Clinical perspectives on the frequency of hypoglycemia in treat-to-target randomized controlled trials comparing basal insulin analogs in type 2 diabetes: a narrative review.

The objective of this review was to comprehensively present and summarize trends in reported rates of hypoglycemia with one or two times per day basal insulin analogs in individuals with type 2 diabetes to help address and contextualize the emerging theoretical concern of increased hypoglycemic risk with once-weekly basal insulins.Hypoglycemia data were extracted from treat-to-target randomized clinical trials conducted during 2000-2022. Published articles were identified on PubMed or within the US Food and Drug Administration submission documents. Overall, 57 articles were identified: 44 assessed hypoglycemic outcomes in participants receiving basal-only therapy (33 in insulin-naive participants; 11 in insulin-experienced participants), 4 in a mixed population (insulin-naive and insulin-experienced participants) and 9 in participants receiving basal-bolus therapy. For the analysis, emphasis was placed on level 2 (blood glucose <3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL)) and level 3 (or severe) hypoglycemia.Overall, event rates for level 2 or level 3 hypoglycemia across most studies ranged from 0.06 to 7.10 events/person-year of exposure (PYE) for participants receiving a basal-only insulin regimen; the rate for basal-bolus regimens ranged from 2.4 to 13.6 events/PYE. Rates were generally lower with second-generation basal insulins (insulin degludec or insulin glargine U300) than with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin or first-generation basal insulins (insulin detemir or insulin glargine U100). Subgroup categorization by sulfonylurea usage, end-of-treatment insulin dose or glycated hemoglobin reduction did not show consistent trends on overall hypoglycemia rates. Hypoglycemia rates reported so far for once-weekly basal insulins are consistent with or lower than those reported for daily-administered basal insulin analogs.

Efficacy and safety of basal insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Aim: The comparative effectiveness of basal insulins has been examined in several studies. However, current treatment algorithms provide a list of options with no clear differentiation between different basal insulins as the optimal choice for initiation. Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI, and Scopus, and a reference list of retrieved studies and reviews were performed up to November 2023. We identified phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens. The primary outcomes evaluated were HbA1c reduction, weight change, and hypoglycemic events. The revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals considering the critical assumptions in the networks. The certainty of the evidence and confidence in the rankings was assessed using the GRADE minimally contextualized approach. Results: Of 20,817 retrieved studies, 44 RCTs (23,699 participants) were eligible for inclusion in our network meta-analysis. We found no significant difference among various basal insulins (including Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH), ILPS, insulin glargine, detemir, and degludec) in reducing HbA1c. Insulin glargine, 300 U/mL (IGlar-300) was significantly associated with less weight gain (mean difference ranged from 2.9 kg to 4.1 kg) compared to other basal insulins, namely thrice-weekly insulin degludec (IDeg-3TW), insulin degludec, 100 U/mL (IDeg-100), insulin degludec, 200 U/mL (IDeg-200), NPH, and insulin detemir (IDet), but with low to very low certainty regarding most comparisons. IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 were associated with significantly lower odds of overall, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemic events than NPH and insulin lispro protamine (ILPS) (moderate to high certainty evidence). NPH was associated with the highest odds of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to others. Network meta-analysis models were robust, and findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: The efficacy of various basal insulin regimens is comparable. However, they have different safety profiles. IGlar-300 may be the best choice when weight gain is a concern. In contrast, IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 may be preferred when hypoglycemia is the primary concern.

Association Between Treatment Adherence and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Outcomes in People With Diabetes Using Smart Insulin Pens in a Real-World Setting.

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.

Combined intake of caffeine and low-dose glucose to reduce exercise-related hypoglycaemia in individuals with type 1 diabetes on ultra-long-acting insulin degludec: A randomized, controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial.

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 (χ2 = 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.

Effects of Switching from Degludec to Glargine U300 in Patients with Insulin-Dependent Type 1 Diabetes: A Retrospective Study.

