Comparison of insulin degludec with insulin glargine in insulin-naive subjects with Type 2 diabetes: a 2-year randomized, treat-to-target trial

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

Aim

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinialTrials.gov, NCT04227431.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Individualisation of basal insulin therapy of type 2 diabetes: evidence from large randomized controlled trials

Initiation of insulin therapy with basal insulin analogues has become the standard of care for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Timely administration of insulin allows not only to slow down the progression of type 2 diabetes, but also to reduce the frequency and severity of complications associated with it. This paper reviews the efficacy and safety of the use of the latest basal insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes from the perspective of current clinical guidelines, and also reviews updated data on the efficacy and safety of therapy by various members of the class. In this paper a review of the efficacy and safety of latest basal insulin analogues use in T2DM from the standpoint of current clinical guidelines has been carried out, and updated data on the efficacy and safety of therapy by various members of the class have been reviewed, taking into account their impact on the risk of hypoglycemia and glycemic variability. The available data indicate that insulin degludec 200 U/mL may be the drug of choice for those at high risk of developing severe forms of hypoglycemia. Since severe hypoglycemia and high glycemic variability are important risk factors for cardiovascular events and mortality, it has been shown that a differentiated approach to insulin therapy in the treatment of T2DM is currently advisable, taking into account the effect on the risk of hypoglycemia and glycemic variability.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Insulin Degludec Versus Other Long-acting Basal Insulin Analogues in the Treatment of Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of insulin degludec with those of other long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus (T1D or T2D).

METHODS

Those randomized controlled trials comparing insulin degludec with other long-acting insulin analogues in the treatment of patients with T1D or T2D published on or before August 21, 2022, were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The efficacy end points were the changes from baseline in hemoglobin A_1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). The tolerability end point was the prevalence of hypoglycemia confirmed throughout the treatment period.

FINDINGS

Data from a total of 20 trials (19,048 patients) were included. The differences in the reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin between insulin degludec and other long-acting basal insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) used for the treatment of patients with T1D or T2D were not significant. However, the reduction in FPG was greater with insulin degludec (-0.370 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.473 to -0.267 mmol/L; P ≤ 0.001). Throughout the treatment periods of all of the available trials, the estimated rate ratios of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia were significantly decreased with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine or insulin detemir in patients with T1D or T2D; the differences in the risks for severe hypoglycemia were not significant.

IMPLICATIONS

Compared with other long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir), insulin degludec was associated with a significantly decreased FPG, with lower prevalences of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Impact of the Fasting Plasma Glucose Titration Target on the Success of Basal Insulin Titration in Insulin-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Analysis

BACKGROUND/AIM

We aimed to examine beneficial and adverse outcomes of basal insulin titration performed with different fasting plasma glucose (FPG) titration targets (TT).

METHODS

A PubMed literature search retrieved 43 reported prospective clinical trials introducing basal insulin in 17643 insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes reporting fasting plasma glucose (FPG), HbA_1c, target achievement, hypoglycemic events, and insulin doses. 61 individual study arms were grouped by fasting plasma glucose titration target (TT; 1: ≤5.0 mmol/l/90 mg/dl; 2: 5.01-5.6 mmol/l/90-100 mg/dl; and 3: ≥5.61 mmol/l/101 mg/dl). Weighted means and their standard deviations were calculated for baseline and end-of-treatment FPG (primary endpoint), HbA_1c, target achievement, hypoglycemic events, insulin doses, and body weight gain and compared over a duration of 31 ± 10 weeks.

RESULTS

Achieved FPG and HbA_1c at the end of the study were significantly lower (by up to 0.8 mmol/l or 0.23%, respectively) with more ambitious TTs (p < 0.0001), leading to better HbA_1c target achievement with more ambitious TTs (by up to 14.6% for HbA_1c ≤ 6.5%), without increasing the risk for hypoglycemic episodes.

CONCLUSIONS

Aiming for a lower FPG TT improves glycemic control without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia.

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.

Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: Synopsis of the 2020 American Diabetes Association's Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes Clinical Guideline

DESCRIPTION

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) updates the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes annually to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested parties with evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of diabetes.

METHODS

To develop the 2020 Standards, the ADA Professional Practice Committee, comprising physicians, adult and pediatric endocrinologists, diabetes educators, registered dietitians, epidemiologists, pharmacists, and public health experts, continuously searched MEDLINE (English language only) from 15 October 2018 through August-September 2019 for pertinent studies, including high-quality trials that addressed pharmacologic management of type 2 diabetes. The committee selected and reviewed the studies, developed the recommendations, and solicited feedback from the larger clinical community.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This synopsis focuses on guidance relating to the pharmacologic treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes. Recommendations address oral and noninsulin injectable therapies, insulin treatment, and combination injectable therapies. Results of recent large trials with cardiovascular and renal outcomes are emphasized.

Understanding the Clinical Profile of Insulin Degludec, the Latest Basal Insulin Approved for Use in Canada: a Narrative Review

In recent years, the development of basal insulin therapies has focused on insulin analogues that have longer durations of action and more predictable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) profiles than their human insulin-based predecessors, such as neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. Dosed once-daily, such analogues can provide a more stable glucose-lowering action, which translates clinically into a reduced risk of hypoglycemia. Insulin degludec (degludec) became available in Canada in 2017 and is the first basal insulin analogue to have a half-life exceeding the dosing interval. As well as offering the promise of an exceptionally flat PK/PD profile when at steady state, this characteristic means that insulin degludec can be dosed with some flexibility with regard to time of day and that it need not be taken at the same time each day. However, the approximately 25-h half-life also has some implications concerning dose titration. This article provides an up-to-date review of the study data describing the clinical profile of degludec, and aims to give helpful and practical advice to prescribers about its use. While the clinical benefits of degludec are described, it is also acknowledged that further study is required to better understand how its clinical performance compares with that of insulin glargine 300 units/mL.

