Comparison of insulin degludec/insulin aspart and biphasic insulin aspart 30 in uncontrolled, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a phase 3a, randomized, treat-to-target trial

Glycaemic outcomes in hospital with IDegAsp versus BIAsp30 premixed insulins

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

IDegAsp (Ryzodeg 70/30), a unique premixed formulation of long-acting insulin degludec and rapid-acting insulin aspart, is increasing in use. Management of IDegAsp during hospitalisation is challenging because of degludec's ultra-long duration of action. We investigated inpatient glycaemia in patients treated with IDegAsp compared to biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp30; Novomix30).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational study at two hospitals assessing inpatients with type 2 diabetes treated with IDegAsp or BIAsp30 prior to and during hospital admission. Standard inpatient glycaemic outcomes were analysed based on capillary blood glucose (BG) measurements.

RESULTS

We assessed 88 individuals treated with IDegAsp and 88 HbA1c-matched individuals treated with BIAsp30. Patient characteristics, including insulin dose at admission, were well matched, but the IDegAsp group had less frequent twice-daily insulin dosing than the BIAsp30 group (49% vs 87%, P < 0.001). Patient-days with BG <4 mmol/L were not different (10.6% vs 9.9%, P = 0.7); however, the IDegAsp group had a higher patient-day mean BG (10.4 (SD 3.4) vs 10.0 (3.4) mmol/L, P < 0.001), and more patient-days with mean BG >10 mmol/L (48% vs 38%, P < 0.001) compared to the BIAsp30 group. Glucose was higher in the IDegAsp group in the evening (4 PM to midnight) (11.6 (SD 4.0) vs 10.9 (4.6) mmol/L, P = 0.004), but not different at other times during the day.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatients treated with IDegAsp compared to BIAsp30 had similar hypoglycaemia incidence, but higher hyperglycaemia incidence, potentially related to less frequent twice-daily dosing. With the increasing use of IDegAsp in the community, development of hospital management guidelines for this insulin formulation is needed.

[Injection therapy of diabetes]

The present article is a recommendation of the Austrian Diabetes Association for the practical use of injection therapy (GLP1-receptor agonists and insulin) in type 2 diabetes.

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes

Objective

To evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) vs. biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately managed on basal insulin in China.

Methods

The CORE (the Center for Outcomes Research) Diabetes Model, which has been published and verified, was used to simulate disease progression and calculate the total direct medical costs, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 30 years, from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The patient demographic information and clinical data needed for the model were gathered from a phase III treat-to-target clinical trial (NCT02762578) and other Chinese cohort studies. Medical costs on treating diabetes were calculated based on clinical trial and local sources. The diabetes management and complications costs were derived from published literature. A discounting rate of 5% was applied to both health and cost outcomes. And one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the reliability of the results.

Results

Compared with BIAsp 30, treatment with IDegAsp was associated with an incremental benefit of 0.001 LYs (12.439 vs. 12.438) and 0.280 QALYs (9.522 vs. 9.242) over a 30-year time horizon, and increased CNY (Chinese Yuan) 3,888 (390,152 vs. 386,264) for total costs. IDegAsp was cost-effective vs. BIAsp 30 therapy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CNY 13,886 per QALY gained. Results were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Compared with BIAsp 30, IDegAsp was a cost-effective treatment option for people with T2DM with inadequate glycemic management on basal insulin in China.

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.

Initiating or Switching to Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Real-World, Prospective, Non-interventional Study Across Six Countries

Introduction

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed-ratio co-formulation of insulin degludec (a basal insulin) and insulin aspart (a prandial insulin). The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) after initiating IDegAsp treatment in a real-world setting.

Methods

This 26-week, open-label, non-interventional study was conducted in Australia, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa. Data were obtained from 1102 adults with T2D initiating or switching to IDegAsp from antidiabetic treatments (including oral antidiabetic drugs, basal insulin, basal–bolus insulin, premix insulin, and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist) per local clinical practice.

Results

Compared with baseline, there was significant improvement in HbA1c at end of study (EOS, first visit within weeks 26–36; estimated change − 1.4% [95% CI − 1.51; − 1.29]; P < 0.0001 [primary outcome]). From baseline to EOS, there were significant reductions in fasting plasma glucose (− 2.7 mmol/L [95% CI − 2.98; − 2.46]; P < 0.0001), body weight (− 1.0 kg [95% CI − 1.51; − 0.52]; P < 0.0001), and basal insulin dose in insulin-experienced participants (− 2.3 units [95% CI − 3.51; − 1.01]; P < 0.001). The incidence rates of non-severe (overall and nocturnal) and severe hypoglycaemia decreased significantly (P < 0.001) between the period before baseline and before EOS.

Conclusion

In adults with T2D, initiating or switching to IDegAsp from previous antidiabetic treatment was associated with improved glycaemic control, lower basal insulin dose (in insulin-experienced participants), and lower rates of hypoglycaemia.

