Simple meal announcements and pramlintide delivery versus carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes with automated fast-acting insulin aspart delivery: a randomised crossover trial in Montreal, Canada.

BACKGROUND: In type 1 diabetes, carbohydrate counting is the standard of care to determine prandial insulin needs, but it can negatively affect quality of life. We developed a novel insulin-and-pramlintide closed-loop system that replaces carbohydrate counting with simple meal announcements. METHODS: We performed a randomised crossover trial assessing 14 days of (1) insulin-and-pramlintide closed-loop system with simple meal announcements, (2) insulin-and-placebo closed-loop system with carbohydrate counting, and (3) insulin-and-placebo closed-loop system with simple meal announcements. Participants were recruited at McGill University Health Centre (Montreal, QC, Canada). Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) and adolescents (aged 12-17 years) with type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio to a sequence of the three interventions, with faster insulin aspart used in all interventions. Each intervention was separated by a 14-45-day wash-out period, during which participants reverted to their usual insulin. During simple meal announcement interventions, participants triggered a prandial bolus at mealtimes based on a programmed fixed meal size, whereas during carbohydrate counting interventions, participants manually entered the carbohydrate content of the meal and an algorithm calculated the prandial bolus based on insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio. Two primary comparisons were predefined: the percentage of time in range (glucose 3·9-10·0 mmol/L) with a non-inferiority margin of 6·25% (non-inferiority comparison); and the mean Emotional Burden subscale score of the Diabetes Distress Scale (superiority comparison), comparing the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting minus the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements. Analyses were performed on a modified intention-to-treat basis, excluding participants who did not complete all interventions. Serious adverse events were assessed in all participants. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04163874. FINDINGS: 32 participants were enrolled between Feb 14, 2020, and Oct 5, 2021; two participants withdrew before study completion. 30 participants were analysed, including 15 adults (nine female, mean age 39·4 years [SD 13·8]) and 15 adolescents (eight female, mean age 15·7 years [1·3]). Non-inferiority of the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements relative to the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting was reached (difference -5% [95% CI -9·0 to -0·7], non-inferiority p<0·0001). No statistically significant difference was found in the mean Emotional Burden score between the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements and the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting (difference 0·01 [SD 0·82], p=0·93). With the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements, 14 (47%) participants reported mild gastrointestinal symptoms and two (7%) reported moderate symptoms, compared with two (7%) participants reporting mild gastrointestinal symptoms on the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting. No serious adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION: The insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements alleviated carbohydrate counting without degrading glucose control, although quality of life as measured by the Emotional Burden score was not improved. Longer and larger studies with this novel approach are warranted. FUNDING: Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rapid-acting insulin analogs, lispro versus aspart, in the treatment of diabetes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated a potential move from one rapid-acting insulin analog to another, or their biosimilars, to aid better and faster decisions for diabetes management. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed according to PRISMA reporting guidelines. The MEDLINE/EMBASE/COCHRANE databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing aspart/lispro in type-1 (T1D) and type-2 (T2D) diabetes. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment criteria. RESULTS: Of the 753 records retrieved, the six selected efficacy/safety RCTs and the additional three hand-searched pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics RCTs showed some heterogeneity in the presentation of the continuous variables; however, collectively, the outcomes demonstrated that lispro and aspart had comparable efficacy and safety in adult patients with T1D and T2D. Both treatments yielded a similar decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and had similar dosing and weight changes, with similar treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) and serious adverse event (SAE) reporting, similar hypoglycemic episodes in both T1D and T2D populations, and no clinically significant differences for hyperglycemia, occlusions or other infusion site/set complications. CONCLUSIONS: Aspart and lispro demonstrate comparative safety and efficacy in patients with T1D/T2D. Since both are deemed equally suitable for controlling prandial glycemic excursions and both have similar safety attributes, they may be used interchangeably in clinical practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023376793.

