Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart versus Insulin Glargine (U100) for 52 Weeks in Insulin-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Clinical perspectives on the frequency of hypoglycemia in treat-to-target randomized controlled trials comparing basal insulin analogs in type 2 diabetes: a narrative review

The objective of this review was to comprehensively present and summarize trends in reported rates of hypoglycemia with one or two times per day basal insulin analogs in individuals with type 2 diabetes to help address and contextualize the emerging theoretical concern of increased hypoglycemic risk with once-weekly basal insulins.Hypoglycemia data were extracted from treat-to-target randomized clinical trials conducted during 2000-2022. Published articles were identified on PubMed or within the US Food and Drug Administration submission documents. Overall, 57 articles were identified: 44 assessed hypoglycemic outcomes in participants receiving basal-only therapy (33 in insulin-naive participants; 11 in insulin-experienced participants), 4 in a mixed population (insulin-naive and insulin-experienced participants) and 9 in participants receiving basal-bolus therapy. For the analysis, emphasis was placed on level 2 (blood glucose <3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL)) and level 3 (or severe) hypoglycemia.Overall, event rates for level 2 or level 3 hypoglycemia across most studies ranged from 0.06 to 7.10 events/person-year of exposure (PYE) for participants receiving a basal-only insulin regimen; the rate for basal-bolus regimens ranged from 2.4 to 13.6 events/PYE. Rates were generally lower with second-generation basal insulins (insulin degludec or insulin glargine U300) than with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin or first-generation basal insulins (insulin detemir or insulin glargine U100). Subgroup categorization by sulfonylurea usage, end-of-treatment insulin dose or glycated hemoglobin reduction did not show consistent trends on overall hypoglycemia rates. Hypoglycemia rates reported so far for once-weekly basal insulins are consistent with or lower than those reported for daily-administered basal insulin analogs.

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.

Scientific advisory on nocturnal hypoglycemia in insulin-treated patients with diabetes: Recommendations from Indian experts

INTRODUCTION

Insulin is one of the commonly prescribed glucose lowering agents in diabetes. Hypoglycemia is the most common complication, and severe hypoglycemia is the most serious complication of insulin therapy. Almost half of all severe hypoglycemia episodes (HEs) occur at night. However, patients are often unaware of their nocturnal hypoglycaemia (NH) risk. Additionally, both healthcare professionals and patients find it difficult to manage NH. The purpose of this expert group meeting is to improve NH awareness and provide guidance for the physicians to recognize and manage NH.

METHOD

The panel of experts in an e-board deliberated extensively upon the available literature and guidelines on hypoglycemia and NH discussed the consensus on definition, detection, reporting, monitoring, treatment, and optimization of therapy in NH.

RESULT

& Conclusion: Though there are many guidelines on the management of HEs in patients with diabetes, very few touch the topic of NH. This scientific advisory on management of NH in insulin treated patients with diabetes is formulated to address this gap in understanding regarding management of NH. The experts provide recommendations for the nocturnal window, defining NH based on blood glucose values, recognition, prevention and management of NH.

Comparative efficiency and safety of insulin degludec/aspart with insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Recent studies have found compared with insulin glargine (IGlar), insulin degludec/aspart (IDeg/Asp) may provide adequate glycemic control and prevent hypoglycemia events in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Consequently, we performed a meta-analysis to appraise and compare the efficiency and safety of IDeg/Asp and IGlar in the treatment of T2DM. We sought the databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library to confirm related articles which inspected the effect of IDeg/Asp versus IGlar for the treatment of T2DM until May 2021. Finally, six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 1,346 patients were included. The results showed that IDeg/Asp significantly decreased the mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level but was prone to serious adverse events, and IGlar increased the nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia events. Besides, there were no significant changes in other indicators, including mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level, nine-point self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG) level, and adverse events. What's more, we found that there was no significant difference in the occurrence of hypoglycemia overall, but our subgroup analysis of confirmed hypoglycemia revealed the population in this subgroup (duration of diabetes ≤11 years) might has its particularity effecting the hypoglycemia outcome. Concerning efficiency, IDeg/Asp may have advantages in controlling the mean HbA1c level. Regarding safety, IGlar might increase the risk of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia. Further evidence is needed to compare better the efficiency and safety of IDeg/Asp versus IGlar therapy.

