Molecular and pharmacological characterization of insulin icodec: a new basal insulin analog designed for once-weekly dosing

Counseling for Insulin Icodec: A Proposed Practitioner's Guide

Despite insulin being a lifesaving medication, insulin distress, insulin hesitancy, and insulin inertia remain oft-repeated themes in diabetes discourse. The current model lists three issues: temperament, troublesomeness, and technicality, which contribute to insulin perceptions. Therapeutic patienteducation (TPE), value-added therapy (VAT), and medication counseling are concepts that assist in optimizing insulin perceptions. Insulin icodec is a basal insulin with a half-life of 196 h and a once-weekly or circaseptan frequency of administration. Insulin icodec reduces the frequency of basal insulin administration to one-seventh, which along with the lower requirement of glucose monitoring, reduces the burden of plastic and ancillary supply disposal. Because of its unique frequency of injection, insulin icodec usage requires appropriate counseling and education. This reader-friendly counseling guide helps practitioners offer VAT, as well as TPE while prescribing icodec and other insulins.

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.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, two-period crossover trial, 66 individuals with T1D (age 18-64 years; glycated haemoglobin ≤75 mmol/mol [≤ 9%]) were to receive once-weekly icodec (8 weeks) and once-daily insulin glargine U100 (2 weeks) at individualized fixed equimolar total weekly doses established during up to 10 weeks' run-in with glargine U100 titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose (PG) of 4.4-7.2 mmol/L (80-130 mg/dL). Insulin aspart was used as bolus insulin. Blood sampling for icodec pharmacokinetics was performed from the first icodec dose until 35 days after the last dose. The glucose infusion rate at steady state was assessed in glucose clamps (target 6.7 mmol/L [120 mg/dL]) at 16-52 h and 138-168 h after the last icodec dose and 0-24 h after the last glargine U100 dose. Icodec pharmacodynamics during 1 week were predicted by pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling. Hypoglycaemia was recorded during the treatment periods based on self-measured PG.

RESULTS

Icodec reached pharmacokinetic steady state on average within 2-3 weeks. At steady state, model-predicted daily proportions of glucose infusion rate during the 1-week dosing interval were 14.3%, 19.6%, 18.3%, 15.7%, 13.1%, 10.6% and 8.4%, respectively. Rates and duration of Level 2 hypoglycaemic episodes (PG <3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) were 32.8 versus 23.9 episodes per participant-year of exposure and 33 ± 25 versus 30 ± 18 min (mean ± SD) for icodec versus glargine U100.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of icodec suggest its potential to provide basal coverage in a basal-bolus insulin regimen in people with T1D.

Once-weekly insulins: a promising approach to reduce the treatment burden in people with diabetes

Despite the availability of new classes of glucose-lowering drugs that improve glycaemic levels and minimise long-term complications, at least 20-25% of people with type 2 diabetes require insulin therapy. Moreover, a substantial proportion of these individuals do not achieve adequate metabolic control following insulin initiation. This is due to several factors: therapeutic inertia, fear of hypoglycaemia and/or weight gain, poor communication, complexity of insulin titration, and the number of injections needed, with the associated reduced adherence to insulin therapy. Once-weekly insulins provide a unique opportunity to simplify basal insulin therapy and to allow good glycaemic control with a low risk of hypoglycaemia. Several approaches to developing a stable and effective once-weekly insulin have been proposed, but, to date, insulin icodec and basal insulin Fc (insulin efsitora alfa) are the only two formulations for which clinical studies have been reported. The results of Phase I and II studies emphasise both efficacy (in term of glucose levels) and potential risks and adverse events. Phase III studies involving insulin icodec are reassuring regarding the risk of hypoglycaemia compared with daily basal insulin analogues. Despite some concerns raised in ongoing clinical trials, the available data suggest that weekly insulins may also be an option for individuals with type 1 diabetes, especially when adherence is suboptimal. For the first time there is an opportunity to make an important breakthrough in basal insulin therapy, particularly in people with type 2 diabetes, and to improve not only the quality of life of people with diabetes, but also the practice of diabetologists.

What Is the Role of Basal Weekly Insulin in Clinical Practice? The State of the Art

Despite the advent of innovative therapies in the treatment of diabetes, ever-increasing awareness is still directed to the role of insulin since it has continued to be at the centre of diabetes therapy for decades, as a therapeutic integration of innovative agents in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), as the only replacement therapy in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and also in gestational diabetes. In this context, the study of molecules such as weekly basal insulins, both for their technological and pharmacodynamic innovation and their manageability and undoubted benefits in compliance with drug therapy, can only be a turning point in diabetes and for all its phenotypes. This review aims to provide insight into the knowledge of basal weekly insulins and their use in type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus by examining their safety, efficacy, manageability and increased therapeutic compliance.

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.