Effect of needle-free injection on psychological insulin resistance and insulin dosage in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Background and objective: Psychological insulin resistance (PIR), which refers to the reluctance of diabetic patients to use insulin, is a frequently encountered clinical issue. Needle-free injection (NFI) offers advantages in terms of expediting insulin absorption and mitigating adverse reactions related to injection. To evaluate the effects of subcutaneous injection of insulin aspart 30 with NFI on PIR and insulin dosage in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: Sixty-four patients with T2DM participated in this randomized, prospective, open, crossover study. Insulin aspart 30 was administered subcutaneously to each subject via QS-P NFI and Novo Pen 5 (NP) successively. The effects of NFI on PIR were analyzed. Differences in insulin dosage, glycemic variability, and injection safety were compared at similar levels of glycemic control. Results: After the administration of NFI, the insulin treatment attitude scale score decreased (53.7 ± 7.3 vs. 58.9 ± 10.7, p<0.001), the insulin treatment adherence questionnaire score increased (46.3 ± 4.9 vs. 43.8 ± 7.1, p<0.001), and the insulin treatment satisfaction questionnaire score increased (66.6 ± 10.5 vs. 62.4 ± 16.5, p<0.001). At the same blood glucose level, NFI required a smaller dosage of insulin aspart 30 compared with that of NP (30.42 ± 8.70 vs. 33.66 ± 9.13 U/d, p<0.001). There were no differences in glycemic variability indices (standard deviation, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion or coefficient of variation) between the two injection methods. Compared with NP, NFI did not increase the incidence of hypoglycemia (17.2% vs. 14.1%, p=0.774), and it decreased the incidence of induration (4.7% vs. 23.4%, p=0.002) and leakage (6.3% vs. 20.3%, p=0.022) while decreasing the pain visual analog scale score (2.30 ± 1.58 vs. 3.11 ± 1.40, p<0.001). Conclusion: NFI can improve PIR in patients with T2DM and be used with a smaller dose of insulin aspart 30 while maintaining the same hypoglycemic effect. Clinical trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier ChiCTR2400083658.

Postprandial Glucose Excursions with Ultra-Rapid Insulin Analogs in Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Objective: To evaluate postprandial glucose control when applying (1) faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) compared to insulin aspart and (2) ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared to insulin lispro using the CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop algorithm. Research Design and Methods: We undertook a secondary analysis of postprandial glucose excursions from two double-blind, randomized, crossover hybrid closed-loop studies contrasting Fiasp to standard insulin aspart, and Lyumjev to standard insulin lispro. Endpoints included incremental area under curve (iAUC)-2h, iAUC-4h, 4 h postprandial time in target range, time above range, and time below range. It was approved by independent research ethics committees. Results: Two trials with 8 weeks of data from 51 adults with type 1 diabetes were analyzed and 7137 eligible meals were included. During Lyumjev compared with insulin lispro, iAUC-2h and iAUC-4h were significantly decreased following breakfast (mean difference 92 mmol/L per 2 h (95% confidence interval [CI]: 56 to 127); P < 0.001 and 151 mmol/L per 4 h (95% CI: 74 to 229); P < 0.001, respectively) and the evening meal (P < 0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively). Mean time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) for 4 h postprandially significantly increased during Lyumjev with a mean difference of 6.7 percentage points (95% CI: 3.3 to 10) and 5.7 percentage points (95% CI: 1.4 to 9.9) for breakfast and evening meal, respectively. In contrast, there were no significant differences in iAUC-2h, iAUC-4h, and the other measures of postprandial glucose control between insulin aspart and Fiasp during breakfast, lunch, and evening meal (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The use of Lyumjev with CamAPS FX closed-loop system improved postprandial glucose excursions compared with insulin lispro, while the use of Fiasp did not provide any advantage compared with insulin aspart. Clinical Trial Registration numbers: NCT04055480, NCT05257460.

