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.

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 ±â€¯1.37 %, -0.43 ±â€¯0.32 %, and - 1.62 ±â€¯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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cost-utility analysis of a flash continuous glucose monitoring system in the management of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on basal insulin therapy-An Italian healthcare system perspective.

AIMS: To assess the cost-utility of the FreeStyle Libre flash continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system from an Italian healthcare system perspective, when compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving basal insulin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A patient-level microsimulation model was run using Microsoft Excel for 10 000 patients over a lifetime horizon, with 3.0% discounting for costs and utilities. Inputs were based on clinical trials and real-world evidence, with patient characteristics reflecting Italian population data. The effect of flash CGM was modelled as a persistent 0.8% reduction in glycated haemoglobin versus SMBG. Costs (€ 2023) and disutilities were applied to glucose monitoring, diabetes complications, severe hypoglycaemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis. The health outcome was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Direct costs were €5338 higher with flash CGM than with SMBG. Flash CGM was associated with 0.51 more QALYs than SMBG, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €10 556/QALY. Scenario analysis ICERs ranged from €3825/QALY to €26 737/QALY. In probabilistic analysis, flash CGM was 100% likely to be cost effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds > €20 000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: From an Italian healthcare system perspective, flash CGM is cost effective compared with SMBG for people living with T2DM on basal insulin.

De-Intensification from Basal-Bolus Insulin Therapy to Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes: Predictive Value of Mean Glycaemia during Fasting Test.

BACKGROUND: Successful conversion from insulin therapy to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) with basal insulin in well-controlled patients has already been demonstrated. However, the data concerning individuals with poor glycaemic control are scarce. The aim of this work was to assess the success rate of insulin therapy to liraglutide transition in poorly controlled diabetes in a real-world clinical setting and to define predictors of success. We are the first to present the method of a fasting test as a way to identify the patients at higher risk of failure after treatment de-intensification. METHODS: The retrospective observational study analyzed data of 62 poorly controlled obese diabetic patients on high-dose insulin therapy, who were subjected to a 72 h fasting test during hospitalization and subsequently switched to liraglutide ± basal insulin therapy. During the fasting, all antidiabetic treatment was discontinued. Patients were classified as responders if they remained on GLP-1RA treatment after 12 months. Non-responders restarted the basal-bolus insulin (BBI) regimen. Development of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight in both groups, alongside with parameters associated with the higher risk of return to the BBI regimen, were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 71% of patients were switched successfully (=responders). Responders had more significant improvement in HbA1c (-6.4 ± 19.7 vs. -3.4 ± 22.9 mmol/mol) and weight loss (-4.6 ± 7.1 vs. -2.5 ± 4.0). Statistically significant difference between groups was found in initial HbA1c (75.6 ± 17.9 vs. 90.5 ± 23.6; p = 0.04), total daily dose of insulin (67.6 ± 36.4 vs. 90.8 ± 32.4; p = 0.02), and mean glycaemia during the fasting test (6.9 ± 1.7 vs. 8.6 ± 2.2 mmol/L; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that therapy de-intensification in poorly controlled patients with a BBI regimen is possible. Higher baseline HbA1c, total daily insulin dose, and mean glucose during fasting test are negative predictive factors of successful therapy de-escalation.

Open questions on basal insulin therapy in T2D: a Delphi consensus.

AIMS: The revolution in the therapeutic approach to type 2 diabetes (T2D) requires a rethinking of the positioning of basal insulin (BI) therapy. Given the considerable number of open questions, a group of experts was convened with the aim of providing, through a Delphi consensus method, practical guidance for doctors. METHODS: A group of 6 experts developed a series of 29 statements on: the role of metabolic control in light of the most recent guidelines; BI intensification strategies: (1) add-on versus switch; (2) inertia in starting and titrating; (3) free versus fixed ratio combination; basal-bolus intensification and de-intensification strategies; second generation analogues of BI (2BI). A panel of 31 diabetologists, by accessing a dedicated website, assigned each statement a relevance score on a 9-point scale. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was adopted to assess the existence of disagreement among participants. RESULTS: Panelists showed agreement for all 29 statements, of which 26 were considered relevant, one was considered not relevant and two were of uncertain relevance. Panelists agreed that the availability of new classes of drugs often allows the postponement of BI and the simplification of therapy. It remains essential to promptly initiate and titrate BI when required. BI should always, unless contraindicated, be started in addition to, and not as a replacement, for ongoing treatments with cardiorenal benefits. 2BIs should be preferred for their pharmacological profile, greater ease of self-titration and flexibility of administration. CONCLUSION: In a continuously evolving scenario, BI therapy still represents an important option in the management of T2D patients.

Counseling for Insulin Icodec: A Proposed Practitioner's Guide.

Despite insulin being a lifesaving medication, insulin distress, insulin hesitancy, and insulin inertia remain oft-repeated themes in diabetes discourse. The current model lists three issues: temperament, troublesomeness, and technicality, which contribute to insulin perceptions. Therapeutic patienteducation (TPE), value-added therapy (VAT), and medication counseling are concepts that assist in optimizing insulin perceptions. Insulin icodec is a basal insulin with a half-life of 196 h and a once-weekly or circaseptan frequency of administration. Insulin icodec reduces the frequency of basal insulin administration to one-seventh, which along with the lower requirement of glucose monitoring, reduces the burden of plastic and ancillary supply disposal. Because of its unique frequency of injection, insulin icodec usage requires appropriate counseling and education. This reader-friendly counseling guide helps practitioners offer VAT, as well as TPE while prescribing icodec and other insulins.

