Effects of Tirzepatide Versus Basal Insulins in People With Type 2 Diabetes and Different Baseline Glycemic Patterns: Post Hoc Analyses of the SURPASS-3 and SURPASS-4 Trials

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc analysis assessed change from baseline to week 52 in glycemic parameters for tirzepatide (5, 10, 15 mg) versus insulin degludec (SURPASS-3 trial) and glargine (SURPASS-4 trial) in people with type 2 diabetes and different baseline glycemic patterns, based on fasting serum glucose (FSG) and postprandial glucose (PPG) values.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Participant subgroups with low FSG/low PPG, low FSG/high PPG, high FSG/low PPG, and high FSG/high PPG were defined according to the median values of these measures.

RESULTS

All tirzepatide doses and basal insulins were associated with decreased HbA1c, FSG, and PPG values from baseline to week 52 in all subgroups (P < 0.05). Within each subgroup, HbA1c and PPG decreases were greater with tirzepatide than insulin (P < 0.05). FSG decreases were generally similar. There were no differential treatment effects by FSG/PPG subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

In this post hoc analysis, tirzepatide was associated with superior glycemic control compared with insulin, irrespective of baseline glycemic pattern.

Association Between Treatment Adherence and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Outcomes in People With Diabetes Using Smart Insulin Pens in a Real-World Setting

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of insulin injection adherence, smart insulin pen engagement, and glycemic control using real-world data from 16 countries from adults self-administering basal insulin degludec and bolus insulin with a smart insulin pen (NovoPen 6 or NovoPen Echo Plus) alongside continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data were aggregated over 14-day periods. Treatment adherence was defined according to the number of missed basal and missed bolus insulin doses and smart pen engagement according to the number of days with data uploads.

RESULTS

Data from 3,945 adults, including 25,157 14-day periods with ≥70% CGM coverage, were analyzed. On average, 0.2 basal and 6.0 bolus insulin doses were missed over 14 days. The estimated probability of missing at least one basal insulin dose over a 14-day period was 17.6% (95% CI 16.5, 18.7). Missing one basal or bolus insulin dose per 14 days was associated with a significant decrease in percentage of time with glucose levels in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0 mmol/L), of -2.8% (95% CI -3.7, -1.8) and -1.7% (-1.8, -1.6), respectively; therefore, missing two basal or four bolus doses would decrease TIR by >5%. Smart pen engagement was associated positively with glycemic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This combined analysis of real-world smart pen and CGM data showed that missing two basal or four bolus insulin doses over a 14-day period would be associated with a clinically relevant decrease in TIR. Smart insulin pens provide valuable insights into treatment injection behaviors.

Tailoring the Padova Type 2 Diabetes Simulator for Treatment Guidance in Target Populations

OBJECTIVE

The Padova type 2 diabetes (T2D) simulator (T2DS) has been recently proposed to optimize T2D treatments including novel long-acting insulins. It consists of a physiological model and an in silico population describing glucose dynamics, derived from early-stage T2D subjects studied with sophisticated tracer-based experimental techniques. This limits T2DS domain of validity to this specific sub-population. Conversely, running simulations in insulin-naïve or advanced T2D subjects, would be more valuable. However, it is rarely possible or cost-effective to run complex experiments in such populations. Therefore, we propose a method for tuning the T2DS to any desired T2D sub-population using published clinical data. As case study, we extended the T2DS to insulin-naïve T2D subjects, who need to start insulin therapy to compensate the reduced insulin function.

METHODS

T2DS model was identified based on literature data of the target population. The estimated parameters were used to generate a virtual cohort of insulin-naïve T2D subjects (inC1). A model of basal insulin degludec (IDeg) was also incorporated into the T2DS to enable basal insulin therapy. The resulting tailored T2DS was assessed by simulating IDeg therapy initiation and comparing simulated vs. clinical trial outcomes. For further validation, this procedure was reiterated to generate a new cohort of insulin-naïve T2D (inC2) assuming inC1 as target population.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were found when comparing fasting plasma glucose and IDeg dose, neither in clinical data vs. inC1, nor inC1 vs. inC2.

CONCLUSIONS

The tuned T2DS allowed reproducing the main findings of clinical studies in insulin-naïve T2D subjects.

SIGNIFICANCE

The proposed methodology makes the Padova T2DS usable for supporting treatment guidance in target T2D populations.

Clinical perspectives on the frequency of hypoglycemia in treat-to-target randomized controlled trials comparing basal insulin analogs in type 2 diabetes: a narrative review

The objective of this review was to comprehensively present and summarize trends in reported rates of hypoglycemia with one or two times per day basal insulin analogs in individuals with type 2 diabetes to help address and contextualize the emerging theoretical concern of increased hypoglycemic risk with once-weekly basal insulins.Hypoglycemia data were extracted from treat-to-target randomized clinical trials conducted during 2000-2022. Published articles were identified on PubMed or within the US Food and Drug Administration submission documents. Overall, 57 articles were identified: 44 assessed hypoglycemic outcomes in participants receiving basal-only therapy (33 in insulin-naive participants; 11 in insulin-experienced participants), 4 in a mixed population (insulin-naive and insulin-experienced participants) and 9 in participants receiving basal-bolus therapy. For the analysis, emphasis was placed on level 2 (blood glucose <3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL)) and level 3 (or severe) hypoglycemia.Overall, event rates for level 2 or level 3 hypoglycemia across most studies ranged from 0.06 to 7.10 events/person-year of exposure (PYE) for participants receiving a basal-only insulin regimen; the rate for basal-bolus regimens ranged from 2.4 to 13.6 events/PYE. Rates were generally lower with second-generation basal insulins (insulin degludec or insulin glargine U300) than with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin or first-generation basal insulins (insulin detemir or insulin glargine U100). Subgroup categorization by sulfonylurea usage, end-of-treatment insulin dose or glycated hemoglobin reduction did not show consistent trends on overall hypoglycemia rates. Hypoglycemia rates reported so far for once-weekly basal insulins are consistent with or lower than those reported for daily-administered basal insulin analogs.

The Basis for Weekly Insulin Therapy: Evolving Evidence With Insulin Icodec and Insulin Efsitora Alfa

Basal insulin continues to be a vital part of therapy for many people with diabetes. First attempts to prolong the duration of insulin formulations were through the development of suspensions that required homogenization prior to injection. These insulins, which required once- or twice-daily injections, introduced wide variations in insulin exposure contributing to unpredictable effects on glycemia. Advances over the last 2 decades have resulted in long-acting, soluble basal insulin analogues with prolonged and less variable pharmacokinetic exposure, improving their efficacy and safety, notably by reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia. However, adherence and persistence with once-daily basal insulin treatment remains low for many reasons including hypoglycemia concerns and treatment burden. A soluble basal insulin with a longer and flatter exposure profile could reduce pharmacodynamic variability, potentially reducing hypoglycemia, have similar efficacy to once-daily basal insulins, simplify dosing regimens, and improve treatment adherence. Insulin icodec (Novo Nordisk) and insulin efsitora alfa (basal insulin Fc [BIF], Eli Lilly and Company) are 2 such insulins designed for once-weekly administration, which have the potential to provide a further advance in basal insulin replacement. Icodec and efsitora phase 2 clinical trials, as well as data from the phase 3 icodec program indicate that once-weekly insulins provide comparable glycemic control to once-daily analogues, with a similar risk of hypoglycemia. This manuscript details the technology used in the development of once-weekly basal insulins. It highlights the clinical rationale and potential benefits of these weekly insulins while also discussing the limitations and challenges these molecules could pose in clinical practice.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide and insulin glargine U-100/lixisenatide in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus using professional continuous glucose monitoring

AIM/INTRODUCTION

Insulin glargine U100/lixisenatide and insulin degludec/liraglutide are fixed-ratio combinations containing basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist capable of reducing both fasting and postprandial blood glucose levels with a single formulation. This study aimed to compare the time in range (TIR) and the time below range (TBR) level 1 using professional continuous glucose monitoring and to establish criteria for the differential use of the fixed-ratio combinations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (24 men and 12 women; average age, 62.1 years) were randomly assigned to the groups. At 0 and 18 weeks, a device was worn to compare the TIR and TBR level 1. The correlation between the C-peptide index at baseline and TIR at 18 weeks was assessed.

RESULTS

The TIR and TBR level 1 showed no significant differences between the two groups. Both groups showed significant positive correlations between the C-peptide index and the TIR (P = 0.002, r = 0.679; P = 0.002, r = 0.681, respectively). The changes in glycemic variability, therapeutic indices, and body mass index were not significantly different among the groups (P > 0.05). The receiver operating curve analysis revealed that the cut-off values of the C-peptide index to achieve TIR of >70% at 18 weeks were 1.258 (sensitivity, 77.8%; specificity, 100%) and 1.099 (sensitivity, 57.1%; specificity, 90.9%) in the insulin glargine U100/lixisenatide and insulin degludec/liraglutide groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A TIR of >70% was achieved for both fixed-ratio combinations without significant differences.

