Advancing type 2 diabetes therapy with iGlarLixi in older people: Pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi in older people (≥65 years) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) advancing or switching from oral agents, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), or basal insulin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of participants aged <65 years and ≥65 years from four LixiLan trials (LixiLan-O, LixiLan-G, LixiLan-L, SoliMix) were evaluated over 26 or 30 weeks. RESULTS: Participants aged <65/≥65 years (n = 1039/n = 497) had a mean baseline body mass index of 31.4 and 30.7 kg/m2 and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 66 mmol/mol (8.2%) and 65 mmol/mol (8.1%), respectively. Least squares mean HbA1c change from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) was -14.32 mmol/mol (-1.31%) (95% confidence interval [CI] -14.97, -13.77 [-1.37%, -1.26%]) for those aged <65 years and -13.66 mmol/mol (-1.25%) (95% CI -14.54, -12.79 [-1.33%, -1.17%]) for those aged ≥65 years. At EOT, achievement of HbA1c targets was similar between the group aged <65 years and the group aged ≥65 years: <53 mmol/mol (<7%) (59.0% and 56.5%, respectively), <59 mmol/mol (<7.5%) (75.5% and 73.0%, respectively) and <64 mmol/mol (<8%) (83.8% and 84.1%, respectively). The incidence and event rate of American Diabetes Association Level 1 hypoglycaemia during the studies were also comparable between the two groups: 26.7% and 28.2% and 1.7 and 2.1 events per patient-year for the group aged <65 years and the group aged ≥65 years, respectively. A clinically relevant reduction in HbA1c (>1% from baseline for HbA1c ≥64 mmol/mol [≥8%] or ≥0.5% from baseline for HbA1c <64 mmol/mol [<8%]) without hypoglycaemia was attained by 50.0% and 47.6% of participants aged <65 years and ≥65 years, respectively. Adverse events were similar between the two age groups. CONCLUSIONS: iGlarLixi is a simple, well-tolerated, once-daily alternative for treatment advancement in older people with T2D that provides significant improvements in glycaemic control without increasing hypoglycaemia risk, thus reducing the treatment burden.

Effect of delay in treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal glycaemia after basal insulin initiation: A real-world observational study.

AIM: Despite global recommendations for type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment to maintain optimal glycaemic targets, a significant proportion of people remain in suboptimal glycaemic control. Our objective was to investigate the impact of intensification delay after basal insulin (BI) initiation on long-term complications in people with suboptimal glycaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiated on BI. Those with suboptimal glycaemia (glycated haemoglobin ≥7% or ≥53 mmol/mol) within 12 months of BI initiation were divided into early (treatment intensified within 5 years), or late (≥5 years) intensification groups. We estimated the age-stratified risks of micro- and macrovascular complications among these groups compared with those with optimal glycaemia (glycated haemoglobin <7%). RESULTS: Of the 13 916 people with suboptimal glycaemia, 52.5% (n = 7304) did not receive any treatment intensification. In those aged <65 years, compared with the optimal glycaemia group late intensification was associated with a 56% higher risk of macrovascular complications (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56; 95% confidence intervals 1.08, 2.26). In elderly people (≥65 years), late intensification was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular-related death (1.62; 1.03, 2.54) and a lower risk of microvascular complications (0.26; 0.08, 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Those who had late intensification were at an increased risk of cardiovascular death if they were ≥65 years and an increased risk of macrovascular complications if they were <65 years. These findings highlight the critical need for earlier intensification of treatment and adopting personalized treatment strategies to improve patient outcomes.

iGlarLixi versus premixed insulin initiation in adults with type 2 diabetes advancing from basal insulin therapy: The SoliComplex real-world study.

