Higher Rates of Persistence and Adherence in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Initiating Once-Weekly vs Daily Injectable Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in US Clinical Practice (STAY Study)

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials

BACKGROUND

In patients surviving stroke, approximately 15% and 60% exhibit concurrent diabetes mellitus and overweight/obesity, respectively, necessitating heightened secondary prevention efforts. Despite glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) demonstrating improved outcomes for those with diabetes mellitus or obesity, their underutilization persists among eligible individuals. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the impact of GLP-1 RAs on stroke risk. The findings aim to optimize the implementation of this therapeutic strategy in patients surviving stroke with diabetes mellitus or obesity.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically reviewed MEDLINE and Scopus until 15 November 2023. Eligible studies included randomized cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) with individuals, with or without type 2 diabetes, randomized to either GLP-1 RA or placebo. The outcomes were total strokes, non-fatal strokes, and fatal strokes. Analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4.1.

RESULTS

Among 1369 screened studies, 11 were eligible, encompassing 82,140 participants (34.6% women) with a cumulative follow-up of 247,596 person-years. In the GLP-1 RAs group, the stroke rate was significantly lower compared to placebo (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77-0.93; NNT: 200), showing no heterogeneity or interaction with administration frequency (daily vs weekly). In addition, the GLP-1 RAs group exhibited a significantly lower rate of non-fatal strokes compared to placebo (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.79-0.95; NNT: 250), with no heterogeneity or interaction based on administration frequency, route (oral vs subcutaneous), or diabetes presence.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis of 11 CVOTs with 82,140 participants, GLP-1 RAs demonstrated a 16% relative reduction in stroke risk compared to placebo. This finding may increase implementation of GLP-1 RAs by stroke specialists in individuals with stroke and comorbid diabetes mellitus or obesity.

DATA ACCESS STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

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.

Pharmacological and Benefit-Risk Profile of Once-Weekly Basal Insulin Administration (Icodec): Addressing Patients' Unmet Needs and Exploring Future Applications

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic metabolic disease affecting over 500 million people worldwide, which leads to severe complications and to millions of deaths yearly. When therapeutic goals are not reached with diet, physical activity, or non-insulin drugs, starting/adding insulin treatment is recommended by international guidelines. A novel recombinant insulin is icodec, a once-weekly insulin that successfully completed phase III trials and that has recently obtained the marketing authorization approval from the European Medicines Agency. This narrative review aims to assess icodec pharmacological and clinical features concerning evidence on benefit-risk profile, as compared to other basal insulins, addressing the potential impact on patients' unmet needs. Icodec is a full agonist, recombinant human insulin analogue characterized by an ultra-long half-life (196 h), enabling its use in once-weekly administration. Phase III randomized clinical trials involving more than 4000 diabetic patients, mostly type 2 DM, documented non-inferiority of icodec, as compared to currently available basal insulins, in terms of estimated mean reduction of glycated hemoglobin levels; a superiority of icodec, compared to control, was confirmed in insulin-naïve patients (ONWARDS 1, 3, and 5), and in patients previously treated with basal insulin (ONWARDS 2). Icodec safety profile was comparable to the currently available basal insulins. Once-weekly icodec has the potential to improve patients' adherence, thus positively influencing patients' treatment satisfaction as well as quality of life, especially in type 2 DM insulin-naïve patients. An improved adherence might positively influence glycemic target achievement, reduce overall healthcare costs and overcome some of the unmet patients' needs. Icodec has the potential to emerge as a landmark achievement in the evolution of insulin therapy, with a positive impact also for the National Health Services and the whole society.

Real-World Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (OW GLP-1RAs) in Comparison with Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors (DPP-4is) for Glycemic Control and Weight Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (RELATE)

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of once-weekly (OW) glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) has been established in several trials in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); however, real-world evidence on their effectiveness is limited. This study evaluated the effectiveness of OW GLP-1RA regarding glycemic and weight outcomes, and relative to DPP-4i in a comparator analysis.

METHODS

This observational cohort study evaluated glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and weight outcomes in people with T2DM with two or more prescription claims for the same OW GLP-1RA using a pre-post study design (including for a semaglutide OW T2DM subgroup, hereafter referred to as semaglutide). Comparator analysis for the same outcome was performed for OW GLP-1RAs versus DPP-4i and semaglutide subgroup versus DPP-4i. A linked patient population from the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database and the Ambulatory Electronic Medical Records (AEMR) database was analyzed using data from January 2017 to April 2022. HbA1c and weight were assessed at baseline and at the end of the 12-month post-index period. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for imbalances in baseline patient characteristics in the comparator analysis.