Persistence with IDegLira in Patients in Clinical Practice: A Nationwide Observational Study in Sweden

AIMS

To explore persistence with insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) treatment, clinical characteristics and concomitant medications in a large population of patients in clinical practice.

METHODS

This was an observational study in patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 2432) who initiated IDegLira between 26 May 2015 and 31 December 2017. Data were obtained from Swedish nationwide registers and linked on an individual level using unique Swedish personal identifiers. Dose calculations were made for patients with ≥ 180 days between the first and last collections of IDegLira prescription. Changes in clinical parameters were evaluated as change from the last observation during 12 months prior to the initiation date until ± 90 days from the last collection of IDegLira.

RESULTS

Pre-index regimens (index date being the date of filling the first prescription of IDegLira) included: multiple daily insulin injections (45.1%); insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) (19.7%); long-acting insulins (11.8%); non-injectable therapy only (11.4%); GLP-1 RA only (9.8%); and no collection of diabetes medication during the 6-month pre-index period (2.3%). The majority of patients (94 and 84%) were persistent with IDegLira at 6 and 12 months, respectively. The most commonly used concomitant medication was metformin (69.4%). Mean daily dose was 33 dose steps. Overall, there was a mean decrease in HbA1c (approx. 10 mmol/mol [1%]) and body weight (- 1.1 kg). Improvements in HbA1c were observed regardless of pre-index treatment.

CONCLUSION

After 12 months, 84% of patients were persistent on IDegLira, with improved glycaemic control and reductions in body weight.

Benefits of insulin degludec/liraglutide are maintained even in patients discontinuing sulphonylureas or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors upon initiation of degludec/liraglutide therapy: A post hoc analysis of the DUAL II and DUAL IX trials

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and safety of initiating insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who had discontinued pretrial sulphonylureas (SUs) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) versus patients not previously treated with these regimens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In DUAL II, patients with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin and metformin ± SU/glinides were randomized to insulin degludec or IDegLira (both capped at 50 U). In DUAL IX, patients were randomized to insulin glargine U100 (no maximum dose) or IDegLira, as add-on to sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors ± oral antidiabetic drugs. In this post hoc analysis, patients were grouped according to pretrial use of SU (DUAL II) or DPP4i (DUAL IX).

RESULTS

Regardless of pretrial SU/DPP4i use, IDegLira was favourable versus insulin comparators with respect to change in HbA1c and body weight. Lower hypoglycaemia rates and comparable end-of-trial daily insulin dose were achieved with IDegLira, regardless of pretrial regimen. There was no clinically relevant increase in mean self-measured blood glucose in the early weeks after IDegLira initiation. There was no statistically significant interaction between the randomized treatments and previous SU/DPP4i use.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegLira was more favourable compared with degludec or glargine U100 in terms of change in HbA1c and body weight, regardless of antecedent treatment. Clinicians should be aware of a potential transient rise in self-measured blood glucose when transitioning therapy in patients. This shows that SUs/DPP4is can be safely discontinued, without deterioration in glycaemic control when initiating IDegLira, allowing a simplified treatment regimen.

Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Reporting of hypoglycaemia in clinical trials of basal insulins: A need for consensus

Hypoglycaemia is a common side-effect of diabetes therapies, particularly insulin, and imposes a substantial burden on individuals and healthcare systems. Consequently, regulatory approval of newer basal insulin (BI) therapies has relied on demonstration of a balance between achievement of good glycaemic control and less hypoglycaemia. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing efficacy and safety, including hypoglycaemia risk, of BIs and are invaluable for obtaining regulatory approval. However, their highly selected patient populations and their conditions lead to results that may not be representative of real-life situations. Real-world evidence (RWE) studies are more representative of clinical practice, but they also have limitations. As such, data both from RCTs and RWE studies provide a fuller picture of the hypoglycaemia risk with BI therapies. However, substantial differences exist in the way hypoglycaemia is reported across these studies, which confounds comparisons of hypoglycaemia frequency among different BIs. This problem is ongoing and persists in recent trials of second-generation BI analogues. Although they provide a lower risk of hypoglycaemia when compared with earlier BIs, they do not eliminate it. This review describes differences in the way hypoglycaemia is reported across RCTs and RWE studies of second-generation BI analogues and examines potential reasons for these differences. For studies of BIs, there is a need to standardize aspects of design, analysis and methods of reporting to better enable interpretation of the efficacy and safety of such insulins among studies; such aspects include length of follow-up, glycaemic targets, hypoglycaemia definitions and time intervals for determining nocturnal events.

