Once-weekly insulins: a promising approach to reduce the treatment burden in people with diabetes.

Despite the availability of new classes of glucose-lowering drugs that improve glycaemic levels and minimise long-term complications, at least 20-25% of people with type 2 diabetes require insulin therapy. Moreover, a substantial proportion of these individuals do not achieve adequate metabolic control following insulin initiation. This is due to several factors: therapeutic inertia, fear of hypoglycaemia and/or weight gain, poor communication, complexity of insulin titration, and the number of injections needed, with the associated reduced adherence to insulin therapy. Once-weekly insulins provide a unique opportunity to simplify basal insulin therapy and to allow good glycaemic control with a low risk of hypoglycaemia. Several approaches to developing a stable and effective once-weekly insulin have been proposed, but, to date, insulin icodec and basal insulin Fc (insulin efsitora alfa) are the only two formulations for which clinical studies have been reported. The results of Phase I and II studies emphasise both efficacy (in term of glucose levels) and potential risks and adverse events. Phase III studies involving insulin icodec are reassuring regarding the risk of hypoglycaemia compared with daily basal insulin analogues. Despite some concerns raised in ongoing clinical trials, the available data suggest that weekly insulins may also be an option for individuals with type 1 diabetes, especially when adherence is suboptimal. For the first time there is an opportunity to make an important breakthrough in basal insulin therapy, particularly in people with type 2 diabetes, and to improve not only the quality of life of people with diabetes, but also the practice of diabetologists.

Combined intake of caffeine and low-dose glucose to reduce exercise-related hypoglycaemia in individuals with type 1 diabetes on ultra-long-acting insulin degludec: A randomized, controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial.

AIM: To evaluate whether caffeine combined with a moderate amount of glucose reduces the risk for exercise-related hypoglycaemia compared with glucose alone or control in adult people with type 1 diabetes using ultra-long-acting insulin degludec. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen participants conducted three aerobic exercise sessions (maximum 75 min) in a randomized, double-blind, cross-over design. Thirty minutes before exercise, participants ingested a drink containing either 250 mg of caffeine + 10 g of glucose + aspartame (CAF), 10 g of glucose + aspartame (GLU), or aspartame alone (ASP). The primary outcome was time to hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: There was a significant effect of the condition on time to hypoglycaemia (χ2 = 7.674, p = .0216). Pairwise comparisons revealed an 85.7% risk reduction of hypoglycaemia for CAF compared with ASP (p = .044). No difference was observed between GLU and ASP (p = .104) or between CAF and GLU (p = .77). While CAF increased glucose levels during exercise compared with GLU and ASP (8.3 ± 1.9 mmol/L vs. 7.7 ± 2.2 mmol/L vs. 5.8 ± 1.4 mmol/L; p < .001), peak plasma glucose levels during exercise did not differ between CAF and GLU (9.3 ± 1.4 mmol/L and 9.1 ± 1.6 mmol/L, p = .80), but were higher than in ASP (6.6 ± 1.1 mmol/L; p < .001). The difference in glucose levels between CAF and GLU was largest during the last 15 min of exercise (p = .002). Compared with GLU, CAF lowered perceived exertion (p = .023). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-exercise caffeine ingestion combined with a low dose of glucose reduced exercise-related hypoglycaemia compared with control while avoiding hyperglycaemia.

Treatment intensification following glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: Comparative effectiveness analyses between different basal insulins. RESTORE-G real-world study.

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of different basal insulins (BI) prescribed as an add-on to or switch from glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective, real-world data from electronic medical records of 32 Italian diabetes clinics were used, after propensity score adjustment, to compare effectiveness after 6 months of treatment with second- versus first-generation BI (2BI vs. 1BI) or glargine 300 U/ml versus degludec 100 U/ml (Gla-300 vs. Deg-100), when added to (ADD-ON) or in substitution of (SWITCH) GLP-1 RA. Only comparisons, including a minimum of 100 patients per group, were performed to ensure adequate robustness of the analyses. RESULTS: In the ADD-ON cohort (N = 700), greater benefits of 2BI versus 1BI were found in glycated haemoglobin {HbA1c; estimated mean difference: -0.32% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.62; -0.02]; p = .04} and fasting blood glucose [FBG; -20.73 mg/dl (95% CI -35.62; -5.84); p = .007]. In the SWITCH cohort (N = 2097), greater benefits of 2BI versus 1BI were found in HbA1c [-0.22% (95% CI -0.42; -0.02); p = .03], FBG [-10.15 mg/dl (95% CI -19.04; -1.26); p = .03], and body weight [-0.67 kg (95% CI -1.30; -0.04); p = .04]. In the SWITCH cohort starting 2BI (N = 688), marked differences in favour of Gla-300 versus Deg-100 were documented in HbA1c [-0.89% (95% CI -1.26; -0.52); p < .001] and FBG [-17.89 mg/dl (95% CI -32.45; -3.33); p = .02]. Using propensity score matching as a sensitivity analysis, the benefit on HbA1c was confirmed [-0.55% (95% CI -1.02; -0.08); p = .02]. BI titration was suboptimal in all examined cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: 2BI are a valuable option to intensify GLP-1 RA therapy. Switching to Gla-300 versus Deg-100 was associated with greater HbA1c improvement.

