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

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

An exploratory analysis of the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 units/mL versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL over a lifetime horizon using the BRAVO diabetes model.

BACKGROUND: This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). METHODS: Costs and outcomes for Gla-300 versus Gla-100 from a US healthcare payer perspective were assessed using the BRAVO diabetes model. Baseline clinical data were derived from EDITION-3, a 12-month randomized controlled trial comparing Gla-300 with Gla-100 in insulin-naïve adults with inadequately controlled T2D on OADs. Treatment costs were calculated based on doses observed in EDITION-3 and 2020 US net prices, while costs for complications were based on published literature. Lifetime costs ($US) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates; extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Lifetime medical costs were estimated to be $353,441 and $352,858 for individuals receiving Gla-300 and Gla-100 respectively; insulin costs were $52,613 and $50,818. Gla-300 was associated with a gain of 8.97 QALYs and 21.12 life-years, while Gla-100 was associated with a gain of 8.89 QALYs and 21.07 life-years. This resulted in an ICER of $7522/QALY gained for Gla-300 versus Gla-100. Thus, Gla-300 was cost-effective versus Gla-100 based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Compared with Gla-100, Gla-300 provided a net monetary benefit of $3290. Scenario and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case. CONCLUSION: Gla-300 may be a cost-effective treatment option versus Gla-100 over a lifetime horizon for insulin-naïve people in the United States with T2D inadequately controlled on OADs.

Effects of Switching from Degludec to Glargine U300 in Patients with Insulin-Dependent Type 1 Diabetes: A Retrospective Study.

Background and Objectives: Degludec (Deg) and glargine U300 (Gla-300) are insulin analogs with longer and smoother pharmacodynamic action than glargine U100 (Gla-100), a long-acting insulin that has been widely used for many years in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Both improve glycemic variability (GV) and the frequency of hypoglycemia, unlike Gla-100. However, it is unclear which insulin analog affects GV and hypoglycemia better in patients with insulin-dependent type 1 diabetes. We evaluated the effects of switching from Deg to Gla-300 on the day-to-day GV and the frequency of hypoglycemia in patients with insulin-dependent type 1 diabetes treated with Deg-containing basal-bolus insulin therapy (BBT). Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on 24 patients with insulin-dependent type 1 diabetes whose treatment was switched from Deg-containing BBT to Gla-300-containing BBT. We evaluated the day-to-day GV measured as the standard deviation of fasting blood glucose levels (SD-FBG) calculated by the self-monitoring of blood glucose records, the frequency of hypoglycemia (total, severe, and nocturnal), and blood glucose levels measured as fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Results: The characteristics of the patients included in the analysis with high SD-FBG had frequent hypoglycemic events, despite the use of Deg-containing BBT. For this population, SD-FBG and the frequency of nocturnal hypoglycemia decreased after the switch from Deg to Gla-300. Despite the decrease in the frequency of nocturnal hypoglycemia, the FPG and HbA1c did not worsen by the switch. The change in the SD-FBG had a negative correlation with the SD-FBG at baseline and a positive correlation with serum albumin levels. Conclusions: Switching from Deg to Gla-300 improved the SD-FBG and decreased the frequency of nocturnal hypoglycemia in insulin-dependent type 1 diabetes treated with Deg-containing BBT, especially in cases with low serum albumin levels and a high GV.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Based Metrics and Hypoglycemia Duration in Insulin-Experienced Individuals With Long-standing Type 2 Diabetes Switched From a Daily Basal Insulin to Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec: Post Hoc Analysis of ONWARDS 2 and ONWARDS 4.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis assessed continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based metrics and hypoglycemia duration with once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin analogs in insulin-experienced individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes from two 26-week phase 3a trials (ONWARDS 2 and ONWARDS 4). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Time in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0 mmol/L), time above range (TAR) (>10.0 mmol/L), and time below range (TBR) (<3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L) were assessed during three CGM time periods (switch [weeks 0-4], end of treatment [weeks 22-26], and follow-up [weeks 27-31]) for icodec versus comparators (ONWARDS 2, insulin degludec [basal regimen]; ONWARDS 4, insulin glargine U100 [basal-bolus regimen]) using double-blind CGM data. CGM-derived hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was assessed. RESULTS: In both trials, there were no statistically significant differences in TIR, TAR, or TBR (<3.0 mmol/L) for icodec versus comparators across all time periods. In the end-of-treatment period, mean TIR was 63.1% (icodec) vs. 59.5% (degludec) in ONWARDS 2 and 66.9% (icodec) vs. 66.4% (glargine U100) in ONWARDS 4. Mean TBR <3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L remained within recommended targets (<4% and <1%, respectively) across time periods and treatment arms. Hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was comparable across time periods and treatment arms (median duration ≤40 min). CONCLUSIONS: In insulin-experienced participants with long-standing type 2 diabetes, CGM-based TIR, TAR, and CGM-derived hypoglycemia duration (<3.9 mmol/L) were comparable for icodec and once-daily basal insulin analogs during all time periods. TBR remained within recommended targets.

