Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease logoLink to Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease
. 2015 Nov;6(6):375–388. doi: 10.1177/2040622315608646

Insulin degludec and insulin aspart: novel insulins for the management of diabetes mellitus

Stephen Atkin 1,✉, Zeeshan Javed 2, Gregory Fulcher 3
PMCID: PMC4622316  PMID: 26568812

Abstract

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus require insulin as disease progresses to attain or maintain glycaemic targets. Basal insulin is commonly prescribed initially, alone or with one or more rapid-acting prandial insulin doses, to limit mealtime glucose excursions (a basal–bolus regimen). Both patients and physicians must balance the advantages of improved glycaemic control with the risk of hypoglycaemia and increasing regimen complexity. The rapid-acting insulin analogues (insulin aspart, insulin lispro and insulin glulisine) all have similar pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics and clinical efficacy/safety profiles. However, there are important differences in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of basal insulins (insulin glargine, insulin detemir and insulin degludec). Insulin degludec is an ultra-long-acting insulin analogue with a flat and stable glucose-lowering profile, a duration of action exceeding 30 h and less inter-patient variation in glucose-lowering effect than insulin glargine. In particular, the chemical properties of insulin degludec have allowed the development of a soluble co-formulation with prandial insulin aspart (insulin degludec/insulin aspart) that provides basal insulin coverage for at least 24 h with additional mealtime insulin for one or two meals depending on dose frequency. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies have shown that the distinct, long basal glucose-lowering action of insulin degludec and the prandial glucose-lowering effect of insulin aspart are maintained in the co-formulation. Evidence from pivotal phase III clinical trials indicates that insulin degludec/insulin aspart translate into sustained glycaemic control with less hypoglycaemia and the potential for a simpler insulin regimen with fewer daily injections.

Keywords: basal–bolus regimen, hypoglycaemia, insulin aspart, insulin degludec, insulin degludec/insulin aspart, type 2 diabetes mellitus

Introduction

International treatment guidelines strongly recommend that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who present with significant symptoms of hyperglycaemia and/or dramatically elevated plasma-glucose levels (in the range 16.7–19.4 mmol/l [300–350 mg/dl]) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in the range 10–12% at diagnosis initiate treatment on insulin, as such patients are unlikely to achieve glycaemic control with diet or oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) monotherapy alone [Inzucchi et al. 2012]. In particular, patients exhibiting catabolic features or ketonuria, which reflects profound insulin deficiency, must be started on insulin rather than on oral therapy [Inzucchi et al. 2012]. Some reluctance to initiate insulin therapy has been noted among physicians and patients because of perceived problems with regimen complexity, weight gain and the increased risk of hypoglycaemia relative to OADs [Brod et al. 2014; Leiter et al. 2005].

Therapy with modern insulins has also, more rarely, been associated with the development of antibodies to the insulin analogues, which could reduce treatment efficacy. It has also been hypothesized that insulin analogues may be associated with an increased risk of cancer, possibly mediated by increased insulin-like growth factor 1-receptor activation or by sustained signalling by the insulin receptor, but to date there is no firm proof for this hypothesis [FDA, 2012].

Insulin therapy is generally associated with a moderate increase in body weight due to its anabolic effects and the reduction in glycosuria that results from treatment [Heller, 2004]. Modern insulins are associated with lower weight gain than their predecessors, however [Zinman et al. 2012].

Both the implementation and intensification of insulin therapy need to be balanced against the increase in the risk of hypoglycaemia that is associated with more intensive glucose-lowering treatment regimens [Leiter et al. 2005]. Non-severe, patient-managed hypoglycaemic events are commonly reported by patients with T2DM on insulin [Leiter et al. 2005]. Such events affect daily activities such as exercise, work and sleep with resulting psychological and emotional impact on the lives of both the patient and their family [Brod et al. 2012, 2013]. In addition, patients face the risk of hospitalization due to severe hypoglycaemia [Budnitz et al. 2011]. The occurrence of both severe and non-severe hypoglycaemia and the attendant fear of future such events can affect the clinical success of diabetes treatment and has been cited by physicians as a reason for selecting less ambitious treatment targets [Peyrot et al. 2012], and by patients, as a reason for reducing their insulin dose [Leiter et al. 2005]. Beyond these effects, hypoglycaemia increases both the direct and indirect treatment costs of diabetes management for healthcare systems [Lundkvist et al. 2005]. Aside from the potential for hypoglycaemia, basal–bolus insulin regimens are perceived as complex and challenging, with up to one-third of patients reporting regular nonadherence with their regimen [Peyrot et al. 2012]. While many patients with T2DM may start treatment on basal insulin, most patients will require additional prandial insulin to limit mealtime glycaemic excursions [Inzucchi et al. 2012]. Prandial glycaemic insulin coverage has been shown to play an increasingly important role in attaining tight overall glycaemic control in patients whose HbA1c is close to target [Monnier et al. 2003], especially for patients who have achieved target fasting blood-glucose levels but whose HbA1c levels remain above target despite 3–6 months of basal-insulin treatment [Inzucchi et al. 2012]. When prandial insulin is required, this can either be through the addition of mealtime short-acting insulin or by switching to an analogue premixed insulin formulation, which combines a rapid-acting insulin analogue and a protaminated, intermediate-acting version of the same insulin in a single injection [Inzucchi et al. 2012]. Although premixed insulins offer a simple injection regimen, and provide comparable glycaemic control to basal–bolus insulin regimens, they are relatively inflexible in terms of titration and dose timing, and are associated with higher rates of hypoglycaemia compared with basal-insulin regimens [Vaag et al. 2012; Liebl et al. 2012].

