Insulin degludec/insulin aspart administered once daily at any meal, with insulin aspart at other meals versus a standard basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 1 diabetes: a 26-week, phase 3, randomized, open-label, treat-to-target trial

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.

Intensification of Insulin Treatment With Insulin Degludec/Aspart in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A 2-Year Real-World Experience

AIM

To evaluate the effects of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) coformulation as an intensification of insulin treatment for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a long term real-world clinical setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective non-interventional study, included 210 patients with T2D who to IDegAsp coformulation from prior insulin treatment in a tertiary endocrinology center between September 2017 and December 2019. The baseline data was taken as the index date and defined as the first IDegAsp prescription claim. Previous insulin treatment modalities, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and body weight were recorded, respectively at the 3^rd, 6^th, 12^th, and 24^th months of the IDegAsp treatment.

RESULTS

Out of the total 210 patients, 166 patients under insulin treatment switched to twice-daily IDegAsp treatment, 35 patients switched to once daily IDegAsp and twice premeal short-acting insulin regimen as a modified basal-bolus (BB) treatment, and nine patients commenced with once-daily IDegAsp treatment. HbA1c decreased from 9.2% ± 1.9% to 8.2% ± 1.6% in 6 months, 8.2% ± 1.7% in the first year, and 8.1% ± 1.6% in the second year of the therapy (p< 0.001). FPG decreased from 209.0 ± 85.0 mg/dL to 147.0 ± 62.6 mg/dL in the second year (p< 0.001). The required total daily dose of insulin increased in the second year of IDegAsp treatment compared to baseline. However, there was a borderline significance increase in IDegAsp requirement for the whole group at the two-year follow-up (p = 0.05). Patients who were administered twice daily IDegAsp injections required more total insulin in the first and second years due to added premeal short-acting insulin injections (p < 0.05). The frequency of patients with HbA1c < 7% was 31.8% in first year and 35.8% in second year under IDegAsp treatment.Insulin dose was de-escalated in 28.5% of the patients under BB treatment, while 15% under twice-daily IDegAsp required increased BB treatment.

CONCLUSION

Intensification of insulin treatment with IDegAsp coformulation improved glycemic control in patients with T2D. The total daily insulin requirement increased but the IDegAsp requirement lightly increased at the two-year follow-up. Patients under BB treatment required de-escalation of insulin treatment.

Proteomic Changes to the Updated Discovery of Engineered Insulin and Its Analogs: Pros and Cons

The destruction of β-cells of the pancreas leads to either insulin shortage or the complete absence of insulin, which in turn causes diabetes Mellitus. For treating diabetes, many trials have been conducted since the 19th century until now. In ancient times, insulin from an animal's extract was taken to treat human beings. However, this resulted in some serious allergic reactions. Therefore, scientists and researchers have tried their best to find alternative ways for managing diabetes with progressive advancements in biotechnology. However, a lot of research trials have been conducted, and they discovered more progressed strategies and approaches to treat type I and II diabetes with satisfaction. Still, investigators are finding more appropriate ways to treat diabetes accurately. They formulated insulin analogs that mimic the naturally produced human insulin through recombinant DNA technology and devised many methods for appropriate delivery of insulin. This review will address the following questions: What is insulin preparation? How were these devised and what are the impacts (both positive and negative) of such insulin analogs against TIDM (type-I diabetes mellitus) and TIIDM (type-II diabetes mellitus)? This review article will also demonstrate approaches for the delivery of insulin analogs into the human body and some future directions for further improvement of insulin treatment.

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.

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

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

Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus over a Period of 1 Year during Routine Clinical Care in India: SMART (Study of Management of Diabetes with Ryzodeg™ Treatment)

This post-authorization study was conducted to evaluate the safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) in adult patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) during routine clinical care under a real-world setting in India. Eligible patients received IDegAsp for a minimum of 12 months during routine clinical management. Data were collected at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months. In total, 1029 adult patients with DM were included; 65.2% (n = 671) were men; mean age was 55.0 ± 12.2 years, and the mean duration of diabetes mellitus was 10.8 ± 7.4 years. Thirty adverse events were reported in 23 patients (2.2%) during the follow-up: two adverse events in two patients were serious with fatal outcomes, which were unrelated to IDegAsp use. At baseline, there were 176 confirmed hypoglycemic events in 67 (6.7%) patients while they were on their previous treatment options. At 12 months of treatment with IDegAsp, 11 confirmed hypoglycemic events were reported in 11 (1.1%) patients since the previous visit; there were no reported episodes of severe hypoglycemia. Mean glycosylated hemoglobin value reduced from 9.5% ± 1.8% at baseline to 7.7% ± 1.1% at 12 months. This study showed the safety of IDegAsp in patients with diabetes mellitus over a period of 1 year during routine clinical care.

Efficacy and safety among second-generation and other basal insulins in adult patients with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of second-generation basal insulins (glargine U300 and degludec U100) vs. neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) and first-generation basal insulins (glargine U100 and detemir) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) adults.PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar (until January 2021) were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with ≥ 12 weeks of follow-up comparing efficacy (HbA_1c) or safety (hypoglycemia and weight gain) between second-generation basal insulins vs. other basal insulins in T1D adults were included. Bayesian network meta-analyses were used to estimate risk ratio, hazard ratio, and mean difference. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to appraise evidence certainty.Eighteen RCTs (≥ 24 weeks of follow-up) involving 7283 randomized participants were included for main analysis. Moderate to high certainty evidence suggested that second-generation basal insulins showed equivalent HbA_1c reduction compared with NPH and first-generation basal insulins. Compared with second-generation basal insulins, low to high certainty evidence suggested that NPH was associated with a higher risk of patients experiencing severe hypoglycemia; NPH and first-generation basal insulins were associated with a higher rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemic events. For the weight gain, glargine U300 was comparable to detemir (low certainty), but degludec U100 was greater than detemir (moderate certainty).In conclusion, second-generation basal insulins maintained equivalent efficacy of glycemic control (moderate to high certainty), with differences in safety (low to high certainty) compared with NPH and first-generation basal insulins during ≥ 24 weeks of follow-up in T1D adults.