Resolution of insulin resistance, lactic acidosis, and decrease in mechanical support requirements in patients post orthotopic heart transplant with the use of long-acting insulin glargine.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the efficacy of using a long-acting insulin analog, along with the infusion of regular insulin, in achieving appropriate glycemic control and correcting lactic acidosis in patients post orthotopic heart transplant who demonstrate severe lactic acidosis and insulin resistance. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of two cohorts (IRB FLA 20-003) of patients post orthotopic heart transplant with severe lactic acidosis and insulin resistance who were admitted to a tertiary intensive care unit and treated with (group 1) or without long-acting insulin analog (group 2) within the first 24 h of admission to the intensive care unit. Insulin resistance is defined as the requirement for intravenous regular insulin infusion of more than 20 units/h without the ability to achieve appropriate serum glucose level (120-180 mg /dL). Severe lactic acidosis is defined as arterial lactic acid of more than 10 mmol/L. The following parameters were investigated: time to correct lactic acidosis, duration of postoperative mechanical ventilation, the need for periprocedural mechanical circulatory support, and 28-day mortality. RESULTS: The 28-day mortality was zero in both groups. Two patients required periprocedural mechanical support in group one, and ten patients required mechanical support in group two (RR = 0.224, 95%, confidence interval 0.052-0.95, Z = 2.029, p = 0.042). Three patients required tracheostomy in group one, and four patients required tracheostomy in group two (RR 0.84, 95 confidence interval 0.20-3.48, Z = 0.23, P = 0.81). Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare time to correct lactic acidosis, with lactic acid resolution being faster in group one ([Formula: see text]1 = 19.7 h, SD ± 12.6 h [Formula: see text]2 = 29.3 h, SD ± 19.6 h, Z-value - 2.02, p-value 0.043). The duration of mechanical ventilation was less in group one ([Formula: see text]1 = 29 h, SD ± 12.7 h, [Formula: see text]2 = 55.1 h, SD ± 44.5 h, Z-value: - 1.92, p-value 0.05). CONCLUSION: Administration of low-dose long-acting insulin glargine led to the resolution of the lactic acidosis, insulin resistance, and decreased requirements for pressor and inotropic support, which led to decreased need for mechanical circulatory support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bridging dose of U-100 glargine with first dose of insulin degludec improves glycaemia in the 48 h after transition in twice-daily glargine users.

AIMS: To study the effects of a bridging dose of U-100 glargine (U-100G) with the first dose of degludec in type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients transitioning from glargine to degludec, by comparing the glucose metrics 48 h before and after the transition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with T1D on a stable U-100G regimen and with glycated haemoglobin concentration <75 mmol/mol were randomized (double-blind) to one dose of placebo or U-100G with first dose of degludec, administered at 9:00 pm. Patients on once-daily U-100G at baseline received 50% of total U-100G dose (bridging dose), while patients on twice-daily U-100G received 50% of the evening U-100G dose. Participants wore a continuous glucose monitor during the study. RESULTS: Forty participants were randomized, of whom 37 completed the study. The cohort was 65% male, the mean age was 47 years, duration of T1D 22 years, BMI 26 kg/m2, HbA1c 51 mmol/mol and total daily insulin dose 0.7 units/kg body weight. The bridging group included 19 participants (once-daily U-100G: n = 12; twice-daily U-100G: n = 7) and the placebo group included 18 participants (once-daily U-100G: n = 12; twice-daily U-100G: n = 6). Change in time in range (TIR) was not significantly different between the two treatment groups. In secondary analyses, among twice-daily U-100G users, TIR (3.9-10 mmol/L) increased 8% in the bridging group in the 48 h after first dose of degludec compared to the preceding 48 h, while participants in the placebo group had a 9.5% decrease (p = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: A subgroup of well-controlled twice-daily U-100G users transitioning to degludec benefited from a 50% bridging dose of evening U-100G with the first dose of degludec in a small pilot study.

