One-year sustained glycaemic control and less hypoglycaemia with new insulin glargine 300 U/ml compared with 100 U/ml in people with type 2 diabetes using basal plus meal-time insulin: the EDITION 1 12-month randomized trial, including 6-month extension

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.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

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, an interprofessional 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.

Clinical impact after implementing an insulin protocol involving a switch to insulin glargine 300 U/ml as basal insulin for inpatient glycaemic control: A retrospective single-centre study

AIMS

To evaluate the benefit and safety of a switch in the basal insulin protocol to glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) on inpatients' overall dysglycemic events. Efficacy and safety data on insulin Gla-300 in the inpatient setting are limited.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study conducted on 7455 patients admitted to acute care (n = 5414) or geriatric and social healthcare (n = 2041) units of the Regional Hospital of Amposta (Spain) between January 2017 and December 2020 who received basal insulin during hospitalization. Hypo- and hyperglycaemic events were indirectly assessed through hospital pharmacy usage of intravenous glucose and vials of rapid-acting intravenous insulin for 27 months after the switch, and the impact on overall dysglycemic events was analysed.

RESULTS

After protocol implementation, patients were mostly treated with Gla-300 (83.06 % in acute care; and 83.44 % in geriatric and social healthcare), and presented a significant decrease in the use of intravenous insulin (-60.80 %, P = 0.005) and glucose (-62.13 %, P < 0.001), which translated into a significantly reduced overall dysglycemic events (-62.25 %, P < 0.001), with a good safety and tolerability profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall inpatient dysglycemic events were improved upon the introduction of the new insulin protocol, which calls for the use of Gla-300 as one of the choices of basal insulin for inpatient care.

Comparative clinical efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Toujeo) versus insulin glargine 100 U/ml in type 2 diabetes and type 1 diabetes: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

AIM

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of glargine-U100 (Lantus/Gla-100) with glargine-U300 (Toujeo/Gla-300) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search on Gla-300/Gla-100 in diabetes management was conducted using the MEDLINE/Embase/Cochrane databases from inception to 10 January 2021. Eligible studies considered for inclusion were parallel-design, randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The random-effects model was applied for interpretation of the results.

RESULTS

Of 5348 records screened, 592 were assessed for eligibility and 15 RCTs were considered for data extraction and meta-analysis (T2D [N = 10; n = 7082]; T1D [N = 5; n = 2222]). In patients with T1D, all safety parameters were comparable between Gla-100 and Gla-300. In T2D, statistically significant differences were observed in favour of Gla-300 over Gla-100 for nocturnal and total hypoglycaemia. For efficacy parameters, a statistically and clinically significant difference favouring Gla-100 in basal insulin dose requirement was observed for both T2D and T1D. Change in HbA1c showed a statistically but not clinically significant reduction with Gla-100 compared with Gla-300 in T1D. Statistically significant but clinically less relevant differences favoured Gla-300 for control of body weight in T1D and T2D and Gla-100 for fasting blood glucose in T2D.

CONCLUSIONS

Gla-100 and Gla-300 had comparable efficacy and safety profiles in both T1D and T2D populations. Gla-300 showed a lower risk of nocturnal and total hypoglycaemia, significant in insulin-experienced/exposed patients with T2D. Patients on Gla-300 required significantly more units of insulin daily than the Gla-100 group to achieve equivalent efficacy.

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.

Insulin glargine 300 U/ml for the treatment of feline diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (IGla-U300) in cats with variable duration of diabetes mellitus (DM).

METHODS

Thirteen client-owned cats with DM completed a prospective clinical trial. Four cats were highly suspected of hypersomatotropism and excluded from the insulin efficacy evaluation. All cats were treated with IGla-U300 SC at a starting dosage of 0.5 U/kg q12h and fed with a low carbohydrate diet. Cats were monitored for 8 weeks with a once-weekly at-home 16 h blood glucose curve (BGC) and a questionnaire evaluating the presence of DM-related clinical signs. In-clinic evaluations, including serum fructosamine measurement, were scheduled within 3 days of the first, third, sixth and eighth BGC. Glycemic variability was assessed by calculating the SD of each BGC.

RESULTS

Excluding four cats suspected of hypersomatotropism, at the time of the eighth BGC, improved or absent polyuria, polydipsia, polyphagia, weight loss, lethargy and improved or normal general demeanor were reported in 8/9 (88%), 8/9 (88%), 7/9 (77%), 7/9 (77%), 7/9 (77%) and 8/9 (88%) cats, respectively. Two cats achieved remission after 29 and 53 days. Another two cats went into remission after the end of the study (days 82 and 96). All cats that achieved remission were newly diagnosed diabetics. Median (range) serum fructosamine concentration significantly decreased when comparing the time of enrollment (604 [457-683] µmol/l) with the eighth week of treatment (366 [220-738] µmol/l) (P = 0.02). In all 13 cats, biochemical hypoglycemia (blood glucose <60 mg/dl; <3.3 mmol/l) was detected in 13/104 (12.5%) BGCs, while clinical signs suggesting hypoglycemic episodes were not reported. Glycemic variability was significantly lower at the fifth BGC when comparing cats that achieved remission with cats that did not achieve remission (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

IGla-U300 seems effective and safe for the treatment of feline diabetes, but more long- term and comparative clinical trials are needed.

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.

