Glycaemic control, risk of hypoglycaemia and all-cause mortality in new users of second-generation basal insulin with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease: a nationwide register-based cohort study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the second-generation basal insulins, insulin degludec 100 U/ml (Deg-100) and insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300), in terms of change in HbA1c, hospitalisation for hypoglycaemia and all-cause mortality among individuals with type 2 diabetes and concurrent chronic kidney disease. METHODS: This register-based cohort study, based on the entire Danish diabetes population, included 6519 new users of Deg-100 and Gla-300 with type 2 diabetes and moderate to end-stage chronic kidney disease. HbA1c trajectories, from initiation of either Deg-100 (2013) or Gla-300 (2015) to end of follow-up (2020), were modelled with mixed-effect models while rates of hospitalisation for hypoglycaemia and all-cause mortality were modelled in separate models using Poisson likelihood. RESULTS: Of the 6519 (44% women) individuals included in the study, 3747 were exposed to Deg-100 and 2772 to Gla-300. Both mean (SD) type 2 diabetes duration (14.4 [6.6] years vs 15.2 [6.7] years) and median (IQR) chronic kidney disease duration (2.3 [1.3, 3.9] years vs 2.8 [1.6, 4.6] years) were significantly shorter in the Gla-300 group. The median (IQR) follow-up time was similar between groups: 1.0 (0.5-1.6) year for Gla-300 and 1.0 (0.3-1.5) year for Deg-100. In both groups mean HbA1c levels were reduced by 13-14 mmol/mol (1.2-1.3%) from initiation to end of follow-up, with the largest reduction (of 8-9 mmol/mol [0.7-0.8%]) occurring during the first year. There was no significant difference in HbA1c reduction between Deg-100 and Gla-300. Both the rate of hospitalisation for hypoglycaemia (rate ratio 1.02 [95% CI 0.70, 1.49], Deg-100 vs Gla-300) and the rate of all-cause mortality (rate ratio 0.98 [95% CI 0.84, 1.15], Deg-100 vs Gla-300) were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: We found no difference in HbA1c reduction, hospitalisation for hypoglycaemia or all-cause mortality between Gla-300 and Deg-100 in a real-world population of new users with type 2 diabetes and moderate to end-stage chronic kidney disease. Therefore, we conclude that these two treatment options are equally effective and safe in this vulnerable population.

Real-world outcomes of addition of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) therapy in people with type 2 diabetes: The DELIVER-G study.

AIMS: To provide real-world data on the addition of basal insulin (BI) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (PWD2) suboptimally controlled with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) therapy. However, real-world data on the addition of BI to GLP-1RA therapy are limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a US electronic medical record data source (IBM® Explorys®) that includes approximately 4 million PWD2 to assess the real-world impact of adding the second-generation BI analogue insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) to GLP-1RA therapy. Insulin-naïve PWD2 receiving GLP-1RAs who also received Gla-300 between March 1, 2015 and September 30, 2019 were identified; participants were required to have data for ≥12 months before, and ≥6 months after, addition of Gla-300. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of participants (N = 271) was 57.9 (10.8) years. Baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was 9.16% and was significantly reduced (-0.97 [SD 1.60]%; P < 0.0001) after addition of Gla-300; a significant increase in the proportion of PWD2 achieving HbA1c control was observed after addition of Gla-300 (HbA1c <7.0%: 4.80% vs. 22.14%, P < 0.0001; HbA1c <8.0%: 19.56% vs. 51.29%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of overall (8.49% vs. 9.59%; P = 0.513) and inpatient/emergency department (ED)-associated hypoglycaemia (0.37% vs. 0.74%; P = 1.000), as well as overall (0.33 vs. 0.46 per person per year [PPPY]; P = 0.170) and inpatient/ED-associated hypoglycaemia events (0.01 vs. 0.04 PPPY; P = 0.466) were similar before and after addition of Gla-300. CONCLUSIONS: In US real-world clinical practice, adding Gla-300 to GLP-1RA significantly improved glycaemic control without significantly increasing hypoglycaemia in PWD2. Further research into the effect of adding Gla-300 to GLP-1RA therapy is warranted.

