients were mostly treated with Gla-300 (83.06 % in acute care; and 83.44 % in geriatric and social healthcare), and presented a significant decrease in the use of intravenous insulin (-60.80 %, P = 0.005) and glucose (-62.13 %, P < 0.001), which translated into a significantly reduced overall dysglycemic events (-62.25 %, P < 0.001), with a good safety and tolerability profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall inpatient dysglycemic events were improved upon the introduction of the new insulin protocol, which calls for the use of Gla-300 as one of the choices of basal insulin for inpatient care.

Weekly Icodec versus Daily Glargine U100 in Type 2 Diabetes without Previous Insulin

BACKGROUND

Insulin icodec is an investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue for diabetes management.

METHODS

We conducted a 78-week randomized, open-label, treat-to-target phase 3a trial (including a 52-week main phase and a 26-week extension phase, plus a 5-week follow-up period) involving adults with type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin level, 7 to 11%) who had not previously received insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly insulin icodec or once-daily insulin glargine U100. The primary end point was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 52; the confirmatory secondary end point was the percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter) in weeks 48 to 52. Hypoglycemic episodes (from baseline to weeks 52 and 83) were recorded.

RESULTS

Each group included 492 participants. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The mean reduction in the glycated hemoglobin level at 52 weeks was greater with icodec than with glargine U100 (from 8.50% to 6.93% with icodec [mean change, -1.55 percentage points] and from 8.44% to 7.12% with glargine U100 [mean change, -1.35 percentage points]); the estimated between-group difference (-0.19 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.36 to -0.03) confirmed the noninferiority (P<0.001) and superiority (P = 0.02) of icodec. The percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter was significantly higher with icodec than with glargine U100 (71.9% vs. 66.9%; estimated between-group difference, 4.27 percentage points [95% CI, 1.92 to 6.62]; P<0.001), which confirmed superiority. Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were 0.30 events per person-year of exposure with icodec and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure with glargine U100 at week 52 (estimated rate ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.75) and 0.30 and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure, respectively, at week 83 (estimated rate ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Glycemic control was significantly better with once-weekly insulin icodec than with once-daily insulin glargine U100. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; ONWARDS 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04460885.).

Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec vs. Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 2 randomized controlled trials

Objective

Insulin Icodec is a novel basal insulin analogue designed for once-weekly administration, therefore might propitiate reduction in the frequency of injections and facilitate treatment adherence. This study aimed to determine the glycemic control and safety profile of Insulin Icodec, compared with Glargine U100 in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2.

Materials and methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) data comparing OnceWeekly Insulin Icodec and Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for trials published up to May 14, 2022. Data were extracted from published reports and quality assessment was performed per Cochrane recommendations.

Results

Three studies were included comprising 453 patients, 230 (50.77%) using Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec and 223 (49.22%) using Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100. In the pooled data, Glycated Hemoglobin (MD -0.20% CI -0.33 to -0.07%; P=0.002) change from baseline demonstrated a significantly higher reduction in the Icodec group. Time with Glucose in Range (MD 6.60% CI 3.63 to 9.57%; P < 0.0001) and Insulin Dose Difference (MD 0.97UI CI 0.76 to 1.18UI; P < 0.0001) were higher in the Icodec group. There was no significant difference in fasting plasma glucose, body weight change, hypoglycemia or any adverse event evaluated.

Conclusion

OnceWeekly Insulin Icodec was associated with a small reduction in Glycated Hemoglobin, as well as higher Time with Glucose in Range, with similar hypoglycemic adverse events, when compared with Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100.

Effectiveness and safety of early insulin glargine administration in combination with continuous intravenous insulin infusion in the management of diabetic ketoacidosis: A randomized controlled trial

AIM

To determine the effectiveness and safety of early combination of insulin glargine with intravenous (IV) insulin infusion compared with IV insulin infusion alone in the management of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

METHODS

This was a single-centre, open-label, randomized controlled trial of adults aged 18 years or older diagnosed with DKA. The 'early glargine' group was given subcutaneous insulin glargine 0.3 units/kg within the first 3 hours of DKA diagnosis, in addition to the standard IV insulin infusion. The control group received standard IV insulin treatment only. The primary outcome was the time to DKA resolution. The other outcomes included rebound hyperglycaemia, mortality, hypoglycaemia and hypokalaemia, as well as the length of hospital stay (LOS).