Trial Registration

Clinical trial registration NCT04042441.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02212-3.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart (IDegAsp) in Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a prevalent metabolic disease requiring tight glycemic control of basal and postprandial glucose levels. Treatment intensification using separate basal and bolus injections increased the number of injections and reduced cost-effectivity, leading to decreased compliance and failure of glycemic control. Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart (IDegAsp), a novel premix of basal and bolus insulin, is one of the potential treatments for reducing the number of injections. However, its efficacy and safety have not been reviewed clearly. Therefore, this systematic review aims to compare the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp with standard basal and basal plus bolus insulin regimens.

A systematic review of four databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Proquest) was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Search results were screened by eligibility criteria and critically appraised by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) tool and the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool. Meta-Analysis was done using Review Manager to obtain cumulative outcomes from hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) changes, hypoglycemia incidents, and weight gain from all studies.

Out of 132 search results, 10 studies were reviewed. IDegAsp once-daily administration was proven beneficial in reducing HbA1c levels and nocturnal hypoglycemia incidences, while IDegAsp twice-daily administration was proven beneficial in lowering hypoglycemia incidence and nocturnal hypoglycemia incidence. IDegAsp yielded better glycemic index results and lowered hypoglycemic incidents in the meta-analysis.

Thus, it is concluded that IDegAsp once daily with stepwise titration on the largest meal of the day achieved most benefits with minimal risks.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBERS

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

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02821052.

Supplementary Information

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

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

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

ARISE-a prospective, non-interventional, single-arm study assessing clinical parameters associated with the use of insulin degludec/insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes in real-world settings: rationale and design

PURPOSE

IDegAsp, a co-formulation of long-acting basal (insulin degludec) and rapid-acting bolus (insulin aspart) insulin, provides separate prandial and basal glucose-lowering effects with relatively low risk of hypoglycaemia. Its efficacy and safety have been investigated in a large clinical trial programme (BOOST). We present the rationale and design of the ARISE study, which aims to assess glycaemic control and other clinical parameters associated with IDegAsp use in real world.

METHODS

ARISE is a ~26-wk-long, prospective, non-interventional, single-arm study of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating IDegAsp treatment. Approximately 1112 patients with T2D aged ≥18 years previously on anti-hyperglycaemic drugs except IDegAsp will be enroled across six countries from 15 Aug 2019 to 12 Nov 2020. IDegAsp treatment will be initiated at the physicians' discretion and as per the local label. Key exclusion criteria include previous participation, or previous IDegAsp treatment. The primary and secondary endpoints are change in HbA_1c from baseline (wk 0) to study end (wk 26-36) and the proportion of patients achieving the target HbA_1c level of <7% at the study end, respectively. A mixed model for repeated measurements will analyse the primary endpoint.

CONCLUSION

Between-country differences in the prescription patterns of glucose-lowering agents in people with T2D warrant examination of their clinical use in different geographical settings. The ARISE study is designed to assess the clinical use of IDegAsp from real world in six different countries. Findings from the ARISE study will supplement those of previous randomised controlled studies by establishing real-world evidence of IDegAsp use in the participating countries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04042441. Registered 02 August 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04042441.

Efficacy and safety of different basal and prandial insulin analogues for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

The aim of the present network meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy and safety across different long and short-acting analogs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases search (20th May, 2020) for all trials with a duration ≥24 weeks comparing an analogue with another or human insulin was performed. Indirect comparisons were performed by NMA choosing glargine U100 and human regular insulin, as the reference for long- and short-acting analogues, respectively. Primary endpoints were HbA1c at 24, 52, and 104 weeks. The weighted difference in means (WDM) and Mantel-Haenzel Odds Ratio [MH-OR] with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

Fifty trials (n = 43) and 7 for basal and prandial analogues, respectively, enrolling 25,554 and 3184 patients with type 2 and 1 diabetes, respectively, were included. At NMA, detemir was less effective than glargine U-100 at 52 weeks. A significant reduction of 24-week HbA1c (WMD [IC]: -0.10 [-0.17, -0.03]%); and risk of total (MH-OR [IC]: 0.80 [0.70, 0.91]), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (MH-OR [IC]: 0.57 [0.45, 0.73]) was observed for basal analogues versus NPH insulin. At NMA, glargine U300 and degludec were associated with a significant reduction in the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia. No significant differences across different short-acting insulin were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper supports the use of long-acting analogues, rather than NPH insulin, as basal insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, without any preferences for any individual long-acting analogue over the others. The evidence on short acting analogues is limited.