In order to reduce the burden of insulin regimens, research efforts in recent years have focused on modifying the properties of insulin to simplify therapeutic regimens, reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia, improve adherence with treatment and better match the physiological release of endogenous insulin [Tibaldi, 2014]. This article reviews the current evidence for the basal insulin degludec (IDeg) and the prandial insulin aspart (IAsp) in the context of other currently available insulin treatments, and how as a novel co-formulation (IDegAsp) they may lead to improvements in adherence and safety for patients with T2DM.

IDeg

Structure/pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics

To date, three basal insulin analogues have been approved for clinical use, i.e. insulin glargine (IGlar), insulin detemir (IDet) and IDeg, each of which has a different mode of protraction to extend the glucose-lowering potential of the insulin [Tibaldi, 2014].

IGlar is soluble at pH 4.0; when injected, the neutral pH of the subcutaneous environment causes IGlar to microprecipitate, thereby slowing its absorption into the circulation and prolonging the duration of action [Sanofi-Aventis, 2010]. By contrast, IDet forms weakly associated dihexamers in solution [Tibaldi, 2014], and upon subcutaneous injection IDet strongly self-associates, slowing absorption into the circulation [Novo Nordisk, 2009]. Furthermore, IDet binds to plasma albumin, which also slows dissemination to peripheral tissues [Novo Nordisk, 2009]. In IDeg, the addition of a fatty-diacid side chain (Figure 1a) to human insulin favours the formation of an insulin analogue that forms stable dihexamers while in solution at neutral pH (7.4) in the presence of phenol (Figure 1b) [Jonassen et al. 2012]. When injected subcutaneously these dihexamers assemble into long multihexamers (Figure 1c), and the relatively large molecular weight of these multihexamers slows their absorption, creating a subcutaneous depot of IDeg, from which monomers slowly disassociate into the circulation (Figure 1c) [Jonassen et al. 2012; Kurtzhals et al. 2011].

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Schematic representations of (a) insulin degludec composition, (b) formation into dihexamers in solution, and (c) behaviour in the subcutaneous environment.

(Adapted from Jonassen et al. [2012]).

The resultant pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of these three basal insulins have been investigated using blood sampling and euglycaemic-clamp experiments. These properties of IGlar, IDet and IDeg are summarized in Table 1. Studies have demonstrated that, due to its mode of protraction, IDeg has an ultra-long half-life, a duration of action that exceeds 42 h [Heise et al. 2012a], and reduced within-patient variability compared with IGlar [Heise et al. 2012b].

Table 1.

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of (a) basal and basal–bolus co-formulation; (b) currently available rapid-acting insulins in patients with type 2 diabetes.

(a) Insulin analogue Onset of action/duration of action Glucose-lowering profile Mean t½ Predictability of glucose-lowering effect
Basal Glargine 1.5 ± 0.3 h/20.5 (± 3.7) h Flatter activity profile than NPH insulin, slight increases/decreases in glucose-lowering effect 12.5 h Slightly less within-patient variation in day-to-day glucose-lowering effect than NPH insulin
Detemir 30–60 min/ranges from 7.6 h to > 24 h Flatter activity profile than NPH insulin, slight increases/decreases in glucose-lowering effect 6–8 h Lower within-patient variation in day-to-day glucose-lowering effect than glargine
Degludec 30–90 min/duration of action > 42 h Flat and stable beyond the 24 h dose interval 25.1 h Four-fold lower within-patient variation in day-to-day glucose-lowering effect than glargine
Basal and bolus co-formulation Degludec/aspart > 30 h/15 min Peak at ~80 min due to insulin aspart component, separate, stable basal action due to IDeg lasting longer than 24 h NA Distinct basal and prandial insulin effects maintained; IDeg exposure evenly distributed over 24-h dosing interval
(b) Insulin analogue Onset of action/duration of action Time to maximum plasma concentration (Tmax) Mean maximum prandial glucose excursions (mmol/l)
Rapid acting (prandial) Lispro < 15 min/< 5 h ~68 min 9.9 (versus 11.9 for human insulin)
Glulisine < 15 min/2–4 h 55 min 10.0 (versus 11.6)
Aspart < 15 min/3–5 h 40 min 13.5 (versus 16.4)
Open in a new tab

NPH, neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin.

Efficacy and safety

Table 2 summarizes the glycaemic efficacy and hypoglycaemia risk for each of the three currently available basal insulins when used as part of a basal–bolus regimen for patients with T2DM. Studies have shown that, as part of basal–bolus therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) [Russell-Jones et al. 2004] or T2DM [Haak et al. 2005], IDet provides the same level of glycaemic control as neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH, human insulin), with a similar overall risk of hypoglycaemia but significantly less within-patient variability in blood-glucose levels. When compared in treat-to-target trials in patients with T2DM, IGlar and IDet demonstrated similar levels of glycaemic control and similar risk of hypoglycaemia, but weight gain was lower with IDet [Hollander et al. 2008; Raskin et al. 2009].

Table 2.

Key phase III efficacy and safety data from treat-to-target trials of IAsp, IGlar, IDet, IDeg and IDegAsp co-formulation in basal–bolus therapy for patients with T2DM.

