Efficacy and safety of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) were extensively investigated by the global DUAL trials. However, the evidence on its efficacy and safety in T2DM has not been systematically reviewed. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials published in English that compared IDegLira with placebo or GLP-1 agonists or insulin in patients with T2DM were selected up to December 2022. Data on the study characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted. We compared the efficacy and safety between "IDegLira versus Insulin," "IDegLira versus GLP-1RA," and "IDegLira versus Placebo". The risk of potential bias was assessed. RESULTS: In terms of glycaemic efficacy, IDegLira reduced levels of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; weighted mean differences (WMDs) 0.52%, 95% CI 0.33%-0.71%); fasting blood glucose (0.32 mg/dL, 0.14-0.50 mg/dL), and the nine-point self-measured plasma glucose (0.25 mmol/L, 0.25-0.36 mmol/L). Furthermore, IDegLira was generally better in the attainment of HbA1c < 7.0% or ≤6.5%, HbA1c < 7.0% or ≤6.5% without weight gain and/or without severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes. In non-glycaemic efficacy aspects, IDegLira decreased systolic blood pressure but elevated heart rate. In terms of safety outcomes, IDegLira did not appear to be associated with a risk of hypoglycaemia (RR 1.23, 0.85-1.78) and nocturnal hypoglycaemia (0.89, 0.52-1.52) occurring when compared with other hypoglycaemic agents or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira improves better glycaemic and non-glycaemic outcomes without weight gain and/or without severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes in T2DM. Side effects of IDegLira are mild.

The change in Fibrosis-4 index in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes treated by a fixed-ratio combination therapy of insulin degludec and liraglutide: A retrospective observational study.

AIM: The efficacy of titratable fixed-ratio combination therapy by a combination preparation of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes, focusing particularly on the change in Fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), a noninvasive method for the evaluation of liver fibrosis, was investigated. METHODS: As the full analysis set, 113 patients were treated with IDegLira. The patients were categorized into two groups according to the absence (GLP-1RA-naïve group, n = 72) or presence (GLP-1RA-treated group, n = 41) of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) use before starting IDegLira. The clinical parameters were retrospectively determined over 6 months. RESULTS: The glycated hemoglobin value was significantly reduced in both groups. The bodyweight significantly decreased from 67.4 ± 11.0 kg at baseline to 66.4 ± 11.6 kg at 6 months in the GLP-1RA-naïve group, although it slightly increased in the GLP-1RA-treated group. FIB-4 significantly decreased from 1.60 ± 0.84 at baseline to 1.49 ± 0.74 at 6 months in the GLP-1RA-naïve group. Although FIB-4 significantly increased in the GLP-1RA-treated group, it remained within the low-risk level for liver fibrosis. CONCLUSION: Fixed-ratio combination therapy using IDegLira for the treatment of type 2 diabetes is useful for glycemic control and weight management. In particular, IDegLira may be more effective for lowering FIB-4 than adding unused oral antidiabetic agents or increasing the dose of insulin in GLP-1RA-naïve patients.

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.

Transitioning from basal-bolus or premix insulin therapy to a combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist in people with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Two fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) are available for once-daily use in adults with type 2 diabetes. We aimed to review the clinical evidence for the efficacy and safety of changing treatment from a basal-bolus insulin (BBI) regimen or a premix insulin to these combination treatments (fixed-ratio or loose) and provide expert opinion on the practicalities of making such a change. METHODS: Relevant clinical and trial evidence and general review articles were identified through a literature review of ProQuest (comprising BIOSIS Previews®, Current Contents® Search, Embase® and MEDLINE®) for articles published between 2009 and 2021. RESULTS: We identified nine articles reporting the results of FRCs, and seven articles reporting results of loose combinations of basal insulin and GLP-1RAs, in people who transitioned treatment from BBI or premix regimens. In most trials, combination treatment led to improved or equivalent glycaemic control, and a reduction in body weight or BMI, versus the original regimens. Some trials reported a reduction in total insulin dose. A few trials reported reduced or unchanged hypoglycaemia rates, or increased patient satisfaction, with combination therapy where these endpoints were examined. We provide guidance on transitioning of treatment and the patient types most likely to benefit. CONCLUSIONS: In people not achieving glycaemic control with BBI or premix insulin regimens, an FRC or loose combination of basal insulin and GLP-1RA may improve control, decrease the risk of body weight gain or hypoglycaemia and reduce the complexity of treatment.