Insulin Degludec, a Novel Ultra-Long-Acting Basal Insulin versus Insulin Glargine for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to compare insulin degludec with insulin glargine in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials published prior to 13 August 2018 (no language restrictions) which compared insulin degludec with insulin glargine. Our main endpoints were glycemic control, hypoglycemic event, weight gain, and serious adverse events (SAEs). We assessed pooled data using random-effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies that included 9619 patients in the insulin degludec arm of the studies and 7075 patients in the insulin glargine arm were identified and subsequently assessed. Our analysis showed that compared with insulin glargine, insulin degludec yielded an improved mean reduction in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (weighted mean difference [WMD] - 5.20 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 7.34, - 3.07, P < 0.00001) and a lower ratio of participants experiencing ≥ 1 severe   hypoglycemic event (relative risk [RR] 0.68, 95% CI 0.50, 0.93, P = 0.01) and nocturnal hypoglycemia (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75, 0.88, P < 0.0001); however, in the insulin degludec group there was a lower ratio of participants with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of ≤ 7.0%    (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86, 0.98, P = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups for HbA1c reduction (WMD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.00, 0.07, P = 0.08), body weight gain (WMD 0.12, 95% CI - 0.19, 0.43, P = 0.46), and proportion of participants with SAEs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92, 1.02, P = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin degludec and insulin glargine provide similar glycemic control, but insulin degludec also lowers the risk of hypoglycemia. Consequently, insulin degludec may be an alternative treatment for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes who are prone to hypoglycemia with insulin glargine.

A comparative effectiveness study of degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/mL in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To compare the real-world effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) and glargine 300 units/mL (glargine U300) in insulin-naïve adult patients with type 2 diabetes in routine US clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CONFIRM is a non-interventional comparative effectiveness study following US patients across the continuum of care, through electronic medical records from multiple health systems and integrated delivery networks. Propensity-score matching controlled for confounding. The primary endpoint, change in HbA1c from baseline to 180 days of follow-up, was estimated using a repeated-measure of covariance analysis with subject as random effect. Change in the rate of hypoglycaemic episodes (defined using International Classification of Diseases codes 9/10) and change in proportion of patients with hypoglycaemia were estimated using negative binomial and logistic regression, respectively. Time-to-discontinuation of the initial basal insulin/initiation with another prescribed basal insulin was analysed using a Cox Proportional Hazard model.

RESULTS

Data concerning 4056 patients were analysed. After matching, baseline characteristics were comparable (n = 2028 in each group). After 180 days of follow-up, degludec was associated with a larger reduction in HbA1c (estimated treatment difference, -0.27%; P = 0.03), greater reductions in change in rate (rate ratio, 0.70; P < 0.05) and greater reductions in change in the likelihood of hypoglycaemia (odds ratio, 0.64; P < 0.01]) compared with glargine U300. In addition, patients treated with degludec were 27% less likely to discontinue treatment at follow-up compared with those treated with glargine U300 (hazard ratio, 0.73; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly improved HbA1c, larger reductions in rates and likelihood of hypoglycaemia and lower risk of treatment discontinuation were demonstrated with degludec vs glargine U300.

Document on a comprehensive approach to type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is complex and is intended to decrease morbidity and mortality. Management should therefore include adequate diabetes education, lifestyle changes, drug treatment to achieve early blood glucose control and reduction of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, early detection and treatment of complications, and assessment of associated comorbidities. The objective was to prepare a document including all aspects required for a comprehensive approach to T2DM.

PARTICIPANTS

Members of the Diabetes Mellitus Working Group of the Spanish Society of Endocrinology.

METHODS

The available evidence regarding each aspect of diabetes management (blood glucose control goals, diet and exercise, drug treatment, risk factor management and control, detection of complications, and management of frail patients) was reviewed. Recommendations were formulated based on the grades of evidence stated in the 2018 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. Recommendations were discussed and agreed by the working group members.

CONCLUSIONS

This document is intended to provide evidence-based practical recommendations for comprehensive management of T2DM by clinical endocrinologists.

Ultra-long-acting insulins: A review of efficacy, safety, and implications for practice

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In the past decade, there has been much advancement in oral antidiabetic agents, but few changes in insulin therapy. With the addition of the ultra-long-acting insulins, insulin glargine U300 (IGlar 300) and insulin degludec (IDeg 100 and IDeg 200), it is important to understand key aspects in the agents' clinical properties, efficacy, safety, dosing, packaging, and place in therapy.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted using PubMed database and was limited to English, full-text articles published from January 2000 to January 2018. The following search terms were used: insulin glargine 300, insulin degludec, Toujeo, Tresiba, and ultra-long-acting insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

These agents are longer acting with sustained insulin coverage as compared with other basal insulins while having a low potential for hypoglycemia. Efficacy and safety profiles are quite good, and potential for weight gain was similar to IGlar 100.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Depending on the patient's needs, these newer agents may offer some advantages. Insulin glargine U300 and IDeg 200 are concentrated, allowing for administration of large doses by less volume, thereby theoretically improving absorption. For patients needing flexible dosing, IDeg may be beneficial. The ultra-long-acting agents may also be useful if it is suspected that the basal insulin is not lasting the entire day.

Primary Care Management of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Overcoming Inertia and Advancing Therapy With the Use of Injectables

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a progressive disease caused by insulin resistance and associated progressive β-cell functional decline, as well as multiple other related metabolic and pathophysiologic changes. Left unchecked, T2D increases the risk of long-term microvascular and cardiovascular complications and is associated with excess morbidity and mortality. Despite multiple effective options for reducing hyperglycemia, patients are not optimally managed, largely due to delays in appropriate and timely advancement of therapy. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and basal insulin are recommended by treatment guidelines as effective options for advancing therapy to achieve glycemic control. However, injected therapies often face resistance from patients and clinicians. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are associated with weight loss, low risk of hypoglycemia, and potential beneficial cardiovascular effects. The class is recommended for patients across the spectrum of disease severity and represents an attractive option to add to basal insulin therapy when additional control is needed. Newer second-generation basal insulin analogues offer advantages over first-generation basal insulins in terms of lower hypoglycemia rates and greater flexibility in dosing. Incorporating injectable therapy into patient care in a timely manner has the potential to improve outcomes and must not be overlooked. Primary care clinicians play a significant role in managing patients with T2D, and they must be able to address and overcome patient resistance and their own barriers to advancing therapy if optimal treatment outcomes are to be achieved. The purpose of this expert opinion article was to provide a commentary on the key principle of advancing therapy with injectables to control hyperglycemia.

Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

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.

Comparison of the pharmacodynamics of protamine zinc insulin and insulin degludec and validation of the continuous glucose monitoring system iPro2 in healthy cats

With the aim to improve current therapeutic and monitoring options for diabetic cats, the present study compared pharmacodynamic parameters of protamine zinc insulin (PZI) and insulin degludec and validated the continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) iPro2 with Sof-sensor and Enlite-sensor focusing on the low glycemic range. Three doses (0.1, 0.2 and 0.3IU/kg) of the two insulin preparations and the CGMS iPro2 with two different sensors were tested in six healthy cats. After each insulin administration, onset of action, time to glucose nadir and duration of action were calculated by measuring glucose concentrations with a portable blood glucose meter (PBGM). After sensor placement, paired PBGM and sensor glucose measurements were done and analytical and clinical accuracy were calculated according to the ISO 15197:2013 criteria. Onset of action, time to glucose nadir and glucose nadir were similar for both insulin formulations. Duration of action of insulin degludec was significantly longer than those of PZI at 0.1IU/kg (P=0.043) and 0.2IU/kg (P=0.043). Overall, 166/191 (87%) Sof-sensor measurements and 106/121 (88%) Enlite-sensor measurements met ISO criteria for analytical accuracy, and all sensor measurements fulfilled ISO criteria for clinical accuracy. Insulin degludec was well tolerated in healthy cats and showed longer duration of action than PZI. Further studies on the use of insulin degludec in diabetic cats might be recommended. Both sensors had good clinical accuracy, when used with the CGMS iPro2, but the analytical accuracy was below the minimum set by ISO 15197:2013.

Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Switching basal insulins in type 2 diabetes: practical recommendations for health care providers

Basal insulin remains the mainstay of treatment of type 2 diabetes when diet changes and exercise in combination with oral drugs and other injectable agents are not sufficient to control hyperglycemia. Insulin therapy should be individualized, and several factors influence the choice of basal insulin; these include pharmacological properties, patient preferences, and lifestyle, as well as health insurance plan formularies. The recent availability of basal insulin formulations with longer durations of action has provided further dosing flexibility; however, patients may need to switch agents throughout therapy for a variety of personal, clinical, or economic reasons. Although a unit-to-unit switching approach is usually recommended, this conversion strategy may not be appropriate for all patients and types of insulin. Glycemic control and risk of hypoglycemia must be closely monitored by health care providers during the switching process. In addition, individual changes in care and formulary coverage need to be adequately addressed in order to enable a smooth transition with optimal outcomes.

Challenges and unmet needs in basal insulin therapy: lessons from the Asian experience

Basal insulin therapy can improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes. However, timely initiation, optimal titration, and proper adherence to prescribed basal insulin regimens are necessary to achieve optimal glycemic control. Even so, glycemic control may remain suboptimal in a significant proportion of patients. Unique circumstances in Asia (eg, limited resources, management of diabetes primarily in nonspecialist settings, and patient populations that are predominantly less educated) coupled with the limitations of current basal insulin options (eg, risk of hypoglycemia and dosing time inflexibility) amplify the challenge of optimal basal insulin therapy in Asia. Significant progress has been made with long-acting insulin analogs (insulin glargine 100 units/mL and insulin detemir), which provide longer coverage and less risk of hypoglycemia over intermediate-acting insulin (Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin). Furthermore, recent clinical evidence suggests that newer long-acting insulin analogs, new insulin glargine 300 units/mL and insulin degludec, may address some of the unmet needs of current basal insulin options in terms of risk of hypoglycemia and dosing time inflexibility. Nevertheless, more can be done to overcome barriers to basal insulin therapy in Asia, through educating both patients and physicians, developing better patient support models, and improving accessibility to long-acting insulin analogs. In this study, we highlight the unique challenges associated with basal insulin therapy in Asia and, where possible, propose strategies to address the unmet needs by drawing on clinical experiences and perspectives in Asia.

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.

Auxiliendo, Primum Non Nocere: A Preliminary View of the DEVOTE Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine in Type 2 Diabetes

A demonstration of cardiovascular safety is mandatory for all newly developed glucose-lowering agents, including insulin analogues. The vascular benefit of insulin is evident from the Diabetes Control and Complication Trial (DCCT) and United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), and the cardiovascular safety of insulin glargine has been demonstrated in individuals with newly diagnosed diabetes or prediabetes in the ORIGIN trial (Outcome Reduction with an Initial Glargine Intervention). The top-line results of DEVOTE (Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Insulin Degludec vs. Insulin Glargine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes at High Risk of Cardiovascular Events) have proven the cardiovascular safety of insulin degludec in persons with type 2 diabetes. In this commentary I discuss the interrelationship of insulin and cardiovascular health, while comparing the results of DEVOTE and ORIGIN.

