Smart Algorithms for Efficient Insulin Therapy Initiation in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes: An in Silico Study.

BACKGROUND: Insulin-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) start basal insulin titration from a low initial insulin dose (IID), which is adjusted weekly or twice per week based on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) measurement as recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA). The procedure to reach the optimal insulin dose (OID) is time-consuming, especially in subjects with high insulin needs (HIN). The aim of this study is to provide a fast and effective, but still safe, insulin titration algorithm in insulin-naive T2D subjects with HIN. METHOD: To do that, we in silico cloned 300 subjects, matching a real population of insulin-naive T2D and used a logistic regression model to classify them as subjects with HIN or subjects with low insulin needs (LIN). Then, we applied to the subjects with HIN both a more aggressive insulin dose initiation (SMART-IID) and two newly developed titration algorithms (continuous glucose monitoring [CGM]-BASED and SMART-CGM-BASED) in which CGM was used to guide the decision-making process. RESULTS: The new titration algorithm applied to HIN-classified individuals guaranteed a faster reaching of OID, with significant improvements in time in range (TIR) and reduction in time above range (TAR) in the first months of the trial, without any clinically significant increase in the risk of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Smart basal insulin titration algorithms enable insulin-naive T2D individuals to achieve OID and improve their glycemic control faster than standard guidelines, without jeopardizing patient safety.

The IDEAL (Insulin therapy DE-intensificAtion with iglarLixi) Randomised Controlled Trial-Study Design and Protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple daily injection insulin regimen (MDI) represents the most intensive insulin regimen used in the management of people with type 2 diabetes (PwT2D). Its efficacy regarding glycaemic control is counterbalanced by the increased risk of hypoglycaemia, frequently observed tendency to weight gain and necessity for frequent glucose monitoring. Recent introduction of novel antidiabetic medications with pleiotropic effects reaching far beyond the reduction of glycaemia (HbA1c), such as the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), has significantly widened the therapeutic options available for management of T2D. Consequently, there is currently a substantial number of PwT2D for whom the MDI regimen was initiated at a time when no other options were available. Yet, in present times, these individuals could benefit from simplified insulin regimens ideally taking advantage of the beneficial effects of the novel classes of antidiabetic medications. iGlarLixi (Suliqua®) is a once-daily fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin analogue glargine 100 U/ml and a GLP-1 RA lixisenatide. METHODS: Insulin therapy DE-intensificAtion with iglarLixi (IDEAL) is a six-centre, open-label, parallel-group, active comparator, phase IV randomised controlled trial with a 24-week active treatment period examining the efficacy and safety of MDI regimen de-intensification with once-daily administration of iGlarLixi versus MDI regimen continuation in PwT2D on a backgroud therapy with metformin ± sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor. PLANNED OUTCOMES: The primary objective is to compare the effects of MDI therapy de-intensification with iGlarLixi versus MDI regimen continuation regarding glycaemic control (HbA1c). Secondary objectives include detailed evaluation of the effects of MDI regimen de-intensification with iGlarLixi on glycaemic control using standardised continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics and self-monitoring of plasma glucose. Furthermore, body weight and body composition analysis, quality of life and safety profile are evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04945070.