Higher Derived Time in Range With IDegLira Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in People With Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Derived time in range (dTIR), calculated from self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG-dTIR) profiles, has demonstrated correlation with risk of cardiovascular and microvascular complications. This post hoc analysis of the DUAL V and DUAL VIII trials aimed to compare dTIR with an insulin degludec/liraglutide fixed-ratio combination (IDegLira) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine-point SMBG profiles were taken more than 24 hours at baseline and end of trial (EOT: 26 weeks [DUAL V] and 104 weeks [DUAL VIII]) and used to derive the percentage of readings within target range (70-180 mg/dL). Estimated treatment differences (ETDs, IDegLira-glargine U100) were analyzed using analysis of covariance, with treatment as fixed effects and baseline response as a covariate.

RESULTS

ETDs for change from baseline to EOT in dTIR were significantly greater with IDegLira versus glargine U100 in DUAL V (4.18%, P = .027) and DUAL VIII (5.17%, P = .001). The proportions of people achieving ≥70% dTIR at EOT with IDegLira and glargine U100, respectively, were 62% and 60% in DUAL V (P = .7541), and 50% and 26% in DUAL VIII (P < .0001). The proportion achieving a ≥5% increase in dTIR from baseline to EOT with IDegLira and glargine U100 was 63% in both groups in DUAL V (P = .9043), and 44% and 25%, respectively, in DUAL VIII (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

IDegLira was associated with significantly greater increases in dTIR versus basal insulin alone in people with T2D.

TRIAL ID(S)

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01952145 (DUAL V); ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02501161 (DUAL VIII).

Safety and Efficacy of Insulins in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Continuous Enteral Nutrition

OBJECTIVE

There is a relative lack of consensus regarding the optimal management of hyperglycemia in patients receiving continuous enteral nutrition (EN), with or without a diagnosis of diabetes.

METHODS

This retrospective study examined 475 patients (303 with known diabetes) hospitalized in critical care setting units in 2019 in a single center who received continuous EN. Rates of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose levels within the target range (70-180 mg/dL) were compared between patients with and without diabetes, and among patients treated with intermediate-acting (IA) biphasic neutral protamine Hagedorn 70/30, long-acting (LA) insulin, or rapid-acting insulin only.

RESULTS

Among those with type 2 diabetes mellitus, IA and LA insulin regimens were associated with a significantly higher proportion of patient-days in the target glucose range and fewer hyperglycemic days. Level 1 (<70 mg/dL) and level 2 (<54 mg/dL) hypoglycemia occurred rarely, and there were no significant differences in level 2 hypoglycemia frequency across the different insulin regimens.

CONCLUSION

Administration of IA and LA insulin can be safe and effective for those receiving insulin doses for EN-related hyperglycemia.

Current usage of long-acting insulin analogs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Insulin treatment is fundamental to diabetes management. Basal insulin therapy reduces intraday glycemic fluctuations upon reaching a steady state. Besides better blood glucose regulation and achieving target HbA1c values in patients, it also offers protection from diabetes complications. In this review, we aimed to compare basal-acting insulins in light of the literature.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed current evidence related to diabetes treatment with basal insulins. This includes discussions on clinical trials and meta-analyses concerning first and second-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulins. Treatment indications for long-acting basal insulins, which have shown benefits and are considered superior or comparable to others in the literature, are derived from current clinical studies and meta-analyses, which form the basis of the recommendations in this review.

EXPERT OPINION

First and second-generation basal insulins do not show much superiority over each other in terms of blood glucose regulation and reaching the target HbA1c. However, second-generation basal insulins cause fewer hypoglycemic events. We recommend using the appropriate basal insulin in patient-based, individualized treatments. Basal insulin Icodec may become more widely used over time, owing to its association with less hypoglycemia and a reduction in the number of injections.

You may delay, but time will not. Beta cells lost are never found again: a case for timely initiation of basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Since its first use just over a century ago, insulin treatment has evolved dramatically, such that the molecules are physiologic in nature, and treatment can now closely resemble the natural hormone response over 24 hours. Newer, longer-acting basal insulin analogs have provided insulin therapies with improved characteristics and, therefore, ease of use, and can readily be incorporated as part of routine treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D), but evidence suggests that insulin remains underused in people with T2D. We review the barriers to initiation of basal insulin and the education needed to address these barriers, and we provide practical pointers, supported by evidence, for primary care physicians and advanced practice providers to facilitate timely initiation of basal insulin in the people with T2D who will benefit from such treatment.

Chronic kidney outcomes associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists versus long-acting insulins among type 2 diabetes patients requiring intensive glycemic control: a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) versus long-acting insulins (LAIs) on preventing progressive chronic kidney outcomes is uncertain for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients requiring intensive glycemic control. This study aimed to evaluate comparative effectiveness of GLP-1RA versus LAI therapies on progressive chronic kidney outcomes among patients having poor glycemic control and requiring these injectable glucose-lowering agents (GLAs).

METHODS

7279 propensity-score-matched pairs of newly stable GLP-1RA and LAI users in 2013-2018 were identified from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database and followed until death or 12/31/2019 (intention-to-treat). Subdistributional hazard model was utilized to assess the comparative effectiveness on a composite renal outcome (i.e., renal insufficiency [eGFR < 15 mL/min/1.73 m2], dialysis-dependent end-stage renal disease [ESRD], or renal death) and its individual components. Sensitivity analyses with the as-treated scenario, PS weighting, high-dimensional PS techniques, using cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) as positive control outcomes, and interaction testing were performed.

RESULTS

In primary analyses, subdistribution hazard ratios (95% CIs) for initiating GLP-1RAs versus LAIs for the composite renal outcome, renal insufficiency, dialysis-dependent ESRD, and renal death were 0.39 (0.30-0.51), 0.43 (0.32-0.57), 0.29 (0.20-0.43), and 0.28 (0.15-0.51), respectively. Sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the primary findings. CVD history and the medication possession ratio of prior oral GLAs possessed modification effects on GLP-1RA-associated kidney outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Using GLP-1RAs versus LAIs was associated with kidney benefits in T2D patients requiring intensive glycemic control and potentially at high risk of kidney progression. GLP-1RAs should be prioritized to patients with CVDs or adherence to prior oral GLAs to maximize kidney benefits.

Current Status of Weekly Insulin Analogs and Their Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Evaluation by the Euglycemic Clamp Technique

Diabetes mellitus represents a significant global health threat characterized by hyperglycemia caused by inadequate insulin secretion and/or insulin resistance. Exogenous insulin supplements had been recognized as a crucial treatment for achieving successful glycemic control in patients with Type 1 and most patients with Type 2 diabetes. Over the past century, substantial progress has been made in the development of novel insulin formulations, including the super-fast-acting and long-acting basal insulin analogs, of which the latter is indispensable for the management of nocturnal fasting and intraprandial blood glucose within the normal physiological range. Recently, combining chemical and genetic engineering with drug optimization have resulted in a formidable evolution in ultra-long-acting weekly insulin. Here, the current state of once-weekly insulin analogs and the euglycemic clamp technique used in the early clinical development to elucidate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of this type of novel weekly insulin analogs were systematically overviewed.

pH-Responsive Hexa-Histidine Metal Assembly (HmA) with Enhanced Biocatalytic Cascades as the Vehicle for Glucose-Mediated Long-Acting Insulin Delivery

Diabetes has been listed as one of the three major diseases that endanger human health. Accurately injecting insulin (Ins) depending on the level of blood glucose (LBG) is the standard treatment, especially controlling LBG in the long-term by a single injection. Herein, the pH-responsive hexa-histidine metal assembly (HmA) encapsulated with enzymes (GOx and CAT) and Ins (HmA@GCI) is engineered as the vehicle for glucose-mediated insulin delivery. HmA not only shows high proteins loading efficiency, but also well retained proteins activity and protect proteins from protease damage. Within HmA, the biocatalytic activities of enzymes and the efficiency of the cascade reaction between GOx and CAT are enhanced, leading to a super response to the change of LBG with insulin release and efficient clearance of harmful byproducts of GOx (H2 O2 ). In the treatment of diabetic mice, HmA@GCI reduces LBG to normal in half an hour and maintains for more than 5 days by a single subcutaneous injection, and nearly 24 days with four consecutive injections. During the test period, no symptoms of hypoglycemia and toxicity to tissues and organs are observed. These results indicate that HmA@GCI is a safe and long-acting hypoglycemic agent with prospective clinical application.

Weekly Icodec versus Daily Glargine U100 in Type 2 Diabetes without Previous Insulin

BACKGROUND

Insulin icodec is an investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue for diabetes management.

METHODS

We conducted a 78-week randomized, open-label, treat-to-target phase 3a trial (including a 52-week main phase and a 26-week extension phase, plus a 5-week follow-up period) involving adults with type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin level, 7 to 11%) who had not previously received insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly insulin icodec or once-daily insulin glargine U100. The primary end point was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 52; the confirmatory secondary end point was the percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter) in weeks 48 to 52. Hypoglycemic episodes (from baseline to weeks 52 and 83) were recorded.

RESULTS

Each group included 492 participants. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The mean reduction in the glycated hemoglobin level at 52 weeks was greater with icodec than with glargine U100 (from 8.50% to 6.93% with icodec [mean change, -1.55 percentage points] and from 8.44% to 7.12% with glargine U100 [mean change, -1.35 percentage points]); the estimated between-group difference (-0.19 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.36 to -0.03) confirmed the noninferiority (P<0.001) and superiority (P = 0.02) of icodec. The percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter was significantly higher with icodec than with glargine U100 (71.9% vs. 66.9%; estimated between-group difference, 4.27 percentage points [95% CI, 1.92 to 6.62]; P<0.001), which confirmed superiority. Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were 0.30 events per person-year of exposure with icodec and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure with glargine U100 at week 52 (estimated rate ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.75) and 0.30 and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure, respectively, at week 83 (estimated rate ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Glycemic control was significantly better with once-weekly insulin icodec than with once-daily insulin glargine U100. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; ONWARDS 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04460885.).

Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec vs Once-Daily Insulin Degludec in Adults With Insulin-Naive Type 2 Diabetes: The ONWARDS 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Once-weekly insulin icodec could provide a simpler dosing alternative to daily basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec vs once-daily insulin degludec in people with insulin-naive type 2 diabetes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Randomized, double-masked, noninferiority, treat-to-target, phase 3a trial conducted from March 2021 to June 2022 at 92 sites in 11 countries in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with any noninsulin glucose-lowering agents with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7%-11% (53-97 mmol/mol).

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either once-weekly icodec and once-daily placebo (icodec group; n = 294) or once-daily degludec and once-weekly placebo (degludec group; n = 294).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 (noninferiority margin, 0.3% percentage points). Secondary end points included change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to week 26, mean weekly insulin dose during the last 2 weeks of treatment, body weight change from baseline to week 26, and number of level 2 (clinically significant; glucose level <54 mg/dL) and level 3 (severe; requiring external assistance for recovery) hypoglycemic episodes.

Results

Among 588 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 58 [10] years; 219 [37%] women), 564 (96%) completed the trial. Mean HbA1c level decreased from 8.6% (observed) to 7.0% (estimated) at 26 weeks in the icodec group and from 8.5% (observed) to 7.2% (estimated) in the degludec group (estimated treatment difference [ETD], -0.2 [95% CI, -0.3 to -0.1] percentage points), confirming noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .002). There were no significant differences between the icodec and degludec groups for fasting plasma glucose change from baseline to week 26 (ETD, 0 [95% CI, -6 to 5] mg/dL; P = .90), mean weekly insulin dose during the last 2 weeks of treatment, or body weight change from baseline to week 26 (2.8 kg vs 2.3 kg; ETD, 0.46 [95% CI, -0.19 to 1.10] kg; P = .17). Combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher in the icodec group than the degludec group from week 0 to 31 (0.31 vs 0.15 events per patient-year exposure; P = .11) and statistically higher in the icodec group from week 0 to 26 (0.35 vs 0.12 events per patient-year exposure; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among people with insulin-naive type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec demonstrated superior HbA1c reduction to once-daily degludec after 26 weeks of treatment, with no difference in weight change and a higher rate of combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemic events in the context of less than 1 event per patient-year exposure in both groups.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04795531.

In type 2 diabetes, weekly basal insulin Fc was noninferior to daily insulin degludec for HbA1c at 26 wk

SOURCE CITATION

Bue-Valleskey JM, Kazda CM, Ma C, et al. Once-weekly basal insulin Fc demonstrated similar glycemic control to once-daily insulin degludec in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a phase 2 randomized control trial. Diabetes Care. 2023;46:1060-1067. 36944059.

Switching to once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in individuals with basal-bolus insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 4): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Insulin icodec (icodec) is a basal insulin analogue suitable for once-weekly dosing. ONWARDS 4 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec compared with once-daily insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen.

METHODS

In this 26-week, phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial, adults from 80 sites (outpatient clinics and hospital departments) across nine countries (Belgium, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, and the USA) with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·0-10·0%) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-weekly icodec or once-daily glargine U100 combined with 2-4 daily bolus insulin aspart injections. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 (non-inferiority margin of 0·3 percentage points). The primary outcome was evaluated in the full analysis set (ie, all randomly assigned participants). Safety outcomes were evaluated in the safety analysis set (ie, all participants randomly assigned who received at least one dose of trial product). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04880850.

FINDINGS

Between May 14 and Oct 29, 2021, 746 participants were screened for eligibility, of whom 582 (78%) were randomly assigned (291 [50%] to icodec treatment and 291 [50%] to glargine U100 treatment). Participants had a mean duration of type 2 diabetes of 17·1 years (SD 8·4). At week 26, estimated mean change in HbA1c was -1·16 percentage points in the icodec group (baseline 8·29%) and -1·18 percentage points in the glargine U100 group (baseline 8·31%), showing non-inferiority for icodec versus glargine U100 (estimated treatment difference 0·02 percentage points [95% CI -0·11 to 0·15], p<0·0001). Overall, 171 (59%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 167 (57%) of 291 participants in the glargine U100 group had an adverse event. 35 serious adverse events were reported in 22 (8%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 33 serious adverse events were reported in 25 (9%) of 291 participants receiving glargine U100. Overall, combined level 2 and level 3 hypoglycaemia rates were similar between treatment groups. No new safety concerns were identified for icodec.

INTERPRETATION

In people with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen, once-weekly icodec showed similar improvements in glycaemic control, with fewer basal insulin injections, lower bolus insulin dose, and with no increase in hypoglycaemic rates compared with once-daily glargine U100. Key strengths of this trial include the use of masked continous glucose monitoring; the high trial completion rate; and the inclusion of a large, diverse, and multinational population. Limitations include the relatively short trial duration and the open-label design.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Systemic Anti-Inflammatory Therapy Aided by Curcumin-Laden Double-Headed Nanoparticles Combined with Injectable Long-Acting Insulin in a Rodent Model of Diabetes Eye Disease

Therapeutic interventions that counter emerging targets in diabetes eye diseases are lacking. We hypothesize that a combination therapy targeting inflammation and hyperglycemia can prevent diabetic eye diseases. Here, we report a multipronged approach to prevent diabetic cataracts and retinopathy by combining orally bioavailable curcumin-laden double-headed (two molecules of gambogic acid conjugated to terminal carboxyl groups of poly(d,l-lactide-co-glycolide)) nanoparticles and injectable basal insulin. The combination treatment led to a significant delay in the progression of diabetic cataracts and retinopathy, improving liver function and peripheral glucose homeostasis. We found a concurrent reduction in lens aggregate protein, AGEs, and increased mitochondrial ATP production. Importantly, inhibition of Piezo1 protected against hyperglycemia-induced retinal vascular damage suggesting possible involvement of Piezo1 in the regulation of retinal phototransduction. Histologic evaluation of murine small intestines revealed that chronic administration of curcumin-laden double-headed nanoparticles was well tolerated, circumventing the fear of nanoparticle toxicity. These findings establish the potential of anti-inflammatory and anti-hyperglycemic combination therapy for the prevention of diabetic cataracts and retinopathy.

Insulin Fact Sheet in Type 1 and 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Trends of Antidiabetic Medication Use in Insulin Users with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: 2002 to 2019

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the trends of insulin use among Korean patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Changes in prescription of antidiabetic medications in T2DM patients taking insulin therapy were evaluated.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the National Health Insurance Service database in Korea to evaluate the prevalence of insulin users and trends of insulin use in T1DM and T2DM patients from January 2002 to December 2019. We also investigated numbers and types of antidiabetic medications in insulin users with T2DM.

RESULTS

The overall total number of insulin users increased from 2002 to 2019, reaching 348,254 for T2DM and 20,287 for T1DM in 2019 compared with 109,974 for T2DM and 34,972 for T1DM in 2002. The proportion of patients using basal analogs and short acting analogs have increased and those using human insulin, premixed insulin, or biphasic human insulin have decreased (rapid acting analogs: 71.85% and 24.12% in T1DM and T2DM, respectively, in 2019; basal analogs: 76.75% and 75.09% in T1DM and T2DM, respectively, in 2019). The use of other antidiabetic medication in addition to insulin increased for T2DM, especially in dual therapy, reaching up to 52.35% in 2019 compared with 16.72% in 2002.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of the patients using basal or rapid acting analogs increased among all insulin users in both T1DM and T2DM patients. Among patients with T2DM, the proportion of patients using antidiabetic medications in addition to insulin was significantly increased compared to those who used insulin alone.

Subcutaneous fast-acting insulin analogues, alone or in combination with long-acting insulin, versus intravenous regular insulin infusion in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis: protocol for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

INTRODUCTION

Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is traditionally managed using intravenous regular insulin infusion (RII) in intensive care unit (ICU)/high dependency unit (HDU). Subcutaneous fast-acting insulin analogues (FAIAs) may help to manage DKA outside ICU/HDU. Furthermore, combining subcutaneous long-acting insulin (LAI) with subcutaneous FAIAs may accelerate ketoacidosis resolution. The latest (2016) Cochrane review was inconclusive regarding subcutaneous FAIAs versus intravenous RII in DKA. It was limited by small sample sizes, unclear risk of bias (RoB) in primary trials and did not examine subcutaneous FAIAs with subcutaneous LAI versus intravenous RII in DKA. We report the protocol for an updated meta-analysis on the safety and benefits of subcutaneous FAIAs with/without subcutaneous LAI versus intravenous RII in DKA.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library, from inception until December 2022, without language restrictions, for randomised trials on subcutaneous FAIAs with/without subcutaneous LAI versus intravenous RII in DKA. We also search ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu and reference lists of included trials. Primary outcomes include all-cause in-hospital mortality, time to DKA resolution, in-hospital DKA recurrence and hospital readmission for DKA post-discharge. Secondary outcomes include resource utilisation and patient satisfaction. Safety outcomes include important complications of DKA and insulin. Reviewers will extract data, assess overall RoB and quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. We will assess statistical heterogeneity by visually inspecting forest plots and the I² statistic. We will synthesise data using the random-effects model. Predefined subgroup analyses are: mild versus moderate versus severe DKA; age <20 vs ≥20 years; pregnant versus non-pregnant; infective versus non-infective DKA precipitating cause; subcutaneous FAIAs alone versus subcutaneous FAIAs and subcutaneous LAI; and high versus low overall RoB. We will also perform trial sequential analysis for primary outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics board approval is not required. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022369518.