Evaluating the long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) for type 2 diabetes in Spain based on real-world clinical evidence.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus comparator regimens for type 2 diabetes in Spain, based on real-world evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical data were taken from the European Xultophy Treatment Retrospective Audit (EXTRA) real-world evidence study in which patients failing to meet glycaemic targets were switched to IDegLira. Baseline regimens (prior to IDegLira treatment) were categorized as: multiple daily insulin injections (MDI; 28%); glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in combination with insulin (24%); basal insulin (19%); GLP-1 receptor agonists (10%); and non-injectable medications (19%). The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to project long-term outcomes for patients switching to IDegLira or continuing their baseline regimens (excluding non-injectable regimens). Costs were accounted from a Spanish National Health System perspective. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: IDegLira was projected to reduce the incidence of diabetes-related complications and improve quality-adjusted life expectancy versus all four comparators. IDegLira reduced direct medical costs versus GLP-1 receptor agonists in combination with insulin, and versus GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy, and was therefore considered dominant (cost saving while improving outcomes). IDegLira was found to be cost-effective versus MDI and basal insulin with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR 3013 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and EUR 6890 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term projections based on real-world evidence indicated that IDegLira is likely to improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs or be cost-effective compared with other injectable regimens in people with type 2 diabetes in Spain.

Insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) was effective across a range of dysglycaemia and body mass index categories in the DUAL V randomized trial.

This study assessed the efficacy of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) vs insulin glargine U100 (IGlar) across categories of baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; ≤7.5%, >7.5% to ≤8.5% and >8.5%), body mass index (BMI; <30, ≥30 to <35 and ≥35 kg/m2 ) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG; <7.2 and ≥7.2 mmol/L) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on basal insulin, using post hoc analyses of the DUAL V 26-week trial. With IDegLira, mean HbA1c was reduced across all baseline HbA1c (1.0%-2.5%), FPG (1.5%-1.9%) and BMI categories (1.8%-1.9%), with significantly greater reductions compared with IGlar U100. For all HbA1c, FPG and BMI categories, IDegLira resulted in weight loss and IGlar U100 in weight gain; hypoglycaemia rates were lower for IDegLira vs IGlar U100. More patients achieved HbA1c <7% with IDegLira than IGlar U100 across all HbA1c (59%-87% vs 31%-66%), FPG (71%-74% vs 40%-51%) and BMI categories (71%-73% vs 40%-54%). IDegLira improved glycaemic control and induced weight loss in patients with T2D previously uncontrolled on basal insulin, across the categories of baseline HbA1c, FPG or BMI that were tested.

The management of type 2 diabetes with fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal-bolus therapy (insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart): A short-term cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK setting.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus basal-bolus therapy (BBT) with insulin glargine U100 plus up to 4 times daily insulin aspart for the management of type 2 diabetes in the UK. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel model was used to evaluate the cost-utility of IDegLira versus BBT over a 1-year time horizon. Clinical input data were taken from the treat-to-target DUAL VII trial, conducted in patients unable to achieve adequate glycaemic control (HbA1c <7.0%) with basal insulin, with IDegLira associated with lower rates of hypoglycaemia and reduced body mass index (BMI) in comparison with BBT, with similar HbA1c reductions. Costs (expressed in GBP) and event-related disutilities were taken from published sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: IDegLira was associated with an improvement of 0.05 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus BBT, due to reductions in non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes and BMI with IDegLira. Costs were higher with IDegLira by GBP 303 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 5924 per QALY gained for IDegLira versus BBT. ICERs remained below GBP 20 000 per QALY gained across a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira is a cost-effective alternative to BBT with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, providing equivalent glycaemic control with a simpler treatment regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin in the UK.