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

AIM

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

One hundred years of insulin therapy

At the time of its first clinical application 100 years ago, insulin was presented as the cure for people with diabetes mellitus. That transpired to be an overstatement, yet insulin has proven to be the lifesaver for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and an essential therapy for many with type 2 diabetes mellitus or other forms of diabetes mellitus. Since its discovery, insulin (a molecule of only 51 amino acids) has been the subject of pharmaceutical research and development that has paved the way for other protein-based therapies. From purified animal-extracted insulin and human insulin produced by genetically modified organisms to a spectrum of insulin analogues, pharmaceutical laboratories have strived to tailor the preparations to the needs of patients. Nonetheless, overall glycaemic control often remains poor as exogenous insulin is still not able to mimic the physiological insulin profile. Circumventing subcutaneous administration and the design of analogues with profiles that mimic that of physiological insulin are ongoing areas of research. Novel concepts, such as once-weekly insulins or glucose-dependent and oral insulins, are on the horizon but their real-world effectiveness still needs to be proven. Until a true cure for type 1 diabetes mellitus is found and the therapeutic arsenal for other forms of diabetes mellitus is expanded, insulin will remain central in the treatment of many people living with diabetes mellitus.

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03745157.

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.

Comparison of insulin degludec (IDeg)/insulin Aspart (IAsp) co-formulation therapy twice-daily with free combination of GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide plus insulin degludec in Tochigi: IDEAL Trial

AIM

We compared the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart co-formulation (IDegAsp) twice-daily to a free combination of basal insulin degludec and GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide (IDeg + Lira) once-daily for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy and oral antidiabetic drugs.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients were randomly allocated at a 1:1 ratio to receive either the once-daily dual injection of IDeg + Lira (n = 24) or twice-daily single injection of IDegAsp (n = 28). The primary endpoints were as follows: HbA1c changes over 52 weeks of treatment and the percentage of participants achieving HbA1c < 7.0% at week 52.

RESULTS

After 52 weeks, HbA1c decreased by 0.3% in the IDegAsp group and by 0.7% in the IDeg + Lira group. The HbA1c reduction was greater in the IDeg + Lira group than in the IDegAsp group. 19% of patients on IDegAsp versus 40% on IDeg + Lira achieved HbA1c < 7.0%. Pre-breakfast and pre-dinner blood glucose at 52 weeks were significantly lower in the IDeg + Lira group than in the IDegAsp group. The reduction in body mass index (BMI) was greater in the IDeg + Lira group than in the IDegAsp group throughout the study period. The confirmed hypoglycaemia rates were 1.32 and 0.69 per patient/year of exposure to IDegAsp and IDeg + Lira, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy and oral antidiabetic drugs, treatment with the once-daily dual injection of IDeg + Lira compared with the twice-daily single injection of IDegAsp showed no significant difference in glycaemic control but statistically superior weight loss.

A Japanese Study Assessing Glycemic Control with Use of IDegAsp Co-formulation in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Clinical Practice: The JAGUAR Study

Introduction

The aim of this study was to evaluate the glycemic control and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) co-formulation in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a real-world clinical setting, including elderly patients (aged > 75 years).

Methods

Patients (≥ 18 years) diagnosed with T2D, previously treated with insulin were included from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Baseline data were taken at the index date, defined as the first IDegAsp prescription claim. Change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) at 12 months was estimated using a mixed model repeated measures analysis. The proportion of patients achieving target HbA_1c < 8.0% without experiencing hypoglycemia (identified by International Classification of Disease codes) was calculated at 12 months (365 ± 90 days) after baseline.

Results

Overall, 10,798 patients were included, 3940 were aged > 75 years, and 913 had baseline HbA_1c values available. Switching to IDegAsp was associated with significantly improved HbA_1c values at 12 months (− 1.23% [− 1.43, − 1.02]_95%CI, p < 0.001) versus baseline. Moreover, relative to baseline, a significantly greater proportion of patients achieved HbA_1c < 8.0% without hypoglycemia at 12 months, relative rate (RR) 1.30 [1.15, 1.45]_95%CI, p < 0.001. Results were similar for patients aged ≤ 75 years and aged > 75 years; 66% and 64% of patients, respectively, achieved HbA_1c < 8.0% without hypoglycemia at 12 months.

Conclusion

Switching from insulin to IDegAsp co-formulation was associated with significantly improved glycemic control and a reduction in hypoglycemia rate during 12 months of follow-up in Japanese patients with T2D, including those aged > 75 years.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01623-y.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/aspart (twice-daily injections), insulin glargine 300 U/mL, and insulin glulisine (basal-bolus therapy)

