Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 42594928

Once-weekly IcoSema versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in type 2 diabetes management (COMBINE 4): an open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, randomised, phase 3b trial.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Stepwise treatment intensification is recommended for managing type 2 diabetes, including insulin initiation when non-insulin glucose-lowering medications are insufficient. Guidelines recommend combining a GLP-1 receptor agonist with basal insulin to improve glycaemic efficacy while reducing weight gain and hypoglycaemia risk. COMBINE 4 evaluated the efficacy and safety of IcoSema, a once-weekly combination therapy of basal insulin icodec and semaglutide (a GLP-1-receptor agonist) versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes on oral glucose-lowering medications. METHODS: COMBINE 4 was a 40-week, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, phase 3b trial conducted across 97 sites in nine countries. Adults (aged &#x2265;18 years) with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c &#x2265;8&#xb7;0%) receiving oral glucose-lowering medications were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio without stratification to IcoSema or once-daily glargine U100. The titration target was 3&#xb7;9-5&#xb7;0 mmol/L (70-90 mg/dL). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c and the secondary confirmatory endpoint was change in bodyweight, both from baseline to week 40, evaluated in all randomly allocated participants. Adverse events were recorded during weeks 0-45. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06269107) and is complete. FINDINGS: Of 653 individuals screened between Feb 15 and Aug 6, 2024, 151 did not meet screening criteria and 17 withdrew before initiating treatment; 243 were randomised to IcoSema and 242 to glargine U100. Of the 485 randomly allocated participants, 286 (59%) were male and 199 (41%) were female, and median age was 58 years (range 26-82). For HbA1c, from baseline (9&#xb7;57% for IcoSema and 9&#xb7;50% for glargine U100), mean change to week 40 was greater with IcoSema versus glargine U100 (-3&#xb7;32 vs -2&#xb7;44 percentage points; estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0&#xb7;88 percentage points [95% CI -1&#xb7;12 to -0&#xb7;63]), confirming superiority of IcoSema (p<0&#xb7;001). From baseline to week 40, mean bodyweight decreased with IcoSema and increased with glargine U100 (-0&#xb7;79 vs 3&#xb7;81 kg; ETD -4&#xb7;61 kg [95% CI -5&#xb7;46 to -3&#xb7;75]), confirming superiority of IcoSema (p<0&#xb7;001). Rate of combined clinically significant (blood glucose <3&#xb7;0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL], confirmed with a blood glucose meter) or severe hypoglycaemia (severe cognitive impairment requiring external assistance for recovery) was statistically significantly lower with IcoSema versus glargine U100 (0&#xb7;29 vs 0&#xb7;59 episodes per person-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 0&#xb7;56 [95% CI 0&#xb7;32 to 0&#xb7;97]; p=0&#xb7;04). Gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequently reported adverse events with IcoSema. INTERPRETATION: Once-weekly IcoSema demonstrated superior HbA1c reduction and bodyweight change, with lower rates of clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia, versus glargine U100, suggesting that IcoSema might be an effective once-weekly treatment option for insulin-naive individuals with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering medications. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Linong Ji, Malik Benamar, Viswanathan Mohan, Laura Pletsch-Borba, Francesca Porcellati, Ni Wang, Hirotaka Watada, Rosangela R Rea. 2026-08-13. Once-weekly IcoSema versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in type 2 diabetes management (COMBINE 4): an open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, randomised, phase 3b trial.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-8587(26)00136-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Plasma proteome profiling identifies XPNPEP3 as a novel biomarker associated with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To identify plasma protein differences between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with and without metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and to evaluate the diagnostic potential of X-prolyl aminopeptidase 3 (XPNPEP3) for identifying MASLD in T2DM patients. METHODS: Twenty T2DM inpatients were categorized into groups with and without MASLD and their plasma samples&#xa0;were analyzed using data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry, followed by bioinformatics analysis to identify differentially expressed proteins. The cohort was then expanded to 84 patients, and plasma XPNPEP3 levels were validated by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Correlation between XPNPEP3 and clinical indicators were evaluated, and diagnostic performance was determined via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Immunohistochemistry was employed to compare hepatic XPNPEP3 expression between the two groups. RESULTS: Proteomic analysis identified 176 differentially expressed proteins, with XPNPEP3 exhibiting the most significant down-regulation by fold change. In the validation cohort, plasma XPNPEP3 was significantly lower in T2DM+MASLD versus T2DM alone. XPNPEP3 levels were negatively correlated with diabetes duration, liver function markers, and triglyceride levels, and was identified as an independent factor inversely associated with MASLD in T2DM.ROC analysis demonstrated strong diagnostic performance for XPNPEP3, further enhanced when combined with BMI and diabetes duration.&#xa0; Immunohistochemistry confirmed reduced hepatic XPNPEP3 expression in T2DM+MASLD patients. CONCLUSIONS: Lower plasma XPNPEP3 is independently associated with MASLD in T2DM patients and demonstrates strong diagnostic potential, positioning XPNPEP3 as a promising biomarker for diagnosing MASLD in T2DM patients and a novel target for non-invasive diagnostic tool development.