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of Insulin Glargine 300 U/ml in Comparison with Insulin Degludec 100 U/ml Evaluated with Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemic Control in Routine Clinical Practice: The OneCARE Study

INTRODUCTION

Data regarding efficacy of second-generation basal insulins (BI) using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) come from clinical trials. We evaluated the effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) compared to insulin degludec 100 U/ml (IDeg-100) in terms of percentage of time in range (TIR); 70-180 mg/dl was obtained from CGM in sub-optimally controlled patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study included patients with T1D (> 3 years diabetes duration, HbA_1c ≥ 7.5%) who had switched from first-generation BI to Gla-300/IDeg-100 within the past 24 months according to physician discretion. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained from clinical records and during study visit, and CGM data were collected prior to the visit.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-nine people with T1D were included [42.6 ± 13.4 (mean ± SD) years, 18.4 ± 10.4 years diabetes duration]; 104 received Gla-300, 95 IDeg-100. TIR 70-180 throughout whole day was similar in both groups, 52.4 ± 14.0 vs. 49.3 ± 13.9% Gla-300/IDeg-100, respectively. At night, TIR 70-180 and TIR 70-140 were significantly higher in the Gla-300 group compared to the IDeg-100 (52.4 vs. 46.2 and 31.8 vs. 26.9%, respectively, p = 0.0209 and p = 0.0182), and time above range (180) was significantly lower in the Gla-300 group (40.1% vs. 47.2%, p = 0.0199). Additional CGM glucometric data were comparable in both groups. Patient treatment satisfaction score assessed through the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) was high and similar for both insulins.

CONCLUSION

This real-world study shows the effectiveness and safety of Gla-300 are more similar to than different from IDeg-100, with a slightly better nocturnal glucose profile, in sub-optimally controlled T1D patients switching from a first-generation BI.

Comparison of insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus glargine 100 U/mL on glycemic control and hypoglycemic events in East Asian patients with type 2 diabetes: A Patient-level meta-analysis of phase 3 studies

AIMS

To evaluate efficacy and safety of Gla-300 with Gla-100 in a patient-level meta-analysis among large East Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A patient level meta-analysis of three EDITION studies with similar design and endpoints were conducted over 6-months treatment period. The analysis included 547 patients treated with Gla-300 and 348 patients treated with Gla-100.

RESULTS

Over 6-month treatment period, mean change in HbA1c was similar for Gla-300 [Least square (LS) mean, (SE): -1.13 (0.05) % and Gla-100: -1.14 (0.05) %], showing non-inferiority of Gla-300 to Gla-100 (LS mean difference: 0.02%, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.11). Gla-300 was associated with reduced risk of hypoglycemic event (confirmed ≤ 3.9 mmol/L or severe) vs Gla-100 at any time of day or at night (00:00-05:59 h). The event rates of hypoglycemia were consistently lower with Gla-300 than Gla-100. Severe hypoglycemia was rare in both treatment groups. Weight gain was minimal in both treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Gla-300 provides comparable glycemic control to Gla-100 in East Asian patients with broad clinical spectrum of T2DM, with consistently less hypoglycemia at any time of the day and night.

Comparison of pharmacodynamics between insulin glargine 100 U/mL and insulin glargine 300 U/mL in healthy cats

Insulin glargine (IGla) is a synthetic human-recombinant insulin analog that is used routinely in people as a q24h basal insulin. The 300 U/mL (U300) formulation of IGla is associated with longer duration of action and less within-day variability, making it a better basal insulin compared with the 100 U/mL (U100) formulation. We hypothesized that in healthy cats, IGlaU300 has a flatter time-action profile and longer duration of action compared with IGlaU100. Seven healthy neutered male, purpose-bred cats were studied in a randomized, crossover design. Pharmacodynamics of IGlaU100 and IGlaU300 (0.8 U/kg, subcutaneous) were determined by the isoglycemic clamp method. The time-action profile of IGlaU300 was flatter compared with IGlaU100 as demonstrated by lower peak (5.6 ± 1.1 mg/kg/min vs 8.3 ± 1.9 mg/kg/min, respectively; P = 0.04) with no difference in total metabolic effect (ME; P = 0.7) or duration of action (16.8 h ± 4.7 h vs 13.4 h ± 2.6 h; P = 0.2). The greater fraction of ME in the 12- to 24-h period postinjection (35 ± 23% vs 7 ± 8% respectively; P = 0.048) and lower intraday GIR% variability (7.8 ± 3.7% vs 17.4 ± 8.2% respectively; P = 0.03) supports a flatter time-action profile of IGlaU300. There were no differences in onset and end of the action. In summary, although both formulations have a similar duration of action that is well below 24 h, the ME of IGlaU300 is more evenly distributed over a 24 h period in healthy cats, making it a better candidate for once-daily injection in diabetics compared with IGlaU100.

Changes in fasting patterns during Ramadan, and associated clinical outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes: A narrative review of epidemiological studies over the last 20 years

Although religious guidance exempts some Muslims with type 2 diabetes from fasting during Ramadan, many choose to fast. The associated risks for fasting adults with diabetes includes hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Thus, it is important that healthcare professionals support individuals who choose to fast to minimize risks. We reviewed three epidemiologic studies to understand how fasting patterns during Ramadan and associated clinical outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes have evolved over two decades (2000-2020). Over a period of time people with diabetes choosing to fast during Ramadan are displaying increasingly complex profiles in terms of their diabetes, with increased disease duration, greater body mass index, and elevated pre-Ramadan mean glycated hemoglobin levels. Despite this, in the most recent study, >85% of adults with type 2 diabetes still chose to fast. Increased risk of hypoglycemia remains a major concern despite some improvements over time, which could be attributable to enhanced education programs, and changes in treatment type and/or dose prior to and/or during Ramadan. Our review highlights the evolution in fasting patterns over two decades and serves as an update for healthcare professionals to provide appropriate guidance to ensure that Ramadan fasting is safe and rewarding.