[Efficacy and safety of IdegLira for the intensification of type 2 diabetes treatment]. / Eficacia y seguridad de IdegLira para la intensificación del tratamiento en la diabetes tipo 2.

Diabetes mellitus is a true pandemic; type 2 diabetes in particular, with its progressive nature, constitutes a serious health problem. Despite advances and innovations in treatment, it continues to generate high morbidity and mortality. Many patients do not achieve their metabolic control objectives, due to clinical inertia, fear of hypoglycaemia, weight gain, the complexity of the treatment and the lack of adherence to it. Recently, the clinical results of the combined use of basal insulin and agonist receptor of the glucagon-like peptide type 1 (AR-GLP1) have been successfully evaluated. Therefore, the combined use of a basal insulin (insulin degludec) with an AR-GLP1 (liraglutide), in a single device (IdegLira), is proposed as an effective and safe therapeutic alternative for the treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes. IdegLira has shown greater reductions in HbA1c compared to its individual components, with a low risk of hypoglycaemia and weight loss, both in insulin naïve patients and in those previously insulinized. In this review we describe the pharmacology, the rational of the combination and the most relevant clinical evidence on IdegLira safety and efficacy.

Rates of hypoglycaemia are lower in patients treated with insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) than with IDeg or insulin glargine, regardless of the hypoglycaemia definition used.

AIMS: To re-analyse, using a series of alternative hypoglycaemia definitions, the data from 2 trials, DUAL I and V, in which the once-daily, fixed ratio combination of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) was compared with basal insulin therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Post hoc analyses of the DUAL I (patients uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs) and DUAL V (patients uncontrolled on insulin glargine (IGlar) U100) trials were carried out using different definitions of hypoglycaemia and according to whether treatments were administered in the morning or afternoon. Rates of hypoglycaemia for the definitions of confirmed and American Diabetes Association (ADA)-documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia were compared according to age, gender and body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Although hypoglycaemia rates differed according to the alternative hypoglycaemia definitions, rates were consistently lower with IDegLira vs insulin degludec (IDeg) and IGlar U100. Despite glycated haemoglobin concentrations being lower with IDegLira at end of treatment, confirmed and nocturnal-confirmed hypoglycaemia rates were lower for IDegLira vs IDeg and IGlar U100, irrespective of dosing time. The definitions of confirmed and ADA-documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia did not have a significant effect on the treatment difference between IDegLira and IDeg, liraglutide or IGlar U100 when further assessed by baseline age, gender and BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IDegLira, vs IDeg and IGlar U100, resulted in lower rates of hypoglycaemia regardless of dosing time and definition of hypoglycaemia used. The choice of hypoglycaemia definition did not influence the results of analyses when stratified by age, sex and BMI.

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

AIM/INTRODUCTION: Insulin glargine U100/lixisenatide and insulin degludec/liraglutide are fixed-ratio combinations containing basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist capable of reducing both fasting and postprandial blood glucose levels with a single formulation. This study aimed to compare the time in range (TIR) and the time below range (TBR) level 1 using professional continuous glucose monitoring and to establish criteria for the differential use of the fixed-ratio combinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (24 men and 12 women; average age, 62.1 years) were randomly assigned to the groups. At 0 and 18 weeks, a device was worn to compare the TIR and TBR level 1. The correlation between the C-peptide index at baseline and TIR at 18 weeks was assessed. RESULTS: The TIR and TBR level 1 showed no significant differences between the two groups. Both groups showed significant positive correlations between the C-peptide index and the TIR (P = 0.002, r = 0.679; P = 0.002, r = 0.681, respectively). The changes in glycemic variability, therapeutic indices, and body mass index were not significantly different among the groups (P > 0.05). The receiver operating curve analysis revealed that the cut-off values of the C-peptide index to achieve TIR of >70% at 18 weeks were 1.258 (sensitivity, 77.8%; specificity, 100%) and 1.099 (sensitivity, 57.1%; specificity, 90.9%) in the insulin glargine U100/lixisenatide and insulin degludec/liraglutide groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A TIR of >70% was achieved for both fixed-ratio combinations without significant differences.