Comparative physicochemical and structural characterisation studies establish high biosimilarity between BGL-ASP and reference insulin aspart.

Biosimilar insulin analogues are increasing market access for diabetic patients globally. Scientific establishment of biosimilarity is cornerstone of this key change in the medical landscape. BGL-ASP is a biosimilar insulin aspart developed by BioGenomics Limited, India. BioGenomics has considered a stepwise approach in generating the totality of evidence required to establish similarity with reference product. Insulin aspart is a recombinant rapid-acting human insulin analogue utilised in the treatment of type-1 and type-2 diabetes mellitus. The single amino acid substitution at position B28 where proline is replaced with aspartic acid results in a decreased propensity to form hexamers, thus increasing the absorption rate on subcutaneous administration compared to native insulin. In order to establish the safety and efficacy of BGL-ASP, the critical quality attributes (CQAs) of BGL-ASP are identified based on the impact created on biological activity, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD), immunogenicity and safety. The CQAs of insulin aspart are related to product structure, purity and functionality and are characterised using a series of state-of-the-art orthogonal analytical tools. The primary protein sequence, the secondary, tertiary and quaternary structure are found to be highly similar for BGL-ASP and reference product. The product related impurities of insulin aspart and the assay content are determined using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) based analysis and is similar for BGL-ASP and reference insulin aspart sourced from United States of America (US), Europe Union (EU) and India. The safety, efficacy and immunogenicity of BGL-ASP is also found to be comparable with reference product and is confirmed through the clinical trials conducted as recommended by International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidelines. The data encompassed in this study demonstrates that reference insulin aspart and BGL-ASP are highly similar in terms of structural, physicochemical, and biological properties, thus confirming its safety and efficacy for usage as potential alternative economical medicinal treatment for diabetes mellitus.

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

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

Faster-acting insulin aspart versus insulin aspart in the treatment of type 1 or type 2 diabetes during pregnancy and post-delivery (CopenFast): an open-label, single-centre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Faster-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is considered safe for use during pregnancy and breastfeeding but has not been evaluated in this population. We aimed to evaluate the effect of faster aspart versus insulin aspart on fetal growth, in women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes during pregnancy and post-delivery. METHODS: This open-label, single-centre, superiority trial was conducted at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. Participants aged 18 years or older with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were stratified by diabetes type and insulin treatment modality (multiple daily injections or insulin pump), randomly assigned 1:1 to faster aspart or insulin aspart, from 8 weeks and 0 days (8+0) of gestation to 13+6 weeks of gestation, and followed up until 3 months post-delivery. Primary outcome was infant birthweight SD score. Secondary outcomes included HbA1c as well as maternal and fetal outcomes in all participants during the trial. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03770767. FINDINGS: Between Nov 11, 2019 and May 10, 2022, 109 participants were included in the faster aspart group and 107 in the insulin aspart group. Primary outcome data were available in 203 (94%) of 216 participants, and no participants discontinued treatment during the trial. Mean birthweight SD score was 1·0 (SD 1·4) in the faster aspart group versus 1·2 (1·3) in the insulin aspart group; estimated treatment difference -0·22 [-0·58 to 0·14]; p=0·23. At 33 weeks of gestation, mean HbA1c was 42 mmol/mol (SD 6 mmol/mol; 6·0% [SD 0·9%]) versus 43 mmol/mol (SD 7 mmol/mol; 6·1% [SD 1·2%]); estimated treatment difference -1·01 (-2·86 to 0·83), p=0·28. No additional safety issues were observed with faster aspart compared with insulin aspart. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with faster aspart resulted in similar fetal growth and HbA1c, relative to insulin aspart, in women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Faster aspart can be used in women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes during pregnancy and post-delivery with no additional safety issues. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk. TRANSLATION: For the Danish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Functional insulin aspart/insulin degludec-based microneedles for promoting postprandial glycemic control.

