Effectiveness of premixed insulin to achieve glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: A retrospective UK cohort study

iGlarLixi versus premixed insulin initiation in adults with type 2 diabetes advancing from basal insulin therapy: The SoliComplex real-world study

AIM

To compare outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) suboptimally controlled with basal insulin who initiated treatment with iGlarLixi or premixed insulin.

METHODS

This retrospective real-world analysis was conducted using data from adults (age ≥ 18 years) with T2D in the US Optum Clinformatics database who had previously received basal insulin and newly initiated iGlarLixi or premixed insulin. Cohorts were propensity-score matched on baseline characteristics using a greedy nearest neighbour-matching algorithm, and outcomes were assessed at 12 months. Subgroup analyses were performed for those aged 65 years or older and those with a baseline HbA1c of 9% or higher. The primary endpoint was treatment persistence in the overall population. Secondary endpoints were treatment adherence, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), costs, hypoglycaemia events and change in HbA1c from baseline.

RESULTS

Each cohort comprised 834 participants. In the overall population, treatment persistence at 12 months was statistically significantly higher for iGlarLixi versus premixed insulin: 42.5% versus 39.1%; hazard ratio 0.88; 95% confidence interval 0.778-0.998; P = .0465. Adherence and HbA1c reduction were similar between groups, whereas hypoglycaemia events, HRU and costs were numerically lower for iGlarLixi. Outcomes in both the age 65 years or older subgroup and in those with an HbA1c of 9% or higher were consistent with those for the overall population.

CONCLUSIONS

In this observational study in people with T2D suboptimally controlled on basal insulin, once-daily iGlarLixi was an effective treatment alternative to premixed insulin with significantly higher treatment persistence, similar adherence and HbA1c reduction, and numerically lower hypoglycaemia events, HRU and costs, regardless of age or baseline HbA1c.

Cost-Effectiveness of iGlarLixi Versus Premix BIAsp 30 in People with Type 2 Diabetes Suboptimally Controlled by Basal Insulin in the US

INTRODUCTION

Many people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) experience suboptimal glycemic control and require therapy advancement. This cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare iGlarLixi (insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide) versus BIAsp 30 (biphasic insulin aspart 30) in people with T2DM suboptimally controlled with basal insulin.

METHODS

The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes for people with T2DM from a US healthcare payer perspective. Initial clinical data were based on the phase 3 randomized, open-label, active-controlled SoliMix clinical study, which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily iGlarLixi with twice-daily BIAsp 30. Lifetime costs (US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30 was estimated; the willingness-to-pay threshold was considered to be $50,000. A subgroup analysis considered people with T2DM aged ≥ 65 years.

RESULTS

Estimated QALYs gained were slightly higher with iGlarLixi compared with BIAsp 30 (9.3 vs. 9.2), with lower costs for iGlarLixi ($117,854 vs. $120,109); the ICER for iGlarLixi was therefore considered dominant over BIAsp 30 in the base case. Key drivers for cost savings were the higher dose and twice-daily administration for BIAsp 30 versus once-daily administration for iGlarLixi. The robustness of the base-case results was confirmed by sensitivity and scenario analyses. Results were similar in a subgroup of people with T2DM aged ≥ 65 years.

CONCLUSION

In people with T2DM with suboptimal glycemic control on basal insulin, iGlarLixi confers improved QALYs and reduced costs compared with BIAsp 30.

Expert Panel Guidance and Narrative Review of Treatment Simplification of Complex Insulin Regimens to Improve Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes

Given the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes (T2D), most individuals with the disease will ultimately undergo treatment intensification. This usually involves the stepwise addition of a new glucose-lowering agent or switching to a more complex insulin regimen. However, complex treatment regimens can result in an increased risk of hypoglycaemia and high treatment burden, which may impact negatively on both therapeutic adherence and overall quality of life. Individuals with good glycaemic control may also be overtreated with unnecessarily complex regimens. Treatment simplification aims to reduce individual treatment burden, without compromising therapeutic effectiveness or safety. Despite data showing that simplifying therapy can achieve good glycaemic control without negatively impacting on treatment efficacy or safety, it is not always implemented in clinical practice. Current clinical guidelines focus on treatment intensification, rather than simplification. Where simplification is recommended, clear guidance is lacking and mostly focused on treatment of the elderly. An expert, multidisciplinary panel evaluated the current treatment landscape with respect to guidance, published evidence, recommendations and approaches regarding simplification of complex insulin regimens. This article outlines the benefits of treatment simplification and provides practical recommendations on simplifying complex insulin treatment strategies in people with T2D using illustrative cases.