Insulin Degludec 200 Units/mL Is Associated With Lower Injection Frequency and Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared With Insulin Glargine 100 Units/mL in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Requiring High-Dose Insulin

IN BRIEF Many patients with type 2 diabetes require high basal insulin doses, necessitating multiple injections, increasing patient burden, and resulting in reduced treatment adherence. This randomized, controlled, crossover trial compared the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes for a concentrated formulation of insulin degludec (200 units/mL) to those of insulin glargine in patients requiring high doses of basal insulin. By offering equivalent glycemic control while reducing the rate of confirmed hypoglycemia and the number of injections required for administration, insulin degludec 200 units/mL may be preferred by patients with type 2 diabetes who require high basal insulin doses.

A Review of the Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec and Glargine 300 U/mL in the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus

PURPOSE

The treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using insulin is not ideal at this time. Despite advances made with basal insulin analogues, many individuals achieve less than optimal glycemic control or are at risk for hypoglycemia. Currently available basal insulin analogues do not deliver steady, peakless, continuous insulin for >24 hours and are associated with adverse events, including hypoglycemia. The objective of this paper was to review the clinical efficacy and safety of upcoming long-acting insulin analogues such as insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of PubMed and Google Scholar was conducted from 1966 to 2015. The search included randomized controlled trials that specifically assessed the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec and Gla-300 in patients with T1DM and T2DM.

FINDINGS

The efficacy of insulin degludec and Gla-300 in achieving glycemic control has been reported in clinical trials in adults with T1DM and T2DM. Not only did a large number of patients succeed in meeting glycosylated hemoglobin targets, but they also experienced reductions in hypoglycemic events. These 2 therapies are associated with a reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia and are generally well tolerated.

IMPLICATIONS

The long-acting insulin analogues insulin degludec and Gla-300 are promising therapies in the treatment of T1DM and T2DM. Their improved insulin delivery for >24 hours offers glycemic control with a good safety profile.

The Efficacy of IDegLira (Insulin Degludec/Liraglutide Combination) in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with a GLP-1 Receptor Agonist and Oral Therapy: DUAL III Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes necessitates treatment intensification. This often involves intensification with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) initially, followed by other agents, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), with the majority of patients eventually requiring insulin therapy. Therefore, this trial aimed to investigate the efficacy of IDegLira (combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) in controlling glycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled on a GLP-1RA and OADs.

METHODS

In this 26-week open-label phase 3b trial, patients on maximum-dose GLP-1RA therapy (liraglutide once daily or exenatide twice daily) with metformin alone or with pioglitazone and/or sulfonylurea were randomized 2:1 to IDegLira once daily (n = 292) or to unchanged GLP-1RA therapy (n = 146), continuing OADs at the pre-trial dose.

RESULTS

After 26 weeks, HbA_1c reductions were superior with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA; estimated treatment difference -0.94% (-10.3 mmol/mol), p < 0.001. Mean HbA_1c reduced from 7.8% to 6.4% (61.5 to 46.9 mmol/mol) with IDegLira and from 7.7 to 7.4% (60.8 to 57.1 mmol/mol) with unchanged GLP-1RA. With IDegLira, 75% and 63% of patients achieved HbA_1c <7% and ≤6.5%, compared with 36% and 23% on unchanged GLP-1RA, respectively. Fasting plasma glucose and 9-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles improved significantly more with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA. The mean change in weight was +2.0 kg with IDegLira, versus -0.8 kg with unchanged GLP-1RA. Rates of confirmed hypoglycemia were low, but higher with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA. The safety profile of IDegLira was consistent with previous findings; both treatments were well tolerated and the rate of nausea was low in both groups. IDegLira improved patient-reported outcomes versus unchanged GLP-1RA.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegLira provided superior glycemic control versus unchanged GLP-1RA and represents an efficacious intensification approach in patients inadequately controlled on GLP-1RAs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01676116.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Budget impact of treating commercially insured type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in the United States with insulin degludec compared to insulin glargine

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the annual budget impact if all US commercially insured type 1 diabetes mellitus patients on basal-bolus therapy (T1DM_BBT), type 2 diabetes mellitus patients on basal-oral therapy (T2DM_BOT), and type 2 diabetes mellitus patients on basal-bolus therapy (T2DM_BBT) switched from insulin glargine (IGlar) to insulin degludec (IDeg).

METHODS

A short-term (1 year) budget impact model was developed to evaluate the costs of IDeg vs. IGlar in three treatment groups (T1DM_BBT, insulin-naïve T2DM_BOT, and T2DM_BBT) through a simulation for a potential US health plan population of 35 million. The analysis captured direct medical costs associated with insulin treatment (insulin, needles, and self-monitored glucose testing) and costs related to managing hypoglycemic episodes. There were a total of 59,780 T1DM_BBT patients, 383,145 T2DM_BOT patients, and 171,325 T2DM_BBT patients expected to be using long-acting insulin. A sensitivity analysis on the entire US population was also conducted.