Efficacy and safety of basal insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Aim: The comparative effectiveness of basal insulins has been examined in several studies. However, current treatment algorithms provide a list of options with no clear differentiation between different basal insulins as the optimal choice for initiation. Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI, and Scopus, and a reference list of retrieved studies and reviews were performed up to November 2023. We identified phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens. The primary outcomes evaluated were HbA1c reduction, weight change, and hypoglycemic events. The revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals considering the critical assumptions in the networks. The certainty of the evidence and confidence in the rankings was assessed using the GRADE minimally contextualized approach. Results: Of 20,817 retrieved studies, 44 RCTs (23,699 participants) were eligible for inclusion in our network meta-analysis. We found no significant difference among various basal insulins (including Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH), ILPS, insulin glargine, detemir, and degludec) in reducing HbA1c. Insulin glargine, 300 U/mL (IGlar-300) was significantly associated with less weight gain (mean difference ranged from 2.9 kg to 4.1 kg) compared to other basal insulins, namely thrice-weekly insulin degludec (IDeg-3TW), insulin degludec, 100 U/mL (IDeg-100), insulin degludec, 200 U/mL (IDeg-200), NPH, and insulin detemir (IDet), but with low to very low certainty regarding most comparisons. IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 were associated with significantly lower odds of overall, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemic events than NPH and insulin lispro protamine (ILPS) (moderate to high certainty evidence). NPH was associated with the highest odds of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to others. Network meta-analysis models were robust, and findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: The efficacy of various basal insulin regimens is comparable. However, they have different safety profiles. IGlar-300 may be the best choice when weight gain is a concern. In contrast, IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 may be preferred when hypoglycemia is the primary concern.

Insulin Degludec in People with Type 2 Diabetes in China: A Non-interventional, Retrospective Chart Review Study (CN-TREAT).

INTRODUCTION: Insulin degludec (degludec), an ultra-long-acting basal insulin analogue, provides equivalent glycemic control to other basal insulin analogues, with lower risk of hypoglycemia and flexible dosing. Chinese TREsiba AudiT (CN-TREAT) investigated outcomes with degludec in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in routine clinical practice in China. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review study in adults with T2D initiating or switching to degludec at 50 sites in China between January 2020 and July 2021. The primary endpoint was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of study (EOS; week 20). Secondary endpoints included change from baseline to EOS in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG), daily insulin dose, and rate of hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Data from 936 participants were included (499 insulin-naïve; 437 insulin-experienced). Mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) HbA1c change from baseline to EOS was - 1.48%-points (- 1.57; - 1.38; P < 0.0001) overall: - 1.95%-points (- 2.08; - 1.81; P < 0.0001) in insulin-naïve participants and - 0.95%-points (- 1.08; - 0.82; P < 0.0001) in insulin-experienced participants. Mean (95% CI) changes in FPG and SMPG were - 2.27 mmol/L (- 2.69; - 1.85; P < 0.0001) and - 2.89 mmol/L (- 3.52; - 2.25; P < 0.0001), respectively, with similar reductions in insulin-naïve and insulin-experienced subgroups. Rate of hypoglycemia did not change statistically significantly from baseline to EOS overall, or in insulin-experienced participants, except when adjusted for baseline hypoglycemia. Basal insulin dose did not change statistically significantly in insulin-experienced participants. CONCLUSION: In routine clinical practice in China, initiation or switching to degludec was associated with improvements in glycemic control in people with T2D, with no increased risk of hypoglycemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinialTrials.gov, NCT04227431.

Adherence and Persistence to Basal Insulin Among People with Type 2 Diabetes in Europe: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes is associated with a number of complications, particularly if glycaemic targets are not achieved. Glycaemic control is highly linked to treatment persistence and adherence. To understand the burden of poor persistence and adherence, this systematic literature review identified existing evidence regarding basal insulin adherence/non-adherence and persistence/non-persistence among people with diabetes in Western Europe (defined as the UK, France, Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Ireland, Austria, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Italy, Germany, Iceland and Belgium). METHODS: Eligible studies were systematically identified from two databases, Medline and Embase (published between 2012 and June 2022). Conference abstracts from ISPOR and EASD were manually included. Identified studies were screened by two independent reviewers in a two-step blinded process. The eligibility of studies was decided on the basis of pre-established criteria. A proportional meta-analysis and comparative narrative analyses were conducted to analyse the included studies. RESULTS: Twelve studies were identified. Proportions of adherence/non-adherence and persistence/non-persistence varied across studies. Pooled rates of non-persistence at 6, 12 and 18 months were 20.3% (95% CI 13.8; 27.8), 33.8% (95% CI 24.1; 44.3) and 36.5% (95% CI 33.6; 39.4), respectively. In the literature, the proportion of adherent people ranged from 41% to 64% (using the outcome measure medication possession ratio (MPR) > 80%), with a pooled rate of 55.6% (95% CI 45.3; 65.6), suggesting that approximately 44% of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are non-adherent. CONCLUSION: The results highlight that almost half of patients with T2D in Western Europe have poor adherence to insulin therapy and, at 18 months, one in three patients do not persist on treatment. These findings call for new basal insulin therapies and diabetes management strategies that can improve treatment persistence and adherence among people with T2D.

