Weekly Icodec versus Daily Glargine U100 in Type 2 Diabetes without Previous Insulin.

BACKGROUND: Insulin icodec is an investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue for diabetes management. METHODS: We conducted a 78-week randomized, open-label, treat-to-target phase 3a trial (including a 52-week main phase and a 26-week extension phase, plus a 5-week follow-up period) involving adults with type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin level, 7 to 11%) who had not previously received insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly insulin icodec or once-daily insulin glargine U100. The primary end point was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 52; the confirmatory secondary end point was the percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter) in weeks 48 to 52. Hypoglycemic episodes (from baseline to weeks 52 and 83) were recorded. RESULTS: Each group included 492 participants. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The mean reduction in the glycated hemoglobin level at 52 weeks was greater with icodec than with glargine U100 (from 8.50% to 6.93% with icodec [mean change, -1.55 percentage points] and from 8.44% to 7.12% with glargine U100 [mean change, -1.35 percentage points]); the estimated between-group difference (-0.19 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.36 to -0.03) confirmed the noninferiority (P<0.001) and superiority (P = 0.02) of icodec. The percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter was significantly higher with icodec than with glargine U100 (71.9% vs. 66.9%; estimated between-group difference, 4.27 percentage points [95% CI, 1.92 to 6.62]; P<0.001), which confirmed superiority. Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were 0.30 events per person-year of exposure with icodec and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure with glargine U100 at week 52 (estimated rate ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.75) and 0.30 and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure, respectively, at week 83 (estimated rate ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic control was significantly better with once-weekly insulin icodec than with once-daily insulin glargine U100. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; ONWARDS 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04460885.).

Glycemia Reduction in Type 2 Diabetes - Glycemic Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering medications for use with metformin to maintain target glycated hemoglobin levels in persons with type 2 diabetes is uncertain. METHODS: In this trial involving participants with type 2 diabetes of less than 10 years' duration who were receiving metformin and had glycated hemoglobin levels of 6.8 to 8.5%, we compared the effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications. We randomly assigned participants to receive insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), the sulfonylurea glimepiride, the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, or sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. The primary metabolic outcome was a glycated hemoglobin level, measured quarterly, of 7.0% or higher that was subsequently confirmed, and the secondary metabolic outcome was a confirmed glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5%. RESULTS: A total of 5047 participants (19.8% Black and 18.6% Hispanic or Latinx) who had received metformin for type 2 diabetes were followed for a mean of 5.0 years. The cumulative incidence of a glycated hemoglobin level of 7.0% or higher (the primary metabolic outcome) differed significantly among the four groups (P<0.001 for a global test of differences across groups); the rates with glargine (26.5 per 100 participant-years) and liraglutide (26.1) were similar and lower than those with glimepiride (30.4) and sitagliptin (38.1). The differences among the groups with respect to a glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5% (the secondary outcome) paralleled those of the primary outcome. There were no material differences with respect to the primary outcome across prespecified subgroups defined according to sex, age, or race or ethnic group; however, among participants with higher baseline glycated hemoglobin levels there appeared to be an even greater benefit with glargine, liraglutide, and glimepiride than with sitagliptin. Severe hypoglycemia was rare but significantly more frequent with glimepiride (in 2.2% of the participants) than with glargine (1.3%), liraglutide (1.0%), or sitagliptin (0.7%). Participants who received liraglutide reported more frequent gastrointestinal side effects and lost more weight than those in the other treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: All four medications, when added to metformin, decreased glycated hemoglobin levels. However, glargine and liraglutide were significantly, albeit modestly, more effective in achieving and maintaining target glycated hemoglobin levels. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).