Study (population) Duration Study design Efficacy
 Hypoglycaemia
ETD – change in HbA1c (%) ETD – FPG (mmol/l) Total Nocturnal
IAsp
Bretzel et al. 2004 (Insulin experienced) 12 weeks IAsp versus HI versus MIX Mean change from baseline: −0.91 (95% CI −0.21, 0.57; p = 0.025) IAsp; −0.73 (−0.17, 0.69; p = 0.092) HI, 0.65 (−0.33, 0.48; p = 0.006)* NR Hypoglycaemic events per month 0.40 IAsp, 0.56 HI, 0.19 MIX (IAsp–HI, p = 0.827; IAsp–MIX, p = 0.122; HI–MIX, p = 0.090) NR
IGlar
Hollander et al. 2008 (OADs or insulin) 52 weeks IGlar versus IDet −0.17% (95% CI −0.07, 0.40); no p value reported; noninferiority of IDet confirmed 0.36 (95% CI −0.26, 0.99) No difference in estimated risk of confirmed hypoglycaemia between groups No difference in relative risk with IGlar or IDet (OD or BID)
Raskin et al. 2009 ~80% (Insulin experienced) 26 weeks IGlar versus IDet 0.207%; p = 0.207; noninferiority confirmed −4.54 (IDet–IGlar); p = 0.397 Overall hypoglycaemia rate similar (p = 0.653) 42.7% IGlar, 46.1% in IDet (p = 0.299)
IDet
Haak et al. 2005 (Insulin experienced) 26 weeks IDet versus NPH insulin 0.16 (95% CI 0.003, 0.312); noninferiority of IDet confirmed 0.11 (95% CI −0.400; 0.630) (p = 0.66) Relative risk (IDet/NPH) 0.84 (p = 0.48) Relative risk (IDet/NPH) 1.02 (p = 0.95)
IDeg
Garber et al. 2012 (Insulin experienced) 52 weeks IDeg OD versus IGlar OD 0.08 (95% CI −0.05, 0.21); noninferiority of IDeg OD confirmed −0.29 (95% CI −0.65, 0.06; p = 0.1075) Rates of overall hypoglycaemia lower with IDeg (11.1 versus 13.6 episodes per patient year of exposure (p = 0.0359) Lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia with IDeg (1.4 versus 1.8 episodes of nocturnal hypoglycaemia per patient year of exposure (p = 0.0399)
Zinman et al. 2012 (Insulin naïve) 52 weeks IDeg OD versus IGlar OD 0.09% (95% CI −0.04, 0.22); noninferiority of IDeg OD confirmed −0.43 (95% CI −0.74, −0.13; p = 0.005) No significant difference (p = 0.106) 36% lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia with IDeg (p = 0.038)
Meneghini et al. 2013 (Insulin naïve or insulin experienced) 26 weeks IDeg OD (primary IDeg regimen was IDeg OD Flex) versus IGlar OD 0.04 (95% CI −0.12, 0.20) versus IDeg OD Flex confirming noninferiority of IDeg OD Flex −0.42 (95% CI −0.82, −0.02) versus IDeg Flex OD; p = 0.04 No significant difference (rate ratio IDeg OD Flex/IGlar 1.03; p = NS) No significant difference (rate ratio IDeg OD Flex/IGlar 0.77; p = NS)
IDegAsp
Onishi et al. 2013 (Insulin naïve) 26 weeks IDegAsp OD versus IGlar OD −0.28 (95% CI −0.46, −0.10); p < 0.01 confirming superiority of IDeg OD versus IGlar OD 0.15 (95% CI −0.29, 0.60); p = NS 27% lower rate versus IGlar (p = NS) 25% lower rate versus IGlar (p = NS)
Franek et al. 2014 (Insulin naïve) 26 weeks IDegAsp BID versus BIAsp 30 BID (both treatment arms + metformin) 0.02 (95% CI −0.12, 0.17) noninferiority to BIAsp 30 −1.0 (95% CI −1.42, −0.59); p < 0.001 superior to BIAsp 30 Significant 54% lower rates of overall confirmed hypoglycaemia (p < 0.001) Significant 75% lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia(p < 0.001)
Fulcher et al. 2014 (Insulin experienced) 26 weeks IDegAsp BID versus BIAsp 30 BID −0.03 (95% CI −0.18, 0.13) noninferior to BIAsp 30 −1.14 (95% CI −1.53, −0.76) superior to BIAsp 30 (p < 0.001) Significant 32% reduction in overall confirmed hypoglycaemia (p = 0.0049) Significant 73% lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia(p < 0.0001)
Cooper et al. 2014 (Insulin experienced) 26 weeks IDegAsp BID versus IDeg OD + mealtime IAsp (basal plus bolus) 0.18 (95% CI −0.04, 0.41) noninferiority not confirmed NR Fewer overall confirmed hypoglycaemia episodes with IDegAsp (11.6 versus 13.6 events per patient year of exposure (p = NS) Fewer nocturnal hypoglycaemia episodes with IDegAsp (1.23 versus 1.55 events per patient year of exposure (p = NS)
Kaneko et al. 2015 (Insulin experienced + metformin) 26 weeks IDegAsp BID versus BIAsp 30 BID 0.05 (95% CI −0.10, 0.20) noninferiority to BIAsp 30 −1.06 (95% CI −1.43, −0.70; p < 0.001) Overall rate of confirmed hypoglycaemia similar (p = NS) Nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate similar (p = NS)
Open in a new tab
*

p values all versus HI.

BIAsp 30, biphasic IAsp 30; BID, twice daily; CI, confidence interval; ETD, estimated treatment difference; Flex, flexible dose timing; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; HI, human soluble insulin; IAsp, insulin aspart; IDeg, insulin degludec; IDegAsp, insulin degludec/insulin aspart co-formulation; IDet, insulin detemir; IGlar, insulin glargine; MIX, human premix insulin; NPH, neutral protamine Hagedorn; NS, not significant; NR, not reported; OD, once daily.