Clinical Evidence and Practice-Based Guidelines on the Utility of Basal Insulin Combined Oral Therapy (Metformin and Glimepiride) in the Current Era

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Basal insulin combined oral therapy consisting of insulin and oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) is recommended for type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on OADs. There is a lack of clear evidence and recommendations on the combined use of basal insulin analogues to more than one OADs (glimepiride plus metformin) in effective control of glycemic parameters and its safety in terms of reduced hypoglycemic events, weight gain and cardiovascular risk. In this context, a group of clinical experts discussed the utility of basal insulin combined oral therapy with metformin and glimepiride in the current era.

METHODS

The clinical experts discussed and provided their inputs virtually. The expert panel included clinical experts comprising endocrinologists and diabetologists from India and Nepal.

RESULTS

The panel thoroughly reviewed existing literature on the subject and proposed clinical evidence and practice-based guidelines.

CONCLUSION

These current clinical practice guidelines highlight the efficacy and safety of basal insulin combination therapy with various available basal insulins including neutral protamine hagedorn, detemir, glargine and degludec in addition to metformin and glimepiride therapy.

The Effect of high temperature on the stability of basal insulin in a pen: a randomized controlled, crossover, equivalence trial

INTRODUCTION

Insulin is an essential medicine in the management of diabetes. When stored at high temperatures(HTs), its efficacy could rapidly decline. Therefore, appropriate storage of in-use insulin is necessary to achieve its maximum therapeutic effects. However, the ambient temperature in tropical countries is normally relatively high. This study aimed to compare the efficacies of basal insulin in a pen previously kept at 37°C for 21 days and basal insulin in a refrigerated pen (2°C-8°C). Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was used to evaluate daily mean glucose levels (MGLs).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This randomized controlled, crossover, equivalence trial recruited adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and glycated hemoglobin levels <8% who had used insulin glargine for >3 months. Subjects were randomized for sequential use of refrigerated basal insulin followed by basal insulin kept at HT, with a 2-week washout between phases. The HT insulin pens were stored in a 37°C incubator for 21 days before use, while the refrigerated insulin pens were stored at 2°C-8°C. Study patients received 7-day CGM. The primary outcome was the difference in the groups' MGLs. The secondary outcome parameters were glucose variability represented by the standard deviation (SD), mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (MAGE), and percentage of time in range (TIR). The remaining quantity of insulin was evaluated by ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) assay.

RESULTS

Forty patients completed the study. The MGLwas 158.7±30.5 mg/dL and 157.0±40.9 mg/dL in the HT and refrigerated insulin pen groups, respectively (p=0.72). The groups had no significant differences in MAGE_7day, SD, percentage of TIR, carryover period, or treatment effects (all p>0.05). There was also no significant difference in the remaining quantity of insulin evaluated by UHPLC (p=0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

HT basal insulin pens retain their potency and have biological activity comparable to that of refrigerated pens.Trial registration number TCTR20210611002.

Comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes: an individual patient data network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

DESIGN

Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2015.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with T1DM assessing glycosylated haemoglobin (A1c) and severe hypoglycaemia in long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We requested IPD from authors and funders. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We conducted a random-effects model, and specifically a one-stage IPD-NMA for those studies providing IPD and a two-stage IPD-NMA to incorporate those studies not providing IPD.

RESULTS

We included 28 RCTs plus one companion report, after screening 6680 titles/abstracts and 205 full-text articles. Of the 28 RCTs, 27 studies provided data for the NMA with 7394 participants, of which 12 RCTs had IPD on 4943 participants. The IPD-NMA for A1c suggested that glargine once daily (mean difference [MD]=-0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.48 to -0.14) and detemir once daily (MD=-0.25, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.09) were superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) once daily. NPH once/two times per day improved A1c compared with NPH once daily (MD=-0.30, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.11). Results regarding complications in severe hypoglycaemia should be considered with great caution due to inconsistency in the evidence network. Accounting for missing data, there was no evidence of inconsistency and long-acting insulin regimens ranked higher regarding reducing severe hypoglycaemia compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens (two-stage NMA: glargine two times per day SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve)=89%, detemir once daily SUCRA=77%; one-stage NMA: detemir once daily/two times per day SUCRA=85%). Using multiple imputations and IPD only, complications in severe hypoglycaemia increased with diabetes-related comorbidities (regression coefficient: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-acting insulin regimens reduced A1c compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens and were associated with lower severe hypoglycaemia. Of the observed differences, only glargine once daily achieved a clinically significant reduction of 0.30%. Results should be interpreted with caution due to very low quality of evidence.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015023511.

The association of long-acting insulin analogue use versus neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin use and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events among individuals with type 2 diabetes: A population-based cohort study

AIMS

To compare the risk of cardiovascular outcomes associated with long-acting insulin analogues versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin among patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, linked with hospitalization and vital statistics data. Patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated basal insulin treatment between 2002 and 2018 were included in the study. Exposure was defined as current use of long-acting insulin analogues or NPH insulin, defined using a time-varying approach. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; a composite endpoint of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke and cardiovascular death). We used a marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for MACE with current use of long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin, and in secondary analyses, by long-acting insulin molecule.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 57 334 patients. A total of 3494 MACE occurred over a mean follow-up of 1.6 years (incidence rate 37.4, 95% CI 36.2 to 38.7 per 1000 person-years). Long-acting insulin analogues were associated with a decreased risk of MACE compared to NPH insulin (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Current use of long-acting insulin analogues is associated with a modestly reduced risk of MACE compared to current use of NPH insulin among patients with type 2 diabetes. This study could have important implications for drug plan managers and guideline-writing committees for recommendations of insulin treatment for type 2 diabetes.

Clinical course of different long-acting insulin therapies-glargine U100, U300, degludec, and insulin degludec/insulin aspart-among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicenter retrospective observational study (JDDM65 study)

This study aimed to retrospectively compare the clinical efficacy of different types of long-acting insulin therapies-glargine U100, glargine U300, degludec, and insulin degludec/insulin aspart-among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes after insulin use was initiated in an outpatient setting. The study consisted of 822 insulin-naïve patients in Japan who started using long-acting insulin for treatment of type 2 diabetes and continued for over 12 months. In addition, the impact of insulin type on insulin withdrawal was investigated by dividing the participants into two groups: those who achieved insulin withdrawal and those who did not, during the 12-month observation period based on a Cox proportional hazards model. As a result, HbA1c was decreased, and BMI was increased in all participants regardless of the insulin type used. A total of 185 participants succeeded in insulin withdrawal. After adjustment was made for several confounders, the positive determinant factors for withdrawal were short duration of diabetes and the choice of IDegAsp when compared with Gla100; the negative determinant factor was use of insulin secretagogues at the start of the study. In conclusion, all long-acting insulins were a powerful tool for treatment of type 2 diabetes, and patients with short duration of diabetes and/or no usage of insulin secretagogues resulted in favorable outcomes in terms of insulin withdrawal within a year in an outpatient setting. In addition, insulin degludec/insulin aspart was found to possibly be a better choice for treatment when it was compared with glargine U100 among the four types of insulin.

Efficacy of once-weekly tirzepatide versus once-daily insulin degludec on glycaemic control measured by continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-3 CGM): a substudy of the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 SURPASS-3 trial

BACKGROUND

Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptor agonist under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. In this study, we used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to compare the 24 h glucose profile for participants given tirzepatide compared with those given insulin degludec.

METHODS

This substudy of the open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 SURPASS-3 trial, was done at 45 sites across six countries (Hungary, Poland, Romania, Spain, Ukraine, and the USA). Eligible participants in the main study were adults with type 2 diabetes, a baseline HbA_1c of 7·0-10·5% (53-91 mmol/mol), and a BMI of 25 kg/m² or more, who were insulin-naive, and treated with metformin alone or in combination with a SGLT2 inhibitor for at least 3 months before screening. Participants in the main study were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injection of tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg, or once-daily subcutaneous injection of titrated insulin degludec (100 U/mL), using an interactive web-response system. Participants were stratified by country, HbA_1c concentration, and concomitant oral antihyperglycaemic medication. A subset of these patients with a normal wake-sleep cycle were enrolled into this substudy, and interstitial glucose values were collected by CGM for approximately 7 days at baseline, 24 weeks, and 52 weeks. The primary outcome was to compare pooled participants assigned to 10 mg and 15 mg tirzepatide versus insulin degludec for the proportion of time that CGM values were in the tight target range (71-140 mg/dL) at 52 weeks, assessed in all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study drug and had an evaluable CGM session at either baseline or after baseline. The secondary outcomes were to compare tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg) versus insulin degludec for the proportion and duration of time in tight target range at 24 and 52 weeks. This was a substudy of the trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03882970, and is complete.

