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.).

Switching to once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in individuals with basal-bolus insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 4): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin icodec (icodec) is a basal insulin analogue suitable for once-weekly dosing. ONWARDS 4 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec compared with once-daily insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen. METHODS: In this 26-week, phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial, adults from 80 sites (outpatient clinics and hospital departments) across nine countries (Belgium, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, and the USA) with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·0-10·0%) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-weekly icodec or once-daily glargine U100 combined with 2-4 daily bolus insulin aspart injections. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 (non-inferiority margin of 0·3 percentage points). The primary outcome was evaluated in the full analysis set (ie, all randomly assigned participants). Safety outcomes were evaluated in the safety analysis set (ie, all participants randomly assigned who received at least one dose of trial product). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04880850. FINDINGS: Between May 14 and Oct 29, 2021, 746 participants were screened for eligibility, of whom 582 (78%) were randomly assigned (291 [50%] to icodec treatment and 291 [50%] to glargine U100 treatment). Participants had a mean duration of type 2 diabetes of 17·1 years (SD 8·4). At week 26, estimated mean change in HbA1c was -1·16 percentage points in the icodec group (baseline 8·29%) and -1·18 percentage points in the glargine U100 group (baseline 8·31%), showing non-inferiority for icodec versus glargine U100 (estimated treatment difference 0·02 percentage points [95% CI -0·11 to 0·15], p<0·0001). Overall, 171 (59%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 167 (57%) of 291 participants in the glargine U100 group had an adverse event. 35 serious adverse events were reported in 22 (8%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 33 serious adverse events were reported in 25 (9%) of 291 participants receiving glargine U100. Overall, combined level 2 and level 3 hypoglycaemia rates were similar between treatment groups. No new safety concerns were identified for icodec. INTERPRETATION: In people with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen, once-weekly icodec showed similar improvements in glycaemic control, with fewer basal insulin injections, lower bolus insulin dose, and with no increase in hypoglycaemic rates compared with once-daily glargine U100. Key strengths of this trial include the use of masked continous glucose monitoring; the high trial completion rate; and the inclusion of a large, diverse, and multinational population. Limitations include the relatively short trial duration and the open-label design. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Se-Glargine: Chemical Synthesis of a Basal Insulin Analogue Stabilized by an Internal Diselenide Bridge.

Insulin has long provided a model for studies of protein folding and stability, enabling enhanced treatment of diabetes mellitus via analogue design. We describe the chemical synthesis of a basal insulin analogue stabilized by substitution of an internal cystine (A6-A11) by a diselenide bridge. The studies focused on insulin glargine (formulated as Lantus® and Toujeo®; Sanofi). Prepared at pH 4 in the presence of zinc ions, glargine exhibits a shifted isoelectric point due to a basic B chain extension (ArgB31 -ArgB32 ). Subcutaneous injection leads to pH-dependent precipitation of a long-lived depot. Pairwise substitution of CysA6 and CysA11 by selenocysteine was effected by solid-phase peptide synthesis; the modified A chain also contained substitution of AsnA21 by Gly, circumventing acid-catalyzed deamidation. Although chain combination of native glargine yielded negligible product, in accordance with previous synthetic studies, the pairwise selenocysteine substitution partially rescued this reaction: substantial product was obtained through repeated combination, yielding a stabilized insulin analogue. This strategy thus exploited both (a) the unique redox properties of selenocysteine in protein folding and (b) favorable packing of an internal diselenide bridge in the native state, once achieved. Such rational optimization of protein folding and stability may be generalizable to diverse disulfide-stabilized proteins of therapeutic interest.