The clinical efficacy and safety of IDeg recently has been compared with IGlar as part of the BEGIN® phase III clinical programme, which involved more than 5000 patients with T1DM or T2DM. In patients with T2DM, IDeg was associated with comparable glucose-lowering efficacy to IGlar (as expected due to the treat-to-target nature of the trials) [Zinman et al. 2012; Garber et al. 2012]. In insulin-naïve T2DM patients, similar rates of overall confirmed hypoglycaemia and lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia were reported compared with IGlar when both insulin agents were administered once daily [Zinman et al. 2012]. In insulin-experienced T2DM patients, IDeg was associated with lower overall rates of hypoglycaemia and lower nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates than IGlar [Garber et al. 2012].

A preplanned meta-analysis of seven phase III trials in the BEGIN programme (five in T2DM, two in T1DM) reported significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia with IDeg compared with IGlar in the overall pooled population (T1DM and T2DM), particularly after 16 weeks of treatment when the insulin dose had been stabilized [Ratner et al. 2013]. Furthermore, a post-hoc meta-analysis of endpoints in the phase III clinical trials determined that reductions in fasting plasma glucose were significantly greater with IDeg compared with IGlar in patients with T1DM on basal–bolus regimens, and previously insulin-naïve patients with T2DM receiving basal insulin in addition to OADs (Figure 2) [Vora et al. 2014].

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Glucose-lowering effect of insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin glargine (IGlar) observed in euglycaemic-clamp studies.

In comparisons of IDeg with IGlar in patients with T1DM and T2DM as part of the BEGIN programme, there were no differences in weight gain in any of the groups [Heller et al. 2012; Zinman et al. 2012]. Similarly, equal proportions (1% in both groups) of patients with T2DM treated with either IDeg or IGlar developed malignant neoplasms, and none of these were considered to be treatment related by investigators [Zinman et al. 2012].

In a pooled analysis of six phase III studies comparing IDeg and insulin IGlar in patients with T1DM and T2DM, the immunogenic responses to long-term treatment with the two preparations were similar and low, with no clinically relevant impact on HbA1c or total daily insulin dose [Vora et al. 2012].

In summary, the mode of protraction of IDeg and associated ultra-long pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic basal insulin properties are associated with effective glycaemic control and clinically meaningful differences in fasting blood-glucose levels and a lower risk of adverse events, including hypoglycaemia and, particularly, nocturnal hypoglycaemia [Garber et al. 2012; Zinman et al. 2012; Ratner et al. 2013; Vora et al. 2014].

IAsp

Structure/pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics

Rapid-acting insulin analogues have been developed using amino-acid substitutions of human insulin to reduce the propensity for insulin to aggregate into dimers and hexamers. Thus, insulin analogues that promote the formation of monomers provide faster absorption of insulin into the bloodstream. Three rapid-acting insulin analogues are currently available, i.e. IAsp, insulin lispro and insulin glulisine, all of which have been developed based on this principle. Insulin lispro utilizes a proline to lysine substitution at B28 and a lysine to proline substitution at B29 (Figure 3a), insulin glulisine has an asparagine to lysine substitution at B3 and a lysine to glutamic acid substitution at B29 (Figure 3b) and IAsp has a single proline to aspartic acid switch at position B28 (Figure 3c). [Tibaldi, 2014].

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Amino-acid sequence changes used in the rapid-acting insulin analogues (a) insulin lispro, (b) insulin glulisine and (c) IAsp.

(Adapted with permission from Tibaldi [2014]).

As a result of these modifications, each of these insulin analogues rapidly achieves maximum plasma concentration (and consequently glucose-lowering effect) (Figure 4). IAsp and insulin glulisine reach maximum plasma concentrations at approximately 40 min and 55 min, respectively, after subcutaneous injection (Figure 4c for IAsp) [Tibaldi, 2014], and insulin lispro reaches peak plasma concentration at approximately 68 min after injection [Tibaldi, 2014]. These pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics allow patients who require prandial insulin to inject closer to mealtime, instead of the 30 min interval recommended for human insulin [Tibaldi, 2014]. All three rapid-acting insulin analogues have similar published pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles (Table 1) [Home, 2012].

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Glucose-lowering effect of (a) IDeg and (b) IDegAsp co-formulation observed in euglycaemic-clamp studies as well as (c) IAsp in healthy adult subjects.

Efficacy and safety

Rapid-acting insulins represent important therapeutic options for patients who are unable to achieve glycaemic targets on regimens with basal insulin alone [Inzucchi et al. 2012]. IAsp and the other rapid-acting insulin analogues offer equivalent or improved reductions in HbA1c and greater reductions in postprandial blood-glucose levels when compared with human insulin, as shown in several clinical trials [Bretzel et al. 2004; Dailey et al. 2004; Ross et al. 2001]. In clinical trials, the overall hypoglycaemia rates reported with the different rapid-acting insulin analogues are also similar to, or lower than, those associated with short-acting human insulin [Bretzel et al. 2004; Dailey et al. 2004; Ross et al. 2001].

Basal and rapid-acting insulin co-formulation

The goal of insulin management for patients with both T1DM and T2DM is to provide physiological insulin replacement that closely mimics the endogenous secretion of insulin, providing peak insulin coverage after main meals with a rapid-acting insulin combined with sustained 24-h basal insulin coverage from a basal insulin [Abrahamson, 2010]. Although premixed insulins and basal–bolus insulin regimens have provided additional treatment options for patients requiring better glycaemic control, both approaches have limitations. These include the burden of multiple injections, complex titration schedules associated with basal–bolus regimens, and incomplete 24-h basal coverage with premixed insulins. Therefore, there is a clinical need for a combination insulin formulation that can provide sustained and stable basal insulin coverage with an effective prandial insulin bolus from a single injection [Abrahamson, 2010].