Molecular engineering of insulin for recombinant expression in yeast

Since the first administration of insulin to a person with diabetes in 1922, scientific contributions from academia and industry have improved insulin therapy and access. The pharmaceutical need for insulin is now more than 40 tons annually, half of which is produced by recombinant secretory expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We discuss how, in this yeast species, adaptation of insulin precursors by removable structural elements is pivotal for efficient secretory expression. The technologies reviewed have been implemented at industrial scale and are seminal for the supply of human insulin and insulin analogues to people with diabetes now and in the future. Engineering of a target protein with removable structural elements may provide a general approach to yield optimisation.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Based Metrics and Hypoglycemia Duration in Insulin-Experienced Individuals With Long-standing Type 2 Diabetes Switched From a Daily Basal Insulin to Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec: Post Hoc Analysis of ONWARDS 2 and ONWARDS 4

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc analysis assessed continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based metrics and hypoglycemia duration with once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin analogs in insulin-experienced individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes from two 26-week phase 3a trials (ONWARDS 2 and ONWARDS 4).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Time in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0 mmol/L), time above range (TAR) (>10.0 mmol/L), and time below range (TBR) (<3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L) were assessed during three CGM time periods (switch [weeks 0-4], end of treatment [weeks 22-26], and follow-up [weeks 27-31]) for icodec versus comparators (ONWARDS 2, insulin degludec [basal regimen]; ONWARDS 4, insulin glargine U100 [basal-bolus regimen]) using double-blind CGM data. CGM-derived hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was assessed.

RESULTS

In both trials, there were no statistically significant differences in TIR, TAR, or TBR (<3.0 mmol/L) for icodec versus comparators across all time periods. In the end-of-treatment period, mean TIR was 63.1% (icodec) vs. 59.5% (degludec) in ONWARDS 2 and 66.9% (icodec) vs. 66.4% (glargine U100) in ONWARDS 4. Mean TBR <3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L remained within recommended targets (<4% and <1%, respectively) across time periods and treatment arms. Hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was comparable across time periods and treatment arms (median duration ≤40 min).

CONCLUSIONS

In insulin-experienced participants with long-standing type 2 diabetes, CGM-based TIR, TAR, and CGM-derived hypoglycemia duration (<3.9 mmol/L) were comparable for icodec and once-daily basal insulin analogs during all time periods. TBR remained within recommended targets.

Current barriers to initiating insulin therapy in individuals with type 2 diabetes

Insulin is an essential drug in the treatment of diabetes, often necessary for managing hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). It should be considered in cases of severe hyperglycemia requiring hospitalization, after the failure of other treatments, in advanced chronic kidney disease, liver cirrhosis, post-transplant diabetes, or during pregnancy. Moreover, in specific patient subgroups, early initiation of insulin is crucial for hyperglycemia control and prevention of chronic complications. Clinical guidelines recommend initiating insulin when other treatments fail, although there are barriers that may delay its initiation. The timing of initiation depends on individual patient characteristics. Typically, insulinization starts by adding basal insulin to the patient's existing treatment and, if necessary, progresses by gradually introducing prandial insulin. Several barriers have been identified that hinder the initiation of insulin, including fear of hypoglycemia, lack of adherence, the need for glucose monitoring, the injection method of insulin administration, social rejection associated with the stigma of injections, weight gain, a sense of therapeutic failure at initiation, lack of experience among some healthcare professionals, and the delayed and reactive positioning of insulin in recent clinical guidelines. These barriers contribute, among other factors, to therapeutic inertia in initiating and intensifying insulin treatment and to patients' non-adherence. In this context, the development of once-weekly insulin formulations could improve initial acceptance, adherence, treatment satisfaction, and consequently, the quality of life for patients. Currently, two once-weekly basal insulins, insulin icodec and basal insulin BIF, which are in different stages of clinical development, may help. Their longer half-life translates to lower variability and reduced risk of hypoglycemia. This review addresses the need for insulin in T2DM, its positioning in clinical guidelines under specific circumstances, the current barriers to initiating and intensifying insulin treatment, and the potential role of once-weekly insulin formulations as a potential solution to facilitate timely initiation of insulinization, which would reduce therapeutic inertia and achieve better early control in people with T2DM.

Insulin's Legacy: A Century of Breakthroughs and Innovation

The clinical use of insulin to treat diabetes started just over 100 years ago. The past century has witnessed remarkable innovations in insulin therapy, evolving from animal organ extracts to bioengineered human insulins with ultra-rapid onset or prolonged action. Insulin delivery systems have also progressed to current automated insulin delivery systems. In this review, we discuss the history of insulin and the pharmacology and therapeutic indications for a variety of available insulins, especially newer analog insulins. We highlight recent advances in insulin pump therapy and review evidence on the therapeutic benefits of automated insulin delivery. As with any form of progress, there have been setbacks, and insulin has recently faced an affordability crisis. We address the challenges of insulin accessibility, along with recent progress to improve insulin affordability. Finally, we mention research on glucose-responsive insulins and hepato-preferential insulins that are likely to shape the future of insulin therapy.

Current usage of long-acting insulin analogs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Insulin treatment is fundamental to diabetes management. Basal insulin therapy reduces intraday glycemic fluctuations upon reaching a steady state. Besides better blood glucose regulation and achieving target HbA1c values in patients, it also offers protection from diabetes complications. In this review, we aimed to compare basal-acting insulins in light of the literature.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed current evidence related to diabetes treatment with basal insulins. This includes discussions on clinical trials and meta-analyses concerning first and second-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulins. Treatment indications for long-acting basal insulins, which have shown benefits and are considered superior or comparable to others in the literature, are derived from current clinical studies and meta-analyses, which form the basis of the recommendations in this review.