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients (30 patients per group) were enrolled. Most patients (76.7%) had type 2 diabetes. Both groups were similar in baseline characteristics, except for higher serum beta-hydroxybutyrate and lower pH levels in the early glargine group. The mean ± standard deviation time to DKA resolution in the early glargine group was significantly faster than the control group (9.89 ± 3.81 vs. 12.73 ± 5.37 hours; P = .022). The median (interquartile range) LOS was significantly shorter in the early glargine group than in the control group (4.75 [3.53-8.96] vs. 15.25 [5.71-26.38] days; P = .024). The incidence of rebound hyperglycaemia, all-cause mortality, hypoglycaemia and hypokalaemia was similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Early combination of insulin glargine with IV insulin infusion led to a faster DKA resolution and a shorter LOS, without increasing hypoglycaemia and hypokalaemia.

Rationale and design of the phase 3a development programme (ONWARDS 1-6 trials) investigating once-weekly insulin icodec in diabetes

AIM

To describe the phase 3a ONWARDS clinical development programme investigating insulin icodec (icodec), a once-weekly basal insulin, including the design and rationale for each of the ONWARDS 1-6 trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six randomized controlled trials have been initiated in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (insulin-naive: ONWARDS 1, 3 and 5; previously insulin-treated: ONWARDS 2 and 4) and type 1 diabetes (T1D) (ONWARDS 6). Each trial will investigate icodec use in a unique clinical scenario, with consideration of long-term safety and varied comparator treatments (insulin glargine U100 or U300 or insulin degludec). ONWARDS 5 will incorporate real-world elements and a digital dose titration solution to guide icodec dosing. The primary objective for each of the trials is to compare the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 or week 52 between icodec and comparator arms. Secondary objectives include investigating other glycaemic control and safety parameters, such as fasting glucose, time in glycaemic range and hypoglycaemia. Patient-reported outcomes will assess treatment satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The ONWARDS 1-6 trials will evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec compared with currently available daily basal insulin analogues in T2D and T1D. These trials will generate comprehensive evidence of icodec use in diverse populations across the spectrum of diabetes progression and treatment experience.

Continuous glucose monitoring-based time-in-range using insulin glargine 300 units/ml versus insulin degludec 100 units/ml in type 1 diabetes: The head-to-head randomized controlled InRange trial

AIM

To use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based time-in-range (TIR) as a primary efficacy endpoint to compare the second-generation basal insulin (BI) analogues insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) and insulin degludec 100 U/ml (IDeg-100) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

InRange was a 12-week, multicentre, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label study comparing glucose TIR and variability between Gla-300 and IDeg-100 using blinded 20-day CGM profiles. The inclusion criteria consisted of adults with T1D treated with multiple daily injections, using BI once daily and rapid-acting insulin analogues for at least 1 year, with an HbA1c of 7% or higher and of 10% or less at screening.

RESULTS

Overall, 343 participants were randomized: 172 received Gla-300 and 171 IDeg-100. Non-inferiority (10% relative margin) of Gla-300 versus IDeg-100 was shown for the primary endpoint (percentage TIR ≥ 70 to ≤ 180 mg/dl): least squares (LS) mean (95% confidence interval) 52.74% (51.06%, 54.42%) for Gla-300 and 55.09% (53.34%, 56.84%) for IDeg-100; LS mean difference (non-inferiority): 3.16% (0.88%, 5.44%) (non-inferiority P = .0067). Non-inferiority was shown on glucose total coefficient of variation (main secondary endpoint): LS mean 39.91% (39.20%, 40.61%) and 41.22% (40.49%, 41.95%), respectively; LS mean difference (non-inferiority) -5.44% (-6.50%, -4.38%) (non-inferiority P < .0001). Superiority of Gla-300 over IDeg-100 was not shown on TIR. Occurrences of self-measured and CGM-derived hypoglycaemia were comparable between treatment groups. Safety profiles were consistent with known profiles, with no unexpected findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Using clinically relevant CGM metrics, InRange shows that Gla-300 is non-inferior to IDeg-100 in people with T1D, with comparable hypoglycaemia and safety profiles.

Assessment of the Effect of Timing of Insulin Glargine Administration (Bedtime versus Morning) on Glycemic Control in Children with Type 1 Diabetes in Cairo, Egypt: A Single Centre Experience

BACKGROUND

Diabetes control without developing hypoglycemia is challenging in Type 1 diabetes (T1D) management, with few studies evaluating the effect of insulin glargine timing on glucoregulation.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to compare glycemic control using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in children with T1D receiving bedtime versus morning glargine and to assess CGM effect on glycemia.

METHODS

This cross-sectional observational study was conducted on 30 pediatric patients with T1D receiving glargine (19 at bedtime and 11 in the morning). CGM sensor was applied for 3-5 days using the I-Pro2 blood glucose sensor.