Real-world effectiveness of IDegLira compared with intensified conventional insulin therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: IDegLira is a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide with proven efficacy against simpler regimens and non-inferiority against basal-bolus insulin therapy. However, the evaluation of its real-world effectiveness is hindered by technical issues and requires further exploration. Thus we aimed to compare effectiveness of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus intensified conventional insulin therapy (ICT) for type 2 diabetes in a real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study from an outpatient clinic in Hungary included people who initiated IDegLira due to inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c > 7.0% [53.0 mmol/mol]) with oral and/or injectable antidiabetic drugs. Data were compared with a historical cohort who initiated ICT. Outcomes included HbA1c, body weight, and hypoglycaemia differences over 18 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Data were included from 227 and 72 people who initiated IDegLira and ICT, respectively. Estimated mean difference (MD) in HbA1c at 18 months favoured IDegLira versus ICT (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.88-0.32 [MD 6.6 mmol/mol, 95% CI 9.6-3.5]). More people reached target HbA1c ≤7.0% (53.0 mmol/mol) with IDegLira than ICT (odds ratio 3.36, 95% CI 1.52-7.42). IDegLira treatment was associated with weight loss compared with gain for ICT (MD 6.7 kg, 95% CI 5.0-8.5). The hazard ratio for hypoglycaemia comparing IDegLira with ICT was 0.18 (95% CI 0.08-0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IDegLira over 18 months resulted in greater HbA1c reductions, weight loss versus gain, and a lower rate of hypoglycaemia versus ICT in people with type 2 diabetes.

Effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 on time in range: SWITCH PRO, a crossover study of basal insulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes and risk factors for hypoglycaemia.

AIMS: To compare time in range (TIR) with use of insulin degludec U100 (degludec) versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized, crossover, multicentre trial comparing degludec and glargine U100 in basal insulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes and ≥1 hypoglycaemia risk factor. There were two treatment periods, each with 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phases (with evaluation of glucose using blinded professional continuous glucose monitoring). The once-weekly titration (target: 3.9-5.0 mmol/L) was based on pre-breakfast self-measured blood glucose. The primary endpoint was percentage of TIR (3.9─10.0 mmol/L). Secondary endpoints included overall and nocturnal percentage of time in tight glycaemic range (3.9-7.8 mmol/L), and mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and glucose levels. RESULTS: At baseline, participants (n = 498) had a mean (SD) age of 62.8 (9.8) years, a diabetes duration of 15.1 (7.7) years and an HbA1c level of 59.6 (11.0) mmol/mol (7.6 [1.0]%). Noninferiority and superiority were confirmed for degludec versus glargine U100 for the primary endpoint, with a mean TIR of 72.1% for degludec versus 70.7% for glargine U100 (estimated treatment difference [ETD] 1.43% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12, 2.74; P = 0.03] or 20.6 min/d). Overall time in tight glycaemic range favoured degludec versus glargine U100 (ETD 1.5% [95% CI: 0.15, 2.89] or 21.9 min/d). Degludec also reduced nocturnal time below range (TBR; <3.9 mmol/L) compared with glargine U100 (ETD -0.88% [95% CI: -1.34, -0.42] or 12.7 min/night; post hoc) and significantly fewer nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes of <3.0 mmol/L were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Degludec, compared with glargine U100, provided more TIR and time in tight glycaemic range, and reduced nocturnal TBR in insulin-treated people with type 2 diabetes.

Continuous improvement of quality of care in pediatric diabetes: the ISPED CARD clinical registry.

