Search

This study aims to investigate the fear and compliance of Insulin Degludec and Insulin Aspart (IDegAsp) injection in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients and study the factors influencing patient compliance. A total of 120 patients with T2DM treated from February 2019 to March 2022 were investigated and analyzed for fear and compliance on the Diabetes Fear of Injecting and Self-testing Questionnaire of diabetic patients and were divided into compliance and noncompliance groups according to the results to analyze the factors affecting patient compliance. The study found a high level of fear of IDegAsp injection among the 120 T2DM patients, with an average Diabetes Fear of Injecting and Self-testing Questionnaire score of (39.19 ± 4.59) points. Scores for medication compliance, dietary compliance, blood sugar monitoring, and lifestyle changes were (10.48 ± 1.52) points, (12.18 ± 2.27) points, (0.84 ± 0.12) points, and (9.13 ± 2.21) points, respectively. There was no significant difference between the compliance and noncompliance groups in terms of gender, age, lifestyle, educational level, occupation, current treatment method, family monthly income per capita, and medical payment method (P > .05). However, there were significant differences influenced by disease duration, complications, cognitive level, self-efficacy level, comorbidity count, and living status (P < .05). Multifactorial analysis showed that educational level, disease duration, complications, cognitive level, self-efficacy level, comorbidity count, and living status all affected patient compliance (P < .05). Educational level, disease duration, complications, cognitive level, self-efficacy level, comorbidity count, and living status are important factors affecting the fear and treatment compliance of IDegAsp injection in T2DM patients. These findings have implications for improving patient compliance and alleviating treatment fear., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Aims: The ONWARDS phase 3a clinical trials evaluated once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec) versus once-daily basal insulin in type 2 diabetes. This analysis investigated the treatment-related experiences of participants from ONWARDS 5 and 2, and physicians from ONWARDS 1., Methods: Patient-reported outcomes were only collected during ONWARDS 5 (icodec with a dosing guide app vs. once-daily basal analogues) and 2 (icodec vs. once-daily insulin degludec). ONWARDS 1 (icodec vs. once-daily insulin glargine U100) physicians' treatment preferences and satisfaction were obtained via an online survey., Results: In ONWARDS 5 and 2, there was a statistically significantly greater increase in total treatment satisfaction from baseline to end of treatment for icodec/icodec with app versus once-daily comparators, mostly driven by participants' willingness to continue and recommend treatment. In ONWARDS 2, 93.7 % of icodec users preferred once-weekly over once-daily basal insulin, mainly owing to less frequent injections and ease of use. ONWARDS 1 physicians reported greater satisfaction with once-weekly than with once-daily basal insulin and were more likely to recommend once-weekly injections., Conclusions: These results demonstrate improved treatment satisfaction with, and strong preferences for, once-weekly versus once-daily basal insulin. Treatment convenience and willingness to continue and recommend once-weekly basal insulin treatment were highlighted., Clinical Trial Registrations: ONWARDS 1: NCT04460885; ONWARDS 2: NCT04770532; ONWARDS 5: NCT04760626., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [WP has acted as a consultant for Abbott Diabetes, Bigfoot, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Embecta, Insulet, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Vertex, and has received research support from Abbott Diabetes and Dexcom. MB, LC and AMD are employees and shareholders of Novo Nordisk A/S. MD has acted as consultant, advisory board member and speaker for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, an advisory board member for Pfizer and Zealand Pharma, and a speaker and advisory board member for AstraZeneca. She has received grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi-Aventis. EF has acted as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Bioton, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Krka, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Zentiva. MK has received honoraria for speaker’s bureau or advisory board attendance from Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, and has also participated in randomised controlled trials funded by AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. AP-T performs research and serves as an adviser on behalf of their employer for Abbott, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi; there has been no direct or indirect transfer of funds. RG reports research fees paid to his institution by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, and lecture honoraria and consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi]., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This study aimed to evaluate the bioequivalence between test and reference insulin degludec (IDeg) and the effects of body composition on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of IDeg in Chinese healthy volunteers. In this randomized, open-label, crossover trial, 30 healthy Chinese males were assigned to receive a single subcutaneous dose (0.4 IU/kg) of each formulation under 24-h euglycemic hyperinsulinaemic clamp. Body compositions were analysed prior to administration and blood samples were collected at specific times. The 90% of primary pharmacokinetic parameters and 95% of primary pharmacodynamic parameters confidence intervals for the ratio of the least-squares geometric means were all in the range of 80-125%. As the fat content level increases, C max , AUC 0-12 and GIR-AUC 0-24 decreased whereas AUC 24-96 increased sequentially. Therefore, the equivalence was demonstrated between test and reference, and in healthy Chinese volunteers, higher levels of adiposity are associated with slower rates of insulin absorption and distribution and the poorer glucose-lowering effect., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec biosimilar B01411 (HS-IDeg) with originator insulin degludec-Tresiba (NN-IDeg) in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who were inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) for at least 3 months., Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, active-controlled, phase 3 study enrolled 362 participants with T2DM. Participants were stratified according to whether the insulin secretagogue (sulfonylurea or glinide) had been used before the screening and then randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily subcutaneous injections of HS-IDeg ( n  = 180) or NN-IDeg ( n  = 182) for 18 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA 1c ) to week 18., Results: At week 18, the least squares (LS) mean change in HbA 1c from baseline was -1.34% (95% CI -1.47 to -1.21) and -1.25% (95% CI -1.38 to -1.12) with HS-IDeg and NN-IDeg, respectively. The LS mean difference (HS-IDeg minus NN-IDeg) in HbA 1c at week 18 was -0.09% (95% CI -0.28 to 0.10), demonstrating non-inferiority of HS-IDeg to NN-IDeg. Participants achieving HbA 1c <7.0% at week 18 were 34.5% and 29.5% with HS-IDeg and NN-IDeg, respectively. Mean decreases in fasting plasma glucose and standard deviation of blood glucose were similar between both groups. Safety and tolerability, including hypoglycemia, adverse events, and weight change were similar between both groups. No severe hypoglycemia and no death occurred in the study., Conclusions: HS-IDeg and NN-IDeg demonstrated similar efficacy and safety over 18 weeks of treatment in Chinese patients with T2DM who had inadequate responses to OADs for at least 3 months.

Background: Poorly controlled adolescents living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and pump failure of insulin delivery leading to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) are still challenging in the western world., Aim: To investigate the effect of a combination modality of long-acting insulin for basal coverage and a pump for boluses, on the incidence of DKA and glycemic parameters in pediatric and young adults with poorly controlled T1D., Methods: This multicenter, observational retrospective study included 55 patients (age range 3-25 years, 52.7% males) who were treated with the combination modality for a median of 18 months [(IQR)12,47], as part of their clinical care. Data were retrieved at initiation of the combined modality, after 6 months, and at last visit., Results: Cohort's median age at combination modality initiation was 14.5 years [IQR12.4,17.3], and its median HbA1c level was 9.2% [IQR 8.2,10.2]. The main reasons for combination modality initiation were: (a) concern about sustained hyperglycemia on current management in 41.8%, (b) previous DKA episodes in 30.8%, and (c) refusal to wear a pump continuously in 14.6%. The percent of patients experiencing DKA who used the modality till end decreased from 25.4 to 8.8%. The frequency of DKA events per patient month decreased after 6 months from 0.073 (min 0, max 0.5) to 0.020 (min 0, max 0.5), p = 0.01, and at end to 0.016 (min 0, max 0.25), p = 0.007., Conclusions: The combination modality of once-daily long-acting insulin and pump for boluses is safe, feasible, and effective in preventing DKA among poorly controlled young people living with T1D, unable or un-willing to use advanced closed pumps., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed-ratio co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart for the treatment of people with diabetes and suboptimal glycaemic control. Few real-world studies of IDegAsp treatment have been conducted. Here, we report results from the Australian cohort of the global ARISE study of real-world IDegAsp use., Aims: To investigate glycaemic control and other clinical outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with IDegAsp in a real-world setting in Australia., Methods: A total of 183 adults with T2D initiating or switching to IDegAsp in the Australian cohort of the open-label, non-interventional ARISE study were followed for 26-36 weeks from August 2019 to December 2020., Results: IDegAsp was associated with significant reductions from baseline to end of study (EOS) in mean glycated haemoglobin (estimated change -0.8% (95% confidence interval (CI): -1.05 to -0.56; P < 0.0001)), fasting plasma glucose (-1.6 mmol/L (95% CI: -2.49 to -0.63; P = 0.0017)) and body weight (-2.6 kg (95% CI: -3.68 to -1.55; P < 0.0001)). In insulin-experienced patients, the mean total daily insulin dose did not change significantly (estimated change from baseline to EOS 3.8 (95% CI: -3.70 to 11.21; P = 0.3202)). The proportion of patients experiencing hypoglycaemia numerically decreased during the study (non-severe: 14.2-10.9%; nocturnal non-severe: 4.9-2.2%; and severe: 2.2-0%)., Conclusions: Initiating or switching to IDegAsp in a real-world population of people with T2D in Australia was associated with significant improvements in glycaemic control and body weight, and numerically lower levels of hypoglycaemia compared with baseline., (© 2024 The Author(s). Internal Medicine Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

Aims: To summarize the results of clinical studies of insulin icodec, an investigational insulin analog designed for once-weekly administration, in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes., Methods: Thirteen published articles describing clinical studies of insulin icodec were identified in PubMed, and data pertinent to key study outcomes were selected for inclusion in this review., Results: In insulin-naïve and insulin-treated individuals, icodec demonstrated efficacy in glycaemic control superior or noninferior to that of insulins glargine U100, glargine U300 and degludec. Icodec exhibited a safety profile comparable to marketed insulins, with the exception of hypoglycaemic event rates., Conclusions: As a once-weekly alternative to daily basal insulin, icodec is expected to improve patient adherence and satisfaction, reducing the required number of injections per year from 365 to 52 and providing a dosing option potentially attractive to a wide range of insulin users. However, clinical data suggest a notable risk of hypoglycaemia with weekly icodec administration, especially in individuals with type 1 diabetes., (© 2024 Diabetes UK.)

