Efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of ONWARDS phase 3 randomized controlled trials.

AIM: Insulin icodec is a novel ultra-long action basal insulin analogue designed for once-weekly administration. With the merit of once-a-week administration, it promises better adherence and greater treatment satisfaction because of reduced injection frequency. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec in comparison with other basal insulin analogues in the management of type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were followed during the conduct of this study. For the eligible studies, five databases and ClinicalTrials.gov were screened until July 2023. All randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin icodec in type 2 diabetes versus other insulin analogues were included. The extracted data were then analysed for meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: Five clinical trials with 3764 participants were included. The meta-analysis showed that once-weekly insulin icodec had higher glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction [mean difference -0.17%, 95% confidence interval (CI; -0.28 to -0.06), p = .003], with no significant difference in fasting plasma glucose compared with other insulin analogues. HbA1c achievement <7% [odds ratio 1.51, 95% CI (1.14-1.99), p = .004] and HbA1c achievement <7% without hypoglycaemia [odds ratio 1.45, 95% CI (1.26-1.67), p < .00001] were observed in higher proportions with insulin icodec compared with the comparator group. The percentage of time spent in the target glycaemic range was comparatively similar between insulin icodec and the comparator [mean difference 2.42%, 95% CI (0.01-4.84), p = .05]. There was a significantly higher incidence of level 1 hypoglycaemia with insulin icodec but no significant difference was seen for the incidence of levels 2, 3 and combined 2/3 hypoglycaemia. Any adverse events and adverse events related to basal insulin were comparably similar in insulin icodec and comparators. The subgroup analysis of once-weekly insulin icodec with individual insulin analogues (glargine U100 and degludec) showed that insulin icodec had similar efficacy with insulin glargine U100 but superior efficacy with higher HbA1c reduction with insulin icodec compared with insulin degludec. The safety profile was comparable between insulin icodec and glargine U100, whereas insulin icodec reported higher incidence of hypoglycaemia events and any adverse events when compared with degludec. CONCLUSION: Once-weekly insulin icodec showed a better HbA1c reduction with a higher proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets in comparison with once-daily basal insulin analogues. They were no major safety concerns with respect to hypoglycaemia or adverse events.

Once-weekly Insulin Icodec as Compared to Once-daily Basal Insulins: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Once-weekly basal insulin icodec has been tested in clinical trials for efficacy and safety over currently available glargine-100 and degludec in different clinical settings for type 2 diabetes. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate its overall safety and efficacy as compared to glargine-100 and degludec (nonicodec), from all available randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Seven trials comparing once-daily basal insulin analogs to once-weekly basal insulin icodec were included. Based on available information, outcomes in terms of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose reduction, and increase in time in range (TIR) were compared. Side-effects were compared for overall hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, and weight gain. The pooled effect size for continuously distributed data was measured as a reduction in "estimated differences in mean (with 95% CI)." For categorical data, the pooled effect size was measured as the Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (with 95% CI). RESULTS: Analyzing against the nonicodec comparators together, the "estimated mean changes" in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose favoring icodec were -0.22% (-0.35, -0.10) and -1.59 mg% (-9.26, 6.08) respectively. The "estimated mean increment" in weight for icodec was 0.64 kg (0.61, 0.67). The "estimated mean percentage" increment in TIR for icodec was 4.24% (2.99, 5.49). The Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios for all hypoglycemic events and severe hypoglycemia for icodec were 1.24 (1.02, 1.50) (P = .03) and 0.81 (0.31, 2.08) (P is not significant), respectively, suggesting a 24% increased incidence of all hypoglycemia with icodec. CONCLUSION: Once-weekly basal insulin icodec as compared to once-daily basal insulin analogs had a slight increase in the risk of overall hypoglycemia and weight gain, without any difference in severe hypoglycemia, with similar glycemic control (in terms of fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c, and TIR).