AIM: In Italy, the ISPED CARD initiative was launched to measure and improve quality of care in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Process and outcome indicators and the related information derived from electronic medical records were identified. A network of pediatric diabetes centers was created on a voluntary basis. RESULTS: Overall, 20 centers provided data on 3284 patients aged < = 18 years. HbA1c was monitored ≥ 2/year in 81.2% of the cases. BMI was monitored ≥ 1/year in 99.0%, lipid profile in 45.3%, and blood pressure in 91.7%. Pubertal status, albuminuria, eye examination, and screening of celiac disease and thyroiditis were underreported. From 2017 to 2021, average HbA1c levels decreased from 7.8 ± 1.2 to 7.6 ± 1.3%, while patients with LDL cholesterol > 100 mg/dl increased from 18.9 to 36.7%. Prevalence of patients with elevated blood pressure and BMI/SDS values also increased. In 2021, 44.7% of patients were treated with the newest basal insulins, while use of regular human insulin had dropped to 7.7%. Use of insulin pump remained stable (37.9%). CONCLUSIONS: This report documents the feasibility of the ISPED CARD initiative and shows lights and shadows in the care provided. Improving care, increasing number of centers, and ameliorating data recording represent future challenges.

Correlation Between Time in Range and HbA1c in People with Type 2 Diabetes on Basal Insulin: Post Hoc Analysis of the SWITCH PRO Study.

INTRODUCTION: Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with diabetes may provide a more complete picture of glycemic control than glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measurements, which do not capture day-to-day fluctuations in blood glucose levels. The randomized, crossover, phase IV SWITCH PRO study assessed time in range (TIR), derived from CGM, following treatment with insulin degludec or insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes at risk for hypoglycemia. This post hoc analysis evaluated the relationship between TIR and HbA1c, following treatment intensification during the SWITCH PRO study. METHODS: Correlation between absolute values for TIR (assessed over 2-week intervals) and HbA1c, at baseline and at the end of maintenance period 1 (M1; week 18) or maintenance period 2 (M2; week 36), were assessed by linear regression and using the Spearman correlation coefficient (rs). These methods were also used to assess correlation between change in TIR and change in HbA1c from baseline to the end of M1, both in the full cohort and in subgroups stratified by baseline median HbA1c (≥ 7.5% [≥ 58.5 mmol/mol] or < 7.5% [< 58.5 mmol/mol]). RESULTS: A total of 419 participants were included in the analysis. A moderate inverse linear correlation was observed between TIR and HbA1c at baseline (rs -0.54), becoming stronger following treatment intensification during maintenance periods M1 (weeks 17-18: rs -0.59) and M2 (weeks 35-36: rs -0.60). Changes in TIR and HbA1c from baseline to end of M1 were also linearly inversely correlated in the full cohort (rs -0.40) and the subgroup with baseline HbA1c ≥ 7.5% (rs -0.43). This was less apparent in the subgroup with baseline HbA1c < 7.5% (rs -0.17) (p-interaction = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Results from this post hoc analysis of data from SWITCH PRO, one of the first large interventional clinical studies to use TIR as the primary outcome, further support TIR as a valid clinical indicator of glycemic control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03687827.

Comparison of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogs: A Review of the Evidence from Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Many people with insulin-treated diabetes continue to experience inadequate glycemic control and a high incidence of hypoglycemic events, despite improvements in therapeutic strategies. While glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is currently recognized as the gold-standard for assessing glycemic control, the measure reflects mean blood glucose levels over a period of time, does not inform on acute glycemic deviations, and can be unreliable in certain populations. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) facilitates the acquisition of blood glucose data around the clock and, importantly, predicts and/or captures acute hyper- and hypoglycemic episodes. In light of the recent publication of the Time in Range (TIR) International Consensus Group report on key CGM metrics, we performed a review of current CGM evidence for second-generation basal insulins in both people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The identified studies highlight the varied CGM-related metrics used to assess basal insulins, which complicate comparisons. Furthermore, all studies had small sample sizes and typically were of short duration, which may account for the lack of statistically significant between-treatment differences observed. Differences were seen in the titration approaches used and the settings in which participants were observed. These results highlight the need for further studies of second-generation basal insulin analogs that are designed to capture the standard metrics proposed by the TIR consensus group, with additional consideration given to sample size and study duration.