RESULTS

Among T1DM_BBT patients, IDeg was associated with an annual cost savings of -$357.13 per patient per year (PPPY), driven primarily by reduced insulin utilization. IDeg was also found to be cost saving among T2DM_BOT patients (-$1206.61 PPPY), driven primarily by reductions in the cost of treating severe hypoglycemic episodes. Among T2DM_BBT patients, IDeg was associated with an additional cost to the plan of $1420.04 PPPY; however, this result was driven by a higher insulin dose for IDeg compared to IGlar. Overall, IDeg demonstrated cost savings of $240 million per year, which accounted for total cost savings of 3.5% vs. IGlar.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this analysis suggest that the reduced insulin utilization and fewer hypoglycemic episodes associated with IDeg may translate into reduced costs for payers. The model is limited by simplification of a complex disease state and assumptions surrounding disease state, treatment patterns, and costs. Therefore, results may not accurately reflect actual health plans or real-world practice patterns.

Insulin Degludec in Clinical Practice: A Review of Japanese Real-World Data

INTRODUCTION

In this literature review we evaluated the real-world clinical effectiveness of switching Japanese diabetic patients from their current insulin regimen to insulin degludec (IDeg).

METHODS

Studies were identified from Japanese Diabetes Society (JDS) abstracts (2014-2015) and PubMed (2012 onwards). Inclusion criteria were: Japanese population, >15 participants, and studies switching patients from basal or basal-bolus insulin regimens to IDeg. Randomized controlled trials and case reports were excluded. Weighted mean changes in safety and effectiveness endpoints were calculated using the number of patients in each study.

RESULTS

In total, 81 JDS abstracts and seven manuscripts met the search criteria, representing 4238 patients [1028 with type 1 diabetes (T1D), 602 with type 2 diabetes (T2D), 2608 with unspecified or mixed diabetes]. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) was reported in 93% of studies, with an improvement in 84% of these (51% significant, 33% numerical), no change in 12%, and worsening in 4% (3% numerical, 1% significant). Across all studies, the weighted mean absolute change in HbA_1c was -0.3% (-2.7 mmol/mol). Basal insulin dose was reported in 58% of studies and was lower in 60% of these (30% significant, 30% numerical), numerically unchanged in 26%, and higher in 14% (2% significant, 12% numerical). The weighted mean change in basal insulin dose was -4.8% and -3.0% for all studies and for studies with only significant results, respectively. The weighted mean change in basal dose based on all studies was -8.9, -5.5, and -2.9% for the T1D, T2D, and unspecified patient populations, respectively. Hypoglycemia was recorded in 31% of the studies. After switching treatment to IDeg, 55% of studies reported decreased hypoglycemia, 29% no change, and 16% an increase. Quality of life (QoL) was measured in 11% of studies, of which 82% reported improved QoL after switching, and 18% reported no change in QoL.

CONCLUSION

Switching from a conventional basal insulin to IDeg has the potential to improve HbA_1c with a lower insulin dose. Switching to IDeg may also provide a reduced risk of hypoglycemia and improvement in QoL.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

The Effectiveness of Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Improving Glycaemic Control in Adults with Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

People with severe mental illness (SMI) have reduced life expectancy compared with the general population, which can be explained partly by their increased risk of diabetes. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for improving glycaemic control in people with SMI (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015015558). A systematic literature search was performed on 30/10/2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with SMI, with or without a diagnosis of diabetes that measured fasting blood glucose or glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c). Screening and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate effectiveness, and subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression to explore heterogeneity. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used to assess risk of bias. We found 54 eligible RCTs in 4,392 adults (40 pharmacological, 13 behavioural, one mixed intervention). Data for meta-analysis were available from 48 RCTs (n = 4052). Both pharmacological (mean difference (MD), -0.11mmol/L; 95% confidence interval (CI), [-0.19, -0.02], p = 0.02, n = 2536) and behavioural interventions (MD, -0.28mmol//L; 95% CI, [-0.43, -0.12], p<0.001, n = 956) were effective in lowering fasting glucose, but not HbA_1c (pharmacological MD, -0.03%; 95% CI, [-0.12, 0.06], p = 0.52, n = 1515; behavioural MD, 0.18%; 95% CI, [-0.07, 0.42], p = 0.16, n = 140) compared with usual care or placebo. In subgroup analysis of pharmacological interventions, metformin and antipsychotic switching strategies improved HbA_1c. Behavioural interventions of longer duration and those including repeated physical activity had greater effects on fasting glucose than those without these characteristics. Baseline levels of fasting glucose explained some of the heterogeneity in behavioural interventions but not in pharmacological interventions. Although the strength of the evidence is limited by inadequate trial design and reporting and significant heterogeneity, there is some evidence that behavioural interventions, antipsychotic switching, and metformin can lead to clinically important improvements in glycaemic measurements in adults with SMI.

Type 2 Diabetes, Hypoglycemia, and Basal Insulins: Ongoing Challenges

Hypoglycemia in people with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes can be a limiting factor for management and a barrier to optimizing glycemic control. Even mild episodes of hypoglycemia can affect an individual's quality of life, and fear of hypoglycemia can lead to underinsulinization. This article explores the prevalence and consequences of hypoglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes with a focus on those who use basal insulins, offering strategies for prevention and management. It also discusses the benefits and challenges associated with new basal insulins, and their potential role in reducing hypoglycemia risk.

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

Purpose

The efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) once daily (OD) compared with insulin glargine U100 (IGlar) OD over 52 weeks in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was investigated.