You may delay, but time will not. Beta cells lost are never found again: a case for timely initiation of basal insulin in type 2 diabetes.

Since its first use just over a century ago, insulin treatment has evolved dramatically, such that the molecules are physiologic in nature, and treatment can now closely resemble the natural hormone response over 24 hours. Newer, longer-acting basal insulin analogs have provided insulin therapies with improved characteristics and, therefore, ease of use, and can readily be incorporated as part of routine treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D), but evidence suggests that insulin remains underused in people with T2D. We review the barriers to initiation of basal insulin and the education needed to address these barriers, and we provide practical pointers, supported by evidence, for primary care physicians and advanced practice providers to facilitate timely initiation of basal insulin in the people with T2D who will benefit from such treatment.

Type 2 diabetes is a complex disease. It causes increased amounts of sugar in the blood, which can cause damage to the body. Medications are given to people with type 2 diabetes to keep their blood sugar at normal levels. Unfortunately, type 2 diabetes worsens over time, so regular adjustments to medications are needed to keep blood sugar levels controlled.Basal insulin, which is a type of insulin that works over the entire day, is a key treatment for type 2 diabetes. It works best if it is started as soon as other medications (tablets or non-insulin injections) are not working to control blood sugar levels. Unfortunately, delays in starting basal insulin are common. Some healthcare professionals and people with type 2 diabetes believe insulin is difficult to use. False information on insulin is common; for example, some people with diabetes believe that their symptoms are caused by insulin treatment rather than high blood sugar.This review summarizes key information to encourage effective conversations between healthcare professionals and people with type 2 diabetes about starting basal insulin. Proactive, positive, early discussion of the benefits of basal insulin can help to: 1) address concerns, 2) set appropriate, individual treatment targets, and 3) provide practical information and training to help with injecting insulin. This will give people living with type 2 diabetes the knowledge and confidence to take an active part in managing their diabetes and overcome any barriers to using basal insulin.

IDegLira for the real-world treatment of type 2 diabetes in Italy. Final results from the REX observational study.

AIM: The study was designed to generate real-world evidence on IDegLira in the Italian clinical practice in two groups of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), switching to IDegLira either from a basal only (basal group) or basal-bolus insulin regimen (BB group). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a non-interventional, multicentre, single-cohort, prospective study assessing the long-term glycaemic control in patients with T2D, who switched to IDegLira from a basal insulin ± glucose-lowering medication regimen with or without a bolus insulin component for approximately 18 months, conducted in 28 Italian diabetes centres. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels from baseline to 6 months after IDegLira initiation. RESULTS: The study included 358 patients with a mean age 67.2 years and diabetes duration of 15.7 years. HbA1c significantly decreased from IDegLira start to all study time points in the overall population (basal group -1.19%; BB group -0.60% at the end of observation). Patients achieving HbA1c <7% levels increased from 12.9% (n = 43) to 40.3% (n = 110) at 18 months. Fasting blood glucose and body weight also significantly decreased in both groups, although more in the BB group. Overall, 14.3% of completed patients had an intensification of treatment (mainly in the basal group) and 48.6% had a simplification of treatment (mainly in the BB group). CONCLUSIONS: Switching to IDegLira in a real-world clinical setting is a valid therapeutic option for patients with T2D with inadequate glycaemic control on basal or BB insulin regimen and/or need to simplify their insulin therapy, with specific reasons and therapeutic goals according to different T2D management trajectories.

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

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

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.