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL in Patients with T2D Uncontrolled on NPH or Premixed Insulins as Part of Routine Clinical Practice in Bulgaria: ToUPGRADE Study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to demonstrate the real-life effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) previously uncontrolled on NPH ± prandial insulin or premixed insulins in routine clinical practice in Bulgaria. METHODS: This was a 24-week prospective, observational study performed in 40 inpatient and outpatient sites across the country. RESULTS: A total of 286 patients were included in the study. The mean age (± SD) was 61.2 ± 10.0 years with duration of diabetes of 11.64 ± 7.5 years and body mass index (BMI) of 32.1 ± 5.7 kg/m2. HbA1c before Gla-300 initiation was 9.8 ± 1.0%, and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was 13.1 ± 3.4 mmol/L. HbA1c and FPG change from baseline to week 24 was - 1.86% (p < 0.001) and - 4.8 mmol/L (p < 0.001), respectively. The proportion of patients reaching their individualized HbA1c at week 24 was 39.1% (95% CI 33.3-45.1%), while the proportion of patients reaching their individualized HbA1c target without confirmed and/or severe hypoglycaemia was 34.8% (95% CI 29.2-40.7%). At study end, 19.0% (95% CI 14.6-24.1%) achieved HbA1c < 7%. Body weight decreased from 88.3 to 87.0 kg from baseline to week 24 with mean change of - 1.3 kg (p < 0.001). The incidence and event rates of anytime confirmed (≤ 3.9 mmol/L) and/or severe hypoglycaemia were low: 7.7% and 0.42 events per patient-year, respectively. The overall Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (ITSQ) score increased from 53.2 to 78.2 from baseline to week 24 and the difference of 25.1 ± 21.5 points was significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In real-life settings, Gla-300 significantly improved glycaemic control and insulin treatment satisfaction in people with T2D who were inadequately controlled with NPH ± prandial insulin or premixed insulin analogues. Improvement of glycaemic control was associated with a very low risk of hypoglycaemia and with significant weight loss irrespective of the previous insulin regimen.

Transition of Patients to and from Insulin Degludec: A Clinical Challenge.

With appearance of new insulins on the market, new clinical challenges, much like unintended consequences, came into light in our daily practice. One of the most pressing issues has become an issue of switching patients to and from newer insulins in various clinical situations. A proper switch from 1 medication to another requires understanding of pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of both drugs. Unfortunately, there is no research in this area and, as a result, there are no guidelines nor is there even a consensus. We present 5 clinical scenarios in which the patients were transitioned to or from insulin degludec. Because there are no data and no current consensus, we have polled 200 diabetes care providers soliciting their opinion as to how they would handle these clinical situations. Our poll of endocrinologists revealed multiple approaches as well as elements of confusion among providers. Even though all answers, summarized following each case, might be reasonable, and there might not be a single correct answer, we wish to express our opinion that is based on PK and PD of these insulins. Because there is more than 1 correct way of implementing these transitions, we urge our colleagues to institute a very close follow-up of these patients with frequent adjustments of insulin dose to avoid stacking with potential hypoglycemia.

Best Practices and Tools for Titrating Basal Insulins: Expert Opinion from an Indian Panel via the Modified Delphi Consensus Method.

