Benefits of insulin degludec/liraglutide are maintained even in patients discontinuing sulphonylureas or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors upon initiation of degludec/liraglutide therapy: A post hoc analysis of the DUAL II and DUAL IX trials.

AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety of initiating insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who had discontinued pretrial sulphonylureas (SUs) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) versus patients not previously treated with these regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In DUAL II, patients with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin and metformin ± SU/glinides were randomized to insulin degludec or IDegLira (both capped at 50 U). In DUAL IX, patients were randomized to insulin glargine U100 (no maximum dose) or IDegLira, as add-on to sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors ± oral antidiabetic drugs. In this post hoc analysis, patients were grouped according to pretrial use of SU (DUAL II) or DPP4i (DUAL IX). RESULTS: Regardless of pretrial SU/DPP4i use, IDegLira was favourable versus insulin comparators with respect to change in HbA1c and body weight. Lower hypoglycaemia rates and comparable end-of-trial daily insulin dose were achieved with IDegLira, regardless of pretrial regimen. There was no clinically relevant increase in mean self-measured blood glucose in the early weeks after IDegLira initiation. There was no statistically significant interaction between the randomized treatments and previous SU/DPP4i use. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira was more favourable compared with degludec or glargine U100 in terms of change in HbA1c and body weight, regardless of antecedent treatment. Clinicians should be aware of a potential transient rise in self-measured blood glucose when transitioning therapy in patients. This shows that SUs/DPP4is can be safely discontinued, without deterioration in glycaemic control when initiating IDegLira, allowing a simplified treatment regimen.

Baseline nocturnal glucose change: A predictor of the treatment effect of bolus intensification in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.

This post hoc analysis of an 18-week randomized trial explored the utility of calculating baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), postprandial glucose (PPG) increments and nocturnal glucose change in predicting efficacy and safety outcomes in response to bolus insulin intensification in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Analyses were conducted on 236 participants with T2D receiving metformin: 116 received fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) basal-bolus therapy and 120 received basal-only insulin. Participants were grouped according to baseline HbA1c, PPG increments and nocturnal glucose change variables; analyses were performed on the end-of-trial treatment differences between "high" and "low" baseline values. The change from baseline in end-of-trial mean HbA1c and mean PPG increments was in favour of faster aspart across all subgroups. Significantly greater treatment differences were observed in participants with high (vs. low) baseline nocturnal glucose change and PPG increments. For baseline HbA1c, significantly greater treatment differences were observed for change in end-of-trial PPG increments, but not end-of-trial HbA1c. In conclusion, both nocturnal glucose change and PPG increments may be more useful than HbA1c for identifying subgroups of people with T2D who would most benefit from bolus intensification.