Effect of switching from twice-daily basal insulin to once-daily insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in Brazilian people with type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Low adherence to the number of insulin injections and glycemic variability are among the challenges of insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes (T1D). The TOP1 study investigated the effect of switching from twice-daily (BID) basal insulin to once daily (OD) insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) on glycemic control and quality of life. METHODS: In this 28-week, phase 4 trial, people with T1D aged ≥ 18 years, who were treated with BID basal insulin in combination with prandial rapid-acting insulin for at least 1 year, and had HbA1c between 7.5% and 10.0%, were switched to Gla-300 OD as basal insulin. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of this change on HbA1c, glycemic profile, treatment satisfaction and safety. The change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-three people with T1D (mean age 37 ± 11 years; 54.5% female) were studied. The disease duration was 20.0 ± 9.8 years, baseline HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were 8.6 ± 0.7% and 201 ± 80.3 mg/dL, respectively. After switching from BID to OD insulin regimen, no significant change in HbA1c was observed from baseline to Week 24 (p = 0.873). There were significant reductions in fasting self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) from baseline to Week 24 (175 ± 42 vs. 156 ± 38 mg/dL; p < 0.0001), and in glycemic profile (8-point SMBG) at several time points. There was a significant decrease in the proportion of patients with at least one hypoglycemic event (p = 0.025), in numbers of hypoglycemic events per patient-years of any type (p = 0.036), symptomatic (p = 0.007), and confirmed ≤ 70 mg/dL events (p = 0.049) from run-in to the last 4 weeks on treatment. There were significant improvements in treatment satisfaction (p < 0.0001), perceived hyperglycemia (p < 0.0001) scores and satisfaction with the number of injections between post-run-in and Week 24, and a significant decrease in fear of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Switch from BID basal insulin to OD Gla-300 as part of basal bolus therapy in T1D resulted in similar glycemic control as measured by HbA1c, but provided significant improvements in SMBG, daily glucose profile, a lower incidence of hypoglycemia and increased patient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03406000.

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.

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.

Insulinas análogas de ação prolongada comparadas à insulina NPH para tratamento de diabetes mellitus tipo 2 em adultos: revisão rápida / Long-acting basal insulin analogues compared to nph insulin for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: rapid review

Tecnologia: Insulinas análogas de liberação prolongada versus insulina NPH (protamina neutra de Hagedorn). Indicação: Tratamento de adultos com diabetes mellitus tipo 2. Pergunta: Há diferenças de efeito nos principais desfechos de eficácia e segurança entre insulinas análogas de liberação prolongada versus insulina NPH no tratamento de pacientes com DM2? Métodos: Revisão rápida de evidências (overview) de revisões sistemáticas, com levantamento bibliográfico realizado na base de dados PUBMED, utilizando estratégia estruturada de busca. A qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas foi avaliada com AMSTAR-2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Resultados: Foi selecionada e incluída uma revisão sistemática. Conclusão: As insulinas análogas (glargina e detemir) não demonstraram superioridade nos desfechos de eficácia e segurança quando comparadas à insulina NPH, não demonstraram redução significativa em relação à mortalidade por todas as causas e complicações secundárias ao DM2. Quando comparadas à insulina NPH, foi observado redução na hipoglicemia confirmada e hipoglicemia noturna a favor das insulinas análogas e na hipoglicemia grave a favor da insulina detemir

Technology: Long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin). Indication: Treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Question: Are there effect differences in key efficacy and safety outcomes between long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin in the treatment of DM2 patients? Methods: Rapid review of evidence (overview) of systematic reviews, with a bibliographic survey carried out in the PUBMED database, using a structured search strategy. The methodological quality of systematic reviews was assessed with AMSTAR-2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Results: A systematic review was selected and included. Conclusion: Analog insulins (glargine and detemir) did not demonstrate superiority in efficacy and safety outcomes when compared to NPH insulin, did not demonstrate a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and complications secondary to DM2. When compared to NPH insulin, a reduction in confirmed hypoglycemia and nocturnal hypoglycemia in favor of analogue insulins and in severe hypoglycemia in favor of insulin detemir was observed