AIM: To develop an evidence-based expert group consensus document on the best practices and simple tools for titrating basal insulins in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). BACKGROUND: Glycemic control is suboptimal in a large proportion of persons with T2DM, despite insulin therapy, thereby increasing the risk of potentially severe complications. Early initiation of insulin therapy and appropriate dose titration are crucial to achieving glycemic targets. Attitudes and practices among healthcare professionals (HCPs) and perceptions about insulin therapy among persons with diabetes contribute largely to suboptimal glycemic control. Improving HCP-patient communication, encouraging the use of additional educational tools, and providing support for the titration process to increase confidence, both at the initiation visit and at home, facilitate the optimization of dose titration. In Indian settings, specific guidelines and a consensus statement are lacking on the optimal insulin initiation dose, frequency of dose titration, and basal insulin profile needed to achieve optimal titration. In clinical practice, physicians and persons with diabetes often do not adhere to the titration algorithms that currently exist for the purpose of achieving optimal titration as they perceive these to be very cumbersome. In this context, a group of experts met at an advisory board meeting and arrived at a consensus on best practices for the titration of basal insulin in persons withT2DM in India, using the modified Delphi methodology. REVIEW RESULTS: After a review of evidence and further discussions, the expert group provided recommendations on insulin initiation dose, ideal period for titration in practice, titration regimen for use in practice, basal insulin profile for titration, and choosing a self-monitoring blood glucose schedule for titration. CONCLUSIONS: In the management of T2DM, insulin can be effectively titrated by following a few simple recommendations. The use of second-generation basal insulin aids in mitigating the risk of hypoglycemic events. The implementation of a simplified titration regimen is crucial to achieving glycemic targets and long-term treatment goals.

Clinical relevance of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of insulin degludec (100, 200 U/mL) and insulin glargine (100, 300 U/mL) - a review of evidence and clinical interpretation.

AIM: Second-generation basal insulin analogues (e.g. insulin degludec, insulin glargine 300 U/mL), were designed to further extend the duration of insulin action and reduce within-day and day-to-day variability, and consequently hypoglycaemia risk, versus earlier long-acting basal insulins. This review examines the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics of insulin degludec (100, 200 U/mL) and insulin glargine (100, 300 U/mL), and their influence on clinical outcomes. METHODS: Available pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic publications comparing insulin degludec and insulin glargine were reviewed. RESULTS: Both insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/mL have more prolonged and stable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles than the earlier basal insulin analogue, insulin glargine 100 U/mL. Insulin glargine 300 U/mL (0.4 U/kg, morning) showed a more stable pharmacodynamic profile (20% lower within-day variability [P = 0.047]) and more even 24-h distribution (over each 6-h quartile) than insulin degludec 100 U/mL, whereas the supratherapeutic 0.6 U/kg dose demonstrated a similar, albeit non-significant, trend. In contrast, a second clamp study indicated lower day-to-day variability in the 24-h glucose-lowering effect (variance ratio 3.70, P < 0.0001), and more even dosing over each 6-h quartile, with insulin degludec 200 U/mL versus insulin glargine 300 U/mL (0.4 U/kg, evening). Methodological differences and differences in bioequivalence that may explain these discrepancies are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with earlier insulin analogues, second-generation basal insulins have improved pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles that translate into clinical benefits, primarily reduced nocturnal-hypoglycaemia risk. Additional head-to-head comparisons of insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/mL at bioequivalent doses, utilising continuous glucose monitoring and/or real-world evidence, are required to elucidate the differences in their pharmacological and clinical profiles.

Treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus with insulin detemir, a long-acting insulin analog.

Insulin detemir is a long-acting basal insulin approved for use in patients with type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Insulin detemir has demonstrated equivalent glycemic control and hypoglycemic risk when compared to insulin glargine, and insulin detemir has generally but not consistently demonstrated less weight gain than insulin glargine in T2DM. The benefits of basal insulin analogs relative to NPH insulin are well recognized, including less FBG variability, lower risk of hypoglycemia, and less weight gain specifically with insulin detemir. However, NPH insulin continues to be widely prescribed, which may be due in part to economic considerations. While NPH insulin generally costs less per prescription, insulin detemir has been shown to be cost effective compared to NPH insulin as well as insulin glargine. Therefore, insulin detemir is an effective option from both clinical and economic perspectives for patients with T1DM or T2DM who require basal insulin to achieve glycemic control.