Methods

In this open-label, parallel-group treat-to-target trial, participants were randomized (1:1) to receive IDegAsp OD (breakfast, n = 266) or IGlar OD (as per label, n = 264). Participants then entered a 26-week extension phase (IDegAsp OD, n = 192; IGlar OD, n = 221). The primary endpoint was change from baseline to Week 26 in HbA_1c.

Results

After 26 and 52 weeks, mean HbA_1c decreased to similar levels in both groups. After 52 weeks, the mean estimated treatment difference was –0.08% (–0.26, 0.09 95%CI), confirming the non-inferiority of IDegAsp OD versus IGlar OD evaluated at Week 26. After 52 weeks, there was a similar reduction in mean fasting plasma glucose in both treatment groups. The rate of confirmed hypoglycemic episodes was 86% higher (p < 0.0001) whereas the rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia was 75% lower (p < 0.0001) for IDegAsp versus IGlar.

Conclusion

Nocturnal-confirmed hypoglycemia was higher with IGlar whereas overall and diurnal hypoglycemia were higher with IDegAsp dosed at breakfast. These results highlight the importance of administration of IDegAsp with the main meal of the day, tailored to the individual patient’s needs.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01045707 [core]) and NCT01169766 [ext]

Insulin degludec in a simple or stepwise titration algorithm in a Japanese population of patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, 26-week, treat-to-target trial

Aims

Managing insulin therapy is a challenge for both patients and healthcare providers.The primary aim of this trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec (IDeg) in a fixed versus flexible dosing schedule. The secondary aim and subject of this manuscript was to compare a simple versus a stepwise titration algorithm.

Materials and methods

This was a 26-week, controlled, multicenter, open-label, randomized, treat-to-target phase 3b trial of Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately treated with insulin glargine and with/without antidiabetic drugs orally. The trial had a 2 × 2 factorial design whereby 458 patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to one of two titration algorithms and one of two dosing schedules. IDeg dose was adjusted weekly using a clinician-led, treat-to-target approach in order to ensure optimal insulin titration and glycemic control following self-measured blood glucose (SMBG) readings.

Results

Mean insulin dose at the end of the trial was similar in both simple and stepwise titration algorithms. Glycemic control improved in both titration algorithms, with noninferiority in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) reduction confirmed when comparing simple and stepwise titration algorithms and no significant differences in fasting plasma glucose or SMBG at 26 weeks. No safety concerns were observed in terms of adverse events, and rates of hypoglycemia were not significantly different between the two algorithms.

Conclusions

This trial demonstrated comparable efficacy with noninferior HbA_1c and comparable safety of once-daily IDeg using either a simple or stepwise titration algorithm in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with insulin glargine.

Relationship of body mass index with efficacy of exenatide twice daily added to insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes

This post hoc analysis assessed the evidence behind common reimbursement practices by evaluating the relationship of body mass index (BMI) ranges (<30, 30-35 and >35 kg/m(2) ) with treatment effects of exenatide twice daily among patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients received exenatide twice daily added to insulin glargine in two 30-week studies (exenatide twice daily vs insulin lispro, n = 627; exenatide twice daily vs placebo, n = 259). No association of baseline BMI with changes in efficacy variables was observed. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reductions were significant (p < 0.0001) and similar across BMI range groups in the lispro-comparator study and greater for exenatide versus placebo in the placebo-controlled study. Significant weight loss occurred with exenatide across BMI range groups (p < 0.0001), while weight increased with both comparators. Achievement of HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) without weight gain was greater for exenatide versus comparators. Systolic blood pressure decreased across BMI range groups with exenatide in the lispro-comparator study (p < 0.0001); changes in lipids were not clinically meaningful. Minor hypoglycaemia was less frequent for exenatide versus insulin lispro. These findings suggest that BMI alone should not limit clinical decision-making or patient access to medication.

Effect of adding insulin degludec to treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and liraglutide: a double-blind randomized controlled trial (BEGIN: ADD TO GLP-1 Study)

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding insulin degludec (IDeg) to treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving liraglutide and metformin and qualifying for treatment intensification because of inadequate glycaemic control.

METHODS

In this 26-week, double-blind trial, patients who still had inadequate glycaemic control after a 15-week run-in period with initiation and dose escalation of liraglutide to 1.8 mg in combination with metformin (≥1500 mg) were randomized to addition of once-daily IDeg ('IDeg add-on to liraglutide' arm; n = 174) or placebo ('placebo add-on to liraglutide' arm; n = 172), with dosing of both IDeg and placebo based on titration guidelines.

RESULTS

At 26 weeks, the mean change in glycated haemoglobin level was greater in the IDeg add-on to liraglutide arm (-1.04%) than in the placebo add-on to liraglutide arm (-0.16%; p < 0.0001). Similarly, the mean fasting plasma glucose reduction was greater, and self-measured plasma glucose values were lower at all eight time points, with IDeg add-on versus placebo add-on (both p < 0.0001). At 26 weeks, the IDeg dose was 51 U (0.54 U/kg). During the run-in period with liraglutide, body weight decreased by ∼3 kg in both groups. After 26 weeks, the mean change was +2.0 kg (IDeg add-on to liraglutide) and -1.3 kg (placebo add-on to liraglutide). Confirmed hypoglycaemia rates were low in both groups, although higher with IDeg than with placebo (0.57 vs. 0.12 episodes/patient-years of exposure; p = 0.0002). Nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia was infrequent in both groups, with no episodes of severe hypoglycaemia, and no marked differences in adverse events with either treatment approach.