Insulin aspart (IAsp) and insulin degludec (IDeg), as the third generation of insulin, have a faster onset time or a more durable action period, which may simulate the secretion of insulin under physiological conditions. Microneedles (MNs) are transdermal delivery devices that may allow diabetic patients to easily deploy transdermal insulin therapy while considerably reducing injection pain. In this study, we investigated the combination of dissolving MNs with IAsp or IDeg therapy as an alternative to daily multiple insulin injections, aiming to improve glycemic control and patient compliance. Mechanical properties of the MNs, structural stability of insulin encapsulated in the MNs, and transdermal application characteristics were studied to assess the practicality of insulin-loaded MNs for diabetes therapy. In vivo experiments conducted on diabetic rats demonstrated that the IAsp- and IDeg-loaded MNs have comparable blood glucose control abilities to that of subcutaneous injections. In addition, the therapeutic properties of insulin-loaded MNs under diverse dietary conditions and application strategies were further investigated to provide new information to support future clinical trials. Taken together, the proposed MNs have the potential to improve balances between glycemic control, hypoglycemia risk, and convenience, providing patients with simpler regimens. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1. The fabricated functional insulin-loaded dissolving microneedles closely matched the glucose rise that occurs in response to meals, demonstrating promising alternatives for multiple daily insulin injections. 2. The hypoglycemic properties of insulin microneedles were investigated under diverse dietary conditions and application strategies, yielding new information to support future clinical trials. 3. Molecular dynamics simulations were utilized to study the interactions between the insulin and microneedle matrix materials, providing a strategy for theoretically understanding drug stability as well as the release mechanism of drug-loaded microneedles.

Insulin Tregopil: An Ultra-Fast Oral Recombinant Human Insulin Analog: Preclinical and Clinical Development in Diabetes Mellitus.

Insulin therapy is indispensable for achieving glycemic control in all patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Insulin injections are associated with negative connotations in patients owing to administration discomfort and adverse effects such as hypoglycemia and weight gain. Insulin administered orally can overcome these limitations by providing a convenient and effective mode of delivery with a potentially lower risk of hypoglycemia. Oral insulin mimics the physiologic process of insulin secretion, absorption into the portal circulation, and subsequent peripheral delivery, unlike the subcutaneous route that results in peripheral hyperinsulinemia. Insulin tregopil (IN-105), a new generation human recombinant insulin, methoxy (polyethylene glycol) hexanoyl human recombinant insulin, is developed by Biocon as an ultra-fast onset short-acting oral insulin analog. This recombinant oral insulin is a single short-chain amphiphilic oligomer modified with the covalent attachment of methoxy-triethylene-glycol-propionyl moiety at Lys-ß29-amino group of the B-chain via an amide linkage. Sodium caprate, an excipient in the insulin tregopil formulation, is a permeation enhancer that increases its absorption through the gastrointestinal tract. Also, meal composition has been shown to non-significantly affect its absorption. Several global randomized, controlled clinical trials have been conducted in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients towards the clinical development of insulin tregopil. The formulation shows post-prandial glucose control that is more effective than placebo throughout the meal period; however, compared with an active comparator insulin aspart, the post-prandial control is more effective mainly in the early post-meal period. It shows a good safety profile with a lower incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemia. This review covers the overall clinical development of insulin tregopil establishing it as an ultra-fast onset, short-acting oral insulin analog for optimizing post-prandial glucose.