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.

Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) during hospitalization and therapy intensification at discharge in patients with insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes: results of the phase IV COBALTA trial

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) during hospitalization and therapy intensification at discharge in insufficiently controlled people with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

COBALTA (for its acronym in Spanish, COntrol Basal durante la hospitalizacion y al ALTA) was a multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase IV trial including 112 evaluable inpatients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled (glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 8%-10%) with basal insulin and/or non-insulin antidiabetic drugs. Patients were treated with a basal-bolus-correction insulin regimen with Gla-300 during the hospitalization and with Gla-300 and/or non-insulin antidiabetics for 6 months after discharge. The primary endpoint was the HbA1c change from baseline to month 6 postdischarge.

RESULTS

HbA1c levels decreased from 8.8%±0.6% at baseline to 7.2%±1.1% at month 6 postdischarge (p<0.001, mean change 1.6%±1.1%). All 7-point blood glucose levels decreased from baseline to 24 hours predischarge (p≤0.001, mean changes from 25.1±66.6 to 63.0±85.4 mg/dL). Fasting plasma glucose also decreased from baseline to 24 hours predischarge (p<0.001), month 3 (p<0.001) and month 6 (p<0.001) postdischarge (mean changes 51.5±90.9, 68.2±96.0 and 77.6±86.4 mg/dL, respectively). Satisfaction was high and hyperglycemia/hypoglycemia perception was low according to the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire at month 6 postdischarge. The incidence of confirmed (glucose<70 mg/dL)/severe hypoglycemia was 25.0% during hospitalization and 59.1% 6 months after discharge. No safety concerns were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient and intensification therapy at discharge with Gla-300 improved significantly glycemic control of patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled with other basal insulin and/or non-insulin antidiabetic medication, with high treatment satisfaction. Gla-300 could therefore be a treatment choice for hospital and postdischarge diabetes management.

Patient-Reported Outcomes with Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL in People with Type 2 Diabetes: The MAGE Multicenter Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

MAGE was a Multicenter, single-Arm, observational 6-month (plus 6-month extension) study that aimed to assess treatment satisfaction, efficacy, and safety of insulin Glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) receiving basal-bolus insulin in a rEal-world setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants were at least 18 years old, with T2DM for more than 1 year, HbA_1c 7.0-10.0%. The primary endpoint was change in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (DTSQs) total score (baseline to month 6). Secondary endpoints included reasons for starting Gla-300, changes in the DTSQ change version (DTSQc) total score, Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II (HFS-II) total behavior and worry scores at months 6 and 12, HbA_1c changes at months 3, 6, 9, and 12, and safety.

RESULTS

MAGE included 87 adults (mean T2DM duration 17 years). The primary endpoint of DTSQs mean (standard deviation) total score improvement at month 6 was achieved (2.80 [5.46] points; p < 0.0001). The main reasons for Gla-300 initiation were to decrease HbA_1c (89.7% of participants) and reduce the number of hypoglycemic events (35.6% of participants). Significant improvements were observed in the DTSQc total score and perceived hyperglycemia/hypoglycemia (baseline to month 6, p < 0.05). Significant changes in HFS-II behavior, worry, and total scores at 6 and 12 months were also observed (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant changes in HbA_1c. Safety outcomes, including hypoglycemia, were comparable to previously reported trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The MAGE study indicates that Gla-300, as part of a basal-bolus regimen, results in improved treatment satisfaction and reduced hypoglycemia fear in people with advanced T2DM.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Glargine U300 and Glargine U100 for the Inpatient Management of Medicine and Surgery Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Glargine U300 Hospital Trial

OBJECTIVE

The role of U300 glargine insulin for the inpatient management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has not been determined. We compared the safety and efficacy of glargine U300 versus glargine U100 in noncritically ill patients with T2D.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial included 176 patients with poorly controlled T2D (admission blood glucose [BG] 228 ± 82 mg/dL and HbA1c 9.5 ± 2.2%), treated with oral agents or insulin before admission. Patients were treated with a basal-bolus regimen with glargine U300 (n = 92) or glargine U100 (n = 84) and glulisine before meals. We adjusted insulin daily to a target BG of 70-180 mg/dL. The primary end point was noninferiority in the mean difference in daily BG between groups. The major safety outcome was the occurrence of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

There were no differences between glargine U300 and U100 in mean daily BG (186 ± 40 vs. 184 ± 46 mg/dL, P = 0.62), percentage of readings within target BG of 70-180 mg/dL (50 ± 27% vs. 55 ± 29%, P = 0.3), length of stay (median [IQR] 6.0 [4.0, 8.0] vs. 4.0 [3.0, 7.0] days, P = 0.06), hospital complications (6.5% vs. 11%, P = 0.42), or insulin total daily dose (0.43 ± 0.21 vs. 0.42 ± 0.20 units/kg/day, P = 0.74). There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <70 mg/dL (8.7% vs. 9.5%, P > 0.99), but glargine U300 resulted in significantly lower rates of clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) compared with glargine U100 (0% vs. 6.0%, P = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital treatment with glargine U300 resulted in similar glycemic control compared with glargine U100 and may be associated with a lower incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemia.