Factors that affect the Glycemic Control Achieved by Switching to Insulin Degludec/ Aspart in Insulin-Treated Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in a Real-World Setting: a Non-interventional, Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) is a co-formulation with IDeg and IAsp. Different insulin regimens may be switched to IDegAsp. In this study, we aimed to find out the effect of switch to IDegAsp on glycemic control and whether the basal characteristics and treatment modalities of the patients affect the change in glycemic control brought by switch to IDegAsp.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 78 patients whose insulin therapies (basal+bolus, premixed analogues or basal only) were switched on a 1:1 unit basis to IDegAsp±bolus insulin. Oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) given were recorded. At the end of 12^th and 24^th week, total insulin doses of patients and HbA1c were compared to the baseline.

Results

There was a statistically significant decrease at HbA1c at 12 weeks (1.4%; p<0.001). There was not a significant difference in HbA1c between the OAD added group and the group with no new OADs(p=0.1). Basal insulin dose was not statistically different from baseline, whereas bolus insulin dose was significantly lower (p=0.007). At the end of 24 weeks the decrease in HbA1c level from baseline was preserved.

Conclusion

Regardless of the baseline insulin regimen, diabetes type and oral antidiabetic drugs given, HbA1c is significantly lowered after switching to IDegAsp.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

People with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) need treatment with insulin for survival. Whether any particular type of (ultra-)long-acting insulin provides benefit especially regarding risk of diabetes complications and hypoglycaemia is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn) or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogue in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We explored the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Agency (EMA) web pages. We asked pharmaceutical companies, EMA and investigators for additional data and clinical study reports (CSRs). The date of the last search of all databases was 24 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 24 weeks or more comparing one (ultra-)long-acting insulin to NPH insulin or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin in people with T1DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 (RoB 2) tool and extracted data. Our main outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (QoL), severe hypoglycaemia, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke (NFMI/NFS), severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events (SAEs) and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs. Two studies were unpublished. We obtained CSRs, clinical study synopses or both as well as medical reviews from regulatory agencies on 23 studies which contributed to better analysis of risk of bias and improved data extraction. A total of 8784 participants were randomised: 2428 participants were allocated to NPH insulin, 2889 participants to insulin detemir, 2095 participants to insulin glargine and 1372 participants to insulin degludec. Eight studies contributing 21% of all participants comprised children. The duration of the intervention varied from 24 weeks to 104 weeks. Insulin degludec versus NPH insulin: we identified no studies comparing insulin degludec with NPH insulin. Insulin detemir versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): five deaths reported in two studies including adults occurred in the insulin detemir group (Peto OR 4.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.38; 9 studies, 3334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies with 870 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). There was a reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir: 171/2019 participants (8.5%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 138/1200 participants (11.5%) in the NPH insulin group experienced severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 8 studies, 3219 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.34 and 1.39. Only 1/331 participants in the insulin detemir group compared with 0/164 participants in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFMI (1 study, 495 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported NFS. A total of 165/2094 participants (7.9%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 102/1238 participants (8.2%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21; 9 studies, 3332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 70/1823 participants (3.8%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 60/1102 participants (5.4%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17; 7 studies, 2925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin was 0.01%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 8 studies, 3122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): one adult died in the NPH insulin group (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.98; 8 studies, 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 1013 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial effect or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was observed in 122/1191 participants (10.2%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 145/1159 participants (12.5%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.04; 9 studies, 2350 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a NFMI and one participant in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFS in the single study reporting this outcome (585 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 109/1131 participants (9.6%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 110/1098 participants (10.0%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.84; 8 studies, 2229 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 69/938 participants (7.4%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 83/955 participants (8.7%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; 6 studies, 1893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin was 0.02%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 9 studies, 2285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine (2 RCTs),insulin degludec versus insulin detemir (2 RCTs), insulin degludec versus insulin glargine (4 RCTs): there was no evidence of a clinically relevant difference for all main outcomes comparing (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues with each other. For all outcomes none of the comparisons indicated differences in tests of interaction for children versus adults.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin for T1DM showed lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir (moderate-certainty evidence). However, the 95% prediction interval indicated inconsistency in this finding. Both insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin did not show benefits or harms for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. For all other main outcomes with overall low risk of bias and comparing insulin analogues with each other, there was no true beneficial or harmful effect for any intervention. Data on patient-important outcomes such as QoL, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications were sparse or missing. No clinically relevant differences were found between children and adults.

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.

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.

The Evolution of Insulin and How it Informs Therapy and Treatment Choices

Insulin has been available for the treatment of diabetes for almost a century, and the variety of insulin choices today represents many years of discovery and innovation. Insulin has gone from poorly defined extracts of animal pancreata to pure and precisely controlled formulations that can be prescribed and administered with high accuracy and predictability of action. Modifications of the insulin formulation and of the insulin molecule itself have made it possible to approximate the natural endogenous insulin response. Insulin and insulin formulations had to be designed to produce either a constant low basal level of insulin or the spikes of insulin released in response to meals. We discuss how the biochemical properties of endogenous insulin were exploited to either shorten or extend the time-action profiles of injectable insulins by varying the pharmacokinetics (time for appearance of insulin in the blood after injection) and pharmacodynamics (time-dependent changes in blood sugar after injection). This has resulted in rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting insulins, as well as mixtures and concentrated formulations. An understanding of how various insulins and formulations were designed to solve the challenges of insulin replacement will assist clinicians in meeting the needs of their individual patients.

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.

Insulin Therapy in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Narrative Review

Here, we review insulin management options and strategies in nonpregnant adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Most patients with T1DM should follow a regimen of multiple daily injections of basal/bolus insulin, but those not meeting individual glycemic targets or those with frequent or severe hypoglycemia or pronounced dawn phenomenon should consider continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. The latter treatment modality could also be an alternative based on patient preferences and availability of reimbursement. Continuous glucose monitoring may improve glycemic control irrespective of treatment regimen. A glycemic target of glycated hemoglobin < 7% (53 mmol/mol) is appropriate for most nonpregnant adults. Basal insulin analogues with a reduced peak profile and an extended duration of action with lower intraindividual variability relative to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin are preferred. The clinical advantages of basal analogues compared with older basal insulins include reduced injection burden, better efficacy, lower risk of hypoglycemic episodes (especially nocturnal), and reduced weight gain. For prandial glycemic control, any rapid-acting prandial analogue (aspart, glulisine, lispro) is preferred over regular human insulin. Faster-acting insulin aspart is a relatively new option with the advantage of better postprandial glucose coverage. Frequent blood glucose measurements along with patient education on insulin dosing based on carbohydrate counting, premeal blood glucose, and anticipated physical activity is paramount, as is education on the management of blood glucose under different circumstances.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary is available for this article.