Molecular Modeling and Bioinformatics Analysis of Drug-Receptor Interactions in the System Formed by Glargine, Its Metabolite M1, the Insulin Receptor, and the IGF1 Receptor.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin and insulin-like growth factor type 1 (IGF1) regulate multiple physiological functions by acting on the insulin receptor (IR) and insulin-like growth factor type 1 receptor (IGF1R). The insulin analog glargine differs from insulin in three residues (GlyA21, ArgB31, ArgB32), and it is converted to metabolite M1 (lacks residues ArgB31 and ArgB32) by in vivo processing. It is known that activation of these receptors modulates pathways related to metabolism, cell division, and growth. Though, the structures and structural basis of the glargine interaction with these receptors are not known. AIM: To generate predictive structural models, and to analyze the drug/receptor interactions in the system formed by glargine, its metabolite M1, IR, and IGF1R by using bioinformatics tools. METHODS: Ligand/receptor models were built by homology modeling using SWISSMODEL, and surface interactions were analyzed using Discovery Studio® Visualizer. Target and hetero target sequences and appropriate template structures were used for modeling. RESULTS: Our glargine/IR and metabolite M1/IR models showed an overall symmetric T-shaped conformation and full occupancy with four ligand molecules. The glargine/IR model revealed that the glargine residues ArgB31 and ArgB32 fit in a hydrophilic region formed by the α-chain C-terminal helix (αCT) and the cysteine-rich region (CR) domain of this receptor, close to the CR residues Arg270-Arg271-Gln272 and αCT residue Arg717. Regarding IGF1R, homologous ligand/receptor models were further built assuming that the receptor is in a symmetrical T-shaped conformation and is fully occupied with four ligand molecules, similar to what we described for IR. Our glargine/IGF1R model showed the interaction of the glargine residues ArgB31 and ArgB32 with Glu264 and Glu305 in the CR domain of IGF1R. CONCLUSION: Using bioinformatics tools and predictive modeling, our study provides a better understanding of the glargine/receptor interactions.

The Current Situation Regarding Long-Acting Insulin Analogues Including Biosimilars Among African, Asian, European, and South American Countries; Findings and Implications for the Future.

Background: Diabetes mellitus rates continue to rise, which coupled with increasing costs of associated complications has appreciably increased global expenditure in recent years. The risk of complications are enhanced by poor glycaemic control including hypoglycaemia. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve adherence. Their considerably higher costs though have impacted their funding and use. Biosimilars can help reduce medicine costs. However, their introduction has been affected by a number of factors. These include the originator company dropping its price as well as promoting patented higher strength 300 IU/ml insulin glargine. There can also be concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. Objective: To assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues, and the rationale for patterns seen, across multiple countries to inform strategies to enhance future utilisation of long-acting insulin analogue biosimilars to benefit all key stakeholders. Our approach: Multiple approaches including assessing the utilisation, expenditure and prices of insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine, across multiple continents and countries. Results: There was considerable variation in the use of long-acting insulin analogues as a percentage of all insulins prescribed and dispensed across countries and continents. This ranged from limited use of long-acting insulin analogues among African countries compared to routine funding and use across Europe in view of their perceived benefits. Increasing use was also seen among Asian countries including Bangladesh and India for similar reasons. However, concerns with costs and value limited their use across Africa, Brazil and Pakistan. There was though limited use of biosimilar insulin glargine 100 IU/ml compared with other recent biosimilars especially among European countries and Korea. This was principally driven by small price differences in reality between the originator and biosimilars coupled with increasing use of the patented 300 IU/ml formulation. A number of activities were identified to enhance future biosimilar use. These included only reimbursing biosimilar long-acting insulin analogues, introducing prescribing targets and increasing competition among manufacturers including stimulating local production. Conclusions: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars despite lower costs. This can be addressed by multiple activities.

Buried Kex2 Sites in Glargine Precursor Aggregates Prevent Its Intracellular Processing in Pichia pastoris Muts Strains and the Effect of Methanol-Feeding Strategy and Induction Temperature on Glargine Precursor Production Parameters.

Glargine is a long-acting insulin analog with less hypoglycemia risk. Like human insulin, glargine is a globular protein composed of two polypeptide chains linked by two disulfide bonds. Pichia pastoris KM71 Muts strains were engineered to produce and secrete insulin glargine through the cleavage of two Kex2 sites. Nevertheless, the recombinant product was the single-chain insulin glargine (glargine precursor) instead of the expected double-chain glargine. Molecular model analysis of the dimeric and hexameric forms of the single-chain glargine showed buried Kex2 sites that prevent intracellular glargine precursor processing. The effect of the methanol-feeding strategy (methanol limited fed-batch vs. methanol non-limited fed-batch) and the induction temperature (28 °C vs. 24 °C) on the cell growth and production parameters in bioreactor cultures was also evaluated. Exponential growth at a constant specific growth rate was observed in all the cultures. The volumetric productivities and specific substrate consumption rates were directly proportional to the specific growth rate. The lower temperature led to increased metabolic activity of the yeast cells, which increased the specific growth rate. The methanol non-limited fed-batch culture at 24 °C showed the highest values for the process parameters. After 75 h of induction, 0.122 g/L of glargine precursor was obtained from the culture medium.

