Once-weekly insulin icodec compared with daily basal insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes: Participant-level meta-analysis of the ONWARDS 1-5 trials.

AIM: To perform a participant-level post hoc meta-analysis of Phase 3a trials in type 2 diabetes (T2D) to characterize the hypoglycaemia safety and glycaemic efficacy of once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All ONWARDS 1-5 randomized participants were pooled as overall T2D, insulin-naive, an insulin-experienced subgroups, and by once-daily trial comparator (degludec or glargine U100). The main outcomes included incidence and rates of clinically significant and severe hypoglycaemia. Additional endpoints included change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline and HbA1c target achievement without clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: The meta-analysis comprised 3765 participants (1882 icodec vs. 1883 comparators). In the overall T2D pool, clinically significant hypoglycaemia incidence was similar in the icodec group versus the comparator group (17.9% vs. 16.2%, odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94, 1.38); however, rates were low but significantly higher in the icodec group (1.15 vs. 1.00 episodes/participant-year of exposure, estimated rate ratio 1.51 [95% CI 1.24, 1.85]). Fewer severe hypoglycaemic episodes occurred with icodec than with comparators (8 vs. 18). A greater reduction in HbA1c occurred with icodec versus comparators, irrespective of subgroup (estimated treatment difference range [-0.10 to -0.29%]; all p < 0.05). Across subgroups, except for the insulin-experienced subgroup, the odds of achieving HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (7.0%) without clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia were greater with icodec than with comparators (OR range 1.30-1.55; all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Icodec was associated with a similar incidence but higher rates of clinically significant hypoglycaemia (equating to one additional hypoglycaemic episode every 6 years) and fewer severe hypoglycaemic episodes versus comparators. Our findings also confirmed the greater efficacy of icodec that was demonstrated in the ONWARDS trial programme.

Clinical perspectives on the frequency of hypoglycemia in treat-to-target randomized controlled trials comparing basal insulin analogs in type 2 diabetes: a narrative review.

The objective of this review was to comprehensively present and summarize trends in reported rates of hypoglycemia with one or two times per day basal insulin analogs in individuals with type 2 diabetes to help address and contextualize the emerging theoretical concern of increased hypoglycemic risk with once-weekly basal insulins.Hypoglycemia data were extracted from treat-to-target randomized clinical trials conducted during 2000-2022. Published articles were identified on PubMed or within the US Food and Drug Administration submission documents. Overall, 57 articles were identified: 44 assessed hypoglycemic outcomes in participants receiving basal-only therapy (33 in insulin-naive participants; 11 in insulin-experienced participants), 4 in a mixed population (insulin-naive and insulin-experienced participants) and 9 in participants receiving basal-bolus therapy. For the analysis, emphasis was placed on level 2 (blood glucose <3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL)) and level 3 (or severe) hypoglycemia.Overall, event rates for level 2 or level 3 hypoglycemia across most studies ranged from 0.06 to 7.10 events/person-year of exposure (PYE) for participants receiving a basal-only insulin regimen; the rate for basal-bolus regimens ranged from 2.4 to 13.6 events/PYE. Rates were generally lower with second-generation basal insulins (insulin degludec or insulin glargine U300) than with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin or first-generation basal insulins (insulin detemir or insulin glargine U100). Subgroup categorization by sulfonylurea usage, end-of-treatment insulin dose or glycated hemoglobin reduction did not show consistent trends on overall hypoglycemia rates. Hypoglycemia rates reported so far for once-weekly basal insulins are consistent with or lower than those reported for daily-administered basal insulin analogs.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Based Metrics and Hypoglycemia Duration in Insulin-Experienced Individuals With Long-standing Type 2 Diabetes Switched From a Daily Basal Insulin to Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec: Post Hoc Analysis of ONWARDS 2 and ONWARDS 4.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis assessed continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based metrics and hypoglycemia duration with once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin analogs in insulin-experienced individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes from two 26-week phase 3a trials (ONWARDS 2 and ONWARDS 4). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Time in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0 mmol/L), time above range (TAR) (>10.0 mmol/L), and time below range (TBR) (<3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L) were assessed during three CGM time periods (switch [weeks 0-4], end of treatment [weeks 22-26], and follow-up [weeks 27-31]) for icodec versus comparators (ONWARDS 2, insulin degludec [basal regimen]; ONWARDS 4, insulin glargine U100 [basal-bolus regimen]) using double-blind CGM data. CGM-derived hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was assessed. RESULTS: In both trials, there were no statistically significant differences in TIR, TAR, or TBR (<3.0 mmol/L) for icodec versus comparators across all time periods. In the end-of-treatment period, mean TIR was 63.1% (icodec) vs. 59.5% (degludec) in ONWARDS 2 and 66.9% (icodec) vs. 66.4% (glargine U100) in ONWARDS 4. Mean TBR <3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L remained within recommended targets (<4% and <1%, respectively) across time periods and treatment arms. Hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was comparable across time periods and treatment arms (median duration ≤40 min). CONCLUSIONS: In insulin-experienced participants with long-standing type 2 diabetes, CGM-based TIR, TAR, and CGM-derived hypoglycemia duration (<3.9 mmol/L) were comparable for icodec and once-daily basal insulin analogs during all time periods. TBR remained within recommended targets.