Humans

Mobile health apps improve Health-Related Quality of Life in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus by enhancing medication adherence: A multicentre randomised controlled trial with mediation analysis.

AIMS: This study evaluated whether a gamified mHealth application (CareAide&#xae;) improves Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and whether this effect is mediated by medication adherence. METHODS: Prespecified secondary analysis of the T2DM cohort from a 6-month multicentre RCT (NCT06068309; N&#x202f;=&#x202f;663; three Malaysian hospitals). Participants were randomised 1:1 to standard care or CareAide&#xae;. Adherence (MMAS-8), EQ-5D-5L utility (Malaysian value set), and AQoL-6D were assessed at baseline and 6 months. Simple mediation analysis (PROCESS Model 4; 5000 bootstraps) adjusted for baseline HRQoL. RESULTS: CareAide&#xae; significantly predicted higher MMAS-8 scores (mean difference +1.756; d = 1.638; p&#x202f;<&#x202f;0.001). Higher MMAS-8 scores significantly predicted improved AQoL-6D utility (b = 0.024; p&#x202f;<&#x202f;0.001). The direct effect on AQoL-6D was non-significant (p&#x202f;=&#x202f;0.248). Bootstrapped indirect effect confirmed full mediation via AQoL-6D (0.042; 95% CI [0.024, 0.060]). A sensitivity analysis adjusting for baseline HbA1c confirmed full mediation (indirect = 0.034; 95% CI [0.015, 0.052]; n&#x202f;=&#x202f;563). EQ-5D-5L utility showed a significant direct between-group difference at 6 months (p&#x202f;=&#x202f;0.012) but did not operate as a mediation outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Medication adherence fully mediates the AQoL-6D HRQoL benefit of a gamified mHealth intervention in T2DM, as confirmed by both the primary and HbA1c-adjusted sensitivity analyses. These findings support integration of behaviourally informed digital adjuncts into routine primary diabetes care.

Humans

Metformin Adherence and Risk of Polyneuropathy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: An International Matched Cohort Study with Independent Validation.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is a popular first-line glucose-lowering medication for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Although metformin reduces the risks of various complications of diabetes, its potential to cause polyneuropathy by depleting vitamin B12 levels is concerning. This study investigated whether the adherence or discontinuation of metformin after adding-on a second-line antiglycemic agent increases the risk of polyneuropathy in patients with T2DM. METHODS: Data from TriNetX were obtained, and patients with T2DM who were receiving second-line antiglycemic agents were divided into metformin-adherent and metformin-nonadherent groups based on prescription claims data. Neuropathy incidence was evaluated using diagnostic claims and nerve conduction examinations. For independent confirmation and external validation of the primary findings, we used data from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) of Taiwan. RESULTS: After matching, 58,027 patients were included in each group. Compared with metformin adherent patients, metformin nonadherent patients had a higher risk of polyneuropathy (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-1.29; P < 0.001). Risks of diabetic foot ulcer, amputation, neuropathy-related medication use, and bone fracture were also higher among nonadherent patients. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of findings. In the validation NHIRD cohort (31,384 matched pairs), metformin nonadherence remained associated with increased polyneuropathy risk (aHR 1.25; 95% CI 1.10-1.42; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Metformin adherence in patients with T2DM who require second-line treatment may reduce the risk of polyneuropathy; vitamin B supplementation may enhance this benefit.

Humans