AIM: To compare outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) suboptimally controlled with basal insulin who initiated treatment with iGlarLixi or premixed insulin. METHODS: This retrospective real-world analysis was conducted using data from adults (age ≥ 18 years) with T2D in the US Optum Clinformatics database who had previously received basal insulin and newly initiated iGlarLixi or premixed insulin. Cohorts were propensity-score matched on baseline characteristics using a greedy nearest neighbour-matching algorithm, and outcomes were assessed at 12 months. Subgroup analyses were performed for those aged 65 years or older and those with a baseline HbA1c of 9% or higher. The primary endpoint was treatment persistence in the overall population. Secondary endpoints were treatment adherence, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), costs, hypoglycaemia events and change in HbA1c from baseline. RESULTS: Each cohort comprised 834 participants. In the overall population, treatment persistence at 12 months was statistically significantly higher for iGlarLixi versus premixed insulin: 42.5% versus 39.1%; hazard ratio 0.88; 95% confidence interval 0.778-0.998; P = .0465. Adherence and HbA1c reduction were similar between groups, whereas hypoglycaemia events, HRU and costs were numerically lower for iGlarLixi. Outcomes in both the age 65 years or older subgroup and in those with an HbA1c of 9% or higher were consistent with those for the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study in people with T2D suboptimally controlled on basal insulin, once-daily iGlarLixi was an effective treatment alternative to premixed insulin with significantly higher treatment persistence, similar adherence and HbA1c reduction, and numerically lower hypoglycaemia events, HRU and costs, regardless of age or baseline HbA1c.

Initiation of iGlarLixi Versus Basal-Bolus Insulin in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Advancing From Basal Insulin Therapy: The SoliComplex Real-World Study.

Background: When type 2 diabetes is suboptimally controlled with basal insulin, prandial insulin injections are commonly added (i.e., a basal-bolus insulin regimen), which can increase treatment burden and hypoglycemia risk. The once-daily injectable iGlarLixi is an alternative treatment. Methods: This retrospective analysis of the U.S. Optum Clinformatics database compared outcomes in adults (≥18 years of age) with type 2 diabetes who previously received basal insulin and were newly initiated on iGlarLixi or basal-bolus insulin therapy. Cohorts were propensity score-matched in a 1:1 ratio on baseline characteristics, and imbalances were adjusted in multivariate analyses. Subgroup analyses were performed for people ≥65 years of age and those with a baseline A1C ≥9%. The primary end point was persistence with therapy at 12 months in the overall population. Secondary end points were treatment adherence, health care resource utilization (HCRU), costs, any hypoglycemia, and A1C change at 12 months. Results: Cohorts each comprised 1,070 participants. Treatment persistence at 12 months was statistically significantly higher for iGlarLixi versus basal-bolus insulin therapy (43.7 vs. 22.3%, hazard ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.46-0.57, adjusted P <0.001). Adherence was numerically higher for iGlarLixi, and hypoglycemia events, HCRU, and costs were numerically lower for iGlarLixi. A1C reduction from baseline was slightly greater for basal-bolus insulin. Results for both subgroups (≥65 years of age and baseline A1C ≥9%) were similar to those of the overall population. Conclusion: In this observational study, initiation of once-daily iGlarLixi versus basal-bolus insulin was associated with higher persistence, lower hypoglycemia, and similar A1C reduction without increasing HCRU or costs regardless of age or A1C. iGlarLixi could be an alternative to basal-bolus insulin, particularly for older adults with type 2 diabetes who require treatment simplification with lower hypoglycemia risk.

Fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) improves ß-cell function in people with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: Multiple studies support the efficacy of combining a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) with basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on dual/triple oral therapy. Fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin + GLP-1RA represent a further advance to facilitate management. We assessed the impact of fixed-ratio combination basal insulin + GLP-1RA treatment on ß-cell function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed data from 351 participants in the LixiLan-G trial (NCT02787551) randomized to receive iGlarLixi (insulin glargine 100 U/ml + lixisenatide) or to continue daily/weekly GLP-1RA, both on top of metformin. Participants received a 2-h meal tolerance test before randomization and at study end (26 weeks), with timed plasma glucose and C-peptide determinations. ß-cell function parameters were resolved using mathematical modelling. RESULTS: In the GLP-1RA group (n = 162), both body weight and glycated haemoglobin decreased at week 26, yet none of the insulin secretion/ß-cell function parameters changed significantly. In contrast, in the iGlarLixi group (n = 189), glycated haemoglobin decreased significantly more than in the GLP-1RA group (p < .0001) despite an increase in body weight (+1.7 ± 3.9 kg, p < .0001). Fasting and stimulated insulin secretion decreased at Week 26 (both p < .0001 vs. GLP-1RA), while ß-cell glucose sensitivity increased by a median 35% (p = .0032 vs. GLP-1RA). The incremental meal tolerance test glucose area showed a larger reduction with iGlarLixi versus GLP-1RA (p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In people with type 2 diabetes on metformin, 26-week treatment with iGlarLixi resulted in a marked improvement in ß-cell function concomitant with sparing of endogenous insulin release and a reduction in meal absorption.