Risk of hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U300 in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: the randomised, head-to-head CONCLUDE trial

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

A head-to-head randomised trial was conducted to evaluate hypoglycaemia safety with insulin degludec 200 U/ml (degludec U200) and insulin glargine 300 U/ml (glargine U300) in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin.

METHODS

This randomised (1:1), open-label, treat-to-target, multinational trial included individuals with type 2 diabetes, aged ≥18 years with HbA_1c ≤80 mmol/mol (9.5%) and BMI ≤45 kg/m². Participants were previously treated with basal insulin with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs (excluding insulin secretagogues) and had to fulfil at least one predefined criterion for hypoglycaemia risk. Both degludec U200 and glargine U300 were similarly titrated to a fasting blood glucose target of 4.0-5.0 mmol/l. Endpoints were assessed during a 36 week maintenance period and a total treatment period up to 88 weeks. There were three hypoglycaemia endpoints: (1) overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia (either severe, an event requiring third-party assistance, or confirmed by blood glucose [<3.1 mmol/l] with symptoms); (2) nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (severe or confirmed by blood glucose with symptoms, between 00:01 and 05:59 h); and (3) severe hypoglycaemia. The primary endpoint was the number of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemic events in the maintenance period. Secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints included the number of nocturnal symptomatic events and number of severe hypoglycaemic events during the maintenance period.

RESULTS

Of the 1609 randomised participants, 733 of 805 (91.1%) in the degludec U200 arm and 734 of 804 (91.3%) in the glargine U300 arm completed the trial (87.3% and 87.8% completed on treatment, respectively). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two treatment arms. For the primary endpoint, the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia was not significantly lower with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 (rate ratio [RR] 0.88 [95% CI 0.73, 1.06]). As there was no significant difference between treatments for the primary endpoint, the confirmatory testing procedure for superiority was stopped. The pre-specified confirmatory secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints were analysed using pre-specified statistical models but were now considered exploratory. These endpoints showed a lower rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (RR 0.63 [95% CI 0.48, 0.84]) and severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.20 [95% CI 0.07, 0.57]) with degludec U200 vs glargine U300.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

There was no significant difference in the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 in the maintenance period. The rates of nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were nominally significantly lower with degludec U200 during the maintenance period compared with glargine U300.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03078478 FUNDING: This trial was funded by Novo Nordisk (Bagsvaerd, Denmark).

Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus insulin glargine 100 U/mL in Asia Pacific insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes: The EDITION AP randomized controlled trial

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of Gla-300 versus Gla-100 in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes in Asia Pacific.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this open-label, randomized, active-controlled, 26-week study, insulin-naïve participants with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with non-insulin antihyperglycaemic drugs were randomized (2:1) to Gla-300 or Gla-100. The initial daily dose of basal insulin was 0.2 U/kg and was adjusted at least weekly for 8-12 weeks to a target fasting self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) of 4.4-5.6 mmol/L.

RESULTS

Of the 604 participants randomized, 570 (Gla-300, n = 375; Gla-100, n = 195) completed the study. Non-inferiority of Gla-300 versus Gla-100 in HbA1c reduction from baseline to week 26 was confirmed. In the Gla-300 and Gla-100 groups, 51.1% and 52.2% of participants achieved the HbA1c target of <7.0% (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.98 [0.84 to 1.14]) and 19.1% and 21.9% achieved the target without hypoglycaemia during the last 12 weeks of treatment (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.87 [0.63 to 1.20]). Changes in fasting plasma glucose and 24-hour average eight-point SMPG were comparable between groups. Incidence of hypoglycaemia at any time of day was similar between treatment groups at week 26, but incidence of any nocturnal hypoglycaemia was numerically lower with Gla-300 than Gla-100 over the initial 12-week titration period and 26-week on-treatment period. Rates of adverse events were similar between groups and low for serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Glycaemic control of Gla-300 is non-inferior to Gla-100 with a similar or lower incidence and proportion of hypoglycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes in Asia Pacific, reinforcing the results in the global EDITION programme.

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.

Titration of insulin glargine 100 U/mL when added to oral antidiabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes: results of the TOP-1 real-world study

AIMS

Adequate insulin titration is crucial for optimal glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes (T2D). We aimed to explore the factors and outcomes associated with titration of glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in patients uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) and initiating insulin therapy.

METHODS

Patients from the Titration and Optimization (TOP)-1 registry were stratified by the magnitude of Gla-100 up-titration during the first month (no [< 1 Units (U)/day (d)], minimal [≥ 1 and < 5 U/d], moderate [≥ 5 and ≤ 8 U/d] and strong [> 8 U/d]). The primary endpoint was a fasting blood glucose (FBG) ≤ 110 mg/dL on ≥ 2 occasions and/or individual HbA1c target by 12 months.