Impact of Canagliflozin on Kidney and Cardiovascular Outcomes by Type 2 Diabetes Duration: A Pooled Analysis of the CANVAS Program and CREDENCE Trials.

OBJECTIVE: The study was undertaken because it was unknown whether the duration of type 2 diabetes modifies the effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor canagliflozin on cardiovascular (CV) and kidney outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This post hoc analysis of the Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program (N = 10,142) and Evaluation of the Effects of Canagliflozin on Renal and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Participants With Diabetic Nephropathy (CREDENCE) trial (N = 4,401) evaluated hazard ratios and 95% CIs using Cox proportional hazards for the effects of canagliflozin on CV and kidney outcomes, including progression and regression of albuminuria over 5-year intervals of disease duration. RESULTS: Canagliflozin had ranges of benefit across intervals of diabetes duration, with no heterogeneity for major adverse CV events, CV death or heart failure hospitalization, and kidney failure requiring therapy or doubling serum creatinine. Furthermore, canagliflozin reduced albuminuria progression and increased albuminuria regression with no interaction across all diabetes duration subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that earlier treatment with canagliflozin confers consistent cardiorenal benefits to individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Primary and Secondary Cardiovascular and Kidney Prevention With Canagliflozin: Insights From the CANVAS Program and CREDENCE Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the effects of canagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes with and without prevalent cardiovascular disease (secondary and primary prevention). METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a pooled participant-level analysis of the CANVAS (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) Program and CREDENCE (Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes With Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation) trial. The CANVAS Program included participants with type 2 diabetes at elevated cardiovascular risk, whereas the CREDENCE trial included participants with type 2 diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Hazard ratios (HRs) with interaction terms were obtained from Cox regression models to estimate relative risk reduction with canagliflozin versus placebo across the primary and secondary prevention groups. We analyzed 5616 (38.9%) and 8804 (61.1%) individuals in the primary and secondary prevention subgroups, respectively. Primary versus secondary prevention participants were on average younger (62.2 versus 63.8 years of age) and more often women (42% versus 31%). Canagliflozin reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.76-0.94]) consistently across primary and secondary prevention subgroups (Pinteraction=0.86). Similarly, no treatment effect heterogeneity was observed with canagliflozin for hospitalization for heart failure, cardiovascular death, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality (all Pinteraction>0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Canagliflozin reduced cardiovascular and kidney outcomes with no statistical evidence of heterogeneity for the treatment effect across the primary and secondary prevention subgroups in the CANVAS Program and CREDENCE trial. Although studies on the optimal implementation of canagliflozin within these populations are warranted, these results reinforce canagliflozin's role in cardiorenal prevention and treatment in individuals with type 2 diabetes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01032629, NCT01989754, NCT02065791.