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.

Premix insulins in type 1 diabetes: the coming of degludec/aspart

INTRODUCTION

Although premixed fixed ratio NPH insulin products are commonly used in type 2 diabetes patients, the advent of Glargine insulin which cannot be formulated together with a rapid-acting insulin (basal-bolus) has largely eliminated premixed insulin from use in type 1 diabetes. Degludec insulin can be formulated together with Aspart insulin in a 70/30 fixed ratio product. We review the potential use of Degludec-Aspart in type 1 diabetes. Areas covered: A historical search of the development and use of premixed insulin preparations was performed relying on Pubmed, FDA, and European Union records. Expert opinion: Degludec is a once daily insulin. There appears to be little advantage to administration of Degludec-Aspart twice daily, and basal bolus injections have proved superior to premixed insulin in type 1 diabetes. There may still be a role for this premixed fixed ratio formulation in patients who have opted to use Technosphere inhaled insulin prior to and post meals. In such patients, the use of a single injection of Degludec-Aspart prior to the largest meal of the day might provide an anchor to allow patients to then self-administer multiple inhalations around mealtimes.

Factors Influencing Variations in Hospitalization for Diabetes with Hypoglycemia

Many studies have explored risk factors associated with Hypoglycemia (HG) and examined the variation in healthcare utilization among HG patients. However, most of these studies failed to integrate a comprehensive list of personal risk factors in their investigations. This empirical study employed the Behavioral Model (BM) of health care utilization as a framework to investigate diabetes' hospitalizations with HG. The national inpatient sample with all non-pregnant adult patients admitted to hospitals' emergency departments and diagnosed with HG from 2012 to 2014 was used. Personal factors were grouped as predictors of the length of stay and the total charges incurred for hospitalization. High-risk profiles of hospitalized HG patients were identified. The analysis shows the need for care factors are the most influential predictors for lengthy hospitalization. The predisposing factors have a limited influence, while enabling factors influence the variation in hospital total charges. The presence of renal disease and diabetes mellitus (DM) complications played a key role in predicting hospital utilization. Furthermore, age, socio-economic status (SES), and the geographical location of the patients were also found to be vital factors in determining the variability in utilization among HG patients. Findings provide practical applications for targeting the high-risk HG patients for interventions.

A Review of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart: Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Properties and Their Implications in Clinical Use

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp; 70 % IDeg and 30 % IAsp) is a soluble combination of two individual insulin analogues in one product, designed to provide mealtime glycaemic control due to the IAsp component and basal glucose-lowering effect from the IDeg component. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of IDegAsp have been investigated in a series of clinical pharmacology studies with generally comparable designs, methodologies and patient inclusion/exclusion criteria. The glucose-lowering effect profile of IDegAsp during once-daily dosing at steady state shows distinct and clearly separated action from the prandial and basal components of IDegAsp. The IAsp component provides rapid onset and peak glucose-lowering effect followed by a flat glucose-lowering effect lasting beyond 30 h due to IDeg. During twice-daily dosing, the distinct peak effect and the flat basal effect are retained following each dose. The pharmacological properties of IDegAsp are maintained in the elderly, children, adolescents, Japanese patients and those with hepatic or renal impairment. The potential clinical benefits associated with the pharmacological properties of IDegAsp have been verified in phase III clinical trials comparing IDegAsp with three other currently available treatment options: premixed insulin, basal-bolus regimens and basal-only therapy. IDegAsp shows favourable clinical benefits compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 and is a viable alternative to basal-bolus and basal-only therapy. This review presents the results from clinical pharmacology studies conducted with IDegAsp to date, and extrapolates these results to clinical use of IDegAsp in the context of findings from the IDegAsp clinical therapeutic studies.

The potential effect of ultra-long insulin degludec on glycemic variability

Despite the therapeutic advances in the treatment of diabetes, metabolic control instability due to glycemic variability (GV) is frequently observed in patients with diabetes on intensive insulin therapy and is associated with hyperglycemic peaks and hypoglycemic episodes. Hyperglycemia associated with GV has been implicated in the development of chronic complications due to its pro-oxidative consequences. On the other hand, hypoglycemia can be associated with increased cardiovascular risk secondarily to adrenergic activation. The ultra-long-acting insulin analogue, insulin degludec (IDeg), presents a flat and stable glucose-lowering effect both in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes patients. In pharmacodynamic studies, IDeg has been associated with a lower variability in its insulin action than other alternatives for basal insulin, which might have clinical advantages for the stability of the glycemic control. The main objective of this review is to present pharmacological and clinical data regarding the efficacy and safety of IDeg for the treatment of diabetes focusing on its effects on GV and on hypoglycemia frequency.

Reporting Severe Hypoglycemia in Type 1 Diabetes: Facts and Pitfalls

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe potential factors influencing reporting of severe hypoglycemia in adult patients with type 1 diabetes and to analyze their effect on reported rates of severe hypoglycemia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Reported rates of severe hypoglycemia defined as need for third party assistance vary between 0.3-3.0 events per patient-year in unselected cohorts, corresponding to a yearly prevalence range of 10-53%. When defined as need for parenteral therapy with glucose or glucagon or need for admission to an emergency unit or hospitalization, incidence and prevalence rates of severe hypoglycemia are 0.02-0.5 events per patient-year and 1-29%, respectively. When subjects with recurrent severe hypoglycemia in the past or suffering from impaired hypoglycemia awareness are excluded from participation in studies, lower rates are reported. Studies applying anonymous reporting or reporting by partners report higher rates of severe hypoglycemia. There is a large variation between studies reporting incidence and prevalence of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes, mainly explained by definition of severity, methods of reporting, and patient selection. These findings call for consensus about hypoglycemia definition and reporting in future research.

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.

Real-life experience of patients starting insulin degludec. A multicenter analysis of 1064 subjects from the German/Austrian DPV registry

BACKGROUND

The long-acting insulin analogue degludec is a therapeutic option for patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Aim of this analysis was to investigate differences in clinical characteristics of patients before and after initiating degludec use in a cohort of German/Austrian patients.

METHODS

1064 subjects with T1D/T2D and documented degludec use from the Diabetes-Patient-Follow-Up (DPV) registry were included. The follow-up cohort (n=421) comprised patients with available data before and 3-15months after switching to degludec. A t-test for paired values was implemented to compare rates of severe hypoglycaemia, and mean values for HbA_1C, BMI, basal insulin dose/kg bodyweight/day, and the number of basal insulin injections/day before and after switching to degludec Results were stratified by type of diabetes. In T1D, subgroup analyses were conducted (age, sex, basal insulin used before switching). P<0.05 was considered significant.

