Expert Panel Recommendations for a Standardized Ambulatory Glucose Profile Report for Connected Insulin Pens.

Background: Connected insulin pens capture data on insulin dosing/timing and can integrate with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices with essential insulin and glucose metrics combined into a single platform. Standardization of connected insulin pen reports is desirable to enhance clinical utility with a single report. Methods: An international expert panel was convened to develop a standardized connected insulin pen report incorporating insulin and glucose metrics into a single report containing clinically useful information. An extensive literature review and identification of examples of current connected insulin pen reports were performed serving as the basis for creation of a draft of a standardized connected insulin pen report. The expert panel participated in three virtual standardization meetings and online surveys. Results: The Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP) Report: Connected Insulin Pen brings all clinically relevant CGM-derived glucose and connected insulin pen metrics into a single simplified two-page report. The first page contains the time in ranges bar, summary of key insulin and glucose metrics, the AGP curve, and detailed basal (long-acting) insulin assessment. The second page contains the bolus (mealtime and correction) insulin assessment periods with information on meal timing, insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio, average bolus insulin dose, and number of days with bolus doses recorded. The report's second page contains daily glucose profiles with an overlay of the timing and amount of basal and bolus insulin administered. Conclusion: The AGP Report: Connected Insulin Pen is a standardized clinically useful report that should be considered by companies developing connected pen technology as part of their system reporting/output.

Once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa: Design and rationale for the QWINT phase 3 clinical development programme.

AIMS: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This review describes the study design and rationale of the efsitora phase 3 Once Weekly (QW) Insulin Therapy (QWINT) clinical development programme, including the five trials, QWINT-1 through QWINT-5. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The five trials included insulin-naïve adults (QWINT-1 and -2) with type 2 diabetes (T2D), adults with T2D previously treated with basal insulin (QWINT-3 and -4), and QWINT-5 in adults with type 1 diabetes. All five trials were designed as multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label, treat-to-target studies to investigate the efficacy and safety of efsitora versus active once-daily basal insulin comparators (insulin glargine U100 or insulin degludec U100). The primary objective of each trial is to compare the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 or 52 between efsitora and the active comparator. The key secondary objectives include change in fasting glucose, insulin dose and continuous glucose monitoring variables, and patient-reported outcome questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The QWINT development programme includes a racially and geographically diverse population to provide important information regarding the efficacy and safety of efsitora and its clinical management of people with diabetes.

Impact on Knowledge, Competence, and Performance of a Faculty-Led Web-Based Educational Activity for Type 2 Diabetes and Obesity: Questionnaire Study Among Health Care Professionals and Analysis of Anonymized Patient Records.

BACKGROUND: Strategies for managing type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity are evolving with the introduction of targeted therapies, including incretin-based dual agonists and growing knowledge of the importance of multidisciplinary care. Accessible, effective continuing medical education (CME) activities are required to ensure that health care professionals (HCPs) understand and can implement the most recent data to optimize patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to measure changes in knowledge, competence, and self-reported performance and quantitatively evaluate changes in performance using anonymized patient data following participation in a web-based educational activity. The faculty-led CME-accredited activity was based on incretin-based dual agonists and patient education on T2D and obesity. The remaining educational gaps in this field were also identified. METHODS: A CME-accredited, web-based, multidisciplinary (touchMDT) educational activity titled "The future for glycemic control and weight loss in T2D and obesity: Incretin-based dual-agonists and optimizing patient education" was developed. HCP knowledge, competence, and performance were assessed before and after the activity against Moore's expanded outcomes framework (levels 1-5), using self-reported questionnaires and by analyzing anonymized patient record data. RESULTS: For evaluating knowledge and competence (50 respondents before and 50 learners after the activity), the mean number of correctly answered questions was significantly higher post activity (median 5.0, IQR 4.0-6.0 to 6.0, IQR 5.0-7.0; mean 4.98, SD 1.22 to 5.78, SD 1.13; P<.001). Modest, nonsignificant improvements in self-reported performance (N=50 respondents preactivity; N=50 learners postactivity) from before to after the activity were observed (median 4.0, IQR 3.25-4.0 to 4.0, IQR 4.0-4.0; mean 3.64, SD 0.69 to 3.76, SD 0.48; P=.32). PPatient data analysis indicated that patients were being treated more intensively postactivity: before the activity, the most commonly used treatment regimens were metformin monotherapy (13/50, 26%) and dual therapy with metformin plus injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA; 11/50, 22%); post activity, this changed to dual therapy with metformin plus injectable GLP-1 RA (12/50, 24%) and triple therapy with metformin plus injectable GLP-1 RA plus sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i; 10/50, 20%). In addition, there was an increased number of referrals to a combination of specialists (physicians referred 27%, 8/30 of patients to ≥2 specialists before the activity and 36%, 10/28 to ≥2 specialists post activity). The remaining educational gaps included understanding the biology and psychology of obesity, efficacy and safety data for incretin-based dual agonists, and the role of the diabetes educator or diabetes care and education specialist in managing T2D and obesity. CONCLUSIONS: This short, web-based CME activity on the management of T2D and obesity led to improvements in HCP knowledge, competence, and performance. Several remaining unmet needs were identified, which can be used to inform the content of future educational activities in this disease area.

