Impact of baseline characteristics and beta-cell function on the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous once-weekly semaglutide: A patient-level, pooled analysis of the SUSTAIN 1-5 trials.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of relevant patient-level characteristics on the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous, once-weekly semaglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Exploratory post hoc analyses of pooled SUSTAIN 1-5 (phase 3a) randomized, controlled trials examined the change from baseline in HbA1c and body weight (BW), and the proportions of subjects achieving the composite endpoint (HbA1c < 7.0% [53 mmol/mol]), without weight gain or severe/blood glucose-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia at week 30 with semaglutide (0.5/1.0 mg) across clinically relevant patient subgroups: baseline HbA1c (≤7.5%, >7.5%-8.0%, >8.0%-8.5%, >8.5%-9.0% and > 9.0%), background medications, diabetes duration and pancreatic beta-cell function. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c (% point) reductions increased from lowest to highest HbA1c subgroups (-0.9%, -1.2%,-1.5%, -1.7% and -2.3% [effect of subgroup within treatment: P = 0.247] for semaglutide 0.5 mg, and -1.1%, -1.4%, -1.9%, -2.1% and -2.7% [P = 0.045] for semaglutide 1.0 mg), with mean HbA1c ranges at week 30 of 6.3%-7.3% and 6.1%-6.9%, respectively. The corresponding BW reductions generally decreased with increasing baseline HbA1c (-4.4, -3.9, -3.9, -3.3 and -2.9 kg [P = 0.004], and -6.4, -5.9, -5.2, -4.5 and -4.8 kg [P < 0.001], respectively). HbA1c and BW reductions were consistently greater for semaglutide 1.0 mg versus 0.5 mg across background medication, diabetes duration and pancreatic beta-cell function subgroups. Adverse events with semaglutide were consistent with the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist class, with gastrointestinal events the most common. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide was consistently efficacious across the continuum of diabetes care in a broad spectrum of patient subgroups with a range of clinical characteristics.

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized, crossover trial comparing a pen injector with insulin degludec versus a pen injector with insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Objective: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with insulin resistance and deteriorated glycemic control that can be restored with insulin injections. Choice of insulin pen injector may affect complexity, adherence, efficacy of treatment and health-related quality of life. We describe detailed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on treatment impact and preference comparing insulin degludec (degludec) using FlexTouch1 versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) with SoloStar2 pen injector.Methods: In this randomized, multicenter (USA), open-label, crossover, treat-to-target study (NCT01570751), patients with T2D using high-dose insulin (≥81 U/day from vials) were randomized (n = 145) 1:1 to 16 weeks of degludec U200 (3 mL FlexTouch) followed by 16 weeks of glargine U100 (3 mL SoloStar) or vice versa. PRO questionnaires assessed treatment impact and patient preference of pen injectors.Results: Significantly more patients (p < .01) considered FlexTouch "extremely easy" for learning (62.5 vs. 43.0%), maintaining (63.2 vs. 42.2%) and adjusting the dose (63.2 vs. 44.4%), and significantly more were "very" or "extremely confident" in using the device (60.3 vs. 36.3%) and in its accuracy (50.7 vs. 30.4%) versus SoloStar. Significantly more were "not at all bothered" by device discomfort (74.3 vs. 54.1%), whereas device size (83.8 vs. 80.0%) or public use (69.9 vs. 60.7%) were numerically in favor of FlexTouch. Significantly more patients preferred degludec treatment with FlexTouch (59 vs. 22%), preferred to continue (67 vs. 15%) and recommend (67 vs. 14%) use of FlexTouch compared with SoloStar with glargine U100.Conclusions: In this randomized, crossover trial, lower treatment impact and higher patient preference were reported for FlexTouch versus SoloStar pen injectors.

Effect of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 on Hypoglycemia in Hispanic Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Results From the SWITCH 2 Trial.

IN BRIEF Hispanic patients with type 2 diabetes have poorer glycemic control and are at higher risk of severe diabetes complications and mortality than non-Hispanic white patients. This post hoc analysis investigated the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in the Hispanic patient subpopulation from the SWITCH 2 trial. In Hispanic patients, hypoglycemia was consistently lower and nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly lower with degludec versus glargine U100 at similar levels of glycemic control. Overall, results in Hispanic patients in SWITCH 2 were consistent with those in non-Hispanic patients.

Semaglutide as a therapeutic option for elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: Pooled analysis of the SUSTAIN 1-5 trials.

