Efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis of the ONWARDS 1, 2 and 4 trials.

AIM: To explore the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec) in Japanese adults (≥20 years old) with type 2 diabetes from the global ONWARDS 1, 2 and 4 trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Insulin-naive (ONWARDS 1) and insulin-experienced (ONWARDS 2 and 4) individuals were randomized to icodec or a once-daily insulin comparator: insulin glargine U100 [ONWARDS 1 (basal insulin only) and 4 (basal-bolus regimen)] or insulin degludec [ONWARDS 2 (basal insulin only)]. The primary outcome was change in glycated haemoglobin from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) (ONWARDS 1: Week 52; ONWARDS 2 and 4: Week 26). Here, we present the Japanese subgroup results. RESULTS: Similar reductions in glycated haemoglobin from baseline to EOT were observed in each trial for icodec and comparators. The proportion of time in range (blood glucose 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) at EOT was also comparable across treatment groups (time in range: 58%-68%), as was time spent with blood glucose below 3.0 mmol/L (<1.0%). Combined clinically significant (blood glucose <3.0 mmol/L) or severe (requiring external assistance for recovery) hypoglycaemia rates were low, with no severe events (ONWARDS 1 and 2) or a single severe event (ONWARDS 4; icodec group) reported. These results generally aligned with findings from the respective global populations. No new safety issues were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Icodec improved glycaemic control to a similar degree as once-daily basal insulin comparators while maintaining low levels of clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia. The findings support icodec use in Japanese individuals with different levels of type 2 diabetes progression.

Perspectives and Preferences of People with Type 2 Diabetes for the Attributes of Weekly Insulin.

INTRODUCTION: Daily insulin administration can be burdensome for people with type 2 diabetes (PwT2D) and can impact treatment adherence. This study investigated preferences for once-weekly, long-acting basal insulin for treatment of PwT2D. METHODS: An online discrete-choice experiment was administered to PwT2D in the USA. Qualitative interviews informed the selection of six attributes: reduction in A1c level after 6 months, amount of time spent in optimal blood sugar range each day, number of serious low blood sugar events, number of nighttime low blood sugar events, change in weight because of the insulin over 6 months, and frequency of administration. Each participant completed eight questions offering a choice between two long-acting insulins; questions varied according to an experimental design. A fixed treatment choice question asked about preferences for daily versus weekly insulin, holding other treatment features constant. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit models, and heterogeneity was explored through subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-six PwT2D completed the survey (mean age, 57; mean A1c, 7.5%; 59.0% female); 33.3% of these were currently on a basal/bolus regimen, 34.3% used basal only, and 32.4% were insulin naive. Respondents placed the most importance on avoiding a 10-pound weight change and equal importance on the largest change in the number of serious and nighttime low blood sugar events per year and achieving the longest time in range included in the choice questions. There was significant heterogeneity in preferences by experience: insulin-naive respondents had stronger preferences for scheduled and flexible weekly insulin over daily insulin; 67.6% preferred flexible weekly over daily insulin, all else being equal. CONCLUSION: PwT2D valued insulin efficacy and reducing treatment-related adverse events, with heterogeneity in the relative importance of administration frequency. All else being equal, respondents preferred weekly over daily basal insulin. These findings provide insights into the preferences of PwT2D considering weekly long-acting insulin.