Mesenchymal stem cells derivatives as a novel and potential therapeutic approach to treat diabetic foot ulcers.

SUMMARY: Diabetic foot ulcer morbidity and mortality are dramatically increasing worldwide, reinforcing the urgency to propose more effective interventions to treat such a devastating condition. Previously, using a diabetic mouse model, we demonstrated that administration of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells derivatives is more effective than the use of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells alone. Here, we used the aforementioned treatments on three patients with grade 2 diabetic foot ulcers and assessed their beneficial effects, relative to the conventional approach. In the present study, two doses of cell derivatives, one dose of mesenchymal stem cells or one dose of vehicle (saline solution with 5% of human albumin), were intradermally injected around wounds. Wound healing process and changes on re-epithelialization were macroscopically evaluated until complete closure of the ulcers. All ulcers were simultaneously treated with conventional treatment (PolyMen® dressing). Patients treated with either cell derivatives or mesenchymal stem cells achieved higher percentages of wound closure in shorter times, relative to the patient treated with the conventional treatment. The cell derivative and mesenchymal stem cells approaches resulted in complete wound closure and enhanced skin regeneration at some point between days 35 and 42, although no differences between these two treatments were observed. Moreover, wounds treated with the conventional treatment healed after 161 days. Intradermal administration of cell derivatives improved wound healing to a similar extent as mesenchymal stem cells. Thus, our results suggest that mesenchymal stem cell derivatives may serve as a novel and potential therapeutic approach to treat diabetic foot ulcers. LEARNING POINTS: In diabetic mouse models, the administration of mesenchymal stem cells derivatives have been demonstrated to be more effective than the use of marrow mesenchymal stem cells alone. Mesenchymal stem cells have been explored as an attractive therapeutic option to treat non-healing ulcers. Mesenchymal stem cells derivatives accelerate the re-epithelialization on diabetic foot ulcers.

Mexican population sub-analysis of the lixilan clinical program with the fixed ratio combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi).

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi in Mexican patients with type 2 diabetes who participated in the LixiLan clinical trials and compare results with the rest of the patients. METHODS: Data was collected for Mexican patients who participated in either of three studies: phase 2 trial LixiLan-POC, that compared iGlarLixi vs insulin glargine (iGlar) on inadequately controlled patients with metformin; phase 3 trial LixiLan-O, comparing iGlarLixi vs iGlar and lixisenatide on inadequately controlled patients with oral antidiabetic agents; and finally the phase 3 trial LixiLan-L, comparing iGlarLixi vs iGlar on inadequately controlled patients with basal insulin. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment. RESULTS: In the Mexican population, treatment with iGlarLixi significantly improved HbA1c compared with each component alone achieving an average of 6.5%; (6.17%, 6.63% and 6.73% for the LixiLan-POC, O and L studies respectively) and an average HbA1c reduction from baseline of 1.6%, for the three studies at end of treatment period. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety profile of iGlarLixi demonstrate a fair or better composite endpoint of HbA1c without hypoglycemia and no weight gain compared to overall trial population, which could help improve Mexican patients' outcomes.

[New generation of insulins: glargine U300. Summary of clinical evidence]. / Nueva generación de insulinas: glargina U300. Resumen de evidencia clínica.

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic, progressive disease with increasing prevalence and still late diagnostic. This leads to an increase in the incidence of chronic complications, with signifi cantly increasing health costs. There is also a delay in the onset of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes for causes related to both patients and physicians. Despite advances in treatment, a low proportion of patients achieve adequate glycemic control. The high hypoglycemia prevalence, consequence of insulin, has led to the development of a new generation long-acting basal insulins to achieve a more stable and prolonged action profile, reducing the variability and risk of hypoglycemia. The EDITION program evaluated the efficacy and safety of glargine U300 compared to glargine U100 in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes at different stages of the disease. Gla-300 is a new formulation of insulin glargine which has a more stable and prolonged pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile. Gla-300 demonstrated efficacy and tolerability comparable to glargine U100, with a significant decrease in the risk of hypoglycemia, at night and in 24 hours, providing greater flexibility in the injection schedule, with a window of 6 hours. No increase in weight was observed compared to glargine U100. Bright study (2018) compared glargine U300 vs. degludec U100, demonstrating greater benefit in relation to the risk of hypoglycemia with Gla-300 during titration period. Gla-300 is a last-generation basal insulin, available to improve metabolic control, with a lower risk of hypoglycemia.