Background and Objectives: Degludec (Deg) and glargine U300 (Gla-300) are insulin analogs with longer and smoother pharmacodynamic action than glargine U100 (Gla-100), a long-acting insulin that has been widely used for many years in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Both improve glycemic variability (GV) and the frequency of hypoglycemia, unlike Gla-100. However, it is unclear which insulin analog affects GV and hypoglycemia better in patients with insulin-dependent type 1 diabetes. We evaluated the effects of switching from Deg to Gla-300 on the day-to-day GV and the frequency of hypoglycemia in patients with insulin-dependent type 1 diabetes treated with Deg-containing basal-bolus insulin therapy (BBT). Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on 24 patients with insulin-dependent type 1 diabetes whose treatment was switched from Deg-containing BBT to Gla-300-containing BBT. We evaluated the day-to-day GV measured as the standard deviation of fasting blood glucose levels (SD-FBG) calculated by the self-monitoring of blood glucose records, the frequency of hypoglycemia (total, severe, and nocturnal), and blood glucose levels measured as fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Results: The characteristics of the patients included in the analysis with high SD-FBG had frequent hypoglycemic events, despite the use of Deg-containing BBT. For this population, SD-FBG and the frequency of nocturnal hypoglycemia decreased after the switch from Deg to Gla-300. Despite the decrease in the frequency of nocturnal hypoglycemia, the FPG and HbA1c did not worsen by the switch. The change in the SD-FBG had a negative correlation with the SD-FBG at baseline and a positive correlation with serum albumin levels. Conclusions: Switching from Deg to Gla-300 improved the SD-FBG and decreased the frequency of nocturnal hypoglycemia in insulin-dependent type 1 diabetes treated with Deg-containing BBT, especially in cases with low serum albumin levels and a high GV.

You may delay, but time will not. Beta cells lost are never found again: a case for timely initiation of basal insulin in type 2 diabetes.

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.

Type 2 diabetes is a complex disease. It causes increased amounts of sugar in the blood, which can cause damage to the body. Medications are given to people with type 2 diabetes to keep their blood sugar at normal levels. Unfortunately, type 2 diabetes worsens over time, so regular adjustments to medications are needed to keep blood sugar levels controlled.Basal insulin, which is a type of insulin that works over the entire day, is a key treatment for type 2 diabetes. It works best if it is started as soon as other medications (tablets or non-insulin injections) are not working to control blood sugar levels. Unfortunately, delays in starting basal insulin are common. Some healthcare professionals and people with type 2 diabetes believe insulin is difficult to use. False information on insulin is common; for example, some people with diabetes believe that their symptoms are caused by insulin treatment rather than high blood sugar.This review summarizes key information to encourage effective conversations between healthcare professionals and people with type 2 diabetes about starting basal insulin. Proactive, positive, early discussion of the benefits of basal insulin can help to: 1) address concerns, 2) set appropriate, individual treatment targets, and 3) provide practical information and training to help with injecting insulin. This will give people living with type 2 diabetes the knowledge and confidence to take an active part in managing their diabetes and overcome any barriers to using basal insulin.

Effects of Tirzepatide Versus Basal Insulins in People With Type 2 Diabetes and Different Baseline Glycemic Patterns: Post Hoc Analyses of the SURPASS-3 and SURPASS-4 Trials.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis assessed change from baseline to week 52 in glycemic parameters for tirzepatide (5, 10, 15 mg) versus insulin degludec (SURPASS-3 trial) and glargine (SURPASS-4 trial) in people with type 2 diabetes and different baseline glycemic patterns, based on fasting serum glucose (FSG) and postprandial glucose (PPG) values. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participant subgroups with low FSG/low PPG, low FSG/high PPG, high FSG/low PPG, and high FSG/high PPG were defined according to the median values of these measures. RESULTS: All tirzepatide doses and basal insulins were associated with decreased HbA1c, FSG, and PPG values from baseline to week 52 in all subgroups (P < 0.05). Within each subgroup, HbA1c and PPG decreases were greater with tirzepatide than insulin (P < 0.05). FSG decreases were generally similar. There were no differential treatment effects by FSG/PPG subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, tirzepatide was associated with superior glycemic control compared with insulin, irrespective of baseline glycemic pattern.

IDegLira for the real-world treatment of type 2 diabetes in Italy. Final results from the REX observational study.

AIM: The study was designed to generate real-world evidence on IDegLira in the Italian clinical practice in two groups of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), switching to IDegLira either from a basal only (basal group) or basal-bolus insulin regimen (BB group). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a non-interventional, multicentre, single-cohort, prospective study assessing the long-term glycaemic control in patients with T2D, who switched to IDegLira from a basal insulin ± glucose-lowering medication regimen with or without a bolus insulin component for approximately 18 months, conducted in 28 Italian diabetes centres. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels from baseline to 6 months after IDegLira initiation. RESULTS: The study included 358 patients with a mean age 67.2 years and diabetes duration of 15.7 years. HbA1c significantly decreased from IDegLira start to all study time points in the overall population (basal group -1.19%; BB group -0.60% at the end of observation). Patients achieving HbA1c <7% levels increased from 12.9% (n = 43) to 40.3% (n = 110) at 18 months. Fasting blood glucose and body weight also significantly decreased in both groups, although more in the BB group. Overall, 14.3% of completed patients had an intensification of treatment (mainly in the basal group) and 48.6% had a simplification of treatment (mainly in the BB group). CONCLUSIONS: Switching to IDegLira in a real-world clinical setting is a valid therapeutic option for patients with T2D with inadequate glycaemic control on basal or BB insulin regimen and/or need to simplify their insulin therapy, with specific reasons and therapeutic goals according to different T2D management trajectories.

