Old and new basal insulin formulations: understanding pharmacodynamics is still relevant in clinical practice

Use of Insulin Glargine 100 U/mL for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in East Asians: A Review

Insulin glargine (IGlar) 100 U/mL (IGlar-100) is widely used in East Asian countries for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and is the gold standard of basal insulin treatment. In this review we summarize key information about clinical experience with IGlar-100 in East Asian patients with T2DM, including findings from clinical trials and postmarketing studies. We also provide recommendations and opinions on the optimal use of IGlar-100 in this population. The findings from the studies highlighted in our review indicate that IGlar-100 can be a suitable treatment option for East Asians with T2DM, from initial therapy in combination with oral antihyperglycemic medications through to different combinations and intensification models. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Day-to-Day and Within-Day Variability in Glucose-Lowering Effect Between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine (100 U/mL and 300 U/mL): A Comparison Across Studies

BACKGROUND

Insulin degludec (IDeg) has significantly lower day-to-day and within-day variability compared to insulin glargine (IGlar) 100U/mL (U100) and 300U/mL (U300). Here, we report post hoc assessments to confirm the robustness of these observations while accounting for potential experimental confounders.

METHODS

Two euglycemic clamp studies in type 1 diabetes patients, comparing IDeg to IGlar-U100 (Study A, parallel design, 54 patients; Study B, crossover, 22 patients) and one study comparing IDeg to IGlar-U300 (Study C, crossover, 57 patients), all dosed at 0.4U/kg, were evaluated. Pharmacodynamic parameters were assessed at steady state from glucose infusion rate (GIR) profiles following three 24-hour euglycemic clamps in Studies A (162 clamps) and C (342 clamps), and one 42-hour clamp in Study B (44 clamps).

RESULTS

Pooled data (Studies A and B) showed that IDeg had an even distribution of glucose-lowering effect over the 24-hour dosing interval that was consistent with Study C. IGlar-U100 showed a constant decrease in glucose-lowering effect over 24 hours while IGlar-U300 had a lower effect in the middle of the dosing interval (6-18 hours). Relative within-day variability of IDeg was 40% and 37% lower than IGlar-U100 and -U300, respectively. Exclusion of profiles with low response in Study C (19/342 clamps) did not impact the difference in the distribution of glucose-lowering effect or within-day variability. Day-to-day variability was significantly lower with IDeg compared to IGlar-U100 and -U300 based on smoothed and unsmoothed GIR data.

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly lower relative within-day and day-to-day variability was confirmed irrespective of experimental considerations for IDeg compared to IGlar-U100 and IGlar-U300.

Insulin delivery and nocturnal glucose control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes

Introduction: Nocturnal glucose control remains challenging in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes due to highly variable overnight insulin requirements. The issue may be addressed by glucose responsive insulin delivery based on real-time continuous glucose measurements.

Areas covered: This review outlines recent developments of glucose responsive insulin delivery systems from a paediatric perspective. We cover threshold-based suspend application, predictive low glucose suspend, and more advanced single hormone and dual-hormone closed-loop systems. Approaches are evaluated in relation to nocturnal glucose control particularly during outpatient randomised controlled trials.

Expert opinion: Significant progress translating research from controlled clinical centre settings to free-living unsupervised home studies have been achieved over the past decade. Nocturnal glycaemic control can be improved whilst reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia with closed-loop systems. Following the US regulatory approval of the first hybrid closed-loop system in non-paediatric population, large multinational closed-loop clinical trials and pivotal studies including paediatric populations are underway or in preparation to facilitate the use of closed-loop systems in clinical practice.

Insulin degludec: Lower day-to-day and within-day variability in pharmacodynamic response compared with insulin glargine 300 U/mL in type 1 diabetes

AIM

To compare day-to-day and within-day variability in glucose-lowering effect between insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine 300 U/mL (IGlar-U300) in type 1 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this double-blind, crossover study, patients were randomly assigned to 0.4 U/kg of IDeg or IGlar-U300 once daily for two treatment periods lasting 12 days each. Pharmacodynamic variables were assessed at steady-state from the glucose infusion rate profiles of three 24-hour euglycaemic glucose clamps (days 6, 9 and 12) during each treatment period.

RESULTS

Overall, 57 patients completed both treatment periods (342 clamps). The potency of IGlar-U300 was 30% lower than IDeg (estimated ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61; 0.80; P  < .0001). The distribution of glucose-lowering effect was stable across 6-hour intervals (24%-26%) for IDeg, while IGlar-U300 had greater effects in the first (35%) and last (28%) intervals compared with 6 to 12 hours (20%) and 12 to 18 hours (17%). Within-day variability (relative fluctuation) was 37% lower with IDeg than with IGlar-U300 (estimated ratio IDeg/IGlar-U300: 0.63, 95% CI 0.54; 0.73; P  < .0001). The day-to-day variability in glucose-lowering effect with IDeg was approximately 4 times lower than IGlar-U300 (variance ratio IGlar-U300/IDeg: 3.70, 95% CI 2.42; 5.67; P  < .0001). The day-to-day variability in glucose-lowering effect assessed in 2-hour intervals was consistently low with IDeg over 24 hours, but steadily increased with IGlar-U300 to a maximum at 10 to 12 hours and 12 to 14 hours after dosing (variance ratios 12.4 and 11.4, respectively).