Evaluation of blood glucose changes with regular versus rapid-acting insulin for hyperglycaemia management in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: As emergency department (ED) visits secondary to hyperglycaemia increase, goals should focus on optimising treatment to minimise the length of stay (LOS). Both regular and rapid-acting insulins can effectively treat hyperglycaemia, but have different pharmacokinetic profiles. The purpose of this study is to compare blood glucose (BG) reduction over time in patients receiving subcutaneous regular versus rapid-acting insulin in the ED. METHODS: This retrospective chart review from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2020 included adult ED patients with a BG ≥200 mg/dl who received subcutaneous regular insulin or insulin aspart. The primary endpoint was a change in BG immediately before and ≥30 min after insulin administration over time. RESULTS: There were 279 patients included in the study (108 regular insulin and 171 insulin aspart). Change in BG over time was 41.5 mg/dl/h in the regular insulin group and 47 mg/dl/h in the insulin aspart group (P = 0.36). There was no difference in hypoglycaemic events, ED LOS, time from insulin administration to discharge and total change in BG during ED stay. Patients who received regular insulin required less additional insulin doses (8.3% vs. 18.1%, P = 0.02), received a greater volume of intravenous fluids (1629 ml vs. 1280 ml, P = 0.02) and higher weight-based dose for the first insulin dose (0.11 units/kg vs. 0.10 units/kg, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in BG reduction between insulin types for hyperglycaemic patients treated in the ED. This suggests that regular insulin and rapid-acting insulin have similar efficacy in the treatment of hyperglycaemia in the ED.

Efficacy of switching from basal-bolus insulin therapy to twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart co-formulation plus insulin aspart in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of twice-daily (BID) insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) co-formulation + once-daily (OD) bolus insulin aspart (IAsp) injection (IDegAsp BID-Plus) as simplified intensive insulin therapy in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with basal-bolus insulin therapy (BBIT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The retrospective study included 155 patients who switched from BBIT to IDegAsp BID-Plus. After the initiation of the treatment, 73 patients continued regular follow-up and insulin doses, number of injections, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, and other parameters were recorded from their files at baseline, 24, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 54.3±10.2 years, the duration of T2DM was 9.7±5.7 years, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was 252.7±66.7 mg/dl, and HbA1c levels were 10.5±1.5%. Among the included patients, 15 patients received five injections, 51 patients received four injections, and 7 patients received three injections per day. There was a significant decrease in HbA1c (respectively; 10.46±1.54%, 7.97±1.24%, 7.98±1.23%, baseline and 6th-month p<0.001, baseline and 12th-month p<0.001), FPG (respectively; 251.6±66.5 mg/dl, 136.1±34.7 mg/dl, 125.4±67.0  mg/dl, baseline and 6th-month p<0.001, baseline and 12th-month p<0.001) and daily dose of insulin (respectively; 102.9±29.0 Unit, 73.2±18.2 U,  63.7±20.3 Unit, baseline and 6th-month p<0.001, baseline and 12th-month p<0.001) at the end of week 24 and 52. CONCLUSIONS: Based on real-world data, this study demonstrated that IDegAsp BID-Plus treatment provides rapid and sustainable blood glucose control with lower insulin doses and fewer injections than previous intensive insulin therapy.

Optimizing The Daily Units Of Insulin; Insulin Degludec Aspart Versus Premixed Insulin Aspart In The Standard Of Care Regimen For Type 2 Diabetics.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of Insulin Degludec Aspart on daily insulin dose in comparison with premixed insulin aspart. METHODS: It was a Quasi-Experimental study conducted in the Department of Pharmacology, Army Medical College, National University of Medical Sciences, Rawalpindi and the Department of Medicine, Pak Emirates Military Hospital, Rawalpindi. One hundred and twenty participants with documented type 2 diabetes, taking premixed insulin aspart therapy were enrolled in the study. Sixty participants were substituted with insulin degludec aspart from premixed insulin aspart. Daily units of insulin were recorded for 12 weeks and compared for both groups. SPSS version 26 was used for analysing the study results. RESULTS: Participants of the insulin degludec aspart group showed a significant reduction in the daily insulin dose compared to the premixed insulin aspart group. Fifty-two units per day were administered in the participants of the premixed insulin aspart patients while insulin degludec aspart participants received 40 units of median daily insulin dose (p-value<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Insulin degludec aspart proved superior to premixed insulin aspart in a reduction in the daily dose of insulin with insulin degludec aspart.