Premixed insulin formulations consist of intermediate-acting insulin combined with prandial insulin coverage for a main meal within a single injection. Protamination of the short-acting insulin analogue delays its absorption, resulting in an intermediate-acting insulin that can be combined with the short-acting form of the same insulin analogue resulting in a biphasic insulin preparation, e.g. biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) [Garber, 2009; Tibaldi, 2014]. Premixed insulins offer equivalent glycaemic control to basal–bolus insulin regimens but may increase the overall risk of confirmed hypoglycaemia and tend to be associated with greater weight gain compared with basal insulin regimens [Ilag et al. 2007]. In addition, premixed insulins are relatively inflexible in dose timing and the dose of the basal and prandial components cannot be titrated separately, making dosing complicated [Inzucchi et al. 2012]. Also a ‘shoulder’ effect occurs in the hours following mealtime due to interaction between the protaminated and nonprotaminated insulins that prolongs the action of the short-acting prandial component, potentially increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia [Cengiz et al. 2012].

Until now these compromises have been necessary because the available basal insulins could not be co-formulated with rapid-acting insulin. In the case of IDet, mixing with rapid-acting insulin analogues has been shown to result in the formation of mixed hexamers that adversely affects the glucose-lowering efficacy of the co-formulation [Cengiz et al. 2012]. IGlar is soluble in acidic solution at pH 4.0 and forms slowly dissolving microprecipitates on subcutaneous injection [Sanofi-Aventis, 2010], preventing co-formulation with rapid-acting insulins that are soluble at pH 7.4. However, in the presence of zinc and phenol, the basal insulin analogue IDeg forms stable dihexamers in solution at neutral pH, which do not interact with IAsp, therefore allowing for the first time the co-formulation of a 24-h basal insulin with a rapid-acting insulin analogue in the form of IDegAsp [Novo Nordisk, 2013].

IDegAsp: a novel insulin co-formulation

IDegAsp is a novel co-formulation of basal IDeg and rapid-acting IAsp (ratio 70% IDeg: / 30% IAsp) available as a single subcutaneous injection [Novo Nordisk, 2013]. In solution, IDeg forms soluble dihexamers at neutral pH [Jonassen et al. 2012], as described previously (Figure 1), whereas IAsp exists as distinct hexamers [Heise et al. 2014]. IDeg and IAsp remain separate entities in solution and size exclusion chromatography studies have shown that there is no evidence of physical or chemical interaction between the two insulins in co-formulation [Havelund, 2013]. Once injected into the subcutaneous environment, IDeg dihexamers immediately self-associate forming stable multihexamers [Kurtzhals et al. 2011], from which IDeg monomers slowly dissociate, providing stable basal insulin coverage (Figure 5) [Heise et al. 2014]. In contrast, the rapid-acting IAsp component consists of hexamers that quickly dissociate into rapidly absorbed insulin monomers, giving short-acting insulin coverage to control postprandial increases in blood glucose [Heinemann et al. 1993].

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Open in a new tab

Distinct modes of protraction of the IDegAsp co-formulation components upon injection.

(Adapted from Heise et al. [2014]).

Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of IDegAsp

Pharmacodynamic studies have demonstrated that the glucose-lowering effect of once-daily IDegAsp is characterized by a distinct peak action (from IAsp), and a separate basal action that lasts for more than 30 h, at steady state (Figure 3c) [Heise et al. 2014]. Furthermore, at steady state IDegAsp has been shown to exhibit a dose-proportional glucose-lowering effect [Nosek et al. 2013]. Pharmacodynamic modelling of a twice-daily IDegAsp regimen has indicated that twice-daily dosing of IDegAsp could provide 24-h basal coverage and prandial control for two main meals [Heise et al. 2014]. Taken together, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of IDegAsp [Table 1] indicate that IDegAsp may offer the advantages of true 24-h basal coverage with effective prandial glycaemic control for one or two meals achieved with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and with fewer injections than previously available regimens.

Efficacy and safety of IDegAsp

Phase II and phase III studies have demonstrated comparable glycaemic efficacy and similar hypoglycaemia rates for IDegAsp compared with standard basal–bolus treatment (IDet plus mealtime IAsp) in T1DM [Hirsch et al. 2012], and compared with IGlar in insulin-naïve T2DM [Heise et al. 2011]. Similarly, a randomized open treat-to-target study, also in insulin-naïve patients with T2DM, showed that, compared with BIAsp 30, IDegAsp provided comparable overall glycaemic control with a significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia [Niskanen et al. 2012]. In a 26-week, phase III, open-label, treat-to-target trial in a Japanese population of insulin-naïve T2DM subjects (n = 296), once-daily IDegAsp was superior in lowering mean HbA1c (estimated treatment difference [ETD] −0.28%; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.46, −0.10; p < 0.01), and was associated with numerically lower overall-confirmed (27%) and nocturnal-confirmed hypoglycaemic events (25%) compared with IGlar (Table 2) [Onishi et al. 2013].

