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.

Association Between Treatment Adherence and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Outcomes in People With Diabetes Using Smart Insulin Pens in a Real-World Setting.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of insulin injection adherence, smart insulin pen engagement, and glycemic control using real-world data from 16 countries from adults self-administering basal insulin degludec and bolus insulin with a smart insulin pen (NovoPen 6 or NovoPen Echo Plus) alongside continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were aggregated over 14-day periods. Treatment adherence was defined according to the number of missed basal and missed bolus insulin doses and smart pen engagement according to the number of days with data uploads. RESULTS: Data from 3,945 adults, including 25,157 14-day periods with ≥70% CGM coverage, were analyzed. On average, 0.2 basal and 6.0 bolus insulin doses were missed over 14 days. The estimated probability of missing at least one basal insulin dose over a 14-day period was 17.6% (95% CI 16.5, 18.7). Missing one basal or bolus insulin dose per 14 days was associated with a significant decrease in percentage of time with glucose levels in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0 mmol/L), of -2.8% (95% CI -3.7, -1.8) and -1.7% (-1.8, -1.6), respectively; therefore, missing two basal or four bolus doses would decrease TIR by >5%. Smart pen engagement was associated positively with glycemic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This combined analysis of real-world smart pen and CGM data showed that missing two basal or four bolus insulin doses over a 14-day period would be associated with a clinically relevant decrease in TIR. Smart insulin pens provide valuable insights into treatment injection behaviors.

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.

Effects of Tirzepatide Versus Basal Insulins in People With Type 2 Diabetes and Different Baseline Glycemic Patterns: Post Hoc Analyses of the SURPASS-3 and SURPASS-4 Trials.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis assessed change from baseline to week 52 in glycemic parameters for tirzepatide (5, 10, 15 mg) versus insulin degludec (SURPASS-3 trial) and glargine (SURPASS-4 trial) in people with type 2 diabetes and different baseline glycemic patterns, based on fasting serum glucose (FSG) and postprandial glucose (PPG) values. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participant subgroups with low FSG/low PPG, low FSG/high PPG, high FSG/low PPG, and high FSG/high PPG were defined according to the median values of these measures. RESULTS: All tirzepatide doses and basal insulins were associated with decreased HbA1c, FSG, and PPG values from baseline to week 52 in all subgroups (P < 0.05). Within each subgroup, HbA1c and PPG decreases were greater with tirzepatide than insulin (P < 0.05). FSG decreases were generally similar. There were no differential treatment effects by FSG/PPG subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, tirzepatide was associated with superior glycemic control compared with insulin, irrespective of baseline glycemic pattern.

Safety and Efficacy of Insulins in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Continuous Enteral Nutrition.

OBJECTIVE: There is a relative lack of consensus regarding the optimal management of hyperglycemia in patients receiving continuous enteral nutrition (EN), with or without a diagnosis of diabetes. METHODS: This retrospective study examined 475 patients (303 with known diabetes) hospitalized in critical care setting units in 2019 in a single center who received continuous EN. Rates of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose levels within the target range (70-180 mg/dL) were compared between patients with and without diabetes, and among patients treated with intermediate-acting (IA) biphasic neutral protamine Hagedorn 70/30, long-acting (LA) insulin, or rapid-acting insulin only. RESULTS: Among those with type 2 diabetes mellitus, IA and LA insulin regimens were associated with a significantly higher proportion of patient-days in the target glucose range and fewer hyperglycemic days. Level 1 (<70 mg/dL) and level 2 (<54 mg/dL) hypoglycemia occurred rarely, and there were no significant differences in level 2 hypoglycemia frequency across the different insulin regimens. CONCLUSION: Administration of IA and LA insulin can be safe and effective for those receiving insulin doses for EN-related hyperglycemia.

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.

The Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of a Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Degludec and Aspart: A Cost of Control Analysis in Australia and India.

OBJECTIVES: The real-world ARISE study demonstrated initiation of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec and aspart (IDegAsp) led to improvements in people achieving key glycemic control targets compared with prior therapies in Australia and India. This study evaluated the short-term cost-effectiveness of IDegAsp in these countries, in terms of the cost per patient achieving these targets. METHODS: A model was developed to evaluate the cost of control (treatment costs divided by the proportion of patients achieving each target) of IDegAsp versus prior therapies received in ARISE for 2 endpoints: glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0%, and HbA1c less than a predefined individual treatment target. Costs, expressed from a healthcare payer perspective, were captured in 2022 Australian dollars (AUD) and 2022 Indian rupees (INR). RESULTS: The number of patients needed to treat to bring one to endpoints of HbA1c <7.0% and less than an individualized target with IDegAsp was 51% and 87% lower, respectively, than with prior therapies in Australia, and 52% and 66% lower, respectively, versus prior therapies in India. Cost of control was AUD 2449 higher and AUD 64 863 lower with IDegAsp versus prior therapies for endpoints of HbA1c <7.0% and less than an individualized target, respectively, in Australia and INR 211 142 and INR 537 490 lower with IDegAsp compared with prior therapies in India. CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp was estimated to be cost-effective versus prior therapies when considering an individualized HbA1c target in Australia, and when considering an individualized HbA1c target and HbA1c <7.0% in India.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide and insulin glargine U-100/lixisenatide in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus using professional continuous glucose monitoring.