Background: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This phase 3 study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of efsitora compared with insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 1 diabetes., Methods: This randomised, 52-week, parallel-design, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority study conducted at 82 global health-care centres, randomly assigned (1:1) adults (ie, those aged ≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes glycated haemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) 7·0-10·0% (53·0-85·8 mmol/mol) to efsitora (n=343) or, degludec (n=349), both in combination with insulin lispro. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA 1c from baseline to week-26 (non-inferiority margin=0·4%). The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05463744) and is completed., Findings: Between Aug 12, 2022, and May 7, 2024, of 893 participants enrolled, 692 (77%) participants were randomly assigned to once-weekly efsitora or once-daily degludec, and 623 (90%) participants completed the study. Mean HbA 1c decreased from 7·88% (62·66 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·41% (57·5 mmol/mol) at week 26 with efsitora and from 7·94% (63·3 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·36% (56·9 mmol/mol) at week 26 with degludec. Mean HbA 1c change from baseline to week 26 was -0·51% with efsitora and -0·56% with degludec (estimated treatment difference 0·052%, 95% CI -0·077 to 0·181; p=0·43), confirming a non-inferiority margin of 0·4% for efsitora compared with degludec. Rates of combined level 2 (<54 mg/dL [3·0 mmol/L]) or level 3 severe hypoglycaemia were higher with efsitora compared with degludec (14·03 vs 11·59 events per patient year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 1·21, 95% CI 1·04 to 1·41; p=0·016) during weeks 0-52, with the highest rates during weeks 0-12. Severe hypoglycaemia incidence was higher with efsitora (35 [10%] of 343) versus degludec (11 [3%] of 349) during weeks 0-52. Overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar across treatment groups. One death not related to the study treatment occurred in the degludec group., Interpretation: In adults with type 1 diabetes, once-weekly efsitora showed non-inferior HbA 1c reduction compared with daily insulin degludec. Higher rates of combined level 2 or level 3 hypoglycaemia and greater incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in participants treated with efsitora compared with participants treated with degludec might suggest the need for additional evaluation of efsitora dose initiation and optimisation in people with type 1 diabetes., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RMB has received research support from, consulted, or has been on a scientific advisory board for Abbott Diabetes Care, Ascensia, Bigfoot Biomedical, CeQur, Dexcom, Eversense, Hygieia, Insulet, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Onduo, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Tandem Diabetes Care, United Healthcare, Vertex Pharmaceutical, and Zealand Pharma. His technology research is funded in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Helmsley Charitable Trust. RMB's employer, non-profit HealthPartners Institute, contracts him for his services, and no personal income from any of these activities goes directly to him. RSW has participated in multicentre clinical trials, through her institution, sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet, Tandem, Amgen, MannKind, NovoNordisk, Wolters Kluwer, and Diasome, and has used Dexcom devices obtained at reduced cost in clinical research studies. CM serves or has served on advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Dexcom, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Roche, Medtronic, Imcyse, Insulet, Biomea Fusion, ActoBio Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Vertex. Financial compensation for these activities has been received by KU Leuven; KU Leuven has received research support for CM from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and ActoBio Therapeutics. CM serves or has served on the speaker's bureau for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Financial compensation for these activities has been received by KU Leuven. YO has received speaker's bureau fees from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sumitomo Pharma. AMC, MLK, MCC, and VV are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) with premixed insulin, insulin degludec plus insulin aspart (IDegAsp), in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) suboptimally controlled with oral antidiabetic drug(s) (OADs)., Methods: In Soli-D, a 24-week, multicentre, open-label, study, insulin-naïve adults were randomized 1:1 to once-daily injections of iGlarLixi (n = 291) or IDegAsp (n = 291), with continued metformin ± sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline to week 24. Key secondary endpoints included superiority in HbA1c change and body weight (BW) change at week 24. Hypoglycaemia rates were also assessed., Results: At week 24, iGlarLixi showed non-inferiority and superiority over IDegAsp in HbA1c reduction (least squares [LS] mean difference: -0.20 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -0.33, -0.07]; P < .001 for non-inferiority; [97.5% CI: -0.35, -0.05]; P = .003 for superiority). iGlarLixi decreased BW and IDegAsp increased BW from baseline to week 24, with a statistically significant LS mean difference of -1.49 kg in favour of iGlarLixi (97.5% CI: -2.32, -0.66; P < .001). Event rates (per person-year) for American Diabetes Association (ADA) Level 1, 2 or 3 hypoglycaemia were lower for iGlarLixi (1.90) versus IDegAsp (2.72) (relative risk: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.98). No ADA Level 3 hypoglycaemia or unexpected safety findings were reported., Conclusions: In Chinese people with T2D suboptimally controlled with OADs, once-daily iGlarLixi provided better glycaemic control with BW benefit and lower hypoglycaemia event rates versus IDegAsp., (© 2024 The Author(s). Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Backgruound: This study investigated the real-world efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) in Korean adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), whose insulin treatment was switched to IDegAsp., Methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study comprising two 26-week treatment periods, before and after switching to IDegAsp, respectively. Korean adults with uncontrolled T2DM treated with basal or premix insulin (±oral antidiabetic drugs) were enrolled. The primary objective was to compare the degree of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change in each 26-week observation period. The analyses included changes in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight, proportion of participants achieving HbA1c <7.0%, hypoglycemic events, and total daily insulin dose (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04656106)., Results: In total, 196 adults (mean age, 65.95 years; mean T2DM duration, 18.99 years) were analyzed. The change in both HbA1c and FPG were significantly different between the pre-switching and the post-switching period (0.28% vs. -0.51%, P<0.001; 5.21 mg/dL vs. -23.10 mg/dL, P=0.005), respectively. After switching, the rate of achieving HbA1c <7.0% was significantly improved (5.10% at baseline vs. 11.22% with IDegAsp, P=0.012). No significant differences (before vs. after switching) were observed in body weight change, and total daily insulin dose. The rates of overall and severe hypoglycemia were similar in the two periods., Conclusion: In real-world clinical practice in Korea, the change of insulin regimen to IDegAsp was associated with an improvement in glycemic control without increase of hypoglycemia, supporting the use of IDegAsp for patients with T2DM uncontrolled with basal or premix insulin.

