Lower rates of hypoglycaemia in older individuals with type 2 diabetes using insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100: Results from SWITCH 2

In-Hospital Management of Hyperglycemia: The Role of Insulin Degludec

INTRODUCTION

Hyperglycemia is a common and challenging condition in hospitalized patients both with and without a history of diabetes. Managing hyperglycemia effectively is critical in reducing complications, mortality, and the length of hospital stays. Insulin degludec (IDeg), an ultralong-acting basal insulin, has a well-established efficacy and safety profile in terms of managing hyperglycemia in outpatients; it has demonstrated benefits in clinical practice across various patient populations. This review aims to assess the evidence on its clinical suitability, as well as efficacy and safety, for managing hyperglycemia across different inpatient populations. The review specifically focuses on outcomes such as glycemic control, glycemic variability, safety (particularly hypoglycemia risk), dosing flexibility, ease of titration, and use in special populations.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed to identify studies published between 2014 and 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, real-world evidence, and case series that examined the use of IDeg for hyperglycemia management in hospitalized patients.

RESULTS

The reviewed studies consistently demonstrated that IDeg provides stable and predictable glycemic control with low glycemic variability. The ultralong duration of action, ability to be titrated daily, and flexibility in dosing make IDeg suitable for noncritical care settings with difficult-to-maintain rigid insulin schedules. Furthermore, the risk of hypoglycemia, particularly nocturnal hypoglycemia, is low with IDeg. These attributes are beneficial across diverse inpatient populations. Practical advantages, such as ease of administration with a specialized delivery device, further support its use in hospital settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of IDeg, reduced glycemic variability, low hypoglycemia risk, ease of daily titration, and dosing flexibility make it appropriate for managing hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients.

Expert Opinion on Current Trends in the Use of Insulin in the Management of People with Type 2 Diabetes from the South-Eastern European Region and Israel

Despite the availability of various antihyperglycaemic therapies and comprehensive guidelines, glycaemic control in diabetes management has not improved significantly during the last decade in the real-world clinical setting. Treatment inertia arising from a complex interplay among patient-, clinician- and healthcare-system-related factors is the prime reason for this suboptimal glycaemic control. Also, the key factor leading to inadequate glycaemic levels remains limited communication between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and people with type 2 diabetes (PwT2D). Early insulin administration has several advantages including reduced glucotoxicity, high efficacy and preserved β-cell mass/function, leading to lowering the risk of diabetes complications. The current publication is based on consensus of experts from the South-Eastern European region and Israel who reviewed the existing evidence and guidelines for the treatment of PwT2D. Herein, the experts emphasised the timely use of insulin, preferably second-generation basal insulin (BI) analogues and intensification using basal-plus therapy, as the most-potent glucose-lowering treatment choice in the real-world clinical setting. Despite an increase in the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), the experts urged timely insulin initiation for inadequate glycaemic control in PwT2D. Furthermore, the combination of BI and GLP-1 RA addressing both fasting plasma glucose and post-prandial excursions as a free- or fixed-ratio combination was identified to reduce treatment complexity and burden. To minimise discontinuation and improve adherence, the experts reiterated quality, regular interactions and discussions between HCPs and PwT2D/carers for their involvement in the diabetes management decision-making process. Clinicians and HCPs should consider the opinions of the experts in accordance with the most recent recommendations for diabetes management.

The use of long-acting insulin degludec in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in real clinical practice in Russia

BACKGROUND: Effective glycaemic control remains the most important task in managing the risks of Diabetes type 2 complications development. In this regard, the choice of insulin preparations with minimal variability of action is of utmost importance since this approach allows achieving the maximum treatment effectiveness and adequate safety level.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate insulin degludec treatment effect on glycemic control in adult patients with Diabetes Mellitus (DM) type 2 in a real-world clinical setting in the Russian Federation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The open prospective study was conducted in 2020–2021 in 35 clinical centers in 31 cities of the Russian Federation. The study included adult patients with type 2 DM treated according to Russian routine clinical practice. The prospective follow-up period was 26 weeks. The main study endpoints were changes in HbA1c level, fasting plasma glucose, insulin daily doses, number, and characteristics of different types of hypoglycaemia episodes and adverse events (AEs), and patient preferences compared to previous treatment.

RESULTS: The study enrolled 494 patients. By the end of follow-up period:

CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in glycemic control, accompanied by basal insulin dose decrease combined with the absence of severe episodes of hypoglycemia, and significant decrease of nonsevere episodes (total and nocturnal). These results led to a large proportion of patients wanting to continue insulin degludec treatment preferring the medicine over previous treatment.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

Evaluation of Reference Metrics for Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Persons Without Diabetes and Prediabetes

BACKGROUND

Recent guidelines have been developed for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics in persons with diabetes. To understand what glucose profiles should be judged as normal in clinical practice and glucose-lowering trials, we examined the glucose profile of healthy individuals using CGM.