Impact of disease duration and ß-cell reserve on the efficacy of switching to iGlarLixi in adults with type 2 diabetes on glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy: Exploratory analyses from the LixiLan-G trial.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of iGlarLixi by C-peptide levels and duration of diabetes in an exploratory analysis of the LixiLan-G study. METHODS: LixiLan-G was a 26-week, randomized, open-label study in adults with type diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled while on a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), with metformin, with or without pioglitazone and/or a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor. This analysis investigated the efficacy of switching to iGlarLixi by fasting baseline quartile C-peptide levels and baseline quartile of duration of T2D compared with continued GLP-1 RA use. RESULTS: Change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 26 was significantly greater with iGlarLixi compared with continued GLP-1 RAs across all fasting C-peptide quartiles (-1.00% to -1.06% vs. -0.23% to -0.54% range, respectively) and irrespective of all T2D duration quartiles (-0.94% to -1.07% vs. -0.25% to -0.50% range). A significantly greater proportion of participants in the iGlarLixi arm achieved an HbA1c of <7% across all C-peptide quartiles (51%-73% range) than in the GLP-1 RA arm (19%-32% range). The greatest reductions in HbA1c in participants receiving iGlarLixi were observed in those with the shortest duration of disease, although consistently greater than reductions observed with continued GLP-1 RAs. Reductions in HbA1c were comparable across C-peptide quartiles within the iGlarLixi arm. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that iGlarLixi is an effective treatment option, irrespective of C-peptide levels or duration of diabetes, in adults with insufficiently controlled T2D receiving GLP-1 RAs.

When basal insulin is not enough: A dose-response relationship between insulin glargine 100 units/mL and glycaemic control.

AIMS: A post-hoc analysis to assess the impact in people with type 2 diabetes, of increasing doses of basal insulin on glycaemic measures, body weight and hypoglycaemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We included data from prospective, randomized controlled treat-to-target trials of ≥24 weeks' duration in people with type 2 diabetes, uncontrolled on metformin and sulphonylureas, and treated with insulin glargine 100 units/mL (U100), who had at least six fasting plasma glucose (FPG) measurements. The impact of insulin dose on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) values, FPG, hypoglycaemia incidence (<3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL]), and body weight was analysed. A total of 458 participants from three eligible trials were included. RESULTS: The observed relationship between higher basal insulin doses and glycaemic control was non-linear, with increasing insulin dose leading to smaller reductions in FPG and HbA1c for doses >0.3 IU/kg/d, with a plateauing effect at 0.5 IU/kg/d. Total daily dose of insulin >0.5 IU/kg/d resulted in greater weight gain, but without higher rates of hypoglycaemia, compared with insulin doses ≤0.5 IU/kg/d. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis indicates that basal insulin doses >0.5 IU/kg/d have diminishing additional impact on improving glycaemic measures, with the disadvantage of additional weight gain. Clinicians should consider anti-hyperglycaemic treatment intensification at doses approaching 0.5 IU/kg/d.

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF IGLARLIXI IN HISPANICS AND NON-HISPANIC WHITES WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES.