Glycemia Reduction in Type 2 Diabetes - Microvascular and Cardiovascular Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the comparative effectiveness of commonly used glucose-lowering medications, when added to metformin, with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease outcomes in persons with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We assessed the comparative effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications, added to metformin, in achieving and maintaining a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 7.0% in participants with type 2 diabetes. The randomly assigned therapies were insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin. Prespecified secondary outcomes with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease included hypertension and dyslipidemia, confirmed moderately or severely increased albuminuria or an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area, diabetic peripheral neuropathy assessed with the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, cardiovascular events (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE], hospitalization for heart failure, or an aggregate outcome of any cardiovascular event), and death. Hazard ratios are presented with 95% confidence limits that are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: During a mean 5.0 years of follow-up in 5047 participants, there were no material differences among the interventions with respect to the development of hypertension or dyslipidemia or with respect to microvascular outcomes; the mean overall rate (i.e., events per 100 participant-years) of moderately increased albuminuria levels was 2.6, of severely increased albuminuria levels 1.1, of renal impairment 2.9, and of diabetic peripheral neuropathy 16.7. The treatment groups did not differ with respect to MACE (overall rate, 1.0), hospitalization for heart failure (0.4), death from cardiovascular causes (0.3), or all deaths (0.6). There were small differences with respect to rates of any cardiovascular disease, with 1.9, 1.9, 1.4, and 2.0 in the glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin groups, respectively. When one treatment was compared with the combined results of the other three treatments, the hazard ratios for any cardiovascular disease were 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 1.3) in the glargine group, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4) in the glimepiride group, 0.7 (95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9) in the liraglutide group, and 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5) in the sitagliptin group. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with type 2 diabetes, the incidences of microvascular complications and death were not materially different among the four treatment groups. The findings indicated possible differences among the groups in the incidence of any cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).

Bridging dose of U-100 glargine with first dose of insulin degludec improves glycaemia in the 48 h after transition in twice-daily glargine users.

AIMS: To study the effects of a bridging dose of U-100 glargine (U-100G) with the first dose of degludec in type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients transitioning from glargine to degludec, by comparing the glucose metrics 48 h before and after the transition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with T1D on a stable U-100G regimen and with glycated haemoglobin concentration <75 mmol/mol were randomized (double-blind) to one dose of placebo or U-100G with first dose of degludec, administered at 9:00 pm. Patients on once-daily U-100G at baseline received 50% of total U-100G dose (bridging dose), while patients on twice-daily U-100G received 50% of the evening U-100G dose. Participants wore a continuous glucose monitor during the study. RESULTS: Forty participants were randomized, of whom 37 completed the study. The cohort was 65% male, the mean age was 47 years, duration of T1D 22 years, BMI 26 kg/m2, HbA1c 51 mmol/mol and total daily insulin dose 0.7 units/kg body weight. The bridging group included 19 participants (once-daily U-100G: n = 12; twice-daily U-100G: n = 7) and the placebo group included 18 participants (once-daily U-100G: n = 12; twice-daily U-100G: n = 6). Change in time in range (TIR) was not significantly different between the two treatment groups. In secondary analyses, among twice-daily U-100G users, TIR (3.9-10 mmol/L) increased 8% in the bridging group in the 48 h after first dose of degludec compared to the preceding 48 h, while participants in the placebo group had a 9.5% decrease (p = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: A subgroup of well-controlled twice-daily U-100G users transitioning to degludec benefited from a 50% bridging dose of evening U-100G with the first dose of degludec in a small pilot study.

5-Year simulation of diabetes-related complications in people treated with tirzepatide or semaglutide versus insulin glargine.

AIM: This study compared the 5-year incidence rate of macrovascular and microvascular complications for tirzepatide, semaglutide and insulin glargine in individuals with type 2 diabetes, using the Building, Relating, Assessing, and Validating Outcomes (BRAVO) diabetes simulation model. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a 5-year SURPASS-2 trial extrapolation, with an insulin glargine arm added as an additional comparator. The 1-year treatment effects of tirzepatide (5, 10 or 15 mg), semaglutide (1 mg) and insulin glargine on glycated haemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein and body weights were obtained from the SUSTAIN-4 and SURPASS-2 trials. We used the BRAVO model to predict 5-year complications for each study arm under two scenarios: the 1-year treatment effects persisted (optimistic) or diminished to none in 5 years (conservative). RESULTS: When compared with insulin glargine, we projected a 5-year risk reduction in cardiovascular adverse events [rate ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.67] and microvascular composite (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.64-0.70) with 15 mg tirzepatide, and 5-year risk reduction in cardiovascular adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.79) and microvascular composite (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.76-0.82) with semaglutide (1 mg) under an optimistic scenario. Lower doses of tirzepatide also had similar, albeit smaller benefits. Treatment effects for tirzepatide and semaglutide were smaller but still significantly higher than insulin glargine under a conservative scenario. The 5-year risk reduction in diabetes-related complication events and mortality for the 15 mg tirzepatide compared with insulin glargine ranged from 49% to 10% under an optimistic scenario, which was reduced by 17%-33% when a conservative scenario was assumed. CONCLUSION: With the use of the BRAVO diabetes model, tirzepatide and semaglutide exhibited potential to reduce the risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications among individuals with type 2 diabetes, compared with insulin glargine in a 5-year window. Based on the current modelling assumptions, tirzepatide (15 mg) may potentially outperform semaglutide (1 mg). While the BRAVO model offered insights, the long-term cardiovascular benefit of tirzepatide should be further validated in a prospective clinical trial.