RESULTS

Total daily dose of glargine showed a significant correlation with HbA1C (p=0.006) and percentage of glucose readings within average (p=0.039). HbA1C correlated significantly with time in range (TIR) (p=0.049). Nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly higher in the bedtime glargine group than in the morning one (p=0.016). The morning glargine group showed better control in terms of lower HbA1C and higher TIR, but these did not reach statistical significance. Follow- up after 3 months revealed significant improvement in the percentage of hyperglycemia, BG readings within average, as well as HbA1c (p:0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Bedtime glargine administration was associated with a higher frequency of occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycemia. No statistically significant difference in glycemic control between both groups was found. CGM use improved glycemic control.

Real-world effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/ml in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes in the Latin America region: A subgroup analysis of the ATOS

AIM

To evaluate the real-world effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) in achieving glycaemic goals in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Mexico, Colombia and Peru (Latin America region) in the A Toujeo Observational Study (ATOS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ATOS was a multicentre, prospective, 12-month observational study, which included 4422 insulin-naïve adults (age ≥ 18 years) with T2D uncontrolled (HbA1c > 7% and ≤11%) on at least one oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) who initiated Gla-300 treatment as per routine practice. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants achieving their predefined individualized HbA1c goal at month 6. Key secondary endpoints included change from baseline in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG), body weight and incidence of hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

In this subgroup analysis, a total of 314 participants with T2D received Gla-300. At baseline, mean ± SD age was 56.0 ± 11.6 years, duration of diabetes was 9.7 ± 6.6 years and 65.9% of participants were on at least two OADs. The individualized HbA1c target was achieved by 25.8% of participants (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.3-31.9) at month 6 and by 35.3% (95% CI: 28.5-42.5) at month 12. Gla-300 treatment improved glycaemic control with meaningful reductions in mean HbA1c, FPG and fasting SMBG. The incidence of hypoglycaemia reported was low and body weight remained stable.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting in the Latin America region, the initiation of Gla-300 in people with T2D uncontrolled on OADs resulted in improved glycaemic control with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia and no change in body weight.

Use of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Gla-300 in Special Populations: A Narrative Mini-Review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hypoglycemia and insulin-related adverse events are crucial barriers to effective diabetes management, particularly in the elderly, people with renal impairment, people with diabetes fasting during Ramadan, or people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). There is a scarcity of clinical and real-world evidence assessing the effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in these special populations. To understand the entirety of evidence, this mini-review elaborates on the use of Gla-300 in diabetes management among special populations.

METHODS

Clinical and real-world evidence related to the use of Gla-300 among special populations with diabetes were retrieved using PUBMED and Google Scholar.

RESULTS

Gla-300 has shown improved glycemic control with stable insulin action and low risk of hypoglycemia in diverse groups with diabetes. It also appears to have an acceptable safety profile during Ramadan fasting. However, adequate monitoring and adjustment of insulin dose on an individual basis should be considered.

CONCLUSION

Gla-300 is a second-generation basal insulin with proven benefits of reduced risk of hypoglycemia and improved glycemic control in special populations of people with diabetes.

Efficacy and safety of degludec U100 versus glargine U300 for the early postoperative management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A non-inferiority randomized trial

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of degludec U100 versus glargine U300 for the early postoperative management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

METHODS

A total of 239 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a basal-bolus regimen in the early postoperative period using degludec U100 (n = 122) or glargine U300 (n = 117) as basal and glulisine before meals. The primary outcome was mean differences between groups in their daily BG concentrations. The major safety outcome was the occurrence of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

There were no differences in mean daily BG concentrations (157 vs. 162 mg/dl), mean percentage of readings within target BG of 70-180 mg/dl (74% vs. 73%), daily basal insulin dose (19 vs. 21 units/day), length of stay (median [IQR]: 9 vs. 9 days), or hospital complications (21.3% vs. 21.4%) between treatment groups. There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <70 mg/dl (15.6% vs. 23.1%) or <54 mg/dl (1.6% vs. 4.3%) between degludec-100 and glargine-300 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with degludec U100 is as effective and safe as glargine U300 for the early postoperative hospital management of patients with T2D undergoing CABG.

Improved glycaemic control and weight benefit with iGlarLixi versus insulin glargine 100 U/mL in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes advancing their therapy from basal insulin plus oral antihyperglycaemic drugs: Results from the LixiLan-L-CN randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi compared with iGlar in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes advancing therapy from basal insulin ± oral antihyperglycaemic drugs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

LixiLan-L-CN (NCT03798080) was a 30-week randomized, active-controlled, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre study. Participants were randomized 1:1 to iGlarLixi or iGlar. The primary objective was to show the superiority of iGlarLixi over iGlar in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline to Week 30.

