Sandro Augusto Goncalves Ribeiro , Matheus Pedrotti Chavez , Larissa Calixto Hespanhol , Caroline Cristine Almeida Balieiro , Eric Paqualotto , Rodrigo Ribeiro e Silva , Mateus Gauza , João Roberto de Sa
{"title":"治疗 2 型糖尿病的每周一次的伊科达克胰岛素与每日一次的长效胰岛素:系统回顾和元分析","authors":"Sandro Augusto Goncalves Ribeiro , Matheus Pedrotti Chavez , Larissa Calixto Hespanhol , Caroline Cristine Almeida Balieiro , Eric Paqualotto , Rodrigo Ribeiro e Silva , Mateus Gauza , João Roberto de Sa","doi":"10.1016/j.metop.2024.100285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Insulin icodec is a novel, long-acting, once-weekly basal insulin analog. Its comparative efficacy and safety with basal once-daily insulins in type 2 diabetes mellittus is uncertain.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Evaluate potential efficacy, benefits and risks associated with icodec compared to once-daily basal insulin analogs (degludec or glargine).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until June 2023 comparing icodec versus long-acting insulin analogs (degludec and glargine) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with at least 12 weeks of follow-up. Binary endpoints were assessed with risk ratios (RRs) and continuous endpoints were compared using mean differences (MDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023452468).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of seven RCTs and 3286 patients with T2DM were included, of whom 1509 (60.6%) received icodec treatment. The follow-up period ranged from 16 to 78 weeks. Compared with once-daily basal insulin analogs, icodec led to a greater improvement in HbA1c (MD -0.15%; 95% CI -0.21, −0.10; p < 0.0001; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and time in range (TIR) (MD 2.83%; 95%CI 0.94; 4.71; p = 0.003; I<sup>2</sup> = 22%). Body weight was increased with icodec treatment (MD 0.78 Kg; 95%CI 0.42, 1.15; p < 0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 86%). There was also a higher rate of injection site reactions (RR 1.89; 95%CI 1.12, 3.18; p = 0.016; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and nasopharyngitis (RR 1.94; 95%CI 1.11, 3.38; p = 0.020; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) in the icodec group, compared with once-daily regimens. There was no significant difference between groups in fasting plasma glucose.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In this meta-analysis of RCTs, insulin icodec led to better control of HbA1c and TIR as compared with once-daily insulin regimens, albeit with increased weight gain and a higher rate of injection site reaction in the Icodec group.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94141,"journal":{"name":"Metabolism open","volume":"22 ","pages":"Article 100285"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589936824000173/pdfft?md5=73a126f4995fbfe901eb8c78fdbb4c27&pid=1-s2.0-S2589936824000173-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily long-acting insulins for type 2 diabetes mellitus: Systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Sandro Augusto Goncalves Ribeiro , Matheus Pedrotti Chavez , Larissa Calixto Hespanhol , Caroline Cristine Almeida Balieiro , Eric Paqualotto , Rodrigo Ribeiro e Silva , Mateus Gauza , João Roberto de Sa\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.metop.2024.100285\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Insulin icodec is a novel, long-acting, once-weekly basal insulin analog. Its comparative efficacy and safety with basal once-daily insulins in type 2 diabetes mellittus is uncertain.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Evaluate potential efficacy, benefits and risks associated with icodec compared to once-daily basal insulin analogs (degludec or glargine).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until June 2023 comparing icodec versus long-acting insulin analogs (degludec and glargine) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with at least 12 weeks of follow-up. Binary endpoints were assessed with risk ratios (RRs) and continuous endpoints were compared using mean differences (MDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023452468).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of seven RCTs and 3286 patients with T2DM were included, of whom 1509 (60.6%) received icodec treatment. The follow-up period ranged from 16 to 78 weeks. Compared with once-daily basal insulin analogs, icodec led to a greater improvement in HbA1c (MD -0.15%; 95% CI -0.21, −0.10; p < 0.0001; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and time in range (TIR) (MD 2.83%; 95%CI 0.94; 4.71; p = 0.003; I<sup>2</sup> = 22%). Body weight was increased with icodec treatment (MD 0.78 Kg; 95%CI 0.42, 1.15; p < 0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 86%). There was also a higher rate of injection site reactions (RR 1.89; 95%CI 1.12, 3.18; p = 0.016; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and nasopharyngitis (RR 1.94; 95%CI 1.11, 3.38; p = 0.020; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) in the icodec group, compared with once-daily regimens. There was no significant difference between groups in fasting plasma glucose.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In this meta-analysis of RCTs, insulin icodec led to better control of HbA1c and TIR as compared with once-daily insulin regimens, albeit with increased weight gain and a higher rate of injection site reaction in the Icodec group.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94141,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Metabolism open\",\"volume\":\"22 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100285\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589936824000173/pdfft?md5=73a126f4995fbfe901eb8c78fdbb4c27&pid=1-s2.0-S2589936824000173-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Metabolism open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589936824000173\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metabolism open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589936824000173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily long-acting insulins for type 2 diabetes mellitus: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Background
Insulin icodec is a novel, long-acting, once-weekly basal insulin analog. Its comparative efficacy and safety with basal once-daily insulins in type 2 diabetes mellittus is uncertain.
Objective
Evaluate potential efficacy, benefits and risks associated with icodec compared to once-daily basal insulin analogs (degludec or glargine).
Methods
We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until June 2023 comparing icodec versus long-acting insulin analogs (degludec and glargine) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with at least 12 weeks of follow-up. Binary endpoints were assessed with risk ratios (RRs) and continuous endpoints were compared using mean differences (MDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023452468).
Results
A total of seven RCTs and 3286 patients with T2DM were included, of whom 1509 (60.6%) received icodec treatment. The follow-up period ranged from 16 to 78 weeks. Compared with once-daily basal insulin analogs, icodec led to a greater improvement in HbA1c (MD -0.15%; 95% CI -0.21, −0.10; p < 0.0001; I2 = 0%) and time in range (TIR) (MD 2.83%; 95%CI 0.94; 4.71; p = 0.003; I2 = 22%). Body weight was increased with icodec treatment (MD 0.78 Kg; 95%CI 0.42, 1.15; p < 0.01; I2 = 86%). There was also a higher rate of injection site reactions (RR 1.89; 95%CI 1.12, 3.18; p = 0.016; I2 = 0%) and nasopharyngitis (RR 1.94; 95%CI 1.11, 3.38; p = 0.020; I2 = 0%) in the icodec group, compared with once-daily regimens. There was no significant difference between groups in fasting plasma glucose.
Conclusions
In this meta-analysis of RCTs, insulin icodec led to better control of HbA1c and TIR as compared with once-daily insulin regimens, albeit with increased weight gain and a higher rate of injection site reaction in the Icodec group.