EXPERT OPINION

First and second-generation basal insulins do not show much superiority over each other in terms of blood glucose regulation and reaching the target HbA1c. However, second-generation basal insulins cause fewer hypoglycemic events. We recommend using the appropriate basal insulin in patient-based, individualized treatments. Basal insulin Icodec may become more widely used over time, owing to its association with less hypoglycemia and a reduction in the number of injections.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of ONWARDS phase 3 randomized controlled trials

AIM

Insulin icodec is a novel ultra-long action basal insulin analogue designed for once-weekly administration. With the merit of once-a-week administration, it promises better adherence and greater treatment satisfaction because of reduced injection frequency. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec in comparison with other basal insulin analogues in the management of type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines were followed during the conduct of this study. For the eligible studies, five databases and ClinicalTrials.gov were screened until July 2023. All randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin icodec in type 2 diabetes versus other insulin analogues were included. The extracted data were then analysed for meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Five clinical trials with 3764 participants were included. The meta-analysis showed that once-weekly insulin icodec had higher glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction [mean difference -0.17%, 95% confidence interval (CI; -0.28 to -0.06), p = .003], with no significant difference in fasting plasma glucose compared with other insulin analogues. HbA1c achievement <7% [odds ratio 1.51, 95% CI (1.14-1.99), p = .004] and HbA1c achievement <7% without hypoglycaemia [odds ratio 1.45, 95% CI (1.26-1.67), p < .00001] were observed in higher proportions with insulin icodec compared with the comparator group. The percentage of time spent in the target glycaemic range was comparatively similar between insulin icodec and the comparator [mean difference 2.42%, 95% CI (0.01-4.84), p = .05]. There was a significantly higher incidence of level 1 hypoglycaemia with insulin icodec but no significant difference was seen for the incidence of levels 2, 3 and combined 2/3 hypoglycaemia. Any adverse events and adverse events related to basal insulin were comparably similar in insulin icodec and comparators. The subgroup analysis of once-weekly insulin icodec with individual insulin analogues (glargine U100 and degludec) showed that insulin icodec had similar efficacy with insulin glargine U100 but superior efficacy with higher HbA1c reduction with insulin icodec compared with insulin degludec. The safety profile was comparable between insulin icodec and glargine U100, whereas insulin icodec reported higher incidence of hypoglycaemia events and any adverse events when compared with degludec.

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly insulin icodec showed a better HbA1c reduction with a higher proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets in comparison with once-daily basal insulin analogues. They were no major safety concerns with respect to hypoglycaemia or adverse events.

[Evolution of insulin therapy: past, present, future]

2021 marks the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin, an event that forever changed the lives of people with diabetes mellitus. At present patients around the world experience the miracle of insulin therapy every day. A disease that used to kill children and teenagers in 2 years in 1920 has become a disease that can be controlled with a possibility to lead a long productive life. Over the past century, the great discovery of Banting, Best and Collip has forever changed the world and saved millions of lives. This review is devoted to the history of the development of insulin and its further improvement: from the moment of discovery to the present days. Various generations of insulin are considered: from animals to modern ultrashort and basal analogues. The article ends with a brief review of current trends in the development of new delivery methods and the development of new insulin molecules. Over the past century, insulin therapy has come a long way, which has significantly improved the quality of life of our patients. But research is actively continuing, including in the field of alternative methods of insulin delivery, which are more convenient for the patient, as well as in the development of «smart» molecules that will have a glucose-dependent effect.

Once-weekly Insulin Icodec Versus Once-daily Long-acting Insulin for Type II Diabetes: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Insulin icodec is a novel basal insulin analog with once-weekly subcutaneous administration. We aim to estimate the efficacy and safety of insulin icodec vs long-acting insulin (insulin glargine and degludec) in type II diabetic patients.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through May 29, 2023. We used RevMan V. 5.4 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Our primary outcome was glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) change.

Results

We included 7 RCTs with a total of 3183 patients. Insulin icodec was associated with significantly decreased HbA1C (MD: -0.15 with 95% CI [-0.24, -0.06], P = .002) and increased percentage of time with glucose in range (TIR) (MD: 4.06 with 95% CI [2.06, 6.06], P = .0001). However, insulin icodec was associated with increased body weight (MD: 0.57 with 95% CI [0.45, 0.70], P = .00001). Also, there was no difference regarding any serious adverse events (AEs) (RR: 0.96 with 95% CI [0.76, 1.20], P = .7) or AEs leading to withdrawal (RR: 1.54 with 95% CI [0.84, 2.82], P = .16). However, insulin icodec was associated with increased any AEs incidence (RR: 1.06 with 95% CI [1.01, 1.12], P = .02).

Conclusion

Insulin icodec was associated with decreased HbA1C, increased TIR, with similar hypoglycemic and serious AEs. However, it was also associated with increased body weight and the incidence of any AEs.