The Impact of Web-Based Continuing Medical Education Using Patient Simulation on Real-World Treatment Selection in Type 2 Diabetes: Retrospective Case-Control Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite guidelines recommending the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in certain patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), they are not being prescribed for many of these patients. Web-based continuing medical education (CME) patient simulations have been used to identify clinicians' practice gaps and improve clinical decision-making as measured within a simulation, but the impact of this format on real-world treatment has not been researched. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a simulation-based CME intervention on real-world use of GLP-1 RAs by endocrinologists and primary care physicians. METHODS: Two evaluation phases of the CME simulation were conducted: phase I, the CME simulation phase, was a paired, pre-post study of 435 physician learners in the United States; and phase II, the real-world phase, was a retrospective, matched case-control study of 157 of the 435 physicians who had claims data available for the study period. RESULTS: Phase I CME results showed a 29 percentage point increase in correct decisions from pre- to postfeedback (178/435, 40.9% to 304/435, 69.9%; P<.001) in selecting treatment that addresses both glycemic control and cardiovascular event protection. Phase II results showed that 39 of 157 (24.8%) physicians in the intervention group increased use of GLP-1 RAs, compared to 20 of 157 (12.7%) in the comparison group. Being in the intervention group predicted GLP-1 RA use after education (odds ratio 4.49; 95% CI 1.45-13.97; P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: A web-based CME simulation focused on secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in a patient with T2D was associated with increased use of evidence-based treatment selection in the real world.

Tirzepatide for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes: An endocrine perspective.

Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist approved in the United States as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes and under investigation for use in chronic weight management, major adverse cardiovascular events and the management of other conditions, including heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity and non-cirrhotic non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. The Phase 3 SURPASS 1-5 clinical trial programme was designed to assess efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneously injected tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg), as monotherapy or combination therapy, across a broad spectrum of people with type 2 diabetes. Use of tirzepatide in clinical studies was associated with marked reductions of glycated haemoglobin (-1.87 to -2.59%, -20 to -28 mmol/mol) and body weight (-6.2 to -12.9 kg), as well as reductions in parameters commonly associated with heightened cardiometabolic risk such as blood pressure, visceral adiposity and circulating triglycerides. In SUPRASS-2, these reductions were greater than with the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide 1 mg. Tirzepatide was well tolerated, with a low risk of hypoglycaemia when used without insulin or insulin secretagogues and showed a generally similar safety profile to the GLP-1 receptor agonist class. Accordingly, evidence from these clinical trials suggests that tirzepatide offers a new opportunity for the effective lowering of glycated haemoglobin and body weight in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Report from the CVOT Summit 2021: new cardiovascular, renal, and glycemic outcomes.

The 7th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial (CVOT) Summit on Cardiovascular, Renal, and Glycemic Outcomes, was held virtually on November 18-19, 2021. Pursuing the tradition of the previous summits, this reference congress served as a platform for in-depth discussion and exchange on recently completed CVOTs. This year's focus was placed on the outcomes of EMPEROR-Preserved, FIGARO-DKD, AMPLITUDE-O, SURPASS 1-5, and STEP 1-5. Trial implications for diabetes and obesity management and the impact on new treatment algorithms were highlighted for endocrinologists, diabetologists, cardiologists, nephrologists, and general practitioners. Discussions evolved from outcome trials using SGLT2 inhibitors as therapy for heart failure, to CVOTs with nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and GLP-1 receptor agonists. Furthermore, trials for glycemic and overweight/obesity management, challenges in diabetes management in COVID-19, and novel guidelines and treatment strategies were discussed.Trial registration The 8th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial Summit will be held virtually on November 10-11, 2022 ( http://www.cvot.org ).