AIM/INTRODUCTION: Insulin glargine U100/lixisenatide and insulin degludec/liraglutide are fixed-ratio combinations containing basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist capable of reducing both fasting and postprandial blood glucose levels with a single formulation. This study aimed to compare the time in range (TIR) and the time below range (TBR) level 1 using professional continuous glucose monitoring and to establish criteria for the differential use of the fixed-ratio combinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (24 men and 12 women; average age, 62.1 years) were randomly assigned to the groups. At 0 and 18 weeks, a device was worn to compare the TIR and TBR level 1. The correlation between the C-peptide index at baseline and TIR at 18 weeks was assessed. RESULTS: The TIR and TBR level 1 showed no significant differences between the two groups. Both groups showed significant positive correlations between the C-peptide index and the TIR (P = 0.002, r = 0.679; P = 0.002, r = 0.681, respectively). The changes in glycemic variability, therapeutic indices, and body mass index were not significantly different among the groups (P > 0.05). The receiver operating curve analysis revealed that the cut-off values of the C-peptide index to achieve TIR of >70% at 18 weeks were 1.258 (sensitivity, 77.8%; specificity, 100%) and 1.099 (sensitivity, 57.1%; specificity, 90.9%) in the insulin glargine U100/lixisenatide and insulin degludec/liraglutide groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A TIR of >70% was achieved for both fixed-ratio combinations without significant differences.

Tailoring the Padova Type 2 Diabetes Simulator for Treatment Guidance in Target Populations.

OBJECTIVE: The Padova type 2 diabetes (T2D) simulator (T2DS) has been recently proposed to optimize T2D treatments including novel long-acting insulins. It consists of a physiological model and an in silico population describing glucose dynamics, derived from early-stage T2D subjects studied with sophisticated tracer-based experimental techniques. This limits T2DS domain of validity to this specific sub-population. Conversely, running simulations in insulin-naïve or advanced T2D subjects, would be more valuable. However, it is rarely possible or cost-effective to run complex experiments in such populations. Therefore, we propose a method for tuning the T2DS to any desired T2D sub-population using published clinical data. As case study, we extended the T2DS to insulin-naïve T2D subjects, who need to start insulin therapy to compensate the reduced insulin function. METHODS: T2DS model was identified based on literature data of the target population. The estimated parameters were used to generate a virtual cohort of insulin-naïve T2D subjects (inC1). A model of basal insulin degludec (IDeg) was also incorporated into the T2DS to enable basal insulin therapy. The resulting tailored T2DS was assessed by simulating IDeg therapy initiation and comparing simulated vs. clinical trial outcomes. For further validation, this procedure was reiterated to generate a new cohort of insulin-naïve T2D (inC2) assuming inC1 as target population. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found when comparing fasting plasma glucose and IDeg dose, neither in clinical data vs. inC1, nor inC1 vs. inC2. CONCLUSIONS: The tuned T2DS allowed reproducing the main findings of clinical studies in insulin-naïve T2D subjects. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed methodology makes the Padova T2DS usable for supporting treatment guidance in target T2D populations.

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.

Chronic kidney outcomes associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists versus long-acting insulins among type 2 diabetes patients requiring intensive glycemic control: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) versus long-acting insulins (LAIs) on preventing progressive chronic kidney outcomes is uncertain for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients requiring intensive glycemic control. This study aimed to evaluate comparative effectiveness of GLP-1RA versus LAI therapies on progressive chronic kidney outcomes among patients having poor glycemic control and requiring these injectable glucose-lowering agents (GLAs). METHODS: 7279 propensity-score-matched pairs of newly stable GLP-1RA and LAI users in 2013-2018 were identified from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database and followed until death or 12/31/2019 (intention-to-treat). Subdistributional hazard model was utilized to assess the comparative effectiveness on a composite renal outcome (i.e., renal insufficiency [eGFR < 15 mL/min/1.73 m2], dialysis-dependent end-stage renal disease [ESRD], or renal death) and its individual components. Sensitivity analyses with the as-treated scenario, PS weighting, high-dimensional PS techniques, using cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) as positive control outcomes, and interaction testing were performed. RESULTS: In primary analyses, subdistribution hazard ratios (95% CIs) for initiating GLP-1RAs versus LAIs for the composite renal outcome, renal insufficiency, dialysis-dependent ESRD, and renal death were 0.39 (0.30-0.51), 0.43 (0.32-0.57), 0.29 (0.20-0.43), and 0.28 (0.15-0.51), respectively. Sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the primary findings. CVD history and the medication possession ratio of prior oral GLAs possessed modification effects on GLP-1RA-associated kidney outcomes. CONCLUSION: Using GLP-1RAs versus LAIs was associated with kidney benefits in T2D patients requiring intensive glycemic control and potentially at high risk of kidney progression. GLP-1RAs should be prioritized to patients with CVDs or adherence to prior oral GLAs to maximize kidney benefits.