Objective: A new generation of basal insulin analogs enabling once-weekly administration is currently under development. Weekly basal insulins have the potential to overcome limitations exhibited by current daily basal insulins. The pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic characteristics differ significantly between weekly and daily basal insulins and will require paradigm shifts in how basal insulins are dosed., Methods: An overview of pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic principles of basal insulins is presented. Specifically, the pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic properties of daily basal insulins and how these differ for the new weekly basal insulins are discussed. Finally, models and simulations are used to describe the impact of weekly insulin properties on dosing., Results: Two approaches have been used to extend the half-lives of these insulins, creating fusion proteins with reduced clearance and reduced receptor-mediated degradation of the insulin. The resulting prolonged exposure-response profiles affect dosing and the impact of dosing errors. Specifically, the impact of loading doses, missed doses, and double doses, and the effect on glycemic variability of a once weekly basal insulin option are demonstrated using pharmacokinetic/glucodynamic models and simulations., Conclusions: The transition from daily to weekly basal insulin dosing requires an understanding of the implications of the prolonged exposure-response profiles to effectively and confidently incorporate these weekly basal insulins into clinical practice. By reviewing the application of pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic principles to daily basal insulin analogs, the differences with weekly basal insulins, and the impact of these properties on dosing, this review intends to explain the principles behind weekly basal insulin dosing., Competing Interests: Disclosure J.L., J.B.V., J.C., and K.S. are employees and shareholders in Eli Lilly and Company. T.R.P. reports grant support paid the Medical University of Graz by Arecor, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi; personal compensation for consultation from Arecor, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. R.J. was an Executive Director of Diabetes Global Medical Affairs at Lilly, during which he contributed to this article. R.J. is currently a Senior Director, Clinical Development Strategy, at Novo Nordisk Inc, which provided no review of, or other support for, this article. J.B.B. reports contracted fees and travel support for contracted activities for consulting work paid to the University of North Carolina by Novo Nordisk; grant support by Dexcom, NovaTarg, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Tolerion and vTv Therapeutics; personal compensation for consultation from Alkahest, Altimmune, Anji, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biomea Fusion Inc, Boehringer-Ingelheim, CeQur, Cirius Therapeutics Inc, Corcept Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Fortress Biotech, GentiBio, Glycadia, Glyscend, Janssen, MannKind, Mellitus Health, Moderna, Pendulum Therapeutics, Praetego, Sanofi, Stability Health, Terns Inc, Valo and Zealand Pharma; stock/options in Glyscend, Mellitus Health, Pendulum Therapeutics, PhaseBio, Praetego, and Stability Health; and board membership of the Association of Clinical and Translational Science., (Copyright © 2024 AACE. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The detachable dissolving microneedles (DDMNs) feature an array of needles capable of being separated from the base sheet during administration. Here they were fabricated to address delivery efficiency and storage stability of insulin. The constructed insulin-DDMN is multi-layered, with 1) a hard tip cover layer; 2) a layer of regular short-acting insulin (RI) mixed with hyaluronic acid (HA) and sorbitol (Sor) which occupies the taper tip region of the needles; 3) a barrier layer situated above the RI layer; and 4) a fast-dissolving layer connecting the barrier layer to the base sheet. RI entrapped in DDMNs exhibited enhanced thermal stability; it could be stored at 40 °C for 35 days without losing significant biological activity. Differential scanning calorimetric analysis revealed that the HA-Sor matrix could improve the denaturation temperature of the RI from lower than room temperature to 186 °C. Tests in ex vivo porcine skin demonstrated RI delivery efficiency of 91±1.59 %. Experiments with diabetic rats revealed sustained release of RI, i.e., when compared to subcutaneous injection with the same RI dose, RI-DDMNs produced slower absorption of insulin into blood circulation, delayed onset of hypoglycemic effect, longer serum insulin half-life, and longer hypoglycemic duration., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest This work was funded by Center of Excellence in Materials and Bio-Interfaces at Chulalongkorn University and Mineed Technology Company. T.P. was financially supported by the Second Century Fund (C2F) from Chulalongkorn University. Mineed Technology Company owns the detachable microneedle patent., (Copyright © 2024 American Pharmacists Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To perform a participant-level post hoc meta-analysis of Phase 3a trials in type 2 diabetes (T2D) to characterize the hypoglycaemia safety and glycaemic efficacy of once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec)., Materials and Methods: All ONWARDS 1-5 randomized participants were pooled as overall T2D, insulin-naive, an insulin-experienced subgroups, and by once-daily trial comparator (degludec or glargine U100). The main outcomes included incidence and rates of clinically significant and severe hypoglycaemia. Additional endpoints included change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline and HbA1c target achievement without clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia., Results: The meta-analysis comprised 3765 participants (1882 icodec vs. 1883 comparators). In the overall T2D pool, clinically significant hypoglycaemia incidence was similar in the icodec group versus the comparator group (17.9% vs. 16.2%, odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94, 1.38); however, rates were low but significantly higher in the icodec group (1.15 vs. 1.00 episodes/participant-year of exposure, estimated rate ratio 1.51 [95% CI 1.24, 1.85]). Fewer severe hypoglycaemic episodes occurred with icodec than with comparators (8 vs. 18). A greater reduction in HbA1c occurred with icodec versus comparators, irrespective of subgroup (estimated treatment difference range [-0.10 to -0.29%]; all p < 0.05). Across subgroups, except for the insulin-experienced subgroup, the odds of achieving HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (7.0%) without clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia were greater with icodec than with comparators (OR range 1.30-1.55; all p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Icodec was associated with a similar incidence but higher rates of clinically significant hypoglycaemia (equating to one additional hypoglycaemic episode every 6 years) and fewer severe hypoglycaemic episodes versus comparators. Our findings also confirmed the greater efficacy of icodec that was demonstrated in the ONWARDS trial programme., (© 2024 Novo Nordisk A/S and The Author(s). Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To explore the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec) in Japanese adults (≥20 years old) with type 2 diabetes from the global ONWARDS 1, 2 and 4 trials., Materials and Methods: Insulin-naive (ONWARDS 1) and insulin-experienced (ONWARDS 2 and 4) individuals were randomized to icodec or a once-daily insulin comparator: insulin glargine U100 [ONWARDS 1 (basal insulin only) and 4 (basal-bolus regimen)] or insulin degludec [ONWARDS 2 (basal insulin only)]. The primary outcome was change in glycated haemoglobin from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) (ONWARDS 1: Week 52; ONWARDS 2 and 4: Week 26). Here, we present the Japanese subgroup results., Results: Similar reductions in glycated haemoglobin from baseline to EOT were observed in each trial for icodec and comparators. The proportion of time in range (blood glucose 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) at EOT was also comparable across treatment groups (time in range: 58%-68%), as was time spent with blood glucose below 3.0 mmol/L (<1.0%). Combined clinically significant (blood glucose <3.0 mmol/L) or severe (requiring external assistance for recovery) hypoglycaemia rates were low, with no severe events (ONWARDS 1 and 2) or a single severe event (ONWARDS 4; icodec group) reported. These results generally aligned with findings from the respective global populations. No new safety issues were identified., Conclusions: Icodec improved glycaemic control to a similar degree as once-daily basal insulin comparators while maintaining low levels of clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia. The findings support icodec use in Japanese individuals with different levels of type 2 diabetes progression., (© 2024 Novo Nordisk and The Author(s). Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: Insulin icodec is a first once-weekly administration basal insulin analogue for type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to investigate the price range of icodec for type 2 diabetes in the Chinese market, taking insulin degludec as reference., Materials and Methods: Long-term health outcomes and costs for icodec and degludec were simulated using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model (version 2.1) over 40 years from the Chinese healthcare provider's perspective. The efficacy and safety data were obtained from the ONWARDS 2 trial (Switching to once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec in individuals with basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 2): a phase 3a, randomised, open label, multicentre, treat-to-target trial). Cost-utility analysis and a binary search were used to investigate the price range of icodec. Sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of the base-case analysis results., Results: After a 40-year simulation, the quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of icodec and degludec were 10.32 and 10.28 years, respectively. At the initial assumption of the same annual costs of icodec and degludec of $455.40, icodec was the dominant therapy compared with degludec, with higher QALYs and lower total cost. After the binary search, we observed that the annual cost range of icodec was $625.17-$855.25. This cost range was finally adjusted to be $597.66-$736.34 using one-way sensitivity analysis and confirmed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis. The scenario analysis revealed that the annual cost range of icodec could be $506.70-$736.34 if the price of degludec decreased by 20% in the future., Conclusion: Insulin icodec appears to be more cost effective than degludec if the annual cost of icodec ranges from $597.66 to $736.34 for patients with type 2 diabetes in China., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Aims: Add-on of basal insulin (BI) to intensify the ongoing therapy with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) is recommended, but it is unclear if free or fixed combination of BI and GLP-1 RA produce similar outcomes. A retrospective comparative effectiveness analysis of the add-on of glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) to ongoing GLP-1 RA vs. switch to fixed ratio combination of degludec and liraglutide (iDegLira) was performed., Methods and Results: Real-world data collected in electronic medical records by 32 Italian diabetes clinics. Propensity score (PS) adjustment was applied to assess changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG), body weight, and BI dose after 6 months from Gla-300 or iDegLira initiation. Compared to iDegLira group (N = 260), Gla-300+GLP-1 RA group (N = 255) had older age and higher levels of HbA1c (9.1 vs. 8.9%). After 6 months, statistically significant greater FBG improvement [estimated mean difference and 95% confidence intervals: -24.05 mg/dl (-37.04; -11.06; p = 0.0003) and BI dose increase [+0.03 U/kg (95%CI 0.00; 0.06); p = 0.009] were found in the free vs. fixed combination group, although low doses of BI (0.2 U/kg) were reached in both groups. Trends of larger HbA1c and body weight reductions with the free combination were also found, without reaching the statistical significance., Conclusion: Although inertia in insulin initiation and titration was documented in both groups, higher benefit on FBG control was obtained with free vs. fixed combination, likely due to a better titration of BI and GLP-1 RA., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Riccardo Candido has received consultancy fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli-Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Astra-Zeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche Diabetes Care; speaking fees from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli-Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Mundipharma Pharmaceutical, Abbott, MSD, Neopharmed Gentili, Menarini, Essex Italia, Ascensia Diabetes. Antonio Nicolucci and Maria Chiara Rossi have received funding for research from Sanofi, NovoNordisk, Alfasigma, Artsana, AstraZeneca, Johnson&Johnson, Medtronic, Shionogi, SOBI, Meteda and Theras. Monica Larosa is an employee of Sanofi and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. Raffaele Napoli has served on advisory board panels, received consultancy and speaker's fees or financial support for research from AstraZeneca, Boerhinger Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, MSD, Sanofi., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Limited evidence is available on the real-world effect of insulin degludec (IDeg) in type 1 diabetes (T1D), using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived metrics. Objective: To assess the real-world effect of switching to IDeg from other long-acting insulins on time in ranges (TIRs) measured by CGM, metabolic control, and insulin dose for people with T1D. Design: This retrospective multicenter study encompassed five time points during a 12-month pre-switch of IDeg and a 12-month follow-up period. For each visit, clinical and CGM data were collected to evaluate temporal trends in glycemic outcomes. Participants: Of 753 persons with T1D who were assessed for eligibility, 486 persons were included, mostly men (61.5%), 47.4 (16.9) years old and diabetes duration of 23.8 (14.2) years at IDeg-initiation. Main Outcome Measure: Primary outcome was the evolution of percent TIR (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L, TIR) before versus after switch to IDeg. Results: TIR over 24 h increased at 12 months versus baseline (56.7% vs. 52.3%, P  < 0.001), mostly during daytime. Time <54 mg/dL (<3.0 mmol/L) over 24 h decreased at 12 months versus baseline (2.02% vs. 2.86%, P  < 0.001), mostly during nighttime. Glycated hemoglobin (7.9% vs. 8.1%, P  < 0.001) and coefficient of variation (40.0% vs. 41.5%, P  < 0.001) improved at 12 months versus baseline. Mean daily basal, bolus and total insulin doses decreased at 12 months ( P  < 0.001 for all vs. baseline). Conclusions: This retrospective real-world study reports that switching basal insulin significantly improved time spent in glucometric ranges and glycemic variability in the studied population of people with T1D. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT05434559.