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

We compared the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) twice-daily injections with insulin glargine 300 U/mL and insulin glulisine basal-bolus therapy (Gla300/Glu) using insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla300) and insulin glulisine (Glu).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 20 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were treated with IDegAsp twice-daily injections; achievement of target preprandial glucose concentration of 100-130 mg/dL at breakfast and supper was determined using a wearable flash glucose monitoring system. Patients were later switched to Gla300/Glu basal-bolus therapy before breakfast and before supper. Data were collected on days 2-4 and days 12-14 for each treatment period. The study's primary efficacy end-point was the mean percentage of time with a target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL, and safety end-points were the mean percentage of time with hypoglycemia having glucose levels <70 mg/dL, clinically important hypoglycemia with glucose levels <54 mg/dL and nocturnal (00.00-06.00) hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Considering efficacy, the mean percentage of time for the target glucose range of IDegAsp was significantly lower than that of Gla300/Glu (73.1 [69.4-81.1] vs 84.2 [80.2-93.1], P = 0.001). Considering safety, the mean percentages of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL; 2.1 [0.0-9.4] vs 14.4 [4.4-22.3]), clinically important hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL; 0.0 [0.0-0.2] vs 1.9 [0.0-5.6]) and nocturnal (00.00-06.00 hours) hypoglycemia (0.5 [0.0-5.9] vs 8.9 [3.1-11.8]) of Gla300/Glu were significantly lower than those of IDegAsp (P = 0.012, 0.036 and 0.007, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with the IDegAsp twice-daily injections, Gla300/Glu basal-bolus therapy might achieve more effective glycemic control without hypoglycemic risk.

[Insulin therapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus (Update 2019)]

The present article is a recommendation of the Austrian Diabetes Association for the practical use of insulin in type 2 diabetes, including the various insulin regimens.

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

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

Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes: A phase III, open-label, 2:1 randomized, treat-to-target trial

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) twice daily, both ± metformin, in Chinese adults (N = 543) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on premixed/self-mixed or basal insulin ± metformin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a 26-week, phase III, open-label, treat-to-target, 2:1 randomized trial. Hierarchical testing was used with non-inferiority of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline to week 26 as the primary endpoint and superiority for the confirmatory secondary endpoints which were as follows: change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG); nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (12:01-5:59 am, inclusive); total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (severe or plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L with/without symptoms); body weight; and percentage of responders (HbA1c <53 mmol/mol [<7.0%]) without confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes.

RESULTS

Non-inferiority for change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c and superiority of IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily for change in FPG, nocturnal confirmed and total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes, was demonstrated. Estimated rates of nocturnal confirmed and total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes were 47% and 43% lower, respectively, with IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily. Superiority for change in body weight was not confirmed. Participants were more likely to reach the HbA1c goal of <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) without confirmed hypoglycaemia with IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily by trial end. No new safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of IDegAsp in Chinese patients with T2D was demonstrated, confirming results from international trials.

Efficacy and Safety of IDegAsp Versus BIAsp 30, Both Twice Daily, in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Post Hoc Analysis of Two Phase 3 Randomized Controlled BOOST Trials

INTRODUCTION

The majority of elderly patients (≥ 65 years of age) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) will eventually require insulin therapy, but they are particularly vulnerable to hypoglycemia and challenging to treat. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a novel co-formulation of 70% insulin degludec and 30% insulin aspart administered in a single injection, either once or twice daily with main meals.

METHODS

A combined analysis of the phase 3 BOOST INTENSIFY PREMIX I (NCT01009580) and BOOST INTENSIFY ALL (NCT01059812) trials has previously reported lower rates of hypoglycemia during the maintenance period in patients with T2DM treated with IDegAsp twice daily (BID) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) BID. This post hoc analysis examined the safety and efficacy of IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 in elderly patients from the global population of these two trials, and also from the Japanese cohort of BOOST INTENSIFY ALL.

RESULTS

Change in HbA_1c was similar for IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 (p > 0.5). Compared with BIAsp 30, IDegAsp resulted in significant reductions in fasting plasma glucose (p  < 0.0001), numerically lower rates of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia (global estimated rate ratios: 0.92 [0.67; 1.26]_{95% confidence interval [CI]}, p  = 0.5980 and 0.67 [0.39; 1.18]_{95% CI}, p  = 0.1676, respectively), and a significantly lower total daily insulin dose at end of trial (global estimated treatment difference 0.79 [0.73; 0.87]_{95% CI}, p  < 0.0001) in elderly patients.

CONCLUSION

The results described here are consistent with those of the overall trial populations, demonstrating that IDegAsp BID is efficacious in elderly patients and suggesting that there is no need for special safety precautions.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT01009580 and NCT01059812. Plain language summary available for this article.

15 Years of Experience with Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Type 2 Diabetes

Since clinical experience with biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was reviewed in 2012 after 10 years of use worldwide, additional studies have been published that highlight new aspects, including use in real-world populations. Evidence from 35 new studies confirms and builds upon previous work indicating that BIAsp 30 continues to have pharmacodynamic and clinical advantages over biphasic human insulin (BHI 30), including in real-world practice with unselected populations of patients. BIAsp 30 has also been shown to be safe and efficacious as an add-on to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Intensification with BIAsp 30 is a safe and effective way to improve glycemic control, and titration performed by patients can achieve results that are at least comparable to those when being guided by healthcare providers. Stepwise intensification using BIAsp 30 is comparable to intensification using a basal–bolus regimen, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 provides similar glycemic control to a basal-plus regimen. Data from large observational studies, in particular, have identified patient-related characteristics that are associated with improved clinical responses, suggesting that earlier initiation and intensification of therapy is warranted. Finally, new health-economic analyses continue to confirm that BIAsp 30 is cost effective versus other therapies such as BHI 30, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), or insulin glargine in both insulin-naïve and insulin-experienced patients. After 15 years of clinical use worldwide, analysis of more recent 5-year data indicates that BIAsp 30 remains a safe, effective, and simple-to-use insulin for initiation and intensification by diabetes specialists and primary care physicians in a variety of patients with T2DM.