A prospective, multicentre, randomized, open-label comparison of a long-acting basal insulin analog glargine plus glulisine with premixed insulin in insulin naïve patients with Type 2 diabetes - A study from India.

AIMS: We aimed to compare the effectiveness of Glargine plus Glulisine to premixed insulin analogue, as measured by HbA1c ≤ 7.0% in insulin naive Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) patients with elevated fasting and/or postprandial plasma glucose. METHODS: Insulin-naive T2D patients (116 men, 84 women) on ≥ 2 oral hypoglycemic agents with inadequate glycemic control were randomized either to group 1 (insulin Glargine plus Glulisine, n = 101) or group 2 (Premixed Insulin analogue, n = 99). RESULTS: In the intention to treat analysis, at week 24, percentage of patients with good glycaemic control (HbA1c ≤ 7.0%) was similar between the two groups (16.8% in Group 1 vs. 13.1% in Group 2, χ2 - 0.535, p = 0.47). Significant reductions in fasting and postprandial levels were observed in groups 1 and 2 at both post-baseline time points (Week 12 and 24). In group 1, reduction in HbA1c from baseline to week 12 was 0.6 ± 0.1 and 0.7 ± 0.2 at week 24, p < 0.0001 for all. In group 2, no significant change in HbA1c was observed. In group 1, 83.2% required an additional dose of glulisine and in group 2, 88.9% required an additional dose of premixed insulin. Hypoglycemic events were similar in both groups (0.12 events per person-year in group 1 and 0.13 events per person-year in group 2). Weight gain was non-significant in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Glargine plus Glulisine, though in higher dose was effective as premixed insulin in lowering HbA1c. Hypoglycemic events per person-year were similar in both groups.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of ONWARDS phase 3 randomized controlled trials.

AIM: Insulin icodec is a novel ultra-long action basal insulin analogue designed for once-weekly administration. With the merit of once-a-week administration, it promises better adherence and greater treatment satisfaction because of reduced injection frequency. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec in comparison with other basal insulin analogues in the management of type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were followed during the conduct of this study. For the eligible studies, five databases and ClinicalTrials.gov were screened until July 2023. All randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin icodec in type 2 diabetes versus other insulin analogues were included. The extracted data were then analysed for meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: Five clinical trials with 3764 participants were included. The meta-analysis showed that once-weekly insulin icodec had higher glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction [mean difference -0.17%, 95% confidence interval (CI; -0.28 to -0.06), p = .003], with no significant difference in fasting plasma glucose compared with other insulin analogues. HbA1c achievement <7% [odds ratio 1.51, 95% CI (1.14-1.99), p = .004] and HbA1c achievement <7% without hypoglycaemia [odds ratio 1.45, 95% CI (1.26-1.67), p < .00001] were observed in higher proportions with insulin icodec compared with the comparator group. The percentage of time spent in the target glycaemic range was comparatively similar between insulin icodec and the comparator [mean difference 2.42%, 95% CI (0.01-4.84), p = .05]. There was a significantly higher incidence of level 1 hypoglycaemia with insulin icodec but no significant difference was seen for the incidence of levels 2, 3 and combined 2/3 hypoglycaemia. Any adverse events and adverse events related to basal insulin were comparably similar in insulin icodec and comparators. The subgroup analysis of once-weekly insulin icodec with individual insulin analogues (glargine U100 and degludec) showed that insulin icodec had similar efficacy with insulin glargine U100 but superior efficacy with higher HbA1c reduction with insulin icodec compared with insulin degludec. The safety profile was comparable between insulin icodec and glargine U100, whereas insulin icodec reported higher incidence of hypoglycaemia events and any adverse events when compared with degludec. CONCLUSION: Once-weekly insulin icodec showed a better HbA1c reduction with a higher proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets in comparison with once-daily basal insulin analogues. They were no major safety concerns with respect to hypoglycaemia or adverse events.

Optimized LC-MS/MS method for quantifying insulin degludec and liraglutide in rat plasma and Tissues: Application in pharmacokinetics and biodistribution.