FINDINGS

From April 1 to Nov 27, 2019, 313 participants were screened for eligibility, 243 of whom were enrolled in CGM substudy (tirzepatide 5 mg, n=64; tirzepatide 10 mg, n=51; tirzepatide 15 mg, n=73; and insulin degludec, n=55). Patients given once-weekly tirzepatide (pooled 10 mg and 15 mg groups) had a greater proportion of time in tight target range compared with patients given insulin degludec (estimated treatment difference 25% [95% CI 16-33]; p<0·0001). Participants assigned to tirzepatide spent significantly more time in tight target range at 52 weeks compared with those assigned to insulin degludec (5 mg 12% [1-22], p=0·031; 10 mg 24% [13-35], p<0·0001; and 15 mg 25% [14-35], p<0·0001). Participants assigned to tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg, but not to tirzepatide 5 mg, spent significantly more time in tight target range at 24 weeks compared with insulin degludec (10 mg 19% [8-30], p=0·0008; 15 mg 21% [11-31], p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Once-weekly treatment with tirzepatide showed superior glycaemic control measured using CGM compared with insulin degludec in participants with type 2 diabetes on metformin, with or without a SGLT2 inhibitor. These new data provide additional evidence to the effect of tirzepatide and potential for achieving glycaemic targets without increase of hypoglycaemic risk compared with a basal insulin.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

DUAL I China: Improved glycemic control with IDegLira versus its individual components in a randomized trial with Chinese participants with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs

BACKGROUND

DUAL I China, one of the DUAL trials, assessed efficacy/safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) not controlled by oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).

METHODS

This phase 3a, treat-to-target multicenter trial randomized participants (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] 53.0-85.8 mmol/mol; previous metformin ± another OAD) 2:1:1 to IDegLira (n = 361), degludec (n = 179), or liraglutide (n = 180). Primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 26 weeks. Secondary endpoints included: HbA1c < 53.0 mmol/mol attainment, weight change, treatment-emergent hypoglycemia, end-of-treatment insulin dose, and safety.

RESULTS

At 26 weeks, HbA1c had decreased by a mean 18.12 mmoL/moL (IDegLira), 12.37 mmoL/moL (degludec) (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -6.50 mmoL/moL; 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.96, -5.04; P < .0001), and 11.33 mmoL/moL (liraglutide) (ETD -6.87 mmoL/moL; 95% CI -8.33, -5.41; P < 0.0001), indicating noninferiority for IDegLira vs degludec and superiority vs liraglutide. HbA1c < 53.0 mmoL/moL attainment was 77.0% (IDegLira), 46.4% (degludec), and 48.3% (liraglutide). Mean weight change with IDegLira (0.1 kg) was superior to degludec (1.2 kg) (ETD -1.08 kg; 96% CI -1.55, -0.62; P < 0.0001). Severe or confirmed hypoglycemic event rates were 0.24 (IDegLira) and 0.17 (degludec) episodes/participant-year (estimated rate ratio 1.46; 95% CI 0.71, 3.02; P = .3008, not significant). At the end of treatment, the IDegLira insulin dose was lower (24.5 U/d) vs degludec (30.3 U/d) (ETD -5.49 U; 95% CI -7.77, -3.21; P < 0.0001). No unexpected safety issues occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegLira is efficacious and well tolerated in Chinese adults with T2D not controlled by OADs.

Pregnancy outcomes in women with type 1 diabetes using insulin degludec

AIMS

To evaluate pregnancy outcomes in a real-world setting of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes using the ultra-long-acting insulin analog degludec compared to other long-acting insulin analogs throughout pregnancy.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study. The prospective cohort included consecutive, singleton pregnant women with type 1 diabetes receiving long-acting insulin analogs both before and during pregnancy: 67 women using degludec compared to 95 women using other long-acting insulin analogs in a routine care setting.

RESULTS

Women using degludec had similar clinical characteristics as women using other long-acting insulin analogs including HbA1c at 9 gestational weeks [6.5 (6.2-6.9) % (48 (44-52) mmol/mol) versus 6.5 (6.0-7.0) % (47 (42-53) mmol/mol), p = 0.52] and at 35 gestational weeks [6.0 (5.6-6.5) % (42 (38-47) mmol/mol) versus 6.1 (5.6-6.5) % (43 (38-48) mmol/mol), p = 0.68]. Pregnancy outcomes were similar regarding preeclampsia [10% (7/67) versus 8% (8/95), p = 0.66] and preterm delivery before 37 gestational weeks [16% (11/67) versus 23% (22/95), p = 0.29]. There were no perinatal deaths, and neonatal outcomes as large for gestational age infants [37% (25/67) versus 39% (37/95), p = 0.83], small for gestational age infants [4% (3/67) versus 5% (5/95), p = 1.0] and neonatal hypoglycemia [32% (21/65) versus 41% (34/83), p = 0.28] were similar between women using degludec and other long-acting insulin analogs.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of degludec during pregnancy resulted in similar pregnancy outcomes as use of other long-acting insulin analogs in women with type 1 diabetes in a real-world setting. This suggests that degludec initiated before pregnancy can be continued throughout gestation.

Molecular Engineering of Efficacious Mono-Valent Ultra-Long Acting Two-Chain Insulin-Fc Conjugates

Here, we describe molecular engineering of monovalent ultra-long acting two-chain insulin-Fc conjugates. Insulin-Fc conjugates were synthesized using trifunctional linkers with one amino reactive group for reaction with a lysine residue of insulin and two thiol reactive groups used for re-bridging of a disulfide bond within the Fc molecule. The ultra-long pharmacokinetic profile of the insulin-Fc conjugates was the result of concertedly slowing insulin receptor-mediated clearance by (1) introduction of amino acid substitutions that lowered the insulin receptor affinity and (2) conjugating insulin to the Fc element. Fc conjugation leads to recycling by the neonatal Fc receptor and increase in the molecular size, both contributing to the ultra-long pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles.

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

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Basal weekly insulins: the way of the future!

Basal insulin treatment is indispensable for patients with type 1 diabetes and often required by many with type 2 diabetes. Incremental advances lengthening the duration of action of insulin analogs and reducing pharmacodynamic variability have resulted in truly once-daily, long-acting basal insulin analogs. In the quest for better basal insulins to facilitate improvements in glycemic control and long-term outcomes, the driving need is to remove barriers delaying timely initiation of basal insulin, to maximize treatment adherence and persistence and reduce treatment burden without increasing risk of hypoglycemia. We review the range of investigational once-weekly insulins and their molecular strategies and profiles. Currently, the two most advanced clinical development programs are: (1) basal insulin icodec, an insulin analog acylated with a C20 fatty diacid (icosanedioic acid) side chain (Novo Nordisk) and (2) basal insulin Fc, a fusion protein that combines a single-chain insulin variant with a human immunoglobulin G fragment crystallizable domain (Eli Lilly). Available phase 2 data for these two once-weekly agents show comparable glycemic control to existing once-daily insulin analogs, with no greater risk of hypoglycemia. While phase 3 data are awaited to confirm efficacy and safety, we provide future clinical perspectives on practical considerations for the potential use of once-weekly insulins.

Switching from Insulin Degludec plus Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor to Insulin Degludec/Liraglutide Improves Glycemic Variability in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Preliminary Prospective Observation Study

Incretins reduce glycemic variability (GV) in patients with type 2 diabetes, but it is unknown whether switching from a combination of basal insulin and a DPP-4 inhibitor to insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) improves GV. We performed an exploratory prospective observational study to compare the effect of IDegLira and the combination on GV. We recruited hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes who had stable glycemic control with insulin degludec (≤16 units/day) and taking a DPP-4 inhibitor. GV was analyzed using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) before and after switching the medication to IDegLira. The principal endpoint was the change in mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE). Other indices of GV and CGM parameters were analyzed as the secondary endpoints. Fifteen participants were enrolled and 12 completed the study. In these participants, the DPP-4 inhibitor and insulin degludec were discontinued, and the equivalent dose of IDegLira was commenced. Switching to IDegLira significantly improved MAGE from 74.9 (60.3, 97.7) mg/dL to 64.8 (52.0, 78.2) mg/dL (P < 0.05), as well as other indices of GV and 24-hour mean blood glucose concentration. Analysis of the ambulatory glucose profile showed marked reductions in postprandial glucose concentration. Nocturnal glucose concentration was similar under the two treatment regimens. IDegLira improved GV as well as the mean and the postprandial glucose concentration by switching from insulin degludec plus DPP-4 inhibitor combination. IDegLira might be beneficial for patients being treated with low-dose basal insulin.

Validation of the classification for type 2 diabetes into five subgroups: a report from the ORIGIN trial

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Data analyses from Swedish individuals with newly diagnosed diabetes have suggested that diabetes could be classified into five subtypes that differ with respect to the progression of dysglycaemia and the incidence of diabetes consequences. We assessed this classification in a multiethnic cohort of participants with established and newly diagnosed diabetes, randomly allocated to insulin glargine vs standard care.