METHODS

Persons without diabetes or prediabetes were included after passing a normal oral glucose tolerance test, two-hour value <8.9 mmol/L (160 mg/dL), fasting glucose <6.1 mmol/L (110 mg/dL), and HbA1c <6.0% (<42 mmol/mol). CGM metrics were evaluated using the Dexcom G4 Platinum.

RESULTS

In total, 60 persons were included, mean age was 43.0 years, 70.0% were women, mean HbA1c was 5.3% (34 mmol/mol), and mean body mass index was 25.7 kg/m². Median and mean percent times in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) were 1.6% (IQR 0.6-3.2), and 3.2% (95% CI 2.0; 4.3), respectively. For glucose levels <3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL), the corresponding estimates were 0.0% (IQR 0.0-0.4) and 0.5% (95% CI 0.2; 0.8). Median and mean time-in-range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]) was 97.3% (IQR 95.4-98.7) and 95.4% (95% CI 94.0; 96.8), respectively. Median and mean standard deviations were 1.04 mmol/L (IQR 0.92-1.29) and 1.15 mmol/L (95% CI 1.05; 1.24), respectively. Measures of glycemic variability (standard deviation, coefficient of variation, mean amplitude of glycemic excursions) were significantly greater during daytime compared with nighttime, whereas others did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

People without prediabetes or diabetes show a non-negligible % time in hypoglycemia, median 1.6% and mean 3.2%, which needs to be accounted for in clinical practice and glucose-lowering trials. Glycemic variability measures differ day and night in this population.

Effect of Newer Long-Acting Insulins on Hypoglycemia and Fracture Risk Among People with Diabetes: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To investigate the effect of newer long-acting insulins on the risk of hypoglycemic episodes and fractures in people with diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hypoglycemic episodes are the critical limiting factor in glycemic management due to a deteriorating effect on quality of life. Hypoglycemia may in severe cases lead to unconsciousness and thus fractures. Newer long-acting insulins may result in more stable blood glucose levels, less hypoglycemic episodes, and reduced risk of fractures. Use of insulin increases risk of hypoglycemic episodes, and hypoglycemic episodes increase risk of fractures plausible due to falls. Newer ultra-long-acting insulins reduce risk of hypoglycemic episodes compared to older alternatives, and they are thus promising for reducing fracture risk. However, more studies are needed to determine whether these new insulins reduce risk of fractures.

The Value of Insulin Degludec in Frail Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

Insulin represents a mainstay of glucose-lowering therapy for many adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Insulin treatments prescribed as standard care for the majority of people with T2DM, such as basal human insulin, may not be optimal in the treatment of frail older adults because of the increased demand on health care staff to administer multiple daily injections and monitor the patient. When choosing an insulin regimen for a frail older person with T2DM, predictability of glucose lowering effect, risk of hypoglycaemia, ease of administration, and simplicity and flexibility of dosing are major determining factors. Multiple daily injections may be too complex for older frail adults, whilst providing an unnecessary degree of tight glycaemic control and low doses of once-daily basal insulin analogues such as insulin degludec may be a reasonable option as cognitive decline or functional disability increases. Although insulin degludec has a substantially higher acquisition cost than routinely used basal human insulin, it has a longer, more predictable pharmacological profile and is more amenable to once-daily administration, translating into a reduced burden of care and potential cost savings for insulin-treated frail older adults. Insulin acquisition cost represents only a small proportion of the total cost of treatment, and it is important to consider the value perspective of insulin therapy in frail older adults from all stakeholders in the health care system.

Diabetes and Frailty: An Expert Consensus Statement on the Management of Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

Prognosis and appropriate treatment goals for older adults with diabetes vary greatly according to frailty. It is now recognised that changes may be needed to diabetes management in some older people. Whilst there is clear guidance on the evaluation of frailty and subsequent target setting for people living with frailty, there remains a lack of formal guidance for healthcare professionals in how to achieve these targets. The management of older adults with type 2 diabetes is complicated by comorbidities, shortened life expectancy and exaggerated consequences of adverse effects from treatment. In particular, older adults are more prone to hypoglycaemia and are more vulnerable to its consequences, including falls, fractures, hospitalisation, cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Thus, assessment of frailty should be a routine component of a diabetes review for all older adults, and glycaemic targets and therapeutic choices should be modified accordingly. Evidence suggests that over-treatment of older adults with type 2 diabetes is common, with many having had their regimens intensified over preceding years when they were in better health, or during more recent acute hospital admissions when their blood glucose levels might have been atypically high, and nutritional intake may vary. In addition, assistance in taking medications, as often occurs in later life following implementation of community care strategies or admittance to a care home, may dramatically improve treatment adherence, leading to a fall in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. As a person with diabetes gets older, simplification, switching or de-escalation of the therapeutic regimen may be necessary, depending on their level of frailty and HbA1c levels. Consideration should be given, in particular, to de-escalation of therapies that may induce hypoglycaemia, such as sulphonylureas and shorter-acting insulins. We discuss the use of available glucose-lowering therapies in older adults and recommend simple glycaemic management algorithms according to their level of frailty.