RESULTS

In total, 426 participants were randomized to iGlarLixi (n = 212) or iGlar (n = 214). Mean age was 58 years, 67% had a body mass index ≥24 kg/m² , corresponding to overweight/obesity, and the mean diabetes duration was 12.3 years. From mean baseline HbA1c of 8.1% in both groups, greater decreases were seen with iGlarLixi versus iGlar [least squares mean difference: -0.7 (95% confidence interval: -0.9, -0.6)%; p < .0001] to final HbA1c of 6.7% and 7.4%, respectively. HbA1c <7.0% achievement was greater with iGlarLixi (63.3%) versus iGlar (29.9%; p < .0001). Mean body weight decreased with iGlarLixi and increased with iGlar [least squares mean difference: -0.9 (95% confidence interval: -1.4, -0.5) kg; p = .0001]. Hypoglycaemia incidence was similar between groups. Few gastrointestinal adverse events occurred (rated mild/moderate) with a slightly higher incidence with iGlarLixi than iGlar.

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi provided better glycaemic control and facilitated more participants to reach glycaemic targets alongside beneficial effects on body weight, no additional risk of hypoglycaemia, and few gastrointestinal AEs, supporting iGlarLixi use as an efficacious and well tolerated therapy option in Chinese people with long-standing T2D advancing therapy from basal insulin.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

IMPLICATIONS

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

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Efficacy and safety of a basal insulin + 2-3 oral antihyperglycaemic drugs regimen versus a twice-daily premixed insulin + metformin regimen after short-term intensive insulin therapy in individuals with type 2 diabetes: The multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled BEYOND-V trial

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of basal insulin glargine 100 units/ml (Gla) + 2-3 oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) with twice-daily premixed insulin aspart 70/30 (Asp30) + metformin (MET) after short-term intensive insulin therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes in China.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This open-label trial enrolled insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1c of 7.5%-11.0% (58-97 mmol/mol) despite treatment with 2-3 OADs. All participants stopped previous OADs except MET, then received short-term intensive insulin therapy during the run-in period, when those with a fasting plasma glucose of less than 7.0 mmol/L and 2-hour postprandial glucose of less than 10.0 mmol/L were randomized to Gla + MET + a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor or twice-daily Asp30 + MET. If HbA1c was more than 7.0% (>53 mmol/mol) at week 12, participants in the Gla group were added repaglinide or acarbose, at the physician's discretion, and participants in the Asp30 group continued to titrate insulin dose. The change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 was assessed in the per protocol (PP) population (primary endpoint).

RESULTS

There were 384 enrollees (192 each to Gla and Asp30); 367 were included in the PP analysis. The threshold for non-inferiority of Gla + OADs versus Asp30 + MET was met, with a least squares mean change from baseline in HbA1c of -1.72% and -1.70% (-42.2 and -42.1 mmol/mol), respectively (estimated difference -0.01%; 95% CI -0.20%, 0.17% [-0.1 mmol/mol; 95% CI -2.2, 1.9]). Achievement of HbA1c less than 7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) was comparable between the groups (60% vs. 57%). The proportion of participants with any (24% vs. 38%; P = .003), symptomatic (19% vs. 31%; P = .007) or confirmed hypoglycaemia (18% vs. 33%; P < .001) was lower in the Gla + OADs group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with Asp30 + MET, Gla + 2-3 OADs showed similar efficacy but a lower hypoglycaemia risk in Chinese individuals with type 2 diabetes who had undergone short-term intensive insulin therapy.

Glycemia Reduction in Type 2 Diabetes - Glycemic Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering medications for use with metformin to maintain target glycated hemoglobin levels in persons with type 2 diabetes is uncertain.

METHODS

In this trial involving participants with type 2 diabetes of less than 10 years' duration who were receiving metformin and had glycated hemoglobin levels of 6.8 to 8.5%, we compared the effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications. We randomly assigned participants to receive insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), the sulfonylurea glimepiride, the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, or sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. The primary metabolic outcome was a glycated hemoglobin level, measured quarterly, of 7.0% or higher that was subsequently confirmed, and the secondary metabolic outcome was a confirmed glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5%.

RESULTS

A total of 5047 participants (19.8% Black and 18.6% Hispanic or Latinx) who had received metformin for type 2 diabetes were followed for a mean of 5.0 years. The cumulative incidence of a glycated hemoglobin level of 7.0% or higher (the primary metabolic outcome) differed significantly among the four groups (P<0.001 for a global test of differences across groups); the rates with glargine (26.5 per 100 participant-years) and liraglutide (26.1) were similar and lower than those with glimepiride (30.4) and sitagliptin (38.1). The differences among the groups with respect to a glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5% (the secondary outcome) paralleled those of the primary outcome. There were no material differences with respect to the primary outcome across prespecified subgroups defined according to sex, age, or race or ethnic group; however, among participants with higher baseline glycated hemoglobin levels there appeared to be an even greater benefit with glargine, liraglutide, and glimepiride than with sitagliptin. Severe hypoglycemia was rare but significantly more frequent with glimepiride (in 2.2% of the participants) than with glargine (1.3%), liraglutide (1.0%), or sitagliptin (0.7%). Participants who received liraglutide reported more frequent gastrointestinal side effects and lost more weight than those in the other treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

All four medications, when added to metformin, decreased glycated hemoglobin levels. However, glargine and liraglutide were significantly, albeit modestly, more effective in achieving and maintaining target glycated hemoglobin levels. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).