METHODS

In total, 7017 participants from the Outcome Reduction with Initial Glargine Intervention (ORIGIN) trial were assigned to the five predefined diabetes subtypes (namely, severe auto-immune diabetes, severe insulin-deficient diabetes, severe insulin-resistant diabetes, mild obesity-related diabetes, mild age-related diabetes) based on the age at diabetes diagnosis, BMI, HbA_1c, fasting C-peptide levels and the presence of glutamate decarboxylase antibodies at baseline. Differences between diabetes subtypes in cardiovascular and renal outcomes were investigated using Cox regression models for a median follow-up of 6.2 years. We also compared the effect of glargine vs standard care on hyperglycaemia, defined by having a mean post-randomisation HbA_1c ≥6.5%, between subtypes.

RESULTS

The five diabetes subtypes were replicated in the ORIGIN trial and exhibited similar baseline characteristics in Europeans and Latin Americans, compared with the initially described clusters in the Swedish cohort. We confirmed differences in renal outcomes, with a higher incidence of events in the severe insulin-resistant diabetes subtype compared with the mild age-related diabetes subtype (i.e., chronic kidney disease stage 3A: HR 1.49 [95% CI 1.31, 1.71]; stage 3B: HR 2.25 [1.82, 2.78]; macroalbuminuria: HR 1.56 [1.22, 1.99]). No differences were observed in the incidence of retinopathy and cardiovascular diseases after adjusting for multiple hypothesis testing. Diabetes subtypes also differed in glycaemic response to glargine, with a particular benefit of receiving glargine (vs standard care) in the severe insulin-deficient diabetes subtype compared with the mild age-related diabetes subtype, with a decreased occurrence of hyperglycaemia by 13% (OR 1.36 [1.30, 1.41] on glargine; OR 1.49 [1.43, 1.57] on standard care; p for interaction subtype × intervention = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Cluster analysis enabled the characterisation of five subtypes of diabetes in a multiethnic cohort. Both the incidence of renal outcomes and the response to insulin varied between diabetes subtypes. These findings reinforce the clinical utility of applying precision medicine to predict comorbidities and treatment responses in individuals with diabetes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ORIGIN trial, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00069784.

Effect of Newer Long-Acting Insulins on Hypoglycemia and Fracture Risk Among People with Diabetes: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To investigate the effect of newer long-acting insulins on the risk of hypoglycemic episodes and fractures in people with diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hypoglycemic episodes are the critical limiting factor in glycemic management due to a deteriorating effect on quality of life. Hypoglycemia may in severe cases lead to unconsciousness and thus fractures. Newer long-acting insulins may result in more stable blood glucose levels, less hypoglycemic episodes, and reduced risk of fractures. Use of insulin increases risk of hypoglycemic episodes, and hypoglycemic episodes increase risk of fractures plausible due to falls. Newer ultra-long-acting insulins reduce risk of hypoglycemic episodes compared to older alternatives, and they are thus promising for reducing fracture risk. However, more studies are needed to determine whether these new insulins reduce risk of fractures.

Effect of deprescribing in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: iDegLira might improve quality of life

Older people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) often have several comorbidities and take multiple drugs. This study tested a deprescribing strategy in older T2D patients, replacing a hypoglycemic therapeutic scheme with a single drug combination (iDegLira). In this 6-month, real-world, single-arm, open interventional study, we enrolled patients ≥ 75 years with T2D taking ≥ 2 medications for diabetes. Patients on a basal-bolus insulin regimen (n = 13), on a basal-insulin regimen plus oral glucose-lowering drugs (n = 9), and those on oral glucose-lowering drugs (n = 18) were switched to daily iDegLira. The primary clinical endpoint of the study was an improvement in CASP-19 and/or DTSQ score after 6 months. We also evaluated changes in glucose metabolism, depression, cognitive function, level of independence, and markers of inflammation. Thirty-five patients (12 women, mean age=81.4 y) completed the protocol. Results shown here are given as estimated mean difference (95%CI). DTSQ score improved [11.08 (7.13/15.02); p = 0.0001], whereas CASP-19 did not after 6 months of iDegLira treatment. We observed reductions in BMI [- 0.81 (- 1.27/0.35); p < 0.001], fasting glucose [- 52.07 (- 77.26/26.88); p < 0.001], HbA1c [- 0.58 (- 1.08/0.08); p < 0.05], and TNF-α [- 1.83 (- 3.12/- 0.54); p = 0.007]. Activities of daily living and cognitive function score increased [p = 0.006 and p = 0.02], whereas depression score significantly decreased [p = 0.02]. Notably, no patient reported episodes of severe hypoglycemia after initiation of iDegLira treatment. Among older patients with T2D, deprescribing using a single dose of iDegLira resulted in a greater likelihood of improving health and quality of life. Although our data indicate the effectiveness and safety of this approach, it must be confirmed in larger studies.

Comparative efficacy and safety of basal insulins: A review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To provide an update on the usefulness of basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using PubMed and MEDLINE, BIOSIS, Scopus, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, and Springer Online Archives Collection until June 2021.

RESULTS

All basal insulins are similar in efficacy, with only small differences among them in terms of the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

For type 2 diabetes mellitus, all basal insulins have a similar efficacy, with some advantage of Glar-300 and Deg-100 in reducing the risk of hypoglycemia compared to Glar-100.

Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus rates and associated costs continue to rise across Europe enhancing health authority focus on its management. The risk of complications is enhanced by poor glycaemic control, with long-acting insulin analogues developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve patient convenience. There are concerns though with their considerably higher costs, but moderated by reductions in complications and associated costs. Biosimilars can help further reduce costs. However, to date, price reductions for biosimilar insulin glargine appear limited. In addition, the originator company has switched promotional efforts to more concentrated patented formulations to reduce the impact of biosimilars. There are also concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. As a result, there is a need to assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues and biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, among multiple European countries to provide future direction. Methodology. Health authority databases are examined to assess utilisation and expenditure patterns for insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine. Explanations for patterns seen were provided by senior-level personnel.

RESULTS

Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed.

Ongoing efforts to improve the management of patients with diabetes in Bangladesh and the implications

BACKGROUND

Prevalence rates of patients with diabetes are growing across countries, and Bangladesh is no exception. Associated costs are also increasing, driven by costs associated with the complications of diabetes including hypoglycemia. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycemia as well as improve patient comfort and adherence. However, they have been appreciably more expensive, reducing their affordability and use. Biosimilars offer a way forward. Consequently, there is a need to document current prescribing and dispensing rates for long-acting insulin analogues across Bangladesh, including current prices and differences, as a result of affordability and other issues.

METHODS

Mixed method approach including surveying prescribing practices in hospitals coupled with dispensing practices and prices among community pharmacies and drug stores across Bangladesh. This method was adopted since public hospitals only dispense insulins such as soluble insulins free-of-charge until funds run out and all long-acting insulin analogues have to be purchased from community stores.

RESULTS

There has been growing prescribing and dispensing of long-acting insulins in Bangladesh in recent years, now accounting for over 80% of all insulins dispensed in a minority of stores. This increase has been helped by growing prescribing and dispensing of biosimilar insulin glargine at lower costs than the originator, with this trend likely to continue with envisaged growth in the number of patients. Consequently, Bangladesh can serve as an exemplar to other low- and middle-income countries struggling to fund long-acting insulin analogues for their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

It was encouraging to see continued growth in the prescribing and dispensing of long-acting insulin analogues in Bangladesh via the increasing availability of biosimilars. This is likely to continue benefitting all key stakeholder groups.

A fully artificial pancreas versus a hybrid artificial pancreas for type 1 diabetes: a single-centre, open-label, randomised controlled, crossover, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

For people with type 1 diabetes, there is currently no automated insulin delivery system that does not require meal input. We aimed to assess the efficacy of a novel faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) plus pramlintide fully closed-loop system that does not require meal input.

METHODS

In this open-label, randomised controlled, crossover, non-inferiority trial we compared the Fiasp (Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark) plus pramlintide closed-loop system with no meal input (fully artificial pancreas) and the Fiasp-alone closed-loop system with precise carbohydrate counting (hybrid artificial pancreas). Adults (≥18 years) who had a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, had glycated haemoglobin 12% or lower, and had been on insulin pump therapy for at least 6 months were enrolled at McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. The Fiasp plus pramlintide fully closed-loop system delivered pramlintide in a basal-bolus manner with a fixed ratio of 10 μg:U relative to insulin. A research staff member counted the carbohydrate content of meals to input in the hybrid closed-loop system. Participants completed the two full-day crossover interventions in a random order allocated by a computer-generated code implementing a blocked randomisation (block size of four). The primary outcome was the percentage of time spent within the glucose target range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L), with a 6% non-inferiority margin, assessed in all participants who completed both interventions. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03800875.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 8, 2019, and Sept 19, 2020, we enrolled 28 adults, of whom 24 completed both interventions and were included in analyses. The percentage of time spent in the target range was 74·3% (IQR 61·5-82·8) with the fully closed-loop system versus 78·1% (66·3-87·5) with the hybrid Fiasp-alone closed-loop system (paired difference 2·6%, 95% CI -2·4 to 12·2; non-inferiority p=0·28). Eight (33%) participants had at least one hypoglycaemia event (<3·3 mmol/L) with the fully closed-loop system compared with 14 (58%) participants with the hybrid closed-loop system (2200-2200 h). Non-mild nausea was reported by three (13%) participants and non-mild bloating by one (4%) participant with the fully closed-loop system compared with zero participants with the hybrid closed-loop system.