RESULTS

Of 2308 patients, 905, 715, 409 and 279 underwent no, minimal, moderate and strong titration, respectively. Age decreased across increasing titration groups (p = 0.02) while body mass index (BMI) (p < 0.0001), FBG (p < 0.0001), and HbA1c (p < 0.0001) increased. At 12 months, the proportions of patients achieving the primary endpoint were comparable across groups (66.1% overall), though a smaller proportion of no titration patients met both their individual HbA1c target and FBG ≤ 110 mg/dL compared to moderate and strong titration patients (20.1% vs. 27.2% and 26.2%, p = 0.033 and 0.023, respectively). HbA1c was also comparable, though FBG was higher in the no titration group (126.2 vs. 122.6, 121.5 and 120.9 mg/dL, p < 0.02). A similar, small reduction in body weight occurred in all groups; hypoglycaemia rates were comparable across groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world, titration of Gla-100 during the first month appears to coincide with a number of baseline factors. Insulin dose to meet HbA1c and FBG targets remains suboptimal in the majority of T2D patients.

Switching to insulin glargine 300 units/mL in real-world older patients with type 2 diabetes (DELIVER 3)

AIM

To compare the second-generation basal insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) and first-generation basal insulins on glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia risk in older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DELIVER 3 was a retrospective observational cohort study of electronic medical records. A total of 1176 older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) with T2D and ≥1 HbA1c value during 6 month baseline and 3 to 6 month follow-up who switched from basal insulin to Gla-300 were propensity score-matched to 1176 older adults who switched to a first-generation basal insulin [insulin detemir (IDet) or insulin glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100)]. Outcomes were follow-up HbA1c, achievement of HbA1c <7% and <8%, hypoglycaemia incidence and event rates, and healthcare resource utilization.

RESULTS

Following basal insulin switching, HbA1c reductions were greater/similar with Gla-300 versus IDet/Gla-100 (variable follow-up: -0.45% ± 1.40% vs. -0.29% ± 1.57%; P = .021; fixed follow-up: -0.48% ± 1.49% vs. -0.38% ± 1.59%; P = .114), while HbA1c goal attainment was similar in both cohorts. Gla-300 was associated with less hypoglycaemia [event rate: adjusted rate ratio (aRR): 0.63, 95% CI: 0.53-0.75; P < .001] and inpatient/emergency department-associated hypoglycaemia (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37-0.90; P = .016; aRR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.31-0.60; P < .001) by variable follow-up. By fixed follow-up, hypoglycaemia results significantly or numerically favoured Gla-300.

CONCLUSION

Among older adults with T2D, switching to Gla-300 versus Gla-100/IDet was associated with greater/similar improvements in glycaemic control, and generally less hypoglycaemia.

Comparison of pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/mL in healthy cats

Insulin glargine 300 U/mL (IGla-U300) and insulin degludec (IDeg) are synthetic insulin analogs designed as basal insulin formulations. In people, IGla-U300 is more predictable and longer acting compared with glargine 100 U/mL. The duration of action of IDeg in people is > 42 h, allowing flexibility in daily administration. We hypothesized that IDeg would have longer duration of action compared with IGla-U300 in healthy purpose-bred cats. Seven cats received 0.4 U/kg (subcutaneous) of IDeg and IGla-U300 on two different days, >1 wk apart. Exogenous insulin was measured and pharmacodynamic parameters were derived from glucose infusion rates during isoglycemic clamps and suppression of endogenous insulin. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality, and normally distributed parameters were compared using paired t-tests. There was no difference between IDeg and IGla-U300 in onset, peak action, or total metabolic effect. On average, time to peak action (T_PEAK) of IGla-U300 was 145 ± 114 min (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25-264) longer than T_PEAK of IDeg (P = 0.03) and duration of action (T_DUR) of IGla-U300 was 250 ± 173 min (95% CI = 68-432) longer than T_DUR of IDeg (P = 0.02). The "flatness" of the time-action profile (as represented by the quotient of peak action/T_DUR) was significantly greater for IGla-U300 compared with IDeg (P = 0.04). Overall, insulin concentration measurements concurred with findings from isoglycemic clamps. Based on these data, IDeg is not suitable for once-daily administration in cats. The efficacy of once-daily IGla-U300 in diabetic cats should be further investigated.

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.

Efficacy and safety of the second generation basal insulin analogs in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A critical appraisal

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a progressive disease, which requires insulin treatment when other management is no longer effective. Although, insulin plays a vital role in the treatment of diabetes, conventional basal insulins have certain limitations, which have led to the development of more stable and peak less analogues.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the efficacy and safety of second generation vs. first generation basal insulins, and the efficacy and safety of second generation vs. second generation basal insulins, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, from the evidence provided by head-to-head randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed and MEDLINE, Scopus, BIOSIS, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, and Springer Online Archives Collection, from January 1966 to October 2018. Articles resulting from these searches and relevant references cited in those articles were examined.

RESULTS

The efficacy among insulins evaluated was similar, however, second generation insulins cause a lower risk of hypoglycemia compared to first generation insulins. A single study showed similar metabolic control with subtle differences in the risk of hypoglycemia among second generation insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The second-generation basal insulins result in metabolic control similar to first generation insulins, with lower risk of hypoglycemia. Second-generation insulins have comparable efficacy, with some differences in the risk of hypoglycemia.