Twenty Years of Insulin Gla-100: A Systematic Evaluation of Its Efficacy and Safety in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to present the current evidence base with respect to the initiation and intensification of insulin therapy with glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) compared to other insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled clinical trials databases was performed to identify studies published up to September 30, 2020 that compared the effects of Gla-100 to that of other insulin regimens in people with T2DM. Relevant information pertaining to the predefined outcomes of interest was extracted. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change and response rates along with overall hypoglycemia incidence were the primary efficacy and safety outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine studies (63 interventional and 16 non-interventional) in which Gla-100 was either initiated in previously insulin-naïve patients (n = 57) or used in an intensified regimen (n = 22) were identified and evaluated. In insulin-naïve patients, most studies demonstrated that Gla-100 was significantly better compared with premixed insulins and similar compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations, and other first-generation basal insulins in terms of the primary efficacy parameters. Overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with NPH, premixed, coformulation, and other first-generation basal insulins and significantly higher compared with second-generation basal insulins. In studies with intensified regimens, efficacy outcomes with Gla-100 were significantly better compared with insulin detemir (IDet); similar compared with NPH, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations; and with premixed insulins. In these studies, overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with IDet and comparable to NPH, premixed insulins, co-formulations, and second-generation basal insulins. In addition, most intensification studies also revealed a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia with Gla-100-based regimens versus NPH and premixed insulins and a significantly greater risk compared to second-generation basal insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence presented in this review suggests that Gla-100 is an effective option for both insulin initiation and intensification strategies used in the management of T2DM.

Postprandial Glucose Excursions in Asian Versus Non-Asian Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Analysis of Baseline Data from Phase 3 Randomised Controlled Trials of IDegAsp

INTRODUCTION

Increased postprandial glucose (PPG) is associated with high glycated haemoglobin levels and is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. The aim of this study was to compare PPG increments in Asian versus non-Asian adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), who were insulin-naïve or insulin-experienced, from the phase 3 insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) clinical trials.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of data from 13 phase 3, randomised, parallel-group, open-label IDegAsp trials in patients with T2D. The pooled baseline clinical data were analysed for insulin-naïve and insulin-experienced groups; and each group was split into subgroups of Asian and non-Asian patients, respectively, and analysed accordingly. Baseline self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) values at breakfast, lunch and the evening meal (before and 90 min after each meal) were used to assess PPG increments. The estimated differences in baseline SMBG increment between the Asian and non-Asian subgroups were analysed.

RESULTS

Clinical data from 4750 participants (insulin-naïve, n = 1495; insulin-experienced, n = 3255) were evaluated. In the insulin-naïve group, the postprandial SMBG increment was significantly greater in the Asian versus the non-Asian subgroup at breakfast (estimated difference 28.67 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval [CI] 18.35, 38.99; p < 0.0001), lunch (17.34 mg/dL, 95% CI 6.47, 28.21; p = 0.0018) and the evening meal (16.19 mg/dL, 95% CI 5.04, 27.34; p = 0.0045). In the insulin-experienced group, the postprandial SMBG increment was significantly greater in the Asian versus non-Asian subgroup at breakfast (estimated difference 13.81 mg/dL, 95% CI 9.19, 18.44; p < 0.0001) and lunch (29.18 mg/dL, 95% CI 24.22, 34.14; p < 0.0001), but not significantly different at the evening meal.

CONCLUSION

In this post hoc analysis, baseline PPG increments were significantly greater in Asian participants with T2D than in their non-Asian counterparts at all mealtimes, with the exception of the evening meal in insulin-experienced participants. Asian adults with T2D may benefit from the use of regimens that control PPG excursions.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBERS

NCT02762578, NCT01814137, NCT01513590, NCT01009580, NCT01713530, NCT02648217, NCT01045447, NCT01365507, NCT01045707, NCT01272193, NCT01059812, NCT01680341, NCT02906917.

Long-Term Safety and Clinical Outcomes with Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart Treatment in Japanese Patients with Diabetes: A Real-World, Prospective, Observational Study

Introduction

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) provides effective glycaemic control with an acceptable safety profile in Japanese patients with diabetes in randomised clinical trials. This post-marketing surveillance study assessed long-term safety and clinical outcomes with IDegAsp in a Japanese real-world setting.

Methods

Multicentre, prospective, observational, open-label, single-arm study of Japanese patients with diabetes requiring insulin therapy, who had switched to IDegAsp at their treating physician’s discretion in clinical practice. One year after initiating IDegAsp, incidence of adverse events (AEs [primary endpoint]), serious AEs, adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and severe hypoglycaemia (secondary safety endpoints) were assessed in the safety analysis set (SAS). Secondary effectiveness endpoints were change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) in the effectiveness analysis set (EAS).