Objective: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is more common in Hispanic than non-Hispanic white (NHW) populations worldwide, and ethnicity, among other factors, may affect response to therapy. The efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 100 units/mL (iGlar) and the fixed-ratio combination of iGlar and the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) was assessed in Hispanic and NHW patients with T2D from 25 countries. Methods: In this post hoc analysis, data from two 30-week randomized controlled trials comparing iGlar and iGlarLixi in patients with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin ± oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs; LixiLan-L: NCT02058160) or uncontrolled on metformin ± OADs (LixiLan-O: NCT02058147) were evaluated. Results: Of the 1,512 patients included across trials, 301 were Hispanic and 1,211 NHW. Compared with iGlar, iGlarLixi resulted in greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and 2-hour postprandial glucose and a higher proportion of patients at target A1C <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol), regardless of ethnicity. Among NHWs from the LixiLan-L trial, documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (plasma glucose ≤70 mg/dL) rates were higher with iGlar compared with iGlarLixi (P = .06), whereas this trend was reversed among Hispanics (P = .07). Nevertheless, in both trials, a greater proportion of patients taking iGlarLixi than iGlar reached the composite efficacy endpoints of target A1C without hypoglycemia and target A1C without weight gain, regardless of ethnicity. Conclusion: These results indicate that iGlarLixi is a viable therapeutic option for both Hispanic and NHW patients with T2D, as it is efficacious without a significant increase in hypoglycemia, irrespective of ethnicity. Abbreviations: A1C = glycated hemoglobin; BMI = body mass index; FPG = fasting plasma glucose; FRC = fixed-ratio combination; GLP-1 RA = glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist; HDL-C = high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol; iGlar = insulin glargine; iGlarLixi = insulin glargine + lixisenatide; LDL-C = low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol; NHW = non-Hispanic white; OAD = oral antidiabetes drug; PPG = postprandial glucose; T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide, in patients with type 2 diabetes stratified as at high or low risk according to HEDIS measurements.

The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measurements assess glycaemic goal attainment in patients with type 2 diabetes, incorporating factors including age and health status. Healthier patients are assigned a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) goal of <7% (low-risk [LR]) and individuals aged >65 years or with comorbidities are assigned a goal of <8% (high-risk [HR]). This post-hoc analysis assessed the safety and efficacy of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (iGlar) and lixisenatide, in 1898 patients from the phase 3 LixiLan-L and LixiLan-O clinical trials, retrospectively classified as LR (n = 1181) or HR (n = 717). iGlarLixi was more effective in reducing HbA1c than comparators in both LR and HR patients across the LixiLan-L trial (change from baseline, 1.1% vs -0.6% for iGlar in both groups; P < 0.001) and the LixiLan-O trial (change from baseline, LR/HR -1.6%/-1.4% vs -1.3%/-1.2% for iGlar and -0.8%/-0.9% for lixisenatide; P < 0.01). iGlarLixi treatment significantly reduced postprandial glucose in both LR and HR patients (P < 0.001). The incidence of hypoglycaemia did not differ between risk categories in any treatment group.

Low incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events over time with a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide versus lixisenatide alone.

This post hoc analysis of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) from the phase 3 LixiLan-L (NCT02058160) and LixiLan-O (NCT02058147) trials aimed to determine the frequency and timing of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea for iGlarLixi, a titratable, fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 units/mL (iGlar) and lixisenatide, versus iGlar alone or iGlar and lixisenatide alone, in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) or basal insulin ± OADs. In iGlarLixi-treated patients, the rate of GI AEs during the initial weeks of treatment was lower versus patients treated with lixisenatide alone (9.6% and 11.7% of iGlarLixi-treated patients in LixiLan-L and LixiLan-O, respectively, vs. 27.5% of lixisenatide-treated patients in LixiLan-O). Beyond day 60, these rates were generally low and similar to those of lixisenatide. These lower rates are likely due to the gradual titration of lixisenatide in iGlarLixi. Median durations of intermittent GI AEs in the iGlarLixi arms were 6.0, 2.0 and 2.5 days (LixiLan-L), and 5.0, 1.0 and 3.5 days (LixiLan-O), respectively. iGlarLixi-associated GI AEs were transient, mostly mild or moderate in severity, and occurred mainly during initial titration.

Predictors of outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes in the lixisenatide GetGoal clinical trials.

AIMS: To explore the treatment outcomes in adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) enrolled in the GetGoal trials of lixisenatide (LIXI), and the predictive effects of baseline characteristics on outcomes. METHODS: This study was a pooled analysis of patient-level data from the LIXI GetGoal studies comparing LIXI and placebo. Patients were divided into baseline therapy groups: those receiving oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) at baseline (n = 2760) or those receiving basal insulin at baseline (n = 1198). RESULTS: Compared with placebo, LIXI treatment led to significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and greater achievement of the composite endpoint of HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) with no symptomatic hypoglycaemia and no weight gain in either the OAD (34% vs 18%; P < .0001) or the basal insulin groups (19% vs 10%; P < .0001). Treatment with LIXI was associated with a greater percentage of patients experiencing a symptomatic hypoglycaemic event compared with placebo in both the OAD (5% vs 3%; P = .0098) and basal insulin groups (27% vs 17%; P < .0001). In assessing baseline factors that were predictors of treatment outcomes, only baseline HbA1c and LIXI treatment were strong predictors of outcomes in both the OAD and basal insulin groups. No other baseline characteristic had such a large or consistent clinically relevant predictive effect across treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study show that irrespective of baseline characteristics, LIXI treatment, as an add-on to OAD or basal insulin therapy, is effective in reducing HbA1c and achieving composite endpoints.