The efficacy and safety of semaglutide vs comparators in non-elderly (<65 years) and elderly (≥65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) across the SUSTAIN 1-5 trials were evaluated. Patients were randomized to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (0.5 or 1.0 mg) vs placebo, sitagliptin, exenatide or insulin. The primary objective was change in HbA1c and secondary objectives were changes in body weight and safety. Mean HbA1c decreased from baseline by 1.2%-1.5% and 1.5%-1.9% vs 0%-0.9% (non-elderly, n = 3045) and by 1.3%-1.5% and 1.2%-1.8% vs 0.2%-1.0% (elderly, n = 854) with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg vs comparators. Similar reductions from baseline in mean body weight with semaglutide occurred in both age groups. Similar proportions of patients experienced adverse events; premature treatment discontinuations were higher in elderly vs non-elderly patients. No increased risk of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia was seen with semaglutide vs comparators between age groups. Semaglutide had a comparable efficacy and safety profile in non-elderly and elderly patients across the SUSTAIN 1-5 trials, making it an effective treatment option for elderly patients with T2D.

Effect of Insulin Degludec vs Insulin Glargine U100 on Hypoglycemia in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The SWITCH 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Hypoglycemia, a serious risk for insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes, negatively affects glycemic control. OBJECTIVE: To test whether treatment with basal insulin degludec is associated with a lower rate of hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind, treat-to-target crossover trial including two 32-week treatment periods, each with a 16-week titration period and a 16-week maintenance period. The trial was conducted at 152 US centers between January 2014 and December 2015 in 721 adults with type 2 diabetes and at least 1 hypoglycemia risk factor who were previously treated with basal insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily insulin degludec followed by insulin glargine U100 (n = 361) or to receive insulin glargine U100 followed by insulin degludec (n = 360) and randomized 1:1 to morning or evening dosing within each treatment sequence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes (severe or blood glucose confirmed [<56 mg/dL]) during the maintenance period. Secondary end points were the rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes (severe or blood glucose confirmed, occurring between 12:01 am and 5:59 am) and the proportion of patients with severe hypoglycemia during the maintenance period. RESULTS: Of the 721 patients randomized (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [10.5] years; 53.1% male), 580 (80.4%) completed the trial. During the maintenance period, the rates of overall symptomatic hypoglycemia for insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 were 185.6 vs 265.4 episodes per 100 patient-years of exposure (PYE) (rate ratio = 0.70 [95% CI, 0.61-0.80]; P < .001; difference, -23.66 episodes/100 PYE [95% CI, -33.98 to -13.33]), and the proportions of patients with hypoglycemic episodes were 22.5% vs 31.6% (difference, -9.1% [95% CI, -13.1% to -5.0%]). The rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 were 55.2 vs 93.6 episodes/100 PYE (rate ratio = 0.58 [95% CI, 0.46-0.74]; P < .001; difference, -7.41 episodes/100 PYE [95% CI, -11.98 to -2.85]), and the proportions of patients with hypoglycemic episodes were 9.7% vs 14.7% (difference, -5.1% [95% CI, -8.1% to -2.0%]). The proportions of patients experiencing severe hypoglycemia during the maintenance period were 1.6% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.7%) for insulin degludec vs 2.4% (95% CI, 1.1%-3.7%) for insulin glargine U100 (McNemar P = .35; risk difference, -0.8% [95% CI, -2.2% to 0.5%]). Statistically significant reductions in overall and nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia for insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 were also seen for the full treatment period. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin and with at least 1 hypoglycemia risk factor, 32 weeks' treatment with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 resulted in a reduced rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02030600.

Insulin Degludec 200 Units/mL Is Associated With Lower Injection Frequency and Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared With Insulin Glargine 100 Units/mL in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Requiring High-Dose Insulin.

IN BRIEF Many patients with type 2 diabetes require high basal insulin doses, necessitating multiple injections, increasing patient burden, and resulting in reduced treatment adherence. This randomized, controlled, crossover trial compared the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes for a concentrated formulation of insulin degludec (200 units/mL) to those of insulin glargine in patients requiring high doses of basal insulin. By offering equivalent glycemic control while reducing the rate of confirmed hypoglycemia and the number of injections required for administration, insulin degludec 200 units/mL may be preferred by patients with type 2 diabetes who require high basal insulin doses.