Glycemia Reduction in Type 2 Diabetes - Microvascular and Cardiovascular Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Data are lacking on the comparative effectiveness of commonly used glucose-lowering medications, when added to metformin, with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease outcomes in persons with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We assessed the comparative effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications, added to metformin, in achieving and maintaining a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 7.0% in participants with type 2 diabetes. The randomly assigned therapies were insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin. Prespecified secondary outcomes with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease included hypertension and dyslipidemia, confirmed moderately or severely increased albuminuria or an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m² of body-surface area, diabetic peripheral neuropathy assessed with the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, cardiovascular events (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE], hospitalization for heart failure, or an aggregate outcome of any cardiovascular event), and death. Hazard ratios are presented with 95% confidence limits that are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

During a mean 5.0 years of follow-up in 5047 participants, there were no material differences among the interventions with respect to the development of hypertension or dyslipidemia or with respect to microvascular outcomes; the mean overall rate (i.e., events per 100 participant-years) of moderately increased albuminuria levels was 2.6, of severely increased albuminuria levels 1.1, of renal impairment 2.9, and of diabetic peripheral neuropathy 16.7. The treatment groups did not differ with respect to MACE (overall rate, 1.0), hospitalization for heart failure (0.4), death from cardiovascular causes (0.3), or all deaths (0.6). There were small differences with respect to rates of any cardiovascular disease, with 1.9, 1.9, 1.4, and 2.0 in the glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin groups, respectively. When one treatment was compared with the combined results of the other three treatments, the hazard ratios for any cardiovascular disease were 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 1.3) in the glargine group, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4) in the glimepiride group, 0.7 (95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9) in the liraglutide group, and 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5) in the sitagliptin group.

CONCLUSIONS

In participants with type 2 diabetes, the incidences of microvascular complications and death were not materially different among the four treatment groups. The findings indicated possible differences among the groups in the incidence of any cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).

Immunogenicity, Efficacy, and Safety of Biosimilar Insulin Aspart (MYL-1601D) Compared with Originator Insulin Aspart (Novolog®) in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes After 24 Weeks: A Randomized Open-Label Study

Background

MYL-1601D is a proposed biosimilar of originator insulin aspart, Novolog^®/NovoRapid^® (Ref-InsAsp-US/Ref-InsAsp-EU).

Objective

This study assessed the immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of MYL-1601D with Ref-InsAsp-US in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D).

Methods

This was a 24-week, open-label, randomized, phase III study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to mealtime MYL-1601D or Ref-InsAsp-US in combination with insulin glargine (Lantus SoloSTAR^®) once daily. The treatment-emergent antibody response (TEAR) rate (defined as patients who were anti-insulin antibody [AIA] negative at baseline and became positive at any timepoint post-baseline or patients who were AIA positive at baseline and demonstrated a 4-fold increase in titer values at any timepoint post-baseline) was the primary endpoint. The study also compared the change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), prandial, basal, and total daily insulin, 7-point self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) profiles, immunogenicity, and adverse events (AEs) including hypoglycemia.

Results

In total, 478 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis (MYL-1601D: 238; Ref-InsAsp-US: 240) set. The 90% confidence interval (CI) for the primary endpoint was within the pre-defined equivalence margin of ±11.7% and the treatment differences (SE) in TEAR responders between the treatment groups was − 2.86 (4.16) with 90% CI − 9.71 to 3.99. The mean (SD) changes from baseline for HbA1c, FPG, and insulin dosages were similar in both groups at week 24. The safety profiles including hypoglycemia, immune-related events, AEs, and other reported variables were similar between the treatment groups at week 24.

Conclusions

MYL-1601D demonstrated similar immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety profiles to Ref-InsAsp-US in patients with T1D over 24 weeks.

Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov:

NCT03760068.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-022-00554-6.