Continuous Insulin Therapy to Prevent Post-Transplant Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Rationale & Objectives: Hyperglycemia is frequently observed early after transplantation and associated with development of post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM). Here, we assessed continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) targeting afternoon hyperglycemia. Study Design: Open-label randomized parallel 3-arm design. Settings & Participants: In total, 85 kidney transplant recipients without previous diabetes diagnosis were randomized to postoperative CSII therapy, basal insulin, or control. Interventions: Insulin was to be initiated at afternoon capillary blood glucose level of ≥140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L; CSII and basal insulin) or fasting plasma glucose level of ≥200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L; control). Outcomes: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels at 3 months post-transplant (primary endpoint). PTDM assessed using oral glucose tolerance test at 12 and 24 months. Results: CSII therapy lasted until median day 18 and maximum day 88. The median HbA1c value at month 3 was 5.6% (38 mmol/mol) in the CSII group versus 5.7% (39 mmol/mol) in the control group (P = 0.70) and 5.4% (36 mmol/mol) in the basal insulin group (P = 0.02). At months 12 and 24, the odds for PTDM were similar compared with the control group (odds ratios [95% confidence intervals], 0.80 [0.18-3.49] and 0.71 [0.15-3.16], respectively) and the basal insulin group (0.96 [0.18-5.68] and 1.51 [0.24-12.84], respectively). Mild hypoglycemia events occurred in the CSII and the basal insulin groups. Limitations: This study is limited by outdated insulin pump technology, frequent discontinuations of CSII, a complex protocol, and concerns regarding reliability of HbA1c measurements. Conclusions: CSII therapy was not superior at reducing HbA1c levels at month 3 or PTDM prevalence at months 12 and 24 compared with the control or basal insulin group.

Real-world impact of adding a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist compared with basal insulin on metabolic targets in adults living with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease already treated with a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor: The Impact GLP-1 CKD study.

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of adding a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) with adding basal insulin among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) already treated with a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) and not reaching their glycaemic control targets. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Canadian LMC Diabetes Registry was conducted. Adults who initiated a GLP-1 RA were matched 1:1 to adults who initiated basal insulin in a T2D and CKD population. Changes in metabolic outcomes were evaluated at 26-52 weeks following the therapy start date. RESULTS: Propensity score matching was used to match participants who initiated a GLP-1 RA to participants who initiated basal insulin (n = 153/cohort). A significantly greater reduction in HbA1c at 26-52 weeks of follow-up was observed in the GLP-1 RA cohort compared with the basal insulin cohort (-1.3% ± 1.4% vs. -1.1% ± 1.4%, P = .03). Weight was significantly reduced (-3.4 ± 3.7 vs. 2.6 ± 4.5 kg, P < .001), and the estimated glomerular filtration rate decline slowed significantly (-0.3 ± 8.2 vs. -2.4 ± 10.4 mL/min/1.73m2, P = .02), but the change in albuminuria was not significantly different (-5.7 ± 38.1 vs. -0.5 ± 38.3 mg/mmol, P = .47) at follow-up in the GLP-1 RA group compared with the basal insulin group. No differences in self-reported hypoglycaemic events per week and therapy discontinuations were reported between the cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows the real-world effectiveness of GLP-1 RA therapy for T2D and CKD. GLP-1 RAs provided superior reductions in HbA1c and weight, and greater kidney protection, compared with basal insulin among adults with T2D and CKD already treated with an SGLT2i.

Development of a Basal Insulin Titration System to Support Healthcare Providers in Treatment of People with Type 2 Diabetes: Preliminary Results.

The study aims to develop a system for insulin titration in type 2 diabetes to assist primary healthcare providers. Usability testing with end-users is ongoing.

Detailed Insights into Basal Insulin Adherence in People with Type 2 Diabetes Using a Data-Driven Assessment Method.

INTRODUCTION: Basal insulin non-adherence is a challenge in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: Using injection data recorded by a connected insulin pen, we employed a novel three-step methodology to assess three aspects of adherence (overall adherence, adherence distribution, and dose deviation) in individuals with insulin-treated T2D undergoing telemonitoring. RESULTS: Among participants, 52% were considered overall adherent. However, deviations from the recommended dose were observed in all participants, with increased and reduced doses being the predominant forms of non-adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underscores the prevalence of basal insulin dosing irregularities in individuals with insulin-treated T2D undergoing telemonitoring.

ß-cell function and long-term glycemic control in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes with moderate hyperglycemia after a 6-month course of basal insulin therapy.