Reduction of prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome with tirzepatide: a post hoc analysis from the SURPASS Clinical Trial Program.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome is characterized as the co-occurrence of interrelated cardiovascular risk factors, including insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, abdominal obesity, dyslipidemia and hypertension. Once weekly tirzepatide is approved in the US and EU for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. In the SURPASS clinical trial program for T2D, tirzepatide demonstrated greater improvements in glycemic control, body weight reduction and other cardiometabolic risk factors versus placebo, subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg, insulin degludec, and insulin glargine. This post hoc analysis assessed the effect of tirzepatide use on the prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome across SURPASS 1-5. METHODS: Metabolic syndrome was defined as having ≥ 3 of 5 criteria according to the US National Cholesterol Education Program: Adult Treatment Panel III. Analyses were based on on-treatment data at the primary endpoint from patients adherent to treatment (taking ≥ 75% study drug). A logistic regression model with metabolic syndrome status as the response variable, metabolic syndrome status at the baseline visit as an adjustment, and randomized treatment as fixed explanatory effect was used. The effect of tirzepatide use on the prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome by categorical weight loss, background medication and gender were assessed. RESULTS: In SURPASS, the prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome at baseline was 67-88% across treatment groups with reductions at the primary endpoint to 38-64% with tirzepatide versus 64-82% with comparators. Reductions in the prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome was significantly greater with all tirzepatide doses versus placebo, semaglutide 1 mg, insulin glargine, and insulin degludec (p < 0.001). Individual components of metabolic syndrome were also reduced to a greater extent with tirzepatide vs comparators. Greater reductions in body weight were associated with greater reductions in the prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome and its individual components. Background SGLT2i or sulfonylurea use or gender did not impact the change in prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, tirzepatide at all doses studied was associated with a greater reduction in the prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome compared to placebo, semaglutide 1 mg, insulin degludec, and insulin glargine. Although more evidence is needed, these data would support greater potential improvement in cardiovascular risk factor profile with tirzepatide treatment in people across the continuum of T2D.

An exploratory analysis of the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 units/mL versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL over a lifetime horizon using the BRAVO diabetes model.

BACKGROUND: This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). METHODS: Costs and outcomes for Gla-300 versus Gla-100 from a US healthcare payer perspective were assessed using the BRAVO diabetes model. Baseline clinical data were derived from EDITION-3, a 12-month randomized controlled trial comparing Gla-300 with Gla-100 in insulin-naïve adults with inadequately controlled T2D on OADs. Treatment costs were calculated based on doses observed in EDITION-3 and 2020 US net prices, while costs for complications were based on published literature. Lifetime costs ($US) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates; extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Lifetime medical costs were estimated to be $353,441 and $352,858 for individuals receiving Gla-300 and Gla-100 respectively; insulin costs were $52,613 and $50,818. Gla-300 was associated with a gain of 8.97 QALYs and 21.12 life-years, while Gla-100 was associated with a gain of 8.89 QALYs and 21.07 life-years. This resulted in an ICER of $7522/QALY gained for Gla-300 versus Gla-100. Thus, Gla-300 was cost-effective versus Gla-100 based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Compared with Gla-100, Gla-300 provided a net monetary benefit of $3290. Scenario and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case. CONCLUSION: Gla-300 may be a cost-effective treatment option versus Gla-100 over a lifetime horizon for insulin-naïve people in the United States with T2D inadequately controlled on OADs.

Real-world study of the concomitant use of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 with GLP-1 receptor agonist versus first-generation basal insulin with GLP-1 receptor agonist in type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Combining insulin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D) is common. While many studies have investigated concomitant therapy with basal insulin+GLP-1RA, few have reported on premixed insulin+GLP-1RA. We aimed to address this gap using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database in England. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching assessed glycaemic levels and other clinical outcomes in people with T2D, comparing biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) + GLP-1RA with basal insulin (insulin detemir/glargine U100) + GLP-1RA (from 2006 to 2021). RESULTS: In total, 4770 eligible people were identified; 1511 had a BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA regimen and were propensity score-matched to an equal number receiving basal+GLP-1RA. There was no significant difference in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction between cohorts at 6 months (p = 0.15), with a decrease of -1.07 (95% CI: -1.16; -0.98) %-points (-11.7 mmol/mol [95% CI: -12.7; -10.7]) in the BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA cohort, versus -0.97 (95% CI: -1.07; -0.88) %-points (-10.6 mmol/mol [95% CI: -11.7; -9.6]) in the basal+GLP-1RA cohort. Body mass index (BMI) decreased by -0.35 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.52;-0.18) at 6 months with BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA, versus -0.72 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.90;-0.54) with basal+GLP-1RA (p = 0.003). BMI was influenced by the initiation sequence of GLP-1RA in relation to insulin (p < 0.0001). Hypoglycaemia rates were low and not significantly different between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Combining BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA provides glycaemic control with no significant difference to that of propensity score-matched people receiving basal insulin+GLP-1RA, with no increase in hypoglycaemia risk or weight gain.

Insulin icodec: A novel once-weekly treatment for diabetes.