Use of IDegLira to Intensify, Simplify, and Increase Appropriateness of Type 2 Diabetes Therapy: A Real-Life Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Fixed ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) represents an option to revise inappropriate therapies in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to assess the pattern of use and 1-year effectiveness of IDegLira. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed to assess changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (primary endpoint), fasting blood glucose (FBG), body weight, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and lipid profile following IDegLira initiation. Previous versus concomitant diabetes treatments were also compared. RESULTS: Overall, 87 patients (mean age 73.9 ± 9.2 years, diabetes duration 18.2 ± 6.7 years, 62.1% men, HbA1c 8.3 ± 1.3%, BMI 30.4 ± 5.5 kg/m2) initiated IDegLira. Previously, 21.8% of patients were treated with oral hypoglycemic agents (OHA group), 47.1% with basal insulin ± OHA (BOT group), 5.8% with GLP-1 RA ± basal insulin (GLP1-RA group), and 25.3% with basal-bolus schemes (BB group). At the first prescription of IDegLira, secretagogues and schemes including two or more OHA were substantially reduced, leaving metformin as the most prevalent OHA (81.6%) used in combination with IDegLira. Starting dose of IDegLira ranged from 18.7 ± 3.1 U (OHA group) to 24.1 ± 4.4 U (BB group). After 1 year, HbA1c was significantly reduced by 1.25% (95% CI - 1.48; - 1.03), FBG by 52.9 mg/dl, and body weight by 2.0 kg. Also, eGFR levels and lipid profile significantly improved. No severe hypoglycemia occurred. CONCLUSION: It is possible to proactively review suboptimal or inappropriate diabetes treatment according to the most recent guidelines. Results suggest that initiation of IDegLira was associated with a reduction in drugs to be administered daily and relevant improvements in clinical outcomes.

IDegLira for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: IDegLira is a novel fixed-ratio soluble combination of insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide approved for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients. Individual trials have assessed the clinical profile of IDegLira vs different comparators. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IDegLira for T2D. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to August 15, 2023. The primary outcomes included change from baseline in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and body weight. Risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to evaluate the outcomes. RESULTS: This meta-analysis identified 1044 citations, and included 13 eligible trials, enroling 7773 patients. Compared with the control groups, IDegLira was optimal in change in HbA1c, percentage of patients achieving HbA1c < 7%, percentage of patients achieving HbA1c < 6.5%, HbA1c < 7.0% without weight gain and without severe or blood glucose (BG)-confirmed hypoglycaemia episodes, HbA1c < 6.5% without weight gain and without severe or BG-confirmed hypoglycaemia episodes, change in fasting plasma glucose, change in self-measured plasma glucose, change in systolic pressure, and total daily insulin dose. No difference was found between the IDegLira and control groups in terms of change in body weight, change in diastolic pressure, severe or BG-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia, nocturnal severe or BG-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia, adverse events or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2D, IDegLira improved glycaemic control whilst balancing out risk for hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal side effects.