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.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Recorded Hypoglycemia with Insulin Degludec or Insulin Glargine U100 in People with Type 1 Diabetes Prone to Nocturnal Severe Hypoglycemia

Background and Aims: Nocturnal hypoglycemia is mainly a consequence of inappropriate basal insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and may compromise optimal glycemic control. Insulin degludec is associated with a lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia in T1D. As nocturnal hypoglycemia is often asymptomatic, we applied continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to detect a more precise occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycemia in the HypoDeg trial, comparing insulin degludec with insulin glargine U100 in people with T1D and previous nocturnal severe hypoglycemia. Materials and Methods: In the HypoDeg trial, 149 people with T1D were included in an open-label randomized cross-over trial. Sixty-seven participants accepted optional participation in the predefined substudy of 4 × 6 days of blinded CGM requiring completion of at least one CGM period in each treatment arm. CGM data were reviewed for hypoglycemic events. Results: Treatment with insulin degludec resulted in a relative rate reduction (RRR) of 36% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10%-54%; P < 0.05) in nocturnal CGM-recorded hypoglycemia (≤3.9 mmol/L), corresponding to an absolute rate reduction (ARR) of 0.85 events per person-week. In nocturnal CGM-recorded hypoglycemia (≤3.0 mmol/L), we found an RRR of 53% (95% CI: 36%-65%; P < 0.001), corresponding to an ARR of 0.75 events per person-week. At the lower detection limit of the CGM (≤2.2 mmol/L), treatment with insulin degludec resulted in a significant RRR of 58% (95% CI: 23%-77%; P = 0.005). The reductions were primarily due to significant RRRs in asymptomatic hypoglycemia. Conclusion: In people with T1D, prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycemia, insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 significantly reduces nocturnal CGM-recorded hypoglycemia. www.clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02192450).

Controlling glycemic variability in people living with type 1 diabetes receiving insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300)

Short-term glycemic variability is associated with the risk of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia in people living with type 1 diabetes and can potentially affect clinical outcomes. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is of increasing importance to evaluate glycemic variability in greater detail. Specific metrics for assessing glycemic variability were proposed, such as the SD of mean glucose level and associated coefficient of variation, and time in target glucose range to guide study designs, therapy and allow people with diabetes more transparency in interpreting their own CGM data. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and real-world evidence provide complementary information about the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of interventions. Insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) has a longer lasting and less variable action than insulin glargine U100 (Gla-100) with a lower risk of hypoglycemia. While insulin degludec U100 (iDeg-100) was associated with lower glucose values but more time below range in one randomized study compared with Gla-300, Gla-300 was associated with a higher per cent time in range, but also above the therapeutic range. However, a real-world study did not find differences during the day between Gla-300 and iDeg-100. The upcoming InRange RCT is the first head-to-head comparison of Gla-300 with iDeg-100 using CGM in an international population using CGM metrics as the primary endpoint. The non-interventional COMET-T real-world study will determine the real-world effectiveness of Gla-300 using CGM metrics and cover a broad spectrum of clinical practice decisions irrespective of the prior basal insulin.

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.

Efficacy and safety benefits of iGlarLixi versus insulin glargine 100 U/mL or lixisenatide in Asian Pacific people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes on oral agents: The LixiLan-O-AP randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi with insulin glargine 100 units/mL (iGlar) and lixisenatide (Lixi), in Asian Pacific people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) on metformin with or without a second oral antihyperglycaemic drug (OAD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

LixiLan-O-AP (NCT03798054) was a 24-week multicentre study in adults (n = 878, mean age 56.0 years, mean body mass index 26.0 kg/m² ) with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels ≥53 mmol/mol (7%) and ≤97 mmol/mol (11%) on OAD(s), randomized (2:2:1) to open-label once-daily iGlarLixi, iGlar or Lixi while on continued metformin ± sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA1c.

RESULTS

After 24 weeks, greater reductions in HbA1c from baseline (67 mmol/mol; 8.3%) were seen with iGlarLixi (-21 mmol/mol; -1.9%) compared with iGlar (-16 mmol/mol; -1.4%; P < 0.0001) and Lixi (-10 mmol/mol; -0.9%; P < 0.0001). Greater proportions of participants achieved HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (<7%) with iGlarLixi versus iGlar or Lixi (79%, 60% and 30%, respectively), overall and as composite endpoints including weight and hypoglycaemia. iGlarLixi improved 2-hour postprandial glucose versus iGlar and Lixi and mitigated the weight gain seen with iGlar (least squares mean difference -1.1 kg; P < 0.0001). Documented ≤3.9 mmol/L (≤70 mg/dL) hypoglycaemia was similar between iGlarLixi and iGlar (both 3.38 events per participant-year). The incidence rates of nausea and vomiting were lower with iGlarLixi (14% and 6%) than Lixi (21% and 11%).