Multinational Consensus: Insulin Initiation with Insulin Degludec/Aspart (IDegAsp)

Insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) is the first soluble insulin co-formulation, combining a long-acting insulin degludec (IDeg) and rapid-acting insulin aspart (IAsp). In type 2 diabetes patients with oral antidiabetes agent (OAD) inadequacy, insulin initiation with IDegAsp once daily provides superior long-term glycemic control compared to insulin glargine, with similar fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and insulin doses, and numerically lower rates of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia. Furthermore, in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes previously treated with insulins, IDegAsp twice daily effectively improves glycated hemoglobin and FPG, with fewer hypoglycemic episodes versus premix insulins and basal bolus therapy. In patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, IDegAsp once daily with two doses of IAsp is a convenient, yet effective, regimen as compared to the conventional 4-5 injection-based basal bolus therapy. IDegAsp is an appropriate and reasonable option for initiation of insulin therapy in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart lowers fasting plasma glucose and rates of confirmed and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, independent of baseline glycated haemoglobin levels, disease duration or body mass index: A pooled meta-analysis of phase III studies in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate whether the proven benefits of insulin degludec (IDeg) combined with insulin aspart (IAsp), known as IDegAsp, given twice daily, extend across a wide spectrum of patients with diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a post hoc pooled analysis of 5 phase III randomized, 26-week, open-label, treat-to-target trials comparing IDegAsp twice daily (n = 1111) with one of two comparators: premixed insulin (biphasic insulin aspart 30 [BIAsp 30]) twice daily (n = 561) or IDeg once daily + IAsp (n = 136). Patient data were stratified according to baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) categories, as well as by baseline duration of diabetes or body mass index (BMI) categories.

RESULTS

We conducted a meta-analysis of 5 clinical trials: NCT01513590, NCT01009580, NCT01059812, NCT01680341 and NCT01713530. End-of-trial results were broadly consistent, with differences between IDegAsp and comparators observed in phase III trials. HbA1c results were similar for IDegAsp and the comparators in all baseline characteristic (HbA1c, duration of diabetes or BMI) and category groups (number ranges). Significantly lower FPG level was observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline characteristic and most category groups (excluding FPG <5.5 mmol/L). Significantly lower insulin doses were observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline characteristic and half of the category groups, and significantly lower rates of confirmed and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia were observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline variable and category groups.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp retains a consistent safety and efficacy profile in patients with different baseline characteristics.

Anticipatory guidance in type 2 diabetes to improve disease management; next steps after basal insulin

The alarming rise in the number of people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D) presents primary care physicians with increasing challenges associated with long-term chronic disease care. Studies have shown that the majority of patients are not achieving or maintaining glycemic goals, putting them at risk of a wide range of diabetes-related complications. Disease- and self-management programs have been shown to help patients improve their glycemic control, and are likely to be of particular benefit for patients with diabetes dealing with these issues. Anticipatory guidance is an individualized, proactive approach to patient education and counseling by a health-care professional to support patients in better coping with problems before they arise. It has been shown to improve disease outcomes in a variety of chronic conditions, including diabetes. While important at all stages, anticipatory guidance may be of particular importance during changes in treatment regimens, and especially during transition to, and escalation of, insulin-based regimens. The aim of this article is to provide advice to physicians on anticipatory guidance for basal-insulin dosing, focusing on appropriate basal-insulin-dose increase and prevention of potentially deleterious basal-insulin doses, so called overbasalization. It also provides an overview of new treatment options for patients with T2D who are not well controlled on basal-insulin therapy, fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and advice on the type of anticipatory guidance needed to ensure safe and appropriate switching to these therapies.

Improving postprandial hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes already on basal insulin therapy: Review of current strategies

A large number of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin do not reach their HbA1c goals and require additional therapy to address postprandial hyperglycemia. Guidelines from expert bodies have outlined several approaches to accomplish postprandial glucose (PPG) control, and recent literature suggests several more. This article provides strategies for primary care physicians caring for patients with T2D who do not achieve glycemic control with basal insulin alone. Current treatment guidelines and strategies for improving PPG control are reviewed, including the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rapid-acting insulin (RAI) analogs, premixed insulin, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, and α-glucosidase inhibitors. Other approaches, such as combinations of newer basal insulin plus RAI and a fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin and a GLP-1 RA, are also described.