La diabetes mellitus tipo 2 tiene evolución crónica y progresiva, prevalencia creciente y aún es diagnosticada tardíamente. Esto conlleva mayor incidencia de complicaciones crónicas, con incremento de costos en salud. Existe retraso en el inicio de insulinoterapia por causas relacionadas tanto al paciente como al médico. A pesar de los avances en su tratamiento, una baja proporción de enfermos logra control glucémico adecuado. La alta prevalencia de hipoglucemia en pacientes insulino-tratados, impulsó el desarrollo de una nueva generación de insulinas basales de acción prolongada, mayor estabilidad con menor variabilidad y riesgo de hipoglucemias. El programa EDITION evaluó la eficacia y seguridad de glargina U300 vs. glargina U100 en pacientes con diabetes tipo 1 y 2, en distintas etapas de la enfermedad. Glargina U300 es una nueva formulación de insulina glargina con perfil farmacocinético y farmacodinámico más estable y prolongado que glargina U100. Glargina U300 demostró eficacia y tolerabilidad comparable a glargina U100, con descenso significativo del riesgo de hipoglucemias nocturnas y en 24 horas, aportando mayor flexibilidad en el horario de inyección, con una ventana de 6 horas. Además, no se observó mayor aumento de peso que con glargina U100. El estudio Bright (2018) comparó glargina U300 vs. degludec U100, demostrando mayor beneficio en relación al riesgo de hipoglucemia con Gla-300 durante el período de titulación. Gla-300 es una insulina basal de última generación, disponible para mejorar el control metabólico, con menor riesgo de hipoglucemia.

Nueva generación de insulinas: glargina U300: Resumen de evidencia clínica / New generation of insulins: glargine U300. Summary of clinical evidence

La diabetes mellitus tipo 2 tiene evolución crónica y progresiva, prevalencia creciente y aún es diagnosticada tardíamente. Esto conlleva mayor incidencia de complicaciones crónicas, con incremento de costos en salud. Existe retraso en el inicio de insulinoterapia por causas relacionadas tanto al paciente como al médico. A pesar de los avances en su tratamiento, una baja proporción de enfermos logra control glucémico adecuado. La alta prevalencia de hipoglucemia en pacientes insulino-tratados, impulsó el desarrollo de una nueva generación de insulinas basales de acción prolongada, mayor estabilidad con menor variabilidad y riesgo de hipoglucemias. El programa EDITION evaluó la eficacia y seguridad de glargina U300 vs. glargina U100 en pacientes con diabetes tipo 1 y 2, en distintas etapas de la enfermedad. Glargina U300 es una nueva formulación de insulina glargina con perfil farmacocinético y farmacodinámico más estable y prolongado que glargina U100. Glargina U300 demostró eficacia y tolerabilidad comparable a glargina U100, con descenso significativo del riesgo de hipoglucemias nocturnas y en 24 horas, aportando mayor flexibilidad en el horario de inyección, con una ventana de 6 horas. Además, no se observó mayor aumento de peso que con glargina U100. El estudio Bright (2018) comparó glargina U300 vs. degludec U100, demostrando mayor beneficio en relación al riesgo de hipoglucemia con Gla-300 durante el período de titulación. Gla-300 es una insulina basal de última generación, disponible para mejorar el control metabólico, con menor riesgo de hipoglucemia.

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic, progressive disease with increasing prevalence and still late diagnostic. This leads to an increase in the incidence of chronic complications, with signifi cantly increasing health costs. There is also a delay in the onset of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes for causes related to both patients and physicians. Despite advances in treatment, a low proportion of patients achieve adequate glycemic control. The high hypoglycemia prevalence, consequence of insulin, has led to the development of a new generation long-acting basal insulins to achieve a more stable and prolonged action profile, reducing the variability and risk of hypoglycemia. The EDITION program evaluated the efficacy and safety of glargine U300 compared to glargine U100 in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes at different stages of the disease. Gla-300 is a new formulation of insulin glargine which has a more stable and prolonged pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile. Gla-300 demonstrated efficacy and tolerability comparable to glargine U100, with a significant decrease in the risk of hypoglycemia, at night and in 24 hours, providing greater flexibility in the injection schedule, with a window of 6 hours. No increase in weight was observed compared to glargine U100. Bright study (2018) compared glargine U300 vs. degludec U100, demonstrating greater benefit in relation to the risk of hypoglycemia with Gla-300 during titration period. Gla-300 is a last-generation basal insulin, available to improve metabolic control, with a lower risk of hypoglycemia.