Practical Considerations for Initiating and Utilizing Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Clinical Practice.

Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), including improved glycemic control, better treatment adherence, and an increased understanding of their treatment regimens. Retrospective analysis of CGM data allows clinicians and patients to identify glycemic patterns that support and facilitate informed therapy adjustments. There are currently 2 types of CGM systems: real-time CGM (rtCGM) and flash CGM. The FreeStyle Libre 2 (FSL2) is the newest flash CGM system commercially available. Because the FSL2 system was only recently cleared for use in the US, many endocrinologists and diabetes specialists may be unfamiliar with the strengths, limitations, and potential of the FSL2 system. This article focuses on practical approaches and strategies for initiating and using flash CGM in endocrinology and diabetes specialty practices.

Efficacy and safety of a novel dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide in patients with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-1): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite advancements in care, many people with type 2 diabetes do not meet treatment goals; thus, development of new therapies is needed. We aimed to assess efficacy, safety, and tolerability of novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide monotherapy versus placebo in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by diet and exercise alone. METHODS: We did a 40-week, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (SURPASS-1), at 52 medical research centres and hospitals in India, Japan, Mexico, and the USA. Adult participants (≥18 years) were included if they had type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by diet and exercise alone and if they were naive to injectable diabetes therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) via computer-generated random sequence to once a week tirzepatide (5, 10, or 15 mg), or placebo. All participants, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the mean change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline at 40 weeks. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03954834. FINDINGS: From June 3, 2019, to Oct 28, 2020, of 705 individuals assessed for eligibility, 478 (mean baseline HbA1c 7·9% [63 mmol/mol], age 54·1 years [SD 11·9], 231 [48%] women, diabetes duration 4·7 years, and body-mass index 31·9 kg/m2) were randomly assigned to tirzepatide 5 mg (n=121 [25%]), tirzepatide 10 mg (n=121 [25%]), tirzepatide 15 mg (n=121 [25%]), or placebo (n=115 [24%]). 66 (14%) participants discontinued the study drug and 50 (10%) discontinued the study prematurely. At 40 weeks, all tirzepatide doses were superior to placebo for changes from baseline in HbA1c, fasting serum glucose, bodyweight, and HbA1c targets of less than 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol) and less than 5·7% (<39 mmol/mol). Mean HbA1c decreased from baseline by 1·87% (20 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 5 mg, 1·89% (21 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 10 mg, and 2·07% (23 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 15 mg versus +0·04% with placebo (+0·4 mmol/mol), resulting in estimated treatment differences versus placebo of -1·91% (-21 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 5 mg, -1·93% (-21 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 10 mg, and -2·11% (-23 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 15 mg (all p<0·0001). More participants on tirzepatide than on placebo met HbA1c targets of less than 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol; 87-92% vs 20%) and 6·5% or less (≤48 mmol/mol; 81-86% vs 10%) and 31-52% of patients on tirzepatide versus 1% on placebo reached an HbA1c of less than 5·7% (<39 mmol/mol). Tirzepatide induced a dose-dependent bodyweight loss ranging from 7·0 to 9·5 kg. The most frequent adverse events with tirzepatide were mild to moderate and transient gastrointestinal events, including nausea (12-18% vs 6%), diarrhoea (12-14% vs 8%), and vomiting (2-6% vs 2%). No clinically significant (<54 mg/dL [<3 mmol/L]) or severe hypoglycaemia were reported with tirzepatide. One death occurred in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Tirzepatide showed robust improvements in glycaemic control and bodyweight, without increased risk of hypoglycaemia. The safety profile was consistent with GLP-1 receptor agonists, indicating a potential monotherapy use of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes treatment. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