Factors associated with therapeutic inertia in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus started on basal insulin.

AIM: In this study we aim to identify the factors associated with treatment inertia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have been recently started on basal insulin (BI). METHODS: Using UK CPRD GOLD, we identified adults with T2DM with suboptimal glycaemia (HbA1c within 12 months of BI ≥ 7% (≥53 mmol/mol)). We used multivariable Cox regression model to describe the association between patient characteristics and the time to treatment intensification. RESULTS: A total of 12,556 patients were analysed. Compared to individuals aged < 65 years, those aged ≥ 65 years had lower risk of treatment intensification (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.64-0.73). Other factors included being female (0.93, 0.89-0.99), longer T2DM duration (0.99, 0.98-0.99), living in the most deprived areas (0.90, 0.83-0.98), being a current smoker (0.91, 0.84-0.98), having one (0.91, 0.85-0.97) or more than one comorbidity (0.88, 0.82-0.94), and patients who were on metformin (0.71, 0.63-0.80), or 2nd generation sulphonylureas (0.85; 0.79-0.92) or DPP4 inhibitors (0.87, 0.82-0.93) compared to those who were not. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic inertia still remains a major barrier, with multiple factors associated with delay in intensification. Interventions to overcome therapeutic inertia need to be implemented at both patient and health care professional level.

Ease of Use of the iGlarLixi SoloStar Pen from the LixiLan ONE CAN Pen Sub-Study: Questionnaire Findings from People Living with Type 2 Diabetes and Their HealthCare Providers.

INTRODUCTION: For people with type 2 diabetes mellitus who do not achieve glycated hemoglobin A1C targets after treatment with basal insulin therapies, additional therapy with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) may be required. One option is to use a once-daily fixed-ratio combination (FRC) of basal insulin and a GLP-1 RA such as iGlarLixi (which is composed of insulin glargine 100 U/ml and lixisenatide). However, the ease of transitioning from basal insulin to an FRC has not been studied. METHODS: This sub-study of the LixiLan ONE CAN trial (NCT03767543) was conducted to assess the ease of transitioning from insulin glargine 100 U/ml to the FRC, iGlarLixi, using the iGlarLixi SoloStar® pen. Patients completed a validated, ten-item questionnaire, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) completed a five-item questionnaire. Both questionnaires used either five-point Likert scales or yes/no answers as appropriate, and both were completed after 4 weeks of using the iGlarLixi SoloStar pen. RESULTS: Overall, 95.1% of patients reported that the iGlarLixi Solostar pen was "easy" or "very easy" to use. Similarly, 100% of HCPs reported that it was "easy" or "very easy" to train people to use the pen. Nearly all participants (97.5% of patients and 94% of HCPs) responded that they would recommend the iGlarLixi Solostar pen to others. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that during the transition from insulin glargine 100 U/ml to iGlarLixi, there were no difficulties associated with using the iGlarLixi SoloStar pen injector regarding instruction for use by HCPs or actual use by the majority of patients. The results indicate a broad consensus between patients and HCPs on the relative simplicity of transitioning from self-administration of insulin glargine 100 U/ml to iGlarLixi. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03767543; Date of registration: December 6, 2018; Retrospectively registered.

Many people take basal insulin to control their blood sugar, but for those in whom basal insulin injections do not work well enough to achieve their target blood glucose, treatment needs to be advanced. One option to do this is with a fixed-ratio combination therapy that combines basal insulin with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, such as iGlarLixi. Both basal insulin and fixed-ratio combination therapies are administered using injection pens, but the ease of transitioning from a basal insulin pen to a fixed-ratio combination pen has not been assessed. In this study, people with type 2 diabetes who had previously received the basal insulin insulin glargine 100 U/ml using a SoloStar^® pen, and who transitioned to the iGlarLixi SoloStar pen, were asked to complete a questionnaire to rate their experience of using the new pen injector after 4 weeks of use. Their doctors also completed a questionnaire at the same time. Over 95% of patients reported that the iGlarLixi SoloStar^® pen was "easy" or "very easy" to use, and all of the doctors reported that it was "easy" or "very easy" to train people to use it. Nearly all of those who completed questionnaires (97.5% of patients and 94% of doctors) said that they would recommend use of the iGlarLixi Solostar pen to others. These results suggest that both patients and their doctors thought that it was relatively easy to transition from self-administration of insulin glargine 100 U/ml to iGlarLixi using the SoloStar pen injector.