We present an ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method for simultaneous detection of insulin degludec (I-Deg) and liraglutide (LIRA) in rat plasma and tissues, characterized by its sensitivity and selectivity. Chromatographic separation was achieved using an Acquity UPLC BEH C18 column, leveraging a mobile phase of acetonitrile and water (both with 0.1 % formic acid) under gradient elution over a run time of 7.5 min. The mass spectrometer operated in positive electrospray ionization multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode, tracking transitions of m/z 1221.6 â†’ 641.6 for I-Deg, m/z 938.7 â†’ 1064.1 for LIRA, and m/z 1184.7 â†’ 454.4 for the internal standard. Validation ranged from 5 to 100 ng/mL, exhibiting robust linearity (r2 > 0.99) and limits of detection (LOD) of 1.63-2.02 ng/mL for I-Deg and 0.96-1.62 ng/mL for LIRA. Limits of quantification (LOQ) were 2.38-4.76 ng/mL for I-Deg and 3.22-4.40 ng/mL for LIRA. Notably, no significant matrix effects were detected. Stability was confirmed under various conditions, and precision metrics (intraday RSD 1.68-8.05 % for I-Deg and 1.11-7.69 % for LIRA; interday RSD 1.39-8.61 % for I-Deg and 1.06-8.83 % for LIRA) alongside accuracy (90.5-114.9 % for I-Deg and 92.7-113.7 % for LIRA) were within acceptable ranges. The method was successfully applied to pharmacokinetic and biodistribution studies following simultaneous subcutaneous administration of LIRA and I-Deg in rats.

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

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

IDegLira for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: IDegLira is a novel fixed-ratio soluble combination of insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide approved for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients. Individual trials have assessed the clinical profile of IDegLira vs different comparators. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IDegLira for T2D. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to August 15, 2023. The primary outcomes included change from baseline in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and body weight. Risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to evaluate the outcomes. RESULTS: This meta-analysis identified 1044 citations, and included 13 eligible trials, enroling 7773 patients. Compared with the control groups, IDegLira was optimal in change in HbA1c, percentage of patients achieving HbA1c < 7%, percentage of patients achieving HbA1c < 6.5%, HbA1c < 7.0% without weight gain and without severe or blood glucose (BG)-confirmed hypoglycaemia episodes, HbA1c < 6.5% without weight gain and without severe or BG-confirmed hypoglycaemia episodes, change in fasting plasma glucose, change in self-measured plasma glucose, change in systolic pressure, and total daily insulin dose. No difference was found between the IDegLira and control groups in terms of change in body weight, change in diastolic pressure, severe or BG-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia, nocturnal severe or BG-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia, adverse events or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2D, IDegLira improved glycaemic control whilst balancing out risk for hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal side effects.

Real-World Analysis of Long-Acting and NPH-Containing Insulins on Glycemic Control.

Introduction Affordability of insulin products has become a concern in the past several years as the average price of various insulin products has increased. While awaiting legislation at the federal level that would address issues leading to high insulin costs, providers may have shifted prescribing practices to prescribe the lowest-priced insulin products to achieve patients' treatment goals. Objective To compare the prevalence of hypoglycemic events between patients receiving lower-cost neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH)-containing human insulins and higher-cost long-acting insulin analogs in Medicare Part D enrollees within a management services organization, as well as assessing glycemic control and changes in body mass index. Methods This was a multicenter, retrospective study conducted at three primary care clinics. The co-primary outcomes were percent difference of documented mild and severe hypoglycemic events between individuals receiving NPH-containing human insulin and long-acting insulin. Results A total of 72 patients met inclusion criteria and were receiving NPH-containing human insulins or the long-acting insulin analogs, 15 and 57 patients, respectively. Severe hypoglycemic events occurred in 3.5% vs 0% of the long-acting insulin analog and NPH-containing human insulin group, respectively (P = 0.999). Mild hypoglycemic episodes were experienced by 31.6% versus 33.3% of long-acting insulin analog and NPH, respectively (P = 0.539). For secondary outcomes, no difference was observed in glycemic control outcomes across insulin groups. Conclusion Among Medicare Part D patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, the use of NPH-containing human insulins was not associated with an increased risk of mild or severe hypoglycemia-related episodes or reduced glycemic control compared with long-acting insulin. Study findings suggest that lower-cost, NPH-containing human insulins may be an alternative to higher-cost, long-acting insulin analogs.

An Overview of Insulin Therapy in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus.

Diabetes is the most common diagnosis among home care patients. All patients with type 1 diabetes require insulin, and due to the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes, most will eventually need insulin therapy. The newer analog insulins that have been developed include long-acting, ultra-long-acting, rapid-acting, and ultra-rapid-acting. They mimic the body's natural insulin secretion and allow patients more flexibility in diet and lifestyle while achieving blood glucose control. This article provides an overview of insulin therapy and related patient care and teaching considerations.

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

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