Once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa: Design and rationale for the QWINT phase 3 clinical development programme.

AIMS: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This review describes the study design and rationale of the efsitora phase 3 Once Weekly (QW) Insulin Therapy (QWINT) clinical development programme, including the five trials, QWINT-1 through QWINT-5. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The five trials included insulin-naïve adults (QWINT-1 and -2) with type 2 diabetes (T2D), adults with T2D previously treated with basal insulin (QWINT-3 and -4), and QWINT-5 in adults with type 1 diabetes. All five trials were designed as multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label, treat-to-target studies to investigate the efficacy and safety of efsitora versus active once-daily basal insulin comparators (insulin glargine U100 or insulin degludec U100). The primary objective of each trial is to compare the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 or 52 between efsitora and the active comparator. The key secondary objectives include change in fasting glucose, insulin dose and continuous glucose monitoring variables, and patient-reported outcome questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The QWINT development programme includes a racially and geographically diverse population to provide important information regarding the efficacy and safety of efsitora and its clinical management of people with diabetes.

The efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes suboptimally controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs: The Soli-D randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) with premixed insulin, insulin degludec plus insulin aspart (IDegAsp), in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) suboptimally controlled with oral antidiabetic drug(s) (OADs). METHODS: In Soli-D, a 24-week, multicentre, open-label, study, insulin-naïve adults were randomized 1:1 to once-daily injections of iGlarLixi (n = 291) or IDegAsp (n = 291), with continued metformin ± sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline to week 24. Key secondary endpoints included superiority in HbA1c change and body weight (BW) change at week 24. Hypoglycaemia rates were also assessed. RESULTS: At week 24, iGlarLixi showed non-inferiority and superiority over IDegAsp in HbA1c reduction (least squares [LS] mean difference: -0.20 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -0.33, -0.07]; P < .001 for non-inferiority; [97.5% CI: -0.35, -0.05]; P = .003 for superiority). iGlarLixi decreased BW and IDegAsp increased BW from baseline to week 24, with a statistically significant LS mean difference of -1.49 kg in favour of iGlarLixi (97.5% CI: -2.32, -0.66; P < .001). Event rates (per person-year) for American Diabetes Association (ADA) Level 1, 2 or 3 hypoglycaemia were lower for iGlarLixi (1.90) versus IDegAsp (2.72) (relative risk: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.98). No ADA Level 3 hypoglycaemia or unexpected safety findings were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In Chinese people with T2D suboptimally controlled with OADs, once-daily iGlarLixi provided better glycaemic control with BW benefit and lower hypoglycaemia event rates versus IDegAsp.

Once-weekly insulin icodec compared with daily basal insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes: Participant-level meta-analysis of the ONWARDS 1-5 trials.

AIM: To perform a participant-level post hoc meta-analysis of Phase 3a trials in type 2 diabetes (T2D) to characterize the hypoglycaemia safety and glycaemic efficacy of once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All ONWARDS 1-5 randomized participants were pooled as overall T2D, insulin-naive, an insulin-experienced subgroups, and by once-daily trial comparator (degludec or glargine U100). The main outcomes included incidence and rates of clinically significant and severe hypoglycaemia. Additional endpoints included change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline and HbA1c target achievement without clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: The meta-analysis comprised 3765 participants (1882 icodec vs. 1883 comparators). In the overall T2D pool, clinically significant hypoglycaemia incidence was similar in the icodec group versus the comparator group (17.9% vs. 16.2%, odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94, 1.38); however, rates were low but significantly higher in the icodec group (1.15 vs. 1.00 episodes/participant-year of exposure, estimated rate ratio 1.51 [95% CI 1.24, 1.85]). Fewer severe hypoglycaemic episodes occurred with icodec than with comparators (8 vs. 18). A greater reduction in HbA1c occurred with icodec versus comparators, irrespective of subgroup (estimated treatment difference range [-0.10 to -0.29%]; all p < 0.05). Across subgroups, except for the insulin-experienced subgroup, the odds of achieving HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (7.0%) without clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia were greater with icodec than with comparators (OR range 1.30-1.55; all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Icodec was associated with a similar incidence but higher rates of clinically significant hypoglycaemia (equating to one additional hypoglycaemic episode every 6 years) and fewer severe hypoglycaemic episodes versus comparators. Our findings also confirmed the greater efficacy of icodec that was demonstrated in the ONWARDS trial programme.