SPIRIT: Assessing Clinical Parameters Associated with Using IDegLira in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in a Real-World Setting in Colombia.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) is a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec (a basal insulin) and liraglutide (a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist [GLP-1RA]). This study aimed to investigate clinical outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after initiating IDegLira treatment in a real-world setting in Colombia. METHODS: SPIRIT is a non-interventional, single-arm, retrospective chart review study to assess clinical outcomes in people with T2DM. Participating patients were switched from a treatment regimen of basal insulin (with or without oral antidiabetics [OADs]) and started on treatment with IDegLira a minimum of 26 ± 6 weeks before the data collection start date. Data were collected from the medical records of 175 patients in ten clinical centers across Colombia. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, there was a significant reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (1.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.6 to - 1.0; p < 0.0001) after 26 ± 6 weeks of follow-up. The mean HbA1c at baseline and at the end of the study was 9.1% and 7.8%, respectively. In addition, IDegLira significantly reduced absolute body weight by 1 kg (95% CI - 1.5 to - 0.5; p < 0.0001), from a mean of 76.1 kg at baseline to 75.1 kg after follow-up. The mean IDegLira dose at the end of the study was 21.3 U, and no severe hypoglycemic events were observed during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: In real-world practice, initiating IDegLira in patients with T2DM previously treated with basal insulin (± OAD) was associated with improved glycemic control, reduced body weight and reduced risk of hypoglycemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05324462.

Effectiveness, Simplification and Persistence of IDegLira in Poorly Controlled People with Type 2 Diabetes: A 4-Year Follow-Up Real-World Study.

INTRODUCTION: Efficacy and safety of the fixed ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) has been largely documented. However, long-term data are limited. This study aimed at describing persistence in therapy and the effectiveness at 48 months of IDegLira. METHODS: We conducted an observational study based on retrospective chart review. All patients treated with IDegLira during 2018-2022 were included. Data on treatment approaches and clinical outcomes were collected at the first prescription of IDegLira (T0) and after 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months. RESULTS: Overall, 156 patients (mean age 68 years, 64.1% men) started IDegLira, of whom 88 (56.4%) were previously treated with basal-oral therapy (BOT) and 68 (43.6%) with basal-bolus schemes (BB). Before starting IDegLira, 23.8% were treated with ≥ 2 oral antihyperglycemic agents in association with insulin; at T0, the proportion decreased to 3.2%. Short-acting insulin was discontinued after the first week. After 48 months, levels of HbA1c were significantly reduced by 1.34% in the BOT group and 1.07% in the BB group (p < 0.0001 in both groups). In the BOT group, FBG levels decreased by about 50 mg/dl and body weight was unchanged. In the BB group, FBG levels decreased by about 40 mg/dl and body weight was significantly reduced by an average of 7.7 kg. Five patients (3.2%) interrupted therapy with IDegLira during 48 months, and no severe hypoglycemia occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasizes the important role of IDegLira in maintaining a good metabolic control while minimizing the risk of major hypoglycemia and weight gain in the long term. The substantial simplification of treatment schemes can increase adherence.

One-year safety and efficacy results of insulin treatment simplification with IDegLira in type 2 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to investigate the sustained safety and efficacy of insulin treatment simplification with IDegLira in patients with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1c ≤ 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) during a 12-month follow-up. METHODS: Seventy-two adults with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1c ≤ 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) participated in the trial (age 63.8 ± 9.5 years, HbA1c 6.4 ± 0.7%, [46 ± 8 mmol/mol] body weight 92.95 ± 18.83 kg, total daily insulin dose: 43.21 ± 10.80 units; mean ± SD). Previous insulins were stopped, and once daily IDegLira was started. IDegLira was titrated by the patients to achieve a self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose concentration of ≥5 mmol/L to ≤6 mmol/L. RESULTS: After 12 months, good glycaemic control was maintained, while body weight decreased significantly. Mean HbA1c changed to 6.2 ± 0.8% (44 ± 9 mmol/mol) (p = .109) and body weight changed by -3.89 kg to 89.06 ± 18.61 kg (p < .0001). The simplified treatment was safe and well-tolerated. Percentage of patients experiencing at least one episode of hypoglycaemia was 49% during the month before simplification and 17% during the last 3 months of the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin treatment simplification with IDegLira in selected patients with type 2 diabetes is safe, maintains adequate glycaemic control and is associated with weight loss over 12 months.