Concentrated insulins: History and critical reappraisal

The earliest marketed insulins were crude acidic formulations with concentrations of ≤10 units/mL. Since the early 1920s, insulins have improved continually, via bioengineering, process, and chemical modifications. Today, most insulin formulations have a concentration of 100 units/mL (U100). However, more concentrated insulin formulations (200, 300, and 500 units/mL; U200, U300, and U500, respectively) are also available. There is a tendency to assume that concentrated insulins are similar, both to each other and to their U100 counterparts, but this is not always the case: two concentrated insulins, namely insulin degludec U200 and insulin lispro U200, are bioequivalent to their U100 counterparts, whereas regular human insulin U500 and insulin glargine U300 are not. The advent of these concentrated insulins offers greater opportunities to provide tailored therapy for patients; it also introduces potential confusion, and highlights the need for prescriber and patient education. Precise and accurate dedicated insulin delivery devices are also necessary for the safe use of these concentrated insulins. Although some clinicians only use concentrated insulin with obese and severely insulin-resistant patients, other patients would also benefit from the reduced injection volume associated with concentrated insulins, or the modified time-action profile of some concentrated insulins. The aim of this review is to enhance understanding of the historic development and the safe and effective use of concentrated insulins in clinical practice.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Automated insulin dosing guidance to optimise insulin management in patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Insulin therapy is most effective if dosage titrations are done regularly and frequently, which is seldom practical for most clinicians, resulting in an insulin titration gap. The d-Nav Insulin Guidance System (Hygieia, Livonia, MI, USA) is a handheld device that is used to measure glucose, determine glucose patterns, and automatically determine the appropriate next insulin dose. We aimed to determine whether the combination of the d-Nav device and health-care professional support is superior to health-care professional support alone.

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomised, controlled study, we recruited patients from three diabetes centres in the USA (in Detroit MI; Minneapolis, MN; and Des Moines IA). Patients were eligible if they were aged 21-70 years, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 7·5% or higher (≥58 mmol/mol) and 11% or lower (≤97 mmol/mol), and had been using the same insulin regimen for the previous 3 months. Exclusion criteria included body-mass index of 45 kg/m2 or higher; severe cardiac, hepatic, or renal impairment; and more than two severe hypoglycaemic events in the past year. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), with randomisation blocked within each site, to either d-Nav and health-care professional support (intervention group) or health-care professional support alone (control group). Both groups were contacted seven times (three face-to-face and four phone visits) during 6 months of follow-up. The primary objective was to compare average change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months. Safety was assessed by the frequency of hypoglycaemic events. The primary objective and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. We used Student's t test to assess the primary outcome for statistical significance. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02424500.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 2, 2015, and March 17, 2017, 236 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 181 (77%) were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention (n=93) and control (n=88) groups. At baseline, mean HbA1c was 8·7% (SD 0·8; 72 mmol/mol [SD 8·8]) in the intervention group and 8·5% (SD 0·8; 69 mmol/mol [SD 8·8]) in the control group. The mean decrease in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months was 1·0% (SD 1·0; 11 mmol/mol [SD 11]) in the intervention group, and 0·3% (SD 0·9; 3·3 mmol/mol [9·9]) in the control group (p<0·0001). The frequency of hypoglycaemic events per month was similar between the groups (0·29 events per month [SD 0·48] in the intervention group vs 0·29 [SD 1·12] in the control group; p=0·96).

INTERPRETATION

The combination of automated insulin titration guidance with support from health-care professionals offers superior glycaemic control compared with support from health-care professionals alone. Such a solution facilitated safe and effective insulin titration in a large group of patients with type 2 diabetes, and now needs to be evaluated across large health-care systems to confirm these findings and study cost-effectiveness.

FUNDING

US National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

GlucoTab-guided insulin therapy using insulin glargine U300 enables glycaemic control with low risk of hypoglycaemia in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate efficacy, safety and usability of the GlucoTab system for glycaemic management using insulin glargine U300 in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this open, non-controlled single-arm pilot study, glycaemic control at the general ward of a tertiary care hospital was guided by a mobile decision support system (GlucoTab) for basal-bolus insulin dosing using the novel basal insulin analogue insulin glargine U300 for the first time. Glycaemic control was surveilled with capillary glucose measurements and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The primary endpoint was efficacy of glycaemic management, defined as the percentage of blood glucose measurements within the target range of 3.9 to 7.8 mmol/L.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients with T2D (12 female; age, 67 ± 11 years; HbA1c, 70 ± 26 mmol/mol; BMI, 31.8 ± 5.6 kg/m² ; length of study, 8.5 ± 4.5 days) were included. In total, 894 capillary glucose values and 49 846 data points of CGM were available, of which 56.1% of all measured capillary glucose values and 54.3% of CGM values were within the target area (3.9-7.8 mmol/L). Overall capillary mean glucose was 8.5 ± 1.2 and 8.4 ± 1.2 mmol/L assessed by CGM. Time within glucose target improved continuously during the course of treatment, while time within hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/L) decreased substantially. The GlucoTab-suggested total daily dose was accepted by staff in 97.3% of situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with GlucoTab using insulin glargine U300 in hospitalized patients with T2D is effective and safe.