INTERPRETATION

The Fiasp plus pramlintide fully closed-loop system was not non-inferior to the Fiasp-alone hybrid closed-loop system for the overall percentage of time in the glucose target range. However, participants still spent a high percentage of time within the target range with the fully-closed loop system. Outpatient studies comparing the fully closed-loop hybrid systems with patient-estimated, rather than precise, carbohydrate counting are warranted.

FUNDING

Diabetes Canada.

Current utilization patterns for long-acting insulin analogues including biosimilars among selected Asian countries and the implications for the future

INTRODUCTION

Prevalence rates for diabetes mellitus continue to rise, which, coupled with increasing costs of complications, has appreciably increased expenditure in recent years. Poor glycaemic control including hypoglycaemia enhances complication rates and associated morbidity, mortality and costs. Consequently, this needs to be addressed. Whilst the majority of patients with diabetes have type-2 diabetes, a considerable number of patients with diabetes require insulin to help control their diabetes. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycaemia associated with insulin and help improve adherence, which can be a concern. However, their considerably higher costs have impacted on their funding and use, especially in countries with affordability issues. Biosimilars can help reduce the costs of long-acting insulin analogues thereby increasing available choices. However, the availability and use of long-acting insulin analogues can be affected by limited price reductions versus originators and limited demand-side initiatives to encourage their use. Consequently, we wanted to assess current utilisation rates for long-acting insulin analogues, especially biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, across multiple Asian countries ranging from Japan (high-income) to Pakistan (lower-income) to inform future strategies.

METHODOLOGY

Multiple approaches including assessing utilization and prices of insulins including biosimilars among six Asian countries and comparing the findings especially with other middle-income countries.

RESULTS

Typically, there was increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues among the selected Asian countries. This was especially the case enhanced by biosimilars in Bangladesh, India, and Malaysia reflecting their perceived benefits. However, there was limited use in Pakistan due to issues of affordability similar to a number of African countries. The high use of biosimilars in Bangladesh, India and Malaysia was helped by issues of affordability and local production. The limited use of biosimilars in Japan and Korea reflects limited price reductions and demand-side initiatives similar to a number of European countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across countries is welcomed, adding to the range of insulins available, which increasingly includes biosimilars. A number of activities are needed to enhance the use of long-acting insulin analogue biosimilars in Japan, Korea and Pakistan.

Efficacy and safety of the fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide by baseline glycated hemoglobin, body mass index and age in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis of two phase III trials

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

To assess efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) in Japanese participants with type 2 diabetes across different baseline characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from two randomized controlled trials were used: DUAL I Japan (n = 819 insulin-naïve participants) and DUAL II Japan (n = 210 insulin-experienced participants). Outcomes were assessed according to baseline glycated hemoglobin ( HbA1c ; <8.0%, ≥8.0-<9.0%, ≥9.0%), body mass index (<25, ≥25-<30, ≥30 kg/m2 ) and age (<65, ≥65 years).

RESULTS

In DUAL I Japan, reductions in HbA1c with IDegLira versus degludec and liraglutide were observed across all subgroups (treatment differences: -0.48% to -0.72% vs degludec, -0.29% to -0.73% vs liraglutide). Results were similar with IDegLira versus degludec in DUAL II Japan (treatment differences: -0.82% to -1.61%). Treatment-by-subgroup interactions were significant for IDegLira versus liraglutide for baseline HbA1c and age in DUAL I Japan, and for IDegLira versus degludec for baseline HbA1c in DUAL II Japan. In DUAL I Japan, IDegLira was associated with less weight gain than degludec in most subgroups. In DUAL II Japan, IDegLira was associated with a small mean weight loss (except for baseline HbA1c ≥9.0%) versus a small gain for degludec (except for age ≥65 years subgroup); treatment-by-subgroup interactions were not significant. Total daily insulin dose was lower with IDegLira versus degludec across all categories, except for age >65 years in DUAL II Japan.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegLira reduced HbA1c in Japanese participants with type 2 diabetes across baseline HbA1c , body mass index and age categories, without unexpected safety issues.

Once-weekly tirzepatide versus once-daily insulin degludec as add-on to metformin with or without SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-3): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide versus titrated insulin degludec in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin with or without SGLT2 inhibitors.

METHODS

In this open-label, parallel-group, multicentre (122 sites), multinational (13 countries), phase 3 study, eligible participants (aged ≥18 years) had a baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) of 7·0-10·5%, body-mass index of at least 25 kg/m², stable weight, and were insulin-naive and treated with metformin alone or in combination with an SGLT2 inhibitor for at least 3 months before screening. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1), using an interactive web-response system, to once-weekly subcutaneous injection of tirzepatide (5, 10, or 15 mg) or once-daily subcutaneous injection of titrated insulin degludec, and were stratified by country, HbA_1c, and concomitant use of oral antihyperglycaemic medications. Tirzepatide was initially given at 2·5 mg and the dose was escalated by 2·5 mg every 4 weeks until the assigned dose was reached. Insulin degludec was initially given at 10 U per day and was titrated once weekly to a fasting self-monitored blood glucose of less than 5·0 mmol/L (<90 mg/dL), following a treat-to-target algorithm, for 52 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was non-inferiority of tirzepatide 10 mg or 15 mg, or both, versus insulin degludec in mean change from baseline in HbA_1c at week 52. Key secondary efficacy endpoints were non-inferiority of tirzepatide 5 mg versus insulin degludec in mean change from baseline in HbA_1c at week 52, superiority of all doses of tirzepatide versus insulin degludec in mean change from baseline in HbA_1c and bodyweight, and the proportion of participants achieving HbA_1c of less than 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol) at week 52. We used a boundary of 0·3% to establish non-inferiority in HbA_1c difference between treatments. Efficacy and safety analyses were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all participants who received at least one dose of study drug). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03882970, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between April 1 and Nov 15, 2019, we assessed 1947 participants for eligibility, 1444 of whom were randomly assigned to treatment. The modified intention-to-treat population was 1437 participants from the tirzepatide 5 mg (n=358), tirzepatide 10 mg (n=360), tirzepatide 15 mg (n=359), and insulin degludec (n=360) groups. From a mean baseline HbA_1c of 8·17% (SD 0·91), the reductions in HbA_1c at week 52 were 1·93% (SE 0·05) for tirzepatide 5 mg, 2·20% (0·05) for tirzepatide 10 mg, and 2·37% (0·05) for tirzepatide 15 mg, and 1·34% (0·05) for insulin degludec. The non-inferiority margin of 0·3% was met. The estimated treatment difference (ETD) versus insulin degludec ranged from -0·59% to -1·04% for tirzepatide (p<0·0001 for all tirzepatide doses). The proportion of participants achieving a HbA_1c of less than 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol) at week 52 was greater (p<0·0001) in all three tirzepatide groups (82%-93%) versus insulin degludec (61%). At week 52, from a baseline of 94·3 kg (SD 20·1), all three tirzepatide doses decreased bodyweight (-7·5 kg to -12·9 kg), whereas insulin degludec increased bodyweight by 2·3 kg. The ETD versus insulin degludec ranged from -9·8 kg to -15·2 kg for tirzepatide (p<0·0001 for all tirzepatide doses). The most common adverse events in tirzepatide-treated participants were mild to moderate gastrointestinal events that decreased over time. A higher incidence of nausea (12-24%), diarrhoea (15-17%), decreased appetite (6-12%), and vomiting (6-10%) was reported in participants treated with tirzepatide than in those treated with insulin degludec (2%, 4%, 1%, and 1%, respectively). Hypoglycaemia (<54 mg/dL or severe) was reported in five (1%), four (1%), and eight (2%) participants on tirzepatide 5, 10, and 15 mg, respectively, versus 26 (7%) on insulin degludec. Treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event was more common in the tirzepatide groups than in the insulin degludec group. Five participants died during the study; none of the deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the study treatment.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with type 2 diabetes, tirzepatide (5, 10, and 15 mg) was superior to titrated insulin degludec, with greater reductions in HbA_1c and bodyweight at week 52 and a lower risk of hypoglycaemia. Tirzepatide showed a similar safety profile to that of GLP-1 receptor agonists.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Initiation of four basal insulins and subsequent treatment modification in people treated for type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom: Changes over the period 2003-2018

AIMS

Aim of this study is to describe changes in the utilization of basal insulins (glargine, detemir, degludec, neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH]) among individuals with type 2 diabetes between 2003 and 2018 in the United Kingdom (UK).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum, we created three study cohorts of individuals with type 2 diabetes: (1) all users of antidiabetic drugs (n = 686,170); (2) initiators of antidiabetic drugs (n = 382,247); and (3) initiators of basal insulins (n = 85,369). Trends in prescription rates were determined using Poisson regression overall and stratified by sex, cardiovascular disease history, and obesity. Crude and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CI) comparing rates of treatment change between classes of basal insulins, with an intention-to-treat exposure definition.

RESULTS

During the study period, prescription rates of insulin analogues increased in the all-user cohort from 118.3 (95% CI: 116.4, 120.2) prescriptions per 1000 person-years in 2003 to 579.4 (95% CI: 576.9, 582.0) in 2018. Prescription rates of NPH decreased from 770.5 (95% CI: 765.0, 775.3) in 2003 to 457.7 (95% CI: 455.5, 460.0) in 2018. Compared to initiators of NPH, initiators of detemir were more likely to change treatment (adjusted HR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.25, 1.37) while glargine initiators were less likely to change treatment (adjusted HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82, 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

Basal insulin prescription evolved between 2003 and 2018. Our study provides insight into the evolving use of basal insulin among individuals with type 2 diabetes in the UK.