A Comparison of Faster Insulin Aspart with Standard Insulin Aspart Using Hybrid Automated Insulin Delivery System in Active Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Double-Blind Crossover Trial.

Objective: To evaluate the use of faster acting (FIA) and standard insulin aspart (SIA) with hybrid automated insulin delivery (AID) in active youth with type 1 diabetes. Research Design and Methods: In this double-blind multinational randomized crossover trial, 30 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (16 females; aged 15.0 ± 1.7 years; baseline HbA1c 7.5% ± 0.9% [58 ± 9.8 mmol/mol]) underwent two unrestricted 4-week periods using hybrid AID with either FIA or SIA in random order. During both interventions, participants were using the hybrid AID (investigational version of MiniMed™ 780G; Medtronic). Participants were encouraged to exercise as frequently as possible, capturing physical activity with an activity monitor. The primary outcome was the percentage of sensor glucose time above range (180 mg/dL [10.0 mmol/L]) measured by continuous glucose monitoring. Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, mean time above range was 31% ± 15% at baseline, 19% ± 6% during FIA use, and 20% ± 6% during SIA use with no difference between treatments: mean difference = -0.9%; 95% CI: -2.4% to 0.6%; P = 0.23. Similarly, there was no difference in mean time in range (TIR) (78% and 77%) or median time below range (2.5% and 2.8%). Glycemic outcomes during exercise or postprandial periods were comparable for the two treatment arms. No severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis events occurred. Conclusions: FIA was not superior to SIA with hybrid AID system use in physically active children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Nonetheless, both insulin formulations enabled high overall TIR and low time above and below ranges, even during and after documented exercise. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04853030.

Comparative efficacy and safety of Gla-300 versus IDegAsp in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled on oral anti-diabetics.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine-300 once daily (Gla-300) with insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials was followed by an indirect treatment comparison of studies involving insulin naïve adults, inadequately controlled [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.0%] on OADs, who received Gla-300 or IDegAsp once daily. Outcomes of interest were change in HbA1c, blood glucose, weight and insulin dose, as well as incidence and event rate of hypoglycaemia and other adverse events. RESULTS: Four trials with broadly similar baseline patient characteristics were included in the meta-analyses and indirect treatment comparison. At 24-28 weeks, the indirect comparison of Gla-300 to IDegAsp once daily estimated no statistically significant difference for change in HbA1c (%) from baseline [mean difference of 0.10% (95% CI: -0.20, 0.39; p = .52)]; a statistically significant mean difference of -1.31 kg (95% CI: -1.97, -0.65; p < .05) for change in body weight from baseline; statistically significant odds ratios of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.93; p < .05) for incidence of any hypoglycaemia; and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.87; p < .05) for incidence of anytime confirmed hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose <3.0-3.1 mmol/L). No significant differences were observed for insulin dose and adverse events. CONCLUSION: In insulin-naïve patients with T2D inadequately controlled on OADs, commencing Gla-300 shows a comparable HbA1c reduction, but with significantly less weight gain and a lower incidence of any and confirmed hypoglycaemia compared with commencing IDegAsp.