Intensification of IDegAsp Twice Daily (Adding Insulin Aspart vs. Switching To Basal-Bolus): Exploratory Randomized Trial in Type 2 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: In a preceding trial comparing two different titration schemes, insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) showed good efficacy for achieving HbA1c <7% when administered twice daily (BID) in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, poor glycemic control persisted in a minority of patients. The current exploratory trial investigated the efficacy and safety of intensifying IDegAsp BID treatment in these patients by either adding a once-daily (OD) bolus injection of insulin aspart (IAsp) or by switching to a basal-bolus regimen of insulin degludec (IDeg) plus IAsp taken three times a day (TID). METHOD: A 26-week, randomized, open-label, phase 3b, treat-to-target trial in which 40 patients with T2D who had not reached target HbA1c ≤7.0% following previous 26-week treatment intensification with IDegAsp BID ±3 oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) were randomized (1:1) to receive IDegAsp BID + IAsp OD (n = 20) or IDeg OD + IAsp TID (n = 20). RESULTS: Mean baseline HbA1c was 7.9% in the IDegAsp BID + IAsp OD group and 7.7% in the IDeg OD + IAsp TID group. After 26 weeks, the estimated mean change in HbA1c from baseline was 0.05% points in the IDegAsp BID + IAsp OD group and -0.49% points for IDeg OD + IAsp TID: estimated treatment difference (ETD) [95% confidence interval] 0.54% [0.09; 0.99], p = 0.021. Few achieved HbA1c <7% in IDegAsp BID + IAsp OD (four patients) and IDeg OD + IAsp TID groups (five patients). Fasting plasma glucose, hypoglycemia, and adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: When used as intensification regimens in patients who failed to achieve target HbA1c during 26-week IDegAsp BID treatment, HbA1c improvements were numerically greater with IDeg OD + IAsp TID compared with IDegAsp BID + IAsp OD. No new safety issues were identified. However, the small, selective sample means clinical generalizations should be made with caution. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01814137.

The Efficacy of IDegLira (Insulin Degludec/Liraglutide Combination) in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with a GLP-1 Receptor Agonist and Oral Therapy: DUAL III Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes necessitates treatment intensification. This often involves intensification with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) initially, followed by other agents, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), with the majority of patients eventually requiring insulin therapy. Therefore, this trial aimed to investigate the efficacy of IDegLira (combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) in controlling glycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled on a GLP-1RA and OADs. METHODS: In this 26-week open-label phase 3b trial, patients on maximum-dose GLP-1RA therapy (liraglutide once daily or exenatide twice daily) with metformin alone or with pioglitazone and/or sulfonylurea were randomized 2:1 to IDegLira once daily (n = 292) or to unchanged GLP-1RA therapy (n = 146), continuing OADs at the pre-trial dose. RESULTS: After 26 weeks, HbA1c reductions were superior with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA; estimated treatment difference -0.94% (-10.3 mmol/mol), p < 0.001. Mean HbA1c reduced from 7.8% to 6.4% (61.5 to 46.9 mmol/mol) with IDegLira and from 7.7 to 7.4% (60.8 to 57.1 mmol/mol) with unchanged GLP-1RA. With IDegLira, 75% and 63% of patients achieved HbA1c <7% and ≤6.5%, compared with 36% and 23% on unchanged GLP-1RA, respectively. Fasting plasma glucose and 9-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles improved significantly more with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA. The mean change in weight was +2.0 kg with IDegLira, versus -0.8 kg with unchanged GLP-1RA. Rates of confirmed hypoglycemia were low, but higher with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA. The safety profile of IDegLira was consistent with previous findings; both treatments were well tolerated and the rate of nausea was low in both groups. IDegLira improved patient-reported outcomes versus unchanged GLP-1RA. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira provided superior glycemic control versus unchanged GLP-1RA and represents an efficacious intensification approach in patients inadequately controlled on GLP-1RAs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01676116. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

TREATMENT INTENSIFICATION WITH INSULIN DEGLUDEC/INSULIN ASPART TWICE DAILY: RANDOMIZED STUDY TO COMPARE SIMPLE AND STEP-WISE TITRATION ALGORITHMS.

OBJECTIVE: This 26-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial in adults with type 2 diabetes compared the efficacy and safety of treatment intensification algorithms with twice-daily (BID) insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp). METHODS: Patients randomized 1:1 to IDegAsp BID used either a 'Simple' algorithm (twice-weekly dose adjustments based on a single prebreakfast and pre-evening meal self-monitored plasma glucose [SMPG] measurement; IDegAsp[BIDSimple], n = 136) or a 'Stepwise' algorithm (once-weekly dose adjustments based on the lowest of 3 pre-breakfast and 3 pre-evening meal SMPG values; IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise], n = 136). RESULTS: After 26 weeks, mean change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) with IDegAsp[BIDSimple] was noninferior to IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise] (-15 mmol/mol versus -14 mmol/mol; 95% confidence interval [CI] upper limit, <4 mmol/mol) (baseline HbA1c: 66.3 mmol/mol IDegAsp[BIDSimple] and 66.6 mmol/mol IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise]). The proportion of patients who achieved HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) at the end of the trial was 66.9% with IDegAsp[BIDSimple] and 62.5% with IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise]. Fasting plasma glucose levels were reduced with each titration algorithm (-1.51 mmol/L IDegAsp[BIDSimple] versus -1.95 mmol/L IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise]). Weight gain was 3.8 kg IDegAsp[BIDSimple] versus 2.6 kg IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise], and rates of overall confirmed hypoglycemia (5.16 episodes per patient-year of exposure [PYE] versus 8.93 PYE) and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia (0.78 PYE versus 1.33 PYE) were significantly lower with IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise] versus IDegAsp[BIDSimple]. There were no significant differences in insulin dose increments between groups. CONCLUSION: Treatment intensification with IDegAsp[BIDSimple] was noninferior to IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise]. Both titration algorithms were well tolerated; however, the more conservative step-wise algorithm led to less weight gain and fewer hypoglycemic episodes. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01680341.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec 200 U/mL and Insulin Degludec 100 U/mL in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes (Begin: Compare).