RESULTS

In the pre-post analysis, a greater numerical reduction in HbA1c and weight was observed for the semaglutide subgroup (N = 354) relative to the OW GLP-1RA cohort (N = 921). In the semaglutide subgroup, 52.5% and 34.2% of patients achieved HbA1c of < 7.0% and ≥ 5% weight loss, respectively. For the comparator analysis, the OW GLP-1RAs (N = 651) were significantly more effective (p < 0.001) in reducing HbA1c (- 1.5% vs. -  1.0%) and weight (- 3.2 kg vs. -  1.0 kg) than the DPP-4is (N = 431). Similarly, the semaglutide cohort (N = 251) also displayed more effectiveness (p < 0.001) in reducing HbA1c (- 1.7% vs. -  0.9%) and weight (- 4.1 kg vs. -  1.3 kg) than the respective DPP-4i cohort (N = 417). Patients initiating OW GLP-1RAs, including the semaglutide cohort, were at least twice as likely to achieve HbA1c and weight outcomes as well as composite outcomes compared with those initiating DPP-4is.

CONCLUSION

The study reinforces that OW GLP-1RAs are more effective in glycemic control and weight reduction compared with DPP-4is in people with T2DM in the real-world setting. These findings align with the recommendation in the current guidelines for utilizing glucose-lowering treatment regimens that support weight-management goals in people with T2DM.

Proportion of participants with type 2 diabetes achieving a metabolic composite endpoint with once-weekly semaglutide treatment versus comparators: Post hoc pooled analysis from SUSTAIN 1-5, 7-10 and SUSTAIN China

AIM

To compare the proportion of participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with once-weekly (OW) subcutaneous (SC) semaglutide versus comparators who achieved a composite metabolic endpoint.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SUSTAIN 1-5, 7-10 and SUSTAIN China trial data were pooled. Participants with T2D (aged ≥18 years) and glycated haemoglobin ≥7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol) who had been randomized to OW SC semaglutide (0.5 or 1.0 mg) or comparator in addition to background medication. Using patient-level data pooled by treatment, proportions of participants achieving the metabolic composite endpoint, defined as glycated haemoglobin <7% (<53 mmol/mol), blood pressure <140/90 mmHg and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol <130 mg/dl (<3.37 mmol/L), were evaluated following baseline adjustments. Endpoints were analysed per trial using a binomial logistic regression model with treatment, region/country and stratification factor as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate. Pooled analysis used logistic regression with treatment and trial as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.

RESULTS

This post hoc analysis included data from 7633 participants across 10 trials. The proportion of participants who achieved the metabolic composite endpoint was significantly higher with OW SC semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg versus comparators (23.7% and 32.0% vs. 11.5%, respectively; p < .0001). Likewise, when the OW SC semaglutide doses were pooled, significantly higher proportions of patients receiving semaglutide achieved the composite metabolic endpoint versus comparators (29.1% vs. 11.4%, respectively; p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with OW SC semaglutide versus comparators was associated with increased proportions of participants with T2D meeting the composite metabolic endpoint.

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.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To characterize the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In an open-label trial, 46 individuals with T2D (18-75 years; body mass index 18.0-38.0 kg/m2 ; glycated haemoglobin ≤75 mmol/mol [≤9%]; basal insulin-treated) received subcutaneous once-weekly icodec for ≥8 weeks at individualized doses, aiming at a pre-breakfast plasma glucose concentration of 4.4 to 7.0 mmol/L (80-126 mg/dL) on the last three mornings of each weekly dosing interval. Frequent blood sampling to assess total serum icodec concentration (ie, albumin-bound and unbound) occurred from first icodec dose until 35 days after last dose. Icodec trough concentrations following initiation of once-weekly dosing were predicted by pharmacokinetic modelling. During the final 3 weeks of icodec treatment, while at steady state, the icodec glucose-lowering effect was assessed in three glucose clamps (target 7.5 mmol/L [135 mg/dL]): 0 to 36, 40 to 64 and 144 to 168 h post-dose, thus covering the initial, middle and last part of the 1-week dosing interval. Glucose-lowering effect during a complete dosing interval was predicted by pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling.

RESULTS

Model-predicted icodec steady state was attained after 3 to 4 weeks. At steady state, model-predicted daily proportions of glucose-lowering effect on days 1 to 7 of the 1-week dosing interval were 14.1%, 16.1%, 15.8%, 15.0%, 14.0%, 13.0% and 12.0%, respectively. Icodec duration of action was at least 1 week in all participants. Once-weekly icodec was overall safe and well tolerated in the current trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of icodec in individuals with T2D support its potential as a once-weekly basal insulin.

