Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia risk with insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus glargine 100 U/mL: A patient-level meta-analysis examining older and younger adults with type 2 diabetes

AimOlder people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are at an increased risk of hypoglycaemia and its consequences. However, efficacy and safety data for basal insulin therapy are limited in these individuals. This patient-level meta-analysis assessed the treatment effects of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in people with T2DM ≥ 65 years old.MethodsData were pooled for patients randomised to receive Gla-300 or Gla-100 in the Phase 3a, treat-to-target EDITION 1, 2 and 3 trials. Glycaemic efficacy, hypoglycaemia, changes in body weight and insulin dosage and adverse events were examined over 6 months’ treatment with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 for participants aged ≥ 65 and < 65 years.ResultsOf 2496 participants randomised, 662 were ≥ 65 years (Gla-300, n = 329; Gla-100, n = 333). Glycaemic control was comparable for Gla-300 and Gla-100 in participants ≥ 65 years (LS mean [95% CI] difference in HbA_1c change from baseline to month 6: 0.00 [−0.14 to 0.15] %; 0.00 [−1.53 to 1.64] mmol/mol) and < 65 years (0.00 [−0.09 to 0.08] %; 0.00 [−0.98 to 0.87] mmol/mol). Fewer participants receiving Gla-300 versus Gla-100 experienced nocturnal confirmed (≤ 3.9 mmol/L [≤ 70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia (relative risk: ≥ 65 years: 0.70 [0.57 to 0.85]; < 65 years: 0.77 [0.68 to 0.87]). Annualised rates of nocturnal confirmed or severe hypoglycaemia were lower with Gla-300 than Gla-100 for both age groups.ConclusionGla-300 was associated with a reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia versus Gla-100, accompanied by comparable glycaemic improvement, for people aged ≥ 65 and < 65 years with T2DM.     

Hypoglycaemia risk with insulin glargine 300 U/mL compared with glargine 100 U/mL across different baseline fasting C-peptide levels in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis of the EDITION 3 trial

The relationship between baseline fasting C-peptide (FCP) and glucose control was examined in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antihyperglycaemic drugs commencing basal insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) or 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in the absence of sulfonylurea/glinides. Participants with FCP measurement from the EDITION 3 trial (n = 867) were stratified according to baseline FCP (≤0.40, >0.40-1.20, >1.20 nmol/L); 11.0%, 70.9% and 18.1% contributed to each group. Glycaemic control, body weight, insulin dose and hypoglycaemia were determined at 26 weeks. Glycaemic control (HbA1c, FPG) at 26 weeks was similar in each FCP group between insulins. However, end-of-study insulin dose was greater with higher FCP for both insulins. More people with lower baseline FCP experienced hypoglycaemia with both insulins, but with numerically lower incidence for Gla-300 versus Gla-100 across all FCP groups for all definitions (time periods and levels) of hypoglycaemia. This suggests that Gla-300 might be particularly advantageous for people who are at higher risk of hypoglycaemia.     

Lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia with insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus glargine 100 U/mL in participants with type 1 diabetes: A meta-analysis of 6-month phase 3 clinical trials

Severe hypoglycaemia (SH) remains a challenge to people with type 1 diabetes (T1DM), and new-generation basal insulins may improve patient outcomes. This post hoc meta-analysis explored the risk of SH with insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in a pooled population with T1DM from three randomized, multicentre, 6-month similarly designed phase 3 trials: EDITION 4, EDITION JP 1 and EDITION JUNIOR. Endpoints included incidence and time to first occurrence of SH. Among 629 and 626 participants randomized to Gla-300 and Gla-100, respectively, glycated haemoglobin reductions were similar. Fewer participants experienced ≥1 SH event with Gla-300 (6.2%) than with Gla-100 (9.3%). From baseline to month 6, the risk of a first SH event was lower with Gla-300: hazard ratio 0.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44–0.98; stratified log-rank test P = 0.038]. SH event rates were numerically lower with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 from baseline to month 6 [relative risk (RR) 0.80 (95% CI 0.49–1.29); P = 0.356] and baseline to week 8 [RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.37–1.44); P = 0.369]. Thus, Gla-300 demonstrated similar glycaemic control with lower risk of SH versus Gla-100, particularly during the titration period.     