Despite the availability of new classes of glucose-lowering drugs that improve glycaemic levels and minimise long-term complications, at least 20-25% of people with type 2 diabetes require insulin therapy. Moreover, a substantial proportion of these individuals do not achieve adequate metabolic control following insulin initiation. This is due to several factors: therapeutic inertia, fear of hypoglycaemia and/or weight gain, poor communication, complexity of insulin titration, and the number of injections needed, with the associated reduced adherence to insulin therapy. Once-weekly insulins provide a unique opportunity to simplify basal insulin therapy and to allow good glycaemic control with a low risk of hypoglycaemia. Several approaches to developing a stable and effective once-weekly insulin have been proposed, but, to date, insulin icodec and basal insulin Fc (insulin efsitora alfa) are the only two formulations for which clinical studies have been reported. The results of Phase I and II studies emphasise both efficacy (in term of glucose levels) and potential risks and adverse events. Phase III studies involving insulin icodec are reassuring regarding the risk of hypoglycaemia compared with daily basal insulin analogues. Despite some concerns raised in ongoing clinical trials, the available data suggest that weekly insulins may also be an option for individuals with type 1 diabetes, especially when adherence is suboptimal. For the first time there is an opportunity to make an important breakthrough in basal insulin therapy, particularly in people with type 2 diabetes, and to improve not only the quality of life of people with diabetes, but also the practice of diabetologists., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

An inter-drug approach, applying pharmacokinetic information for insulin analogs in different animal species, rat, dog and pig, performed better compared to allometric scaling for human translation of intra-venous half-life and only required data from a single animal species for reliable predictions. Average fold error (AFE) between 1.2-1.7 were determined for all species and for multispecies allometric scaling AFE was 1.9. A slightly larger prediction error for human half-life was determined from in vitro human insulin receptor affinity data (AFE on 2.3-2.6). The requirements for the inter-drug approach were shown to be a span of at least 2 orders of magnitude in half-life for the included drugs and a shared clearance mechanism. The insulin analogs in this study were the five fatty acid protracted analogs: Insulin degludec, insulin icodec, insulin 320, insulin 338 and insulin 362, as well as the non-acylated analog insulin aspart., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This review describes the study design and rationale of the efsitora phase 3 Once Weekly (QW) Insulin Therapy (QWINT) clinical development programme, including the five trials, QWINT-1 through QWINT-5., Materials and Methods: The five trials included insulin-naïve adults (QWINT-1 and -2) with type 2 diabetes (T2D), adults with T2D previously treated with basal insulin (QWINT-3 and -4), and QWINT-5 in adults with type 1 diabetes. All five trials were designed as multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label, treat-to-target studies to investigate the efficacy and safety of efsitora versus active once-daily basal insulin comparators (insulin glargine U100 or insulin degludec U100). The primary objective of each trial is to compare the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 or 52 between efsitora and the active comparator. The key secondary objectives include change in fasting glucose, insulin dose and continuous glucose monitoring variables, and patient-reported outcome questionnaires., Conclusions: The QWINT development programme includes a racially and geographically diverse population to provide important information regarding the efficacy and safety of efsitora and its clinical management of people with diabetes., (© 2024 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Aims: IDegAsp (Ryzodeg 70/30), a unique premixed formulation of long-acting insulin degludec and rapid-acting insulin aspart, is increasing in use. Management of IDegAsp during hospitalisation is challenging because of degludec's ultra-long duration of action. We investigated inpatient glycaemia in patients treated with IDegAsp compared to biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp30; Novomix30)., Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study at two hospitals assessing inpatients with type 2 diabetes treated with IDegAsp or BIAsp30 prior to and during hospital admission. Standard inpatient glycaemic outcomes were analysed based on capillary blood glucose (BG) measurements., Results: We assessed 88 individuals treated with IDegAsp and 88 HbA1c-matched individuals treated with BIAsp30. Patient characteristics, including insulin dose at admission, were well matched, but the IDegAsp group had less frequent twice-daily insulin dosing than the BIAsp30 group (49% vs 87%, P < 0.001). Patient-days with BG <4 mmol/L were not different (10.6% vs 9.9%, P = 0.7); however, the IDegAsp group had a higher patient-day mean BG (10.4 (SD 3.4) vs 10.0 (3.4) mmol/L, P < 0.001), and more patient-days with mean BG >10 mmol/L (48% vs 38%, P < 0.001) compared to the BIAsp30 group. Glucose was higher in the IDegAsp group in the evening (4 PM to midnight) (11.6 (SD 4.0) vs 10.9 (4.6) mmol/L, P = 0.004), but not different at other times during the day., Conclusions: Inpatients treated with IDegAsp compared to BIAsp30 had similar hypoglycaemia incidence, but higher hyperglycaemia incidence, potentially related to less frequent twice-daily dosing. With the increasing use of IDegAsp in the community, development of hospital management guidelines for this insulin formulation is needed., (© 2024 The Authors. Internal Medicine Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