Hypoglycaemia frequency and physiological response after double or triple doses of once-weekly insulin icodec vs once-daily insulin glargine U100 in type 2 diabetes: a randomised crossover trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study compared the frequency of hypoglycaemia, time to hypoglycaemia and recovery from hypoglycaemia after double or triple doses of once-weekly insulin icodec vs once-daily insulin glargine U100. Furthermore, the symptomatic and counterregulatory responses to hypoglycaemia were compared between icodec and glargine U100 treatment. METHODS: In a randomised, single-centre (Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria), open-label, two-period crossover trial, individuals with type 2 diabetes (age 18-72 years, BMI 18.5-37.9 kg/m2, HbA1c ≤75 mmol/mol [≤9.0%]) treated with basal insulin with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs received once-weekly icodec (for 6 weeks) and once-daily glargine U100 (for 11 days). Total weekly doses were equimolar based on individual titration of daily glargine U100 during the run-in period (target fasting plasma glucose [PG]: 4.4-7.2 mmol/l). Randomisation was carried out by assigning a randomisation number to each participant in ascending order, which encoded to one of two treatment sequences via a randomisation list prepared prior to the start of the trial. At steady state, double and triple doses of icodec and glargine U100 were administered followed by hypoglycaemia induction: first, euglycaemia was maintained at 5.5 mmol/l by variable i.v. infusion of glucose; glucose infusion was then terminated, allowing PG to decrease to no less than 2.5 mmol/l (target PGnadir). The PGnadir was maintained for 15 min. Euglycaemia was restored by constant i.v. glucose (5.5 mg kg-1 min-1). Hypoglycaemic symptoms score (HSS), counterregulatory hormones, vital signs and cognitive function were assessed at predefined PG levels towards the PGnadir. RESULTS: Hypoglycaemia induction was initiated in 43 and 42 participants after double dose of icodec and glargine U100, respectively, and in 38 and 40 participants after triple doses, respectively. Clinically significant hypoglycaemia, defined as PGnadir <3.0 mmol/l, occurred in comparable proportions of individuals treated with icodec vs glargine U100 after double (17 [39.5%] vs 15 [35.7%]; p=0.63) and triple (20 [52.6%] vs 28 [70.0%]; p=0.14) doses. No statistically significant treatment differences were observed in the time to decline from PG values of 5.5 mmol/l to 3.0 mmol/l (2.9-4.5 h after double dose and 2.2-2.4 h after triple dose of the insulin products). The proportion of participants with PGnadir ≤2.5 mmol/l was comparable between treatments after double dose (2 [4.7%] for icodec vs 3 [7.1%] for glargine U100; p=0.63) but higher for glargine U100 after triple dose (1 [2.6%] vs 10 [25.0%]; p=0.03). Recovery from hypoglycaemia by constant i.v. glucose infusion took <30 min for all treatments. Analyses of the physiological response to hypoglycaemia only included data from participants with PGnadir <3.0 mmol/l and/or the presence of hypoglycaemic symptoms; in total 20 (46.5%) and 19 (45.2%) individuals were included after a double dose of icodec and glargine U100, respectively, and 20 (52.6%) and 29 (72.5%) individuals were included after a triple dose of icodec and glargine U100, respectively. All counterregulatory hormones (glucagon, adrenaline [epinephrine], noradrenaline [norepinephrine], cortisol and growth hormone) increased during hypoglycaemia induction with both insulin products at both doses. Following triple doses, the hormone response was greater with icodec vs glargine U100 for adrenaline at PG3.0 mmol/l (treatment ratio 2.54 [95% CI 1.69, 3.82]; p<0.001), and cortisol at PG3.0 mmol/l (treatment ratio 1.64 [95% CI 1.13, 2.38]; p=0.01) and PGnadir (treatment ratio 1.80 [95% CI 1.09, 2.97]; p=0.02). There were no statistically significant treatment differences in the HSS, vital signs and cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Double or triple doses of once-weekly icodec lead to a similar risk of hypoglycaemia compared with double or triple doses of once-daily glargine U100. During hypoglycaemia, comparable symptomatic and moderately greater endocrine responses are elicited by icodec vs glargine U100. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03945656. FUNDING: This study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.