Insulin icodec is a newly developed basal insulin that is injected once a week. Specific counseling is required in order to optimize the use of this insulin. We share a 3T model­temperament [of the person], troublesomeness [of the insulin], and technicality [of injection], that influence insulin perceptions. We then use this model to highlight the information that must accompany an insulin icodec prescription, like "value-added therapy". We suggest that as it suits a wide variety of persons living with diabetes, and as its use requires minimal troubleshooting and technical know-how, icodec can be termed a person-friendly insulin. Icodec also reduces the burden of plastic generation and disposal.

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.

Basal Insulin Initiation in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using Administrative Health Data in Alberta, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: Pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) follows a stepwise approach. Typically, metformin monotherapy is first-line treatment, followed by other noninsulin antihyperglycemic agents (NIAHAs) or progression to insulin if glycated hemoglobin (A1C) targets are not achieved. We aimed to describe real-world patterns of basal insulin initiation in people with T2DM and A1C not at target despite treatment with at least 2 NIAHAs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative health data from Alberta, Canada, among adults with T2DM, indexed on the first test with 7.0% < A1C < 9.5% (April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2019), with at least 2 previous NIAHAs but no insulin. Kaplan-Meier (KM) methodology was used to analyze time to basal insulin initiation, with stratification by index A1C. Annual patient status was categorized into 5 groups: basal insulin initiation, death, NIAHA intensification, no change in therapy (subgroups of A1C <7.1% and A1C ≥7.1% [clinical inertia]), or discontinuance. RESULTS: The cohort included 14,083 individuals. The KM cumulative probability of initiating basal insulin was 7.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.3% to 8.2%) at 1 year, increasing to 43.1% (95% CI 42.1% to 44.1%) at 8 years of follow-up. Higher A1C levels were associated with greater proportions of basal insulin initiation. By year 8, proportions with NIAHA intensification and clinical inertia were 12.1% and 19.3%, respectively, relative to year 7. CONCLUSIONS: Despite current clinical practice guidelines recommending achieving A1C targets within 6 months, less than half of the individuals with T2DM and clear indications for basal insulin initiated treatment within 8 years. Efforts to reduce delays in basal insulin initiation are needed.

Smart Algorithms for Efficient Insulin Therapy Initiation in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes: An in Silico Study.

BACKGROUND: Insulin-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) start basal insulin titration from a low initial insulin dose (IID), which is adjusted weekly or twice per week based on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) measurement as recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA). The procedure to reach the optimal insulin dose (OID) is time-consuming, especially in subjects with high insulin needs (HIN). The aim of this study is to provide a fast and effective, but still safe, insulin titration algorithm in insulin-naive T2D subjects with HIN. METHOD: To do that, we in silico cloned 300 subjects, matching a real population of insulin-naive T2D and used a logistic regression model to classify them as subjects with HIN or subjects with low insulin needs (LIN). Then, we applied to the subjects with HIN both a more aggressive insulin dose initiation (SMART-IID) and two newly developed titration algorithms (continuous glucose monitoring [CGM]-BASED and SMART-CGM-BASED) in which CGM was used to guide the decision-making process. RESULTS: The new titration algorithm applied to HIN-classified individuals guaranteed a faster reaching of OID, with significant improvements in time in range (TIR) and reduction in time above range (TAR) in the first months of the trial, without any clinically significant increase in the risk of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Smart basal insulin titration algorithms enable insulin-naive T2D individuals to achieve OID and improve their glycemic control faster than standard guidelines, without jeopardizing patient safety.

Efficacy and safety of basal insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Aim: The comparative effectiveness of basal insulins has been examined in several studies. However, current treatment algorithms provide a list of options with no clear differentiation between different basal insulins as the optimal choice for initiation. Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI, and Scopus, and a reference list of retrieved studies and reviews were performed up to November 2023. We identified phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens. The primary outcomes evaluated were HbA1c reduction, weight change, and hypoglycemic events. The revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals considering the critical assumptions in the networks. The certainty of the evidence and confidence in the rankings was assessed using the GRADE minimally contextualized approach. Results: Of 20,817 retrieved studies, 44 RCTs (23,699 participants) were eligible for inclusion in our network meta-analysis. We found no significant difference among various basal insulins (including Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH), ILPS, insulin glargine, detemir, and degludec) in reducing HbA1c. Insulin glargine, 300 U/mL (IGlar-300) was significantly associated with less weight gain (mean difference ranged from 2.9 kg to 4.1 kg) compared to other basal insulins, namely thrice-weekly insulin degludec (IDeg-3TW), insulin degludec, 100 U/mL (IDeg-100), insulin degludec, 200 U/mL (IDeg-200), NPH, and insulin detemir (IDet), but with low to very low certainty regarding most comparisons. IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 were associated with significantly lower odds of overall, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemic events than NPH and insulin lispro protamine (ILPS) (moderate to high certainty evidence). NPH was associated with the highest odds of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to others. Network meta-analysis models were robust, and findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: The efficacy of various basal insulin regimens is comparable. However, they have different safety profiles. IGlar-300 may be the best choice when weight gain is a concern. In contrast, IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 may be preferred when hypoglycemia is the primary concern.