FINDINGS

In T1D (n=360), basal insulin dose (0.43±0.17 to 0.38±0.13IU) and the number of basal injections/day (1.7±0.6 to 1.1±0.3) decreased whereas BMI increased from 23.2±4.8 to 24.0±5.0kg/m² (all p<0.0001) after switching to degludec. No significant changes were observed regarding rates of severe hypoglycaemia or HbA_1C-values. Findings were comparable for subgroups. In T2D (n=61), basal insulin dose (0.41±0.23 to 0.38±0.21; p=0.1730) and the number of basal injections/day (1.3±0.4 to 1.1±0.3; p=0.0097) decreased after switching to degludec. HbA_1C improved from 7.9±1.6 to 7.1±1.5% (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The DPV registry provides data from real-life diabetes care. Our analysis predominantly confirmed results from clinical trials and provides additional information complementing the clinical study program of degludec.

United States experience of insulin degludec alone or in combination for type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Insulin degludec has been the product of a sophisticated and systematic biochemical engineering program which began with the release of insulin detemir. The goal was to produce a long-lasting basal insulin with low individual variability. Certainly, this goal has been achieved. Degludec has a duration of action approaching twice that of glargine. Another advantage of degludec is in its lack of unpredictable copolymerization of added aspart. In several studies, degludec has shown lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycemia than glargine. Degludec can be administered flexibly with a very flat insulin concentration curve at any time of day. Initial US Food and Drug Administration concerns about a possible increase in cardiac events in degludec-treated patients have been allayed by the results of a study targeting individuals with high cardiac risk. Degludec is now marketed in the US competing with glargine. Despite the long duration of action of degludec, attempted administration three times weekly resulted in less effective lowering of glycated hemoglobin and an increased incidence of hypoglycemia compared to daily glargine. Conversely the coformulation of degludec and liraglutide has proven very successful in reducing glycated hemoglobin levels with less hypoglycemia and less weight gain than with degludec alone and with less gastrointestinal symptoms than with liraglutide alone. A large study comparing glargine insulin and degludec in patients with increased cardiac risk is now ongoing. This study may or may not prove superiority of one or the other insulin, but, with the coming of biosimilar glargine insulin, cost factors may be dominant in determining which basal insulin is to be used. Nonetheless, the coformulation with liraglutide will likely insure the future of degludec insulin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Comparison of glycemic variability in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes receiving insulin degludec versus insulin detemir using continuous glucose monitoring: a randomized, cross-over, pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to compare glycemic variability in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin detemir (IDet).

METHODS

Ten patients with T1D were randomly assigned to receive once-daily IDeg, followed by twice-daily IDet, or vice versa. Glucose variability was evaluated by CGM after >4 weeks of the first insulin and again after crossover to the second insulin.

RESULTS

The total daily insulin dose (U/kg/day) and the total daily basal insulin dose (U/kg/day) were significantly lower during treatment with IDeg than with IDet [median (interquartile range): 0.55 (0.54-0.73) vs. 0.64 (0.54-0.83); P = 0.028, 0.24 (0.19-0.36) vs. 0.30 (0.19-0.39); P = 0.027]. The 24-hour mean glucose levels were not significantly different. However, their standard deviation (SD) was significantly smaller during treatments with IDeg than those with IDet [59.5 (39.5-71.0) vs. 72.8 (61.8-92.8); P = 0.008]. Their mean fasting glucose levels and the mean postprandial peak levels after breakfast and after dinner were significantly lower with IDeg.

CONCLUSIONS

A CGM-based comparison demonstrated that once-daily IDeg showed fewer glycemic fluctuations than twice-daily IDet. IDeg appears to stabilize blood glucose levels better during both daytime and nighttime (particularly, before and after breakfast) with a lower insulin dosage.

Safety and efficacy of insulin degludec/insulin aspart with bolus mealtime insulin aspart compared with standard basal-bolus treatment in people with Type 1 diabetes: 1-year results from a randomized clinical trial (BOOST® T1)

AIMS

To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of a simplified basal-bolus regimen of once-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) with additional IAsp vs. a standard basal-bolus insulin regimen of insulin detemir (IDet) with IAsp in adults with Type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

This was an open-label trial comprising a 26-week core phase followed by a 26-week extension phase. Participants were randomized to IDegAsp once daily at the main meal and IAsp at remaining meals (IDegAsp+IAsp), or IDet (once or twice daily) and IAsp at all meals (IDet+IAsp). Insulins were titrated to target plasma glucose of < 5 mmol/l (< 90 mg/dl) at pre-breakfast (IDegAsp and IDet) and at pre-meal (IAsp).

RESULTS

After 52 weeks, the overall confirmed hypoglycaemia rate was 31.8 episodes/patient-years of exposure (PYE) with IDegAsp+Asp and 36.7 episodes/PYE with IDet+IAsp, and the rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with IDegAsp+Asp than with IDet+IAsp (3.1 vs. 5.4 episodes/PYE, respectively; P < 0.05). Adverse event rates were comparable between groups. Mean HbA_1c decreased from baseline by 0.7% (IDegAsp+IAsp) and 0.6% (IDet+IAsp), achieving 60 or 61 mmol/mol (7.6% or 7.7%, respectively), at Week 52. The mean total daily insulin dose was lower with IDegAsp+IAsp than with IDet+IAsp (ratio: 0.87; 95% CI 0.79-0.95; P = 0.0026).

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily treatment with IDegAsp and IAsp as bolus insulin for remaining meals was associated with significantly lower risk of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia, improved glycaemic control and showed non-inferiority compared with IDet+IAsp, the standard of care in Type 1 diabetes.

Insulin degludec is associated with less frequent and milder hypoglycemia in insulin-deficient patients with type 1 diabetes compared with insulin glargine or detemir

Introduction

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of insulin degludec (IDeg) relative to insulin glargine (IGlar) or insulin detemir (IDet) in glycemic control, as evaluated by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in insulin-deficient patients with type 1 diabetes.

Methods

We studied 28 outpatients treated with IGlar or IDet (IGlar/IDet). Basal insulin was switched to IDeg when glycemic control was considered unstable, as judged by the dawn phenomenon or nocturnal hypoglycemia. Whole-day CGM data were also divided into daytime and nighttime data.

Results

The dawn phenomenon or nocturnal hypoglycemia under IGlar/IDet treatment was observed in all patients. Among 26 patients who completed the study, there were no significant differences in parameters representing glycemic variability, hyperglycemia, mean glycemic control, and HbA1c or insulin therapy-related quality of life at the night score. Measures of hypoglycemia [whole-day %Low and area under the curve (AUC) below 70] were significantly lower under IDeg treatment than under IGlar/IDet treatment (%Low, 9.6 ± 11.5 vs. 14.7 ± 14.9%, p = 0.045; AUC below 70, 85.5 ± 126.0 vs. 145.0 ± 178.6 mg/dl h, p = 0.030). Dividing patients into two groups according to percentage or degree of hypoglycemia under IGlar/IDet treatment, the whole-day, daytime and nighttime %Low in the high-percentage groups and AUC below 70 in the high-degree groups were significantly ameliorated, respectively (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Patients with unstable glycemic control under IGlar/IDet treatment did not improve glycemic control upon switching to IDeg, but the frequency and the degree of hypoglycemia was reduced in insulin-deficient outpatients with type 1 diabetes, especially in those suffering from severe hypoglycemia.

Insulin: Making Sense of Current Options

Newer insulin products have advanced the evolution of insulin replacement options to more accurately mimic natural insulin action. There are new, modified, and concentrated insulins; administration devices calibrated for both increased concentrations and administration accuracy to improve adherence and safety; and inhaled insulin. There are new combinations of longer-acting basal insulin and rapid-acting insulin or glucagon like protein-1 receptor agonists. Existing insulin replacement designs and methods can be updated using these tools to improve efficacy and safety. Individualized decisions to use them should be based on patient physiologic needs, self-care ability, comorbidities, and cost considerations.

Pharmacokinetic and prandial pharmacodynamic properties of insulin degludec/insulin aspart in children, adolescents, and adults with type 1 diabetes

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble coformulation of long-acting insulin degludec and short-acting insulin aspart. This open-label, Phase 1 study aimed to determine the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of IDegAsp in children (6-11 yr), adolescents (12-17 yr), and adults (18-65 yr) with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Thirty-eight subjects received single subcutaneous IDegAsp dosing (0.5 U/kg) immediately before a standardized liquid meal (17.3 g carbohydrates/100 mL; adjusted for body weight) followed by plasma glucose (PG) and pharmacokinetic blood sampling for 36 and 57 h, respectively. There were no apparent differences between age groups in PG lowering effect (AUC_{PG   baseline,0-6 h,meal,SD} ), maximum PG excursion (ΔPG_max,meal,SD ), or maximum PG concentration (PG_max,meal,SD ) after the standardized meal. Estimated ratios (ERs) for total exposure (AUC_{IAsp,0-12 h,SD} ) and maximum concentration (C_max,IAsp,SD ) of IAsp in IDegAsp were children/adults, 1.69 (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.02; 2.80) and 1.66 (95% CI: 1.10; 2.51); adolescents/adults, 1.14 (95% CI: 0.76; 1.69) and 1.16 (95% CI: 0.84; 1.61). ERs for total exposure (AUC_{IDeg,0-∞,SD} ) and maximum concentration (C_max,IDeg,SD ) of IDeg in IDegAsp were children/adults, 1.42 (95% CI: 0.94; 2.16) and 1.38 (95% CI: 1.09; 1.76); adolescents/adults, 1.23 (95% CI: 0.96; 1.58) and 1.16 (95% CI: 0.95; 1.42). IDegAsp was well tolerated across age groups. The fast onset of prandial coverage of IAsp in IDegAsp and the ultra-long pharmacokinetic properties of IDeg in IDegAsp were preserved in children and adolescents. Exposure to IAsp and IDeg seemed to be higher in children vs. adults, but no differences were observed in PG lowering effect. IDegAsp could be an alternative treatment option in children and adolescents with T1DM.

Similar HbA1c reduction and hypoglycaemia with variable- vs fixed-time dosing of basal insulin peglispro in type 1 diabetes: IMAGINE 7 study

AIMS

To compare 24-hour fixed-time basal insulin peglispro (BIL) dosing with 8- to 40-hour variable-time BIL dosing for glycaemic control and safety in patients with type 1 diabetes. Primary outcome was non-inferiority of BIL variable-time dosing compared with fixed-time dosing for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change after 12-week treatment (margin = 0.4%).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This Phase 3, open-label, randomized, cross-over study (N = 212) was conducted at 20 centres in the United States. During the 12-week lead-in phase, patients received BIL daily at fixed-times. Two 12-week randomized cross-over treatment phases followed, where patients received BIL dosed at either fixed- or variable-times. During the 4-week safety follow-up, patients received conventional insulins.

RESULTS

During the lead-in period, least-squares mean HbA1c decreased from 7.5% to 6.8%. For BIL, variable-time dosing was non-inferior to fixed-time dosing for HbA1c change [least-squares mean difference = 0.06%, 95% confidence interval (-0.01, 0.13)]. In both regimens, HbA1c increased slightly during the cross-over periods, but remained significantly below baseline. Variable- and fixed-time dosing regimens had similar rates of total hypoglycaemia (10.4 ± 0.62 and 10.5 ± 0.67 events/patient/30 days, P = .947) and nocturnal hypoglycaemia (1.3 ± 0.11 and 1.5 ± 0.13 events/patient/30days, P = .060). Comparable proportions of patients achieved HbA1c < 7.0% with variable- [91 (54.5%)] and fixed-time dosing [101 (60.5%)].

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with BIL allows patients to use flexible dosing intervals from 8 to 40 hours. Glycaemic efficacy (HbA1c), glycaemic variability and hypoglycaemia are similar to fixed-time dosing, suggesting that BIL could potentially provide flexibility in dosing for patients who miss their daily basal insulin.

Clinical use of the co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart

AIMS

To provide a review of the available data and practical use of insulin degludec with insulin aspart (IDegAsp). Premixed insulins provide basal and prandial glucose control; however, they have an intermediate-acting prandial insulin component and do not provide as effective basal coverage as true long-acting insulins, owing to the physicochemical incompatibility of their individual components, coupled with the inflexibility of adjustment. The molecular structure of the co-formulation of IDegAsp, a novel insulin preparation, allows these two molecules to coexist without affecting their individual pharmacodynamic profiles.

METHODS

Clinical evidence in phase 2/3 trials of IDegAsp efficacy and safety in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM and T2DM) have been assessed and summarised.

RESULTS

In people with T2DM, once- and twice-daily dosing provides similar overall glycaemic control (HbA1c ) to current modern insulins, but with lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. In prior insulin users, glycaemic control was achieved with lower or equal insulin doses vs. other basal+meal-time or premix insulin regimens. In insulin-naïve patients with T2DM, IDegAsp can be started once or twice-daily, based on individual need. People switching from more than once-daily basal or premix insulin therapy can be converted unit-to-unit to once-daily IDegAsp, although this strategy should be assessed by the physician on an individual basis.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp offers physicians and people with T2DM a simpler insulin regimen than other available basal-bolus or premix-based insulin regimens, with stable daytime basal coverage, a lower rate of hypoglycaemia and some flexibility in injection timing compared with premix insulins.

A comparison of IDeg + IAsp versus IDet + IAsp in subjects with type 1 diabetes: subgroup analysis of Japanese subjects

Objective

Efficacy and safety were compared between insulin degludec (IDeg) once daily (OD) in combination with mealtime insulin aspart (IAsp) and insulin detemir (IDet) OD or twice daily (BID) in combination with mealtime IAsp in Japanese subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

Materials and methods

This was a post hoc analysis of a multinational, controlled, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial that randomised adults [aged ≥18 years (≥20 years for Japan)] with T1DM for ≥12 months to basal IDeg OD (n = 124) or IDet (n = 62), both with mealtime bolus IAsp. The IDet dosing was adjusted to BID if required at ≥8 weeks.

Results

The estimated mean change in HbA_1c from baseline to week 26 (the primary outcome measure) was -1.03 % in the IDeg + IAsp group and -0.94 % in the IDet + IAsp group (mean estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0.09; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -0.29, 0.10). Significantly greater reductions in fasting plasma glucose were observed in the IDeg + IAsp group (mean ETD -39.36 mg/dL; 95 % CI -56.04, -22.68). Both groups had similar rates of confirmed hypoglycaemia (59.9 and 59.2 per patient-year of exposure [PYE] with IDeg + IAsp and IDet + IAsp, respectively). Rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia were significantly lower with IDeg + IAsp than with IDet + IAsp (5.2 vs 9.5 episodes per PYE; estimated ratio 0.48; 95 % CI 0.31, 0.75). Adverse event profiles were similar.

Conclusion

The findings were consistent with those of the global trial population. IDeg + IAsp may represent an improvement on current standard treatments for Japanese patients with T1DM.

Severe hypoglycaemia in adults with insulin-treated diabetes: impact on healthcare resources

AIMS

To assess resource utilization associated with severe hypoglycaemia across three insulin regimens in a large phase 3a clinical programme involving people with Type 1 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin, people with Type 2 diabetes treated with multiple daily injections and people with Type 2 diabetes treated with basal-oral therapy.

METHODS

Data relating to severe hypoglycaemia events (defined as episodes requiring external assistance) from the insulin degludec and insulin degludec/insulin aspart programme (15 trials) were analysed using descriptive statistics. Comparators included insulin glargine, biphasic insulin aspart, insulin detemir and sitagliptin. Mealtime insulin aspart was used in some regimens. This analysis used the serious adverse events records, which documented the use of ambulance/emergency teams, a hospital/emergency room visit ≤ 24 h, or a hospital visit > 24 h.

RESULTS

In total, 536 severe hypoglycaemia events were analysed, of which 157 (29.3%) involved an ambulance/emergency team, 64 (11.9%) led to hospital/emergency room attendance of ≤ 24 h and 36 (6.7%) required hospital admission (> 24 h). Although there were fewer events in people with Type 2 diabetes compared with Type 1 diabetes, once a severe episode occurred, the tendency to utilize healthcare resources was higher in Type 2 diabetes vs. Type 1 diabetes. A higher proportion (47.6%) in the basal-oral therapy group required hospital treatment for > 24 h versus the Type 1 diabetes (5.0%) and Type 2 diabetes multiple daily injections (5.3%) groups.

CONCLUSION

This analysis suggests that severe hypoglycaemia events often result in emergency/ambulance calls and hospital treatment, incurring a substantial health economic burden, and were associated with all insulin regimens.

Pursuit of a perfect insulin

Insulin remains indispensable in the treatment of diabetes, but its use is hampered by its narrow therapeutic index. Although advances in peptide chemistry and recombinant DNA-based macromolecule synthesis have enabled the synthesis of structurally optimized insulin analogues, the growing epidemics of obesity and diabetes have emphasized the need for diabetes therapies that are more efficacious, safe and convenient. Accordingly, a broad set of drug candidates, targeting hyperglycaemia plus other disease abnormalities, is now progressing through the clinic. The development of an insulin therapy that is responsive to glucose concentration remains an ultimate goal, with initial prototypes now reaching the proof-of-concept stage. Simultaneously, the first alternatives to injectable delivery have progressed to registration.

Hypoglycemia Event Rates: A Comparison Between Real-World Data and Randomized Controlled Trial Populations in Insulin-Treated Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Hypoglycemia is the most common adverse effect of diabetes therapy, particularly insulin treatment. Hypoglycemia is associated with considerable clinical and economic burden, and may be under-reported. The aim of this study was to com pare the frequency of hypoglycemic events reported in real-world settings with those reported in clinical trials.

METHODS

We conducted a structured literature review in PubMed to identify hypoglycemic event rates in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from real-world data (RWD) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The search was restricted to English language, full-text publications from 2010 onwards, reporting on treatment of T1DM or T2DM with basal only, basal-bolus, or premix insulin.

RESULTS

The final dataset included 30 studies (11 RWD studies and 19 RCTs). Six studies (RWD, n = 2; RCT, n = 4) reported hypoglycemia event rates in people with T1DM. For all reported categories of hypoglycemia (severe, non-severe, and nocturnal), rates were consistently higher in RWD studies compared with RCTs. Twenty-five studies (RWD, n = 10; RCT, n = 15) reported hypoglycemia event rates in people with insulin-treated T2DM. For T2DM basal-oral therapy; the highest rates were observed in RWD studies, although there was an overlap with RCT rates. For basal-bolus therapy, there was considerable between-study variability but higher rates of severe and non-severe hypoglycemia were generally observed in RWD studies. For T2DM premix insulin, reported rates of hypoglycemia in RWD studies and RCTs were similar.