AIMS: To summarize the results of clinical studies of insulin icodec, an investigational insulin analog designed for once-weekly administration, in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Thirteen published articles describing clinical studies of insulin icodec were identified in PubMed, and data pertinent to key study outcomes were selected for inclusion in this review. RESULTS: In insulin-naïve and insulin-treated individuals, icodec demonstrated efficacy in glycaemic control superior or noninferior to that of insulins glargine U100, glargine U300 and degludec. Icodec exhibited a safety profile comparable to marketed insulins, with the exception of hypoglycaemic event rates. CONCLUSIONS: As a once-weekly alternative to daily basal insulin, icodec is expected to improve patient adherence and satisfaction, reducing the required number of injections per year from 365 to 52 and providing a dosing option potentially attractive to a wide range of insulin users. However, clinical data suggest a notable risk of hypoglycaemia with weekly icodec administration, especially in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

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.

Treatment intensification following glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: Comparative effectiveness analyses between different basal insulins. RESTORE-G real-world study.

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of different basal insulins (BI) prescribed as an add-on to or switch from glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective, real-world data from electronic medical records of 32 Italian diabetes clinics were used, after propensity score adjustment, to compare effectiveness after 6 months of treatment with second- versus first-generation BI (2BI vs. 1BI) or glargine 300 U/ml versus degludec 100 U/ml (Gla-300 vs. Deg-100), when added to (ADD-ON) or in substitution of (SWITCH) GLP-1 RA. Only comparisons, including a minimum of 100 patients per group, were performed to ensure adequate robustness of the analyses. RESULTS: In the ADD-ON cohort (N = 700), greater benefits of 2BI versus 1BI were found in glycated haemoglobin {HbA1c; estimated mean difference: -0.32% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.62; -0.02]; p = .04} and fasting blood glucose [FBG; -20.73 mg/dl (95% CI -35.62; -5.84); p = .007]. In the SWITCH cohort (N = 2097), greater benefits of 2BI versus 1BI were found in HbA1c [-0.22% (95% CI -0.42; -0.02); p = .03], FBG [-10.15 mg/dl (95% CI -19.04; -1.26); p = .03], and body weight [-0.67 kg (95% CI -1.30; -0.04); p = .04]. In the SWITCH cohort starting 2BI (N = 688), marked differences in favour of Gla-300 versus Deg-100 were documented in HbA1c [-0.89% (95% CI -1.26; -0.52); p < .001] and FBG [-17.89 mg/dl (95% CI -32.45; -3.33); p = .02]. Using propensity score matching as a sensitivity analysis, the benefit on HbA1c was confirmed [-0.55% (95% CI -1.02; -0.08); p = .02]. BI titration was suboptimal in all examined cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: 2BI are a valuable option to intensify GLP-1 RA therapy. Switching to Gla-300 versus Deg-100 was associated with greater HbA1c improvement.

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.

Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL in people with type 2 diabetes in China: The INITIATION study.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) in China. METHODS: INITIATION (NCT05002933) was a prospective, interventional, multicentre, single-arm, phase IV study conducted in China. Individuals with suboptimally controlled T2D who were insulin naïve or switching from another basal insulin (insulin experienced) were included. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24. Safety assessments included hypoglycaemia and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: In total, 568 participants were enrolled and 562 initiated Gla-300 treatment (189 in the insulin-naïve subgroup; 373 in the insulin-experienced subgroup). At week 24, the mean ± standard error (SE) change in HbA1c from baseline was -0.91% ± 0.05% (-9.9 ± 0.5 mmol/mol; P < .0001). Significant HbA1c reductions were also observed in the insulin-naïve (mean ± SE change: -1.38% ± 0.09% [-15.1 ± 1.0 mmol/mol]) and insulin-experienced (-0.68% ± 0.05% [-7.4 ± 0.5 mmol/mol]) subgroups (both P < .0001). During the 24-week treatment period, the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose ≤ 3.9 mmol/L) was 39.7% for all hypoglycaemia and 13.3% for nocturnal hypoglycaemia; the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia was low (0.5%). Overall, treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were reported in 126 participants (22.4%), with no serious treatment-related TEAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Gla-300 was effective in improving glycaemic control and had a relatively low risk of hypoglycaemia in people with suboptimally controlled T2D who were insulin naïve or switching from another basal insulin in China.

The efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes suboptimally controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs: The Soli-D randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) with premixed insulin, insulin degludec plus insulin aspart (IDegAsp), in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) suboptimally controlled with oral antidiabetic drug(s) (OADs). METHODS: In Soli-D, a 24-week, multicentre, open-label, study, insulin-naïve adults were randomized 1:1 to once-daily injections of iGlarLixi (n = 291) or IDegAsp (n = 291), with continued metformin ± sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline to week 24. Key secondary endpoints included superiority in HbA1c change and body weight (BW) change at week 24. Hypoglycaemia rates were also assessed. RESULTS: At week 24, iGlarLixi showed non-inferiority and superiority over IDegAsp in HbA1c reduction (least squares [LS] mean difference: -0.20 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -0.33, -0.07]; P < .001 for non-inferiority; [97.5% CI: -0.35, -0.05]; P = .003 for superiority). iGlarLixi decreased BW and IDegAsp increased BW from baseline to week 24, with a statistically significant LS mean difference of -1.49 kg in favour of iGlarLixi (97.5% CI: -2.32, -0.66; P < .001). Event rates (per person-year) for American Diabetes Association (ADA) Level 1, 2 or 3 hypoglycaemia were lower for iGlarLixi (1.90) versus IDegAsp (2.72) (relative risk: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.98). No ADA Level 3 hypoglycaemia or unexpected safety findings were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In Chinese people with T2D suboptimally controlled with OADs, once-daily iGlarLixi provided better glycaemic control with BW benefit and lower hypoglycaemia event rates versus IDegAsp.

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.

Ultra-rapid lispro improved postprandial glucose control compared to insulin lispro in predominantly Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes: A prospective, randomized, double-blind phase 3 study.

AIMS: To investigate the efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) versus insulin lispro in predominantly Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, treat-to-target, phase 3 study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following a lead-in period, during which insulin glargine U-100 or insulin degludec U-100 was optimized, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to URLi (n = 176) or insulin lispro (n = 178). The primary objective was to test the noninferiority of URLi to insulin lispro in glycaemic control (noninferiority margin = 0.4% for glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] change from baseline to week 26), with testing for the superiority of URLi to insulin lispro with regard to 1- and 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) excursions during a mixed-meal tolerance test and HbA1c change at week 26 as the multiplicity-adjusted objectives. RESULTS: From baseline to week 26, HbA1c decreased by 0.21% and 0.28% with URLi and insulin lispro, respectively, with a least squares mean treatment difference of 0.07% (95% confidence interval -0.11 to 0.24; P = 0.467). URLi demonstrated smaller 1- and 2-hour PPG excursions at week 26 with least squares mean treatment differences of -1.0 mmol/L (-17.8 mg/dL) and -1.4 mmol/L (-25.5 mg/dL), respectively (p < 0.005 for both) versus insulin lispro. The safety profiles of URLi and insulin lispro were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, URLi administered in a basal-bolus regimen demonstrated superiority to insulin lispro in controlling PPG excursions, with noninferiority of HbA1c control in predominantly Chinese patients with T1D.

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.

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.

Time-in-range derived from self-measured blood glucose in people with type 2 diabetes advancing to iGlarLixi: A participant-level pooled analysis of three phase 3 LixiLan randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using derived time-in-range (dTIR). METHODS: Participant-level data from LixiLan-L, LixiLan-O and LixiLan-G were pooled and dTIR (70-180 mg/dL), derived time-above-range (> 180 mg/dL) and derived time-below-range (dTBR; < 70 mg/dL) were calculated from participant seven-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles. RESULTS: This pooled analysis included data from 2420 participants receiving iGlarLixi (n = 1093), iGlar (n = 836), Lixi (n = 234) or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) (n = 257). Numerically greater improvements in least square (LS) means dTIR were seen from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) with iGlarLixi (25.7%) versus iGlar (15.8%), Lixi (11.7%) or GLP-1 RA (16.2%). At EOT, the mean (standard deviation) dTBR was 0.71% ± 3.4%, 0.61% ± 3.2%, 0.08% ± 1.0% and 0.0% ± 0.0% for iGlarLixi, iGlar, Lixi and GLP-1 RA, respectively. In a subgroup analysis, participants aged younger than 65 years (n = 1690) and 65 years or older (n = 713) showed numerically greater improvements in LS means dTIR from baseline to EOT with iGlarLixi versus iGlar, Lixi or GLP-1 RA. CONCLUSIONS: iGlarLixi achieved improvements in dTIR, with low dTBR values, providing further evidence to inform clinical outcomes with the use of iGlarLixi.

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.