Effectiveness of insulin glargine U-300 versus insulin glargine U-100 on nocturnal hypoglycemia and glycemic control in type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To assess the effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 ui/ml (Gla-300) compared with insulin glargine 100 ui/ml (Gla-100) on reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia and improving glycemic control in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until July 4th, 2018. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017080134). We included randomized clinical trials comparing Gla-300 versus Gla-100 reporting the rate ratio or number of events of nocturnal hypoglycemia and HbA_1c levels percentage or mmol/mol^-1. The main outcome was the incidence rate ratio (RR) of nocturnal hypoglycemia events. The heterogeneity of results across studies was assessed using the I² statistic. Fixed- and random-effect models were used to estimate pooled RRs.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis, including 3977 adult patients. Compared with Gla-100, the use of Gla-300 reduced confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia [RR = 0.81 (0.69, 0.95)] and clinically significant nocturnal hypoglycemia [RR = 0.75 (0.63, 0.91)]. Reductions in clinically significant nocturnal hypoglycemia events [RR = 0.64 (0.42, 0.97)] in type 1 diabetes patients were found. A small decrease in HbA_1c levels in favor of Gla-300 in the pooled sample was identified [ES = - 0.08 (95% CI - 0.14, - 0.01)].

CONCLUSIONS

The best current evidence indicates that Gla-300 reduces the incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia with slight improvements in glycemic control compared with Gla-100 in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes adult patients.

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.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences of new generation, longer-acting basal insulins: potential implications for clinical practice in type 2 diabetes

The treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is often complicated by factors such as patient co-morbidities, complex drug-drug interactions, and management of adverse events. In addition, some of these factors are highly dependent on the nature of the treatment regimen and the molecular and physical properties of the drugs being used to treat patients with this disease. This calls for a better understanding of how the properties of individual drugs affect the overall outcome for patients with diabetes. Clinical pharmacology studies to assess the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics of new diabetes drugs play an important role in advancing our understanding of the interactions between a drug and the human body. Specific PK and PD techniques such as the glucose clamp test can be applied to assess the properties of drugs used for the treatment of diabetes. Basal insulin analogs are a common treatment option for the maintenance of glycemic control in patients with T2D. These drugs work by mimicking endogenous insulin secretion within the body and provide stable and prolonged insulin action to achieve optimal glucose levels. Insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin degludec (IDeg) 100 U/mL and 200 U/mL represent a new generation of longer-acting basal insulins. These drugs demonstrate improved PK and PD properties compared with previous basal insulins, allowing them to more closely mimic physiological basal insulin secretion. Here we review the methods used to evaluate the PK and PD profiles of Gla-300 and IDeg and describe studies that have investigated the PK/PD properties of these drugs in type 1 diabetes. The aim of this review is to inform primary care physicians of the value and limitations of data from clinical pharmacology studies when prescribing these agents for the management of T2D.

Efficacy and safety of switching to insulin glargine 300 U/mL from 100 U/mL in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A 12-month retrospective analysis

Aims

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of switching to insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) from insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

Methods

This was a 12-month retrospective study comprising 109 patients. Primary endpoint was glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level at month 12. Secondary endpoints were hypoglycemia for the overall study period as well as body weight and insulin dose at month 12.

Results

Similar glycemic control was achieved with mean (standard deviation) HbA1c level of 7.7 (1.1)% (61 [12] mmol/mol) at baseline and 7.7 (1.3)% (61 [14] mmol/mol) at month 12. Fewer confirmed (<3.0 mmol/L [< 54 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycemic events were observed (0.52 vs. 0.85 events per patient-year; rate ratio 0.61; 95% confidence interval 0.38–0.97; p = 0.037), but the percent of patients experiencing ≥1 hypoglycemic event did not differ. There was no difference in confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤ 70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycemia and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Conclusions

In Japanese patients with T2DM who switched to Gla-300 from Gla-100, similar glycemic control was achieved with fewer confirmed (<3.0 mmol/L [< 54 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycemic events over a 12-month period, although the absolute benefit was marginal.

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.

Insulin depot absorption modeling and pharmacokinetic simulation with insulin glargine 300 U/mL

OBJECTIVE

Mathematical models of insulin absorption have been used to predict plasma insulin concentrations after administration, but few are specifically applicable to insulin glargine, which precipitates subcutaneously after injection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The formation and redissolution of subcutaneous depots of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) and insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) are modeled. Surface-area-dependent redissolution is introduced to established diffusion and absorption pathways, and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles are simulated and subsequently validated using experimental data from euglycemic glucose clamp studies. Simulations are used to predict the PK effect of adapting the timing of once-daily insulin injections and of switching from one insulin product to the other. -Results: Simulated PK profiles resemble those previously observed in clinical trials, with Gla-300 providing more gradual and prolonged release of Gla-300 vs. Gla-100, owing to a more compact depot. The predicted PK profile of Gla-300 shows less fluctuation in plasma insulin concentrations than that of Gla-100, and may be better suited to adapting the timing of daily injections to account for variation in daily activities. Simulating a switch from one insulin glargine product to the other results in temporary alteration of previous steady state, but this is regained within ~ 3 days.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that PK differences between Gla-300 and Gla-100 are a product of the more compact Gla-300 depot and its smaller surface area. The model employed also allowed estimation of insulin glargine concentrations when varying the time interval between injections as well as when switching from one insulin glargine product to the other.
.

Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the prior position statements, published in 2012 and 2015, on the management of type 2 diabetes in adults. A systematic evaluation of the literature since 2014 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on lifestyle management and diabetes self-management education and support. For those with obesity, efforts targeting weight loss, including lifestyle, medication and surgical interventions, are recommended. With regards to medication management, for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit is recommended. For patients with chronic kidney disease or clinical heart failure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven benefit is recommended. GLP-1 receptor agonists are generally recommended as the first injectable medication.

Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2018. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the prior position statements, published in 2012 and 2015, on the management of type 2 diabetes in adults. A systematic evaluation of the literature since 2014 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on lifestyle management and diabetes self-management education and support. For those with obesity, efforts targeting weight loss, including lifestyle, medication, and surgical interventions, are recommended. With regards to medication management, for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit is recommended. For patients with chronic kidney disease or clinical heart failure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven benefit is recommended. GLP-1 receptor agonists are generally recommended as the first injectable medication.

Temporary Reductions in Insulin Requirements Are Associated with Hypoglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes

Background: In patients with type 2 diabetes, insulin therapy necessitates regular and frequent dosage titration to overcome variations in insulin requirements. The goal of this study was to evaluate changes in insulin requirements, using data from a technology-based insulin-titration service. Methods: To keep glycemia stable, the service adjusts and records insulin dosage at least weekly. Therefore, insulin dosage closely tracks insulin requirement. Events of considerable and persistent decrease in insulin requirements were identified by reductions in total daily dose (TDD) of insulin ≥25%. Periods ended when a persistent increase in TDD of insulin has started. The average frequency of hypoglycemia was expressed as any glucose reading <54 mg/dL (both inside or outside periods of decrease in insulin dosage) divided by the total number of months for each patient. Results: Patients (n = 246) were followed for 2.8 ± 0.9 years. Reductions of TDD of insulin were experienced by 70.3% of the patients, occurred 0.8 ± 0.5 times per year, lasted 10.0 ± 7.7 weeks, and insulin requirements declined by 39.9% ± 12.6%. The frequency of hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) was low, at 0.5 ± 0.6 per month, and the difference in frequencies in biphasic/premixed and basal-bolus insulin regimens was not statistically significant. Hypoglycemia was 6.5 times more prevalent during reductions in TDD of insulin. Conclusions: Sizeable changes in insulin requirements occur over time, which demand persistent and frequent titration to preserve treatment safety.

Glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia, and weight change with insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus insulin glargine 100 U/mL in Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes: A 12-month comparison by concomitant sulphonylurea and/or glinide use

AIM

To explore if clinical effects and hypoglycaemia risks associated with insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and 100 U/mL (Gla-100) differed by sulphonylurea and/or glinide (SU/G) treatment.

METHODS

A post hoc subgroup analysis of 12-month treatment data from the EDITION Japan 2 trial, a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study of Japanese people with type 2 diabetes receiving once-daily Gla-300/Gla-100 + oral antihyperglycaemic drugs. Participants previously receiving SU/G (+SU/G) were compared with those not taking SU/G (-SU/G). Endpoints included HbA1c, hypoglycaemia and body weight.

RESULTS

For +SU/G (n = 152, 63%), HbA1c was reduced from baseline to month 12 for Gla-300 (8.1% to 7.6%) and Gla-100 (8.2% to 7.8%). For -SU/G (n = 89, 37%), reductions were 7.8% to 7.4%, and 7.9% to 7.5% for Gla-300 and Gla-100, respectively. A lower annualized rate of hypoglycaemia with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 was observed at night (00:00-05:59 hours; p = 0.0001) and any time of day (24 hour; p = 0.0015). Irrespective of the insulin used, the incidence and rate of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia appeared higher in +SU/G versus -SU/G; overall, a reduced incidence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia, and rate of hypoglycaemia at any time, was observed in -SU/G versus +SU/G. In the -SU/G subgroup, body weight gain differences were observed between Gla-300 and Gla-100 (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants with prior and continued SU/G use had similar therapeutic responses with basal insulin but greater risk of hypoglycaemia than those not using SU/G; hypoglycaemia risk was lower with Gla-300 than Gla-100 in both subgroups.

Improved Treatment Engagement Among Patients with Diabetes Treated with Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL Who Participated in the COACH Support Program

INTRODUCTION

Persistence with basal insulin therapy can be suboptimal, despite recent improvements in insulin formulations and delivery systems. Patient support programs may help increase adherence. This study evaluated the impact of the Toujeo^® COACH support program, which provides patients with continuing and individualized education and advice on lifestyle changes, by assessing its effect on number of refills and days on therapy.

METHODS

The study population included 1724 patients with diabetes who filled a first prescription for insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) between April and December 2015 and received a welcome call from a Guide, and 1724 matched control patients from the Symphony Health Integrated Dataverse^® prescription claims database. Control patients received Gla-300 but did not enroll in the program. These patients were matched based on age, gender, location, prior use of insulin, insulin dose, number of concomitant drugs, and copay tier.

RESULTS

The COACH and control groups comprised 52% men and 48% women; 22% were aged 18-47 years, 23% were 48-55 years, 27% 56-61 years, and 28% ≥ 62 years. Most (99%) had used insulin in the year before receiving the welcome call. At 6 months, patients in the COACH group had refilled their prescription 3.2 times on average, compared with 2.4 times for control patients (P < 0.0001); at 9 months, the average number of refills was 4.7 and 3.6, respectively (P < 0.0001). The average number of days on therapy at 6 months was 102.2 days in the COACH group and 81.5 days in the control group (P < 0.0001); at 9 months, the average number of days on therapy was 151.9 and 121.6, respectively (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Patients in the COACH program were significantly more likely to refill their prescriptions and stay on therapy. Patient support programs such as the COACH program could be an effective way to help improve diabetes care.

FUNDING

Sanofi US, Inc. and McKesson Corporation.