Insulina degludec en pacientes diabéticos tipo 1: observación a 18 meses / Degludec insulin in type 1 diabetic patients: 18 months of observation

Antecedentes: En el tratamiento de la diabetes se buscan insulinas de acción más prolongada y con menores tasas de hipoglicemias. Objetivo. Uso del análogo de insulina de acción ultralenta degludec en diabéticos tipo 1 (DM1) tratados previamente con glargina. Pacientes y método: Se observaron 230 DM1 durante 18 meses, promedio de edad 34 años y de diagnóstico 14 años, registrándose parámetros clínicos, bioquímicos, hipoglicemias y requerimientos de insulina (U/kg/peso), en régimen basal/bolo, con degludec y ultra-rápida precomidas. Degludec se ajustó quincenalmente. Resultados: A los 3 meses, la glicemia de ayunas disminuyó de 253mg/dl (243-270) a 180 mg/dl (172- 240), (p< 0,05); a los 6 meses a 156 mg/dl (137-180) (p< 0,05), a los 12 meses a 151 mg/dl (50-328) (p< 0,001) y a los 18 meses 150 (50-321) (p<0,001). La HbA1c, inicialmente de 10,6% (10,3-12,2) bajó a los 3 meses a 8,7% (8,2-11,1) (p< 0,05), a 6 meses a 8,3% (8,0-9,6) (p<0,05), a los 12 meses subió 9,0% (5,9-14,5) (p<0,001) y a los 18 meses 9,0% (5,9-14,6) (p<0,001). La dosis de degludec fue 0,5 U/kg/peso a los 18 meses. Hubo reducción de hipoglicemias: a los 3 meses 14 leves, 4 moderados 1 grave; a los 6 meses 8 leves, 2 moderados y ninguna grave; a los 12 meses 1 leve, y a los 18 meses 2 leves, 1 moderado y ninguna grave. Un 7,8% no presentó hipoglicemias. Conclusión: Degludec en DM1 mostró reducir las glicemias de ayunas y HbA1c, y menor número de hipoglicemias.

Background: In the treatment of diabetes, longer-acting insulins with lower rates of hypoglycaemia are sought. Objective. Use of ultralow-acting insulin analog degludec in type 1 diabetic patients (T1D) previously treated with glargine. Patients and method: 230 T1D patients were observed during 18 months, average of age 34 years and of diagnosis 14 years, registering clinical, biochemical, hypoglycemia and insulin requirements (U / kg / weight), in basal / bolus regimen, with degludec and ultra-fast pre-meals. Degludec adjusted himself fortnightly. Results: At 3 months, the fasting glycemia decreased from 253 mg / dl (243-270) to 180 mg / dl (172 - 240), (p <0.05); at 6 months at 156 mg / dl (137-180) (p <0.05), at 12 months at 151 mg / dl (50-328) (p <0.001) and at 18 months 150 (50-321) ;(p <0.001). HbA1c, initially of 10.6% (10.3-12.2), decreased after 3 months to 8.7% (8.2 - 11.1) (p <0.05), to 6 months to 8 months, 3% (8.0-9.6) (p <0.05), at 12 months it rose 9.0% (5.9-14.5) (p <0.001) and at 18 months 9.0 % (5.9-14.6) (p <0.001). The dose of degludec was 0.5 U / kg / weight at 18 months. There was reduction of hypoglycemia: at 3 months, 14 mild, 4 moderate, 1 severe; at 6 months 8 mild, 2 moderate and none serious; at 12 months 1 mild, and at 18 months 2 mild, 1 moderate and none serious. 7.8% did not present hypoglycemia. Conclusion: Degludec in T1D patients showed to reduce fasting glycemia and HbA1c, and lower number of hypoglycemia.