While this evidence is promising, patients who require additional mealtime glycaemic control require 1–3 injections of short-acting insulin per day (as is often the case with premixed insulins, which are dosed two or three times daily) [Inzucchi et al. 2012]. Clinical studies have therefore also evaluated the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp taken twice daily (Table 2). A 26-week, treat-to-target, open-label, phase III trial involving 394 insulin-naïve patients with T2DM reported that twice-daily IDegAsp provided effective reduction in HbA1c comparable with BIAsp 30, with superior reductions in FPG levels. Rates of confirmed hypoglycaemia were 54% lower with IDegAsp than BIAsp 30 (p < 0.001) and nocturnal-confirmed hypoglycaemia rates were 75% lower compared with BIAsp 30 (p < 0.001) [Franek et al. 2014].

In addition, two large phase III trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of twice-daily IDegAsp in insulin-experienced patients. In a 26-week, multinational, treat-to-target trial of 447 patients randomized to either IDegAsp or BIAsp 30 both dosed twice daily, IDegAsp was noninferior in reducing HbA1c and superior in lowering FPG levels (ETD −1.14 mmol/l; 95% CI −1.53, −0.76; p < 0.001), with a significantly lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared with BIAsp 30 [Fulcher et al. 2014]. The second trial, with a similar treat-to-target design and also of 26-week duration, involved 424 insulin-experienced patients with T2DM from five countries across South East Asia. This study reported noninferiority between the treatment groups in HbA1c lowering and a significantly lower FPG level with twice-daily IDegAsp compared with BIAsp 30; there were no statistically significant differences in hypoglycaemia between treatment groups [Kaneko et al. 2015].

Subsequent meta-analysis of these two phase III trials have demonstrated that, whilst the improvements in HbA1c were similar in both treatment arms, overall rates of confirmed and severe hypoglycaemia were numerically lower, and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were significantly lower, with twice-daily IDegAsp compared with BIAsp 30 [Vaag et al. 2013]. Moreover, the differences between treatments became more pronounced when the analysis considered the ‘maintenance period’ after 16 weeks, by which time the insulin dose is expected to have stabilized, following initial dose titration [Vaag et al. 2013]. A further meta-analysis of these trials demonstrated that when patients who achieved HbA1c lower than 7% in the IDegAsp and BIAsp 30 arms were compared, both nocturnal- and overall-confirmed hypoglycaemia rates were significantly lower in the IDegAsp arm (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0047, respectively) [Vaag et al. 2014]. Thus, even in patients with more ambitious glycaemic targets, the use of IDegAsp was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia than BIAsp 30.

More recently, a 26-week, phase III trial in T2DM patients that compared twice-daily IDegAsp with once-daily IDeg plus additional mealtime IAsp in a basal–bolus regimen reported reductions in HbA1c in both arms with no significant difference between treatments (ETD 0.18%; 95% CI −0.04, 0.41; p = NS), although the noninferiority endpoint was not met [Cooper et al. 2014]. However, overall-confirmed and nocturnal-confirmed hypoglycaemia rates were 19% and 20% lower, respectively, in the IDegAsp arm compared with the basal–bolus arm. Twice-daily IDegAsp was also associated with lower total insulin doses and less weight gain than the basal–bolus regimen, suggesting the potential for an effective, convenient regimen for patients who require intensification of insulin therapy but find it difficult to adhere to the more complex regimens.

Conclusion

As the development of insulin analogues continues, better options for basal, prandial and basal–bolus regimens are emerging for patients with T2DM who require insulin therapy. Novel insulin formulations provide better balances between glycaemic control, the risk of hypoglycaemia and convenience, allowing more dose flexibility and offering the potential for simpler regimens for patients. The development of the ultra-long-acting basal insulin, IDeg, has made possible the first co-formulation of basal and rapid-acting insulins, in which the basal and prandial glucose-lowering effects of the individual insulin components remain distinct. Evidence from the IDegAsp phase III clinical trial programme suggests that the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of IDeg in IDegAsp translate into effective glycaemic control with greater reductions in FPG levels and less hypoglycaemia compared with existing treatment options in insulin-naïve or insulin-experienced patients. IDegAsp therefore appears to offer a promising treatment option for patients who may benefit from the simpler regimen of one injection given once or twice daily.

Acknowledgments

SA contributed to the design, writing and review of the manuscript. ZJ contributed to the writing of the manuscript. GF assisted in the preparation of the manuscript, including content addition, review of layout, editing and involvement in the original study design and publication of the included studies.

Footnotes

Funding: Medical writing assistance was provided by apothecom scopemedical, London, UK, funded by Novo Nordisk.

Conflict of interest statement: SA has served on speakers’ bureau for Novo Nordisk. ZJ has no conflicts to disclose. GF has served on advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Sanofi-Aventis.

Contributor Information

Stephen Atkin, Weill Cornell Medical College Qatar, Education City, PO Box 24144, Doha, Qatar.

Zeeshan Javed, The Michael White Centre for Diabetes and Endocrinology, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, UK.