Aim: To evaluate whether caffeine combined with a moderate amount of glucose reduces the risk for exercise-related hypoglycaemia compared with glucose alone or control in adult people with type 1 diabetes using ultra-long-acting insulin degludec., Materials and Methods: Sixteen participants conducted three aerobic exercise sessions (maximum 75 min) in a randomized, double-blind, cross-over design. Thirty minutes before exercise, participants ingested a drink containing either 250 mg of caffeine + 10 g of glucose + aspartame (CAF), 10 g of glucose + aspartame (GLU), or aspartame alone (ASP). The primary outcome was time to hypoglycaemia., Results: There was a significant effect of the condition on time to hypoglycaemia (χ 2  = 7.674, p = .0216). Pairwise comparisons revealed an 85.7% risk reduction of hypoglycaemia for CAF compared with ASP (p = .044). No difference was observed between GLU and ASP (p = .104) or between CAF and GLU (p = .77). While CAF increased glucose levels during exercise compared with GLU and ASP (8.3 ± 1.9 mmol/L vs. 7.7 ± 2.2 mmol/L vs. 5.8 ± 1.4 mmol/L; p < .001), peak plasma glucose levels during exercise did not differ between CAF and GLU (9.3 ± 1.4 mmol/L and 9.1 ± 1.6 mmol/L, p = .80), but were higher than in ASP (6.6 ± 1.1 mmol/L; p < .001). The difference in glucose levels between CAF and GLU was largest during the last 15 min of exercise (p = .002). Compared with GLU, CAF lowered perceived exertion (p = .023)., Conclusions: Pre-exercise caffeine ingestion combined with a low dose of glucose reduced exercise-related hypoglycaemia compared with control while avoiding hyperglycaemia., (© 2024 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Objective: Icodec is a once-weekly insulin being developed to provide basal insulin coverage in diabetes mellitus. This study evaluated the effects of renal or hepatic impairment on icodec pharmacokinetics., Methods: Two open-label, parallel-group, single-dose (1.5 U/kg subcutaneously) trials were conducted. In a renal impairment trial, 58 individuals were allocated to normal renal function (measured glomerular filtration rate ≥ 90 mL/min), mild (60 to < 90 mL/min), moderate (30 to < 60 mL/min) or severe (< 30 mL/min) renal impairment or end-stage renal disease. In a hepatic impairment trial, 25 individuals were allocated to normal hepatic function or mild (Child-Pugh Classification grade A), moderate (grade B) or severe (grade C) hepatic impairment. Blood was sampled frequently for a pharmacokinetic analysis until 35 days post-dose., Results: The shape of the icodec pharmacokinetic profile was not affected by renal or hepatic impairment. Total icodec exposure was greater for mild (estimated ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.12 [1.01; 1.24]), moderate (1.24 [1.12; 1.37]) and severe (1.28 [1.16; 1.42]) renal impairment, and for end-stage renal disease (1.14 [1.03; 1.28]), compared with normal renal function. It was also greater for mild (1.13 [1.00; 1.28]) and moderate (1.15 [1.02; 1.29]) hepatic impairment versus normal hepatic function. There was no statistically significant difference between severe hepatic impairment and normal hepatic function. Serum albumin levels (range 2.7-5.1 g/dL) did not statistically significantly influence icodec exposure., Conclusions: The clinical relevance of the slightly higher icodec exposure with renal or hepatic impairment is limited as icodec should be dosed according to individual need. No specific icodec dose adjustment is required in renal or hepatic impairment., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03723785 and NCT04597697., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To evaluate the association of insulin injection adherence, smart insulin pen engagement, and glycemic control using real-world data from 16 countries from adults self-administering basal insulin degludec and bolus insulin with a smart insulin pen (NovoPen 6 or NovoPen Echo Plus) alongside continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)., Research Design and Methods: Data were aggregated over 14-day periods. Treatment adherence was defined according to the number of missed basal and missed bolus insulin doses and smart pen engagement according to the number of days with data uploads., Results: Data from 3,945 adults, including 25,157 14-day periods with ≥70% CGM coverage, were analyzed. On average, 0.2 basal and 6.0 bolus insulin doses were missed over 14 days. The estimated probability of missing at least one basal insulin dose over a 14-day period was 17.6% (95% CI 16.5, 18.7). Missing one basal or bolus insulin dose per 14 days was associated with a significant decrease in percentage of time with glucose levels in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0 mmol/L), of -2.8% (95% CI -3.7, -1.8) and -1.7% (-1.8, -1.6), respectively; therefore, missing two basal or four bolus doses would decrease TIR by >5%. Smart pen engagement was associated positively with glycemic outcomes., Conclusions: This combined analysis of real-world smart pen and CGM data showed that missing two basal or four bolus insulin doses over a 14-day period would be associated with a clinically relevant decrease in TIR. Smart insulin pens provide valuable insights into treatment injection behaviors., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the fixed-ratio combination (FRC) and free combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)., Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and four Chinese databases were searched for relevant studies from inception to April 13, 2023. Phase III clinical trials involving FRC or free combination in patients with uncontrolled T2DM were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to evaluate the effects of FRC and free combination. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to evaluate the risk-of-bias. The primary outcomes were changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, and incident hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes included changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023409585)., Results: Forty-two trials with 23,619 patients were included in the NMA, and treatments were categorized as FRC, free combination and NOINSGLP (neither FRC nor free combination). The forest plots revealed comparable HbA1c control (mean difference (MD) = 0.07%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.17 to -0.30) between free combination and FRC. However, there were significant differences in the body weight (MD = -2.06 kg; 95% CI: -3.34 to -0.77), SBP (MD = -1.22 mmHg; 95% CI: -2.41 to -0.04), and DBP (MD = -1.09 mmHg; 95% CI: -1.94 to -0.24) between the two groups., Conclusions: In patients with uncontrolled T2DM, the safety and efficacy of FRC and free combination therapy were comparable. The use of FRC is justifiable in patients requiring free combination., (© 2024 Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Basal insulin continues to be a vital part of therapy for many people with diabetes. First attempts to prolong the duration of insulin formulations were through the development of suspensions that required homogenization prior to injection. These insulins, which required once- or twice-daily injections, introduced wide variations in insulin exposure contributing to unpredictable effects on glycemia. Advances over the last 2 decades have resulted in long-acting, soluble basal insulin analogues with prolonged and less variable pharmacokinetic exposure, improving their efficacy and safety, notably by reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia. However, adherence and persistence with once-daily basal insulin treatment remains low for many reasons including hypoglycemia concerns and treatment burden. A soluble basal insulin with a longer and flatter exposure profile could reduce pharmacodynamic variability, potentially reducing hypoglycemia, have similar efficacy to once-daily basal insulins, simplify dosing regimens, and improve treatment adherence. Insulin icodec (Novo Nordisk) and insulin efsitora alfa (basal insulin Fc [BIF], Eli Lilly and Company) are 2 such insulins designed for once-weekly administration, which have the potential to provide a further advance in basal insulin replacement. Icodec and efsitora phase 2 clinical trials, as well as data from the phase 3 icodec program indicate that once-weekly insulins provide comparable glycemic control to once-daily analogues, with a similar risk of hypoglycemia. This manuscript details the technology used in the development of once-weekly basal insulins. It highlights the clinical rationale and potential benefits of these weekly insulins while also discussing the limitations and challenges these molecules could pose in clinical practice., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society.)

Background: Derived time in range (dTIR), calculated from self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG-dTIR) profiles, has demonstrated correlation with risk of cardiovascular and microvascular complications. This post hoc analysis of the DUAL V and DUAL VIII trials aimed to compare dTIR with an insulin degludec/liraglutide fixed-ratio combination (IDegLira) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D)., Materials and Methods: Nine-point SMBG profiles were taken more than 24 hours at baseline and end of trial (EOT: 26 weeks [DUAL V] and 104 weeks [DUAL VIII]) and used to derive the percentage of readings within target range (70-180 mg/dL). Estimated treatment differences (ETDs, IDegLira-glargine U100) were analyzed using analysis of covariance, with treatment as fixed effects and baseline response as a covariate., Results: ETDs for change from baseline to EOT in dTIR were significantly greater with IDegLira versus glargine U100 in DUAL V (4.18%, P = .027) and DUAL VIII (5.17%, P = .001). The proportions of people achieving ≥70% dTIR at EOT with IDegLira and glargine U100, respectively, were 62% and 60% in DUAL V ( P = .7541), and 50% and 26% in DUAL VIII ( P < .0001). The proportion achieving a ≥5% increase in dTIR from baseline to EOT with IDegLira and glargine U100 was 63% in both groups in DUAL V ( P = .9043), and 44% and 25%, respectively, in DUAL VIII ( P < .0001)., Conclusions: IDegLira was associated with significantly greater increases in dTIR versus basal insulin alone in people with T2D., Trial Id(s): ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01952145 (DUAL V); ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02501161 (DUAL VIII)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: AP-T provides consulting and research services to Novo Nordisk, Lilly, Bayer, Dexcom, and Medtronic on behalf of her employer but receives no direct or indirect reimbursement for the services. VRA reports consulting fees from Applied Therapeutics, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, and institutional contracts for research from Applied Therapeutics/Medpace, Eli Lilly, Premier/Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi/Medpace. Her spouse is an employee of Janssen. CDB reports consulting fees and honoraria for speaking for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Insulet, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Roche. LKB reports honoraria for attending advisory boards or consulting services provided to Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Xeris, Bayer, and Sanofi. AL has received research support and honoraria for giving presentations and attending advisory boards: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Becton Dickinson, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Medtronic, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and Sanofi. IL reports receiving advisory board fees and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, consulting fees from Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly and Company, Intarcia, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Global Services, MannKind Corporation, Target Pharma, Valeritas, and Zealand Pharma; advisory board fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim and Sanofi US Services; grant support, paid to UT Southwestern, from Merck; grant support, paid to her institution, from Mylan Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer; grant support, paid to UT Southwestern; and advisory board fees, consulting fees, and travel support from Novo Nordisk. RS and JMD’C are employees of Novo Nordisk A/S.

Objectives: The real-world ARISE study demonstrated initiation of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec and aspart (IDegAsp) led to improvements in people achieving key glycemic control targets compared with prior therapies in Australia and India. This study evaluated the short-term cost-effectiveness of IDegAsp in these countries, in terms of the cost per patient achieving these targets., Methods: A model was developed to evaluate the cost of control (treatment costs divided by the proportion of patients achieving each target) of IDegAsp versus prior therapies received in ARISE for 2 endpoints: glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0%, and HbA1c less than a predefined individual treatment target. Costs, expressed from a healthcare payer perspective, were captured in 2022 Australian dollars (AUD) and 2022 Indian rupees (INR)., Results: The number of patients needed to treat to bring one to endpoints of HbA1c <7.0% and less than an individualized target with IDegAsp was 51% and 87% lower, respectively, than with prior therapies in Australia, and 52% and 66% lower, respectively, versus prior therapies in India. Cost of control was AUD 2449 higher and AUD 64 863 lower with IDegAsp versus prior therapies for endpoints of HbA1c <7.0% and less than an individualized target, respectively, in Australia and INR 211 142 and INR 537 490 lower with IDegAsp compared with prior therapies in India., Conclusions: IDegAsp was estimated to be cost-effective versus prior therapies when considering an individualized HbA1c target in Australia, and when considering an individualized HbA1c target and HbA1c <7.0% in India., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed in the Supplemental Material section., (Copyright © 2024 International Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Since its first use just over a century ago, insulin treatment has evolved dramatically, such that the molecules are physiologic in nature, and treatment can now closely resemble the natural hormone response over 24 hours. Newer, longer-acting basal insulin analogs have provided insulin therapies with improved characteristics and, therefore, ease of use, and can readily be incorporated as part of routine treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D), but evidence suggests that insulin remains underused in people with T2D. We review the barriers to initiation of basal insulin and the education needed to address these barriers, and we provide practical pointers, supported by evidence, for primary care physicians and advanced practice providers to facilitate timely initiation of basal insulin in the people with T2D who will benefit from such treatment.

