Efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec compared to once-daily insulin g U-100 in patients with type II diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND//OBJECTIVE

Diabetes affects millions of people globally, despite treatment options, adherence and other factors pose obstacles. Once-weekly Insulin Icodec, a novel basal Insulin analog with a week-long half-life, offers potential benefits, enhancing convenience, adherence, and quality of life for improved glycemic control. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly Insulin Icodec compared to once-daily Insulin Glargine U-100 in individuals with type II diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases before September 2023 to identify relevant Randomized control trials (RCTs) with no language restrictions following PRISMA guidelines. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for quality assessment. All statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan (version 5.4; Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014).

RESULT

Four RCTs published from 2020 to 2023 with a cumulative sample size of 1035 were included. The pooled mean difference (MD) revealed a 4.68% longer TIR (%) with Insulin Icodec compared to Insulin Glargine U-100 [{95% CI (0.69, 8.68), p = 0.02}], the estimated mean changes in HbA1c (%) and FPG (mg%) were found to be insignificant between the two groups [MD = - 0.12 {95% CI (- 0.26, 0.01), p = 0.07}] and [MD = - 2.59 {95% CI (- 6.95, 1.78), p = 0.25}], respectively. The overall OR for hypoglycemia was also nonsignificant between the two regimens 1.04 [{95% CI (0.71, 1.52), p = 0.84}]. Other safety parameters were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from daily Insulin Glargine U-100 to weekly Insulin Icodec showed longer TIR (%) as well as similar blood glycemic control and safety profile. Hence, it may be a good alternate option for management of longstanding T2D.

Efficacy and safety of fezolinetant for vasomotor symptoms in postmenopausal women: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Vasomotor symptoms (VMS), such as hot flashes and night sweats, are highly prevalent and burdensome for women experiencing menopausal transition. Fezolinetant, a selective neurokinin 3 receptor (NK3R) antagonist, is a potential therapeutic option for mitigating VMS.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim is to assess the efficacy and evaluate the safety profile of fezolinetant compared with placebo in post-menopausal women suffering from VMS, by pooling all the relevant data and reflecting the most current evidence.

SEARCH STRATEGY/SELECTION CRITERIA

An extensive literature search was performed in the PubMed, Medline and Cochrane Library databases from inception until June 2023 to identify relevant trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous outcomes. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed using R Statistical Software.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of six randomized controlled trials were added. For the frequency of daily VMS, the combined pooled result favored the fezolinetant group over placebo (MD -2.38, 95% CI -2.64 to -2.12; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%). For the severity of daily VMS, fezolinetant was again found to be superior to the placebo group (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.29; P < 0.001, I2 = 70%). Fezolinetant (120 mg) consistently demonstrated a significant reduction in the severity of daily moderate/severe VMS compared with other doses at both 4 and 12 weeks. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS), PROMIS the Sleep Disturbance Short Form 8b and Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQoL) scores indicated significant improvement with fezolinetant. No significant difference in efficacy of fezolinetant at 4 and 12 weeks were observed in any outcome. As for safety, no significant differences in the treatment emergent adverse events at 12 weeks were found between fezolinetant and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study significantly favors fezolinetant over placebo regarding the primary efficacy outcomes of daily moderate to severe VMS frequency and severity, including PROs, while both the groups are comparable in terms of treatment emergent adverse events. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.