The real-world observational prospective study of health outcomes with dulaglutide and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes (TROPHIES): Final, 24-month analysis of time to first significant treatment change, treatment persistence and clinical outcomes

AIMS

To present the final results of the TROPHIES study (The real-world observational prospective study of health outcomes with dulaglutide and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The prospective, real-world TROPHIES study included patients with type 2 diabetes initiating their first injectable glucose-lowering medication (GLM), dulaglutide or liraglutide, in France, Germany and Italy. The primary endpoint was the time spent on dulaglutide or liraglutide until a significant treatment change over 24 months. Other endpoints measured persistence with treatment, clinical outcomes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] and weight) and treatment patterns. Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to first significant treatment change and persistence with treatment were generated. Propensity-score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for baseline imbalances in the comparison between cohorts.

RESULTS

The 286 of 1014 patients (28.2%) in the dulaglutide cohort and 448 of 991 patients (45.2%) in the liraglutide cohort had a significant treatment change over 24 months. By IPTW analysis, dulaglutide-initiating patients were less likely to have a significant treatment change (hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.63) and more likely to be persistent with treatment (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.86) over 24 months than liraglutide-initiating patients. Dulaglutide and liraglutide yielded similar HbA1c (-11.80 mmol/mol [1.08%] and -11.91 mmol/mol [1.09%]) and weight (-3.5 kg and -3.3 kg) reductions from baseline to 24 months. Few changes in patterns of treatment with other GLMs were observed in the two cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide-initiating patients had a longer time spent without any significant treatment change and higher persistence than those initiating liraglutide. Treatment with either glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist yielded similar and clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c and body weight.

Once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists vs dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: cardiovascular effects in people with diabetes and cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), which have proven cardiovascular benefits, are recommended in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, there is limited real-world evidence comparing the effects of once-weekly (OW) GLP-1 RAs and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is). This observational cohort study (1/1/2017-9/30/2021) used data from the Optum Clinformatics® Data Mart to compare time to incident clinical cardiovascular outcomes, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and medical costs in new adult users of OW GLP-1 RAs and DPP-4is with T2D and ASCVD.

METHODS

Time to occurrence of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or their composite and ASCVD-related and all-cause HCRU and medical costs were investigated. Baseline characteristics were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Survival analyses were conducted to compare risks during exposure.

RESULTS

OW GLP-1 RA users (weighted N = 25,287) had 26%, 22%, and 24% lower risk of ischemic stroke, MI, and their composite, respectively, compared with DPP-4i users (weighted N = 39,684; all P < 0.01). Compared with DPP-4i users, OW GLP-1 RA users had 25% and 26% lower ASCVD-related and all-cause hospitalization costs, 19% and 23% lower ASCVD-related and all-cause medical costs, 23% and 27% fewer ASCVD-related and all-cause hospitalizations, 13% and 8% fewer ASCVD-related and all-cause outpatient visits, and 8% fewer all-cause ER visits (all P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with T2D and ASCVD, OW GLP-1 RAs are associated with reduced stroke and MI risks and ASCVD-related and all-cause HCRU and costs vs DPP-4is.

Insulin Therapy for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus: A Narrative Review of Innovative Treatment Strategies

The discovery of insulin was presented to the international medical community on May 3, 1922. Since then, insulin has become one of the most effective pharmacological agents used to treat type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, the initiation and intensification of insulin therapy is often delayed in people living with type 2 diabetes due to numerous challenges associated with daily subcutaneous administration. Reducing the frequency of injections, using insulin pens instead of syringes and vials, simplifying treatment regimens, or administering insulin through alternative routes may help improve adherence to and persistence with insulin therapy among people living with diabetes. As the world commemorates the centennial of the commercialization of insulin, the aims of this article are to provide an overview of insulin therapy and to summarize clinically significant findings from phase 3 clinical trials evaluating less frequent dosing of insulin and the non-injectable administration of insulin.

The Role of Real-World Evidence in Treatment Decision-Making, Regulatory Assessment, and Understanding the Perspectives of People with Type 2 Diabetes: Examples with Gliclazide MR

Real-world evidence (RWE) plays an important role in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). It provides data about the effectiveness and safety of an intervention from outside the randomised controlled trial (RCT) setting and allows healthcare professionals (HCPs) to determine if RCT data are applicable to their patients in routine clinical practice. This review provides a discussion of the value of RWE in T2D management in day-to-day clinical practice, with a focus on RWE with sulfonylureas (SUs), and presents two examples of a new generation of international real-world studies in people with T2D managed in routine clinical practice. RWE plays a valuable role in advising HCPs in the day-to-day management of T2D, informing regulatory authorities with regard to pharmacovigilance and post-approval updates, and providing insights with regard to patients' treatment adherence and preference. RWE should be used alongside RCTs to increase HCP awareness and understanding of their patients' perspectives, potentially allowing for improvements in treatment adherence, glycaemic control and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In addition, real-world studies must be conducted in a way that generates robust RWE by limiting the risks of bias and confounding as much as possible. A growing body of RWE is emerging from Asia. For example, in a preliminary HRQoL analysis of the Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) Register, Asian people with T2D had better HRQoL with gliclazide-based treatment than with other SU agents, despite being older and having more diabetes-related complications.

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 Degludec in Adults With Insulin-Naive Type 2 Diabetes: The ONWARDS 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Interventions

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04795531.

[Unmet needs in the therapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus. How can barriers to insulin therapy be overcome?]

According to the current treatment guidelines, the therapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus should follow a stepwise therapy adjustment and intensification approach as soon as blood glucose control is no longer achieved with preceding diabetes treatment. However, clinical practice shows that the recommended steps for therapy escalation are often not followed, and treatment intensification is delayed. Especially the initiation with insulin and its intensification is often considerably delayed, even though the patient has high blood glucose levels, remaining above target even for years. In addition, treatment adherence is often lower with insulin therapy than with other antidiabetic treatment. This is problematic in terms of the risks for morbidity and mortality due to microvascular and macrovascular complications. The phenomenon known as therapeutic inertia occurs mainly with chronic diseases. The reasons thereof are complex and can be related to the person with diabetes and/or the healthcare professional. Main reasons are the frequency of insulin injections and a rigid treatment regimen, which are perceived as inconvenient and restrictive. Also, the complexity of insulin treatment, the required training, and its negative image of insulin as "last option" are negatively perceived. Results from surveys show that patients and physicians would prefer injections to be administered less frequently. Experience with once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1-RA) has been encouraging in terms of efficacy, adherence, and patient satisfaction. Intensive research is currently being conducted on novel insulin analogues with once-weekly application.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

GLP-1 RAs in Spain: A Short Narrative Review of Their Use in Real Clinical Practice

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are a class of drugs with potent glucose-lowering activity. Additionally, some GLP-1 RAs have demonstrated cardiovascular and renal benefits. Current guidelines recommend their use in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high risk of or with established cardiovascular disease (CVD), regardless of glycaemic control, with lifestyle modification and metformin. However, several studies have recently highlighted the limited number of patients with T2D benefiting from these medications worldwide. Given the huge burden of CVD among patients with T2D, efforts should be made to bring clinical practice closer to expert guidelines. This review describes the current situation of GLP-1 RA use in Spain and the reasons behind the gap between guidelines and real-world practice and suggests possible solutions. Administrative issues, lack of awareness of the cardiovascular benefits, clinical inertia, rejection of injectable medication and costs could be some of the reasons for the current situation. Possible strategies that could help to close the gap include encouraging a multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of diabetes which involves cardiologists, endocrinologists, nephrologists, primary care providers and pharmacists; improved awareness of comorbidities and earlier evaluation and treatment or risks; and better education of healthcare providers regarding the cardioprotective benefits of these drugs.

Overcoming barriers to patient adherence: the case for developing innovative drug delivery systems

Poor medication adherence is a pervasive issue with considerable health and socioeconomic consequences. Although the underlying reasons are generally understood, traditional intervention strategies rooted in patient-centric education and empowerment have proved to be prohibitively complex and/or ineffective. Formulating a pharmaceutical in a drug delivery system (DDS) is a promising alternative that can directly mitigate many common impediments to adherence, including frequent dosing, adverse effects and a delayed onset of action. Existing DDSs have already positively influenced patient acceptability and improved rates of adherence across various disease and intervention types. The next generation of systems have the potential to instate an even more radical paradigm shift by, for example, permitting oral delivery of biomacromolecules, allowing for autonomous dose regulation and enabling several doses to be mimicked with a single administration. Their success, however, is contingent on their ability to address the problems that have made DDSs unsuccessful in the past.

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.

Once-Weekly Semaglutide for Weight Management: A Clinical Review

Objective: To review the efficacy, safety, and role of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide for chronic weight management. Data Sources: A literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar was performed using the search terms: semaglutide 2.4, weight, and obesity. Ongoing studies of semaglutide were identified utilizing clinicaltrials.gov. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All English-language articles evaluating the efficacy and safety of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management in humans were included. Data Synthesis: Once-weekly injectable semaglutide 2.4 mg is indicated as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased exercise for chronic weight management in adults with a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 or ≥27 kg/m2 with at least one weight-related comorbidity, such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, or dyslipidemia. Semaglutide 2.4 mg has consistently demonstrated clinically significant weight loss across all phase 3 STEP (semaglutide treatment effect in people with obesity) trials, and long-term efficacy and safety have been confirmed for up to 2 years. Gastrointestinal side effects were the most frequently reported side effects, including nausea, vomiting, constipation, and diarrhea. Safety data for semaglutide 2.4 mg were consistent with that reported previously for the GLP-1 receptor agonist class. Conclusions: Semaglutide 2.4 mg is a highly efficacious agent for weight management, with a safety profile similar to that of other GLP-1 receptor agonists. It is a feasible option for chronic weight management, with data for up to 2 years. It is currently the only once-weekly weight loss medication, although cost may limit its utilization.