The Effect of Prestudy Insulin Therapy on Safety and Efficacy of Human Regular U-500 Insulin by Pump or Injection: A Posthoc Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a posthoc analysis of the VIVID study (Safety and Efficacy of Human Regular U-500 Insulin Administered by Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Versus Multiple Daily Injections in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel Clinical Trial), comparing 2 delivery methods of human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R), continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) versus multiple daily injection (MDI), in type 2 diabetes requiring high insulin, to determine influence of prestudy insulin on glycemic outcomes. METHODS: We compared A1C, total daily insulin dose (TDD), weight, and hypoglycemia by subgroups of prestudy insulin (prestudy U-500R vs non-U-500R) and treatment (CSII vs MDI). RESULTS: At baseline, prestudy U-500R had higher TDD, higher body mass index, lower A1C and fasting plasma glucose, and higher rate of hypoglycemia compared to non-U-500R. Active titration of U-500R reduced A1C in both subgroups, with maximum benefit at 8 weeks. At 26 weeks, CSII provided the greatest reduction in A1C in both subgroups, with a greater reduction in non-U-500R. MDI provided an A1C reduction in both subgroups, with the greater reduction in non-U-500R. At 8 weeks, prestudy U-500R reached its lowest A1C; thereafter, A1C rebounded with MDI and remained stable with CSII. In non-U-500R, A1C continued to decrease to study end. In non-U-500R, hypoglycemia increased during active titration, but then decreased in the posttitration maintenance period. In both subgroups, TDD increased from baseline with MDI but not with CSII. Body weight increased in both subgroups but was greater in prestudy U-500R with CSII compared to MDI. CONCLUSION: Regardless of previous insulin, people on high-dose insulin could lower A1C with U-500R, with additional benefit from CSII. These results may provide guidance for use of U-500R in clinical practice.

Further improvement in glycemic control after switching from exenatide two times per day to exenatide once-weekly autoinjected suspension in patients with type 2 diabetes: 52-week results from the DURATION-NEO-1 study.

INTRODUCTION: Investigate the effects of switching from two times per day exenatide to once-weekly exenatide administered by autoinjector (exenatide once-weekly suspension by autoinjector (QWS-AI)) or treatment with exenatide QWS-AI for 1 year. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this phase III open-label study, adults with type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive exenatide QWS-AI (2 mg) or exenatide two times per day (5 mcg for 4 weeks, followed by 10 mcg) for 28 weeks. During a subsequent non-randomized 24-week extension, patients who received exenatide two times per day were switched to exenatide QWS-AI and those randomized to exenatide QWS-AI continued this treatment. Efficacy measures included changes from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (A1C), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and body weight. RESULTS: In total, 315 patients (mean baseline A1C of 8.5%) completed the initial 28 weeks of randomized treatment with exenatide QWS-AI (n=197) or exenatide two times per day (n=118) and were included in the 24-week extension (mean A1C of 7.0% and 7.3%, respectively, at week 28). From weeks 28-52, patients who switched from exenatide two times per day to exenatide QWS-AI had additional A1C reductions of approximately 0.5% (mean A1C change from baseline of -1.4% at week 52) and further reductions from baseline in FPG. Patients who continued exenatide QWS-AI treatment for 52 weeks showed clinically relevant A1C reductions (mean A1C change from baseline of -1.3% at week 52). Body-weight reductions achieved through week 28 were sustained at week 52 in both groups. There were no unexpected safety concerns or changes in the safety profile among patients who switched from exenatide two times per day to exenatide QWS-AI or those who continued exenatide QWS-AI treatment for 52 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from exenatide two times per day to exenatide QWS-AI resulted in further A1C reductions and maintenance of earlier decreases in body weight, while continued therapy with exenatide QWS-AI for 52 weeks maintained A1C and body-weight reductions, without additional safety or tolerability concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01652716.

