Switching to Degludec From Other Basal Insulins Is Associated With Reduced Hypoglycemia Rates: A Prospective Study

The Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Tirzepatide 5 mg versus Dulaglutide 0.75 mg for the Treatment of People with Type 2 Diabetes in Japan

INTRODUCTION

This analysis aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide 5 mg versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg (both administered once weekly) in people not achieving glycemic control on metformin, based on the results of the head-to-head SURPASS J-mono trial from a Japanese healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed over a 50-year time horizon using an implementation of the UKPDS Outcomes Model 2 developed in Microsoft Excel. Baseline cohort characteristics, treatment effects and adverse event rates were sourced from the SURPASS J-mono trial. Simulated patients were assumed to receive either tirzepatide 5 mg or dulaglutide 0.75 mg until HbA1c exceeded 8.0%, at which point treatment was discontinued and basal insulin was initiated. Direct costs were derived from the Japan Medical Data Center claims database. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 2% annually.

RESULTS

In this cost-utility modeling analysis, tirzepatide 5 mg was associated with lower diabetes-related complication rates, improved life expectancy, improved quality-adjusted life expectancy and higher direct costs versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of JPY (Japanese yen) 1,302,240 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for tirzepatide 5 mg versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg (JPY 140 = USD 1). Tirzepatide remained cost-effective versus dulaglutide over a range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis, tirzepatide 5 mg was associated with an ICER below the commonly quoted willingness-to-pay threshold of JPY 5,000,000 per QALY gained, suggesting that tirzepatide is a cost-effective treatment option for adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, compared with dulaglutide 0.75 mg.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Derived Glucometrics in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes When Switching Basal Insulins

Context: Limited evidence is available on the real-world effect of insulin degludec (IDeg) in type 1 diabetes (T1D), using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived metrics. Objective: To assess the real-world effect of switching to IDeg from other long-acting insulins on time in ranges (TIRs) measured by CGM, metabolic control, and insulin dose for people with T1D. Design: This retrospective multicenter study encompassed five time points during a 12-month pre-switch of IDeg and a 12-month follow-up period. For each visit, clinical and CGM data were collected to evaluate temporal trends in glycemic outcomes. Participants: Of 753 persons with T1D who were assessed for eligibility, 486 persons were included, mostly men (61.5%), 47.4 (16.9) years old and diabetes duration of 23.8 (14.2) years at IDeg-initiation. Main Outcome Measure: Primary outcome was the evolution of percent TIR (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L, TIR) before versus after switch to IDeg. Results: TIR over 24 h increased at 12 months versus baseline (56.7% vs. 52.3%, P < 0.001), mostly during daytime. Time <54 mg/dL (<3.0 mmol/L) over 24 h decreased at 12 months versus baseline (2.02% vs. 2.86%, P < 0.001), mostly during nighttime. Glycated hemoglobin (7.9% vs. 8.1%, P < 0.001) and coefficient of variation (40.0% vs. 41.5%, P < 0.001) improved at 12 months versus baseline. Mean daily basal, bolus and total insulin doses decreased at 12 months (P < 0.001 for all vs. baseline). Conclusions: This retrospective real-world study reports that switching basal insulin significantly improved time spent in glucometric ranges and glycemic variability in the studied population of people with T1D. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT05434559.

Effect of switching from twice-daily basal insulin to once-daily insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in Brazilian people with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Low adherence to the number of insulin injections and glycemic variability are among the challenges of insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes (T1D). The TOP1 study investigated the effect of switching from twice-daily (BID) basal insulin to once daily (OD) insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) on glycemic control and quality of life.