Cost Effectiveness of Dulaglutide Compared with Liraglutide and Glargine in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients in Colombia.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes treatment includes very diverse drugs. It is essential to identify which drugs offer the best value for their costs. OBJECTIVES: To estimate comparative cost effectiveness for treating diabetes mellitus with dulaglutide, liraglutide, or glargine in Colombia. METHODS: A Markov model including diabetic microvascular and macrovascular complications was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. We used annual cycles, a 5-year time horizon, 5% discount rate, and third-party payer's perspective. Main outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Transition probabilities were obtained from primary studies and costs from local databases and studies. We used a threshold of 3 times the Colombian per capita gross domestic product (US $17,270 for 2015; US $1 = 2,743 Columbian pesos) to assess cost effectiveness. RESULTS: Total costs related to dulaglutide, liraglutide, and glargine were US $8,633, US $10,756, and US $5,783, yielding 3.311 QALYs, 3.229 QALYs, and 3.156 QALYs, respectively. Dulaglutide dominated liraglutide given lower total costs and higher QALYs. The estimated ICER for dulaglutide compared with glargine was US $18,385, greater than the accepted threshold. Sensibility analysis shows that decreased dulaglutide cost, increased consumption of glargine, nondaily injection, and number and cost of glucometry could result in ICERs lower than the threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: This estimation indicates that dulaglutide dominates liraglutide. Its ICER is, however, greater than the accepted threshold for Colombia in base case compared with glargine. By increasing population weight or glargine consumption, dulaglutide becomes cost effective compared with glargine, which could identify a niche where dulaglutide is the best option.

The clinical effectiveness of insulin glargine in patients with Type I diabetes in Brazil: findings and implications.

AIM: Published studies have challenged the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine versus neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) insulins in Brazil with limited evidence of increased effectiveness despite considerably higher acquisition costs. However, still a controversy. Consequently, there is a need to address this. MATERIALS & METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of Type I diabetes patients receiving insulin glargine in Brazil following NPH insulin who met the criteria. RESULTS: 580 patients were enrolled. HbA1c varied from 8.80 ± 1.98% in NPH insulin users to 8.54 ± 1.88% after insulin glargine for 6 months, which is not clinically significant. Frequency of glycemic control varied from 22.6% with NPH insulin to 26.2% with insulin glargine. No statistically significant difference was observed between controlled and still uncontrolled groups for all analyzed factors including type and frequency of insulin use and carbohydrate counting. CONCLUSION: Limited differences between NPH insulins and insulin analogs in routine clinical care do not justify an appreciable cost difference.

Resultados do estudo ORIGIN: implicações práticas para cardiologistas / Results of the study ORIGIN: pratical approach for cardiologists

Há grande debate em relação aos potenciais efeitos cardiovasculares da insulinoterapia concentrado em duas hipóteses conflitantes: seriam eles resultantes da administração exógena da insulina ou da própria condição de insulinorresistência que justificou o tratamento insulínico? O estudo ORIGIN testou a hipótese de que a normalização da glicemia, utilizando insulina exógena suficiente, reduziria eventos cardiovasculares em pacientes com pré-diabetes ou com diabetes tipo 2 recém-diagnosticado e, também, portadores de outro fator de risco cardiovascular. Este estudo incluiu 12.537 participantes com pré-diabetes ou DM2 de início recente, com idade média de 63,5 anos, portadores de fatores de risco cardiovascular, seguidos por sete anos. Os pacientes do grupo tratado receberam insulina glargina titulada para uma meta glicêmica de <95 mmg/dL, enquanto o grupo-controle recebeu tratamento convencional. Os resultados do estudo mostraram redução significativa da glicemia de jejum e, também, da hemoglobina glicada. A incidência de efeitos cardiovasculares foi semelhante entre os dois grupos. Houve redução significativa da conversão para o diabetes no grupo pré-diabético tratado com glargina. Um aumento da frequência de hipoglicemia foi detectado no grupo da insulina glargina, embora tenha atingido apenas 1,0 episódio/100 pacientes/ano. Não houve qualquer diferença estatística entre os dois grupos em relação à incidência de câncer. No subestudo ORIGIN-GRACE se observou que o tratamento insulínico promoveu modesta redução na velocidade de progressão do espessamento da camada média íntima dos segmentos proximais da carótida.

Evaluation of glucose response to 3 types of insulin using a continuous glucose monitoring system in healthy alpacas.