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Insulin Regimes on Glycemic Control for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials have found that once-weekly insulin resulted in greater glycemic control compared to once-daily insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, no direct comparisons have been made between different types of once-weekly insulin thus far. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of the two most advanced once-weekly insulin analogues, namely insulin icodec and insulin Fc, in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough search in the databases PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The search included articles published from the beginning to October 10, 2023, with no language limitations. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness and safety of once-weekly insulin in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Our primary outcome was to evaluate excellent glycemic control, defined as patients achieving glycated hemoglobin levels below 7%.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 7 trials involving 2829 patients. The results showed that once-weekly insulin icodec is more effective than once-weekly insulin Fc (RR 1.59 [95% CI 1.08-2.38]), once-daily degludec (RR 1.43 [95% CI 1.14-1.83]), and once-daily glargine (RR 1.15 [95% CI 1.00-1.41]). Moreover, the incidence of severe hypoglycemia was lower with once-weekly insulin icodec compared to once-daily degludec (RR 0.00016 [95% CI 0 to 0.41]). However, no significant difference in the incidence of severe hypoglycemia was observed between once-weekly insulin icodec and once-daily glargine (RR 0.39 [95% CI 0.03 to 4.83]).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly insulin icodec achieved superior glycemic control compared to once-weekly insulin Fc, with no significant difference in the occurrence of hypoglycemia. The ranking probability results have shown that one weekly icodec seems to be the preferred option in patients with type 2 diabetes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42023470894.

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.

Once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec as part of a basal-bolus regimen in individuals with type 1 diabetes (ONWARDS 6): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target trial

BACKGROUND

ONWARDS 6 compared the efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneous insulin icodec (icodec) and once-daily insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

This 52-week (26-week main phase plus a 26-week safety extension), randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, phase 3a trial was done at 99 sites across 12 countries. Adults with type 1 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] <10·0% [86 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned (1:1) to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, both in combination with insulin aspart (two or more daily injections). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26, tested for non-inferiority (0·3 percentage point margin) in all randomly assigned participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04848480, and is now complete.

FINDINGS

Between April 30 and Oct 15, 2021, of 655 participants screened, 582 participants were randomly assigned to icodec (n=290) or degludec (n=292). At week 26, from baseline values of 7·59% (icodec) and 7·63% (degludec), estimated mean changes in HbA1c were -0·47 percentage points and -0·51 percentage points, respectively (estimated treatment difference 0·05 percentage points [95% CI -0·13 to 0·23]), confirming non-inferiority of icodec to degludec (p=0·0065). Overall rate of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia (baseline to week 26) was statistically significantly higher with icodec than degludec (19·9 vs 10·4 events per patient-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 1·9 [95% CI 1·5 to 2·3]; p<0·0001). The rate was also statistically significantly higher with icodec than degludec when evaluated over 57 weeks (52 weeks plus a 5-week follow-up period). 39 serious adverse events were reported in 24 (8%) participants receiving icodec, and 25 serious adverse events were reported in 20 (7%) participants receiving degludec. One participant in the icodec group died; this was judged unlikely to be due to the trial product.

INTERPRETATION

In adults with type 1 diabetes, once-weekly icodec showed non-inferiority to once-daily degludec in HbA1c reduction at week 26, with statistically significantly higher rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia. For icodec, time below 3·0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL) was at the threshold of the internationally recommended target (<1%) during weeks 22-26 and below target during weeks 48-52.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Current Status of Weekly Insulin Analogs and Their Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Evaluation by the Euglycemic Clamp Technique

Diabetes mellitus represents a significant global health threat characterized by hyperglycemia caused by inadequate insulin secretion and/or insulin resistance. Exogenous insulin supplements had been recognized as a crucial treatment for achieving successful glycemic control in patients with Type 1 and most patients with Type 2 diabetes. Over the past century, substantial progress has been made in the development of novel insulin formulations, including the super-fast-acting and long-acting basal insulin analogs, of which the latter is indispensable for the management of nocturnal fasting and intraprandial blood glucose within the normal physiological range. Recently, combining chemical and genetic engineering with drug optimization have resulted in a formidable evolution in ultra-long-acting weekly insulin. Here, the current state of once-weekly insulin analogs and the euglycemic clamp technique used in the early clinical development to elucidate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of this type of novel weekly insulin analogs were systematically overviewed.

Hypoglycaemia frequency and physiological response after double or triple doses of once-weekly insulin icodec vs once-daily insulin glargine U100 in type 2 diabetes: a randomised crossover trial

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

This study compared the frequency of hypoglycaemia, time to hypoglycaemia and recovery from hypoglycaemia after double or triple doses of once-weekly insulin icodec vs once-daily insulin glargine U100. Furthermore, the symptomatic and counterregulatory responses to hypoglycaemia were compared between icodec and glargine U100 treatment.