METHODS

In this 28-week, phase 4 trial, people with T1D aged ≥ 18 years, who were treated with BID basal insulin in combination with prandial rapid-acting insulin for at least 1 year, and had HbA1c between 7.5% and 10.0%, were switched to Gla-300 OD as basal insulin. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of this change on HbA1c, glycemic profile, treatment satisfaction and safety. The change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 was the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-three people with T1D (mean age 37 ± 11 years; 54.5% female) were studied. The disease duration was 20.0 ± 9.8 years, baseline HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were 8.6 ± 0.7% and 201 ± 80.3 mg/dL, respectively. After switching from BID to OD insulin regimen, no significant change in HbA1c was observed from baseline to Week 24 (p = 0.873). There were significant reductions in fasting self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) from baseline to Week 24 (175 ± 42 vs. 156 ± 38 mg/dL; p < 0.0001), and in glycemic profile (8-point SMBG) at several time points. There was a significant decrease in the proportion of patients with at least one hypoglycemic event (p = 0.025), in numbers of hypoglycemic events per patient-years of any type (p = 0.036), symptomatic (p = 0.007), and confirmed ≤ 70 mg/dL events (p = 0.049) from run-in to the last 4 weeks on treatment. There were significant improvements in treatment satisfaction (p < 0.0001), perceived hyperglycemia (p < 0.0001) scores and satisfaction with the number of injections between post-run-in and Week 24, and a significant decrease in fear of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Switch from BID basal insulin to OD Gla-300 as part of basal bolus therapy in T1D resulted in similar glycemic control as measured by HbA1c, but provided significant improvements in SMBG, daily glucose profile, a lower incidence of hypoglycemia and increased patient satisfaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03406000.

Insulin Degludec in People with Type 2 Diabetes in China: A Non-interventional, Retrospective Chart Review Study (CN-TREAT)

INTRODUCTION

Insulin degludec (degludec), an ultra-long-acting basal insulin analogue, provides equivalent glycemic control to other basal insulin analogues, with lower risk of hypoglycemia and flexible dosing. Chinese TREsiba AudiT (CN-TREAT) investigated outcomes with degludec in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in routine clinical practice in China.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review study in adults with T2D initiating or switching to degludec at 50 sites in China between January 2020 and July 2021. The primary endpoint was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of study (EOS; week 20). Secondary endpoints included change from baseline to EOS in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG), daily insulin dose, and rate of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Data from 936 participants were included (499 insulin-naïve; 437 insulin-experienced). Mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) HbA1c change from baseline to EOS was - 1.48%-points (- 1.57; - 1.38; P < 0.0001) overall: - 1.95%-points (- 2.08; - 1.81; P < 0.0001) in insulin-naïve participants and - 0.95%-points (- 1.08; - 0.82; P < 0.0001) in insulin-experienced participants. Mean (95% CI) changes in FPG and SMPG were - 2.27 mmol/L (- 2.69; - 1.85; P < 0.0001) and - 2.89 mmol/L (- 3.52; - 2.25; P < 0.0001), respectively, with similar reductions in insulin-naïve and insulin-experienced subgroups. Rate of hypoglycemia did not change statistically significantly from baseline to EOS overall, or in insulin-experienced participants, except when adjusted for baseline hypoglycemia. Basal insulin dose did not change statistically significantly in insulin-experienced participants.

CONCLUSION

In routine clinical practice in China, initiation or switching to degludec was associated with improvements in glycemic control in people with T2D, with no increased risk of hypoglycemia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinialTrials.gov, NCT04227431.

Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg vs semaglutide 2.0 mg: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States

BACKGROUND

Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist approved for type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg vs semaglutide 2.0 mg, an injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, in patients with T2D from a US health care payer perspective.

METHODS

The PRIME T2D Model was used to project clinical and cost outcomes over a 50-year time horizon. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from a published adjusted indirect treatment comparison that used data from the SURPASS-2 and SUSTAIN FORTE trials. Patients were assumed to intensify to insulin therapy at a hemoglobin A1c of greater than 7.5%. Costs and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually.

RESULTS

Tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg were associated with improved quality-adjusted life-expectancy (10 mg: 0.085 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], 15 mg: 0.121 QALYs), higher direct costs (10 mg: USD 5,990, 15 mg: USD 6,617), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of USD 70,147 and 54,699 per QALY gained, respectively, vs semaglutide 2.0 mg. Both doses of tirzepatide remained cost-effective vs semaglutide 2.0 mg over a range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term projections using the PRIME T2D model and based on treatment effects from an adjusted indirect treatment comparison indicate that tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg are likely to be cost-effective vs semaglutide 2.0 mg for the treatment of T2D in the United States.