AIMS: To evaluate whether treatment with insulin is advantageous compared with oral anti-diabetic drugs (OAD) for patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes with moderate hyperglycemia. METHODS: Patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes with moderate hyperglycemia were recruited and randomized to receive insulin, metformin or sitagliptin treatment. The oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed before treatment and 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome was the glycohemoglobin (HbA1c) level change. For the secondary efficacy analysis, the ß-cell function and insulin sensitivity were calculated from the OGTT, as was the proportion of subjects who reached the treatment target (HbA1c level < 7.0 % or < 6.5 %) at 6 months. RESULTS: We randomized 50 patients to the three groups and 32 patients who received the allocated treatment were analyzed. The change of HbA1c level in the insulin, metformin, and sitagliptin groups was - 2.06 ± 1.37 %, -0.43 ± 0.32 %, and - 1.62 ± 0.92 %, respectively. This change was smallest in the metformin group. There was no significant difference in the changes or final HbA1c levels between the insulin and sitagliptin groups. The treat-to-target (HbA1c level < 7.0 %) rates in the insulin, metformin and sitagliptin were 75 %, 50 % and 100 %, respectively. The treat-to-target rates were not significantly different among the three groups. The insulin secretion indices, including the Matsuda index and HOMA-IR, indicated that the groups did not differ after 6 months of therapy. CONCLUSION: A 6-month course of basal insulin therapy did not benefit patients newly diagnosed with diabetes with moderate hyperglycemia in terms of insulin sensitivity or insulin secretion.

Exploring a Synergistic Approach: Dual GLP-1 Agonist Combined with Degludec Basal Insulin for Early Type 1 Diabetes Treatment and its Impact on Albumin-Insulin Producing Cells Expression.

Purpose: This manuscript explores the potential of dual glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists combined with degludec basal insulin as a treatment approach for early type 1 diabetes. The study aims to evaluate the efficacy and mechanistic impact of semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist, on newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted to assess the effects of semaglutide on individuals with early type 1 diabetes. The analysis focused on the elimination of prandial and basal insulin, changes in C-peptide levels, and overall glycemic control. The study also examined the potential for GLP-1 agonists to protect residual beta cells, stimulate cell proliferation, and reprogram liver cells into insulin-producing cells. Additionally, the modification of GLP-1 agonists with albumin ligands to extend their half-life and enhance their anti-diabetic effects was investigated. Results: The findings demonstrate the elimination of both prandial and basal insulin requirements, an increase in C-peptide levels, and improved glycemic control among the patients. Despite the positive outcomes, the study's retrospective nature and absence of a control group highlight the necessity for larger, prospective trials. Conclusion: GLP-1 agonists show considerable potential in the management of type 1 diabetes by protecting residual beta cells, promoting cell proliferation, and reprogramming hepatic cells. The integration of modified GLP-1 agonists with albumin ligands could further enhance these effects. The manuscript underscores the need for continued research to fully explore this therapeutic approach. The proposed treatment strategy, which combines the autoimmune hypothesis, the proliferative effects of GLP-1, and albumin ligand modifications, aims to restore beta cell mass and function, thereby improving the quality of life for individuals with type 1 diabetes. Clinical trials are planned for 2024 under the registration (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT06057077).

Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec in Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials (ONWARDS Clinical Program).