Real-Time Flash Glucose Monitoring Had Better Effects on Daily Glycemic Control Compared With Retrospective Flash Glucose Monitoring in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes on Premix Insulin Therapy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To compare the effects of real-time and retrospective flash glucose monitoring (FGM) on daily glycemic control and lifestyle in patients with type 2 diabetes on premix insulin therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 172 patients using premix insulin, with HbA1c ≥ 7.0% (56 mmol/mol), or the time below the target (TBR) ≥ 4%, or the coefficient of variation (CV) ≥36% during the screening period, were randomly assigned to retrospective FGM (n = 89) or real-time FGM group (n = 83). Another two retrospective or real-time 14-day FGMs were performed respectively, 1 month apart. Both groups received educations and medication adjustment after each FGM. Time in range (3.9~10.0 mmol/l, TIR) increased significantly after 3 months in the real-time FGM group (6.5%) compared with the retrospective FGM group (-1.1%) (p = 0.014). HbA1c decreased in both groups (both p < 0.01). Real-time FGMs increased daily exercise time compared with the retrospective group (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time FGM with visible blood glucose improves daily glycemic control and diabetes self-care behaviors better than retrospective FGM in patients with type 2 diabetes on premix insulin therapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov/NCT04847219.

Titratable fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin plus a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist: A novel, simplified alternative to premix insulin for type 2 diabetes

Despite novel therapeutic options, many people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) do not achieve their HbA1c targets. Given the progressive nature of T2D, many individuals not controlled with oral therapy will require advancement to injectable therapy using either a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), recently recommended as a first option, or traditionally a basal insulin. However, premix insulins remain frequently used, either as initial injectable therapy or as intensification from basal insulin. Premix insulin injections can potentially provide significant glycaemic improvements to basal insulin but at the expense of increased hypoglycaemia and weight gain and the need for multiple daily doses, which may affect treatment adherence. Real-world evidence suggests that glycaemic control often remains suboptimal with premix insulins. Fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of basal insulin and GLP-1 RAs provide a novel alternative to premix insulin for therapy intensification. While no direct comparisons between premix insulins and FRCs are available, results from meta-analyses suggest that FRCs may offer better HbA1c reductions, a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and less weight gain compared with premix insulin in a simplified treatment regimen. A head-to-head trial of T2D treatment intensification with premix insulin and a FRC of basal insulin plus a GLP-1 RA is currently in progress, which should help to clarify the outcomes for each treatment option. This review discusses the unmet needs of people with T2D treated with premix insulin and provides evidence supporting FRCs of basal insulin and GLP-1 RAs as an alternative treatment option.

Advancing therapy with iGlarLixi versus premix BIAsp 30 in basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: Design and baseline characteristics of the SoliMix randomized controlled trial

AIM

Premix insulin is commonly used in some regions of the world, despite the higher risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain compared with basal insulin, based on the premise that it offers a simplified insulin regimen. iGlarLixi is a once-daily titratable fixed-ratio formulation that combines basal insulin glargine 100 units/mL (iGlar) and the GLP-1 RA, lixisenatide, which offers a single-injection option for treatment intensification, with improved HbA1c reductions, similar hypoglycaemia risk and more favourable bodyweight profiles over iGlar alone. This randomized controlled study directly compares, for the first time, treatment intensification with iGlarLixi versus premix insulin analogue biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in adults with T2D inadequately controlled on basal insulin in combination with one or two oral antihyperglycaemic drugs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an open-label, active-controlled, comparative, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3b study. In total, 887 adults with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin were randomized to switch to either iGlarLixi once daily, or BIAsp 30 twice daily, for 26 weeks.

RESULTS

Overall, 887 participants were enrolled (mean age 59.8 years, 50.2% female) from 89 centres in 17 countries. At baseline, 65.6% had a duration of T2D of 10 years or longer, and the mean HbA1c at baseline was 8.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The study directly compared the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30 in people with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin and one or more oral antihyperglycaemic agents. These results provide robust clinical data that may inform clinicians in their therapeutic management of people with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin requiring additional therapy.

Effectiveness of premixed insulin to achieve glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: A retrospective UK cohort study

AIM

To investigate the effectiveness of premixed insulin for achieving glycaemic outcomes in clinical practice in the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic medical record data from The Health Improvement Network database were captured for adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled (HbA1c ≥9%) on two or more oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) initiating premixed insulin. Effectiveness of premixed insulin was assessed by the probability and incidence of achieving glycaemic outcomes (target HbA1c <7.5% [<58 mmol/mol] and a ≥1% or ≥2% HbA1c reduction) over 24 months.

RESULTS

Data from 974 participants (mean age 62 years; 56% male; 52% obese or extremely obese; mean HbA1c 11.3% [100 mmol/mol]; hypertension 64%, dyslipidaemia 23% and nephropathy 21%) were analysed. The probability of achieving HbA1c  <7.5% was highest during months 3-6 (18.2%), while the cumulative probability of achieving this target plateaued between months 15-24 (15.7%-16.0%). Incidence of achieving all glycaemic outcomes plateaued after 12 months and differed by baseline HbA1c, but not OAD use. Factors affecting some glycaemic outcomes included a body mass index >40 kg/m2 and co-morbidities including nephropathy and stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

In people with uncontrolled T2D (HbA1c ≥9%), glycaemic outcome achievement on premixed insulin was low at 6 months with little additional clinical benefit beyond 12 months, suggesting a high unmet need for early, timely treatment changes with more effective, simpler therapies.