BACKGROUND: Persistent hyperglycemia is common in alpacas and typically requires insulin administration for resolution; however, little is known about alpacas' response to different insulin formulations. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of 3 insulin formulations on blood glucose concentrations and the use of a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system in alpacas. ANIMALS: Six healthy alpacas. METHODS: The CGM was installed in the left paralumbar fossa at the start of this crossover study and recorded data every 5 minutes. Regular insulin, NPH insulin, insulin glargine, and dextrose were administered to each alpaca over a 2-week period. Blood samples were collected for glucose testing at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours, and then every 6 hours after each administration of insulin or dextrose. Data were compared by using method comparison techniques, error grid plots, and ANOVA. RESULTS: Blood glucose concentrations decreased most rapidly after regular insulin administration when administered IV or SC as compared to the other formulations. The NPH insulin produced the longest suppression of blood glucose. The mean CGM interstitial compartment glucose concentrations were typically lower than the intravascular compartment glucose concentrations. The alpacas had no adverse reactions to the different insulin formulations. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The NPH insulin might be more appropriate for long-term use in hyperglycemic alpacas because of its extended duration of action. A CGM is useful in monitoring glucose trends and reducing blood collection events, but it should not be the sole method for determining treatment protocols.

Análisis de costo-efectividad del uso de Detemir en pacientes con diabetes tipo 2 en riesgo de presentar eventos cardiovasculares y muerte en Colombia / Cost-effectiveness of using Detemir for patients with type 2 diabetes in risk of cardiovascular events and death in Colombia

Objetivo: Analizar la costo-efectividad del uso de Detemir frente a otras insulinas (Glargine e NPH) para tratamiento de diabetes tipo 2 en Colombia. Métodos: Mediante un modelo deMarkov se analizó la costo-efectividad desde la perspectiva del tercero pagador, en una cohorte de 10000 personas de 45 años, en un horizonte temporal de 5 años. Como desenlaces se evaluaron eventos cardiovasculares y muertes evitadas -medidas en Años de Vida Salvados (AVS)- relacionadas con eventos de hipoglicemia severa. Los costos se tomaron de bases de datos de prestadores de servicios de salud a precios 2013. Se utilizó una tasa de descuento del 3% para costos y resultados. Se aplicó un análisis de sensibilidad para comprobar la robustez del modelo. Resultados: Detemir presentó un menor número de eventos de hipoglicemia severa (730) frente a Glargine (1.910) y NPH (2.140), y un menor número de eventos macrovasculares (1.053) y microvasculares (1.019) frente a Glargine (1.116,1.037, respectivamente) y NPH (1.129 y 1.042, respectivamente). Detemir evitó 122 y 147 muertes frente a Glargine y NPH, respectivamente, equivalentes a 4.233 y 3.513 AVS, respectivamente. Tras el descuento el ICER por AVS con Detemir frente a Glargine fue de USD $ 998,39 y frente a NPH fue de USD $4.096,86. En el análisis de sensibilidad tipo Montecarlo, Detemir se mantiene costo-efectivo en el 100% de los casos, según el umbral propuesto por la OMS. Conclusiones: Detemir, desde la perspectiva del tercero pagador, es costo-efectivo frente a Glargine y NPH para tratamiento de diabetes tipo 2 en Colombia.

Objective: Analyze the cost-effectiveness of using Detemir versus using other insulins (Glargine and NPH insulin) for treatment of type 2 diabetes in Colombia. Methods: A Markov model was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness of Determir from a third-party payer's perspective in a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients, aged 45 years, with type 2 diabetes in risk of cardiovascular events and death in a 5-year time horizon. Both cardiovascular events and deaths avoided -expressed in Life-Year Saved- related to severe hypoglycemia events were considered as outcomes. Costs were obtained from health care providers databases at 2013 prices. A discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and outcomes. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the robustness of the model. Results: In the model, using Detemir has fewer numbers of severe hypoglycemic events (730) versus NPH insulin (1,910) and Glargine (2,140), and fewer number of macrovas-cular (1,053) and microvascular (1,019) events versus Glargine (1,116; 1,037) and NPH (1,129; 1,042). Using Detemir, 122 and 147 deaths were avoided compared to Glargine and NPH respectively; those figures are respectively equivalent to 4,233and 3,513 Life-Year Saved. As discount was applied the ICER per Life-Year Saved for Detemir versus Glargine was US$ 998.39 and USD 4,096.86 against NPHinsulin. In the Montecarlo sen-sitivity analysis Detemir remains cost effective in 100% of cases according to the WHO-proposed threshold. Conclusion: From a third-party payer's perspective,Detemir is cost-effective compared to Glargine and NPH insulin for treatment of type 2 diabetes in Colombia.

Starting glargine in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic patients based on body mass index is safe.