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

BACKGROUND: Derived time in range (dTIR), calculated from self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG-dTIR) profiles, has demonstrated correlation with risk of cardiovascular and microvascular complications. This post hoc analysis of the DUAL V and DUAL VIII trials aimed to compare dTIR with an insulin degludec/liraglutide fixed-ratio combination (IDegLira) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine-point SMBG profiles were taken more than 24 hours at baseline and end of trial (EOT: 26 weeks [DUAL V] and 104 weeks [DUAL VIII]) and used to derive the percentage of readings within target range (70-180 mg/dL). Estimated treatment differences (ETDs, IDegLira-glargine U100) were analyzed using analysis of covariance, with treatment as fixed effects and baseline response as a covariate. RESULTS: ETDs for change from baseline to EOT in dTIR were significantly greater with IDegLira versus glargine U100 in DUAL V (4.18%, P = .027) and DUAL VIII (5.17%, P = .001). The proportions of people achieving ≥70% dTIR at EOT with IDegLira and glargine U100, respectively, were 62% and 60% in DUAL V (P = .7541), and 50% and 26% in DUAL VIII (P < .0001). The proportion achieving a ≥5% increase in dTIR from baseline to EOT with IDegLira and glargine U100 was 63% in both groups in DUAL V (P = .9043), and 44% and 25%, respectively, in DUAL VIII (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira was associated with significantly greater increases in dTIR versus basal insulin alone in people with T2D. TRIAL ID(S): ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01952145 (DUAL V); ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02501161 (DUAL VIII).

Evaluating the long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus other treatment regimens in the chinese type 2 diabetes patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of utilizing IDegLira in comparison to other treatment regimens ( liraglutide and degludec) in managing type 2 diabetes, taking into account the Chinese healthcare system's perspective. METHODS: The clinical data were obtained from the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the DUAL I and DUAL II evidence studies that took place in China. To estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct medical costs of patients receiving different treatment strategies from a long-term perspective, the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model version 9.0 (IQVIA, Basel, Switzerland) was utilized. The costs were evaluated from the perspective of the China National Health System. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted annually at 5%, and sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: IDegLira was projected to reduce the incidence of diabetes-related complications and improve quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) versus liraglutide and degludec. A survival benefit was observed with IDegLira over Liraglutide (0.073 years). Lifetime costs were lower by Chinese yuan (CNY) 27,945 on IDegLira than on Liraglutide therapy. A similar survival benefit was observed with IDegLira over degludec (0.068 years). Lifetime costs were lower by CNY 1196 on IDegLira than on degludec therapy. Therefore, IDegLira was found to be cost-effective versus liraglutide and degludec with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Dominant per QALY gained, respectively, under the threshold of three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. CONCLUSION: IDegLira is a cost-effective hypoglycemic treatment option that delivers positive clinical outcomes while also reducing costs for Chinese patients living with type 2 diabetes.