BACKGROUND: One hundred years have passed since the discovery of insulin, which is one of the most relevant events of the 20th century. This period resulted in extraordinary progress in the development of novel molecules to improve glucose control, simplify the insulin regimen, and ameliorate the quality of life. In late March 2024, the first once-weekly basal analog Icodec was approved for diabetes mellitus, generating high expectations. Our aim was to systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy and safety of Icodec compared to once-daily insulin analogs in type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Studies were included for the synthesis according to the following prespecified inclusion criteria: uncontrolled T1D or T2D, age ≥ 18 years, insulin Icodec vs. active comparators (Degludec U100, Glargine U100, Glargine U300, and Detemir), phase 3, multicenter, double-blind or open-label RCTs, and a study duration ≥ 24 weeks. RESULTS: The systematic review included 4347 patients with T1D and T2D inadequately controlled (2172 randomized to Icodec vs. 2175 randomized to once-daily basal analogs). Icodec, compared to once-daily basal analogs, slightly reduced the levels of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.14% [95%CI -0.25; -0.03], p = 0.01, and I2 68%. Patients randomized to Icodec compared to those on once-daily basal analogs had a greater probability to achieve HbA1c < 7% without clinically relevant or severe hypoglycemic events in 12 weeks from randomization with an estimated risk ratio (ERR) of 1.17, [95%CI 1.01, 1.36], p = 0.03, and I2 66%. We did not find a difference in fasting glucose levels, time in range, and time above range between Icodec and comparators. Icodec, compared to once-daily basal analogs, resulted in a slight but statistically significant weight gain of 0.62 kg [95%CI 0.25; 0.99], p = 0.001, and I2 25%. The frequency of hypoglycemic events (ERR 1.16 [95%CI 0.95; 1.41]), adverse events (ERR 1.04 [95%CI 1.00; 1.08]), injection-site reactions (ERR 1.08 [95%CI 0.62; 1.90]), and the discontinuation of treatments were similar between the two groups. Icodec was found to work better when used in a basal-only than basal-bolus regimen with an ETD in HbA1c of -0.22%, a probability of achieving glucose control of +33%, a probability of achieving glucose control without clinically relevant or severe hypoglycemia of +28%, more time spent in target (+4.55%) and less time spent in hyperglycemia (-5.14%). The risk of clinically relevant or severe hypoglycemic events was significantly higher when background glinides and sulfonylureas were added to basal analogs (ERR 1.42 [95%CI 1.05; 1.93]). CONCLUSION: Insulin Icodec is substantially non-inferior to once-daily insulin analogs in T2D, either insulin-naïve or insulin-treated. However, Icodec works slightly better than competitors when used in a basal-only rather than basal-bolus regimen. Weight gain and hypoglycemic risk are substantially low but not negligible. Patients' education, adequate lifestyle and pharmacological interventions, and appropriate therapy adjustments are essential to minimize risks. This systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42024568680.

Refining Insulin on Board with netIOB for Automated Insulin Delivery.

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems enhance glucose management by lowering mean glucose level, reducing hyperglycemia, and minimizing hypoglycemia. One feature of most AID systems is that they allow the user to view "insulin on board" (IOB) to help confirm a recent bolus and limit insulin stacking. This metric, along with viewing glucose concentrations from a continuous glucose monitoring system, helps the user understand bolus insulin action and the future "threat" of hypoglycemia. However, the current presentation of IOB in AID systems can be misleading, as it does not reflect true insulin action or automatic, dynamic insulin adjustments. This commentary examines the evolution of IOB from a bolus-specific metric to its contemporary use in AID systems, highlighting its limitations in capturing real-time insulin modulation during varying physiological states.

Patient-important outcomes in type 2 diabetes: The paradigm of the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

The newfound knowledge in type 2 diabetes (T2D) during the past decade for the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) is wealthy in favorable results for key patient-important outcomes including morbidity, mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA offer cardiovascular and renal protection beyond their glucose lowering effect, reduce body weight and hypoglycemia and improve diabetes-related distress, physical function and HRQoL. Along with the fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin/GLP-1RA, they make feasible a regimen simplification and de-escalation from high dose and multiple injections of insulin reducing treatment burden. Besides cardiorenal risk reduction, the SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA reduce the incidence of depression, cognitive decline, respiratory disease, gout, arrhythmias and other co-occurring conditions of T2D, namely multimorbidity, which frequently complicates T2D and adversely affects HRQoL. The alleviation of multimorbidity by the pleiotropic effects of the SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA, could improve patients' HRQoL. The use of the SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA should be increased within a shared decision-making in which they are reframed as cardiorenal risk-reducing medications with the potential to lower blood glucose. By improving outcomes that patients may highly perceive and value, the SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA may facilitate the contemporary person-centered management of T2D.

Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL in people with type 2 diabetes in China: The INITIATION study.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) in China. METHODS: INITIATION (NCT05002933) was a prospective, interventional, multicentre, single-arm, phase IV study conducted in China. Individuals with suboptimally controlled T2D who were insulin naïve or switching from another basal insulin (insulin experienced) were included. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24. Safety assessments included hypoglycaemia and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: In total, 568 participants were enrolled and 562 initiated Gla-300 treatment (189 in the insulin-naïve subgroup; 373 in the insulin-experienced subgroup). At week 24, the mean ± standard error (SE) change in HbA1c from baseline was -0.91% ± 0.05% (-9.9 ± 0.5 mmol/mol; P < .0001). Significant HbA1c reductions were also observed in the insulin-naïve (mean ± SE change: -1.38% ± 0.09% [-15.1 ± 1.0 mmol/mol]) and insulin-experienced (-0.68% ± 0.05% [-7.4 ± 0.5 mmol/mol]) subgroups (both P < .0001). During the 24-week treatment period, the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose ≤ 3.9 mmol/L) was 39.7% for all hypoglycaemia and 13.3% for nocturnal hypoglycaemia; the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia was low (0.5%). Overall, treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were reported in 126 participants (22.4%), with no serious treatment-related TEAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Gla-300 was effective in improving glycaemic control and had a relatively low risk of hypoglycaemia in people with suboptimally controlled T2D who were insulin naïve or switching from another basal insulin in China.

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.

Tirzepatide Improved Health-Related Quality of Life Compared with Insulin Lispro in Basal Insulin-Treated Adults with Type 2 Diabetes and Inadequate Glycaemic Control: A Randomised Controlled Phase 3b Trial (SURPASS-6).

INTRODUCTION: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who require intensification of basal insulin therapy need treatment options that can improve their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and translate into better outcomes. These analyses compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with T2D receiving tirzepatide or insulin lispro. METHODS: The randomised, open-label, multinational, phase 3b SURPASS-6 trial (NCT04537923) was conducted at 135 medical research centres and hospitals in 15 countries and compared two recommended treatment intensification strategies in people with T2D and inadequate glycaemic control on basal insulin: addition of once-weekly tirzepatide versus addition of prandial insulin lispro. Randomisation was stratified by country, baseline glycated haemoglobin level and metformin use. PROs were measured using the Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) acute form (secondary outcome), EQ-5D-5L, Ability to Perform Physical Activities of Daily Living (APPADL) questionnaire and Impact of Weight on Self-Perceptions (IW-SP) questionnaire (tertiary/exploratory outcomes). PROs were compared for the tirzepatide-pooled dose group (5, 10 and 15 mg) and each tirzepatide dose group versus insulin lispro at 52 weeks using the modified intention-to-treat efficacy analysis set. RESULTS: Between 19 October 2020 and 01 November 2022, 2267 people were assessed and 1428 participants with T2D were randomised. At 52 weeks, participants in the tirzepatide-pooled group had statistically significant improved scores across all SF-36v2 domains and both component summary scores compared with insulin lispro-treated participants (p < 0.05), with the largest differences observed in the general health, vitality and mental health domains. Statistically significant improved APPADL and IW-SP total scores, as well as EQ visual analogue scale and EQ-5D-5L index scores (after adjustment for baseline scores), were observed in tirzepatide-pooled participants compared with insulin lispro-treated participants. CONCLUSIONS: In adult patients with T2D and inadequate glycaemic control with basal insulin, tirzepatide treatment was associated with greater improvements in HRQoL than prandial insulin therapy in addition to clinically significant improvements in glycaemic and body weight-related parameters.

Basal insulin, which controls blood sugar at times when not eating but when the body still needs energy, may not provide sufficient glycaemic control for some people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). These people require additional therapy to improve their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and achieve better outcomes. This phase 3 study (SURPASS-6) compared patient-reported outcomes, including HRQoL, between people with T2D on basal insulin receiving additional therapy with tirzepatide or insulin lispro (a fast-acting insulin analogue mealtime injection). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using several validated measures ­ the Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) acute form (a measure of HRQoL), the EQ-5D-5L (a measure of overall health status), the Ability to Perform Physical Activities of Daily Living (APPADL) questionnaire and the Impact of Weight on Self-Perceptions (IW-SP) questionnaire. The results in the two treatment groups were compared at the end of the treatment period (52 weeks). At 52 weeks, participants in the tirzepatide group had statistically significant improved scores across all HRQoL aspects measured by the SF-36v2 compared with participants in the insulin lispro group, with the largest differences observed in general health, vitality and bodily pain. Statistically significant improved EQ-5D-5L, APPADL and IW-SP scores were also observed in participants in the tirzepatide group compared with the insulin lispro group. In adults with T2D who require therapy in addition to basal insulin, tirzepatide treatment was associated with greater improvements in HRQoL than mealtime insulin therapy, as well as clinically significant improvements in blood sugar and body weight control.