METHODS

In a randomised, single-centre (Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria), open-label, two-period crossover trial, individuals with type 2 diabetes (age 18-72 years, BMI 18.5-37.9 kg/m2, HbA1c ≤75 mmol/mol [≤9.0%]) treated with basal insulin with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs received once-weekly icodec (for 6 weeks) and once-daily glargine U100 (for 11 days). Total weekly doses were equimolar based on individual titration of daily glargine U100 during the run-in period (target fasting plasma glucose [PG]: 4.4-7.2 mmol/l). Randomisation was carried out by assigning a randomisation number to each participant in ascending order, which encoded to one of two treatment sequences via a randomisation list prepared prior to the start of the trial. At steady state, double and triple doses of icodec and glargine U100 were administered followed by hypoglycaemia induction: first, euglycaemia was maintained at 5.5 mmol/l by variable i.v. infusion of glucose; glucose infusion was then terminated, allowing PG to decrease to no less than 2.5 mmol/l (target PGnadir). The PGnadir was maintained for 15 min. Euglycaemia was restored by constant i.v. glucose (5.5 mg kg-1 min-1). Hypoglycaemic symptoms score (HSS), counterregulatory hormones, vital signs and cognitive function were assessed at predefined PG levels towards the PGnadir.

RESULTS

Hypoglycaemia induction was initiated in 43 and 42 participants after double dose of icodec and glargine U100, respectively, and in 38 and 40 participants after triple doses, respectively. Clinically significant hypoglycaemia, defined as PGnadir <3.0 mmol/l, occurred in comparable proportions of individuals treated with icodec vs glargine U100 after double (17 [39.5%] vs 15 [35.7%]; p=0.63) and triple (20 [52.6%] vs 28 [70.0%]; p=0.14) doses. No statistically significant treatment differences were observed in the time to decline from PG values of 5.5 mmol/l to 3.0 mmol/l (2.9-4.5 h after double dose and 2.2-2.4 h after triple dose of the insulin products). The proportion of participants with PGnadir ≤2.5 mmol/l was comparable between treatments after double dose (2 [4.7%] for icodec vs 3 [7.1%] for glargine U100; p=0.63) but higher for glargine U100 after triple dose (1 [2.6%] vs 10 [25.0%]; p=0.03). Recovery from hypoglycaemia by constant i.v. glucose infusion took <30 min for all treatments. Analyses of the physiological response to hypoglycaemia only included data from participants with PGnadir <3.0 mmol/l and/or the presence of hypoglycaemic symptoms; in total 20 (46.5%) and 19 (45.2%) individuals were included after a double dose of icodec and glargine U100, respectively, and 20 (52.6%) and 29 (72.5%) individuals were included after a triple dose of icodec and glargine U100, respectively. All counterregulatory hormones (glucagon, adrenaline [epinephrine], noradrenaline [norepinephrine], cortisol and growth hormone) increased during hypoglycaemia induction with both insulin products at both doses. Following triple doses, the hormone response was greater with icodec vs glargine U100 for adrenaline at PG3.0 mmol/l (treatment ratio 2.54 [95% CI 1.69, 3.82]; p<0.001), and cortisol at PG3.0 mmol/l (treatment ratio 1.64 [95% CI 1.13, 2.38]; p=0.01) and PGnadir (treatment ratio 1.80 [95% CI 1.09, 2.97]; p=0.02). There were no statistically significant treatment differences in the HSS, vital signs and cognitive function.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Double or triple doses of once-weekly icodec lead to a similar risk of hypoglycaemia compared with double or triple doses of once-daily glargine U100. During hypoglycaemia, comparable symptomatic and moderately greater endocrine responses are elicited by icodec vs glargine U100.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03945656.

FUNDING

This study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.

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.

Switching to once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in individuals with basal-bolus insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 4): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Insulin icodec (icodec) is a basal insulin analogue suitable for once-weekly dosing. ONWARDS 4 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec compared with once-daily insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen.

METHODS

In this 26-week, phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial, adults from 80 sites (outpatient clinics and hospital departments) across nine countries (Belgium, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, and the USA) with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·0-10·0%) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-weekly icodec or once-daily glargine U100 combined with 2-4 daily bolus insulin aspart injections. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 (non-inferiority margin of 0·3 percentage points). The primary outcome was evaluated in the full analysis set (ie, all randomly assigned participants). Safety outcomes were evaluated in the safety analysis set (ie, all participants randomly assigned who received at least one dose of trial product). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04880850.

FINDINGS

Between May 14 and Oct 29, 2021, 746 participants were screened for eligibility, of whom 582 (78%) were randomly assigned (291 [50%] to icodec treatment and 291 [50%] to glargine U100 treatment). Participants had a mean duration of type 2 diabetes of 17·1 years (SD 8·4). At week 26, estimated mean change in HbA1c was -1·16 percentage points in the icodec group (baseline 8·29%) and -1·18 percentage points in the glargine U100 group (baseline 8·31%), showing non-inferiority for icodec versus glargine U100 (estimated treatment difference 0·02 percentage points [95% CI -0·11 to 0·15], p<0·0001). Overall, 171 (59%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 167 (57%) of 291 participants in the glargine U100 group had an adverse event. 35 serious adverse events were reported in 22 (8%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 33 serious adverse events were reported in 25 (9%) of 291 participants receiving glargine U100. Overall, combined level 2 and level 3 hypoglycaemia rates were similar between treatment groups. No new safety concerns were identified for icodec.