IcoSema: unveiling the future of diabetes management from a clinical pharmacology perspective.

IcoSema, a groundbreaking approach to diabetes management, combines insulin icodec and semaglutide to offer a transformative treatment option. Insulin icodec delivers consistent glucose-lowering effects with once-weekly dosing, while semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist, stimulates insulin secretion and aids in weight loss. This comprehensive article evaluates the potential of IcoSema from a clinical pharmacology perspective, examining the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, compliance and cost-effectiveness of its individual components, as well as considering comparable combination therapies like iGlarLixi and IDegLira. By analysing these crucial factors, the article aims to determine the potential of IcoSema in the field of diabetes management. The combination of insulin icodec and semaglutide has the potential to provide improved glycaemic control, weight management, and simplified treatment regimens, addressing common challenges faced in diabetes management. Safety, compliance and cost considerations are important aspects of evaluating this combination therapy. Ongoing trials investigating IcoSema are expected to provide valuable insights into its efficacy, safety and comparative effectiveness. By addressing concerns such as potential side effects, individual patient response and drug interactions, healthcare providers can optimize treatment outcomes and enhance the management of type 2 diabetes.

Clinical Outcomes With Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec Versus Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 in Insulin-Naïve and Previously Insulin-Treated Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

AIMS: The once-weekly insulin icodec, a new basal insulin analog, may positively support a reduction in injection frequency and improve adherence to therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of insulin icodec compared with those of once-daily glargine U100. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception till September 2023. Data about clinical outcomes in both groups were extracted. Forest plots were generated using the random-effects model by pooling odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs). RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials and 2019 individuals with T2DM were included. In the pooled analysis, time in range was significantly higher (MD = 4.35; 95% CI: 1.65 to 7.05; p = 0.002) in the icodec group than in the once-daily glargine group. The HbA1c levels were significantly reduced (MD = -0.13; 95% CI: -0.24 to -0.03; p = 0.02) in the weekly icodec group compared with those in the once-daily glargine group. The weight gain was significantly less in the glargine group than in the weekly icodec group (MD = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.78; p = 0.03); however, in the subgroup analysis, this change became statistically insignificant in both insulin-naïve and previously insulin-treated individuals. The results were comparable across two groups for fasting plasma glucose levels, hypoglycaemia alert (Level 1), clinically significant (Level 2) or severe hypoglycaemia (Level 3), and adverse events. CONCLUSION: Insulin icodec was associated with a reduction in glycated haemoglobin levels and higher time in range, with a similar safety profile as compared to insulin glargine U100. However, further evidence is still needed to reach a definitive conclusion.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of weekly Insulin Icodec vs. Daily Insulin Glargine in type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Various insulin therapies for Diabetes Mellitus offer different benefits while having potential risks. We aim to compare Insulin Icodec, a novel Insulin analogue with the ease of once-weekly administration, to the once-daily Insulin Glargine U100 regarding glycemic control and safety profile. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of electronic databases for peer-reviewed articles from inception until September 1 2023. Results: A total of 2215 type 2 diabetic patients were included, of which 1209 received Insulin Icodec and1048 recieved Insulin Glargine U100. In terms of glycemic control, Insulin Icodec showed a significantly longer time in the target glucose range (MD: 0.304, CI: 0.069, P = 0.000) and a more significant reduction in HbA1c (MD: -0.154, CI: 0.003, P = 0.005) compared to Insulin Glargine U100. Fasting Plasma Glucose did not differ significantly. Insulin Icodec led to a more significant increase in body weight (MD: 0.161 kg, P = 0.029), while Insulin Glargine required a higher insulin dose (MD: 1.920 IU, P = 0.000). Regarding safety, the two groups had no significant differences in hypoglycemic events or adverse outcomes. Conclusion: Once-weekly Insulin Icodec demonstrates superior glycemic control with a reduced HbA1c compared to Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 while maintaining similar safety profiles. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-024-01431-5.

