Impact of baseline glycated haemoglobin,diabetes duration and body mass index on clinical outcomes in the LixiLan‐O trial testing a titratable fixed‐ratio combination of insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) vs insulin glargine and lixisenatide monocomponents

To determine whether baseline characteristics had an impact on clinical outcomes in the LixiLan‐O trial (N = 1170), we compared the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a titratable fixed‐ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U (iGlar) and lixisenatide (Lixi) with iGlar or Lixi alone in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on oral therapy. Subgroups according to baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; <8% or ≥8% [<64 or ≥64 mmol/mol]), T2DM disease duration (<7 or ≥7 years) and body mass index (BMI; <30 or ≥30 kg/m²) were investigated. In all subpopulations, iGlarLixi was consistently statistically superior to iGlar and Lixi alone in reducing HbA1c from baseline to week 30; higher proportions of patients achieved HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) with iGlarLixi vs iGlar and Lixi alone. Compared with iGlar, iGlarLixi resulted in a substantial decrease in 2‐hour postprandial plasma glucose levels, and mitigation of weight gain, with no differences among subpopulations in incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia. iGlarLixi consistently improved glycaemic control compared with iGlar and Lixi alone, without weight gain or increase in hypoglycaemic risk compared with iGlar in the subpopulations tested, regardless of baseline HbA1c, disease duration and BMI.     

Insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed-ratio combination improves glycaemic variability and control without increasing hypoglycaemia

Maintaining optimal glycaemic control reduces the risk of micro- and macrovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Typically, glycaemic control is based on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) as a measure of mean glucose concentration; however, this marker does not accurately reflect glycaemic variability (GV), which is characterized by the amplitude, frequency and duration of hypo- and hyperglycaemic fluctuations. In the present study, we analysed data from the LixiLan-O trial, which compared iGlarLixi, a titratable fixed-ratio combination of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide (Lixi) and long-acting basal insulin glargine 100 units/mL (iGlar), with its individual components, and the LixiLan-L trial, which compared iGlarLixi with iGlar. The GV features that were measured were mean and SD of self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG), high blood glucose index (HBGI) and low blood glucose index, area under the SMPG curve for each patient (AUCn), mean absolute glucose (MAG) and mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions (MAGE). By week 30, iGlarLixi improved all GV markers from baseline, with no increased hypoglycaemia risk. Significant improvements were observed in SMPG, SD of SMPG, HBGI, AUCn, MAG and MAGE compared with iGlar, and in SMPG, HBGI and AUCn, compared with Lixi.     

Achievement of glycaemic control is associated with improvements in lipid profile with iGlarLixi versus iGlar: A post hoc analysis of the LixiLan-L trial

Diabetic dyslipidaemia is a major risk factor for accelerated atherosclerosis. Glycaemic treatments that improve dyslipidaemia may help reduce the burden of atherosclerosis. This analysis investigated the effect of iGlarLixi [insulin glargine U100 (iGlar) and lixisenatide] versus iGlar on lipid profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin. Data from LixiLan-L were used to estimate changes in fasting lipid levels from baseline to week 30, overall and in patients stratified by achievement of glycaemic targets {2-hour postprandial glucose [≤10, >10 mmoL/L], fasting plasma glucose [≤6.1, >6.1 mmoL/L], HbA1c [≤7, >7% (≤53, >53 mmol/mol)]}. At week 30, median percentage change in triglycerides remained nearly unchanged (0.3% increase) with iGlarLixi versus a 6.5% increase with iGlar (P = 0.035; overall); similarly, trends towards better total and LDL cholesterol levels were observed with iGlarLixi versus iGlar. In patient subgroups achieving glycaemic targets, all lipid variables except for HDL cholesterol improved with iGlarLixi but not with iGlar. In summary, patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin showed improved fasting lipid profiles with iGlarLixi compared with iGlar, particularly when achieving glycaemic targets.     