INTERPRETATION

In people with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen, once-weekly icodec showed similar improvements in glycaemic control, with fewer basal insulin injections, lower bolus insulin dose, and with no increase in hypoglycaemic rates compared with once-daily glargine U100. Key strengths of this trial include the use of masked continous glucose monitoring; the high trial completion rate; and the inclusion of a large, diverse, and multinational population. Limitations include the relatively short trial duration and the open-label design.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec vs. Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 2 randomized controlled trials

Objective

Insulin Icodec is a novel basal insulin analogue designed for once-weekly administration, therefore might propitiate reduction in the frequency of injections and facilitate treatment adherence. This study aimed to determine the glycemic control and safety profile of Insulin Icodec, compared with Glargine U100 in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2.

Materials and methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) data comparing OnceWeekly Insulin Icodec and Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for trials published up to May 14, 2022. Data were extracted from published reports and quality assessment was performed per Cochrane recommendations.

Results

Three studies were included comprising 453 patients, 230 (50.77%) using Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec and 223 (49.22%) using Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100. In the pooled data, Glycated Hemoglobin (MD -0.20% CI -0.33 to -0.07%; P=0.002) change from baseline demonstrated a significantly higher reduction in the Icodec group. Time with Glucose in Range (MD 6.60% CI 3.63 to 9.57%; P < 0.0001) and Insulin Dose Difference (MD 0.97UI CI 0.76 to 1.18UI; P < 0.0001) were higher in the Icodec group. There was no significant difference in fasting plasma glucose, body weight change, hypoglycemia or any adverse event evaluated.

Conclusion

OnceWeekly Insulin Icodec was associated with a small reduction in Glycated Hemoglobin, as well as higher Time with Glucose in Range, with similar hypoglycemic adverse events, when compared with Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100.

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.

Insulin Icodec Weekly: A Basal Insulin Analogue for Type 2 Diabetes

Insulin icodec is a once-weekly basal insulin analogue in late-phase clinical development. Similar efficacy and safety of icodec to once-daily basal insulin analogues have been reported in over 4,200 participants with type 2 diabetes from three phase II and five phase III trials. Indeed, glycated haemoglobin reduction was superior for icodec among insulin-naïve participants (ONWARDS 1, 3 and 5) and in those switching from a daily basal insulin in ONWARDS 2, with the latter trial demonstrating improved diabetes treatment satisfaction scores with insulin icodec versus insulin degludec.

The Future of Diabetes Therapies: New Insulins and Insulin Delivery Systems, Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Analogs, and Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter Type 2 Inhibitors, and Beta Cell Replacement Therapy

As the prevalence of diabetes mellitus increases, so too does the number of available treatment modalities. Many diabetic therapies available in human medicine or on the horizon could hold promise in the management of small animal diabetes. However, it is important to consider how species differences in pathophysiology, management practices and goals, and lifestyle may affect the translation of such treatment modalities for veterinary use. This review article aimed to familiarize veterinarians with the more promising novel diabetic therapies and explore their possible applications in the treatment of canine and feline diabetes mellitus.

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.

Derivatization with fatty acids in peptide and protein drug discovery

Peptides and proteins are widely used to treat a range of medical conditions; however, they often have to be injected and their effects are short-lived. These shortcomings of the native structure can be addressed by molecular engineering, but this is a complex undertaking. A molecular engineering technology initially applied to insulin - and which has now been successfully applied to several biopharmaceuticals - entails the derivatization of peptides and proteins with fatty acids. Various protraction mechanisms are enabled by the specific characteristics and positions of the attached fatty acid. Furthermore, the technology can ensure a long half-life following oral administration of peptide drugs, can alter the distribution of peptides and may hold potential for tissue targeting. Due to the inherent safety and well-defined chemical nature of the fatty acids, this technology provides a versatile approach to peptide and protein drug discovery.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Characteristics of Insulin Icodec After Subcutaneous Administration in the Thigh, Abdomen or Upper Arm in Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Individuals with diabetes mellitus may prefer different body regions for subcutaneous insulin administration. This trial investigated whether choice of injection region affects exposure and glucose-lowering effect of once-weekly basal insulin icodec.

METHODS

In a randomised, open-label, crossover trial, 25 individuals with type 2 diabetes received single subcutaneous icodec injections (5.6 U/kg) in the thigh, abdomen or upper arm (9-13 weeks' washout). Pharmacokinetic blood sampling occurred frequently until 35 days post-dose. Partial glucose-lowering effect was assessed 36-60 h post-dose in a glucose clamp (target 7.5 mmol/L). Steady-state pharmacokinetics following multiple once-weekly dosing were simulated using a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model.