Response to insulin glargine 100 U/mL treatment in newly-defined subgroups of type 2 diabetes: Post hoc pooled analysis of insulin-naïve participants from nine randomised clinical trials

AimsTo assess insulin glargine 100 U/mL (IGlar-100) treatment outcomes according to newly-defined subgroups of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsInsulin-naïve T2DM participants (n = 2684) from nine randomised clinical trials initiating IGlar-100 were pooled and assigned to subgroups “Mild Age-Related Diabetes (MARD)”, “Mild Obesity Diabetes (MOD)”, “Severe Insulin Resistant Diabetes (SIRD)”, and “Severe Insulin Deficient Diabetes (SIDD)”, according to age at onset of diabetes, baseline HbA1c, BMI, and fasting C-peptide using sex-specific nearest centroid approach. HbA1c, FPG, hypoglycemia, insulin dose, and body weight were analysed at baseline and 24 weeks.ResultsSubgroup distribution was MARD 15.3 % (n = 411), MOD 39.8 % (n = 1067), SIRD 10.5 % (n = 283), SIDD 34.4 % (n = 923). From baseline HbA1c 8.0–9.6% adjusted least square mean reductions after 24 weeks were similar between subgroups (1.4–1.5 %). SIDD was less likely to achieve HbA1c < 7.0 % (OR: 0.40 [0.29, 0.55]) than MARD. While the final IGlar-100 dose (0.36 U/kg) in MARD was lower than in other subgroups (0.46–0.50 U/kg), it had the highest hypoglycemia risk. SIRD had lowest hypoglycemia risk and SIDD exhibited greatest body weight gain.ConclusionsIGlar-100 lowered hyperglycemia similarly in all T2DM subgroups, but level of glycemic control, insulin dose, and hypoglycemia risk differed between subgroups.     

iGlarLixi provides a higher derived time-in-range versus insulin glargine 100 U/mL or lixisenatide in Asian Pacific people with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy of iGlarLixi in the Asian Pacific (AP) population with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using derived time-in-ranges calculated from seven-point self-measured blood glucose.

Methods

Two phase III trials were analysed. LixiLan-O-AP was performed in insulin-naive T2D patients (n = 878) randomized to iGlarLixi, glargine 100 units/mL (iGlar) or lixisenatide (Lixi). LixiLan-L-CN was performed in insulin-treated T2D patients (n = 426) randomized to iGlarLixi or iGlar. Changes in derived time-in-ranges from baseline to end-of-treatment (EOT) and estimated treatment differences (ETDs) were analysed. The proportions of patients achieving 70% or higher derived time-in-range (dTIR), 5% or higher dTIR improvement, and the composite triple target (≥ 70% dTIR, < 4% derived time-below-the-range [dTBR] and < 25% derived time-above-the-range [dTAR]) were calculated.

Results

The changes from baseline to EOT in dTIR with iGlarLixi were greater versus iGlar (ETD₁: 11.45% [95% CI, 7.66% to 15.24%]) or Lixi (ETD₂: 20.54% [95% CI, 15.74% to 25.33%]) in LixiLan-O-AP, and versus iGlar (ETD: 16.59% [95% CI, 12.09% to 21.08%]) in LixiLan-L-CN. In LixiLan-O-AP, the proportions of patients achieving 70% or higher dTIR or 5% or higher dTIR improvement at EOT with iGlarLixi were 77.5% and 77.8%, respectively, higher than with iGlar (61.1% and 75.3%) or Lixi (47.0% and 53.0%). In LixiLan-L-CN, the proportions of patients achieving 70% or higher dTIR or 5% or higher dTIR improvement at EOT were 71.4% and 59.8% with iGlarLixi, greater than with iGlar (45.4% and 39.5%). More patients achieved the triple target with iGlarLixi compared with iGlar or Lixi.

Conclusion

iGlarLixi achieved greater improvements in dTIR parameters versus iGlar or Lixi in insulin-naïve and insulin-experienced AP people with T2D.     

Comparative efficacy and safety of Gla-300 versus IDegAsp in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled on oral anti-diabetics

Aim

To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine-300 once daily (Gla-300) with insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs).

Materials and methods

A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials was followed by an indirect treatment comparison of studies involving insulin naïve adults, inadequately controlled [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.0%] on OADs, who received Gla-300 or IDegAsp once daily. Outcomes of interest were change in HbA1c, blood glucose, weight and insulin dose, as well as incidence and event rate of hypoglycaemia and other adverse events.

Results

Four trials with broadly similar baseline patient characteristics were included in the meta-analyses and indirect treatment comparison. At 24-28 weeks, the indirect comparison of Gla-300 to IDegAsp once daily estimated no statistically significant difference for change in HbA1c (%) from baseline [mean difference of 0.10% (95% CI: −0.20, 0.39; p = .52)]; a statistically significant mean difference of −1.31 kg (95% CI: −1.97, −0.65; p < .05) for change in body weight from baseline; statistically significant odds ratios of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.93; p < .05) for incidence of any hypoglycaemia; and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.87; p < .05) for incidence of anytime confirmed hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose <3.0-3.1 mmol/L). No significant differences were observed for insulin dose and adverse events.

Conclusion

In insulin-naïve patients with T2D inadequately controlled on OADs, commencing Gla-300 shows a comparable HbA1c reduction, but with significantly less weight gain and a lower incidence of any and confirmed hypoglycaemia compared with commencing IDegAsp.