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi achieved significant HbA1c reductions, to near-normoglycaemic levels, compared with iGlar or Lixi, with no meaningful additional risk of hypoglycaemia and mitigated body weight gain versus iGlar, with fewer gastrointestinal adverse events versus Lixi. iGlarLixi with specifically adapted ratios may provide an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for Asian Pacific people with T2D.

Immunogenicity of LY2963016 insulin glargine and Lantus® insulin glargine in Chinese patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To evaluate the immunogenicity of LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar) versus originator insulin glargine (IGlar [Lantus®]) in Chinese patients with type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ABES and ABET were prospective, randomized, active control, open-label, phase III studies, which enrolled Chinese patients with T1DM (N = 272) and T2DM (N = 536), respectively. Using data from these trials, immunogenicity of LY IGlar and IGlar was evaluated by comparing the proportion of patients with detectable anti-insulin glargine antibodies and the median antibody levels (percent binding) between the treatment groups. The incidence of anti-insulin antibodies and treatment-emergent antibody response (TEAR) were compared using Fisher's exact test or Pearson's chi-squared test. Levels of anti-insulin antibodies were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. We also evaluated the relationship between antibody formation or TEAR and clinical outcomes using analysis of covariance, negative binomial regression, or partial correlations.

RESULTS

There were no significant treatment differences in the incidence of detectable anti-insulin antibodies, median antibody levels or TEAR, overall or at Week 24 with last observation carried forward, and median antibody levels were low (<5%) after 24 weeks of treatment, in patients with T1DM or T2DM. Levels of anti-insulin antibodies and development of TEAR were not associated with efficacy (glycated haemoglobin, insulin dose [U/kg/d] and hypoglycaemia) or safety outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The immunogenicity profiles of LY IGlar and IGlar are similar, with low levels of anti-insulin antibodies observed for both insulins. No association was observed between antibody levels or TEAR status and clinical outcomes.

Real-world evidence on the use of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes in Romania: a prospective cohort study (STAR.Ro)

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) fixed-ratio combination on a cohort of Romanian adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

DESIGN

Open-label, 24-week, prospective cohort study.

SETTING

65 secondary care diabetes centres in Romania.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included 901 adults with T2D suboptimally controlled with previous oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs)±basal insulin (BI) who initiated treatment with iGlarLixi upon the decision of the investigator. Major exclusion criteria were iGlarLixi contraindications and refusal to participate. 876 subjects received at least one dose of iGlarLixi (intention-to-treat/safety population).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 24 in the modified intention-to-treat population (study participants with HbA1c available at baseline and week 24). Secondary efficacy outcomes were percentage of participants reaching HbA1c targets and change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG).

RESULTS

Mean baseline HbA1c was 9.2% (SD 1.4) and FPG was 10.8 mmol/L (2.9). Mean HbA1c change was -1.3% (95% CI: -1.4% to -1.2%, p<0.0001) at week 24. HbA1c levels ≤6.5%, <7% and<7.5% at week 24 were achieved by 72 (8.9%), 183 (22.6%) and 342 (42.3%) participants, respectively. Mean FPG change was -3.1 mmol/L (95% CI: -3.3 to -2.8, p<0.001) at week 24. Mean body weight change was -1.6 kg (95% CI: -1.9 to -1.3, p<0.001) at 24 weeks. Mean iGlarLixi dose increased from 19.5 U (SD 7.7) and 30.1 U (10.0) to 30.2 U (8.9) (ratio 2/1 pen) and 45.0 U (11.6) (ratio 3/1 pen). Adverse events (AEs) were reported by 43 (4.9%) participants (18 (2.1%) gastrointestinal) with 4 (0.5%) reporting serious AEs. 13 (1.5%) participants reported at least one event of symptomatic hypoglycaemia, with one episode of severe hypoglycaemia reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, 24-week treatment with iGlarLixi provided a significant reduction of HbA1c with body weight loss and low hypoglycaemia risk in T2D suboptimally controlled with OADs±BI treatment.

Comparative efficacy and safety of two fixed ratio combinations in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients previously poorly controlled on different insulin regimens: a multi-centric observational study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of fixed ratio combinations (FRC) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DMT2) poorly controlled on different insulin regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multicentric observational study included 376 patients (157 males, 219 female), with longstanding DMT2 inadequately controlled (HbA1c >7%) on different insulin regimens; premix insulin analogs (MIX) (23.2%), basal-bolus regimen (BB) (30.9%) or basal oral therapy (BOT) (37.1%) to whom FRC was introduced at least 6 months prior to data collection.