Real-world Clinical Effectiveness on Glycaemic Parameters, Safety and Additional Benefits of Glargine U300 (Toujeo®) Initiation after Oral Antidiabetic Drug Failure in Insulin-naïve Patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Background

Several studies have proved the advantages of second-generation insulin analogs in lowering intra-individual variability in plasma insulin levels, flexibility in dosing, a sustained glucose-lowering effect, and decreasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Glargine 300 is one of the newer second-generation basal insulin analogs to have been approved for both type 1 and 2 diabetes. The present study aims to assess the real-world clinical effectiveness and safety of Glargine U300 (Toujeo®) initiation after oral antidiabetic drug failure in insulin-naïve patients with T2DM.

Methods

A prospective, observational study was conducted where participants were interviewed regarding their basic demographics, body weight, and treatment details. Glycemic parameters (HbA1C%, Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Post Prandial Blood Glucose) were observed in the initial 6 months, and changes were noted and compared. Any hypoglycemic events or other complications were also noted. Data collected were statistically analyzed.

Results

The study included a total of 188 patients. Treatment with glargine 300 significantly reduced the mean HbA1C level from 9.78% at baseline to 7.90% at the end of 6 months of treatment (p < 0.001). 10.60% of patients achieved the glycemic target of ≤7.0% by the end of 6 months, while only 6.90% were within the target range at baseline. Similarly, significant reduction in FPG was observed at the end of 6 months treatment period with Glargine U300. A significant increase in dose requirement was observed throughout the study phase (p < 0.001). Incidence of hypoglycemia was noted in 2.12% of subjects.

Conclusion

The lower incidence statistics of hypoglycemia coupled with sustained positive glycemic effects, stands out to be a prominent advantage of Glargine U300 over its other congeners.

Switching to a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) is associated with improved glycaemic control in a real-world population with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Arab Emirates: Results from the multicentre, prospective INTENSIFY study

AIM

Investigate the effectiveness of IDegLira, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec/liraglutide, in a real-world setting in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Arab Emirates.

METHODS

This non-interventional study enrolled adults switching to IDegLira from basal insulin (BI) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) with/without concomitant oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline, assessed using a mixed model for repeated measurements.

RESULTS

Among 263 patients (BI ± OADs, n = 206; GLP-1 RA ± OADs, n = 57), mean baseline HbA1c was 9.29 % (78 mmol/mol). After 26 weeks, HbA1c was significantly reduced (BI ± OADs, -0.83 % [-9.0 mmol/mol] and GLP-1 RA ± OADs, -1.24 % [-13.5 mmol/mol]; both p < 0.0001). Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was significantly reduced (-39.48 mg/dL [BI ± OADs] and -82.49 mg/dL [GLP-1 RA ± OADs]; both p < 0.0001). Before treatment initiation, 3/263 patients experienced ≥ 1 severe hypoglycaemic episode and 7/263 patients experienced ≥ 1 non-severe hypoglycaemic episode compared with 1/263 patients who had ≥ 1 severe and 1/263 who had ≥ 1 non-severe episode at end of study. Body weight decreased significantly among patients switching from BI ± OADs (-1.05 kg [p < 0.0001]). Treatment was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegLira significantly reduced HbA1c and FPG in this real-world setting, along with less frequent episodes of hypoglycaemia. Switching to IDegLira offers effective treatment intensification for type 2 diabetes patients with inadequate glycaemic control.

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of tirzepatide versus semaglutide 1.0 mg for the management of type 2 diabetes in the United States

AIM

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg doses), a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, versus semaglutide 1.0 mg, an injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, based on the results of the head-to-head SURPASS-2 trial, from a US healthcare payer perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PRIME Type 2 Diabetes Model was used to make projections of clinical and cost outcomes over a 50-year time horizon. Baseline cohort characteristics, treatment effects and adverse event rates were derived from the 40-week SURPASS-2 trial. Intensification to insulin therapy occurred when HbA1c reached 7.5%, in line with American Diabetes Association recommendations. Direct costs in 2021 US dollars (US$) and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually.