Bridging dose of U-100 glargine with first dose of insulin degludec improves glycaemia in the 48 h after transition in twice-daily glargine users.

AIMS: To study the effects of a bridging dose of U-100 glargine (U-100G) with the first dose of degludec in type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients transitioning from glargine to degludec, by comparing the glucose metrics 48 h before and after the transition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with T1D on a stable U-100G regimen and with glycated haemoglobin concentration <75 mmol/mol were randomized (double-blind) to one dose of placebo or U-100G with first dose of degludec, administered at 9:00 pm. Patients on once-daily U-100G at baseline received 50% of total U-100G dose (bridging dose), while patients on twice-daily U-100G received 50% of the evening U-100G dose. Participants wore a continuous glucose monitor during the study. RESULTS: Forty participants were randomized, of whom 37 completed the study. The cohort was 65% male, the mean age was 47 years, duration of T1D 22 years, BMI 26 kg/m2, HbA1c 51 mmol/mol and total daily insulin dose 0.7 units/kg body weight. The bridging group included 19 participants (once-daily U-100G: n = 12; twice-daily U-100G: n = 7) and the placebo group included 18 participants (once-daily U-100G: n = 12; twice-daily U-100G: n = 6). Change in time in range (TIR) was not significantly different between the two treatment groups. In secondary analyses, among twice-daily U-100G users, TIR (3.9-10 mmol/L) increased 8% in the bridging group in the 48 h after first dose of degludec compared to the preceding 48 h, while participants in the placebo group had a 9.5% decrease (p = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: A subgroup of well-controlled twice-daily U-100G users transitioning to degludec benefited from a 50% bridging dose of evening U-100G with the first dose of degludec in a small pilot study.

Safety and Efficacy of Insulins in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Continuous Enteral Nutrition.

OBJECTIVE: There is a relative lack of consensus regarding the optimal management of hyperglycemia in patients receiving continuous enteral nutrition (EN), with or without a diagnosis of diabetes. METHODS: This retrospective study examined 475 patients (303 with known diabetes) hospitalized in critical care setting units in 2019 in a single center who received continuous EN. Rates of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose levels within the target range (70-180 mg/dL) were compared between patients with and without diabetes, and among patients treated with intermediate-acting (IA) biphasic neutral protamine Hagedorn 70/30, long-acting (LA) insulin, or rapid-acting insulin only. RESULTS: Among those with type 2 diabetes mellitus, IA and LA insulin regimens were associated with a significantly higher proportion of patient-days in the target glucose range and fewer hyperglycemic days. Level 1 (<70 mg/dL) and level 2 (<54 mg/dL) hypoglycemia occurred rarely, and there were no significant differences in level 2 hypoglycemia frequency across the different insulin regimens. CONCLUSION: Administration of IA and LA insulin can be safe and effective for those receiving insulin doses for EN-related hyperglycemia.

The Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of a Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Degludec and Aspart: A Cost of Control Analysis in Australia and India.