Faster-acting insulin aspart reduces glycaemic variability in sensor-augmented pump treated type 1 diabetes patients.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of faster aspart over glycaemic variability in type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients treated with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) in a real-world scenario. METHODS: Observational study with SAP-treated adult T1D patients treated with faster aspart for three months. The primary endpoint was the mean amplitude of glucose excursions (MAGE). RESULTS: Fifty patients were treated with faster aspart. Eleven patients (23%) withdrew during the follow-up mainly due to worsening of diabetes control (9 patients). Mean age was 41.2 yrs. (range 21-59) and T1D duration 22.4±10.0 yrs. Mean SAP treatment duration was 3.6±3.1 yrs. We detected a reduction of -7.0 (95% CI -1.1, -12.9; p=0.021) in MAGE at the end of the study. Other glycemic variability indices were also improved: standard deviation of mean interstitial glucose (-3mg/dl; 95% CI, -1, -5; p=0.01), CONGA4 (-2.2; 95% CI -0.3, -4.2; p=0.029), CONGA6 (-2.6; 95% CI -0.6, -4.6; p=0.011), GRADE (-0.5; 95% CI -0.1, -0.9; p=0.022), HBGI (-0.7; 95% CI -0.2, -1.3; p=0.013), J-index (-2.9; 95% CI -0.7, -5.0; p=0.011) and MODD (-5.7; 95% CI -1.7, -9.7; p=0.006). A slight reduction in mean glucose management indicator was also detected (-0.14%; 95% CI, -0.02, -0.27; -1.4mmol/mol; 95% CI -0.1, -3.3; p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In SAP-treated T1D patients, faster aspart insulin was associated with reduced glycaemic variability, but also a high percentage of dropouts due to worsened glycaemic control. NCT04233203.

Hybrid Closed-Loop with Faster Insulin Aspart Compared with Standard Insulin Aspart in Very Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes: A Double-Blind, Multicenter, Randomized, Crossover Study.

We evaluated the use of hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin delivery with faster insulin aspart (Fiasp) in very young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). In a double-blind, multicenter, randomized, crossover study, children aged 2-6 years with T1D underwent two 8-week periods of HCL using CamAPS FX with Fiasp and standard insulin aspart (IAsp), in random order. Primary endpoint was between-treatment difference in time in target range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L. We randomized 25 participants: mean (±standard deviation) age 5.1 ± 1.3 years, baseline HbA1c 55 ± 9 mmol/mol. Time in range was not significantly different between interventions (64% ± 9% vs. 65% ± 9% for HCL with Fiasp vs. IAsp; mean difference -0.33% [95% confidence interval: -2.13 to 1.47; P = 0.71]). There was no significant difference in time with glucose <3.9 mmol/L. No post-randomization severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis events occurred. Use of Fiasp with CamAPS FX HCL demonstrated no significant difference in glycemic outcomes compared with IAsp in very young children with T1D. Clinical trials registration: NCT04759144.

Insulin degludec versus insulin detemir, both in combination with insulin aspart, in the treatment of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (EXPECT): an open­label, multinational, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin degludec (degludec) is a second-generation basal insulin with an improved pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic profile compared with first-generation basal insulins, but there are few data regarding its use during pregnancy. In this non-inferiority trial, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of degludec with insulin detemir (detemir), both in combination with insulin aspart (aspart), in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This open-label, multinational, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial (EXPECT) was conducted at 56 sites (hospitals and medical centres) in 14 countries. Women aged at least 18 years with type 1 diabetes who were between gestational age 8 weeks (+0 days) and 13 weeks (+6 days) or planned to become pregnant were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive web response system, to degludec (100 U/mL) once daily or detemir (100 U/mL) once or twice daily, both with mealtime insulin aspart (100 U/mL), all via subcutaneous injection. Participants who were pregnant received the trial drug at randomisation, throughout pregnancy and until 28 days post-delivery (end of treatment). Participants not pregnant at randomisation initiated the trial drug before conception. The primary endpoint was the last planned HbA1c measurement before delivery (non-inferiority margin of 0·4% for degludec vs detemir). Secondary endpoints included efficacy, maternal safety, and pregnancy outcomes. The primary endpoint was assessed in all randomly assigned participants who were pregnant during the trial. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned participants who were pregnant during the trial and exposed to at least one dose of trial drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03377699, and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Nov 22, 2017, and Nov 8, 2019, from 296 women screened, 225 women were randomly assigned to degludec (n=111) or detemir (n=114). Mean HbA1c at pregnancy baseline was 6·6% (SD 0·6%; approximately 49 mmol/mol; SD 7 mmol/mol) in the degludec group and 6·5% (0·8%; approximately 48 mmol/mol; 9 mmol/mol) in the detemir group. Mean last planned HbA1c measurement before delivery was 6·2% (SE 0·07%; approximately 45 mmol/mol; SE 0·8 mmol/mol) in the degludec group and 6·3% (SE 0·07%; approximately 46 mmol/mol; SE 0·8 mmol/mol) in the detemir group (estimated treatment difference -0·11% [95% CI -0·31 to 0·08]; -1·2 mmol/mol [95% CI: -3·4 to 0·9]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001), confirming non-inferiority. Compared with detemir, no additional safety issues were observed with degludec. INTERPRETATION: In pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, degludec was found to be non-inferior to detemir. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Maximizing Glycemic Benefits of Using Faster Insulin Formulations in Type 1 Diabetes: In Silico Analysis Under Open- and Closed-Loop Conditions.