RESULTS

All three doses of tirzepatide were associated with lower diabetes-related complication rates, improved life expectancy, improved quality-adjusted life expectancy and higher direct costs versus semaglutide. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$ 75 803, 58 908 and 48 785 per quality-adjusted life year gained for tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg, respectively, versus semaglutide. Tirzepatide remained cost-effective versus semaglutide over a range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term projections based on the SURPASS-2 trial results indicate that 5, 10 and 15 mg doses of tirzepatide are likely to be cost-effective versus semaglutide 1.0 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States.

The Clinical Impact of Switching Basal Insulin to Insulin Degludec in Patients With Diabetes in Saudi Arabia: A Retrospective One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design Study

BACKGROUND

Diabetes is a health problem that has an enormous and intolerable public health burden on the individual, family, and community. Diabetes affects nearly one-fifth of adults in Saudi Arabia and is expected to double by 2030.

AIM OF THE STUDY

The study aims to evaluate the impact of switching patients from conventional basal insulin analogues to insulin degludec during a 90-day follow-up period.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational pretest-posttest cohort study conducted at King Abdulaziz University Hospital between June 2019 and August 2020. Adult patients with diabetes who switched their basal insulin to insulin degludec were included and evaluated for its impact on insulin doses, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), hypoglycemic events, and/or body weight changes during a 90-day follow-up period.

RESULTS

Out of 718 patients, 107 patients were included in the study, with 60.7% being females and their mean (± SD) age was 62.2 ± 14.6 years. There was a significant decrease in the mean baseline of HbA1c from 9.2% to 8.7% after 90 days of follow-up (P<0.001). A statistically significant reduction was noted in the total insulin requirements from a baseline of 71.70 (± 42.4) units to 46.5 (± 29) units, P=0.001, after switching to insulin degludec. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the body weight from the baseline mean (± SD) of 80.5 kg (± 19.4) to 79.9 kg (± 19.9), P=0.68, after switching to insulin degludec. Lastly, there were no statistically significant differences in the reported hypoglycemic episodes from a baseline of 48.7% vs 37.3% after 90 days of follow-up (P = 0.166).

CONCLUSION

Switching to the novel insulin degludec conferred better blood glucose control and dose reduction. There was no increase in the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes or body weight.

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.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Intermediate-Acting, Long-Acting, Ultralong-Acting, and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus is increasing every year requiring substantial expenditure on treatment and complications. A systematic review was conducted on the cost-effectiveness of insulin formulations, including ultralong-, long-, or intermediate-acting insulin, and their biosimilar insulin equivalents.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HTA, and NHS EED were searched from inception to June 11, 2021. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were included if insulin formulations in adults (≥ 16 years) with type 1 diabetes mellitus were evaluated. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, extracted study data, and appraised their quality using the Drummond 10-item checklist. Costs were converted to 2020 US dollars adjusting for inflation and purchasing power parity across currencies.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged widely across the studies. All pairwise comparisons (11 of 11, 100%) found that ultralong-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with other long-acting insulins, including a long-acting biosimilar. Most pairwise comparisons (24 of 27, 89%) concluded that long-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Few studies compared long-acting insulins with one another.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-acting insulin may be cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Future studies should directly compare biosimilar options and long-acting insulin options and evaluate the long-term consequences of ultralong-acting insulins.

One-year safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec in patients with diabetes mellitus in routine clinical practice in India-TRUST (Tresiba real-world use study)

Objective

This post-authorization safety study (PASS) was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) requiring insulin therapy in routine clinical practice in India.

Methods

Data on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and adverse events (AEs) were collected up to 12 months after insulin degludec initiation.

Results

A total of 1057 adult patients with DM were enrolled, including 60.07% males with the mean duration of 22.2 ± 21.90 years with type 1 DM and 10.1 ± 7.37 years with type 2 DM and the mean HbA1c of 9.6 ± 1.9%. Insulin degludec was prescribed to improve HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Insulin degludec daily dose was increased from 14.8 ± 8.0 U to 18.0 ± 9.46 U over 12 months resulting in a significant decrease of HbA1c by 1.8 ± 1.68% compared with baseline. There were 84 events of confirmed hypoglycemia in 51 patients during the 12-month follow-up period, and 44 AEs were reported in 2.6% of patients, of which 2 AEs were serious and unrelated to the drug.

Conclusion

Insulin degludec is well tolerated in patients with DM. It improves glycemic control with reduced HbA1c, FPG, and postprandial glucose, with a low risk of hypoglycemia.