Aims: The primary objective of this investigation is to examine the efficacy and safety of insulin icodec when compared to regular basal insulin for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)., Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on the Cochrane Library, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Medline databases up until August 19th, 2023. This review incorporates literature that examines the comparison between insulin icodec and basal insulin. The risk of bias was assessed by using RoB v2 tool from Cochrane Collaborations. We employed random-effect models to analyze the mean difference (MD) and odds ratio (OR) for presentation of the outcomes., Results: A total of nine trials with 3,963 participants were incorporated. Five included trials had "low-risk" of bias, whereas the remaining four trials had "some-concern" risk of bias due to protocol deviations from intended intervention. The results of our meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the reduction of HbA1c levels between insulin icodec and regular basal insulin (MD -0.11 %; 95 %CI: -0.23, 0.01, p = 0.08, I 2  = 91 %). The fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and body weight change from baseline also did not differ significantly between two groups. Meanwhile, the total adverse events (TAEs) were shown to be higher in the insulin icodec; however, the serious AEs (SAEs) and clinically significant hypoglycemia did not differ significantly between insulin icodec and these active controls., Conclusions: This study suggests similar efficacy and safety between insulin icodec and regular basal insulin. Further clinical trials are still needed to confirm the results of our study., Registration Details: CRD42023453635., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Insulin icodec is an investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue for diabetes management., Methods: We conducted a 78-week randomized, open-label, treat-to-target phase 3a trial (including a 52-week main phase and a 26-week extension phase, plus a 5-week follow-up period) involving adults with type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin level, 7 to 11%) who had not previously received insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly insulin icodec or once-daily insulin glargine U100. The primary end point was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 52; the confirmatory secondary end point was the percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter) in weeks 48 to 52. Hypoglycemic episodes (from baseline to weeks 52 and 83) were recorded., Results: Each group included 492 participants. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The mean reduction in the glycated hemoglobin level at 52 weeks was greater with icodec than with glargine U100 (from 8.50% to 6.93% with icodec [mean change, -1.55 percentage points] and from 8.44% to 7.12% with glargine U100 [mean change, -1.35 percentage points]); the estimated between-group difference (-0.19 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.36 to -0.03) confirmed the noninferiority (P<0.001) and superiority (P = 0.02) of icodec. The percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter was significantly higher with icodec than with glargine U100 (71.9% vs. 66.9%; estimated between-group difference, 4.27 percentage points [95% CI, 1.92 to 6.62]; P<0.001), which confirmed superiority. Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were 0.30 events per person-year of exposure with icodec and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure with glargine U100 at week 52 (estimated rate ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.75) and 0.30 and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure, respectively, at week 83 (estimated rate ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups., Conclusions: Glycemic control was significantly better with once-weekly insulin icodec than with once-daily insulin glargine U100. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; ONWARDS 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04460885.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Importance: Once-weekly insulin icodec could provide a simpler dosing alternative to daily basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec vs once-daily insulin degludec in people with insulin-naive type 2 diabetes., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-masked, noninferiority, treat-to-target, phase 3a trial conducted from March 2021 to June 2022 at 92 sites in 11 countries in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with any noninsulin glucose-lowering agents with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7%-11% (53-97 mmol/mol)., Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either once-weekly icodec and once-daily placebo (icodec group; n = 294) or once-daily degludec and once-weekly placebo (degludec group; n = 294)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 (noninferiority margin, 0.3% percentage points). Secondary end points included change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to week 26, mean weekly insulin dose during the last 2 weeks of treatment, body weight change from baseline to week 26, and number of level 2 (clinically significant; glucose level <54 mg/dL) and level 3 (severe; requiring external assistance for recovery) hypoglycemic episodes., Results: Among 588 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 58 [10] years; 219 [37%] women), 564 (96%) completed the trial. Mean HbA1c level decreased from 8.6% (observed) to 7.0% (estimated) at 26 weeks in the icodec group and from 8.5% (observed) to 7.2% (estimated) in the degludec group (estimated treatment difference [ETD], -0.2 [95% CI, -0.3 to -0.1] percentage points), confirming noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .002). There were no significant differences between the icodec and degludec groups for fasting plasma glucose change from baseline to week 26 (ETD, 0 [95% CI, -6 to 5] mg/dL; P = .90), mean weekly insulin dose during the last 2 weeks of treatment, or body weight change from baseline to week 26 (2.8 kg vs 2.3 kg; ETD, 0.46 [95% CI, -0.19 to 1.10] kg; P = .17). Combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher in the icodec group than the degludec group from week 0 to 31 (0.31 vs 0.15 events per patient-year exposure; P = .11) and statistically higher in the icodec group from week 0 to 26 (0.35 vs 0.12 events per patient-year exposure; P = .01)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with insulin-naive type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec demonstrated superior HbA1c reduction to once-daily degludec after 26 weeks of treatment, with no difference in weight change and a higher rate of combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemic events in the context of less than 1 event per patient-year exposure in both groups., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04795531.

Objective: Multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy is the most common treatment for type 1 diabetes (T1D), consisting of long-acting insulin to cover fasting conditions and rapid-acting insulin to cover meals. Titration of long-acting insulin is needed to achieve satisfactory glycemia but is challenging due to inter-and intra-individual metabolic variability. In this work, a novel titration algorithm for long-acting insulin leveraging continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and smart insulin pens (SIP) data is proposed., Methods: The algorithm is based on a glucoregulatory model that describes insulin and meal effects on blood glucose fluctuations. The model is individualized on patient's data and used to extract the theoretical glucose curve in fasting conditions; the individualization step does not require any carbohydrate records. A cost function is employed to search for the optimal long-acting insulin dose to achieve the desired glycemic target in the fasting state. The algorithm was tested in two virtual studies performed within a validated T1D simulation platform, deploying different levels of metabolic variability (nominal and variance). The performance of the method was compared to that achieved with two published titration algorithms based on self-measured blood glucose (SMBG) records. The sensitivity of the algorithm to carbohydrate records was also analyzed., Results: The proposed method outperformed SMBG-based methods in terms of reduction of exposure to hypoglycemia, especially during the night period (0 am-6 am). In the variance scenario, during the night, an improvement in the time in the target glycemic range (70-180 mg/dL) from 69.0% to 86.4% and a decrease in the time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) from 10.7% to 2.6% was observed. Robustness analysis showed that the method performance is non-sensitive to carbohydrate records., Conclusion: The use of CGM and SIP in people with T1D using MDI therapy has the potential to inform smart insulin titration algorithms that improve glycemic control. Clinical studies in real-world settings are warranted to further test the proposed titration algorithm., Significance: This algorithm is a step towards a decision support system that improves glycemic control and potentially the quality of life, in a population of individuals with T1D who cannot benefit from the artificial pancreas system., Competing Interests: MBD receives research support from Tandem Diabetes, Dexcom, Novo Nordisk, and Arecor paid to his institution. MDB serves as a consultant for Tandem, Dexcom, Adocia, Air Liquide, and Roche. MBD received speaker fees from Tandem and Arecor. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 El Fathi, Fabris and Breton.)