Current usage of long-acting insulin analogs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin treatment is fundamental to diabetes management. Basal insulin therapy reduces intraday glycemic fluctuations upon reaching a steady state. Besides better blood glucose regulation and achieving target HbA1c values in patients, it also offers protection from diabetes complications. In this review, we aimed to compare basal-acting insulins in light of the literature. AREAS COVERED: We reviewed current evidence related to diabetes treatment with basal insulins. This includes discussions on clinical trials and meta-analyses concerning first and second-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulins. Treatment indications for long-acting basal insulins, which have shown benefits and are considered superior or comparable to others in the literature, are derived from current clinical studies and meta-analyses, which form the basis of the recommendations in this review. EXPERT OPINION: First and second-generation basal insulins do not show much superiority over each other in terms of blood glucose regulation and reaching the target HbA1c. However, second-generation basal insulins cause fewer hypoglycemic events. We recommend using the appropriate basal insulin in patient-based, individualized treatments. Basal insulin Icodec may become more widely used over time, owing to its association with less hypoglycemia and a reduction in the number of injections.

TEAD1, MYO7A and NDUFC2 are novel functional genes associated with glucose metabolism in BXD recombinant inbred population.

AIM: The liver is an important metabolic organ that governs glucolipid metabolism, and its dysfunction may cause non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, dyslipidaemia, etc. We aimed to systematic investigate the key factors related to hepatic glucose metabolism, which may be beneficial for understanding the underlying pathogenic mechanisms for obesity and diabetes mellitus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) phenotypes and liver transcriptomes of BXD mice under chow and high-fat diet conditions were collected from GeneNetwork. QTL mapping was conducted to pinpoint genomic regions associated with glucose homeostasis. Candidate genes were further nominated using a multi-criteria approach and validated to confirm their functional relevance in vitro. RESULTS: Our results demonstrated that plasma glucose levels in OGTT were significantly affected by both diet and genetic background, with six genetic regulating loci were mapped on chromosomes 1, 4, and 7. Moreover, TEAD1, MYO7A and NDUFC2 were identified as the candidate genes. Functionally, siRNA-mediated TEAD1, MYO7A and NDUFC2 knockdown significantly decreased the glucose uptake and inhibited the transcription of genes related to insulin and glucose metabolism pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Our study contributes novel insights to the understanding of hepatic glucose metabolism, demonstrating the impact of TEAD1, MYO7A and NDUFC2 on mitochondrial function in the liver and their regulatory role in maintaining in glucose homeostasis.

Effectiveness and Safety of the Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring System FreeStyle Libre 2 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Basal Insulin or Oral Antidiabetic Drugs: An Observational, Retrospective Real-World Study.

Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring (isCGM) devices are increasingly being used in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on insulin therapy for their benefits regarding disease management. Evidence of isCGM use in patients with T2DM on basal or non-insulin therapy is lacking. This study aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of isCGM in this population. This was an observational, retrospective, real-world study enrolling patients with T2DM who were starting the use of isCGM. Data from medical records (i.e., demographics, clinical characteristics, laboratory assessments, and isCGM metrics) were collected over three time periods (baseline, 3 and 6 months). The endpoints were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) changes and changes in isCGM metrics as defined by the International Consensus from baseline to 3 months and 6 months. Overall, 132 patients were included (69.5% male; mean age 68.2 ± 11.0 years; mean disease duration 19.0 ± 9.4 years; 79.7% on basal insulin ±non-insulin therapy; mean baseline HbA1c 8.1% ± 1.3%). The estimated mean change in HbA1c was statistically significant at three (-0.4 ± 1.0%; p = 0.003) and six months (-0.6 ± 1.3%; p < 0.0001). In conclusion, isCGM proved to be effective and safe in improving glycaemic control in patients with T2DM on basal insulin or non-insulin therapy.

The Basis for Weekly Insulin Therapy: Evolving Evidence With Insulin Icodec and Insulin Efsitora Alfa.