Basal Insulin Degludec and Glycemic Control Compared to Aspart Via Insulin Pump in Type 1 Diabetes (BIGLEAP): A Single-Center, Open-Label, Randomized, Crossover Trial

OBJECTIVE

We compared the efficacy of the second-generation basal insulin degludec (IDeg) to that of insulin aspart via pump using continuous glucose monitoring in patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

In this 40-week, single-center, randomized, crossover-controlled trial, adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes (hemoglobin A1C of <7.5% [<58 mmol/mol]) (N = 52) who were using an insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring were randomized to 1 of 2 treatments for a 20-week period: a single daily injection of IDeg with bolus aspart via pump or a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with aspart, followed by crossover to the other treatment. The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during the final 2 weeks of each treatment period.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were randomized and completed both treatment periods. The time in range for IDeg and CSII was 71.5% and 70.9%, respectively (P = .553). The time in level 1 hypoglycemia for the 24-hour period with IDeg and CSII was 2.19% and 1.75%, respectively (P = .065). The time in level 2 hypoglycemia for the 24-hour period with IDeg and CSII was 0.355% and 0.271%, respectively (P = .212), and the nocturnal period was 0.330% and 0.381%, respectively (P = .639). The mean standard deviation of blood glucose levels for the 24-hour period for IDeg and CSII was 52.4 mg/dL and 51.0 mg/dL, respectively (P = .294). The final hemoglobin A1C level for each treatment was 7.04% (53 mmol/mol) with IDeg, and 6.95% (52 mmol/mol) with CSII (P = .288). Adverse events were similar between treatments.

CONCLUSION

We observed similar glycemic control between IDeg and insulin aspart via CSII for basal insulin coverage in patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes.

Effectiveness and Safety of Insulin Glargine 300 U/ml in Comparison with Insulin Degludec 100 U/ml Evaluated with Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemic Control in Routine Clinical Practice: The OneCARE Study

INTRODUCTION

Data regarding efficacy of second-generation basal insulins (BI) using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) come from clinical trials. We evaluated the effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) compared to insulin degludec 100 U/ml (IDeg-100) in terms of percentage of time in range (TIR); 70-180 mg/dl was obtained from CGM in sub-optimally controlled patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study included patients with T1D (> 3 years diabetes duration, HbA_1c ≥ 7.5%) who had switched from first-generation BI to Gla-300/IDeg-100 within the past 24 months according to physician discretion. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained from clinical records and during study visit, and CGM data were collected prior to the visit.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-nine people with T1D were included [42.6 ± 13.4 (mean ± SD) years, 18.4 ± 10.4 years diabetes duration]; 104 received Gla-300, 95 IDeg-100. TIR 70-180 throughout whole day was similar in both groups, 52.4 ± 14.0 vs. 49.3 ± 13.9% Gla-300/IDeg-100, respectively. At night, TIR 70-180 and TIR 70-140 were significantly higher in the Gla-300 group compared to the IDeg-100 (52.4 vs. 46.2 and 31.8 vs. 26.9%, respectively, p = 0.0209 and p = 0.0182), and time above range (180) was significantly lower in the Gla-300 group (40.1% vs. 47.2%, p = 0.0199). Additional CGM glucometric data were comparable in both groups. Patient treatment satisfaction score assessed through the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) was high and similar for both insulins.

CONCLUSION

This real-world study shows the effectiveness and safety of Gla-300 are more similar to than different from IDeg-100, with a slightly better nocturnal glucose profile, in sub-optimally controlled T1D patients switching from a first-generation BI.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Switching to Insulin Degludec from Other Basal Insulins in a Real-World Canadian Population with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes: The CAN-TREAT Study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to examine glycaemic control and safety of insulin degludec (degludec) in patients with either type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) under routine care settings in Canada.

METHODS

Data were extracted from medical records of adults with T1D or T2D who switched to degludec (± prandial insulin) from another basal insulin (± prandial insulin) ≥ 6 months prior to data collection. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) at 6 ± 3 months after degludec initiation. Secondary endpoints included change in hypoglycaemia rate in the 6 months before versus the 6 months after switching, and change in mean total daily insulin dose.