Pharmacological and Benefit-Risk Profile of Once-Weekly Basal Insulin Administration (Icodec): Addressing Patients' Unmet Needs and Exploring Future Applications.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic metabolic disease affecting over 500 million people worldwide, which leads to severe complications and to millions of deaths yearly. When therapeutic goals are not reached with diet, physical activity, or non-insulin drugs, starting/adding insulin treatment is recommended by international guidelines. A novel recombinant insulin is icodec, a once-weekly insulin that successfully completed phase III trials and that has recently obtained the marketing authorization approval from the European Medicines Agency. This narrative review aims to assess icodec pharmacological and clinical features concerning evidence on benefit-risk profile, as compared to other basal insulins, addressing the potential impact on patients' unmet needs. Icodec is a full agonist, recombinant human insulin analogue characterized by an ultra-long half-life (196 h), enabling its use in once-weekly administration. Phase III randomized clinical trials involving more than 4000 diabetic patients, mostly type 2 DM, documented non-inferiority of icodec, as compared to currently available basal insulins, in terms of estimated mean reduction of glycated hemoglobin levels; a superiority of icodec, compared to control, was confirmed in insulin-naïve patients (ONWARDS 1, 3, and 5), and in patients previously treated with basal insulin (ONWARDS 2). Icodec safety profile was comparable to the currently available basal insulins. Once-weekly icodec has the potential to improve patients' adherence, thus positively influencing patients' treatment satisfaction as well as quality of life, especially in type 2 DM insulin-naïve patients. An improved adherence might positively influence glycemic target achievement, reduce overall healthcare costs and overcome some of the unmet patients' needs. Icodec has the potential to emerge as a landmark achievement in the evolution of insulin therapy, with a positive impact also for the National Health Services and the whole society.

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.

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

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

Recent advances in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus using new drug therapies.

Several recent advances provide multiple health benefits to individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Pharmacological therapy is governed by person-centered factors, including comorbidities and treatment goals. Adults with T2DM who have an established/high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, require a treatment regimen that includes agents that are proven to reduce cardiorenal risk. Weight management plays a key role in reducing glucose for patients with T2DM. A glucose-reduction treatment regimen must consider weight management. Sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of heart failure, cardiovascular and renal events. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists allow better control of glycemia, promote weight loss and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. Newer Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 dual agonist, which activate GIP and GLP-1 receptors improve glycemic control and promote greater weight loss than GLP-1 receptor agonists. Several novel drugs are in the clinical development phase. This review pertains to recent advances in pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec compared to once-daily insulin g U-100 in patients with type II diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND//OBJECTIVE: Diabetes affects millions of people globally, despite treatment options, adherence and other factors pose obstacles. Once-weekly Insulin Icodec, a novel basal Insulin analog with a week-long half-life, offers potential benefits, enhancing convenience, adherence, and quality of life for improved glycemic control. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly Insulin Icodec compared to once-daily Insulin Glargine U-100 in individuals with type II diabetes (T2D). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases before September 2023 to identify relevant Randomized control trials (RCTs) with no language restrictions following PRISMA guidelines. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for quality assessment. All statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan (version 5.4; Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014). RESULT: Four RCTs published from 2020 to 2023 with a cumulative sample size of 1035 were included. The pooled mean difference (MD) revealed a 4.68% longer TIR (%) with Insulin Icodec compared to Insulin Glargine U-100 [{95% CI (0.69, 8.68), p = 0.02}], the estimated mean changes in HbA1c (%) and FPG (mg%) were found to be insignificant between the two groups [MD = - 0.12 {95% CI (- 0.26, 0.01), p = 0.07}] and [MD = - 2.59 {95% CI (- 6.95, 1.78), p = 0.25}], respectively. The overall OR for hypoglycemia was also nonsignificant between the two regimens 1.04 [{95% CI (0.71, 1.52), p = 0.84}]. Other safety parameters were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from daily Insulin Glargine U-100 to weekly Insulin Icodec showed longer TIR (%) as well as similar blood glycemic control and safety profile. Hence, it may be a good alternate option for management of longstanding T2D.

