Full text is available at the source.
The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology···
Safety and effectiveness of once-weekly long-lasting insulin in people with type 2 diabetes already using daily insulin
Updated
Abstract
399 participants were enrolled and randomised in a phase 2 trial comparing a new once-weekly basal insulin to degludec.
- Mean HbA1c change from baseline to week 32 was -0.6% for both BIF treatment groups and -0.7% for degludec.
- The pooled BIF analysis demonstrated non-inferiority to degludec for the treatment difference in HbA1c.
- Hypoglycaemia event rates were 25% lower in the BIF groups compared to the degludec group.
- Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across BIF and degludec groups, indicating good tolerability for BIF.
Simplified
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 HbAvalues (<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/m). 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 HbAfrom 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). 1c1c2
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.
Related papers
Aug '21
Weekly tirzepatide compared to daily insulin as add-on treatments for type 2 diabetes with metformin, with or without SGLT2 inhibitors
top 1% journal
cited by 536 papers
randomized controlled trial
Sep '24
Once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa compared to once-daily insulin degludec in adults with type 1 diabetes
top 1% journal
cited by 45 papers
randomized controlled trial
Apr '22
Weekly tirzepatide compared to daily insulin degludec for blood sugar control in adults with type 2 diabetes measured by continuous glucose monitoring
top 1% journal
cited by 51 papers
randomized controlled trial
May '23
Switching from daily to once-weekly insulin in people with type 2 diabetes using daily basal insulin
top 1% journal
cited by 112 papers
randomized controlled trial
Jun '18
Dulaglutide compared to insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes patients with moderate-to-severe kidney disease
top 1% journal
cited by 560 papers
randomized controlled trial
Mar '17
Effectiveness and safety of weekly semaglutide compared to daily insulin glargine added to metformin in people with type 2 diabetes who have not used insulin
top 1% journal
cited by 393 papers
randomized controlled trial
Oct '21
Tirzepatide compared to insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes patients with higher heart risk
top 1% journal
cited by 544 papers
clinical trial, phase iii