GLP-1 receptor agonists in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: role and clinical experience to date.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) is a hormone of the incretin system responsible for a variety of glucoregulatory effects, including glucose-dependent secretion of insulin and inhibition of glucagon release, the effects of which are impaired in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Targeting this deficiency using GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) is a well-established approach in T2D, with over a decade of clinical experience now accrued. This article reviews the evidence for subcutaneous GLP-1RAs and their role in T2D treatment, and explores the rationale for an oral GLP-1RA from a primary care perspective. Clinical trials and real-world studies with subcutaneous GLP-1RAs indicate that these agents have good glycated hemoglobin (HbA1 c)-lowering efficacy, an inherently low potential for hypoglycemia, and reduce body weight. Cardiovascular outcomes trials have established cardiovascular safety, and three GLP-1RAs have been proven to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with established cardiovascular disease or at high cardiovascular risk. The most common adverse events associated with GLP-1RAs are gastrointestinal effects, which tend to occur soon after initiation and decline over time. T2D treatment guidelines recommend GLP-1RAs as a therapeutic option in various settings, including in those patients: i) not achieving HbA1 c targets after first-line metformin and lifestyle modifications; ii) at high risk of/with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (regardless of HbA1c; GLP-1RAs of proven benefit); iii) not achieving HbA1 c targets on basal insulin if not already receiving a GLP-1RA. Despite the known benefits of GLP-1RAs, adherence and persistence rates are suboptimal, potentially due in part to injection-related concerns. With some patients having a preference for oral medications, the development of an oral GLP-1RA is a logical approach to improving treatment options for patients with T2D. Co-formulation of semaglutide with an absorption enhancer has enabled the development and recent approval of the first oral GLP-1RA, oral semaglutide, which has the potential to expand use of GLP-1RAs in clinical practice.

Effects of canagliflozin on initiation of insulin and other antihyperglycaemic agents in the CANVAS Program.

This study compared initiation of insulin and other antihyperglycaemic agents (AHAs) with canagliflozin versus placebo for participants with type 2 diabetes and a history/high risk of cardiovascular disease in the CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program. After 1 year, fewer participants treated with canagliflozin versus placebo initiated any AHA (7% vs. 16%), insulin (3% vs. 9%) or any non-insulin AHA (5% vs. 12%) (P < .001 for all); overall AHA initiation rates increased over time but were consistently lower with canagliflozin compared with placebo. During the study, the likelihood of initiating insulin was 2.7 times lower for participants treated with canagliflozin compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.31, 0.43; P < .001). The time difference between 10% of patients in the canagliflozin and placebo groups being initiated on insulin from the beginning of the trial was about 2 years. Time to initiation of other AHAs, including metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sulphonylureas, was also delayed for canagliflozin versus placebo (P < .001 for each). Compared with placebo, canagliflozin delayed the need for initiation of other AHAs and delayed time to insulin therapy, an outcome that is important to many people with diabetes.

Beta-cell failure in type 2 diabetes: mechanisms, markers, and clinical implications.

It is well known that type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a globally increasing health burden. Despite recent therapeutic advances and the availability of many different classes of antihyperglycemic therapy, a large proportion of people do not achieve glycemic control. A decline in pancreatic beta-cell function has been defined as a key contributing factor to progression of T2D. In fact, a significant proportion of beta-cell secretory capacity is thought to be lost well before the diagnosis of T2D is made. Several models have been proposed to explain the reduction in beta-cell function, including reduced beta-cell number, beta-cell exhaustion, and dedifferentiation or transdifferentiation into other cell types. However, there have been reports that suggest remission of T2D is possible, and it is believed that beta-cell dysfunction may be, in part, reversible. As such, the question of whether beta cells are committed to failure in people with T2D is complex. It is now widely accepted that early restoration of normoglycemia may protect beta-cell function. Key to the successful implementation of this approach in clinical practice is the appropriate assessment of individuals at risk of beta-cell failure, and the early implementation of appropriate treatment options. In this review, we discuss the progression of T2D in the context of beta-cell failure and describe how C-peptide testing can be used to assess beta-cell function in primary care practice. In conclusion, significant beta-cell dysfunction is likely in individuals with certain clinical characteristics of T2D, such as long duration of disease, high glycated hemoglobin (≥9%), and/or long-term use of therapies that continuously stimulate the beta cell. In these people, measurement of beta-cell status could assist with choice of appropriate therapy to delay or potentially reverse beta-cell dysfunction and the progression of T2D.

The relationship between HbA1c and hypoglycaemia in patients with diabetes treated with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL.