Gregory Fulcher, Department of Endocrinology, University of Sydney, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

References

  1. Abrahamson M. (2010) Basal insulins: pharmacological properties and patient perspectives. Prim Care Diabetes 4(Suppl. 1): S19–S23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bretzel R., Arnolds S., Medding J., Linn T. (2004) A direct efficacy and safety comparison of insulin aspart, human soluble insulin, and human premix insulin (70/30) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 27: 1023–1027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brod M., Alolga S., Meneghini L. (2014) Barriers to initiating insulin in type 2 diabetes patients: development of a new patient education tool to address myths, misconceptions and clinical realities. Patient 7: 437–450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brod M., Pohlman B., Wolden M., Christensen T. (2013) Non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemic events: experience and impacts on patient functioning and well-being. Qual Life Res 22: 997–1004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brod M., Rana A., Barnett A. (2012) Impact of self-treated hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: a multinational survey in patients and physicians. Curr Med Res Opin 28: 1947–1958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Budnitz D., Lovegrove M., Shehab N., Richards C. (2011) Emergency hospitalizations for adverse drug events in older Americans. N Engl J Med 365: 2002–2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cengiz E., Swan K., Tamborlane W., Sherr J., Martin M., Weinzimer S. (2012) The alteration of aspart insulin pharmacodynamics when mixed with detemir insulin. Diabetes Care 35: 690–692. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cooper J., Pieber T., Cariou B., Endahl L., Zacho J., Rodbard H. (2014) Treatment intensification with IDegAsp BID vs IDeg OD plus IAsp in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Diabetologia 57: S69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dailey G., Rosenstock J., Moses R., Ways K. (2004) Insulin glulisine provides improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 27: 2363–2368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. FDA. (2012) Briefing Document. NDA 203313 and NDA 203314 Insulin Degludec and Insulin Degludec/Aspart. Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration; http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/EndocrinologicandMetabolicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM327015.pdf; accessed July 2015. [Google Scholar]
  11. Franek E., Haluzík M., Canecki Varžić S., Sargin M., Macura S., Zacho J., et al. (2014) IDegAsp provides superior FPG control and reduced hypoglycaemia vs BIAsp 30 in insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes: a randomised phase 3 trial. Diabetologia 57: S380. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fulcher G., Christiansen J., Bantwal G., Polaszewska-Muszynska M., Mersebach H., Andersen T., et al. (2014) Comparison of insulin degludec/insulin aspart and biphasic insulin aspart 30 in uncontrolled, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a phase 3a, randomized, treat-to-target trial. Diabetes Care 37: 2084–2090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Garber A. (2009) Insulin intensification strategies in type 2 diabetes: when one injection is no longer sufficient. Diabetes Obes Metab 11: 14–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Garber A., King A., Del P., Sreenan S., Balci M., Munoz-Torres M., et al. (2012) Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes (BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 2): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial. Lancet 379: 1498–1507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Haak T., Tiengo A., Draeger E., Suntum M., Waldhäusl W. (2005) Lower within-subject variability of fasting blood glucose and reduced weight gain with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 7: 56–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Havelund S. (2013) Insulin Degludec (IDeg) and Insulin Aspart (IAsp) can be Coformulated such that the Formation of IDeg Multi-hexamers and IAsp Monomers is Retained Upon Subcutaneous Injection. Poster presented at the American Diabetes Association, 21–25 June 2013, Chicago, USA. [Google Scholar]
  17. Heinemann L., Heise T., Jorgensen L., Starke A. (1993) Action profile of the rapid acting insulin analogue: human insulin B28Asp. Diabet Med 10: 535–539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Heise T., Nosek L., Bøttcher S., Hastrup H., Haahr H. (2012a) Ultra-long-acting insulin degludec has a flat and stable glucose-lowering effect in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 14: 944–950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Heise T., Hermanski L., Nosek L., Feldman A., Rasmussen S., Haahr H. (2012b) Insulin degludec: four times lower pharmacodynamic variability than insulin glargine under steady-state conditions in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 14: 859–864. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Heise T., Nosek L., Roepstorff C., Chenji S., Klein O., Haahr H. (2014) Distinct prandial and basal glucose-lowering effects of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) at steady state in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Ther 5: 255–265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Heise T., Tack C., Cuddihy R., Davidson J., Gouet D., Liebl A., et al. (2011) A new-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulin with a bolus boost compared with insulin glargine in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial. Diabetes Care 34: 669–674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Heller S. (2004) Weight gain during insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 65(Suppl. 1): S23–S27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Heller S., Buse J., Fisher M., Garg S., Marre M., Merker L., et al. (2012) Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes (BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 1): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial. Lancet 379: 1489–1497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hirsch I., Bode B., Courreges J., Dykiel P., Franek E., Hermansen K., et al. (2012) Insulin degludec/insulin aspart administered once daily at any meal, with insulin aspart at other meals versus a standard basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 1 diabetes: a 26-week, phase 3, randomized, open-label, treat-to-target trial. Diabetes Care 35: 2174–2181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hollander P., Cooper J., Bregnhøj J., Pedersen C. (2008) A 52-week, multinational, open-label, parallel-group, noninferiority, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine in a basal-bolus regimen with mealtime insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes. Clin Ther 30: 1976–1987. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Home P. (2012) The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rapid-acting insulin analogues and their clinical consequences. Diabetes Obes Metab 14: 780–788. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ilag L., Kerr L., Malone J., Tan M. (2007) Prandial premixed insulin analogue regimens versus basal insulin analogue regimens in the management of type 2 diabetes: an evidence-based comparison. Clin Ther 29: 1254–1270. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Inzucchi S., Bergenstal R., Buse J., Diamant M., Ferrannini E., Nauck M., et al. (2012) Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care 35: 1364–1379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Jonassen I., Havelund S., Hoeg-Jensen T., Steensgaard D., Wahlund P., Ribel U. (2012) Design of the novel protraction mechanism of insulin degludec, an ultra-long-acting basal insulin. Pharm Res 29: 2104–2114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kaneko S., Chow F., Choi D., Taneda S., Hirao K., Park Y., et al. (2015) Insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal or pre-/self-mixed insulin: a 26-week, randomised, treat-to-target trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 107: 139–147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kurtzhals P., Heise T., Strauss H., Bøttcher S., Granhall C., Haahr H., et al. (2011) Multi-hexamer formation is the underlying basis for the ultra-long glucose-lowering effect of insulin degludec. Diabetologia 54: S426. [Google Scholar]
  32. Leiter L., Yale J., Chiasson J., Harris S., Kleinstiver P., Sauriol L. (2005) Assessment of the impact of fear of hypoglycemic episodes on glycemic and hypoglycemia management. Can J Diabetes 29: 186–192. [Google Scholar]
  33. Liebl A., Prusty V., Valensi P., Kawamori R., Christiansen J., Palmer A., et al. (2012) Ten years of experience with biphasic insulin aspart 30: from drug development to the latest clinical findings. Drugs 72: 1495–1520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lundkvist J., Berne C., Bolinder B., Jönsson L. (2005) The economic and quality of life impact of hypoglycemia. Eur J Health Econ 6: 197–202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Meneghini L., Atkin S., Gough S., Raz I., Blonde L., Shestakova M., et al. (2013) The efficacy and safety of insulin degludec given in variable once-daily dosing intervals compared with insulin glargine and insulin degludec dosed at the same time daily: a 26-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 36: 858–864. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Monnier L., Lapinski H., Colette C. (2003) Contributions of fasting and postprandial plasma glucose increments to the overall diurnal hyperglycemia of type 2 diabetic patients: variations with increasing levels of HbA1c. Diabetes Care 26: 881–885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Niskanen L., Leiter L., Franek E., Weng J., Damci T., Muñoz-Torres M., et al. (2012) Comparison of a soluble co-formulation of insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes: a randomised trial. Eur J Endocrinol 167: 287–294. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Nosek L., Heise T., Klein O., Coester H., Roepstorff C., Svendsen A., et al. (2013) Insulin Degludec/insulin Aspart Produces a Dose-proportional Glucose-lowering Effect in Subjects with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. Poster presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, 23–27 September 2013, Barcelona, Spain. [Google Scholar]
  39. Novo Nordisk (2009) Levemir (Insulin Detemir) Summary of Product Characteristics EPAR. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/ (accessed September 2015).
  40. Novo Nordisk (2013) Ryzodeg (70% Insulin Degludec/30% Insulin Aspart) Summary of Product Characteristics EPAR. Available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/ (accessed September 2015).
  41. Onishi Y., Ono Y., Rabøl R., Endahl L., Nakamura S. (2013) Superior glycaemic control with once-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus insulin glargine in Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral drugs: a randomized, controlled phase 3 trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 15: 826–832. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Peyrot M., Barnett A., Meneghini L., Schumm-Draeger P. (2012) Insulin adherence behaviours and barriers in the multinational Global Attitudes of Patients and Physicians in Insulin Therapy study. Diabet Med 29: 682–689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Raskin P., Gylvin T., Weng W., Chaykin L. (2009) Comparison of insulin detemir and insulin glargine using a basal-bolus regimen in a randomized, controlled clinical study in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 25: 542–548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Ratner R., Gough S., Mathieu C., Del Prato S., Bode B., Mersebach H., et al. (2013) Hypoglycaemia risk with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in type 2 and type 1 diabetes: a pre-planned meta-analysis of phase 3 trials. Diabetes Obes Metab 15: 175–184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Ross S., Zinman B., Campos R., Strack T.; Canadian Lispro Study Group. (2001) A comparative study of insulin lispro and human regular insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and secondary failure of oral hypoglycemic agents. Clin Invest Med 24: 292–298. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Russell-Jones D., Simpson R., Hylleberg B., Draeger E., Bolinder J. (2004) Effects of QD insulin detemir or neutral protamine Hagedorn on blood glucose control in patients with type I diabetes mellitus using a basal-bolus regimen. Clin Ther 26: 724–736. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sanofi-Aventis (2010) Lantus (Insulin Glargine) Summary of Product Characteristics EPAR. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/ (accessed September 2015).
  48. Tibaldi J. (2014) Evolution of insulin: from human to analog. Am J Med 127: S25–S38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Vaag A., Christiansen J., Niskanen L., Johansen T., Rasmussen S., Fulcher G. (2014) IDegAsp lowers the rate of hypoglycaemia vs biphasic insulin aspart 30 in adults with type 2 diabetes achieving glycaemic target (HbA1c <70%): a meta-analysis. Diabetologia 57: S400. [Google Scholar]
  50. Vaag A., Christiansen J., Niskanen L., Rasmussen S., Johansen T., Fulcher G. (2013) Lower rates of overall, nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia during maintenance treatment with IDegAsp vs biphasic insulin aspart 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Diabetologia 56: S83. [Google Scholar]
  51. Vaag A., Lund S., Lund S. (2012) Insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: treatment guidelines, clinical evidence and patterns of use of basal vs premixed insulin analogues. Eur J Endocrinol 166: 159–170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Vora J., Christensen T., Rana A., Bain S. (2014) Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of endpoints in phase 3a trials. Diabetes Ther 5: 435–446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Vora J., Hollander P., Tamer S., Johansen T., Bergenstal R. (2012) Insulin Degludec Does Not Increase Antibody Formation Compared to Insulin Glargine: An Evaluation of Phase 3a Clinical Trials. Poster presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, 1–5 October 2012, Berlin, Germany. [Google Scholar]
  54. Zinman B., Philis-Tsimikas A., Cariou B., Handelsman Y., Rodbard H., Johansen T., et al. (2012) Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a 1-year, randomized, treat-to-target trial (BEGIN Once Long). Diabetes Care 35: 2464–2471. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES