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

Efficacy, safety and treatment satisfaction of transition to a regimen of insulin degludec/aspart: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of transitioning from a thrice-daily pre-mixed insulin or basal-prandial regimen to insulin deglu-dec/aspart (IDegAsp) therapy, with insufficient data from the Chinese popu-lation.

AIM

To demonstrate the efficacy, safety, and treatment satisfaction associated with the transition to IDegAsp in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

In this 12-week open-label, non-randomized, single-center, pilot study, patients with T2DM receiving thrice-daily insulin or intensive insulin treatment were transitioned to twice-daily injections of insulin IDegAsp. Insulin doses, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, fasting blood glucose (FBG), hypoglycemic events, a Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, and other parameters were assessed at baseline and 12-weeks.

RESULTS

This study included 21 participants. A marked enhancement was observed in the FBG level (P = 0.02), daily total insulin dose (P = 0.03), and overall diabetes treatment satisfaction (P < 0.01) in the participants who switched to IDegAsp. There was a decrease in HbA1c levels (7.6 ± 1.1 vs 7.4 ± 0.9, P = 0.31) and the frequency of hypoglycemic events of those who switched to IDegAsp decreased, however, there was no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

The present findings suggest that treatment with IDegAsp enhances clinical outcomes, particularly FBG levels, daily cumulative insulin dose, and overall satisfaction with diabetes treatment.

Efficacy and safety of basal insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Aim

The comparative effectiveness of basal insulins has been examined in several studies. However, current treatment algorithms provide a list of options with no clear differentiation between different basal insulins as the optimal choice for initiation.

Methods

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI, and Scopus, and a reference list of retrieved studies and reviews were performed up to November 2023. We identified phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens. The primary outcomes evaluated were HbA1c reduction, weight change, and hypoglycemic events. The revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals considering the critical assumptions in the networks. The certainty of the evidence and confidence in the rankings was assessed using the GRADE minimally contextualized approach.

Results

Of 20,817 retrieved studies, 44 RCTs (23,699 participants) were eligible for inclusion in our network meta-analysis. We found no significant difference among various basal insulins (including Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH), ILPS, insulin glargine, detemir, and degludec) in reducing HbA1c. Insulin glargine, 300 U/mL (IGlar-300) was significantly associated with less weight gain (mean difference ranged from 2.9 kg to 4.1 kg) compared to other basal insulins, namely thrice-weekly insulin degludec (IDeg-3TW), insulin degludec, 100 U/mL (IDeg-100), insulin degludec, 200 U/mL (IDeg-200), NPH, and insulin detemir (IDet), but with low to very low certainty regarding most comparisons. IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 were associated with significantly lower odds of overall, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemic events than NPH and insulin lispro protamine (ILPS) (moderate to high certainty evidence). NPH was associated with the highest odds of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to others. Network meta-analysis models were robust, and findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

The efficacy of various basal insulin regimens is comparable. However, they have different safety profiles. IGlar-300 may be the best choice when weight gain is a concern. In contrast, IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 may be preferred when hypoglycemia is the primary concern.

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.

Clinical course of different long-acting insulin therapies-glargine U100, U300, degludec, and insulin degludec/insulin aspart-among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicenter retrospective observational study (JDDM65 study)

This study aimed to retrospectively compare the clinical efficacy of different types of long-acting insulin therapies-glargine U100, glargine U300, degludec, and insulin degludec/insulin aspart-among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes after insulin use was initiated in an outpatient setting. The study consisted of 822 insulin-naïve patients in Japan who started using long-acting insulin for treatment of type 2 diabetes and continued for over 12 months. In addition, the impact of insulin type on insulin withdrawal was investigated by dividing the participants into two groups: those who achieved insulin withdrawal and those who did not, during the 12-month observation period based on a Cox proportional hazards model. As a result, HbA1c was decreased, and BMI was increased in all participants regardless of the insulin type used. A total of 185 participants succeeded in insulin withdrawal. After adjustment was made for several confounders, the positive determinant factors for withdrawal were short duration of diabetes and the choice of IDegAsp when compared with Gla100; the negative determinant factor was use of insulin secretagogues at the start of the study. In conclusion, all long-acting insulins were a powerful tool for treatment of type 2 diabetes, and patients with short duration of diabetes and/or no usage of insulin secretagogues resulted in favorable outcomes in terms of insulin withdrawal within a year in an outpatient setting. In addition, insulin degludec/insulin aspart was found to possibly be a better choice for treatment when it was compared with glargine U100 among the four types of insulin.

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 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.

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.

Fear of hypoglycemia in adults with diabetes mellitus switching to treatment with IDegAsp co-formulation to examine real-world setting: an observational study (The HATICE study)

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical results of insulin degludec/aspart (IDEgAsp) therapy and its effect on the fear of hypoglycemia.

METHODS

A prospective observational study has been conducted through surveys of 36 patients using insulin because of type 2 diabetes mellitus who initiated treatment with IDegAsp switching from other insulins. Patients, 18-75 years old, were recruited to the study, consecutively. Participants' age, gender, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), daily insulin dose, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), hypoglycemia rate, hypoglycemia fear survey (HFS) were recorded at the beginning of the study. By the end of 12th month, data was re-measured and compared with each other.

RESULTS

HbA1c was declined by mean of -1.59% (95% CI -1.06 to -2.12, p<0.001). There was also a significant decrease in mean, daily insulin dose, weight and BMI values of patients via IDegAsp. While there was an increase in the amount of dipeptidyl peptidase 4-inhibitors (DPP4-i) and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2-inhibitors (SGLT2-i), there was a decrease in daily injection frequency. There was also a significant decrease in the median values of monthly hypoglycemia rate (from 2.0 to 1.0, p<0.001) and the entire HFS scores (HFS-T: from 1.09 to 0.73, p<0.001; HFS-B: from 0.83 to 0.60, p<0.001; HFS-W: from 1.33 to 0.88, p<0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between ΔHFS-B and daily injection frequency (Rho: 0.398; P: 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp co-formulation, combined with DPP4-i and/or SGLT2-i, can provide usefulness in terms of rates of hypoglycemia, reduced HbA1c, less injection administration, and decreased the fear of hypoglycemia in diabetics.

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.

Outcomes of transition from premixed and intensive insulin therapies to insulin aspart/degludec co-formulation in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a real-world experience

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transition from premixed and intensive insulin to twice-daily insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) co-formulation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this 12-week study, patients receiving twice-daily premixed insulin therapy in group 1 (n = 55) were switched to twice-daily IDegAsp. In group 2 (n = 60), patients on intensive insulin therapy were switched to IDegAsp injected twice a day. Inter- and intragroup comparisons were made.

RESULTS

A total of 115 patients were included in the study. There was a significant improvement in glycaemic control, median daily total insulin dose, body mass, body mass index, and hypoglycaemic events in group 1 and group 2 with the switch to IDegAsp (p < 0.05). The decrease in median daily total insulin dose requirement in group 2 was higher than that of group 1 (p = 0.001). There was no difference between groups in terms of other parameters (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The current analysis indicates that IDegAsp treatment improves outcomes, with the most notable differences observed in daily total insulin requirement, body mass, and hypoglycaemia.