Switching from Multiple Insulin Injections to a Fixed Combination of Degludec and Liraglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Results from the Simplify Study After 6 Months.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of switching from basal bolus insulin treatment (BBIT) to a fixed combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had preserved insulin secretion but inadequate glucose control. The study also aimed to assess the feasibility of implementing this therapeutic approach in common clinical practice settings. METHODS: This was a non-randomized, open-label, multicenter, prospective, single-arm study involving 234 patients with T2DM who were receiving BBIT. Inclusion criteria were duration of diabetes mellitus > 60 months, stable total daily dose of insulin (TDDI) ranging from > 20 to < 70 IU/day (approx. > 0.3 to < 0.7 IU/kg body weight/day), C-peptide levels > 10% above the lower limit, HbA1c levels > 7% and < 10% (Diabetes Control and Complications Trial), and body mass index > 25 kg/m2. The primary endpoints were changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight at week 28 after treatment switching. Secondary endpoints included changes in the 7-point glycemic profile, hypoglycemia frequency, blood pressure, blood lipids, liver enzymes, insulin dose, and a patient questionnaire focusing on treatment satisfaction, concerns and impact on daily activities. A subgroup of 55 patients underwent continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with the evaluation of CGM-derived parameters, such as time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR), time below range (TBR), hypoglycemia, and glucose variability. RESULTS: A significant decrease in HbA1c (8.6% vs. 7.6%; p < 0.0001) and body weight (97.8 vs. 94.0 kg; p < 0.0001) was observed at week 28 after treatment switching. Significant improvements were also seen in all measurements of the 7-point glycemic profile (p < 0.0001), reduction in the number of hypoglycemia episodes per patient, and the proportion of patients with at least one hypoglycemia event (p < 0.001). Furthermore, there was a significant decrease in daily insulin dose (55.6 vs. 32.7 IU/day; p < 0.0001), as well as improvements in blood pressure, blood lipids, and liver enzymes (gamma glutamyl transferase and alanine aminotransferase). The subgroup of patients who underwent CGM showed a significant increase in TIR (57.9% vs. 69.0%; p < 0.01) and a decrease in TAR (40.1% vs. 28.8%; p < 0.01), while TBR, hypoglycemia (number of episodes per patient and proportion of patients), and glucose variability did not change significantly. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that switching from BBIT to IDegLira in patients with T2DM and preserved insulin secretion can simplify treatment without compromising glycemic control. The switch to IDegLira was associated with significant improvements in various glucose control parameters, including HbA1c, glycemic profile, hypoglycemia, insulin doses, and CGM-derived parameters TIR and TAR. Additionally, it led to significant reductions in body weight, blood pressure, lipid profile, and liver enzyme levels. Switching to IDegLira may be considered a safe and beneficial approach in clinical practice settings, offering metabolic and individual advantages.

Switching to a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) is associated with improved glycaemic control in a real-world population with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Arab Emirates: Results from the multicentre, prospective INTENSIFY study.

AIM: Investigate the effectiveness of IDegLira, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec/liraglutide, in a real-world setting in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Arab Emirates. METHODS: This non-interventional study enrolled adults switching to IDegLira from basal insulin (BI) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) with/without concomitant oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline, assessed using a mixed model for repeated measurements. RESULTS: Among 263 patients (BI ± OADs, n = 206; GLP-1 RA ± OADs, n = 57), mean baseline HbA1c was 9.29 % (78 mmol/mol). After 26 weeks, HbA1c was significantly reduced (BI ± OADs, -0.83 % [-9.0 mmol/mol] and GLP-1 RA ± OADs, -1.24 % [-13.5 mmol/mol]; both p < 0.0001). Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was significantly reduced (-39.48 mg/dL [BI ± OADs] and -82.49 mg/dL [GLP-1 RA ± OADs]; both p < 0.0001). Before treatment initiation, 3/263 patients experienced ≥ 1 severe hypoglycaemic episode and 7/263 patients experienced ≥ 1 non-severe hypoglycaemic episode compared with 1/263 patients who had ≥ 1 severe and 1/263 who had ≥ 1 non-severe episode at end of study. Body weight decreased significantly among patients switching from BI ± OADs (-1.05 kg [p < 0.0001]). Treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira significantly reduced HbA1c and FPG in this real-world setting, along with less frequent episodes of hypoglycaemia. Switching to IDegLira offers effective treatment intensification for type 2 diabetes patients with inadequate glycaemic control.

Preserved pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin degludec and liraglutide when administered as insulin degludec/liraglutide in a Chinese population.

We report the findings of a single-dose, randomized, three-period cross-over, clinical trial in healthy Chinese individuals (n = 24) comparing the pharmacokinetics of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) with its individual components. Furthermore, we report a population pharmacokinetic analysis of a 26-week, phase III, treat-to-target, randomized trial of 720 Chinese individuals with type 2 diabetes. Participants were randomized to IDegLira, degludec or liraglutide, all once daily with metformin. The pharmacokinetic profiles of IDegLira were similar to its individual components. Dose proportionality was indicated for both IDegLira components. Although there were no relevant covariate effects on degludec exposure, liraglutide exposure was inversely correlated with bodyweight. In conclusion, for the Chinese population, the pharmacokinetics of the fixed-ratio combination IDegLira is similar to that of its individual components.