RESULTS

Of 667 patients assessed for eligibility, 626 were included. After 6 ± 3 months, HbA_1c decreased from baseline in patients with T1D (- 0.3% [- 0.42, - 0.14]_95% CI; p < 0.001) and in patients with T2D (- 0.4% [- 0.55, - 0.30]_95% CI; p < 0.001). In patients with T1D, there were significant reductions in the rates of overall (rate ratio [RR] 0.70), non-severe (RR 0.69), non-severe nocturnal (RR 0.36), and severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.12; all p ≤ 0.004). In patients with T2D there was a significant reduction in non-severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.22; p < 0.001). Mean daily basal insulin dose decreased in patients with T1D (- 1.6 units [- 2.8, - 0.4]_95% CI; p = 0.008); there was no significant change in patients with T2D (- 0.6 units [- 2.7, 1.4]_95% CI; p = 0.543).

CONCLUSION

In routine clinical practice, improved glycaemic control was observed in patients with T1D or T2D switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins, with either improvement or no change in hypoglycaemia rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03674866.

Reduced Rates of Hypoglycemia in Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes After Switching to Insulin Degludec: Results from the Italian Cohort of the ReFLeCT Study

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate in an Italian real-world setting the safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec 100 units/mL, given once daily in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after switching from other basal insulins.

METHODS

ReFLeCT was a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted across seven European countries which involved adult patients whose physician planned to switch their medication from basal insulin to insulin degludec. The primary outcome was the change in the number of hypoglycemic episodes before and after the switch to insulin degludec. Results are expressed as 12-month follow-up/baseline incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

The Italian cohort of the ReFLect study comprised 148 patients with T1DM and 311 patients with T2DM. In patients with T1DM, the switch to insulin degludec was associated with significantly lower rates of overall (IRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82), non-severe (IRR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.85), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (IRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31-0.69). Following the switch, hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) levels decreased significantly by 0.35% (95% CI - 0.50 to  - 0.20), with no significant changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and basal insulin dose. Body weight increased by 0.83 kg (95% CI 0.16-1.50). In patients with T2DM, significant reductions in the rates of overall (IRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29-0.55), non-severe (IRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34-0.63), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (IRR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.86) were documented. HbA_1c and FPG decreased significantly by 0.45% (95% CI - 0.58 to - 0.31) and 0.90 mmol/L (95% CI - 1.21 to - 0.59], respectively, with no significant changes in basal insulin dose or body weight. Treatment satisfaction significantly improved in both diabetes types.

CONCLUSION

In Italian routine clinical practice, switching from other basal insulins to insulin degludec reduced the total episodes of hypoglycemia and improved glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in patients with T1DM and T2DM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02392117.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus from a Swedish 1-year and long-term perspective

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The ReFLeCT study demonstrated that switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins was associated with reductions in glycated hemoglobin and hypoglycemic events in type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), and reductions in insulin doses in T1D. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the short- and long-term cost-effectiveness of switching to insulin degludec in Sweden.

METHODS

Short-term outcomes were evaluated over 1 year in a Microsoft Excel model, while long-term outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from the ReFLeCT study. Costs (in 2018 Swedish krona [SEK]) encompassed direct medical expenditure and indirect costs from loss of workplace productivity. In the long-term analyses, patients were assumed to receive insulin degludec or continue prior insulin therapy (primarily insulin glargine U100) for 5 years, before all patients intensified to once-daily degludec and mealtime aspart.

RESULTS

Switching to insulin degludec was associated with improved quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.02 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 1 year, and 0.16 and 0.08 QALYs over patient lifetimes, in T1D and T2D. Combined costs in T1D and T2D were estimated to be SEK 1,249 lower and SEK 1,181 higher over the short-term, and SEK 157,258 and SEK 2,114 lower over the long-term. Benefits were due to lower insulin doses in T1D, reduced rates of hypoglycemia, and lower incidences of diabetes-related complications. Insulin degludec was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SEK 64,298 per QALY gained for T2D over 1 year and considered dominant for T1D and T2D in all other comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin degludec was projected to be cost-effective or dominant versus other basal insulins for the treatment of T1D and T2D in Sweden.

