Continuous glucose monitoring-based time-in-range using insulin glargine 300 units/ml versus insulin degludec 100 units/ml in type 1 diabetes: The head-to-head randomized controlled InRange trial.

AIM: To use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based time-in-range (TIR) as a primary efficacy endpoint to compare the second-generation basal insulin (BI) analogues insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) and insulin degludec 100 U/ml (IDeg-100) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: InRange was a 12-week, multicentre, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label study comparing glucose TIR and variability between Gla-300 and IDeg-100 using blinded 20-day CGM profiles. The inclusion criteria consisted of adults with T1D treated with multiple daily injections, using BI once daily and rapid-acting insulin analogues for at least 1 year, with an HbA1c of 7% or higher and of 10% or less at screening. RESULTS: Overall, 343 participants were randomized: 172 received Gla-300 and 171 IDeg-100. Non-inferiority (10% relative margin) of Gla-300 versus IDeg-100 was shown for the primary endpoint (percentage TIR ≥ 70 to ≤ 180 mg/dl): least squares (LS) mean (95% confidence interval) 52.74% (51.06%, 54.42%) for Gla-300 and 55.09% (53.34%, 56.84%) for IDeg-100; LS mean difference (non-inferiority): 3.16% (0.88%, 5.44%) (non-inferiority P = .0067). Non-inferiority was shown on glucose total coefficient of variation (main secondary endpoint): LS mean 39.91% (39.20%, 40.61%) and 41.22% (40.49%, 41.95%), respectively; LS mean difference (non-inferiority) -5.44% (-6.50%, -4.38%) (non-inferiority P < .0001). Superiority of Gla-300 over IDeg-100 was not shown on TIR. Occurrences of self-measured and CGM-derived hypoglycaemia were comparable between treatment groups. Safety profiles were consistent with known profiles, with no unexpected findings. CONCLUSIONS: Using clinically relevant CGM metrics, InRange shows that Gla-300 is non-inferior to IDeg-100 in people with T1D, with comparable hypoglycaemia and safety profiles.

Reference Guide for Integrating Continuous Glucose Monitoring Into Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: Large randomized trials have demonstrated the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in persons with type 1 diabetes and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. The purpose of this article is to provide basic knowledge about CGM technology, discuss the use of CGM data in clinical practice, and direct clinicians to online resources that provide comprehensive information and tools relevant to patient selection, education/training, and reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Effective use of CGM requires all members of the health care team to become knowledgeable and skilled in integrating CGM into their practices and in teaching their patients how to safely incorporate CGM use into their daily diabetes self-management.

Addressing Unmet Needs With Injectable Medications in Type 2 Diabetes Treatment: Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists.

Since 2005, four new GLP-1RAs (liraglutide, albiglutide, dulaglutide, and lixisenatide) and a once-weekly formulation of exenatide were approved for the treatment of persons with T2DM. Another GLP-1RA, semaglutide, is under review by the FDA, as is exenatide administered via an osmotic mini-pump.

AUTONOMY: the first randomized trial comparing two patient-driven approaches to initiate and titrate prandial insulin lispro in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two self-titration algorithms for initiating and escalating prandial insulin lispro in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The trial was designed as two independent, multinational, parallel, open-label studies (A and B), identical in design, to provide substantial evidence of efficacy and safety in endocrine and generalist settings. Subjects were 18-85 years old (study A: N = 528; study B: N = 578), on basal insulin plus oral antidiabetic drugs for ≥3 months, and had an HbA1c 7.0% to ≤12.0% (>53.0 to ≤107.7 mmol/mol). Once optimized on insulin glargine, subjects were randomized to one of two self-titration algorithm groups adjusting lispro either every day (Q1D) or every 3 days (Q3D) for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was the change in HbA1c from baseline. The primary and secondary objectives were evaluated for the overall population and subjects ≥65 years old. RESULTS: Baseline HbA1c was similar (study A: Q1D 8.3% [67.2 mmol/mol] vs. Q3D 8.4% [68.3 mmol/mol], P = 0.453; study B: Q1D 8.3% [67.2 mmol/mol] vs. Q3D 8.4% [68.3 mmol/mol], P = 0.162). Both algorithms had significant and equivalent reductions in HbA1c from baseline (study A: Q3D -0.96% [-10.49 mmol/mol], Q1D -1.00% [-10.93 mmol/mol], Q3D-Q1D 0.04% [0.44 mmol/mol] [95% CI -0.15 to 0.22 (-1.64 to 2.40)]; study B: Q3D -0.92% [-10.06 mmol/mol], Q1D -0.98% [-10.71 mmol/mol], Q3D-Q1D 0.06% [0.66 mmol/mol] [95% CI -0.12 to 0.24 (-1.31 to 2.62)]). The incidence and rate of hypoglycemia were similar for Q3D and Q1D in both studies. In general, no clinically relevant differences were found between the two algorithms in subjects ≥65 years old in either study. CONCLUSIONS: Prandial insulin lispro can effectively and safely be initiated, by either of two self-titrated algorithms, in a variety of practice settings.