A randomized controlled trial of transition from insulin pump to multiple daily injections using insulin degludec

AIM

To evaluate two methods of transition from an insulin pump to multiple daily injections (MDI) using long-acting insulin degludec (IDeg).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After a 1-week run-in period, adults with type 1 diabetes for longer than 1 year and HbA1c 48-69 mmol/mol (6.5%-8.5%), who had been using an insulin pump at least for 6 months, were randomly transitioned to either standard of care (discontinued insulin pump and started IDeg in 1:1 dose) or overlap (IDeg 1:1 at pump basal dose, but pump continued for the first 48 hours with a gradual basal reduction; 50% from 0-24 hours, 75% from 24-48 hours and then pump discontinued). Participants used blinded Dexcom G6 and the IDeg dose was not changed during the trial. Primary (% time above 180 mg/dL) and secondary (% time in 70-180 mg/dL and below 70 mg/dL) outcomes were compared between the two groups during 7 days of randomization.

RESULTS

Age, gender, diabetes duration and basal/bolus insulin doses were similar between patients randomized to standard of care (n = 17) or overlap (n = 13) transition. Compared with overlap transition, the standard of care group spent 4.8% more time in hyperglycaemia (least square mean 4.8% [95% CI -3.3%, 12.9%]) and 5.3% less time in range (-5.3% [-12.6%, -2.0%]), without a significant difference in hypoglycaemia (0.5% [-2.3%,3.4%]). No treatment-related adverse events were noted in either group.

CONCLUSION

The overlap transition method may result in a significant improvement in time-in-range without increasing hypoglycaemia during the first week of transition from an insulin pump to MDI using IDeg in adults with type 1 diabetes.

The Current Situation Regarding Long-Acting Insulin Analogues Including Biosimilars Among African, Asian, European, and South American Countries; Findings and Implications for the Future

Background: Diabetes mellitus rates continue to rise, which coupled with increasing costs of associated complications has appreciably increased global expenditure in recent years. The risk of complications are enhanced by poor glycaemic control including hypoglycaemia. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve adherence. Their considerably higher costs though have impacted their funding and use. Biosimilars can help reduce medicine costs. However, their introduction has been affected by a number of factors. These include the originator company dropping its price as well as promoting patented higher strength 300 IU/ml insulin glargine. There can also be concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. Objective: To assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues, and the rationale for patterns seen, across multiple countries to inform strategies to enhance future utilisation of long-acting insulin analogue biosimilars to benefit all key stakeholders. Our approach: Multiple approaches including assessing the utilisation, expenditure and prices of insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine, across multiple continents and countries. Results: There was considerable variation in the use of long-acting insulin analogues as a percentage of all insulins prescribed and dispensed across countries and continents. This ranged from limited use of long-acting insulin analogues among African countries compared to routine funding and use across Europe in view of their perceived benefits. Increasing use was also seen among Asian countries including Bangladesh and India for similar reasons. However, concerns with costs and value limited their use across Africa, Brazil and Pakistan. There was though limited use of biosimilar insulin glargine 100 IU/ml compared with other recent biosimilars especially among European countries and Korea. This was principally driven by small price differences in reality between the originator and biosimilars coupled with increasing use of the patented 300 IU/ml formulation. A number of activities were identified to enhance future biosimilar use. These included only reimbursing biosimilar long-acting insulin analogues, introducing prescribing targets and increasing competition among manufacturers including stimulating local production. Conclusions: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars despite lower costs. This can be addressed by multiple activities.

The Benefit of Insulin Degludec/Liraglutide (IDegLira) Compared With Basal-Bolus Insulin Therapy is Consistent Across Participant Subgroups With Type 2 Diabetes in the DUAL VII Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) results in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels comparable with basal-bolus (BB) therapy. Here, we assessed the effect of once-daily IDegLira compared with BB (once-daily insulin glargine 100 U/mL and insulin aspart ≤4 times/day) across subgroups with varying characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DUAL VII trial participants (type 2 diabetes [T2D], HbA1c 53-86 mmol/mol [7.0%-10.0%]) were subgrouped post hoc based on the following baseline characteristics: HbA1c (≤58.5, >58.5 to ≤69.4, and >69.4 mmol/mol; ≤7.5%, >7.5 to ≤8.5%, and >8.5%), body mass index (<30, ≥30 to <35, and ≥35 kg/m²), age (18 to <65 and ≥65 years), duration of diabetes (≥0 to 10 and ≥10 years), total pretrial daily basal insulin dose (20 to <30, ≥30 to <40, and ≥40 to ≤50 U), and fasting plasma glucose (<7.2 mmol/L/<130 mg/dL and ≥7.2 mmol/L/≥130 mg/dL).

RESULTS

Compared with BB, and in all subgroups, IDegLira treatment consistently gave similar HbA1c reductions, less severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycemia, lower end-of-trial (EOT) total daily insulin dose, and weight loss. In all subgroups, mean EOT HbA1c was ≤53 mmol/mol (≤7.0%). The greatest HbA1c reduction occurred in the highest baseline HbA1c subgroup. Overall, mean EOT daily insulin dose was 0.43 to 0.52 U/kg with IDegLira and 0.74 to 1.07 U/kg with BB. More participants achieved the triple composite endpoint (HbA1c <53 mmol/mol [<7.0%] without weight gain or hypoglycemia) with IDegLira vs BB across the baseline HbA1c subgroups (≤58.5 mmol/mol [44.6% vs 7.0%], >58.5 to ≤69.4 mmol/mol [41.1% vs 8.3%], and >69.4 mmol/mol [23.8% vs 3.4%]).

CONCLUSION

These results support initiating IDegLira in patients with varying baseline characteristics and uncontrolled T2D on basal insulin.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION

NCT02420262.

Efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart compared with insulin aspart in combination with insulin degludec in Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes: a subgroup analysis of the randomized onset 8 trial

This study aimed to confirm the efficacy and safety of mealtime and post-meal fast-acting insulin aspart versus insulin aspart, both with basal insulin degludec, in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes. This was a subgroup analysis of onset 8, a randomized multicenter, treat-to-target trial of mealtime fast-acting insulin aspart (subgroup n = 73), mealtime insulin aspart (n = 83), or open-label post-meal fast-acting insulin aspart (n = 89), all for 26 weeks. Change from baseline in HbA_1c was considered the primary endpoint. After 26 weeks, the estimated treatment difference (ETD, 95% CI) for change from baseline in HbA_1c between mealtime fast-acting insulin aspart or post-meal fast-acting insulin aspart vs. insulin aspart was 0.01% (-0.16;0.19) and 0.10% (-0.07;0.27), respectively. Following a standardized meal test, ETD for change from baseline in postprandial glucose (PPG) increment at 1 hour was -16.91 mg/dL (-32.15;-1.68) for mealtime fast-acting insulin aspart and 40.16 mg/dL (25.46;54.87) for post-meal fast-acting insulin aspart, both versus insulin aspart. Mean self-measured blood glucose 1-hour PPG increments also showed a trend towards improved PPG control with mealtime fast-acting insulin aspart versus insulin aspart. Rates of overall hypoglycemia (35.56, 37.72 and 38.75 per patient-year of exposure with mealtime fast-acting insulin aspart, post-meal fast-acting insulin aspart and insulin aspart, respectively) and meal-related hypoglycemia were similar between treatment arms. Consistent with findings of onset 8, this analysis confirmed mealtime and post-meal fast-acting insulin aspart provided effective HbA_1c and PPG control versus insulin aspart, with similar safety profiles, in Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes.

Efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart versus insulin aspart in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes from Japan

The aim of this post-hoc subgroup analysis, which was based on data from the treat-to-target, 26-week, onset 7 trial, was to confirm the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) versus insulin aspart (IAsp), both in combination with basal insulin degludec, in children and adolescents from Japan with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Of the onset 7 trial population (1 to <18 years; N = 777), 66 participants from Japan (65 Asian and one non-Asian) were randomized to mealtime faster aspart (n = 24), post-meal faster aspart (n = 19), or IAsp (n = 23). Data for the subgroup from Japan were analysed descriptively. Change from baseline in hemoglobin A1c 26 weeks after randomization was 0.23%, 0.74%, and 0.39%, for mealtime faster aspart, post-meal faster aspart, and IAsp respectively. Change from baseline in 1-h post-prandial glucose increment (based on 8-point self-measured blood glucose profiles) showed numerical differences in favor of mealtime faster aspart versus IAsp at breakfast (-30.70 vs. -2.88 mg/dL) and over all meals (-18.21 vs. -5.55 mg/dL). There were no clinically relevant numerical differences between treatment arms in the overall rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycemia. At week 26, mean total insulin dose was 1.119 U/kg/day for mealtime faster aspart, 1.049 U/kg/day for post-meal faster aspart, and 1.037 U/kg/day for IAsp. In conclusion, in children and adolescents with T1D from Japan, mealtime and post-meal faster aspart with insulin degludec was efficacious in controlling glycemia without additional safety concerns versus IAsp.