Original paper: Efficacy and safety analysis of insulin degludec/insulin aspart compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30: A phase 3, multicentre, international, open-label, randomised, treat-to-target trial in patients with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) and biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) before, during and after Ramadan in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who fasted during Ramadan.

METHODS

In this multinational, randomised, treat-to-target trial, patients with T2DM who intended to fast and were on basal, pre- or self-mixed insulin ± oral antidiabetic drugs for ≥90 days were randomised (1:1) to IDegAsp twice daily (BID) or BIAsp 30 BID. Treatment period included pre-Ramadan treatment initiation (with insulin titration for 8-20 weeks), Ramadan (4 weeks) and post-Ramadan (4 weeks). Insulin doses were reduced by 30-50% for the pre-dawn meal (suhur) on the first day of Ramadan, and readjusted to the pre-Ramadan levels at the end of Ramadan. Hypoglycaemia was analysed as overall (severe or plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L [56 mg/dL]), nocturnal (00:01-05:59) or severe (requiring assistance of another person).

RESULTS

During the treatment period, IDegAsp (n = 131) had significantly lower overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates with similar glycaemic efficacy, versus BIAsp 30 (n = 132). During Ramadan, despite achieving significantly lower pre-iftar (meal at sunset) self-measured plasma glucose (estimated treatment difference: -0.54 mmol/L [-1.02; -0.07]_{95% CI}, p = .0247; post hoc) with similar overall glycaemic efficacy, IDegAsp showed significantly lower overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates versus BIAsp 30.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp is a suitable therapeutic agent for patients who need insulin for sustained glucose control before, during and after Ramadan fasting, with a significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia, versus BIAsp 30, an existing premixed insulin analogue.

Twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart effectively improved morning and evening glucose levels and quality of life in patients previously treated with premixed insulin: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies comparing insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) with premixed insulin twice daily among insulin users with type 2 diabetes have not thoroughly investigated differences in the glucose variability and psychological evaluations related to insulin regimen changes. We investigated changes in the daily and day-to-day glucose variability and quality of life (QOL) related to insulin use in patients with type 2 diabetes during a switch from premixed insulin preparations comprising either human insulin (BHI30) or insulin aspart (BIAsp30) to IDegAsp twice daily.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, 22 subjects (BHI30:BIAsp30 = 12:10) self-measured their blood glucose levels every morning, and before and after all meals each week. Premixed insulin was administered for the first 2 months, followed by IDegAsp for the next 2 months. Efficacy measures were evaluated during the last month or last day of both phases.

RESULTS

The mean blood glucose levels (175.5 vs. 163.0 mg/dL; P = 0.004) and the M-values (53.9 vs. 27.6; P = 0.049) were significantly lower in the IDegAsp phase. However, no differences in the standard deviations of morning fasting glucose levels were observed between phases (premixed vs. IDegAsp, 20.0 vs. 19.3 mg/dL; P = 0.343). Compared to the premixed phase, the before-breakfast (145.3 vs. 126.0 mg/dL; P < 0.001), after-breakfast (190.3 vs. 170.7 mg/dL; P = 0.001), before-dinner (153.0 vs. 140.1 mg/dL; P  = 0.007), and after-dinner glucose levels (198.7 vs. 181.4 mg/dL; P = 0.018) were lower in the IDegAsp phase. However, the before-lunch (150.8 vs. 148.2 mg/dL; P  = 0.329) and after-lunch glucose levels (214.7 vs. 211.4 mg/dL; P = 0.308) did not significantly differ between phases. Regarding QOL, the total and therapy-related feeling Insulin Therapy Related-QOL (ITR-QOL) questionnaire scores favored IDegAsp, as did the ITR-QOL at Night questionnaire subscale score of glycemic control before breakfast.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the day-to-day variability of morning fasting glucose levels did not change, switching to IDegAsp improved daily glucose level variability, the morning and evening glucose control and QOL among patients treated with premixed insulin.Trial registration University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000021939. Prospectively registered 18 April 2016.

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.

Evidence-based recommendations for insulin intensification strategies after basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Over the time due to progressive nature of diabetes, proactive intensification of the existing insulin therapy becomes imminent as it minimizes patients' exposure to chronic hypo/hyperglycaemia and reduces weight gain while achieving individualized glycaemic targets. This review focuses on the strength of evidence behind various options for intensification, primarily the insulins as also the GLP-1 analogues. The recommendations presented here are meant to serve as a guide for the physician managing type 2 diabetes patients requiring insulin intensification upon failing of basal insulin therapy.

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.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs biphasic insulin aspart 30 twice daily in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized controlled trial

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble combination of insulin degludec (70%) and insulin aspart (30%). The present exploratory trial investigated the safety of switching unit-to-unit from twice-daily basal or pre-mix insulin to twice-daily IDegAsp in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this 6-week, open-label, parallel-group, controlled trial, 66 participants were randomized (1:1) to receive either IDegAsp or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) twice daily at the same total daily dose as pre-trial insulin. During the trial, insulin doses were adjusted according to a pre-specified algorithm to achieve pre-breakfast and pre-dinner plasma glucose of 4.4-7.2 mmol/L.

RESULTS

No severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of confirmed hypoglycemia (rate ratio IDegAsp/BIAsp 30: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.31-1.30) and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia (rate ratio: 0.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.10-2.38) for IDegAsp vs BIAsp 30. The hypoglycemia rate for IDegAsp was constant over the 6 weeks of treatment. IDegAsp and BIAsp 30 were both safe and well tolerated. Reduction in fasting plasma glucose was statistically significantly greater for IDegAsp than for BIAsp 30 (estimated treatment difference, IDegAsp-BIAsp 30: -1.6 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval: -2.4 to -0.8). The apparent decrease in mean postprandial plasma glucose increment (IDegAsp: 4.2-3.8 mmol/L; BIAsp 30: 4.5-2.8 mmol/L) was not statistically significantly different between treatments (estimated treatment difference: 1.0 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval: -0.1 to 2.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching unit-to-unit from basal or pre-mix insulin to IDegAsp seems not to be associated with any concerns related to hypoglycemia or general safety in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 twice daily in insulin-experienced Japanese subjects with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: Subgroup analysis of a Pan-Asian, treat-to-target Phase 3 Trial

BACKGROUND

The present study was a subgroup analysis of a Pan-Asian Phase 3 open-label randomized treat-to-target trial evaluating insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) and biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Japanese subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on insulin.

METHODS

Eligible subjects (n = 178) were randomized (2: 1) to twice-daily (b.i.d.) IDegAsp or BIAsp 30 with or without metformin for 26 weeks, titrated to a blood glucose target of between 3.9 and <5.0 mmol/L. Changes in HbA_1c , the proportion of responders reaching the HbA_1c target, and changes in fasting plasma glucose, nine-point self-monitored plasma glucose profiles, and body weight were assessed.

RESULTS

At 26 weeks, the decrease in HbA_1c was similar in both groups. Fasting plasma glucose was lower with IDegAsp than BIAsp 30 (estimated treatment difference -1.50 mmol/L; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -1.98, -1.01). Overall confirmed hypoglycemia rates were similar; the nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate was lower with IDegAsp than BIAsp 30 (estimated rate ratio 0.44; 95 % CI 0.20, 0.99). No severe hypoglycemic episodes were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that IDegAsp b.i.d. improves glycemic control and, compared with BIAsp 30, lowers the rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart once daily in Type 2 diabetes: a comparison of simple or stepwise titration algorithms (BOOST® : SIMPLE USE)

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of two titration algorithms for insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) administered once daily with metformin in participants with insulin-naïve Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

This open-label, parallel-group, 26-week, multicentre, treat-to-target trial, randomly allocated participants (1:1) to two titration arms. The Simple algorithm titrated IDegAsp twice weekly based on a single pre-breakfast self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) measurement. The Stepwise algorithm titrated IDegAsp once weekly based on the lowest of three consecutive pre-breakfast SMPG measurements. In both groups, IDegAsp once daily was titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose values of 4.0-5.0 mmol/l. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA_1c (%) after 26 weeks.

RESULTS

Change in HbA_1c at Week 26 was IDegAsp_Simple -14.6 mmol/mol (-1.3%) (to 52.4 mmol/mol; 6.9%) and IDegAsp_Stepwise -11.9 mmol/mol (-1.1%) (to 54.7 mmol/mol; 7.2%). The estimated between-group treatment difference was -1.97 mmol/mol [95% confidence interval (CI) -4.1, 0.2] (-0.2%, 95% CI -0.4, 0.02), confirming the non-inferiority of IDegAsp_Simple to IDegAsp_Stepwise (non-inferiority limit of ≤ 0.4%). Mean reduction in fasting plasma glucose and 8-point SMPG profiles were similar between groups. Rates of confirmed hypoglycaemia were lower for IDegAsp_Stepwise [2.1 per patient years of exposure (PYE)] vs. IDegAsp_Simple (3.3 PYE) (estimated rate ratio IDegAsp_Simple /IDegAsp_Stepwise 1.8; 95% CI 1.1, 2.9). Nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were similar between groups. No severe hypoglycaemic events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In participants with insulin-naïve Type 2 diabetes mellitus, the IDegAsp_Simple titration algorithm improved HbA_1c levels as effectively as a Stepwise titration algorithm. Hypoglycaemia rates were lower in the Stepwise arm.

Intensification of IDegAsp Twice Daily (Adding Insulin Aspart vs. Switching To Basal-Bolus): Exploratory Randomized Trial in Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

In a preceding trial comparing two different titration schemes, insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) showed good efficacy for achieving HbA_1c <7% when administered twice daily (BID) in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, poor glycemic control persisted in a minority of patients. The current exploratory trial investigated the efficacy and safety of intensifying IDegAsp BID treatment in these patients by either adding a once-daily (OD) bolus injection of insulin aspart (IAsp) or by switching to a basal-bolus regimen of insulin degludec (IDeg) plus IAsp taken three times a day (TID).