Basal insulin treatment is indispensable for patients with type 1 diabetes and often required by many with type 2 diabetes. Incremental advances lengthening the duration of action of insulin analogs and reducing pharmacodynamic variability have resulted in truly once-daily, long-acting basal insulin analogs. In the quest for better basal insulins to facilitate improvements in glycemic control and long-term outcomes, the driving need is to remove barriers delaying timely initiation of basal insulin, to maximize treatment adherence and persistence and reduce treatment burden without increasing risk of hypoglycemia. We review the range of investigational once-weekly insulins and their molecular strategies and profiles. Currently, the two most advanced clinical development programs are: (1) basal insulin icodec, an insulin analog acylated with a C20 fatty diacid (icosanedioic acid) side chain (Novo Nordisk) and (2) basal insulin Fc, a fusion protein that combines a single-chain insulin variant with a human immunoglobulin G fragment crystallizable domain (Eli Lilly). Available phase 2 data for these two once-weekly agents show comparable glycemic control to existing once-daily insulin analogs, with no greater risk of hypoglycemia. While phase 3 data are awaited to confirm efficacy and safety, we provide future clinical perspectives on practical considerations for the potential use of once-weekly insulins., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: For people with type 1 diabetes, there is currently no automated insulin delivery system that does not require meal input. We aimed to assess the efficacy of a novel faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) plus pramlintide fully closed-loop system that does not require meal input., Methods: In this open-label, randomised controlled, crossover, non-inferiority trial we compared the Fiasp (Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark) plus pramlintide closed-loop system with no meal input (fully artificial pancreas) and the Fiasp-alone closed-loop system with precise carbohydrate counting (hybrid artificial pancreas). Adults (≥18 years) who had a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, had glycated haemoglobin 12% or lower, and had been on insulin pump therapy for at least 6 months were enrolled at McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. The Fiasp plus pramlintide fully closed-loop system delivered pramlintide in a basal-bolus manner with a fixed ratio of 10 μg:U relative to insulin. A research staff member counted the carbohydrate content of meals to input in the hybrid closed-loop system. Participants completed the two full-day crossover interventions in a random order allocated by a computer-generated code implementing a blocked randomisation (block size of four). The primary outcome was the percentage of time spent within the glucose target range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L), with a 6% non-inferiority margin, assessed in all participants who completed both interventions. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03800875., Findings: Between Feb 8, 2019, and Sept 19, 2020, we enrolled 28 adults, of whom 24 completed both interventions and were included in analyses. The percentage of time spent in the target range was 74·3% (IQR 61·5-82·8) with the fully closed-loop system versus 78·1% (66·3-87·5) with the hybrid Fiasp-alone closed-loop system (paired difference 2·6%, 95% CI -2·4 to 12·2; non-inferiority p=0·28). Eight (33%) participants had at least one hypoglycaemia event (<3·3 mmol/L) with the fully closed-loop system compared with 14 (58%) participants with the hybrid closed-loop system (2200-2200 h). Non-mild nausea was reported by three (13%) participants and non-mild bloating by one (4%) participant with the fully closed-loop system compared with zero participants with the hybrid closed-loop system., Interpretation: The Fiasp plus pramlintide fully closed-loop system was not non-inferior to the Fiasp-alone hybrid closed-loop system for the overall percentage of time in the glucose target range. However, participants still spent a high percentage of time within the target range with the fully-closed loop system. Outpatient studies comparing the fully closed-loop hybrid systems with patient-estimated, rather than precise, carbohydrate counting are warranted., Funding: Diabetes Canada., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AH received research support or grants from Eli Lilly, Adocia, AgaMatrix, and Diabetes Canada; consulting fees and speaker fees or honoraria from Eli Lilly; insulin pumps, glucose sensors, and monitors from Dexcom, Tandem, and Medtronic; and pending patents in the artificial pancreas area (US patent application 16/893,084; US patent application 16/955,191; US patent application 16/608,054). MAT received research support from AgaMatrix, and speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boeringher Ingelheim, Janssen, and AstraZeneca. J-FY received research support or grants from Bayer, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk and honoraria from Merck, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Abbott, Dexcom, and Sanofi; and participated in advisory boards for Merck, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Abbott, Dexcom, and Sanofi. LL received consulting fees from Dexcom, Insulet, and Novo Nordisk, grants or contracts from Merck and AstraZeneca; participated in advisory boards for the US National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, Insulet, and Dexcom; and participated in data safety monitoring boards for the US National Institutes of Health. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Available basal insulin regimes differ in pharmacokinetic profiles, which may be related to subsequent changes in anthropometry in patients with type 1 diabetes. This analysis elucidates the standardized height and body mass index development (height and BMI standard deviation score [height-SDS and BMI-SDS]) in pediatric type 1 diabetes patients depending on the choice of basal insulin., Methods: Longitudinal data of 10 338 German/Austrian patients from the Diabetes Prospective Follow-up (DPV, Diabetes Patienten Verlaufsdokumentation) database were analyzed. Patients aged 5.0 to 16.9 years were treated exclusively with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), insulin detemir (IDet), insulin glargine (IGla), or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) for at least 3 years. Population-based German reference data were used to calculate height-SDS and BMI-SDS. Multiple linear regression was conducted., Results: BMI-SDS increased significantly in all regimes (NPH P = .0365; IDet P = .0003; IGla P < .0001; and CSII P < .0001). Direct comparison of the therapies revealed a favorable association only for NPH vs IGla. A rise in BMI-SDS was observed for all insulins in females, but only for IGla in males. BMI-SDS increment was not observed before 8 years of age. Initially and at the end of the observation period, mean height was above the 50th percentile of the reference population. Across the cohort, height-SDS declined during the observation period, except for CSII. Apart from the 5.0- to 7.9-year-old subgroup, long-acting insulin analogues were associated with a significant loss of height-SDS., Conclusions: Choice of basal insulin regimen might influence height development. CSII appeared to have a favorable effect on growth trajectories. All therapies were associated with an increase of BMI-SDS, most evident in females., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Diabetes published by Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Aims/introduction: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla300) 6 months after switching from other basal insulins by assessing the changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body mass index (BMI), and insulin doses in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in a real-world clinical setting., Materials and Methods: A total of 307 patients with type 1 diabetes and 294 patients with type 2 diabetes with HbA1c >7.0% were studied. Adjusted mean changes in HbA1c, BMI, and insulin doses were compared between IDeg (IDeg group) and Gla300 (Gla300 group) switchers. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were carried out to examine whether the IDeg or Gla300 group was associated with HbA1c or insulin dose reduction and BMI gain., Results: HbA1c was significantly decreased in both the IDeg and Gla300 groups. Adjusted mean changes in HbA1c (approximately -0.3% and -0.5% in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes patients, respectively) and BMI were similar between both groups. The mean change in insulin dose was slightly larger for dose reduction in the IDeg group than in the Gla300 group. Multivariable logistic regression models showed that the IDeg group was significantly associated with insulin dose reduction after adjusting for basal insulin type, insulin dose, and number of basal insulin injections at baseline and other confounding factors., Conclusions: The current study suggested that IDeg and Gla300 have similar effects in reducing HbA1c and gaining BMI after switching from other basal insulins in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. IDeg selection was associated with insulin dose reduction., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Diabetes Investigation published by Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: Prevalence rates of patients with diabetes are growing across countries, and Bangladesh is no exception. Associated costs are also increasing, driven by costs associated with the complications of diabetes including hypoglycemia. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycemia as well as improve patient comfort and adherence. However, they have been appreciably more expensive, reducing their affordability and use. Biosimilars offer a way forward. Consequently, there is a need to document current prescribing and dispensing rates for long-acting insulin analogues across Bangladesh, including current prices and differences, as a result of affordability and other issues., Methods: Mixed method approach including surveying prescribing practices in hospitals coupled with dispensing practices and prices among community pharmacies and drug stores across Bangladesh. This method was adopted since public hospitals only dispense insulins such as soluble insulins free-of-charge until funds run out and all long-acting insulin analogues have to be purchased from community stores., Results: There has been growing prescribing and dispensing of long-acting insulins in Bangladesh in recent years, now accounting for over 80% of all insulins dispensed in a minority of stores. This increase has been helped by growing prescribing and dispensing of biosimilar insulin glargine at lower costs than the originator, with this trend likely to continue with envisaged growth in the number of patients. Consequently, Bangladesh can serve as an exemplar to other low- and middle-income countries struggling to fund long-acting insulin analogues for their patients., Conclusions: It was encouraging to see continued growth in the prescribing and dispensing of long-acting insulin analogues in Bangladesh via the increasing availability of biosimilars. This is likely to continue benefitting all key stakeholder groups.

Background: Insulin degludec, an ultra-long-acting insulin analogue, has been available in Thailand since October 2016. Although clinical trial results revealed less hypoglycemia, data from real-world settings is limited especially in Asian patients. This study aimed to evaluate prospectively the real-world effectiveness, safety, quality of life (QOL) and patient satisfaction with insulin degludec among Thai patients with diabetes mellitus (DM)., Methods: From October 2016 to September 2017, all patients who had started insulin degludec for at least 3 months were observed and evaluated at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. QOL was assessed using WHOQOL-BREF-THAI and level of satisfaction was measured by 7-point Likert scale. Glycemic fluctuation from paired iPro2 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) obtained 4-6 weeks apart were also evaluated from a subset of patients with T1DM who switched from insulin glargine to insulin degludec., Results: A total of 55 patients (T2DM 76.4%, females 54.5%, mean age 57.1±16.1 years, duration of diabetes 16.7±8.8 years, BMI 27.3±5.5 kg/m 2 , baseline A1C 9.3±2.3%, median duration of treatment 8 months) were included in the study. In T1DM patients (n=13), the overall mean A1C reduction at 12 months was 0.5% with minimal weight gain of 0.9 kgs at 12 months. In T2DM patients (n=42), the overall mean A1C reduction at 12 months was 0.8% with minimal weight loss of 0.4 kgs at 12 months. The proportion of T1DM patients who could achieve optimal glycemic control increased slightly from 14.3 to 18.2% but the proportion of T2DM patients who could achieve optimal glycemic control increased from 30.8 to 53.8%. Patient satisfaction showed a sustained improvement throughout the duration of study. In four T1DM patients who had paired CGM data, insulin degludec provided greater reductions in glycemic variability endpoints with increased time-in-range when compared with previous insulin glargine., Discussion: Our data suggested that the effectiveness of insulin degludec was consistent with the results seen in clinical trials with lower risk of patients-reported hypoglycemia, and a significant improvement in glycemic control. Patients also reported higher treatment satisfaction. More long-term and cost-effectiveness data are needed to establish the role of this ultra-long-acting insulin in real-world settings., Competing Interests: Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Purpose: Long-acting insulin analogues are known to be a major player in the management of glucose levels in type I diabetic patients. However, highly frequent hypo- and hyperglycemic incidences of current long-acting insulins are the important factor to limit stable management of glucose level for clinical benefits. To further optimize the properties for steadily controlling glucose level, a novel long-acting insulin INS061 was designed and its efficacy, pharmacokinetics, biodistribution and excretion profiles were investigated in rats., Methods: The glucose-lowering effects were evaluated in a streptozocin-induced diabetic rats compared to commercial insulins via subcutaneous administration. The pharmacokinetics, biodistribution, and excretion were examined by validated analytical methods including radioactivity assay and radioactivity assay after the precipitation with TCA and the separation by HPLC., Results: INS061 exhibited favorable blood glucose lowering effects up to 24 h compared to Degludec. Pharmacokinetic study revealed that the concentration-time curves of INS061 between two administration routes were remarkably different. Following intravenous administration, INS061 was quickly distributed to various organs and tissues and slowly eliminated over time with urinary excretion being the major route for elimination, and the maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) and systemic exposures (AUC) increased in a linear manner., Conclusion: The present structural modifications of human insulin possessed a long-acting profile and glucose-lowering function along with favorable in vivo properties in rats, which establish a foundation for further preclinical and clinical evaluation., Competing Interests: Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co., Ltd., provided financial support for this study and owns the patent right for this work. Kai Pan, Xiaolei Shi, and Ju Wang are employees of Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co., Ltd.; Kai Liu is an employee of Fujian Suncadia Medicine Co., Ltd. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2021 Pan et al.)