Clinical Benefits of Treating Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with iGlarLixi: A Patient-Level Simulation Study.

INTRODUCTION: The fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine (iGlar) plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) has proven efficacious in clinical trials; however, there is limited evidence of its benefits in a variety of real-world patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who present in routine clinical practice. METHODS: A large integrated claims and EHR database was used to identify two real-world (RW) cohorts (ages ≥ 18) with T2DM who were eligible for treatment with iGlarLixi. At baseline, the first cohort (insulin cohort) received insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), and the second cohort (OAD-only cohort) received OADs only. A Monte Carlo patient-level simulation was applied to each cohort based on treatment strategies and efficacies from the LixiLan-L and LixiLan-O trials to estimate reductions in glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C) and the percentage achieving age-based A1C goals (≤ 7% for ages < 65 and ≤ 8% for ages ≥ 65) at 30 weeks. RESULTS: The RW insulin (N = 3797) and OAD-only (N = 17,633) cohorts differed considerably in demographics, age, clinical characteristics, baseline A1C levels, and background OAD therapies compared to the populations in the Lixilan-L and Lixilan-O trials. Regardless of the cohort description, A1C goals were achieved among 52.6% vs. 31.6% (p < 0.001) of patients in the iGlarLixi vs. the iGlar arms in the insulin cohort simulation, while A1C goals were achieved among 59.9% vs. 49.3% and 32.8% (p < 0.001) of patients in the OAD-only cohort simulation in the iGlarLixi vs. the iGlar and lixisenatide arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the treatment regimen at baseline (insulin vs. OAD only), this patient-level simulation demonstrated that a greater proportion of patients achieved their A1C goals with iGlarlixi compared to iGlar or lixisenatide alone. These findings suggest that the benefits of iGlarLixi extend to clinically distinct RW populations.

Budget Impact Analysis of Intensification with iGlarLixi Compared to Alternative Treatment Strategies Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical benefits of treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with fixed-ratio combination of insulin iGlar (iGlar) plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) were demonstrated in clinical trials and real-world evidence studies; however, its cost impact to healthcare payers is unknown. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed from a United States (US) payer's perspective for a hypothetical healthcare plan of 1 million people over a 1-year time horizon. In scenario analysis, patients with uncontrolled glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treated with 60 units or less of daily insulin (insulin cohort) or oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) only (OAD cohort) were intensified to iGlarLixi/rapid-acting insulin (RAI)/glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) or iGlarLixi/iGlar/GLP-1RA, respectively. Model inputs from real-world data (RWD) included baseline market shares, proportion of patients intensifying to respective treatments, and dosing inputs; unit costs were obtained from published literature. One-way sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of individual parameters. RESULTS: Intensification with iGlarLixi resulted in the lowest incremental per member per month (PMPM) budget impact compared to other intensifying drugs (iGlar, RAI, and GLP-1RA). In the insulin cohort, the incremental PMPM cost for intensification with iGlarLixi ($0.03) was the lowest among intensifying drugs; GLP-1RA ($72.20) and RAI ($4.81). Similarly, the incremental PMPM cost for intensification with iGlarLixi was the lowest ($1.25) in the OAD cohort among intensifying drugs; GLP-1RA ($321.65) and iGlar ($114.82). In scenario analyses, when equal market intensification shares for iGlarLixi and GLP-1RA were explored, the incremental PMPM cost for iGlarLixi ($0.03) remained lower than GLP-1RA ($2.28) and RAI ($10.44) in the insulin cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Intensification with iGlarLixi was associated with lower costs compared to other treatment intensifications, as well as overall budget reductions compared to pre-intensification when considering cost savings attributable to reduction in HbA1c; therefore, its inclusion for the treatment of T2DM would represent a budget saving.