Advancing type 2 diabetes therapy with iGlarLixi in older people: Pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi in older people (≥65 years) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) advancing or switching from oral agents, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), or basal insulin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of participants aged <65 years and ≥65 years from four LixiLan trials (LixiLan-O, LixiLan-G, LixiLan-L, SoliMix) were evaluated over 26 or 30 weeks. RESULTS: Participants aged <65/≥65 years (n = 1039/n = 497) had a mean baseline body mass index of 31.4 and 30.7 kg/m2 and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 66 mmol/mol (8.2%) and 65 mmol/mol (8.1%), respectively. Least squares mean HbA1c change from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) was -14.32 mmol/mol (-1.31%) (95% confidence interval [CI] -14.97, -13.77 [-1.37%, -1.26%]) for those aged <65 years and -13.66 mmol/mol (-1.25%) (95% CI -14.54, -12.79 [-1.33%, -1.17%]) for those aged ≥65 years. At EOT, achievement of HbA1c targets was similar between the group aged <65 years and the group aged ≥65 years: <53 mmol/mol (<7%) (59.0% and 56.5%, respectively), <59 mmol/mol (<7.5%) (75.5% and 73.0%, respectively) and <64 mmol/mol (<8%) (83.8% and 84.1%, respectively). The incidence and event rate of American Diabetes Association Level 1 hypoglycaemia during the studies were also comparable between the two groups: 26.7% and 28.2% and 1.7 and 2.1 events per patient-year for the group aged <65 years and the group aged ≥65 years, respectively. A clinically relevant reduction in HbA1c (>1% from baseline for HbA1c ≥64 mmol/mol [≥8%] or ≥0.5% from baseline for HbA1c <64 mmol/mol [<8%]) without hypoglycaemia was attained by 50.0% and 47.6% of participants aged <65 years and ≥65 years, respectively. Adverse events were similar between the two age groups. CONCLUSIONS: iGlarLixi is a simple, well-tolerated, once-daily alternative for treatment advancement in older people with T2D that provides significant improvements in glycaemic control without increasing hypoglycaemia risk, thus reducing the treatment burden.

Treatment responses to basal insulin glargine 300 U/ml and glargine 100 U/ml in newly defined subphenotypes of type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis of the EDITION 3 randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: To compare responses to basal insulin glargine 300 U/ml (IGlar-300) and 100 U/ml (IGlar-100) in newly defined subphenotypes of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Insulin-naive participants (n = 858) from the EDITION 3 trial were assigned to subphenotypes 'Mild Age-Related Diabetes (MARD)', 'Mild Obesity Diabetes (MOD)', 'Severe Insulin Resistant Diabetes (SIRD)' and 'Severe Insulin Deficient Diabetes (SIDD)'. Key variables were analysed at baseline and 26 weeks. RESULTS: Participants were comprised of MOD 56.1% (n = 481), SIDD 22.1% (n = 190), MARD 18.2% (n = 156) and SIRD 3.0% (n = 26). After 26 weeks a similar decrease in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of 16-19 mmol/mol and 1.4-1.7 mmol/L, respectively, occurred in MARD and MOD with both insulins. SIDD had the most elevated HbA1c and FPG (80-83 mmol/mol/11.1-11.4 mmol/L) and reduction in both HbA1c and FPG was greater with IGlar-100 than with IGlar-300 (-18 vs. -15 mmol/mol and -1.6 vs. -1.3 mmol/L, respectively; each p = .03). In SIDD, despite receiving the highest basal insulin doses, HbA1c decline (57-60 mmol/mol/7.3-7.6%) was suboptimal at week 26. In MOD and SIDD lower incidences with IGlar-300 were found for level 1 nocturnal hypoglycaemia [odds ratio (OR) 0.59, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.36-0.97; OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.99]. In addition, fewer level 2 hypoglycaemia episodes occurred at any time with IGlar-300 in SIDD (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.77). CONCLUSION: Both insulins produce comparable outcomes in type 2 diabetes subphenotypes, but in SIDD, add-on treatment to basal insulin is required to achieve glycaemic targets.