Insulin Icodec Weekly: A Basal Insulin Analogue for Type 2 Diabetes.

Insulin icodec is a once-weekly basal insulin analogue in late-phase clinical development. Similar efficacy and safety of icodec to once-daily basal insulin analogues have been reported in over 4,200 participants with type 2 diabetes from three phase II and five phase III trials. Indeed, glycated haemoglobin reduction was superior for icodec among insulin-naïve participants (ONWARDS 1, 3 and 5) and in those switching from a daily basal insulin in ONWARDS 2, with the latter trial demonstrating improved diabetes treatment satisfaction scores with insulin icodec versus insulin degludec.

Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec vs. Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 2 randomized controlled trials.

Objective: Insulin Icodec is a novel basal insulin analogue designed for once-weekly administration, therefore might propitiate reduction in the frequency of injections and facilitate treatment adherence. This study aimed to determine the glycemic control and safety profile of Insulin Icodec, compared with Glargine U100 in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2. Materials and methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) data comparing OnceWeekly Insulin Icodec and Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for trials published up to May 14, 2022. Data were extracted from published reports and quality assessment was performed per Cochrane recommendations. Results: Three studies were included comprising 453 patients, 230 (50.77%) using Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec and 223 (49.22%) using Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100. In the pooled data, Glycated Hemoglobin (MD -0.20% CI -0.33 to -0.07%; P=0.002) change from baseline demonstrated a significantly higher reduction in the Icodec group. Time with Glucose in Range (MD 6.60% CI 3.63 to 9.57%; P < 0.0001) and Insulin Dose Difference (MD 0.97UI CI 0.76 to 1.18UI; P < 0.0001) were higher in the Icodec group. There was no significant difference in fasting plasma glucose, body weight change, hypoglycemia or any adverse event evaluated. Conclusion: OnceWeekly Insulin Icodec was associated with a small reduction in Glycated Hemoglobin, as well as higher Time with Glucose in Range, with similar hypoglycemic adverse events, when compared with Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100.

Drugs in Context Editorial: Review of 2020 and what lies ahead in therapeutic interventions.

The year 2020 was dominated by the COVID-19 pandemic, bringing with it unprecedented advancements in the fields of healthcare and therapeutic interventions as well as in vaccine and drug development. Nevertheless, several other advancements in various fields of medicine also deserve attention. Herein, the Senior Editors of Drugs in Context provide us with their expert opinion on the events of 2020 and what lies ahead in 2021.

Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec vs. Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 2 randomized controlled trials

ABSTRACT Objective: Insulin Icodec is a novel basal insulin analogue designed for once-weekly administration, therefore might propitiate reduction in the frequency of injections and facilitate treatment adherence. This study aimed to determine the glycemic control and safety profile of Insulin Icodec, compared with Glargine U100 in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2. Materials and methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) data comparing Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec and Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for trials published up to May 14, 2022. Data were extracted from published reports and quality assessment was performed per Cochrane recommendations. Results: Three studies were included comprising 453 patients, 230 (50.77%) using Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec and 223 (49.22%) using Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100. In the pooled data, Glycated Hemoglobin (MD -0.20% CI -0.33 to -0.07%; P=0.002) change from baseline demonstrated a significantly higher reduction in the Icodec group. Time with Glucose in Range (MD 6.60% CI 3.63 to 9.57%; P < 0.0001) and Insulin Dose Difference (MD 0.97UI CI 0.76 to 1.18UI; P < 0.0001) were higher in the Icodec group. There was no significant difference in fasting plasma glucose, body weight change, hypoglycemia or any adverse event evaluated. Conclusions: Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec was associated with a small reduction in Glycated Hemoglobin, as well as higher Time with Glucose in Range, with similar hypoglycemic adverse events, when compared with Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100.