Acute glycaemic management before, during and after exercise for cardiac rehabilitation participants with diabetes mellitus: a joint statement of the British and Canadian Associations of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation, the International Council for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation and the British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences

Type 1 (T1) and type 2 (T2) diabetes mellitus (DM) are significant precursors and comorbidities to cardiovascular disease and prevalence of both types is still rising globally. Currently,~25% of participants (and rising) attending cardiac rehabilitation in Europe, North America and Australia have been reported to have DM (>90% have T2DM). While there is some debate over whether improving glycaemic control in those with heart disease can independently improve future cardiovascular health-related outcomes, for the individual patient whose blood glucose is well controlled, it can aid the exercise programme in being more efficacious. Good glycaemic management not only helps to mitigate the risk of acute glycaemic events during exercising, it also aids in achieving the requisite physiological and psycho-social aims of the exercise component of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). These benefits are strongly associated with effective behaviour change, including increased enjoyment, adherence and self-efficacy. It is known that CR participants with DM have lower uptake and adherence rates compared with those without DM. This expert statement provides CR practitioners with nine recommendations aimed to aid in the participant's improved blood glucose control before, during and after exercise so as to prevent the risk of glycaemic events that could mitigate their beneficial participation.

The Safety and Efficacy of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes at Risk of Hypoglycemia and Use in Other Special Populations: A Narrative Review

Hypoglycemia is a major barrier impeding glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus and creates a substantial burden on the healthcare system. Certain populations that require special attention, such as older adults and individuals with renal impairment, a longer duration of diabetes or those who have experienced prior hypoglycemia, may be at a higher risk of hypoglycemia, particularly with insulin treatment. Second-generation basal insulin analogues (insulin glargine 300 U/mL and degludec) have demonstrated reductions in hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL although evidence of this benefit across specific populations is less clear. In this review we summarize the literature with respect to the efficacy and safety data for second-generation basal insulin analogues in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are at risk of hypoglycemia or who require special attention. Randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses and real-world evidence demonstrate that the use of second-generation basal insulin analogues is associated with less hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL without compromising glycated hemoglobin control. A reduced risk of hypoglycemia with second-generation basal insulin analogues was evident in older adults and in individuals with obesity, renal impairment, a history of cardiovascular disease or a long duration of insulin use. Further studies are needed in other populations, including those with more severe renal impairment or hepatic dysfunction, the hospitalized population and those with cognitive impairment. Overall, less hypoglycemia associated with second-generation basal insulin analogues may help reduce barriers for insulin use, improve adherence and offset the costs of hypoglycemia-related healthcare resource utilization.

Lower rates of hypoglycaemia in older individuals with type 2 diabetes using insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100: Results from SWITCH 2

AIM

This study aimed to investigate the safety of insulin degludec (degludec) in relation to age and risk of hypoglycaemia post hoc in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (SWITCH 2 trial).

METHODS

In this crossover study, individuals with T2D who were at risk of hypoglycaemia were randomized to double-blind treatment with degludec or insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) ± oral antidiabetic drugs. After 32 weeks, patients crossed over to the other treatment. Primary endpoint was number of overall severe (positively adjudicated) or glucose-confirmed (plasma glucose <56 mg/dL; 3.1 mmol/L) symptomatic hypoglycaemia events during the two 16-week maintenance periods.

RESULTS

For individuals ≤65 (n = 450) and >65 (n = 270) years, baseline median (range) duration of diabetes was 12 (1-40) vs 15 (1-54) years, mean HbA1c was 7.7% vs 7.4% and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 87.0 vs 63.7 mL/min/1.73 m² , respectively. No significant differences in HbA1c reduction were seen in individuals ≤65 or >65 years. During both maintenance periods, treatment with degludec lowered rates of hypoglycaemia (overall/nocturnal symptomatic) vs those with glargine U100 in individuals ≤65 (31% vs 43%) and >65 (30% vs 41%) years. With degludec and glargine U100, respectively, six vs nine severe hypoglycaemic events occurred in individuals ≤65 years and four vs eight events occurred in those >65 years. Adverse event rates were 3.2 and 3.3 events/patient-year for individuals ≤65 years and were 3.5 and 4.1 events/patient-year for individuals >65 years with degludec and glargine U100, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with degludec was safe and effective, with a frequency of hypoglycaemia lower than that with glargine U100 in both younger and older individuals (>65 years) with T2D.