RESULTS

Total icodec exposure (area under the curve from zero to infinity after single dose; AUC_0-∞,SD) was similar between injection in the thigh, abdomen and upper arm (estimated AUC_0-∞,SD ratios [95% confidence interval]: abdomen/thigh 1.02 [0.96-1.09], p = 0.473; upper arm/thigh 1.04 [0.98-1.10], p = 0.162; abdomen/upper arm 0.98 [0.93-1.05], p = 0.610). Maximum icodec concentration (C_max) after single dose was higher for abdomen (by 17%, p = 0.002) and upper arm (by 24%, p < 0.001) versus thigh. When simulated to steady state, smaller differences in C_max were seen for abdomen (by 11%, p = 0.004) and upper arm (by 16%, p < 0.001) versus thigh. Geometric mean [coefficient of variation] glucose-lowering effect 36-60 h post-dose was comparable between the thigh (1961 mg/kg [51%]), abdomen (2130 mg/kg [52%]) and upper arm (2391 mg/kg [40%]).

CONCLUSION

Icodec can be administered subcutaneously in the thigh, abdomen or upper arm with no clinically relevant difference in exposure and with a similar glucose-lowering effect.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT04582448.

Preclinical pharmacology of RA15127343: In vitro and in vivo activity of a novel ultralong-acting basal insulin

AIM

To report the in vitro and in vivo preclinical pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties of RA15127343, a novel ultralong-acting insulin analogue targeting once-weekly administration, in female Göttingen minipigs.

METHODS

In vitro binding and activation of human insulin receptor isoforms (IR-A/IR-B), glucose uptake in rat myocytes, as well as mitogenic activity of RA15127343 were evaluated. In vivo, the PK and PD activities of RA15127343 were assessed in female, normoglycaemic Göttingen minipigs. The half-life (t_1/2 ) and time to maximum plasma concentration (T_max ) of subcutaneously (SC) administered RA15127343 (10/30/45/60 nmol/kg) were estimated. In vivo blood glucose and endogenous plasma C-peptide concentrations after single SC administration (10/30/45/60 nmol/kg) or repeated dosing (15 nmol/kg) were analysed.

RESULTS

In comparison to human insulin, RA15127343 showed lower in vitro binding affinity (19.9/6.31 μM vs. 1.10/1.14 nM) and activation (2.054 μM/669.6 nM vs. 26.04/18.24 nM) of IR-A/IR-B, lower potency to activate glucose uptake (855.2 vs. 3.37 nM) and lower mitogenic activity (17.92 μM vs. 10.78 nM; proliferation in MCF7 cells). In vivo, the mean t_1/2 and T_max of RA15127343 after SC administration ranged from 48 to 59 and 30 to 39 hours, respectively. Blood glucose and plasma C-peptide concentrations were significantly lower with RA15127343 (single/repeated doses) versus vehicle.

CONCLUSIONS

RA15127343 showed an ultra-long t_1/2 with a slow onset of action. The preclinical pharmacological outcomes suggest RA15127343 could be a potential ultralong-acting insulin analogue with low risk of hypoglycaemia in humans.

Once-weekly basal insulin icodec: Looking ONWARDS from pharmacology to clinical trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Insulin icodec is currently the most advanced candidate insulin suitable for once-weekly administration. We aim to conduct a systematic review of the literature to find out the efficacy and safety of insulin icodec in patients with diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We systematically searched the electronic database of PubMed, and Google Scholar from inception until August 20, 2022, using MeSH keywords. Ongoing trials of insulin icodec were additionally searched from the ClinicalTrials.Gov. We retrieved all the available granular details of phase 1 to phase 3 studies of insulin icodec in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

Phase 1 study showed insulin icodec having a half-life of 196 h (>1 week) while a steady state is achieved after 3 to 4 weekly injections. Phase 2 studies compared once-weekly icodec to insulin glargine (U-100) and found a similar glucose control with no significantly greater hypoglycemia risks. Top-line results from the five phase 3 studies reported better glucose control with once-weekly icodec compared to both once-daily insulin glargine (ONWARDS 1) and once-daily degludec (in both ONWARDS 2 and 4) with similar rates of hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes, although there was a higher hypoglycemic event with insulin icodec in type 1 diabetes (ONWARDS 6) compared to once-daily degludec despite a similar glycemic control.

CONCLUSION

A brighter prospect of once-weekly insulin icodec is on the card in particular in type 2 diabetes in terms of reducing injection pricks by >85% vs. once-daily basal insulin analogs, although few unknowns still exist.

Preclinical Characterization of LY3209590, a Novel Weekly Basal Insulin Fc-fusion Protein