Nocturnal Glucose Profile According to Timing of Dinner Rapid Insulin and Basal and Rapid Insulin Type: An Insulclock® Connected Insulin Cap-Based Real-World Study.

BACKGROUND: A study to assess the glucose levels of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) overnight, based on the insulin type and timing. METHODS: A real-world, retrospective study of T1D, using multiple daily insulin injections. Continuous glucose monitoring and insulin injection data were collected for ten hours after dinner using the Insulclock® connected cap. Meal events were identified using the ROC detection methodology. The timing of the rapid insulin, second injections, and the type of insulin analogs used, were evaluated. RESULTS: The nocturnal profiles (n = 775, 49 subjects) were analyzed. A higher glucose AUC of over 180 mg/dL was observed in subjects with delayed injections (number; %; mg/dL × h): -45-15 min (n = 136; 17.5%, 175.9 ± 271.0); -15-0 min (n = 231; 29.8%, 164.0 ± 2 37.1); 0 + 45 min (n = 408; 52.6%, 203.6 ± 260.9), (p = 0.049). The use of ultrarapid insulin (FiAsp®) (URI) vs. rapid insulin (RI) analogs was associated with less hypoglycemia events (7.1 vs. 13.6%; p = 0.005) and TBR70 (1.7 ± 6.9 vs. 4.6 ± 13.9%; p = 0.003). Users of glargine U300 vs. degludec had a higher TIR (70.7 vs. 58.5%) (adjusted R-squared: 0.22, p < 0.001). The use of a correction injection (n = 144, 18.6%) was associated with a higher number of hypoglycemia events (18.1 vs. 9.5%; p = 0.003), TBR70 (5.5 ± 14.2 vs. 3.0 ± 11.1%; p = 0.003), a glucose AUC of over 180 mg/dL (226.1 ± 257.8 vs. 178.0 ± 255.3 mg/dL × h; p = 0.001), and a lower TIR (56.0 ± 27.4 vs. 62.7 ± 29.6 mg/dL × h; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The dinner rapid insulin timing, insulin type, and the use of correction injections affect the nocturnal glucose profile in T1D.

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.

Understanding the Pharmacokinetics and Glucodynamics of Once Weekly Basal Insulins to Inform Dosing Principles: An Introduction to Clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: A new generation of basal insulin analogs enabling once-weekly administration is currently under development. Weekly basal insulins have the potential to overcome limitations exhibited by current daily basal insulins. The pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic characteristics differ significantly between weekly and daily basal insulins and will require paradigm shifts in how basal insulins are dosed. METHODS: An overview of pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic principles of basal insulins is presented. Specifically, the pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic properties of daily basal insulins and how these differ for the new weekly basal insulins are discussed. Finally, models and simulations are used to describe the impact of weekly insulin properties on dosing. RESULTS: Two approaches have been used to extend the half-lives of these insulins, creating fusion proteins with reduced clearance and reduced receptor-mediated degradation of the insulin. The resulting prolonged exposure-response profiles affect dosing and the impact of dosing errors. Specifically, the impact of loading doses, missed doses, and double doses, and the effect on glycemic variability of a once weekly basal insulin option are demonstrated using pharmacokinetic/glucodynamic models and simulations. CONCLUSIONS: The transition from daily to weekly basal insulin dosing requires an understanding of the implications of the prolonged exposure-response profiles to effectively and confidently incorporate these weekly basal insulins into clinical practice. By reviewing the application of pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic principles to daily basal insulin analogs, the differences with weekly basal insulins, and the impact of these properties on dosing, this review intends to explain the principles behind weekly basal insulin dosing.