RESULTS

Median age of patients was 67 years, with the duration of diabetes for 14 years, median HbA1c of 8.4% and BMI of 34.35 kg/m2. The proportion of patients treated with IDegLira and IGlarLixi was similar (48.4% vs. 51.6%). There was a borderline difference regarding regimen groups (p = 0.059) implying the greatest improvement of HbA1c in the MIX group. The significant interaction between BOT and BB/MIX regimens (p = 0.011) was noted indicating the largest reduction of BMI in BB and MIX groups. After the FRC administration, there was no significant difference in gastrointestinal (GIT) side-effects. The number of patients with hypoglycemic episodes decreased from 24% to 7% after FRC initiation (p < .001). The group using IGlarLixi required a significantly higher average dose steps compared to IDegLira (p < .001 for all) to achieve glycemic goals, while a larger proportion of patients using IDegLira lost more than 5 kg, compared to IGlarLixi (p < .001). Significant improvement was observed in all glycemic parameters in all insulin treated patients after replacement of insulin therapy with FRC (p < .001 for all). Composite outcome defined as any weight loss and HbA1c below 7% was accomplished in 20.3% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In real life setting switching to both FRC options in people with longstanding inadequately controlled DMT2 treated with different insulin regimens could offer an effective therapeutic choice for achieving glycemic goals, with an improved safety profile.

Persistent Hypoglycemia Induced by Long-acting Insulin Degludec

A 58-year-old Japanese man was brought to the emergency room due to disturbance of consciousness. He regained consciousness on the day of admission and started taking hospital meals, but he needed intravenous glucose administration for eight days. The total amount of glucose administration was 4,464 g. It took over three weeks for exogenous insulin to be almost undetectable. While degludec binds to albumin and exerts glucose-lowering effects for a long time, the above-mentioned period of three weeks was consistent with the half-life of albumin. Hypoglycemia induced by massive dose of insulin degludec is persistent and prominent.

Comparison of treatment with insulin degludec and glargine U100 in patients with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia: The HypoDeg randomized, controlled, open-label, crossover trial

AIM

To investigate whether the long-acting insulin analogue insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 reduces the risk of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Adults with T1D and at least one episode of nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia during the last 2 years were included in a 2-year prospective, randomized, open, multicentre, crossover trial. A total of 149 patients were randomized 1:1 to basal-bolus therapy with insulin degludec and insulin aspart or insulin glargine U100 and insulin aspart. Each treatment period lasted 1 year and consisted of 3 months of run-in or crossover followed by 9 months of maintenance. The primary endpoint was the number of blindly adjudicated nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes. Secondary endpoints included the occurrence of severe hypoglycaemia. We analysed all endpoints by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Treatment with insulin degludec resulted in a 28% (95% CI: 9%-43%; P = .02) relative rate reduction (RRR) of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia at level 1 (≤3.9 mmol/L), a 37% (95% CI: 16%-53%; P = .002) RRR at level 2 (≤3.0 mmol/L), and a 35% (95% CI: 1%-58%; P = .04) RRR in all-day severe hypoglycaemia compared with insulin glargine U100.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with T1D prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia have lower rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia and all-day severe hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100.

Degludec hospital trial: A randomized controlled trial comparing insulin degludec U100 and glargine U100 for the inpatient management of patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

Limited data exist about the use of insulin degludec in the hospital. This multicentre, non-inferiority, open-label, prospective randomized trial compared the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec-U100 and glargine-U100 for the management of hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In total, 180 general medical and surgical patients with an admission blood glucose (BG) between 7.8 and 22.2 mmol/L, treated with oral agents or insulin before hospitalization were randomly allocated (1:1) to a basal-bolus regimen using degludec (n = 92) or glargine (n = 88), as basal and aspart before meals. Insulin dose was adjusted daily to a target BG between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was the difference in mean hospital daily BG between groups.

RESULTS

Overall, the randomization BG was 12.2 ± 2.9 mmol/L and glycated haemoglobin 84 mmol/mol (9.8% ± 2.0%). There were no differences in mean daily BG (10.0 ± 2.1 vs. 10.0 ± 2.5 mmol/L, p = .9), proportion of BG in target range (54·5% ± 29% vs. 55·3% ± 28%, p = .85), basal insulin (29.6 ± 13 vs. 30.4 ± 18 units/day, p = .85), length of stay [median (IQR): 6.7 (4.7-10.5) vs. 7.5 (4.7-11.6) days, p = .61], hospital complications (23% vs. 23%, p = .95) between treatment groups. There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <3.9 mmol/L (17% vs. 19%, p = .75) or <3.0 mmol/L (3.7% vs. 1.3%, p = .62) between degludec and glargine.

CONCLUSION

Hospital treatment with degludec-U100 or glargine-U100 is equally safe and effective for the management of hyperglycaemia in general medical and surgical patients with type 2 diabetes.