Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2021 Jul;44(7):1586-1594.
doi: 10.2337/dc20-2877. Epub 2021 Apr 19.

Switching to Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec Versus Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 in Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled on Daily Basal Insulin: A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Trial

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Switching to Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec Versus Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 in Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled on Daily Basal Insulin: A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Trial

Harpreet S Bajaj et al. Diabetes Care. 2021 Jul.

Abstract

Objective: Insulin icodec (icodec) is a novel once-weekly basal insulin analog. This trial investigated two approaches for switching to icodec versus once-daily insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) in people with type 2 diabetes receiving daily basal insulin and one or more oral glucose-lowering medications.

Research design and methods: This multicenter, open-label, treat-to-target phase 2 trial randomized (1:1:1) eligible basal insulin-treated (total daily dose 10-50 units) people with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 7.0-10.0% [53.0-85.8 mmol/mol]) to icodec with an initial 100% loading dose (in which only the first dose was doubled [icodec LD]), icodec with no loading dose (icodec NLD), or IGlar U100 for 16 weeks. Primary end point was percent time in range (TIR; 3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]) during weeks 15 and 16, measured using continuous glucose monitoring. Key secondary end points included HbA1c, adverse events (AEs), and hypoglycemia.

Results: Estimated mean TIR during weeks 15 and 16 was 72.9% (icodec LD; n = 54), 66.0% (icodec NLD; n = 50), and 65.0% (IGlar U100; n = 50), with a statistically significant difference favoring icodec LD versus IGlar U100 (7.9%-points [95% CI 1.8-13.9]). Mean HbA1c reduced from 7.9% (62.8 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7.1% (54.4 mmol/mol icodec LD) and 7.4% (57.6 mmol/mol icodec NLD and IGlar U100); incidences and rates of AEs and hypoglycemic episodes were comparable.

Conclusions: Switching from daily basal insulin to once-weekly icodec was well tolerated and provided effective glycemic control. Loading dose use when switching to once-weekly icodec significantly increased percent TIR during weeks 15 and 16 versus once-daily IGlar U100, without increasing hypoglycemia risk.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03922750.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
TIR during the last 2 weeks of the treatment period (full analysis set). TIR was the primary end point. TAR, time above range; TBR, time below range.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Key parameters during the trial. A: Mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 16 (FAS). B: Mean change in FPG from baseline to week 16 (FAS). C: Mean prebreakfast SMBG levels over time (FAS). D: Mean weekly insulin dose over time (FAS). E: Cumulative number of level 1 (“alert” value) hypoglycemic episodes per patient (SAS). F: Cumulative number of level 2 (clinically significant) or level 3 (severe) hypoglycemic episodes per patient (SAS). Observed data. AC: Mean ± SEM. D: Geometric mean ± SEM on log-scale back transformed. For C, SMBG was assessed with a blood glucose meter as plasma equivalent of capillary whole blood glucose. For D, the dose for a given visit represents the total dose during the preceding week, and weekly IGlar U100 doses were derived as seven times the average daily dose during the preceding week. *Estimated mean values and the corresponding CI at week 16 derived based on multiple imputation. FAS, full analysis set; SAS, safety analysis set; U, unit.

Comment in

  • Weekly Insulin Becoming a Reality.
    Skyler JS. Skyler JS. Diabetes Care. 2021 Jul;44(7):1459-1461. doi: 10.2337/dci21-0011. Epub 2021 Jun 21. Diabetes Care. 2021. PMID: 34155035 No abstract available.

References

    1. American Diabetes Association . 9. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2020 [published correction appears in Diabetes Care 2020;43:1979]. Diabetes Care 2020;43(Suppl. 1):S98–S110 - PubMed
    1. Nyenwe EA, Jerkins TW, Umpierrez GE, Kitabchi AE. Management of type 2 diabetes: evolving strategies for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Metabolism 2011;60:1–23 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ross SA, Tildesley HD, Ashkenas J. Barriers to effective insulin treatment: the persistence of poor glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin 2011;27(Suppl. 3):13–20 - PubMed
    1. Escalada J, Orozco-Beltran D, Morillas C, et al. . Attitudes towards insulin initiation in type 2 diabetes patients among healthcare providers: a survey research. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2016;122:46–53 - PubMed
    1. Karter AJ, Subramanian U, Saha C, et al. . Barriers to insulin initiation: the translating research into action for diabetes insulin starts project. Diabetes Care 2010;33:733–735 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms