Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized, crossover trial comparing a pen injector with insulin degludec versus a pen injector with insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Objective: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with insulin resistance and deteriorated glycemic control that can be restored with insulin injections. Choice of insulin pen injector may affect complexity, adherence, efficacy of treatment and health-related quality of life. We describe detailed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on treatment impact and preference comparing insulin degludec (degludec) using FlexTouch1 versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) with SoloStar2 pen injector.Methods: In this randomized, multicenter (USA), open-label, crossover, treat-to-target study (NCT01570751), patients with T2D using high-dose insulin (≥81 U/day from vials) were randomized (n = 145) 1:1 to 16 weeks of degludec U200 (3 mL FlexTouch) followed by 16 weeks of glargine U100 (3 mL SoloStar) or vice versa. PRO questionnaires assessed treatment impact and patient preference of pen injectors.Results: Significantly more patients (p < .01) considered FlexTouch "extremely easy" for learning (62.5 vs. 43.0%), maintaining (63.2 vs. 42.2%) and adjusting the dose (63.2 vs. 44.4%), and significantly more were "very" or "extremely confident" in using the device (60.3 vs. 36.3%) and in its accuracy (50.7 vs. 30.4%) versus SoloStar. Significantly more were "not at all bothered" by device discomfort (74.3 vs. 54.1%), whereas device size (83.8 vs. 80.0%) or public use (69.9 vs. 60.7%) were numerically in favor of FlexTouch. Significantly more patients preferred degludec treatment with FlexTouch (59 vs. 22%), preferred to continue (67 vs. 15%) and recommend (67 vs. 14%) use of FlexTouch compared with SoloStar with glargine U100.Conclusions: In this randomized, crossover trial, lower treatment impact and higher patient preference were reported for FlexTouch versus SoloStar pen injectors.

Insulin Degludec 200 Units/mL Is Associated With Lower Injection Frequency and Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared With Insulin Glargine 100 Units/mL in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Requiring High-Dose Insulin.

IN BRIEF Many patients with type 2 diabetes require high basal insulin doses, necessitating multiple injections, increasing patient burden, and resulting in reduced treatment adherence. This randomized, controlled, crossover trial compared the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes for a concentrated formulation of insulin degludec (200 units/mL) to those of insulin glargine in patients requiring high doses of basal insulin. By offering equivalent glycemic control while reducing the rate of confirmed hypoglycemia and the number of injections required for administration, insulin degludec 200 units/mL may be preferred by patients with type 2 diabetes who require high basal insulin doses.

The Efficacy of IDegLira (Insulin Degludec/Liraglutide Combination) in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with a GLP-1 Receptor Agonist and Oral Therapy: DUAL III Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes necessitates treatment intensification. This often involves intensification with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) initially, followed by other agents, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), with the majority of patients eventually requiring insulin therapy. Therefore, this trial aimed to investigate the efficacy of IDegLira (combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) in controlling glycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled on a GLP-1RA and OADs. METHODS: In this 26-week open-label phase 3b trial, patients on maximum-dose GLP-1RA therapy (liraglutide once daily or exenatide twice daily) with metformin alone or with pioglitazone and/or sulfonylurea were randomized 2:1 to IDegLira once daily (n = 292) or to unchanged GLP-1RA therapy (n = 146), continuing OADs at the pre-trial dose. RESULTS: After 26 weeks, HbA1c reductions were superior with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA; estimated treatment difference -0.94% (-10.3 mmol/mol), p < 0.001. Mean HbA1c reduced from 7.8% to 6.4% (61.5 to 46.9 mmol/mol) with IDegLira and from 7.7 to 7.4% (60.8 to 57.1 mmol/mol) with unchanged GLP-1RA. With IDegLira, 75% and 63% of patients achieved HbA1c <7% and ≤6.5%, compared with 36% and 23% on unchanged GLP-1RA, respectively. Fasting plasma glucose and 9-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles improved significantly more with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA. The mean change in weight was +2.0 kg with IDegLira, versus -0.8 kg with unchanged GLP-1RA. Rates of confirmed hypoglycemia were low, but higher with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA. The safety profile of IDegLira was consistent with previous findings; both treatments were well tolerated and the rate of nausea was low in both groups. IDegLira improved patient-reported outcomes versus unchanged GLP-1RA. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira provided superior glycemic control versus unchanged GLP-1RA and represents an efficacious intensification approach in patients inadequately controlled on GLP-1RAs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01676116. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec 200 U/mL and Insulin Degludec 100 U/mL in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes (Begin: Compare).

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to provide clinical data on the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec (IDeg) 200 U/mL compared with IDeg 100 U/mL in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) currently treated with basal insulin in combination with oral antidiabetic drugs. METHODS: In this 22-week, treat-to-target trial, eligible adult patients with T2DM were randomized 1:1 to IDeg 200 or IDeg 100 U/mL once daily (OD) (n = 186 and 187, respectively). The starting insulin dose was based on a 1:1 transfer of the total prerandomization basal insulin dose. The primary endpoint was change (%) from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin A1C (A1C) after 22 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 373 subjects (mean age 59.8 years, A1C 8.2%, fasting plasma glucose 149.6 mg/dL [8.3 mmol/L], body mass index 33.3 kg/m2) were randomized. A1C reduction with IDeg 200 U/mL was noninferior to that of IDeg 100 U/mL (IDeg 200 U/mL - IDeg 100 U/mL estimated treatment difference: -0.11%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.28 to 0.05). Rates of overall confirmed hypoglycemia were low and similar between both formulations (5.17 and 5.66 events/patient-year of exposure [PYE] for IDeg 200 and 100 U/mL, respectively). Similarly, the rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia were low (1.27 and 1.70 events/PYE for 200 and 100 U/mL). In general, both IDeg formulations were well tolerated (respective rates of adverse events: 4.16 and 3.00 events/PYE for 200 and 100 U/mL). CONCLUSION: The 200 and 100 U/mL formulations of IDeg provide comparable and effective levels of glycemic control with similar, low rates of overall confirmed and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia.