Clinical and Economic Outcomes Associated With the Timing of Initiation of Basal Insulin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Previously Treated With Oral Antidiabetes Drugs

Therapeutic proteins: developments, progress, challenges, and future perspectives

Proteins are considered magic molecules due to their enormous applications in the health sector. Over the past few decades, therapeutic proteins have emerged as a promising treatment option for various diseases, particularly cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and others. The formulation of protein-based therapies is a major area of research, however, a few factors still hinder the large-scale production of these therapeutic products, such as stability, heterogenicity, immunogenicity, high cost of production, etc. This review provides comprehensive information on various sources and production of therapeutic proteins. The review also summarizes the challenges currently faced by scientists while developing protein-based therapeutics, along with possible solutions. It can be concluded that these proteins can be used in combination with small molecular drugs to give synergistic benefits in the future.

Evaluating the Evidence behind the Novel Strategy of Early Combination from Vision to Implementation

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a complex and progressive chronic disease characterised by elevating hyperglycaemia and associated need to gradually intensify therapy in order to achieve and maintain glycaemic control. Treating hyperglycaemia with sequential therapy is proposed to allow holistic assessment of the efficacy and risk-to-benefit ratio of each added component. However, there is an array of evidence supporting the scientific rationale for using synergistic, earlier, modern drug combinations to achieve glycaemic goals, delay the deterioration of glycaemic control, and, therefore, potentially preserve or slow down the declining β-cell function. Additionally, implementation of early combination(s) may lead to opportunities to combat clinical inertia and other hurdles to optimised disease management outcomes. This review aims to discuss the latest empirical evidence for long-term clinical benefits of this novel strategy of early combination in people with newly diagnosed T2DM versus the current widely-implemented treatment paradigm, which focuses on control of hyperglycaemia using lifestyle interventions followed by sequentially intensified (mostly metformin-based) monotherapy. The recent reported Vildagliptin Efficacy in combination with metfoRmin For earlY treatment of T2DM (VERIFY) study results have provided significant new evidence confirming long-term glycaemic durability and tolerability of a specific early combination in the management of newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve patients worldwide. These results have also contributed to changes in clinical treatment guidelines and standards of care while clinical implementation and individualised treatment decisions based on VERIFY results might face barriers beyond the existing scientific evidence.

Cardiovascular disease risk and the time to insulin initiation for Medicaid enrollees with type 2 diabetes

•

No CVD benefits gains from early insulin initiation in young T2D individuals.

•

CVD possibly pre-exists or concurrent to insulin initiation or first-line therapy.

•

Young T2D individuals needs additional management of hypertension and dyslipidemia.

•

CVD risk before insulin initiation is examined by innovative methods in large cohort.

Aims

We evaluated the relationship between the timing of insulin initiation and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) risk in Pennsylvania Medicaid enrollees with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Methods

We included 17,873 enrollees (age 47.4 ± 10.3 years; range 18–64 years) initially treated with non-insulin glucose-lowering agents (GLAs) in 2008–2016. Based on clinical guidelines, we identified early (N = 1,158; 6%; insulin initiation ≤ 6 months after first-line GLAs), in-time (N = 569; 3%; 6–12 months), delayed (N = 2,761; 15%; >12 months), and non-insulin users (N = 13,385; 75%). The Prentice-Williams-Peterson (PWP) models with inverse probability weighting estimated CVD risk across the four groups and the change in risk after insulin initiation.

Results

Regardless of time to insulin initiation, insulin users had higher CVD risks after first-line GLAs than non-insulin users (aHR: early: 2.0 [1.5–2.5], in-time: 1.8 [1.2–2.6], delayed: 1.9 [1.6–2.3]). However, we found only a borderline increase in CVD risk after insulin initiation vs. before in early (aHR: 1.4 [1.1–1.8]) and delayed users (aHR: 1.3 [1.0–1.7]), and no increase in in-time users (aHR: 1.3 [0.9–2.0]).

Conclusions

We observed no gains in CVD benefits from insulin initiation in the early stages of pharmacotherapy possibly because CVD developed before insulin initiation. Additional management of hypertension and dyslipidemia may be important to reduce CVD risk in this young and middle-aged T2D cohort.

Hypoglycaemia risk in the first 8 weeks of titration with insulin glargine 100 U/mL in previously insulin-naive individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Patient characteristics associated with hypoglycaemia frequency during insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) titration and clinical outcomes at Week 24 were examined using participant-level data from 16 treat-to-target trials involving individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetes drugs and were initiating Gla-100 (n = 3549). Hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose <3.9 mmol/L or severe) during the first 8 weeks of titration was stratified by number of events (0, 1-3 and ≥4), resulting in 72.5%, 20.6% and 6.9% of participants in each group, respectively. Changes in glycaemia, body weight and insulin dose from baseline to Weeks 12 and 24 were analysed. Hypoglycaemia was more common in participants with lower BMI and fasting C-peptide, and in those undergoing sulfonylurea treatment. Glycaemic outcomes at Week 24 were similar in each hypoglycaemia group, despite the fact that the Week 24 mean daily dose and dose increase for Gla-100 were highest in participants without hypoglycaemia and were lowest in those experiencing ≥4 events. The risk of hypoglycaemia during Gla-100 titration depends mainly on patient characteristics and on sulfonylurea use and may delay dose titration, which apparently has little effect on short-term glycaemic control in a clinical trial setting.

Probability of Achieving Glycemic Control with Basal Insulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Real-World Practice in the USA

INTRODUCTION

Basal insulin (BI) plays an important role in treating type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially when oral antidiabetic (OAD) medications are insufficient for glycemic control. We conducted a retrospective, observational study using electronic medical records (EMR) data from the IBM^® Explorys database to evaluate the probability of achieving glycemic control over 24 months after BI initiation in patients with T2D in the USA.

METHODS

A cohort of 6597 patients with T2D who started BI following OAD(s) and had at least one valid glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) result recorded both within 90 days before and 720 days after BI initiation were selected. We estimated the changes from baseline in HbA1c every 6 months, the quarterly conditional probabilities of reaching HbA1c < 7% if a patient had not achieved glycemic control prior to each quarter (Q), and the cumulative probability of reaching glycemic control over 24 months.

RESULTS

Our cohort was representative of patients with T2D who initiated BI from OADs in the USA. The average HbA1c was 9.1% at BI initiation, and decreased robustly (1.5%) in the first 6 months after initiation with no further reductions thereafter. The conditional probability of reaching glycemic control decreased rapidly in the first year (26.6% in Q2; 17.6% in Q3; 8.6% in Q4), and then remained low (≤ 6.1%) for each quarter in the second year. Cumulatively, about 38% of patients reached HbA1c < 7% in the first year; only approximately 8% more did so in the second year.

CONCLUSION

Our study of real-world data from a large US EMR database suggested that among patients with T2D who initiated BI after OADs, the likelihood of reaching glycemic control diminished over time, and remained low from 12 months onwards. Additional treatment options should be considered if patients do not reach glycemic control within 12 months of BI initiation.

FUNDING

Sanofi Corporation.

Initiating therapy in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes: Combination therapy vs a stepwise approach

There is clear evidence that achieving glycaemic targets reduces the risk of developing complications as a result of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Many patients, however, continue to have suboptimal glycaemic control because of issues that include unclear advice on how to achieve these targets as well as clinical inertia. The two management approaches recommended for patients newly diagnosed with T2D are stepwise and combination therapy, each of which has advantages and disadvantages. Stepwise therapy may result in good patient adherence and allow greater individualization of therapy, and minimization of side effects and cost, and so may be appropriate for patients who are closer to goal. Stepwise therapy, however, may also lead to frequent delays in achieving glycaemic goals and longer exposure to hyperglycaemia. Combination therapy, which is now emerging as an important therapy option, has a number of potential advantages over stepwise therapy, including reduction in clinical inertia and earlier and more frequent achievement of glycated haemoglobin goals by targeting multiple pathogenic mechanisms simultaneously, which may more effectively delay disease progression. Compared with stepwise therapy, the disadvantages of combination therapy include reduced patient adherence resulting from complex, multi-drug regimens, difficulty determining the cause of poor efficacy and/or side effects, patient refusal to accept disease, and higher cost. Fixed-dose and fixed-ratio combinations are novel therapeutic approaches which may help address several issues of treatment complexity and patient burden associated with combination therapy comprising individual drugs. The choice of which drugs to administer and the decision to use stepwise vs combination therapy, however, should always be made on an individualized basis.