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.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Based Metrics and Hypoglycemia Duration in Insulin-Experienced Individuals With Long-standing Type 2 Diabetes Switched From a Daily Basal Insulin to Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec: Post Hoc Analysis of ONWARDS 2 and ONWARDS 4.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis assessed continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based metrics and hypoglycemia duration with once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin analogs in insulin-experienced individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes from two 26-week phase 3a trials (ONWARDS 2 and ONWARDS 4). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Time in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0 mmol/L), time above range (TAR) (>10.0 mmol/L), and time below range (TBR) (<3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L) were assessed during three CGM time periods (switch [weeks 0-4], end of treatment [weeks 22-26], and follow-up [weeks 27-31]) for icodec versus comparators (ONWARDS 2, insulin degludec [basal regimen]; ONWARDS 4, insulin glargine U100 [basal-bolus regimen]) using double-blind CGM data. CGM-derived hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was assessed. RESULTS: In both trials, there were no statistically significant differences in TIR, TAR, or TBR (<3.0 mmol/L) for icodec versus comparators across all time periods. In the end-of-treatment period, mean TIR was 63.1% (icodec) vs. 59.5% (degludec) in ONWARDS 2 and 66.9% (icodec) vs. 66.4% (glargine U100) in ONWARDS 4. Mean TBR <3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L remained within recommended targets (<4% and <1%, respectively) across time periods and treatment arms. Hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was comparable across time periods and treatment arms (median duration ≤40 min). CONCLUSIONS: In insulin-experienced participants with long-standing type 2 diabetes, CGM-based TIR, TAR, and CGM-derived hypoglycemia duration (<3.9 mmol/L) were comparable for icodec and once-daily basal insulin analogs during all time periods. TBR remained within recommended targets.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To investigate the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, two-period crossover trial, 66 individuals with T1D (age 18-64 years; glycated haemoglobin ≤75 mmol/mol [≤ 9%]) were to receive once-weekly icodec (8 weeks) and once-daily insulin glargine U100 (2 weeks) at individualized fixed equimolar total weekly doses established during up to 10 weeks' run-in with glargine U100 titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose (PG) of 4.4-7.2 mmol/L (80-130 mg/dL). Insulin aspart was used as bolus insulin. Blood sampling for icodec pharmacokinetics was performed from the first icodec dose until 35 days after the last dose. The glucose infusion rate at steady state was assessed in glucose clamps (target 6.7 mmol/L [120 mg/dL]) at 16-52 h and 138-168 h after the last icodec dose and 0-24 h after the last glargine U100 dose. Icodec pharmacodynamics during 1 week were predicted by pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling. Hypoglycaemia was recorded during the treatment periods based on self-measured PG. RESULTS: Icodec reached pharmacokinetic steady state on average within 2-3 weeks. At steady state, model-predicted daily proportions of glucose infusion rate during the 1-week dosing interval were 14.3%, 19.6%, 18.3%, 15.7%, 13.1%, 10.6% and 8.4%, respectively. Rates and duration of Level 2 hypoglycaemic episodes (PG <3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) were 32.8 versus 23.9 episodes per participant-year of exposure and 33 ± 25 versus 30 ± 18 min (mean ± SD) for icodec versus glargine U100. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of icodec suggest its potential to provide basal coverage in a basal-bolus insulin regimen in people with T1D.

Resolution of insulin resistance, lactic acidosis, and decrease in mechanical support requirements in patients post orthotopic heart transplant with the use of long-acting insulin glargine.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the efficacy of using a long-acting insulin analog, along with the infusion of regular insulin, in achieving appropriate glycemic control and correcting lactic acidosis in patients post orthotopic heart transplant who demonstrate severe lactic acidosis and insulin resistance. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of two cohorts (IRB FLA 20-003) of patients post orthotopic heart transplant with severe lactic acidosis and insulin resistance who were admitted to a tertiary intensive care unit and treated with (group 1) or without long-acting insulin analog (group 2) within the first 24 h of admission to the intensive care unit. Insulin resistance is defined as the requirement for intravenous regular insulin infusion of more than 20 units/h without the ability to achieve appropriate serum glucose level (120-180 mg /dL). Severe lactic acidosis is defined as arterial lactic acid of more than 10 mmol/L. The following parameters were investigated: time to correct lactic acidosis, duration of postoperative mechanical ventilation, the need for periprocedural mechanical circulatory support, and 28-day mortality. RESULTS: The 28-day mortality was zero in both groups. Two patients required periprocedural mechanical support in group one, and ten patients required mechanical support in group two (RR = 0.224, 95%, confidence interval 0.052-0.95, Z = 2.029, p = 0.042). Three patients required tracheostomy in group one, and four patients required tracheostomy in group two (RR 0.84, 95 confidence interval 0.20-3.48, Z = 0.23, P = 0.81). Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare time to correct lactic acidosis, with lactic acid resolution being faster in group one ([Formula: see text]1 = 19.7 h, SD ± 12.6 h [Formula: see text]2 = 29.3 h, SD ± 19.6 h, Z-value - 2.02, p-value 0.043). The duration of mechanical ventilation was less in group one ([Formula: see text]1 = 29 h, SD ± 12.7 h, [Formula: see text]2 = 55.1 h, SD ± 44.5 h, Z-value: - 1.92, p-value 0.05). CONCLUSION: Administration of low-dose long-acting insulin glargine led to the resolution of the lactic acidosis, insulin resistance, and decreased requirements for pressor and inotropic support, which led to decreased need for mechanical circulatory support.