Effect of basal insulin and omega 3 fatty acids on cognitive impairment in dysglycaemia: An exploratory analysis of the ORIGIN trial.

AIM: The outcomes reduction with an initial glargine intervention (ORIGIN) trial reported that, allocation to insulin glargine-mediated normoglycaemia versus standard care, and to omega 3 fatty acids versus placebo had a neutral effect on cognitive test scores when analysed as continuous variables. Analyses of these scores as standardized categorical variables using a previously validated strategy may yield different results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ORIGIN trial recruited participants with dysglycaemia and additional cardiovascular risk factors from 573 sites in 40 countries. They completed a mini mental state examination and a subset completed the digit symbol substitution test at baseline and up to three subsequent visits. The effect of the interventions on country-standardized substantive cognitive impairment, defined as the first occurrence of a baseline-adjusted follow-up mini mental state examination or digit symbol substitution test score ≥1.5 standard deviations below the baseline mean score in each participant's country was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 6.2 years, 2627 of 11 682 people (22.5%) developed country-standardized substantive cognitive impairment. The hazard of this outcome was reduced by 9% (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.85, 0.99; p = .023) in participants assigned to insulin glargine (21.6%) versus standard care (23.3%). Conversely, the hazard of this outcome was not affected by assignment to omega 3 fatty acid versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.86, 1.01; p = .074). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc exploratory analysis, insulin glargine-mediated normoglycaemia but not omega 3 fatty acids reduced the hazard of substantive cognitive impairment in people with dysglycaemia and additional cardiovascular risk factors.

Efficacy and safety of tirzepatide in people with type 2 diabetes by baseline body mass index: An exploratory subgroup analysis of SURPASS-AP-Combo.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide versus insulin glargine in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) by baseline body mass index (BMI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with T2D from the Phase 3 SURPASS-AP-Combo trial (NCT04093752) were categorized into three BMI subgroups (normal weight [<25 kg/m2 ], overweight [≥25 and <30 kg/m2 ], and obese [≥30 kg/m2 ]) according to World Health Organization criteria. Exploratory outcomes including glycaemic control, body weight, cardiometabolic risk, and safety were compared among three tirzepatide doses (5, 10 or 15 mg) and insulin glargine. RESULTS: Of 907 participants, 235 (25.9%) had a BMI <25 kg/m2 , 458 (50.5%) a BMI ≥25 to <30 kg/m2 , and 214 (23.6%) a BMI ≥30 kg/m2 at baseline. At Week 40, all tirzepatide doses led to a greater reduction in mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; -2.0% to -2.8% vs. -0.8% to -1.0%, respectively) and percent change in body weight (-5.5% to -10.8% vs. 1.0% to 2.5%, respectively) versus insulin glargine, across the BMI subgroups. Compared with insulin glargine, a higher proportion of tirzepatide-treated participants achieved treatment goals for HbA1c and body weight reduction. Improvements in other cardiometabolic indicators were also observed with tirzepatide across all the BMI subgroups. The safety profile of tirzepatide was similar across all subgroups by BMI. The most frequent adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal-related events and decreased appetite, with relatively few events leading to treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with T2D, regardless of baseline BMI, treatment with tirzepatide resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful glycaemic reductions and body weight reductions compared with insulin glargine, with a safety profile consistent with previous reports.