AIM: Treat-to-target, randomized controlled trials have confirmed lower rates of hypoglycaemia at equivalent glycaemic control with insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Treat-to-target trials are designed to enable comparisons of safety and tolerability at a similar HbA1c level. In this post hoc analysis of the SWITCH 1 and 2 trials, we utilised a patient-level modelling approach to compare how glycaemic control might differ between basal insulins at a similar rate of hypoglycaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for HbA1c and symptomatic hypoglycaemia from the SWITCH 1 and SWITCH 2 trials were analyzed separately for patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, respectively. The association between the individual patient-level risk of hypoglycaemia and HbA1c was investigated using a Poisson regression model and used to estimate potential differences in glycaemic control with degludec versus glargine U100, at the same rate of hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: Improvements in glycaemic control increased the incidence of hypoglycaemia with both basal insulins across diabetes types. Our analysis suggests that patients could achieve a mean HbA1c reduction of 0.70 [0.05; 2.20]95% CI (for type 1 diabetes) or 0.96 [0.39; 1.99]95% CI (for type 2 diabetes) percentage points (8 [1; 24]95% CI or 10 [4; 22]95% CI mmol/mol, respectively) further with degludec than with glargine U100 before incurring an equivalent risk of hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that patients in clinical practice may be able to achieve lower glycaemia targets with degludec versus glargine U100, before incurring an equivalent risk of hypoglycaemia.

Efficacy and Safety of iGlarLixi, Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Glargine and Lixisenatide, Compared with Basal-Bolus Regimen in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Basal-bolus (BB) regimens are generally used to intensify basal insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) not meeting glycemic targets. However, drawbacks include multiple injection burden and risk of weight gain and hypoglycemia. A once-daily titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) may provide a simple, well-tolerated, and efficacious alternative. We compared these treatments in a post hoc propensity score matched analysis using randomized trial data. METHODS: From the LixiLan-L study, 195 patients who had been randomized to iGlarLixi were matched for age, sex, race, T2D duration, baseline body mass index, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose, insulin dose, and metformin use to 195 patients who had been randomized to a BB regimen in the GetGoal Duo-2 trial. RESULTS: At study end, estimated treatment differences for reduction in HbA1c and weight change, and ratio of hypoglycemia events per patient-year (BB vs iGlarLixi) were - 0.28% (standard error 0.08, P = 0.0002), - 1.32 kg (standard error 0.30, P < 0.0001), and 2.85 (P < 0.0001), respectively, all favoring iGlarLixi over BB. Also, proportions of patients reaching individual and composite goals (HbA1c < 7% [< 53 mmol/mol], no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia) were higher in the iGlarLixi compared with the BB treatment group. Gastrointestinal side effects were more common with iGlarLixi. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2D inadequately controlled on basal insulin, iGlarLixi offers an effective alternative to BB regimen for reducing HbA1c, without increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02058160 (LixiLan-L trial); NCT01768559 (GetGoal Duo-2 trial). Plain language summary available for this article.

Development of risk models for major adverse chronic renal outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using insurance claims: a retrospective observational study.

Objective: To develop and validate models allowing the prediction of major adverse chronic renal outcomes (MACRO) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using insurance claims data.Methods: The Optum Integrated Real World Evidence Electronic Health Records and Claims de-identified database (10/01/2006-09/30/2016) was used to identify T2DM patients ≥50 years old. Risk factors were assessed over a 12-month baseline period, and MACRO were subsequently assessed until the end of data availability, continuous enrollment, or death. Separate models were built for moderate-to-severe diabetic kidney disease (DKD), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and renal death. A random split-sample approach was employed, where 70% of the sample served for model development (training set) and the remaining 30% served for validation (testing set). C-statistics were used to assess model performance.Results: A total of 160,031 patients were included. Risk factors associated with MACRO for all models included adapted diabetes complications severity index, heart failure, anemia, diabetic nephropathy, and CKD. C-statistics ranged between 0.70 (moderate-to-severe DKD) and 0.84 (renal death) in the testing set. A substantial proportion (e.g. 88.7% for moderate-to-severe DKD) of patients predicted to be at high-risk of MACRO did not have diabetic nephropathy, proteinuria, or CKD at baseline.Conclusions: The models developed using insurance claims data could reliably predict the risk of MACRO in patients with T2DM and enabled patients at higher-risk of DKD to be identified in the absence of baseline diabetic nephropathy, CKD, or proteinuria. These models could help establish strategies to reduce the risk of MACRO in T2DM patients.