Current usage of long-acting insulin analogs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin treatment is fundamental to diabetes management. Basal insulin therapy reduces intraday glycemic fluctuations upon reaching a steady state. Besides better blood glucose regulation and achieving target HbA1c values in patients, it also offers protection from diabetes complications. In this review, we aimed to compare basal-acting insulins in light of the literature. AREAS COVERED: We reviewed current evidence related to diabetes treatment with basal insulins. This includes discussions on clinical trials and meta-analyses concerning first and second-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulins. Treatment indications for long-acting basal insulins, which have shown benefits and are considered superior or comparable to others in the literature, are derived from current clinical studies and meta-analyses, which form the basis of the recommendations in this review. EXPERT OPINION: First and second-generation basal insulins do not show much superiority over each other in terms of blood glucose regulation and reaching the target HbA1c. However, second-generation basal insulins cause fewer hypoglycemic events. We recommend using the appropriate basal insulin in patient-based, individualized treatments. Basal insulin Icodec may become more widely used over time, owing to its association with less hypoglycemia and a reduction in the number of injections.

A prospective, multicentre, randomized, open-label comparison of a long-acting basal insulin analog glargine plus glulisine with premixed insulin in insulin naïve patients with Type 2 diabetes - A study from India.

AIMS: We aimed to compare the effectiveness of Glargine plus Glulisine to premixed insulin analogue, as measured by HbA1c ≤ 7.0% in insulin naive Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) patients with elevated fasting and/or postprandial plasma glucose. METHODS: Insulin-naive T2D patients (116 men, 84 women) on ≥ 2 oral hypoglycemic agents with inadequate glycemic control were randomized either to group 1 (insulin Glargine plus Glulisine, n = 101) or group 2 (Premixed Insulin analogue, n = 99). RESULTS: In the intention to treat analysis, at week 24, percentage of patients with good glycaemic control (HbA1c ≤ 7.0%) was similar between the two groups (16.8% in Group 1 vs. 13.1% in Group 2, χ2 - 0.535, p = 0.47). Significant reductions in fasting and postprandial levels were observed in groups 1 and 2 at both post-baseline time points (Week 12 and 24). In group 1, reduction in HbA1c from baseline to week 12 was 0.6 ± 0.1 and 0.7 ± 0.2 at week 24, p < 0.0001 for all. In group 2, no significant change in HbA1c was observed. In group 1, 83.2% required an additional dose of glulisine and in group 2, 88.9% required an additional dose of premixed insulin. Hypoglycemic events were similar in both groups (0.12 events per person-year in group 1 and 0.13 events per person-year in group 2). Weight gain was non-significant in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Glargine plus Glulisine, though in higher dose was effective as premixed insulin in lowering HbA1c. Hypoglycemic events per person-year were similar in both groups.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide and insulin glargine U-100/lixisenatide in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus using professional continuous glucose monitoring.

AIM/INTRODUCTION: Insulin glargine U100/lixisenatide and insulin degludec/liraglutide are fixed-ratio combinations containing basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist capable of reducing both fasting and postprandial blood glucose levels with a single formulation. This study aimed to compare the time in range (TIR) and the time below range (TBR) level 1 using professional continuous glucose monitoring and to establish criteria for the differential use of the fixed-ratio combinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (24 men and 12 women; average age, 62.1 years) were randomly assigned to the groups. At 0 and 18 weeks, a device was worn to compare the TIR and TBR level 1. The correlation between the C-peptide index at baseline and TIR at 18 weeks was assessed. RESULTS: The TIR and TBR level 1 showed no significant differences between the two groups. Both groups showed significant positive correlations between the C-peptide index and the TIR (P = 0.002, r = 0.679; P = 0.002, r = 0.681, respectively). The changes in glycemic variability, therapeutic indices, and body mass index were not significantly different among the groups (P > 0.05). The receiver operating curve analysis revealed that the cut-off values of the C-peptide index to achieve TIR of >70% at 18 weeks were 1.258 (sensitivity, 77.8%; specificity, 100%) and 1.099 (sensitivity, 57.1%; specificity, 90.9%) in the insulin glargine U100/lixisenatide and insulin degludec/liraglutide groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A TIR of >70% was achieved for both fixed-ratio combinations without significant differences.