Cost-Effectiveness of iGlarLixi Versus Premix BIAsp 30 in People with Type 2 Diabetes Suboptimally Controlled by Basal Insulin in the US.

INTRODUCTION: Many people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) experience suboptimal glycemic control and require therapy advancement. This cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare iGlarLixi (insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide) versus BIAsp 30 (biphasic insulin aspart 30) in people with T2DM suboptimally controlled with basal insulin. METHODS: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes for people with T2DM from a US healthcare payer perspective. Initial clinical data were based on the phase 3 randomized, open-label, active-controlled SoliMix clinical study, which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily iGlarLixi with twice-daily BIAsp 30. Lifetime costs (US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30 was estimated; the willingness-to-pay threshold was considered to be $50,000. A subgroup analysis considered people with T2DM aged ≥ 65 years. RESULTS: Estimated QALYs gained were slightly higher with iGlarLixi compared with BIAsp 30 (9.3 vs. 9.2), with lower costs for iGlarLixi ($117,854 vs. $120,109); the ICER for iGlarLixi was therefore considered dominant over BIAsp 30 in the base case. Key drivers for cost savings were the higher dose and twice-daily administration for BIAsp 30 versus once-daily administration for iGlarLixi. The robustness of the base-case results was confirmed by sensitivity and scenario analyses. Results were similar in a subgroup of people with T2DM aged ≥ 65 years. CONCLUSION: In people with T2DM with suboptimal glycemic control on basal insulin, iGlarLixi confers improved QALYs and reduced costs compared with BIAsp 30.

Treatment persistence and adherence in people with type 2 diabetes switching to iGlarLixi vs free-dose combinations of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist.

BACKGROUND: Fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin (BI) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have greater simplicity of administration with expected improved adherence/persistence with therapy, but real-world data are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare medication persistence, adherence, and health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs for insulin glargine 100 U/mL and the GLP-1 RA lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) with newly initiated free-dose combinations of BI and GLP-1 RAs initiated simultaneously or sequentially. METHODS: This analysis used the US Optum Clinformatics (January 2017 to November 2019) database and included data from adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with type 2 diabetes and a glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1c) of 8% or more. Participants received iGlarLixi or free-dose combinations of BI and GLP-1 RAs prescribed simultaneously or subsequently. Participants were followed for 12 months. Cohorts were propensity score matched on baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was persistence (days on treatment without discontinuation). Secondary outcomes were adherence (proportion of days covered), change in A1c, and all-cause and diabetes-related health care resource utilization and costs. Subgroup analyses were performed for individuals with A1c levels of 9% or more. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, there were 1,357 patients in each group; groups were well balanced. In the free-dose combination group, 65.6% started on BI, then added GLP-1 RAs; 28.5% started on GLP-1 RAs, then added BI; and 5.9% started on GLP-1 RAs and BI on the same day. In the subgroup with a baseline of A1c levels of 9% or more, 952 (iGlarLixi) and 932 (free-dose combination) participants were included. A significantly higher proportion of participants in the overall population who received iGlarLixi vs free-dose combinations were persistent (44.8% vs 36.3% [hazard ratio = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.11-1.35, P < 0.001]; the median [Q1, Q3] number of persistent days was 150 [63, 360] vs 120 [60, 310]) and adherent to therapy (41.3% vs 18.7%, [odds ratio = 3.06, 95% CI = 2.57-3.65; P < 0.001]). Results for persistence in the subpopulation of participants with HbA1c levels of 9% or more were similar. Reductions in A1c from baseline were similar between iGlarLixi and the free-dose combination group (overall population: -1.2% vs -1.3%; P = 0.1913), but the number of participants in the database with follow-up A1c data was low. All-cause and diabetes-related pharmacy visits and total medication and diabetes medication pharmacy claims costs were significantly lower (all P < 0.001) for those receiving iGlarLixi vs free-dose combinations in both populations. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with type 2 diabetes, iGlarLixi was associated with longer persistence by approximately 30 days, improved adherence, and reductions in outpatient and pharmacy visits and in pharmacy costs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi US. Medical writing support was provided by Barrie Anthony, PhD, CMPP, of Evidence Scientific Solutions and funded by Sanofi US. Dr Edelman has been on an advisory board and speakers' bureau for AstraZeneca, MannKind, and Xeris and on an advisory board for BrightSight and is a board member for Senseonics and Team-Type1. Mr Cassarino is on the speakers' bureau for Sanofi. Dr Kayne has been a consultant and speakers' bureau member for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dexcom, Eli Lilly & Company, Janssen, MannKind, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr Dex and Mr Li are employees of Sanofi. Dr Pasquel has received unrestricted research support from Dexcom, Insulet, and Merck and has been a consultant for Medscape, AI Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Dexcom.