Basal insulin continues to be a vital part of therapy for many people with diabetes. First attempts to prolong the duration of insulin formulations were through the development of suspensions that required homogenization prior to injection. These insulins, which required once- or twice-daily injections, introduced wide variations in insulin exposure contributing to unpredictable effects on glycemia. Advances over the last 2 decades have resulted in long-acting, soluble basal insulin analogues with prolonged and less variable pharmacokinetic exposure, improving their efficacy and safety, notably by reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia. However, adherence and persistence with once-daily basal insulin treatment remains low for many reasons including hypoglycemia concerns and treatment burden. A soluble basal insulin with a longer and flatter exposure profile could reduce pharmacodynamic variability, potentially reducing hypoglycemia, have similar efficacy to once-daily basal insulins, simplify dosing regimens, and improve treatment adherence. Insulin icodec (Novo Nordisk) and insulin efsitora alfa (basal insulin Fc [BIF], Eli Lilly and Company) are 2 such insulins designed for once-weekly administration, which have the potential to provide a further advance in basal insulin replacement. Icodec and efsitora phase 2 clinical trials, as well as data from the phase 3 icodec program indicate that once-weekly insulins provide comparable glycemic control to once-daily analogues, with a similar risk of hypoglycemia. This manuscript details the technology used in the development of once-weekly basal insulins. It highlights the clinical rationale and potential benefits of these weekly insulins while also discussing the limitations and challenges these molecules could pose in clinical practice.

The role of basal insulins in the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease: A narrative review.

The majority of cases of chronic kidney disease (CKD) worldwide are driven by the presence of type 2 diabetes (T2D), resulting in an increase in CKD rates over the past few decades. The existence of CKD alongside diabetes is associated with increased burden of cardiovascular disease and increased risk of death. Optimal glycaemic control is essential to prevent progression of CKD, but achieving glycaemic targets in people with CKD and diabetes can be challenging because of increased risk of hypoglycaemia and limitations on glucose-lowering therapeutic options. This review considers the challenges in management of T2D in people with impaired kidney function and assesses evidence for use of basal insulin analogues in people with CKD.

Effects of age and disease duration on the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi in Asian people with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis of the LixiLan-O-AP and LixiLan-L-CN trials.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of age and disease duration on the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus insulin glargine 100 units/ml (iGlar) or lixisenatide (Lixi) alone in Asian people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs (LixiLan-O-AP) or basal insulin ± oral antidiabetic drugs (LixiLan-L-CN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this post hoc analysis, the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) changes were assessed from baseline to week 24 (LixiLan-O-AP) or 30 (LixiLan-L-CN) in subgroups defined by baseline age (<65, ≥65 years) and duration of T2D. The proportion who achieved the composite of HbA1c <7% (<53.0 mmol/mol) without weight gain and without symptomatic hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L) and the incidences of hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal disorders were also analysed. RESULTS: HbA1c reductions were consistently greater with iGlarLixi versus iGlar or Lixi across all subgroups, including participants aged ≥65 years and those with T2D for ≥15 or ≥20 years. Greater proportions of participants achieved HbA1c <7% (<53.0 mmol/mol) without weight gain or hypoglycaemia with iGlarLixi versus iGlar or Lixi, regardless of age or T2D duration. Hypoglycaemia incidence was similar with iGlarLixi versus iGlar across most subgroups; the incidence of gastrointestinal disorders was lower with iGlarLixi versus Lixi in all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: iGlarLixi showed consistent efficacy and safety across all age and disease duration subgroups in Asian people with uncontrolled T2D, including older individuals and those with longstanding disease.

Safety and glycemic control with insulin degludec use in clinical practice: results from a 3-year Japanese post-marketing surveillance study.