Real-world outcomes of treatment with insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus standard-of-care in people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Objective: To compare real-world outcomes with newer (insulin glargine 300 U/mL; Gla-300) versus standard of care (SoC) basal insulins (BIs) in the REACH (insulin-naïve; NCT02967224) and REGAIN (basal insulin-treated; NCT02967211) studies in participants with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in Europe and Brazil.Methods: In these open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic studies, patients (HbA1c > 7.0%) were randomized to Gla-300 or SoC BI for a 6-month treatment period (to demonstrate non-inferiority of Gla-300 vs SoC BIs for HbA1c change [non-inferiority margin 0.3%]) and a 6-month extension period (continuing with their assigned treatment). Insulin titration/other medication changes were at investigator/patient discretion post-randomization.Results: Overall, 703 patients were randomized to treatment in REACH (Gla-300, n = 352; SoC, n = 351) and 609 (Gla-300, n = 305, SoC, n = 304) in REGAIN. The primary outcome, non-inferiority of Gla-300 versus SoC for HbA1c change from baseline to month 6, was met in REACH (least squares [LS] mean difference 0.12% [95% CI -0.046 to 0.281]) but not REGAIN (LS mean difference 0.17% [0.015-0.329]); no between-treatment difference in HbA1c change was shown after 12 months in either study. BI dose increased minimally from baseline to 12 months in REACH (Gla-300, +0.17 U/kg; SoC, +0.15 U/kg) and REGAIN (Gla-300, +0.11 U/kg; SoC, +0.07 U/kg). Hypoglycemia incidence was low and similar between treatment arms in both studies.Conclusions: In both REACH and REGAIN, no differences in glycemic control or hypoglycemia outcomes with Gla-300 versus SoC BIs were seen over 12 months. However, the suboptimal insulin titration in REACH and REGAIN limits comparisons of outcomes between treatment arms and suggests that more titration instruction/support may be required for patients to fully derive the benefits from newer basal insulin formulations.

Practical Guidance on Effective Basal Insulin Titration for Primary Care Providers.

IN BRIEF Basal insulin therapy is well established for glycemic control in patients with diabetes but often is not optimally implemented, leading to poor clinical outcomes and adherence. Primary care providers can and should work together with other members of the diabetes care team to allow for effective titration of basal insulin that involves patients and their caregivers. Adequate guidance and monitoring during the titration process can minimize some of the adverse effects caused by basal insulin administration, while improving glycemic control in a timely manner.

Lower rates of hypoglycaemia in older individuals with type 2 diabetes using insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100: Results from SWITCH 2.

AIM: This study aimed to investigate the safety of insulin degludec (degludec) in relation to age and risk of hypoglycaemia post hoc in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (SWITCH 2 trial). METHODS: In this crossover study, individuals with T2D who were at risk of hypoglycaemia were randomized to double-blind treatment with degludec or insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) ± oral antidiabetic drugs. After 32 weeks, patients crossed over to the other treatment. Primary endpoint was number of overall severe (positively adjudicated) or glucose-confirmed (plasma glucose <56 mg/dL; 3.1 mmol/L) symptomatic hypoglycaemia events during the two 16-week maintenance periods. RESULTS: For individuals ≤65 (n = 450) and >65 (n = 270) years, baseline median (range) duration of diabetes was 12 (1-40) vs 15 (1-54) years, mean HbA1c was 7.7% vs 7.4% and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 87.0 vs 63.7 mL/min/1.73 m2 , respectively. No significant differences in HbA1c reduction were seen in individuals ≤65 or >65 years. During both maintenance periods, treatment with degludec lowered rates of hypoglycaemia (overall/nocturnal symptomatic) vs those with glargine U100 in individuals ≤65 (31% vs 43%) and >65 (30% vs 41%) years. With degludec and glargine U100, respectively, six vs nine severe hypoglycaemic events occurred in individuals ≤65 years and four vs eight events occurred in those >65 years. Adverse event rates were 3.2 and 3.3 events/patient-year for individuals ≤65 years and were 3.5 and 4.1 events/patient-year for individuals >65 years with degludec and glargine U100, respectively. CONCLUSION: Treatment with degludec was safe and effective, with a frequency of hypoglycaemia lower than that with glargine U100 in both younger and older individuals (>65 years) with T2D.