Rapid quantification of insulin degludec by immunopurification combined with liquid chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry

Insulin degludec is an ultra-long-acting insulin analogue that is increasingly being used in diabetes due to its favourable efficacy and safety profile. Thus, there is an increasing demand for a reliable and specific analytical method to quantify insulin degludec for research, pharmaceutical industry and clinical applications. We developed and validated an automated, high-throughput method for quantification of insulin degludec in human blood samples across the expected clinical range combining immunopurification with high-resolution mass spectrometry. Validation was performed according to the requirements of the US Food and Drug Administration. The method satisfyingly met the following parameters: lower limit of quantification (120 pM), linearity, accuracy (error < 5%), precision (CV < 7.7%), selectivity, carry-over, recovery (89.7–97.2%), stability and performance in the presence of other insulin analogues. The method was successfully applied to clinical samples of patients treated with insulin degludec showing a good correlation with the administered dose (r² = 0.78). High usability of the method is supported by the small specimen volume, automated sample processing and short analysis time. In conclusion, this reliable, easy-to-use and specific mass spectrometric insulin degludec assay offers great promise to address the current unmet need for standardized insulin analytics in academic and industrial research.

Switching to Degludec is Associated with Reduced Hypoglycaemia, Irrespective of Definition Used or Patient Characteristics: Secondary Analysis of the ReFLeCT Prospective, Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Hypoglycaemia is a common side effect of insulin therapy; low or high glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels, history of hypoglycaemia or long diabetes duration are known modifiers of hypoglycaemia risk. In randomised clinical trials, lower rates of hypoglycaemia have been observed with the new-generation insulin analogue, long-acting insulin degludec, compared with other basal insulins.

METHODS

The ReFLeCT study was a prospective observational study over 12 months. Patient-reported diary data on hypoglycaemia were collected from patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) who were switching from other basal insulins to insulin degludec (degludec) at their physician's discretion in routine clinical care. Two secondary analyses were undertaken to investigate the change in number of hypoglycaemic events: a post hoc analysis using the updated American Diabetes Association (ADA) level 1, 2 and 3 hypoglycaemia definitions, and a pre-specified analysis using patient characteristics (baseline HbA_1c, diabetes duration, and physician's rationale for initiating degludec).

RESULTS

Switching to degludec was associated with significantly fewer hypoglycaemic events for all definitions in T1D, and level 1 and 2 in T2D (too few level 3 events for statistical comparison). Moreover, patient characteristics did not influence the observed reduction in hypoglycaemia in T1D and T2D.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate that switching to degludec from other basal insulins was associated with reduced rates of hypoglycaemia, irrespective of the definition used or baseline patient characteristics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02392117.

The relationship between HbA1c and hypoglycaemia in patients with diabetes treated with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL

AIM

Treat-to-target, randomized controlled trials have confirmed lower rates of hypoglycaemia at equivalent glycaemic control with insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Treat-to-target trials are designed to enable comparisons of safety and tolerability at a similar HbA1c level. In this post hoc analysis of the SWITCH 1 and 2 trials, we utilised a patient-level modelling approach to compare how glycaemic control might differ between basal insulins at a similar rate of hypoglycaemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data for HbA1c and symptomatic hypoglycaemia from the SWITCH 1 and SWITCH 2 trials were analyzed separately for patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, respectively. The association between the individual patient-level risk of hypoglycaemia and HbA1c was investigated using a Poisson regression model and used to estimate potential differences in glycaemic control with degludec versus glargine U100, at the same rate of hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

Improvements in glycaemic control increased the incidence of hypoglycaemia with both basal insulins across diabetes types. Our analysis suggests that patients could achieve a mean HbA1c reduction of 0.70 [0.05; 2.20]_{95% CI} (for type 1 diabetes) or 0.96 [0.39; 1.99]_{95% CI} (for type 2 diabetes) percentage points (8 [1; 24]_{95% CI} or 10 [4; 22]_{95% CI} mmol/mol, respectively) further with degludec than with glargine U100 before incurring an equivalent risk of hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that patients in clinical practice may be able to achieve lower glycaemia targets with degludec versus glargine U100, before incurring an equivalent risk of hypoglycaemia.