There are not many real-world studies evaluating daily insulin doses requirements (DIDR) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using second-generation basal insulin analogs, and such comparison is necessary. The aim of this study was to compare DIDR in individuals with T1D using glargine 300 UI/mL (IGlar-300) or degludec (IDeg) in real clinical practice. An observational, retrospective study was designed in 412 patients with T1D (males: 52%; median age 37.0±13.4 years, diabetes duration: 18.7±12.3 years) using IDeg and IGla-300 ≥6 months to compare DIDR between groups. Patients using IGla-300 (n=187) were more frequently males (59% vs 45.8%; p=0.004) and had lower glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (7.6±1.2 vs 8.1%±1.5%; p<0.001) than patients using IDeg (n=225). Total (0.77±0.36 unit/kg/day), basal (0.43±0.20 unit/kg/day) and prandial (0.33±0.23 unit/kg/day) DIDR were similar in IGla-300 and IDeg groups. Patients with HbA1c ≤7% (n=113) used significantly lower basal (p=0.045) and total (p=0.024) DIDR, but not prandial insulin (p=0.241), than patients with HbA1c between 7.1% and 8% and >8%. Patients using IGla-300 and IDeg used similar basal, prandial and total DIDR regardless of metabolic control subgroup. No difference in basal, prandial and total DIDR was observed between patients with T1D using IGla-300 or IDeg during at least 6 months in routine clinical practice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© American Federation for Medical Research 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Aims: Diabetes mellitus type two is one of the major cardiovascular risk factors. Treatment of diabetes can reduce this risk, but the treatment options differ a lot in their risk-reducing capabilities. We compared the impact of insulin degludec (IDeg-100) and insulin glargine U300 (IGlar-300) on cardiovascular risk parameters - glycaemic variability (GV), arterial stiffness and lipid parameters - in insulin naive patients with DMT2., Methods: To 23 individuals who previously had uncontrolled DMT2 on two or more oral antidiabetic drugs, IGlar-300 and IDeg-100 were applied for 12 weeks and then switched in a cross over design manner. Prior and after of each insulin phase, we analysed biochemical parameters,7-point SMBG profile over three days and arterial stiffness which was assessed indirectly by measuring the augmentation index (AIx) on the principles of applanation tonometry., Results: There were no significant differences between IGlar-300 and IDeg-100 regarding reduction of mean glucose values and coefficient of variation (CV). Both insulins insignificantly reduced AIx for standardised pulse of 75 beats/min and without differences between them. IGlar-300 and IDeg-100 reduced triglycerides and increased HDL with no significant difference between the two insulins. IGlar-300 increased the total cholesterol level and IDeg-100 decreased total cholesterol, but without statistically significant difference. IGlar-300 increased LDL level by 0.508 mmol/L and IDeg-100 decreased LDL by 0.217 mmol/L, with statistically significant difference (p = 0.0215)., Conclusions: This study did not show significant difference between IGlar-300 and IDeg-100 regarding glycaemic parameters and augmentation index using the same dose of 0.2 IU/kg for both insulins, but it has revealed possible differences in impact on lipid profile., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04692415 . Retrospectively registered on December 31th 2020.

Introduction: Isolated Hyperosmolar Hyperglycaemic Syndrome (HHS) is a life-threatening condition characterized by elevated serum glucose concentrations and hyperosmolality without significant ketosis. It is often described in obese adults with unknown Type 2 Diabetes (T2D), rarely in youth. In childhood the most common cause of metabolic glucose related derangement is Diabetic Ketoacidosis (DKA) in Type 1 Diabetes (T1D). Interestingly, both components can be combined with each other, thus the prevalent condition needs to be recognised implying a different therapeutic approach., Case Presentation: In this case, we report a prepubertal Caucasian obese girl admitted for two episodes of combined HHS/DKA in order to elucidate her clinical course taking into account the current pediatric recommendations based on adult guidelines for HHS., Conclusions: The treatment of HHS and even more of HHS/DKA in youth is still controversial as no specific guidelines for children are available especially during the prepubertal age. The description of our case might be helpful and offer relevant points for future consensus.

Aim: To detail the extent and prevalence of post-exercise and nocturnal hypoglycemia following peri-exercise bolus insulin dose adjustments in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using multiple daily injections of insulins aspart (IAsp) and degludec (IDeg)., Methods and Results: Sixteen individuals with T1D, completed a single-centred, randomised, four-period crossover trial consisting of 23-h inpatient phases. Participants administered either a regular (100%) or reduced (50%) dose (100%; 5.1 ± 2.4, 50%; 2.6 ± 1.2 IU, p < 0.001) of individualised IAsp 1 h before and after 45-min of evening exercise at 60 ± 6% V̇O 2max . An unaltered dose of IDeg was administered in the morning. Metabolic, physiological and hormonal responses during exercise, recovery and nocturnal periods were characterised. The primary outcome was the number of trial day occurrences of hypoglycemia (venous blood glucose ≤ 3.9 mmol L - 1 ). Inclusion of a 50% IAsp dose reduction strategy prior to evening exercise reduced the occurrence of in-exercise hypoglycemia (p = 0.023). Mimicking this reductive strategy in the post-exercise period decreased risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia (p = 0.045). Combining this strategy to reflect reductions either side of exercise resulted in higher glucose concentrations in the acute post-exercise (p = 0.034), nocturnal (p = 0.001), and overall (p < 0.001) periods. Depth of hypoglycemia (p = 0.302), as well as ketonic and counter-regulatory hormonal profiles were similar., Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the glycemic safety of peri-exercise bolus dose reduction strategies in minimising the prevalence of acute and nocturnal hypoglycemia following evening exercise in people with T1D on MDI. Use of newer background insulins with current bolus insulins demonstrates efficacy and advances current recommendations for safe performance of exercise., Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00013509., (Copyright © 2020 The Italian Diabetes Society, the Italian Society for the Study of Atherosclerosis, the Italian Society of Human Nutrition and the Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Backgound and Aims: Hyperglycemia during pregnancy is increasing globally. Insulin therapy is considered the standard of care for its optimum management. Insulin glargine, in spite of widespread use in non-pregnant adults, lacks randomized controlled trial evidence as safe basal insulin during pregnancy. Aim of this review is to discuss major available evidences and recommendations on the use of insulin glargine during pregnancy., Methods: Evidences related to use of insulin glargine during pregnancy, including animal studies, placental transfer studies, case reports as well as observational studies were retrieved using PUBMED & Google scholar. Recommendations regarding use of insulin glargine during pregnancy by international and Indian organizations were reviewed., Results: Trans-placental transfer studies show that insulin glargine does not cross placenta when used at therapeutic concentrations. Although there are no randomized controlled trials on insulin glargine in pregnancy, it's use during pregnancy is not associated with any adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes as shown in many case reports and observational studies (both prospective and retrospective). It's use during pregnancy is hence considered safe by many organizations across the globe., Conclusions: Insulin glargine can be continued safely during pregnancy in women who are already taking it prior to pregnancy and have achieved good glycemic control with it. However we require preferably randomized controlled trials or large prospective observational studies to establish it as first line or preferred basal insulin for management of hyperglycemia during pregnancy., (Copyright © 2021 Diabetes India. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

New pieces of evidence suggest that combining basal insulin with glucagone-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes could promptly ameliorate glucose control and prevent both hypoglycemic events and unnecessary weight gain compared to more intensive insulin regimens. To review the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and GLP- 1RA (FRCs). Authors searched PubMed/MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for freely available original articles, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), clinical reviews, and meta-analysis written in English until January 2020. FRCs provide significative reductions in HbA1c levels in both insulin-naïve (-1.4% to -2%) and insulin- experienced (-1.5% to -2%) type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glucose impairment. More patients achieved the recommended glycemic targets on FRCs compared to those on mono-therapy with basal insulin or GLP-1RAs. The intensification with FRCs results in better glycemic control compared to basal insulin at fasting as well as during the postprandial state. The frequency of hypoglycemia is similar or lower in patients treated with FRCs than in those on basal insulin alone at a similar dose. Weight trend can be variable, ranging from -2.7 to +2 Kg for iDegLira and -0.7 to -1.3 Kg for iGlar- Lixi. However, a lower weight gain is obtained with iDegLira compared to iDeg (-2.2 to -2.5 Kg), iGlar (-1.7 to -3.2 Kg), and basal-bolus (-3.6 Kg) as well as with iGlarLixi compared to iGlar (-1.4 Kg). FRCs should be considered to safely improve the metabolic control in type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glycemic impairment while on oral medications, basal oral regimen or GLP-1RAs. However, a few but significative pieces of evidence suggest that FRCs could be a safe and effective treatment instead of a low dose basal-bolus intensification for patients with mild or moderate glucose impairment in order to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and unnecessary weight gain, and for simplifying treatment regimen as well., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)