Glycemic Control Following GLP-1 RA or Basal Insulin Initiation in Real-World Practice: A Retrospective, Observational, Longitudinal Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Injectable therapies such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and basal insulin (BI) are well-established agents for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to investigate real-world effectiveness of GLP-1 RAs or BI in adults with T2D poorly controlled on oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OADs). METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, longitudinal cohort study of adults with T2D from the US Optum Humedica® database and UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, who initiated either injectable between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2016. Baseline characteristics, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change, and cumulative percentage reaching HbA1c < 7% in 24 months after initiation were analyzed in four patient cohorts. RESULTS: In the US and UK databases, respectively, 20,836 and 5508 patients initiated GLP-1 RAs and 60,598 and 5083 initiated BI. Baseline mean HbA1c at initiation ranged between 8.8% and 10.3% across all cohorts. In all cohorts, a decrease of HbA1c occurred 3-6 months after initiation. The cumulative percentage of patients reaching HbA1c < 7% showed the greatest probability in the first 12 months (15-40% of patients across cohorts at 12 months), particularly in the first 6 months after initiation. The probability of reaching glycemic control diminished after the second quarter. The proportion of patients reaching HbA1c < 7% in both GLP-1 RA and BI cohorts at 12 months was < 25% if baseline HbA1c was ≥ 9%. CONCLUSIONS: For adults with T2D inadequately controlled on OADs, this analysis reveals an unmet clinical need. Initiation of first injectable therapy did not occur until HbA1c was considerably above target, when control is harder to achieve. Results suggest that in individuals with baseline HbA1c ≥ 9.0%, only a minority are likely to achieve an HbA1c < 7% with a GLP-1 RA or BI alone.

A Review of the Safety and Adverse Event Profile of the Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Glargine and Lixisenatide.

INTRODUCTION: iGlarLixi is a titratable, fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine (100 units/mL) and lixisenatide (33 µg/mL). This review evaluates the overall safety and adverse event (AE) profile of iGlarLixi in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We collated patient-level data from the phase 2 LixiLan proof-of-concept trial and the phase 3 LixiLan-L (insulin-experienced patients) and LixiLan-O (insulin-naïve patients) trials to evaluate AEs associated with iGlarLixi. We also describe data from the ELIXA study to examine pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, and the ELIXA and ORIGIN studies for cardiovascular safety data. RESULTS: Patients treated with iGlarLixi had improved glycemic control with a similar incidence of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (plasma glucose ≤ 70 mg/dL) compared with iGlar. Incidence of severe hypoglycemia (an event requiring third-party assistance) was low in all treatment arms in both LixiLan-L and LixiLan-O. Rates of gastrointestinal AEs in patients treated with iGlarLixi tended to be lower compared with lixisenatide alone, but higher than those treated with iGlar alone. Gastrointestinal AEs were generally mild to moderate in intensity and transient. Antibodies formed in response to iGlarLixi did not have any significant clinical impact, with similar safety observed for antibody-positive and antibody-negative populations. Rates of allergic reactions, malignancy, renal impairment, and cardiovascular events were low and comparable between treatment groups. Older age (≥ 65 years) and gender did not affect efficacy or safety. CONCLUSION: iGlarLixi has a safety profile that is consistent with that of its two active components insulin glargine and lixisenatide, with no signals for pancreatitis or thyroid C cell tumors, and no black-box warning for iGlarLixi. There were no unexpected safety findings; iGlarLixi had beneficial effects on glycemic control, with no increased risk of hypoglycemia, despite a greater glycated hemoglobin A1c reduction. In addition, there were also fewer gastrointestinal AEs associated with iGlarLixi compared with lixisenatide alone. FUNDING: Sanofi US Inc.