CONCLUSION

We found that higher rates of hypoglycemia are observed in real-world settings compared with clinical trial settings, although there is a large degree of overlap. Due to the inherent constraints of RCTs, they are likely to underestimate the burden of hypoglycemia in clinical practice. Further, high-quality RWD are needed to determine a more accurate incidence of hypoglycemia in clinical practice.

Number-Based Approach to Insulin Taxonomy

This article describes a number-based system for the classification of insulin regimes. It utilizes a patient-centered variable (number of injections per day) and pharmacokinetic/dynamic characteristics to craft a taxonomic system that is able to incorporate all available insulin preparations and coformulations. This framework of systematics is robust enough to include various molecules that have been recently developed. It serves to enhance understanding of the subject, and facilitates the practical or clinical usage of theoretical knowledge. We propose that number-based insulin taxonomic models should be used in clinical guidelines and recommendations rather than restricting ourselves to pharmaceutical-based classifications. PubMed articles including both review articles and clinical trials published since the year 1990 were searched, to gather evidence and information on the various types of insulins available, and how they can be used, based on the number or frequency of injections prescribed per day.

Insulin degludec and insulin aspart: novel insulins for the management of diabetes mellitus

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus require insulin as disease progresses to attain or maintain glycaemic targets. Basal insulin is commonly prescribed initially, alone or with one or more rapid-acting prandial insulin doses, to limit mealtime glucose excursions (a basal-bolus regimen). Both patients and physicians must balance the advantages of improved glycaemic control with the risk of hypoglycaemia and increasing regimen complexity. The rapid-acting insulin analogues (insulin aspart, insulin lispro and insulin glulisine) all have similar pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics and clinical efficacy/safety profiles. However, there are important differences in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of basal insulins (insulin glargine, insulin detemir and insulin degludec). Insulin degludec is an ultra-long-acting insulin analogue with a flat and stable glucose-lowering profile, a duration of action exceeding 30 h and less inter-patient variation in glucose-lowering effect than insulin glargine. In particular, the chemical properties of insulin degludec have allowed the development of a soluble co-formulation with prandial insulin aspart (insulin degludec/insulin aspart) that provides basal insulin coverage for at least 24 h with additional mealtime insulin for one or two meals depending on dose frequency. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies have shown that the distinct, long basal glucose-lowering action of insulin degludec and the prandial glucose-lowering effect of insulin aspart are maintained in the co-formulation. Evidence from pivotal phase III clinical trials indicates that insulin degludec/insulin aspart translate into sustained glycaemic control with less hypoglycaemia and the potential for a simpler insulin regimen with fewer daily injections.

Management of Severe Insulin Resistance in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

Managing severe insulin resistance (IR) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) can be challenging for both clinicians and patients. As average weight for patients with T1DM has increased in recent decades, IR in this population has become more widespread. Currently, almost 50 % of patients with T1DM are overweight or obese. While intensive insulin therapy is associated with reduction in complications, aggressive treatment can lead to weight gain. With increasing weight, insulin can become less effective to control glycemia, resulting in higher insulin doses and hence more weight gain. Novel strategies to break this vicious cycle are needed. This review will investigate current research on insulin formulations, lifestyle modification, adjunct therapies, and surgery that may help better manage patients with T1DM and IR.

Cardiovascular effects of basal insulins

Basal insulin is an important component of treatment for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. One of the principal aims of treatment in patients with diabetes is the prevention of diabetic complications, including cardiovascular disease. There is some evidence, although controversial, that attainment of good glycemic control reduces long-term cardiovascular risk in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the potential cardiovascular safety of the different available preparations of basal insulin. Current basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH], or isophane) and basal insulin analogs (glargine, detemir, and the more recent degludec) differ essentially by various measures of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects in the bloodstream, presence and persistence of peak action, and within-subject variability in the glucose-lowering response. The currently available data show that basal insulin analogs have a lower risk of hypoglycemia than NPH human insulin, in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, then excluding additional harmful effects on the cardiovascular system mediated by activation of the adrenergic system. Given that no biological rationale for a possible difference in cardiovascular effect of basal insulins has been proposed so far, available meta-analyses of publicly disclosed randomized controlled trials do not show any signal of increased risk of major cardiovascular events between the different basal insulin analogs. However, the number of available cardiovascular events in these trials is very small, preventing any clear-cut conclusion. The results of an ongoing clinical trial comparing glargine and degludec with regard to cardiovascular safety will provide definitive evidence.

Clinical use of insulin degludec

The limitations of current basal insulin preparations include concerns related to their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, hypoglycaemia, weight gain, and perception of management complexity, including rigid dosing schedules. Insulin degludec (IDeg) is a novel basal insulin with improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties compared to insulin glargine (IGlar) including a long half-life of ∼25 h and a duration of action >42 h at steady state, providing a flat and stable blood glucose-lowering effect when injected once daily. Evidence from phase 3a clinical trials with a treat-to-target design in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes has shown that IDeg has similar efficacy to IGlar, with a 9% and 26% reduction in risk of overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, respectively (in the pooled population) during the entire treatment period, and a 16% and 32% reduction during the maintenance period, respectively. Given its pharmacodynamic properties, IDeg offers a broad dosing window, allowing for flexible dose administration, if required. Two different formulations of IDeg are available (100 units/mL [U100] and 200 units/mL), the latter providing the same IDeg dose as the U100 formulation in half the injection volume. The unique pharmacokinetic profile of IDeg facilitates glycaemic control while minimising the risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

Injectable Coformulations in Diabetology

Coformulations are a novel pharmaceutical development in diabetology. They are composed of two medicinal products, both of which maintain their distinct pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Currently available coformulations include combinations of basal and rapid-acting insulin, and basal and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA). This review describes three coformulations which are in advanced stages of development, or are approved in certain markets. We discuss the basic and clinical pharmacology of these drugs, while describing clinical usage of the commercially available insulin degludec aspart (IDegAsp).

Medium-term effects of insulin degludec on patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the changes in daily blood glucose fluctuation and insulin dose in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) undergoing basal-bolus therapy following a switching of basal insulin used from insulin glargine or detemir to insulin degludec.

METHODS

Seven patients with T1DM were enrolled. All patients treated with insulin glargine or detemir twice daily were switched to insulin degludec with 80-90 % of the prior insulin dose. During the study period, the basal insulin doses were adjusted by the attending physician. The patients underwent continuous glucose monitoring before, 3 days after, and 24 weeks after switching to insulin degludec. The daily insulin dose was analyzed before, 3 days after, and 24 weeks after switching. Glycated hemoglobin levels were measured before and 24 weeks after switching.