Free and fixed‐ratio combinations of basal insulin and GLP‐1 receptor agonists versus basal insulin intensification in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

A meta‐analysis is presented of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing free or fixed combinations of a glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist plus basal insulin versus insulin intensification on metabolic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Electronic databases were searched for RCTs assessing changes in HbA1c, proportion of patients at HbA1c target of <7% (53 mmol/mol), hypoglycaemia and body weight. A random‐effect model was used to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) or relative risk (RR) with 95% CI. Eleven RCTs were identified, lasting 24–30 weeks and involving 6176 patients. In the overall analysis, the combination therapy led to a mean HbA1c decrease significantly greater than insulin up‐titration (WMD ?0.53%, 95% CI, ?0.66, ?0.40%, P < 0.001), more patients at HbA1c target (RR 1.69, 95% CI, 1.42, 2.00, P < 0.001), similar hypoglycaemic events (RR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.84, 1.12, P = 0.114), and reduction in body weight (WMD ?1.9, 95% CI ?2.3, ?1.4, P < 0.001), with heterogeneity (I² > 71%, P < 0.001). Results did not differ in either the free or fixed combination subgroups. Combination strategies, either free or fixed, represent a good option for intensifying basal insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes who need amelioration of glycaemic control.     

Similar risk of exercise‐related hypoglycaemia for insulin degludec to that for insulin glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes: a randomized cross‐over trial

We compared changes in blood glucose (BG) and risk of hypoglycaemia during and after exercise in 40 patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with insulin degludec (IDeg) or insulin glargine (IGlar) in a randomized, open‐label, two‐period, crossover trial. After individual titration and a steady‐state period, patients performed 30 min of moderate‐intensity cycle ergometer exercise (65% peak rate of oxygen uptake). BG, counter‐regulatory hormones and hypoglycaemic episodes were measured frequently during and for 24 h after exercise. BG changes during exercise were similar with IDeg and IGlar [estimated treatment difference (ETD) for maximum BG decrease: 0.14 mmol/l; 95% confidence interval (CI) ?0.15, 0.42; p = 0.34], as was mean BG (ETD ?0.16 mmol/l; 95% CI ?0.36, 0.05; p = 0.13). No hypoglycaemic episodes occurred during exercise. Post‐exercise mean BG, counter‐regulatory hormone response and number of hypoglycaemic episodes in 24 h after starting exercise were similar with IDeg (18 events in 13 patients) and IGlar (23 events in 15 patients). This clinical trial showed that, in patients with T1D treated with a basal‐bolus regimen, the risk of hypoglycaemia induced by moderate‐intensity exercise was low with IDeg and similar to that with IGlar.     

The role of GLP-1 mimetics and basal insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes mellitus: guidance from studies of liraglutide

In people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the incretin effect is reduced, but the recent advent of dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitors and glucagon‐like peptide (GLP)‐1 agonists/analogues has enabled restoration of at least some of the function of the incretin system, with accompanying improvements in glycaemic control. Two GLP‐1 receptor agonists/analogues are currently approved for the treatment of T2DM—exenatide (Byetta®, Eli Lilly & Co., Indianapolis, IN, US) and liraglutide (Victoza®, Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark); a once‐weekly formulation of exenatide (Bydureon®, Eli Lilly & Co.) has also been approved by the European Medicines Agency. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recently published guidance on the use of liraglutide in T2DM, based on evidence from the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes (LEAD) Phase III trial programme, which compared liraglutide with existing glucose‐lowering therapies, such as exenatide and insulin glargine. The LEAD programme reported HbA1c reductions from 0.8 to 1.5% with liraglutide (1.2 and 1.8 mg), accompanied by low rates of hypoglycaemia and some weight loss; side effects were primarily gastrointestinal in nature (e.g. nausea and diarrhoea). Based on the findings of the LEAD studies and the NICE recommendation, liraglutide now represents an important therapy widely available in the UK for certain patient groups, including those with a body mass index (BMI) ≥35.0 kg/m², and patients with a BMI <35 kg/m² who are considered unsuitable for insulin and are failing to meet targets for glycaemic control with oral agents. NICE guidelines still suggest that most patients without considerable obesity (BMI <35 kg/m²) are probably best managed using insulin therapy. Evidence also suggests a future role for GLP‐1 mimetics in combination with basal insulin.     