Results

Overall, 1321 patients were included (SAS, n = 1321; EAS, n = 1285); 4.2% with type 1 diabetes, 95.2% with type 2 diabetes, 0.7% with other/unknown diabetes type. In total, 204 AEs were reported in 132 patients (10.0% of the SAS), at a rate [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 16.2 events/100 patient-years of exposure (PYE) [14.0; 18.4]. By preferred term, ‘hypoglycaemia’ was the most frequent AE (45 events in 31 patients [2.3%]; rate [95% CI] 3.6 events/100 PYE [2.5; 4.6]). Serious AEs occurred in 4.2% of patients (rate [95% CI] 5.7 events/100 PYE [4.4; 7.0]), and ADRs in 3.1% (rate [95% CI] 4.6 reactions/100 PYE [3.4; 5.8]). Six events of severe hypoglycaemia were reported in five patients (0.4%; rate [95% CI] 0.5 events/100 PYE [0.1; 0.9]). Change from baseline to 1 year was − 0.51% and − 32.1 mg/dL for HbA_1c and FPG, respectively (P < 0.0001 for both).

Conclusion

In Japanese patients with diabetes, initiation of IDegAsp in real-world clinical practice was well tolerated, with no new safety signals, and associated with improved glycaemic control after 1 year.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02821052.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01978-2.

Low fasting glucose-to-estimated average glucose ratio was associated with superior response to insulin degludec/aspart compared with basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

The benefits of once-daily insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) compared with basal insulin in type 2 diabetes patients have not been established.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study. From a basal insulin cohort from three referral hospitals, patients were enrolled who initiated once-daily IDegAsp. A control group maintaining basal insulin was selected by propensity score matching. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) changes over a period of 6 months and associated clinical factors were evaluated.

RESULTS

The IDegAsp group and the control group comprised of 87 patients, respectively. Baseline HbA1c was comparable between the two groups (8.7 ± 0.9 vs 8.6 ± 0.9%, mean and standard deviation). After 6 months with matched insulin doses, HbA1c in the IDegAsp group was lower than that in the control group (8.1 ± 1.0 vs 8.4 ± 1.1%, P = 0.029). Among baseline variables, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and fasting C-peptide in the IDegAsp were lower than that in the control (FPG 124.2 ± 38.4 vs 148.0 ± 50.6 mg/dL, P < 0.001). Considering that the lower FPG despite the comparable HbA1c could be related with the efficacy of IDegAsp, subgroup analysis was carried out according to a ratio of FPG-to-estimated average glucose, which is calculated from HbA1c. When compared with each control group, the superiority of IDegAsp in the reduction of HbA1c was significant only in the patients with a lower FPG-to-estimated average glucose ratio (0.49 ± 0.09), but not in those with a higher FPG-to-estimated average glucose ratio (0.79 ± 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that IDegAsp was more effective than basal insulin in patients with an FPG lower than predicted by HbA1c, which might be related with insulin deficiency and postprandial hyperglycemia in patients on basal insulin therapy.

Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp: Results of a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) versus IDegAsp, a co-formulation of basal insulin degludec 100 U/mL with rapid-acting insulin aspart.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Outcomes from eligible RCTs were compared by an indirect treatment comparison using a Bayesian framework. Subanalyses of Japanese and international trials were performed.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs (duration 26-30 weeks) were included. Mean difference in HbA1c change with iGlarLixi exceeded that for IDegAsp: -0.64 (95% credible interval -1.01, -0.28) %-units (-7.0 [-11.0, -3.1] mmol/mol) for all trials, -0.39 (-0.55, -0.23) %-units (-4.3 [-6.0, -2.5] mmol/mol) for international, and -0.88 (-1.11, -0.64) %-units (-9.6 [-12.1, -7.0] mmol/mol) for Japanese trials. HbA1c target achievement (<7.0%-units [<53 mmol/mol]) was greater for iGlarLixi in all trials (odds ratio 2.50 [1.06, 5.56]) and Japanese trials (2.17 [1.27, 3.70]), but not in international trials (2.17 [0.42, 11.11]). Analyses suggesting differences in mean postmeal self-measured plasma glucose were significantly lower by 1.0-2.0 mmol/L (18-36 mg/dL) with iGlarLixi in all analyses. Bodyweight change was more favourable (1-2 kg) for iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp for all analyses (P < 0.05). Comparisons of hypoglycaemia were inconclusive owing to differences in definitions between studies. Adverse events were more frequent with iGlarLixi because of gastrointestinal intolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi appears to offer clinical benefit in glucose control and bodyweight change in people needing both basal and meal-time intervention.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart Compared with a Conventional Premixed Insulin or Basal Insulin: A Meta-Analysis

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a novel co-formulation of 70% insulin degludec and 30% insulin aspart. The present meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp compared with a conventional premixed insulin or basal insulin. We extracted data from citation databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, since inception to 2021. We calculated the mean differences for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-measured mean glucose, and postprandial glucose (PPG) and odds ratios for confirmed hypoglycemia events. Compared with twice-daily conventional premixed insulin, twice-daily IDegAsp showed a similar effect on changes in HbA1c, but it significantly reduced FPG and self-measured mean glucose levels. Furthermore, compared to once-daily basal insulin, once-daily IDegAsp had a similar effect on changes in HbA1c, but it significantly reduced self-measured mean glucose and PPG levels. The risk of overall confirmed hypoglycemia was similar between treatments; however, the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia events was significantly lower with IDegAsp than with conventional premixed insulin and basal insulin. Thus, IDegAsp was more effective than conventional premixed insulin and basal insulin at reducing blood glucose with fewer nocturnal hypoglycemia events.

A Real-World, Prospective, Non-interventional Study of Adults with T2D Switching to IDegAsp from Glargine U100 or U300 in Japan

INTRODUCTION

This real-world study investigated glycaemic control and quality of life (QoL) in insulin-experienced Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who switched to insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp).

METHODS

This was a prospective, non-interventional, open-label, single-arm study. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥ 20 years) with T2D, previously treated with insulin glargine 100 or 300 units/mL (glargine U100/U300) with or without prandial insulin, who switched to IDegAsp as part of routine practice. Change from baseline to end of study (EOS; 26 weeks after initiation or IDegAsp discontinuation) in the following endpoints was assessed by adjusted mixed models for repeated measures: glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; primary endpoint), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin dose and total Diabetes Therapy-Related Quality of Life (DTR-QoL) score. Non-severe hypoglycaemia was assessed in the 4-week period prior to initiating IDegAsp and in the 4-week period before EOS or discontinuation using negative binomial regression.

RESULTS

The full analysis set included 236 patients from 29 centres in Japan with mean (± SD) age 63.2 years (± 12.3), HbA1c 7.7% (± 1.0) and diabetes duration 14.9 (± 9.3) years. After 26 weeks with IDegAsp, HbA1c (estimated change - 0.1% [- 0.2; 0.0]_{95% confidence interval (CI)}, p = 0.3036) and FPG (- 7.5 mg/dL [- 23.5; 8.5]_{95% CI}, p = 0.3477) were maintained; there were significant reductions in basal and total insulin dose: estimated change of - 3.4 units/day [- 3.8; - 3.0]_{95% CI} and - 1.0 units/day [- 1.9; - 0.1]_{95% CI}, respectively (both p < 0.05). Non-severe hypoglycaemia rates were similar in the periods before and after initiating IDegAsp, while there was a significant improvement in total DTR-QoL score after 26 weeks with IDegAsp (p = 0.0012).

CONCLUSION

These real-world data suggest that switching to IDegAsp from glargine U100 or U300 was well tolerated in a Japanese population with T2D, with no new safety or tolerability signals, and associated with maintenance of glycaemic control and improved QoL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03745157.

Clinical research of insulin glargine U300 basal-bolus therapy and insulin degludec/aspart co-formulation in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A real world experience

AIMS

Insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) and insulin glargine U300 (IGlarU300) have recently emerged as popular new-generation insulin analogues. The aim of this real-life study was to investigate the patient profiles in which IGlarU300 and IDegAsp were preferred and the insulin combinations after which each of them were mostly used and also to analyse the effect of these two insulin analogues on blood glucose regulation and hypoglycaemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The retrospective study included 174 patients that were switched from basal insulin, basal-bolus insulin, or premixed insulin to IGlarU300 or IDegAsp due to uncontrolled blood glucose levels or history of hypoglycaemia. Hypoglycaemia, body weight, body mass index (BMI), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA1c levels over 3-month periods were evaluated for each patient.

RESULTS

There were 84 and 90 patients in the IGlarU300 and IDegAsp groups, respectively. Body weight was similar in both groups. Baseline FPG and HbA1c levels in the IGlarU300 and IDegAsp groups were 9.0%, 175.5 mg/dL and 9.4%, 193.5 mg/dL, respectively. A significant decrease was found in FPG and HbA1c levels in both groups (138.5, 7.8 vs 141.5, 8.2; P < .001 for all). Moreover, a significant weight gain was observed in both groups (P < .05 for both). The prevalence of hypoglycaemia in both groups decreased significantly and consistently between months 1 and 9 (P < .001). At month 12, although this decrease continued in the IGlarU300 group (P = .013), no significant decrease was observed in the IDegAsp group (P = .057).

CONCLUSION

Both twice-daily IDegAsp ± bolus insulin and IGlarU300 basal bolus insulin therapies are effective and safe treatment modalities.

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

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

Indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of insulin glargine/lixisenatide and insulin degludec/insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes patients not controlled on basal insulin

BACKGROUND

Fixed-dose combinations of insulin glargine/lixisenatide (IGlarLixi) or insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) constitute treatment intensification in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D).

OBJECTIVES

Compare efficacy and safety of IGlarLixi and IDegAsp (as intensification from basal insulin), by indirect comparison of phase III trials, in the absence of head-to-head trials.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies comparing treatment intensification by once-daily IDegAsp or IGlarLixi to basal insulin. Data were extracted from two trials (BOOST: Intensify-Basal and LixiLan-L) retained for analysis.

SYNTHESIS METHODS

Treatments were compared in terms of estimated treatment difference (ETD) in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting and postprandial plasma glucose (FPG and PPG) change from baseline; in addition to hypoglycaemia incidence and weight changes.

RESULTS

In a fixed-effect model examining HbA1c control, IGlarLixi was more effective than IDegAsp in reducing HbA1c (ETD 0.53%, P<0.0001]), PPG (ETD 2.65%, P<0.0001), and body weight (ETD 1.73kg, P<0.0001). Patients on IGlarLixi were more likely to achieve HbA1c<7% than patients on IDegAsp (odds ratio [OR]=0.40, P<0.0001), with lower incidence of hypoglycaemia (OR=1.33, P<0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Limited number of studies; different baseline HbA1c and FPG.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily IGlarLixi is more efficient than once-daily IDegAsp in controlling HbA1c and PPG and associates with greater weight loss and lower hypoglycaemia incidence.

Use of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus: Expert Panel Recommendations on Appropriate Practice Patterns

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed-ratio co-formulation of insulin degludec (IDeg), which provides long-lasting basal insulin coverage, and insulin aspart (IAsp), which targets post-prandial glucose. This expert panel aimed to provide a practical and implementable guidance document to assist clinicians in prescribing IDegAsp in the diabetes management with respect to different patient populations including children and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) as well as pregnant, elderly and hospitalized patients and varying practice patterns (insulin-naive, insulin-treated, switching from basal, basal bolus and premix regimens). The experts recommended that IDegAsp can be used in insulin-naive T2D patients with poor glycemic control (HbA1c >8.5%) despite optimal oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) as well as in insulin-treated T2D patients by switching from basal insulin, basal-bolus therapy or premixed insulins in relation to lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia, fewer injections and lower intraday glycemic variability, respectively. The experts considered the use of IDegAsp in children with T2D as a basal bolus alternative rather than as an alternative to basal insulin after metformin failure, use of IDegAsp in adult T1D patients as a simplified basal bolus regimen with lesser nocturnal hypoglycemia, fewer injections and better fasting plasma glucose control and in children with T1D as an alternative insulin regimen with fewer injection to increase treatment adherence. The proposed expert opinion provides practical information on use of IDegAsp in different patient populations and practice patterns to assist clinicians, which seems to compensate the need for easily implementable guidance on this novel insulin regimen.

Insulinization in T2DM with Basal Analogues During COVID-19 Pandemic: Expert Opinion from an Indian Panel

The ongoing global pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has placed a severe strain on the management of chronic conditions like diabetes. Optimal glycemic control is always important, but more so in the existing environment of COVID-19. In this context, timely insulinization to achieve optimal glycemic control assumes major significance. However, given the challenges associated with the pandemic like restrictions of movement and access to healthcare resources, a simple and easy way to initiate and optimize insulin therapy in people with uncontrolled diabetes is required. With this premise, a group of clinical experts comprising diabetologists and endocrinologists from India discussed the challenges and potential solutions for insulin initiation, titration, and optimization in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) during the COVID-19 pandemic and how basal insulin can be a good option in this situation owing to its unique set of advantages like lower risk of hypoglycemia, ease of training, need for less monitoring, better adherence, flexibility of using oral antidiabetic drugs, and improved quality of life compared to other insulin regimens. The panel agreed that the existing challenges should not be a reason to delay insulin initiation in people with uncontrolled T2DM and provided recommendations, which included potential solutions for initiating insulin in the absence or restriction of in-person consultations; the dose of insulin at initiation; the type of insulin preferred for simplified regimen and best practices for optimal titration to achieve glycemic targets during the pandemic. Practical and easily implementable tips for patients and involvement of stakeholders (caregivers and healthcare providers) to facilitate insulin acceptance were also outlined by the expert panel. Simplified and convenient insulin regimens like basal insulin analogues are advised during and following the pandemic in order to achieve glycemic control in people with uncontrolled T2DM.

Practical use of insulin degludec/insulin aspart in a multinational setting: beyond the guidelines

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed-ratio co-formulation of insulin degludec, which provides long-lasting basal insulin coverage, and insulin aspart, which targets postprandial glycaemia. This review provides expert opinion on the practical clinical use of IDegAsp, including: dose timings relative to meals, when and how to intensify treatment from once-daily (OD) to twice-daily (BID) dose adjustments, and use in special populations (including hospitalized patients). IDegAsp could be considered as one among the choices for initiating insulin treatment, preferential to starting on basal insulin alone, particularly for people with severe hyperglycaemia and/or when postprandial hyperglycaemia is a major concern. The recommended starting dose of IDegAsp is 10 units with the most carbohydrate-rich meal(s), followed by individualized dose adjustments. Insulin doses should be titrated once weekly in two-unit steps, guided by individualized fasting plasma glucose targets and based on patient goals, preferences and hypoglycaemia risk. Options for intensification from IDegAsp OD are discussed, which should be guided by HbA1c, prandial glucose levels, meal patterns and patient preferences. Recommendations for switching to IDegAsp from basal insulin, premixed insulins OD/BID, and basal-plus/basal-bolus regimens are discussed. IDegAsp can be co-administered with other antihyperglycaemic drugs; however, sulphonylureas frequently need to be discontinued or the dose reduced, and the IDegAsp dose may need to be decreased when sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are added. Considerations around the initiation or continuation of IDegAsp in hospitalized individuals are discussed, as well as in those undergoing medical procedures.

Co-Formulations as the First Injectable in Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of Efficacy, Safety, and Implications in Clinical Practice

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Progression of type 2 diabetes will necessitate the use of injectable therapies in a significant number of people. Co-formulations of degludec with liraglutide (IDeg­Lira) and glargine with lixisenatide (IGlarLixi) are currently recommended for intensification in people with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin or glucagon-like peptide receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) alone or in people with type 2 diabetes who are naïve to insulin with very high glycated haemoglobin. Co-formulation of aspart with degludec (IDegAsp) is recommended as a substitute for premixed insulin. The aim of this article is to review the evidence in the use of co-formulations as the first injectable in type 2 diabetes and its clinical implications. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> In people with type 2 diabetes who are naïve to insulin or GLP-1RA, IDegLira and IGlarLixi achieved stable and durable glycaemic control over a wide range of baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. People on IDegLira and IGlarLixi had lesser risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain in studies compared to basal insulin and lesser gastrointestinal adverse effects in comparison to GLP-1RA. IDegAsp achieved similar glycaemic control to basal and premixed insulin with lesser risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. <b><i>Key Messages:</i></b> IDegLira, IGlarLixi, and IDegAsp can be used as the first injectable in people with type 2 diabetes with very high glycated haemoglobin on oral antidiabetic drugs. These co-formulations combine efficacy and durability with lesser injection burden. The components of these agents have proven cardiovascular and renal safety. Their limitations in flexibility of dosing, renal and cardiovascular considerations, and adverse effects are discussed.

Switching to Once-Daily Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart from Basal Insulin Improves Postprandial Glycemia in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

To explore the efficacy and safety of switching from once-daily basal insulin therapy to once-daily pre-meal injection insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) with respect to the glycemic control of participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

In this multicenter, open-label, prospective, randomized, parallel-group comparison trial, participants on basal insulin therapy were switched to IDegAsp (IDegAsp group; n=30) or continued basal insulin (Basal group; n=29). The primary endpoint was the superiority of IDegAsp in causing changes in the daily blood glucose profile, especially post-prandial blood glucose concentration after 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Blood glucose concentrations after dinner and before bedtime were lower in the IDegAsp group, and the improvement in blood glucose before bedtime was significantly greater in the IDegAsp group than in the Basal group at 12 weeks (-1.7±3.0 mmol/L vs. 0.3±2.1 mmol/L, P<0.05). Intriguingly, glycemic control after breakfast was not improved by IDegAsp injection before breakfast, in contrast to the favorable effect of injection before dinner on blood glucose after dinner. Glycosylated hemoglobin significantly decreased only in the IDegAsp group (58 to 55 mmol/mol, P<0.05). Changes in daily insulin dose, body mass, and recorded adverse effects, including hypoglycemia, were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

IDegAsp was more effective than basal insulin at reducing blood glucose after dinner and before bedtime, but did not increase the incidence of hypoglycemia. Switching from basal insulin to IDegAsp does not increase the burden on the patient and positively impacts glycemic control in patients with T2DM.

An Overview of Prospective Drugs for Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Aims:

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of several emerging anti-diabetic molecules.

Background:

Diabetes is a complex metabolic disorder involving the dysregulation of glucose homeostasis at various levels. Insulin, which is produced by β-pancreatic cells, is a chief regulator of glucose metabolism, regulating its consumption within cells, which leads to energy generation or storage as glycogen. Abnormally low insulin secretion from β-cells, insulin insensitivity, and insulin tolerance lead to higher plasma glucose levels, resulting in metabolic complications. The last century has witnessed extraordinary efforts by the scientific community to develop anti-diabetic drugs, and these efforts have resulted in the discovery of exogenous insulin and various classes of oral anti-diabetic drugs.

Objective:

Despite these exhaustive anti-diabetic pharmaceutical and therapeutic efforts, long-term glycemic control, hypoglycemic crisis, safety issues, large-scale economic burden and side effects remain the core problems.

Method:

The last decade has witnessed the development of various new classes of anti-diabetic drugs with different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Details of their FDA approvals and advantages/disadvantages are summarized in this review.

Results:

The salient features of insulin degludec, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, glucokinase activators, fibroblast growth factor 21 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 agonists are discussed.

Conclusion :

In the future, these new anti-diabetic drugs may have broad clinical applicability. Additional multicenter clinical studies on these new drugs should be conducted.

The Clinical Role of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart in Type 2 Diabetes: An Empirical Perspective from Experience in Australia

Treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes following failure of basal insulin commonly involves the addition of a rapid-acting insulin analogue (basal plus one or more prandial doses; multiple daily injections) or by a switch to premixed insulin. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp), comprising rapid-acting insulin aspart and ultra-long-acting insulin degludec in solution, enables both fasting and post-prandial glucose control, with some advantages over other treatment intensification options. These include straightforward dose titration, flexibility in dose timing, low injection burden, simplicity of switching and a lower risk of hypoglycaemia. In Australia, where insulin degludec on its own is not available, IDegAsp enables patients to still benefit from its ultra-long-acting properties. This review aims to provide guidance on where and how to use IDegAsp. Specifically, guidance is included on the initiation of IDegAsp in insulin-naïve patients, treatment intensification from basal insulin, switching from premixed or basal-bolus insulin to IDegAsp, up-titration from once- to twice-daily IDegAsp and the use of IDegAsp in special populations or situations.

Favorable Glycemic Control with Once-Daily Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart after Changing from Basal Insulin in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Conflicting results have been reported on the efficacy of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) compared to basal insulin in type 2 diabetes. We investigated the effects of changing basal insulin to IDegAsp on glycemic control and sought to identify factors related to those effects.

METHODS

In this retrospective study of patients from three referral hospitals, patients with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels less than 11.0% were enrolled. Basal insulin was replaced with IDegAsp, and data were analyzed from 3 months before to 3 months after the replacement.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were recruited (52.5% male; mean age, 67.0±9.8 years; mean duration of diabetes, 18.9±8.5 years; mean HbA1c, 8.7%±1.0%). HbA1c levels increased during 3 months of basal insulin use, but significantly decreased after changing to IDegAsp (8.28%±1.10%, P=0.0001). The reduction was significant at 6 months in 35 patients whose longer-term data were available. Patients with a measured fasting plasma glucose (m-FPG) lower than their predicted FPG (p-FPG) by regression from HbA1c showed a significant HbA1c reduction caused by the change to IDegAsp, even without a significantly increased insulin dose. However, patients whose m-FPG was higher than their p-FPG did not experience a significant HbA1c reduction, despite a significantly increased insulin dose. Furthermore, the HbA1c reduction caused by IDegAsp was significant in patients with low fasting C-peptide levels and high insulin doses.

CONCLUSION

We observed a significant glucose-lowering effect by replacing basal insulin with IDegAsp, especially in patients with a lower m-FPG than p-FPG.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of once-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) and long-acting second-generation basal insulin (insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 units/mL) in insulin-naïve Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes: a pilot, randomized, controlled study

To examine the efficacy and safety of once-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) or once-daily second-generation basal insulin analogs (insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 units/mL) in insulin-naïve Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice. A 12-week multicenter, open-label, randomized, pilot study was performed in 52 subjects with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Subjects were randomized to once-daily IDegAsp (n = 26) or basal insulin (n = 26). The primary endpoint was percent change in HbA1c from baseline to week 12. Furthermore, it was analyzed post hoc in subgroups stratified by baseline HbA1c. During a follow-up period, percent change in HbA1c was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.161). Daily insulin doses and frequency of overall hypoglycemia were also similar in the two groups. In post hoc analyses, once-daily basal insulin was more effective than IDegAsp in subjects with HbA1c more than or equal to 8.5% (p < 0.05); however, in subjects with HbA1c less than 8.5%, once-daily IDegAsp showed a significant improvement in percent change in HbA1c at week 12, compared with basal insulin (p < 0.01). Although there was no apparent difference in the HbA1c-lowering effects between two groups, when compared in subjects with HbA1c less than 8.5%, once-daily IDegAsp showed a significant effect in comparison with once-daily basal insulin. These findings suggest that the baseline HbA1c level might provide the important information for choosing IDegAsp or basal insulin in patients insufficiently controlled with OADs. This trial was registered with UMIN (no. UMIN000035431).

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

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

Comparative effectiveness and harms of long-acting insulins for type 1 and type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To review evidence comparing benefits and harms of long-acting insulins in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes.

METHODS

MEDLINE and two Cochrane databases were searched during February 2018. Two authors selected studies meeting inclusion criteria and assessed their quality. Comparative studies of adult or paediatric patients with diabetes treated with insulin degludec, detemir or glargine were included. Meta-analysis was used to combine results of similar studies, and the I² statistic calculated to assess statistical heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of 2534 citations reviewed, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria. No statistically significant differences in HbA1c were seen between any two insulins or formulations. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than with glargine, including nocturnal hypoglycaemia in type 1 (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.81) and type 2 diabetes (rate ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.82), and severe hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes (relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.96). Patients with type 2 diabetes had higher rates of withdrawal because of adverse events when treated with detemir compared with glargine (relative risk 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.3). Adults taking detemir gained about 1 kg less body weight than those taking degludec (type 1) or glargine (type 2).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in glycaemic control were seen between insulin degludec, detemir and glargine. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than glargine, and patients taking detemir gained less body weight than those given degludec or glargine. In type 2 diabetes, withdrawals as a result of adverse events were more probable with detemir than glargine.

Clinical considerations for use of insulin degludec/insulin aspart in Japanese patients

INTRODUCTION

Co-formulation of basal and bolus insulin components provides a simpler regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes than separate basal-bolus treatment. However, conventional premixed insulin products include a suboptimal protaminated basal component that requires resuspension prior to injection. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is the first soluble co-formulation of a basal insulin with an ultra-long duration of action (IDeg) and a rapid-acting bolus insulin (IAsp) in a single injection.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors summarize findings from pre-clinical studies and the clinical trial program and provide guidance for the initiating and switching of IDegAsp in different patient populations. Pharmacodynamic analyses have revealed a rapid onset of action and distinct peak (IAsp), followed by a separate, flat and stable basal effect (IDeg component). Phase 3 studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp, with greater glycemic improvements than basal-only therapy in international and Japanese type 2 diabetes populations. IDegAsp also results in reduced insulin dose requirements and lower rates of hypoglycemia than premixed insulin.

EXPERT OPINION

IDegAsp provides a simple and effective insulin regimen in appropriately selected Japanese patients, with the flexibility to suit individual needs. The benefits of IDegAsp over conventional insulin regimens might help tackle clinical inertia with insulin intensification.