CONCLUSION

The addition of liraglutide and IDeg to patients sub-optimally treated with metformin and liraglutide and requiring treatment intensification was found to be effective and well-tolerated.

IDegLira: Redefining insulin optimisation using a single injection in patients with type 2 diabetes

In type 2 diabetes (T2D), treatment is optimised to minimise hyperglycaemia and the risk of microvascular complications. While there are a number of effective treatments, intensive treatment is associated with negative side effects such as increased hypoglycaemia and weight gain. With complementary modes of action, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and a basal insulin in combination offer an alternative to basal-bolus therapy in T2D. This review describes the rationale behind this treatment combination and presents clinical data available for IDegLira, the first basal insulin (insulin degludec) and GLP-1RA (liraglutide) co-formulation available in one pen for a single injection daily.

Combination therapies in the management of type 2 diabetes: the use of insulin degludec/liraglutide

The global burden of type 2 diabetes is estimated to currently affect over 350 million people worldwide and is anticipated to continue increasing over the next 20 years. Current treatment guidelines recommend the choice of pharmacotherapy based upon patient-specific parameters, with combination therapy for patients with a hemoglobin A1c level ≥9%. A new combination therapy of insulin degludec + liraglutide provides a long-acting basal insulin with a glucagon-like peptide agonist. In clinical trials, this combination product has reduced hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose more than the individual agents alone. Further advantages observed with this combination include weight loss and decrease in hypoglycemia compared to basal insulin alone.

A meta-analysis of rate ratios for nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine using different definitions for hypoglycaemia

AIMS

A prospective meta-analysis of phase 3 trials showed lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine. We investigated the consistency of the results across different definitions of hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

This post-hoc, patient-level meta-analysis included six randomized, controlled, 26- or 52-week phase 3a trials in insulin-naïve participants with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Type 2 diabetesinsulin naïve ), participants with Type 2 diabetes mellitus using basal-bolus therapy (Type 2 diabetesBB ) and those with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. We used three definitions of hypoglycaemia and different timescales for the nocturnal period. Rates were analysed for the entire core trial period, the 'maintenance period' only, and the extension trial set population. Analyses utilized a negative binomial regression model.

RESULTS

In Type 2 diabetesinsulin naïve participants, risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine for all hypoglycaemia definitions and trial periods. Risk was also lower for the timescale 21.59-05.59, but not 00.01-07.59. For Type 2 diabetesBB , nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were lower with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine across all definitions, timescales and trial periods, with one exception. For individuals with Type 1 diabetes mellitus, nocturnal hypoglycaemia risk was significantly lower with insulin degludec during the maintenance period for the original definition (plasma glucose < 3.1 mmol/l, timescale 00.01-05.59) and in the extension trial set population for all hypoglycaemia definitions except for the nocturnal timescale 00.01-07.59.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with insulin glargine, insulin degludec is associated with lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus, and similar or lower rates in Type 1 diabetes mellitus, across different definitions.

Twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart provides superior fasting plasma glucose control and a reduced rate of hypoglycaemia compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 in insulin-naïve adults with Type 2 diabetes

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs. twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus who were naïve to insulin.

METHODS

In this 26-week, multinational, open-label, controlled, two-arm, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, participants [mean (± sd) age 58.9 (±8.9) years, duration of diabetes 9.5 (±5.9) years, HbA1c 68 (±8.7) mmol/mol or 8.4 (±0.8)% and BMI 31.2 (±4.2) kg/m(2) ) were randomized (1:1) to insulin degludec/insulin aspart (n = 197) or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (n = 197), administered with breakfast and the main evening meal, titrated to a self-monitored plasma glucose target > 3.9 and ≤ 5.0 mmol/l.

RESULTS

The mean HbA1c was reduced to 49 mmol/mol (6.6%) with insulin degludec/insulin aspart and 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) with biphasic insulin aspart 30. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart achieved the prespecified non-inferiority margin (estimated treatment difference 0.02%; 95% CI -0.12, 0.17). Insulin degludec/insulin aspart was superior in lowering fasting plasma glucose (estimated treatment difference -1.00 mmol/l; 95% CI -1.4, -0.6; P < 0.001) and reducing overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia at a similar overall insulin dose compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30. Similar proportions of participants in each arm experienced severe hypoglycaemia. Adverse events were equally distributed.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with previous findings, insulin degludec/insulin aspart twice daily effectively improved long-term glycaemic control, with superior reductions in FPG, and significantly less overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with Type 2 diabetes who were insulin-naïve.

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.

Concepts and clinical use of ultra-long basal insulin

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a public health issue, affecting around 382 million people worldwide. In order to achieve glycemic goals, insulin therapy is the frontline therapy for type 1 DM patients; for patients with type 2 DM, use of insulin therapy is an option as initial or add-on therapy for those not achieving glycemic control. Despite insulin therapy developments seen in the last decades, several barriers remain for insulin initiation and optimal maintenance in clinical practice. Fear of hypoglycemia, weight gain, pain associated with blood testing and injection-related pain are the most cited reasons for not starting insulin therapy. However, new generation of basal insulin formulations, with longer length of action, have shown the capability of providing adequate glycemic control with lower risk of hypoglycemia.