Efficacy of two telemonitoring systems to improve glycaemic control during basal insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes: The TeleDiab-2 randomized controlled trial

TeleDiab-2 was a 13-month randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of two telemonitoring systems to optimize basal insulin (BI) initiation in subjects with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c, 7.5%-10%). A total of 191 participants (mean age 58.7 years, mean HbA1c 8.9%) were randomized into three groups: group 1(G1, standard care, n = 63), group 2 (G2, interactive voice response system, n = 64) and group 3 (G3, Diabeo-BI app software, n = 64). The two telemonitoring systems proposed daily adjustments of BI doses, in order to facilitate the achievement of fasting blood glucose (FBG) values targeted at ~100 mg/dL. At 4 months follow-up, HbA1c reduction was significantly higher in the telemonitoring groups (G2: −1.44% and G3: −1.48% vs. G1: −0.92%; P < 0.002). Moreover, target FBG was reached by twice as many patients in the telemonitoring groups as in the control group, and insulin doses were also titrated to higher levels. No severe hypoglycaemia was observed in the telemonitoring groups and mild hypoglycaemia frequency was similar in all groups. In conclusion, both telemonitoring systems improved glycaemic control to a similar extent, without increasing hypoglycaemic episodes.     

Better glycaemic control and less hypoglycaemia with insulin glargine 300 U/mL vs glargine 100 U/mL: 1‐year patient‐level meta‐analysis of the EDITION clinical studies in people with type 2 diabetes

Aims

To investigate the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla‐300) vs insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla‐100) over 12 months in a patient‐level meta‐analysis, using data from the EDITION studies in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

Methods

EDITION 1, 2 and 3 were multicentre, randomized, open‐label, 2‐arm, parallel‐group, treat‐to‐target phase IIIa studies. Similar study designs and endpoints enabled a meta‐analysis to be conducted.

Results

Reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) were better sustained over 12 months with Gla‐300 than with Gla‐100 (least squares [LS] mean difference in change from baseline: ?0.10 % [95% confidence interval {CI} ?0.18 to ?0.02] or ?1.09 mmol/mol [95% CI ?2.01 to ?0.20]; P = .0174). Risk of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L) or severe hypoglycaemia was 15% lower with Gla‐300 vs Gla‐100 at night (relative risk 0.85 [95% CI 0.77–0.92]) and 6% lower at any time of day (relative risk 0.94 [95% CI 0.90–0.98]). Rates of hypoglycaemia were 18% lower with Gla‐300 vs Gla‐100 at night (rate ratio 0.82 [95% CI 0.67–0.99]), but comparable at any time of day. HbA1c <7.0 % without nocturnal hypoglycaemia was achieved by 24% more participants with Gla‐300 than with Gla‐100 (relative risk 1.24 [95% CI 1.03–1.50]). Severe hypoglycaemia was rare; in both treatment groups the incidence of events at any time of day was ≤3.6%, while rates were ≤0.08 events per participant‐year.

Conclusions

In a broad population of people with T2DM over 12 months, use of Gla‐300 provided more sustained glycaemic control and significantly lower hypoglycaemia risk at night and at any time of day compared with Gla‐100.     

Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes switching from twice‐daily basal insulin to once‐daily insulin glargine 300 U/mL or insulin glargine 100 U/mL (EDITION 1 and EDITION 2 subgroup analysis)

In this post hoc analysis we compared glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia between insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla‐300) and glargine 100 U/mL (Gla‐100) administered once daily in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the EDITION 1 (basal plus mealtime insulin) and EDITION 2 (basal insulin plus oral antihyperglycaemic drugs) trials who were previously receiving twice‐daily insulin. At randomization, 16.9% and 20.0% of people in EDITION 1 and 2, respectively, were receiving twice‐daily basal insulin. Glycated haemoglobin change from baseline to Month 6 was similar over 6 months with Gla‐300 or Gla‐100 (least squares mean difference ?0.01%; 95% confidence interval [CI] ?0.27 to 0.24] in EDITION 1 and 0.16%; 95% CI ?0.25 to 0.57, in EDITION 2). Participants previously receiving twice‐daily insulin in EDITION 1 had a lower risk of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia with Gla‐300 vs Gla‐100 at night (00:00–05:59 hours), but not at any time (24 hours); in EDITION 2 the risk was reduced at night and any time (24 hours). In conclusion, Gla‐300 provided similar glycaemic control with less hypoglycaemia compared with Gla‐100 in people with T2DM switching from twice‐daily to once‐daily basal insulin.