CONCLUSION

IDeg has lower day-to-day and within-day variability than IGlar-U300 and a more stable glucose-lowering effect, which might facilitate titration and enable tighter glycaemic control with a reduced risk of hypoglycaemia.

A randomized clinical trial of basal insulin peglispro vs NPH in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: the IMAGINE 6 trial

AIMS

Basal insulin peglispro (BIL) has a longer duration of action than conventional insulin analogues and a hepato-preferential mechanism of action. This study assessed whether BIL was non-inferior to isophane insulin (NPH) in reducing HbA1c in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes, when added to pre-study oral anti-hyperglycaemic medications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a Phase 3, open-label, treat-to-target (TTT), randomized trial with a 2-week lead-in, 26-week treatment and a 4-week safety follow-up period. Patients were randomized to bedtime (pm) NPH, morning (am) BIL or pm BIL in a 1:1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

Six hundred and forty-one patients [NPH, n = 213; BIL, n = 428 (am, n = 213; pm, n = 215)] received study drug. BIL was non-inferior to NPH for HbA1c change from baseline at Week 26 with a between-treatment difference (95% confidence interval) of -0.37% (-0.50, -0.23%). HbA1c at baseline was 8.5%, and was lower in BIL- vs NPH-treated patients after 26 weeks of treatment (6.8% vs 7.1%; P < .001). More BIL-treated patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% and HbA1c <7.0% without nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Fasting serum glucose levels and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were lower in BIL-treated patients; total hypoglycaemia rates were similar. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups. Fasting triglycerides decreased from baseline in both groups and to a greater extent with NPH, but were not significantly different between groups at Week 26. Mean alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increased with BIL treatment, but there was no evidence of acute severe hepatotoxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

In this TTT study, BIL treatment showed clinically relevant improvements in glycaemic control and a significant reduction in nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared to NPH.

U300 Insulin Glargine: A Novel Basal Insulin for Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: To review clinical efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300), a novel high-concentration basal insulin. Data Sources: A MEDLINE search was performed to identify relevant articles published 1960 through February 2015 using the search term glargine 300. Published abstracts from conference proceedings of the American Diabetes Association 74th Scientific Sessions were identified. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Human studies that evaluated pharmacokinetics, efficacy, or safety of Gla-300 were included. Data Synthesis: Six trials investigated efficacy and safety of Gla-300; 3 of 6 trials were available in abstract form only. The EDITION group of trials compared Gla-300 to insulin glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in several populations. These included subjects with type 1 diabetes continuing mealtime insulin and subjects with type 2 diabetes on basal and mealtime insulin, basal insulin and oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), and with no prior insulin use. Three studies were multinational including 2 studies exclusive to Japanese participants. Each clinical trial was an open-label, multicenter, randomized study with 6 to 12 months of follow-up. Gla-300 demonstrated similar reductions in HbA1c compared to Gla-100. Basal insulin requirements increased by 11% to 17% with Gla-300 without excessive weight gain. Rates of overall hypoglycemia were similar with Gla-300 compared to Gla-100; however, 16% to 38% less nocturnal hypoglycemia was observed in type 2 clinical trials. Conclusions: Gla-300 in combination with mealtime insulin or OADs has shown comparable glycemic control with higher insulin dose requirements versus Gla-100, and may induce less hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Pharmacological treatment of diabetes in older people

The pharmacological management of diabetes in older people is complex and challenging. It requires a comprehensive understanding of the individual beyond the diabetes itself. Through the ageing years, the older individual presents with diabetes-related and non-related comorbidities and complications, develops functional limitations and psychological issues, and may lack social support and access to care. A disturbance in these categories, known as the four geriatric domains, will negatively affect diabetes self-management and self-efficacy, leading to poor outcomes and complications. Furthermore, older people with diabetes may be more interested in the management of other chronic conditions such as pain or impaired mobility, and diabetes may be lower in their list of priorities. Proper education must be provided to the older individual and caregivers, with continuous monitoring and counselling, especially when pharmacological interventions offer risks of side effects, adverse reactions and interactions with other medications. Informed shared medical decisions will help to improve adherence to the regimen; however, such discussions ought to be based on the best evidence available, which is unfortunately limited in this age group. We performed a review focused on pharmacological agents and summarize current evidence on their use for the treatment of diabetes in older people. We encourage clinicians to investigate and incorporate the four geriatrics domains in the selection and monitoring of these agents.