RESULTS

The blood glucose profile did not change significantly before and after switching. On the other hand, the total daily insulin dose and total daily basal insulin dose decreased significantly 24 weeks after switching.

DISCUSSION

In patients with T1DM undergoing insulin glargine or detemir treatment, it is possible to achieve similar glycemic control in the medium term with a once daily, lower dose of insulin degludec.

The beneficial effect of insulin degludec on nocturnal hypoglycaemia and insulin dose in type 1 diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

AIMS

Insulin degludec is a new-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulin which offers a significantly more predictable glucose-lowering effect than other long-acting insulin analogues. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of treatment with insulin degludec and long-acting insulin analogues glargine and detemir in type 1 diabetic (T1D) patients by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched up to January 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. Additional references were obtained from the reviewed articles. There were included randomised controlled trials of at least 12-week duration with basal-bolus regimen therapies in T1D patients.

RESULTS

Current analysis included four studies involving 1,846 T1D patients. The combined data from all trials showed a statistically significant reduction in the basal insulin dose (MD -0.042, 95 % CI -0.067 to -0.018, p = 0.001) and the total daily insulin dose (MD -0.072, 95 % CI 0.016 to -0.027, p = 0.002) in the degludec group compared to other long-acting analogues. There was also a significant reduction of nocturnal hypoglycaemia in the degludec group compared to the controls (rate ratio 0.697, 95 % CI 0.617-0.786, p = 0.000). There were no differences between the groups in terms of glycated haemoglobin values, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Basal-bolus treatment with insulin degludec was superior to long-acting insulin analogues detemir and glargine in reducing the rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. In comparison with other long-acting analogues, treatment with insulin degludec was safe and patients obtained similar metabolic control expressed by HbA1c and FPG levels with the added benefit of a reduced basal and total insulin dose.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart combination for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Glycemic control remains the major therapeutic objective to prevent or delay the onset and progression of complications related to diabetes mellitus. Insulin therapy represents a cornerstone in the treatment of diabetes and has been used widely for achieving glycemic goals. Nevertheless, a large portion of the population with diabetes does not meet the internationally agreed glycemic targets. Moreover, insulin treatment, especially if intensive, may be associated with emergency room visits and hospitalization due to hypoglycemic events. Therefore, fear of hypoglycemia or hypoglycemic events represents the main barriers to the attainment of glycemic targets. The burden associated with multiple daily injections also remains a significant obstacle to initiating and maintaining insulin therapy. The most attractive insulin treatment approach should meet the patients’ preference, rather than demanding patients to change or adapt their lifestyle. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a new combination, formulated with ultra-long-acting insulin degludec and rapid-acting insulin aspart, with peculiar pharmacological features, clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability. IDegAsp provides similar, noninferior glycemic control to a standard basal–bolus regimen in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, with additional benefits of significantly lower episodes of hypoglycemia (particularly nocturnal) and fewer daily insulin injections. Moreover, although treatment strategy and patients’ viewpoint are different in type 1 and type 2 diabetes, trial results suggest that IDegAsp may be an appropriate and reasonable option for initiating insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on maximal doses of conventional oral agents. This paper will discuss the role of IDegAsp combination as a novel treatment option in diabetic patients.

Old and new basal insulin formulations: understanding pharmacodynamics is still relevant in clinical practice

Long-acting insulin analogues have been developed to mimic the physiology of basal insulin secretion more closely than human insulin formulations (Neutral Protamine Hagedorn, NPH). However, the clinical evidence in favour of analogues is still controversial. Although their major benefit as compared with NPH is a reduction in the hypoglycaemia risk, some cost/effectiveness analyses have not been favourable to analogues, largely because of their higher price. Nevertheless, these new formulations have conquered the insulin market. Human insulin represents currently no more than 20% of market share. Despite (in fact because of) the widespread use of insulin analogues it remains critical to analyse the pharmacodynamics (PD) of basal insulin formulations appropriately to interpret the results of clinical trials correctly. Importantly, these data may help physicians in tailoring insulin therapy to patients' individual needs and, additionally, when clinical evidence is not available, to optimize insulin treatment. For patients at low risk for/from hypoglycaemia, it might be acceptable and also cost-effective not to use long-acting insulin analogues as basal insulin replacement. Conversely, in patients with a higher degree of insulin deficiency and increased risk for hypoglycaemia, analogues are the best option due to their more physiological profile, as has been shown in PD and clinical studies. From this perspective optimizing basal insulin treatment, especially in type 2 diabetes patients who are less prone to hypoglycaemia, would be suitable making significant resources available for other relevant aspects of diabetes care.

Insulin Degludec Aspart: The First Co-formulation of Insulin Analogues

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is the first soluble co-formulation which combines two insulin analogues, and provides effective basal and prandial glycemic coverage. It has been assessed as basal insulin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and as part of basal-bolus regime in both type 1 diabetes mellitus and T2DM. Insulin degludec has also been assessed as flexibly administered basal insulin in terms of time of administration. This review discusses data pertaining to the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and clinical potential of IDegAsp. The discussion includes comparisons of IDegAsp with basal as well as premixed insulin.

Insulin degludec and insulin degludec/insulin aspart: a review of their use in the management of diabetes mellitus

Insulin degludec (Tresiba(®)) is an ultra-long-acting insulin analogue that is also available as a coformulation with rapid-acting insulin aspart (insulin degludec/insulin aspart) [Ryzodeg(®)]. Insulin degludec has a flat, stable glucose-lowering profile with a duration of action of >42 h, and less within-patient day-to-day variability in glucose-lowering effect than the long-acting insulin analogue insulin glargine. In clinical trials, insulin degludec achieved similar glycaemic control to that seen with insulin glargine in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, but with a lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. In addition, trials examining a flexible dosing regimen of insulin degludec in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes show the potential for adjusting the injection time, without compromising glycaemic control or safety. A 200 U/mL formulation of insulin degludec is also available for use in patients who require large volumes of basal insulin. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart was noninferior to the long-acting insulin analogue insulin detemir in patients with type 1 diabetes and has the potential to reduce the number of daily injections. Trial results also indicate that insulin degludec/insulin aspart may be an appropriate option for initiating insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs. Subcutaneous insulin degludec was generally well tolerated in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes. In conclusion, insulin degludec and insulin degludec/insulin aspart represent a useful advance in the treatment of type 1 or 2 diabetes.