METHOD

A 26-week, randomized, open-label, phase 3b, treat-to-target trial in which 40 patients with T2D who had not reached target HbA_1c ≤7.0% following previous 26-week treatment intensification with IDegAsp BID ±3 oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) were randomized (1:1) to receive IDegAsp BID + IAsp OD (n = 20) or IDeg OD + IAsp TID (n = 20).

RESULTS

Mean baseline HbA_1c was 7.9% in the IDegAsp BID + IAsp OD group and 7.7% in the IDeg OD + IAsp TID group. After 26 weeks, the estimated mean change in HbA_1c from baseline was 0.05% points in the IDegAsp BID + IAsp OD group and -0.49% points for IDeg OD + IAsp TID: estimated treatment difference (ETD) [95% confidence interval] 0.54% [0.09; 0.99], p = 0.021. Few achieved HbA_1c <7% in IDegAsp BID + IAsp OD (four patients) and IDeg OD + IAsp TID groups (five patients). Fasting plasma glucose, hypoglycemia, and adverse events were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

When used as intensification regimens in patients who failed to achieve target HbA_1c during 26-week IDegAsp BID treatment, HbA_1c improvements were numerically greater with IDeg OD + IAsp TID compared with IDegAsp BID + IAsp OD. No new safety issues were identified. However, the small, selective sample means clinical generalizations should be made with caution.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT01814137.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart compared with once-daily insulin glargine in participants with Type 2 diabetes: a randomized, treat-to-target study

AIMS

To investigate, in a 26-week, open-label, randomized, treat-to-target trial, the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) once daily vs insulin glargine (IGlar) once daily in adults with Type 2 diabetes, inadequately controlled on basal insulin.

METHODS

Participants were randomized (1:1) to IDegAsp once daily or IGlar once daily in combination with existing oral antidiabetic drugs. IDegAsp once daily was administered with the main evening meal or the largest meal of the day (agreed at baseline); dosing time was maintained throughout the trial. Participants titrated their insulin dose weekly to a mean pre-breakfast self-measured plasma glucose target [3.9-4.9 mmol/l (70-89 mg/dl)].

RESULTS

IDegAsp once daily was non-inferior to IGlar once daily in reducing HbA_1c after 26 weeks [mean estimated treatment difference IDegAsp once daily - IGlar once daily: -0.03% (95% CI -0.20, 0.14)]. The evening meal glucose increment was significantly lower with IDegAsp once daily vs IGlar once daily [estimated treatment difference IDegAsp once daily - IGlar once daily: -1.32 mmol/l (95% CI -1.93, -0.72); P < 0.05]. The overall confirmed hypoglycaemia rate was higher with IDegAsp once daily (estimated rate ratio 1.43; 95% CI 1.07, 1.92; P < 0.05). The rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia did not significantly differ between the IDegAsp and IGlar groups [estimated rate ratio 0.80 (95% CI 0.49, 1.30); not significant].

CONCLUSIONS

In participants with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin, IDegAsp once daily improved glycaemic control and was non-inferior to IGlar once daily. IDegAsp led to higher rates of overall hypoglycaemia than IGlar, with no significant difference in rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

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.

Factors associated with reaching or not reaching target HbA1c after initiation of basal or premixed insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To evaluate factors associated with reaching or not reaching target glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels by analysing the respective contributions of fasting hyperglycaemia (FHG), also referred to as basal hyperglycaemia, vs postprandial hyperglycaemia (PHG) before and after initiation of a basal or premixed insulin regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis of insulin-naïve patients in the DURABLE study randomised to receive either insulin glargine or insulin lispro mix 25 evaluated the percentages of patients achieving a target HbA_1c of <7.0% (<53mmol/mol) per baseline HbA_1c quartiles, and the effect of each insulin regimen on the relative contributions of PHG and FHG to overall hyperglycaemia.

RESULTS

Patients had comparable demographic characteristics and similar HbA_1c and FHG values at baseline in each HbA_1c quartile regardless of whether they reached the target HbA_1c. The higher the HbA_1c quartile, the greater was the decrease in HbA_1c, but also the smaller the percentage of patients achieving the target HbA_1c. HbA_1c and FHG decreased more in patients reaching the target, resulting in significantly lower values at endpoint in all baseline HbA_1c quartiles with either insulin treatment. Patients not achieving the target HbA_1c had slightly higher insulin doses, but lower total hypoglycaemia rates.

CONCLUSION

Smaller decreases in FHG were associated with not reaching the target HbA_1c, suggesting a need to increase basal or premixed insulin doses to achieve targeted fasting plasma glucose and improve patient response before introducing more intensive prandial insulin regimens.

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.