Saxagliptin/dapagliflozin is non-inferior to insulin glargine in terms of ß-cell function in subjects with latent autoimmune diabetes in adults: A 12-month, randomized, comparator-controlled pilot study.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin/dapagliflozin and insulin glargine in people with latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA). METHODS: In this phase 2b multicentre, open-label, comparator-controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority study, we randomly assigned 33 people with LADA who had a fasting C-peptide concentration ≥0.2 nmol/L (0.6 ng/mL) to receive 1-year daily treatment with either the combination of saxagliptin (5 mg) plus dapagliflozin (10 mg) or insulin glargine (starting dose: 10 IU), both on top of metformin. The primary outcome was the 2-h mixed meal-stimulated C-peptide area under the curve (AUC), measured 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, change in body mass index (BMI), and hypoglycaemic events. RESULTS: In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome was similar in participants assigned to saxagliptin/dapagliflozin or to insulin glargine (median C-peptide AUC: 152.0 ng*min/mL [95% confidence interval {CI} 68.2; 357.4] vs. 122.2 ng*min/mL [95% CI 84.3; 255.8]; p for noninferiority = 0.0087). Participants randomized to saxagliptin/dapagliflozin lost more weight than those randomized to insulin glargine (median BMI change at the end of the study: -0.4 kg/m2 [95% CI -1.6; -0.3] vs. +0.4 kg/m2 [95% CI -0.3; +1.1]; p = 0.0076). No differences in HbA1c or in the number of participants experiencing hypoglycaemic events were found. CONCLUSIONS: Saxagliptin/dapagliflozin was non-inferior to glargine in terms of ß-cell function in this 12-month, small, phase 2b study, enrolling people with LADA with still viable endogenous insulin production. Weight loss was greater with saxagliptin/dapagliflozin, with no differences in glycaemic control or hypoglycaemic risk.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To investigate the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, two-period crossover trial, 66 individuals with T1D (age 18-64 years; glycated haemoglobin ≤75 mmol/mol [≤ 9%]) were to receive once-weekly icodec (8 weeks) and once-daily insulin glargine U100 (2 weeks) at individualized fixed equimolar total weekly doses established during up to 10 weeks' run-in with glargine U100 titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose (PG) of 4.4-7.2 mmol/L (80-130 mg/dL). Insulin aspart was used as bolus insulin. Blood sampling for icodec pharmacokinetics was performed from the first icodec dose until 35 days after the last dose. The glucose infusion rate at steady state was assessed in glucose clamps (target 6.7 mmol/L [120 mg/dL]) at 16-52 h and 138-168 h after the last icodec dose and 0-24 h after the last glargine U100 dose. Icodec pharmacodynamics during 1 week were predicted by pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling. Hypoglycaemia was recorded during the treatment periods based on self-measured PG. RESULTS: Icodec reached pharmacokinetic steady state on average within 2-3 weeks. At steady state, model-predicted daily proportions of glucose infusion rate during the 1-week dosing interval were 14.3%, 19.6%, 18.3%, 15.7%, 13.1%, 10.6% and 8.4%, respectively. Rates and duration of Level 2 hypoglycaemic episodes (PG <3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) were 32.8 versus 23.9 episodes per participant-year of exposure and 33 ± 25 versus 30 ± 18 min (mean ± SD) for icodec versus glargine U100. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of icodec suggest its potential to provide basal coverage in a basal-bolus insulin regimen in people with T1D.

Real-world effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide in adults with type 2 diabetes: An international, multicentre, 12-month, prospective observational study.

AIM: To assess the impact of insulin glargine (100 U/mL) and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) fixed-ratio combination therapy on the overall management of glycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), previously inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs ± basal insulin or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This 12-month, international, multicentre, prospective, observational study included patients (age ≥ 18 years) with T2D who had initiated iGlarLixi within 1 month prior to study inclusion. Data were collected at study inclusion, month 3, month 6 and month 12 from patient diaries, self-measured plasma glucose, and questionnaires. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to month 6. RESULTS: Of the 737 eligible participants (mean age: 57.8 [standard deviation: 11.2] years; male: 49%), 685 had baseline and post-baseline HbA1c data available. The least squares mean change in HbA1c from baseline to month 6 was -1.4% (standard error [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.05 [-1.5, -1.3]). The absolute change from baseline at month 12 was -1.7% ± 1.9% (95% CI: -1.9, -1.5). There were 72 hypoglycaemia events reported during the study period, with a very low incidence of severe hypoglycaemia (two participants [rate: 0.003 events per patient-year]). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world observational study shows that initiation of iGlarLixi in people with T2D inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs ± basal insulin or GLP-1 RAs improves glycaemic control with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia.

Immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of biosimilar insulin glargine (Gan & Lee glargine) compared with originator insulin glargine (Lantus®) in patients with type 2 diabetes after 26 weeks' treatment: A randomized open label study.

AIM: To evaluate the equivalence of immunogenicity, safety and efficacy of Gan & Lee (GL) Glargine (Basalin®; Gan & Lee Pharmaceutical) with that of the reference product (Lantus®) in adult participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, equivalence trial conducted across 57 sites. In total, 567 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo treatment with either GL Glargine or Lantus® for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants in each treatment arm who manifested treatment-induced anti-insulin antibodies (AIA). Secondary endpoints included efficacy and safety metrics, changes in glycated haemoglobin levels, and a comparative assessment of adverse events. Results were analysed using an equivalence test comparing the limits of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for treatment-induced AIA development to the prespecified margins. RESULTS: The percentages of participants positive for treatment-induced glycated haemoglobin by week 26 were similar between the GL Glargine (19.2%) and Lantus® (21.3%) treatment groups, with a treatment difference of -2.1 percentage points and a 90% CI (-7.6%, 3.5%) (predefined similarity margins: -10.7%, 10.7%). The difference in glycated haemoglobin was -0.08% (90% CI, -0.23, 0.06). The overall percentage of participants with any treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the GL Glargine (80.1%) and Lantus® (81.6%) treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: GL Glargine was similar to Lantus® in terms of immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety, based on the current study.

Effects of Switching from Degludec to Glargine U300 in Patients with Insulin-Dependent Type 1 Diabetes: A Retrospective Study.

Background and Objectives: Degludec (Deg) and glargine U300 (Gla-300) are insulin analogs with longer and smoother pharmacodynamic action than glargine U100 (Gla-100), a long-acting insulin that has been widely used for many years in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Both improve glycemic variability (GV) and the frequency of hypoglycemia, unlike Gla-100. However, it is unclear which insulin analog affects GV and hypoglycemia better in patients with insulin-dependent type 1 diabetes. We evaluated the effects of switching from Deg to Gla-300 on the day-to-day GV and the frequency of hypoglycemia in patients with insulin-dependent type 1 diabetes treated with Deg-containing basal-bolus insulin therapy (BBT). Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on 24 patients with insulin-dependent type 1 diabetes whose treatment was switched from Deg-containing BBT to Gla-300-containing BBT. We evaluated the day-to-day GV measured as the standard deviation of fasting blood glucose levels (SD-FBG) calculated by the self-monitoring of blood glucose records, the frequency of hypoglycemia (total, severe, and nocturnal), and blood glucose levels measured as fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Results: The characteristics of the patients included in the analysis with high SD-FBG had frequent hypoglycemic events, despite the use of Deg-containing BBT. For this population, SD-FBG and the frequency of nocturnal hypoglycemia decreased after the switch from Deg to Gla-300. Despite the decrease in the frequency of nocturnal hypoglycemia, the FPG and HbA1c did not worsen by the switch. The change in the SD-FBG had a negative correlation with the SD-FBG at baseline and a positive correlation with serum albumin levels. Conclusions: Switching from Deg to Gla-300 improved the SD-FBG and decreased the frequency of nocturnal hypoglycemia in insulin-dependent type 1 diabetes treated with Deg-containing BBT, especially in cases with low serum albumin levels and a high GV.

Once-Weekly Insulin for Type 2 Diabetes without Previous Insulin Treatment.