Introduction: Insulin degludec (degludec) is a basal insulin with a long duration of action. This post-marketing surveillance study monitored safety and glycemic control during use of degludec for 3 years in normal clinical practice in Japan. Materials and methods: This multicenter, open-label, observational study included patients with diabetes receiving degludec in Japan between 2013 and 2019. The primary outcome was incidence of adverse events occurring over 3 years of treatment. The pre-specified, secondary outcomes were severe hypoglycemic episodes and changes in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose levels. Results: Of 4167 patients enrolled, 4022 were included in the safety assessments and 3918 in the assessments of glycemic control. Mean age was 58.9 years; 74.1% of patients had type 2 diabetes, and mean HbA1c at baseline was 8.7%. Adverse events and serious adverse events were observed in 19.1% and 8.9% of patients, respectively. Cardiac disorders and neoplasms were reported in 2.0% and 1.8% of patients, respectively, with the majority of these incidents reported as serious adverse events. Adverse drug reactions were seen in 8.0% of patients, mainly hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemic events were observed in 5.6% of patients, and severe hypoglycemic events in 1.7%. No serious allergic or injection-site reactions were seen. Respective changes (from baseline to 3 years' observation) in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose levels were - 0.55% and - 36.3 mg/dL, and 19.6% of patients reached HbA1c < 7.0%. Conclusions: Using degludec for 3 years in normal clinical practice had a good safety and tolerability profile. Improvements in glycemic control were also seen. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13340-023-00657-7.

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

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

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.

Once-weekly Insulin Icodec as Compared to Once-daily Basal Insulins: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Once-weekly basal insulin icodec has been tested in clinical trials for efficacy and safety over currently available glargine-100 and degludec in different clinical settings for type 2 diabetes. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate its overall safety and efficacy as compared to glargine-100 and degludec (nonicodec), from all available randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Seven trials comparing once-daily basal insulin analogs to once-weekly basal insulin icodec were included. Based on available information, outcomes in terms of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose reduction, and increase in time in range (TIR) were compared. Side-effects were compared for overall hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, and weight gain. The pooled effect size for continuously distributed data was measured as a reduction in "estimated differences in mean (with 95% CI)." For categorical data, the pooled effect size was measured as the Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (with 95% CI). RESULTS: Analyzing against the nonicodec comparators together, the "estimated mean changes" in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose favoring icodec were -0.22% (-0.35, -0.10) and -1.59 mg% (-9.26, 6.08) respectively. The "estimated mean increment" in weight for icodec was 0.64 kg (0.61, 0.67). The "estimated mean percentage" increment in TIR for icodec was 4.24% (2.99, 5.49). The Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios for all hypoglycemic events and severe hypoglycemia for icodec were 1.24 (1.02, 1.50) (P = .03) and 0.81 (0.31, 2.08) (P is not significant), respectively, suggesting a 24% increased incidence of all hypoglycemia with icodec. CONCLUSION: Once-weekly basal insulin icodec as compared to once-daily basal insulin analogs had a slight increase in the risk of overall hypoglycemia and weight gain, without any difference in severe hypoglycemia, with similar glycemic control (in terms of fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c, and TIR).

Effect of delay in treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal glycaemia after basal insulin initiation: A real-world observational study.

AIM: Despite global recommendations for type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment to maintain optimal glycaemic targets, a significant proportion of people remain in suboptimal glycaemic control. Our objective was to investigate the impact of intensification delay after basal insulin (BI) initiation on long-term complications in people with suboptimal glycaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiated on BI. Those with suboptimal glycaemia (glycated haemoglobin ≥7% or ≥53 mmol/mol) within 12 months of BI initiation were divided into early (treatment intensified within 5 years), or late (≥5 years) intensification groups. We estimated the age-stratified risks of micro- and macrovascular complications among these groups compared with those with optimal glycaemia (glycated haemoglobin <7%). RESULTS: Of the 13 916 people with suboptimal glycaemia, 52.5% (n = 7304) did not receive any treatment intensification. In those aged <65 years, compared with the optimal glycaemia group late intensification was associated with a 56% higher risk of macrovascular complications (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56; 95% confidence intervals 1.08, 2.26). In elderly people (≥65 years), late intensification was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular-related death (1.62; 1.03, 2.54) and a lower risk of microvascular complications (0.26; 0.08, 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Those who had late intensification were at an increased risk of cardiovascular death if they were ≥65 years and an increased risk of macrovascular complications if they were <65 years. These findings highlight the critical need for earlier intensification of treatment and adopting personalized treatment strategies to improve patient outcomes.