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to provide clinical data on the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec (IDeg) 200 U/mL compared with IDeg 100 U/mL in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) currently treated with basal insulin in combination with oral antidiabetic drugs. METHODS: In this 22-week, treat-to-target trial, eligible adult patients with T2DM were randomized 1:1 to IDeg 200 or IDeg 100 U/mL once daily (OD) (n = 186 and 187, respectively). The starting insulin dose was based on a 1:1 transfer of the total prerandomization basal insulin dose. The primary endpoint was change (%) from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin A1C (A1C) after 22 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 373 subjects (mean age 59.8 years, A1C 8.2%, fasting plasma glucose 149.6 mg/dL [8.3 mmol/L], body mass index 33.3 kg/m2) were randomized. A1C reduction with IDeg 200 U/mL was noninferior to that of IDeg 100 U/mL (IDeg 200 U/mL - IDeg 100 U/mL estimated treatment difference: -0.11%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.28 to 0.05). Rates of overall confirmed hypoglycemia were low and similar between both formulations (5.17 and 5.66 events/patient-year of exposure [PYE] for IDeg 200 and 100 U/mL, respectively). Similarly, the rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia were low (1.27 and 1.70 events/PYE for 200 and 100 U/mL). In general, both IDeg formulations were well tolerated (respective rates of adverse events: 4.16 and 3.00 events/PYE for 200 and 100 U/mL). CONCLUSION: The 200 and 100 U/mL formulations of IDeg provide comparable and effective levels of glycemic control with similar, low rates of overall confirmed and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia.

Comparison of insulin detemir and insulin glargine using a basal-bolus regimen in a randomized, controlled clinical study in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: This treat-to-target study compared the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir (IDet) and insulin glargine (IGla) in a basal-bolus (insulin aspart) regimen in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: 385 patients were randomized 2 : 1 (IDet : IGla). Non-inferiority of IDet to IGla was determined by HbA(1c) 95% CI upper limit <0.4. RESULTS: IDet and IGla showed similar efficacy in HbA(1c) reduction at 26 weeks, as the non-inferiority criterion was met at 26 weeks (LS mean [Det-Gla]: 0.207; 95% CI: 0.0149,0.3995). It appeared that IGla in some cases did better than IDet in terms of HbA(1c), but the difference (0.207%) was not clinically meaningful. Based on the CONSORT guideline, non-inferiority analysis using the LOCF approach was inconclusive regarding possible inferiority of delta 0.4 (LS mean of [Det-Gla]: 0.307; 95% CI: 0.1023, 0.5109). HbA(1c) decreased significantly from baseline in IDet (-1.1% [26 weeks], -0.9% [LOCF], p < 0.001) and in IGla (-1.3% [26 weeks, LOCF], p < 0.001). Final HbA(1c) were 7.1% (26 weeks) and 7.3% (LOCF) in IDet, and 6.9% (26 weeks) and 7.0% (LOCF) in IGla. Final FPG were 130 mg/dL (26 weeks) and 135 mg/dL (LOCF) in IDet, and 134 mg/dL (26 weeks) and 137 mg/dL (LOCF) in IGla. There was significantly less weight gain in IDet-treated patients (1.2 +/- 3.96 kg versus 2.7 +/- 3.94 kg, p = 0.001). Hypoglycemia risk was comparable between groups. The majority of IDet-treated patients (87.4%) remained on a once-daily basal insulin regimen throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: IDet and IGla were both effective and safe treatments for glycemic control in a basal-bolus regimen for type 2 diabetes. Clinically significant reductions in HbA(1c) were achieved in both groups, but with significantly less weight gain in the IDet group at comparable basal insulin dosage.