BACKGROUND: It is thought that a reduction in the frequency of basal insulin injections might facilitate treatment acceptance and adherence among patients with type 2 diabetes. Insulin icodec is a basal insulin analogue designed for once-weekly administration that is in development for the treatment of diabetes. METHODS: We conducted a 26-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 2 trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec as compared with once-daily insulin glargine U100 in patients who had not previously received long-term insulin treatment and whose type 2 diabetes was inadequately controlled (glycated hemoglobin level, 7.0 to 9.5%) while taking metformin with or without a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. The primary end point was the change in glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 26. Safety end points, including episodes of hypoglycemia and insulin-related adverse events, were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 247 participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive icodec or glargine. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups; the mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 8.09% in the icodec group and 7.96% in the glargine group. The estimated mean change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level was -1.33 percentage points in the icodec group and -1.15 percentage points in the glargine group, to estimated means of 6.69% and 6.87%, respectively, at week 26; the estimated between-group difference in the change from baseline was -0.18 percentage points (95% CI, -0.38 to 0.02, P = 0.08). The observed rates of hypoglycemia with severity of level 2 (blood glucose level, <54 mg per deciliter) or level 3 (severe cognitive impairment) were low (icodec group, 0.53 events per patient-year; glargine group, 0.46 events per patient-year; estimated rate ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.65). There was no between-group difference in insulin-related key adverse events, and rates of hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions were low. Most adverse events were mild, and no serious events were deemed to be related to the trial medications. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly treatment with insulin icodec had glucose-lowering efficacy and a safety profile similar to those of once-daily insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; NN1436-4383 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03751657.).

The vascular function effects of adding exenatide or meal insulin to basal insulin therapy in early type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Basal insulin glargine has a neutral effect on cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). In practice, basal insulin is often paired with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1-RA) or meal insulin; however, the cardiovascular implications of these combinations have not been fully elucidated. In this context, we sought to evaluate the vascular function effects of adding the GLP1-RA exenatide or meal insulin lispro to basal glargine therapy in early T2DM. METHODS: In this 20-week trial, adults with T2DM of < 7-years duration were randomized to 8-weeks treatment with (i) insulin glargine (Glar), (ii) glargine + thrice-daily lispro (Glar/Lispro), or (iii) glargine + twice-daily exenatide (Glar/Exenatide), followed by 12-weeks washout. At baseline, 8-weeks, and washout, fasting endothelial function was assessed with reactive hyperemia index (RHI) measurement by peripheral arterial tonometry. RESULTS: At baseline, there were no differences in blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR) or RHI between participants randomized to Glar (n = 24), Glar/Lispro (n = 24), and Glar/Exenatide (n = 25). At 8-weeks, Glar/Exenatide decreased systolic BP (mean - 8.1 mmHg [95%CI - 13.9 to - 2.4], p = 0.008) and diastolic BP (mean - 5.1 mmHg [- 9.0 to - 1.3], p = 0.012) compared to baseline, with no significant changes in HR or RHI. Notably, baseline-adjusted RHI (mean ± SE) did not differ between the groups at 8-weeks (Glar 2.07 ± 0.10; Glar/Lispro 2.00 ± 0.10; Glar/Exenatide 1.81 ± 0.10; p = 0.19), nor did baseline-adjusted BP or HR. There were no differences between the groups in baseline-adjusted RHI, BP or HR after 12-weeks washout. CONCLUSION: Adding either exenatide or lispro to basal insulin therapy does not appear to affect fasting endothelial function in early T2DM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT02194595.

Efficacy and safety of degludec U100 versus glargine U300 for the early postoperative management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A non-inferiority randomized trial.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of degludec U100 versus glargine U300 for the early postoperative management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: A total of 239 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a basal-bolus regimen in the early postoperative period using degludec U100 (n = 122) or glargine U300 (n = 117) as basal and glulisine before meals. The primary outcome was mean differences between groups in their daily BG concentrations. The major safety outcome was the occurrence of hypoglycemia. RESULTS: There were no differences in mean daily BG concentrations (157 vs. 162 mg/dl), mean percentage of readings within target BG of 70-180 mg/dl (74% vs. 73%), daily basal insulin dose (19 vs. 21 units/day), length of stay (median [IQR]: 9 vs. 9 days), or hospital complications (21.3% vs. 21.4%) between treatment groups. There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <70 mg/dl (15.6% vs. 23.1%) or <54 mg/dl (1.6% vs. 4.3%) between degludec-100 and glargine-300 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with degludec U100 is as effective and safe as glargine U300 for the early postoperative hospital management of patients with T2D undergoing CABG.

Real-world effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/ml in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes in the Latin America region: A subgroup analysis of the ATOS.

AIM: To evaluate the real-world effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) in achieving glycaemic goals in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Mexico, Colombia and Peru (Latin America region) in the A Toujeo Observational Study (ATOS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: ATOS was a multicentre, prospective, 12-month observational study, which included 4422 insulin-naïve adults (age ≥ 18 years) with T2D uncontrolled (HbA1c > 7% and ≤11%) on at least one oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) who initiated Gla-300 treatment as per routine practice. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants achieving their predefined individualized HbA1c goal at month 6. Key secondary endpoints included change from baseline in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG), body weight and incidence of hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: In this subgroup analysis, a total of 314 participants with T2D received Gla-300. At baseline, mean ± SD age was 56.0 ± 11.6 years, duration of diabetes was 9.7 ± 6.6 years and 65.9% of participants were on at least two OADs. The individualized HbA1c target was achieved by 25.8% of participants (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.3-31.9) at month 6 and by 35.3% (95% CI: 28.5-42.5) at month 12. Gla-300 treatment improved glycaemic control with meaningful reductions in mean HbA1c, FPG and fasting SMBG. The incidence of hypoglycaemia reported was low and body weight remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting in the Latin America region, the initiation of Gla-300 in people with T2D uncontrolled on OADs resulted in improved glycaemic control with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia and no change in body weight.

iGlarLixi (insulin glargine 100 U/ml plus lixisenatide) is effective and well tolerated in people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes regardless of age: A REALI pooled analysis of prospective real-world data.

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety in routine clinical practice of insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) according to age. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from 1316 adults with T2D inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs with or without basal insulin who initiated iGlarLixi for 24 weeks. Participants were classified into age subgroups of younger than 65 years (N = 806) and 65 years or older (N = 510). RESULTS: Compared with participants aged younger than 65 years, those aged 65 years or older had a numerically lower mean body mass index (31.6 vs. 32.6 kg/m2 ), a longer median diabetes duration (11.0 vs. 8.0 years), were more likely to receive prior basal insulin (48.4% vs. 43.5%) and had a lower mean HbA1c (8.93% [74.10 mmol/mol] vs. 9.22% [77.28 mmol/mol]). Similar and clinically relevant reductions in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose from baseline to week 24 of iGlarLixi therapy were observed regardless of age. At 24 weeks, least-squares adjusted mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) change in HbA1c from baseline was -1.55% (-1.65% to -1.44%) in those aged 65 years or older and -1.42% (-1.50% to -1.33%) in those aged younger than 65 years (95% CI: -0.26% to 0.00%; P = .058 between subgroups). Low incidences of gastrointestinal adverse events and hypoglycaemic episodes were reported in both age subgroups. iGlarLixi decreased mean body weight from baseline to week 24 in both subgroups (-1.6 kg in those aged ≥ 65 years and -2.0 kg in those aged < 65 years). CONCLUSIONS: iGlarLixi is effective and well tolerated in both younger and older people with uncontrolled T2D.

Effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 on nocturnal glycaemia assessed by plasma glucose profiles in people with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia.

AIM: To compare nocturnal glucose profiles according to hourly plasma glucose measurements during treatment with insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 in a cohort of people with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The HypoDeg trial is a 2-year investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled crossover trial in 149 participants randomized to treatment with insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 for 12 months each. The 51 participants in this predefined substudy stayed at least one night in hospital during each treatment arm for plasma glucose samples to be taken. Endpoints were glucose profiles, including mean plasma glucose, glycaemic variability and risk of hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: There were no differences between treatments regarding mean plasma glucose. We saw a flatter glucose profile during insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 treatment, which had a nadir at 4:00 AM, with a subsequent rise. During treatment with insulin degludec, the participants had lower glycaemic variability, with an estimated treatment difference of -4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] -8.1 to -0.5; P < 0.05). Participants treated with insulin degludec were less likely to experience nocturnal hypoglycaemia below 3.0 mmol/L (hazard ratio 0.36 [95% CI 0.17-0.73; P < 0.05]). CONCLUSION: Based on nocturnal plasma glucose measurements, treatment with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 administered in the evening results in lower glycaemic variability and lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia without differences in mean plasma glucose.