Treatment intensification following glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist in type 2 diabetes: Comparative effectiveness analyses between free vs. fixed combination of GLP-1 RA and basal insulin. RESTORE-G real-world study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Add-on of basal insulin (BI) to intensify the ongoing therapy with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) is recommended, but it is unclear if free or fixed combination of BI and GLP-1 RA produce similar outcomes. A retrospective comparative effectiveness analysis of the add-on of glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) to ongoing GLP-1 RA vs. switch to fixed ratio combination of degludec and liraglutide (iDegLira) was performed. METHODS AND RESULTS: Real-world data collected in electronic medical records by 32 Italian diabetes clinics. Propensity score (PS) adjustment was applied to assess changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG), body weight, and BI dose after 6 months from Gla-300 or iDegLira initiation. Compared to iDegLira group (N = 260), Gla-300+GLP-1 RA group (N = 255) had older age and higher levels of HbA1c (9.1 vs. 8.9%). After 6 months, statistically significant greater FBG improvement [estimated mean difference and 95% confidence intervals: -24.05 mg/dl (-37.04; -11.06; p = 0.0003) and BI dose increase [+0.03 U/kg (95%CI 0.00; 0.06); p = 0.009] were found in the free vs. fixed combination group, although low doses of BI (0.2 U/kg) were reached in both groups. Trends of larger HbA1c and body weight reductions with the free combination were also found, without reaching the statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Although inertia in insulin initiation and titration was documented in both groups, higher benefit on FBG control was obtained with free vs. fixed combination, likely due to a better titration of BI and GLP-1 RA.

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.

Glycaemic outcomes in hospital with IDegAsp versus BIAsp30 premixed insulins.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: IDegAsp (Ryzodeg 70/30), a unique premixed formulation of long-acting insulin degludec and rapid-acting insulin aspart, is increasing in use. Management of IDegAsp during hospitalisation is challenging because of degludec's ultra-long duration of action. We investigated inpatient glycaemia in patients treated with IDegAsp compared to biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp30; Novomix30). METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study at two hospitals assessing inpatients with type 2 diabetes treated with IDegAsp or BIAsp30 prior to and during hospital admission. Standard inpatient glycaemic outcomes were analysed based on capillary blood glucose (BG) measurements. RESULTS: We assessed 88 individuals treated with IDegAsp and 88 HbA1c-matched individuals treated with BIAsp30. Patient characteristics, including insulin dose at admission, were well matched, but the IDegAsp group had less frequent twice-daily insulin dosing than the BIAsp30 group (49% vs 87%, P < 0.001). Patient-days with BG <4 mmol/L were not different (10.6% vs 9.9%, P = 0.7); however, the IDegAsp group had a higher patient-day mean BG (10.4 (SD 3.4) vs 10.0 (3.4) mmol/L, P < 0.001), and more patient-days with mean BG >10 mmol/L (48% vs 38%, P < 0.001) compared to the BIAsp30 group. Glucose was higher in the IDegAsp group in the evening (4 PM to midnight) (11.6 (SD 4.0) vs 10.9 (4.6) mmol/L, P = 0.004), but not different at other times during the day. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatients treated with IDegAsp compared to BIAsp30 had similar hypoglycaemia incidence, but higher hyperglycaemia incidence, potentially related to less frequent twice-daily dosing. With the increasing use of IDegAsp in the community, development of hospital management guidelines for this insulin formulation is needed.

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.

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.

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.

Comparation of fixed-ratio (IDegLira and iGlarLixi) versus free combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the fixed-ratio combination (FRC) and free combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and four Chinese databases were searched for relevant studies from inception to April 13, 2023. Phase III clinical trials involving FRC or free combination in patients with uncontrolled T2DM were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to evaluate the effects of FRC and free combination. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to evaluate the risk-of-bias. The primary outcomes were changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, and incident hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes included changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023409585). RESULTS: Forty-two trials with 23,619 patients were included in the NMA, and treatments were categorized as FRC, free combination and NOINSGLP (neither FRC nor free combination). The forest plots revealed comparable HbA1c control (mean difference (MD) = 0.07%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.17 to -0.30) between free combination and FRC. However, there were significant differences in the body weight (MD = -2.06 kg; 95% CI: -3.34 to -0.77), SBP (MD = -1.22 mmHg; 95% CI: -2.41 to -0.04), and DBP (MD = -1.09 mmHg; 95% CI: -1.94 to -0.24) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with uncontrolled T2DM, the safety and efficacy of FRC and free combination therapy were comparable. The use of FRC is justifiable in patients requiring free combination.

The Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of a Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Degludec and Aspart: A Cost of Control Analysis in Australia and India.

OBJECTIVES: The real-world ARISE study demonstrated initiation of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec and aspart (IDegAsp) led to improvements in people achieving key glycemic control targets compared with prior therapies in Australia and India. This study evaluated the short-term cost-effectiveness of IDegAsp in these countries, in terms of the cost per patient achieving these targets. METHODS: A model was developed to evaluate the cost of control (treatment costs divided by the proportion of patients achieving each target) of IDegAsp versus prior therapies received in ARISE for 2 endpoints: glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0%, and HbA1c less than a predefined individual treatment target. Costs, expressed from a healthcare payer perspective, were captured in 2022 Australian dollars (AUD) and 2022 Indian rupees (INR). RESULTS: The number of patients needed to treat to bring one to endpoints of HbA1c <7.0% and less than an individualized target with IDegAsp was 51% and 87% lower, respectively, than with prior therapies in Australia, and 52% and 66% lower, respectively, versus prior therapies in India. Cost of control was AUD 2449 higher and AUD 64 863 lower with IDegAsp versus prior therapies for endpoints of HbA1c <7.0% and less than an individualized target, respectively, in Australia and INR 211 142 and INR 537 490 lower with IDegAsp compared with prior therapies in India. CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp was estimated to be cost-effective versus prior therapies when considering an individualized HbA1c target in Australia, and when considering an individualized HbA1c target and HbA1c <7.0% in India.

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.

Type 2 diabetes is a complex disease. It causes increased amounts of sugar in the blood, which can cause damage to the body. Medications are given to people with type 2 diabetes to keep their blood sugar at normal levels. Unfortunately, type 2 diabetes worsens over time, so regular adjustments to medications are needed to keep blood sugar levels controlled.Basal insulin, which is a type of insulin that works over the entire day, is a key treatment for type 2 diabetes. It works best if it is started as soon as other medications (tablets or non-insulin injections) are not working to control blood sugar levels. Unfortunately, delays in starting basal insulin are common. Some healthcare professionals and people with type 2 diabetes believe insulin is difficult to use. False information on insulin is common; for example, some people with diabetes believe that their symptoms are caused by insulin treatment rather than high blood sugar.This review summarizes key information to encourage effective conversations between healthcare professionals and people with type 2 diabetes about starting basal insulin. Proactive, positive, early discussion of the benefits of basal insulin can help to: 1) address concerns, 2) set appropriate, individual treatment targets, and 3) provide practical information and training to help with injecting insulin. This will give people living with type 2 diabetes the knowledge and confidence to take an active part in managing their diabetes and overcome any barriers to using basal insulin.

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.

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.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Derived Glucometrics in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes When Switching Basal Insulins.

Context: Limited evidence is available on the real-world effect of insulin degludec (IDeg) in type 1 diabetes (T1D), using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived metrics. Objective: To assess the real-world effect of switching to IDeg from other long-acting insulins on time in ranges (TIRs) measured by CGM, metabolic control, and insulin dose for people with T1D. Design: This retrospective multicenter study encompassed five time points during a 12-month pre-switch of IDeg and a 12-month follow-up period. For each visit, clinical and CGM data were collected to evaluate temporal trends in glycemic outcomes. Participants: Of 753 persons with T1D who were assessed for eligibility, 486 persons were included, mostly men (61.5%), 47.4 (16.9) years old and diabetes duration of 23.8 (14.2) years at IDeg-initiation. Main Outcome Measure: Primary outcome was the evolution of percent TIR (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L, TIR) before versus after switch to IDeg. Results: TIR over 24 h increased at 12 months versus baseline (56.7% vs. 52.3%, P < 0.001), mostly during daytime. Time <54 mg/dL (<3.0 mmol/L) over 24 h decreased at 12 months versus baseline (2.02% vs. 2.86%, P < 0.001), mostly during nighttime. Glycated hemoglobin (7.9% vs. 8.1%, P < 0.001) and coefficient of variation (40.0% vs. 41.5%, P < 0.001) improved at 12 months versus baseline. Mean daily basal, bolus and total insulin doses decreased at 12 months (P < 0.001 for all vs. baseline). Conclusions: This retrospective real-world study reports that switching basal insulin significantly improved time spent in glucometric ranges and glycemic variability in the studied population of people with T1D. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT05434559.

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.