Background: Ultrarapid-acting insulin analogs that could improve or even prevent postprandial hyperglycemia are now available for both research and clinical care. However, clear glycemic benefits remain elusive, especially when combined with automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. In this work, we study two insulin formulations in silico and highlight adjustments of both open-loop and closed-loop insulin delivery therapies as a critical step to achieve clinically meaningful improvements. Methods: Subcutaneous insulin transport models for two faster analogs, Fiasp (Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark) and AT247 (Arecor, Saffron Walden, United Kingdom), were identified using data collected from prior clamp experiments, and integrated into the UVA/Padova type 1 diabetes simulator (adult cohort, N = 100). Pump therapy parameters and the aggressiveness of our full closed-loop algorithm were adapted to the new insulin pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles through a sequence of in silico studies. Finally, we assessed these analogs' glycemic impact with and without modified therapy parameters in simulated conditions designed to match clinical trial data. Results: Simply switching to faster insulin analogs shows limited improvements in glycemic outcomes. However, when insulin acceleration is accompanied by therapy adaptation, clinical significance is found comparing time-in-range (70-180 mg/dL) with Aspart versus AT247 in open-loop (+5.1%); and Aspart versus Fiasp (+5.4%) or AT247 (+10.6%) in full closed-loop with no clinically significant differences in the exposure to hypoglycemia. Conclusion: In silico results suggest that properly adjusting intensive insulin therapy profiles, or AID tuning, to faster insulin analogs is necessary to obtain clinically significant improvements in glucose control.

Findings for iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30 confirmed in groups of people with type 2 diabetes with different biomedical characteristics.

AIM: To report prespecified and post hoc analyses of the SoliMix dataset exploring the impact of baseline participant characteristics on the original SoliMix study outcomes, to enable informed treatment choices for people with different biomedical characteristics. METHODS: SoliMix (EudraCT 2017-003370-13) compared once-daily iGlarLixi (a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide) with twice-daily BIAsp 30 (30% insulin aspart and 70% insulin aspart protamine). In this analysis, the original primary outcomes of noninferiority of iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30 in terms of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change and superiority in terms of body weight change, together with change in basal insulin dose and hypoglycaemia outcomes, were investigated by baseline age, duration of diabetes, insulin dose, HbA1c level, body mass index (BMI), and renal function. RESULTS: No evidence of difference in comparative treatment effect was detected across baseline age, duration of diabetes, insulin dose, HbA1c level, BMI and renal function subgroups for any endpoint (all heterogeneity P > 0.05), except American Diabetes Association Level 2 hypoglycaemia event rate when stratified by insulin dose (P = 0.011), which may be a chance difference given multiple testing and the small numbers of Level 2 events. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment effects of iGlarLixi were consistent irrespective of baseline HbA1c, insulin dose, BMI, age, duration of diabetes and renal function, supporting the use of iGlarLixi as an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option in people with type 2 diabetes with a wide range of biomedical characteristics.