In type 2 diabetes, weekly basal insulin Fc was noninferior to daily insulin degludec for HbA1c at 26 wk.

SOURCE CITATION: Bue-Valleskey JM, Kazda CM, Ma C, et al. Once-weekly basal insulin Fc demonstrated similar glycemic control to once-daily insulin degludec in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a phase 2 randomized control trial. Diabetes Care. 2023;46:1060-1067. 36944059.

Current Status of Weekly Insulin Analogs and Their Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Evaluation by the Euglycemic Clamp Technique.

Diabetes mellitus represents a significant global health threat characterized by hyperglycemia caused by inadequate insulin secretion and/or insulin resistance. Exogenous insulin supplements had been recognized as a crucial treatment for achieving successful glycemic control in patients with Type 1 and most patients with Type 2 diabetes. Over the past century, substantial progress has been made in the development of novel insulin formulations, including the super-fast-acting and long-acting basal insulin analogs, of which the latter is indispensable for the management of nocturnal fasting and intraprandial blood glucose within the normal physiological range. Recently, combining chemical and genetic engineering with drug optimization have resulted in a formidable evolution in ultra-long-acting weekly insulin. Here, the current state of once-weekly insulin analogs and the euglycemic clamp technique used in the early clinical development to elucidate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of this type of novel weekly insulin analogs were systematically overviewed.

pH-Responsive Hexa-Histidine Metal Assembly (HmA) with Enhanced Biocatalytic Cascades as the Vehicle for Glucose-Mediated Long-Acting Insulin Delivery.

Diabetes has been listed as one of the three major diseases that endanger human health. Accurately injecting insulin (Ins) depending on the level of blood glucose (LBG) is the standard treatment, especially controlling LBG in the long-term by a single injection. Herein, the pH-responsive hexa-histidine metal assembly (HmA) encapsulated with enzymes (GOx and CAT) and Ins (HmA@GCI) is engineered as the vehicle for glucose-mediated insulin delivery. HmA not only shows high proteins loading efficiency, but also well retained proteins activity and protect proteins from protease damage. Within HmA, the biocatalytic activities of enzymes and the efficiency of the cascade reaction between GOx and CAT are enhanced, leading to a super response to the change of LBG with insulin release and efficient clearance of harmful byproducts of GOx (H2 O2 ). In the treatment of diabetic mice, HmA@GCI reduces LBG to normal in half an hour and maintains for more than 5 days by a single subcutaneous injection, and nearly 24 days with four consecutive injections. During the test period, no symptoms of hypoglycemia and toxicity to tissues and organs are observed. These results indicate that HmA@GCI is a safe and long-acting hypoglycemic agent with prospective clinical application.

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

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

Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec vs Once-Daily Insulin Degludec in Adults With Insulin-Naive Type 2 Diabetes: The ONWARDS 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Once-weekly insulin icodec could provide a simpler dosing alternative to daily basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec vs once-daily insulin degludec in people with insulin-naive type 2 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-masked, noninferiority, treat-to-target, phase 3a trial conducted from March 2021 to June 2022 at 92 sites in 11 countries in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with any noninsulin glucose-lowering agents with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7%-11% (53-97 mmol/mol). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either once-weekly icodec and once-daily placebo (icodec group; n = 294) or once-daily degludec and once-weekly placebo (degludec group; n = 294). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 (noninferiority margin, 0.3% percentage points). Secondary end points included change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to week 26, mean weekly insulin dose during the last 2 weeks of treatment, body weight change from baseline to week 26, and number of level 2 (clinically significant; glucose level <54 mg/dL) and level 3 (severe; requiring external assistance for recovery) hypoglycemic episodes. Results: Among 588 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 58 [10] years; 219 [37%] women), 564 (96%) completed the trial. Mean HbA1c level decreased from 8.6% (observed) to 7.0% (estimated) at 26 weeks in the icodec group and from 8.5% (observed) to 7.2% (estimated) in the degludec group (estimated treatment difference [ETD], -0.2 [95% CI, -0.3 to -0.1] percentage points), confirming noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .002). There were no significant differences between the icodec and degludec groups for fasting plasma glucose change from baseline to week 26 (ETD, 0 [95% CI, -6 to 5] mg/dL; P = .90), mean weekly insulin dose during the last 2 weeks of treatment, or body weight change from baseline to week 26 (2.8 kg vs 2.3 kg; ETD, 0.46 [95% CI, -0.19 to 1.10] kg; P = .17). Combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher in the icodec group than the degludec group from week 0 to 31 (0.31 vs 0.15 events per patient-year exposure; P = .11) and statistically higher in the icodec group from week 0 to 26 (0.35 vs 0.12 events per patient-year exposure; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with insulin-naive type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec demonstrated superior HbA1c reduction to once-daily degludec after 26 weeks of treatment, with no difference in weight change and a higher rate of combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemic events in the context of less than 1 event per patient-year exposure in both groups. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04795531.

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

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