The benefit of once-weekly basal insulin is less frequent dosing, which has the potential to reduce the barrier to injection therapy and impact patient activation, adherence/compliance, quality of life, and outcomes. Basal Insulin Fc (BIF, LY3209590, or insulin efsitora alfa) is a once-weekly basal insulin in clinical testing for type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. BIF is comprised of a novel single-chain variant of insulin fused to a human IgG2 Fc domain using a peptide linker. The in vitro binding affinity of BIF for the human insulin receptor (IR) was two orders of magnitude weaker relative to human insulin. BIF stimulated IR phosphorylation in cells with reduced potency, yet full agonism, and exhibited a significantly faster dephosphorylation kinetic profile than human insulin or AspB10 insulin. BIF stimulated de novo lipogenesis in 3T3-L1 adipocytes and cell proliferation in SAOS-2 and H4IIE cells with {greater than or equal to}70-fold reduction in in vitro potency compared to human insulin. BIF possessed markedly reduced binding to hIGF-1R making definitive measurements unattainable. In vivo pharmacology studies using streptozotocin-treated diabetic rats demonstrated a significant decrease in blood glucose compared to vehicle-treated animals 24h post-injection, persisting through 336h following subcutaneous administration. In streptozotocin-treated rats, BIF reached T_max at 48h and possessed a clearance rate of ~0.85 mL/hr/kg, with a t_1/2 of ~120h following subcutaneous administration. These results demonstrate BIF has an in vitro pharmacological profile similar to native insulin, with significantly reduced potency and an extended time-action profile in vivo that supports QW dosing in humans. Significance Statement BIF is a novel basal insulin Fc-fusion protein designed for once-weekly dosing. In this study we demonstrate that BIF has an in vitro pharmacological profile similar to human insulin, but with weaker potency across assays for IR binding and activity. BIF has a PD and PK profile in STZ-treated rats supportive of weekly dosing in humans.

A Comprehensive Review of the Evolution of Insulin Development and Its Delivery Method

The year 2021 marks the 100th anniversary of the momentous discovery of insulin. Through years of research and discovery, insulin has evolved from poorly defined crude extracts of animal pancreas to recombinant human insulin and analogues that can be prescribed and administered with high accuracy and efficacy. However, there are still many challenges ahead in clinical settings, particularly with respect to maintaining optimal glycemic control whilst minimizing the treatment-related side effects of hypoglycemia and weight gain. In this review, the chronology of the development of rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting insulin analogues, as well as mixtures and concentrated formulations that offer the potential to meet this challenge, are summarized. In addition, we also summarize the latest advancements in insulin delivery methods, along with advancement to clinical trials. This review provides insights on the development of insulin treatment for diabetes mellitus that may be useful for clinicians in meeting the needs of their individual patients. However, it is important to note that as of now, none of the new technologies mentioned have superseded the existing method of subcutaneous administration of insulin.

Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in older adults: Current status and future prospects

The recent increase in life expectancy has resulted in an increase in the number of older adults with diabetes mellitus. In addition to type 2 diabetes, in which aging is a well‐known risk factor, individuals with type 1 and other types of diabetes are also increasing owing to longevity in the general population and improved prognosis of the disease and comorbidities. Insulin‐dependent state in type 1 diabetes and other types of diabetes, such as diabetes after pancreatectomy, inevitably requires insulin treatment for survival; however, daily injection of insulin is often hampered in older adults due to impaired cognitive function or limited activities of daily living. In this review, we aimed to discuss the current situation of insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus in older adults and highlight future prospects. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2022; 22: 549–553.

The ongoing evolution of basal insulin therapy over 100 years and its promise for the future

The evolution of basal insulin therapy over the past 100 years since the discovery of insulin is a testimony to the biomedical bench-to-bedside process, wherein incremental advances in the basic sciences are progressively translated over time into a series of enhancements in clinical care, each building upon the success of its predecessors. The emergence of recombinant DNA technology and the resultant biosynthesis of human insulin in the 1980s provided the critical capacity to bioengineer designer insulin analogues with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties that can better mimic, although not fully replicate, the effects of endogenous insulin secretion. Through these efforts, basal insulin therapy has progressed over this time from first-generation analogues (glargine U-100, detemir) to second-generation analogues (glargine U-300, degludec) to ultra-long-acting formulations that are suitable for administration once weekly (icodec). Each iteration in this progression has represented a step closer towards the goal of replicating the continuous secretion of insulin that normally comprises the basal output of the pancreatic beta-cells between meals, during episodes of fasting and overnight. However, it may be that we may have reached the achievable limit in the context of an "open-loop" approach, such that only with the addition of closed loop control will we be able to achieve physiologic basal insulin replacement. In this review, we will examine the evolution of basal insulin therapy over the past 100 years and its implications for patient care and outcomes in current practice and the future.

Basal weekly insulins: the way of the future!

Basal insulin treatment is indispensable for patients with type 1 diabetes and often required by many with type 2 diabetes. Incremental advances lengthening the duration of action of insulin analogs and reducing pharmacodynamic variability have resulted in truly once-daily, long-acting basal insulin analogs. In the quest for better basal insulins to facilitate improvements in glycemic control and long-term outcomes, the driving need is to remove barriers delaying timely initiation of basal insulin, to maximize treatment adherence and persistence and reduce treatment burden without increasing risk of hypoglycemia. We review the range of investigational once-weekly insulins and their molecular strategies and profiles. Currently, the two most advanced clinical development programs are: (1) basal insulin icodec, an insulin analog acylated with a C20 fatty diacid (icosanedioic acid) side chain (Novo Nordisk) and (2) basal insulin Fc, a fusion protein that combines a single-chain insulin variant with a human immunoglobulin G fragment crystallizable domain (Eli Lilly). Available phase 2 data for these two once-weekly agents show comparable glycemic control to existing once-daily insulin analogs, with no greater risk of hypoglycemia. While phase 3 data are awaited to confirm efficacy and safety, we provide future clinical perspectives on practical considerations for the potential use of once-weekly insulins.