Novel Once-Weekly Basal Insulin Fc Achieved Similar Glycemic Control With a Safety Profile Comparable to Insulin Degludec in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Basal Insulin Fc (BIF; insulin efsitora alfa; LY3209590), a fusion protein combining a novel single-chain insulin variant with a human IgG Fc domain, is designed for once-weekly basal insulin administration. This phase 2 study assessed safety and efficacy of BIF versus degludec in 265 patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using multiple daily injections. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: During this randomized, parallel, open-label study, patients with T1D were randomized (1:1) to receive BIF once weekly or degludec once daily over the 26-week treatment period. Both groups were titrated to a fasting glucose level of 80-100 mg/dL. The primary end point was HbA1c change from baseline to week 26 (noninferiority margin, 0.4%). Secondary end points included percent time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) fasting glucose (FG) level, and rate of hypoglycemia. RESULTS: After 26 weeks, patients receiving BIF had noninferior HbA1c change from baseline versus those receiving degludec, with a statistically significant treatment difference of 0.17% (90% CI 0.01, 0.32; P = 0.07) favoring the comparator. Percent TIR was similar for patients in the BIF (56.1%) and degludec (58.9%; P = 0.112) groups at week 26. FG values were significantly higher for patients receiving BIF (158.8 mg/dL) versus degludec (143.2 mg/dL; P = 0.003). Rates of CGM-derived hypoglycemia were not statistically significantly different for BIF and degludec over 24 h for level 1 (P = 0.960) or level 2 (P = 0.517) hypoglycemia during the treatment period. Occurrence of serious adverse events was similar between the BIF and degludec groups. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly BIF demonstrated noninferior glycemic control to once-daily degludec (treatment difference: 0.17% favoring degludec) and no difference in hypoglycemia or other safety findings in patients with T1D.

Safety and efficacy of once-weekly basal insulin Fc in people with type 2 diabetes previously treated with basal insulin: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: The burden of daily basal insulins often causes hesitancy and delays in the initiation of insulin therapy. Basal insulin Fc (BIF, insulin efsitora alfa), designed for once-weekly administration, is a fusion protein combining a novel single-chain insulin variant with a human immunoglobulin G (IgG) Fc domain. In this study, we explored the safety and efficacy of BIF in people with type 2 diabetes who had been previously treated with basal insulin. METHODS: For this phase 2, 44-site (clinical research centres and hospitals), randomised, open-label, comparator-controlled, 32-week study in the USA, Puerto Rico, and Mexico, we enrolled participants with type 2 diabetes. Eligible participants had to be adults (aged ≥18 years) and to have been treated with basal insulin and up to three oral antidiabetic medicines. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to subcutaneous administration of BIF (BIF treatment group 1 [BIF-A1] or 2 [BIF-A2]) or insulin degludec. Randomisation was stratified by country, baseline HbA1c values (<8·5% or ≥8·5%; <69·4 or ≥69·4 mmol/mol), use of sulfonylureas (yes or no), and baseline BMI (<30 or ≥30 kg/m2). The randomisation scheme was performed using an interactive web-response system, which ensured balance between treatment groups. Different fasting glucose targets for the BIF-A1 (≤7·8 mmol/L or ≤140 mg/dL; titrated every 2 weeks), BIF-A2 (≤6·7 mmol/L or ≤120 mg/dL; titrated every 4 weeks), and degludec (≤5·6 mmol/L or ≤100 mg/dL) groups were selected. Patients randomly assigned to BIF received a one-time loading dose ranging from 1·5-3 times their calculated weekly dose. The first weekly dose was administered 1 week after the loading dose. We used interstitial fasting glucose measurements from the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring system to titrate the basal insulin. The primary measure of glycaemic control was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 32 for BIF. BIF was also compared with degludec (with a non-inferiority margin of 0·40%). The efficacy analysis set consisted of data from all randomised study participants who received at least one dose of the study medication and participants were analysed according to the treatment they were assigned. The safety population was the same as the efficacy analysis set. The completed trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03736785). FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2018 and Feb 18, 2020, 399 participants were enrolled and randomised to BIF-A1 (n=135), BIF-A2 (n=132), or degludec (n=132); 202 (51%) were female and 197 (49%) were male. 379 were analysed for the primary outcome (BIF-A1: n=130; BIF-A2: n=125; degludec: n=124). Mean HbA1c change from baseline to week 32, the primary outcome, was -0·6% (SE 0·1%) for BIF-A1 and BIF-A2. Degludec achieved a change from baseline of -0·7% (0·1%). The pooled BIF analysis achieved non-inferiority versus degludec for the treatment difference in HbA1c (0·1% [90% CI -0·1 to 0·3]). The hypoglycaemia (≤3·9 mmol/L or ≤70 mg/dL) event rates (hypoglycaemia events per patient per year) in the BIF groups were 25% lower than those in the degludec group (treatment ratio BIF-A1 vs degludec was 0·75 [0·61-0·93]; and BIF-A2 vs degludec was 0·74 [0·58-0·94]). BIF was well tolerated; treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across groups. INTERPRETATION: Weekly BIF achieved a similar efficacy compared with degludec despite higher fasting glucose targets in the BIF groups. Higher fasting glucose targets and lower glucose variability might have contributed to lower hypoglycaemia rates for BIF compared with degludec. These findings support continued development of BIF as a once-weekly insulin treatment for people with diabetes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Assessing patient PREFERence between the dulaglutide pen and the semaglutide pen: A crossover study (PREFER).

AIM: When selecting treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to consider not only efficacy and safety, but also other treatment attributes that have an impact on patient preference. The objective of this study was to examine preference between injection devices used for two weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PREFER study was an open-label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study assessing patient preference for dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among injection-naïve patients receiving oral medication for type 2 diabetes. After being trained to use each device, participants performed all steps of injection preparation and administered mock injections into an injection pad. Time-to-train (TTT) for each device was assessed in a subset. RESULTS: There were 310 evaluable participants (48.4% female; mean age, 60.0 years; 78 participants in the TTT subgroup). More participants preferred the dulaglutide device than the semaglutide device (84.2% vs. 12.3%; P < 0.0001). More participants perceived the dulaglutide device to have greater ease of use (86.8% vs. 6.8%; P < 0.0001). After preparing and using the devices, more participants were willing to use the dulaglutide device (93.5%) than the semaglutide device (45.8%). Training participants to use the dulaglutide device required less time than the semaglutide device (3.38 vs. 8.14 minutes; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Participants with type 2 diabetes preferred the dulaglutide injection device to the semaglutide injection device. If patients prefer a device, they may be more willing to use the medication, which could result in better health outcomes. Furthermore, a shorter training time for injection devices may be helpful in busy clinical practice settings.