AIM: To evaluate the safety of four insulin titration algorithms in a homogeneous population of insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic patients. METHODS: We conducted a 24-wk, open, single-center study with 92 insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes patients who failed treatment with one or two oral drugs. The patients were randomized to one of the four following algorithms: LANMET (n = 26) and LANMET PLUS (n = 22) algorithms, whose patients received a fixed initial insulin dose of 10 U, and DeGold (n = 23) and DeGold PLUS (n = 21) algorithms, whose patients' initial insulin dose was based on their body mass index (BMI). In addition, patients in the PLUS groups had their insulin titrated twice a week from 2 to 8 U. In the other two groups, the titration was also performed also twice a week, but in a fixed increments of 2 U. The target fasting glucose levels for both groups was 100 mg/dL. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in efficacy parameters. There was no significant difference when comparing moderate hypoglycemia events in algorithms starting with a 10 U fixed dose and algorithms based on BMI. However, there was a significant increase in moderate hypoglycemia events among the PLUS treated patients when the LANMET and DeGold algorithms were compared with the 2 fast-titration PLUS algorithms. We observed 12 hypoglycemia events in the first group, which corresponded to 0.94 events/patient per year, and we observed 42 events in the second group, which corresponded to 2.81 events/patient per year (P < 0.037). No further significant differences were observed when other comparisons between the algorithms were carried out. CONCLUSION: Starting insulin glargine based on BMI is safe, but fast titration algorithms increase the risk of moderate hypoglycemia.

A Comparison of 1-Year Treatment Costs in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Following Initiation of Insulin Glargine or Insulin Detemir in Argentina.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate and compare type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment costs in insulin-naive patients following initiation of therapy with either insulin glargine (IG) or insulin detemir (ID) over 1-year time horizon from a payers' perspective in Argentina. METHODS: We used a pharmacoeconomic model based on a randomized trial comparing IG and ID (Rosenstock J, Davies M, Home PD, et al. A randomised, 52-week, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine when administered as add-on to glucose-lowering drugs in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2008;51:408-16) and Argentinean sources. Clinical, resource use, and cost data were combined to estimate direct medical costs (insulin, test strips, and needles) during the first year. Price per international unit of insulin is similar for IG and ID in the local market. Deterministic analysis was performed on insulin unit cost and probabilistic sensitivity analyses on clinical, resource use, and unit costs to evaluate contribution to variance on the difference in total annual treatment cost. RESULTS: Annual mean treatment cost (Argentinean pesos 2013) was AR $6229 for IG and AR $9257 for ID, showing 33% total cost reduction with IG (AR $3028; exchange rate US $1.00 = AR $5.30). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that IG was cost saving in 88% of the simulations. The most influential parameter was the difference in insulin dose requirements. Threshold analysis showed that if the unit price of ID is reduced by 43%, ceteris paribus, the total annual costs per person for both insulin regimens would be the same. CONCLUSIONS: From a payer's perspective in Argentina, cost savings related to the use of IG represented one third of total treatment costs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results.

Once-daily initiation of basal insulin as add-on to metformin: a 26-week, randomized, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of once-daily insulin initiation using insulin detemir (detemir) or insulin glargine (glargine) added to existing metformin in type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: This 26-week, multinational, randomized, treat-to-target trial involved 457 insulin-naïve adults with T2D (HbA1c 7-9%). Detemir or glargine was added to current metformin therapy [any second oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) discontinued] and titrated to a target fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≤90 mg/dl (≤5.0 mmol/l). Primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA1c. RESULTS: Mean (s.d.) HbA1c decreased with detemir and glargine by 0.48 and 0.74%-points, respectively, to 7.48% (0.91%) and 7.13% (0.72%) [estimated between-treatment difference, 0.30 (95% CI: 0.14-0.46)]. Non-inferiority for detemir at the a priori level of 0.4%-points was not established. The proportions of patients reaching HbA1c ≤ 7% at 26 weeks were 38% and 53% (p = 0.026) with detemir and glargine, respectively. FPG decreased ∼43.2 mg/dl (∼2.4 mmol/l) in both groups [non-significant (NS)]. Treatment satisfaction was good for both insulins. Hypoglycaemia, which occurred infrequently, was observed less with detemir than glargine [rate ratio 0.73 (95% CI 0.54-0.98)]. The proportions of patients reaching HbA1c ≤ 7% without hypoglycaemia in the detemir and glargine groups were 32% and 38% (NS), respectively. Weight decreased with detemir [-0.49 (3.3) kg] and increased with glargine [+1.0 (3.1) kg] (95% CI for difference: -2.17 to -0.89 kg). CONCLUSION: While both detemir and glargine, when added to metformin therapy, improved glycaemic control, glargine resulted in greater reductions in HbA1c, while detemir demonstrated less weight gain and hypoglycaemia.