Responses to Basal Insulin Glargine (300 U/mL and 100 U/mL) with or Without Pre-prandial Insulin in Pre-treated Subphenotypes of Type 2 Diabetes: Insights from a Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate glycemic outcomes in subphenotypes of type 2 diabetes (T2D) with HbA1c > 7.0%, previously on basal insulin (pre-BI) alone (≥ 42 U/day) or on basal-bolus therapy (pre-BB), and who were switched to either basal insulin glargine 300 U/mL (IGlar-300) or 100 U/mL (IGlar-100), with or without pre-prandial insulin. METHODS: Participants from EDITION 2 (pre-BI, n = 785), and EDITION 1 (pre-BB, n = 792) trials were assigned retrospectively to subphenotypes of T2D: severe insulin deficient diabetes (SIDD), mild age-related diabetes (MARD), mild obesity diabetes (MOD), and severe insulin resistant diabetes (SIRD). Key efficacy and safety parameters were analyzed at baseline, and after 26 weeks, for IGlar-300 and IGlar-100 pooled groups according to subphenotypes. Outcomes were also compared with insulin-naïve subphenotypes on oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OADs) from the EDITION 3 trial (pre-OAD, n = 858). RESULTS: Pre-BI and pre-BB treated subphenotypes with SIDD had a higher mean HbA1c (8.9% and 9.1%) at baseline compared to those of MARD (7.7% and 7.8%) and MOD (8.1% and 8.2%) and after 26 weeks remained above target HbA1c (7.7% and 8.0%) despite mean glargine doses of 0.7 to 1.0 U/kg/day and pre-prandial insulin use in the pre-BB SIDD subgroup. Pre-BB treated individuals with MARD and MOD achieved lower HbA1c levels (6.9% and 7.2%) than the pre-BI groups (7.3% and 7.5%) despite similar mean FPG levels (123-130 mg/dL). Only 19-22% of participants with SIDD achieved HbA1c < 7.0% compared to 33-51% with MARD and MOD, respectively. Pre-BI and pre-BB treated subphenotypes experienced more hypoglycemia than pre-OAD treated subphenotypes. CONCLUSION: Individuals with T2D assigned post hoc to the SIDD subphenotype achieved suboptimal glycemic control with glargine regimens including basal-bolus therapy, alerting clinicians to improve further diabetes treatment, particularly post-prandial glycemic control, in individuals with SIDD.

Frequency and Severity of Hypoglycemia Under Conditions of Increased Hypoglycemic Risk with Insulin Efsitora Alfa Versus Insulin Glargine Treatment in Participants with Type 2 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a basal insulin with a flat pharmacokinetic profile and long half-life, enabling weekly dosing. These attributes may provide stable glucose levels. This exploratory phase 1 study aimed to assess the hypoglycemic risk during experimental conditions that mimic situations encountered in daily life. METHODS: This was a single-site, open-label, two-period, fixed-sequence study in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) previously treated with basal insulin. The incidence, duration, and nadir glucose of hypoglycemia were assessed after treatment with efsitora versus insulin glargine (glargine) during three provocation conditions: 24-h prolonged fasting, prolonged fasting with exercise, and double dosing of study insulin. RESULTS: The 54 enrolled adults (BMI 21.8-39.7 kg/m2, HbA1c 6.5-9.4%) achieved stable fasting glucose before undergoing provocation. Most hypoglycemic events were level 1 (≥ 54 to < 70 mg/dL) and resolved spontaneously or after oral glucose. The incidences of level 1 hypoglycemia for efsitora and glargine were not significantly different: for prolonged fasting, the incidences were 44.7 vs. 42.6% and the difference in proportion was 2.1% (95% CI: - 17.2, 21.4); for prolonged fasting with exercise, the corresponding values were 65.9 vs. 50.0% and 15.9% (- 3.0, 34.8); for double dosing, the corresponding values were 68.1 vs. 61.7% and 6.4% (- 12.8, 25.6). Level 2 hypoglycemia (< 54 mg/dL) was infrequent during both treatments and all provocations. No severe hypoglycemia was observed. Mean nadir glucose (range 62.8-66.3 mg/dL) and hypoglycemia duration (range 76.6-115.2 min) were also similar for the two treatments, depending on the provocation. CONCLUSION: Overall, weekly efsitora did not increase the incidence, duration, or severity of hypoglycemia compared to daily glargine during provocation periods in patients with T2D. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04957914.